Reminder that Darwinian evolution cannot be explained logically and honestly without violating the every natural law in...

Reminder that Darwinian evolution cannot be explained logically and honestly without violating the every natural law in the universe.

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613133032.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

xDD

How does it violate the The Law of Vibration?

K keep me posted

How?

Well with a actual argument that logically explains how evolution is false.

Darwin didnt get it all 100% but set the foundation for the undying mechanism's of life.

thats what i thought you fucking retard.

fuck off Sup Forums

itt: bad bait

inb4 evolution is paranormal.

It fuck with gravity?

reminder that you have been raped by a priest and your whole life is a lie, you will die and nothing will happen, cuck.

At least I haven't had a baby's cock in my mouth, you disgusting pedo.

You post a picture of something doing what it was designed to do and try to pass it off as evolution with no actual explanation of HOW it evolved? You're the retard.

Darwin didn't set shit. He even said in his book that if one thing contradicts his theory, then his entire theory is wrong.

You sat and waited 20 minutes to respond to a bait thread this obvious?

Joke's on you, I'm not mutilated.
Stupid goy

see

That picture is wrong. It's clearly stated that one second to God is 10,000 years to us. When it says he created things in 1 day it's simply a reference. The animals he created before men had millions of yers to evolve before the "next day".

wow it's like you are carving yourself into reasonable explanations to fit your theory

That diagram is wrong. It should be:

Conventional logic
>Here's a baseball. Someone clearly designed it with a purpose.

Evolutionist logic
>Here's a baseball. Clearly it took millions of years to evolve from a single stitch and has no purpose at all. And the fact that it goes so well with the baseball bat is clear proof of "convergent evolution".

"purpose" is a human made meme.

it doesn't exist outside of the primitive, limited human mind.

Right. Your eyeballs clearly don't have a purpose, do they?

yes.

>designed
>DESIGNED

LEEEEL

Religion is going to just keep taking the hard work of men and women who dedicate their lifes to undestanding the world around them just for some faggot at vatican to be like

mhmmm...makes sense.
GOD DIDDDD ITTT!!11111

And he could have, but no evidence of a creator so until then, ocams razer.

Evolutionary purpose exists for the sake of survival.

Existential purpose doesn't and in principle cannot exist, since existence in itself is the purpose of itself.

there terribly designed, i cant see more than 5 feet in-front of me and all humans cant see past half a km, so if they were designed, he did a really fucking shitty job.

Thanks for proving me right. Have fun posting your irrelevant images as if they somehow prove anything.

>ocams razer.

>Durr, one molecule, plus one molucule = functioning eyeball! See, evolution is simple!

>Damn you God for no giving us Superman vision!

That's not an argument, really. A "poor" design is still a design. And since everything entropy's over time, it makes logical sense that our bodies will become less optimal throughout the ages.

Learn how to debate, instead of nitpicking my arguments.

your the one making extraordinary claims, wheres your extraordinary evidence?

I know its bait but fuck it. im bored.

Most who believe in god are the weak ones who are too afraid to admit that nothing happens after death

I never claimed anything. My argument is that evolution cannot be explained simply or honestly, and requires believers to pull explanations out of their asses to make it look like they know what they're talking about.

The burden of proof falls on you to show that a brain, heart, ear canal, or a fucking strand of hair, can come into existence by accident.

>dat bait doe

can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis or w/e theories about the origins of life that there are, evolution is a fact get over it

Not an argument or a rebuttal.

>Le bait meme

Just go to sleep, user.

You can't have one without the other. You don't get to say "This clearly evolved" without knowing how it all started in the first place.

evolution does not posit where life came from only the mechanisms through which it became more complicated, just because we don't understand what created the first cell doesn't mean you don't share 50% of your dna with a banana.

by the way look how you got cornered and didn't reply to
makes one think doesn't it
I wonder why he skipped that one

TLDR: false cause fallacy, abiogenesis does not cause evolution only thing abiogenesis has to do with is the origin not the development of life

Why are some Whales born with legs?

How do you know it was an accident? No evolutionary biologist makes such a claim. As far as I know, the origins of those have been explained and you can observe what older ear forms may have looked like with living fossils.

Yes yes of course very well, however...

D&C sage.

I'll be generous and let you have a cell (despite a cell being super-fucking-complex), how does a cell gain more information, process that information, and thus become more complicated?

Those aren't leg bones. They're there to assist with childbirth.

If evolution existed for the sake of survival, then why are some animals born completely useless, such as a guinea pig?

>Existential purpose doesn't and in principle cannot exist, since existence in itself is the purpose of itself.

Okay, nice philosophy. But I don't agree with it, personally.

>evolution is nonsense
>you see those sandpeople 2000 years ago were right!

Well ok then

as long as the replication method is damageable mutations can occur

"born completely useless"
not understanding filling in a niche in an ecosystem

the fact that the guinea pig was born in 2016 proves that it's survival worked thus far.

>may have looked like
>may

I'll let you figure that one out.

And fossils themselves don't prove shit. You don't look at an older ear canal and say that's how it used to be when the organism itself is completely different. That's like saying the human eye evolved from an insect's eye because one is bigger than the other.

Guinea pigs are heavily domesticated.

>not understanding filling in a niche

Sounds like it was created with a purpose. Hmm...

>replication method
How did that evolve?

>mutations can occur
I hope not. last thing any organism needs is a tumor or cancer.

"created" and yet you talk about violating natural laws oml

Nice strawman. I was wondering when he'd make an appearance.

assuming we have the first cell we have the first dna/rna w/e it was not a biologist that allows the cell to replicate (read stores information)
mutations=cancer you really are thick

>Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

>mutations=functioning heart connected to a functioning brain with no mistakes that would cause instant death

topkek.

not understanding the 2 billion years that it took to develop multi-cellular life nice strawman, explain why the nerve that controls your larynx goes through your heart creationist boy (logical fallacy: personal incredulity for those keeping track)

Do not indulge him

>strawman

You cannot argue against evolution as untrue if you want to use religion as substitute.

not understanding the 2 billion years that it took to develop multi-cellular

How?

>explain why the nerve that controls your larynx goes through your heart

I'm sure there's a definite purpose. Just because I don't personally know, doesn't mean no-one does, or that there isn't a reason.

>reminder that evolution has nothing to do with how life started

Because earth ain't a closed system. Hell, the entire fucking universe might not be a closed system as we know it.

Do you see the irony of your post?

I never once brought religion into this. Once again, evolutionists can't stand up for themselves without bringing the bible into it.

sage and report
>sage and report
sage and report
>sage and report
sage and report
>sage and report
sage and report
>sage and report

Kys pedo

Are you so dense you don't understand what a living fossil is? And no, it isn't. It's like someone saying "Our company has been doing the same thing for years" and then, looking at their track record and seeing it's consistent with the claim, assuming that, yes, in fact, the claim can be evaulated as true and what is being done is nearly the same if not exactly the same as what was done prior.

And there might be a God.

Extraordinary fedoras require extraordinary neckbeard.

So God made the plants, which survived millions of years without the sun. Right.

That's why I'm a creationist, because evolution doesn't fit with theology.

it's because we came from fish, look it up and "how" fossil record herp derp

Stand up for yourself, then. Get debunking.

>The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

>A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

>The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

>Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

>Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

You do know that your analogy includes intelligence and reasoning, right? Does evolution "reason"?

>living fossil
You mean an organism that contradicts the millions of years standpoint and remains unchanged? "We believed this creature died out millions of years ago, but here it is, alive and well. Clearly it just didn't feel like evolving all this time. Evolution is still true."

OP and every other religious individual, i'm going to explain something to you. This benefits you greatly, so please read and understand.

Even if evolution was completely disproven, it still does not prove your claims to be true.

Also

Bringing your own hypothesis to the table and just assuming it to be true to counteract science is dishonest. Why would anyone bother engaging you in any sort of discussion?

>So God made the plants, which survived millions of years without the sun.

Um, no?

God made the plants, which were fueled with the light of God, until God made the stars and sun.

>Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

>Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

>The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

>Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

>Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

>Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

>Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

>The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

>it's because we came from fish

Anyone who believes that is a retard. I'm sorry, but it's true.

>I never once brought religion into this.

Are there any other theories?

Why do you choose to take one part literally (God says "let there be light" and there is light, without the Sun, and then have God just sit around doing nothing for millions of years waiting for plants to grow by "guided" chance.

we have a common ancestor to fish, sorry but again logical fallacy of personal incredulity, honestly I don't know whether or not there is a god but evolution is a fact sorry senpai

>>The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes,

In an order we assume to be the correct

Other head and neck features also evolved.

Wow, is that proof or what? just saying it evolved is proof it evolved!

These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

Or they were designed for ramming.

>Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

>Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

>A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

>The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

>Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

>An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

>Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).

What? Evolution is basically this:

>"Fit" individuals reproduce and propagate their genes
>"Unfit" individuals die without reproduction
>MFW OP is unfit

Because I don't believe God sat around for millions of years. Stop telling me what I believe.

Evolution theory makes no claims how the first living beings came into existence or how complex organic beings like the human body formed over time.
Evolution theory cannot be applied backwards in time, that means you cannot feed the theory with a state and expect it to explain how that state came into existence.

that's right only a book written 2000 years ago gets the privilege to tell you what you believe

It's stupid. If we had no eyes at one stage, why did we evolve them. What was the intermediary process between eyes and no eyes. At one stage - no mouth. Which came first, mouth, stomach, digestive tract etc. They all compliment one another.

You can't point at an adaptation and say "proof of all evolution" because most evolution deniers say "nah, that's proof of adapation and changes within specieis" which does occur (ie, you can make a liger, or a zonkey, or a pug, but it's not an example of evolution). If all the trees got taller, only the tallest giraffes would survive, and pass on their genes. But when the heck did they become giraffes in the first place? No evidence, no fossil record. Nothing.

>common ancestor to fish

I'm sure you believe we do.

What natural laws does it violate?

I don't think you know what you believe, since you are just picking and choosing. You probably also deny global flood, parting of the red sea and the other miracles.

>>MFW OP is unfit

Yet I have kids. Guess evolution is wrong.

Funly enough, yes. Evidence of something evolving is evidence of evolution

That might not be enough for you, so let's get to the fun stuff. Here's data on the connection between reptiles and birds

>Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).

>Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).

>Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.

That's a better way to say what I was trying to say

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613133032.htm
I tend not to believe things because I'm told, strong fossil evidence and irrefutable dna evidence is what my opinion is based on
> NOT AN ARGUMENT
are you really giving up this easy, just let it go, I don't care about what you think about god but please the more you talk about evolution the more you make a fool of yourself

do you believe in gravity or?

>Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).

>Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.

>Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).

>Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.

>Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.

>Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.

...

No, I do believe in a global flood since we find seashells on tops of mountains, rock layers evenly distributed as if they were filtered in water, and animals buried with their necks bent all the way back as if they died drowning.

>Which came first, mouth, stomach, digestive tract etc. They all compliment one another.

Actually the anus came first. Sear urchin have an anus that functions also as a mouth.

How did the nerve cells and photoreceptors evolve?