Is evolution a meme Sup Forums?

Is evolution a meme Sup Forums?
Everything else from the liberal establishment seems to be ...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2714586/pg722#55382597
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
climate.nasa.gov/causes/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No

No. What makes you think it's from the "liberal establishment"? It's genetics, which don't give a fuck about your feelings or wealth distribution.

its a theory subject to scientific rigor

that's all there is to it

That pic is a meme though and has done more harm than good. People didn't evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor. When people ask "but why do chimps still exist then?" They're really asking "if me and my cousin both descended from grandma, then why does my cousin exist?"

Ben Carson discusses how micro evolution is possible but not macro. Personally I think evolutionary theory has merit but I wanted to see some opposing view points.

>ITT: we work very hard at making all the dumb cliches about conservatives/non-liberals true
Jesus Christ, have some respect for yourself faggots.

Nice quads.

Climate change is a hoax though.

Settle down user, don't drop the tendies.

>how micro evolution is possible but not macro
>small changes can happen.
>but somehow, they can't stack over time.
That's his argument.

Yes, you can see this with the peppered moth evolution experiment. Is our only evidense for macro evolution based on genetics and fossils?

No. It's pretty well accepted by religion and non-religion. It's kind of hard to dismiss evolution(or call it mutation w/e) when you believe all people came from just 2. The disagreement is whether you can turn a rat into a whale or not.

>Liberals believing in Evolution

Come on OP they don't even acknowledge sexual dimorphism

This is exactly the part I am struggling to accept but it's not my area of expertise and it's hard to not get a "liberal" answer of being a racist when questioning it in a University setting haha

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Take a good look at this shit Sup Forums. The left will literally invent their own version of creationism when convenient.

Of course evolution is real you daft jackass. How else would niggers be subhumans?

fpbp

/thread

there's plenty of transitional fossiles for cetaceans, why are you particularly struggling with this?

Becasue they have not found the missing link and the jump between species is large. Why are we not seeing transitional species now?

Skin colour can be considered micro evolution faggot!

>they have not found the missing link
they have found dozens of them, what are you on about?

>and the jump between species is large
vague

>Why are we not seeing transitional species now?
All species are transitional.

The mutations just seem so small. I guess a billion years is a long time.

>liberal establishment
>science

you probably also think global warming is a hoax, right?

Whelp that picture convinced me.

You probably believe the world is underwater and we're under attack by megatornado storms like they predicted 20 years ago.

>Climate change is a hoax though.
lets see: every single scientist out there acknowledges climate change is real and caused overwhelmingly by human activities.

The only people denying it are those with a vested interest in SELLING FOSSIL FUELS.
I literally cant believe how Sup Forums suspects the greedy jew behind everything, but will happily parrot corporate propaganda

>a billion years is a long time

this, and also, life has gotten better at evolving as time has passed

people deny climate change because they are religious tards. They think its impossible for humans to ever influence the weather because only Yahweh the god of thunder can do that

>arctic ice melting
>see levels rising
>permafrost melting
>record heat waves in Europe
>record number of tornados in US
>record number of wildfires everywhere
if 90% scientific consensus isnt going to convince you of the reality of human caused global warming, I wont even waste my time trying tbqh

>lets see: every single scientist out there acknowledges climate change is real and caused overwhelmingly by human activities.

That's not true I know plenty of scientists who think it's a hoax....

And even if it were true, that's not a reason for you to believe it.... It's CERTAINLY not a reason for you to think others are wrong to disbelieve it.

You're advocating for humans to have the mentality of a lemming as though it is virtuous.

Global warming/climate change is real, everyone knows this. What we "right wing crazies" DON'T believe is that man is causing it, but that it's a natural process called... WEATHER.

*gasp*

Terrifying I know. For people who claim to be so smart... how you still believe the man made global warming bullshit once the idea of carbon credits was announce is beyond me.

It's literally the government saying: "Yeah, pollution is bad and causes global warming, but if you pay us enough money we'll let you do it anyways."

How fucking stupid are you, seriously?

>if 90% scientific consensus

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2714586/pg722#55382597

Here's a review of the actual evidence.

wrong one
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Not at all. People don't deny that greenhouse gases could influence the atmosphere, they deny the extent and impact of human emissions. The left is trying to push the agenda, constantly changing their wording and playing semantics. Notice how you called it "climate change"? That came about once the supposed warming didn't occur, now they claim it will get hotter and colder. Changing the story to fit reality, all to push "science" that didn't work in the first place.

The word has changed because literal retards would say stupid shit like "BUT LOL IT'S SO COLD TODAY HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING"

>MUH ICE AGE HAPPENED AND THERE WAS A BIG NATURAL THAW BECUZ MAN DIDNT EXIST YET
>MODERN DAY WARMING MUST BE CAUSED BY HUMANS, THIS COULD NEVER HAPPEN ON ITS OWN

Leftist logic 101, folks.

>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is mostly being caused by human (anthropogenic) activities, mainly increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

>Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
climate.nasa.gov/causes/

inb4 people say nasa is involved in a conspiracy. Let me guess, you also dont believe the earth is spherical?

>weather influence is either completely human made or completely natural
its both you faggot, climate change will happen with or without humans, greenhouse emissions simply accelerate the process

>7421x4000
why?

We're you there?

>well I guess 99% of scientists disagree with my point of view, but you see, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, therefore I win
>here is a random forum post, a youtube video and an infographic debunking the mainstream scientific consensus throughout the published scientific literature
that you dont notice how retarded you sound is the most worrying thing for me

>2 government funded operations, of which the same governments promote the idea of carbon credits, say man made global warming is real.

Gee, you don't say?

>government funded
IPCC is non-governmental you fucking idiot. And the money is ON THE SIDE OF THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.

how fucking dense can you possibly be to fail to realize this

Remember when nasa crashed a spaceship because they used the wrong units?

That didn't require a conspiracy either.

Watch that youtube video I linked.

If you look at the raw surface temperature data, you see that the nasa figure is just wrong.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53."

Yeah, totally "non-government". GTFO, moron.

Engineers seem to think climate change is a hoax. Scientists collect their data and perform flawed studies and say it is real.

This.
Evidence suggests evolution is true.
Rationalism is the only way to order in the world.

We all come from the same tree of life but the probability of the event that started macro life is so minute that it seems impossible. There are clear gaps the theory needs to address.

>discussion about evolution
>cornered nigger jumps to abiogenesis
like fucking clockwork

So your cousin is a fucking monkey? And your grandma ia something in between?

You provided pretty shitty standard arguments, don't get ahead of yourself French fries. Seem to be getting really upset discussing this just like leftists get upset about global warming. Pretty cucky behaviour

It explains the fossils and the genetics well enough. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THÉ TRUTH.

>You provided pretty shitty standard arguments
It's not about sophistication, it's about truth. Don't expect intelligent answers when posting old baseless propaganda like "muh missing link".

Anyway, no, biologists don't "have" to solve abiogenesis to know about evolution, that's not how knowledge works.
We knew how to use magnets before having a quantum theory of magnetism.

RARE
A
R
E

those who deny evolution deny national socialism. the liberals don't truly believe in evolution, as they think all humans beings are ''equal''

See there it is you arrogant close minded faggot. You are just assuming it is the truth without wanting to explore the idea. You sound like a bible basher. Knowledge also works through critique and exploring ideas. When you publish your own articles then you can talk to me about advancing human knowledge.

>muh there is transitional species
>meh abiogenesis is not important

I'm looking for real counter arguments, not some leftie French fuck that reads Wikipedia and takes it up the ass from Islam.

There is a difference between denying it and not accepting it as a complete theory due to clear gaps senpai.

Fuck off, you didn't explore the idea. You didn't seek to educate yourself, you just went straight to the controversy because it was easier.
Arguing out of knowledge is one thing, arguing out of ignorance is another and a total lack of respect.

Don't even bother arguing that's not the case. You would have never mentioned muh missing link otherwise.

Deflecting with abiogenesis is as relevant as arguing you can't speak about the American revolution as long as you don't know about the origin of ancient etruscans.

The real question is... Were you there?

Funnily enough, apparently the peppered moth thing turned out not to be evolving to camouflage after all. I forgot the details because I was actually really pissed, but it might be worth looking up if you can be arsed. I know that sounds vague as fuck but my wife's an entomologist and was reading the paper.

Not that I don't firmly believe in evolution, and I encourage anyone who doesn't to stand by their conviction and never get a flu vaccine more than once.

>Humanity clearly began speciating due to the diverse array of pressures in the vastly different lands we settled
>"There are no differences between humans :^)"

Were you there to see your birth? Guess you dont exist user fucking retard.

The contraversy is what I am interested in. I understand the theory and all the supporting evidense but it is hard to get people to discuss counter arguments without them having some leftie fit like you just did and acting all arrogant like your fucking Darwin himself. You remind me of this other French fuck that was upset by Australia culling great whites.

I'm trying to get a broader knowledge by taking in other viewpoints.
Stick to your diagrams of some faggot fossils claiming "muh proof".

And yet the KKK still somehow manage to combine young-earth creationist Christianity with white supremacy. It's weird as fuck if you ask me.

The teaching of evolutionary science was banned in nazi germany, genius.

Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufkl�rung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (H�ckel).

It was banned because aryan nuts hated the idea they werent perfect and were just smart walking monkeys.

You are a legend NZ bro, this is the kind of things I am intrested in reading. Thanks!

That doesn't mean it was wrong, it just didn't fit the narrative.

If they had lasted long enough they would have come to the same conclusion.

>I understand the theory and all the supporting evidense
>but the missing link
>but abiogenesis
no you don't
you've watch some youtube videos of people debating with extremely simplistic arguments
you don't understand a fucking thing

>I'm trying to get a broader knowledge by taking in other viewpoints.
It failed.
Time to start reading.

If I had to argue for you, I would have presented evidence such as this in support. As you can see it's less obvious than the usual faggot arguments. You could have also discussed ATP. You are not as smart as you think. It looks like that free commie French education really seems to be paying off.

> I would have presented evidence such as this in support. As you can see it's less obvious than the usual faggot arguments.
If you're pretending to be knowledgeable about something at least try to make sure the picture you fetched is readable.

I answered all your objections and then you started to fucking chimp out and deflect by talking about something else, i.e. abiogenesis. Don't tell me how I should argue.

It's been observed in laboratory

Pointing out image quality seriously faggot? You acted in a disrespectful manner by showing your arrogance and acting all high and mighty when presenting a few shitty arguments like you discovered them yourself.

You are likely some little cucky bio ungraded that has read a few books and now thinks you know everything. Overall you proved like many of your French compatriots, critical thinking is not valued.

Only at a micro level. By the way, Zurich is awesome.

>You acted in a disrespectful manner
I don't think you understand. The moment you swayed about abiogenesis you lost every single right to respect you had previously.
You never studied biology, you watched fucking Bill Nye debate Ken Ham and you think that's enough of an ersatz.
There is no debate to be had there, the only productive thing is to make fun of you whining at adults reminding you you need to know shit before you open your mouth.

>b....but muh oopppppiiiiiinion
>mmuuuuh feeeeeels
literally no better than any other degenerate trash
Sorry, facts don't respect you.

macro evolution is just micro over long period of time, you can't have the one without the other, unless you are suggesting earth is 6k years old and there wasn't enough time to be a "macro"

A theory is not a fact you little cunt and I do not think I was out of line bringing up abiogenesis.

So you are a little bio undergrad? Nawwww poor little fries, don't like to think there are any possible flaws in his evolution education. If you want a career in it then you better learn to handle the peer review process better. You just going to act all arrogant to your advisors when they tell you that you are a cuck?

There are significantly more hurdles for macro to occur. It may simply not just be micro stacked.

The "Age of SJWs" is next.

That's more of a de-evolution senpai!

>Is evolution a meme Sup Forums?

In a way. The oft-touted proof of evolution happening today is the geological segregation of animals into different climates causing different alleles to be selected for creating different subspecies (and eventually different species) of that animal. But, if you believe that, then logically you have to almost believe that the same thing has happened with humans, and that's racist!

It's another hilarious example of progressives eating their own tails.

We've peaked.
Greatness winds down as we begin the long descent back to the singularity.
Maybe the next Big Bang will bring better things.

>almost
also*

>kek

We don't want evolution to be racissss now do we senpai?

Stay optimistic, need to fight entropy.

>Sup Forums being so contrarian to question the fucking theory of evolution
confirmed for double-digit IQ

>inb4 flat earth

Question nothing you close minded faggot. Literally the definition of a mindless drone. Move along, this thread is not for you.

>I'm 12 and in school we haven't learned about different theories of evolution and how Darwin's is the one that makes logical sense
Oh ok, carry on then.

If evolution isn't real then how do you explain selective breeding?

There are many holes in Darwin's theory that are still not answered. What is with you eurocucks reading a textbook and acting like >muh educated. You are the second one tonight.

I said there are issues with the theory on a macro scale. Selective breeding have resulted in mostly micro changes. It's not like we have proof of being able to breed a completely indistinguishable species.

>There are many holes in the round earth theory. What is it with you Australians reading a textbook and acting like >muh educated.

if you were to ask any liberal extremely leftist jewish scientist, they'd go complete religious about how evolution don't apply to people.
Otherwise they risk ending up like James Watson.
oy vey goy, muh jewi... scientific ethics.

...

kek

That's actually wrong. It evolves into whatever is fittest to survive. Turns out that the apparent anomaly of animals getting close to humans has made it easy for domesticated animals to survive in symbiosis with humans.
Fucking idiot.

Earth approximates a sphere and location points can be calculated using the spherical coordinate system. It can mathematically be verfied to be "round".
Try harder little faggot.

How do you explain genetics then? All organisms (except some viruses) have DNA and more DNA is conserved between species that are related.

It's funny how 600 years ago that picture would apply to the earth being round.

Or America existing.

Evolution is the process through which macro life becomes better suited to its environment.
Abiogenesis is the process through which macro life starts.

Any argument against abiogenesis is not relevant to evolution, and visa versa.

You are arguing that the optimisation of life is not real because the begin of this life has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not going to get into the whole debate between creation or evolution but there really needs to be a push to separate it into the category of historical science officially. I've never heard any response by atheist evolutionists on this point and it's because it's a knock out. The arrogance of the scientific community in believing in their theory is more proof.