>tfw people actually believe we came from monkeys

File: evolutiontree[1].jpg (158KB, 700x463px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 700x463px

google the names on the colored tabs

>>26359446
Incorrect. We did not come from monkeys. That dude on the left isn't a monkey. He's a common ancestor. Both humans and other primates come from the same roots.

We came from Gods hairy ball sack

>>26359446
because forerunners planted samples of us here after they fired the Halo arrays killing all sentient life. chimps are just a leftover species that wasn't killed because they aren't sentient.

File: image.jpg (57KB, 494x411px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 494x411px

>>26359446
There are not millions of the common ancestor, only offshoots that evolved less. That's why chimpanzees and monkeys and gorillas are "cousins" we did not evolve from them, they had a primate ancestor in common with us, that looked more like them than it does us.

Next question you stupid nigger, assuming that wasn't b8

we whacked them

>>26359558
Soooo where are the millions of transitional fossils?

Dinosaurs were millions of years before us and we find their bones all the time. There is little to no physical evidence of our evolutionary ancestry.

>>26359508
How come common ancestors only exist in charts and graphs inside of textbooks and never in real life?

Like the geologic column? Only exists in textbooks, exists nowhere on Earth.

>>26359446
Obviously you've never seen an abbo.

>>26359578
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, dicknuts

>>26359578
Much smaller sample size. There are transitional fossils, just not as many because we're looking at changes over maybe 4 million years, most of which occurred during the last few hundred thousand, as opposed to millions upon millions of years of dinosaur bones, not to mention how large they are in comparison.

There's also the ayy lmao theory, that they could have directly genetically modified us.

I don't understand though, are you disputing evolution as a theory altogether or just the evolution of primates?

>>26359590
Just to inform you: what you're saying makes absolutely no sense to anyone that has even a clue what evolution is.

>>26359590
How come Geologists have all admitted in hundreds of academic publications that the dating of fossils is based on the circular reasoning of dating the rocks by the fossils found in it and dating the fossils by the rock it was found in?

Why do they persist in denying the truth, that they cannot accurately date either, and that by their own methods, a single rock can yield multiple different dates, including dates in the future?

They "settle" on an average of all the dates they find, and they base it around the date which is most likely to be correct, according to their own preconceived notion.

And this they call "science," and anyone who questions it is crazy.

>>26359657
Please Google "carbon dating"

>>26359627
>>26359627
I believe he's saying that more are to be expected than what we have, when in reality given the small populations, the small size of the bones and the small amount of time they existed, the chances of finding a significant number of them are incredibly low.

>>26359578
U a dumb ass nigga

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

And fossils aren't that easy to find just so you know.

>>26359657
>including dates in the future
This intrigues me. How would that result even occur?

>>26359590
Because they changed. They evolved. Let's say for the purposes of this discussion half of them got more ape like and half got taller and bigger brains. They kept evolving like that until today.

Also you can find them outside textbooks. They're called fossils.

>>26359643
The theory altogether. Why are there no transitional fossils of any other animals? Cats? Dogs? Ducks? Literally just dinosaur bones.

Also this>>26359657

Evolution doesn't make any sense whatsoever logically.

>>26359703
What kind of dogs and cats are you referring to? Domesticated ones?

>>26359653
Just to inform you, I don't get what you're trying to say.

I used the term, "geologic column," that term can be Googled if anybody doesn't know what it is.

It is a construct of how fossils could be dated by the way they were sorted, and it's a brilliant idea and there's only one problem, real, actual fossils are not sorted that way anywhere on Earth.

The way fossils are actually sorted is not what is reflected by the geologic column. And the geologic column is the bedrock foundation, literally AND figuratively, that the theory of macro evolution is founded on.

"macro evolution," that's another term you should google if you're unfamiliar, it's another concept that is found ONLY in textbooks, never in any real-world example, precisely zero evidence. Ever.

But again, you would have to be crazy to not believe in it.

>>26359508

>Incorrect. We did not come from monkeys.

For all intents and purposes, we did, and so did the other apes.

"Monkey" isn't a taxonomical term. It normally means a type of simian with a tail.

Some of our ancestors were simians with tails, so effectively, yeah, some of our ancestors were monkeys. Not the same kinds of monkeys we have today, but essentially "monkeys".

File: 1kekbuxx,sir.jpg (86KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 400x400px

>>26359678
Please google "carbon dating accuracy."

>>26359703

>Why are there no transitional fossils of any other animals?

There are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

>>26359703
There are. But you have to realize cats and dogs are super modern. Dinosaurs were around for a really fucking long time, which is why we have so many of their bones.

>>26359690
Basically, he hasn't the slightest grasp on what he is talking about and spouts whatever retarded opinion he pickup from some crackpot.

>>26359703
>Evolution doesn't make any sense whatsoever logically.
Bravo. Now we can stop this useless discussion altogether you utter imbecile.

>>26359690
Because their method is completely and utterly incapable of doing what they think it does.

And their only answer as to why they keep using it if it's so wildly inaccurate is, "because it's the best thing we have, what do you want us to do, go back to 100% pure guesswork? Now we have guesswork AND bogus data! See how much science progresses?"

>>26359777
That's cool and all, but how would a future date occur?

>>26359695
Yes they are called fossils, no, one never has been found, you just think that "oh, they exist, somewhere, I don't know, check the discovery channel, what about Lucy?"

We're still waiting for a transitional fossil that isn't a complete hoax like Piltdown Man.

Here's a rebuttal of all the stupid creationist points http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

Is someone really a butthurt Christian or is this the new meme?

>>26359777
Science openly admits to never being 100% accurate all of the time. And that's part of the whole point of science to begin with.

>>26359590
Because under evolutionary pressures they change.

>>26359703
All of them are though. Every single fossil is transitional you can go to a museum or just look up findings. Dinosaur fossils are commonly spoken of because it's a time period that was incredibly long rich in fossils and our only way of knowing what they looked like.

Google "radiometric dating" it's all I need to argue with this retard >>26359657

So dating IS accurate and their are a significant number of transitional fossils for many species, constantly being grown by archaeologists. What is it that doesn't make sense?

>>26359748
Those aren't fossils, those are drawings.

The few pictures of actual fossils in that list are all of well-known and familiar creatures.

There are no transitional fossils, a drawing of a reptile with a bump on it's head is not a fossil.

Do you actually look at your own evidence? I mean, obviously you don't, but . . . have you ever THOUGHT about it?

>>26359777
Radiometric dating is used to estimate the time a fossil is from, it is unusual to guess based off of the type of fossil. I don't think you understand how we date them.

>>26359847
Even outside of the dating discrepancies, there's no proof that species are still evolving, if we ever were in the first place.

Humans have looked the same for thousands of years. Most animals on the planet have looked exactly the same for just as long. Wouldn't we be growing extra body parts or something if evolution were true and still occurring?

>>26359786
YES, HOW WOULD IT?

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, HOW IN THE NAME OF ZEUS'S BUTTHOLE CAN YOU CARBON DATE SOMETHING AND GET A FUTURE THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN THE FUTURE?

AND HAVING DONE SO, HOW CAN YOU EVER PUT FORWARD A CARBON DATING-DERIVED DATE FOR SOMETHING AND KEEP A STRAIGHT FACE?

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!

>>26359795
Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say you just keeled over in the woods out of the blue. What do you think the likelihood of your bones staying there long enough to fossilize are? First we have to assume that no wind, animals or anything else disturb you body too much. Then we have to assume that you landed in the perfect conditions such that your bones won't just crumble into dust. Say maybe a mudslide covers you. After all that maybe we'll get a fossil. Maybe not.

Mammals are very quick at evlolving, so between their shorter time existing and the crazy coincidences that need to happen to create a fossil record, it's unsurprising we haven't found many early human or primate remains.

>>26359811
What are you conceding?

>>26359860

There are loads of real fossil photos on that page.

And just because many of the fossilized creatures are "well-known' doesn't mean they're somehow not transitional.

Look at archaeopteryx. It's a transitional form between non-bird theropods and the avians.

>>26359860
You can literally go to a museum and look at fossils. I don't know what you would need to believe they exist, but I understand your skepticism. Evolution just makes sense and has plenty of data to back it up, there are no other current explanations supported by evidence, so I'm going to put my eggs in this basket.

>>26359824
Yeah, but where are the transitional fossils?

NOT DRAWINGS OF FOSSILS, OR DRAWINGS OF ANIMALS, BUT ACTUAL FOSSILS!

File: Chich.jpg (82KB, 802x1000px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 802x1000px

>>26359498
>homo erectus
>homo erection
>homosexual erection

mfw evolutionfags are gay

>>26359934
Every fossil is a transitional fossil

>>26359934
Are you trying to say that there are no no such thing as fossils? I don't get what you mean by drawing? Do you mean models?

>>26359912
What's surprising is that you've found exactly 0.0 and you still have the audacity to cite that as evidence of a major theory and you actually believe that the theory is "scrutinized."

Clearly it hasn't been. By you most especially.

And that's kind of the point, why don't you guys who want to be all scientific go scientifically prove the theory of Evolution? The scientific community would hail you as their long-awaited messiah. And that's not a joke.

CHECK EM SENPAI


QUADS FOR KEK

OG COMMENT

>>26359934
Every single fossil is a transitional fossil. This gap thing you're attempting falls apart incredibly quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

There is incredibly overwhelming evidence that proves humanity evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions of years. Just stop what you're doing, its embarrassing. Go back to Answers in Genesis and sucking Kent Hovind's dick, babe.

>>26359988
The theory of Evolution is already pretty solid.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 375x475px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x475px

>>26360000
Lmao

Certified original comment

>>26359966
Stop with this fucking meme sentence and post some actual proof.

There should be millions of bones of transitional fossils. And not just human fossils but every other species on this planet. Why is it so hard to go to Africa and dig shit up? I'm sure there's plenty of undisturbed land there where they can find even the tiniest bit of evidence to support their theory. Dinosaur shit is always making headlines but you never hear a word about humans or any other modern day species.

>>26360033
>Why is it so hard to go to Africa and dig shit up?

Because digging shit up is hard.

>Dinosaur shit is always making headlines but you never hear a word about humans or any other modern day species.

Because people like Dinosaurs more.

>>26360071
>Because digging shit up is hard

Again, they find tons of dinosaur bones which supposedly existed millions of years before man. Digging can't be that hard.

>>26359888
Do you know how evolution works? I suggest reading a book or watching a video on it.

To sum it up simply we are encoded by genes right? Genes have different heritable traits attached to them that are passed on to us by our parents. If this worked perfectly there would be know evolution.

However, what ends up happening is every so many generations there's an error or *mutation* (I'll star key words) that changes a trait by changing the genetic sequence. This has to do with the mechanism by which our genes are passed to us.

These mutations can cause *adaptations* or a change in the organism, usually very slight. Organisms with a good adaptation can be Chads and go fuck a bunch of other organisms and pass on their Chads while the autistic betas die off. In this way *natural selection* selects the stronger and better adapted organisms to survive and reproduce. It's random what the adaptation is but over time good ones have a higher chance of being selected, especially under pressure. For example there's the classic example of the moths and the forest that was stained black by pollution. The black moths could hide better and and the lighter moths started to die off. This over the course of MILLIONS of years cause *macroevolution*.

Humans have only existed for 12,000 years, and the differences in races or intelligence or any variation are all examples of small changes that over time could cause us to change collectively as a whole.

Hope that's helpful I know it's a lot.

>>26360107
I'll say it again. Digging shit up is hard. Learn2paleontology and try again.

>>26359888
you have no grasp of the relative short amount of time "thousands of years" really is, do you? the earth is several BILLION years old. so take that 1000 years and multiply it by itself. that is 1/1000 of one of the billions of years and there have been several of those.

humans in the current form theyre in have been around for MAYBE 200k years. since then, look at what we have changed into. that is evolution. small changes, over a long period of time to help better suit the environment.

>>26359446
This is one tasty bait thread

>>26359988
>Prove the theory of evolution
>What are dog breeds

Seriously, look at dogs. In very well documented human history, hell even the last 200 years, dog breeds have been changed and created. We can be certain that say, a bulldog and a greyhound come from the same common canine ancestor, even though they're as dissimilar as humans and primates.

The only force shaping dogs has been our selection of which dogs get to knock up other dogs. Even though this is artificial, it totally makes sense that it happens in nature too. Strong animal and weak animal are born. Weak one dies. Only strong one gets to make babies. Now you have strong babies. Rinse and repeat.

geology grad student here. ask me anything

>>26360193
how much debt will you accrue and do you have a job lined up after your "research" is finished?

what do you plan, or want to do after you complete the course work?

>>26360143
Not the same. I believe in evolution, however dogs can all fuck and make fertile mutts. Apes and man can not. They may make a freak hybrid. Similarly mules are all infertile because horses and donkeys are seperate species.

Dog breeds are more like the difference between niggers and whites.

>>26360193
Is it true that if the entire population of the United States went extinct, the best remaining remnant of the past a person digs up would only be 1 bone?

File: 080610.jpg (80KB, 250x275px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 250x275px

>>26360232
>implying nigbreeds can reproduce

>>26359786
Maybe it has a lot more unexplained carbon than other fossils resulting in a higher number of "years in the making".


i don't know shit about science and have no idea what i'm saying lol this is fun

>>26360218
$0 debt so far, thanks to parents' college fund, scholarships, and me working on the side.
I don't have a job lined up but I want to get hired by an oil company or the govt so I can do survey work
>>26360256
Yes. This is known as the Fundamental Theory of Geology.

>>26360328
Interesting. Thanks for answering!

It always makes me laugh when someone says "Where is the proof for evolution?" and the first reply to their post is always "You don't know what evolution is, read a book :^)"

>>26360351
Why should we give someone information that they can look up on their own? All this explaining is just us waving our dicks around in regards to how much we know about science and evolution.

>>26360232
I thought the infertility came from the hybrid having an odd number of chromosomes. Aren't there distinctively different species of animals that can still have fertile offspring?

>>26360388
If someone were to ask a religious person for the proof their god/s exist on the internet then alot of them would spend hours trying to rationalize and provide what could be construed as "evidence" for their belief. However, evolutionists have no such conviction, they are ready to deride others as being ignorant and idiots because they don't know "science" but they aren't ready to provide evidence for their beliefs. This makes it seem that evolutionists are immature children who only latch onto evolutionism because it is hip or cool or makes them look more intelligent than they are. And if the first reply is always "You don't know what evolution/science is" it makes it seem like they are merely deflecting the entire question and making it a ad hominem.

File: 1376538943277.png (223KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 500x381px

>know eternal christfag that literally believes the bible
>believes the story of adam and eve, noahs arc, etc.
>ask him if literally every animal was on the arc
>ask him how to explain dinosaurs
>he says they must've died out after the great flood
>ask him if the arc ended up somewhere in the middle east how come you can only find kangaroo fossils in australia, and nowhere else
>he says they must've fallen off the boat and washed ashore in australia

>>26360476
So, in short, evolution is meme science?

>>26360476
You could have saved yourself a lot more time if you just called evolutionists fedora tippers. Because that pretty much sums up your entire paragraph.

>>26360498
when I pretend to be christian I just say the ice age was the flood

File: 1414639454659.jpg (43KB, 499x479px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 499x479px

>>26360576
Shit, that's clever as fuck. I'm gonna use that troll someone later on in the thread.

Get dogs, breed them through generation, select any trait you prefer... Lets say brown fur and long legs.
You will soon get to have a new kind of dog. This is artificial selection but same principle, selecting DNA traits creting a population where a certain trait ia predominant in the gene pool.

>tfw anti-intellectual parasites that deny basic science still exist in a world with limitless information at our fingertips

Kill me senpai

>>26360640
"let there be light" was also the big bang

>>26360396
Not that I know of. Pretty sure ligers can't either. Maybe there are some fish that can though, they seem like they could.

>>26360232
Then look at speciation that's happened with certain types of birds in the eastern united states within the last 60 years. There's your fucking macroevolution right the fuck there. There are more examples of other types of animals, plants and fungi. You can easily look this shit up if you stay away from the creationist websites that outright lie about the facts repeatedly and move goalposts when called out on individual points.

>it's a "christfags embarrass themselves" thread

>>26359590
"I saw that you used to have long hair but now you have short hair. I saw this in a picture. I don't believe that you used to have long hair because you don't have long hair now. If this were true there'd be a version of you with long hair right now."

I hate the "WELL IF THERE'S FOSSILS GIVE ME A FOSSIL RIGHT NOW" argument as if I just carry a fossil around in my bag? Fuck, just go to a museum. Whenever they're just told to go to a fucking museum they're just like "NO, I WANT A FOSSIL RIGHT NOW"

>tfw there is people in Murica that still believe against the theory of evolution
OP, kill yourself. I'd do the same if I had an IQ this low. You're the reason why this world is shit.

Let me explain;

Environment affects species by pressuring the species and causing natural selection to occur as only organisms with favorable traits for reproduction will survive. Since mutation in DNA is common over a large population, every so often mutation will cause a favorable trait. Members of a species diverge into separate species when they can no longer reproduce. This can be caused by physical isolation, as seen by squirrels in the grand canyon being genetically similar but unable to mate, creating two species, or when members in a species just do not mate due to another factor, an example being Darwin's finches on the Galapagos islands which can interbreed , but do not due to different mating songs that evolved due to conditions on the islands. This is how all life evolved, common ancestors can disappear and leave no trace because it takes lots of environmental requirements to preserve bones. However, lots of fossils have been stored in the tar pits in Los Anegelos if you want further evidence of these "nonexistent" fossils, and in many other places in Asia.

I'll end this by saying that if you truly aren't just trying to deny it for some religious or otherworldly reason, you should study it with some vigor to understand it. Some examples I recommend researching are the increasing resistances to antibiotics that viruses are having today due to humans selecting for populations of resistant viruses and any Galapagos island-Darwin study.

>>26361504
Btw I also forgot to say that you cannot win an argument trying to say evolution is not legitimate because it is a scientific fact, which means this HAPPENS and we observe it OCCURRING, when people speak of evolution in an argument they are actually arguing over the different ways that evolution can occur, examples are rapidly or over a longer period of time. However, evolution is a fact.

File: IMG_2632.jpg (190KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 960x1280px

If we truly came from monkeys why haven't we grown a monkey into a human yet? I always bring up this question to retarded evolution-fags and they can never answer it. Next time you make up fairy tales at least cover all bases
>pic related, typical evolution believer

Do people seriously reply to that guy? He's obviously making shit up, he already admited that dinosaurs are millions of years old, he can't be young earth creationist, so it's kind of obvious he's pulling everyone's leg.

>but muh fossils
OP is a creationist troll and won't change his mind so stop trying.

>>26359446
Which species exactly is "monkeys"?

>>26360137
I wouldn't be so certain. Americans are still allowed to post here.

File: image.jpg (345KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1280x960px

I'll never forget when in class we did an exercise about discrimination and they said if you believe in evolution sit down, and only two of the ten standing sat down

Me
>are you kidding me!?
Toastie in front of me
>turns around, "psh, yeah, like we come from monkeys

And that was the stupidest thing I'd heard in my life then

>>26359446
Low Resolution Bait. I dont have the photo