because physics and math are hard, so it's easy to get why you don't understand. evolution though is just common sense. if you don't get it you're a fucking idiot and deserve to be berated.

>but why do monkeys exist? why does my son look similar to me and doesn't have a large dick with wings that shoot knives? wouldn't that be an evolutionary strength?

>>7209768

That's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Thanks for that. Where do Evolutionists get the idea from that their subject is easier to understand than othet subjects and that it's somehow impervious to questions?

>>7209784
Evolution is not some highly theoretical phenomenon which requires years of study to barely grasp. It can be explained with hardly any technical terms to fucking children.

>>7209808

Except it is. If you think we fully understand evolution you're an absolute idiot.

>>7209843
No I don't think that. I'm saying you can roughly explain how evolution works without any hassle in a way most people understand.

>>7209848

And that's not the point. The point is that if people ask questions that go beyond basic understanding instead of trying to explain things evolutionists will just insult people instead of answering anything like any other scientist would do

>>7209852
Because anything beyond basic understanding in ANY science is also beyond a layman's capabilities.

>>7209758
>I don't understand evolution. Why are there only complete species and no inbetween incomplete species? Where are the links between the species?
>WOW YOU FUCKING IDIOT GO READ A BOOK. THERE ARE FOSSILS THAT PROVE EVOLUTION. DON'T COME BACK UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU MOUTHBREATHING RETARD
>Well fuck you, too
maybe you should speak with kind persons, not some random assholes. any fossilic evidence comes from a once-whole animal, imcomplete species would be no real existing animals. every individual animal is a transition state to the next, and only gradually, another species occur.

>>7209860

No it's not. Every question has an answer. If you can't answer the question, then the truth simply is that you don't know the answer. It doesn't matter if the person asking the question is a layman.

Your implication is that a layman is incapable of learning anything ever

>>7209875
You're so hilariously wrong. If teaching was that easy everyone would be a polymath.

>>7209883

Not answering a question because you decide beforehand that the person asking the question wouldn't understand the answer beforehand anyway is the most stupid thing I've heard all day

>>7210460
I'm jumping in here to say that I don't agree.
You see, there are questions that are framed in a way that definitively demonstrates that the questioner does not have a certain level of understanding. For example, someone might ask a question that includes misconceptions about a topic at a very low level, like "If evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" This tells me that you don't actually know what evolution is. So, to answer the question, I would have to start from scratch with describing evolution, and slowly build from there. When this is the case, it is common for someone to say "look anon, you don't actually know what evolution is. If you look it up right now, you'll understand why your question doesn't really make any sense."
If someone said "If the sky is blue, why isn't the earth tinted blue in pictures from outer space?" I would be tempted to say, "You're fucking retarded, go look up why the sky is blue and don't come back until you have." And maybe you don't see your questions as being that retarded, but they kinda are.

TL;DR You give away your lack of knowledge by the questions you ask, and upon seeing that you don't understand the subject you're asking about, we cba to spoon-feed you.

>>7209758

it's a phenomenon of social meme theory, pioneered by Dawkins.

the shitty, aggressive explanations of evolution will propagate less and less and eventually it will be realizations like the ones caused by this post that are the only way of communication.

any questions?

>>7210627

if you 'cba' to teach people properly, fuck off.

thanks.

>>7210633
>Implying it's my job to teach people
Nigga I'm not paid to do this shit. I'm willing to answer interesting/intelligent questions, but if you're gonna sit here and ask stupid questions that prove you don't know what you're talking about, why should I do anything but point you >>>/out/?
>b-but anon, I don't want to actually learn what evolution is, I want to shitpost on /sci/

Goes back to the age old adage...
>Biology
>A Hard Science
Pick one.

>>7209758

The real answer is that people are jaded by creationist shenanigans. It is very common for someone to pretend to be "just asking questions," when in fact they're just looking to argue and are not interested in learning at all. Also, simple explanations to virtually all common questions are easily available from googling, eg wikipedia, talkorigins, etc

So basically, if you come in asking "why are there still monkeys" or whatever, it's a pretty good guess that you're a trolling moron, not a curious science enthusiast.

>>7210637

If you don't want to teach people who don't know better, then don't bother joining in discussions in the first place because you're only making things worse and are the main reason of misconceptions and illiteracy.
People like you are the very root of the problem why people still debate wether evolution is real or not.

And yes, I would actually try to explain to someone why the earth isn't tinted blue from outer space properly. Mostly by asking them why the think the sky is blue and then clearing up confusions based on their misconceptions. That's how we as people learn.
If I tell that guy to fuck off he'll only tell other people and in the worst case his kids that physicists are just idiots who can't even answer the simplest question and create more nuts who think that science is a fraud

>>7209758
Because if you would read a fucking book they wouldn't have to spoon feed you the same explanation they've probably given a hundred times and that has been written a thousand times and does not need to be fucking actively repeated if you are capable of reading a book.

You lazy fuck. Read a fucking book.

>>7211035
Is it necessary to say fuck that many times

>>7211073
that was only 4

but yes it's my favorite word

>>7210978
Take your autism medication.

File: hqdefault.jpg (11 KB, 480x360) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 480x360

>>7209758
have you ever asked any evolution biologist any question regarding evolution, in person?

>>7209758
>evolution biologists
Because they are not evolutionary biologists, they are idiots who took bio in high-school an since it's one of the popular things they know they think they have to be arrogant about it, most likely they don't understand it fully themselves and are incapable of explaining it properly.

Something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>>7211122
Think of a rhombus and a trapezoid. They are both quadrilaterals. A quadrilateral has the features of both: four sides. But a rhombus has only that feature in common with a trapezoid.

Similarly, the descendants of a common ancestor don't need to share features with each other. They've evolved some new ones, and those might be quite different.

Also, keep in mind that features can be lost through time, too.

>>7211122

You have to picture it like branched evolution. Chimps lost features of that common ancestor because they became chimps and humans lost features of that common ancestor because they became humans

>>7211129
>>7211131
The point is you need evidence.
You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

>>7211145

Have you ever heard of genetics?

>>7211145

It's more like

Common Ancestor had features A and B
chimpanzees lost A, retained B and developed C
humans lost B, retained A and developed D

>>7209768
>math is hard
I figured you meant hard as in tangible until I read your second bit.

"Evolution" is not common sense. It is our best guess, and can still be proven wrong.

It isn't hard to understand math. Evolution has a lot of avenues that aren't explainable still.

Basically: fuck you

>>7210978
>you're...the main reason of misconceptions and illiteracy
Oh, my bad, I forgot that I myself am the reason that people don't know how to read. That in fact, my telling of people to look it up themselves actively causes them to become unable to read. Indeed, it had escaped my notice that by telling someone to learn what evolution is, I am in fact causing them to not believe in evolution.
>by asking them why the think the sky is blue and then clearing up confusions based on their misconceptions.
Or you could teach them the valuable skill of looking shit up instead of placing the responsibility of fixing elementary misconceptions on users of 4chan.
>That's how we as people learn.
No. If someone is interested in learning, do you know what that person does when told to look something up? He looks it up, rather than bitching about how he isn't getting spoon-fed. If you're interested in learning, you'll look shit up when you're told to by people that you assume know more than you do. When someone is unwilling to look it up after I ask him to, then I know that he's not really interested in learning, he's just bored and shitposting, or at the very least, a lazy fuck not worth my time.

And do you know what the biggest problem is with trusting the answers you get here when you don't even have a basic understanding of shit? Wrong information. It happens all the time, especially in fields that most people don't know much about, such as relativity. When someone asks how time dilation works, most people will say "here's a couple links; read them then come back and we'll try to answer your questions" and others will give a completely wrong answer based on nothing but their opinions. Stop rewarding people for being lazy fucks and not doing their own research; it's a bigger cause of misconceptions.

Why does a person's intelligence have attached to it a moral spectrum? I never understood this. Asking a stupid question to some recipients is like having the asker say they fucked your mother.

>>7211122
There were many human-like intermediates. Its possible we (as in our specific species) killed some of them off. Kind of spooky when you think about it.

>>7209758
Mostly it's because physicists aren't constantly asked that question, insulted, or actively harassed by people who don't understand gravity. Flat Earthers are rare.

Creationists aren't, though, and eventually evolutionary biologists just get really tired of getting asked the same stupid questions over and over again, and frequently being not asked the questions but being told that their entire field of study is wrong because someone doesn't realize those questions have answers.

>>7212076
It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with being a time-wasting nuisance.

>>7210460
Having read this entire argument chain, I choose to interject here to make my point;

Understanding why evolution happens, and why it's NOT the diea of having knife-shooting dicks that make the species stronger in the gap of a single generation would require an exhaustive lecture of the structure of DNA, how it works, how the protein polymerases make complex proteins, and how the structure of DNA gets fucks when exposed to ionizing radiation.

Assuming that you actually want to learn, and that you are not the only person that wants to learn about such a basic and fundemental thing, AND that this subject is literally basic college biology that you could easily take a class about at your local community college, it is not the job of the public, at large, to educate you and your stupid, uninformed questions.

Having said that, if you had a specific question that didn't involve easily google-able answers designed solely to shitpost, I'm sure /sci/ would be overjoyed to share their knowledge with you, because it shows that,

a) You have already tried to find the answer, and have thus already become more informed as a result,

b) that your purpose in asking actually is to learn, and not to troll

>>7213418
tl;dr it's your responsibility, not ours, to teach yourself a theory that has been around and common knowledge for literally hundreds of years

Strawman, cherry picking, AND false dichotomy all in one shitpost! You're going places OP

There are shitty people in pretty much all fields faggot.

>>7213418
How dare you say that it isn't your responsibility to spoon-feed poor OP! You're literally the root cause of illiteracy and misconceptions.

>>7213545
I am person you're responding to.

It's not even really that I'm angry at OP for making this thread, because he clearly feels he's in the right, and probably not actually trolling; he simply doesn't see why his thread is dumb.

What he should be asking, in this case, is not for us to explain the answer for him, but instead how he may come to the answer, himself, because any answer we give him for the former scenario will mean that we've done the thinking for him, already, drawn the conclusions before we started about the subject material, and ultimately will have done the work necessary to internalize the information FOR him, thus defeating the whole purpose.

Look at me, OP. Look into my eyes.

If you want to learn the answer to your question, YOU must do the searching, not us. If you cannot understand why, then whether you understand evolution or not is the least of your problems.

/rant