/pol/ was Darwin right about evolution?
Half right.
obviously
Hypothesis: "can i find a single allel that contradicts the model of the theory of evolution?"
So far we havent found any.
he was right about a lot of things
>>66874998
He made a scientific theory before he had any evidence.
There is zero proof for macroevolution.
There is no fossil record to support it.
He took excellent observations and extrapolated them too far.
>>66875176
Weeeeell.... Sigh, that's just ignorant. Blacks did a lot of things before whites arrived. That's how whites found out about a lot of things to begin with.
>>66875326
Do the cucktrolls ever get tired of trolling? Do you faggots have anything better to do?
>>66875436
>Do the cucktrolls ever get tired of trolling?
Nigger, this is Sverige we're talking about. He/she/xir probably believes that shit.
>>66875326
What exactly? Subsaharan africa lived in huts and were hunters&gatheres when Europeans came there with guns. They didn't even have wheel, damn it. Only thing we can thank subsaharan Africans for is maybe some of their cuisine (I don't know how big of an impact it made in America desu) and their music was pretty lively. They used drums a lot more than we did.
>>66875326
Stop letting your bull post
Cont.
>your body relies on too many parts working together to expect them to evolve separately. your eye is completely useless without every part and so on. The animal that evolves one part has no advantage over another. There's somewhere around 12 different systems that interact to blood clot. Missing just 1 is a very very dangerous disease
>even assuming the age of the earth is 4.5b years, which is rather unreasonable due to the extreme inaccuracy of carbon dating after a few thousand years, there is not enough time to evolve anything. For a monkey to type the word "skeptic" on a 26 letter keyboard it would take approximately 8 billion tries. In darwins day when cells were literally nothing but goop this was fine, but today we know how ridiculously complex they are
Also if you believe in 9/11 or the moon landings, you're a cuck
>>66874998
Only somewhat related to the thread the other day i was thinking about the massive amounts of incest the occur in every species and what effect that might have on a species and it occurred to me that it's possible that limited inbreeding could help account for relatively rapid evolutionary changes as it would serve to reenforce existing traits within family groups making them more pronounced without those traits necessarily needing to serve an immidiate purpose, as those mutations propagate and become more defined however they may eventually reach a point where they do in fact offer an evolutionary advantage and the process of natural selection may begin.
>>66875653
>>66875436
>>66875176
What about Roman times and before then, faggots?
That continent has seen a lot of war and even more conquers. The past is written by the victor; who really knows what civilisations they may have had?
>>66875176
He didn't actually say that. The misattribution of this quote makes us look stupid. It's like how Bernie people blithely retweet Hitler quotes because some /pol/acks told them Sanders said them.
>>66876643
Darwin was actually very racist, look on google.
>>66876589
>That continent has seen a lot of war and even more conquers
No, you mongoloid. This only applies to northern Africa, sub-Saharan Africa hasn't seen any significant wars or conquerors until the colonial powers came.
>>66874998
Yes
We should kill niggers survival for the fittest
>>66876589
We actually know exactly what Africa was up to during Roman times. The answer is, not much, except for the North part that was run by Phoenicians.
>>66876700
Oh I'm certain he was, but that precise quote was not him.
>>66875326
>a lot of things
Such as?
>>66875326
So where is the evidence? Where are the monuments, tools, scriptures and cities in sub-saharan africa? Did the white man burn it all to the ground and didn't leave a single trace?
Highly unlikely. Take a look at central and south america: a lot of the cool stuff like Macchu Picchu is still there.
>>66876589
Europe has had a lot more war in her history, it's not even close.
However, you're right in a way because in recent decades it's a total cluster fuck off dictators, genocides and corruption.
>>66876537
A mutation almost always results in a loss of genetic information.
Mutations tend to be recessive, which is why it is discouraged to fuck your sister.
Diseases are not mutating and overpowering antibiotics, more accurately they are becoming "numb" to them.
Your theory is shit, senpai.
>>66876935
Actually I'm wrong, the genociding started when we moved in :^)
>>66874998
Darwinism is not right about the origin of the human species, but it might be partially right about other animals.
>>66877357
Here is merely SOME evidence (though DEFINITELY not ALL of the evidence) suggesting not only a human presence on Earth BILLIONS of years ago, but also suggesting complex human civilisations on Earth BILLIONS of years ago:
* A human skull fragment from Hungary dated between 250,000 and 450,000 years ago
* A human footprint with accompanying paleoliths (stones deliberately chipped into a recognisable tool type), bone tools, hearths and shelters, discovered in France and dated 300,000 to 400,000 years
* Paleoliths in Spain, a partial human skeleton and paleoliths in France; two English skeletons, one with associated paleoliths, ALL at least 300,000 years old
* Skull fragments and paleoliths in Kenya and advanced paleoliths, of modern human manufacture, in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, dated between 400,000 and 700,000 years
* Neoliths (the most advanced stone tools and utensils) in China of a type that indicate full human capacity, dated to 600,000 years
* Hearths, charcoal, human femurs and broken animal bones, all denoting modern humanity, in Java, dated to 830,000 years
* An anatomically modern human skull discovered in Argentina and dated between 1 million and 1.5 million years years (eoliths -chipped pebbles, thought to be the earliest known tools- at Monte Hermoso, also in Argentina, are believed to be between 1 and 2.5 million years old).
* A human tooth from Java yielding a date between 1 and 1.9 million years years
* Incised bones, dated between 1.2 and 2.5 million years, have been found in Italy
* Discoveries of paleoliths, cut and charred bones at Xihoudu in China and eoliths from Diring Yurlakh in Siberia dated to 1.8 million years
* Eoliths in India, paleoliths in England, Belgium, Italy and Argentina, flint blades in Italy, hearths in Argentina, a carved shell, pierced teeth and even two human jaws all bearing a minimum date of 2 million years (end of part 1)
>>66877386
(start of part 2) Curiously enough, several of the very earliest artifact discoveries display a truly extraordinary level of sophistication. In Idaho, for example, a 2-million-year-old clay figurine was unearthed in 1912. But even this discovery does not mark an outer limit. Bones, vertebrae and even complete skeletons have been found in Italy, Argentina and Kenya. Their minimum datings range from 3 million to 4 million years. A human skull, a partial human skeleton and a collection of neoliths discovered in California have been dated in excess of 5 million years. A human skeleton discovered at Midi in France, paleoliths found in Portugal, Burma and Argentina, a carved bone and flint flakes from Turkey all have a minimum age of 5 million years.
How far back can human history be pushed with discoveries like these? The answer seems to be a great deal further than orthodox science currently allows. As if the foregoing discoveries were not enough, we need to take account of:
* Paleoliths from France dated between 7 and 9 million years
* An eolith from India with a minimum dating of 9 million years
* Incised bones from France, Argentina and Kenya no less than 12 million years old
* More paleolith discoveries from France, dated at least 20 million years ago
* Neoliths from California in excess of 23 million years
* Three different kinds of paleoliths from Belgium with a minimum dating of 26 million years
* An anatomically modern human skeleton, neoliths and carved stones found at the Table Mountain, California and dated at least 33 million years ago
But even 33 million years is not the upper limit. A human skeleton found in Switzerland is estimated to be between 38 and 45 million years old. France has yielded up eoliths, paleoliths, cut wood and a chalk ball, the minimum ages of which range from 45 to 50 million years.
There's still more.
>>66877430
(start of part 3) In 1960, H. L. Armstrong announced in Nature magazine the discovery of fossil human footprints near the Paluxy River, in Texas. Dinosaur footprints were found in the same strata. In 1983, the Moscow News reported the discovery of a fossilised human footprint next to the fossil footprint of a three-toed dinosaur in the Turkamen Republic. Dinosaurs have been extinct for approximately 65 million years.
In 1983, Professor W. G. Burroughs of Kentucky reported the discovery of three pairs of fossil tracks dated to 300 million years ago. They showed left and right footprints. Each print had five toes and a distinct arch. The toes were spread apart like those of a human used to walking barefoot. The foot curved back like a human foot to what appeared to be a human heel. There was a pair of prints in the series that showed a left and right foot. The distance between them is just what you'd expect in modern human footprints.
In December 1862, The Geologist carried news of a human skeleton found 27.5 m (90 ft) below the surface in a coal seam in Illinois. The seam was dated between 286 and 320 million years. It's true that a few eoliths, skull fragments and fossil footprints, however old, provide no real backing for the idea of advanced prehistoric human civilisations.
But some other discoveries do.
In 1968, an American fossil collector named William J. Meister found a fossilised human shoe print near Antelope Spring, Utah. There were trilobite fossils in the same stone, which means it was at least 245 million years old. Close examination showed that the sole of this shoe differed little, if at all, from those of shoes manufactured today.
In 1897, a carved stone showing multiple faces of an old man was found at a depth of 40 m (130 ft) in a coal mine in Iowa. The coal there was of similar age.
>>66877468
(start of part 4) A piece of coal yielded up an encased iron cup in 1912. Frank J. Kenwood, who made the discovery, was so intrigued he traced the origin of the coal and discovered it came from the Wilburton Mine in Oklahoma. The coal there is about 312 million years old.
In 1844, Scottish physicist Sir David Brewster reported the discovery of a metal nail embedded in a sandstone block from a quarry in the north of England. The head was completely encased, ruling out the possibility that it had been driven in at some recent date. The block from which it came is approximately 360 million years old.
On 22 June 1844, The Times reported that a length of gold thread had been found by workmen embedded in stone close to the River Tweed. This stone too was around 360 million years old.
Astonishing though these dates may appear to anyone familiar with the orthodox theory of human origins, they pale in comparison with the dates of two further discoveries.
According to Scientific American, dated 5 June 1852, blasting activities at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, Massachusetts, unearthed a metallic, bell-shaped vessel extensively decorated with silver inlays of flowers and vines. The workmanship was described as 'exquisite'. The vessel was blown out of a bed of Roxbury conglomerate dated somewhat earlier than 600 million years.
In 1993, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson reported the discovery 'over the past several decades' of hundreds of metallic spheres in a pyrophyllite mine in South Africa. The spheres are grooved and give the appearance of having been manufactured. If so, the strata in which they were found suggest they were manufactured 2.8 BILLION years ago.
>>66877489
(start of part 5) What are we to make of these perplexing discoveries? They cannot simply be dismissed. If even ONE of these discoveries is TRUE (and I believe that MANY if not ALL of these discoveries are TRUE), then it changes EVERYTHING that modern mainstream anthropologists THOUGHT they knew about the human species. (end)
There are rarely so many proves to a scientific theory than there are for evolution it actually is beyond a shadow of a doubt true.
>>66877386
Michael Cremo?
>>66877512
Muh bible.
>>66874998
Yes.
>>66874998
You can see evolution even in humans today..
go to africa eat something you get sick pretty much instantly but not the locals you also get much easier sick than the locals.
It goes even so far that in regions with huge aids problems that the people there for the lack of better word have a much better "defense" against the virus.
So evolution even happens today in humans with all the technical wizardry.
The current step is actuall to take the book of our evolution in our own hands.
Designer babys already exist (pick color of eyes etc..) and gene modification will only accelerate in future.
So evolution is a fact and everyone that cares to look will see that.
>>66877544
Yeah, he's based as fuck and so is Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, John Anthony West and Robert Schoch.
>>66877512
Post proof.
Do it.
>>66874998
Right direction, this is why non whites are an inferior race.
>>66877800
There is never any proof for anything in science, only evidence. Science is always provisional.
>>66874998
>>66877758
That's called microevolution. Adaption. Your example is pretty shit, though, Darwin's birds are much better.
Then you go on to say that evolution will continue under a controller creator. (E.g. Humans) What.
Try a little harder, friend
>>66877963
Proven to be faked. The professor who made these was expelled from his unversity and renounced.
He took separate fetuses and chopped the bits off he didn't like.
The experiment was not duplicated until the 90s? I think and it was proven to be ridiculously false.
>>66877503
Your one and only example of humans existing billions of years ago in your entire 5 posts is from a book called Forbidden Archeology written by a conspiracy theorist which has long ago been debunked.
>>66877800
I already gave you a example with humans even today..
But to get a easy introduction you can watch this quick video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_jyHp3bmEw
It has also many examples that you can check yourself if you dont believe them.
>>66878101
No why would someone fake evolution , and if so who is to say what is faked or not today ?
>>66876734
Do you know who it was?
P I L T D O W N M A N
On the whole, yes.
>>66878517
I have zero interest in watching some nu male cuck
Give me the points
Your grasp on English is as poor as your grasp on science
Here's a tip: literally no one gives a shit if you find prehistoric lettuce
When you stick an orangutans jaw on a human skull? Grants and celebrity status out the asshole for forty years
>>66880197
Well the video for example explains your wrong thinking about humans and orangutans but since you dont want to learn nothing can be done.
Just so you get it.. its no wonder that if you dont even understand it that you cant come to the right conclusion.
Also it is not my job to try and educated a stubborn child that simply refuses to look at something because it might challenge their understanding.
>>66875176
You do know that Ghana was an extremely powerful trade ally with Portugal back in the middle ages and is one of the oldest cities? What am I saying, of course you don't.
>>66880892
The orangutan was a reference to piltdown man you uneducated cuck.
You've yet to come up with a single sentence other than nonsensical mangled English.
>>66875326
Their cultural influence can be seen in cities such as Malmö
