Evolution? Or religious dogma?

Okay boffins! I've been believing in evolution my entire life since being indoctrinated by the system. Now that I've been learning more on the topic I find it highly unlikely.
Can anyone provide me with any evidence that evolution is in fact true? I mean even the Big Bang makes no sense. Every thing is purely based on faith
Please help me.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The idea of giraffe's neck being long to reach branches has been debunked. they use their large necks to compete for mates.
Also evolution is not accepted by everyone, the "system" that is "indoctrinating" people are the creationists, which has been around for way, way longer.

>most studied and tested idea in science
>asks for more evidence
fuck off

Also big bang and evolution are not at all the same concept.

Why do you find it unlikely now?
I'll be glad to answer your questions about the matter, fellow faggot.

youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

>Also big bang and evolution are not at all the same concept
>cosmic evolution?
Look up the definition

>most studied and tested idea
Alls I learnt about was natural selection which I'm sure is not the same concept as evolution.
I ask for evidence. Please help me I don't want to be an idiot
No decent evidence other than billions of years ago so and so happened. Where's the evidence? Who observed this? Radio carbon dating is shit
I'm not hear for creationism's of intelligent design. I'm hear for facts

Darwin was awesome because he falsified the theory of creationism. His theory of evolution is constantly being revised. In short, no absolute evidence can ever be provided, however if you believe in creationism you are probably a moron.

>Where's the evidence?
If you don't know what evicence supports this theory then why the fuck don't you pick a book and fucking read it reather than wanting us to spoonfeed you?
Like literally it's really fucking easy to search this on the Internet. Do that, tell us why you think the evidence provided is false or whatever and ask questions here.

Start to study in biology. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is just a method how it came into being. But you don't need to support evolution nor 'believe ' in it. It does not need you. If you think it does, you don't get it anyway.

>Darwin was awesome because he falsified the theory of creationism.
>Lmao where's the evidence?

But then he wouldn't be able to bait responses.

evolution is a phenomenon of belief which, in the latter cases such as macro evolution and ultimately speciation, is believed by many scientists. The issue that is called into question is the following: why is it that these "scientists" purportedly belief in such a phenomena? if these textbooks and opinions are to be maximally believed, then this must mean that evolution is the case and is a fact. however, the case many not be so, precisely. one problem with the opinion is the EVIDENCE... there are usually drawings in books and textbooks that demonstrate the transition from fossil to human. However, how is it possible that a single fossil would be able to give rise to all human creativity? This point is bolstered by the fact taht these drawings are just that: DRAWINGS. There are no actual fossils/animals to go along with the drawings, merely an artist's creativity, which, though applausable in the right circumference, is unfortunately out of place in the realm of scientific inquesitionings. Many scientists are simply victims of sociological manipulation of their superiors who are under the spell of the monolithic science figure of Richard Darwins, therefore they are willing to belive in and work under the stipulation of the "theory" without the correct amounts of fortuitous evidence.

>Evolution is a fact
Still a theory, officially.

>Can anyone provide me with any evidence that evolution is in fact true?
>aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories
>Every thing is purely based on faith
Not true

>Still a theory,
>Still
Into the trash you go.

So is the theory of gravity.

>he actually believes in gravity
lol

/thread

If you want to understand evolution, I think understanding genetics is pretty important.

You have trillions of cells. Cells contain a nucleus, which contains chromosomes, which have all of your genetic information.

Genes are DNA sequences that get transcribed to RNA and then translated to protein. In a nutshell, your DNA decides what proteins your body makes. These proteins keep your body operating.

Mutation in DNA can cause abnormal protein function. For example Sickle Cell Anemia is a single nucleotide substitution. Nucleotides are the ATGC bases that make up DNA (along with sugar and phosphates).

Because humans have chromosomes in pairs, you sometimes get some redundant function. One of my chromosomes might be mutated such that I get an abnormal protein associated with Sickle Cell Anemia, but I still have a functional version so I don't show the phenotype. In this case I would be defined as a Heterozygote, a carrier for the disease who suffers none of the ill effects.

When I have kids, they get one of each of my chromosomes (and one of each from my partner). If I had children with another Heterozygote, there is a 1/4 chance of having a Homozygous Recessive child, who actually has Sickle Cell Anemia.

It is rare that mutation gives rise to new function in humans. However, bacteria and other simpler organisms with high selective pressures may rapidly evolve in ways that aid survival, which you might know about if you've heard of Antibiotic Resistance.

Basically, mutation can just be happening on a huge population of bacteria at some rate, usually not really playing a role in evolution until a particular trait shows up that is relatively good or bad for a cell. If good, it may out-compete the rest. If bad, it may die off.

That's about all I have time for. Maybe go read some more genetics stuff, I think the mechanistic perspective is best for appreciating it.

Didn't say that. But the Bible was too consistently revised. Please tell me the difference.
Every bit of evidence I've ever seen is never definitive. How can you believe things based on conjecture
I know right. Where's the evidence of gravity right. Its one science of falsehood stack opun another.
> (OP) (You)
>It does not need you. If you think it does, you don't get it anyway.
Stop parroting your Biology Priest. I used to do high school biology.(something for you to work with)
And done some reading myself
Should add to that, that evolution should be taught in high or grade school. It does absolutely nothing to prepare you for the future.

To be fair he said officially, and he's not wrong

>Every bit of evidence I've ever seen is never definitive.

Yet you won't specify one. Show me one of you "non-definitive" pieces of evidence and then we can talk.
Obviously this is bait but I have too much free time right now so who cares.

Of course he's not wrong, but saying "still" when theory is the top where you can get in science is dumb.

Interesting, you may make a believer out of me yet.
The toxicant part makes sense in our drop of fertility and all that's going wrong with our bodies these days.
Micro-evolution, easily observable and proven. I have no qualms with it. You basically recited to me grade 8 or 10 biology.
The top you can get in science is a "proven" theory
Its not bait buddy there just so much shit to wade through I thought you'd pull something out your ass for me.
Moths turning black during industrial era, finch's changing beaks because if seeds, rats turning black because of environment.
Poor example but I can't think of any.

Can you define "micro" evolution and how that differs from other forms?

>Now that I've been learning more on the topic I find it highly unlikely.

I'd be curious about what evidence leads you to that conclusion.

>The idea of giraffe's neck being long to reach branches has been debunked. they use their large necks to compete for mates.

This seems to imply that a feature can only have one use, or that having evolved for one use, it cannot then be used for something else.

Our dexterous fingers did not evolve to type addresses of porn sights, but we can use them for that.

Evolution has, by this point become pretty much an observed fact

Darwin's natural selection theory, modified here and there, is the best explanation we have for the mechanism through which this observed fact happened in the way it did.

>The top you can get in science is a "proven" theory

You can either disprove a hypothesis or fail to disprove. You can't actually prove.

>The top you can get in science is a "proven" theory

___________________________________
Troll line established. Out.

Yeah "proven theory" isn't actually a thing, no scientist uses that terminology. To have developed a Scientific Theory is actually tremendous. When people say "just a theory" they mean hypothesis, because they don't understand the words.

This is the 5th anti evolution thread and 5th anti climate change thread we have seen this past 4 days.
We are being shilled.
Report this shit and move on.

Its basically all that you've guys have been pointing out. Minor mutations
I've been listening to Kent Hovind :) also *sites
Sorry your right. I meant fact.
Now that you bring that up. Please prove to me how climate change is being caused by CO2 levels. Heard of climategate? Are you a scientist? Because they even fudge with the 99% of scientists believe this.
I'm not a troll though. Im seriously looking for answers

Macro and micro evolution are essentially the same processes taking place over different timescales. What are you unsure about in regards to evolution? Do you have any specific questions?

High school?
When you truly study nature, on a molecular level, all lifeforms, it becomes clear how evolution happened for the most part. Darwin his greatest contribution wasn't the idea of evolution, that was pretty obvious, but the how.
You don't realize there is no parroting in true science. There is only evidence. But again, you don't need to support evolution if you don't want to. If you don't get it, it could be just to complex for you to understand. So forget about it, and find ways to enjoy yourself. Let the ones with the brains and drive for it worry about things you are not willing to accept. Loosen up, buddy. There are other things to spend time on, such as love and satisfaction. Or use youtube to follow some real university lectures on the matter.

>Same retard that doesn't believe in evolution doesn't believe in climate change
Who would have guessed?
Now stop making this fucking thread Veeky Forums

I'm pretty much over this now. Wanted to get into "cosmic" evolution. Do you believe in the big bang? If so can you explain it? With any kind of evidence?
I meant parroting because I heard this other scientist saying the exact same thing
>It does not need you. If you think it does, you don't get it anyway.
Veeky Forums? Thought this was Veeky Forums
Also actually have a very good reason to not trust global warming and so should you

>I have a very good reason
Your lack of brain cells. It's the same reason you doubt evolution.
Now stop making this same exact thread here or if it wasn't you go back to where you came from and tell the rest of your kind to stop as well.

You haven't defined how "micro"-evolution differs from other forms of evolution. Biologists don't distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution, they just call it evolution. Accumulation of changes over time due to selective pressures that arise from competition in a given environment is evolution.

So, tell me what the difference is.

What the fuck is "cosmic" evolution

Are you talking about origins of life? Life adapting to environment isn't the same thing as life spontaneously appearing. I mean they're related in that we're still discussing a living thing, but you'd need to understand chemistry for this too.

If you heard other people say it, they were probably asked because of their achievements.
Has it ever occurs to you that:

A they do not want to attack religion that much?
B they just share their findings ?

No
I don't have to. Someone else already did it for meI can't and won't disagree, I find no fault in it. Your "do you have any specific questions" is quite effective. You should use it more often on trolls.
I mean cosmic as in the big bang. Stuff coming from nothing. Do people actually believe that?
I honestly don't know what your talking a out

>gif

I'll see you 2moro senpai

Your efforts to attack Atheïsm so much shows your inability to separate things, the incompetence to see bigger pictures, the doubt about your own believes and the fear about the strong arguments that atheïst aren't that dumb as you hoped they would be.
The fact you don't want to use intelligent critical thinking is showing, instead you try to make Atheïsm a religion so you (?) can point it out as the wrong religion (?).

You maybe can impress youngsters, but if you need that, you are just a big zero. Find a place without brains, maybe you might win an argument for once.

This is the 4th thread like this this week. Is op trolling/spamming or did we get flooded with idiots from another board?

But that is literary what theists think. They believe a man created squirrel s magically.

I literally observed evolution in a lab yesterday.

...

That gif displays mind-numbling levels of ignorance. Do you really think any of us believe organisms as complex as a mammal just appeared overnight?

Given BILLIONS of years you might get a thermodynamically favorable reaction to occur without a catalyst. If that reaction involves say, the hydrophobic effect leading to the formation of a lipid bilayer necessary for a single-celled organism to arise, yeah that's potentially a step that life had to take to get to where it is today on Earth.

It was bad enough when we had to deal with /x/, now we have /pol/ and Veeky Forums retards who make anti science threads on a science board.

Why Veeky Forums though? Never been there btw

Its history and HUMANITIES so its a place filled with liberal gender studies faggots, armchair philosophers and literal creationists that believe the earth is only 6k years old because religion counts as a humanity.

It wasn't an attack on Atheism. its a joke. The pic was merely a demonstration of the absurdity of the Big Bang. Though I do believe in order out of chaos which is basically what every thing from the big bang to us is in a simpler sense. I'm not religious. I just find it all to amazing to think you can break it down to its simplest components and go "it just happened"
I'm not with them but trust me they plague /b/, /x/, and /pol/ periodically. I think they roam.(don't judge me for this knowledge)
Its a guiding hand atleast. It was written in the Bible that people would turn from the laws of God and to the laws of man. It works with teachings as well. Its Satan's work that you stray from the truth. There's a place for God in science. You don't have to deny nor admit it. Just know it
Please go only...
Global warming is a hoax.
College is a business
Prove gravity to me. You personally I want to see if you can or if your just a yes man
Its a joke. Do you think there can be life without a cell membrane?
t. Armchair scientist

So at least we pin pointed which board you come from. No wonder you are so dumb, you are a Veeky Forums creationist.

>Its a joke. Do you think there can be life without a cell membrane?

So you agree that the parts for life spontaneously occur and can spontaneously join to form an organism, that we don't need the emergence of life to depend on a god or gods?

"It just happened" is a vast simplification but yes, you could boil it down to this if piece-by-piece the molecular interactions necessary for life occurred in a fashion that supported a thing that continued its own existence, and under specific physical, chemical and electrical conditions proceeded in a way that allowed the progression of life on Earth to where it is today. You could say "it just happened" if it's consistent with observable chemistry, because that's what happens. However, you can't reasonably say "god just did it" because that presupposes a god exists. Hypotheses of a magical undetectable creator can't be tested, so you have as much reason to believe that story as anything else you could possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, chemistry, physics and biology can be tested so they can give us some slight picture of what happened. Sometimes that picture might look completely absurd if we know nothing beforehand, but if it's consistent with all the data, maybe it's not absurd after all.

So judgemental. Please pull your head out of your ass for 2 seconds. Agree nor disagree with your statement as it is irrelevant.

You understand how the theory of a Big Bang came to be right? When astronomers look far away (and thereby far back in time) they see that the Universe used to be very dense. We can tell that an expansion has happened. The Big Bang is simply a model scenario where the Universe originated in a singularity that went on to expand, which works very well with our observation and understanding of physics.

What exactly is so wrong about this line of reasoning?

Its relevant to Veeky Forums for understanding where the mass of retards came from. More anti intellectual boards spell doom for Veeky Forums.

The problem isn't that the line of reasoning is bad, the problem is that you're talking above their level of understanding so it comes across as noise.

>that we don't need the emergence of life to depend on a god or gods?
No God sowed the seeds. I agree with you and would like to remind you that your the one that brought up religion. But a God helps fit your model reasonably tell you can tell me better. We may or may not need one but it gives you no reason to disregard it.
Absolutely no proof there's as much proof of everything that happened in the Bible. Have you ever taken DMT before?
Its your duty to enlighten the weaker minds. God forbid they turned on you and burned you at a stake for heresy.

The issue comes when we get the same thread over and over. One ignorant kid isn't a problem, but 4 evolution and 6 climate change threads since Sunday is a spam of stupidity. I just want it contained.

>Absolutely no proof
I told you why the Big Bang is such a widely accepted theory. Our telescopes clearly show us how the Universe gets denser the further back in time you look. Hence, the Universe has been expanding. This is also supported by the fact that the galaxies are moving further apart from each other.

This isn't even some insane physics mumbo-jumbo, but literally what you see when you point a telescope at the sky. It's very rudimentary stuff.

>Have you ever taken DMT before?
No, nothing beyond shrooms.

Get the mods on your side then
How'd the other threads go?

The water she fall me down

Okay the religion thing was a presumption on my part, maybe I was reading too many of the other comments.

The idea of a god could be consistent with everything I said, sure. But that doesn't necessitate a belief in god. That doesn't even make it reasonable. We don't believe things just because they're possible.

I can change my outlook with new evidence, but I have no reason to believe any one idea over another that pops into my head, save for those ideas which are backed by some kind of evidence. And I should follow the evidence to its reasonable conclusions, no matter what my instincts tell me is strange or absurd, because my instincts are not infallible. The Big Bang does not have to be intuitive to be correct.

So your saying looking back in the how? By pointing at a direction in the sky and looking at a distant galaxy? Can you explain that? Why's it denser? Is it possible that there is another explanation?
What about dark matter/energy or what ever. They're theorising that thats the cause for the current expansion. You could say that its just a tweak to the big bang theory or couldn't you say as well that there's some shit we just don't know.
>>Have you ever taken DMT before?
>No, nothing beyond shrooms.
You should try it. You might see some shit that'll make you question your existence
So do you believe in the big bang? Or is it just a logical conclusion?

It's not based on faith, you're just too lazy or dumb to understand it. Besides, give me evidence that evolution is false. Disprove it, if it's so flimsy. You just don't know all the facts: it's based on a lot and a lot of interconnected, observed evidence. And again, what's the alternative? Special creation? Does that somehow make more sense? Is it somehow less based upon faith? The big bang theory is actually not as concrete as evolution. That is still sorta up for debate (not really though), because it doesn't really have that sort of concrete evidence.

TL;DR, do your fucking research kid

Radio carbon dating is not shit. There's your fucking problem: you're given various forms of proper evidence and then you dismiss them. Just think shit through

Geez. I never expected to guys to be so smart. Sorry. And thanks for your patience
It is shit. Prove me wrong.
Though seriously there are known variables that can fudge up results

High schoolers are taught carbon dating. We can figure out how old something is by how long its atoms have been decaying. What is wrong with that?

giraffes bash their heads into each other
>that's why they need a long neck

> Not understanding what a theory is
Plz go

>The top you can get in science is a "proven" theory

I think the term you're looking for is established or accepted theory.

>So your saying looking back in the how?
Because light travels at a certain speed, the further away you look, the older the light you're seeing is. The light from our sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, so when you're looking at the sun you actually see the sun as it was 8 minutes before you looked at it.

>By pointing at a direction in the sky and looking at a distant galaxy?
The light from distant galaxies is red-shifted. A red-shift is caused by the object moving away from us rapidly. It's very easy to tell that the galaxies are moving away from each other.

>Why's it denser?
To put it simply: When you look wayyy back in time, you see a lot of stuff a lot more tightly packed than it is today.

>Is it possible that there is another explanation?
This isn't a mystical "explanation". This is literally what we observe. When you point the Hubble telescope out into space, this is what it sees.

>I mean cosmic as in the big bang. Stuff coming from nothing. Do people actually believe that?
Hey user, I'll personally admit that as an atheist and scientist (non-astrophysicist tho), I have a *lot* less faith in the Big Bang idea than evolution (the latter of which I'm 100% sold on).

You ever taken courses on molecular biology? Once you understand how a cell works, the concept of evolution makes a lot more sense. To ask for evidence is kind of stupid considering there is so much information supporting evolution. But I can give you a short summary of how life evolved from a molecular biology perspective.

Let's take for instance how cells evolved. Molecules were able to polymerize over a vast amount of time. RNA is one of these molecules, which initially created long chains that could store information in molecular codes, but it could also form primitive catalysts to reduce the amount of time it takes for certain reactions to take place. Other molecules began to accumulate over time, until early cells began to emerge that could be replicated due to information encoding molecules being able to produce enzymes allowing for the sequestering or replication of various other molecules which were critical for structure and function.

These molecules, RNA and later DNA, encoded information for producing bio molecules which were necessary for cellular function. But mutations in these information encoding molecules could change how the information was interpreted, and so new changes were made to the resulting bio molecules produced by the encoded information. Over a long amount of time, certain phenotypes were found in the progeny as these mutations could result in bio molecules that were more fit for the surrounding environment, and therefore conferred an advantage to these organisms.

I think the reason people find evolution hard to believe is because it takes place over such a long period of time, and humans like to believe in things they can see. Start to study more molecular biology and related disciplines and all the pieces start to fit together. Also, this description is pretty bare-bones, and I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I hope it offers some insight to those who don't understand it.

bing bang and evolotion are two different things my friend

...

>Every bit of evidence I've ever seen is never definitive. How can you believe things based on conjecture
In principle, nothing is definitive. How can you believe in a reality based on senses that are easily fooled?

>evolution is a phenomenon of belief
>one problem with the opinion is the EVIDENCE...
Yeap, no evidence....
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm


>There are no actual fossils/animals to go along with the drawings, merely an artist's creativity, which, though applausable in the right circumference, is unfortunately out of place in the realm of scientific inquesitionings
Yes, there are no transitional fossils.....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Not a single one...

that second quote
>though applausable in the right circumference... in the realm of scientific inquestionings

So if stuffs far denser farther away its not because of vanishing point? How would it be denser if everything is expanding? If your looking back in time you clearly don't know what it looks like presently right? I've seen pic related. And it looks like codswallop. Why represent the universe as such if its incorrect? Is it literally in the shape of a ball? No its just poor representation based on speculation. I perfer the dark matter manifesting itself straight after the birth of the universe. It grows evermore as our sins spills in from another dimension.
Glad to hear it. Glad all of Veeky Forums havnt been indoctrinated by the church of science.
Thanks this paper/article covered it rather nicely with new discoveries and the acceptance of Lamarcks work. Which makes it seem really stupid that they decided to ignore his findings for so longConsidering that its said that the universe exploded in hydrogen and helium which condensed into stars or something eventually producing every element we know. Something simple evolving into something complex sounds pretty close to evolution by its definition
Agreed, how can you believe that bigfoot isn't farting in our faces right now if he lives on a higher plane(what is immeasurable to our senses) of existence. I recommend super strong hallucinogenics so you can sees. What is unseen
The evidence is all in their heads. Their false prophet Darwin, pbuh, has lead them blindly astray

You should know that Popper criticized evolution for being unscientific. Not that he was right, just that it's unwise to post a picture of him in defense of the theory.

>It grows evermore as our sins spills in from another dimension.
>Implying Full Metal Alchemist is non-fiction

>Considering that its said that the universe exploded in hydrogen and helium which condensed into stars or something
muthafuckin protons didn't even exist till later brah you aren't even getting the theory right.

>Agreed, how can you believe that bigfoot isn't farting in our faces right now if he lives on a higher plane(what is immeasurable to our senses) of existence.

We have instruments that extend our senses into the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is usually the first place amateur metaphysics preachers go to to explain 'higher dimensions' so if you want to propose a theory of higher existence you're gonna have to go talk to the string theorists and learn about calabi yau manifolds and shit

3/10 You're trying but haven't gotten that far. Go take a lecture series on cosmology so you can be skeptical without sounding like a 12 year old creationist who just finished watching Dr. Hovind.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about current theories in science, but being skeptical without being informed is just rehashing arguments that were laid to rest decades or centuries ago. It's not healthy or true skepticism it's just a facade.

>Radio carbon dating is shit
wew lad, that's some deep argumentation here

>In short, no absolute evidence can ever be provided, however if you believe in creationism you are probably a moron.
and if you believe in evolution you are definitely a moron

>>Implying Full Metal Alchemist is non-fiction
Bad as series bruv
>>Considering that its said t
>muthafuckin protons didn't even exist till later brah you aren't even getting the theory right.
You want me to quote you 10 pages or explain the jist
>We have instruments that extend our senses into the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum
My point exactly. So what's to say there isn't more we still don't know? What's up with light being a wave and particle. What about stuff that changes the moment we try to measure it(actually I think that's the effects of the measuring instrument,but still). Bigfoots shitting all over your face right now but your to stupid to realise it ;)
>3/10 You're trying but haven't gotten that far.
Funny I passed high school with 40+%, you were close so I'll give you 4/10 for effort
>There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about current theories in science, but being skeptical without being informed is just rehashing arguments that were laid to rest decades or centuries ago. It's not healthy or true skepticism it's just a facade.
You still havnt taught me anything. Providing absolutely no proof. Good job.
Much better than the one your giving, mwah

He later said he was wrong and that evolution was scientific. Nice creationist meme though.