>evolution is still considered sound science despite its many

File: 1492800585705.png (138KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 500x486px

>>8862326

>>8862326
Because homologus structures across different forms of life alone are enough evidence to suggest evolution.

File: 1286752184927.jpg (54KB, 639x317px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 639x317px

>>8862326
lmftfy

>>8862326
>literally believing in magic
Back to your containment board >>>/pol/

That picture gave me aids

Thanks OP

>>8862345

The evolutionary tree is fucking retarded. It has to be a DAG like everything else in life.

File: Mystery of Mt Rushmore.jpg (63KB, 495x474px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 495x474px

>>8862330
Nice ad-hom

>>8862345
By that same logic, cars, bridges, and various household appliances evolved.

File: shitty bait.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>8862374
>>8862326

File: Darwin-Altar.jpg (458KB, 878x686px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 878x686px

>>8862385

>>8862374
Go get a brain tumor.
Now that, that is some intelligent design.

>>8862326
Geologist here, yes paleontology is part of geology and also archeology is somewhat related.

Listen. We have TOO MANY HUMAN FOSSILS. We have so many that the problem is no longer 'where's the missing link' the problem is 'when is the transition from ape ancestor to human'. The sheer volume of skeletons we have is astonishing and each new find makes us say 'well, is this one more like modern humans or more like Homo erectus?' when exactly do we draw the line?

So any argument you make better fit the evidence.

File: Twoviews.png (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>8862402
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/did-humans-really-evolve-from-apelike-creatures/

File: laughing.jpg (39KB, 620x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x450px

>>8862443
>answersingenesis

>>8862326
>>8862326
>How do you justify the amount of ad-hoc and bias present in this supposedly scientific discipline?

because as a model, evolution is pretty useful for making predictions. the entire oil/gas/mineral industry wouldn't work without relative dating. relative dating wouldn't work without the assumption that macro evolution is the only explanation for why all species didn't exist on the earth at the same time.

this is one example of evolutions instrumentality. until creationist theory has some sort of industrial application, evolution is the status quo, regardless of the holes you can find in it.

File: 1486871807741.jpg (33KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x375px

>>8862443
>answersingenesis

>>8862402
Instead of giving any evidence or thoughtful critique you're just posting shitty memes.

Get off /sci/

>>8862401

>>8862491
Argument from ridicule

>>8862326
Low quality bait

Saged and reported

File: ray liotta laugh.gif (2MB, 230x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x175px

>>8862443
>answersingenesis.org

Why would you keep a bait thread going this long when you can just sage it?

>>8862326
>blacks are genetically inferior
>evolution is a lie
pick one faggots

File: x8ozrsgjtaydhk2q66dt.jpg (55KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x640px

>>8862443
>answersingenesis

>>8862507
Sorry friend. We have THOUSANDS of hominid fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html

That article predates discoveries like this one
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Early-Hominid-Species-Discovered-with-the-Aid-of-Google-Earth-139437.shtml

which uses Google Earth to find thousands more fossil sites. We're just getting started and each time we discover more fossils your argument dies

>>8862531
You posted a source that has had everything it has ever claimed publicly refuted at least twice.
That makes you a retard.

>>8862578
When and where?

>>8862443
clearly biased as fuck

>>8862603
you aren't doing God's work by engaging with people in this way. If anything you are flaunting your religion in public instead of keeping your relationship with God a personal matter as you are instructed. Matthew 6:6 and Matthew 6:1

>>8862569
Was responding to wrong post.
Sorry about that

>>8862617
You just averted the question.

>>8862627
>averted
steered you into the question you should be pondering about your current choice of activity.

>>8862326
Everyone sage and report this thread.
There is way too much shitposting on /sci/

>>8862632
Those verses refer to prayer. Now answer the question.

File: waifu.jpg (6KB, 224x224px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 224x224px

>>8862374
>implying cars, bridges and various household appliances reproduce and have genes
my friend, please Keep Yourself Safe tonight

>>8862374
>By that same logic, cars, bridges, and various household appliances evolved.
They don't form the same sort of strictly branching tree structure.

>>8862326
3/10 made me pissed off

>>8862326
Evolution has already been proven, moron.

The wisdom tooth, appendix and tail bone is proof of evolution.

>>8862326
Publish your alt. theory that explains current evidence and precits future evidence/experimental results and win the Nibel Prize, but first get off this mongolian throat-singing forum

File: Bill_Nye_Speed_Walker_Almost_Live_1990.jpg (9KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x165px

>>8862326
Actually, there isn't just one correct answer because evolution is a spectrum.

>>8862402
Would you say there are an especially larger amount of "transitional" forms of humans than other animals?

>>8862326
>How do you justify the amount of ad-hoc and bias present in this supposedly scientific discipline?
Post said shortcomings or GTFO. Preferably not well-refuted ones.

File: 1467137520725.jpg (354KB, 799x666px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 799x666px

>>8863089
Would gladly do so, but the only problem is that the community at larger isn't willing to admit to themselves and the public that they are, in fact, wrong about most of the material presented as evolutionary "fact."

>>8863102
There is man and man alone, nothing in-between the two.

>>8863132
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/a_just-so_story_1/

>>8863265
>https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/a_just-so_story_1/
I don't think the author of this article understands what a just-so story is.

If there is a question about how a certain adaptation is compatible with evolution, such as the question "how come prey birds call out in warning despite the risk this causes", a just-so story would be a nice-sounding explanation given in a vacuum, without real ties to other knowledge. As this article correctly points out, just-so stories are a dime a dozen, and you can quite easily invent convincing-sounding explanations for just about everything you come across.

Things are different when your explanations come with *predictions*. When your explanation predicts that certain other things are also true, preferably before having done an experiment to confirm this, then your explanation becomes a bona fide theory. If you then do an experiment and it turns out the things your explanation predicts are in fact true, this supports your explanatory theory. It is not infinite support, of course, but it is genuine support. For example, the "calling out warnings signals the predator that surprise attacks won't work" explanation predicts that prey that calls out warnings are less likely to be captured than prey that do not. If you then go measure this in the field and it turns out to be true, that's a measure of experimental support of your theory.

The explanations for how things evolved that you read about on wikipedia are NOT in fact the first thing someone thought about. They are the explanations that were confirmed after a bunch of research, with several alternatives discarded along the way because they were experimentally DISconfirmed.

(continued)

>>8863336
(continued)

Furthermore, each time a solid and consistent evolutionary explanation for an adaptation is found, this is in turn evidence for the background theory of evolution as a whole, for it is the sort of evidence you are likely to find when evolution is true and unlikely to find if evolution is false; and every time an adaptation is found that stubbornly resists any explanations as to how it can be sustained, this is evidence AGAINST evolution, for the converse reason.

If, over time, we collect literally millions of solid, well-understood, and predictive explanations of how particular features of organisms are generated by the landscape of evolution, this quickly forms a HUGE mountain of evidence in evolution's favor. If there are a handful of cases of adaptations that seem to defy all explanations -- of which I don't know any, but which surely exist -- then this can mean two things: either it means that evolution as we understand it is wrong, or it means that we haven't thought of the explanation YET but it exists anyway.

The size of the two mountains involved are what determines the overall estimate as to which of these two possibilities is most likely. The larger the mountain of evidence in the form of confirmed evolutionary explanations of behaviors, the more likely that we simply didn't think of the right answers for the open questions yet; the larger the collection of open questions, the more likely that there isn't a right answer and evolution is simply wrong.

At that point, it has become a numbers game. The critical numbers here are "literally millions and millions" versus "a couple of handfuls". You would have to talk to a scholar of evolutionary biology (which I am definitely not) for a better estimate of the two sizes of mountain, but a case or two that are real stumpers prove nothing. And an offered case or two that in fact we understand perfectly well, proves the opposite.

Reminder that no organisms have ever been observed to cross a single Taxonomically relevant threshold by anyone and everyone's definitions.

File: checkmate.jpg (106KB, 1502x1146px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1502x1146px

>>8863015

Neither do Animals. The structure you speak of is a construct of the Human Mind that can just as easily be used to arrange appliances or cars in a similar way.

>>8863377
bacteria spontaneously evolved to digest a new chemical, that had never been consumed by that bacteria.

>>8863377
Reminder that taxonomical classes are after-the-fact classifications of organisms observed to exist, not a preexisting scheme that organisms were later slotted into.

>>8863377
>Taxonomically relevant threshold
A literally meaningless phrase.

>>8863385
You understand how unlikely it is for things to fossilize, right? And then how unlikely it is that we'll happen to stumble upon it later on, yeah? That is why there are "gaps". Because fossilization is uncommon.

File: NEANDERTHAL SKULL LE MOUSTIER copy.jpg (77KB, 773x571px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 773x571px

Reminder that evolutionists tried to make neanderthals into ape-men, despite them being fully human.

>>8863413
>Evolutionists
Literally what? People simply thought neandertals we're hunched over because at the time the best-preserved specimens were old people who had osteoporosis. That was very quickly adjusted as more specimens were found showing the standing upright. Not the physical anthropologists fault the public took the caveman idea and ran with it.

>Fully human
In that they're hominids? Sure. That was never debated. In that they're the same as modern humans? No. Their skull structures were distinctly different with larger cranial capacity and occipital buns, and narrower in general.

Why are you shitposting this bullshit?

File: Frauds.jpg (101KB, 406x308px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 406x308px

>>8863428

>What is Antibiotic resistance?

>>8862355
brazilian>turk>syrian>american>pig

>>8863404

I don't disagree. I was saying that assuming Animals came to be by a process of transgenerational metamorphosis simply because their forms make such a process plausible is as good of an idea as assuming that cars came to be by a similar process.

>>8863390

Does that make it a distinct taxon?

>>8863393
>>8863398

Taxonomy is the foundation of Evolution. If you admit the basic criterion in separating one taxon from another is Human agency, then Evolution is fiction through and through.

>>8862402
There is more evidence that asians evolved from insects then this ape ancestor bullshit.

>>8862326
What are those shortcomings btw

>>8863708
>Taxonomy is the foundation of Evolution.
No, it absolutely isn't.

>If you admit the basic criterion in separating one taxon from another is Human agency, then Evolution is fiction through and through.
The cladistic structure is part of natural history. Where in this structure we draw the line of distinct taxons is a semi-arbitrary human classification, just like the question of what is and is not a planet, or the exact boundary between green and blue. If you think this makes evolution a fiction, then clearly you don't understand one bit of the subject.

>>8862330
>plateaus are tree stumps
that sounds cool

File: ash_cake.jpg (166KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1920x1080px

>>8863918
Agreed

Aside from excessively good traits that seems to flourish in specific species, evolution is a great theory. Shit pisses me off though, how some species, by nothing more than chance, develop features that are far more useful like the human eye and adaptive camouflage

>>8863428
I think you meant hominins (everything after the chimp split).

>>8863696
Cars don't make other cars.

File: melt mane.jpg (126KB, 690x450px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 690x450px

>>8863735
What evidence is there that Asians evolved from insects?

>>8862326
What shortcomings?

>>8862326
Darwin was a real scientist in that his theories were falsifiable and he wanted them to be proven false. It just so happened that predictions based on his hypothesis kept coming true even long after his death.

>>8862330
But science is religion

>>8862374
Show me how life is like Mt. Rushmore.

>>8864033
How do I even read this image?

File: rushmore-forming.jpg (34KB, 300x369px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x369px

>>8864414
Baeutifully designed as it is, with very little change observed. People imagine change because they reject a creator.

>>8864445
We have evidence that species have changed over time though. Whales for instance have hind legs that are now atrophied to the point of being inside their body but we can see that they were usable for movement at one point from musculature and fossils of ancient cetaceans. This isn't imagined change, the hind legs and pelvis of whales have become repurposed over time.

>>8863696
>simply because their forms make such a process plausible
Well is not simply because of their forms, so nice strawman.

File: 1467134153901.jpg (166KB, 787x540px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 787x540px

>>8864461
https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fossil-evidence-of-whale-evolution/

http://www.icr.org/article/vital-function-found-for-whale-leg/

>>8864445

>>8862401

>>8864578
Results of the fall don't count.

>>8862326
1. display that you understand evolution (I almost guarantee that you don't).
2. tell us of these shortcomings that supposedly discredit that entirety.

So far you've made a poorly-constructed bait thread, nothing more.

>>8862330
college really is stupid though, outside of STEM

>>8864582

>wah science doesn't match my retarded beliefs

So whenever someone destroys your argument, you make up something to try to save it.

There is no intelligent design if that design is destroyed. You have no argument if your argument is destroyed.

File: 2852667_orig.jpg (292KB, 1100x682px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1100x682px

>>8864613

>>8864636
>I lost the argument so now I'm going to post this shitty irrelevant meme

Your shitty memes are not arguments. Get off /sci/

File: 20090619-ventriloquist.gif (36KB, 245x300px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 245x300px

>>8864648
All I'm saying is that the evidence is ambiguous. It can be used for either argument. You can claim these are "ape-men," while I conclude that they are either within the range of human variation, the result of various diseases and disorders, or apes

>>8864540
>https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fossil-evidence-of-whale-evolution/
>You comment that mutations lead to variants and that conception creates new variation. But mutations only corrupt, delete, duplicate, or move around existing genetic information in the genome of a kind of creature. Mutations do not create new information so as to change, for example, a reptile into a bird or mammal, no matter how many millions of years you allow.
This quote perfectly exemplifies how little the Answers in Genesis people understand anything.

Clearly duplicating, deletion, and moving things around would create new patterns. Oh but wait, they have a qualifier there. Obviously you can get new patterns, but they won't turn a reptile into a bird or mammal. This is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings Creationists have about evolution. The "crocoduck" idea of one extant species turning into another extant species simply does not describe evolution.

File: 172_unicorns-in-love40x302013Laurain-Paperina-its-nice-that-.jpg (228KB, 724x537px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 724x537px

>>8862326
Just a reminder that arguing with Christians is NEVER profitable. Creationism appeals to the under-educated, the militant and the mentally ill - no amount of evidence or logic will stop them from spreading their lies, and by responding to them directly you are simply helping them proselytize. In other words...sage....always sage...unless it's to point out the impossibility of real debate.

>>8864673
>while I conclude that they are either within the range of human variation, the result of various diseases and disorders, or apes
Show your work. Which statistical tests did you use? What specimens? What measurements did you take?

>>8864673
> either within the range of human variation or apes
isn't that the point?
that since it's within range of human and ape variation, it shows that there's evolution between kinds?

>>8864673
>You can claim these are "ape-men," while I conclude that they are either within the range of human variation, the result of various diseases and disorders, or apes
You can CLAIM all you like. That doesn't mean your claim has any scientific merit. In particular, it doesn't mean your claim is compatible with the known evidence.

The less evidence you know of constraining claims, the more claims you can make that sound sensible to you, because you don't know any of the reasons why the claims are obvious nonsense. That doesn't mean your claims are sensible to people who DO understand the relevant background.

>>8863526
>American>Jew
Ftfy

File: NalSed.png (635KB, 863x1031px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 863x1031px

>>8864708
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-and-australopithecus-sediba/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-australopithecus-sediba-discussion/
http://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/44
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/homo-naledi-not-part-of-human-holobaramin/

>>8864673
So are you assert evidence being ambiguous without providing any evidence for this conclusion. For someone who throws logical fallacies around you make quite alot False premises

>>8864743
And what do you think those sources say? Individually, if you would. You can do that while I read these on my own and we can meet back here for drinks.

File: C0263182-Homo_naledi%2C_illustration-SPL.jpg (86KB, 379x530px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 379x530px

>>8864789
First one argues that Homo habilis, rudolfensis, and A. Sediba are within the range of human variation, the second discusses why sediba can't be a part of the holobaramin, the next groups naledi into the holobaramin, while the last one rejects that idea.

>>8864798
Yeah thanks, but I mean why do you think those articles support your position?

>>8864866
They come to the conclusion that these are either fully human or fully ape, not intermediary in any way, shape, or form.

>>8864904
And they base this on... what? "Looks like a human to me" or "looks like an ape to me!"

Keep in mind the only part that actually matters to anthropologists is the skull.

>>8864743
>Proof by verbosity

Pretty clever, evangelicals.

>>8864904
Not a single one of those links compares species to the variation in homo sapiens, they merely group species by similarities. There's a word for these groups, "genus."

File: elephant-poster-sm.jpg (26KB, 550x187px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 550x187px

>>8864907
Morphological similarities.

>>8864924
Well, they don't use modern secularized taxonomic rankings, instead vying for an all-encompassing baramin, or kind.

>>8864950
Here's a video to help.
https://youtu.be/NxwIxyx6uzw

>taking the bait
seriously /sci/
even /pol/ doesn't believe in young earth creationism yet, even though it's probably because evolution is central to their racial theories so I can't give them too much credit

>>8864950
Doesn't change the fact that those links didn't say "here is the range of modern humans" and see how specimens compare to that. So they didn't say various species fit within human variation, but rather they expanded their definition of human. They also found A. africanus to be between extant apes and their idea of "human."

>Results indicate that hominins may be divided into as many as four different holobaramins: (1) the genus Homo (including Australopithecus sediba), (2) the genus Paranthropus, (3) Australopithecus africanus, and (4) Gorilla, Pan, Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus garhi.
Oh look, two groups that are neither human nor extant ape. Look at their graphs, even they aren't hiding that A. africanus fits between Homo and extant ape samples.

Also, how do they define a kind in a fossil context? I thought similarity didn't mean relatedness in the creationist mindset, but that's the entire premise of those links. Maybe I have that wrong.

>>8864953
So they're begging the question.

>Assume humans and apes are unrelated (even though humans ARE apes)
>Wow! Our analysis found that humans and apes have no common fossil because all fossils must be one or the other!

And hence we come to the heart of the issue, which is that creationists argue in bad faith since all observations must be made to conform to their religious dogma, rather than observation creating and changing the theory.

>>8864961
blacks evolved from monkeys while white people were created by God.

jews, of course, were created by the Devil

>>8864996
Similarity means relatedness to a point. Felids and Canids are their own kinds, due to the amount of change that most likely happened after the flood.

>>8865029
What point is that?
What is a kind in a fossil context?

File: proailurus-skel-baja (1).jpg (240KB, 1654x833px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1654x833px

>>8865036
Differs depending on the animal. Remember, modern taxonomy is a man-made invention, not a divine one.

>>8865050
Modern taxonomy has nothing to do with my post.
At what point does similarity not mean relatedness and how is a kind defined in the fossil record?

>>8865066
http://www.icr.org/article/common-ancestry-bible-discerning-where/

>>8865050
>Remember, modern taxonomy is a man-made invention
So is baraminology.
The difference is that while the people who invented modern taxonomy were experts in biology, but not Christianity, the inventors or baraminology are bad at both.

>>8862326
The flu

>>8865081
If you agree with these things, you should be able to articulate them on your own. The source is nice, but you could at least try to add some text.
[spoiler]Just posting links makes it too obvious anon.[/spoiler]

File: connect the dots.jpg (91KB, 941x960px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 941x960px

>>8863377
the only taxonomically meaningful threshold is that of the species
and we have observed speciation

>>8863708
>Taxonomy is the foundation of Evolution.
oh shit niBBa what are you doing
that's like saying the metric system is the foundation of chemistry

>>8864445
Crazy how nature do dat

These are some pretty spicy propagandist memes

>>8863084
no theory is "proven" you moron

that's now what science is or what a scientific theory postulates

File: ea76b7c548e30af5aba38260c5256a71.jpg (17KB, 208x312px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 208x312px

>>8863526
That's not polite. Only brazilians can joke about brazilians.

>>8864701
>arguing with Christians is NEVER profitable
Sure it is, if you can get someone to hire you to be the strawman scienismist.

>>8863385
All animal life fits in a single taxonomic tree, with basically zero exceptions. This was discovered 100 years before Darwin by someone who was effectively a Christian creationist.

You cannot do that with cars. Cars cannot be placed on a single family tree. Sure, they might share parts, and there's some relationships, but no single family tree structure.

>>8865427
>and we have observed speciation

This is news to many Scientists.

>>8863864
>>8865427

I trust I don't have to hammer it home any further. If the idea of species is as flexible as the idea of sushi, even within mainstream Academia, and Evolution requires at least two species, then it's not even a theory.

And any bedrock of Evolution not based on speciation is even flimsier than this.

>>8865879

You can make on in a few hours. The end result would actually be more rigorous and internally consistent than the Animal tree.

>>8866062
And it wouldn't be a single root, strict single parent hierarchy.

>>8864480

This is the only reason Evolution become mainstream. The idea of genes was used after the fact to support aesthetic musings.

File: cola evolution.png (318KB, 903x458px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 903x458px

>>8866059
>This is news to many Scientists.
just because YOUR ignorant ass is unaware of speciation observed in real time...
the fly Rhagoletis pomonella has split into two reproductively isolated groups (right on the cusp between subspecies and species) as the result of introduction of a novel host/food tree, the apple, to its range. that's just ONE example.

creationism in a nutshell:
I haven't personally heard of any of this, therefore it doesn't exist.

>>8862330
So earth is both flat and hollow?

File: anyone-thirsty[1].jpg (56KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 550x412px

>>8866209
those mid-transition cola bottles are in World of Cola museums.
Where's your monkey dawkins now?

>>8866251
>what is the fossil record
:^)

>>8866253
Then show me the starfish to fish transition fossil please, Mr fossil record :^)

you don't even need fossils

you can look at molecular evolution, there are stochastic patterns of mutations that arise and orthologous genes across species that make sense only when looked at through the idea that they evolved from a common ancestor at some point

>>8866209

This standard of speciation makes people in Japan and people in Germany different species...

God only knows what it does to mainstream cladograms.

File: IDiot Bingo.png (72KB, 720x780px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x780px

>>8866258
if you think that fish are descended from asteroids, you're more ignorant than I thought.
:^)

>>8866768
>This standard of speciation makes people in Japan and people in Germany different species...
Japanese and German people have been interbreeding to produce fertile offspring for centuries; their geographical isolation was too brief for significant divergence to occur.
Meanwhile, the hawthorn- and apple-feeding forms of Rhagoletis actually do overlap in range...but do not reproduce with each other.

>>8866768
>bsc
>cladograms
???

https://youtu.be/NkpF_tj9J9M

File: 1488571892139.jpg (8KB, 258x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 258x200px

>>8862501
>137 replies
>nobody can refute the utilitarian argument
>mfw

https://www.trueorigin.org

>>8866768
>germans and japanese can't reproduce
I hope you're pretending to be retarded

>>8862330

College is stupid

Global warming is real, but being man made for certain is a leap of logic

So, he's not all retarded.

>>8868895
Oh no...

>>8867448

How do we know they don't reproduce?

Regardless, plenty of random groups overlap but don't reproduce. Class is a very consistent divide in Humans, for example. Also, plenty of groups don't overlap but DO reproduce. Males and females of many forms live separate lives in terms of geography, diet, social structure or lack thereof, only having contact to reproduce. What does this mean for the concept of speciation/taxonomy?

File: suchconfuse.gif (498KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x281px

>>8867448
>references known hoaxes used to triumphantly claim "the science is settled" as evidence for the perfidy of scientism
>this is wrong

What did he mean by this?

>>8864239
Writing looks insectoid.
Speech/Music sounds like crickets and cicadas.
Use chopsticks like insect pincers.
They eat insects like spiders.
Work like mindless ants.
They raze the environment like termites.
Believe me, they evolved from insects.

>>8869259
One time a Christian man sucked a cock
Do you think all Christians are gay forever

>>8869621

It doesn't matter. Organized Religion is not a gatekeeper institution (anymore), unlike Scientism whose only self-appointed purpose is the Ministry of Truth.

>There are people on the SCIENCE board posting every day about how God created the universe

Is this /pol/'s doing? I admittedly haven't been on /sci/ for a couple years but I don't remember it being this bad.

>>8862659
>only I know how to interpret scripture, nobody else. Anybody else who thinks it's anything different isn't as Christian as me.
>notruescotsman.exe

>>8869879
Yeah. Just sage and report these threads

>>8862330
Where did you find this picture, tumblr or reddit?

>>8863385
Ok, I know this is pure bait, but I have to answer to it. When was the last time you saw a car giving birth to a whole new generation of little cars? Or the last time a car change by itself its coating because winter came? Comparing inanimate things that can't reproduce to actual life forms is the most stupid argument I have seen against evolution

>>8866227
So earth is like a donut?

File: 1.1.png (140KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x486px

>>8869953
I made took a meme and modified it as a statement about the typical anti-intellectual shit-posting that clogs us /sci

>>8869879

The only reason I disagree with the current theory of Evolution is that it is very poorly put together by Scientific standards.

I have no problem with the general idea of Evolution, since it is a meaningless Material formality from the Spiritual angle. Darwinism is just trash-tier.

>>8869252
>Regardless, plenty of random groups overlap but don't reproduce. Class is a very consistent divide in Humans, for example.
rarely interbreeding != do not interbreed
>Also, plenty of groups don't overlap but DO reproduce. Males and females of many forms live separate lives in terms of geography, diet, social structure or lack thereof, only having contact to reproduce.
not spending loads of time together != don't overlap

you seem to be confused about some very simple terms.

File: 1391901765413.gif (2MB, 353x171px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 353x171px

>>8862374
>>8863015
>cars, bridges, and various household appliances evolved
Of course they did. All of human creations started with a stone or a stick and evolved from that. Tools evolve, ideas evolve, religions evolve, science is a process of evolution.

>>8862326
What is even the contender to evolution then?

File: 20110121.gif (40KB, 291x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 291x360px

>>8870570

>>8870773
There's an idea that humans didn't really have the knowledge of building boats prior to building boats, but built 1000 of them and one design didn't sink. The shoe analogy would be all the designs that didn't sell well and are gone without succesors. It is not natural evolution but still evolution.

What is it about /sci/entists that makes us unable to ignore bait?

>>8868827
Maybe because no one ever will? Creationism can't predict anything.

>>8866059
Your Random capitalization tells Me that you're Autistic.

File: 53753.jpg (1MB, 1425x1246px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1425x1246px

cultural evolution

>>8871052
Loneliness.

It's time to rename this board to:

/sci/ - Global Warming Hoax & Flat Earth

>>8871129
I don't see any cultural progress after first strip.

>>8862326
You can watch evolution in a petri dish and we know it is the building blocks of life. We don't need every single "link", especially with so many offshoots and branches. I find it harder to believe in religious magic.

>>8862326
> posting ascent of man on a science board

>>8870209

What is the criterion which separates rarely and never in this case?

>>8862326
the whole 'straight line' thing is bullshit anyways. evolution is a fucking tree, it branches off all of the time

>>8871704
You can still look at it as a straight line if you're talking about a specific organism and its direct ancestors.

>>8862443
>Did humans really evolve from ape-like creatures
Not strictly, because humans ARE ape-like creatures
In fact we are literally apes
Se there

This is my first time on this board after 4 years. What the fuck is going on in this thread?

>>8873200
It's /sci/ falling for bait yet again.

File: consider.jpg (29KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x600px

An external factor caused the gap

>>8873242
Like when people say AGW is real, there's always a few people who fall for that

Curtain beneficial adaptation that do not effect reproductive success will occur due to environmental stimuli though many generations. For example a dark skinned society in an area with low UV radiation will become a lighter skinned society over time.

>>8862326
Oh crap, the creationists are knocking on the door...quick, turn out the lights and pretend we're not home.

File: cluebat.jpg (26KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x600px

>>8863377
>thinks taxons actually exist in real life
Get the fuck out.

File: taxonomy.jpg (227KB, 1117x710px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1117x710px

>>8866258
Starfish are not fucking fish. They aren't even related to fish aside from both being deuterostomes.
Not that "fish" is a taxonomically meaningful term in any way, but I digress.

>>8863097

underrated

if evolution is real, why the feuck are there gay people around today? they should have been wiped out by the fact that they wont reproduce

>inb4 mystery of the universe