Do you believe in evolution /pol/? Do we share a common ancestor with potatoes? i'm being serious I don't know what to believe anymore...
>>55211987
You are an idiot
>>55211987
no. evolution is a blue pilled theory.
>>55212018
why am I an idiot
>>55212064
Sophistry. Your science teacher has been trying to hide that word from you. Look it up.
Is this really my long lost cousin?
>>55211987
>Do we share a common ancestor with potatoes?
Yes, very remote though. The last common ancestor of both plants and animals existed more than a billion years ago.
>>55211987
If you have an interest in the subject why don't you spend some time to research it? /po/ is not a science board
>>55211987
Have you heard of Kent Hovind, OP?
>>55211987
this desu senpai
evolution is the kikes' method of jewing atheists
>>55212569
/po/ is an origami board.
>>55212569
Actually, evolution vs creationism IS a political subject, since public universities teach one and not the other.
No. That's like saying that cats will mutate into lions and vice versa in 1 billion years.
What you describe as evolution is in fact slight chaotical genetical mutation caused by oxygen, chemicals, gravity, the environment or by the body itself without any external factors.
If evolution was real then specifics breeds of hamsters wouldn't die from drinking water.
Specifics mosquitos wouldn't die in 1 day.
Birthing wouldn't be so painful and incomptently engineered.
Urangutans would eventually evolve into humans.
Cavemen are their very own species differing from gorrilas, chimpanzee, monkeys.
But hey if anyone is bothered/triggered by being shamefully associated with apes, just know this:
You will eventually be capable of changing your DNA sequence and even implement new DNA and a new mechanic.
You should also know that mammals share the exact DNA but in a different sequence.
Which in theory should make DNA modifications piss easy once we reach it.
I beleive in evolution, but not in Darwinian one. The fact that it is being held up as the be all end all explanation of how we got here by th establishment, makes me think there might be more to this.
It's fucking 19th century science. ALL scientific fields got MAJOR REVISIONS because of quaint and laughable maxims held by learned men in those times.
Yet Darwinism is still going strong, with miniscule, irrelevant updates, all while ignoring the important unanswered questions, like what was the event which made us do an evolutionary jump in the span of 140,000 years, which up to that moment took billions and millions of years.
And no, i'm not talking about Annunaki here either.
>>55211987
Evolution is a lie. Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM
(if, after this video, anybody still doubts that evolution is a preverted lie, I'd advise them to watch any of the 50 debates between Hovind and University teachers about this very subject)
>>55212785
>>55213094
I sure as fuck hope he doesn't cite the any of the Testaments as sources.
I'm saying Darwinism is not completely legit, but its no reason to get silly.
>>55213094
>quoting kent frigging hovind
Holy fucking shit you are fucking dumb.
>>55213085
>events that cause evolutionary jumps
We actually have quite a few possible events that can cause that, a good number fall under what's known as "bottle necking" where the majority of a species is wiped out and the remaining group has some trait or groups of traits that then become a larger part of the species. As well, evolution doesn't have a set timeline that it has to operate at. For instance, a species which breeds faster tend to adapt quicker. Due to this it's better to discuss evolution in terms of generations when possible and not in terms of years.
>>55211987
I believe in evolution and will continue to do so until a better idea comes along.
>>55213094
Why would you even entertain the words of a creationist when considering evolution? Do you get your medical advice from a homeopath too?
>>55212047
And not using your brain too,
Go back to thoose books Son evolution is real and is not against the will of God .
>>55211987
>Do we share a common ancestor with potatoes?
Well, I have an Irish surname so I guess I do at least.
>>55213366
He is religious, and he talks about the Bible, BUT he doesn't use the Bibles "authority" to establish his arguments. He sticks to science.
>>55213419
Nice ad hominem, friend. Next time, try to argue something.
Anything.
>>55213587
Yeah, this is exactly the type of humming and hawing i'm talking about. You hit the nail on the head right there.
Weak as fuck deflections and conjectures presented as meaningful and proven facts.
>>55213624
I entertain good arguments, wherever they come from. Don't you?
>>55214320
Good arguments against evolution do not come from creationists.
>>55214801
Why? My experience tells me otherwise.
Is it Hillary Clinton's campaign that will denounce Hillary's actions? Is a company argue against itself for fraudulent actions? Will I incriminate myself in court? Of course not...
Besides, not all creationists are the same. This one, for example, was a biology teacher for 16 years. His arguments are scientifical, and as such they can be scientifically refuted or accepted. Who cares who he is? Find another guy with these same aqrguments, and I will listen to him instead. Who cares if he is a crationist, a marxist, a globalist, Caitly Jenner or all of these together? I don't, and you shouldn't.
>>55213694
evolution got proved wrong. BY SCIENCE
/rekt
Not after listening to leftists.
>believe in evolution
It's not a question of belief, it's logical fact. There are only three facts which together naturally imply evolution:
1. Heritability. That is, the offspring of an organism inherits traits from that organism. This is observable fact. Children resemble their parents. They may inherit genetic disorders as well as "good" traits.
2. Variability. That is, even though traits are inherited, offspring aren't 100% clones of their parents. Again, this is observable fact. Children share similar traits with their parents but aren't carbon copies. Mutations arise.
3. Survivability. That is, in order to pass your traits on, you have to survive to reproductive age. This is of course fact, you can't reproduce if you're dead.
Now, add in the fact that certain traits are beneficial to survival. That is, they confer some sort of advantage. We call this "evolutionary" advantage, because it makes it easier for the organism to reach reproductive age. Since this organism is more likely to reach reproductive age, it's more likely to pass its favorable trait to its offspring. Another organism with less favorable traits that is more likely to die before reaching reproductive age won't be able to pass those less favorable traits on. This is all evolution is. Traits that help an organism survive get passed on. This is just common sense.
Over billions of years this produces more and more complex organisms which are more and more adapted to survive.
If you disagree with evolution, you fundamentally disagree with one of the three facts above. If you accept all three, you have no choice but to accept evolution.
>>55213094
he might be true, but for some reason he seems gay to me and i cant tolerate those people.
>>55213094
>scientists don't have 100% of the answers
>therefore they must have 0% of them and are just believing in things same as creationists
okay
>>55216490
R A R E
A
R
E
>>55216500
I understand that feeling.
Well, he wrote books! Maybe he sounds less gay in them?
>>55216499
Listen, everything you said is factual and right, until "Over billions of years this produces more and more...". You can't reach this conclusion from what you said before. You see, You could also write "Over 6 thousand years since the Earth was created along with every specie that inhabited it (many of them now extinct) organisms have had variations WITHIN their own species, and these variations have never: a) produced a new specie; b) added complexity to a pre-existant specie (they only removed small, genetic-driven previously existing traits)".
As you see, this alternative conclusion would NOT refute any of those three facts you've mentioned.
>>55216499
So reductionist dichotomies are now logical facts? Whatever you say, compadre.
>>55216499
It's a well written argument. It's a shame that nearly everyone studying the field gave up on that argument ages ago.
Mutation just doesn't cut it. The mechanism isn't fully understood. Trying to claim it is only encourages the creationists by leaving holes in your position.
You end up trying to defend a flawed premise and aren't any better than them in my book.
>>55216899
That would be a very, very stupid argument. I agree.
I don't know why you're stating this. Are you implying this is what Kent Hovind is defending? Could you point me to the part of the video where that is being said? I'm sure I missed it, wich is kind of strange...
I find it extremely odd that EVERY SINGLE VERTEBRATE ON EARTH, has bilateral symmetry.
how the fuck is that possible? literally tens of thousands of animals and every single fucking one of them has 2 eyes, 2 ears, etc.
i'm calling bullshit on evolution, there had to be at the very least, some intelligent design going on.
>>55217733
that would be the best argument for evolution you retard, that or a very boring uninspired god
>>55211987
Evolution is not a belief system.
If you want to learn more, go pick up a book from the library and educate yourself. You can decide for yourself whether it is logically sound or not, but please don't try to adopt it as some sort of belief system.
>>55217973
Could you state one proven argument for evolution, then? One that does not imply belief?
>>55212181
Holy shit you're a faggot
>>55218094
No. Like I said, evolution is not a belief system. There are no fancy little arguments I can spout off to try to convince you. If you want proof, you are going to have to actually do your own research.
>>55211987
Evolution on a microscale is feasible.
If only smart people mated like hell, the population will generally be smart.
Tall people mating more will lead to a taller population.
Etc.
Evolutionary theories like humans being chimps millions of years ago sounds just as bad as religion.
>>55218176
I wasn't asking for "fancy little arguments". I made my research, and haven't found one.
And it seems you haven't, too.
Prove me wrong, please.
>>55218282
This.
And that is the reason why matting with chimps can only end bad.
>>55217733
Why fix what isn't broken?
Clearly it's worked well thus far.
>>55218176
evolution is as much a belief system, as global warming.
both are merely hypothesis with absolutely zero concrete, undeniable proof.
when aliens arrive with their millions of years long time lapse videos of life on earth, then maybe i could be proven wrong.
>>55218321
If you honestly have done your research and found it not to be logically valid, there's nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise. If the works of other men of science are not enough, there's nothing a random person on 4chan can do.
>>55218094
Evolution (a selection.pressure + mutation + time) has been observed in the lab and in nature. Once healthy reproduction becomes impossible speciation has occured as those genes cannot be compatible (all life is physical manifestations of genes).
Examples of speciation in human lifetimes: London Underground Mosquito.
>>55218282
There is no different mechanism between macro and micro evolution. Its simply categorical, speciation = Macro it happens all the time. Yes man and chimp had a common ancestor, like man and trees do.
>>55218672
>man and chimp had a common ancestor, like man and trees do.
No, that is only the prevailing theory from scientists, who also believe that there is no such thing as race.
There is no proof that we had a common ancestor with chimps or blacks or Asians. Look up the Darwin Dilemma. Modern animals all appeared spontaneously at once.
>>55216042
>le well spoken mechanical engineer, le paid anti European meme
>>55218829
More specifically, the cambrian explosion.
>>55218535
Yes, that is the case. For many years, I thought the theory to be valid. In these last few years, I examined it with a a much greater level of analysis and scrutiny. Now I believe it to be fundamentaly flawed.
I like science, by the way. I just came to believe that Evolution does not fit the criteria to be considered "science".
Maybe I'll change my views someday. Maybe you will.
>>55211987
fixed it for you
>>55211987
>believe
>evolution
>amerilards are this stupid
>hurr /pol/ do you believe in gravity?
>>55218985
Maybe so. Until that day, evolution is still the most logically sound theory available to explain the diversity of life on Earth. If someone comes up with something better I'd love to hear about it.
>>55218829
>>55218922
After every mass extinction event there was a multitude of new "modern" species.
There is a ton of evidence trying to piece the evolutionary gaps from ancient hominids to modern humans. The problem is the planet itself has changed as well and many of the pathways that ancient humans took to get to where they are no longer exist. Eg, Australian Aboriginals.
>>55213085
>like what was the event which made us do an evolutionary jump in the span of 140,000 years
Ancient aliens
Surely wet dust got all hot and bothered and layed with itself and that's where we come from.
>>55219142
>the most logically sound
Again with this conflation of reductionism with logic. This prostration between obsolete 19th century maxims is especially rich coming from LE EPIC SCIENCE progressives.
>>55219244
>just make up a random easting so it suits my shitty conspiracy theory
>>55219142
>I'd love to hear about it.
God
>>55219199
There was no mass extinction before the Cambrian period. In fact, there were no complex organisms at all.
In Darwin's words, "It's like someone just placed them there."
Darwin believed that the fossil records will be found in time, and some scientists still think they'll be found.
>>55218829
>appeared spontainiously all at once
> le race
Firstly: Bollocks, substantiate that claim.
Secondly:
Yes race is a social construct but the biological reality they describe is real, namely le Race is there to detact you from your real biological identity as a European.
A albino african is not a European. Europeans exist and Europe is their homeland; divergent evolution in Europe = Europeans.
"Race" is a ploy to replace real with imagined (eg: Eurooean with white, Africn with black) so an artifical identity is built to subvert the natural: This strawman is then burnt aka:
> le anti racist meme we all one race
And in the process those who fell for that kike ploy lose thier imagined idenitity and become:
>le global man
The fact you fell for "le white race" is hilarious, stupid European Goy.
>>55219361
I said logically sound.
>>55219432
God is logically sound despite what your fedoraic feelings may tell you, my dear angsty teen
If evolution is true, then why are there still single cell organisms? Why haven't they evolved at all?
>>55219244
Man, i still have to finish those Carl Munck videos, thanks for reminding me family
>>55211987
>believing single cell organisms, all in the same environment, can evolve in different ways and account for the literally countless amount of complex organisms in existence
ISHYGDDT
>>55218568
I'm sorry if I reproduce an answer that I read online, but it completely represents my objection to what you wrote: "Not long ago, evolutionists were astonished to find that bird-biting mosquitoes, which moved into the London Underground train network (and are now biting humans and rats instead), have already become a separate species.13 And now a study of house mice in Madeira (thought to have been introduced to the island following 15th century Portuguese settlement) has found that ‘several reproductively isolated chromosomal races’ (in effect, new ‘species’) have appeared in less than 500 years.14
In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that (downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesn’t need millions of years.
Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added." 1/2
>>55219420
>Bollocks, substantiate that claim.
No, you and your religious evolutionary zealots go find me a single fossil record pre-cambrian era that proves that those animals that appeared spontaneously evolved from something.
>>55219474
No selection pressure
>>55219381
The Cambrian explosion was half a billion years ago. Humans haven't been around that long mate. And you're saying only microevolution is possible? lel.
>>55219316
Explain how anything I said is "reductionism".
>>55218568
(cont)
"Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material. Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information.
The Biblical account of history not only accommodates such rapid changes in body form, but actually requires that it would have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. As the animals left the Ark, multiplying to fill the Earth and all those empty ecological niches, natural selection could easily have caused an original ‘dog kind’ (e.g.) on the Ark to ‘split’ into wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. Because there are historical records showing some of these subtypes in existence only a few hundred years after the Flood, this means that there had to have been some veryrapid (non-evolutionary) speciation. So it is encouragingly supportive of Biblical history when some such rapid changes are seen still occurring today.17 And this is being repeatedly confirmed. " 2/2
>>55219540
No, that's not the correct response.
The correct response should be "evolution is not the progression from simple to complex"
>>55219381
Sure, but there were massive changes to Earth's atmosphere which could have spurred on big changes which would be beneficial to the life forms.
>>55219142
The problem is that it is NOT logically sound.
>>55219592
Who says it was?
>>55219642
How do you figure?
>>55219661
I did, sarcastically.
>>55219576
Never read such a load of bollocks in my life re:
> le bible account meme
The bible is anecdote
Speciation has occured and will continue to do so and there are countless examples of genetic mutation even in humans.
There is nothing complex about:
Mutation, a selection pressure, time.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.
>>55219563
The Cambrian Explosion proves that spontaneous creation is possible, which could have happened to humans.
>>55211987
No, not macro evolution
I believ in some sort of a supradimensional civilisation/organization creating us through a highly advanced biomechanical fashion and will of the entity purchasing the order, i.e. duck billed platipus.
And that God or the demiurge came and created humans, or we are just a prison planet or/and caught in some soultrap that lures your soul back down to earth.
But I'm pretty sure Evolution through genetic disintegration i.e. mutations is wrong and just a babbie saying God is chance and gay.
What we all really gotta do is treat our kids well and give them all of our time.
Unless we shape up, the future will be bleak.
idk start temping(stay away from the niggers though)
>>55219680
Instead of having me pointing ALL of the flaws in ALL of the arguments that sustain the theory (Kent Hovind does a great job at that, if yu're interested, and can skip the religiosity parts - wich are not fundamental to his arguments), I would rather let you pick one argument for evolution, and we would look at it in detail.
>>55219519
>le argument from ignorance
>le shifting burden of proof
>le god of gaps
>>55216490
A wild Guadeloupe appears.
>>55219918
Nice attempt at dodging the question.
>>55211987
I believe in evolution. My high school taught creationism and I believed parts of it until 9th grade. I started realizing that, in order to answer the questions I was asking, my teachers were giving me half-truths and blatant lies, and in the end they were just conspiracy theorists. I found out that they were lying because I was really interested in creation science, so I started learning about it on my own.
>>55219925
It's not shifting the burden of proof.
Comparing the evidence from both sides, spontaneous creation sounds more likely.
Comparing the evidence, the evolutionary tree sounds like bullshit. It should be an evolutionary cone.
>Do you believe in evolution /pol/?
There's nothing to believe in. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. Plate some bacteria on a Petri dish and you can observe it happening almost immediately. Use house flies if it makes you feel better to work with a larger organism.
This is like asking if I believe that the grass is green or that 1+1=2.
>>55219834
I'm happy to agree with the definition in Wikipedia: Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.
Now, we should split it into two: Macroevolution and Microevolution (in doubt, you can assume I'm using Wikipedia's definition as well).
I state that only the second one is real and observable. You failed to give an exemple of the contrary.
As for the Bible being an anecdote, welll... that is your very own opinion, isn't it? And the argument isn't sustaining itself on the Bible, as you may have noticed if you read it interely.
But even if it iIS an "anecdote", what do you desagree with IN THE ARGUMENT I reproduced?
>>55219519
>spontaneously evolved from something
This is like a third grade-tier experiment. Look up what a "micelle" is. This was the foundation for the living cell. If you want get a glimpse of a micelle analogue in action, put some water on in a bowl and pour a tiny bit of oil into it. Notice how the oil droplets group up instead of mixing with the water. Congratulations, you're 1% less retarded.
>>55219978
Are you suggesting I should refute the entire theory of evolution? c14 dating? vestigial bones? fossils? everyfuckingthing? On a thread, on 4chan, now?
Are you le crazy?
>>55219610
Or we could have just appeared spontaneously.
After all, isn't it you evolutionary zealots who believe that something came out of nothing?
>>55219343
You can't be serious holy shit
>hurr durr COINCIDENCES
Yeah nevermind that it's 2 ciphers repeating fucking 31.1333333 holy shit.
Oh and also that IT'S THE EXACT FUCKING NORTHING FOR THE MOTHERFUCKING PYRAMIDS HOLY SHIT WTTFFFFF
For the entire fucking world??? The entire fucking world??????? And it's that??? Holy fucking coincidence man
Oh and btw i see that for the first time and just Google to check if the lightseed is correct and if the coordinates bring there...they fucking do.
And usually I'm not the conspiracy nut type but holy FUCKING shit
>>55220401
If you can, go right ahead. Clearly you don't think the entire thing is wrong, so if you actually have one or two things in particular that you actually disagree with feel free to list those off instead.
>>55220129
I think OP was mainly refering to macroevolution. You're answering to micro.
>>55220385
>This is like a third grade-tier experiment.
Like how you believe something came out of nothing ala big bang?
=)
Evolution is not a very credible theory. It's only accepted because scientists are starting with the assumption that a supreme creator can't exist.
>>55211987
they tryed teach us in evolution at piss swedish school, almost 20 people of us turned around to show we dont want this "science" knowledge because no knowledge is greater then the book
>>55220570
Big Bang is different from Abiogenesis is different from Evolution.
>scientists are starting with the assumption that a supreme creator can't exist
Scientists throughout history have worked to understand God's creation. This division of science and religion is only a relatively modern phenomenon.
>>55220492
Well, I do think that the entire thing is wrong. Of course not every observation is wrong, but every deduction (silogistic) that concludes with "proof" of evolution is. With this I mean that it fails the scientific method.
And no, I don't particularly disagree with one thing in the theory.
Btw, if you're not interested in discussing one specific "proof", and if you really want to understand the entire scope of the problem, I again recomend you Kent Hovind.
Btw, do you know Maxwell's Laws of Thermodynamic? Macroevolution violates the first two.
Here's a great discussion. Consider it an introduction, if you´d be so kind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-L60LJR0LU
>>55211987
>pol
>2015
>doesnt believe in gravity
>liberals ruining the world while the right consistantly delegitimizes itself
>>55220797
>Big Bang is different from Abiogenesis is different from Evolution.
Nope. Why do you think the cambrian explosion is called the evolutionary big bang?
Based on Atheist logic, something can appear out of nothing. =)
Of course, I know the correct answer. There is a supreme creator out there. No amount of euphoric damage controlling is going to change that fact. Oh, but do keep wasting money trying to find complex organisms pre-cambrian era. LOL
>>55221044
You don't disagree with any one thing in the theory but believe the whole thing is wrong? How does this logically follow?
I don't understand this "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics" meme. It makes no sense and belies an incredible misunderstanding of thermodynamics.
>>55213094
>Kent Hovind
Nigga you are quoting the same motherfucker jack chick has quoted
you are quoting a guy who's shitty research has forced chick to rewrite his anti-evolution comics 5 times because they were proved wrong
you are quoting the same dipshit who's thesis reads like a middle school paper with no good resources
your're quoting someone who thinks new guinea man is a ancestor
>>55211987
You'd be stupid not to believe in evolution
>>55211987
Fucking moron...
>>55211987
humans are perfect. other than polishing their already existing features (homeostasis, senses, reflexes), we cannot be improved any further. anything else would be degeneration, not evolving. something so perfect obviously has a creator, and cannot be a random series of genetic mutations to being that are barely self-aware.
>>55222226
note that i believe in evolution. i just do not believe that humans are a product of it.
>>55213094
And since you gave a video let me give a video or 2 back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XdvYgJzYh4
just watch the whole series
Hovind is famous for lying and misrepresenting information even other creationists don't like him
>>55220475
What?
What does 31.13333333 have to do with anything?
>>55220452
>appeared spontaneously
But there was life in the pre-cambrian just as there was hominid species before us.
>>55221044
>Btw, do you know Maxwell's Laws of Thermodynamic? Macroevolution violates the first two.
Ah its good to know your opinion comes from a place of complete ignorance and misunderstanding which explains the love for Kent Hovind it makes you all the more pathetic
>>55211987
you don't need to 'believe' in evolution. you either understand it or not.
evolution is easier to understand if you think about it in reverse.
is not that animals/plants adapt to their environment. is just that some don't die because of it. and those who survive get to breed. the new generation has to confront the environment and so and so, add a lot of time and voila! species.
it is useless to think of evolution as a development. evolution =/= more sophisticated. it just means fittest. some species get smaller or simplified and still are ahead in evolutionary terms because they can survive better than others in a certain niche.
evolution can be observed in short periods of time too. viruses, bacteria and even not so small animals. if you apply severe changes in the environment you will speed up evolution since only a few will be able to survive. so future generations will resemble those few who had the specific trait that helped them survive.
>>55222571
Precambrian layers were able to preserve soft-bodied organisms' embryos, meaning they should also be able to preserve hard tissues like bones and skeletal information.
In order for evolutionary religious zealots to be correct, they would have to provide fossil records of cambrian animals' predecessors, which haven't been found yet (They don't exist).
>>55211987
>Do we share a common ancestor with potatoes?
if you go back far enough
