Macro-evolution isn't real, there's no proof of it.

Shit thread, shit bait, shit post

>>8829613
Einstein was a creationist.

>>8829619

reply

>>8829649
My thread isn't just "bait" dammit, it's a serious argument I give against fedora-tipping atheists online, that none of them so far have been able rebuttal.

File: 1438489135125.png (423KB, 876x1496px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 876x1496px

Just post more cute animes

>>8829662
Then either you found a bunch of morons or you found a bunch of people who think too highly of you to assume you'd use that seriously. Einstein could think that spacetime is God's toilet paper and matter is his shit, and that doesn't make it true.

>>8829608
>Lining up remains of two similar-looking extinct animals that lived in consecutive time periods isn't proof that one evolved into the other.

maybe not, but that assumption lets us do useful things like find oil and other natural resources.

instrumentalism vindicates all so until you have a better model, shut your smug anime mouth.

>>8829608
>How and why would an asexually reproducing creature develop male/female sexual organs and reproductive system?

Sexual reproduction evolved in single-celled creatures. They didn't have "sexual organs". It's possible that sexual reproduction evolved only once, in a common ancestor of all modern species that have sexual reproduction.

Also, the earliest species that reproduced via sex did not have separate sex/genders. One might say they were hermaphroditic.

>>8829608
Also, the best evidence for common ancestry is modern molecular genetics. In particular, the genetic-distance tree of life is practically the same morphology tree of life (that thing discovered by Linnaeus). That's the best evidence for common ancestry. Common ancestry would be conclusively known even if we didn't have a single fossil.

>>8829608
fuck off back to >>>/x/

The idea of creation is an idea. The holders of that idea are what make the religion. Religion becomes true when everyone upholds the ideas of that religion.

The evolution of male idk came from............. Intoxicated hermaphrodites. The ones that lives around a drug became inspired by that drug to reproduce, making all other creatures "female" in the terms that "they weren't actively seeking to fuck something"

Ancient hermaphrodite bugs each had a penis, but no vagina. The penis was sharp and the bugs would have to be the winner, and stab the other bug in the gut to inject sperm. The loser bug would be weekend by supporting children, and then already has a hole. Next meeting season, it just takes it.

So the pre-disposition of some additive caused some ancient creatures to be more inspired than the other creatures, and those creatures are what pioneered "masculinity" as a "driving force". It is like tribal peoples farming and connecting materials to build, but someone removes it to mine for their skyscraper.

The skyscraper people get called "manly" and the tribes people "feminine"

The whole thing is pretty backwards in mentality, since the 80s-90s

>>8829608
Look up horizontal gene transfer. Eventually some got specialized with it and genders slowly arose in species because it actually is a pretty big help. There's a reason why 99% of all large animals are sexual.

>>8829608
>It is far less efficient than asexual reproduction

Except it isn't.

>>8829608
Look Muller's Ratchet.