"Intelligent Design"

>>8988686
its not poor design its unoptimized evolution
anything door designed dies out

look at a horse's knee.
if I wanted to design a bad joint, prone to failure in the job it was designed to do, it would look a lot like a horse's knee.

>>8988686
>poor design
there's a classic though unconvincing response to this sort of question

you can look into descartes if you want to see an example

>>8988686
>What are some good examples of "poor design?"

All extinct species.

File: main-qimg-4bc6ca3cb9509fb73aecdfaa9432b6d2[1].png (190KB, 602x408px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 602x408px

>>8988888
>>8988732
Not always. Some flaws are so minor that they don't really have a strong impact on survival rates compared to other factors.

For example, the nerves that control the vocal chord of the giraffe go all the way down from the brain, into the chest, around the heart, and then back up to the mouth of the giraffe. This long trip serves no purpose and is just a byproduct of the evolution from fish to mammal; in more primitive animals, the nerve was a straight line from the brain to the mouth. Even in humans, the nerve makes an unneeded path around the heart.

A lot of animals also have body parts that serve no purpose at all; they are simply a waste to create and maintain. For example, you probably know of the human appendix. Some other useless parts on a human include the tail bone, the Vomeronasal organ, ear muscles, and a large number of various small muscles on the human body that don't do anything

File: 1493492425136.jpg (1MB, 4602x3852px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4602x3852px

>>8988686
>poor design
I never understood people who flaunt this term, it makes sense under the context of "poor design for survival under X condition"

Apart from that, at a subatomic and atomic level, the universe is a mathematical perfection. its just an ocean of energy in constant fluctuation.

File: Relics Fire Sprite Posted GIF File.gif (22KB, 144x144px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 144x144px

>>8988686
Welp. it goes to show that god wasn't a civil engineer.
>Our air intake valve is also the fuel intake as well.
>The stem of the Central processing unit can be snapped with 600lbs of force.
> Worst of all the waste disposal center is right next to the recreational area.

... Intelligent design folks...

>>8988908
>vestigial organs
https://youtu.be/0KfX7ymDt5M

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

72KB, 720x780px

a classic one is the vertebrate eye.
the optic nerve attaches to a disc of nerve tissue at the front of the retina...meaning that the retina has a hole in it for the optic nerve to pass through, creating a blind spot. cephalopods independently evolved a similar eye structure, only their optic nerves attach to the back of the retina, so they don't suffer from the same limitation.

>>8988686
darwin is a nimrod

>>8988686
>Putting the tube you need to breathe through
>Right next to the tube you need to swallow through
G*d is a moron.

>>8989748
He's a great hunter?

>>8988686
The human spine's S shape.

Not exactly poor design but why are there fish that live in the anal cavities of sea cucumbers, gnawing on their internal organs?
Why was that necessary, useful, good, or otherwise worth doing at all?

Keep in mind that they don't plague all (or even most) sea cucumbers, that sea cucumbers already have a ton of parasites like most animals, and that most of that fish's cousin species live in regular cavities in rocks or in the sand.

File: Enbor_u3.jpg (64KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x424px

>>8990471
forgot pics
https://youtu.be/K2Eyup8Jk3w?t=51

>>8990484
Symbiotic relationship, maybe? Why such a pairing came about is beyond me.

>>8988794
If it's so bad then why it hasn't dissapeared?

>>8990572
Because is not a serious threat. See >>8988908

>>8990587
Oh, I understand now.
Is there any "mechanism" to remove those useless parts which aren't a serious threat?

the most abundant enzyme on this planet

>rubisco

it's found in all organisms that undergo photosynthesis

itss job is to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and fix it into sugar
rubisco is so bad at this that about every 4 attempt it it captures O2 instead
this is due to the fact that plants evolved during high CO2 atmospheric concentration and coincidentally the enzyme also developed an affinity for O2 as well

Try to be a little more open minded. The intelligent design argument really finds its strength in the fine-tuning of the constants of nature.

In the biological realm, perhaps God uses evolution as a method to obtain his goals. Think about it. If you let the machine left to its own devices run its course, it does the job on its own. Evolution is a highly reliable method for producing intended designs, like the eye for example, which evolved independently over 50 times.

Female Hyenas have a fake penis that they have to give birth through. But before they can give birth they have to split the "penis" in half so the baby can fit. This means getting pregnant a first time and killing the baby as you painfully force its dead body through your mangled bleeding genitals.

>>8990875
That's pretty metal

>>8990873
Life is adapted to the constants of nature, not vice versa dumbass. That's like saying it's a miracle that lawns are adapted to lawnmowers.

>>8990880
Oh, yes how could I be so foolish. Clearly, life would adapt to a universe with minute traces of Carbon, or where stars don't burn hydrogen. Maybe even a blackhole.

>>8989748
>is
He's also apparently the Wandering Jew.

>>8990594
>Is there any "mechanism" to remove those useless parts which aren't a serious threat?
Not any natural one, no.

>>8990873
>The intelligent design argument really finds its strength in the fine-tuning of the constants of nature.
Which are just one set of solutions to the mathematical understructure of the universe.

>>8990901
>life cannot consist of cellular-like permutations of space-time
Dude you have like no imagination.

>>8990901
>can't think outside narrow 18th century anthropocentric box
>"how could I be so foolish"
How indeed.

>>8988686
Flat earthers

>>8990875
>>8990877
Metal as fuck

>>8990875
Damn that's so metal

>>8990903
I bet he and Mozart are probably friends by now

>>8989762
Hey! An educated person!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slro9bEoz2Q

This is a terrible argument. Poor design would be an integral feature of the world if embodiment and the entity that made it so were Evil.

>>8990471
Are you telling us that this "odd" phenomena is a reason why evolution is false? Becuase if you are you need to seriously get fucking a clue.

Evolution has no purpose. In this case it is most likely a host/parasite relationship. The evolution would likely be what is known as the arms race model.

File: Dolphin blowhole.jpg (26KB, 390x259px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 390x259px

>>8988686
Eating and breathing by the same pipe. Making it possible to choke to death with food. Why don't we have a separate blowhole like dolphins? Maybe not on top of head tough.

While I know that there's countless physical evidence for evolution, studying cell biology, you can't help but feel it was designed. Everything works so perfectly, with all the different parts so beautifully in sync. An intelligent, highly educated human being couldn't design even a simple, single celled organism, is everything we see around us really just the result of random mutations and natural selection?

>>8989757
Kek

>>8991626
>really just the result of random mutations and natural selection
Yes you fucktard.

>>8991626
>everything works so perfectly in sync
You're serious? I don't think you've studied cell biology at all.

>>8991473
>Are you telling us that this "odd" phenomena is a reason why evolution is false?
It's the opposite obviously. I'm asking why the supremely intelligent designer made that sort of thing.

>>8990570
>gnaw on their internal organs
No. Most species of sea cucumbers developed teeth on their anal orifices to keep pearlfish and other large parasites out too.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/

Humans have lots of poor features
>shit tier sense of smell compared to dogs and most other animals
>awful night vision compared to most predators
>spinal cord layout (if it gets severed everything below the spot it is severed is paralyzed)
>body hair isn't harmful but it is useless, unless you're hairy enough to be a circus freak you don't grow enough to help keep you warm
>not nearly as physically strong as our closest relatives (monkeys and gorillas)

>>8993063
lots of tradeoffs for vast intelligence and the spinal cord thing is pretty ubiquitous among chordates
our vision is actually fucking great, maybe not our night vision and we have to best endurance of any land animal

>>8993063
>>awful night vision compared to most predators
Don't we have the best color vision of all mammals or something?

>>8993063
our vision is a good balance of motion detection and color differentiation, predators (like dogs for example) are often more colorblind as a trade off so they detect motion more easily which is good for hunting
this isn't true for raptors though because they need both

>>8993070

I'm not completely certain but I think primates have color vision too. Most birds and fish also have color vision. Not sure what mammals besides primates have color vision.

>>8993070
>>8993073
In the evolution of mammals, segments of color vision were lost, then for a few species of primates, regained by gene duplication. Eutherian mammals other than primates (for example, dogs, mammalian farm animals) generally have less-effective two-receptor (dichromatic) color perception systems, which distinguish blue, green, and yellow—but cannot distinguish oranges and reds. There is some evidence that a few mammals, such as cats, have redeveloped the ability to distinguish longer wavelength colors, in at least a limited way, via one-amino-acid mutations in opsin genes.[38] The adaptation to see reds is particularly important for primate mammals, since it leads to identification of fruits, and also newly sprouting reddish leaves, which are particularly nutritious.

However, even among primates, full color vision differs between New World and Old World monkeys. Old World primates, including monkeys and all apes, have vision similar to humans. New World monkeys may or may not have color sensitivity at this level: in most species, males are dichromats, and about 60% of females are trichromats, but the owl monkeys are cone monochromats, and both sexes of howler monkeys are trichromats.[39][40][41][42] Visual sensitivity differences between males and females in a single species is due to the gene for yellow-green sensitive opsin protein (which confers ability to differentiate red from green) residing on the X sex chromosome.

Several marsupials such as the fat-tailed dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata) have been shown to have trichromatic color vision.[43]

Marine mammals, adapted for low-light vision, have only a single cone type and are thus monochromats.[citation needed]

>>8993070
color vision is useful to herbivores
motion vision is useful to predators (and herbivores trying to escape from predators)
we have both, i know there's a theory that says our ancestors were all colorblind but as we started foraging we evolved the ability to see color
I'm pretty sure three cone color vision is rare, most animals that see color only see red and green but we see red, green and blue

File: flat,800x800,075,f[1].jpg (104KB, 800x682px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x682px

>>8990856
Given that plants produced most of that oxygen well.....
>pic related

>>8993105
The point is that it's really shit at its job.

>>8993112
In fact we're currently researching how to improve it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO#Genetic_engineering

>>8991626
You have a rather poor understanding of the time scales involved with this topic that you have such strong opinions on
You greatly underestimate... Nvm I don't think you actually take the time to think before you repeat what you are told.

>>8993115
for some feature to persist in life for as long as rubisco and be as commonly used it needs to have some advantage over alternatives or it would have changed by now

or all alternatives died out and none managed to spring up in all that time
or the alternatives are better but the process of evolving to the alternative is too detrimental

>>8993105
>what is cyanobacteria

>>8993139
Rubisco sounds like a sandwich.
Like a greasy, slippery corned beef on rye.

Who says that God actually designed every detail in our universe?
Imagine God as a programmer. He wrote the laws of physics, and a kind of machine learning algorithm that allows the universe to expand and create things on its own. But in the end, he is not the one designing the details. We are just the result of poor programming.
He's probably ditched us because we were the Alpha version, and he has a successful parallel universe where every single human is Super Chad

>>8993531
He wouldn't even care about us, He probably looks at neutrino rates or some weird shit and life is just a bug He has to put up with.

>>8988960
mfw charles darwin says you don't need organs in your body because they don;t know what they do, so you believe that and his evolution theory.

Charles Darwin says we're monkeys and therefore we should climb trees and eat bananas.
If you wanna be a loser monkey then be one. But I'm a human being because I can do science

File: evolution.gif (79KB, 711x664px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 711x664px

>>8989154
>provides 25 valid arguments against evolution
>tries to trivialize them in a bingo game to avoid actual discussion of these arguments
>being this dogmatically attached to a failed theory, rather than the pursuit of understanding all possibilities.


>applies several no true scotsman fallacies to evolution and abiogenesis , when the former cannot exist without the latter and vice vera.

when both are nonsensical without unobservably vast scales of time and have not once been recorded or observed in nature therefore hold no foothold in reality.

explanations over observations

File: chinapyramidsbl5.jpg (76KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x480px

>>8988686
intelligent design is obvious to the intelligent.

There are ancient structures people are literally not intelligent enough to determine are not just rock mountians, and will believe authorities when they tell them pyramids are just hills.

>>8994009
what do you get out of this? is there money? is Jesus gonna suck your dick?

fucking with science is just fuck shit up dude
science cures cancer and takes us to the moon

File: 15780838_1809213469367022_8129206686635741886_n.jpg (103KB, 960x566px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 960x566px

>>8994020
>fucking with science is just fuck shit up dude
>science cures cancer and takes us to the moon

This is scientism dude, you use science as an ideological paradigm construct rather than a tool similar to logic or geometry.

you have faith in science and think you can do and learn all things through science. this is not true.

science still collects billions a year in revenue for "cancer research" so either they cured cancer or they didn't, Im gonna say they didn't

we definitely didn't go to the moon. you can look into that yourself.

>is Jesus gonna suck your dick?
No , Darwin will.

>>8989154
Can you explain your 'IDiot Bingo' if you're so smart?

>>8994034
No that's not what I believe at all.
You can't learn everything through science but you can learn about the natural world which is what science is for. We need to know about the natural world if we're going to do anything with it, it's also just good to know.

evolution is definitely real
creationism definitely is not

>>8988686
Ocean sunfish. If there is an intelligent creator he really fucking hates those fish for some reason. Scientists are seriously confused as to how there are even any alive due to how bad they suck at life.

File: 7887990.jpg (157KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1280x960px

>>8994020
>science cures cancer
and
>takes us to the moon

wow great

File: 1498041807934.jpg (28KB, 429x399px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 429x399px

>>8994156
pray for me in church tomorrow, I'm a non-believer

>>8994156
science takes you to a barren rock.
Religion take you to heaven and gives you a reason to live.
How about that?

>>8994274
science is the reason to live

>>8993038
>Most species of sea cucumbers developed teeth on their anal orifices to keep pearlfish and other large parasites out too

God I love nature sometimes, this shit's beyond hilarious

>>8993531
thing is, if God is that fallible
why call it God?
If it discarded us, then it obviously does not demand or even desire worship, nor does it actively intervene in the details of creation (aka every action and event that affects us).

In the end it doesn't matter if the first domino was pushed or fell out of it's own accord if nobody touches the other stones.

File: BOI.jpg (60KB, 800x897px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x897px

>>8994009
>25 valid arguments against evolution
I just want to point out that the middle (free) space is literally "Therefore, God did it." and you are calling that a valid argument.
okay dawg.

>several no true scotsman fallacies
...you don't actually know what No True Scotsman is, do you?
>evolution and abiogenesis , when the former cannot exist without the latter and vice vera
it's perfectly possible to have one without the other. life COULD have been specially created and then evolved. and life COULD have arisen from inorganic material but then never actually changed. it's just that neither of those is true of our particular reality.
>evolution is nonsensical over human lifespans and has never been recorded or observed
the timespans necessary can be circumvented by using fast-breeding model organisms such as microbes or insects. the Lenski E. coli experiment is one example of evolution being observed, and the curious case of Biston betularia is another.

>>8994034
>science still collects billions a year in revenue for "cancer research" so either they cured cancer or they didn't, Im gonna say they didn't
science HAS cured some types of cancer. there's now a vaccine that provides 100% protection against cervical cancer, a major threat to women.

>>8994274
>science takes you to a barren rock.
Science also took us to modern medicine, transportation, and computers (the reason you were able to post bait here)
>reason to live
more like reason to die

>atheists think human life is a coincidence

File: calcium.jpg (342KB, 1365x919px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1365x919px

>>8994063
>Can you explain your 'IDiot Bingo' if you're so smart?
I can indeed! For I am a paleofag!

>If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
We did not evolve from modern monkeys, but rather from a common ancestor of monkeys. And speciation proceeds not only through anagenesis (one species becomes another species) but also through cladogenesis (one species becomes multiple species, splitting into two divergent populations)
>Conflates evolution and abiogenesis.
Evolution is life changing over time. Abiogenesis is life emerging from non-living material. They operate by entirely different mechanisms, and it is not necessary to know the details of one to understand the other.
>Famous Scientist X was a creationist.
Yes, and Famous Scientist X was wrong, having been born into a world ignorant of how evolution works. Just because someone was a genius in one respect doesn't mean they were right about everything; Einstein was an insanely gifted physicist, but he was flat wrong about the cosmological constant.
>Clains [sic] junk DNA isn't really junk.
Noncoding DNA generally has no role; occasionally, it can make individuals more susceptible to certain kinds of mutations. By and large, though, it's useless, the detritus of eons of splicing and alteration.
>Claims carbon dating is used to date anything older than 62,000 years.
Creationists frequently conflate radiometric dating with 14C dating. 14C dating, due to its half-life of 5,730 years, is never used to date anything older than ~10 half-lifes due to limits of detection, and people who claim it is are ignorant.

(1/5)

>>8994326
problem with using bacteria to prove evolution is that it takes a (small) degree of education to realize just how much variance exists between various microorganisms
completely uneducated persons (such as the folks who commonly deny evolution tend to be) tend to find the notion that 2 superficially identical looking microorganisms can be more distant genetically speaking than a human and a tree and will only consider truly radical changes in observable physical structure to be "macro-evolution"

>>8988686
Since natural selection doesn't mean "fit" but rather "most fit that can survive and reproduce", it can lead to some stunning inefficiencies.
But the one thing that really keeps me up at night is the realization that nature does not give a shit if your creature undergoes breathtaking agony. A creature could live 50% of its 10 year lifespan in torturous pain, but as long as it can reproduce and survive, it's allowed.

>>8994352
wouldn't see how that could keep you up at night
nature isn't an entity, it has no emotions, feelings or thoughts and as a result has no capacity for malevolence

File: Japan.jpg (15KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x375px

>>8994342
>Claims that any large percentage of biologists disputes Darwinian evolution.
Evolution is a fact, among biologists. Estimates for its support are something like 99.9%. While there are disputes about rates of change and the importance of various mechanisms, it's practically universally accepted.
>Organ X is too complex to have evolved.
This is argument from incredulity. If someone cannot imagine how some organ might have evolved, that speaks to the limits of their imagination, not to any flaw in evolution.
>The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy necessarily increases. Earth, however, is not a closed system! It receives infalling material and also quite a lot of energy from the Sun. Local decreases in entropy can be offset by increases elsewhere, and adding energy to a system can drive quite a lot of entropy-reducing processes; this can be verified by letting a glass of salt water evaporate, forming highly ordered crystals.
>If evolution is true, then why aren't we still evolving?
We are still evolving. We're just evolving under a radically different set of conditions and driven by an entirely different kind of selective pressure (very little survival selection, almost entirely mate-choice selection). And of course, evolution is incredibly slow in long-lived K-selectors like us.
>References the Piltdown Man, the Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, or a similar hoax as evidence against the reliability of paleontology.
All those hoaxes (or misidentifications, in Nebraska's case) were quickly discovered BY OTHER PALEONTOLOGISTS. Other controversial specimens, from Archaeopteryx to the platypus to the Taung Child, have been greeted with skepticism as well. But they have been investigated independently and thoroughly, and found to be real. That's the great thing about science: it's self-correcting.

>>8994385
>And of course, evolution is incredibly slow in long-lived K-selectors like us.
I wonder, given the sheer number of adult humans which successfully procreate, would it be reasonable to assume humans are the species with the slowest rate of evolution on the planet?

>>8994398
giant tortoises must be slower

File: Joel.png (2MB, 1039x1039px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1039x1039px

>>8994385
>Were you there?
Creationists have no problem accepting Biblical narrative, despite the fact that they weren't there either. We have a record, a geologic one, that tells us some of what has happened in the past, and it can be read (by a trained observer) almost like a book. When Creationists ask me this question, I prefer to answer with "yes, I was indeed there" and dare them to prove me wrong. It seems to fluster their jimbobs.
>Claims that according to evolution, humans evolved from chimps.
According to evolution, we evolved from a common ancestor (a chimp-like one, to be sure) that we share with chimps. And their point is...?
>Free space: Therefore, God did it.
Invoking supernatural intervention to explain unknowns has a poor track record. The same argument was once used to explain everything from seasonality to lighting to earthquakes. And as we got a better idea of how those work, suddenly people stopped magically attributing those to deities. More importantly, it is a needlessly complex and unfalsifiable conjecture.
>Claims evolution is not observable.
I refer you to the Lenski experiment. We have plenty of observations of evolution in progress; Creationists just like to pretend we don't.
>Evolution is only a theory.
This relies on the confusion between colloquial and technical uses of "theory". In science, a theory is an overarching idea that not only explains the sum of the evidence according to some principle or mechanism, but CONTINUES to explain new evidence as it comes in. That is, it stands up against attempts to disprove it. It's the closest thing to Fact that we have in science. General relativity is also a theory, but if you put an accurate clock in a fast airplane and fly it around for several hours, you can guarantee that it will have lost a fraction of a second in the journey.


(3/5)

>>8994410
dunno, while giant tortoises reproduce at an ungodly slow pace, they still have a fairly large selective pressure applied to that reproduction, while humans have found a way to ignore the vast majority of them

I mean, even humans with non functional genitals can still reproduce successfully (in the western world)

>there are still people in 2017 who think evolution and the religious viewpoint are inherently mutually exclusive
>there are still people who think God is some transcendent designer in a 4D workshop slaving over cellular flagella or w/e is the hot button meme bio-mechanism of the week
>there are still people who refuse to see something divine in there being a nature that self-organizes in the first place

the designer is not outside the universe, it is immanent: nature itself. we literally bootstrapped ourselves out of the dirt, and "it's just matter broooo" does not do the miracle that is justice.

want proof? go look in a mirror

File: 1497844524380.jpg (35KB, 551x441px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 551x441px

>>8994428
are you my grade 8 math teacher?

File: what creationists actually believe.png (69KB, 1048x854px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1048x854px

>>8994415
>Equates evolution by natural selection to random chance or chaos.
Mutation is (mostly) random. Selection is non-random. Next!
>Where are all the missing links?
In the fossil record. We have way more of them now than we used to. But when Creationists are presented with an intermediate Z between X and Y, they then demand that we produce an intermediate W between X and Z and an intermediate V between Z and Y. It's an outrageous example of goalpost-moving, pic related.
>Claims the theory of evolution has become sacrosanct.
Creationists don't get laughed out of academia for rejecting evolution; they get laughed out of academia for rejecting evolution without basing that opinion on evidence. If someone showed up with conclusive evidence against evolution, we'd listen. But oddly enough, nobody yet has.
>Claims the theory of evolution has no practical uses.
This has no bearing on whether or not evolution is real, but it also happens to be hilariously false. Understanding the mechanisms of evolution and how selection works allows us to predict the emergence of resistance in pests, weeds, and pathogens, and tailor our control methods to limit it. The reason patients are treated with multi-drug antibiotic cocktails is because it's harder for bacteria to simultaneously evolve resistance to multiple antibiotics than to a single one.
>Claims Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
A malicious rumor spread by the evangelist Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was present at his deathbed, conclusively and vehemently rejected this claim.

(4/5)

>>8994434
I don't know, why, is it cause this thread's at an 8th grade level? Come on don't you guys ever get tired of the old creationism vs. SCIENCE dichotomy, why can't you move past it? Why do you think in boxes?

File: 1496205809274.jpg (65KB, 640x351px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x351px

>>8994436
no that's just the exact same argument she used when trying to convince me God exists

File: 1495677130958.gif (2MB, 625x352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 625x352px

>>8994436
>>8994428
>doesn't do it justice
c'moooon, that's all feels no reals

>>8994441
i don't think it's an argument for the existence of god, i think it's an argument against ignorance of god

>>8994441
the answer to the "great mover" argument is quite simple: if it's impossible to differentiate god from natural processes the belief in god is pointless

File: Evolution.jpg (154KB, 875x402px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 875x402px

>>8994435
>Claims that if we come from animals, we have to act like animals.
Is-ought distinction. We come from ancestors who rarely bathed, could neither read nor right, lived in the same room as their pigs, and were lucky to see their thirtieth year. That doesn't mean that we should be unwashed, unlettered, uncivilized, and unenduring; we have improved ourselves. And of course, this has no bearing on whether evolution is real, merely whether it is pleasant to think about.
>What use is half an eye?
Plenty! Suppose an organism has a light-sensitive protein. It's advantageous to express it in the skin, since that's what's exposed to light. Now you have an organism that can tell day from night, which is very useful for feeding or avoiding predators. Now suppose the area is indented, forming a rim around the edge. This allows for simple directional vision, telling the organism whether it is facing towards or away from the light, which is invaluable for telling up from down in the water. Let's raise that rim a little more, improve the directionality of vision. Well, what if a clear membrane grows that can maybe focus the light a little, helping to discern simple images? That's how you get an eye, maintaining some sort of useful function all the way.
>Claims some systems are irreducibly complex.
Just because a system might not function with the loss of any of its components doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. It might previously have had MORE components, making up some other structure for some other purpose, that was repurposed and gradually lost all non-essential parts.
>Claims microevolution and macroevolution are completely different.
Small incremental changes can and do lead into large dramatic changes. Pic related.
>Scientists are changing their theories all the time. Evolution could be the next one they discard.
And if conclusive evidence against evolution appears, then and only then will we reject evolution. We make decisions based on what we KNOW.

(5/5)

File: ZIcgTyb6_400x400[1].jpg (29KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x400px

>>8994459
Any questions?

File: 1497890893093.jpg (146KB, 859x600px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 859x600px

>>8994462
nope, bravo!

>>8994446
No, God is not the brute objective universe, but the awareness of an objective universe as such. It's whatever it is in matter that transcends its brute objectivity by having a notion of itself as such, ie subjectivity, self-awareness, and all the dimensions of experience that that entails.

Privileging objectivity over subjectivity is itself a subjective position. Want to know where you can find "true" objectivity? The void.

>>8991597
It should be right next to the asshole

>>8994339
prove them wrong
protip: you can't

>>8994428
b-but dirt ia partially biological waste therefore it couldn't exist without bio-organisms providing waste

>>8994533
>There isn't proof that we are not a coincidence, therefore we are a coincidence
Ad ignorantiam

>>8993105
>plants produced most of that oxygen
you're about a billion years out-of-sync

>>8994019
>There are ancient structures people are literally not intelligent enough to determine are not just rock mountians, and will believe authorities when they tell them pyramids are just hills.
...So?

File: NaturalSelectionMisconception small.jpg (83KB, 359x1141px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 359x1141px

>>8995040

File: Natural-Selection-BCBC-ws.jpg (55KB, 350x254px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 350x254px

>>8995045

File: Fire-causes-Brain-Evolution-ws.jpg (102KB, 799x666px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 799x666px

>>8995046

File: s96can1.gif (32KB, 238x228px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 238x228px

>>8995048

File: BM-BD-Statistics.jpg (170KB, 1542x732px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1542x732px

>>8995051

File: Is-Evolution-Good-For-Science.jpg (63KB, 654x354px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 654x354px

>>8995054

>>8988686
creationism gets BTFO by the singular fact that as a model, it has no industrial or practical applications. its philosophical circle jerking at its finest.

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

91KB, 941x960px

>>8995040
>>8995045
>>8995046
>>8995048
>>8995051
>>8995054
>>8995056
>lemme draw a picture of an angry dog pointing at a strawman
>there, that showed 'em!
I especially love >>8995051. the only way you know that it's supposed to be in support of Creationism is because they drew the actual scientist with a scowl and a flop-sweat. pic related though.

I see that the Creationist (because let's be honest, it's just one sad ignorant fucker bumbling around here) has given up on trying to advance any actual arguments and has resorted to posting the equivalent of le happy merchant.

>>8995045
Why is there such a thing as luck in a world where an omnipotent, omniscient being is directing every single nuance of every single living creature that has ever existed and will someday exist?

File: From+Buried+Alive+by+Dr.+Jack+Cuozzo.jpg (106KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x720px

>>8995063
http://www.jackcuozzo.com
http://rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/nebraska.html
http://evidentcreation.com

File: Java-man-copy1.jpg (122KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 700x500px

>>8995139
A few more
http://creationwiki.org/Human_evolution
https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/
http://scienceagainstevolution.info
http://davidpratt.info/ape1.htm

File: OldEarth6.jpg (50KB, 950x848px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 950x848px

>>8995143
https://youtu.be/FkHkqG5pJK0?list=PLKQ3v5jzhjS02_uml9uNVf1qdiCB7P1xb

File: Fucking Stupid.jpg (49KB, 740x419px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 740x419px

>>8995139
>neanderthals have been deliberately mis-reconstructed by the scientific community for decades!
>this non-scientific line drawing I got at the gift shop proves it!
Holy shit I did not know it was actually possible to be this retarded.

>>8995143
Java Man is now known to be an occurrence of Homo erectus. The skulls have been conclusively identified as early human, not gibbon.

>>8995149
Piltdown Man was a hoax that the scientific community never accepted. Not sure why you morons continue to bang on about it. Maybe because you've got nothing better?
We have literally hundreds and hundreds of Neanderthal fossils on record; if their morphology were simply the result of diagenetic strain, what are the odds that ALL of them would end up distorted in the EXACT SAME WAY? (And then there's the pesky matter of Neanderthal skulls not actually being crushed, like your picture claims they are.)
Peking Man (another kind of Homo erectus) was identified from multiple specimens considered separately; the pale regions in the picture are plaster/putty used to reconstruct the skull, not fragments of another specimen.

What claim exactly are you trying to make here? I've seen climate deniers with more coherence. The plural of "shitpost" is not "argument"...

Anyone who actually thinks evolution is a valid theory in 2017 is a fucking brainlet. I have zero respect for biologists, it's next to psychiatry as the most hackneyed branch of science with completely subjective claims derived from data which cannot be obtained by repeatable experimentation. Evolutionary biology is the pinnacle of that shitheap with """"scientists"""" digging bone fragments up and claiming they're new species.

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that evolution as proposed is a completely random process and believing that random mutations in genetic code can produce more complex organisms is pants on head retarded when you consider 90% of mutations are detrimental. The smokescreen they love to use is 'natural selection' to add a selection process to make the idea of complexity created from completely random changes in nucleotide sequences billions of sequences long. But the original problem still exists, beneficial mutations are EXTREMELY rare, and when offspring hit the jackpot and get a mutation that improves their chances of survival then you need to spin the wheel of chance yet again to see if they actually manage to reproduce. What happens when the wonderkind with the new mutation gets predated before it mates? Wait another few thousand generations for it to pop up again? And yet somehow, SOMEHOW we get the most complex biological machiney in the universe in outselves, a being that has sapience out of sheer fucking dumb luck.

I pity people who are dumb enough to believe that horseshit

File: E4380001-Reconstructed_skull_of_fossil_hominid-Homo_Habilis-SPL (1).jpg (192KB, 530x418px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 530x418px

>>8995164
Did you look at any of the links I presented, or are they too much for your "monkey brain?"

Just look how fast your "handy man" falls before the might of skepticism.
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i6f.htm

>>8995173
>Compared with a skeleton like Lucy or the Black Skull, OH 62 was scrappy.
Why doesn't the site go over Lucy and the Black Skull?
I mean, not that I can find, the site map is garbage.

>>8995168
you have such a limited understanding of biology and paleontology, especially the evolution that you're really in no position to criticize

File: Antedilluvian Pongid.jpg (852KB, 1598x1497px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1598x1497px

>>8995212
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm
As for the Black Skull, they probably assume anyone could tell it was an ape akin to the gorilla, what with the large saggital crest, and high nuchal crest (pic related).

>>8995225
actual science isn't just looking at shit
they measure everything and do statistics

File: 1dba0d8c156fab9f1961adf1ae7899aa--skull-illustration-human-skull.jpg (11KB, 236x312px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x312px

>>8995230
>Nuchal Crest: The part of the skull where the neck muscles attach. The nuchal crest is larger in apes than it is in humans because apes are mostly quadrupeds and have to keep their head from drooping.
>larger in apes
Doesn't take a PhD, anon.

>>8995243
k but actual PhDs say evolution is real, maybe they know something you don't?

>>8995243
also I have a sagittal suture

>>8995173
>We could not find a photograph of the other 23 bones. We suspect they are just tiny fragments.
It took me literally one minute to find descriptions of the other bones; they are the parietals, a single maxillary molar, and a bunch of bones from the hand. Nice assumption.
>The general rule is that U-shaped jaws with parallel teeth are ape jaws, but V-shaped jaws are human. Why is this jaw considered to be human?
Amazingly enough, early humans retain some ape-like features. It's almost as if the transition from "ape-like" to "human-like" physiology was a gradual process...

>This specimen is supposedly 50,000 years older than OH 7. But so little evolution occurred over that 50,000 year period that it is supposedly the same species.
There are species of trilobite, which have much shorter generation times, that persist for literally millions of years without being considered a different species. And you're surprised that a slow-breeding organism might have gone 50 kyr without speciating? Shows how little you know.
>But then they found Homo habilis, and all of a sudden the rule doesn’t apply any more. The rule doesn’t apply because the skull has been “distorted” from its true shape.
The skull was literally flattened, and you think they're irresponsible for noting that the reconstruction is imperfect and doesn't capture the original shape of the skull? Look at OH24 and tell me that the skull, as reassembled, is how it would have looked in life, I dare you.

>There is some controversy over whether or not skull 1813 is Homo habilis or not.
>Apparently, no other bones were found from this specimen. All they have is a skull. And a very small skull (for an adult human) at that.
And this is evidence against evolution...how? What are you trying to say, Lassie?

>>8995247
Actual PhDs are human and subject to the same societal pressure to conform as the rest of us. Evolution is pushed super hard by academics because they view it as a bulwark against creationism. A lot of them feel like if they admit it's bullshit it gives creationists a point against them so rather than admit it's a flawed theory they choose to cling to it until they can find something better. Trust me dude, I'm in academia and 90% of the people publishing papers are fucking retards just pushing an agenda. Their "research" is complete garbage but no-one ever notices because even other academics don't bother reading that shit

>>8995257
I don't believe you
evolution isn't flawed at all

>>8995259
I can tell you for a fact that not even evolutionary biologists really believe evolution is a good theory.

File: I've seen through your tricks.jpg (33KB, 746x691px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 746x691px

>>8995173
But enough about the miscellaneous whinging ignorant complaints related to the fossils. Let's talk about the complaints leveled against the reconstruction:

>How could anyone make an accurate drawing based on these few bones?
Just because you are incapable of something doesn't mean it's impossible.

>How does the artist know H. habilis had an opposable thumb?
Because opposable thumbs are present in literally all the great apes known. It's all about parsimony.

>Consider this artist’s painting that we found on the Hunterian Museum web page. It shows Homo habilis using a crude stone tool.
And this is known because stone tools, and bones bearing their marks, have been found along with Homo habilis.

It all comes down to "well, I just don't understand how they could know this", the classic argument from incredulity. As usual, it speaks more to the ignorance of the speaker than to anything about the methods of the experts.
Forensic scientists use basically the same methods to reconstruct the build and appearance of murder victims whose otherwise unidentifiable partial remains are found. The fact that these reconstructions, from fragmentary remains, are frequently successful in identifying the deceased is proof that these techniques work. Chew on that for a moment.

>>8995243
apparently it takes a PhD to realize that "larger in apes than it is in humans" does not mean "absent in humans", you moron.

>>8995260
"All of biology can only be understood through the lens of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

*something like that

File: ▄█▀ █▬█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▀█▀.jpg (143KB, 469x469px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 469x469px

>>8995168
>>8995257
>>8995260
buttmad soft scientist detected
t. paleofag

>>8995247
>knowing a dead thing makes you better at this than me
Kek
>>8995250
And?


>>8995251
>It took me literally one minute to find descriptions of the other bones; they are the parietals, a single maxillary molar, and a bunch of bones from the hand. Nice assumption.
So a few scraps of head, hands, and teeth with absolutely nothing else. Sorry for not believing the hasty-pasty scientists who cobbled this together.

>Amazingly enough, early humans retain some ape-like features. It's almost as if the transition from "ape-like" to "human-like" physiology was a gradual process...
"It may look almost exactly like a chimp's jaw, but look at the (worn down) teeth, it's becoming a man, before your very eyes!"

>There are species of trilobite, which have much shorter generation times, that persist for literally millions of years without being considered a different species. And you're surprised that a slow-breeding organism might have gone 50 kyr without speciating? Shows how little you know.
We're talking about hominids, not trilobites.

>The skull was literally flattened, and you think they're irresponsible for noting that the reconstruction is imperfect and doesn't capture the original shape of the skull? Look at OH24 and tell me that the skull, as reassembled, is how it would have looked in life, I dare you.
If the shoe fits.

>And this is evidence against evolution...how? What are you trying to say, Lassie?
>all they have to go off of are a few scraps of ape-like bones, and they claim it's a man
Well gee golly gosh.

>>8995270
I just wanted to let you know, I'm pretty sure not everybody has them. I might be less evolved.

>>8995264
What they say behind closed doors is a lot different than the party line they push in public. I know some very public evolutionary biologists who have expressed big misgivings about it when they're in private company

>>8995276
"Just trust me, okay?"

>>8995276
And what misgivings would these be?

>>8995270
bro you literally don't know what you're talking about
that's how science is done, you take the evidence available to you and you interpret it
evolution is a good for other species so there's no reason to believe it wouldn't work for humans
...unless there was some kind of agenda you were following that dates back to the Vatican hundreds of of years ago

File: who_pic4.jpg (55KB, 235x258px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 235x258px

>>8995263
>Just because you are incapable of something doesn't mean it's impossible.
So it could've been an ancient fairy, or mermaid, or satyr?

>Because opposable thumbs are present in literally all the great apes known. It's all about parsimony.
He most likely meant "actually useful for anything other than climbing in trees."

>And this is known because stone tools, and bones bearing their marks, have been found along with Homo habilis.
So they admit to intelligent design when man is the designer? Figures, they let their ego get the best of them.

>It all comes down to "well, I just don't understand how they could know this", the classic argument from incredulity. As usual, it speaks more to the ignorance of the speaker than to anything about the methods of the experts.
So I should take any yahoo with a PhD's wild extrapolations seriously?

>Forensic scientists use basically the same methods to reconstruct the build and appearance of murder victims whose otherwise unidentifiable partial remains are found. The fact that these reconstructions, from fragmentary remains, are frequently successful in identifying the deceased is proof that these techniques work. Chew on that for a moment.
But we're not dealing with humans, are we?

File: improper.jpg (13KB, 200x423px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x423px

>>8995270
>So a few scraps of head, hands, and teeth with absolutely nothing else. Sorry for not believing the hasty-pasty scientists who cobbled this together.
And given that the transition from "ape" to "human" is reflected in dramatic changes in the hands (locomotion -> manipulation) and head (larger brain size, softer foods, broader diet), why would you NOT expect the morphology of the head and hands to be informative of whether something is more like a human or an ape?

>It may look almost exactly like a chimp's jaw
but that's wrong you fucking retard dot bee em pee
it's shorter and lighter than a chimp's jaw; it is apelike only in the angle of the chin, and humanlike in other respects.

>We're talking about hominids, not trilobites.
Yes, and homonids evolve even more slowly than trilobites due to a much longer generation time. Why are you so surprised a single species could persist for tens of thousands of years? After all, H. sapiens has been around for over a quarter of a MILLION years! Your ignorance of timescales isn't evidence against evolution; it is a mark of idiocy.

File: Charles-LeBrun-cat.jpg (441KB, 886x452px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 886x452px

>>8995281
>absolutely no evidence of transitional forms, which implies they appeared fully formed
>applies to humans as well
Wow, I guess you're right

>...unless there was some kind of agenda you were following that dates back to the Vatican hundreds of of years ago
And yours dates back to the Greeks and Romans thousands of years ago.

File: smug Gabe.jpg (8KB, 244x244px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 244x244px

>>8995284
>So it could've been an ancient fairy, or mermaid, or satyr?
You're just making up bullshit right now. That doesn't remotely follow from what I said.

>He most likely meant "actually useful for anything other than climbing in trees."
Aaand surprise surprise, literally all great apes have thumbs like that too.

>So they admit to intelligent design when man is the designer?
Funny how humans making things doesn't imply that someone made everything. If scientists had a problem with the idea that humans made things, we wouldn't be using computers to talk to morons like you.

>So I should take any yahoo with a PhD's wild extrapolations seriously?
No. Unfortunately for you, you lack the intelligence and knowledge to tell the difference between reasonable and unreasonable reconstructions. It's a heavy burden you bear, being incapable of knowing whether those more learned than you are bullshitting. But the real trouble only arises when you lose sight of this, and believe that you DO know something that you don't.

>But we're not dealing with humans, are we?
We, in fact, are. Members of the genus Homo are by definition humans.

>>8995292
>Greeks
>romans
>science
you're not fooling anybody

>>8995292
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
look up "fossil" using the popular search engine "Google"

File: OnlyApes.jpg (58KB, 527x268px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 527x268px

>>8995285
>And given that the transition from "ape" to "human" is reflected in dramatic changes in the hands (locomotion -> manipulation) and head (larger brain size, softer foods, broader diet), why would you NOT expect the morphology of the head and hands to be informative of whether something is more like a human or an ape?
Common traits=/=common ancestor.

>but that's wrong you fucking retard dot bee em pee. it's shorter and lighter than a chimp's jaw; it is apelike only in the angle of the chin, and humanlike in other respects.
>this is "humanlike"
Reminds me of ol' Ramapithecus. Thought it was the first hominid, turned out to be an extinct form of orangutan.

>Yes, and homonids evolve even more slowly than trilobites due to a much longer generation time. Why are you so surprised a single species could persist for tens of thousands of years? After all, H. sapiens has been around for over a quarter of a MILLION years! Your ignorance of timescales isn't evidence against evolution; it is a mark of idiocy.
>making excuses, throwing out big numbers, and calling names

>>8995293
>You're just making up bullshit right now. That doesn't remotely follow from what I said.
Then why not say what you meant?

>Aaand surprise surprise, literally all great apes have thumbs like that too.
Example: 1. Chimp getting a banana
2. Gorilla grabbing its own feces
3. Orangutan struggling with a saw
4. Humans building skyscrapers and making great works of art.
Which one doesn't belong?

>Funny how humans making things doesn't imply that someone made everything. If scientists had a problem with the idea that humans made things, we wouldn't be using computers to talk to morons like you.
>dancing around the issue and namecalling again

>No. Unfortunately for you, you lack the intelligence and knowledge to tell the difference between reasonable and unreasonable reconstructions. It's a heavy burden you bear, being incapable of knowing whether those more learned than you are bullshitting. But the real trouble only arises when you lose sight of this, and believe that you DO know something that you don't.
It's called "common sense."

>We, in fact, are. Members of the genus Homo are by definition humans.
Hasn't rhrre been a debate over whether "homo" habilis was homo or australopithecus (southern ape)?

>>8995280
I had an evolutionary biologist literally tell me to my face that informing the public about the problems of the theory was irresponsible because it would give ammunition to creationists. Take that as you will.

>>8995309
>Example: 1. Chimp getting a banana
>2. Gorilla grabbing its own feces
>3. Orangutan struggling with a saw
>4. Humans building skyscrapers and making great works of art.
>Which one doesn't belong?
The gorilla. No gorillas pass the mirror test, whereas at least 50% of all other groups do.

>>8995313
So? Fuck it. What are they?

>>8995315
Read the thread

>>8995314
I was going over the thumb, not how they react their reflection.

>>8995318
The hominid origin of humanity is sketch but no criticisms leveled against evolution itself in this thread hold any water.

>>8995045
What does this even mean? Is he trying to deny that things which are good at surviving will survive at a higher rate than things that aren't? Natural selection is just an application of basic logic.

God, you can tell just from the artwork that whoever drew this is dumb as a rock. Look at that guy's fucking face.

File: Gorilla.jpg (103KB, 570x558px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 570x558px

>>8995302
>Common traits=/=common ancestor.
Luckily, molecular evidence tells us that all apes (including humans) share a common ancestor.

>Thought it was the first hominid, turned out to be an extinct form of orangutan.
You seem to have a little trouble distinguishing
>one guy claimed
from
>multiple independent studies concluded

>making excuses, throwing out big numbers, and calling names
you don't have to get salty just because you don't know anything about evolutionary timescales, and think that hominids speciate faster than trilobites. are you really that upset about me throwing out big numbers? Homo sapiens HAS been around for ~280 kyr; sorry if that's too big a number for your mind to comprehend

>>8995309
>why not say what you meant?
I did. You responded with an unrelated comment out of left field, as if I would fall for that ruse.

>hurr the reason that humans can do a bunch of things other apes don't is because their thumbs are better
yes, that's it! it's the thumbs! not the intelligence, language, or advanced culture!

>dancing around the issue and namecalling again
there IS no issue. you're claiming that "humans made this hand-axe" is equivalent to "a supernatural being made everything". and you're whining when I point out how monumentally stupid this statement is.

>It's called "common sense."
"common sense" also tells you that the Earth is flat, that water warms up when it's boiled, that rocks can't float in water, and that solid rocks certainly can't flow. There's nothing rational about it, and it is NOT a substitute for actual knowledge.

>Hasn't rhrre been a debate over whether "homo" habilis was homo or australopithecus (southern ape)?
Homo habilis is a descendant of Australopithecus, but its features clearly support grouping it with Homo. Yes, paleoanthropologists have argued extensively about this.

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

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>8995350
>Luckily, molecular evidence tells us that all apes (including humans) share a common ancestor.
Yet other studies show completely different dates.

>You seem to have a little trouble distinguishing >one guy claimed from >multiple independent studies concluded
Actually, I think it was the latter for a time.

>you don't have to get salty just because you don't know anything about evolutionary timescales, and think that hominids speciate faster than trilobites. are you really that upset about me throwing out big numbers? Homo sapiens HAS been around for ~280 kyr; sorry if that's too big a number for your mind to comprehend
>implying those dates are reliable

>I did. You responded with an unrelated comment out of left field, as if I would fall for that ruse.
Your comment came off as, "I can make up anything ai want and you have to accept it, because Pee Aech Dee."

>yes, that's it! it's the thumbs! not the intelligence, language, or advanced culture!
Twisting my words yet again. I was merely pointing out one trait (dexterous hands) and showing how poorly our "relatives" fit that.

>there IS no issue. you're claiming that "humans made this hand-axe" is equivalent to "a supernatural being made everything". and you're whining when I point out how monumentally stupid this statement is.
>"if I act like it doesn't exist, I'll come pff as winning the argument"

>"common sense" also tells you that the Earth is flat, that water warms up when it's boiled, that rocks can't float in water, and that solid rocks certainly can't flow. There's nothing rational about it, and it is NOT a substitute for actual knowledge.
Observational science is more reliable than historical science.

>Homo habilis is a descendant of Australopithecus, but its features clearly support grouping it with Homo. Yes, paleoanthropologists have argued extensively about this.
And haven't they also argued over habilis' very validity as a species? If they can't be certain on a species, what about several?

I still don't get how people can refute evolution, considering it's an observable mechanism. As a chemfag, shifting equilibrium due to factors making one species more favorable to self-catalyze (see; reproduce) is just an analytical curiosity, nothing hard to believe that could happen.

Stuff that can live and make copies of itself better than anything that competes for the same resource will be in higher abundance. Combine this with what we can quite literally observe about how DNA works, and the mechanism for population level evolution is super simple to see.

>>8995359
>""""other studies""""
propaganda, this is why they ask for GOOD sources in school

File: Biological-Organization.jpg (184KB, 168x1260px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 168x1260px

>>8995364
>I still don't get how people can refute evolution, considering it's an observable mechanism.
Show me one kind of animal turning into another in observable time.

>As a chemfag, shifting equilibrium due to factors making one species more favorable to self-catalyze (see; reproduce) is just an analytical curiosity, nothing hard to believe that could happen.
You are also familiar with the extremely high improbability of abiogenesis, yes?

>Stuff that can live and make copies of itself better than anything that competes for the same resource will be in higher abundance
I thought evolution was about "change," not getting "better."

>Combine this with what we can quite literally observe about how DNA works, and the mechanism for population level evolution is super simple to see.
So are you saying certain populations are more "evolved" than others, including man?

File: human_chimp_brains_wide.jpg (35KB, 700x248px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x248px

>>8995368
>Since the 1990s, the estimation of the TCHLCA has become less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA beyond the 5 to 7 million years range accepted during the 1970s and 1980s. An estimate of TCHLCA at 10 to 13 million years was proposed in 1998, and a range of 7 to 10 million years ago is assumed by White et al. (2009)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor#Current_estimates

>>8995374
>divergence times seem to be different than previously thought
>therefore no common ancestor LOL
>therefore intelligent design XD
>I'm getting into heaven for sure now!

>>8995370
Ah, didn't expect a response so soon.

Well, for starters, your image is actually fairly inaccurate to how biologists actually consider organism and below-level evolution. In fact, one of the most interesting cases of this is the rise in cancer in the past few decades. Of course there are the carcinogenic factors that have come in to play, but one thing people don't usually think of that plays the largest role is in how long humans are living.

You see, over years we do build up mutations in our cells. Most of the time, because the mutations are random, they aren't harmful, but so long as there aren't pressures selecting against them, they can persist- the deadly nature of cancer is that it takes about 7-10 distinct, non-harmful mutations added up together for the generation of mutant cell to arise where "cancer" is observed. It's because of basing trials off of the theory of evolution that we've been as successful as we have in figuring out what the mutations are, so we can figure out markers for risk, both heritable and accumulated.

>show me one kind of animal...
I don't know why you think animals are so special. Plants can be observed, however, mutating. The brand of corn we have now is quite different than a century ago.

>You are also familiar...
Yeah, I'm also familiar with the basic scope of our universe, and how unimaginably large it is.

>I thought evolution was...
Evolution has no purpose. It's a process. Things that happen to reproduce better, have a higher concentration in the entire solution. Mutation =! evolution, but also has no purpose.

>So are you saying
No, where would you get this? All life has DNA, and has been evolving for the same amount of time, likely. (subject to dispute; some classify certain types of viruses that contain only RNA to be life, but this is kind of a niche academic worry)

File: 17-1.jpg (45KB, 400x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x402px

>>8995377
>imaginary thing isn't real
>now angery
>ad hom really hard

>>8990273
Maybe it acts as a spring to mitigate damage from falling to the back/head

>>8995383
>make shit up
>no, I'm right
>NO, I'M RIGHT

>>8995380
>but this is kind of a niche academic worry
RNA World will come back with a vengeance, just you wait. Even now the erebobiosphere mobilizes against us.

>>8995383
I don't understand how creationists accuse evolutionists of revering apes when the belief of the former has apes being hand-crafted by God and the belief of the latter has apes being an accident of iterative organic machinery.

File: BM-Tinkerbell.jpg (77KB, 1229x647px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1229x647px

>>8995380
>Ah, didn't expect a response so soon.
I'll take that as a compliment.

>cancer and its causes
Easily explained via degeration from a created optimal state. As you've demonstrated, many mutations are either non-harmful or almost fatal, as opposed to beneficial.

>I don't know why you think animals are so special. Plants can be observed, however, mutating. The brand of corn we have now is quite different than a century ago.
It's still corn, though. It's not a rose, or broccoli. It's corn.

>Yeah, I'm also familiar with the basic scope of our universe, and how unimaginably large it is.
Size and probability are two different things.

>Evolution has no purpose. It's a process. Things that happen to reproduce better, have a higher concentration in the entire solution. Mutation =! evolution, but also has no purpose.
But "better" is a subjective term that you're applying to a supposedly directionless process.

>No, where would you get this? All life has DNA, and has been evolving for the same amount of time, likely.
You are implying populations evolve. As certain variations or "races" of people have different traits, one could draw out a heirarchy based on those traits, and then act upon them.

>>8995394
so that corn will always be corn? even with mutations? it's never eventually going to change into something else? not even over millions of years?

File: whosetsrules.jpg (31KB, 344x384px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 344x384px

>>8995388
>being the special creation of transcendent being, given a purpose
>being the result of a mistake, a fluke in how the universe works, with no true purpose

>>8995396
>millions of years
Again with the number-dazzling, I see. Corn will still be corn, cats will still be cats, and man will always be man.

File: 1498100103289.jpg (24KB, 600x567px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x567px

>>8995398
>number dazzling

>>8995394
>Easily explained via degeration from a created optimal state. As you've demonstrated, many mutations are either non-harmful or almost fatal, as opposed to beneficial.
Not for the cells themselves. Hell, some cancers are effectively immortal.

>>8995397
Well yeah. Why would an evolutionist be worshipful of anything, let alone an ape?
Besides, most scientists are (though they tend not to know it) radical Platonists who simply call God "the real ontic structure" or "the mathematical monad."

>>8995398
>Corn will still be corn
maize became corn about 1000ya
>cats will still be cats
cats were feral until about 3000ya
>man will always be man
...except for subspecies.
Lrn2biology fgt pls

File: whosetsrules.jpg (65KB, 546x384px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 546x384px

>>8995397
Here, have a Catholic version.

File: darwinists.jpg (79KB, 506x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 506x600px

>>8995401
>Not for the cells themselves. Hell, some cancers are effectively immortal.
Well the body they infest certainly won't be.

>Well yeah. Why would an evolutionist be worshipful of anything, let alone an ape?
Ancestor worship, or devotion to a lost cause (evolution)

>Besides, most scientists are (though they tend not to know it) radical Platonists who simply call God "the real ontic structure" or "the mathematical monad."
But he is beyond the physical realm.

>>8995405
Still maize, still a cat, still a human.

>>8995406
>c**holic
Figures.

>>8995413
>But he is beyond the physical realm.
As is the mathematical monad. You can't reach out and touch the concept of numeracy.

>>8995414
Not a concept, a thing outside of your perception, but acts according to Himself, rather than man.

>>8995416
You're not getting that that's exactly the monad.

>>8988686
The simulation theory are one of the strangest and most absurd theories - that still have a very strong logic behind it.
The simulation theory is litterally a variation of the intelligent design theory. It may not have arised as such, and the people whom believe in this theory are entirely separated from the group that believe and argue for the classic intelligent design theory. But the core principle are the same, that our world and everything within it are a product of an entity of sorts. This also apply to the laws of physic, they are made up by someone, still real from our perspective.

>>8995503
>The simulation theory are one of the strangest and most absurd theories - that still have a very strong logic behind it.
>The simulation theory is litterally a variation of the intelligent design theory. It may not have arised as such, and the people whom believe in this theory are entirely separated from the group that believe and argue for the classic intelligent design theory. But the core principle are the same, that our world and everything within it are a product of an entity of sorts. This also apply to the laws of physic, they are made up by someone, still real from our perspective.
Look up mathematical universe theory, just because something is a simulation doesn't mean there's a creator.

>>8995508
>just because something is a simulation doesn't mean there's a creator.
But it is pretty likely, a large part of the simulation argument are centered around how intelligent life (humans) are using simulation and that these simulation increase in complexity.

>>8995517
The more convincing argument I've seen were the ones addressing ease of computability by, for example, setting a maximum possible speed.

why do you even bother arguing
nobody who comes to /sci/, absolutely nobody, believes in creationism

you're not arguing with someone who genuinely holds an opinion which is considered wrong and can be disproven, you're arguing with a troll who will never be convinced because he's a troll

>>8995557
you have something better to do? I don't

>>8988686
Anencephalia

File: The_Scream.jpg (358KB, 900x1135px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 900x1135px

>Why the hell is everyone on /sci/.

Formatting their replies like this.

>And seemingly unaware that the words they use.

Have meaning both in and of themselves.

>As well as drastic variation in compound meaning when put together.

Both of which they readily ignore.

>Spewing tons of information irrelevant to the argument in question.

And getting lost in the realm of the absurd by splitting doubly-redundant hairs.

>As well as assuming the other party is arguing from a position that they have not even implied.

And would be just as irrelevant to the argument at hand either way.

>It's as if language itself goes above their heads.

And their only criterion for typing any given word as opposed to any one of the rest of the words they know.

>Is something of a primitive aesthetic judgement.

Never going beyond their memory of troglodyte 1:1 association of what to them are just empty sound clusters.

>That they previously heard in vague proximity to other sound clusters they observed others receiving positive attention for.

IS THIS A GLIMPSE OF PURGATORY?

>>8995660
check the URL on your browser
where do think you are?

File: cat.jpg (7KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 220x220px

>>8994019
Thats a cause and effect confusion fallacy.

Sure, people may belive authorities rather than juge for them selves. But how does this prove god exists? Isnt that just an appeal to authority of the bible or (insert religious text here).

>>8988686
Our entire mathematical system and how many irrational numbers are found perfectly in their infinitely complex form in a great number of places. Such as e, found in integrals of inverse functions, as well as in (((interest))) calculations, and as the sum of the infinite series of 1/n for n (0, infinite).
Oh wait...

>>8994066
>evolution is definitely real
>creationism definitely is not

has observable proof of neither.


>We have literally hundreds and hundreds of Neanderthal fossils on record;

no you don't some state funded museum claims they do, and they don't.
>>8995168
very much this

>>8994326
>e miscellaneous whinging ignorant complaints related to the fossil

>...you don't actually know what No True Scotsman is, do you?

claiming anything that doesnt fit the convenient explanations of evolutionists. is not real evolution

>vaccine for cancer
>cure

>>8994415
>Creationists have no problem accepting Biblical narrative, despite the fact that they weren't there either.

the bible was purposely rewritten by the thousands by varying individuals.

it took 200 years of hoaxes and propaganda for evolution to become even common knowlege, yet still no transitional fossils

>>8994428
>here being a nature that self-organizes in the first place

this is the philosophical result of the enlightenment paradigm.

fact is scripture is not compatable with the heliocentric model as a whole, and in the past we only tolerated the atheistic sciences because christians are in fact the most tolerant.

>>8994326
>the timespans necessary can be circumvented by using fast-breeding model organisms such as microbes or insects.

they do this with mice and fruitflies...and they still have mice and fruit flies after 30 generation.

you have no proof of any speciation. you just have faith in scientists and scientism.

>>8995660
Could be worse, could be a hell board.

File: Flat-Earth-Memes-221-19.jpg (58KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 960x960px

>>8994385
>The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy necessarily increases. Earth, however, is not a closed system! It receives infalling material and also quite a lot of energy from the Sun.

your entire presupposition is built upon the belief that Isaac Newton is correct in his identification of physical "laws"

and his theories of gravitation ae valid to the letter.

further you assume Earth is an enclosed system.

I claim it isn't and you can't prove that the sun is 98 million miles away and not simply above the clouds

>>8994415
>it is a needlessly complex and unfalsifiable conjecture.
such as the theory of gravitation

>>8995686
no it's appeal to authority.
>>8994019
which means those who claim abiogenetic evoution are retarded as they cant see obviously intelligent design with their own eyes and rely on the authority of scientists who lie and hoax fossils, which several anons tried to skirt over as if it was not a big deal that evolutionists are such liars about key aspects of their theories.

File: horse.jpg (70KB, 625x637px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 625x637px

>>8995359
First off, your picture is pants-on-head retarded. The skeleton pictured (Lucy) contains enough of the pelvis to see that it is squat, low-crested. This is unambiguously an upright walker; the pelvis of a gorilla is much longer, given its quadrupedal gait.

>Yet other studies show completely different dates.
uncertainty over the timing of the split != they don't share an ancestor

>Actually, I think it was the latter for a time.
You thought wrong.

>hurr stratigraphic dating is unreliable because I said so and I don't like it
you know you've got nothing when you resort to simply throwing away evidence that contradicts you :^)

>Your comment came off as
not my fault you can't read and understand what is written.

>I was merely pointing out one trait (dexterous hands) and showing how poorly our "relatives" fit that.
except other apes' hands are very very similar to our own in structure. they have opposable thumbs just as we do, and they have a great deal of dexterity. nice damage control.

>if I act like it doesn't exist, I'll come pff as winning the argument
you're insisting, based on muh uhpinions, that the two are equivalent propositions. we can observe humans making artifacts by those same Stone Age methods; we cannot observe anything remotely similar to the special creation that you swear totally happened without leaving any evidence.

>Observational science is more reliable than historical science.
and invoking "common sense" is not actually observational science. appealing to common sense means drawing a pre-emptive conclusion based on hardly any observation, and declining to investigate further or test the validity of the conclusion.

>And haven't they also argued over habilis' very validity as a species? If they can't be certain on a species, what about several?
Paleoanthropologists have argued, yes. They came to a conclusion. And when people as argumentative as them can agree, it's generally because the evidence is, well, conclusive.

File: autism.png (68KB, 611x338px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 611x338px

>>8995370
>Show me one kind of animal turning into another in observable time.
Nice try, but evolution doesn't have things turning into radically different things. Organisms evolve into things that are slightly different. A worm doesn't turn into a clam; evolutionary biology has never claimed that it does. The only people who think it does are the ignorant, like you.

>>8995394
>It's still corn, though. It's not a rose, or broccoli. It's corn.
Actually, NOW it's corn. Before, it was grass.
>Size and probability are two different things.
And if you knew what the Law of Large Numbers is, you'd understand why one relates to the other.
>"better" is a subjective term that you're applying to a supposedly directionless process.
"reproduce better" means only "leave more offspring". which is a nice objective scale.

>>8995398
>number-dazzling
didn't know you were the kind of troglodyte who's amazed by the word "millions". it's like showing a shiny rock to a monkey.

>>8995413
>Still maize
but it WASN'T maize before. it was fucking grass.

>>8995729
>hurr all the evidence I don't like is fake!!1!

>>8995737
>claiming anything that doesnt fit the convenient explanations of evolutionists. is not real evolution
aaand what did the graphic claim isn't """"really"""" evolution?
>vaccine for cancer
>cure
we cured smallpox, right? how did we cure it? by vaccinating everyone.

>>8995740
>still no transitional fossils
literally every fossil we have is a transitional fossil. see >>8994435

>>8995747
>they still have mice and fruit flies after 30 generation
>you have no proof of any speciation
but they are different KINDS of mice and fruit flies. (and 30 generations is nowhere near enough for speciation to occur.)
speciation doesn't mean a fly turning into a beetle, like you nimrods seem to think. it means something becoming so different that it is reproductively isolated. like the apple maggot
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot

File: automation.png (112KB, 800x798px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x798px

>>8995762
>hurr durr all of physics is wrong because I said so
you can't claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution and justify it by saying all of physics is wrong.
>hurr durr all of physics is wrong except for this one little bit I've misinterpreted because I don't actually know any physics

>further you assume Earth is an enclosed system
I explicitly said that it is NOT.
>Earth, however, is not a closed system! It receives infalling material and also quite a lot of energy from the Sun.
are you actually illiterate?

>>8995765
>theory of gravitation
>unfalsifiable
we have tested gravitation experimentally. hanging heavy masses from long cables results in the masses being slightly deflected towards each other, with a magnitude consistent with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. (yes, I know it's technically been superseded by General Relativity now, but it still works fine on the relevant scales, and YOU certainly don't know shit about GR. lemme guess, you're one of the people who think GR is a (((plot))) against Christianity?)

>>8995660

>p-zombiehood intensifies

>>8995806
>>8995832
>>8995849

See also: >>8988033

File: evolution_poster.jpg (179KB, 1333x425px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1333x425px

>>8995806
>First off, your picture
Despite the fact that Lovejoy himself tampered with the original using a power saw?

>uncertainty over the timing
Certainly gives credence to the idea that they didn't.

>You thought wrong.
One man pioneered the idea, revived it in the '60s, and got support for it.

>you know you've got nothing
Funny, that's what you've been doing this whole time.
>ignore habilis' rather unsure status as a man and species
>ignore the Black Skull's apeness

>not my fault you can't read and understand what is written.
Sorry you leave shit ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted.

>except other apes' hands are very very similar to our own in structure
Similar, not identical

>you're insisting, based on muh uhpinions, that the two are equivalent propositions.
Again, them using stone tools is evidence of degeneration, since Tubal-Cain was the first metal worker.

>and invoking "common sense" is not actually observational science.
If such methods haven't failed me before, why would they now?

>Paleoanthropologists have argued, yes.
Either that, or they want to appear as though they have the answers when they clearlt don't.

File: EvolutionarySlightofHand.jpg (107KB, 482x472px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 482x472px

>>8995832
>Nice try, but evolution doesn't have things turning
And the shellgame continues.

>Actually, NOW it's corn. Before, it was grass.
Anything to back that up, seems like maize was created the way it was, not bred from grass. If this were the case, we'd have (non-hypothetical) transitional forms.

>And if you knew what the Law of Large Numbers is, you'd understand why one relates to the other.
I understand that you're conflating the two.

>"reproduce better" means only "leave more offspring". which is a nice objective scale.
What about overpopulation? Such a standard would leave ecosystems devastated. It's almost as if they were designed in such a way to prevent that.

>didn't know you were the kind of troglodyte who's amazed by the word "millions". it's like showing a shiny rock to a monkey.
I myself am not, but I know many other people on here are.

>but it WASN'T maize before. it was fucking grass.
Again, burden of proof is on you, here.

File: rebuttal.jpg (216KB, 758x997px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 758x997px

>>8995882
>Despite the fact that Lovejoy himself tampered with the original using a power saw?
One, you're making shit up. Two, there is nothing you could do with a power saw to reshape the pelvis that dramatically. You're retreating to the position of "all evidence I don't like is fake".

>Certainly gives credence to the idea that they didn't.
That's like claiming a murder never happened just because forensics couldn't identify the exact time of death.

>ignore habilis' rather unsure status as a man and species
paleoanthropologists have had this debate. habilis is conclusively grouped with Homo. you're literally just making up a controversy that's been settled for years.
>ignore the Black Skull's apeness
of COURSE the Black Skull is ape-like; it's a fucking ROBUST AUSTRALOPITHECINE

>Sorry you leave shit ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted.
not my fault you can't read.

>Similar, not identical
yes, but similar enough. the original question was why H. habilis was reconstructed with an opposable thumb >>8995173 and the reason is because LITERALLY ALL great apes have it.

>Again, them using stone tools is evidence of degeneration, since Tubal-Cain was the first metal worker.
we were never talking about progress vs. degeneration; we were talking about human-made artifacts not implying that the universe was created in its modern form. nice try at changing the subject!

>If such methods haven't failed me before, why would they now?
except that those methods HAVE failed you before. remember how the Earth looks flat, to a child standing on it?

File: ILLUMINATI.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

>>8995890
>And the shellgame continues.
in other words, you don't have any actual response to the fact that evolution doesn't predict what you say it does...

>Anything to back that up, seems like maize was created the way it was, not bred from grass. If this were the case, we'd have (non-hypothetical) transitional forms.
there's a nice archaeological record of early maize, actually.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/13/5019.full
>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17608.long
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352688809382264?journalCode=bpts20
Creationists know that their arguments collapse as soon as transitional forms are presented. for this reason, they expend quite a lot of effort pretending that none exist.

>I understand that you're conflating the two.
you think this only because you don't understand the Law of Large Numbers.
with a sufficiently large sample, recorded probabilities approach theoretical probabilities, so even extremely rare events begin to reliably appear.

>What about overpopulation? Such a standard would leave ecosystems devastated.
it's almost as though a population collapse ends up leaving...FEWER offspring behind.
>It's almost as if they were designed in such a way to prevent that.
funny story, given that population boom/crash events are quite common in ecology. why are all Creationists so thoroughly ignorant of actual biology?

>I myself am not, but I know many other people on here are.
>uh, uh, asking for a friend!
if people have trouble comprehending the number 1,000,000 perhaps they'd be better off on >>>/mlp/ than on /sci/
(that means you)

eagerly looking forward to your explanation of why you don't like the evidence presented.

>>8995890
>>8995939

Another thing I don't understand, is why people don't quite understand the concept of arbitrary species classification.

Things don't "turn into others" often just because we don't have a precise way of drawing the line between two species. If you had any actual biological knowledge, life just kind of blends together, in a non-discrete way.

We use different classifications, like whether they can breed, or if they are morphologically similar, or how close their genome is to each other, but the exact place we draw the line is still something that's argued over. Many "different" kinds of plants can breed with each other, be grafted onto each other and grow just fine, but nobody is going to say that a rose is the same species as tobacco, even if they may have some compatibility.

Through the course of human history, we've become a selection pressure for certain crops, taking only the beneficial mutations and optimizing them. Like the anon said, maize used to essentially be a grass that looked completely different. If one were to have a garden with it, and modern corn, they would definitely peg them as different species- however, they might say they are related and have a fairly close common ancestor. At least, if they weren't pants on head retarded they would.

File: 1464114295227.jpg (213KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 960x720px

>>8995920
>One, you're making shit up.
https://youtu.be/LAXC9u4rhJ4
Didn't stop Lovejoy

>That's like claiming a murder never happened just because forensics couldn't identify the exact time of death.
You and I both know criminal cases are biased af.

>paleoanthropologists have had this debate.
Nothing is ever truly "settled," there will always be that lingering suspicion.

>of COURSE the Black Skull is ape-like; it's a fucking ROBUST AUSTRALOPITHECINE
So you admit it's an ape?

>yes, but similar enough
Not a very advanced one.

>we were never talking about progress vs. degeneration;
I was merely demonstarting my view's ever encompasing nature.

>except that those methods HAVE failed you before.
You can build a rocket to check ths earth's shape, but you can't build a time machine to check if these animals ever walked upright, used tools, or anything else. All you have are ambiguous at best fossils.

>>8995660

If you actually write sentences that are longer than a single line, it makes your text more readable. How's that autism treating you?

File: 57f[1].jpg (176KB, 1160x506px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1160x506px

>>8996013
>https://youtu.be/LAXC9u4rhJ4
You ARE making shit up.
That footage shows Lovejoy using a dremel (not a saw) to reconstruct a PLASTER CAST of the original to undo the breakage and compression. And that's just the angle at which the bones fit together, not the shape of the ilium! You're literally making shit up to try and claim that it's equally valid to interpret A. afarensis as apelike and humanlike, when the pelvis is unambiguous in that regard!

>You and I both know criminal cases are biased af.
that's one limp-dick non sequitur if ever I saw one. we can't trust molecular data on the divergence of humans and chimpanzees because there is bias in the criminal justice system!

>Nothing is ever truly "settled"
that's where you're wrong, kiddo. unless you think alchemical transmutation is still a valid cause.

>So you admit it's an ape?
I am not responsible for your jaw-dropping ignorance. robust australopithecines were apelike early humans.

>Not a very advanced one.
...the ability of other apes to grasp objects with their thumbs is functionally identical to ours. not sure why you feel the need to lie over and over about this minor point.

>I was merely demonstarting my view's ever encompasing nature.
meaningless babble. you were trying to change the subject because you didn't have any rebuttal.

>You can build a rocket to check ths earth's shape, but you can't build a time machine
So you admit that "common sense" has failed you before?
>All you have are ambiguous at best fossils.
there's nothing ambiguous about early human trackways that clearly show bipedal locomotion.

your whole argument comes down to "you can't know nuffin". but that, of course, is projection. just because YOU don't know anything doesn't mean that nobody else can.

nice pic, by the way. I notice it conveniently omits the location of the foramen magnum, which is a clear indicator of stance. in bonobos, it's at the back. but in australopithecines, like in Homo, it's further forward...

>>8996025
lolol, you can't even get the basic structure of the tree right.
orangutans are more closely related to other great apes than to gibbons, and chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas.

Creationists are the most ignorant people you'll meet.

File: slide_64.jpg (105KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x720px

>>8996055

File: slide_65.jpg (124KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 960x720px

>>8996058

File: slide_66.jpg (92KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x720px

>>8996062

File: slide_67.jpg (119KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 960x720px

>>8996035
>You ARE making shit up.
He altered the pelvis

>that's one limp-dick non sequitur if ever I saw one
I'm saying your data is biased, and you are wrong. That simple.

>that's where you're wrong, kiddo.
That was magic, not science.

>I am not responsible for your jaw-dropping ignorance.
Despite their massive jaws, large nuchal crest, and high nuchal crest?

>...the ability of other apes
Despite being about (proportionally) half the size of ours?

>meaningless babble.
My case still stands.

>So you admit that "common sense" has failed you before?
Observable science=common sense
Historical science=biased interpretation

>there's nothing ambiguous about early human trackways that clearly show bipedal locomotion.
Despite the fact that STW 573 has feet nearly identical to those of chimps?

>your whole argument comes down to "you can't know nuffin".
I don't claim to know everything, unlike those high-falootin scientists

>nice pic, by the way.
Every skull found thus far is too fragmentary, or too low to be that of an ape-man

File: b55[2].jpg (71KB, 625x685px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 625x685px

>>8996093
>He altered the pelvis
He altered a plaster cast of the pelvis, and here you are telling me that we can't trust the original bones (which, remember, he did NOT rework).

>I'm saying your data is biased, and you are wrong. That simple.
yes yes, the only problem is that you don't have any evidence to support what you're saying. you're throwing out evidence that disagrees with you.

>That was magic, not science.
how do you know for sure? alchemy USED to be a legitimate controversy. according to you, it's never TRULY settled...

>Despite their massive jaws, large nuchal crest, and high nuchal crest?
what part of "apelike early human" do you not understand? "apelike" means they had some features commonly associated with apes!

>Despite being about (proportionally) half the size of ours?
Maybe I need to repeat this again to get the meaning across, but:
other apes have opposable thumbs that allow them to grasp and manipulate objects, like we can.

>My case still stands.
you never had a case to begin with

>Observable science=common sense
except I've already established that that's false. common sense says "this seems right, let's go with it". science says "this seems right, let's put it to the test". common sense tells you that solid rocks can't flow and that the earth is flat. common sense is very often wrong, and you've admitted that.

>Despite the fact that STW 573 has feet nearly identical to those of chimps?
one, that's false; STW only looks vaguely similar to idiots with no knowledge of anatomy. two, do you even know what the fuck a trackway is?

>I don't claim to know everything, unlike those high-falootin scientists
scientists don't claim to know everything either. the difference is that they have evidence to support what they know, while you don't actually "know" much of anything.

>Every skull found thus far is too fragmentary, or too low to be that of an ape-man
and that's just a lie. did you SEE the australopithecine skulls with intact foramina magna?

File: tn_Fig.2-composite-print-screen-Pshop-resolution300_jfeliks.jpg (136KB, 1000x574px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1000x574px

>>8996126
>He altered a plaster
The original flares out like a chimps, not like a man's.

>yes yes, the only
The evidence that goes against you is for me.

>how do you know for sure?
They were filthy deists trying to play God, much like evolutionists now.

>what part of "apelike
I see a lot of ape, but absolutely no human of any sort.

>Maybe I need to repeat this again
Certainly more of a struggle for them.

>you never had a case to begin with
The holes in yours say otherwise.

>except I've already established that that's false.
I don't know what kind of wonku version of common sense you're using, because I know the earth is not flat from the curve I observed in an airplane.

>one, that's false
The tracks look nothing like STW 573's foot.

>scientists don't claim to know everything either.
Like stated previously, the "evidence" is ambiguous at best, and fallacious at worst.

>and that's just a lie.
I see models and plaster, not the actual fossils.

File: slide_85.jpg (133KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 960x720px

This goes with >>8996098

>>8996040

How is this relevant to the argument that all those common ancestors are mere presumptions?

File: slide_86.jpg (135KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 960x720px

>>8996188

File: pelvis_and_feet.gif (17KB, 410x211px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 410x211px

>>8996170
>The original flares out like a chimps, not like a man's.
lie after lie after lie. pic related.

>The evidence that goes against you is for me.
you haven't provided any

>They were filthy deists trying to play God, much like evolutionists now.
so...it wasn't a "real" controversy because you don't like them? sounds like you ARE claiming to know everything.

>I see a lot of ape, but absolutely no human of any sort.
your inability to perceive is your own problem

>The holes in yours say otherwise.
you claim there are, but you have yet to demonstrate others. you make your arguments only by telling blatant lies.

>I know the earth is not flat from the curve I observed in an airplane.
so you admit that common sense is wrong? that further investigation proves some seemingly counterintuitive things to be true?
right now you are on the ground, trusting your "common sense" that tells you we can't possibly have evolved from apes. I am in an airplane, where I understand from molecular data and the fossil record that such a strange proposition is actually true.

>The tracks look nothing like STW 573's foot.
so? hominid trackways show imprints of two feet, not four, conclusively proving bipedalism.

>Like stated previously, the "evidence" is ambiguous at best, and fallacious at worst.
again, just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it's useless.

>I see models and plaster, not the actual fossils.
those ARE the actual fossils. the pale areas on one are where it has been reconstructed with plaster.
this is what Creationists do when they see evidence that disproves their opinions; they simply deny it.

File: bepisman.png (382KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 600x360px

>>8996194
it's an example of how thoroughly ignorant Creationists are.
meanwhile, they're ignoring all the transitional forms we DO have. are those forms from the exact fork? probably not. but they cover the branches extending between those forks...

>>8996249
>all the transitional forms we DO have

Such as?

File: Ass golem.png (2MB, 1177x886px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1177x886px

>>8996256
all the fossils we have!
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

that's the thing: EVERY form is a transitional form.

File: piltdown-man-1.jpg (38KB, 454x381px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 454x381px

>>8996241
>lie after lie after lie. pic related.
>using a biased cartoon to illustrate the similarities
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-the-knuckle-walking-abomination/

>you haven't provided any
>homo habilis isn't transitional
>Lucy and Black Skull were apes
>no transitional forms

>so...it wasn't a "real"
They don't count, as THEY were trying to know everything.

>your inability to perceive is your own problem
So I'm wrong because you want it to be an ape-man?

>you claim there are, but you have yet to demonstrate others. you make your arguments only by telling blatant lies.
So it's a lie that there are no transitional forms?

>so you admit that common sense is wrong?
Observation isn't historical.

>so? hominid trackways
They show human feet where there aren't any in the fossil record.

>again, just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it's useless.
I understand it's ambiguous.

>those ARE the actual fossils.
So was this at one point.

File: Fraud&Forgery.jpg (2MB, 2168x1327px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2168x1327px

>>8996266
Why not look at all the slides I've posted for counter-views.
>>8996058
>>8996062
>>8996066
>>8996093
>>8996096
>>8996098
>>8996101
>>8996105
>>8996115
>>8996128

Genetic algorithms are also evidence for evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZUNRmwoijw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXTZHHQ7ZiQ

"poor design" as an argument against intelligent design is totally wrong-headed.
What if the system was designed to be self-sustaining beyond a certain stage/event?
What if "poor design" was considered to be an acceptable consequence of the aforementioned self-sustaining criteria?
Is this an attempt to conflate the idea of "intelligent design" with the idea of a divine, omnipotent creator. What if the creator is a pothead CS PhD with his/her own little corner in the quantum computing lab?

Some other points in the thread...
>extinction is an example of poor design
What? No, it isn't. What the fuck?
There are two somewhat (but not wholly) independent systems at play. The one that most retards can remember is the biological system i.e. genes. The one that most retards either forget about altogether or diminish to the point of irrelevance is the environment.
Genes don't just an hero - the environment murders them!
If I knew environmental conditions were subject to complex changes (so complex as to appear chaotic, whereby one is forced to resort to probabilistic assumptions), then I'd want to factor that into my fucking design.
I'd want my code to be flexible. I'd want my code to be able to adapt to such changes. I'd want to be able to discard obsolete code.
You can argue that homo neanderthalensis is extinct, so could be cited as an example of "poor design", sure. I mean, what the fuck was the point, right? Except it isn't completely extinct. Some of it's code persists in a large proportion of modern homo sapiens sapiens.
The viable code persists. The obsolete code is discarded.
Now extrapolate all the way back to the beginning of life itself and watch from that point onward: You'll see the same process I just outlined repeat itself, over and over...
HAVE YOU FAGGOTS EVEN READ "THE SELFISH GENE?!"
You're thinking in terms of a human being representing some homogeneous single unit of life. We're aggregates, dipshit. We're gene mules! 1/2

When humans can build a living thing from nonliving things, we will have earned the right to criticize the intelligence of the hypothetical designer that made us. Until then, calling it "poor design" is kind of silly. Intelligent design isn't a ridiculous idea, it's just that there's no evidence for it.

>>8996376
Stop thinking in terms of species survival and instead think in terms of gene propagation. Genes have been around for a ridiculously long-time and are unlikely to go extinct any time soon, no matter how many species die out.

If the purpose of this theoretical design was to ensure that all genes should propagate and survive indefinitely, then we could talk about "poor design". But you faggots have just assumed that that was the design criteria.

Imagine this: Imagine that the Universe was designed to form 'life', so that life would evolve to a point whereby it could create it's own entirely unique and distinct Universe, isolated within a vacuum contained within this Universe, like a Russian doll.
Yes: Imagine that the singular motivation of the Universe was to propagate itself, and life/humans are simply the constructors of mitosis
I'm not saying that's the case but, if it were, the Universe would appear to be on track, right? Odds are looking good that we'll be able to simulate a Universe, one way or the other, within the next couple of generations...
>Why would the Universe attempt to propagate itself?
Why does a gene?
In any case, where does "poor design" fit into this scenario?

Note: This isn't an argument in favor of intelligent design. I'm simply pointing out that you faggots aren't presenting an argument *against* intelligent design. All you're doing is demonstrating that, while some of you might have a decent grasp of biology, you know FUCK ALL about what "intelligence" means or implies, and can't see the big picture

I get it. You hate the idea of some cosmic santa type figure judging you in some way. You think it's ridiculous to imagine that the Universe is 'conscious', or intelligent in some way. I think it's ridiculous that you dipshits think 'consciousness' is a real thing...

File: Amazing Technicolor Dreamcat.gif (2MB, 531x570px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 531x570px

>>8996282
>https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-the-knuckle-walking-abomination/
Lucy's compact hip structure is conclusive proof that she was bipedal like a human, not quadrupedal like a chimp. your only response to this has been to repeatedly claim that all the evidence is fake.

>homo habilis isn't transitional
yes it is. by definition, literally everything is transitional.
>Lucy and Black Skull were apes
australopithecines were definitively human based on their dentition and their stance (foramen magnum at bottom of skull and rounded innominate are definitive signs of bipedalism). robust australopithecines just happened to retain some apelike features of the jaw, which you seem to think makes them automatically non-human apes.

>They don't count, as THEY were trying to know everything.
Scientists are also trying to know everything. You're coming up with a lot of excuses for why alchemy HAS to be settled, but the affinities of early hominines CAN'T be...and it all seems to boil down to "because I said so". pathetic.

>So I'm wrong because you want it to be an ape-man?
no, you're wrong because the sum of the evidence indicates a creature with a mixture of human and ape traits, but you don't have the knowledge of anatomy to understand this. you don't have the knowledge to be able to tell me whether Phacops rana was opisthoparian, gonatoparian, or proparian, but I don't imagine it would stop you from having an ignorant opinion on that.

>So it's a lie that there are no transitional forms?
precisely.

>Observation isn't historical.
yes it is. I can pick up a trilobite and observe that 400 Mya, it shed its shell. I can look at a bone and say that 70 Mya, it was bitten by a crocodile. I can look at a broken glass on the floor and know that ten seconds ago, the cat pushed it off the table. it's all about using one's brain.

File: birdman[1].jpg (470KB, 1522x1191px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1522x1191px

>>8996282
>They show human feet where there aren't any in the fossil record.
so? it's possible for the footprints, but not the feet, to be preserved. in fact, if the humans were just passing through (not living and dying there) there's no reason to think we WOULD find them. don't hate on ichnofossils.

>I understand it's ambiguous.
No. You THINK it's ambiguous because you do NOT understand. This is the sort of unknowing ignorance that leads people astray, the inability to know what they do not know. There are many children who think that way. "I'm gonna design a video game; how hard can it be?" And then some of them learn to code and realize just how little they actually know, and how daunting the task really is. You know practically nothing, so you assume anything you don't know must be easy.

>So was this at one point.
from the BEGINNING the scientific community was skeptical of Piltdown Man. it didn't fool many experts.

>>8996321
>Why not look at all the slides I've posted for counter-views.
I did. Calling them "counter-views" is charitable. Do you realize that none of the claims in there are sourced? It's a mixture of meaningless trivia (what does the genetic origin of skin color have to do with anything? also there are 378 known loci, not 3), outright lies (many many transitional forms at various points along the hominid tree are known), and blatant fakes!
what fakes? the hilariously bad photoshop job in >>8996133, of course. There is exactly ONE representation of a human in the Lascaux cave paintings, and it is pic related!
Did you think nobody would notice? Embarrassing!

go ahead. explain why your little buddy felt the need to photoshop a much later picture into a Lascaux painting. you guys are incapable of telling the truth, huh?

>>8990856
It would only really show "bad design" if better alternatives were in fact known to exist. Are there?

>>8993066
There isn't a need to have any "tradeoffs". Life isn't fucking point-buy.

Evolution can explain bad traits by showing how they're made superfluous by others.

Creationism and design need to make the designer lazy, stupid and/or a bully.

>>8989154
There's also the fact that our eyes are filled with fluid, which, due to refraction, severely limits how good our vision can be outside of water. If the cavity in our eyes was filled with air or a gas of similar density, our eyes could achieve the same acuity much more simply, and would not be so limited.

File: 1495142871600.png (34KB, 493x276px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 493x276px

>>8995139
>the souvenir counter

>>8996707
I had this.

And cluster headaches.

Can personally attest to god being a shitty engineer.

>>8994485
Found the fart-sniffer.

>>8988908
Appendix has lymph nodes phaggot

>>8991626
>you can't help but feel
yes I can, because it's not about "feel", retard

>>8993066
>vast intelligence
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8988686
There's a research paper called "Termination of intractable hiccups with digital rectal massage"

The crux of it is that the human nervous system is so fucked up, that you can stick your finger up your bum, move it around a little, and you will (over) stimulate a nerve and reset it.
Apparently the author of that paper says that orgasm does the same thing.

>>8993531
>Imagine God as an imaginary being.
Exactly.

>>8996367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOFws_hhZs8&list=PLWtM0hW4qU7cyrU3f6zHxI0QFeVUvRkZT
I was so damn excited when I first found carykh on youtube

>>8993063
>le humans are shitty meme
Our vision is fantastic, we don't have good night vision because we aren't nocturnal
All spinal cords are like that
Our sense of smell atrophied because we don't use it to hunt, we only use our sense of smell to determine whether or not things smell good to eat or are rotten/covered in feces, and our noses do that just fine
Nobody knows why our body hair thinned out, or why our head hair began growing out of control for that matter. It's possible our ancestors were intelligent enough to decide that less body hair was sexier.
And our physical strength is less than other great apes because the attachment points shifted closer to the point of rotation, reducing leverage but increasing dexterity. It's not a flaw, it was a trade off for precise tool making.

>>8988914
The context is that supposing every living being were ``intelligently designed,'' or designed to be perfect given a set of constraints (those constraints being the environment, available sources of energy, and a plethora of other details), then it should hold that each entity would be designed to -autismal- perfection. Even the most minor of details should be considered perfect. Nervous, circulatory, and respiratory pathways should traverse the minimum distance, and be isolated such that doing something in one part of the body does not inexplicably affect something in another part of the body.
There shouldn't be unnecessary components--those increase the amount of energy required to survive.

In reality, creatures are ``designed'' to just werk, nevermind consequences of their ``design'' so long as it isn't killed off by either its own incompetence or more perfect creatures

>>8996863
Ironically, the idea of evolution doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God (the anon who was talking about machine learning had a point), so I don't really know why people are so up in arms. As someone who was not raised by Christians, I get the feeling that people are simply butthurt about being told that their book--a translation of Gods words by objectively inferior men--is wrong on certain ideas.

>>8996838
Does the effect specifically require a finger up the bum, or could you use, say, a 6 inch Gal Gadot Wonder Woman action figure? Science demands this knowledge!

Kinda funny that the Creationist disappeared as soon as he was called on the photoshop bullshit.

>>8996860
>Nobody knows why our body hair thinned out
it seems to be an adaptation for being a diurnal exhaustion predator. hairlessness allows us to be active during midday in hot climates, when most large mammals are usually resting, so we just follow them until they collapse from overheating and exhaustion.

File: nxDSC_2813 (1).jpg (43KB, 346x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 346x400px

>>8996602
>>8996663
You know, I've had a bit of a rough day, but I'm just gonna post this. It should leave you with a few things to ponder.

https://trueorigin.org
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part2b_2007.html

>>8996880
This seems to be a situation that almost cries out for the application of the scientific method through a series of well-designed experiments.

>>8996885
>the Creationist disappeared
he'll be back in another thread,
because he is compelled

>>8996700
No, it shows bad design if a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient creator designed one of the most important features of all plant life, and it at best works inconsistently

>>8996895
>trueorigin.org
L0Lno fgt pls

File: evolution deceit.jpg (44KB, 378x463px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 378x463px

>>8996885
Why don't we talk about how misleading evolutionist depictions of ape-men are?

>>8996902
I'm right here, anon.

File: Pithecanthropus_erectus-PeterMaas_Naturalis.jpg (713KB, 2880x2160px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 2880x2160px

He found in Java a piece of
a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere
near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion
some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature,
which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost
equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a
complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of
hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary
historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox
or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of him like the
portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing
was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his
head were all numbered No uninformed person looking at its carefully
lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the
portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium.

File: 4fa52d14be5b29396692da3a8b89cce7.jpg (42KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x451px

>>8996935
We talk very truly of the patience of science; but in this department it
would be truer to talk of the impatience of science. Owing to the
difficulty above described, the theorist is in far too much of a hurry.
We have a series of hypotheses so hasty that they may well be called
fancies, and cannot in any case be further corrected by facts. The most
empirical anthropologist is here as limited as an antiquary. He can only
cling to a fragment of the past and has no way of increasing it for the
future He can only clutch his fragment of fact, almost as the primitive
man clutched his fragment of flint. And indeed he does deal with it in
much the same way and for much the same reason. It is his tool and his
only tool. It is his weapon and his only weapon. He often wields it with
a fanaticism far in excess of anything shown by men of science when they
can collect more facts from experience and even add new facts by
experiment. Sometimes the professor with his bone becomes almost as
dangerous as a dog with his bone. And the dog at least does not deduce a
theory from it, proving that mankind is going to the dogs–or that it
came from them.

File: EvoLegacy.jpg (734KB, 1254x1365px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1254x1365px

>this is the evolutionists' legacy