>origin of the species >bird beaks and shit >therefore

Darwinism is one of the most useless theories ever

Microevolution has been known and understood for thousands of years and macro evolution has barely any evidence to support it

He was a modernist shill who applied muh science to animals, big fucking deal

did you read the book just to shitpost about it?

>>9696967
You know, I'm not a very religious person myself, but sometimes I do wonder if scientists have maybe pushed extra hard for the theory of evolution due to its implications.

To be completely honest, I'm not even religion or fundamentalist, but macroevolution really does seem like bull to me. Scientists don't really have a good idea of how speciation (creation of new species) occurs, it's very difficult to explain all the massively different species on the earth with macroevolution as we think of it.

>>9696967
And he was right. Who knew?

Darwin has been triggering christcucks for more than a century now, and even today people try to plug their ears and deny the obvious. It isn't Darwin, but his many predecessors that solidified the truth of the matter. Now the only tactic the indoctrinated have is outright denial and willful ignorance.

I saw an anti evolution billboard the other day saying "we can't even climb trees"

>>9697073
>fattest country on the planet
>fatass citizens can't climb or do pull-ups
>meanwhile humans are the best distance runners in the animal kingdom and trained climbers can scale inverter cliff faces with their bare hands

Hmmm...

Leading scientists are now saying evolution is an error correcting code
Meaning evolution was intended by our creator

Either way Darwin was a hack and a known evidence tampering cheat

>>9697081
I just lying I never saw that billboard

>>9697093
you are considering the use of the term "error correcting" to mean it was intentionally done rather than just a natural process that happens to error correct over time. it's a mistake similar to when people say "humans were designed to walk on two feet" and claiming that it shows evidence of intention, when really it's just shorthand speak for "evolution by natural selection happened to give rise to humans with the ability to walk on two feet"

File: 1497645822506.jpg (79KB, 1200x1014px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1200x1014px

Man what is it about this guy that makes 'normal' religious people go absolutely bonkers and start reciting world salad about "The Creation".

>>9697105
So you are saying that evolution created evolution? Lmao

>>9697124
no, but nice bait

>>9697125
So evolution is natural, and this means it was not intentionally created?

>>9697140
I agree with both of those things (evolution is natural and it was not intentionally created) but I'm not saying that evolution being natural is the reason that it was not intentionally created.

>>9696974
>>9696977
>trying to shill "macro vs micro" evolution

>>9696975
Why else?

>>9698870
Haha, I remember you, retard. Please never make a thread again. It was painful to watch the mental gymnastics you employed to not unterstand the counters rum counterarguments that were made.

>>9698870
Do tell.

>>9697008
Stop

>>9697105
In what way is evolution error-correcting?

>>9698870
Nigga you typed a lot of words but you didn't say shit. Delete your 4chan account.

>>9698919
We have a series of DNA repair mechanisms, as well as individuals dying more and reproducing less.

File: eyeball-3d-model-low-poly-obj-fbx-ma-mb.jpg (46KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1000x1000px

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Darwin

>>9698956
>To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

>>9698880

What gymnastics did I employ and what would understanding smaller fractions of the main argument that I had refuted consist of?

>>9698965
I like my misquote better.

i know you didnt read this book because you mentioned birds in your meming and not insects.

>>9696967
I've always preferred Lamarck's theory myself

>>9698947
What?

No seriously What are you trying to say? New mutations, polyploidy etc. all happen because these mechanisms fail sometimes. If anything evolution is accumulating errors.

>>9696967
>>9696974
>>9696977
>>9697008
>>9697093
>>9698870
>>9698956

>/lit/ is full of creationists

It's been very interesting watching the degradation of this website into right wing anti-intellectualism. I remember a few years ago when Christposting on /lit/ was just about virtue signalling (Oh, you haven't read Augustine?). Nowadays you embrace the rhetoric (I use the term generously) of megachurch evangelicals pastors who take donations by phone.

>>9698997
>New mutations, polyploidy etc. all happen because these mechanisms fail sometimes.
Doesn't mean their carriers will be able to transmit them.

>>9699021

Refusal to accept half-baked ideas like Evolution does not imply you're into Creationism. Note that the contention with Evolution is mostly within the confines of Materialism.

>>9696974
macroevolution is literally just microevolution over a longer timeframe

lots of small changes in a short time add up to bigger changes in a long time

>>9699029
What is half-baked about Evolution?
>Note that the contention with Evolution is mostly within the confines of Materialism.
What are you getting at?

>>9699024
It demonstrably happens.

>>9699035
From what I gather microevolution is just about gene selection i.e. that that a certain genotype might dominate in a given population at one type and a different at another but the gene pool doesn't change.
Macroevolution is like about the formation of new genes in the gene pool and emergence of new species.
Did I get it right?
Then what people have a problem with is that a gene mutation can be transmitted or at least transmitted in a significant way. Why not?

>>9699029
You can posture all you want, but the distinction between micro and macro evolution--the major objection levied repeated in this very thread--exists only in the Creationist sphere.

>>9699035
This isn't entirely true. Polyploidy events are important in speciation but wouldn't fall under the category of microevolution.

>>9699021
This is called redpill. We dare question dogma and liberal brainwashing like 'Earth is a sphere'-theory, evolution, and equality.

Can't handle it? We're here to stay. We will redpill you. We will show you how brainwashed you're. We believe in God, women as subordinate to men, and whites being allowed to live in pure white countries. And no promiscuity or helping poor faggots

>>9699043
The environment determines what is favorable and what is not, what individuals can get away with, and most importantly which individuals. When was the last time you saw a sterile person reproducing?

>>9699051
Because they don't like it.

>>9699065
Here's your (You).

>>9699068
>When was the last time you saw a sterile person reproducing?
What exactly are trying to prove?
Not all gene mutations make you sterile.

>>9699073
Ah, quello surpriso. A liberal who can't form an argument. What else is new? Are you gonna call me a virgin now? Maybe you should realize that I abstain from women by my own choice, to remain ethically pure seeing as all women have taken upwards of 500 dicks before they leave high school now a days. Try reading Aquinas and you'd understand my virtue

>>9699060

The micro-macro distinction is invoked by Evolutionists whenever faced with the fact that speciation has never been observed. They cannot claim that tens of thousands of generations of e. coli, for example, have produced a strain different enough to qualify as a new species, else they risk the destruction of their own cladograms, so they call it micro-evolution. Creationists usually concede that this kind of change over time does happen, but from their perspective it has no implication for the idea of macro-evolution because they thin it's Empirically unproven and Logically unsound. So, in fact, the distinction only exists in the Materialist sphere.

>>9699113
>speciation has never been observed

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

>Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

File: angsty priest.jpg (160KB, 800x1059px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 800x1059px

This whole thread is absurd since Evolutionary theory is not incompatible with Christian theology, it's just contradicts the Torah.

>>9699078
>What exactly are trying to prove?
That if you're born without balls you're no threat to the genetic health of your species, as the error can and will correct itself, it will not impact the following generations as the defect will remain personally yours to your grave. Other genetic defects may definitely not have such an obvious, a priori, devastating impact on your reproductive capabilities, but could limit them still, and continue to limit those of your offspring and their offspring. If any.

Lo and behold, this is the answer to the question:
>In what way is evolution error-correcting?
in addition to the aforementioned multiple systems of DNA repair.

As for those new features of your genotype that do end up increasing your fitness, instead of decreasing it, you would hardly call them errors - rather, you'd call them awesome.

>>9697017
>Indoctrinated
In this day and age, you may want to check who you are calling indoctrinated.The mainstream media and collective societies thoughts have fostered your mind.

How often do you challenge your own ideas and consider alternatives? How often do you become ignorant to religious events which are explainable and perform mental gymnastics for an incredibly unlikely answer? Just looking at the miracle of the sun or the secrets of Fatima and the excuses you atheists come up with is laughable (Mass hysteria of thousands? lol, you could surely come up with something better than that).

Atheists are not some enlightened members of society, they are gold painted fools. Even going so far to say that Religion is merely for controlling the masses, while falling prey to that very concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqSV72VNnV0&t=36s

>>9699130
If I were born without balls I wouldn't be able to breed at all.
What you are talking about fits squarely within the definition of "natural selection". Why should it be treated as some sort of new discovery?

Saying "error" would imply that there are "right" gene mutations and "wrong" gene mutations and that "evolution" somehow has developed a way to distinguish those.
But a certain mutation can help you survive at one time and kill you at another.

DNA repair simply repairs DNA that has mutated regardless of it's potential contribution to the survival of the individual. In that it can also be a "bad" thing.
The fact that DNA repair has evolutionary developed simply shows that statistically speaking gene mutation is more likely to kill you than not.

>>9699127

Do Evolutionists take their handful of "gotcha" examples and apply those standards of speciation, say, 10 cladistic forks up and down from any one of those taxons?

>>9699146
>miracle of the sun
funny how none of these miracles are ever caught on camera
>the secrets of Fatima
funny how none of these secrets were revealed before the events they were supposedly about already happened

>>9699146
>the miracle of the sun
Oh, the one hundreds of people saw but no one took a photograph of? Woah, I sure am the one grasping at straws here.

File: f250336cb2b5fbe34f9345aaee8eb3df--laughing-animals-funny-faces.jpg (57KB, 414x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 414x600px

>>9698971

Just noticed the comment got deleted. It's Divinely ironic that I said Evolutionsts paint themselves into a corner and are forced to imply invisible hands for their theory to have a leg to stand on, that I said their notion of selection is otherwise absurd, that I said their theory relies on the very thing they claim to abhor, and that a literal invisible hand deleted that comment.

>>9699113
>Logically unsound
How is it logically unsound?
>the distinction only exists in the Materialist sphere
What are you going on about?

>>9699173
>Why should it be treated as some sort of new discovery
Never claimed it.

>Saying "error" would imply that there are "right" gene mutations and "wrong" gene mutations
You just don't know how words such as "error", for example in "error-prone DNA polymerase" are regularly used in genetics, as you again demonstrate. But I won't repeat myself.

>The fact that DNA repair has evolutionary developed simply shows that
...that error is a natural part of DNA replication and through evolution we acquired the means to correct it or at the very least attempt to do something about it, yes.

>gene mutation is more likely to kill you than not
It doesn't even have to kill you directly to be unfavorable, why are you even replying to my posts.

>>9699224

STEMod guy, if Evolution is true then it works all the way up to Language and the comments most fit at resonating with their Material-Dialectic environment will triumph. Why are you proving yourself wrong through your own actions?

>>9699207
>>9699206
Again with the mental games. You expect a bunch of Portuguese farmers to catch this stuff on video in 1917? Wow...this... is the power of the enlightened mind...
As for the miracles, They were not directly in reference to specific events at the time they were revealed. However, I assume you are talking about the one regarding Russia, which only came true after the secret was revealed. Not simply the attempted spread of Communism by Russia, but the ideals associated with Communism which have been ingrained into all modern societies through subversion tactics. Watch the video I linked

>>9699224
Why does evolution imply an invisible hand?

>>9699224
>invisible hands
There is a fundamental difference between proposing a scientific theory and invoking the supernatural to explain any unknown phenomenon.

File: Miracle_of_the_Sun.jpg (48KB, 639x469px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 639x469px

>>9699249
>if Evolution is true then it works all the way up to Language and the comments most fit at resonating with their Material-Dialectic environment will triumph.
this is a new low for /lit/

>>9699250
You expect a bunch of Portuguese farmers to catch this stuff on video in 1917?
They literally had cameras at the events but only pointed them to the people in attendance and not the alleged miracle.

>>9699239

It uses a leap of faith between aesthetic similarity among life forms and the idea that such similarities indicate transgenerational metamorphoses.

Read that comment again.

File: Newspaper_fatima.jpg (440KB, 1000x1535px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1000x1535px

Nice """miracle""".

>>9699251
>>9699253

There is no Empirical data that any one trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and to have been perpetuated by random selection based on its contribution to reproductive utility has actually ever affected the reproduction of a single life form.

File: imagep.jpg (46KB, 992x535px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 992x535px

>>9699260
>Old camera
>Good picture of the sun

pick one. It is also worth noting that not many would be taking photos when they are either in awe of the sun dancing, or fear of it crashing into them and running for their lives.

>>9699245
Well that first anon said
>scientists are now saying evolution is an error correcting code
which implied that it was some sort of new discovery so I asked you what it means since you defended it.
In biological terms error correction means simply correction of DNA that has been wrongly replicated.
Even if DNA repair arose in an evolutionary way that doesn't make evolution itself error correcting.
DNA repair will repair both mutations that can be detrimental and mutations that can be beneficial to your survival.

tr;dr I just wanted to know what the term error-correcting evolution means.

> that Darwinian who starts grasping at straws in order to explain why sharks haven't evolved

>>9699283
so the only picture of the actual sun was first published decades later and nothing in the picture connects it to what was shown in any other picture at the event?

>>9699302
Even if you don't want to believe that the pictures align with the event. Are you really going to ignore the hundreds of witnesses who claimed to have seen it? That is the kind of ignorance I am talking about.

>>9699301
The only people who say that sharks haven't evolved are people who don't believe in evolution.

>>9699301
but they have...

>tfw nabokov didn't believe in evolution

>>9699305
I'm not ignoring them by not believing them. I'm just not accepting their claims based on their claims alone. Something of this magnitude would require a lot more evidence than just the words of some farmers. Mass hallucinations of this sort are common. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

>>9699021
This. I miss the days when we were filled with intellectuals who discussed the oppression a woman faces when she has to grab her starbucks latte

>>9699263
>mistakes logic for faith
That explains a lot I guess.
I guess it takes less of a leap of faith for you to believe in ghosts than it does to believe in our intuitive perception of causality.
>>9699305
"Lots of people saw it" is not empirical proof.
But lets suppose for a second that I was personally present at those events and witnessed them with my own eyes?
Why should I come to the conclusion that they were of supernatural origin?

>>9699281
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria say hi.

>>9699307
>>9699313
they really havent

>>9699341
The nature of the event makes it unlikely they are just fabricated the story, or going into hysteria though. You have hundreds of religious folk, who have little incentive to lie, gathering outside and mocking the children who said the event would occur and then going on to claim it actually happened. There is a lack of factors that would cause hysteria as well.

>>9699341
It has a lot more evidence than just the words of some farmers. There were also secular journalists there.

And I like how your first response is to fall back on the cheapest cliches imaginable.
>le mass hallucination
>le foolish dirt farmers

>>9699365
If a religious festival involving lots of ignorant gullible people is not something that could cause mass hysteria I don't know what is.

>>9699352
It would be of supernatural origin, as the event was predicted by children who had claimed they got the information from the Virgin Mary. You don't just predict something like that.

Lots of people seeing something is very good reason to believe something occurred. If a whole town had claimed to see a strange aircraft fly overhead, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that actually happened? This being a supernatural event is clouding you judgement.

>>9699360
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150413-can-an-animal-stop-evolving

>>9699368
>it has a lot more evidence than just the words of some famers
>such as the words of some journalists
wow I'm so convinced. more words!

>>9699356

Assuming the claim is valid, what about bacteria that survive without antibiotic resistance? What about those that die without antibiotics? What about those that die with antibiotic resistance?

>>9699385
Oh, no, the children who claimed they got the information from the Virgin Mary!!! Now you really got me!!! There is no way I could doubt this super-reliable information!!!

>Lots of people seeing something is very good reason to believe something occurred.
But it's not a good reason to believe this something was of a supernatural origin.

>>9699385
Hundreds of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of liberty vanish.

>>9699021
hey reddit

carbon dating is false also

>>9699406
I think his point was that they predicted it and it happened, whereas you seem to be pretending a congregation just happened to be there when the something strange happened to the sun. Hard to imagine anything more primitive than your replies so far

>>9699399
Genetic traits that were favorable at a certain time in certain conditions can be unfavorable at other times in different conditions.

>>9699422
>I think his point was that they predicted it and it happened
You seem to be forgetting that their "prediction" wasn't revealed until after the events happened

>>9699293
>wrongly
See, it's not easy to get rid of words such as "wrong."

>Even if DNA repair arose in an evolutionary way that doesn't make evolution itself error correcting.
Yes it bloody does, and by definition at that. As if it wasn't correcting the shit out of itself enough, what DNA repair can't correct, selection can, the hard way.

>DNA repair will repair both mutations that can be detrimental and mutations that can be beneficial to your survival.
As you said it yourself they're not evenly distributed. And it is not just one system but multiple redundant ones that guard our DNA, it's serious business. Better safe than sorry.

How can Darwinian evolution explain the following?

> all the new biological structures in the Cambrian explosion
> lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences
> lack of recent significant evolution in sharks
> the evolution of the eye,
> sexual cannibalism of redback spiders
> why women are not born with a tail

>>9699146
>all this subversive bullshit devoted to pushing people back to myths and superstitions

Your "points" are painfully transparent. You're trying to play off of the ignorance of some of the younger readers here to plant confusion and erode the foundations of thought so you can fill their heads with your cultish theories.

It's incredible how religious fools can cling to their dogma so absentmindedly with the facts stacked against them.

>>9699421
The earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur out of the tomb during the resurrection when he defeated the romans with fireballs and confederate flags :^) so redpilled

>>9699469
Haha nice! Fucking conservitards right? America is divided between regular people and jesusland!

Edit: How do I use the green font on this website?

>>9699444
>all the new biological structures in the Cambrian explosion
the "explosion" wasn't as explosive as originally thought. evidence is accumulating of it being more gradual
>lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences
a tiny amount of living organisms ever become fossils and there are most likely many species that were never fossilized. also, it's just hard to find fossils in the first place so some of the current gaps will be filled with enough time
>lack of recent significant evolution in sharks
untrue. the only way this statement can be made somewhat true is if you define "significant evolution" as "major change in appearance" which is not a good definition to use.
>the evolution of the eye
this is the most widely believed theory I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWFteFfg2J0
>sexual cannibalism of redback spiders
I think there are competing theories on this. one that comes to mind is that this gives the female more nutrients and helps her have more babies and helps her survive for reproduction
>why women are not born with a tail
what

File: young-horrified-woman-closing-her-mouth-hands-24258018.jpg (19KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x267px

sweet baby christmas
this fucking thread

>>9699035
>this is hard for the larping Christfag to understand

>>9699494
It's eye opening, isn't it? I need a new website that isn't filled with literal Down syndrome babies to discuss literature with.

we need a containment board for christfags
delete all evangelizing and apologia threads
NOT LITERATURE

>>9699500
>half the board can't intobasic English, probably including yourself
>durr why are duh christians rooining everything
>mfw nabokov and tolstoy gave good arguments against evolution

>>9699443
>what DNA repair can't correct, selection can, the hard way.
Or encourage if the mutation happens to contribute to transmitting your genes. DNA repair on the other hand would delete any mutation.
DNA repair corrects.
Evolution does not.
The "mistakes" we are talking about in both cases are of completely different nature.
In DNA replication a "mistake" is when the replica differs from the original. It's easy (in relative terms) to set up a mechanism for detecting such errors.
In terms of evolution a "mistake" is a gene that makes its own transmitting hard or impossible.

When you say that evolution is error correcting do you mean that any sufficiently evolved organism will eventually develop a mutation correcting mechanism that would that would limit the rate at which evolution occurs?
What are the implications of this?

GET OFF /LIT/

>>9699551
>unscientific arguments against evolution
>made in the 19th and early 20th centuries
>more than a century of biology and natural science research has passed since then
>evolution is established fact and is used in most aspects of medical science to improve the world by leaps and bounds
>cucks still bitch and moan and try to spread lies about it with subversion tactics on anime imageboards

Ayyyyyyyyy lmao

File: 1497949886060.png (58KB, 1033x614px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1033x614px

Post pictures of Darwinists. Pic related.

>>9699578
>more than a century of biology and natural science research has passed since then
>still no empirical evidence of speciation or consensus on what a species is
>still no meaningful explanation on how anything gets selected against anything else or data that could support such explanation
>still nothing bridging the gap between aesthetic similarities among life forms and the assumption that they came to be via transgenerational metamorphosis other than a leap of faith

Talks about gaps.

File: aTVSO3s.png (103KB, 624x434px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 624x434px

Denial of a higher power is demonstrably irrational.

The qualities exhibited by any part of a given whole thing consisting of multiple parts are possessed to a much greater extent by the whole thing.

For example, the qualities of a single human finger are present to a greater extent in a whole human body.

Humans are an organic part of the universe that developed over millions of years of evolution. If humans, which are only a small part of the universe, exhibit the qualities of intelligence and rationality, then it follows that the universe as a whole possesses these qualities to a far greater extent.

QED, there is a higher intelligence than us.

>>9697008
Yes they do, you fucking useless moron.
It doesn't even matter that you were too retarded to learn about continental drift, genetic mutation, genetic drift, etc., etc. in school. Now you can just google it. You hardly need consciousness to google simple shit, and still you failed.

KYS immediately. IMMEDIATELY

>>9699551
>good arguments against evolution
I know you hate science but jesus how contrarian are you

>>9699079
>quello surpriso

is this a meme? because if it isn't, should be
>quelle surprise
in french, and
>quale sorpresa (or less formal, che sorpresa)
in italian

:^)

>>9699632
all 3 of those things you wrote are wrong. however it is true that there is no consensus on what a species is. but that isn't a problem with evolution it's just a problem with how humans categorize things. it's like how some people don't consider the thumb a finger while some people do. it has no importance outside of the disagreement on what to categorize it as

>>9699597
>you think this is an argument

>>9699632
>aesthetic similarities

Christ you people are so disingenuous.

>>9699649

Trying to find anything about the Epistemology of speciation by blind google search will yield even more pitiful results than this: >>9699127

I trust you have selected sources fit enough to overcome my selective pressure.

>>9699664

The basic tenet of Evolution being a matter of Human will is irrelevant to you?

>>9699646
>The qualities exhibited by any part of a given whole thing consisting of multiple parts are possessed to a much greater extent by the whole thing.

My butthole smells like shit, therefore the entirety of my body smells much more like shit.

>>9699632
Are you this ignorant on purpose? Stop getting your science from creationist museum pamphlets. Also, and most importantly, unexist yourself.

>>9699696
tmi dude

>>9699695
The basic tenet of evolution is that diverse organisms of today share common ancestors. Whether or not you consider a mule a different species than a horse or a donkey is immaterial with respect to that claim.

>>9699700

Everything I said is strictly based on Evolutionist Literature. One does not have be a Creationist to disagree with it.

>>9699675
>Christ people are so disingenuous.

ftfy

>>9699710
Sources please

>>9699708
>The basic tenet of evolution is that diverse organisms of today share common ancestors.

The Bible says so too.

>>9699718

My thoughts exactly!

>>9699695
I don't speak Creationist.Use English, please.Are you trying to imply what I think you are trying to imply?

>>9699555
>The "mistakes" we are talking about in both cases are of completely different nature.
A frame shift mutation will be a frame shift mutation before and after the failed repair systems' intervention, it doesn't change nature in the slightest.

>When you say that evolution is error correcting do you mean that any sufficiently evolved organism will eventually develop a mutation correcting mechanism that would that would limit the rate at which evolution occurs?
You misunderstand its function completely: DNA repair isn't concerned exclusively in regards to replication, it fixes DNA damage coming from any and all sources, not just DNA polymerase mistakes.

If one of such systems stops working you have seriously increased risk of cancer, one that will come at a significantly earlier age if the repair issue is genetic... so from a fitness perspective you really really want the errors in check, even before we talk about the possibility of transmitting some of these through your sperm because your balls got struck by one ionising radiation too many...

As with many things in evolution we see some manner of balance going on between a selective pressure to have a sufficiently stable, solid DNA and another selective pressure to retain mutation and allow enough biodiversity so the species can respond and adapt in case of rapid environmental changes.

I should remind you that we have sexual reproduction, where half of the DNA of one parent combine with half of the other, and most importantly crossing over happens to make sure they combine in an "original" kind of way, a system leading to more biodiversity without relying on polymerase errors.

>>9699720
Too bad the Bible is heresy and the Koran is the truth

>>9699727
Says the guy denouncing speciation outright while saying "hurr durr my analysis of evolutionary literature hubba dubba."

Again, remain silent on things you know nothing about, you illerate evangelical tumor.

>>9699731

I don't know, am I? It's a simple enough sentence. The word "will" is a noun in that context, by the way.

>>9699745

What is there to denounce? How do I denounce a non-idea?

>>9699746
Basically I understand you are saying that evolution means that people don't possess free will?
Basically it's a question of morality.
After all that is what most religious and philosophical discussions boil down to after all.
Human are creatures that are preoccupied with right and wrong.
At least that has always been my experience so I think you are talking about that.
Am I incorrect to assume so?

File: IMG_5041.jpg (20KB, 500x154px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x154px

>>9699764

Cute fallacy, pastor. I feel bad for you.

>>9699770

No that's not it...at all. This is such a failure of basic reading comprehension that it's almost creepy. It's almost as if you're a p-zombie. This particular comment reads like something generated by a crude bot.

>>9699786

What fallacy?

>>9699696

>my ass possesses an unpleasant odour, therefore my body as a whole possesses an even greater unpleasant odour

This is perfectly rational, thanks for confirming my argument.

>>9699802
OK. Then I'm curious to know what you meant by human will or whatever and how evolution relates to it. And Materialism for that matter. You keep on mentioning it.
As I said I don't speak Creationist.

>>9699347
This is great!!

>>9699802

He has to be trolling. That, or English isn't his first language.

>>9699816
No, never mind. I got the part about will. I still don't get the part about Materialism though.

File: 1442022797831.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>9699597

>>9699816

>>9699664
>it is true that there is no consensus on what a species is. but that isn't a problem with evolution

>>9699695
>The basic tenet of Evolution being a matter of Human will is irrelevant to you?

You yourself agree that the criterion used to draw the line of "species" is a not a matter of Empirical reality but a matter of Human desire. The implication being that Evolution without a clear definition of "species" is like Literature without a clear definition of "phoneme". Do you not see how problematic this is?

Materialism is also a term coined and used by Materialists almost exclusively.

I am going to maintain good faith and assume you're just really stoned.

>>9699807
The one where you mischaracterize the opposing argument and then argue against it. Does that ring a bell, altar boi?

>>9699824
Please, no. Consider the possibility that I might be genuinely stupid.

>>9699849
>You yourself agree that the criterion used to draw the line of "species" is a not a matter of Empirical reality but a matter of Human desire.
Oh, I am a different person so I was not really paying attention to your conversation that much. Sorry about that. I realized my mistake too late.

You said that the distinction between micro and macro evolution lies withing the materialist sphere or something like that. What is that supposed to mean?

>>9699852

By Evolutionists' own words, "species" is a construct of Human desire. I can hardly think any other idea or even a single word used as much and from which so much Literature has been derived. I dread to think what exactly I would be mischaracterizing by claiming that it is silly to pin the Ontology of all life forms on a whim.

>>9699899
Again, sources? Your gaping Catholic asshole doesn't count, btw.

>>9699578
>made in the 19th and early 20th centuries
made in 1910 and 1970
nice try though, you almost displayed high school tier knowledge of literature. Maybe you'll get there one day.

>>9699918

Sources of what? Look up the word "species" in dictionaries and Scientific papers and such. Read Darwin, read what they added to his original ideas. Look up cladograms. Look up some more cladograms, they're all different. Check out David Peters, he's neat. Choose any definition of "species", choose any cladogram, choose a random taxon. Start going up and down the tree. How many forks does it take to find a dissonance between that definition and that fork?

This environment is stale. No gauntlet, no mutations to join the sportive glory of argument, no discernible selection. More like DEAD in tooth and claw.

I shall emerge fully formed again tomorrow.

>>9699431
>You seem to be forgetting that their "prediction" wasn't revealed until after the events happened
Absolutely false. At least do some basic research.

>>9699849
Why do you assume speciation is the basic tenet of evolution?
It's main principle is "selection".

There are two options.
Either such a thing a species exists and can be scientifically defined or it's simply an abstract mental construct and thus not subject to measurement.
How does the definition of species affect evolutionary theory in any way.

You said you do "believe" in selection?
Do you doubt that genes can mutate. I hope no.
Then why is it hard by combining the concept of selection and mutation to "believe" that a significant drift in genotype can occur over a long period of time?

>>9696967
Top kek

>>9699021
>/lit/ is full of creationists
no it isn't. they are the same people that troll STEMlords

I haven't been here on /lit/ in a few months. Is there just a troll hour or something that everybody now takes part in or has the board really gone downhill?

It really seems like some people are trying, I mean honestly trying to make the board as insufferable as possible. I get the sense that there is an influx of extremely bitter people, and they're not bitter that others are as bitter as they are so they just harass everyone until everyone falls down the spiral into bitterness. I feel like I'm watching the birth of the world's dumbest cult.

>being a creationist
You can still be a Christfag without rejecting what is essentially 100% proven

>>9701241
>100% proven
Umm...try again sweetie!

>>9701085
The whole fucking site has gone down hill (at least my main boards of /lit/, /sp/, /sci/, and /tv/) over the past few months.

>>9701085
We're redpilled now you fucking cuck.

File: IMG_4596.jpg (88KB, 749x563px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 749x563px

>>9699127
>Watching Speciation Occur
>dogs and flowers
>therefore we is apes

Are u stupid?

File: IMG_1422.jpg (46KB, 440x386px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 440x386px

>>9699597
L O L
O
L

>>9699696
Right
Your mouth probably smells like dick too

File: imagep.jpg (129KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1024x768px

>>9699597

>>9699918
Ur so obviously btfo its embarrassing

File: IMG_4641.gif (793KB, 400x275px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 400x275px

>>9699939
ur doing it peter

>>9701085
>4chan is disturbing me!!!!

>>9699283
>not many would be taking photos
Are you kidding? There were no smartphones or social media back then, but there's no way journalists wouldn't take as many pictures as they could.

>>9701398
Youre a follower, you've always been one, you've nothing to offer. You're like the suit standing behind a Great Man nodding your head. I'd recommend suicide.

>>9701742
I look forward to meeting you at the end of the spiral ;~)

>>9701085
yes, after all these super plebby mainstream republicans and unironic nazi larpers came to /pol/ during the election and pepe controversy some of spilled over to here, it's gotten pretty bad, like people hating on trans on 4chan, the site that redefined the word "trap" for the world? really man? you need to go back

>>9699918
the pope says evolution is real, so now catholics have to believe it or burn in hellfire, so he's probably some evangelical fuckwit

>>9701747
dig deep
there's a spiral at the end of all this ;)

>>9699465
>with the facts stacked against them
The only fact here is that tens of thousands of people witnessed a miracle on the same day that was predicted by three kids.
Atheists sure have some nerve dismissing it all as "mass hallucination".

>>9701757
>I have no points or arguments to offer but make cute references to phenomena I dont understand.

>>9701755
Any belief of a Catholic is undermined by their being Catholic in the first place.

>>9701325
Aw, poor lil boi gotta scapegoat women and blacks because he's useless to the world. Waa I need Catholicism to regulate my life because I'm too useless and incompetent to take control of my own life.

I will drown my child in the tub the day he says he's redpilled, and I hope your mommy does the same.

File: edge.jpg (25KB, 400x366px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x366px

>>9701821

File: 30C77B72-BF7C-4095-8474-335968B7B569-2518-000001D672D936FB.jpg (6KB, 250x193px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x193px

>>9701825
>le edge

File: FB_IMG_1497846810695.jpg (55KB, 750x735px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x735px

>tfw you actually don't care whether evolution is real or not and have no professional stake in the issue and it wouldn't alter your worldview either way

Feels cozy man

>>9701085
School is out in summer

>>9699421
based Fomenko-poster

>>9699597
Is it normal to sleep with glasses on? I just got a pair for reading this year and I can't lie down with them on, it feels wrong.

>>9699646
unironically checkmate atheists.

If a god exists, he is the biggest cunt in the world, since he refuses to nuke the fuck out of USA. Checkmate, country bumpkins.

>>9697093
Evolutionary theory does not even describe biogenesis. Are you dumb or something.

>>9698996
I also prefer to ingnore reality.

File: 1476126230875.jpg (98KB, 1125x848px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1125x848px

>>9697105
>I cannot do any effort to speak rigorously but believe me, deep down I am rigorous

>evolutionary biologist
>people of all political and religious dispositions hate me
> tfw you are the ultimate rebel

Evolution is fucking bullshit.

Aquinas disproves it. Aristotle disproves it.

Muh science can't prove fucking shit.

When did this board become so retarded?

Why does the notion that humans evolved from other primates trigger so many people? Does it break the illusion that we are a chosen, special snowflake species?
Hint: we're not.

>>9702529

Evolution is one of the few world models based on Anthropocentrism.

>tfw you are Catholic and you can investigate scientific problems without literal interpretation of the scriptures getting in the way and imposing an ideological position

Feels good

File: facepalm-bear-2.png (580KB, 500x483px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 500x483px

>>9702435
>Evolution is fucking bullshit.
>Aquinas disproves it. Aristotle disproves it.

i despair of some of you turds, i really do

>>9699021

this

>>9699065

This bait has potential but it's not subtle enough. It's just too obvious

File: FB_IMG_1493218389171.jpg (53KB, 810x1440px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 810x1440px

>>9702602
Duns scotus actually disproves it in de primo principio

>>9702744
How do you see potential in it?
It's so obvious it doesn't even seem bait

File: you can't make this shit up.png (867KB, 950x608px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 950x608px

>Darwinism has been obsolete for more than 100 years
>Christcucks still get triggered by it

>>9703199
>all alleged evidence for evolution is proudly claimed to be in the gaps
>troglodytes oblivious to the fact that they are the worst caricature of their own enemies

>>9703215
Spouting the same exact nonsense again and again doesn't make it a proper argument, anon.

>>9703233
Spouting the same exact nonsense again and again doesn't make it a proper argument, anon

>>9703267
Ebin

File: troglodyte.jpg (45KB, 600x459px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x459px

>>9703233
>What is a species?
>We don't know.
>Has the quality of a single trait been observed as having any reproductive relevance relative to neighboring forms without said trait?
>We don't know.
>Assuming that selection is a valid phenomenon independent of human constructs, has the extinction of any one trait ever been observed?
>We don't know.
>How is "relaxed" non-eliminative selection compatible with entropy and environmental sustenance being fractally finite through multiple layers of functional enclosure from one another?
>We don't know.
>What would distinguish such selection and such compatibility from no selection at all?
>We don't know. Definitely not human construct though!

Evolution is THE "dark" theory.

>>9702594
How so?
God grated Man in his own image is better?

>>9703450

It assumes that the Human mind is capable of contemplating the Ontology of all life forms, which is basically reverse-engineered Autotheism. Worse still, it's proudly based on whim made dogma as Epistemological self-justification, we wouldn't have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously, therefore we're right.

File: plato-allegory-of-the-cave.jpg (116KB, 900x508px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x508px

>>9703450

Leave the cave, man.

>>9703286
>this whole post
Are you pretending to be retarded? I hope you are.

>>9703750
>ended comment in saying evolution's entire alleged body of evidence is "dark"
>get a "dark" rebuttal

Somehow it doesn't stop being funny.

When I accepted evolution as the reason for our existence I fell into a horrifying nihilistic pit of despair where nothing felt real and I was walking around in dream-like state, not being able to make sense of anything.

After years of this torture I eventually broke free through several otherwise inexplicably intense experiences and accepted the existence of God and our special place on this Earth and immediately everything clicked into place and now I'm a real fucking person again.

So you can ramble on all you like about genetic drift, objective empirical proofs and micro/macroevolution there's clearly something wrong with the theory if believing in it can do that to a person and I know I'm not the only one.

People really need to listen to artistic types more, we know about something far more splendid, beautiful and magnificent then anything you can concoct in your laboratories and mental masturbation sessions.

>>9703820
Wow.

File: baitmate.jpg (70KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x1000px

>>9699065
>>9699079
it's like you're not even trying

>>9703286
>>9703771
I'll bite.
>What is a species?
A human construct to differentiate life forms. Regardless, its definition doesn't affect the evolutionary theory, which merely states life forms are not static but go through mutations over time.
>Has the quality of a single trait been observed as having any reproductive relevance relative to neighboring forms without said trait?
Peppered moth evolution. The continuous selection of new HCV and HIV quasispecies in infected individuals. Also see >>9699356
>Assuming that selection is a valid phenomenon independent of human constructs, has the extinction of any one trait ever been observed?
It takes an insane amount of time for a trait to entirely disappear from the phenotype and genotype of an entire population. Still, the examples above show how certain traits become gradually less common.
>How is "relaxed" non-eliminative selection compatible with entropy and environmental sustenance being fractally finite through multiple layers of functional enclosure from one another?
Selection can't be non-eliminative. Otherwise it wouldn't be selection.
>What would distinguish such selection and such compatibility from no selection at all?
Nothing. Because it's not a selection in the first place.

File: 1400836056022.jpg (27KB, 268x309px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 268x309px

>>9699079

Keep fighting the good fight Aryan brother.

>>9703506
>we wouldn't have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously, therefore we're right
That's the first time I hear of this. Are you sure you are not talking about yourself.

People are able to conteplate things in general. By what reasoning should the Onthology of all life forms make a special exception? Are is your thesis that we should just turn off our brains and stop thinking at all?

>>9701085
It's a combination of lax standards, no self-moderation, low attention spans, for the sake of getting interactions it is easier to post something idiotic or subversive, the general public leaking more into the web as a whole, phoneposters, American election immigrants, irony/post-modernism, and ennui.

In general for the entire website.