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.
>Tailbone protects the colon >Wisdom teeth are for making you have a stronger jaw >Appenix self explanatory >Ear muscles for nonverbal communication >last one is also for nonverbal behavior
Hudson Green
Why did god make women's shit holes right next to their vaginas? Why does my dick send semen and waste through the same hole?
Jackson Bennett
Daily reminder the “theory” of evolution is in no way science and is entirely religious taxonomy
Evolution is not so much a hard rule as it is a general description of a phenomenon. Every time we pass on our genes to the next generation, the result is something that is not a perfect clone of its parents, but is mostly the same. Occasionally, there will be a major genetic difference. If it is a defect, the child will be less likely to pass on its genes. If it helps with survival, the child will be more likely to pass on its genes. If it doesn't do anything towards either, the child might carry on the genes, or it might not.
Worthless features may have been useful at one point in life, and just stuck around. Or they may have simply been a random defect that didn't impact the ability for the child to breed, and so they passed on those defects anyways for countless generations. Maybe they were one of the few breeding candidates around, and it was better to fuck the dude with those weird wisdom teeth than to not fuck anyone at all.
There isn't someone magically selecting the best among us. The Theory of Evolution is basically just describing organized chaos.
>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards. Kind of hard to make predictions when the theory of evolution is describing things that happen over countless lifetimes.
>explain antibiotic resistance, or even lactose tolerance then >or the results of selective breeding and domestication of animals
natural selection, what else? but dont do the logical jump
Cameron Nguyen
If you don't belive evolution is real and we're all created equal than you're a fucking dumb nigger lover
Kevin Barnes
>tfw you become so resistent to antibiotics you bloom into a sexually dimorphic species >tfw you have to fuck your own twin because everyone else is just rapping out babies and doesn’t want to get laid >tfw literally fucking yourself for generations doesn’t result in inbreeding >tfw instead it results in a diverse biosphere and humans >but if any of these animals fuck too-similar mates, their shit gets all fucked up
Bretty neato.
Nathaniel Barnes
>If you don't belive evolution is real >we're all created equal Classic evolutionist ridiculous leaps of logic.
Jacob Fisher
Those that deny evolution are usually christians or muslims who believe all man are created equal
Benjamin Sullivan
How do you prove creation?
Christopher Miller
>Those that deny evolution are usually christians or muslims who believe all man are created equal
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
Those who support evolution generally want rapefugees and think we are all 100% equal even without adaptive variance.
Because you are in a fucking death cult that brainwashes its members. There are vanishingly few people who deny micro evolution, it’s macro evolution that is the lie.
Nicholas Anderson
So wikipedia doesnt have the pictures of all transitional fossils. Like I said fossils are rare in general and the originals are almost always kept in some secure storage because of that. You can go to a museum and ask if you can see some of the originals they have (the stuff on display is usually a plaster cast of the original). If you care about the truth, that is probably what you should do. And if youre going to argue that its all a massive conspiracy, there is no convincing you, because nothing will ever be good enough.
Austin Rivera
Logical deduction. You live in a causal universe, which means if you follow the chain far enough you get to “the first thing that ever happened”, but it is an effect with no cause. The only answer is that something outside of our causal universe is the first cause which initiated it. To deny this is to deny causality, and all of science goes out the window.
Ryder Ward
>micro evolution meme How the fuck wouldn't micro evolution eventually lead to macro evolution?
Evolution makes sense if it's understood of as a teleological process (i.e. directed by its nature towards certain outcomes and away from other outcomes, so not purely random mutations)
Tyler Campbell
Dawkins is left-wing like most brits who want a career in science, but his views that all humans are equal only exist so that he can keep the conversation about evolution and natural selection going. If you've ever watched his debates, one of the most common tactics for creationists to use is "Well if you're right then wasn't Hitler right?" and then he's forced to either defend social Darwinism (career suicide, and it's scary!!!1!) or reject that concept and say some bullshit about how men are equal but no god is involved in that.
Isaiah Anderson
>Like I said fossils are rare in general and the originals are almost always kept in some secure storage because of that.
extraordinary clams = extraordinary evidence
this is the first time I looked in trans fossils on wiki, and Ive seen just deformed skulls, not humans with tails or smth genuinly extraordinary. not even compete skeletons so you dont actually know to whom did the skulls belonged. carbon dating also seems like a sketchy method.
>So if you agree natural selection exists and you can acknowledge that environments change over time, that means.....
nothing, unless you jump to conclussion.
Hudson Peterson
and what would the cause be for people that have the genes for longer tailbones or wisdom teeth to reproduce more that those that dont? beside chance it just isnt happening because there isnt a reason, neither we consider it an asset(like blue eyes which also do not have a single use but still spread because they are considered beautiful) and neither is there environmental pressure that favores those that have those trait Ante ubij se
Jayden Rivera
>and what would the cause be for people that have the genes for longer tailbones or wisdom teeth to reproduce more that those that dont?
wisdom teeth will create chad face >>> more cool >>>more reproduction
human tail >>> lit af, you would be the coolest dude in high school with and if you have a chad face with it, oh boi >>> more reproduction
This. It's so fucking retarded. Maintaining human biodiversity is enough of a reason, it's not like the concept is new to biology. It even has "diversity" in it, progressives should lap it up.
Logan Murphy
>if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is true. Other races aren't susceptible to leftist cuckery. If whites die out because of our inherent weakness then we are inferior.
Robert Scott
>>Appenix self explanatory ???
Ethan Campbell
Genomic limitations. No matter how many times you crossbreed elephants you aren’t going to get a coconut tree. Now, why would you assume that it could lead to macro? What are some examples of macroevolution? How did sexual dimorphism begin? Where are examples of animals which breathe above and beneath water? We have fish that can cross land by holding their breath, we have mammals that can deep sea dive by holding their breath, but getting from one to the other required a fundamental change in function. Then you would have to justify the “advantage” of losing the ability to inhabit one or the other environment which would genetically isolate it from a portion of it’s mating pool.
Tyler Martinez
>So if you agree natural selection exists and you can acknowledge that environments change over time, that means..... that the Lord our G_d gave us intellect to shape the world unto our image, much like we ourselves were created in Lord's image. If THEORY of evolution was correct, one would expect to see many human predecessors, not just an odd Homo Erectus skeleton here or there. In the same vein, one would see an abundance of post-primate successors. Instead we have primates who are all more or less on the same level of evolutionary development and various human species (races [?]) who are of similar evolutionary development and not a single form of life between them.
Eli Martin
Evolution is a theory crafted by the multiple different observation of sciences mankind has discovered. While it is imperfect, it is far more correct than the disgusting moronic creeds of creationism you fuckwit uneducated morons spout while spitting in the face of God's beautifully complicated design. You're literally chemtrail/flatearth tier retards where literally all of your grievances with the information provided stem from you having less than a middle school level of knowledge. If you would so kindly blow your fucking head off the lead pellets from the buckshot would contain more knowledge than the waste of flesh you call your brain you selfish parasitic faggot animals.
yeah lit af but the wisdom teeth thing make sense it could make a comeback in todays society where the ones that do the most reproducing are the most attractive people, but at the very least it wont go extinct since it isnt a minus
The fact creatures are too arbitrarily similar while being practically different. Mice and whales have 5 finger bones. Arbitrary is another word for intelligence, a signature in a painting is arbitrary, having nothing to do with the art, and there are such signatures throughout the world
Christian Scott
Stop posting you fucking faggot.
Justin Hernandez
are you an evangelical christian?
Adrian Bailey
It’s is a part of the immune system. This has been known practically since the first one was removed yet it was claimed to be vestigial because they are desperate for proof of evolution. Vestigials are not just a meme, but an anti-scientific concept. They are the scientific corollary to “the god of the gaps argument” insomuch as saying “if we don’t know what it does, it serves no purpose”.
Parker Butler
Crabs and salamanders can breathe under and above water.
Xavier Myers
Good looking people dont reproduce the most. Low iq welfare queens and niggers do.
Jacob Gomez
Does this mean someone created God? I have a hard time believing it goes back ad infinitum.
David Wilson
>Where are examples of animals which breathe above and beneath water? lungfish mudskipper many others
it's clear you dropped out of high school user
Elijah Long
But the predecessors are gone since something replaced them. Thats kind of the whole point.
Daniel Lopez
>your pic
is that a tail? can it be moved? why dont we get borned with fish breathing organism from time to time since we had them after all? I can show you pics of kids with undifferentiated teeth from face, would you say teeth-face differentiation is a later evolutionary adaptibility...or would you call it simply a mutation without going into history of human species?
Imagine believing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator being would care about humans in this day and age. The arrogance of it all.
Imagine believing God created everything, being presented with facts regarding the accuracy of the bible and then going "no you know what, the facts are wrong" and not "oh, well maybe God did that too and the bible is wrong".
Imagine being so arrogant and indoctrinated that you are presented with hard, visible evidence about the way nature works and you choose to believe the words written in a book by humans instead. Very sad.
John Myers
>We have fish that can cross land by holding their breath, we have mammals that can deep sea dive by holding their breath, but getting from one to the other required a fundamental change in function. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladder
David Thomas
Or its a common ancestor. Molluscs have no bones at all, isnt that weird?
Daniel Howard
>((evolution)) by ((god)) you tremendous faggot, evolution literally says that nigs are inferior
Jack Foster
So you’ll want to try out and then come to enjoy fucking the tighter and warmer asshole of a shapely female ass.
And to the dick question, saves piping and having to piss immediately after ejaculating washes residual sperm out of the urethra with sterile filtered urine. This was a real answer.
Jayden Reyes
How did wings evolve? Here are the main theories >Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.) >Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.) >Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.) >Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.) None many sense.
>presented with hard, visible evidence How do you prove a pile of bones had offspring and then those offspring of that pile of bones evolved into a completely different type of another pile of bones?
I love reading these threads because watching scientifically illiterate retards try and argue against things they are literally too stupid to understand will never not be funny. You actually try and use misconceptions you have over evolution to argue against it. It's incredible. Carry on.
Samuel Gutierrez
Because you can see evolution in action.
When a sub Saharan African and a good, white, Christian girl procreate the offspring looks like a blend not one or the other.
Ryder Hernandez
How do you account for humans and monkeys sharing more genes than humans and fish?
Luke Flores
You are stupid and thinking about evolution.
Evolution is nothing more than Survivorship bias
Hudson Price
I love when you guys larp as Creationists.. you're just larping right?
Tyler Jones
Wisdom teeth don't kill you, so its hard to evolve them away.
Henry Taylor
then what caused the rise of man? if the primate successors were so maladapted as to go extinct and be replaced by something else, how did their genes pass on, much less in such a prolific manner (and on such grand a timescale that's required for supposed evolutionary processes) that they would allow for present day humans to evolve? if superior intellect that humans posses is indeed a boon to evolutionary development it had to stem from a slightly less advanced predecessors (Homo Erectus perhaps?) who in turn had spawned from the loins of - intellectually - more primitive organisms and. In doing so they would create dozens of species and subspecies between primates and humans, skeletons and fossil remains of which would be more or less common in present day. Yet for all the world's combined archaeological effort, we are consistently finding either common primate or early hominid fossil remains, not once did we find any of the intermediate evolutionary links.
Therein lies the crux of the issue. To answer it the adherent of the secular religion known as atheism, dogmatically clings to his prophets (Dawkins, et al.) and their scripture which replaces the machinations of Holy Ghost with those of equally illusive "mass extinction events" or "natural selection"
Michael Sanchez
Well, organisms have different amount of chromosomes for one (but this isn’t the only limit). For my silly example, elephants have 56 chromosomes and coconuts have 32, so among a myriad of other changes the elephant would not only have to shed 24 chromosomes, but also simultaneously have a mate in the same step in the process, while also not succumbing to the negative effects of inbreeding within their offspring. A less silly example could be bears and dogs, but the same problem remains. Even assuming that it is a possibility (we have no evidence showing it is), it would have to happen twice in one are in a narrow band of time (perhaps “most likely” with siblings or twins) and then also avoid the hazards of inbreeding. This would have had to have happened BILLIONS of times to get us from cells to modern organisms; it’s not just asking for a miracle, but an almost endless stream of them through time, space, luck, and luck again.
This was not meant to show how evolution works or doesn’t, just illustrate the limitations of genes on a small and large scale.
Daniel Garcia
>R&M: you are not evil, worst, you are smart
upvoted
this is "proof" for transitional species, Im not memeing, this is all they got, medicine colleges have more weird looking skulls
Not at the same stages in life or within one species. You may as well have included frogs as well. Boo, sir.
Jayden Foster
How is the fact we can literally make transitional species' in a lab not proof of transitional species? Look what we fucking did to dogs.
Matthew King
>to disprove evolution You can't disprove evolution, since its something we can A.) observe in the time since people learned to look for it, B.) proven both at the molecular level and the macro level where you observe animals in the wild. Maybe what you actually want to prove is whether God creates the world of life through evolution, semi-invisibly, as a sort of hidden hand. Perhaps God is the "prime mover" that keeps all the laws of physics and nature in place throughout the universe. Maybe that's actually what you are seeking to prove, because "disproving evolution" is for potatoes.
Really? Probably shouldn’t speak about dropping out with your level of illiteracy, I already addressed this in the very post you are responding to: >We have fish that can cross land by holding their breath They will still suffocate if they stay out of the water too long.
>How is the fact we can literally make transitional species' in a lab not proof of transitional species? Look what we fucking did to dogs.
what are you reffering to? genetic lab manipulations are not a proof for macroevolution.
>You can disprove evolution
its unfalsifiable, yes.
>You can disprove evolution, since its something we can A.) observe in the time since people learned to look for it,
you literally cant, you are reffering to natural selection aka microevolution
B.) proven both at the molecular level and the macro level where you observe animals in the wild.
wat
Jonathan Johnson
I accept your surrender.
Lucas Diaz
>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. Your logic is incorrect because you don't even know what being fit means in this case. Evolutionary fitness is ability to successfully survive and pass on their genes. A retard who dies at age 20 and has 10 children is more evolutionarily fit than a genius who lives to 120 and dies without offspring. Evolution doesn't care about your actual traits it only cares about how much they can be passed down.
Jordan Lopez
Well all the transitionals died of old age, just like every vertebrate. Their more intelligent offspring reproduced more than their stupid offspring and then they all died of old age, and so on. So after a while, all the stupid monkeylike ones are gone and the intelligent humanlike ones survived.
Have you ever found a fossil? Do you know how rare fossils are? Most fossils are of bugs and fish.
Jayden Jenkins
> genetic lab manipulations are not a proof for macroevolution. Yes they are. We have proved breeding can result in massive shifts in genetics, that is enough. Now it is your job to prove this has a limit.
Ayden Walker
>fish had lungs but then they turned into simple bladders, then later they turned into lungs again and they left the ocean forever Are you really this retarded? Besides, it’s not even addressing of the quoted text. The fuck is wrong with you?
Charles Diaz
Monkeys have IQs up to about 50 Australian aboriginals have IQs of about 65, the most advanced races up to 115.
Abos are the missing link.
Camden Turner
>A retard who dies at age 20 and has 10 children is more evolutionarily fit than a genius who lives to 120 and dies without offspring. Evolution doesn't care about your actual traits it only cares about how much they can be passed down.
correct. you literally cant claim anything by evolution. higher IQ means you have better traits, but you claim it by IQ test, not by evolution. Evolution is a catch22 so you actually cant claim anything.
>Yes they are. We have proved breeding can result in massive shifts in genetics,
transitional species had labs to make us able to come out of water? monkeys used the same methods to make us humans? brilliant.
Charles Parker
>transitional species had labs to make us able to come out of water? monkeys used the same methods to make us humans? brilliant. Oh you're a dirty no good troller.
Brody Morgan
Okay, can you describe to me how natural selection works? Because natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, so this is kind of important.
Aiden Rivera
Siren salamanders keep gills all their lives. Intertidal crabs just have to remain moist and can breathe in air as long as that is true.
Brayden Ortiz
>correct. you literally cant claim anything by evolution. higher IQ means you have better traits, but you claim it by IQ test, not by evolution. Evolution is a catch22 so you actually cant claim anything. Nobody claims evolution is proof white people are better. Evolution is simply the process by which traits are passed down over time leading to significant genetic change within a population.
If that retard has 10 children and the genius has zero than the average intelligence of the population will decrease between generations. This is evolution in action.
Adrian Rivera
>How is the fact we can literally make transitional species' in a lab not proof of transitional species? Look what we fucking did to dogs. >G_d creates bauxite rocks >humans blast, mine, shovel, transport, crush, wash, chemically treat, electrolyze and melt them into aluminium sheets that get moulded, welded, assembled, etc. into an airplane. >durrrr you see you brainlets, if creationism is real where is your G_d's airplane? the fact that humans can influence the world around us, doesn't tell us nothing of our own origin
Jace Adams
How about humans and antelopes sharing more than humans and monkeys? >when your argument is objectively bad and you should feel bad.
