Is there any REAL evidence for evolution?

He means people assume that just because something looks like another thing, they must be related.
Decrease in genetic information rather than increase. Evolution requires an increase

Evolution is antithetical to the existence of God.

Speciation, however, is used in breeding. It's a different story

>mentions religion
When did I mention that?

>Speciation
Evolution is antithetical to God in the sense that it disproves the claims of mainstream Christianity (of course there are people who again "interpret" it in a different way kek), but what I mean is that when you disprove God, it isn't suddenly the proof to the existence of God
And if you criticise Bible the same way you do with evolution Christianity would be automatically eliminated

Pic related does

Also I thought you were mocking the christards, are you actually supporting that view, fucking kek

Or is it bait

Hmmmm

Parsimony bitch.

Dont use that information bollocks

...

You can't disprove evolution

If theres regression,why wouldn't there be evolution?

>Decrease in genetic information rather than increase.
and your reference for dachshunds having lost genes relative to wolves is...?

but here you go
>pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

You can. There is no concrete evidence, only conjecture.

And youre a faggot.

We know that editing genes will produce real, observable changes in the organism.

Since this is proven (that genetic modification will alter an organism from it's "divine plan"), is it really a stretch to conclude that small, accumulated changes over time will do the exact same thing?

>Decrease in genetic information rather than increase. Evolution requires an increase
mmmm no

"Concrete evidence" can't even exist. It's all up to common sense and similarities.

U can't know nuthin'

>dogs with different variations=amoeba to man

Better pic

Evidence does not exist. Fossils only tell us humans appeared later than other species, and that other species have disappeared. Some have tried to believe monkey fossils which is a bit between today's monkey and human in shape are evidence. Except it isn't, it is just assumptions.

That's the funniest pic I've seen in a while.

If you say that one kind of dog canchange into another, then you should also believe that several such changes would lead to a dog becoming something like a dog but no longer a dog. And then several such changes leads to the dog-like species becoming something not like a dog at all. What exactly stops many changes from accumulating?

Many variations = aemoba to man

>You use LOGIC
>It's not very effective

But dogs are a kind unto themselves. A dog can't produce a cat, fish can't produce birds, and frogs can't turn into princes

>But dogs are a kind unto themselves. A dog can't produce a cat, fish can't produce birds, and frogs can't turn into princes

Are you being serious right now? I can't tell, some people would say this and be absolutely serious.

>fibonacci spirals
>god is real because a mathematical ratio exists

really makes you think

And as I just explained to you, nothing is producing anything much different from anything else. It's the accumulation of small changes over many genetatiobs that leads to "macroevolution." You are treating it as if the change id's instantaneous or only one change. But puddles were not created after one generation either.

And your bait is too obvious. If you're not going to take trolling seriously then don't try at all. I'm disappointed in you.

You assume the earth has been around for long enough for such changes to accumulate.

>humans have natural instinct to turn our ears towards sounds despite losing the musculature to do so through evolution
>hurrdurr God put it there to test us!

Indeed and that assumption goes into faith. Funny how popular religion was for so long. So, so long. And then all of a sudden, we are the result of a chaotic theory, not a benevolent creator. When the scientific progress is based on God's nonexistence, it's not scientific progress.

You fundamentally misunderstand science if you think it's in any way capable of answering inherently metaphysical questions about the existence of gods.

That's not what I said. I do think that science or material understandings of the universe, should stay as far as possible away from contradicting The Bible. The heliocentric universe theory was against the Church, but evolution? That shit is against the Bible. You should think twice before you make attempts to reduce something repeated over and over in The Koran and stated in the beginning of Genesis to nothing.

The Bible is a book. That's it, full stop. The claims it makes, whatever they may be, that fall within the realm of the falsifiable, do not enjoy a privileged position from which they are immune to reasoned discourse.

>But dogs are a kind unto themselves
No they are not. "Kind" has no clear definition. And thus no real meaning.

Here's a list to choose from:
Kingdom
Phylum
Clade
Class
Order
Suborder
Family
Genus
Species
Subspecies

Is there any real evidence that you aren't a faggot?

This thread is literally on par with yesterday's flat earth thread

Stupid op being a stupid faggot and it's already 40 posts in

>kind

Go sell some more cyanide to cancer patients
Fuck off Kent hovind

I don't see that, God could just have set the parameters right so that Earth and life can develop

Do you have have any evidence for that?

Where did I assume that? But anyway you just admitted that microevolution leads to macroevolution. I rest my case.

He means that evolution is not necessarily antithetical to God

You think 4 billion years isn't enough?

You're right, we should give up evolution and return to the traditional belief of constant spontaneous generation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Evolution of the domestication of the dog. Before modern humans, there was no such thing as a samoyed or husky. They were selectively bred (environmental pressure) for thousands of years.

...

It seems likely that no one can prove anything, especially by or to the people who are closed-minded, unable to learn, to evolve.

Further, it seems likely that proof can never exist: only acceptance of what likely is. Our only hope might be reaching a point in a spiritual journey where we are content, sustained and happy and proof is irrelevant.

I don't get it.

>cnidarian turns into ecdysozoan
>ecdysozoan turns into chordate

Yes. It's called "growing resistance to anti biotics" and it's out to kill you.

>picture of artificial selection
>labeled natural selection

what color is the text in the bottom of this image?

You have to be properly brain washed by sunday school first

Each of the lines were created, they didn't just come together from a jumble of letters.

...

>natural selection
Kek

The spork really is the pinnacle of fork evolution.

no but evolution is the best most logically coherent framework to explain the history of nature and even human behaviour.

...

Those terms are taxonomic classifications that have no clear definition and thus no real meaning.

Here is a slightly more stable list to choose from:
Species

And even this is arbitrary to some extent because delineating when something is an isolated reproductive group (Or just genetically distant enough where asexual organisms are concerned) is not always possible or absolute.

That's artificial selection you baiting queefer

Where is the trail of kangeroo skeletons from Mt Ararat to Australia, creationists?

youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc

Reminds me...

youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI

youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI

r u b8

bcos noone should be that stoopid

See for yourself.

>in b4 petri dish evolution doesn't count

GO BACK TO /POL/

Is it still bacteria?

youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

it's E.Coli evolving resistance to increasing strengths of anti-biotic. You can see exact location where mutant bacteria who've randomly gained resistance start growing. It's interesting because the most resistant bacteria isn't always the most prolific. Some bacteria spread, not through resistance, but through rapid reproduction. They grow fast, and die fast in the anti-biotics. While others grow very very slowly, but have a strong resistance to the anti-biotics. It demonstrates how evolution can generate different strategies or solutions to a problem.

>Is there any REAL evidence for evolution?
evolutionary algorithms work

very interesting post that will sadly be ignored by proofs who would rather shit post about religion on a science board.

i appreciate the post though user, even if most won't

evolution wouldn't allow one thing to turn into another thing entirely, if a cat turned into a frog it would be evidence AGAINST evolution if anything.

If you want to see the big changes evolution can make, take a look at whale evolution and the various proofs for it that would only exist if evolution were true.

In religious terms I prefer evolution to creationism simply because I do not care for the idea that G-d is insane. It says that G-d really likes making tapeworms for example. A couple hundred species, many of which require a microscope to tell them apart. Each and every microscopic difference was personally designed by G-d. And then G-d started on pinworms. And roundworms. And hundreds of other parasites. Also, G-d really likes designing ants. And beetles.

Here in Washington State there is an animal called the mountain beaver. There is a species of flea found on it that is unique to that animal. It is the largest species of flea yet found. This flea is large enough to have fleas of its own as parasites. These fleas can have mites as parasites, which can have bacteria as parasites. G-d did that/ Really? Are you sure you are comfortable with that concept. In before "G-d works in mysterious ways".

I immediately assume you are a troll.

Yet, for onlookers, herbicides and pesticides need to continuously be revamped to fight against evolving pests and weeds.

Yes, that's exactly how creationists think.

...when your postpic mentions "the Creationist viewpoint".
Selective memory much?

You should know that we can turn one celled organisms into multicellular structures via artificial selection

nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810

No Its not - I've read though YLT and I cant say it ever says that evolution is wrong.

Its incredibly vague about what stuff looks like really...

>that image
Fucking great.

> Dosnt take into factor the evolution from wood into stone into plastic
> Plastic sporks evolved from steel sporks that evolved from stone sporks that evolved from wood sporks.
> Wood sporks, spoons and forks came from a common ancestor
> Knifes were somewhat related - but not directly - only due to habitat.

Source- b.p.h.d. in Utensilatinitustism

When two fish fuck and make a cat I will give you $20 bucks

When two dogs fuck, and make a new kinda dog - or when two cats fuck and make a new kinda cat you give me $20

Thats the joke

'God' could just be the thing that constructed the laws of the universe. Now he's sitting back snorting cocaine and fucking bookers.

But the fossil record only gives us a limited selection of remains: atheist creatures did not bury their dead.

> third panel
How exactly is Mt. St. Helens inherently evidence for creationism?

Everything is an evidence for creationism if you think hard enough

This image made me laugh pretty hard. Great post.

low b8

Micro vs macro evolution brainlets are embarrassing.

How can you not see that a series of "micro" evolutions can lead to "macro" evolution, over millions of years?

Fucking "micro" evolution doesn't even take that long either, the house sparrow was introduced to north america in 1852 and, based on their geographical location, they've evolved to withstand their environment better.

I bet there's even better examples out there, I've just found that within a minute.

>that gif

>lava dome forms within a year or two
>scientist dates the dome
>"millions of years"
>shows dating methods don't work
>was chastised for it

Are they still like the creature they came from? Did that sparrow give rise to an albatross, cassowary, or bird of paradise?