OK creationists of /pol/, I have a question:
What about evolution is wrong, exactly?
inb4 debunked arguments, "evolutionist", etc
Posted to /pol/ at the request of >7970706
>>7970706
>>69515867
prove it
>>69516095
I don't have to. The fossil record, genetics, observations, etc, already have. But, I'll bite.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14
Creationists are the reason we're sometimes afraid to be seen with you, burgers.
>>69515867
I think their argument revolves around "I simply can't believe..."
Which is odd, considering what they CAN believe!
>>69515867
>What about evolution is wrong, exactly?
how have complex organs and biological functions evolved? why hasn't evolution eliminated the appendix? or why hasn't it eliminated diseases such as cancer?
the main issue with THEORY of evolution is that whenever a point is raised that contradicts it, it's cast aside by a vague mechanism of natural selection
>>69516946
jesus christ this is a new level
>>69516095
>>69516435
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sZ2bQq4Hgmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
>>69517205
well fuck me
>>69516946
>how have complex organs and biological functions evolved?
Over long periods of time
>why hasn't evolution eliminated the appendix?
Because it didn't feel like it
>why hasn't it eliminated diseases such as cancer?
Because it didn't feel like it
>THEORY
wewlad
>>69516946
Of course there is still a lot we don't know and understand about evolution and just life in general. This is why it's still a theory.
However this theory will hold up more so than God when put to a debate/argument.
>>69515867
You all have it backwards. We are devolving.
>>69516946
>how have complex organs and biological functions evolved?
Bit by bit
>why hasn't evolution eliminated the appendix?
Yet. Also the appendix might serve a greater role than we thought.
>the main issue with THEORY of evolution is that whenever a point is raised that contradicts it, it's cast aside by a vague mechanism of natural selection
You mean soundly refuted with peer reviewed results of experiments.
>>69516557
^BTFO:
>>69517285
>>69516946
"how have complex organs and biological functions evolved?"
The same way everything else did.
"why hasn't evolution eliminated the appendix?"
We have many "evolutionary leftovers" in/on our body - most notably goosebumps.
"or why hasn't it eliminated diseases such as cancer?"
...are you fucking serious?
"the main issue with THEORY of evolution"
SCIENTIFIC theory =/= layman's theory
"whenever a point is raised that contradicts it, it's cast aside by a vague mechanism of natural selection"
Because 99.99% of the time, THAT'S THE ANSWER.
>>69517205
>https://www.youtube.com/embed/sZ2bQq4Hgmg
"You get your information from a book written by men you've never met, but you take their words as truth."
That's what religious people/creationists do. kek
>>69516946
>how have complex organs and biological functions evolved?
VERY slowly and with a lot of mistakes along the way. The evolution of the eye is supposedly a good, well understood case.
>why hasn't evolution eliminated the appendix? or why hasn't it eliminated diseases such as cancer?
That didn't stop most individuals from surviving and breeding.
The biggest weakness of humans is probably how dangerous child birth is for women, and how weak the newborns are for years. But we make up for it.
>>69515867
Its not wrong
Evolution disproves the liberal notion that all people are created equally and that evolution stops a the neck up.
No all species are equal.
>>69516946
>why hasn't it eliminated diseases such as cancer?
Go back to school mehmet
>>69518319
Wow. Underrated post.
>>69517285
>Over long periods of time
>natural selection favours adaptability and efficiency
>unless we're talking about generations of generations of useless mutations of other useless mutations which somehow lead to a useful organ/biofunction
>at this point natural selection immediately eradicates all transient species
>Because it didn't feel like it
hot argument
>>69517302
>However this theory will hold up more so than God when put to a debate/argument.
Disproving theory of evolution leaves God as the only possible alternative. So far, theory of evolution isn't particularly convincing.
>>69517617
>...are you fucking serious?
actually I am. Take for example three species. A zebrafish, a white shark and a human. According to theory of evolution sharks, white or otherwise, are genetically somewhere in the smack middle between both of these species. Yet sharks boast a phenomenal cancer *repellent* in the form of angiogenin inhibitor, which prevents the secretion of angiogenin hormone that prevents the growth of tumors and reduces the chance of existing tumors turning malignant.
If theory of evolution, along with its enforcer, the natural selection, favour adaptability and survival as the ultimate goal, why isn't this mechanism present in earlier or subsequent species? But if, like our leaf friend said here >>69518038 evolution doesn't care about diseases as long as the organism in question lives long enough to procreate, why did it create this mechanism in the first place?
>>69518461
I'm a baptized catholic. If we're gonna meme over here, there's probably a greater chance of Mehmet posting under French flag than under 40% Muslim - Bosnian flag
>>69518709
>I'm a baptized catholic.
Well memed my friend
>>69516946
>the THEORY
If you're a grown ass man and still don't know what the word theory means there is truly no hope for happiness in your life.
>>69518709
>Disproving theory of evolution leaves God as the only possible alternative.
Not necessarily. Another scientific theory would take place (if it were wrong).
>So far, theory of evolution isn't particularly convincing.
TO YOU.
>If theory of evolution, along with its enforcer, the natural selection, favour adaptability and survival as the ultimate goal, why isn't this mechanism present in earlier or subsequent species?
Because it just hasn't appeared in humans. Or, if it did, said person either A: didn't pass it on through reproduction or B: they died before reproducing.
>>69518709
Evolution is a process of adaptation. When you ask "why" did "it" do x you sound like a fucking child.
It doesn't have motivation. Evolution is not a being that decided to 'create' cancer for shits and giggles.
Cancer is a mutation of DNA. Why do some molecules combine to form an invisible, odorless gas that kills human beings instantly when inhaled?
Because shit happens. Evolution is an ongoing process and it's a process of ADAPTATION to your environment. To say "why is everything on planet earth not perfectly suited to one species right now" is to completely misunderstand evolution in the first place.
>>69518319
I've recently come to realise evolution is true. (atm I still believe in God as well as reincarnation and the immortality of the soul)
And you're right how can liberal atheists support the notion of all people are created equally? And why bring in inferior genes and cultures into the society?
>>69518709
>why isn't this mechanism present in earlier or subsequent species?
Evolution isn't a linear progression of ever superior organisms. It branches out. Some desirable features co-evolve in separate branches, some never do. Sometimes, arguably superior organisms die out because of unlikely, random environmental events.
>>69518709
>evolution doesn't care about diseases as long as the organism in question lives long enough to procreate, why did it create this mechanism in the first place?
By mistake. It's not like evolution has a will though. It's just a natural phenomenon. The world is hostile and dangerous. Making ever superior organisms is hard. Evolution fails all the time. The current organisms aren't the best that could be made, they are just the best that were made yet.
There is a community in the Philippines who live on rafts in the middle of the sea. They rarely ever set foot on land.
Over their generations they have developed the ability to hold their breath for vastly longer than any other human being when under water. When they do set foot on land, they feel sick and disorientated.
How can you be fully willing to accept that these people have been able to adapt to their environment in such a big way in just a few generations, but the concept of the same thing occurring over tens of millions of years is impossible to you.
OP here -
I find it funny that I posted this to /sci/ and got no replies. I post it here and I get fucking flooded.
>>69518709
Your question is basically "why aren't we perfect then, if evolution is so great?"
Because natural selection would have nothing to base selection on if everything was perfect, would it dipshit?
Look at the fact that the majority of creatures to have ever lived are extinct to demonstrate how poor this logic is. Evolution is not a ticket to perfection its an ongoing attempt to keep you alive, and it fails all the time.
>>69520062
Because sci is a board dedicated to science, not people who dont know anything about it.
>>69520283
Exactly.
>>69515867
Also, IIUC, the way we're arguing here is still as if we only had early to mid 20th century scientific knowledge (and were too drunk to remember most of it I guess). Evolution was already starting to be well accepted back then, but there were still doubts. But then a lot of statistical analysis was done on the genome and that pretty much proved it. I'm really no expert about it though...
>>69519440
>Because it just hasn't appeared in humans. Or, if it did, said person either A: didn't pass it on through reproduction or B: they died before reproducing.
>an incredibly useful mutation spawns out of nothing (in sharks for example)
>is continuously present in one genus for nearly half a billion years
>it never occurred in any other class, subclass, order, family, genus, etc.
>>69519675
I'm not talking about random DNA mutations, I'm talking about one genus' ability to seemingly overcome this most pervasive of all diseases, while no other species before or since has developed this mechanism.
Also I'm sorry about not responding in a methodical scientific manner on fucking 4chan. I'm typing this shit on the go, I don't have time to carefully evaluate every single phrase I use.
>>69520002
This is literally the worst argument ever. Go google Mal de Debarquement syndrome (MDD) AKA land sickness and then try to connect how a rare genetic disease could be omnipresent in a small islander community.
>>69520938
>is continuously present in one genus for nearly half a billion years
>it never occurred in any other class, subclass, order, family, genus, etc
Because it simply just hasn't appeared (that we know of) outside of sharks. That's it! It doesn't "disprove" evolution because a certain trait only appears in one type of animal, you fucking dumbass.
>>69521549
>incredibly complex organs like eyes or ears form
>spread to every subsequent species
>relatively simple hormone inhibitor that vastly increases an organism's chance of procreation *evolves*
>half a billion years later, hasn't spread outside of its original genus
wew
>>69522029
What are you trying to say?
