(((theory of evolution)))

what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution? Implications on worldview are entirely nihilistic. every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out.
Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.

Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.
discuss.

example of pseudoscientific thinking inspired by evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=9QDoMaPOqi4

Attached: appendix.jpg (468x318, 42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/
youtube.com/watch?v=1YMMKSx_R6c&list=PL13eE2x3qhPmDJCPm9F2cjckCUdUSubU1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
twitter.com/AnonBabble

thank god we got wise croatians to clear up bad science

>Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.
guess how i know you're not a bio major, user?

As I understand it evolution is 'survival of the best fit', not the fittest because even a body builder will freeze in the arctic if stupid enough to venture without protection.
So is intelligence the deciding factor on evolution? I say yes, this would be the impetus because of further research showing that pockets of life that have been segmented from the community tend to have accelerated mutations to handle the environment. Birds also show a very fast next-generation adaptation in their offspring.
Could the mind be the key to evolution by sheer thought or willpower?

How come so many people need glasses? Surely the genes are inferior and yet more and more people need them.

Perhaps you should actually learn about evolution before attempting to convince others about how flawed it is. Being uninformed doesn't excuse stupidity, just like flat-Earthers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:

1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"

2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"

same with homosexuality:
1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival
2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth

Im not even memeing, this shit is discussed
richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/

its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself

>guess how i know you're not a bio major, user?

guess how I know you dont know what falsifiability is?

>How come so many people need glasses? Surely the genes are inferior and yet more and more people need them.

what are you trying to argue?

Attached: swan.jpg (800x600, 122K)

For regular Sup Forums:
evolution is just random genetic material being transfered (and sometimes alterted) by biological beings with the help of a mechanism (sex in humans)
There is no value statement here, no superiority, or inferiority, leave that to the nazis. This is just pragmatic truth.
Carl Popper even changed his view on the falsifiability of evolution. Not that falsifiability is free from fault itself, as it itself is unfalsifiable as a claim. Its just a way to ensure consistancy, you might even use a diffrent system to ensure this, that dosen't have a logical flaw within itself.

>for nazis, petersonfags, and regular autist/pol/
>Popper was a jew, who cares what he thinkls :^)
>hurr durr, i can make my own truths just like the post modernists,
>as long as the leader says it, it must be true!
>If it helps ouer survival it must be true!

You have a poor understanding of evolution and need to read more. You should start with the concept of "genetic drift" - sometimes useless things continue to get passed on, not because they're selected for, but because they are not selected against. I don't need to have chest hair, but as long as it's not selected against and I can have kids just like any other guy, the trait of chest hair isn't going away any time soon. It could, but it doesn't *have* to.

If you couldn't find concrete evidence that humans existed on, say, March 11th, 1000 BCE, would you be agnostic as to whether humans existed then? That they existed in 1001, and then disappeared, only to come back into existence in 999 BCE? Obviously a lot of induction and filling-in of gaps is needed unless we can invent a time machine. The fossil record is not perfect.

first video in the playlist youtube.com/watch?v=1YMMKSx_R6c&list=PL13eE2x3qhPmDJCPm9F2cjckCUdUSubU1 talks about how evolution isn't needed to explain are current universe, and how epigenetics can explain all the changes we have seen.

>Science doesn't use reverse engineering
Ok.

No.

>we should disprove evolution because of consequentialism and nihilism
Not very savy when it comes to science, eh

ex.1
>humans die cockroaches survive
>clearly cockroaches were the superior lifeform
ex.2
wisdom teeth are regular teeth which sprout later so they take longer to decay, perhaps giving you the ability to chew food without pain until you're middle aged

>As I understand it evolution is 'survival of the best fit', not the fittest

without going into semantics its in any way retroactive thinking - you look at the past at tell a story up to the present, same as with marxism/hegelianism.

It doesnt predict anything like a good scientific theory.

>There is no value statement here, no superiority, or inferiority, leave that to the nazis. This is just pragmatic truth.

implications are pretty clear - the specied which survives is more adapted. adaptability is a virtue.

>Carl Popper even changed his view on the falsifiability of evolution.

yeah, he cucked with intellectual dishonesty in the end. He was a part of high tier establishement intellectuals (unlike Fayerabend or Lakatos - real niggaz btw) and you cant just go against the most present paradigm.

>I don't need to have chest hair, but as long as it's not selected against and I can have kids just like any other guy, the trait of chest hair isn't going away any time soon. It could, but it doesn't *have* to.

this is, again, an unspecific claim that can go both ways. good hypothesis has to be clear and unidirectional.

>>we should disprove evolution because of consequentialism and nihilism

nice strawman, how about its UNFALSIFIABILITY.

Attached: fayerabend2.jpg (700x500, 102K)

Every major claim that has offered valuable results in the manipulation of the world is non-falsifiable. You'll note all major truths in history have proven to be of a kind where you can DISPROVE all competing theories but you can NEVER prove it. You stand against all comers as a fighter for your idea, but all truth is non-verifiable by human analytics.

Electricity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. It's simply that every other possibility to explain the phenomenon has failed.

Attached: arba2.png (285x397, 64K)

>richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/
>its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself


Sad ...i always laugh when people do not believe in god but do claim mother nature is causing things

>seems entirely unfalsifiable
peak autism.

Science is a series of behaviors, not a corpus of knowledge. If the corpus of knowledge is treated like a bible, it is not the fault of the people contributing to the corpus; it's the fault of boring humans projecting additional value onto what has demonstrated itself as the most valuable image of the world man has created.

Attached: dodge.png (644x575, 375K)

What the fuck do you mean, "good hypothesis has to be clear and unidirectional". There is random chance involved in mutation, you know? Do you even know what genetic drift is? If you can't predict whether a coin comes up heads or tails, you deny that coin flipping exists? You're embarrassing yourself here.

You're a fucking retard. You can't at this point. The DNA has been sequenced. There have been thousands and thousands of genes with a few base pair differences between species. It has been found that the human is part virus since it has transposable DNA. It has been found that the human is part bacteria since in a symbiotic relationship with mitochondria. It has been found that you have repeating sequences at the center of your DNA suggesting that it was self assembled and complexitied over time.

Keep using those meme brackets to trivialize facts, retard

sure you might finish the implication for them, but the point is, the theory of evolution dosen't commit naturalistic fallacy or humes fallacy, unlike you do.

this was my point. Because if you say surivival=superiority, you also have to suffer the consiquences of said statement. If beta males, jews or gays get their genes past on ect. (remember gays can still fuck females enstein) they would be considered 'superiror' in your view.
ect.
The reason scientists don't deal with this crap is because of another fallacy, called survivorship fallacy, or survivor bias. ect. Which would lead to many wrongfull conclusions

There's a growing number of legitimate, professional, extremely intelligent people in the scientific community who are realizing and stepping forward to doubt Darwinism.

They're not claiming Intelligent Design or anything, but Darwinism has a lot of flaws, apparently, that make it invalid under scrutiny. The only problem is the sciences will spring on and immediately humiliate and try to discredit anyone who thinks outside of norms and investigates established norms... like, ideally, you should in sciences.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest or best. Fittest in this context describes a trait which allows it to survive the best.
Also, evolutionary changes are not instant nor perfect.

An appendix does still serve a purpose, it's a gut bacteria reserve. Meaning if you ever happen to decimate your gut bacteria it will slowly grow outwards from your appendix.

>Every major claim that has offered valuable results in the manipulation of the world is non-falsifiable.

we are talking about SCIENCE (and not Black Science man science), not all ideas that changed the world are scientific and falsifiable, but ALL scientific ideas are by definition falsifiable.

bruce, do you even know what falsifiability means?

God made them crazy.

>What the fuck do you mean, "good hypothesis has to be clear and unidirectional".

do you seriously dont understand that? go away >It could, but it doesn't *have* to.

genetics is older that evolutionary theory.

>the theory of evolution dosen't commit naturalistic fallacy or humes fallacy, unlike you do.

go watch Michio Kaku or Dawking and count naturalistic fallacies please.
Now to the other part of my argument, did Popper cucked on falsifiability or did he had a legitimate claim for treating evolution as falsifiable?

>The only problem is the sciences will spring on and immediately humiliate and try to discredit anyone who thinks outside of norms and investigates established norms... like, ideally, you should in sciences.

I know those faggots first hand. they created Re**it.

Attached: evolutionSCIENCE!!!.png (754x396, 256K)

Also there are equations describing natural selection and how different gene and allele frequencies will change over each generation. So in that sense it does have a use.

Please don't make threads about shit you know nothing about and mix political opinions with science. Also kys

Humans, instead of accepting the fact that there are things at work we can't see, become proud and arrogant. The vain philosophers of the world attempt to comprehend the complexity of the human body, time, eternity, the vastness of the universe, and of course, God. Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.
Look around at the intelligent creation and design. That's our God

>genetics is older that evolutionary theory.
? Still talking out of your ass I see. Knowing Mendelian law is not the same as knowing the make up of every gene in your body.

Question: Why the hell are you asking this on a forum for internet-racists instead of one discussing science in general if not evolution specifically?

There is a virtual shit-ton of information out there to answer those questions, and the one place you come for answers is one tier above simply asking a bunch of fundamentalist creationists why evolution is wrong.

It's cause the man is looking for validation instead of any real discussion

I'm arguing that the theory isn't as simplistic as you think, and that the science field doesn't try to shoehorn black and white definitions into everything. An example; people think a developing foetus is entirely subjected to the conditions the mother puts it in, such as starvation, and with starvation the mothers biology adapts to cannibalise proteins, fats and glucose from non-essential areas, such as the baby.
Guess again, the foetus and placenta have their own hormonal checks and balances that influences the mothers biology back in its own favour, directing nutrients to the foetus and suppressing immune responses the mothers body directs to kill it off.

There's an infinite level of depth to scientific fields, interactions and complications happen on a scale you couldn't begin to imagine or comprehend without years of study.

Some arts major who thinks they are pretty clever can't just google for a few days and understand things a science major can. If you want to be better informed and have an opinion that matters, start studying.

>bruce, do you even know what falsifiability means?
yes but you clearly do not

>MEN HAS NIPPLES BUT DONT NEED EM!
>MUUUH GOD IS REAL!!!!
Evolution isnt about humans or animals constantly evolving and loosing body parts they may or may not need. It makes them adapt to their surroundings. THE END, nothing more nothing less. Now kys.

Attached: 1518657814339s.jpg (125x125, 2K)

>Also there are equations describing natural selection and how different gene and allele frequencies will change over each generation.

natural selection proves that we evolved from same specied some 4545743313 billions years ago? Or whatever the time frame was, they change that shit every few years. I can prove natural selection by breeding dogs in a 10 year time frame, as did people few millenia ago, how do you jump from genetics and natural selection to 6546316641 billion years of common ancestor?

>Why the hell are you asking this on a forum for internet-racists instead of one discussing science in general if not evolution specifically?

because its a paradigm we live in and paradigms influence everything, even basis of racism.

>It's cause the man is looking for validation instead of any real discussion

discuss falsifiability FAGGOT...or go back to your safe space.

>Some arts major who thinks they are pretty clever can't just google for a few days and understand things a science major can.

not an argument. outsiders of provide bright insights to the ingroup that is blind due to groupthink. noone in this thread properly adressed falsifiability and Catch 22 thinking of evolution.

swedes are badly adapted but arabs are better adapted to modern world. get out you primitive relic.

Attached: science_TM.png (600x198, 70K)

>it could, but it doesn't *have* to
Yes, like a coin can land on tails, but it doesn't have to. Maybe you should learn English before trying to learn about evolution.

>like a coin can land on tails, but it doesn't have to

Ive never in my life heard people arguing coins and probability using Darwinism - they actually used maths and empirical demos unlike Darwinian MYTHOLOGY.

non sequitor.

>swedes are badly adapted but arabs are better adapted to modern world. get out you primitive relic.

Implying poster isn’t an Arab.

Dude read a book you're just rambling out idiotic bullshit. I'd explain it to you but you're even less informed than Youtube kiddies. Your model is so broken you really just need to go back and rebuild it from scratch.

>swedes are badly adapted but arabs are better adapted to modern world. get out you primitive relic
Most original comment of the year

Attached: 1516226310721s.jpg (125x95, 3K)

Most of science is a lie. Anything without empirical evidence should be thrown out. Quantum physics, evolution, space travel, its all masonic garbage to distance you from your true purpose

>Dude read a book you're just rambling out idiotic bullshit.

go back to Re**it you anti-intellectual FAGGOT. your safe space for Michio Kaku cultist isnt here.

>Quantum physics, evolution, space travel, its all masonic garbage to distance you from your true purpose

partially agree, most current science is actually pseudoscience for ted talks.

Attached: science_pseudoscience.jpg (564x685, 72K)

what is the name of that meme phisics theory that we live in illusionary universes?

>how do you jump from genetics and natural selection to 6546316641 billion years of common ancestor
They trace ancestry by comparing gene sequences. We know what events give rise to genetic variation. There are equations describing mutation rates over selection against mutation. If you follow mitochondria you can trace all modern human ancestry back to a single woman since that shit is inherited matrilineally and doesn't cross over. If you compare gene sequences between different species you can determine from which we evolved. Using the equation to find the time frame of evolution is harder since selection varies depending on environment and we can't know for sure what the environment was back then, also, you're talking about falsifiability but you're presenting contradicting information and falsifying yourself.

Open a book. They're free these days

> what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution?
A force powerful enough to create life, intelligent enough to make a vast amount of very similar creatures with nuanced differences yet stupid enough to leave glaring flaws in design (nerves doing detours, reproduction/waste being close by, dying from eating and food going through the wrong tracks, brains being built with layers meaning that fingers that DON'T move need a reverse-signal being sent...).

So, yeah, as soon as God shows up, tells us why he trolled us that way, and shows us all, we're good.

Thoughts on this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

You told me to back to my safe space but you're trying to create one online since you came to a board where you expected people to agree with you, are insulting people you disagree with and are engaging in conversation with people you agree with

You're essentially doing the same thing feminists do, trying to create an environment where your thoughts reign supreme while trivializing all data that suggests that you're wrong

Oh. And we need to explain how new viruses which just *happen* to be resistant to drugs we use keep appearing, how breeding is basically a huge placebo effect, etc.

Evolutionary theory is the reason I'm on Sup Forums If I was a christcuck I'd be adopting african babies.

>outsiders provide insight
Yeah, if they know what the fuck they are talking about. Try that argument with literally any field and see how it turns out for you. An outsiders perspective is simplistic and often wrong.

>Mechanic
Hey that transmission must be broken
"Fuck off, I'll decide whether it's the transmission or not"

>PC tech
Try turning it off and on again
"Gee thanks, Einstein"

>Rocket scientists
Why don't we use mini nuclear bombs for propulsion of space craft?
"Why don't you go fucking kill yourself"


Idiots like you, OP, think these people are restrained by 'groupthink' the reality is that plebs don't fucking understand and don't want to, and nothing some uninformed random says while pretending to have any authority on the subject is of any value or is met with appreciation.

wow you are completely retarded

theory of evolution is a scientific theory just like the theory of gravity that has been proven and recorded countless times

how come christians over a hundred years ago acknowledged evolution yet modern christians are too retarded for science they use every single day?

this.

the thing is that we, humans, stopped the evolution and therefore the spread of superior genes, we are at the end point of improvement.
all the retards, cripples, "challenged" people shouldnt survive in the first place, and now they spread their inferior damaged material while we "have" to keep them alive with our work and time, while in nature, those individuals die instantly.

we cant evolve when we dont take natural selection into our own hands, but our Morals and Ethics are stopping us, constructs of pathetic human minds that cant see the bigger picture.
but its also impressive that 2000 years of White Mans-Science just killed the natural Selection, which was the only measurement of Life for Billions of Years

Attached: 1506477602008.jpg (539x899, 32K)

>If you follow mitochondria you can trace all modern human ancestry back to a single woman

so the Bible was correct about Eve?

> If you compare gene sequences between different species you can determine from which we evolved.

you mean you can define the same gene patterns?

>Using the equation to find the time frame of evolution is harder since selection varies depending on environment and we can't know for sure what the environment was back then

I leave the time frame to real scientist like Kaku and Dawkins and other cool SCIENTIST who do Ted talks. They can change the time frame how many times they want, I wont question them since I FCK LOOOOVE science after all!!!!

>you're talking about falsifiability but you're presenting contradicting information and falsifying yourself.

you pulled that out of your ass.
Popper was on the money when he called evolution infalsifiable...he cucked later using nonarguments, but his implications are clear.

>God

Proof of God doesnt prove or disprove evolution.

>An outsiders perspective is simplistic and often wrong.

Schliemann and discovery or Troy.

>Idiots like you, OP, think these people are restrained by 'groupthink'

history of science and medicine is filled with groupthink.

>theory of evolution is a scientific theory

as scientific as psychoanaliticy or demon possesion theory. Accepted by establishement, just like "groups dont real".

Attached: EVOLUTION723575.jpg (785x594, 102K)

fuck off retard

hey retard, hey you gayboy, why dont you cut away your toe fingers?

IQ Test CAPTCHA, when?

And lose all the burgers posting?

>Rick and Morty: "Am I evil, worst, you are smart!"

>Implications on worldview are entirely nihilistic
Stopped reading there. Lynch yourself.

We went from literal apes, to inventing technology and civilization.

We made that evolutionary jump due to our capacity to race mix, the human it's a particular animal that can produce fertile offspring with any other hominid, no exceptions so far.

Is that capacity for miscegenation what saved mankind and doubled our immune systems and cultural baggage with a simple act of degeneracy.

I'm sure at the time they were conservatives that claimed that mixing the more evolved Homo Sapiens genes with lowly neanderthals that couldn't even develop language on their own, just because they were taller and had white skin and golden hair, but degenerates did anyway and so the white race was born.

If this doesn't explains how evolution works and why it could feel like it's stagnating, you have no brain to speak to.

>so the Bible was correct about Eve?
We call it the mitochondrial Eve after the Bible but you can follow that shit past humans since most eukaryotes have them, so no.
>you mean you can define the same gene pattern
It's not defined it's observed. It will be the a sequence with either no or little change in its chemistry if homologous. We know how a bunch of mutations occur since everything in our body follows the laws of chemistry so studying mitanogens isn't that hard. We know how other mutations can occur like chromosomal problems or slippage leading to mutation or deletion based on how many our genes are replicated and the error that can occur during replication. We also know that many new genes develop by duplication of old ones and divergence over time by mutation.
>I leave the time frame to real scientist like Kaku and Dawkins and other cool SCIENTIST who do Ted talks. They can change the time frame how many times they want, I wont question them since I FCK LOOOOVE science after all!!!!
I didn't cite the time frame because it is irrelevant. The evolutionary tree is written in our genes anyone who tries to calculate the time frame for that shit is bound to have something they didn't account for.

How are you not presenting contradicting information? You litterally gave me two different values for the time frame of evolution.

Look at my picture. Where is the exact border between the green and red extremes?
This is why we will never be able to give an exact timeframe. Because random genetic mutation is rare and accumulates over many generations. Because evolution happens very slowly. So it is hard to say when we "became" modern humans, because the change was so gradual, it's not like one day a monkey gave birth to a fully formed modern human.

Attached: Red-Green_256x256[1].png (256x256, 783)

>Stopped reading there.

good, go away.

>You litterally gave me two different values for the time frame of evolution.

that is because they change it so often. that however isnt the bigest issue, biggest issue is conceptual - its a catch22 theory which is antiscientific by default.

find an organism that either does not use genetic material to reproduce. or that has genes that are entirely unlike the genes of any other organism.

otherwise it is obviously just a variation on the others.

you need a completely normal looking animal that is non genetic based.

(even then some might say this is alien life and just a different evolutionary product - but it would be your best bet.)

thing is, you won't find it...

Darwinist posterboy Dawkins is embracing cannibalism now btw.

You're the antiscientific one dismissing evidence because it contradicts your religious beliefs. Genetic advancement did nothing but provide evidence evolution.

I'm done arguing with you this is a waste of time. You're fucking disabled and aren't providing aything insightful. Seriously do your self a favor and read.

Evolution does whatever evolution does. The only problem here is humans trying to insert some sort of narative or value hierarchy, like they know what the hell is going on or what the species or even the individual races need to survive in the extreme long term.

Blacks could kill whites and seem superior in the here and now, but somewhere down the line some shit might happen where it turns out having the white guys around to sort it out would have been beneficial, but the are all dead, so the blacks die out too.

Same thing goes for the white supremacists: Who the hell are you to say that the most superior human is blond, blue-eyed and over 6 feet tall with an IQ of 150 or whatever. For all you know some calamity hits earth where it's preferable to be of smaller stature simply so you need less calories to survive, or UV bombardment increases to the point that pitch-black skin would be incredibly handy, or it turns out having a population of only 150 IQ people leads to everyone bickering and getting into petty arguments of abstract philosophy or whatever where you could really use a few clutzs who are content simply going out to gather a bunch of food and raw materials.

Unless we expand into the stars (and even if we do), chances are good that we are an evolutionary dead end as a species anyway, with the "blueprints" of a rodent, beetle or cockroach being far more likely to keep a species alive over the next couple hundred million years, so what it means to be a superior species is subjective to begin with, to the point that you should really just let it do its thing and dare not intervene because then you are just trying to make things conform to how you feel they ought to work

>Example 1
The selection pressures can be natural (disasters, food scarcity, diseases) or they can be artificial, man-made (industrial corn was bred to have much more kernels than its wild progenitor). Evolution does not imply a necessity for something to evolve, it only states that things do change over time: you bring up purpose and meaning for the change, where it is irrelevant. You speak of logic about a phenomenon that doesn't THINK
> Example 2
Things that carry an added benefit to the current set of selective pressures will be kept, the things that are at the very least neutral to the pressure will be kept around and things that are counter to the selection parameters will be removed from the gene pool. While some random genetic mutations are deadly, others are benign (eye/hair color) - the copying mechanism of the DNA is imperfect and changes have and will continue to occur over time.

the logic is fine. If white's go extinct then we were objectively inferior. Not cut out of survival. too soft and empathetic.

You don't have to disprove a theory, they have to prove it first.

And so far they haven't

>not knowing what a theory is
jesus christ you are fucking dumb. How about you jump off a high building because the theory of gravity is just a theory and all.

Who is they? What hasn't been proven, about genetics? The DNA is the best, single proof that things have evolved over time: there is no reason for a cow to be related to a whale, for instance, but they do have a common ancestor that migrated backwards, from land to the sea.

ALL science is reversed engineering

>"i-its j-just a theory"
sigh

>theory of gravity is just a theory and all

And it really is. Can you measure gravity force? Can you feel it? Nope

Attached: slide3.gif (600x450, 18K)

>The DNA is the best, single proof that things have evolved
>find an organism that either does not use genetic material to reproduce.

but that wouldnt disprove evolution, just some concepts in genetics, and genetics is pretty based and falsifiable and also predates darwinism. Genetics in some form was here for millenials, it DOES NOT PROVE DARWINISM.

>Seriously do your self a favor and read.

you are cringy. I genuinly wanted to talk falsifiability, but whatever.

>Who the hell are you to say that the most superior human is blond, blue-eyed and over 6 feet tall with an IQ of 150 or whatever.

if you argue from cultural achievement its legitimate, but arguing that from darwinism is circular like everyhing argued from darwinism.

>Example 1

I put it there to demosntrate the insanity of using evolution for proving "racial hyerarchy".

>Example 2
>Things that carry an added benefit to the current set of selective pressures will be kept, the things that are at the very least neutral to the pressure will be kept around and things that are counter to the selection parameters will be removed from the gene pool.

and you only know which is which once "history ends". this is not science, this is mythology.

>You don't have to disprove a theory, they have to prove it first.
>And so far they haven't

they did actually, but it isnt a scientific theory. so joke is on them.

Attached: science7940907.png (481x458, 252K)

Theory is something scientists thinks its true but can't actually prove. So they use pseudoscience to fool ignorant people into believing it

Evolution is a theory only, you just put fossils together and make assumptions, but nothing is proven

Yeah. This is 2011 Evolutionist vs. Creationist YouTube-tier shit going on right now.

Cheer up op. Just because evolution exists doesn't mean we don't have free will. It also doesn't mean it is not guided externally.

Science doesn't give any orders, that's more of a philosophical question, about the intention.
So what is your intention science might help you to realize?

Science is a tool to create results wished for. It's not about "the truth" or "justness".

You got a more elegant model getting the same, or a model bringing better results, thanks for extending the tool kit.

Science makes assumptions and doesn't necessarily care about the universality of such statements, of course more universal or correct coordinates tend to make the whole thing work better, while two wrong assumptions might even balance each other out, giving you correct results again.
Based on these assumptions models are being made, since these models have proven effective, we accept them as truth, in the aforementioned framework.

Do us all a favor and step off a sky-scraper, gravity is also 'only' a theory after all.

>like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.

Wrong way around, if she dies shes innocent if she lives shes a witch

That's called axiom not theory

"Darwinism" is a bullshit meme-word creationists use to make the entire thing sound evil and barbaric.

People that don't believe in the following things should be sterilized:

Gravity
Big Bang
Moon landing
Evolution
Dinosaurs
Holocaust
Dark ages
Vaccines

Agreed

Add flat earthers to the list

>"i-its j-just a theory"

that was a pretty lame arguement from crationists. Thing is, evolution is a proven theory, but it isnt a scientific theory due to its circularity.

Example: using demon theory or psychoanalisis you can prove that someone is demonpossesed or hates his father, but you havent done anything scientifically worthy.

with evolution/psychoanal/demontheory, you wont ever be able to make a turn like with pic rel. its a closed and unfalsifiable system.

>"Darwinism" is a bullshit meme-word creationists use to make the entire thing sound evil and barbaric.

didnt intend to use a low blow intentionally, I use evolution and darwinism simultaneously but semantically its the same.

add gay buttsex and racemixing to the list - also proved by SCIENCE.

Attached: science_hypothesis.gif (450x696, 6K)

Genetics explain change in genes that alter bodily functions and appearance - evolution implies that gradual changes happened for new species to appear.

Here's a shocking statement for you: DARWINISM CAN BE WRONG WHILE EVOLUTION IS STILL TRUE. The genetic changes might happen under other circumstances as well (epigenetic factors, teleogenesis, etc.) and evolution would still hold true although the source of genetic change is not from a darwinian survival of the fittest.

> and you only know which is which once "history ends"
Again, you imply a guiding force, a purpose and/or a meaning to all of this. There seems to be none, even for our species, other than our own will to select a mating partner based on traits that we find acceptable. We do not know what the end goal is because there is no reason to be any: can you accept that?

also proved by SCIENCE
>groups dont reel
>BBC is superior
>global warming cause by humans
>transgenderism

>Again, you imply a guiding force, a purpose and/or a meaning to all of this.

I was saying that evolution has not scientific value since it doesnt predict anything as a scientific theory should.

good writings croatian. scientism is a religion. it's scary reading the "fck yeah science"-kids writings on reddit, how strong and blind their faith is.

do you have thoughts on plato and aristotle?

>being that stupid
The gravity force is a fact, the theory only tries to explain that force
Evolution isn't a fact

>if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior)
You don't understand evolution.
"more adapted", means just that, more adapted, not "better" nor "superior"
Cockroaches are capable of surviving nuclear winter. are Cockroaches "superior"?
Genes do not care about quality ("superior"), just the continuity of existence.

>what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution

Attached: slide_3.jpg (960x720, 118K)

I believe in none of those.
Too bad for your authoritarian stance, I've already sired two blond young ones.
I also don't believe in gravity!
Get on my level plebes.
>had an anatomy professor explain with evidence how he knew evolution was false

You plebes just have'nt lived enough to see the full picture, I pity you pathetic little group, permanently lodged on the highest reaches of mount stupid.
Sad but hilarious

We can obsevre that random genetic mutations occur.
We can observe the rate at which they occur.
Thus we can measure the rate at which the entire genome can change.
When we compare the genes of fossils that we can date by some other method (carbon dating) and genes of similair animals we find alive today, we can see that they have similair genes.
Most of the time, the rate of mutation*time can explain the amount of variation between the genomes of the fossil and the genome of the living animal.

Attached: Four+Fatal+Flaws+in+Theory+of+Evolution.jpg (960x720, 78K)

Attached: The+Meaning+of+Evolution.jpg (960x720, 98K)

Attached: Quote+by+Lewin+(Evolutionist).jpg (960x720, 102K)

wisdom teeth provide strong base for skull growth, i.e. brain growth.

Attached: slide_48.jpg (960x720, 113K)