I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution

I don't believe animals engage in aesthetic comtemplation. It requires a high degree of understanding.

They merely feel sexual attraction.

Read the post you're replying to again.

Oh okay, you're only talking about intelligent species.

To that I reply that our mind is not so determined as to control our sense of beauty.
We see beauty in symmetry, uniformity in diversity and perfection or averageness of an object.

Are you seriously this retarded

I don't see the point. Why is that noteworthy but some other standard of beauty would not be?

As above, so below.

You should study Kant before you make such wild assertions.

An alien with a different body,a disfigured body (although normal to them), would find a human being more appealing.

Human beings appeal to more universal standards of beauty.

It is true we do have some "instinctual"(not the right word as insincts are just natural desires) interpretation of humans, as we recognize certain facial structures as representing certain emotions more clearly (tender vs sublime facial qualities), but as it stands a human beings face is much more expressive than animal faces.
We can symptahize with the expressions of animal faces as well.

Protip: none of it is even remotely prefect
See: retrovirus and how it's evaded our immune system for years.
Also immune systems are way older than 20 million years

Oh yeah and Mitochondrial energy output is why that is all possible to evolve and sustain. 34-38 ATP output from our e- transport chain + glycolysis + CAC compared to like 4 from alcohol fermentation

I believe in nothing I just intrepid data and make models out of it. I'm not even a scientist.

>I can accept documwnted changes withing kinds, but not the dogma of this filthy world and its atheistic God-hating idols

...

...

trueorigin.org/theobald1b.php

>thing that kills thing introduced
>thing that kills thing gets very popular or occurs for a very long time
>all of affected thing dies out except for those individuals that resist it
>survivors repopulate
>evolution didn't occur due to the fact that the killing factor was artificial because I say so
>HA CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

Forgive my English please.

Also forgive the rest of my English in OP.

Biology is a shitty science.

someone tell that poor rube that antibiotic resistance is generally the result of a change in the structure of a given protein, not a loss of the protein. this should be intuitive to anyone with half a brain or more; if the inactivation of the protein is enough to kill the bacterium, shouldn't the loss of the protein kill them outright as well?

>I don't know what evolution is
>therefore it's not real
>: the comic

...

Macroevolution is just microevolution. Making a distinction between the two is unnecessary to the almost any evolution study.

that's like saying microeconomics is unnecessary.

No, more like religion.

then why do so many animals go to such great lengths to do things like build meticulous structures, grow colorful features, and do strange behavioral rituals to impress others (even members of the same sex)?

nice image, chap

>I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution

that's literally no problem.

You aren't going to contribute anything to the field and it makes no difference if you accept it or not.

You will benefit from the scientific advances even if you deny they exist.

>Also, human beings are very aesthetically pleasing compared to most animals. Their faces are soulful and their bodies are graceful.
But then why do abbos and niggers look like shit?

I don't understand what these even refer to

Is microevolution like the small changes in DNA sequences over time and macro the large differences that manifest themselves in lineages over generations?

Isn't all evolution just DNA sequence changes over time?

You're a fucking retard. As an user stated previously, our brains evolved to find particular morphological parts attractive (nonsexual and sexual) because these morphological parts were apparent indicators of health. You, a human being, subjectively find other beings attractive and emotive for the reason above. We're a social species.

>We can sympathize with animal faces as well
Aka, anthropormorphization.

Fuck off and educate yourself, please.

Microevolution is the change of an organisms traits in a short period of time. For example: bacteria growing resistant to antibiotics is microevolution.

micro is small changes, things that can happen in one mutation for example
macro is the difference between a cheetah and a lion

but that's still selection, regardless of its super or not

selection does not always favor the more advantageous phenotype in general situations, even if its artificial selection

how can you even believe in one and not the other that makes literally no sense

what would someone think would happen when all those mutations add up over millions of years?

Well to be fair there are quite a few problems with evolution we really don't have an answer for yet. There is an enormous amount of evidence to support it happens we just don't fully understand how it works as a whole.

>what would someone think would happen when all those mutations add up over millions of years?
they would think that the cheetah would still be a cheetah, the lion would still be a lion and the green slime bacteria would still be green slime bacteria
because they don't believe that a creature of one 'kind' can ever become a creature of another 'kind'

What the fuck are you talking about. No one in your replies are denying macroevolution.

he's just asking nigger, calm yo titties

I misread.
fug

>lightning struck some protein that magically formed a single-celled organism that somehow survived to replicate and everything turned out to get us to where we are today

Gud laff

evolution makes no claims about the origin of life
what you described at the beginning of your post is known as abiogenesis
brainlet ;^)

It's still retarded to claim that trillions upon trillions of microevolutions took us from a single celled creature to a human.

how did we and all other creatures come to be then

don't say God

God

The Divine Creator

God

It's funny when people say individuals who reject macroevolution must be uneducated and not know all the intricate details about evolution.

There are some people who know all the intricate details. They know more about it than you.

They simply reject the premise. That doesn't make them dumb. Macroevolution is an answer given to a question. Some people reject that answer. There's nothing proven or absolute.

>Their faces are soulful and their bodies are graceful.
Biased much?

Amazing quads but Kant is a fucking idiot.
The mental gymnastics involved in western philosophy is embarrassing.

>trillions upon trillions
Do you not understand how much that is?

I can't think of a single person who is well established in the field and knows about molecular evolution and rejects that in culminates macroevolution as the way that species originate. Whether you believe in Darwisnism or Lamarckian theory, they all have that premise

There's no logical reason to reject the answer. So yes, it makes them dumb

There is a difference between sexual attraction and aesthetic contemplation.

People are attracted to more symetrical faces over asymmetrical faces, probably not because it is an indication of health(as asymmetrical faces resemble people with genetic disorders), but because they are more aesthetically appealing. This is something I read in a scientific research article.

Anthropomorphization - > Pretty sure animals can read one another's facial expressions to a certain degree as well.

>There's nothing proven or absolute.
>U CANT KNOW NUFFIN

How many aliens do you know ?

literally all birds you mouth breathing moron

Can you elaborate on this? I'm interested in the biology of appreciation of aesthetics outside of sexual arousal. I know Bower birds can appreciate nice arrangements of twigs.

One day in heaven you'll learn to appreciate the beauty of the human form.

>Their faces are soulful and their bodies are graceful.
Have you seen cats? Have you seen any cat move anywhere ever? That's what grace looks like. Have you seen a horse run? Have you seen a dolphin swim?

I don't know what the fuck humans are doing, but it sure isn't graceful.

Also Kant is probably the worst philosopher in all of Western tradition. I don't think he thought a single idea that was true. Fight me.

There literally is a problem. People who believe this shit have the exact same voting power as people who don't. They vote for other retards who believe it, and it gets taught in schools. There's a reason America is getting fucked in science.

Ur a Kant m8

This is an extraordinarily dumb image. Its central metaphor is bunk. The change of a color occurs on a single axis in a single category. The claims of macroevolutionists would be more appropriately modeled as the text changing its color, font, and size somehow resulting in the text becoming 3 dimensional or a different language.

Macroevolution is just a meme

>I know Bower birds can appreciate nice arrangements of twigs.

Bower birds have the same sense of aesthetic as humans do.

Humans can accurately predict which bower bird displays will win over females.

>if macroevolution is real, then incremental changes would be able to add up to drastic differences
>no, not like that!
your complaint is that the example only shows one trait changing at a time? or is it that the big change bears some relation to the small changes it's made up of?

so why exactly is one color turning into an entirely different color not a valid metaphor for anagenesis?
>hurr durr I don't have a counterargument to it so I'll just say it's stupid
typical creationist """"logic""""

>morphogenetic fields
don't exist

Human bodies are perfect for building and wielding technology. That put's them as more advanced then other animals, and what a miraculous coincidence that the most intelligent species also has a body suited for its mental labor.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413735/

Kek

it's almost like technology designed by humans is well suited to be used by humans

>I believe in creation and evolution

>I believe in something that's observed in the present but not something that hasn't and that consists mostly of speculation on fossils

macroevolution as a process is a fact. there is no disputing it when so many independent types of data all tell the same story (fossils, DNA, homologous structures). disagreement over the theory part of it is only on what drives it (e.g., selection versus drift, etc).

Cows would make poor technology.

Our closest relative apes would have a hard time using farming technology.

You didn't even respond to what I said. You just posted a picture of a small brain and called me a name that your in-group regards as an insult. Do you have absolutely any thoughts of your own or was your brain manufactured by xerox?

>You didn't even respond to what I said.
kinda did desu senpaialam
but to repeat, is your complaint that the example only considered change in one trait at a time, or that the larger change resembled the smaller change?
because your response seemed to consist of dismissing the metaphor for being too simple. it's almost as though it's a simplification of an extremely complex process, right?

>you have no original ideas!
>calls figure dumb and dismisses it out of hand for simplifying something complex, without raising any substantive issues
brainlet.