"Darwinism"

Race was just a taxonomic label in between subspecies and strain.

>>2102768
Social Darwinism is a misnomer, Darwin had nothing to do with it.

>>2102768
I love it when Darwin said the negro finch was the worst

File: ape-in-past.jpg (15KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x225px

>>2102780
But he reduced man to a mere animal in the struggle for survival. Anything goes, morals don't exist.

Race back then did not have the same definition as what we now think of as race.

see >>2102777

>>2102784
i love it when darwin said "no gods no masters lol fucking idiots ANARCHY"

>>2102768
Darwin himself said that there are no higher or lower species because each is fit to its environment and that's the only measure to base it on.

>>2102768
Why should we prove it wrong OP?

>>2102784
Why would morality cease to matter just because man is an animal?

>>2102795
Without a lawmaker, beasts are left to their own devices.

what's wrong this social darwinism anyway? seems to make sense to me

>>2102801
But we have lawmakers, because the majority of men agree that they make life better.
If you want anarchy, go to Somalia or Antarctica.

>>2102822
>better
But how can "better" exist when there's no standard.

>>2102850
Better than anarchy, Jack.

File: eight.jpg (557KB, 968x1296px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 968x1296px

>>2102882
But anarchy is the logical conclusion of Darwinism. Man is an animal, man sets the rules, but man can't set rules because he's an animal.

>>2102906
Who said animals can't set rules?

>>2102850
Because we make our own standards. You're asking for an absolute certitude, something both ironic and dubious if the argument is that it can be derived only from God; an entity that is explicitly found solely in faith.

>>2102906
There are animals and there are beasts. Man is an animal, but he is not a beast -- he is the human animal, just as there exist the bestial animals. Because we are human, we can reason and make ways of living that we find suitable based from this reasoning.

File: single-coin-machines.jpg (181KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1500x1500px

>>2102915
From where did this reasoning arise? Pure chance, a roll of the dice?

>>2102768
>Darwin’s theory, upon which those tyrants based their actions, was wrong.
You have not made an argument for this point. Darwin's theory is not wrong.

>>2102943
It's irrelevant whence it arose, when the point is that it exists. You are free to argue, and possibly even correct, that it came from God -- but it is ultimately irrelevant. My God is not your God, and the morality and life that my God advocates is not twin to yours. In practice, it can only be said that the each of us are living as each reasons to be best, and that is the crux -- that the moral action and laws of humankind must necessarily stem from humans themselves.

File: Darwin-hitler.jpg (28KB, 424x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 424x500px

>>2102949
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/

>>2102768
No, Darwin was right.

>>2102956
Where does it say that Darwin is wrong? There is nothing in that page which argues that he is wrong.

File: transcw.gif (15KB, 400x124px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x124px

>>2102966
https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/

>Hitler believed that people were engaged in a constant struggle for survival.

And he was completely right. He only got the race stuff completely wrong

>>2102981
Evidence exists. If you aren't willing to read it, that's your own fault
>It is impossible for extremely simple organisms to come into existence organically.
>But I have no qualms at all about the extremely complicated organism, God, coming into existence.
What's it like to be retarded?
And don't give me "God existed forever dur dur". That's just dodging the question. You're just inviting a whole new question: how can something exist forever?
>God's word or men's truth?
"God's word" is just another term for "man's falsehood". I prefer truth to falsehoods.

Could we say that people deciding to not have children is a former a natural selection?

>>2102768
i love it when darwin discusses the different races of cabbage

>>2102810
UHHHH

RACIST AND SEXIST MUCH????

>>2103022
no since the "natural" part doesn't rly fit
people tend to not want children based on non-natural socioeconomic reasons

>>2102768
Because that would make Jews the master race? All those shoahs are just evolutionary selection at work.

>>2102768
>Whence have we the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today? A glance at nature informs us that in the realm of plants and animals alterations and further formations occur, but nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state.
>Adolf Hitler, "Table Talk"

QED. Belief in selective breeding predates, and does not imply, belief in evolution.

>>2102943
The reasoning arises from utility. Wolves are predatory pack hunting animals. They all possess the ability to kill each other. They don't. They don't because they know it's better for everyone if they cooperate.
Morality doesn't need to come from a god to have meaning.

>>2102768
Darwin also thought that South America should be repopulated with black africans because he considered them more healthy and cheerful than the natives.

File: 1475185900185.jpg (25KB, 421x347px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 421x347px

>>2102956
>>2102981
>answers in genesis

Okay but for real

>>2102784
So you think because men are animals we should abandon morality?

Oh you're just a religious fag who is trying really hard to make your shit relevant by saying darwinism is proven wrong by tangential social theories.

>>2102784
>I cannot act as a moral person unless some ancient scripture tells me to and threatens me with eternal torture if I don't.

>>2103453
>implying socioeconomic reasons are artificial

File: retardedsystem.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>2102768
He took a scientific theory and tried to drastically defy the status quo by "implementing" it. he problem was that his Aryan race wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

File: nazis.jpg (100KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 600x699px

>>2103906
Fuck wrong file.

>>2103901
>implying anything about our society is "natural"

>>2102801
>Implying God is an organism and has parts

He is immaterial and "simple"

If you're not willing to engage with sophisticated natural theology then I can't help you either.

>>2102786
>>2102777
This doesn't make a difference.
The only significant difference is there is a difference.

Darwin's theory is wrong because it's unscientific.
With the technology and the basic gist of the understanding of Evolution we can easily cut out Darwinianism as a viable explanation.

There is simply not enough evidence to substantiate the Darwinian claim.
The lab work doesn't match up and neither does the fossil record.

It's time for a new theory of Evolution.

>>2102914
>Who said animals can't set rules?
other animals...

It is there is no reason to treat them as significant.
Darwinianism takes man off his pedestal and puts him on the ground.

I think they really should teach Evolution Theory in the US school system, it would save us a lot of stupid threads from stupid people.

>>2103959
>I think they really should teach Evolution Theory in the US school system
They do...
too much.
It's as if they make it an article of faith.
Evolutionary theory is not on par with any other legitimate scientific theory.
It doesn't have the predictability of gravity nor the demonstrability of of say the H.U.P.
And they always talk of the missing link or breaks in the fossil record as something of a long lost friend they expect to see.
This is like taking a stroll with a non-sequitur or having lunch with the gap in a narrative.

I think a Marxist interpretation of the "scientists" economic values would show they know less than they'd have us believe.

The problem with official scientists is they are always becoming more official and less scientific.

>inb4 science XD LMAO
I'm being serious, we need to invest in the sciences and put these issues to rest once and for all.

>>2103969
>Evolutionary theory is not on par with any other legitimate scientific theory.
>t. guy that is all alone with his opinion

>>2103969
>It doesn't have the predictability of gravity nor the demonstrability of of say the H.U.P.

Evolution is trivially demonstrable

Here's an evolutionary system that optimizes one body type
http://rednuht.org/genetic_walkers/

Here's an evolutionary system that allows change in body type
http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

Here's one that evolves foraging behavior
http://math.hws.edu/eck/jsdemo/jsGeneticAlgorithm.html

>>2103993
>Evolution is trivially demonstrable
Especially since Genetics have been discovered, there was a slight change for gene drift and similar phenomenons, but thats that.

>>2103993

got any more of these?

>>2104033
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=genetic+algorithm+online

>>2103925
Is a Bee's hive natural?
A Beaver's dam?
It is in our nature to build and develop, and so what we build and develop is natural.

Anyway, who said God knew exactly what he wanted from the get-go?
Could he not have spent billions of years attempting to create the perfect being, making continuous, small, changes?

>>2103953
Why would other animals get a say?
They're stupid.

This isn't a democracy.

>>2104068
What do I need a god for when I can explain this all with science and natural behavior?

Science can do very well without god, but religious people somehow need science to accept their view of their god in scientific theory. Since this doesn't work out they try the back door and try to put god somewhere where that science does not yet understand everything.
And since Science knows a little more every day, gods realm shrinks, he gets more abstract, and religion looses its influence in a scientific world.
If you need your imaginary friend, OK, but please keep him out of Science.

>>2104095
I don't believe in God.
But I believe He has helped the world.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of people need the threat of Hell to keep them moral.

>>2104102
And others use God as an excuse to be immoral. I don't think there actions would change with religion just there rationality as to why.

>>2104125
Which is why I'd create a new state religion, if I had my own country.

Religion needs to be better planned-out.

File: God.jpg (21KB, 400x205px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x205px

>>2102784

>>2104102

>i dont believe in god i just think he exists and has done things

you fucking what

>>2104170
I didn't say that.
I said that I think Christianity has motivated a lot of people to be more moral than they otherwise would have been.
It was a figure of speech, saying He.

And, yes, a lot of people have used God as justification for being immoral, but most of them would have done the same stuff with Christianity.

>>2103969

>I'm being serious, we need to invest in the sciences and put these issues to rest once and for all.

We did, but people like you said it doesn't count and now we're back to square one.

>>2104187
*without

>>2104187
>people need the threat of Hell to keep them moral
kys authoritarian
>>>/pol/

>>2104270
Not everyone, but a lot of people do.
To say otherwise would be naive.

Also, I don't kiss filthy hippies.

>>2104285
And what armchair awarded your psych degree?

>>2104291
What armchair awarded yours?
Did it massage, too?

>>2104307
I can't believe people feel the need to write walls of text on a topic they don't understand.

>>2104307
>pretending to have sources by putting [numbers] in your text

>>2104307

This fails in the first couple of sentences. There is no claim that evolution is some sort of ascending ladder leading to mankind. Adaptation can sometimes lead to life forms becoming more simple.

This entire thing is a strawman made up by someone that didn't really even understand what they were arguing against.

File: 1466973746538-1.jpg (42KB, 400x429px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x429px

>>2104319
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
[2] http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
[3] 1 Corinthians 15
[4] Romans 5:12-21
[5] 2 Timothy 1:7-10
[6] Acts 22:16
[7] Revelation 21:1-7

File: hqdefault.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>2104399
>[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Where does this say evolutionists don't value life?

>>2104399
Only one of those sources mean anything, and it's the source for explaining what Gnosticism is.

????????????????????????

File: defend-children-against-dangers.jpg (51KB, 600x205px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x205px

>>2104411
When it states that man is just another animal among many, that we are insignificant, and would be better off just killing ourselves.

>>2104433
W h e r e _ t h o
h
e
r
e
_
t
h
o

>>2104433
Do you have a single quote to back that up?

File: 1481435724603.jpg (41KB, 550x361px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 550x361px

>>2104437
>As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that humans share common ancestry with apes and that the mental and moral faculties of humanity have the same types of natural causes as other inherited traits in animals

File: BUXl_fsCEAANisT.jpg (50KB, 599x594px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x594px

>>2104441

>>2104450
A. Where are you getting that from?
B. Your best source on a scientific theory is from 1844?

>>2104433

You know that when you cite something you are supposed to cite what it actually says, not pull shit right out of your anus.

>>2104450
So you've demonstrated that evolutionists believe humans are animals, which nobody disagreed with. Now do the insignificance, the recommendation for suicide, and the lack of value for life.

>>2103022

Yes, but it's presence as a behavioral pattern is a bit of a puzzle as it's clearly a negative trait that would be selected against very quickly.

>>2104456

Wow, is that really from the Wikipedia page you cited?

>>2104072
Actually from an objective standpoint plants have much better reasoning ability than humans, they are conscious but not self conscious.
They can sense where the sun is in the sky and postion their leaves in to face it.
Self organizing for maximum photosynthetic efficiency aswell.
This is clearly conscious perception and interpretation.
Humans follow the sun in the sky and think that a a sky wizard that looks like them is doing it.
When was the last time you heard a tree come up with some retarded shit like that?
Symbolic self conscious thought is just one kind of conscious behavior and is overrated by its users, who are often times silly. Because they are able to perceive symbolic meaning, that means information that isn't there, it means humans can understand but that doesn't mean shit to a tree.
It's semiosis, semiosis is an intrinsic quality of all life, and all life consciously interprets signs from its external environment.

Humans aren't so smart, we are actively destroying the systems that provide us with everything we have.
>tl;dr
Anthropocentrism is just plain silly

File: d2e6ebaf87d5ba07aaaf3fd816308d9e5a5d3f57316922d500c0e35a1872d827.jpg (266KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1500x1000px

>>2104460
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>>2104468
>>2104470
https://www.trueorigin.org

>>2104488
>>2104477

>>2104488

Citing something else instead doesn't cure the error.

If you had accompanied your new citation with an apology for being mistaken or dishonest and a request to look at your new material that would have been different. However it appears you don't have the humility to admit the error of your ways.

File: Lee-Berger-5-Homo-naledi-Missing-Links-NAtional-Geographic-Homo-naled-full-missing-link-hoax-NATGEO-Lee-Berger-Fox-News-Report-of-National-Geographic-Special-Missing-Links-and-Human-Evolution.png (1MB, 2225x1321px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2225x1321px

>>2104508
>apologize
Why should I when your side has yet to apologize to the countless lives you stole from their paradise?

>>2104531

To show to have some level of credibility in this discussion of course.

>>2104531
You are everything wrong with Christianity in the modern day.

>>2104531

Why pretend to have sources if you don't know what they are, how they work, or why to use them?

File: BTFOLMAO.jpg (100KB, 344x310px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 344x310px

>>2104534
You have yet to show me why darwinism has any """"""credibility"""""" at all, though.

>>2104543
>>2103993

>>2104543

That's the worst apology for using fake citations I have ever read.

>>2103979
>>t. guy that is all alone with his opinion
You've just described everyone.
>>2103993
>computerized algorithms ALGORITHMS are Darwinian or in the least comparable to the infinitely varied conditions of the universe
stop, please, I don't think you understand the discussion.
That's also not a natural process.
You're proving my point.
It's not Darwinian and it's certainly not natural.

>>2104005
Idiots like you bother me.

>>2104189
Oh look, another symptom of "recreational science" taking its toll on the uneducated morons who think reading journals is comprable to research.
>people like you
Good to know you've already discredited my response before I gave it to you.
Into the trash you go.

>>2104270
Plebbit pls
How can you argue that a brute sense of obligation is not advantageous??
If feasibility is truth(and this is the only empiricist viewpoint) then it seems as though Christianity is the most true of all religions.

>muh Islam
Christianity is the only religion to win over its followers across the world by its own merit rather than the merit of the sword

>Replying to creationist b8
I'm disappointed in you, /his/.

>>2104568
>It's not Darwinian and it's certainly not natural.

>In computer science, evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly soft computing) that can be defined by the type of algorithms it is concerned with. These algorithms, called evolutionary algorithms, are based on adopting Darwinian principles, hence the name.

You got me on the natural though

>>2103969
>Evolution is taught as an article of faith in US schools

Lmao literally what

I had to wait til college before I had a professor who actually taught the details, instead of pussyfooting around everything and repeating every five seconds that all they're advocating is """"change over time"""" and not the history of man.

>We need to reinvest in the sciences

This won't change the fact that retards exist who claim evolution has no predictive faculties, despite being one Google search away from actually having a trace of knowledge on the subject.

File: BM-BD-HalfTruth.jpg (111KB, 1016x466px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1016x466px

>>2104548
>uses simulation to demonstrate his point.
Give me a REAL WORLD example of one species changing into another.

>>2104591
lmgtfy.com/?q=recent+speciation+events

>>2103993
On a side not you can modify all the algorithms to reach a point of stasis where no reasonable change (not one we'd see in nature) can save them.
This is also extremely likely given the probabilities we already find in nature.

This simulator shouldn't be able to (if its accurate) have its entire population fail.
If this is the case it's either inaccurate and not natural or Darwinian or its just that Evolution as theory propped up by Darwinianism is simply insufficient.

>>2102768

Claiming both that white race is in danger and social Darwinism is a thing is kind of contradictory.

If social Darwinism is to be followed, it should naturally lead to the conclusion that white race is inferior and should die for those who claim it is dying.

File: ap1014.gif (11KB, 362x440px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 362x440px

>>2104597
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/

File: 8885.png (278KB, 400x426px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 400x426px

>>2104588
Shut up.
You sound like you're too old to participate in a conversation about education.
Become teacher or ask your kids about school.
The former is better than the latter.

>>2104580
And this point doesn't bother you??

I've got a creation simulator right here.
In fact, I am showing you right now, I'm making these words.

I'm sure you can tell I prefer empirical research to "simulations".
Especially when it comes to things as complex as living systems.
>>2104597
>tfw none of them show anything significant
>yfw you discover the species barriers are still present and we haven't found a natural way around them

>>2104614
>implying being 10 ft to the side when a rogue wave kills your 10/10 muscular intelligent and biologically fit friend means you are more fit
Stop

Natural events being present means the white race should only fight harder.

Its also like you're saying
>if you let yourself lose then you're a loser so you should just lose right now without a fight

retard go back to >>>/reddit

>>2104607
>On a side not you can modify all the algorithms to reach a point of stasis where no reasonable change (not one we'd see in nature) can save them. This is also extremely likely given the probabilities we already find in nature.

Define "save"? Which probabilities? I have no idea what this argument is.

>This simulator shouldn't be able to (if its accurate) have its entire population fail.

None of these is attempting to be a compete simulation of open-ended biological evolution. They do, however, all show that adaptation through heredity and selection is an extremely robust phenomenon that pops up even in very simple systems.

>If this is the case it's either inaccurate and not natural or Darwinian or its just that Evolution as theory propped up by Darwinianism is simply insufficient.

Commas are gonna rock your world someday.

>>2104630
I've got a novel idea for you.
What if species is just an arbitrary label? What if animals don't actually fit into specific, discrete categories?

File: 1470472026961.png (159KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 600x400px

>>2104621
>>2104630
>you can't show even ONE real example!
>dozens of examples
>IT DOESNT GCOUNT NONE OF IT COUNTS

>>2104630
>And this point doesn't bother you??

No, actually I'm quite fine with models of nature being models of nature.

>I'm sure you can tell I prefer empirical research to "simulations".
>Especially when it comes to things as complex as living systems.

You literally don't know the first thing about the study of complex systems.

>>2104636
It's an observation.
They can not progress beyond a certain point, they habitually encounter the same problem.
The walkers got stuck falling backwards and the cars came to a gap none of them could cross without a radical change (say one of them just being a giant wheel)
>adaptation through heredity
backpedaling...
It's totally ok to say Darwinian theory is garbage and we need to get back out and do some actual research instead of riding off the coattails of 19th cen. mysticism.
Maybe if there was more grant money....

>muh commas
Hegel, you rat bastard!

>>2104662
>It's an observation.

It's a consequence of all those systems being much, much simpler than the real world. But it also doesn't prove anything, evolution doesn't claim stagnation or extinction are impossible. It's been known for decades now that many species change very little for thousands of generations, than a lot all at once.

>backpedaling...

Not really. Biological evolution is the major subset of evolution, but still a subset. The models show evolution.

File: After Eden 2013 LOST BATTLE2.jpg (320KB, 484x540px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 484x540px

>>2104654

File: disarpproval.gif (2MB, 383x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x204px

>>2104645
>arbitrary label
>a label established around a general point where a population can be described as itself astronomically and no further variation is possible

Get out

>>2104654
>simulators are the equivalent of empirical evidence
no
>>2104659
>I am totally fine with science being unscientific in its endeavors
k
So... inaccuracy rather than accuracy is your aim??
Science isn't for you.

>you don't understand
You're absolutely right, I don't. No one does, that's the thing. Everyone's in the dark.
The fact that we can't even come up with a unified theory is a testament to that.


>>2104654
>posting zoocuck memes
>pic related

>>2104673
not an argument :2)

>>2104673

Could you actually articulate in words what that cartoon is even supposed to mean?

File: 1479953857787.jpg (54KB, 480x456px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x456px

ITT: Evolutionists BTFO

>>2104671
>extinction is possible and these models show it to be more likely than unlikely
>these models are simplified and don't actually represent what we see in the world

Extinctions seem to be the recurring theme, and it doesn't make you scratch your head that there is something when it is infinitely more likely there should be nothing?
We need an amoeba simulator...

>not really
Sorta, kinda, yes, really, really really, Biological Evolution is really the only thing people think of when they say "evolution".
And we don't really see it anywhere but biology.
Physical evolution is usually just transformations of the same thing into different structures all of which are subject to known principles, biology is slightly different in that its the transformation of the same thing into different structures however the governing factors aren't known.
Why would certain differences in DNA seemingly just appear. I think of the Cambrian mostly when I ponder this.
The principles aren't known or they aren't there.
Either Evolution (biology) doesn't rest upon a sufficient understanding or it doesn't rest at all.

>>2104678
>astronomically
taxonomically.
It's not a word but it should be, I've slid it into papers before and it's been approved.

File: 1477059980647.png (660KB, 1412x933px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1412x933px

>>2104691
ITT: creationists BTFO

>>2104678
>simulators are the equivalent of empirical evidence

No, the empirical evidence is >>2104597

>So... inaccuracy rather than accuracy is your aim??

No, any model is necessarily a simplification. A simplification is not necessarily an inaccuracy; when I say it's snowing, you don't need to know where every snowflake is. If you think a model needs to be as complex as reality, you do not understand why we use models.

>You're absolutely right, I don't. No one does, that's the thing. Everyone's in the dark.

No, actually, the fields that study complex systems are some of the fastest-growing fields in modern science.

File: nothanks.jpg (162KB, 1484x1164px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1484x1164px

>>2104691
Meanwhile in the real world....

File: fig-29.jpg (35KB, 365x527px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 365x527px

>>2104680
Why ever not?
>>2104691
It means that when evolutionists run out of talking points, they resort to namecalling and ridicule rather than actual thoughtful responses. You should know, considering that half of your community.

>>2104700
Bottom portion was meant for >>2104686

>>2104678
>no further variation is possible
If that were true then nothing would ever be classified as a species.

File: crimes_committed.png (341KB, 1600x1070px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1600x1070px

>>2104699
Death and destruction, all resulting from the abondonment of the church and embracing of darwinism in its place. Keep worshipping those monkey gods of yours.

>>2104700
>Why ever not?

Either you've failed to explain why examples of speciation do not count as examples for speciation, OR, the article you provided explains why they don't (it doesn't), in which case, you come out looking like an idiot for asking for something as if it was important, then claiming it doesn't matter. Pretending I'm calling you names is not an argument that gets you out of either scenario.

I love when creationists argue "isn't 'x' just so perfectly laid out. How could something so complex such as the eye evolve?"

>yfw all organisms spend shittons of energy to make a molecule called ATP, with 10C, 5N, 8H, 13O, and 3P only to be able to use the energy from a P-O cleavage

>>2104691
>>2104697
This is what kills discussion.
>>2104698
>Google is empirical evidence
I haven't found a single study or lab experiment which naturally (this is to say without genetic tampering) that crosses species barriers. (As another anon pointed out its a nebulous term so it would need to be in well beyond the general understanding of "species")

>any model is necessarily a simplification
I think mathematical models of mathematical principles are more than the sum of their parts.
>simplification is not necessarily inaccuracy
You're right, but that isn't the case here.
It's as if I am asking for evidence that someone completed a race and crosses the finish line, instead you've given me evidence they were seen at certain points in the race.

I don't think you understand the discussion because you are harping more upon understanding the nature of models rather than the models understanding of nature.

You're a pseud.

I assume you mean living systems rather than any system. There aren't many people becoming string theorists.
>fastest-growing fields in modern science
You do realize science thrives upon ignorance right???
It's also that biology is mandatory to be a medical professional.

>>2104709
>If that were true then nothing would ever be classified as a species.
No further variation is possible without it being distinguishable beyond the common genetic criteria.

You're thinking of a more individualistic definition whereas mine is more of a general understand based around Aristotelian particularism.

>>2104709
>If that were true then nothing would ever be classified as a species.
No further variation is possible without it being distinguishable beyond the common genetic criteria.

You're thinking of a more individualistic definition whereas mine is more of a general understand based around Aristotelian particularism.
that just means modern scientific taxonomy.

>>2104741
>I haven't found a single study or lab experiment which naturally (this is to say without genetic tampering) that crosses species barriers.

That's odd, did you try clicking any of the links on Google?

>I think mathematical models of mathematical principles are more than the sum of their parts.

Why yes, that is the motto of complex systems theory, which studies these models among many others.

>You do realize science thrives upon ignorance right???

Giving up the game so soon? I thought we had something.

File: 20090424-2.gif (36KB, 290x324px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 290x324px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

>>2104700
>It means that when evolutionists run out of talking points, they resort to namecalling and ridicule rather than actual thoughtful responses.

You've got the cheek to come out with this after getting pretty much nothing but reasonable responses until you resorted to childish shitposting in a thread that started with trying to link Darwinism to Nazism even though the Nazis banned the Origin of the Species?

Well I admire your chutzpah at least.

>>2104770
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/11/was_darwinism_b103304.html

>>2104480
HUMANS BTFO

>>2104764
Who draws smug asshole better. This guy, or Horsey?

File: e27a4d676d10b4cb99bf4299c77163f7.jpg (86KB, 484x648px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 484x648px

>>2105067
Probably this guy, considering he stylises those who disagree with their ideas as figures that their people have been taught to hate.

File: 1313705625455.png (81KB, 523x478px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 523x478px

>>2102768
>Darwin’s theory, upon which those tyrants based their actions, was wrong

>>2102768
Atheism is a racist ideology that needs to be eradicated.

>Atheists pretending to be christfags pretending to be atheists pretending to be christfags etc etc

None of you have real beliefs. So meta, so 2016, so post-modern! XD

>Spineless

>>2105130
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

>>2102777
Checked

>mfw Op thinks 'races' means black, white, Latino, etc.
>mfw no face

>>2102810
It just doesn't apply in the same way it does to fucking animals. It's not too hard to survive in today's world anymore

Weren't Darwin and Nietzsche people who did not give a fuck about race but their brother and waifu twisted their words?

>>2106797
you're probably in the wealthiest 5% of countries in the world. your society is like the alpha male in the top predator on planet earth, life seems easy to you from that vantage point. life is hard as fuck for most people in the world today and it seems like social darwinism on a societal level can explain why that is. you know how ecology and demographics focus on populations rather than individuals? I think social darwinism is the same.

>>2103695
It was until various South American countries started importing more Europeans in.

The story of man is one where morality plays a role.

In spite of a decrease chanced of survival, man will make altruistic choices which benefit the race as a whole.

They put themselves in danger to help those who cannot help themselves.

File: 7447866.jpg (65KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 644x598px

>>2103910
>implying the "battles of x country" weren't individual wars