Is this true?
And the last of em.
>>1354532
marx and freud were spook peddlers
>>1354532
Not sure. But I don't know of any practical applications of Darwinism/evolution. It seems to be just another lens by which people try to interpret historical/prehistorical data.
>>1354826
What about the moral byproduct?
>>1354826
they can literally reverse engineer genetic code and find that we came from monkey's
>>1354826
Assuming you aren't fishing for (You)s, antibiotic resistant bacteria are a fairly worrisome example of evolution.
>>1354532
Yes. While micro-evolution has been proven true, there is no substantive evidence for macro-evolution. And yes. Misclassified chim bones aren't evidence.
>>1354879
>>1354532
The Pope said evolution is true and if you don't believe him you are a fucking heretic and will burn in hell.
>>1354532
Darwinism and naturalism are 2very different things
>>1354915
Try telling that to the creationists. They believe that if you accept it, you'll become everything a conservative Christian family despises and fears and then some.
>>1354920
how did creationism become a thing in america?
most protestants outside america reject YEC
>>1354879
I'm copying and pasting the same exact response I posted in the creationism thread:
Alright we have this so called microevolution.
We can observe the impact of mutation (various spontaneous changes to the genetic code), selection (selection of favored individuals) and gene drift (Random selection that occurs in every finite population).
Mutation can generate new traits through random alterations, either positive, negative or neutral.
Selection has a decent chance to sort out the negative traits and keep the positive traits.
Drift is responsible for which neutral traits remain and can influence all traits as well.
But there is no limiting factor to this microevolution. If populations split then two new species can eventually emerge if there is both no interbreeding between the two populations and if either the selection factors for both populations change or the populations are small enough to be significantly affected by gene drift.
And there is definite evidence of various homologies and genetic similarities between species that can in various cases be used to prove their descent. There are also observable cases of the consequences of these population splits in various states of progress towards speciation.
This is essentially macroevolution. Just microevolution over longer time periods.
I'm not going to go in-depth on possible rebuttals to this because really there are only two as far as I know and they're both nonsensical but if posed I can probably attempt to explain why they're wrong.
>>1354945
The Pope.
You disagree.
You are a heretic.
You will burn in hell.
>>1354945
Ooops you agree with Pope.
Not a heretic after all.
You won't burn for it. Maybe something else.
>>1354921
Fundamentalism primarily. Most American protestants were fine with it and even embraced it when it pertained to animals only, but when man was put with the animals, then people got mad. They thought that it would lead to people questioning the Bible and leaving the faith. I think this picture sums it up quite nicely.
>>1354532
Actually, Freud is making a comeback.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/sigmund-freud-unconscious-theories
So can we agree by now that American protestants/evangelicals are without parallel the worst sect of Christianity in the world?
>>1354912
This current pope is an apostate, probably the false prophet. Disagreeing with him is almost a sign of piety.
>>1355706
Just a question, what practical purposes does other origin theories or creation stories have?
And it can be used for understanding the environment and how well different animals are able to adjust to changes in the climate.
>>1355706
>I asked for practical applications.
The precepts of evolution are applied to the development of computer programs - think evolutionary algorithms.
And as the other anon said (>>1354864), evolutionary models allow us to predict real changes. It's useful to know that, assuming you are concerned with not dying from infections.
>>1355552
Good christians are the worst christians.
I have no problem whatsoever with christians who don't preach christianity and don't believe in its most ludicrous ideas.
Basically the worst a christian you are and the less you believe the gospel, the more I respect you.
>>1355770
Then, for you, if a theory has no direct applications, it is bullshit ? Did you know that we had to wait for the invention of GPS to find a practical application to Einstein's theory?
>>1355824
You are the one who initiated this bullshit rhetoric, now you try to turn it around?
>>1354826
Using artificial selection to breed different traits into animals and plants.
You don't need to know evolutionary theory to do it though.
Still a practical application of the theory.
>>1354532
Lol, who is the one who keeps posting all this cringey creation 'science' stuff on this board? How out of touch would you have to be to look at a poorly drawn comic, full of strawmen and misinformation and think:
"Yup, that's it that's the truth right there. Never mind nearly every biologist on the globe disagreeing with me. Never mind almost every fossil pulled out out of the ground corroborating or expanding Evolutionary theory. Never mind the evidence in our very DNA. No, no this art school reject for Arkansas has all the answers. See right here he quotes a bible verse about ignorance. All the proof I need."
I'm astounded people are posting these here. 4chan used to be a pretty young, and with it place. This is the kind of shit my grandpa posts on Facebook for a few likes from my extended family. I just ignore it there because hey, he's old and set in his ways but whoever is posting this shit is probably under 30. I'm amazed someone so young can have so little scientific literacy.
>inb4 micro vs macro evolution
Those are not scientific terms. Those are arbitrary separations created as creation scientists to be rhetorical terms. There is no cut off for biological development. Changing of the species happens fluidly.
>>1355706
>practical applications
Like eugenics? They bred a new sub-species of foxes in Russia to be docile and human-friendly. It was an old Soviet experiment that didn't have too many applications. They sell them as expensive pets to rich idiots. There's a few other examples like that.
As well most plants and farm animals are radically different from when we found them. We selectively bred them to be more serviceable to us. we changed their environment and they changed with it. Accepting that it's not hard to believe the same thing can happen naturally in a fluid biosphere.
>>1355863
Remember when this site wasn't flooded by Christianfags? Do you think they come from /pol/?
I just wish Hiroshima gets some balls and purges that shithole for good.
>>1355888
I post on /pol/ too though.
I never see shit like this there. It's only ever on /his/ that I see creationism/creation science threads. Along with Marxism threads. This board went south really fast.
>>1355863
I honestly just wanted to get a reaction out some people. I understand the concept and have a basic understanding of how the many processes work together. Funny part is, there are only two members of my family who understand how it works, the others want nothing to do with it.
>>1355892
Well the fucking gommies found an outlet here, since this board hates /pol/ with a passion
My broblem :D:D(an many others' I assume) is that I hate /pol/acks and redfags about as much
Why do you post on /pol/ tho...?
>>1355892
Partially my fault I'm afraid. I was testing the waters in differen boards and this one seemed to be quite habitable. Unfortunately, after my initial threads, other people started posting them. I am very sorry for bringing this plague upon you.
>>1355901
Because I'm a conservative?
Also meme magic and banter. If you're not afraid of confronting crazy conspiracy theories and people you disagree with it can be a pretty great vibrant board.
It's basically like what /int/ used to be but with more current events.
>>1355863
I agree.
>>1355907
Oh I see. American by any chance?
>>1355912
Nope.
Canuckold. Born and raised.
>>1355920
>the new Straya
You're cool tho. Me being Romanian whatever argument I make on /pol/ is immediately disregarded as "lel gyppo go steal copper". Which wouldn't be a problem since I freely admit to being a gyppo(I'm actually Ro/Hun mongrel) but in all honesty I have never seen one man spout a reasonably feasible plan on /pol/, ever.
>>1355929
I'd say /pol/ has about the same rating on the reasonable index as all of 4chan. That being nil.
Canada gets slammed pretty hard on /pol/ my Gypsy friend. We're full of far leftist cunts and shitposting immigrants Our shitposting and derailing has become so flagrant it's inspired memes like pic related.
>>1355941
Is it really true True Doh is an SJW's wet dream?
>>1354921
We have a lot of Baptists.
They are the worst aspect of Christianity. Every negative stereotype of Christians formulated in the last 50 years had been the direct result of Baptists.
They're like the friend you get into anime because you liked Akira, then you go to visit them one day and their apartment is covered in waifus and robots.
>>1355953
That sounds like it's your fault for actually liking Akira.
>>1355958
It's literally the only anime I've ever seen.
I like the music.
>>1355953
What the fuck is it about Akira that people like anyway?
Sure, it may have had its charm way back when but looking at it now the acting is all over the place, the story is meandering and the characters bland.
>>1354945
There's only evolution, dividing it in micro/macro is a creationist tactic.
>>1355951
Yes and no.
Everything he says sounds like a cheeto fingered Tumblr post but I honestly doubt he has any real power in the Liberal Party. He has such little experience that I doubt any of the seasoned political veterans in that establishment would take orders from him. He's kind of like a party face.
The kids love him though. Mostly because of his tumblrisms and general childishness. I'm in college right now and most of my classmates act like he's a fucking Kennedy. He's the quintessential cuck.
https://youtu.be/yZntyiqpWKw
>>1355978
Word of advice: don't use cuck again lad, it's overused and takes away from your argument.
But I get what you're saying. How was his dad, heard he liked to lick Soviet boots?
>>1355984
I gotta call a duck a duck. Trudeau is the mascot of the cuck generation.
When Trudeau Sr. was in power not wanting Soviets to die in nuclear hellfire was licking their boots. That being said there was literally no reason not to house US missiles on Canadian soil as mutually assured destruction would have obliterated Canada whether they were there or not. Either MAD worked in the end. WW3 didn't happen.
He softened relations with the Soviets and even shit on American policies in the Cold War and said they were a bigger risk than the Soviets. Which is kind of retarded when it was the Soviets breaking all the test ban treaties. He wasn't a bad PM and most of his economic polices were changed by Conservative blocs down the line anyway.
I'd say he left a mixed legacy. And one enormous cuckold of a son.
>>1355929
To be fair you Romaniams destroyed your reputation yourself through frequent anti hungarian shitposting.
>>1356000
You aren't calling a duck a duck by calling people cuckolds. You are either not actually aware of what the word means or you just don't care. In any case, the more you pepper your argument with insults, the less impact your actual point will have on people that disagree with you.
>>1355970
The whole point of my post was to illustrate that they are literally the same process since I replied to a post that made a distinction between the two.
Macroevolution is just microevolution + time.
Hence the use of "so called" microevolution.
If I failed at conveying that point then whatever.
>>1356000
his wife was pretty hot too, broheim
>>1356457
Not him, but you are one of the few actual cases who need to "take a look around and see where you are", faggot.
>>1354532
All 3 were pioneers in the fields they founded and their theories were revised and reworked by their successors until they are almost unrecognizable.
>>1356652
She looks pretty Southern European
>>1355984
>it's overused and takes away from your argument.
No it doesn't, if anything it entails everything wrong with contemporary society.
The word cuck is fine, it transcended /pol/ a long time ago.
>>1354833
I never got the school prayer thing. They do realize students can form prayer groups and shit?
Or is it that they want mandatory Christian prayers led by teachers and school officials?
Oh look another creationism thread.
Creationism is the most powerful weapon in Jewry's arsenal in spreading atheism and disbelief. Everything about the creationism vs evolution debate is misleading, especially the way it's framed to suggest that evolution destroys Christianity (it doesn't). Even the very name "creationism" and the way it's implicitly defined by the media is misleading. It falsely equates the belief that God is the creator with the beliefs of young earth creationism or YEC.
>>1354921
It's tent revival hysteria ⨉ anti-intellectualism.
>>1357273
Gotta build that scary-looking strawman somehow.
>>1354912
Not ex cathedra - it doesn't matter.
The only ex cathedra statements said that evolution is separate from the church and that it whether it happens or not doesn't have any bearing on theology.
Put in another words, Church has nothing to say about whether evolution happens in similar way it has nothing to say about how glaciers form or how stars work or other scientific theories.
>>1357297
How does it not?
The account of creation is a falsifiable circumstance and central to the beliefs of Christianity.
The only way to weasel out of it is to claim metaphor on something and say that some completely different chain of events occurred.
You continue onward and eventually reduce your god to an unfalsifiable particle that possesses the property of universe creation.
>>1357743
Christianity does not at all require YEC to be correct.
>>1355863
>any actual creationists being on 4chan
Well, congratulations! You got yourself caught!
>>1357748
The Baptists certainly think so.
>>1357748
It does unless you want to explicitly make the point that it's all a metaphor without any reason to infer it.
Creation is a metaphor.
The fall is a metaphor.
Jesus genealogy as given in Luke is a metaphor.
>You continue onward and eventually reduce your god to an unfalsifiable particle that possesses the property of universe creation.
While I find christians like you (Jewish conspiracy theories aside) far more tolerable than biblical literalists I still feel like I have to drive this point home at the risk of being called out on my obvious slippery slope fallacy.
>>1357921
Why couldn't it be poetic for some books, but literal for others. Remember, the Bible is a compilation of works made by many people spanning several millenia. There's bound to be some differences depending on who's writing.
>>1357947
Just seems like varying degrees of asspull to me, no offense.
Certainly various works differ in their writing styles but I'm at least fairly certain I'm not drawing from works that are supposed to deviate that far from reality in terms of their claims.
I mean Luke for instance is used as a justification for YEC frequently due to the rather lengthy genealogy going from Jesus to Adam (to god) but most would probably argue that the Luke-Acts books are literal, especially due to how much of the gospels Luke ended up assimilating because the synoptic problem is totally a thing and such a conclusion would end up invalidating them as well.
>>1357921
Seems more like an "all or nothing" fallacy. If one is like this, they must all be like this.
>>1355958
Akira is a masterpiece of animation you fucking philistine
>>1357991
He understood what he did at the time he wrote his account down. That's why I consider it infallible at the time of writing. Historical context is very important with some books. Stuff may become lost in translation due to a different translation or a different culture.
Remember, it's not all black and white. Don't be the fedora equivalent of a Baptist.
>>1357083
I know you'd rather simmer in your own retardation, but you can't ignore that he's right.
Freud and Marx and Darwin are all dead mainly due to improved versions of their theories.
>>1358018
This doesn't make sense to me.
How does a list of names get "lost in translation"?
>>1358082
Not that, just cultural stuff. Like how it mainly mebtions men when talking about homosexuality. A master and a slave could sleep together, but a master and a master couldn't.
I was saying that all they knew at the time was that specific genealogy and that's what stuck. The Bible isn't a science textbook for fuck's sake.
>>1355552
Yeah, they're pretty shit-tier
>tfw you live in America and your church is mainline protestant and not fundamentalshit.
>>1358006
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5ovSpS2GU
This thread gave me cancer.
>>1354539
snerk
>>1354545
Wow really makes you think
Look at all these idiot posts.
Christfags, all about their lies, unable to explain anything without using magic.
Same goes for Muslims.
Freud, Marx and Darwin discovered the truth.
And that just pisses off godfags.
Good.
Keep being willfully ignorant.
>>1358118
>mainliner
How does it feel to be a cuck?
>>1355876
Selective breeding existed long before anything we would call science existed, in particular it existed before Darwin's theory of evolution. Thus it is not a practical application of that theory because it did not require knowledge of that theory in order to selectively breed.
>>1355751
I'd say none, because those are culturally, and generally science tries to transcend cultural needs.
>>1359502
>>1355824
Not necessarily, but denying it's validity is not utterly absurd, because there is nothing you can point to which requires it as a supposition for it to actually work.
>>1360318
Would letting objects fall to the ground not be a practical application of the theory of gravity or the various formulas concerning that process (m*g*h for instance) just because it's happened before?
Does the process of oxidization possess no valid applications just because people have been burning things before we found out how it worked?
Etc.
>>1360333
What do you mean?
Breeding new animals or plants requires it to work.
Or at the very least it requires (more advanced) Mendellian genetics to work.
Medicine needs at least a rudimentary understanding of evolution to avoid antibiotics becoming obsolete.
And the field of systematics in biology and various other fields in biology become significantly more easy to navigate with the theory of the modern evolutionary synthesis being valid.
>Requires it as a supposition
Except there is plenty of proof for evolution.
Wow, this thread.
So much dumb shit.
That really rustled my jimmies.
>>1360325
> oh shit i cant think of counter arugment
> i know ill make fun of him for having a silly hat
You truly fucking suck
>>1359502
Here's a non fedora meme refutation.
Freud's shit is laughable and modern psychologists don't accept much of it.
"Christfags" vary from denomination to denomination, some unpopular ones rejecting the supernatural while embracing the historical Yeshua, and his supposed teachings.
Marx is a political prophet, and should not be taken as a scientists.
Darwin's alright, but biology has expanded upon and clarified his theories in the 150+ years since he published Origin of Species. While he is essential to popularizing the notion of evolution, his understanding was incomplete, and he was not the first to consider it.
>>1355953
Yup, they're all scammers.
In Latin America, there are many Baptist priests that have become millionaires from preaching to the stupid masses.
>>1358006
No, it's not. Spending a fortune to animate with extreme detail when you have a fortune to spend isn't special at all.
>>1355966
Cyberpunk aesthetics and god-tier animation. It's mostly a meme though, only people that aren't into anime actually have Akira among their favorites, unless they're huge cyberpunk nerds.
>>1361095
Quality post.
To expand on it, it's important to note that the concept of genetics wasn't known at the time of Darwin. It was only after Gregor Mendel's work was (re)discovered that genetics as a science started.
Wasn't most of the "he inspired the nazis" stuff actually from Haeckel? I heard he supported polygenism as opposed to monogenism which Darwin supported.
>>1354544
>Evolution = Paganism
>Evolution = Nazism
Literally what?
>>1363707
Baptists, that's what.
>>1361095
>modern psychologists don't accept much of it.
Having any of your work outlive you is fairly notable, especially for how coked up Freud was.
If that's your refutation... I don't think Freud comes off too badly, just unfortunate that he is so overrated/derided by pop culture for investigating hypotheses that won't be testable for centuries.
>>1360380
I wrote both of the posts you quoted so I will respond to both.
The questions you must ask yourself are the following. Do I need to understand this theory to be able to manipulate/control the processes it claims to describe? Does disregarding this theory render certain phenomena unexplainable under other models? If two theories can both reasonably explain the phenomena, which one would allow for better control?
The breeding of animals does not require any conceptualization of evolution. All that is necessary for selective breeding is for phenitypical expression to be caused by genotypical inheritance. With your fox example, to be able to breed aggressive or tame foxes is what is shown. What remains to be seen is that whether you could breed foxes in a certain way such that you no longer have foxes and gradually have wolves or something.
Antibiotics are destined to become obsolete. Lamarque was wrong. When we used penicillin to kill bacteria we are not forcing the bacteria to mutate in order to survive. No, we are killing those that are not resistant and those that are resistant are free to reproduce to a greater extant now that there is less competition.
>requires as a supposition
The theory of science must predate science if we are to ever understand what constitutes evidence for a particular theory, and whether that evidence uniquely supports that theory at the expense of other competing theories.
>>1354833
Eric Harris didn't even know what natural selection was.
>>1364138
>When we used penicillin to kill bacteria we are not forcing the bacteria to mutate in order to survive. No, we are killing those that are not resistant and those that are resistant are free to reproduce to a greater extant now that there is less competition.
Blimey. You're out of date with your Creationist propaganda. Even the people that churn out this bullshit have accepted that bacteria are mutating and have stopped peddling that line.
>>1364142
They claim that either him or the other kid were talking about some black kid who was playing for the football team and how he "didn't deserve that jaw that evolution gave him" and that they were gonna "blow it right off his face."
>>1355953
>We have a lot of Baptists.
>tfw raised in a Baptist family and went to a Baptist church for most of my childhood
Nothing makes me more sad than when my parents feel the need to stop what they're doing and rant and rave against evolution if it's even mentioned in passing. They're both fairly intelligent, rational people, but all of that goes out the window if something even comes close to contradicting their beliefs.
>>1364138
>Do I need to understand this theory to be able to manipulate/control the processes it claims to describe?
You should grasp Mendellian genetics at least intuitively.
>Does disregarding this theory render certain phenomena unexplainable under other models?
Yes.
>If two theories can both reasonably explain the phenomena, which one would allow for better control?
Modern evolutionary synthesis since that explains the phenomena best and is falsifiable.
>The breeding of animals does not require any conceptualization of evolution. All that is necessary for selective breeding is for phenitypical expression to be caused by genotypical inheritance.
Mutation is also needed to be considered beyond just Mendellian genetics.
>With your fox example, to be able to breed aggressive or tame foxes is what is shown. What remains to be seen is that whether you could breed foxes in a certain way such that you no longer have foxes and gradually have wolves or something.
Not actually my example but you'd never "Gradually have wolves" "Or something" might fit but a modern species does not evolve into another modern species unless you use ring species to introduce the new genome or something.
>Antibiotics
Of course those bacteria and their resistance plasmids would have likely existed prior to being dosed with antibiotics (Basically impossible for them to do so otherwise since antibiotics generally prevent that kind of gene expression) but they can still get better or worse at it through mutation, provided they survive the population being killed.
And if we use combined treatments of antibiotics and other procedures we're less likely to get fucked by individual bacteria with multiple resistances, either due to mutation or F plasmids so it's not "destined to happen".
>>1364138
I don't need to know about structural mechanics to build a small building, but it doesn't mean structural mechanics aren't valid or useful.
It's valid because there's evidence to support that our current understanding of structural mechanics adequately describes reality, and none to support it doesn't. It's useful because its understanding helps to engineer a more efficient approach.
>>1354879
"Micro-evolution", "devolution", and other pseudoscientific creationist terms like those serve only to justify creationism around the abundant evidence for evolution while pretending to disprove evolution.
"Yes, there's evidence that animals change over time, but, do you have evidence animals change over time?". "Micro-evolution" that you're describing is simply what we call evolution. Enough small changes can make something completely different.
>>1357732
Why is the bust of the ape green? I he made of some sort of radioactive material?
>>1366583
I honestly have no clue. May have looked better with the whole poster.
>>1366583
Yes, it's made of pluthomonium. It emits gaydiation
>>1354544
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15586723
>>1355552
I wish I could find an orthodox church near me to give it a try. I have only ever been to different baptist and methodist churches, with one catholic thrown in. ONE of the baptist church had very redeeming qualities.
