Evolution captured on video!

vimeo.com/180908160

Creationists BTFO!

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/stunning-videos-of-evolution-in-action/499136/

Other urls found in this thread:

icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/
youtube.com/watch?v=JnDzM1YHvOk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/cdd/cdd.shtml
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/102/1/72/
collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

evolution does not BTFO creationists.
It only BTFOs the appeal to animal / nature in the teleological argument.

See the fine tuning appeal.

I'm sorry but this seems to be a DNA style of thread so could you please help me with this

Do you know how 46 chromosomes or DNA in general could fit into freemasonry/Osiris/the cult of Saturn etc.

Has there been any development in the field of genetic engineering etc?

>fine tuning appeal
I don't get it.

>hurrrr it takes millions of years for evolution it can't be observed in real time
>btw here's a video perfectly demonstrating multiple stages of evolution over the course of 11 days lol

>freemasonry/Osiris/the cult of Saturn etc.
It doesn't. You should take your retarded bullshit to /x/ and ask there.

>Conflating microevolution with macroevolution.

Do you even know the six different types of evolution, user?

For someone who probably "worships science," you sure are scientifically illiterate.

>Do you even know the six different types of evolution, user?
No difference. Artificial divisions created by butthurt Creationists. "Macro Evolution" is "Micro Evolution" on larger scale.

This video seems to prove that the LORD could most certainly complete his works inside 7 days

Atheists blowing themselves the fuck out
B
T
T
F
O

Pretty amazing.

Not sure what to say.

You are comparing simple single cells of bacteria to the most complex multi cell organisms that live on this earth

>Check it out, a cell wall changed it's chemistry in eleven days.
>Pretty sure that means in 50 million years, a banana could turn into a wolf.

Says the FAGGOT telling us
>Creationists BTFO!
Fuck of to /sci/ then nigger. At least my shit could have self fulfilling prophesy relating to kikes

>most complex multi cell organisms that live on this earth
Ferns?

How do you suggest we film a 50-million-year timelapse?

I'll say this :
I don't give a fuck about your strange, obscure cults. Ask some cult members about their interpretation.

Of course Goyim!
This video proves evolution is real!
This video has all the answers!

It's a nice visualization for US plebs with poor education. Everyone who has anything to do with real Biology knows that Evolution is a fact.

Will they finally capture the evolution of a longer DNA chain, say, from fish to reptile? Or will we only revolve around species that look the same and call it "speciation"?

Evolution is created by the protestant Anglo. Evolution is just protestant ontology applied to biology

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

HOLY FUCK!!!

You're getting memed, my bro.

icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/

>A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

>In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

You better pay closer attention to what it is you supposedly believe.

Did you DO your homework or did you just look at it?

I'll tell you this I don't give two shits about your cluster of fucking cells on a political board fuck off to /sci/

It takes too much time.

Shitty source is shitty.

To become like Christ you need 12 strands of DNA and 12 personas for each of the zodiac

>evolution is a fact
>trust me and my intellectual parrot-friends

Don't pretend to be offended on Sup Forums.

creationists are a meme at this point

Have you even watched the video, leaf?
It was made for people like you.

Anybody who has anything to do with science knows nothing will ever be fact or proven.

>Everyone who has anything to do with real Biology knows that Evolution is a fact.

This is an anti-scientific statement and a logical fallacy.

No REAL biologist believes in (alternate theory), because biologists who believe in (alternate theory) aren't REAL biologists!

Seriously, listen to yourself.

You assume that good arguments exist and your job is just to make insults? Is that it?

The argument is already won, the case is closed, no new information can be considered relevant? And now it's just your job to gloat?

But what are you gloating about? You believe in a scientific theory you don't even understand, but everybody says it's right, so that makes you smart?

YOU DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE GETTING MEMED HERE?!?!?

Please, stop with this bullshit. Until we change the Paradigm this is a fact.

Yeah, everyone except for all those scientists that say that evolution is a fact.

>imblying OP may not be a fag

>This video seems to prove that the LORD could most certainly complete his works inside 7 days

The lord is omnipotent, he can do it in 0.5 days if he wants

Why would I watch your agit-prop, kike?

I have better things to do.

>I have better things to do.
Like shitposting on Sup Forums on Friday night?

>It takes too much time
Can't show me an experimental proof =/= hard science

Funny isn't it. Evolutionists laugh at those who deny the mechanism of speciation and call them bigots or retards or whatever, yet they don't really expect their mechanism of speciation to be proven through experiment!

Why is it that all alleged proofs of speciation revolve around organisms that are all in the same family? A rational person would see a clear correlation here

What people forget is that Darwin was a protestant, and protestant theology has a different approach to ontology than catholicism. The former is described by Hegel's dialectics - thesis + antithesis => synthesis

Darwin used that reasoning framework but only translated it into biology. But evolutionists are just too dumb and too ignorant to search for similarities

>Shitty source is shitty.

This is not an argument.

Attacking the credibility of a source with no back-up info or explanation of why it's bad or what's better?

Not an argument buddy.

Don't you wish you had somebody who understands Evolution to make better arguments for you?

Among other things, yes.

fucking scumbag kike

>Can't show me an experimental proof =/= hard science
We have experiments that can show you molecular evolution in higher organisms. You just can't make a timelapse video showing you the changes in real time. Read about gene evolution.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

You owe it to yourself to at least research it before you disagree with it and make your mind up about it.

>Admitting to being completely scientifically ignorant

There is literally 0 evidence for macroevolution my man.

Are you fucking serious?
Pic related. Your source.

that the universe was "fine tuned" like a watch so that life and all of its parts, including evolution, would occur.

I take it to mean that the universe is ordered, and because it is ordered, life doesn't occur by chance, but by design. This is something I believe in, but I wouldn't be crazed about using the word 'designed'.

Macroevolution is an empty term.
Macroevolution is a Microevolution on larger time scale. You can't prove something that has no real meaning. Wittgenstein was right. The Left tries to destroy language by creating meaningless terms.

>that the universe was "fine tuned" like a watch so that life and all of its parts, including evolution, would occur.
If it's so fine tuned than why do we randomly get cancer?

the organisms are fine-tuned through millions of living in the environment

>If god wanted us to eat fish he wouldn't put fish bones in them

Have you even watched this video?

youtube.com/watch?v=JnDzM1YHvOk

It was made for people like you.

INB4:

>Why would I look at enemy propaganda? I have Evolutionists to tell me why Creationism is false, just like my friend the Ford salesman tells me why Chevies are all junk!

INB4:

>Absolutely everything in that source has been debunked by this blogpost on RationalWiki from 2011 that has no footnotes and no sources, but yeah, it's totally like, all that shit's debunked now. I guess they debunked that, they said so and everything.

You're supposed to listen to everybody, believe nobody. Not, "listen to one side, believe that side."

On what fucking planet does a bat evolve into a seal or a lion? According to your chart, the mole is the final form of a platypus and koala, and our ancestors were rabbits. This makes no sense.

>God's masterplan of fine-tuning involves creating millions of species to go extinct in distinct geological strata

What a cheeky guy.

>why do we randomly get cancer

Nothing random about cancer and summer, friendlypops
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

>I've never opened a biology textbook: the post

The central darwinian claim is that more complex organisms can emerge from less complex organisms simply through the process of natural selection and random mutation.

This is false because natural selection can only rearrange information that already exists, it cannot add anything new. Meanwhile, mutations are almost always deleterious to an organisms DNA.

The "just give it enough time meme" has already been thoroughly BTFO by the cambrian explosion, which happened within an infinitesimally short geologic time frame.

The fossil record to this day has not been able to produce the transition fossils necessary to account for the appearance so many different phyla in such a short amount of time.

the "theory" of evolution cannot make predictions so it it therefore not science.

Not all creationists try to refute evolution, or even give a fuck about evolution, and they don't need to.

I actually saw that. Poles on vichan were making fun of it earlier. It's fucking bullshit. I'm sure you are trolling.

That's not an argument, buddy.

Do know what an ARGUMENT is?

Do you know how to make one?

Would you please? We're all waiting.

>Your source is invalid because um, uh, IT SAYS CREATION! CREATION! That's the other side! Those are the other guys, the wrong guys. Their side is bad. Smart man tell me so, tell me no need think for self, ook ook!

See? Believe you came from an ape, it becomes self-fulfilling prophesy.

Now who would want to convince you that you're just a dumb ape with no special purpose?

rodents are mammals. We are also mammals and share a common ancestor.

>Meanwhile, mutations are almost always deleterious to an organisms DNA.
>are almost always
That's the fucking point.
You only need beneficial mutation to appear once and that it will spread.

>a banana could turn into a wolf
You people are too fucking stupid to even bother talking to.

Doesn't matter. We have the tree of life. Evolutionists claim its true, can't prove it experimentally

We don't know too much about genes, this is still developing

There's no certainty about speciation

But it can make predictions. If you know the selection pressures on a population you can predict aspects of the population's evolution.

You should read a book some time.

A rabbit fucked a rat and shat out a lemur? It doesn't make sense.

Show me peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC paper.
Random unwashed guys on youtube can say whatever they want.

>We don't know too much about genes
You don't.
The field is almost 40 years old at this point.

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

"It's fucking bullshit, you're a troll!" is not an argument.

Why start this thread if you can't argue for yourself? That's like a guy going around starting fist fights when he can't throw a single punch.

The fact that a black bird evolves into a black bird but with a bigger beak, doesn't lead to the conclusion that out of fishes organisms that belong to different families were created. What you can't prove experimentally is not scientific, it's speculation

Doesn't "population genetics" produce models that predict the direction of evolution with success?

DNA functions as a digital code, Bill Gates said that 'DNA is like a software program only more complex than anything we have been able to design.'

If you introduce random mutations into a code you're far more likely to get a nonfunctional code than a working one.

To even generate one single protein by chance alone has a probability of 1 in a trillion trillion trillion.

It's literally mathematically impossible.

Bats did not evolve into seals or lions. Bats, seals, and lions evolved from a common ancestor. Humans and rabbits evolved from a common ancestor. All life on the planet evolved from the same simple celled organisms, that split off onto thousands and thousands of different paths of evolution.

Things don't just morph into completely different types of organic life. They change gradually over time from one thing, into the same thing with a minor difference. Over time these changes add up. Over time the path of evolution branches out more and more.

Give me a scientific source and then we can talk.

40 years is a very short time span

Just admit it - evolution is speculation, not science

>A rabbit fucked a rat and shat out a lemur?
the lemur does not have a line from rat and rabbit forwards, so no

except the first population didn't have selection pressures, it just came from nothing

>scientific source

gematrix.org

You can use homology analysis to predict gene functions for example.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/cdd/cdd.shtml

I refuse to believe there are people on Sup Forums who are creationists. I know there's a lot of idiots here but the sheer amount of willful ignorance required to be a creationist is truly staggering.

>DNA functions as a digital code
Stopped reading there.
It doesn't. It's not binary and it's not linear.

"evolution" has been made ambiguous. this is not evidence of Common Descent / Ancestry. It is adaptation. There is no increase in information, there is only a binary reaction.

calling this "evolution" is extremely disingenuous. Its like when Berkeley defines evolution as reproduction. They always try to anchor it to understandable, empirical concepts and examples because its bullshit.

So if I continue breeding flightless fruit flies, they will turn into ants?

Or will they remain flightless fruit flies?

Because the latter is proven. The model for evolution suggests the former. You evolutionists seem to ignore just how much evolution had to have happened in the last 50 million years -- how quickly indeed everything had to have moved in order to get to where we are today vs. the fossil records of 50 million years ago.

>40 years is a very short time span
Remember when personal computer revolution started? How old are you?

You're the development, anons.
It is your destiny to develop.

Fat people dancing freely always makes me laugh. I'm so happy for them.

>There is no increase in information
Yes there is. You need to work on your definition of "information". Mutations gives you unlimited potential.

>If you know the selection pressures on a population you can predict aspects of the population's evolution
But it doesn't have to do with the tree of life concept. The fact that an armadillo evolved bigger claws and teeth, doesn't change the fact that it's still an armadillo

This is an anti-scientific statement.

You make a lot of those for a "science-lover."

Here's a few peer-reviewed scientific paper YOU should check out:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/102/1/72/

collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/

journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

And just for the record, sonny, for future arguments, throwing around the term, "peer-reviewed" like it means something is a huge red flag that you're an uninitiated and profane layman playing at scientific stolen valor.

>fossil record and genome sequencing don't exist
>calling others scientifically ignorant
Sure thing kid

Well, one of the first ones in the chart, the euglena, looks like a banana. Would the fruits have evolved from the euglena then? I still don't really get it but it makes slightly more sense.

work on "my" definition of information? Is this what you do? is that how you get an increase of information, by redefining information?

It's a "Redneck or Nigger with shart stains tries debunking the accumulated science of thousands of researchers, millions of papers, thousands of experiments, records and review" episode

>Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Thanks. I will report this "Ioannidis" for wasting tax payer's money.

Holy shit bro, you're way out of your league on this one.

Ever heard of a nucleotide sequence? It's literally the arrangement of Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine/Uracil that determines what protein is produced by the cell.

It has virtually nothing to do with the inherent chemical properties of the nitrogenous bases.

ITT: Burger education

When an organism gains new ability, new quality the informational content of that organism increases. Its "fitness" increases.

Evolution is not a fact (like gravity). Hence we say "evolution theory" and not "evolution fact". Theory implies that it is still a theory. We don't know. We don't say "Gravity theory" do we? You know why? Cause you can throw an apple and see it fall. It's an obvious fact.

But evolution is not. We don't have "half human half apes" (middle states). And we never witnessed an ape give birth to something that transcended the ape. Some middle stage between humans and apes.

Evolution probably exists to a smaller scale but new species cannot come through evolution. Evolution is a belief like creationism at this point, since there is no hard evidence.

>Ever heard of a nucleotide sequence?
I did. You have no fucking idea how many factors influence expression.

Those things do exist and they have effectively relegated darwinism to the dust bin of history.

No wonder you fuckers believe in a God if you're this stupid. There's simply no other option because you're just too fucking retarded to comprehend it.

Makes me feel sad for you religious cunts.

this chart sucks

>You know why? Cause you can throw an apple and see it fall. It's an obvious fact
You can observe evolutionary changes in genomes or edit a genome and check out the results.