Let's argue about evolution

Let's argue about evolution.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish
google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2RVyWoboM4fW5gLUhIP4Bw&q=how did lungs evolved from gills&oq=how did lungs evolve&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0j0i22i30k1l2.1373.4091.0.7958.20.18.0.2.2.0.163.1986.9j9.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.20.2015...0i131k1j0i3k1.0.mlkM207-ED8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

There is no arguing something that has been proven to be true.

the big bang was real. if it wasn't gravity would just be a theory even in some religions, but us coming from monkeys is a bit off. (just an opinion)

Then why are there still niggers?

so how did the fish -> amphibian thing work? how do you learn to breathe oxygen if you living under water?

What is there to argue about? There can't be an argument without a counter argument.

That is a common misconception. Nowhere is it stated that we "come from monkeys" it just says that primates and humans share a common ancestor. We just took separate evolutionary paths. That also answers the argument "if evolution is real why is there still monkeys?"

I just have a simple question. If we evolved all the way up to where we are now, where are all the "in between" phases? By logic, they all should still exist.

they ded bcuz evolutions n stuff

Mathematicians that have a rudimentary understanding in genetics tend not to be full on atheists , simply because it's statistically impossible for birds to have evolved

>how do you learn to breathe oxygen if you living under water
First you have to have a cursory understanding of how gills work. Come back after you've done that.

>it's statistically impossible for birds to have evolved

gills absorbs oxygen in the water. how does that explain breathing on dry land?

Does your great, great, great grandfather still exist? By logic, he should.

I know it's not like you have google or anything, but...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish

Your ignorance doesn't make you right, you know?

Many aquatic animals had both gills and lungs. In fact, some fish still have both, like the coelacanth.

Son, you don't understand evolution, or logic. If you understood either, you wouldn't be asking such asinine stupid ass questions.

Now you've gone full retard. You are either a fundamentalist or a troll.

I hope you're trolling.

why would you have lungs if you live under water?

nice, but still doesn't explain how it evolved lungs

The fact that people are still debating evolution makes me want to kill myself with a rusty spork

Organisms are constantly evolving even if we don't it physically. Take the appendix for example (that organ that has no use for our body and occasionally ruptures) while we don't know for sure what it is was used for it is speculated that it was used to assist in the digestion of raw foods. But as humans began to cook and process foods we had no need for it and after many generations it has become useless and eventually future offsprings wont have an appendix.
A simpler example would be insects immunity to insecticides over time. When you use the same insecticide over and over there may be some insects that might be more resistant to the poison than others and will live to breed. Their resistant genes will live on while insects without those genes will die. Eventually insects will be immune to the insecticide. Same concept applies for bacteria too.

>Now you've gone full retard.
If you had even a basic understanding of statistical maths and 8th grade biology . There would be no argument here , it is what it is

The logic you're presenting is not sufficient to disprove evolution.
What OP's pic is basically saying is that the existence of the universe alone is not enough proof that evolution is reality, and that's true, but that doesn't mean that other factors, which very well exist, couldn't prove evolution nontheless.

Also see pic related before you faggots argue about this shit, I'm a man of science, but evolution is still only a theory, one with a lot of supporters, and it's not impossible that we were misinterpreting evidence and that evolution is not how the human race as we know it today has come to be. We're all just guessing based on what we subjectively think to be the most probable truth, and in such both religiousfags and sciencefags are equally as clueless about why and how things really are.

Fun fact: you can use evolution to create programs. Google genetic programming and neural networks.

What does it matter either way?

Could you explain it to us? Im genuinely curious about how it is statistically impossible for birds to exist.

>We're all just guessing
No, some of us are trying to use evidence and reason to understand the universe.

Man, you have got to get a new router that doesn't block google. You'd save all of us so much typing...,

google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2RVyWoboM4fW5gLUhIP4Bw&q=how did lungs evolved from gills&oq=how did lungs evolve&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0j0i22i30k1l2.1373.4091.0.7958.20.18.0.2.2.0.163.1986.9j9.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.20.2015...0i131k1j0i3k1.0.mlkM207-ED8

Now, go find a nice fish at the market and fuck yourself with it.

Have YOU ever seen a bird?

So edgy!

Actually arguing that something is wrong because is based on one of the fallacys, is another fallacy. So...

explains the how, but not the why...

Take statistics and biology, only way anybody's going to explain it to you with out large algorithms that also would have to be explained to you

Well I have time, by all means explain. You cant just make an outrageous statement like "it's statistically impossible for birds to have evolved" and expect me or anyone else to believe it without you presenting evidence to back up your statement.

>You cant just make an outrageous statement like
Yes I can

Evidence and reason in the sense of experimenting are also just a way of guessing. We watch the world around us and try to make out patterns in it's behaviour, based on that, we create laws and rules which we believe the universe is based upon. We may just as well be wrong, because it might just be coincidence that the entire universe has obliged a specific set of rules this entire time, and tomorrow it may return to it's natural state of total inpredictableness. How could it be possible to prove that proof is enough to discover reality?
Additionally, our senses and the equipment we're using to measure and categorize phenomena may just as well miss details and properties of objects like particles and phenomena like movements in the world around us which are a crucial part of the truth, and we wouldn't know until we figured out that all we observed actually held hidden meaning.

The analogy for religousfags is mouth-to-mouth delivery, a religiousfag will interpret the world around him not in a way that a scientist would, they would instead find a way that their god has created this phenomena or object they're observing, which would still align with their god-centered worldview just as much as our scientific results align with our worldview aligned around laws of nature.

You know, just like a religiousfag would never accept that god doesn't exist, a sciencefag would never point at a natural phenomena that doesn't follow the natural laws we discovered and say "that's not how it works!". Instead, every time science fags discover something which doesn't make sense in their world, they realign their image of how the laws of nature work.
That's exactly what religiousfags do, they realign their explanation of how god created their world and their definition of god itself based on what they observe.

We're all not that different.

He's right you know.

But none of us have to believe your outrageous claim because it's bullshit.

If creationism is real how do you explain these dubs? Checkmate Mormons.

>every time science fags discover something which doesn't make sense in their world, they realign their image of how the laws of nature work
Yeah, that's how it works. Religious people don't do this until society forces them to do so. They are very much not the same.

Yes you are right he can make make statements like that but its ultimately up to us if we take that statement seriously.

/thread

op is underage or retarded

Gravity IS just a theory you numbskull

That's exactly what religiousfags do.
Kings, Emperors, Lords and other champions of reign have often bent how religion looks like to their immedeate advantage.
People like martin luther or modern leftist activists have reinterpreted holy scriptures and mouth-delivered rites and habits in a more modern way, fitting the current social norm.
An example for modern christians would be the ones who don't hate faggots anymore, stating that god loves all people the same, no matter their sexual preferences.

But, of course, there's people still sticking to more conventional or even more absurd interpretations of the world in religion. But it's the same with science; there's lots of people who believe in different or slightly altered versions of the theories most people learn about in school.

But just like alt christians during the times where christianity was dominant almost everywhere, those people don't come to light quite as often. Science, just like religion once was, is, the way scientists currently explain most apparent phenomena, is generally considered as "the truth", which basically just means that if you question it, your intelligence is obviously not enough to grasp just how wrong you are. Ergo you're called an idiot.

We all know that people can react with extreme aggresion if their worldview is conflicted. I'm not saying that the modern science as a majority of people practises them today should be dropped and replaced with religion, the religious worldview was so politically centered that it's not had the chance to develop any relevance to the construction of work-compromising machines, trains and robots are being build with laws of science in mind, but they may just as well be constructed by someone who believes god gave him the metal and power to make them. Prehaps, in another world, this modern reinterpretation of the world we call science never existed, and instead religiousfags built the first locomotive with a golden cross on it's front tank.

Science didn't win the majority of people for itself because it's more true, but because it has gifted more wealth to the people. Belief works like a relationship, if your local church always just wants to shark off your taxes, you'll get pissed off and start questioning their seriosity.
If your local scientists develop a medicine against your skin anomaly, you'll reference that forever to someone questioning our grand lord and savior scienca.

If people started going out with flags chanting "KEKU SAN, KEKU SAN" over and over while handing out free sandwiches, while science on the other side is bringing us more and more weapons of mass destruction and allowing richer people to directly invade our privacy, I may contemplate joining a fucking cult, yeah.

But don't worry, the above was a gross , symbolical exaggeration of what would be needed to convince me to drop my current belief in what the schools, books and the intranet have taught me of the world.

I'm just trying to tell you to keep an open mind and not hate people who don't believe the same things you do just because of that.

>confuses darwinism with lamarckism
>thinks it can argue
lel

There were two systems, land and water, both had plants but only water had animals.
Any animal who could conquer the land would have an incredibly advantage over other races in that it could spread and feed in a predator and competitor free zone.
Fish who could pry themselves on land for a few minutes, nibbling on food that others couldn't reach, were just the beginning, and obviously animals with more strenght to pry themselves up and more oxygen carrying capacity could survive up there longer.
Over time, those individuals who could filter more oxygen directly from the atmopsphere were obviously more advantageous, and so, over time, better and better fish formed and soon the land wasn't an animal-free space anymore.

Plethora of evidence for evolution
Zero evidence for intelligent design

What you call evidence is just the scientific system of justifying an opinion.
The only reason there's no proof for gods existence is because whatever religiousfags consider evidence doesn't count by our scientific standards. They have a whole different way of perceiving evidence.

If I ran up to my religious neighbor and told them that jesus appeared to me in my dream, they'd hug me and take it as evidence for creationism.
If I ran up to my neighbour who's a biology professor and told them that it just occured to me in a dream that black holes lead to other areas in the universe like portals, he'd slam the door on me, because such mythical shit doesn't count as evidence in the eyes of scientists, that doesn't make the religious system objectively faulty, it just means that either system can't be used to expand the opposite system of belief, which is just natural.

If I ran up to my religious neighbor and told him that I wanted to measure the weight of a blessed apple as opposed to the weigh of one that's been in my asshole, he'd slam the door on me.
If I ran up to the biological professor and told him I wanted to measure the weigh of a ripened and a green banana, he'd happily join me to take note of the phenomena.

These statements may sound silly to you, and if they do, I believe it's because you've been associating what you believe as the ultimate truth (because why on earth would you believe spossibly living oblivious even to the fact that there's no lead scientific world view and instead a wide pool of varying thoughts and opinions about how different phenomena are to be explained.

>These statements may sound silly to you, and if they do, I believe it's because you've been associating what you believe as the ultimate truth (because why on earth would you believe something that's not a fact?)possibly living oblivious even to the fact that there's no lead scientific world view and instead a wide pool of varying thoughts and opinions about how different phenomena are to be explained.
Sorry, somehow half of my bracket just fucked off.
I hope this doesn't affect how much credibility you put in me, but you will instead judge me by the arguments I propose.

>you will instead judge me by the arguments I propose
fat chance shitlord

>implying anyone would take an argument on Sup Forums seriously
Trips of truth

I have PhD in genetics. Ask away.
Don't forget to explain me, by the way, why you think the whole field of study of genetics, which is fully based on viewing biology in the light of evolution is wrong?
Maybe you think that their are all wrong? Maybe you know better, or just not sold out to corrupt government.

>Is it statistically impossible for birds to exist

>nice meme

Check'd

It makes sense that populations change over time. Evolution is merely stating that these changes accumulate over a grand scale to create speciation.

What do you think the human appendix was used for?