Evolution's gonna make a monkey outta you!
>>75239007
m8 it's too late for shitty bait like this
>>75239067
Didn't stop you from replying, did it?
>>75239136
You're right, I guess I'm a #hillarymissile now
>>75239007
>I don't want to be a monkey >.< !!!!
c h r i s t i a n e d u c a t i o n
Bump
Come on guys.
>He thinks his ancestors evolved from a rock
laughingwhores.jpg
>you cannot scientifically refute this picture.
>>75239007
Java Man was also a well known fraud.
>>75241650
Robustus was the last of its lineage that was snuffed out by Erectus.
>>75241650
sorry what needs to be refuted?
>>75239007
over 38% niggers in your demo stats
>implying you're not already orangutan mongrels
>>75239007
I'm not gonna believe in evolution until liberals start admitting there are different races again :^)
>>75241774
That this is, up to date, the scientific lineage of human evolution proven through fossil records (with a couple species missing in between)
>>75239007
>>75241957
>up to date
See this
>>75241764
refute this atheists
You literally cannot refute this.
> The idea of Science, is that every thing is possible
> Disagree with the Evolution THEORY
> 'Lol fucking retard.'
>>75242242
> The idea of Science is that every thing is possible
> People believe Science disproves God
>>75242016
you just refuted yourself christ cuck
you just showed everyone photographic evidence of evolution in progress
>>75242449
>Karl (((Sagan)))
>>75242449
There is literally no evidence for both sides.
> No God
> God
>>75242537
I respect him as a scientist, not as some idol to worship
>>75242630
I respect no cosmopolitan Jew
And don't think people can't be biased in Science because of their political inclinations
Why do you think we stopped believing in race last century. Superior evidence to the contrary?
>>75242560
If there isn't evidence for god, the assumtion tends to be there is no such thing.
>>75242713
Nah, scientists still consider race a thing, it's just that they keep it on the down-low to appease the libcucks.
>>75242733
Doesn't mean that assumption is any more true in any way shape or form
>>75241650
>you cannot scientifically refute this picture
Why does evolution make others disappear completely instead of staying in some places and perhaps even evolve differently?
>>75242733
Assumption and proof are two different things.
People that use Science and 'Evolution' as an argument against God are retarded.
>>75242769
Quite embarrassing that they even get outed for thoughtcrime in science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversial_Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Sale_of_Nobel_Prize_Medal
>>75242840
I doesn't, you just failed to understand it.
>>75242878
Doesn't seem too bad. I'm actually surprised.
>>75243062
Explain
> I don't understand the theory.
> 'Wuhhh dumbass'
>>75243174
> Multiple Million year leaps
What happened in between?
>>75243077
Doesn't seem bad that the co-discoverer of DN-fucking-A had to sell his Nobel fucking prize because he was squeezed out of his income for THOUGHTCRIME
THOUGHT-CRIME
In Science?
Think about that for a minute
>>75243221
Eating, sleeping, and fucking, just like their ancestors.
>>75243323
I mean in difference. There's a clear difference between the top 3. What happened in between that makes the top one look this way?
>>75243388
Small changes over millions of years. Remember, each one of these fossils is a snapshot in time.
>>75242840
You're an idiot. Let me explain this to you like a child because I really wasn't expecting a response that stupid.
>Why does evolution make others disappear completely
"evolution" doesn't. If a species cannot survive to reproduce, they no longer have offspring and their genes do not carry on. Those with favorable genes that help them survive do reproduce and their genes do carry on.
> instead of staying in some places and perhaps even evolve differently
This is what is happening. The species is no longer around and has *Gasp*... evolved into a scientifically distinguishable species.
This is a process that takes millions of years.
Microevolution is observable and factual. Macroevolution is a myth, a lie and a scam. Never has been observed.
I love how /pol/ claims to be redpilled and falls for the evolution Jew
Also I love how you can have an opinion on anything but as soon as you question evolutionary dogma you are considered a crazy.
>>75243481
Forgot the picture.
>>75243481
What do you think caused these changes? Look at the top 2, and the difference in shape and color.
Isn't every skull different?
>>75243485
> Evolving means the inferior species just dissapear without any evidence of them ever being there in the first place
Wew lad
> Find one skull that's older and a bit different than new ones
> WE WERE LIKE THIS BEFORE!
> Even though there is no evidence of transitioning
> Disagree with notion and theory
> Get called a retard
>>75243525
Mutations; also, the difference in color is due to fossilization, I don't know why they're using a modern African skull instead of Cro-Magnon Man.
>>75243617
>no evidence of transitioning
>>75242242
>still not understanding the difference between colloquial theory and scientific theory
>>75242421
>People think science disproves God
The chance of one existing, no. The chance of one having direct space magic influence, yes.
>>75243787
It "disproves" that kind of God and anything supernatural only by definition
Pic related
>>75243617
What? What the fuck?
> Evolving means the inferior species just dissapear without any evidence of them ever being there in the first place
Are you unable to comprehend information presented to you? There IS evidence there. The inferior species HAS disappeared, the evidence is the fossils, and it has been replaced with the superior species.
There is no set species "magically" dissapearing and another one taking its place. Evolution is constantly happening, and the animals with the more favorable genes fit for surviving breed more, and eventual replace the inferior species.
The answer is so simple. Please think before responding.
>>75243780
Explain the image.
>>75243969
> Please think before responding
I am thinking. I just disagree with the Evolution Theory.
> 'LOL CHRISTIAN FAG'
I'm not religious either. I lean more towards being agnostic.
Evolution is real, manmade global warming is not real. Is everybody happy now?
>>75244025
What does it look like to you?
>>75244094
Literally 5 skulls that are different from one another. It doesn't mean shit though.
Take 5 people and measure their skulls. All 5 are different in size and weight.
>>75244094
An arrow-shaped figure?
>>75244141
>Literally 5 skulls that are different from one another. It doesn't mean shit though.
Yes, skull sizes that show obvious differences in physically appearance, difference in brain sizes, and easily identifiable changes in teeth which show the primary diet.
none of it means shit.
>>75244094
What happened in the lines? Where are the skulls that proof the transition? How would one know that it's not just a skull that's misfigured?
>>75244141
The people are from the modern day. Each one of these are from different time periods and have been lined up in a chronological order from first to last.
>>75243893
>only by definition
Is this the best the British have to offer?
Okay then, provide evidence against the leading theories in, well, anything, and evidence, then, for divine spontaneous intervention. Oh wait, you can't. Because there is none. But I'm sure your viewpoint of "because it's really real guise I mean come on" is going to hold water with anyone with two brain cells to rub together, even if one of the cells is dead.
get a job faggots.
>>75244290
The fact that others like them have been found in the same damn area.
>>75244299
Where is the proof that they transitioned to one another?
> 'There's a difference in diet and shape'
Yeah you said that. That doesn't prove the transitioning though.
>>75244276
>easily identifiable changes
I guess it's just that obvious isn't it?
Case closed
>>75244094
Five different skulls, not an argument. Could be five skulls from the same time from different kinds of monkeys, some deformed skulls of animals that didn't reproduce, etc.
>>75244369
Still doesn't prove the transitioning. That they were found in the same area, actually dissproves that we all originated from these people.
>>75244290
>>75244290
Those ARE the transitional skulls, retard.
>just a skull that's misfigured?
There is a lot more to these fossils than just 'looking disfigured' that paleontologists look at that the layperson doesn't see.
>>75244375
That literally is the proof. What part of transitioning do you not understand?
That, by definition, is a transition.
>>75244421
I meant that in the areas that each one was found (ex. Australopithecus in Africa, and Neanderthals in Europe) you'd find similar remains from that strata.
>>75244290
I'm going to line up literally thousands of skulls on a picture to show every minute <1cm change for thousands of years just to prove a point, instead of pulling out those that only show significant cumulative changes to save everyone some time
It's not hard to understand. Why would you list hundreds of skulls transitioning from one form to the next in extremely tiny stages when you can just point out the actual significant changes in them? Are you trying to make a flip book out of Postit Notes?
>>75244485
> Let me just refrain to name calling instead
> You're a retard for disagreeing
> There is a lot more to these fossils than just looking disfigured
The image contradicts that notion.
> Those ARE the transitional skulls
There are huge differences in shape and tone. Not subtle ones. Transitioning means subtle changes.
>>75244334
>provide evidence against the leading theories in, well, anything, and evidence, then, for divine spontaneous intervention
Look at pic related again >>75243893 carefully, try to understand it (use google if you have to) and then define "evidence" for me
>Oh wait, you can't. Because there is none.
Even if I couldn't, absence of evidence =! evidence of absence
Informal logic 101
>>75244549
> I'm going to line up literally thousands of skulls on a picture to show every minute <1cm change for thousands of years
That would prove your theory. The images posted do not.
> I'll refuse to post evidence that make my argument stronger
Suit yourself.
>>75244375
>different diets and shapes aren't transitioning
What the fuck are you looking for?
>>75243119
A new species evolving doesn't require the extinction of its ancestor species.
Some do stick around in some places. Some do evolve differently.
>>75243504
>Microevolution is observable and factual. Macroevolution is a myth, a lie and a scam. Never has been observed.
This is bait, right?
>>75244640
> What the fuck are you looking for?
Subtle changes instead of huge leaps like the picture shows. Because that's what a transition is. And that's what evolution is.
The image could literally mean that one day, some one was a herbivore, and the other day, a omnivore.
>>75244684
> Some do stick around in some places
Where? No evidence of this is shown.
>>75244753
Are wolves extinct?
>>75244797
No they're not. But wolves aren't proof.
>>75244559
>The image contradicts that notion.
Only to a retard with no understanding of evolution. The image supports the notion.
>Transitioning means subtle changes.
Nope. It's impossible to find the bones for every point in the transition, because you would need a set for every year out of the millions of years at least. Every single species is a transitional species, including us right now. You must be trolling.
>>75244621
>That would prove your theory.
You don't know how proof works. Opinions discarded. Evidence isn't just what you persoanlly accepts as evidence.
>>75244718
Its because we haven't discovered the complete fossil record of man, and we probably never will. We have quite a bit of fossils, and that what we use to write the time line.
This "minuscule" change you hope to look for won't be found because the amount of fossils needed to be discovered would be astronomical.
>>75244718
Unfortunately, we don't have a boatload of homonid fossils just sitting around. They aren't easy to come by in certain places, Sub-Saharan Africa being one of them.
>>75244858
> We can't find bones that proof the transition
So it's fake.
> You don't understand the image
> Therefore you're a retard
> Opinion discarded
> Evidence isn't personal
Imageoftrash.png
>>75244912
*hominid
>>75244891
> We will never discover the proof of transition
That disproves the theory as a whole.
>>75244912
Again, it dissproves the theory.
>>75244929
Alright, show's over >>75244912, >>75244891, >>75244797. "I'm only pretending to be retarded" has played his hand too much.
>>75244965
We'll then, let's just throw out all the dinosaurs then, because we have very few complete fossils.
>>75245037
> I'm only pretending to be retarded meme
Thanks for contributing to the thread and the discussion at hand. You sure showed me off my wrongs.
Literally no one was able to supply proper proof. All called me a retard for disagreeing and I'm not even religious.
>>75244965
No it doesn't. Are you really that naive? Can you not look at evidence and come up with a conclusion? This is the most basic of problem solving. Its ridiculous the amount of Mental gymnastics people will jump through to try and prove a point. Its Ok to admit you're wrong sometimes.
>start an evolution thread
>it's not just racist bait
>mfw actual productive discussion with a little shitposting thrown in
I like /pol/ now.
>>75245075
Every day they find new evidence, dissproving the previous. 'Evidence' is nothing more than a momentary 'proof' that people use to contradict another 'evidence'. It's not even worth discussing really.
> 'T-rex and other dinosaurs may have had lips, new study shows
> 7 hours ago
>>75245114
early hour /pol/ is always like this
the retards go to sleep
>>75245113
My argument was that there is no subtle difference shown. Just 5 skulls that look very different from one another. People claimed that the 5 skulls 'clearly' show a transition, even though they're very different and even broken at some points.
Still no proof of the transition is shown. People have gone to name calling and banter instead of providing proof to defend their claims.
> Read: 'Evolution THEORY'
It's here to be proven wrong by a better theory and you know it.
>>75244583
>I can't use a fucking dictionary
Evidence, pulled directly from yout fucking God, Google:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Which is why we use axioms and observations to narrow down what is and isn't true. Just because everything is possible does not mean that everything is probable, and declaring that an entire system and all the evidence pertaining to that system is wrong in place of another system is going to need both evidence for itself and against its competitor being true.
>>75244621
>that would prove your theory
What we've already shown is a condensed version of that. You can't honestly expect anyone to compile hundreds of skulls and place them in order, show picture evidence of every change (I don't know how the fuck you're going to show 2mm more sloping of a skull on a camera) and then fit all of this on a graphic ready to post so that people would read it, when you can show the culmination of the changes and achieve literally the exact same result in an easy to digest format. You're acting like a child.
>>75244718
>I want to see small changes
They take thousands of years. Thousands. Thousands of fucking years of evolution is what you want to see? Do you think fossils drop out of the freaking sky?
>>75245275
More like "built upon" actually. Alchemy was proven to be bullshit, but it served as the basis for modern chemistry.
>>75244852
For some nothing will be enough proof.
Look at this guy. >>75243504
Willing to accept evolution happening before his eyes but in denial that is can happen over millions of years.
Have some more examples of species that appear not to have evolved from there ancestral forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
>>75245106
>All called me a retard for disagreeing
I did no such thing.
>>75245211
>'Evidence' is nothing more than a momentary 'proof' that people use to contradict another 'evidence'.
Baby'sFirstScienceLesson.jpg
>>75245214
And Europe wakes up.
>>75245275
>It's here to be proven wrong by a better theory and you know it.
Evolution 2.0 stronger and now retard resistant.
What do you expect it to be replaced by?
>>75245114
>actual productive discussion with a little shitposting thrown in
I don't think we're browsing the same thread.
>>75245275
Look, its very obvious you aren't understanding this concept. I'm not going to call you names, all I ask is if you respond saying you either "agree" or "disagree" with the following notions:
>genes can be passed down onto offspring (i.e you have a child and your child shares half of yours, and half of your partners genetic coding)
>within these genes, there can be random variables (Your child had a chance of being born tall, short etc.)
>with time, certain random variables could be beneficial to survival
>those with the beneficial genes have a better chance of survival, and have a better chance of living long enough to pass on their genes
Agree or disagree?
>>75245389
> What do you expect it to be replaced by?
I wouldn't know
> I didn't call you a retard
> Baby'sfirstsciencelesson.jpg
It's a shame because we're on the same boat here. I am willing to dissprove everything I personally believe in. I want to stay sceptical.
>>75245513
> Genes can be passed down
Agree.
> There are random variables
Disagree
> With time, certain random variables could be benificial
Agree
> Those with beneficial genes have a better chance of survival
Disagree (because there is no such thing anymore, with people)
>>75245405
I usually browse /tv/ & /v/.
Anything is more productive.
>>75245368
>>I can't use a fucking dictionary
If you want us to have a civilised conversation, then we first need to know what we're talking about
>the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Now define "facts" and tell me your standard for if whether a "proposition is true or valid" is
>Which is why we use axioms and observations to narrow down what is and isn't true.
You don't "narrow it down" insomuch as you simply define your standards for what you consider true and untrue
>Just because everything is possible does not mean that everything is probable,
You can't use probability formulae for everything m9, just so you know
It starts getting too complex at one point
>and declaring that an entire system and all the evidence pertaining to that system is wrong in place of another system is going to need both evidence for itself and against its competitor being true.
Of course, if we work within the same epistemology (knowledge system)
So first define your terms please
>>75245687
/v/ is cancer.
>>75245583
>> There are random variables
>Disagree
So there arent random variables when it comes to genes? How would you explain a man being born with six fingers?
>> Those with beneficial genes have a better chance of survival
>Disagree (because there is no such thing anymore, with people)
Yes, I understand survival of the fittest is no longer much of a competition in today's civilizations, but I am talking about the past, when survival was the only factor in life.
>>75245726
> A man being born with six fingers means that his genes were random
Genes are never 'random'. Not even a dice is 'random'.
>>75245726
> But i'm talking about the past
You should've said so before asking the question.
>>75245814
Well if you're going to boil it down to "nothing is random and everything has happened for a reason" then there is no way either of us can prove or disprove that.
>You should've said so before asking the question.
I figured you would have made that assumption, because we were on the topic of evolution.
>>75245514
>It's a shame because we're on the same boat here. I am willing to dissprove everything I personally believe in. I want to stay sceptical.
So what do you believe? It seems like you have more scepticism than is useful and won't believe anything.
You just criticise what others present when it suits you but ignore anything you don't like.
>>75245814
>Genes are never 'random'
Mutation and recombination are both random processes that change genes.
>>75245814
> Genes are never 'random'. Not even a dice is 'random'.
Now you're just being pedantic. You know what he meant.
>>75245939
> If you're going to boil it down to nothing is random
Funny how I literally said something completely different.
>>75245941
> What do you believe?
That every thing should be open for discussion.
If genes were random there would be people growing tusks and tails, maybe even beards on their asses. See my point?
>>75245978
> You know what he meant
> What he means and what he says are two different things. You are to blame for not understanding what he literally didn't say.
>>75246078
>If genes were random there would be people growing tusks and tails, maybe even beards on their asses. See my point?
>>75246159
> Memes
Great going.
>>75246181
Prove me wrong.
>>75245814
Go on then, how aren't dice calls not random. If it's unpredictable what the determined roll is then what is happening? You're pretty delusional.
"It's all fate." - Go sit in at home for the remaining days of your life then.
>>75246207
> How are dice rolls not random?
Because you can predict which one it lands on.
> You're pretty delusional
Fuck off.
> 'It's all fate.'
Literally never said that.
>>75246197
There goes the so-called "burden of proof" :^)
Netherbro is based
>>75246078
>If genes were random there would be people growing tusks and tails, maybe even beards on their asses. See my point
but... there are people who are born with tails.... and I'm sure theres quite a large number of people born with irregularly long ass hair.
Its like i said before, Its very obvious you don't understand this concept.
>>75245814
Genes can mutate randomly with respect to the overall goal (going towards a better fit person overall), which is what is relevant here. Genes can change to contain arbitrary information that didn't exist before (which can express itself in the resulting organism, which is then selected) and they can move around, pick and choose what information they change.
Sure, within a deterministic model of the universe nothing is random, but this is not what is meant. A random number generator; yes, its mechanics are inherently deterministic both on internal state and influenced by outside factors, but we call it random because to a computer program, the next number cannot be known and is as likely to be anything in the range the generator produces numbers.
>>75246197
You're automaticly wrong for shit posting a cartoon meme image, to which you simply identify, instead of actually making an argument in a civilised discussion.
>>75245691
>I literally can't use the dictionary 2.0
I'm talking to a fucking retard.
>You define your standards on what it true or untrue
Based on reality, cretin. These axioms are based on our observable reality and the trends and actions therein. The standard is always reality, for everybody, because everybody resides in this reality. If your statements do not reflect reality, then they are worthless because they are beyond our ability to observe, which puts them in the realm of infinity. Infinity is where literally anything can happen, so any statement made about it is both true and false, and therefore useless. This isn't even complicated, this is fucking common sense.
>probability formula gets too complex after a certain point
Which is exactly why as soon as the probability of something nears this point it is deemed extremely unlikely to be true. Which is why it's discarded as speculation.
>of course, if we work in the same systwm
Do you not live in reality?
>Inb4 what is reality
>define your terms
Use a fucking dictionary
>>75246257
No. No you cannot. You may assume it may be 1 between 6 but you cannot predict the outcome determinably.
Well?
>>75246330
> Randomly with respect to goals
That's not random. That's a gene doing what it wants to do. Like a muslim does in Europe.
> Let me just jump like a rabbit towards the train, instead of walking
That's not random either.
Evolution is ridiculous, everyone knows we were made of magic by a giant invisible space wizard. God scientists are so dumb!
>>75246397
Well? Where is your proof you're not retarded? Show me the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14jEhdqa5Z4
>>75246392
> But you cannot predict the outcome
Found an interesting article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/betting-physics-researchers-use-math-predict-dice-rolls-783055
Worth the read, my English friend
>>75245389
>>75244684
>not checking the flag
FOR FUCK'S SAKE
>>75246474
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
>>75246505
> Where is your proof you're not retarded?
I'm redpilled.
>>75246078
>If genes were random there would be people growing tusks and tails, maybe even beards on their asses. See my point?
You don't seem to have a very strong grasp of genetics or the theory of evolution. I suggest you go read up on the subject and come back when you know what you're talking about.
>>75246543
I didn't realise the Dutch were know for this sort of things.
Now I know.
>>75242185
>modern birds
>descendants of tyrannosaurids
>not maniraptora
>>75246576
Sorry buddy I didn't mean to ridicule your magical invisible space wizard theory, surely it deserves lots of respect and careful consideration.
>>75246576
That's a good summary of Creationist argumentation.
Tell me some more about you didn't come from no monkey.
>>75246609
That's not evidence. Show me the evidence.
>>75239007
>>75239007
evolution obviously true, however something, I don't know what, fucked with human evolution
The brain enlarging that much so fast should not happen naturally under normal circumstances
It's be like your liver expand 5-6 x and taking a long time to having massively useful benefits
To countering the calorie expenditure and water consumption.
Humans don't make sense
Everything else does though
Stop being a retard
>>75246529
>http://www.ibtimes.com/betting-physics-researchers-use-math-predict-dice-rolls-783055
All of which is nullified if I instead take the dice and throw it down some stairs violently into a bucket. So what, are you now to make a 3-D model based of my throwing technique? Well then I'll just throw it into a salad spinner or let my dog partially digest it and squeeze the die to the floor...
In your case they have made it non-random by treating it with parameters which are finite.
Give something enough variables and you'll have your random factor only because it cannot be modeled or reasoned.
>>75246379
>>I literally can't use the dictionary 2.0
>I'm talking to a fucking retard.
Dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all inscription of objective reality
Nor are they necessarily objective
You should know how they work
>>You define your standards on what it true or untrue
>Based on reality, cretin. These axioms are based on our observable reality and the trends and actions therein.
They are more often than not based on empirical definitions. But why would observable reality be the only reality?
Why would it even be necessarily real to begin with?
>fucking common sense.
"fucking common sense" isn't necessary objective sense
It would be "an appeal to the people"
>>probability formula gets too complex after a certain point
>Which is exactly why as soon as the probability of something nears this point it is deemed extremely unlikely to be true.
No, you little child, probability formulae would be useless at a certain point of complexity
>>of course, if we work in the same systwm
>Do you not live in reality?
>>Inb4 what is reality
>>define your terms
>Use a fucking dictionary
See my first reply at the beginning of this message
>>75246818
The only thing I believe without definite knowledge is the Bible
Why should I believe in a theory I don't understand, if it demands to be scrutinised to its very last piece of evidence, and to be replicated before it should be accepted?
It would be absurd
>>75246030
This started well, then turned into an atheist sperg.
>>75246397
Genes don't do "what they want to do", they have no sentience.
You continue to fail to understand my meaning. Put it like this.
A poorly educated man went fishing in Canada. The same day Canada inadvertedly goes to war with the USA.
What do these two have in common? Absolutely nothing, yet one influences the other. To the man who goes fishing, the action was random; he has no knowledge of the politics that went behind the event, or anything else. Perhaps it was another who went fishing and created a diplomatic incident which (bare with me) escalated to war. To the fishing man, the event is completely random, he has no way of predicting whether or not Canada would have gone to war. His actions may effect the act and vice versa, but the man has no way of knowing.
Genes use this to their advantage.
Let's put it this way:
An organism survives. Through chemical processes which can be argued to be deterministically affected by events in the organism's life, but all those effects blend in an otherwise unpredictable butterfly effect where even small events completely change the way the reactions occur.
This is what random is. Unpredictability. Especially when viewed from the pure perspective of what DNA is. Its information is not the only factor in the new DNA, and as far as it is concerned the factors that cause mutations for example are non-deterministic and about equally as likely every time the DNA reproduces.
>>75247266
Your loss XP
>>75246529
Sorry, didn't mean to come off so brash, take care fellow intellectual.
>>75247339
Maybe, I just like that webm
>>75247508
It is a funny webm
>>75246957
>dictionaries are not the be all end all of definition
They're a nice guide though.
>not necessarily objective
If there's a prefix, yeah. Doctor's dictionary will have a different meaning to the Engineer's. But we all speak English here, so we just use the English dictionary.
>why would observable reality be the only real
Who says it is? Who says it isn't? We can't say. We can say things about this reality, because we are a part of it.
>why would it be real to begin with?
I literally called it
How about you take a look at that dictionary again? Or better yet, Google it.
>common sense isn't objective aense
But it is common sense, and you appear to lack it.
>probability is useless after a point of complexity
Yes, yes, the chance of you being you being 1 in how many ever billions. That is why we look at the sum of the parts before we look at the whole, reducing the complexity. It's not entirely random chance.
>all I have is memes
Opinion discarded.
>>75243780
>humanoids have been infested with skeleton parasites for millions of years
WHEN WILL YOU IDIOTS WAKE UP
>>75249402
I knew you'd reply after I'd have left the thread :^)
>>not necessarily objective
>If there's a prefix, yeah. Doctor's dictionary will have a different meaning to the Engineer's. But we all speak English here, so we just use the English dictionary.
Still not necessarily objective
>why would observable reality be the only real
>Who says it is? Who says it isn't? We can't say. We can say things about this reality, because we are a part of it.
You keep talking about reality without even explaining what you mean my friend
There's no shame in admitting you don't have all the answers
Why don't we discuss something useful related to all this, like the fact that using DNA to study the origin of man has been all but banned because it's racist to prove that we didn't all come from Africa. Forget the truth, let's not upset the homo dinduiens.
>>75242840
It doesn't. Please read more science.
>>75239007
> You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
>>75242560
Not "God", evolution vs creationism or Intelligent Design.
>>75242713
There is no scientific theory of race, just bigots quoting (mis-quoting) haplo-gibberish.
>>75243221
Fossils were mis-filed due to poor pay in pre-modern times.
>>75243617
Evolution does not remove "inferior" species.
Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' does that, but species are not "inferior" or "superior" they are either more or less well-suited to the conditions they find themselves in.
You might consider fish to be 'inferior' to humans, but they do a lot better in the water than we do.
>>75246315
that one is photoshopped also give me a picture of a human with a monkey eye
Reminder that if ur not a creationist u look like him LOL.
>>75239007
How do niggers and other races relate do this debate??
Also, what about the 'out of Africa' theory' ??
Atheism doesnt exist.
Christopher Hitchens is dead
>>75246818
who the fuck does even say the earth is 6000 years
>>75243504
You can question it, but please do so using science, not the stuff we've seen in this thread.
We see macro-evolution in bacteria on very short time scales. Is that OK?
>>75251173
>he doesn't know what macro evolution is
Lmao
>>75251099
The only good Hitchens is a Peter Hitchens
>>75244025
Changes over time. Pics in columns are the same fossil.
>>75239007
>American education
>>75244718
Not one day to the next, no. Not as a species. A change in diet like that would have to be accompanied with changes in TEETH, and teeth are some of the best-preserved fossils we have of hominid evolution. But a progression of teeth isn't very meaningful to most viewers (incl me) so instead the much rarer skulls are used - and a lot of them are partial. But a lot can be inferred from close examination of fossil teeth. Read, please, some fossil references, say from Wiki.
Say guys... Can anyone here prove we were here BEFORE last Thursday?
>protip: You can't.
>>75244965
No, it doesn't. You have seen the fossil lizard-birds like archaeopteryx, I guess? We don't have complete lineages from the preceding forms to modern birds, either, but it is compelling evidence.
>>75251072
No answer?
>>75245275
Skulls are rare, teeth are better.
>>75251751
You didn't ask any good questions.
>>75251173
Is this is true why are there sttilll bacteria?
>>75239007
> Kent Hovind.
>>75239007
Evolution isn't a theory. Just ask my Boston Terrier.
>>75251883
Because they thrive in such form? The flu virus infects X million people a year, If this isin't thriving...
>I know virus and bacteria are not the same, I just didn't have any bacteria on hand.
>>75243787
It doesn't though and you are a retard for thinking it does.
>>75244753
Neanderthals, Homo erectus
