Reminder that Darwinian evolution cannot be explained logically and honestly without violating the every natural law in the universe.
xDD
How does it violate the The Law of Vibration?
>>81342884
K keep me posted
>>81343231
How?
>>81343390
Well with a actual argument that logically explains how evolution is false.
Darwin didnt get it all 100% but set the foundation for the undying mechanism's of life.
>>81343390
>>81342884
thats what i thought you fucking retard.
fuck off /pol/
itt: bad bait
inb4 evolution is paranormal.
>>81342884
It fuck with gravity?
>>81342884
reminder that you have been raped by a priest and your whole life is a lie, you will die and nothing will happen, cuck.
>>81347309
At least I haven't had a baby's cock in my mouth, you disgusting pedo.
>>81346140
You post a picture of something doing what it was designed to do and try to pass it off as evolution with no actual explanation of HOW it evolved? You're the retard.
>>81343856
Darwin didn't set shit. He even said in his book that if one thing contradicts his theory, then his entire theory is wrong.
>>81343856
>>81346140
You sat and waited 20 minutes to respond to a bait thread this obvious?
>>81347309
Joke's on you, I'm not mutilated.
Stupid goy
>>81347309
That picture is wrong. It's clearly stated that one second to God is 10,000 years to us. When it says he created things in 1 day it's simply a reference. The animals he created before men had millions of yers to evolve before the "next day".
>>81348592
wow it's like you are carving yourself into reasonable explanations to fit your theory
>>81348433
That diagram is wrong. It should be:
Conventional logic
>Here's a baseball. Someone clearly designed it with a purpose.
Evolutionist logic
>Here's a baseball. Clearly it took millions of years to evolve from a single stitch and has no purpose at all. And the fact that it goes so well with the baseball bat is clear proof of "convergent evolution".
>>81348971
"purpose" is a human made meme.
it doesn't exist outside of the primitive, limited human mind.
>>81349279
Right. Your eyeballs clearly don't have a purpose, do they?
>>81348064
>designed
>DESIGNED
LEEEEL
Religion is going to just keep taking the hard work of men and women who dedicate their lifes to undestanding the world around them just for some faggot at vatican to be like
mhmmm...makes sense.
GOD DIDDDD ITTT!!11111
And he could have, but no evidence of a creator so until then, ocams razer.
>>81349498
Evolutionary purpose exists for the sake of survival.
Existential purpose doesn't and in principle cannot exist, since existence in itself is the purpose of itself.
>>81349498
there terribly designed, i cant see more than 5 feet in-front of me and all humans cant see past half a km, so if they were designed, he did a really fucking shitty job.
>>81349662
Thanks for proving me right. Have fun posting your irrelevant images as if they somehow prove anything.
>>81349927
>ocams razer.
>Durr, one molecule, plus one molucule = functioning eyeball! See, evolution is simple!
>>81350063
>Damn you God for no giving us Superman vision!
That's not an argument, really. A "poor" design is still a design. And since everything entropy's over time, it makes logical sense that our bodies will become less optimal throughout the ages.
>>81350244
>>81350113
Learn how to debate, instead of nitpicking my arguments.
your the one making extraordinary claims, wheres your extraordinary evidence?
I know its bait but fuck it. im bored.
Most who believe in god are the weak ones who are too afraid to admit that nothing happens after death
>>81350438
I never claimed anything. My argument is that evolution cannot be explained simply or honestly, and requires believers to pull explanations out of their asses to make it look like they know what they're talking about.
The burden of proof falls on you to show that a brain, heart, ear canal, or a fucking strand of hair, can come into existence by accident.
>>81350802
>dat bait doe
>>81342884
can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis or w/e theories about the origins of life that there are, evolution is a fact get over it
>>81350960
Not an argument or a rebuttal.
>Le bait meme
Just go to sleep, anon.
>>81351036
You can't have one without the other. You don't get to say "This clearly evolved" without knowing how it all started in the first place.
>>81351206
evolution does not posit where life came from only the mechanisms through which it became more complicated, just because we don't understand what created the first cell doesn't mean you don't share 50% of your dna with a banana.
>>81350063
>>81350113
>>81350244
>>81350430
>>81350438
>>81350577
>>81350802
>>81350960
>>81351036
>>81351075
>>81351206
by the way look how you got cornered and didn't reply to
>>81349996
makes one think doesn't it
I wonder why he skipped that one
>>81351568
TLDR: false cause fallacy, abiogenesis does not cause evolution only thing abiogenesis has to do with is the origin not the development of life
>>81350802
Why are some Whales born with legs?
>>81350802
How do you know it was an accident? No evolutionary biologist makes such a claim. As far as I know, the origins of those have been explained and you can observe what older ear forms may have looked like with living fossils.
>>81342884
Yes yes of course very well, however...
>>81342884
D&C sage.
>>81351568
I'll be generous and let you have a cell (despite a cell being super-fucking-complex), how does a cell gain more information, process that information, and thus become more complicated?
>>81351719
Those aren't leg bones. They're there to assist with childbirth.
>>81349996
If evolution existed for the sake of survival, then why are some animals born completely useless, such as a guinea pig?
>Existential purpose doesn't and in principle cannot exist, since existence in itself is the purpose of itself.
Okay, nice philosophy. But I don't agree with it, personally.
>>81342884
>evolution is nonsense
>you see those sandpeople 2000 years ago were right!
Well ok then
>>81351840
as long as the replication method is damageable mutations can occur
>>81352140
"born completely useless"
not understanding filling in a niche in an ecosystem
>>81352140
the fact that the guinea pig was born in 2016 proves that it's survival worked thus far.
>>81351721
>may have looked like
>may
I'll let you figure that one out.
And fossils themselves don't prove shit. You don't look at an older ear canal and say that's how it used to be when the organism itself is completely different. That's like saying the human eye evolved from an insect's eye because one is bigger than the other.
>>81352140
Guinea pigs are heavily domesticated.
>>81352387
>not understanding filling in a niche
Sounds like it was created with a purpose. Hmm...
>>81352278
>replication method
How did that evolve?
>mutations can occur
I hope not. last thing any organism needs is a tumor or cancer.
>>81352557
"created" and yet you talk about violating natural laws oml
>>81352204
Nice strawman. I was wondering when he'd make an appearance.
>>81352734
assuming we have the first cell we have the first dna/rna w/e it was not a biologist that allows the cell to replicate (read stores information)
mutations=cancer you really are thick
>>81352140
>>81352734
>Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
>>81352936
>mutations=functioning heart connected to a functioning brain with no mistakes that would cause instant death
topkek.
>>81353377
not understanding the 2 billion years that it took to develop multi-cellular life nice strawman, explain why the nerve that controls your larynx goes through your heart creationist boy (logical fallacy: personal incredulity for those keeping track)
Do not indulge him
>>81352862
>strawman
You cannot argue against evolution as untrue if you want to use religion as substitute.
not understanding the 2 billion years that it took to develop multi-cellular
How?
>>81353721
>explain why the nerve that controls your larynx goes through your heart
I'm sure there's a definite purpose. Just because I don't personally know, doesn't mean no-one does, or that there isn't a reason.
>>81342884
>reminder that evolution has nothing to do with how life started
>>81342884
Because earth ain't a closed system. Hell, the entire fucking universe might not be a closed system as we know it.
>>81353723
Do you see the irony of your post?
>>81353921
I never once brought religion into this. Once again, evolutionists can't stand up for themselves without bringing the bible into it.
>>81342884
sage and report
>sage and report
sage and report
>sage and report
sage and report
>sage and report
sage and report
>sage and report
>>81342884
Kys pedo
>>81352457
Are you so dense you don't understand what a living fossil is? And no, it isn't. It's like someone saying "Our company has been doing the same thing for years" and then, looking at their track record and seeing it's consistent with the claim, assuming that, yes, in fact, the claim can be evaulated as true and what is being done is nearly the same if not exactly the same as what was done prior.
>>81354112
And there might be a God.
Extraordinary fedoras require extraordinary neckbeard.
>>81348592
So God made the plants, which survived millions of years without the sun. Right.
That's why I'm a creationist, because evolution doesn't fit with theology.
>>81354085
it's because we came from fish, look it up and "how" fossil record herp derp
>>81354303
Stand up for yourself, then. Get debunking.
>The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
>A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
>The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
>Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
>Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
>>81354363
You do know that your analogy includes intelligence and reasoning, right? Does evolution "reason"?
>living fossil
You mean an organism that contradicts the millions of years standpoint and remains unchanged? "We believed this creature died out millions of years ago, but here it is, alive and well. Clearly it just didn't feel like evolving all this time. Evolution is still true."
>>81342884
OP and every other religious individual, i'm going to explain something to you. This benefits you greatly, so please read and understand.
Even if evolution was completely disproven, it still does not prove your claims to be true.
Also
Bringing your own hypothesis to the table and just assuming it to be true to counteract science is dishonest. Why would anyone bother engaging you in any sort of discussion?
>>81354734
>So God made the plants, which survived millions of years without the sun.
Um, no?
God made the plants, which were fueled with the light of God, until God made the stars and sun.
>>81354821
>Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
>Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
>The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
>Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
>Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
>Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
>Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
>The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
>>81354736
>it's because we came from fish
Anyone who believes that is a retard. I'm sorry, but it's true.
>>81354303
>I never once brought religion into this.
Are there any other theories?
>>81355119
Why do you choose to take one part literally (God says "let there be light" and there is light, without the Sun, and then have God just sit around doing nothing for millions of years waiting for plants to grow by "guided" chance.
>>81355213
we have a common ancestor to fish, sorry but again logical fallacy of personal incredulity, honestly I don't know whether or not there is a god but evolution is a fact sorry senpai
>>81354821
>>The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes,
In an order we assume to be the correct
Other head and neck features also evolved.
Wow, is that proof or what? just saying it evolved is proof it evolved!
These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
Or they were designed for ramming.
>>81355191
>Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
>Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
>A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
>The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
>Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
>An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
>Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
>>81342884
What? Evolution is basically this:
>"Fit" individuals reproduce and propagate their genes
>"Unfit" individuals die without reproduction
>MFW OP is unfit
>>81355443
Because I don't believe God sat around for millions of years. Stop telling me what I believe.
>>81342884
Evolution theory makes no claims how the first living beings came into existence or how complex organic beings like the human body formed over time.
Evolution theory cannot be applied backwards in time, that means you cannot feed the theory with a state and expect it to explain how that state came into existence.
>>81355783
that's right only a book written 2000 years ago gets the privilege to tell you what you believe
>>81355213
It's stupid. If we had no eyes at one stage, why did we evolve them. What was the intermediary process between eyes and no eyes. At one stage - no mouth. Which came first, mouth, stomach, digestive tract etc. They all compliment one another.
You can't point at an adaptation and say "proof of all evolution" because most evolution deniers say "nah, that's proof of adapation and changes within specieis" which does occur (ie, you can make a liger, or a zonkey, or a pug, but it's not an example of evolution). If all the trees got taller, only the tallest giraffes would survive, and pass on their genes. But when the heck did they become giraffes in the first place? No evidence, no fossil record. Nothing.
>>81355511
>common ancestor to fish
I'm sure you believe we do.
What natural laws does it violate?
>>81355783
I don't think you know what you believe, since you are just picking and choosing. You probably also deny global flood, parting of the red sea and the other miracles.
>>81355661
>>MFW OP is unfit
Yet I have kids. Guess evolution is wrong.
>>81355629
Funly enough, yes. Evidence of something evolving is evidence of evolution
That might not be enough for you, so let's get to the fun stuff. Here's data on the connection between reptiles and birds
>Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
>Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
>Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
>>81355863
>>81355919
That's a better way to say what I was trying to say
>>81355982
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613133032.htm
I tend not to believe things because I'm told, strong fossil evidence and irrefutable dna evidence is what my opinion is based on
> NOT AN ARGUMENT
are you really giving up this easy, just let it go, I don't care about what you think about god but please the more you talk about evolution the more you make a fool of yourself
>>81355982
do you believe in gravity or?
>>81356133
>Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
>Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
>Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
>Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
>Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
>Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
>>81356063
No, I do believe in a global flood since we find seashells on tops of mountains, rock layers evenly distributed as if they were filtered in water, and animals buried with their necks bent all the way back as if they died drowning.
>>81355919
>Which came first, mouth, stomach, digestive tract etc. They all compliment one another.
Actually the anus came first. Sear urchin have an anus that functions also as a mouth.
>>81356538
How did the nerve cells and photoreceptors evolve?
>>81356533
Summary : Some birds are different to other birds. creationists btfo, how will I ever recover.
>>81356561
now you're arguing against tectonic activity just stop please stop
> necks bent all the way back as if they died drowning
> found in what once was muddy quicksand that things drowned it
stop
>>81356561
Why would the animals become fossilized in the exact position they died in, in a floor scenario? As soon as they died, they'd go limp and their necks wouldn't be stretched backwards as if to gasp for air.
On top of that, but why wouldn't their bodies be moved considerably from current in a large scale flood scenario?
Lmao you're retarded.
>>81356538
>>81356844
How, and why did any of it happen? There is a lot of stuff missing from that picture, and there is no evidence of that picture ever happening. It's a theory. It's like a bunch of keyframes that nature supposedly filled in. But no evidence. (the evidence exists only in your imagination).
>>81356533
>>81355629
We were also talking about Whales earlier, so here are the connections between land mammals and whales.
>Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
>Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
>Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
>Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
>Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990). An early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).
The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).
>>81356858
It was continuation of the previous post. The Protarchaeopteryx is directly connected to the Archaeopteryx by more than just the name
>>81352140
>guinea pig
they call it a guinea "pig" for a reason you mufti, it's a domestic animal bred to be eaten.
>>81350244
So, to start, evolution is essentially as factual as it's possible to get in science, it's natural selection that's a hypothesis. I can demonstrably show you evolution happening in a petri dish with bacteria swabs from your mouth and some antibiotics. Likewise, I can show you some animals and vegetables that have been bred to acquire certain attributes. This is all evolution, one is microevolution by natural selection, the second is macroevolution through choice, and both are proveable right in front of you.
Macroevolution through natural selection is pretty well founded and we have no evidence to the contrary or better ideas.
>functional eyeball
Happens over hundreds of millions of years starting with fish. All you need is a fish to evolve a photoreceptive cell out of proteins, and it then has an advantage over other fish around it (in that it can somewhat sense terrain, the presence of things that block it from a light source etc. etc.)
Gradually fish who have small indentation coinciding with their photoreceptor cells fare better, so survive more and have children, because as their cells are somewhat in a groove the light isn't coming from an entire 360° segment, but a much smaller segment, so they can tell the direction of the light somewhat too.
As time goes on, it is beneficial for the groove to become gradually more round as it makes it more like a pinhole camera that is much better at detecting direction, and the photoreceptor cells can cover the inside of the groove.
Once you have effectively a pinhole camera, anything that can generate some gelly tissue there will have effectively a lens, which focuses lower intensity light better.
And eventually when the edges of the pinhole have muscle strength they can focus that gel, therefore having a lens that can refocus.
All this happens over an unfathomable long time in tiny increments.
>>81354821
>>81355191
>>81355657
>>81356133
>>81356533
So much conjecture, speculation and guesswork, but no actual proof.
>New features included the loss of most teeth
Wow, evolution works in mysterious ways.
>>81356561
So why not believe in creation, since a lot of what we see in regards to earths age is due to the flood (ie, the stuff about seashells on mountains etc).
>>81348940
You took the words right outta my mouth
>>81353377
when a mistake forms that causes death that animal fucking dies and doesn't reproduce. the circulatory system works for the fact that if it didn't it wouldn't exist.
>>81356742
Sounds like an australian
>>81357272
so please present your theory, if it's better let us adopt it
also for the third or fourth time personal incredulity and ignorance aren't arguments they are logical fallacies
>inb4 well there's a book with all the answers
>>81356742
>>81356742
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You point to a single creature and say it has an ass as a mouth, and then say "anus evolved first", somehow linking the two things together in your mind, even though they are completely unrelated. I didn't ask how a sea urchin evolved an ass mouth. I asked how a complete digestive tract evolved, with every stage along the way working as intended.
>>81357161
>How
Billions of years of organisms trying to replicate themselves while suffering variation due to an imperfect replication and those who have the best variations suited to their environment living while the rest died.
>why
Why isn't a reasonable question to ask in science. Animals don't control evolution it happens independent of anything they really do.
> a lot of stuff missing from that picture,
No really. So long as you believe in two principles (1. organisms reproduce themselves and 2. the process isn't perfect.) evolution is agreeable.
>and there is no evidence of that picture ever happening.
The biggest example is every single year when influenza mutates and infects humanity once again as it bypasses our immune systems. It causes a lot of young and old people to die every year as a result.
>>81357072
>Why would the animals become fossilized in the exact position they died in,
That tends to happen when shitloads of dirt and earth is dumped on top of you, Butthead.
Let me ask you, why would an animal that died remain in that exact spot for millions of years, untouched? How did the bones not decay or get picked apart by scavengers?
>>81342884
Wouldnt the fact that we are related to chimps. And their is a whole bunch of species of apes, be enough proof of evolution?
To me its not that confusing. We are all related to apes. Our brains just evolved over thousands of years.
>>81342884
How about no.
>>81357272
Can you use a different flag when you make your next bait post?
Frankly it's embarrassing.
>>81357057
Noones arguing against tectonic activity. The Bible says "the floodgates of the deep opened up". The water mainly came from under the ground, in violent eruptions worldwide.
>>81357730
I thought it was a flood? Why is there earth and dirt being dumped on top of them?
>>81357586
http://quatr.us/biology/animals/digestion/digestion.htm
>>81357240
>All you need is a fish to evolve a photoreceptive cell out of proteins
Oh is that all you need, is it? Evolution really is that simple.
>>81357586
the anus and mouth are part of the same system, one is an entrance, one is an exit. in vertebrate animals, the ass came first and a mouth evolved after. In most non-vertebrate's, the mouth evolved first and the ass came after.
>>81357311
Because my beliefs are irrelevant.
>>81357724
>So long as you believe in two principles
So you have faith in things you can't observe. And believing makes it true.
See, I can observe God's handiwork, but not God.
You can observe adaptations but not actual evolution.
How is your method more scientific.
>>81357819
seashells on top of mountains came from floods therefore they wouldn't have come from the sea bed being pushed up as two plates say indian and eurasian collided so yes you are, they both can't be right
>>81357407
How did the circulatory system evolve without any mistakes?
>>81357272
Not an argument.
Here are the intermediate human transitional fossils, now with diagram.
>Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
>Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
>Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
>Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
>A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
>A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997)
>>81357161
Eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. Look it up.
>>81357311
I don't believe in creationism and the abrahamic flood for the same reason I don't believe that the people of earth are created from the blood of the grecian gods. It's bullshit pulled out of a person's ass to explain something we didn't have an answer for.
>>81357730
>How did the bones not decay
Please look up what fossils are and how they are typically composed chemically. You will be surprised.
>>81358024
don't go full retard aussie bro
> adaptations
> evolution
> different and not related
>>81358104
>transitional
Nice guess, faggot.
>>81358082
there are people born even today with circulatory system defects your argument is null and void
>>81358024
Let me rephrase then.
So long as you accept the reality of those two principles.
>>81358033
What? Are you saying that if the water came from under the ground, then it's not a flood?
So, in my understanding
> One landmass
> Starts raining
> Earthquakes and stuff
> Water coming up from ground
> Rain and Groundwater cover the whole earth
> Tectonic movement forces mountains up and water recedes under the earth and into oceans
> Receding water carves out places like grand canyon etc
Isn't that what you believe? Just over millions of years instead of months.
>>81357902
A flood like that would have dramatically displaced enormous amounts of land across the planet, covering animals and plants and preserving them in perfect condition.
>>81358082
the offspring that had mistakes died, the only path forwards was a functional circulatory system.
Human wisdom teeth in a few cases come in wrong and can actually cripple/kill people, without modern medicine these people would die before having children, or only one child. ergo, the genetic failures causing the shitty deadly teeth wouldn't be survive in the gene pool compared to normal and non-existant wisdom teeth. Do you see how this works?
>>81358024
You imply his handiwork and god himself. evolutions are essentially adaptations over time.
I love the argument of "micro" vs "macro" biology. Makes me chuckle every time.
>>81358504
>>81358504
So why can you only give an example of a shitty mutation observed, and not a good one.
Edit: So many shopfronts.
>>81358487
http://www.livescience.com/37706-what-is-plate-tectonics.html
read up a bit, ignorance isn't an argument and I don't believe it, it's demonstratively true
>>81358497
there's 0 evidence of a worldwide flood, please feel free to prove me wrong
>>81358274
Yeah, those are known as mutations and are generally a bad thing. However, you're saying that creatures would have had these circulatory system problems for millions of years before they "corrected" themselves.
>>81342884
You can fucking observe evolution happening today you dumb cunt.
You hear about how anti-biotics aren't working anymore? 99.99% of the little bugs that get exposed to the anti-biotics DIE and then they don't reproduce. But the 00.01% that LIVE, will reproduce, and all their children will have the gene that protects them from the anti-biotic.
That's why the anti-biotics don't work anymore. The bugs have mutated to be resistant to it, and this process of mutation is called evolution.
>>81358680
chuckle all you want. You've got no response to it. I'm right. You can't observe what you believe, and make your "evidence" fit your faith.
>>81358775
>Yeah, those are known as mutations
You'll acknowledge mutations but you wonder how evolution happens?
>>81358775
no what I'm saying is that the circulatory system is not some perfect miracle like you try and make it out to be, an argument from ignorance is not an argument
>>81358222
pic related
>>81358104
Here are some species that have arisen entirely in historical times
>A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
>Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991). A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
>Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
>Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
>The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
>Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).
>>81358745
I don't really care about proving you wrong. Believing in God isn't about having all the facts. If you can be convinced to believe in God by facts alone, you can be easily unconvinced. The Holy Spirit needs to move in you. One day He will :)
>>81358745
>there's 0 evidence of a worldwide flood
I did. Seashells on mountains, creatures buried in the throes of drowning, and evenly distributed rock layers. Also, the sea itself, if you want to know where the water all went.
>>81358873
Give an example of an observable mutation that is not bad. Quick, google it, since you don't know what you are talking about.
>>81358831
I'm sorry? Response to what? I'd love to respond to whatever you're confused about. You don't have to observe everything, but we can quantify things. How do you think we know how long it takes for planets to orbit around the sun? Can we observe one whole orbit of neptune in our life?
>>81358873
Mutations =/= onwards/upwards evolution. I said "bad mutations".
>>81359168
Already posted in this thread
>Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
Evolution violates the law of entropy, which says that all closed systems tend towards disorder. The universe as a whole is a closed system.
According to science, none of us should exist right now, but we do. This is because God's power alone is capable of violating the law of entropy which He created.
QED, atheist cucks BTFO
>>81359098
plate tectonics, uhm read anything about fossils, rock layers are not evenly distributed what?
>>81359168
there are dogs with a rare muscular mutation that makes them super muscly naturally herp derp
>>81359031
I'm not arguing for or against god, I'm arguing for evolution, a scientifically proven fact
>>81359168
Mutations that cause antibiotic resistance in pathogens like MRSA.
Fuck of slidethread.
>>81359168
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin-related_muscle_hypertrophy
A genetic mutation that makes you stronger. I do grant you that it is poorly understood and barely researched, however.
>>81342884
Argues evolution but will accept modern vaccines and antibiotics if needed to save his life. Which he doesn't know is created taking evolution into consideration. Kys
>>81359424
earth is not a closed system, we have the sun constantly supplying energy, check mate freshman physics student
>>81357948
Lol, faggot, yes that's all you need. Strong anthropic principle, retard, for your brain to be able to think about evolution it had to evolve in the first place.
You act like it's some crazy hard coincidence that within 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic LIGHTYEARS of space, across 14 BILLION years, it is so unfathomable that in a universe covered in protein of which we can demonstrate it's possible to have a photoreceptive function in a really small, basic configuration, that that would at some point manage to naturally occur.
If we had some magnetic sense (which we don't) you would be asking me "OH WOW, THIS MAGNETIC SENSE JUST RANDOMLY EVOLVED DID IT?", except you're not, because you don't have one. We have plenty of senses that didn't involve. Sight is one that we did, that isn't even really difficult, there are loads of pondscum shit-tier lifeforms that are practically not even life at all that have the ability to detect light, don't act like that shit is difficult.
If you're too retarded to understand science, the same thing that graciously allows you medicine, the internet, electricity, the ability to fly in a plane and drive a car etc, either sit the fuck down and listen to people who aren't as dumb as you when we tell you you're wrong, or go live in a cave and stop using our technology to spread your retarded sentiments as you cling to your imaginary friend.
>>81359340
So much emotion, so little evidence. It's so easy to get evolutionists butthurt.
>for your brain be able to think about evolution it had to evolve in the first place.
You are an absolute imbecile.
>>81359424
Earth is not a closed system.
>>81359349
>Mutations =/= onwards/upwards evolution.
No one said that they were.
>>81359168
yeah, nobody is admitting we know science completely. We can look up the information to accurately represent the point. If you can refute the point then the scientific community would like to have a word with you.
>>81359168
Here's another
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
A gene that allows adult humans to digest milk
>>81359399
>An experiment
So the proof is tainted by human interference and manipulation.
>>81359424
The universe as a whole can tend towards entropy, the Earth isn't the universe.
>>81359812
So you admit no evidence is good enough for you.
>>81342884
Go back to /b/.
>>81359812
By that logic, all science is fake and mathematics may be a lie.
>>81359168
Humans being the only living ape species to primarily walk upright allowing us to use our hands to tinker.
>>81359399
Since I hadn't heard about the experiment, I had to look it up, to get the gist of it. Firstly, humans are not bacteria, but secondly, one of the conclusions was
Nonetheless, the E. coli work has pointed in the same general direction. The lab bacteria performed much like the wild pathogens: A host of incoherent changes have slightly altered pre-existing systems. Nothing fundamentally new has been produced. No new protein-protein interactions, no new molecular machines…One of the most beneficial mutations, seen repeatedly in separate cultures, was the bacterium’s loss of the ability to make a sugar called ribose, which is a component of RNA. Another was a change in a regulatory gene called spoT, which affected en masse how fifty-nine other genes work, either increasing or decreasing their activity. [See Dawkins][1] Breaking some genes and turning others off, however, won’t make much of anything. After a while, beneficial changes from the experiment petered out. The fact that malaria, with a billion fold more chances, gave a pattern very similar to the more modest studies on E. coli strongly suggests that that’s all Darwinism can do. (Behe 142)
>>81342884
OP is the missing link
>>81359812
no experiment is valid
well I hate to tell you, you're posting on an image board made from an experimental system of tubes you idiot
>>81342884
Muhammad fuck off
>>81359812
If you're going to say shit like that then nothing will ever convince you and all this discussion is pointless.
>>81359442
>rock layers are not evenly distributed what?
PR
>dogs
Domesticated and specially bred by humans.
>a scientifically proven fact
Repeat the lie and you'll be convinced it's true.
>>81360001
tubes which happened to randomly come together over millions of years.
Or perhaps... they were designed that way?
Pic is best reply to this thread. Also useful for "flat earth" threads
>>81359424
LOL aside from you being wrong you're the one usually making shit pro-theist threads and bailing. How about you stay and learn something this time?
This is now a meme thread.
post memes
>>81360209
Computers don't evolve because they don't reproduce Ahmed
>>81360110
>Domesticated and specially bred by humans.
What does that have to do with the fact that beneficial mutations can exist?
>>81359603
>we have the sun constantly supplying energ
The sun doesn't supply energy, but destruction. It takes a specially created system like photosynthesis to process that light and convert it into energy.
>>81360357
How did biological reproduction evolve
>>81359791
Good thing God created that gene, eh?
>>81360584
Proof
>>81355919
>Using the irreducible complexity fallacy
As a Christian I am ashamed by your utter lack of research and understand. Please stop shilling your weak-minded, ignorant and frankly worthless ideas and arguments until you've actually done enough research to not make a fool out of all of us.
>>81359812
>There is a secret international group, that has existed for almost 2 centuries, who's goal is to influence and manipulate the observations of scientists.
Okay. Show me the evidence.
>>81359989
Bacteria are composed of cells. People are composed of cells. If DNA in cells is observed to mutate and change over time, we just call it evolution
>>81360469
>convert it into energy.
Sunlight IS energy. It's energy from an outside source therefore the Earth isn't a closed system.
>>81350113
>fish with lungs
>irrelevant
noice, Ahmed
>nothing is really true<
ITT godfags roleplay postmodern libshits this is new trolling everyone get in here
>>81359874
No, I'm saying if you claim something evolved naturally, then presenting something that humans have interfered and manipulated with to prove it, then it doesn't really count.
If you claim fish will walk out the ocean and turn into cows, then turn back and evolve into whales, I want to see it happen on it's own.
>>81359930
No, mathematics is probably the purest thing ever.
>>81359680
What did I say that has no evidence at all? The size of the universe, which we know is the life of the universe multiplied by the speed of light cubed. The life of the universe, which we have to a reasonable level of approximation.
And the principle that fact you exist in your current form REQUIRES all of your characteristics to exist in the first place. So when you say "oh wow, the sun is the right temperature for the earth, must be god" and we say "no, if the sun wasn't the right temperature for the earth you would never be able to exist in the first place, so you would clearly never be able to have that thought, you inbred fuck", that extends to evolution too.
If you picked any random planet at random and it just happened to have evolved sentient life and creatures with eyes, that would be a real fucking surprise, yes, given what an incredibly low probability there is for that to happen.
But when you have a universe that's so fucking big that the entirety of human existence is not even a smudge, not even a blip, just this miniscule, irrelevant sub-dot in the scope of not only the galaxy, but also the trillions of galaxies that make up the universe, across billions of years, to say "Imagine ONE of those planets had creatures that evolved eyes" is nothing.
It's like saying "Yeah, if I pick a random person, they're super unlikely to win the lottery." But it's not surprising when someone wins the lottery every other week - because there's so many entrants that it was bound to happen some time.
Yes, you are extremely lucky to have been born onto this planet that had this minute probability of bit of flesh that can name itself and walk around and see things existing, but as soon as that happens on SOME planet, the probability is already forgone.
At the point where sentient life ALREADY EXISTS, it is no longer surprising that those small probability things happened, because if they didn't, it would be impossible for you to think about it.
>>81360684
>As a Christian
Usually when people start a post like this, it means that they aren't a Christian, except in name only, and tend not to believe any fundamentals of the faith.
I don't need to make a fool of us. The Bible itself says that what Christians believe is foolishness to the natural man.
>>81360684
this is why I still have hope for Christians
>>81342884
Stop sliding.
>>81360947
doesn't address his fallacious claim, fuck this thread I'm out
>>81360684
>>81360967
Look, you got your approval from a euphoric fedora lord. You two need to go back to plebbit
>>81342884
Reminder that the UK is still having difficulty coming to terms with Darwin's evolutionary theories while the rest of the world has moved onto DNA and protein analyses.
>Stupid Christians, who created God?
>The energy for the big bang? I-it was always there!
In many ways I pity the atheist.
>>81350430
>And since everything entropy's over time, it makes logical sense that our bodies will become less optimal throughout the ages.
Is this that high quality British education I've heard so much about?
>>81361423
Hey idiot, it was a Brit (Francis Crick) who discovered DNA in the first place. You're welcome.
>>81360892
>If you claim fish will walk out the ocean and turn into cows, then turn back and evolve into whales, I want to see it happen on it's own.
Unfortunately, you never will, because fortunately, your dumb ass will be dead within a very short amount of time and luckily it won't continue to infect the rest of the human race with its shit-tier memetics.
You are too much of a shit-tier lifeform to live long enough to observe anything meaningful in this universe, and you therefore want to use that as an argument that you must be special and god exists.
Sorry bro, but the reason you can't observe god existing is because humans are shitting, wanking, disease ridden fleshsacs housed in by parasites, supported by a chunk of cortex that happily poisons itself with drugs that harm the rest of the shit attached to it so it can get through the day.
You are not special, you are irrelevant to the universe, everyone you ever loved and everything you ever cared about doesn't matter, and the reason you will never be able to verify anything of any real importance is because you have zero importance, you are a hormone driven monkey.
>>81360892
>I want to see it happen on it's own.
Do you not believe in history before you were born because you didn't see it happen over the years? How do you even know you can trust what you see with your tainted human perception? How can you say mathematics is pure when it's based on axioms we must assume to be true?
>>81361524
Are you saying that the energy that fuels our DNA is eternal?
>>81361699
I believe history happened, obviously, but when someone hands me evidence they've obviously tampered with and says "Here's how it happens in nature", it fills me with doubt.
>>81361423
I think we've come to terms with it.
>>81361521
The difference between science and religion is that science has no problem whatsoever to admit that it simply doesn't know.
Furthermore the big bang theory makes no claims of the origin of the singularity.
>>81342884
>creationists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJagd_vxuA4&t=34m18s
>>81361521
>retard tier non-physicist who doesn't understand how time works.
Ignoring the fact that time is just a quantity that we deduce from a change in entropy and anyone who thinks of time and some constant marching timestep doesn't understand shit:
You seem to be under the common misconception that the big bang was a bunch of energy blowing matter through empty space. It wasn't.
The principle of the Big Bang is that all energy at the universe was at a single point, and dimensions didn't exist. There was no length, there was no width, there was no depth, there was no time.
So there's no such thing as "always there". There was no time for it to be "always there". The big bang created time and space. It wasn't "always there", there was no "always". The big bang was the first thing that happened at t=0.
Likewise, if you imagine a balloon that starts extra cramped (imagine a balloon that was so tight it's basically a single point) and then you blow it up, if you look at any point at the 2d surface of the balloon, that point originated in the centre.
Likewise, every point in this 3d surface originated at the big bang, whether that be somewhere in America, Britain or Andromeda, every point in space was at the centre and has been accelerating away from every other point.
>>81362197
Ever notice that when one problem arises, another problem arises prior to that problem?
>We have evolution, but we don't know about abiogenesis
>We have the Big Bang, but don't know about the singularity
>>81362461
>all energy at the universe was at a single point, and dimensions didn't exist
If there's a "point", then it has mass and therefore dimensions.
>>81362101
lol, meanwhile in america
>>81361733
You mean the Sun? No it will die eventually. What's your point?
>>81363027
The sun doesn't fuel DNA. Ask the creatures that live their whole lives in the dark at the bottom of the sea.
>>81342884
Reminder that OP is a faggot and sage goes in all fields.
>>81362637
Lol, you are fucking retarded, gtfo.
A. Energy does not imply mass, that's why mass energy equivalence (E^2=m^2c^4*p^2c^2 (aka if you have 0 mass, E=pc, i.e. all photons, but the version dumbasses like you get fed is e=mc^2, which implies no linear momentum)).
B. A point is fucking zero dimensional dumbass.
0 Dimensions is a point.
1 Dimension is a line.
2 Dimensions are a splane.
3 Dimensions are 3d space as you know it.
And a point contains no properties. I can define any point I like, here is a point just in front of your screen > <, that doesn't imply it has mass, assuming there aren't any quarks/gluons/electrons directly on the point I specified (which there probably aren't), that is a nice chunk of space that contains no mass, and if it has no photons currently occupying it, it also has no charge, no anything, no discernible properties, nothing. It is just space.
>>81362637
In physics a point can have mass, but no dimensions. The best example is the electron.
As of now all experiments for measuring the diameter of a electron could not determine a lower bound on its diameter. I don't know the exact number of the upper bound, but it is ridiculously small so far.
The prevailing opinion is that an electron is a point.
A photon has no dimensions either.
It really annoys me that you never see the Argument from Computer Science in these types of threads.
Evolutionary computation is a thing, and it works. Solutions to very complex problems are found via completely random simulation. One specific method, the Genetic Algorithm, even uses the same metaphors, with DNA, mutation, crossover of two parents etc.
It's an absolute fact that evolution as a process works in computer simulations.
And then the question is, why would you invent some mystical explanation when we have a non mystical one that is known to work?
>>81361588
>conveniently leaving out of your narrative the 23 yr old boy-genius American experimental molecular biologist James Watson who did almost all the work
Try harder
>>81363164
Then where do they get it if not indirectly the Sun?
>>81363164
lol, there would be no sea if the sun didn't exist, only ice. The sea retains heat from the sun and grows plantlife from it. Those animals at the bottom of the sea get all their energy from the sun.
>>81363488
>It's an absolute fact that evolution as a process works in computer simulations.
Of course it is. You can program computers to tell you anything you want it to, given your input is based on your own personal interpretations.
>>81363389
>>81363027
>>81363164
>>81363610
You're right, actually. The sun doesn't fuel our DNA. We fuel our cells through Catabolism, and the Cell expresses our DNA
>>81363389
>assuming there aren't any quarks/gluons/electrons directly on the point I specified (which there probably aren't)
>>81363838
No, they don't. The sea doesn't retain heat when it's fucking ice cold down there, yet creatures thrive anyway. You're really twisting reality to suit your narrative.
>>81363914
lol, autistic because I stating facts from literally first semester of first year degree level physics when I have a physics degree.
Everything I posted is common knowledge for any freshman physicist.
>>81363963
>We fuel our cells through Catabolism, and the Cell expresses our DNA
Which came first, the DNA that made us, or us who fuel the DNA catabolism?
oh look another slide thread
evolution occurs through mutations adding to certain breeds succeeding at reproducing more in a favorable environment, and has been observed
It is not step one and step two there are thousands of steps and generations it takes for something to evolve over thousands, even millions of years
read a book
>>81364080
Do you know how fucking small quarks, electrons and gluons are? To pick a random point in space and expect it to coincide with any fermions is like winning the lottery a thousand times consecutively, and that's even assuming space is discrete and split into planck length segments.
>>81363963
and the energy required to do that comes from ???
We are sharing same ERV as some other monkey species. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses.
Retroviruses are infecting other cells by adding themselves into their DNA, and becoming a living part of it. Then they are replicating and sending further their "viral code" via proteins, so other cells can become infected with this "reprogammed DNA" (with virus inside). However, they can be tranfered into next generations by reproductive cells. For them, virus will be a whole part of their genome by default. That happened many times, fortunely for us most of ERVs are in hiatus, do nothing, or even are helpful somehow.
So the reason why we share some of the ERVs with other monkey species, even in the same spots in our and their DNA, is that our common ancestor got infected, then he brough it into his children with infected reproductive cells. Even if he is no more with us, because meanwhile he divided into more species, his legacy remained in us in our DNA, and that is why we know he existed.
Check mate. Evolution proved again...
>>81364227
You've completely missed his point which proves it desu.
>>81364080
Chances are there aren't. Atoms are mostly empty space you know.
>>81363389
>0 Dimensions is a point
How would you know?
>>81364171
Yes it does, dumbass, the entire EARTH retains heat in its atmosphere, in its magma core, through condution, through convection through the sea, just because there's no immediate radiation through there doesn't mean it's not warm.
You just said "it's ice cold". If it was ICE COLD, it would be LITERAL ICE. It's not even ICE cold, it's not even fucking.. cold! Lol. Ice cold isn't cold, it's WARM, space outside of the sun is -270°C, the fact that it isn't completely frozen down there shows that it's fucking warm there you dumb ass, if it was ice cold you couldn't even swim down there, it would be completely solid.
>>81358831
I'm still waiting.
>>81364337
>It is not step one and step two there are thousands of steps
So, step one, step two until step thousand?
>>81364619
Because it's simple geometry, it's like if I say "n+n = 2n" and you say "HOW DO YOU KNOW", it is a fucking geometric fact, not some scientific hypothesis.
Again, if you're too dumb to fucking understand even basic maths and science, stop arguing shit way above your head.
>>81364819
Go stand in a refrigerator all night and see how how your fares. Don't worry, it's plenty warm in there so you shouldn't worry about freezing.
Reminder that "god did it" is not a logical answer to any scientific mystery.
>>81365013
But seriously, how would you know for sure in physical reality when you'd need to be outside the system looking in to prove it?
>>81365304
Nor is "It evolved that way".
>>81364321
Our DNA comes first. When fertilization happens, a new set of chromosomes are formed. The newly formed cell begins reproduction, which lasts 9 months for humans. During this time, energy and nutrients are transferred to the child via a shared organ called the umbilical cord.
>>81364499
Catabolism is our body's process of breaking food down to it's molecular form, so that it can be used by our cells
>>81365530
>Our DNA comes first
How?
>>81365301
Except that I'm a warm blooded mammal whose thermoregulatory centre needs to maintain 37.5°C to exist and you're talking about a bunch of floor-licking cells that need some miniscule amount of energy to exist.
oh wow, bacteria can live in nuclear reactors and volcanoes, and I can't, therefore what? god exists? What the fuck are you even trying to say roflmao?
The fact that the sea is not ice at the bottom shows that it has a temperature of at least 273K, and therefore it has an energy source. And where is that energy source? A combination of, the core beneath it, which gets its energy through retaining the heat from the sun through conduction, and from the water above it, which it got from convection from the hot water above it, which came from the sun.
All energy that powers all life on earth comes from the sun you down syndrome numpty.
>>81365530
So it comes from eating animals (which get their energy from eating plants) or eating plants. and where do those plants at the bottom of the food chain get their energy from?
evolution is nothing but biological competition manifesting itself in the long term. winners expand, losers disappear. you have to be genuinely retarded to not understand this concept.
>>81365454
What? By definition a single point has zero dimensions. This is like saying how do you know for sure red is a colour.
>>81365518
Do you wholesale not believe in any form of natural evolution?
>>81365830
We understand the concept, but that's not what we see in reality. Strong organisms can die whilst the sickly can reproduce.
>>81365809
The Sun, did you fail 5th grade Bio?
It violates the categorical imperative because it basically implies might makes right, it is a perverted and amoral philosophy and it allows people to justify eugenics, war, genocide, and all matter of awful things. You can't be a supporter of Darwinism and also believe in objective morality without finding yourself in a contradiction.
>>81365751
Please read the post
>>81365809
You can also eat plants directly. Plants get their energy from a process called photosynthesis, where clorophyl in plant cells collect sunlight. This sunlight is used with CO2 and H2O to form simple sugars. Here's a diagram
>>81365855
We know red is a colour because we can see it. We can't know 0 dimensions is a point because we wouldn't be able to see it.
>>81357161
to start with why is a philosophical question and has nothing to do with science.
how it happened? it happened randomly. and that randomnes gave organisms advantages in reproducing. after 500 (maybe more maybe less i have no idea actually) generations that change maybe becomes observable and we can actually argue about it.
but nobody is ever there to say "wtf happened to this animal? it wasn't like this 4000 years ago."
>>81365454
What the fuck?
Dude, you are looking a 2 dimensional plane right now, it's called your fucking monitor. But how can you possibly know that? Oh wait, because you're fucking 3 dimensional, so you implicitly inherit all properties of 0, 1 and 2 dimensions.
You don't need to be "Outside" our universe to see 2d/1d/0d, you have to just not be an absolute retard. You don't even need to "see" it at all, you just need to be able to think about it.
And on top of that, an "outsider" can't "see" anything in our universe, all our "sight" comes from photons emitting around INSIDE our universe, if there was such a thing as "outside", you couldn't see shit inside it, it is a closed system of space, not a giant shape you can just look at. You seem to be doing this retarded thing again where you conflate our universe as some big old space in an even bigger space outside that can look in. That's not what it is.
>>81366038
Thanks for proving my point. Did you fail reading comprehension?
>>81366093
So the energy comes from the Sun, which I said several posts ago only to be corrected by you? Thanks for proving me right!
>>81366093
>You can also eat plants directly. Plants get their energy from a process called photosynthesis, where clorophyl in plant cells collect sunlight. This sunlight is used with CO2 and H2O to form simple sugars
How did that evolve. Seems really complex to me.
>Please read the post
I did and you didn't answer that part. You just condescendingly explained how babies are formed.
>>81342987
It violates that law the same way it violates your mom. With jackhammer tier vibrations. .
>>81366097
We know red is a colour because we defined it as all photons with wavelengths between 620-750nm, you don't need to see them to show that. Likewise we think magenta is a colour even though it isn't, because we "see" it, because our brain scrambles some information together. Magenta is not a real colour.
A point is 0 dimensional space because it is by definition geometrically and mathematically, you don't need to observe it to do that, and you can prove it by axioms too, just like you can prove 1+1=2.
>>81366143
>You don't even need to "see" it at all, you just need to be able to think about it.
You don't need to "see" God at all, you just need to think about him.
But seriously you're completely missing my point. My monitor is not 2 dimensional (there's no such thing as a physical 2-dimensional object in a 3D space, only in theory, like a draw circle). What I said was, if there are NO dimensions, then how can you ever know it exists as a point?
>>81366395
>Seems really complex to me.
That's because you are dumb, chlorophyll is a basic chemical, it formed through chemical reactions, just like all basic proteins, that's how it "evolved". Just because it's complex to you doesn't mean it's complex to evolve.
>>81366097
We know it does because that's what we define it as, you don't need to see the colour red to know it's not a sound.
>>81366395
>seems complex to me
That's just an argument from incredulity
Fertilization is how our DNA is formed. During the time that we are in utero, we cannot feed ourselves. Thus, energy for our cells to survive is transferred through the umbilical cord.
I'm genuinely not trying to be condescending man, you just don't seem to understand basic concepts of biology
>>81366331
Like I said, I'm trying to be plain as day. Animals at the bottom of the ocean feed off the dead skin cells of animals towards the surface, so saying all energy for life comes from the sun is technically wrong
>>81350577
Actually I was much less afraid of death when I was an atheist.
>>81366883
Show me how a basic protein evolves.
>>81367000
No it isn't "technically wrong" just because there are a few steps between the sun and the ocean bottom feeders.
>>81351568
A bike, a skateboard, unicycle and car all share wheels, doesn't mean they evolved from each other.
>>81364845
Maybe you should get a job or something productive to do. I had to go look after my kid and clean the house, that I own, because I have an education and job and was only wasting time on /pol/ until my wife got up.
>>81367000
Fertilization is when a sperm and egg fuse, right? But a sperm and egg already contains DNA. So DNA is formed by fertilization which already has the DNA to tell it how to fertilize?
>>81366770
Because we know plenty of things exist as points.
e.g. every fucking fermion that exists and are a prerequisite for your existence are points, and exist in point space.
The surface of your monitor is a 2 dimensional plane. A surface we can observe in 3d space is by definition 2 dimensional projected onto a 3d plane.
I can know it exists because it is covered by mathematical axioms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-dimensional_space
And these axioms, of course, require belief in induction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
But if you didn't believe in induction then the entire universe would be chaos, you wouldn't be able to say "I turn on a lightswitch and the light goes on", you wouldn't be capable of language, intelligence, maths, etc, it forms the whole basis of everything we know, and it demonstrably works in the scientific method in that planes fly, rockets go to space, medicine works.
If you aren't going to believe in induction and axioms then you may as well roll around in a foetal position in your own shit vibrating and gargling gibberish, they are a prerequisite to literally all human knowledge and the idea of knowledge itself.
>>81352278
99.999% of mutations are negative, usually cancerous.
>>81353721
Everything would have stopped dead in it's tracks due to death.
>>81367153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQZQiEdOPJY&t=1m18s
Basic organic chemistry, go watch a video, this isn't some mystical unknown information, you can literally get it very easily just by googling it and reading for 5 minutes or watching a simple video.
>>81342884
Do not be distracted guys.
Religious D&C is the oldest trick in the book.
By Darwinian evolution, are you referring to natural selection? If so, it can actually be demonstrated very easily. Look at sickle cell in Africa, antibiotic resistance in bacteria and so on.
>>81367668
>usually cancerous
Complete shit.
Your DNA constantly mutates and get repaired; ten thousand or more times per day per cell.
Cancer is the result of multiple mutations to specific cell functions that prevent repair and cause uncontrolled growth.
>>81367598
Yes, exactly. The 23 chromosomes present in sperm fuse with the 23 present in an egg to form a zygote, giving humans 46 chromosomes. During gestation, Glucose is transferred, instead of the child Catabolising food separately.
>>81367668
And things with negative mutations tend to die, things with positive mutations tend to survive better.
So even with a 0.001% chance as you're saying there chance of it occuring, if you have 100,000 cells replicate, that is a 63% chance of each good thing occuring (1-0.99999^100000). When we're talking cells that replicate every 24 hours across species of millions of creatures over millions of years, that's really not difficult at all.
>>81355661
Explain how every NEET on this board got here then?
>>81368271
>and get repaired
Good thing God created the means for our DNA to repair itself, or we'd be dead long ago.
God and science are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Big bang,origin of life = god everything else = science. Believing some sandnig book is not the wisest move in my opinion.
>>81368626
Why didn't he just make DNA that didn't get damaged in the first place?
>>81356538
Why before the eye has a use would it be of advantage and result in the creatures with what is at the time a useless mutation breed then?
>>81368368
Right, but we're talking about the origin of DNA itself. You're explaining a process that DNA can do, but not how DNA formed in the first place.
>>81349927
Ocam's Razor, huh?
You're pretty stupid.
How often do inanimate objects put themselves into motion and then organize themselves within a physical void?
>>81366770
>You don't need to "see" God at all, you just need to think about him.
oh and I covered your other point but not this one.
We can derive geometry from observation, mathematical proofs and axioms. The only way we can demonstrably detect god is some words in a book that were written by sand urchins hundreds of years after the events they write about.
What if i told you that something what you could call 'God' released the big bang and anything beyond that got created by coincidence and nature laws?
Am i retarded here or why is nobody liking this theory? Seems to be the most logical to me
>be weird matrix without time
>start existing
well..doesn't seem so logical after all..
Well nobody can say what was before the big bang, but the big bang and evolution is real, i don't know a single christian in germany who believes the earth is 6000 years old and god pooped out creatures on it, kek
>>81368846
>How often do inanimate objects put themselves into motion
literally all the time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
>and then organize themselves
They don't organise themselves, they undergo chemical reactions, mutate when they're hit with neutrinos etc. and over a universe full of shit constantly moving randomly, eventually the right chemical reactions undergo to create proteins which form the basis of all life.
>>81368807
He did, once. My PERSONAL BELIEF is that at one time, our DNA was so pure and full of energy that we could live for hundreds of years without aging. Then at some point, something happened to change that and now we're victims to the law of entropy and even our DNA is slowly breaking down one generation at a time.
That's how I believe humans will die - our DNA will become too corrupted to support life and we'll all die from mutations.
>>81368823
All those stages are useful though, they each give the organism more awareness of its surroundings.
>>81368132
This. Skepticism and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.
>>81368828
Shit, sorry, I didn't know what you were trying to get at.
This is still being studied, but DNA was most likely originally formed from RNA.
>RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
>believing in god,an all powerful force
>also believing that because he can /cannot be quantified in human terms he is also real/not real
Why are religious people and atheists so retarded?
>>81368871
Yeah, because we can detect that at some point inanimate objects moved and organized themselves into within a nonexistent physical universe, thus creating the physical universe.
lmao
>>81358104
They're only as different as the different races of today.
>>81369194
What is this belief based on?
>>81369174
Sounds pretty mystical, like some chaos into order type shit.
>>81369162
Isn't that deism? Where God set everything in motion and then just let it be.
>>81369162
The reason they don't like that is because they want an abrahamic god who apparently loves them, ensures they live in some immortal afterlife, and gives meaning to their otherwise demonstrably pointless lives.
It's clinging to fantasy because the reality isn't a nice idea.
A god creating the universe is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, e.g. the universe could easily be an experiment, a simluation etc.
However, we simply do not know and can never know what exists outside of our universeand before our universe existed, so there's no point losing sleep over unfalsifiable hypotheses. Instead we concentrate on what we can prove and find out, so we say "the big bang happened", we just don't bother trying to give a reason for why, because we know we almost certainly can never know.
>>81342884
>evolution cannot be explained logically and honestly
>without violating every natural law in the universe
How? I mean, Darwinian evolution simply states that something evolves over time to better acclimate themselves to an environment, or to achieve better success in some kind of way in said environment. You can see plenty of examples of evolution.
What you're essentially advocating is that Darwinian evolution can't be explained because there are missing links in the evolution of all sorts of creatures, and that's not particularly fair because you're playing ball by an arbitrary set of rules that essentially makes it impossible for you to lose the game.
Sciences of all kinds are hardly perfect. You won't live to see any of them perfected in your lifetime. In spite of overwhelming evidence that things like evolution exist, you still believe that it doesn't exist, and then in the same breath, you likely turn to the Bible for answers.
To that I say: Congratulations. You've played yourself.
>>81369174
Brownian motion is a result of heat, not spontaneous motion.
>>81342884
ever seen different breeds of dogs case and point
>>81369474
I just see people generally getting weaker and inferior to their ancestors. Have you noticed the lack of "manly men" and the rise of skinny metrosexual "nu-males"? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I think people from my grandfather's age would have probably wiped the floor with this generation.
>>81368271
If there's so many mutations regularly then surely we shouldn't see most individuals in a species being near identical.
>>81369708
>What you're essentially advocating is that Darwinian evolution can't be explained because there are missing links in the evolution of all sorts of creatures, and that's not particularly fair because you're playing ball by an arbitrary set of rules
>The Scientific Method
>Arbitrary rules
Fuck, you're as mystical and religious as a muzzie
>>81369162
The basic argument against it is that if the universe requires creating by a god, then why does the god not require creating?
It just adds another step to be explained, possibly even more difficult.
>>81369894
no the exact opposite
>>81369302
lol, again, you're showing your lack of any knowledge whatsoever.
Again, there were no dimensions, there were no objects, there was just energy, the very first thing that happened (before the concept of time existed), was that time and space were created, and as the universe expanded and therefore cooled, mass could form (and we know energy and mass are transferable, this is demonstrable).
There were no "objects moving and creating the universe", there was "a royal fucktonne of energy, literally all the fucking energy that ever fucking existed exploded the dimensions into existence". It wasn't ORGANISED, it was MAYHEM.
And everything has continued in mayhem. It just so happens that there's so much chaos throughout the vast universe that occasionally there's localised pockets of structure.
>>81370028
Your concept of God is flawed. If God needed creating, then he isn't God.
>>81369607
That's my thinking.
I don't get it, everything ranging from flower to animal is beautiful, it has a meaning in just existing.
People seem really scared of death, lacka purpose as you said in their lives.
Why not just accepting that you are, and if you are there is something that let's you are, some weird as shit 12th dimension matrix string theory vibrating field of weirdness, that could be god.
We are here because it wanted the universe to be here, like throwing a stone into an ocean and watch what wave it will create, 100% random, but led by natures laws wich are not random.
Weird shit.
>>81369950
>The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method doesn't say 'This hypothesis is completely debunked.' if all the evidence isn't there because it hasn't all been gathered yet. That's what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis, retard. It's the start of the scientific method.
>>81370028
That's not an argument, it's a question.
>>81370209
>like throwing a stone into an ocean
Who threw the proverbial stone that created the universe?
>>81370028
The idea would be that if God exists outside the universe he exists outside of time, and that means God wouldn't require being created.
>>81369721
Yes, but find me a single particle of matter that has its rest mass energy and no linear momentum and I'll give you a golden coin. We're talking about evolution, every particle involved in everything constantly has energy or it would be at 0 Kelvin. I mean, the background radiation of the universe is 2.7K, so literally all space contains some level of heat.
But on our planet there is a tonne of heat. Brownian motion always applies.
>>81370385
That something that was before the big bang, call it god if you want, but after that everything was flowing like an nice clockwork. No need for a god that would just go to an random planet and create life on it
>>81370118
Let me get this right.
You think:
So the Bigband did not disperse matter?
Matter magically appeared from energy.
And that the physical universe and all of it's order, like gravity, the orbit of planets around stars, and the life-cycle of stars, is all just a bunch of mayhem?
Is their a correlation between you believing in such magic and probably being a wizard?
>>81370739
>clockwork
Artificial construct
> just go to an random planet and create life on it
Dude...
>>81369894
98% of DNA doesn't code for anything and a lot of the functional DNA requires the input of several alleles to perform it's function.
While each new zygote contains about 100 brand new mutations, most of them either have no effect or cause very minor changes.
>>81369826
Nothing to do with changing social systems.
Nothing to do with environmental factors such as estrogen.
Nothing to do with a society of safety, technology, and abundance.
This two generational change has to be the result the law of entropy suddenly affecting humans when it didn't before.
>>81367401
Its Saturday, lol. I am being productive and i have a job. Is this your argument?
We are both "wasting time" on pol dumbass, lol. What a crazy series of non-points.
>>81370491
The pre-big bang universe existed outside of time, the Big Bang created time.
If "being outside the realm of time" is the only reason you think a universe needs creation, well congratulations man, because our universe doesn't need creation - there was no time before the big bang created it. It's literally the first event that ever happened and created time. There was no "waiting around to be triggered", there was no "waiting". To your human mind it might seem weird to try and imagine no time because everything you do is based on time, but I mean.. even within our universe your concept of time is probably pretty wrong.
Time doesn't even necessarily exist, we deduce it from entropy, it varies everywhere relative to everything else, some things never age because they're moving at the speed of light, things that move age more slowly than everything else, gravity affects time, there's no fixed timesteps etc. etc.
You're so used to moving through time at a practically constant rate that you think all the universe is confined to it, but it really isn't, the big bang created it, like it created space. Depth, length, width and time didn't exist until 14 billion years ago, and there was no time before that to wait in.
>>81369194
>>81369826
>I don't believe in evolution
>but I do believe in the idea that humans are magically deteriorating even though my evidence is just confusing different social and physical environments with genetic decay
In case you are actually being serious, then actually try reading up on how genetics work. It is a very interesting field of study.
>>81366174
plants generate food. sugar to be exact. before plants there were only cells. before cells it was only chloroplast which has its own dna and was a life form all by itself. living mutally with other shit formed more complex life forms. then came the cell. then came the plant.
>>81370175
>Your concept of the universe is flawed. If the universe needed creating, then he isn't the universe.
>>81370491
Just arbitrarily apply that to the universe instead of god.
It makes no difference.
>>81371104
>>I don't believe in evolution
>>but I do believe in the idea that humans are magically deteriorating
Yeah? Oh, is deterioration now classed as evolution?
>>81371099
>The pre-big bang universe
But wasn't the big bang the beginning of the universe?
>>81370911
everything is artificial then, even fucking atoms finding their way and holding themselves together.
What was before the universe is timeless, souless, mindless
It's an existence that can not be explained, because no time, no laws nothing, it just let the big bang happen, and everything and anything is still connected to it by quantum physics.
Even you and i, every atom is connected.
But this doesn't mean there is a god or afterlife, it just means that the universe is intelligent. That everything is like it should be.
>>81371191
The fuck?
>If your house needed creating, then it isn't a house.
Stop being stupid.
>>81371099
Nonsense. You're suggesting that things happen for no reason and without being moved by a higher power or force. Very irrational.
Name an inanimate object or particle or anything that moves itself.
Evolution is the basis from which all of mordern biology operates. Do you really think that if evolution violated some kind of natural law, or could be disproved by some retarded Brit with computer, it would still be used? Nevermind the fact that creationism, the "alternative" to evolution doesn't even stand up in court, let alone the rigours of science.
>>81371191
>Just arbitrarily apply that to the universe instead of god.
But the universe doesn't exist outside of time and we know it was created about 14 billion years ago.
>>81370743
There was no matter before the Big Bang, it didn't "disperse" it, it created space, and every point in space is still accelerating away from every point in space. As the universe cooled, matter could form out of energy.
It didn't "magically appear", energy can take point quanta forms, e.g. photons which are not matter, they're just small packets of energy. If you smash them into each other and they're high energy enough we can make mass.
I mean, we can fucking DO that at particle accelerators, we demonstrably know that, experimentally. This isn't some fucking magic, large energy can create matter, and matter can create energy.
That's why Einstein is famous, because he fucking showed mass-energy equivalence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
That's why you see E=mc^2 everywhere, as in, Energy and mass are interchangable (except that it drops out of E^2=m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 which is the proper formula, that formula is just for things with rest mass).
I mean, nuclear fission constant relies on binding energy being exchangeable with mass.
And, you think orbits are not mayhem? Planets smashing into each other, supernovae exploding? You think just because things form spheres that's order? Things being pulled towards the centre of shit is order?
Order is shit like sandcastles, which you make on a beach. Order is when the wind blows it over and makes it map to the edge of a sphere, that's what gravity does, that's what planets are. Planets are disorder.
And, life cycle of stars? You mean, a bunch of shit fusing and then supernovaeing and exploding shit all over the space and sending matter flying across everywhere? You fucking things that's order? roflmao. Are you high?
>>81371513
>But this doesn't mean there is a god or afterlife, it just means that the universe is intelligent.
>>81371465
Yes, which is exactly what I'm saying, all that existed "before" the universe (for the 1 planck time that it existed before the start) was ALL THE FUCKING ENERGY IN EXISTENCE, which IMMEDIATELY exploded the dimensions, and time, into existence.
There was never a waiting period. It was the first thing that happened, before time.
>>81371532
Why is the minimum required stack of gods one?
Why can't the second one by the god that doesn't need creating, while the first one did?
>>81371788
The current era started about 14 billion years ago.
We don't know what happened before that, if anything.
There might not even be a before.
>>81371547
>what is radioactive decay
