There's a recurring theme I see among many of the "scientific" theories adopted by academia and society as a whole.
Each one of them relies not on facts, but emotions, media bias, and peer pressure. Darwinism and global warming/cooling/climate change are just two examples of this.
Other urls found in this thread:
answersingenesis.org
answersingenesis.org
discovery.org
discovery.org
discovery.org
trueorigin.org
trueorigin.org
answersingenesis.org
youtube.com
sixdays.org
bible.ca
crev.info
icr.org
twitter.com
prove it
if you want to disprove evolution so badly then give us precambrian rabbits instead of making b8 threads over and over again
sage
Why not a Paleocene dinosaur?
answersingenesis.org
not a precambrian rabbit
should be easy if earth is only ~6000 years old, just find one in the strata :^)
>avoids the issue by claiming that I haven't proven the strawman
Modern scientists, everyone. While their predecessors sought out to crush dogma, this generation embraces it.
True story user
OP is just a butthurt member of a disintegrating hegemony-exerting class, experiencing existential dread as he faces the prospect of having no function in an increasingly diverse and automated society.
>avoids the issue
the issue of precambrian rabbits that you haven't disproven and I mentioned in my very first post here ?
Sounds like ~someone's~ just lazy and unwilling to dig to prove his g-d. Religious men of old went off to foreign desert lands to slay Saracens, you won't even dig. Sad!
That's a strawman. I presented you with paleocene dinosaurs, dinosaur fossils after their supposed "extinction," and you still reject it.
Darwinism is a big one. Very untenable field, this evolutionary biology, standing on its foundation through one book written less than two centuries ago. I do not believe it will stand the test of time.
>one book
And a fossil record.
You mean the one that shows multiple biomes living in the general vicinity of one another on a supercontinent some 5,000 years ago? Then yes.
answersingenesis.org
is that supposed to be a surprise?
>Creationism
>Wrong
> science adjusts it's views based on what's observed
> religion denies observations in order for faith to be preserved
>Still too lazy to dig
Sad! Religious used to be men. Now they're just women shitposting on Veeky Forums.
...
>moving away from user's precious and sacred naive viewpoint is a "descent"
Theories are not singular objects that are thrown out by isolated contrary pieces of evidence. They are frameworks for explanation of phenomena. All theories have faults. The key test of a theory is whether it can explain all extant phenomena, even anomalies, and failure to do so after some time results in rejection of the theory.
So, if we consider evolution, we should ask ourselves not whether it has problems, but whether those problems are so persistent and crucial to the core theory that another theory can make better predictions.
Amd the answer is no. There are definitely outstanding questions in biology that evolution has been ill-equipped to answer, but of all theories ever proposed for describing the modification of life over time, no theory has ever performed as well as evolution.
If there ever comes a time when a theory arises that can explain all observed facts as well as the known anomalies but does not introduce more anomalies than it solves, then evolution should be abandoned. But until then, we stick with it.
OP's approach to science is how we end up with Flat Earthers.
>> religion denies observations in order for faith to be preserved
>Believing this strawman
>flat-earthers
So, pretty much everything /pol/ related.
Oh I get it. Science is bullshit!
>Darwinism and global warming/cooling/climate change are just two examples of this.
Well thank goodness Darwinism and global cooling are no longer accepted scientific theories then. If you mean biological evolution as a whole, then what alternative theory do you propose? And what is your objective, emotionless alternative to science that is less prone to peer pressure and "media bias."
Special creation of course.
Based on what evidence? Even if you disprove evolution, you still have to present positive evidence that life was designed/created.
The flagellum: complex structure, unable to arise in a piece-by-piece manner
discovery.org
The eye: the structure itself cannot arise in the way postulated by darwinists
discovery.org
The bombardier beetle: if it were to develop each organ for its combustive juices separately, the entire thing would explode.
discovery.org
Also, anything mentioned on the files.
>Fibonacci spirals
Give me one example where a Fibonacci spiral consistently appears in nature. No I don't mean any logarithmic spiral, I mean a specifically Fibonacci spiral.
On top of that, excitation goes that had any significance.
Even if we take those examples at face value, you are trying to disprove evolution. None of that is evidence of design or creation.
But irreducible complexity is neither evidence of special creation nor a counter-argument to evolution.
Mount Saint Helens, no? They literally misused a tool and then tried to claim the tool useless, whereas, carbon dating should only be used on organic compounds.
That's like trying to paint a wall with a hammer and then proclaiming the hammer useless. If anything, all this shows is the scientific illiteracy of creationists.
>comics as a base of evidence
Literally the same value as /pol/ tinfoilhat rightwingers.
They get really mad when you tell them to prove it.
Usually resorts to "You don't get it" or "It's common sense!"
You're See
>Entire thread is people telling OP to prove that they can't prove it instead of just proving it
Scientists everyone
You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
You're entire field is based on a single axiom.
It's not the fault of the world that you can't accept alternate theories.
There is a literally on-going experiment that pretty much confirms evolution( the E. coli long-term evolution experiment). The bulk of criticism against evolution comes from a few fundamentalist groups that cherry pick data that suits their interests while ignoring the data the contratics it, when they are not just outright lying or deliberately misinterpreting the theory.
This still applies.
Or just maybe faith gives answers to questions that can't be definitively answered and that aren't really worth spending that much time arguing on so that people can spend time on things that do matter, like caring about each other.
>This still applies.
No it doesn't. Evolution is just adaptation to the environment through mutation and seletive pressure. The loss of a certain element of the genetic data being favored by the environment in which the bacteria is actually supports it, as the bacteria that is more resistant or imune to the antibiotic will survive and reproduce, while the that don't will die and go extinct within that environment.
Shit, it was meant to
Holy shit you're retarded.
>Holy shit you're retarded.
What is wrong, exacly.
>You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
Yes you can, but that doesn't matter. Classical mechanics has been disproven but we still use it. If you want evolution to go away, provide an alternative that yields better results.
>You're entire field is based on a single axiom.
Not even remotely related to my field. But considering that there is an entire, very fruitful field
>It's not the fault of the world that you can't accept alternate theories.
So far you haven't presented any alternate theories. You have a single, very weak hypothesis, that fails to yield any meaningful answers. Why don't animals have wheels? Evolution provides a clear answer to this, but if life was made in a workshop this answer don't work.
What a shitty chart.
No, it confirms evolution on a microscopic scale of time and space under very particular circumstances. It's a redundant confirmation of the obvious.
Evolution on a grand scale needs to be modeled mathematically. How the entire system converges over billions of years into different paths and their probabilities to do so needs to be derived.
Before this is done, there is no theory.
>"No Virgin birth" and "No resurrection" come after "No miracles"
Except what is typically targeted by an antibiotic is something that is essential to the cell.
If the genetic code no longer coded that specific thing then the cell would probably be in just as shitty of a situation as the cells targeted by the antibiotic.
Antibiotic resistance is probably going to mostly deal with pumping the drug out of the cell, neutralizing it or whatever.
The longterm E.Coli experiment doesn't even deal with antibiotic resistance to begin with.
........---PHILOSOPHY---........
1. Complete this exercise with logical laws.
>we used to think we couldn't fly
>but it do
>we used to think we couldn't MEMEdriving
>???
Solution: but it do
__________- 2 -__________
Still lost information. Evolution adds.
>tfw
>Evolution adds.
no it doesn't. the theory of evolution states simply that alleles can change frequency in a population. it doesn't say anything about the necessity of adding or reducing complexity.
if your conception of evolution were true, we wouldn't have alcohol flush reaction or lactose intolerance in east asian populations
Nice how you latched on on to one statement so you could feel justified in ignoring the whole post.
>"Information"
Evolution doesn't necessarily add.
Devolution is a nonsense term and I should have addressed this in my prior post.
As evolution concerns itself with the change in allel frequencies over time in a population, all change of these is evolution.
Vague and ill defined ideas of gains and losses of information are also fairly nonsensical to consider, given the way genetic information is encoded and replicated and how this affects the subsequent proteins and how these then affect the organism.
As for the image:
The image juxtaposes "Natural Selection" with "Evolution".
The "Natural Selection" example is rather obviously misused as an example, given that it is artificial selection which is primarily at work and humans are the ones selecting for arbitrary traits at the expense of others.
There's also a rather arbitrary distinction of upward and downward trends superimposed on a process that doesn't really have upward or downward trends.
Again, it's just changes in allel frequency over time.
The staircase example also completely fails to show any radiation of species.
Did you even read what it said? You kept on saying how closed-minded I was, or how I didn't accept change. I accept it happens, but only on small scales, like dogs and wolves, or the Galapagos Finches. Dogs are still dogs, finches are still finches.
>Did you even read what it said?
Considering that I wrote it, yes, I did.
Why does there even need to be "spotless" scientific theory of darwinism? Do you need scientific theory of thrist to know when to drink water?
Really you can explain evolution just by saying that things that have properties which increase the likelihood of survival of increase number of offspring tend to increase in prevalence because well, because of exactly that.
Is this chart accurate? Was there really a crash in 2014?
I was referring to
What is even under fire when it comes to a lot of the common mechanics of natural selection?
I get that macroevolution is highly debated, and microevolution is largely accepted, but I don't really get exactly what is being critiqued with the theory that makes it non-passable as a framework of understanding.
Do you believe in macro gravitation but not micro gravitation?
Because that's how you sound.
No, I believe in both.
Read my post again. On your example, I'd be asking this question:
Given that macro gravitation is so widely accepted, on what basis do so many people believe micro-gravitation doesn't exist?
I'm just not sure where it is people criticize and claim macro-evolution to be necessarily false. I would understand subscribing to a theory with equal founding and evidence, but to flat-out say macro-evolution is bullshit is weird to me.
Why did you post a comic instead of the cartoonist's supposed evidence?
Where did the fossil record come from?
Why can't we replicate fossilization without prohibitively long spans of time?
Your article merely states that dinosaurs survived up to a million years after the k-t extinction, which was pretty much already known even in 2003, excluding the fact that dinosaurs aren't extinct.
>The bombardier beetle
Now I know you're memeing
youtube.com
This thread is just a bunch of neckbeards roleplaying as creationists and trolling each other for laughs, r-right?
These experiments haven't recreated calcite-aragonite alteration or mineral replacement: both occur broadly in the fossil record.
Fill in the blank.
Advocates of ___________ practice __________ when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.
(a). a literal reading of the judeo-christian bible, creationism
(b). the scientific method, evolutionary biology
>answersingenesis.org
B
This doesn't account for the occurrence of mineral-replacement fossils or calcite-aragonite alteration within the time provided.
It would make perfect sense if we assume God created these fossils by ignoring all observed physics, but then there can be no meaningful overlap between the scientific method and "biblical truth."
"B" is the same thing as "b"
This is what brainlets actually believe.
What about the sequence of horse fossils? Modern equines were found in the same layer as their supposed ancestors. Not to mention the eohippus is actually closer to the hyrax than the horse.
I will grant that abiogenesis still confounds me, I'm not very educated in organic chemistry and maybe that's why I don't understand how a self replicating molecule like DNA/RNA could come into being, but I'm not in any way going to just assume that supernatural forces were involved. Regardless of how you think life got here, the fact is that it is here, and it all has more or less the same genetic framework. What people 'Darwinism', or the idea that all life here decended and diverged from a single event is undeniable. The evolution of life is just the natural outcome of how DNA functions, replicating and mutating, and the evolution model perfectly applies to every single observation we have of life on our planet. Of course Darwin hkmself got things wrong in his theories of how evolutionClams at the bottom of trenches, the mites in your pillow case, the grass in your yard, the cold you got, and your own body all confirm a branching tree of life model with the very molecules that make them up. You have to know absolutely nothing about genetics to not see it. The great part is that the genetic evidence matches up perfectly with what we observe in the fossil record. Only a totally unknowledgable person can be a creationist. If anyone found a shred of evidence going against evolution it would overturn the entire field of biology. No one is trying to stop that from happening. Think of how much funding someone could get from cross waving politicians if they got research results refuting it.
This is a troll thread but I'm high, fuck you Veeky Forums
If this were the case, it seems more likely that the species was mistakenly included in Hyracotherium than to throw out the rest of the transition fossils.
It doesn't matter. If you can't account for the spans of time implicit to fossilization, the Earth cannot be ~10,000 years old.
there's actually a lot of solid science explaining how flagellums have evolved
Do you accept molecular dating and the current scientific consensus on the age of life?
Your horse fossil claim is horseshit. Do your own googling on the equine fossil record.
>inb4 posts an assertion which was already refuted above
Not understanding the evidence doesn't mean it's bullshit.
Evolution is mostly true, but what about mankind?
It's an anomaly.
The beauty of human beings is far too coincidental to be mere accident.
God could guide evolution once it reaches an apex.
This is an inaccurate characterization of paleontology.
>far too coincidental
Our species is unique among other living species, but how is it more coincidental? How are other species less coincidental?
Is that right?
>Is that right?
of course not.
The morphological difference between humans and chimpanzees separated by 10 million years and the morphological difference between two species of frogs separated by 10 million years is starkly contrasted. It boggles the mind.
Also, humans are the most glorious looking creature who also happen to be the self-conscious ones?
Common sense people. Use it.
Essentially, cases like in your picture don't happen. There are a lot of factors in dating, and nobody says it's exact.
In fact, science exists under the very principle that it's not set in stone (heh) as it were. Only idiots take science and confuse it with objectivity, science only provides theories or explanations.
If there is a lot of evidence suggesting the age of a rock or fossil, including the relative positions of surrounding rocks and fossils given evidence that can give a more precise reading (such as carbon dating), scientists will posit that a rock or a fossil is this old, given the data, and then show the data. Anybody can then look at that, and provide an alternative explanation for as to the age of the rock, or they can say "it simply isn't logical, or worthwhile to use this form of evidence.", to which they would need to back up why it wouldn't be valid.
That's the beauty of science. It's not shoved down anyone's throat. It's up to others to make their own interpretations, scientists just collect data and then provide an interpretation of their own.
Posting more (oddly jewish looking) straw-men doesn't prove you right. It only proves someone has more illustrations than knowledge of sedimentology and stratigraphy.
>inb4 radiometric dating is bullshit
...
The same could be said about chimpanzees 10 million years ago, and chimpanzees today. The speed of population mutation is determined largely by the environment. Species such as frogs are much less versatile, so you don't see them breaking into small populations and experiencing genetic drift. Species such as chimpanzees, or humans, can migrate over vast distances and split up into smaller pockets so as to better use resources/naturally follow where competition is lowest. Thus, in smaller populations, genetic drift will hit the hardest.
To explain it, take blue eyes and brown eyes as the classic example. In a population of a few thousand, the equilibrium of blue eyes to brown eyes, so long as neither is selected for, will remain equivalent, with some generations having a few more, and some having a few less. In a population of 6, however, with 3 blue eye and 3 brown eye people, assuming no selection for either, then in a few generations it's completely possible for everyone to have brown eyes, or everyone having blue eyes. Thus, the entire population has 100% of a certain feature, which previously may have only existed in a relatively small portion of a population.
This happens over and over again, with new traits being introduced through random mutation and then becoming prominent through either being selected for because it gives a boost in fitness, or because a small population will cause genetic drift to have it randomly take over the population.
You only notice the difference more because you're a human. We look like hairless apes to everything else on the planet, and our bodies completely match that bill. The rate that evolution happens is different in every situation but other mammals have probably diverged roughly the same ammount genetically in 10 as we have from chimps. The only thing that makes humans special among other life is intelligence. And maybe long distance hunting. Go look for your god in the gaps psychology has or something because there are virtually no gals left in evolution for it to exist.
Instances of punctuated equilibria are not uncommon in the fossil record. Phyletic gradualism may be more intuitive but it doesn't align with the data.
>most glorious looking
>common sense
pick one