I'm not totally sold on the whole evolution thing. How could something as complex as the mammalian digestive system all evolve at once? The chance of each part evolving at once is multiplying part individually. There's evidence in the bible that talks about dinosaurs NOT existing. Jesus said it himself. So how could something so compkex exists when even the bible made and written by GOD? If evolution is real, then why are there STILL apes!? Really? They should have died out like all the intermediate species. Also they say a chicken is the evolved form of a T-rex...HOW? How can something as big as a T-rex go from that, to a fucking chicken? How does a fish go from swimming to flying as a bird?
>>704758915 Yeah, makes sense to me. this reminds me of an observation I've had along similar philosophical lines concerning the "pehnomennon" of evolution. it is often argued that humans are descended from similar creatures that were not humans but also were not monkeys, and were not gorillas or chimpanzees. These were claimed to be existant around the earth around 1 million years ago, and they were supposed to have slowly developed into humans around that time. So what is the motivation for assuming such a thing? it is all because evolutionists want to fit the evidence to their "scientific" narrative. drawing a parallel to psychology, all the biologists are just attempting to follow along the lines of Darwinism, just like the psychologists are enamoured with Freudism. However it is not the case just because somebody is famous that they're ideas are correct. This is why many people have a problem with evolution: many of the fossils they discover could be explained in a pleathora of ways, and yet the darwinists apply their own biased analysis and claim for it to be the only one that is reasonable.
>>704759793 you have to realize that the facts are the facts. If you look at the data, 100% of species are thought to be descant from a common acnestor. if you look at the dna you'll realize that the genes are all aligned in a certain way. however, you have to realize, DNA is an informational system. slightly more formally, "'DNA'"==[["INFORMATION"]]. however, that information can't "evolve" per say, but it has to come from somewhere, but not by the means of evolution biologically speaking. so if it comes about from some other source, you can speculate all you want, but it takes some empirical research to really demonstrate a CONVINCING origin. and that's just it. it's all in our minds. the idea of information. it doens't "exist" in the natural universe. biologically speaking, evolution can't "evolved," from itself(or from nothing), because it doesn't "exist"! however, as soon as this realization is made it has more reaching implications unto the rest of evolutionairy theory. therefore, if the concept of informational quality in DNA structures is introduced by humans, then so is the "narrative" process of evoltion throughout history. so it doesn't make any sense to talk about one species evolting into another diachronically, it only makes sense to talk about them in the most synchronic sense of the concept. as soon as you abstract away from these things, you realize that the entire dialogue of evolution can be arbitrarialized into a number of facets which aren't necessary for the procedure to take place, if at all, including "single common ancestor" theory.
>>704758915 Don,t worry about it too much. Your just no as far along the evolutionary scale as the rest of us. Show me 1 sentence in the bible which mentions dinosaurs. There are none. And where the fuck are the talking snakes?
>>704758915 evolution isn't a straight line its more like a tree with different branches and dead ends. That picture is outdated and is one of the reasons some people still don't understand something as simple as evolution. This is a better image
>>704760159 LOL if you think thats truth. Because if CHIMP really are a strong and fast as HUMANS, then your hard press to find out why they can't beat a human in a RACE. and additionally, if evolution is cumulative as you say, then doesn't it make sense that they would be ADDITIONALLY smart and intelligent as well as fast and unrestrained speed? So how do you explain this in accordance with the feathers of birds, which although making them more intelligent, also making them more fast as well? So this is a direct contradiction to you're "THEORY" of evolution .That's why it's just a theory instead of the law of gravity, because anybody can come up with their own theory and determine the facts or not if they so desire. EVOLUTION isn't the facts!
>>704758915 Great point! Something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
>>704761219 This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
>>704762412 >theory of universal gravitation Complete and utter bullshit, it's called Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every mass attracts every other mass in the universe. Please note the "LAW" after Newton's.
>>704761904 >>704762140 >>704762412 The fact that earthen objects fall down and airid objects fall up is the fact. The gravity IS just a theory. what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).
>>704762575 Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him; see the History section below.) Here you go buddy, you seem to need to know the ACTUAL definition instead of your stupid definition.
>>704761219 >If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS This makes zero sense. That's like saying that eagles and parrots can't have a common ancestor because only one would now exist. A species doesn't evolve in a split second, and not all groups evolve in the same direction. I don't know why I'm bothering, but really, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what the theory actually claims.
>>704762598 WAKE UP SHEEPELE. The illuminati created the theory of evolution to brainwash people into believing the earth is more than 2,000 years old and that we "evolved" from apes. They want you to fall into Satan's trap. Evolution and the idea that earth is 3.6 bilion years old is strictly Satanic!
>>704758915 We didn't descend from apes, we diverged from them. Apes and Humans diverged and took different evolutionary paths. In your pic, the ape-like primate doesn't actually exist anymore as a species.
>>704762575 >>704762888 >>704762991 You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.
>>704763166 a theory is about the highest grade you can get in science its not JUST a theory, its a theory and as close to a fact as it can get. the evidence for evolution is astonishing, denying is as denying the world is round
>>704763166 "Theory" = Working Knowledge It doesn't come from pure guessing. That's a hypothesis. Fossils are not bones either they're rock that replaced organic material over a longer period of time than you have reading about the subject
>>704763447 >If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't If you believe this, you are misinformed or just willfully turning away from the truth. Humans and chimps share all kinds of "features", not to mention 99 percent of the same genome.
>>704763447 Humans and apes have thumbs. There's one shared feature. Then there's the rest of the >95% of our DNA sequences. Then there's cranial structure, our diets (originally mostly herbivores with some meat), our societal structures, use of tools, and plethora of other things biologist and anthropologist have spent the last few decades studying.
>>704763420 >>704763939 >>704764161 >>704764365 >all this talk of "COMMON ANCESTRY" Think about this example: Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex. if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers
>>704764952 All I'm saying is if you identify common ancestors based on shared features, whether that's DNA matching or morphological traits, then you can't account for spiders and human relationship. Say you make the claim that shrimp are the common ancestor of humans and spiders. Ok, so 300 million years ago, some shrimp got isolated and underwent speciation. Then later maybe another group of shrimp branched off. The original shrimp population remained unchanged. Ok, as unlikely as that is, even if it were the case, it still doesn't explain how spiders have 8 legs and humans have 2 legs. The common ancestor of humans are mammals, which have 4 legs, so if you compare humans and mammals, their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species. However, if you apply the same comparative method to spiders and mammals, you see that it's impossible to have a common ancestor with that number of legs. Adding shrimp in there just makes things even more difficult, because the common ancestor of humans and spiders now also has to have a common ancestor with a shrimp, which has I don't know how many legs, so you'll get an even more bizarre fraction number of legs.
>>704762742 Inductive reasoning works on probability example I dropped 20 white beans in a bag. Inductivley I can say the beans in this bag are white. But it could be wrong if a black bean had already been in the bag. Deductive however works on absolutes example I looked at every bean in the bag, the beans are white. When iT says he Inductivley proved his theory it means he dropped a particle on earth, and that particle was attracted to earth the bigger particle. And it was probable that every other particle acts the same
>>704765080 >>704765421 On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.
Annunaki were the Watchers, Watchmen assigned to earth to watch over Yahweh's Creation in the Garden of Eden and Earth . They were created by God as perfect Angels. They went against god and mated with people, creating the nephilim
ITT debating high school level biology like it's some grand debate >I don't understand it so it mustn't be true - despite the fact that I've not actually taken the time to research what it is I have issue with >Presuming evolution to be 'faked', constantly putting burden of proof on others to have to walk you through one of the easiest to understand fields of science like a child >Writing large paragraphs only showing your complete ignorance of speciation >"It's just a theory not a law", misunderstanding the difference between explanation and analytical statements
We didn't evolve from the apes that are around today. We evolved from other apes that have since gone extinct, just as the apes we live with did. the reason why none of the apes that we evolved from don't exist is because they couldn't adapt to the changing environment the way we did. Also, our complex organs didn't change overnight. It took millions of years to become what it is. Besides that, dinosaurs were real. if you have a gravel driveway, look through the rocks and you're sure to find an ancient shellfish fossil. There is VERY clear proof that dinosaurs existed. The bible, on the other hand, was written by men, then edited and republished multiple dozens of times to the point that much of it isn't even the same as the original written documents (assuming it's real). So who are you going to trust, the real fossils that you could possibly find in your driveway, or a book written by men that were just trying to find a way to explain things they didn't understand?
>>704760000 fail for starters, the DNA replication system isn't perfect, although far more accurate and efficient then any machine humans could make at this point, the genome of even bacteria is incredible vast.
since I'm lazy I will quote this source about E.coli
"What are the implications of an E. coli mutation rate on the order of 10^-10 mutations/base pair/replication ? Given a genome size of 5×10^6 bp, this mutation rate leads to about one mutation per 1000 generations anywhere throughout the genome. At the same time, because an overnight culture test tube often contains over 10^9 bacterial cells per ml one finds that every possible single-base-pair mutation is present"
bacteria are a very simple way to comprehend evolution because their mutations and subsequent evolution is observable over days as opposed to millions of years for large organisms.
>>704765963 It's not evidence of natural selection being wrong, it's evidence in FAVOR of an alternative view of evolution in which theirs multiple originations. Therefore because spiders and humans generate a common ancestor with an impossible number of appendages, therefore they must not be ultimately related, though they may both have "evolved" from separate sources.
>>704765570 >In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.
First off, "same DNA" is almost meaningless, function is always the key, not the actual genetic code. There are hundreds of ways to code a functional globin protein, all of which fold into an essentially identical protein with an effectively identical function.
Second of all:
what the hell are you smoking
a fairly sizable percentage of our functional DNA is interchangeable with fucking yeast genes
Just 1 source of many: http://www.yeastgenome.org/yeast-are-people-too
I really hope you are trolling/baiting/whatever the fuck you faggots call it these days.
>>704762135 so this well put together specimen based on fossils that not only fit together perfectly but were also found next to each other in the same terrain and geological time period is just the illuminates attempt to cast Freudian love for ones own mother in an attempt to increase the proportion of inbred simpletons so the general populace is more easily malleable. right?
I would call l it natural selection instead. The name forces people to understand the concept better. Evolution to them just brings forth OPs picture into their minds. If I could ban one image from existence it would be that bullshit monkey to human timeline.
>>704766637 this is not necessarily true, just all life we have found so far has been shown to have a common ancestor, but their is likely life living hundreds of miles down that may not have gone extinct as a result of the increase in toxic oxygen with he advent of the oxygen crisis.
>>704767263 Who gives a shit. Nobody cares about this topic at all irl other than really washed out loons, the kind who are certifiably batshit and just interpret any discussion they bait as a confirmation of their persecution mania. Its been two decades, they won't be changing their minds so don't try to. Just do what the rest of us does and stop paying attention to the guy holding up cardboard with Leviticus excerpts at the street corner.
>>704758915 pieces of matter don't just come together to form complex organs and organisms. things slowly take root and are improved over time.
small molecules came together to form RNA machinery inside of lipid monolayers.
RNA machinery evolved to form self replicating machinery.
self replicating machinery evolved to store information as DNA, a more stable storage system.
Entire organisms were able to take root because DNA was long lasting and stable enough to store the information long enough for mutations to take root that would result in the evolution of more complicated forms.
over billions of years single 'celled' organisms formed into complex life which eventually formed into all life we see today.
so the evolution of 'apes' as you would be foolish to call them, over the course of millions of years is but a tick of the evolutionary clock.
>>704768096 I don't know how many times we have to go over this. Evolutionairy science is flawed. Base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it. Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 million times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.