How come evolutionists can't produce any examples of actually positive mutations actually occurring...

Google fish anti-freeze, and the Michigan State e. coli experiment.

No but my parents parents parents parents ... parents didn't.

OP ain't me. Guess I need to defend my territory.

I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a little girl as you once again type your little /pol/ thread up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a Veeky Forums pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. The "epic" greedy jew face, isn't it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on Veeky Forums posting about how the evolution does not exist. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic stormfag NEET. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is "OY VEY REMEMBER THE SIX GORILLION SHEKELS" You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.

>Everything I don't like is /pol/
/pol/ doesn't disagree with evolution, /pol/ would probably even use it to justify racism.

How do you know?

This is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. If a mutation causes a large bodily change, like the addition of opposable thumbs in one generation, is going to be harmful. Evolution does not pick out large changes like that, it picks small, almost unnoticeable changes that gradually accumulate over time. The accumulation of those changes lead to large, physical changes viewed over a large span of time, but between every two generations, the changes will be minute.

This reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution:
>The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee.
>They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human."
>So that means it would have to have features of both.
>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both.
>If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
>That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans.
>Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps.
>However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps?
>According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left.
>If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

Kek

>>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both.
What do you mean by "both"? Do you mean both the common ancetor and humans? Because chimps share several common features with humans.
>>That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans.
There's something called "branching" in the evolutionary tree. Reptiles probably evolved from a group of amphibians, but there are still amphibians and reptiles in nature, because only one group of amphibians evolved into what we today call reptiles, the other ones remained being amphibians. This is due to the fact that not every group goes trhough the same environmental stress (wich is aways the cause of mutation within the species). This one group of amphibians was exposed to environmental challenges, such as low humidity and scarceness of water sources, that privileged the generations with resistance to those challenges. The generations that could not adapt through mutations died, until there was enough adaptation.
It is the same case for apes. Chimps have a common ancestor with humans they didn't face the same environmental challenges as the other group of apes that turned out to be humans, and that is why they have different characteristics.

>Chimps and Humans don't share features.
U foking wot?

>This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution?
>Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does.
>If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism.
>Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century).
>Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that.
>The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case.
>But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution.
>Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded.
>However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all.
>Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

This That cat's IQ equals yours.

>b...but I could not be a /pol/ak in principle, it's just a coincidence I am
sure
You're fooling no one.

why are some mutations favored if each on its own isn't appreciably harmful or beneficial

They aren't favored. They're just there. Either they will become harmful in combination with other mutations and therefore propagate less, or remain neutral and propogate normally, or become beneficial and propagate more. Evolution is tautological. Things which survive survive.

The point is that some mutations are beneficial to a very small degree, but it's never going to be something as extreme as "IT GREW A NEW ARM WOW." The kinds of changes that natural selection favors are very small things. Also, just because a mutation is minutely beneficial doesn't necessarily mean it will be passed on. A beneficial mutation is just one that ever so slightly increases the chances that it will be passed on. Just because the chances increased doesn't necessarily mean that every organism with the mutation will reproduce and pass on the mutation, all it means is that over a large span of time, such a change would have a greater chance of being passed on than other changes.

In other words, just because you might not go, "that mutation is helping that organism survive" doesn't mean it isn't beneficial. The mutation just has to marginally increase the chances of reproduction in order to be beneficial.

psychologytoday.com/blog/reclaiming-childhood/200907/chimps-are-humans-stop-monkeying-around

I was just reading this shit. Goals, intentions? The future, it sounds like humans are the ones with a concept of time. Other creatures have schedules and shit right? Hawks learn when your cat comes out

Also OP those carnivorous lizards that became herbivores after we left them in that island