>>60628608 >evolution is real!!one11! >Well why isnt it happening today? >IT TAKES FOREVER REEE >Well some single cell organism and other organisms have lineage for that long yet we have yet to see them change? >YOU ARE RLLY DUMB HURRR
>>60628744 Have you ever taken a biology class? None of it makes any sense without evolution. My biology class literally took me step by step through every single process of how evolution works, right down to the DNA molecules.
>>60628744 Why would the single called organisms need to change if they inhabit the same environments for millions of years? And if you want to see single called organisms that do change, research the experiment with Nylonase and bacteria.
>>60628911 ya its , weird, they are the only ones interested in self preservation, all the atheists and the left that hate religion (except islam and jews) and especially christianity are self destructive because of nihilism.
>>60628893 >god is real cuz muh jewish fanfiction sez so! This really is the proper way to debate. You should start posting fedora memes pretty soon, I don't know what's wrong with you guys tonight. You're slippin'!
>>60628944 Antibiotic resistance Evolution So the DNA code elongates when they learn to resist
Yawn learn here show daddy http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.
>>60628563 Bats originally were only able to glide, like flying squirrels. Flying squirrels seem to have no problem walking and climbing around. The only difference is that bats had webbing between their fingers, a mutation that even some people have. It could have even been used for swimming before they were able to fly.
>>60629439 >using a creationist website as a source top fucking kek
" The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions."
Exactly the same with humans. Do you not understand simple fucking biology?
>>60629548 There you go you stupid fucking moron. There's a reason why we have dog breeds that didn't exist in the past, or why you need a different flu shot every year. If you believe in micro evolution and just refuse to believe that macro evolution happens after many millions of years of micro evolution you are an illogical retard.
>>60629631 Why is this still an argument? You think a fish crawled out of the ocean and magically turned into a monkey. It took literal hundreds of millions of years for that to happen, it wasn't direct.
>>60629523 The secularists. The Christian threads were a discussion about Christianity, not an attack on irreligion. They had no argument in the OP for Christianity - their purpose was to merely discuss it. This thread, however, has a clear argument against Creationism, and therefore Biblical Christianity. So if you ask who is trying to convince whom, I say it is you lot.
>>60629439 > "Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. " > "any change that appears to provide a so-called "beneficial" adaptation is commonly seen as a driving force of evolution. Indeed, some mutations, such as antibiotic resistance, can be beneficial since they may provide the organism an increased ability to survive under very specific environmental conditions. Thus, evolutionists typically conclude that genetic examples of "evolutionary change" are abundant and that creationists are forced to deny this readily observed evidence." Omg please keep posting this is creationcuck gold
>>60629612 50 million year old bat fossils The fossil record sheds no light on the bat’s alleged evolution from non-flying creatures. The oldest known (by evolutionary “dating” methods) fossil bats are practically indistinguishable from modern ones
>>60629613 Adaption is not evolution muhammad. Go have some bacon now shoo shoo.
The fossils are older because we found them deeper in the ground. Also they have super special radioactive isotopes and blah blah you are insignificant and nothingness. Explain cones and rods and renal physiology and bees and pollen. Missing link, etc. Either those are fake, animals, or we have been here far shorter and those are like groups of fish as to a shark
>>60628832 >tripfagging >refuting modern biology, anthropology, archaeology, and chemistry >refuting chemistry How the fuck do people not realise how important chemistry is? >and suggesting that a series of books written by a people whose sole existence is to lie and cheat others is good explanation for the creation of everything. M8, im sorry to tell you this, but you have the autism. >t. Biochemist
>>60629819 If you believed in evolution you would know dogs came from wolves. but before the wolf theres nada enjoy m8!
>>60629907 There is no mutation which elongates the DNA or is beneficial to the organism found in nature inb4 muh bacteria adaption and they lose proteins in the process so its counterproductive. This is literally what evolutionist believe
I love how christcucks have been btfo'd on the whole idea of evolution of small variances (eg antibacterial resistance) so now resort to "micro" and "macro" evolution (something never discussed in any formal holy text and has no real meaning because we know evolution doesn't happen in large chunks at a time)
>>60629889 Selection of what? The organisms most likely to survive. An organism who can sense light, for example, would have an advantage over one who doesn't. That organism mates, spreads it's genes, and those that do not suit the environment (those who can't see) either stay in their niche (dark caves and such) or die due to competition. It's not hard.
>>60630126 Can you see the different chemical compounds in the two? No I never refuted chem. Your argument is this structure is like this structure so it came from this. You know a lot of poisions have structures similar to harmless chemicals too.
Let me guess 18-20 and think you are gonna be a doctor ehh
>>60630147 >There is no mutation which elongates the DNA
What is this memery? A mutation of DNA doesn't necessarily elongate it. Are you that fucking retarded? The whole point of a mutation is that it changes the base pairs that code for protein function. Mutations don't elongate DNA.
>>60629439 Yes, mutation will also result in defective bacteria. Natural selection gets rid of these.
What was BS in Bio 1 and 2? The part about genetics? Every time a bacteria cell splits, it leaves an identical cell. Except it's not. It's mostly identical, but sometimes there are errors made in the copying process. These are called mutations. They happen rarely by simple mitosis, but are quite common from radiation (cancer) and other environmental processes. If a mutation happens to give the organism a higher chance of survivability, it is more likely to be passed on to the next generation of organism, especially in the case of bacteria and other single-celled organisms.
Do you disagree with any of this? This is observable science, and can easily be replicated in a lab.
>>60630300 Nice one. Good little ad hominem there at the bottom. And that just shows you're shitposting and not reading half of the diagrams. Chemistry is directly related to biology, have you ever heard of a chemical reaction? Or is knowledge haram?
>>60630548 there are no fossils of "proto-lions" there are no fossils of "proto-elephants" there are no fossils of "proto whales" there are no fossils of any "original species" that diverged into all of those things
>>60630472 I know from doing tests using radiometric dating when it gets over 10k years it takes A FAT FUCKING DUMP. a lot of scientist dont always use carbon either. read up they use what fits the study. the problem with 21st century science.
>>60630571 >If evolution was real the strand would elongate.
What strand? Are you trying to throw as many buzzwords in as possible
Also, topkek at christcucks. I fucking love it when they try to use modern biology knowledge we've ascertained through much hard work to try and disprove a modern biological theory because their book says so.
>>60630525 The environment does the selecting, and you know this. You're not making yourself look smart here. If to survive you have to climb a hill, anything that can climb the hill will survive, and anything that can't climb the hill will die. The one that climbs the hill the fastest gets the most and dominates the environment. This isn't even science, this is common sense.
>>60630548 Micro is not real. I had the italian lizard experiment crammed down my throat until i asked my professor if the italian lizards could have just mated with the native reptile species creating a new variation. Or if their diet and added sunlight could just have allowed for optimal growth conditions.
Literal butt hurt
>>60630605 Dis is dis im a doctor my daddy pay my college. my jew teacher say so i am right. FYI: couple years ago scientists thought heroin and coke could cure colds.
eh, who gives a shit what abrahamic pseudoreligious people think about secularism? they barely believe what they spout on a daily basis. if they truly believed half of the shit in their goatfucker journals, they'd be living in hovels, praising jesus or allah or whatever, and beating their women with sticks. none of these people lead a practical religious life. they lead a secular lifestyle with a religious veneer to pose some sort of moral objectivity and right of will over others. in reality, the real religious people are the ones blowing themselves up, or prostrating themselves to the lord day in day out, avoiding any work of any kind on the sabbath, stoning women to death for infidelity, not worshiping craven images, not wearing clothes with mixed fibers, stoning their disrespectful children to death... all of these things you pseudoreligious people don't do because you made the moral individual choice not to do so, and not because your lord whispered it to you. i doubt any of you even have read your "god's word" in its original language. some devotion to the lord's message to you, that you can't even be bothered learning a new language just to be closer to the god you shove down people's throats, and ridicule people for not believing in.
>>60630632 It selected the one that mutated, genius. It didn't have light sensors before, and it does now. What do you call that? >>60630664 Radiometric dating has more than one form, genius. The one you're talking about is Radiocarbon dating. There's more than one method.
>>60630688 My friends an atheist and doesnt believe in it. In mutation the DNA shortens. this is the opposite of evolution. Only variation exists. Never will you see an elephant mating with another elephant and making a whole new animal. Wont happen.
You people pick straws at everything and say sickle cell is evolution because you cant get malaria. Cells shaped like sickles. immense pain. Lower blood oxygen levels... this is like saying having no legs is evolution because you cant jump to your death.
>>60630784 Your right they do mutate...But does it make something new?
>>60629548 You can't even show gravity or the multiverse. You can't see atoms with visible light, only with beams of electrons. The only two that you listed that are actually observable are cells and evolution.
Gravity: We still have no idea why it exists, what it is, what causes it, or even how to model it. We had to make up "Dark Matter" to explain why galaxies don't fly apart. Newtons laws are only an approximation at large scales, don't work at all on small scales, and don't work at high speeds. General Relativity is nice, but it doesn't work with any theories at the quantum level and still can't explain Dark Matter.
Multiverse: This is often thrown around in the popsci circuits. It's not just this imaginary idea of multiple universes. It's about non-homogeneity in our universe. Our current understanding of the universe is that there was an inflation period where the universe expanded rapidly for a few million years. To prove this theory, we should find traces of gravity waves created by this expansion. We haven't found those yet. BICEP thought they found some a while ago, but it was just cosmic dust. The multiverse is a theory that says that the inflation theory results in uncontrollable quantum action that would allow certain parts of the early universe to keep inflating while other parts (like ours) stop. Those inflating parts could split, and so on, until we have an unknown and possibly infinitely growing universe. In such a universe, just about anything is possible, and each of these segments of non-inflating universe is called a multiverse.
Atoms: Light waves at frequencies high enough to diffract atomically scaled objects will necessarily be too high in energy to not destroy the atoms they're trying to view. We use waves of electrons to do this instead.
Cells: Easily observed under a microscope.
Evolution: Easily observed under a microscope, but also in the macroscopic world. Everything from apples to zebras can be bred to have certain traits.
>>60631157 This is the guy who btfo everyone he debates. You can try to mock all you want but insulting is just a sign of losing. The winner remains cool calm and collective and does not have a dad who works in socialist medicine in an islamic country.
>>60631003 Literally the most retarded argument I've seen so far It doesn't pick and choose like a human, child. Those that fit the environment survive, and those that don't, die. That's selection. Call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
>>60631137 You claim that all the evidence (for probably the most scrutinised scientific theory human kind has ever had) we currently have is wrong. Surely, you must be able to explain an alternative if you point blank refuse? Just some simple questions?
Consider the following.
If we know life has been on earth for millions of years. And christianity states that suddenly, god just "made" the animals we have today
...when did they suddenly appear?
Why do we not have evidence for massive ecological change over a spectacularly short amount of time? Surely habitats would change significantly if animals just all appeared at once?
>>60631157 >thinks the earth is round and we put men past the van allen belt >I don't know if he is that guu but tax fraud is not a huge deal >thinks we can take footage of 'nukes' going off, and the camera just sitting there laughing Think of this for a moment. Red Bull space jump guy. He goes up. He jumps down. He lands pretty much exactly where he started from on the ground. That's fucking retarded to the conventional narrative if in fact he were above the stratosphere. Which he was. Explain now please and do it well this time
>>60631071 In mutation the DNA CHANGES. It COULD lengthen, it COULD shorten, it COULD be mistranslated. Two strands fusing together is a mutation. A strand breaking into 2 is a mutation. An extra allele or chromosome is a mutation. All of these affect DNA in different ways. It's not a one size fits all thing.
>>60629548 Evolution just says that they can be bred enough to produce new species, which is true. Breeding a horse and a donkey will create a mule. Breeding a lion and a tiger will make a liger. However, this is apart from the issue. The idea is that species can reproduce certain traits enough to become sexually incompatible with other members of their own species. This makes them two separate species. Speciation has been observed in nature over the last two hundred years, particularly by scientists recently on the Galapagos Islands.
To the adaptation != evolution argument: Adaptation can create speciation. Speciation is a small-scale form of evolution. Speciation over long periods of time leads to more speciation. This is literally the definition of evolution.
>>60631474 >>60631473 What is hearing and talking? Like the invisible market hand you think nature never combines only improves but it's not a god or The God. It's muh old man and his heresy and shit. But protein became birds and beaks became mouths. Or moths? Go away Santa Claus
>>60629548 Evolution is proven at this point... only the uneducated or literal idiots don't realize this.
As just ONE example we've literally seen evolution happen in fish in the wild by conducting experiments that introduce certain fish to environments with different predators or other variables... but besides that there's an INSANELY large amount of proof to show evolution is real.
You're probably one of those idiots that says "Oh but Evolution is JUST a theory" not understanding that "theory" in science means something totally different than "theory" in everyday language.
i repeat: who gives a shit what abrahamic pseudoreligious people think about secularism? they barely believe what they spout on a daily basis. if they truly believed half of the shit in their goatfucker journals, they'd be living in hovels, praising jesus or allah or whatever, and beating their women with sticks. none of these people lead a practical religious life. they lead a secular lifestyle with a religious veneer to pose some sort of moral objectivity and right of will over others. in reality, the real religious people are the ones blowing themselves up, or prostrating themselves to the lord day in day out, avoiding any work of any kind on the sabbath, stoning women to death for infidelity, not worshiping craven images, not wearing clothes with mixed fibers, stoning their disrespectful children to death... all of these things you pseudoreligious people don't do because you made the moral individual choice not to do so, and not because your lord whispered it to you. i doubt any of you even have read your "god's word" in its original language. some devotion to the lord's message to you, that you can't even be bothered learning a new language just to be closer to the god you shove down people's throats, and ridicule people for not believing in.
God makes Earth. Cool he adds some setting maps some designs and shit awesome. Now we need characters. He bases everything off a system that he can alter small parts of to make different things or he can make variations of the same species editing this system (DNA)
Laugh all you want. Ever play an MMO? Same shit character creator is the games way to edit the DNA, and the map was designed by a creator as well.
>>60629966 "The earliest known bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, was recently described from the early Eocene of Wyoming (about 52 million years old). While primitive by the standards of modern bats Onychonycteris had the wings of a fully functional, flying bat. Unlike the wings of modern bats, each of its digits had tiny claws, suggesting that it could climb in trees - perhaps hanging beneath small branches while searching for insects or moving to a good launching point. However, studies suggest that this bat was fully capable of flight."
The fossil record isn't just a library of everything that ever existed. Complete mammalian fossils are rare at best, considering there hasn't been a mass extinction aside from the ice age since the first mammals came around. Just because something doesn't exist in the fossil record doesn't mean it never existed. It just means we haven't yet found a fossil of it. That's why it's a job. Forty years ago, people laughed at evolutionists because we hadn't found transitionary fossils that show fish with lungs and gills. Now we have.
>>60632163 I'm not an atheist. I'm a christian. The fact that you looneys feel such a sense of conviction that you have to argue for a laughable attempt to explain life on earth 2000 years ago by some retards in the middle east and not just accept that the bible didn't get everything right is laughable.
Because their lineage stayed in the forests and changes in the phenotype are very small. Human lineage, on the other hand, had a lot of evolutionary pressures and needed to adapt, the scale at which we changed is something very rare in the history of the Earth.
Also do people really believe that Christian=creationist and atheist=evolutionist, or is it just an American thing?
>>60632259 >THEY HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MILLIONS BUT THEY ARE STILL FUCKING CHIMPS Because that specific group doesn't necessitate a significant change in order to survive well in its environment, dumbfuck. We see significant genetic diversification occurring when a line of creatures need to adapt to a new or changing environment, like with the arctic fox.
>>60632163 No really... it IS proven and absolutely. We don't know literally everything about it but we do KNOW and ABSOLUTELY that evolution does happen. The body of proof for evolution is massive and astonishing. But I don't expect someone of your intellect and closed mindset to understand :( It's a shame really that with the availability of knowledge in the world there are still people like you... but whatever, the ignorant and stupid will never go away.
>>60632056 Did you actually look at any of those? They each prove it. The fossil record and radiometric dating gives the time line. Gene expression gives the process. Structural analysis shows the similarities and differences. Integrated viruses show relation between two or more species and subspecies. You are literally staring the proof in the face and ignoring it.
>>60632215 >if you can't prove it you are making an argument from faith
As opposed to yours..? Evidently, as you have no understanding of how science in the modern ages works, I'll give you a quick run down.
>Very rarely in science do we guarantee that we know something is correct, hence "laws". >Laws are rigorously researched and experimented before acceptance
>Most often in science we look at the EVIDENCE >We make detailed analysis of the EVIDENCE that we have, look at what the EVIDENCE has and make a reasonable (and often conservative) extrapolation of the implication said EVIDENCE suggests.
Evolution is as much as a theory of faith as the chemical reaction 2Mg + O2 -> 2MgO
>>60628268 Those are just various extinct species of monkey.
God created man, those aren't man. He probably liked those monkeys quite a lot, because we seem share a lot of the same features, but we aren't the same, they are evolved and they have died, and we are created and go on living as a species. Bats and birds are quite alike physiologically but a bat has more in common genetically with a whale than it does a bird. Could it also not be the case that we only look similar to these extinct monkeys through sheer coincidence?
Retard Rating: 1. Flat Earther 2. Evolution denier 3. Jewish conspiracy believer 4. 9/11 truther 5. Moon landing hoax believer 6. Vaccines cause autism 7. Fluorine is brain control juice ----power gap----- 9001. Liberal media wants to destroy civilization 9002. Lol the nazis weren't all that bad 9000000003. Vaporwave is good music 900000000000000004. God exists 90000000000000000000005. "Wew lad" is a funny meme
>>60632723 >Again variation of same species not evolution. And what happens when significant variation occurs to the extent that an offspring from Group A cannot breed with an offspring from Group B? Do you think there's a set in stone "middleground" that this variation deviates from? How do you determine the middleground, and can you demonstrate its existence?
>A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.
>What's more, the extensive DNA analysis -- published in the latest PLoS Genetics -- found that dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves, regardless of their geographic origin. The genetic overlap seen today between dogs and wolves is likely then due to interbreeding after dog domestication.
>The common ancestor of dogs and wolves was a large, wolf-like animal that lived between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago," Robert Wayne, co-senior author of the study, told Discovery News. "Based on DNA evidence, it lived in Europe."
>>60630571 "Yeah i dont think its got rid of any of it and i have yet to observe it"
That's not even a sentence.
But I'm guessing you're trying to say that you don't believe that natural selection gets rid of weak members of the population in favor of stronger genes.
In humans, this is true. We are the top of the food chain. Our genetic deficiencies (like sickle cell anemia) are often treatable by medications.
However, for the rest of the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest is a daily process. Just because you "have yet to observe it" doesn't mean that scientists haven't. I've observed natural selection. In college, I created a strain of bacteria that could metabolize a common antibacterial substance. I also used simple genetic manipulation to insert a gene that would cause them to glow green under UV light. Then, I mixed them with non-mutant bacteria, and put them on an petri dish that contained an antibacterial substance.
Guess what happened.
The strain that had an antibacterial immunity lived. The rest of them didn't.
This mutation was man-made. I did it to the bacteria. However, it has been proven to occur in nature, in both the large and microscopic scale.
Over periods of over 100 years.
By people who have dedicated their lives to researching the development of a single species.
Genesis 1 could have been written during the Babylonian Exile due to its similarity with the Babylonian Creation myth. Keep in mind that the people for whom it was written probably knew the Babylonian myths and would recognise Enuma Elish in it. Why would it be written like this? The one big difference between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 is that while the Babylonian story has a lot of nature gods, in the Bible there is only one God and nature is his creation. It's poetry senpai.
Don't worry, you will grow out of protestantism one day.
>>60632723 >No you dont its still just a theory friend ;). And it will never be a law because it does not follow the scientific method.
I KNEW IT!!! You're one of the TOTAL ignorant idiots who literally don't know that "theory" in science means something totally different than "theory" in everyday language. Saying "Evolution is just a theory" PROVES MASSIVE IGNORANCE you dumb fuck...
To put in base terms that you MIGHT be able to understand... Theory in science is an explanation of facts. When you gather a set of incontrovertible facts that can't be disputed and you want to make sense of what that body of facts mean you get a theory (I am grossly over simplifying because you're a dolt jfyi). Gravity is a theory too you moron.
>>60633119 >I dont think i have anything in common with a banana m8 hate to burst your bubble. You've demonstrated that you have no understanding of genetics and I fail to see why you have in interest in arguing the field of genetics yet none in learning about it.
>>60631071 The sickle cell studies were about the heterozygous population. They had only some of their cells shaped like sickles, less pain, and higher blood oxygen levels than homozygous people. They also had the malarial protection. This made the trait more common in parts of Africa where malaria was rampant, but less common where it wasn't, since more people would die of sickle cell than malaria.
>>60633172 That's some nice propaganda there pal. Let's see your abundant evidence for creationism. Remind me of the vast data proving we are incest spawn from adam and believe. I posted evidence for my case, I await yours
>>60633270 >So a bat would be better at running from predators then flying...Yeah real useful info.
considering that many of their predators also fly... yes it would be more useful to run and hide on the ground, which is why the evolutionary pressures upon desmodus favored the preservation of running ability
>>60633018 All the evidence is in fossil form. If you'd pull your head out of your ass long enough to look there are some good charts put there that showing the evolution of species that seems to make perfect sense to me...
What I don't understand is why theists are so against evolution. If god is real and made a logical universe based on scientific laws, why wouldn't it also include a scientific origin of the species that live in it.
>>60633399 Nah, I'm not defending creationism - I'm just gonna attack your stance. Remind me of any kind of anything "known" a posteriori that can be determined to be as it appears rather than having an appearance completely non-reflective of true reality.
>>60633446 I'm not attempting to insult you, I'm saying that by you saying "I don't think that's true" shows that you haven't studied the field of genetics at all, and that I can't understand why anyone would have an interest in arguing a subject if they haven't first attempted to learn about it. It's totally fine to not know something, but why would you make arguments against it if you don't?
>>60633446 >>>60633173 (You) >You said species A is a wolf ancestor. Only evidence would be hind legs. Well the dog has hind legs and is not a wolves ancestor therefore the hind leg argument goes out the window.
Did you not read this part
>The common ancestor of dogs and wolves was a large, wolf-like animal that lived between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago," Robert Wayne, co-senior author of the study, told Discovery News. "Based on DNA evidence, it lived in Europe."
>Only evidence would be hind legs. Well the dog has hind legs and is not a wolves ancestor therefore the hind leg argument goes out the window
I dont even know what point you're trying to even make here. Are you basing it solely on the fact they have hind legs?
>>60633531 A dead person is made up of dying cells.
A banana isn't dead when it's on a tree. Think of the tree as the bananas mother and the stem the umbilical cord. The second you remove the bananas from the tree it begins to die. What do you think rotting is?
Just some wacky stuff God does to our food just out of laughs? Hahahaha, good one God you got me again.
>>60631581 Kek you don't know how correct that statement actually was. The skateboard/Toyota thing actually works really well as as an analogy. Of course they don't have the same direct 'father' but if you go back far enough there was an original 4 wheeled cart that would be their common 'ancestor'. Humans began to make changes that best suited their purpose over a long period of time and due to the various different uses as well as separation they finally developed into the two distinct vehicles we know today.
>>60631472 >Why don't we see more stuff in the middle
You do realize chimps share 99.9999% of our DNA right? What is this stuff in the middle?
There is no middle. We didn't evolve from chimps, we evolved alongside them. Chimpanzees are not our common ancestor, we share a common ancestor with them. This is probably one of the most misconstrued facts of science.
Saying that it's not true because "evolution is just a theory" or that it's now a "law" etc PROVES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PROFOUND IGNORANCE. You literally just proved beyond all doubt that you're an idiot!
Also if you're just baiting then I guess you win, but I'm pretty sure you're not and are really just a complete and total moron.
>>60633695 >if we were created there would be no reason why different organisms would be similar on so many levels Huh? You honestly believe there's "no reason" why a creator would create things using certain common baselines to his craft? That's like saying there's no reason to expect an architect's different works to not have similarities to one another, when almost invariably they do.
>>60631682 You were never a banana. A banana and you shared common ancestry. I hope you realize that according to the fossil record that you seem to love to use when it "lacks transitional forms", there was a point in time when the only life on Earth was plant life.
And back to gravity - how do you know that the rock falls because of gravity? If you dug down to the center of the Earth and dropped a rock, where would it go?
>>60633890 >implying omnipotent god needs to reuse his old designs regardless, I explained why similarities between species are indicative of descent with evolution. Saying there are reasons why god would leave similarities is nice but ignores the point.
Of course, you're a creationist so there is literally no amount of evidence that can convince you.
>>60634016 >Bye now. Law>theory come back when the science committee accepts your hocus pocus.
>Not realizing that laws are rules within a "theory"...
You do realize that GRAVITY IS A THEORY don't you?
I going to decide to not believe in gravity because it's "just a theory" and then I guarantee I'm going to suddenly start floating off into space! Yup Gravity is not real within our universe... after all it's just a theory!
>>60634140 in comes instersubjective reality, some people can't tolerate the possibility that true objectivity is unattainable. they rely on the anchor of their belief in god to give them a sense of objectivity, when that foundation is presuppositional, and is simply yet another axiomatic derivation of reality. when they attempt to disprove another's axioms, they undermine their own in the process. it's pretty funny stuff.
>>60634114 >regardless, I explained why similarities between species are indicative of descent with evolution Yet my *QUESTION* was what makes that *BETTER* of a hypothesis than that there is a common *CREATOR*. I never once said I don't think you can spin evidence to support a conclusion - obviously you can. But what makes evolution *better* at explaining life than creationism? You haven't answered that at all.
All horses resemble each other so much that they have been classified in the same family—Equidae. Because of this close similarity it can therefore often be difficult to discern any differences through the study of fossil skeletons alone. Another caution in identifying vertebrate fossils is that the variation in structures even within a genus of living animals can often be so great that it overlaps with the variation in other groups; e.g. there is much analogy in the tooth structure between different carnivores, even when the animals are not classified in the same genus (or sometimes not even the same family). The most important diagnostic differences between different groups of animals are often in the construction of the soft parts. Many findings of fossil horses furthermore only consist of teeth or parts of jaws.
>>60631805 Species are simply animals that cannot be bred together.
Lets start with: Species A and Species A mate Species B comes
This isn't how it works. Try: Species A and a variation of Species A mate Species B comes
>No mutation exists where the DNA lengthens only shortens.
Mutations where DNA shortens are quite rarer than the majority of mutations. Most mutations are caused when base pairs are incorrectly matched.
Viruses work by inserting DNA into an organism. This obviously makes the DNA longer and is a mutation.
When you breed a horse and a donkey, do you get an animal that can breed with either of them? No. You get a mule. It's a different species. We created mules rather recently in the evolutionary timeline. You don't think nature could have created them over millions of years?
>>60632163 We most of the same cellular structure as a banana. We have almost identical organelles. Our mitochondria are the same. Our ribosomes are the same (exactly the same in fact). The double helix structure of our DNA is the same. We have the same types of RNA, the same cellular functions, we produce energy from the same Krebs cycle, and we use many of the same forms of sugar to store energy. To say that we aren't part everything would be idiocy.
>>60634663 Why is not relying on some supernatural power better than relying on some?
And why would you believe the "evidence" of your senses? What logical ground is there for that, given there's no law that anyone knows of that makes it so your senses necessarily correspond to reality?
>>60634793 Except when one guy says, "Man, do you hear that yelling?" and the second tripping dude tricks his chemical laced brain into believe he too hears the same thing just from the first guy mentioning it.
It's happened to me and my mates during our hallucinogen days.
>>60634728 Can you test those things? Are the tests repeatable? Are the questions you ask falsifiable? If you ask a shitty question you'll get a shitty answer. For instance, you took drugs known to create hallucinations, therefore the things in your hallucinations exist? That is not how science works. That isn't objective. It has too many variables. It asks fundamentally flawed questions. Can a pink flying elephant exist? Sure, maybe. The universe is near infinite. But you're going to have to prove it.
>>60634391 There are whole skeleton's of many of these species which are dated in succession. I used horses because it was the first thing that popped, but there are many other examples of fossil records that support evolution. Key word being evidence. There IS evidence which most creationists deny.
Evolution CAN be proven through the fossils record. I ask again, why cant theism accept this fact. Your god can still exist. Maybe he isn't some magical sorcerer who snapped his fingers but instead built the universe on logic so it would make more sense. I don't get the problem.
>>60634982 >Hallucinations by definition are unique to the person viewing it The fact that we can think of individuals as having "their own" hallucinations doesn't at all stop it from being possible that people all happen to hallucinate virtually the same things.
>>60628911 >I stopped arguing with creationtards a long time ago Says a "social creationist" "who thinks sex, gender, and race are "socially constructed", even though the entirety of scientific evidence supports the notion that society is biologically constructed. Here you are, arguing your beliefs on a site for "creationtards who vote Trump".
Keep working on your idealized self. You might actual become what you like to imagine you are one day.
>>60635210 >I also didn't know how to read that page telling me about the genetic testing on Oliver determined he was in fact a regular fuck off chimpanzee.
Apparently not, considering it had nothing to do with what I originally said.
>I don't know how to read a page that directly tells me there's 0 evidence to support a fucking Humanzee? What does this even have to do with the fact "it may be possible", as I stated in my original post.
>>60635033 The two people aren't actually experiencing the same yelling because the hallucination occurs within the brain. >>60635176 Virtually the same doesn't mean the same.
>>60635107 Hallucination noun 1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
>>60635507 >a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images. And it does not mention anything regarding hallucinations all being unique to each individual person.
>>60635507 So you're telling me when I'm *NOT* tripping and look at a landscape, I see that landscape *EXACTLY* the same as someone else? Despite the fact that the cones in our eyes are nigh invariably different?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.