Why is evolution such a hard concept for so many people to grasp?

people of weak character and low intelligence need spirituality as a safety blanket against feelings of worthlessness and nihlism

>>8697421
Possibly. Is that Karla Homolka?

>>8697444
Hows 8th grade going buddy?

Creationism has been there for thousands of years. THOUSANDS!
Do you really think your puny meme "theory" stands a single chance?

>> 8697421
> Why is evolution such a hard concept for so many people to grasp?
People who have never evolved--matured--are as ignorant as the day they were born: so they always deny evolution.

>> 8697444
>people of weak character and low intelligence need spirituality
They are so insecure, yes, that they need someone to carry them across the desert. Funny how they believe they'll get into heaven with the sin of sloth. Won't they be surprised where they end up?

>> 8697473
>Is that Karla Homolka?
She does look similar to child-killer Karla Leanne Holmoka with those dead-eyes.

It doesn't matter what you believe in. If you believe in evolution, you get called an underage fedora. If you believe in creationism of any kind you get called retarded.

You can't win

>>8697580
Jokes on you, I'm a retard in a fedora.

How can you believe in evolution if its just a theory (a geuss)?

>>8697421
If everyone in your family, community, and all your friends, and all your community leaders deny evolution then you have a lot of pressure to also deny evolution.

When you might literally lose your job and be kicked out of your family for openly claiming to believe in evolution it makes you really think twice about it.

Also when everyone around you says evolution is fake then it makes it a lot easier to believe it is fake.

This is why it has been hard for any non biblical teaching to get much traction in deeply conservative religious places.

>>8697586
Is this also why you draw the line for evolution when it comes to humans, and switch to what basically amounts to Lysenkoism?

>>8697584
>How can you believe in evolution if its just a theory (a geuss)?

Its a shame no one ever taught you what a scientific theory is. It is not what you might assume based on the layman definition of the word. If you ever make it to a decent highschool you might be taught it, or at a college, if you ever go to one. If not then don't feel bad because you are in the company of the majority who also don't know.

>>8697421
OOGA BOOGA ME HUMAN ME NOT ANIMAL ME HUMAN ME BETTER THAN ANIMAL OOGA BOOGA HUMANS FUCK YH EEK OOK *monkey noises*

File: 1454088269701.jpg (131KB, 1074x808px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1074x808px

>>8697516
> anyone who calls out the bullshit i believe in is a edgelord

>>8697421
The Just World Fallacy is responsible for the widely-held belief that your negativity attracts failure rather your phenotypic traits that are on the left tail of the human distribution.

>>8697624
>The Just World Fallacy is responsible for the widely-held belief that your negativity attracts failure rather your phenotypic traits that are on the left tail of the human distribution.

copy pasta from religious idiot detected.

I can tell because I can actually read that sentence (unlike you most likely) and it isn't phrased properly for the context.

>>8697647
If it makes any difference to you, I forgot a "than."
>rather than your phenotypic traits
I know exactly what I'm trying to convey, sorry I can't explain it like a mathfag.

>>8697600
Isn't the scientific method based on observation?

So why are you talking about the scientific method when discussing things nobody has ever observed?

How is that "science"?

>>8697677
>things nobody has ever observed?

you were lied to. It has been observed both directly and indirectly.

>>8697677
Plase refer to
>>8697685

>>8697525
Appeal to tradition is not an argument.

>>8697421
Why is history such a hard concept for so many people to grasp?

>>8697516
you'll find out next year

>>8697580
>believe in evolution
>believe in creationism
If you "believe in" anything at all, then
you're a credulous faith-based faggot.

>>8697584
>evolution is just a theory (a geuss)
...like gravitation

>>8697421
>Why is a made up theory with tons of inconsistencies, contradictions, and flaws so hard to understand
Really gets me thinking

File: 1450918212619.jpg (15KB, 244x255px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 244x255px

>>8697580
>Implying they're both on equal footing
>Implying evolution is a belief
Evolution is a scientific theory supported by a ton of empirical evidence. It's been observed and documented both in and outside of a lab.

Creationism is a religious belief that's not supported by any empirical evidence.

>What about hat memes
Who cares

>>8697525
We believed the earth was flat for thousands of years. THOUSANDS!
we died in our 20's for thousands of years. THOUSANDS!
We slaughtered each other in the names of various god's for thousands of years. THOUSANDS!
We lived in hunter-gatherer societies for thousands of years. THOUSANDS!
The quality of life was absolutely terrible for thousands of years. THOUSANDS!

do you not see a correlation between the improvement of humanity and the slow decline of religion in society? Also, a correlation between the shittier places on Earth being more religious, and the better places being less? It's actually a gradient.

>>8697582
>>8697584
Laughed

>>8697580
Nobody calls you a Fedora for understanding facts.

>>8697600
The detective on a TV show who is in deep thought and says out loud "I have a theory about that" is using the word incorrectly. A scientific theory has just as much merit as a law, and it's backed by observational evidence. The fucking "theory" meme is made by scientifically illiterate retards.

>>8697759

This!

>>8697421
I can tell from your post that you are a fedoric and that you don't understand evolution. Or to clarify, your understanding of what evolution is and how relevant it could be is worthlessly flawed. Never assume you know more than someone else simply because you are a good sponge and can parrot worthless shit without even correctly understanding it or contributing anything of worth to the debate, you pint-sized brainlet faggot.

>>8697616

nihilism and cynicism are shit tier philosophies

>>8697421

This is assuming it's hard to grasp. It's not. I think the more accurate question would be, 'why is evolution such a hard concept for people to accept?'

To which there are many answers. Some people genuinely find serious problems with the whole hypothesis. (To which all the angry 4chan teens reply, 'It's not a hypothesis brainlet!')

>>8697421
Q: Why is it so easy to spot the sockpuppet?
A: Pathological attitude, unmistakable.

>>8697759
This place is infested with empty children in search of a new religion.

>>8697898

Everyone has faith. Especially you. I just said that second part to make you mad. lol

But it's true. You have faith the sun will be there tomorrow, and all sorts of things. Everyone puts a mixture of faith into things that are true, and things that they think are true, but may not be.

It's just 'high horse' philosophy to think that you're better or different than religious people because your 'faith profile' is different from theirs.

the time scales involved are just too large for the human brain to really grasp.

just like the universe is incomprehensibly huge. sure you can put a number on it but still the brain just isn't geared to handle that. Ask the average person to show you how far a mile away from where they are standing is. Its a surprising distance.

Now ask someone to conceptualize a billion fucking years.

>>8697936

Mental models for huge numbers are relative in a sense. For example I have a concept of my body and knows things about it without having to hold in my mind that I'm made up of billions or cells or trillions of atoms. My fingernail contains bigger numbers than I'm able to hold in my head, it doesn't stop me from understanding the concept of a fingernail.

If you're going to be that exact then we don't truly comprehend anything.

I don't, nor will I ever, know everything about my fingernail. But I know enough about my fingernail to know it's not an eyeball.

In the same way, I don't have to grasp billions of years to come to a conclusion about whether or not the evidence for evolution validates it or not.

File: 1366948180403.gif (25KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 100x100px

>>8697878

>>8697421
Because people think there is a theory of evolution when there isn't
Evolution is a fact
Natural selection is the theory that attempts to explain that fact
Darwin never used the word "evolution" in On Origin of Species

>>8697981
natural selection is the fact upon which the theory of macroevolution is based you fucking moron

>>8697981

Just saying 'evolution is a fact' is simply certitude.

Natural selection can't explain evolution by itself. As you already know.

And Darwin may no have said 'evolution' in the origin of species but that's also not the full title of the document, it's in fact, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Which I know is a different point entirely but most people seem unaware of the racist intent behind the theory in the first place.

>>8697999
That's not true, natural selection alone couldn't cause macro-evolution that's why modern models rely on mutations.

But it's all a moot point because macro evolution never happened.

>>8697981
>Evolution is a fact
>When the empiricism hits this hard

>>8697936
this

>>8697421
Because Neo-Darwinism is making a joke out of it.

They intentionally misunderstand it.

>>8698019
This >>8697965.

File: top gun.jpg (29KB, 176x187px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 176x187px

>>8698008
how is it that in the same discussion one person asserts that evolution is not a theory but a fact and someone else comes and says it didn't happen
I swear, this is such an emotionally charged issue you can't even trust primary sources of information, I try to just not think about it

>>8698033
no.
>>8697965
misses the mark and is probably a brainlet

>>8697421

They're taught the wrong way...

"We didn't evolve from MONKEYS!"

Correct. You didn't. You and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

>>8698048
Interesting.

>>8698062
>misses the mark and is probably a brainlet

I actually think it's a valid point. Doesn't take a full grasp of something to prove it right or wrong. So whether evolution takes billions of years or not it could still be proven or disproven by things that are graspable.

I think people struggle with accepting that things can change even if they don't see the change.

>>8698204

I think they struggle with the evidence. It's not nearly as conclusive as we've been sold and there are alternate historical explanations for pretty much all the fossil evidence.

So then it falls on the mechanisms of natural selection and more importantly mutation. Things we can observe right now, today.

And when we observe them we find natural selection to be true, but the most important element, mutations, to not point towards macro-evolution being possible.

So that's where the stopper seems to be. I personally don't believe in macro evolution any more.

>>8698069
Congrats on watching Richard Dawkins

File: 1487814664923.jpg (23KB, 240x260px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 240x260px

>>8698226
>Un-ironically quoting his religious propaganda pamphlet about how to deny the truth.

>>8697907
I don't have faith in anything. I have confidence in things, based on rational evidence. I don't have faith that the sun will come up, I know how the earth's rotation works and understand that unkess something changes dramatically it will remain the same. I don't have faith that my friends and family love me, I have years of evidence for it based on their actions. Having blind faith in anything at all and believing for the sake of believing is a thing only retards do.

>>8698230
>addressing endlessly parroted creationist talking points makes you a dawkins worshipper

>>8698226
>
And when we observe them we find natural selection to be true, but the most important element, mutations, to not point towards macro-evolution being possible.

I'm sorry; what?

>>8698519
No pamphlet necessary.

File: image.jpg (40KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x400px

>>8698226
Then you are a brainlet.

Evolution as a phenomenon that occurs in nature is an undeniable fact.

Evolution is simply defined as a change in the genotype of a population through generations.

You can get enough of those genotype changes to see a change in the phenotype of the species. And then, after enough changes, it becomes a new species, generally differentiated by reproductive and phenotipical traits from other species.

Ah you don't know what I'm saying? I thought so, fucking brainlets.

Taxonomy, genetics, even fucking geography supports evolution of species.

>>8697421
Evolution (or nature itself) is only hard to grasp for some because to accept it they must first dismiss all the religious gunk they've been indoctrinated with since childhood.
It's not an easy thing to do.

Some other people are just plain stupid and have only been able to propagate due to the reasonably safe societies we have created.

>>8697421
Can you grasp smoke?

File: 3C6E1DDE-1563-4BA5-BCCA-5111379E93B4-217-00000034CF7FAE89_tmp.jpg (48KB, 580x369px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x369px

>>8698837
You can grasp my chode and smoke it
nawmsayin

>>8697999
>>8698007
>>8698017
If I drop a rock it will fall to the ground
This is a fact
The theory of gravity attempts to explain this fact

Living things evolve
This is a fact
The theory of natural selection attempts to explain this fact

>>8697421
I think people aren't swayed because they consider Jesus first, Other Stuff second. If you're not consistent with Jesus they don't care what you have to say.

I think if you could somehow teach these people basic genetics without trying to counter their religion, they might be easier to sway.

The time it takes for evolution to make a difference is alarmingly long for many people to understand. To think that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years when we live barely 80 years is frightening.

the majority of people on earth have never experienced basic calculus and you expect them to understand deeper knowledge like evolution.

File: origen vs ken ham.jpg (401KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 620x696px

>>8697421
because they're being taught that accepting it will be the end of Christianity when Christians were cool with it before they even knew what evolution was

Politics. People want to believe in one of: creationism, racism, or the idea they are generally innately superior to others.

>>8698755
You know I might actually consider what you were saying if you didn't resort to name calling, instead I have to conclude I'd be arguing with a 12 year old boy and so will not bother continuing the conversation.

I think you should seriously consider doubting evolution.

>>8698858
Sorry, that's wrong. The theory of evolution is actually a 'hypothesis' the theory part is a misnomer.

People hate to admit it but you pretty much knew this as a child.

>>8698862
I think your approach is about a billion times better than all the people here calling others names and acting like children. Then again, they could BE children, and probably are, because internet. It's just hard to tell.

It's always amazing and probably very sad, when you find out the dude on the other end acting 13 is really 50.

So yah, I disagree with evolution but I 100% promote your method of trying to persuade people.

>>8699096

do you have anything to back this up with?

>>8699096
No, the theory of natural selection is a theory because it has been repeatedly tested
It is predictive

>>8699092
Sorry for they name calling. One just gets tired of arguing the same over and over.

People don't ever bother making a small investigation. Let alone study or question what they doubt.

>>8699160
Evolution != natural selection alone. Everyone believes in natural selection, even people who believe biblical creation.

>>8699169
I appreciate the apology, very much. Thank you, accepted it.

>>8699188
I know this link might come off as stupid. But check the wikipedia article on Evolution, and for any doubt that may arise. Just go to the references themselves to more in depth info.

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

I can't look for any peer reviewed papers currently so you'll have to dive into the references and see if they convince you.

>>8697421
https://youtu.be/TzN-uIVkfjg?t=50s

>>8698549

Do you actually consciously weigh the odds every time you think about anything?

>I'm confident this girl (or guy) won't transmit an STD to me
>I'm confident I won't get food poisoning from this food
>I'm confident no other car will hit mine

>>8699160
No one questions natural selection. This renaming the entire concept of evolution thing you guys are doing is nonsense. Quit pretending you don't understand what is being said or talked about and start talking about the actual subject cause you're just wasting your time otherwise and everyone over the age of 12 can see through you.

Actually, pretty sure even a 12 year old could see you playing word games and know that your post was pointless.

File: 656.jpg (8KB, 200x192px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x192px

>thread instantly devolves into high school tier fedoraposting and false flagging
>both sides presuppose that evolution is incompatible with christianity
>thread had nothing to do with religion to begin with
This is not a good first impression of this board.

>>8700676
actually the answer to why people (generally) have a hard time accepting the evidence and truth of evolution is due to the propaganda of religion.

>>8700794
Please grow up.

>>8700808
>Please grow up.

what I said was a fact.

>>8697421
evolution really isn't that simple

>>8697685
Prove it

>>8697421
because they don't see the genetic changes within one generation it's a very gradual change. Society tells us to focus on money cash hoes instead.

>>8700815
Pretty sure what you said was backwards. Actually the answer to why people (generally) disbelieve the truth - Christ - in college is because they accept the propaganda of Evolution.

In most cases it will probably just boil down to the fact that apes and chimps are still on Earth and they can't or wont accept the theory we share a common ancestor

>>8700972
Burden of proof is not on him. He said it hasn't been observed, something you can't prove because it's a negative.

Burden of proof is on you, to show that it /has/ been observed. Only then could he possibly reply back to you.

Because you can't talked about a 'not'.

A huge amount of the world's misconceptions come from the fact that people have no sense of scale. People don't really often grasp the difference between a million and a billion. It's why reactionaries can discuss "rape epidemics" with "facts" because they don't have any sense of scale in regards to how many people are in Europe. Or how people don't realize how many generations fit into hundreds of millions of years.

>>8697473
No, I think that's Cara Delenvigne actually.

>>8697525
>people responding seriously
c'mon

>>8697421
A lot of people literally don't understand the theory and think we came from chimps instead of us sharing a common ancestor, and there is also a group of people who don't want to entertain the idea that they are just the result of a mutation instead of being perfect and designed with purpose. It's kind of hard to stick with the superior race/gods chosen people/Allahu akbar etc. crap when you realize we're all cousins and it's either we try to find a way to get along as sapient creatures, or we set a precedent where we can take competition to its natural end and the best bloodline wins rather than the best nation, race, or religion (aka divide and conquer as most sects call it).

>>8697841
Religion is, among much else, an emotional coping mechanism.

It seems to follow that religion would be most popular in populations with such intergenerational hardships.

>>8702717
It is.

>>8701113
>Pretty sure what you said was backwards. Actually the answer to why people (generally) disbelieve the truth - Christ - in college is because they accept the propaganda of Evolution.

the great thing about America is that people can be this stupid and we don't even kill them or anything.

>>8697580
Correct, m'anon.

That's why I stick to Agnostic ideals. I just don't know.

>>8697728
History is actually quite complex. It deals with perceptions, and they tend to be flawed, biased and change with time. Just look at how the established histories are now changing with the emergence of pc sjw culture.

>>8698935
Isn't that a form of Special Snowflakeism?

>>8697421
Good theory but there are a lot of holes. You need to wait dozens of generations for a mutation that might be beneficial, and what if that creature with the beneficial mutation gets predated before it can breed? There's not only complete randomness in which genes mutate but there's complete randomness in which of these mutations actually get passed on. It certainly is strange that a process that was completely unguided and random ended up with a biosphere full of creatures that have just the right adaptations to allow them to thrive.

>>8701118
>apes and chimps
>common ancestor

I know this is the current way of thinking, yet they still haven't found said ancestor. Technically, we share a common ancestor with dogs and cats as well, if you go back far enough. Could be the same situation with apes and chimps. There is no reason our species couldn't have evolved on separate branches for a lot longer than we currently think.

>>8698549
I have a question anon. Let's say, instead of having confidence that something will or will not happen, I sometimes merely "hope" that something will or will not happen. For example, hoping that I am not suddenly hit by an oblivious driver who is texting/asleep at the wheel, while I cross the street when I am supposed to, actively minding the environment.

What's the line? I just want to know your thoughts. Is that more akin to faith, or, is there something about the circumstances and my ability to control the situation that changes the merit of my "hoping" unfavorable scenarios don't occur?

File: 1483025506048.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>8698549
>Thinks he's a perfectly rational person who only ever acts based on evidence
>Is shitposting on 4chan instead of improving himself in order to find the optimal mate for breeding

>>8703542
>he said responding to a post from 2 days ago

>>8703546
Point still stands

>>8700676
I always refrained from posting on /sci/, because I figured the majority of it was expert anons/well-versed anons of their craft posting incredibly specific thread topics- I imagined shitposting was either outright ignored, or came with a really awful return for one's minimal shitposting effort. In the sense, I figured I'd be wasting my time posting here, and benefit from reading anything anyone else posted, if I cared to read about some fairly inaccessible portion of materials science that only a few anons genuinely understand.

I think I don't necessarily agree with much of what you take issue with in the thread to an exact /sci/ence. But, yeah.

This is different.

It's hard to believe if it replaces an existing belief.

Why is a gender spectrum so hard to believe in? There are more than just men and women anon, have you heard of intersex? My preferred pronouns are helicopter, and apache.

>>8703556
I think from time to time /pol religious people get uppity and come to /sci to put us liberal educated kind in our place.

Hilarity like this thread is the inevitable result.

>>8702756
The religion of evolution is, among much else, a sin coping mechanism.

It seems to follow that evolution would be most popular in populations with such inter-generational moral decay.

>>8703495
The great thing about America is that people can be this arrogant and we don't even listen to them.

Thank the Lord God because then we'd be murdering people who disagreed with us!

>>8703528
>There is no reason our species couldn't have evolved on separate branches for a lot longer than we currently think.

Well, there is one reason. The fact that evolution never happened.

>>8703556

Boy did you guys have the wrong view of /sci/ from what I can tell it's mostly really angry teenagers who want to talk about these sorts of topics (evolution etc.) although 'talk about' may not be accurate.

>>8703636
I also think you might be one of the anons
>>8703614
mentioned, though.

>>8703659
Nope, I haven't really spent any time in /pol/ yet. I'm newish to sci, but I've been spending most my time here lately. I started on the art boards because I'm an art dude.

Sci is by far the angriest board I ever visit. XD

>>8703666
Oh. You just read like you were coming in a little hot, and everyone was a little hot earlier. My bad, Satan.

>>8703671
LOL. Thanks for making your reply at least entertaining instead of just mean for means sake.

>>8703666
posting on the science board that evolution is wrong because your religion says so is bound to cause trouble. Maybe you didn't do that but a lot of people did in this thread.

>>8697818
>theory

its almost like you dont even know what this word means

>>8703724
>its almost like you dont even know what this word means

see this

>>8697600
>Its a shame no one ever taught you what a scientific theory is. It is not what you might assume based on the layman definition of the word. If you ever make it to a decent highschool you might be taught it, or at a college, if you ever go to one. If not then don't feel bad because you are in the company of the majority who also don't know.

and this

>>8697873
>The detective on a TV show who is in deep thought and says out loud "I have a theory about that" is using the word incorrectly. A scientific theory has just as much merit as a law, and it's backed by observational evidence. The fucking "theory" meme is made by scientifically illiterate retards.

soooo basically you're an idiot.

>>8703747
Calling him an idiot is definitely going to lose him. You won't get through to anyone as soon as you lower yourself to gradeschool levels of behavior.

>>8703747
>>Its a shame... and this

Everyone and their grandma knows the 'theory not hypothesis' line by now. There is a reason they reject it and use the colloquial definition of theory (ie. hypothesis) when addressing evolution and not any other scientific theory.

It's because other scientific categories that have theories are provable. For example there is a theory of gravity. There is no question there is a phenomenon we call gravity, the question is what is it, how does it work, what are its properties, etc. and so we have a theory of.

Evolution is obviously different, hence why people consider it's version of 'theory' as hypothesis, which they don't do with things like gravity.

Read em and weep, ye heathens and betrayers.
http://evidentcreation.com

>>8704000
>http://evidentcreation.com

Poes law is a myth. Everyone can tell the difference.

>>8704011
Not an argument.

>>8704012
That's true, it's not an argument. Nor was it meant to be.

>>8703778
There is no reasonable doubt that evolution happens though.
The earth is billions of years old according to various dating tools and we have evidence that shows that new distinct species come and go throughout the fossil record and the statistics behind that preclude certain species just not being fossilized/fossilized and found for such long periods of time even if fossilization is rare.
There is no reasonable question that there is a phenomenon we call evolution, the question is what is it, how does it work, what are its properties, etc. and so we have a theory of.

In relation to "Gravity" saying that special creation is a thing is the equivalent of saying that Jesus pulls everything on earth down at 9.81 m/(s^2).

>>8704091
Your post reads like the pamphlet from a cult.

I don't see the evidence you're talking about. When I look into any area of the evidence for evolution it always goes up in smoke.

Look into dating? found out the dating methods really aren't reliable, or that they give different readings, there are problems, serious ones, just flatly ignored.

Look into fossils? for a missing link? Turn out to be different animals, a money grab, you name it.

Look into the mechanisms for evolution to see if those are observable? Turns out they are, and that they don't point in the direction I thought. Selection doesn't work by itself, and mutation doesn't work as advertised by the theory of evolution. Still no actual evidence.

Look into the origins of evolution? Like how Darwin ended up writing about evolution etc. You bump into really weird and unscientific reasons for him pursuing the idea.

Evolution is by no means as obvious or observable as light, gravity, etc. but of course, that goes without saying.

We can prove adaptation without a doubt sure. Even breeding varieties of dogs. Or cats. With different genetic traits. But it never goes further.

The doubt is reasonable.

So they say 'millions of years' that's why you can't see it. Sure, I would accept that, if any of the evidence didn't end up evaporating the moment it was looked into.

>>8704091
I'll correct that. Your first sentence reads like a cult, not the whole thing. that was unfair of me to say, I'm sorry.

File: LIZySmc[1].jpg (242KB, 1552x1200px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1552x1200px

>>8697421

Because evolution has already been debunked. Just look up Dr. Hovind's work, he's one of the greatest minds of our time, debunking bullshit lies to the point where even the govt wants him silenced.

>>8704121

There is no doubt you moron because evolution is literally just "changes in allelic frequencies in populations over time".

>>8704121
M8 if it read like a pamphlet from a cult I wouldn't have said "reasonable". You can always doubt anything. In any case I'm mostly just rephrasing the person I'm quoting past that point.

>
They are mostly reliable and different dating methods give similar results. If you stumble across a huge problem or inconsistency (which you havn't named) it's probably because someone used it wrong, like trying to date material that's not in the range of the dating method or which is unsuited for the method.

>
You just need to look at new species emerging in the fossil record over time as well as large extinction events. I didn't even mention missing links. Asking for missing links is bogus anyway because fossilization is too rare of an event to get a very complete lineage from A to B. Species that are fossilized typically are a snapshot of periods along the lines of millions of years.

>Selection doesn't work by itself, and mutation doesn't work as advertised by the theory of evolution. Still no actual evidence.
I am curious about what you mean by selection doesn't work by itself and "mutation doesn't work as advertised". I guess you mean that selection needs multiple allels to "choose" from. And mutation is just mutation, not sure what you think is wrong here unless you want to push "no new information" or "always harmful" memes.

>You bump into really weird and unscientific reasons for him pursuing the idea.
Evolution has continued without Darwin.

>Evolution is by no means as obvious or observable as light, gravity, etc. but of course, that goes without saying.
What I mentioned in my post is that new species must emerge over time and that is clearly observable in the fossil record.

>
"Adaptation" doesn't explain new traits like antibacterial resistances if you're using the word like I think you are. Also doesn't explain the fossil record having new species.

>>8704145
Also this

>>8704145
If I'm a moron then why are you trying to reach me? Come on, we can do better than that. I'm much more open to arguments and persuaded by a good tone than being called names and belittled.

i'msorry to say this but if you're a teen or something, you guys have to learn that insulting people turns them off, and doesn't work to open minds. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish anymore. Just to instult me for the sake of insulting me? to hurt my feelings? What ever happened to an honest discussion.

I've given you reasons why I don't find it stands up to scrutiny, how about sharing yours. What's your story? Why have you rejected some of the counter-evidence? Is it just a blanket statement of 'I don't believe because 'authority' or have you actually examined the counter arguments to see if even some some of them might be valid.

Isn't that true scepticism and investigation? I've investigated both sides. I used to believe in evolution based on what I thought was evidence. I changed my mind. That doesn't make me a moron, it just makes me a normal human being, and misguided at best, if that's what you believe of me. Why treat me this way?

it doesn't make me want o listen to you or be swayed by your arguments or opinions when you result to insulting me ike we were both in the 8th grade, it's arrogant and condescending, in the same way that a gradeschooler just resorts to calling someone stuipd.

If you think I'm really that stupid don't you have any compassion for me? If I'm that dumb, can't you let me down like an adult? Say, "listen I'm sorry I believe we aren't ont he same level ont his discussion, but I appreciate the conversation and thank you for taking the time.

you could walk away as ana dult, instead of belittling me.

When you insult people, I believe it really gets you no where and misses the opportunity to make the conversation really worth something to the other person. I'm sorry you feel that way about me.

>>8697421
Because humans are not animals.
Compare pic of that girl to an chimp and see it for yourself.

>>8704415
>I've given you reasons why I don't find it stands up to scrutiny, how about sharing yours
Most of your counter-evidence is pretty vague so there's not much to discuss(dating, mechanisms), is easily refuted (missing link, only adaptation (Depending on the way you use the word)) or doesn't address the topic (Darwin's opinions and reasoning I guess).

While insulting doesn't help matters you haven't given much to argue with but have instead given a lot of points to address in a similarly vague way.

>>8697421

because people are raised to think all humans are the same which is incomparable with evolution

the thought that people change over generations but different groups of people who have been isolated for thousands of years are all identical is silly, you cant believe both

most people choose to believe the "everyone is equal" meme rather than the truth

>>8697421
becuase this debate is about authority?

when you are a child of faith you are taught not really to trust your senses and to trust in god.
and you know how much people like to run with the messages of prophets.

so who do you trust?
who do yo believe?

>>8704428
Are dogs animals?

>>8697421
the human mind has a hard time grapsing anything beyond their life time. even sometimes thats hard.

we don't really comprehend geological time, or time across lifespans.

I mean the reason we like to fuck the environemtn up is that we can't seem to think beyond our own generation.
so when they talk about evolution that connects us to every living thing everywhere on earth in time, its kinda of hard to wrap your head around.

>>8704466
Try harder.

>>8703778
>Evolution is obviously different, hence why people consider it's version of 'theory' as hypothesis, which they don't do with things like gravity.

so what you're trying to say is that you're scientifically illiterate and reject the established science of evolution and prefer to refer to it as something that is in question and up for debate.

Sooo basically you're retarded.

>>8704567

Someone disagrees with you, so you call them scientifically illiterate based on your own assumptions/feelings, and then call them retarded.

Great job ace! Really shows the ability to 'think' and reason with your fellow human beings.

Taking a leaf out of Dawkins book as the only popular figure defending this belief who refusing to debate anyone who disagrees wholly with Him.

Even Bill Nye who people seem to hate around here for no reason had the balls to debate a creationism. It's not about Michael Shermer, he's respected the opposition enough to debate them too, at the very least, and show them that courtesy, and many other debaters on topics like these.

Your tactic of calling people names only works in 8th grade and below. No one else is going to find that a very good argument.

In fact, it's pretty much a sign that you have never seriously considered anything the other person has said before, or even looked into anything doubting your worldview in the slightest.

And you guys accuse Christians of blind faith, that's a laugh.

File: untitled.png (66KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 292x173px

>>8705305
>based on your own assumptions/feelings

based not on emotions and feelings, based on your admitted rejection of established proven science.

>The ability to 'think' and reason with your fellow human beings.

Its hard to reason with you when you reject proven science that doesn't fit into your 2000 year old father in the sky book.

>refusing to debate anyone who disagrees

why bother debating you when you reject proven facts? its a waste of both our time.

>calling people names
I think you're a certifiable moron based on the facts established in this post and further because you came to a science board and tried to argue that your religion invalidates facts.

back to /pol with you

File: nurgle goodness.jpg (81KB, 1136x852px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1136x852px

super old picture of a nurgle unit from before I shelved the project cause I couldn't stand the way the GUO model looks. Figured I'd get too much shit-posting about my "blood elves" if I posted the progress on those.

>>8705600
lol sorry was lurking here and posted to wrong thread.

>>8697714
He was being sarcastic.

Obviously tradition for tradition's sake is not logical, but it's the reality for majority of the population. Their mom or grandma told them something their whole childhood and suddenly it's not true because some newspaper aticle says so? Nuh-uh my grandma's smart and I love her so I'm going to keep following her advice, ignoring any newly-discovered facts that would point to gram's evidence being as outdated as it is salient to her, due to it coming from her personal experience.

And so we, as a species, keep circumcising, waving hands, and following governmental/religious laws/tenets based on notions and info from hundreds/thousands of years ago.

>>8697421
Because it's lengthy and it happens at the levels of populations. Also because they want to believe that we are somehow special and not just some bipedal primate with a huge neocortex.

>>8697907
>You have faith the sun will be there tomorrow
Lrn2expectation, faithfag

>>8697898
>This place is infested with pompous bombasts
>defending their tired old religion.
FTFY

>>8700612
>Quit pretending you don't understand
>the mush in my head.
It's not that hard to understand, Preacher.

>>8704124

Have fun...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUEusDsR61k&t=96s

>>8697759

I mean belief in an essential concept in a lot of ways. I cannot go around and verify every single thing for myself, sometimes youjust have to defer to experts or accept what you were taught as true.

I've never seen cancerous cells under a microscope for myself but I have an idea of what they look like due to my education, for example.

Belief isn't inherently bad in all or even most aspects but an ability tonassess the claims and their origins and evidence for or against them is a problem.

The reason you were told god exists isn't because your parents deliberated over the evidence. It is largely a cultural phenomenon and the beliefs are clearly unsubstantiated and irrational.

>>8697907

Faith is belief without evidence. I have evidence to substantiate my belief that things will continue as they have before. Some beliefs are more reasonable than others, some are based purely on abstract and non existent concepts.

>>8706819
false equivalence
if I want to see cancer cells under a microscope I know I can do it with very little effort

>>8697421
Because you, among others, make an effort to hide the distinction of [theory of evolution being the root cause of the development of life] and [evolution].

The people you refer to don't know or understood the latter, so they have no chance to understand the former.

>>8697421
probably because there's no evidence to support the theory anywhere in the fossil record.

>>8706825
It's not like you can't observe evolution with a little effort.

It's not like antibiotic resistance can't be seen evolving on an antibiotic gradient agar or anything.

It's not like you can't construct a genetic distance based tree yourself with publicly available databanks (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi), knowledge and software tools either.

>>8697677
>>8697873
>What is sarcasm?