Origin of the species

>origin of the species
>bird beaks and shit
>therefore we is apes

The nerve of this guy

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
youtube.com/watch?v=mqSV72VNnV0&t=36s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
bbc.com/earth/story/20150413-can-an-animal-stop-evolving
youtube.com/watch?v=dWFteFfg2J0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Darwinism is one of the most useless theories ever

Microevolution has been known and understood for thousands of years and macro evolution has barely any evidence to support it

He was a modernist shill who applied muh science to animals, big fucking deal

did you read the book just to shitpost about it?

You know, I'm not a very religious person myself, but sometimes I do wonder if scientists have maybe pushed extra hard for the theory of evolution due to its implications.

To be completely honest, I'm not even religion or fundamentalist, but macroevolution really does seem like bull to me. Scientists don't really have a good idea of how speciation (creation of new species) occurs, it's very difficult to explain all the massively different species on the earth with macroevolution as we think of it.

And he was right. Who knew?

Darwin has been triggering christcucks for more than a century now, and even today people try to plug their ears and deny the obvious. It isn't Darwin, but his many predecessors that solidified the truth of the matter. Now the only tactic the indoctrinated have is outright denial and willful ignorance.

I saw an anti evolution billboard the other day saying "we can't even climb trees"

>fattest country on the planet
>fatass citizens can't climb or do pull-ups
>meanwhile humans are the best distance runners in the animal kingdom and trained climbers can scale inverter cliff faces with their bare hands

Hmmm...

Leading scientists are now saying evolution is an error correcting code
Meaning evolution was intended by our creator

Either way Darwin was a hack and a known evidence tampering cheat

I just lying I never saw that billboard

you are considering the use of the term "error correcting" to mean it was intentionally done rather than just a natural process that happens to error correct over time. it's a mistake similar to when people say "humans were designed to walk on two feet" and claiming that it shows evidence of intention, when really it's just shorthand speak for "evolution by natural selection happened to give rise to humans with the ability to walk on two feet"

Man what is it about this guy that makes 'normal' religious people go absolutely bonkers and start reciting world salad about "The Creation".

So you are saying that evolution created evolution? Lmao

no, but nice bait

So evolution is natural, and this means it was not intentionally created?

I agree with both of those things (evolution is natural and it was not intentionally created) but I'm not saying that evolution being natural is the reason that it was not intentionally created.

>trying to shill "macro vs micro" evolution

Why else?

I swear if this piece of shit thread lasts longer than the one I posted a few days ago which pointed out the absurdity of Evolutionary dialectics and was deleted by a buttmad STEMlord mod...

Haha, I remember you, retard. Please never make a thread again. It was painful to watch the mental gymnastics you employed to not unterstand the counters rum counterarguments that were made.

Do tell.

Stop

In what way is evolution error-correcting?

Nigga you typed a lot of words but you didn't say shit. Delete your Veeky Forums account.

We have a series of DNA repair mechanisms, as well as individuals dying more and reproducing less.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Darwin

>To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

What gymnastics did I employ and what would understanding smaller fractions of the main argument that I had refuted consist of?

I like my misquote better.

i know you didnt read this book because you mentioned birds in your meming and not insects.

I've always preferred Lamarck's theory myself

What?

No seriously What are you trying to say? New mutations, polyploidy etc. all happen because these mechanisms fail sometimes. If anything evolution is accumulating errors.

>Veeky Forums is full of creationists

It's been very interesting watching the degradation of this website into right wing anti-intellectualism. I remember a few years ago when Christposting on Veeky Forums was just about virtue signalling (Oh, you haven't read Augustine?). Nowadays you embrace the rhetoric (I use the term generously) of megachurch evangelicals pastors who take donations by phone.

>New mutations, polyploidy etc. all happen because these mechanisms fail sometimes.
Doesn't mean their carriers will be able to transmit them.

Refusal to accept half-baked ideas like Evolution does not imply you're into Creationism. Note that the contention with Evolution is mostly within the confines of Materialism.

macroevolution is literally just microevolution over a longer timeframe

lots of small changes in a short time add up to bigger changes in a long time

What is half-baked about Evolution?
>Note that the contention with Evolution is mostly within the confines of Materialism.
What are you getting at?

It demonstrably happens.

From what I gather microevolution is just about gene selection i.e. that that a certain genotype might dominate in a given population at one type and a different at another but the gene pool doesn't change.
Macroevolution is like about the formation of new genes in the gene pool and emergence of new species.
Did I get it right?
Then what people have a problem with is that a gene mutation can be transmitted or at least transmitted in a significant way. Why not?

You can posture all you want, but the distinction between micro and macro evolution--the major objection levied repeated in this very thread--exists only in the Creationist sphere.

This isn't entirely true. Polyploidy events are important in speciation but wouldn't fall under the category of microevolution.

This is called redpill. We dare question dogma and liberal brainwashing like 'Earth is a sphere'-theory, evolution, and equality.

Can't handle it? We're here to stay. We will redpill you. We will show you how brainwashed you're. We believe in God, women as subordinate to men, and whites being allowed to live in pure white countries. And no promiscuity or helping poor faggots

The environment determines what is favorable and what is not, what individuals can get away with, and most importantly which individuals. When was the last time you saw a sterile person reproducing?

Because they don't like it.

Here's your (You).

>When was the last time you saw a sterile person reproducing?
What exactly are trying to prove?
Not all gene mutations make you sterile.

Ah, quello surpriso. A liberal who can't form an argument. What else is new? Are you gonna call me a virgin now? Maybe you should realize that I abstain from women by my own choice, to remain ethically pure seeing as all women have taken upwards of 500 dicks before they leave high school now a days. Try reading Aquinas and you'd understand my virtue

The micro-macro distinction is invoked by Evolutionists whenever faced with the fact that speciation has never been observed. They cannot claim that tens of thousands of generations of e. coli, for example, have produced a strain different enough to qualify as a new species, else they risk the destruction of their own cladograms, so they call it micro-evolution. Creationists usually concede that this kind of change over time does happen, but from their perspective it has no implication for the idea of macro-evolution because they thin it's Empirically unproven and Logically unsound. So, in fact, the distinction only exists in the Materialist sphere.

>speciation has never been observed

blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

>Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

This whole thread is absurd since Evolutionary theory is not incompatible with Christian theology, it's just contradicts the Torah.

>What exactly are trying to prove?
That if you're born without balls you're no threat to the genetic health of your species, as the error can and will correct itself, it will not impact the following generations as the defect will remain personally yours to your grave. Other genetic defects may definitely not have such an obvious, a priori, devastating impact on your reproductive capabilities, but could limit them still, and continue to limit those of your offspring and their offspring. If any.

Lo and behold, this is the answer to the question:
>In what way is evolution error-correcting?
in addition to the aforementioned multiple systems of DNA repair.

As for those new features of your genotype that do end up increasing your fitness, instead of decreasing it, you would hardly call them errors - rather, you'd call them awesome.

>Indoctrinated
In this day and age, you may want to check who you are calling indoctrinated.The mainstream media and collective societies thoughts have fostered your mind.

How often do you challenge your own ideas and consider alternatives? How often do you become ignorant to religious events which are explainable and perform mental gymnastics for an incredibly unlikely answer? Just looking at the miracle of the sun or the secrets of Fatima and the excuses you atheists come up with is laughable (Mass hysteria of thousands? lol, you could surely come up with something better than that).

Atheists are not some enlightened members of society, they are gold painted fools. Even going so far to say that Religion is merely for controlling the masses, while falling prey to that very concept.
youtube.com/watch?v=mqSV72VNnV0&t=36s

If I were born without balls I wouldn't be able to breed at all.
What you are talking about fits squarely within the definition of "natural selection". Why should it be treated as some sort of new discovery?

Saying "error" would imply that there are "right" gene mutations and "wrong" gene mutations and that "evolution" somehow has developed a way to distinguish those.
But a certain mutation can help you survive at one time and kill you at another.

DNA repair simply repairs DNA that has mutated regardless of it's potential contribution to the survival of the individual. In that it can also be a "bad" thing.
The fact that DNA repair has evolutionary developed simply shows that statistically speaking gene mutation is more likely to kill you than not.

Do Evolutionists take their handful of "gotcha" examples and apply those standards of speciation, say, 10 cladistic forks up and down from any one of those taxons?

>miracle of the sun
funny how none of these miracles are ever caught on camera
>the secrets of Fatima
funny how none of these secrets were revealed before the events they were supposedly about already happened

>the miracle of the sun
Oh, the one hundreds of people saw but no one took a photograph of? Woah, I sure am the one grasping at straws here.

Just noticed the comment got deleted. It's Divinely ironic that I said Evolutionsts paint themselves into a corner and are forced to imply invisible hands for their theory to have a leg to stand on, that I said their notion of selection is otherwise absurd, that I said their theory relies on the very thing they claim to abhor, and that a literal invisible hand deleted that comment.

>Logically unsound
How is it logically unsound?
>the distinction only exists in the Materialist sphere
What are you going on about?

>Why should it be treated as some sort of new discovery
Never claimed it.

>Saying "error" would imply that there are "right" gene mutations and "wrong" gene mutations
You just don't know how words such as "error", for example in "error-prone DNA polymerase" are regularly used in genetics, as you again demonstrate. But I won't repeat myself.

>The fact that DNA repair has evolutionary developed simply shows that
...that error is a natural part of DNA replication and through evolution we acquired the means to correct it or at the very least attempt to do something about it, yes.

>gene mutation is more likely to kill you than not
It doesn't even have to kill you directly to be unfavorable, why are you even replying to my posts.

STEMod guy, if Evolution is true then it works all the way up to Language and the comments most fit at resonating with their Material-Dialectic environment will triumph. Why are you proving yourself wrong through your own actions?

Again with the mental games. You expect a bunch of Portuguese farmers to catch this stuff on video in 1917? Wow...this... is the power of the enlightened mind...
As for the miracles, They were not directly in reference to specific events at the time they were revealed. However, I assume you are talking about the one regarding Russia, which only came true after the secret was revealed. Not simply the attempted spread of Communism by Russia, but the ideals associated with Communism which have been ingrained into all modern societies through subversion tactics. Watch the video I linked

Why does evolution imply an invisible hand?

>invisible hands
There is a fundamental difference between proposing a scientific theory and invoking the supernatural to explain any unknown phenomenon.

>if Evolution is true then it works all the way up to Language and the comments most fit at resonating with their Material-Dialectic environment will triumph.
this is a new low for Veeky Forums

You expect a bunch of Portuguese farmers to catch this stuff on video in 1917?
They literally had cameras at the events but only pointed them to the people in attendance and not the alleged miracle.

It uses a leap of faith between aesthetic similarity among life forms and the idea that such similarities indicate transgenerational metamorphoses.

Read that comment again.

Nice """miracle""".

There is no Empirical data that any one trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and to have been perpetuated by random selection based on its contribution to reproductive utility has actually ever affected the reproduction of a single life form.

>Old camera
>Good picture of the sun

pick one. It is also worth noting that not many would be taking photos when they are either in awe of the sun dancing, or fear of it crashing into them and running for their lives.

Well that first user said
>scientists are now saying evolution is an error correcting code
which implied that it was some sort of new discovery so I asked you what it means since you defended it.
In biological terms error correction means simply correction of DNA that has been wrongly replicated.
Even if DNA repair arose in an evolutionary way that doesn't make evolution itself error correcting.
DNA repair will repair both mutations that can be detrimental and mutations that can be beneficial to your survival.

tr;dr I just wanted to know what the term error-correcting evolution means.

> that Darwinian who starts grasping at straws in order to explain why sharks haven't evolved

so the only picture of the actual sun was first published decades later and nothing in the picture connects it to what was shown in any other picture at the event?

Even if you don't want to believe that the pictures align with the event. Are you really going to ignore the hundreds of witnesses who claimed to have seen it? That is the kind of ignorance I am talking about.

The only people who say that sharks haven't evolved are people who don't believe in evolution.

but they have...

>tfw nabokov didn't believe in evolution

I'm not ignoring them by not believing them. I'm just not accepting their claims based on their claims alone. Something of this magnitude would require a lot more evidence than just the words of some farmers. Mass hallucinations of this sort are common. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

This. I miss the days when we were filled with intellectuals who discussed the oppression a woman faces when she has to grab her starbucks latte

>mistakes logic for faith
That explains a lot I guess.
I guess it takes less of a leap of faith for you to believe in ghosts than it does to believe in our intuitive perception of causality.
"Lots of people saw it" is not empirical proof.
But lets suppose for a second that I was personally present at those events and witnessed them with my own eyes?
Why should I come to the conclusion that they were of supernatural origin?

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria say hi.

they really havent

The nature of the event makes it unlikely they are just fabricated the story, or going into hysteria though. You have hundreds of religious folk, who have little incentive to lie, gathering outside and mocking the children who said the event would occur and then going on to claim it actually happened. There is a lack of factors that would cause hysteria as well.

It has a lot more evidence than just the words of some farmers. There were also secular journalists there.

And I like how your first response is to fall back on the cheapest cliches imaginable.
>le mass hallucination
>le foolish dirt farmers

If a religious festival involving lots of ignorant gullible people is not something that could cause mass hysteria I don't know what is.

It would be of supernatural origin, as the event was predicted by children who had claimed they got the information from the Virgin Mary. You don't just predict something like that.

Lots of people seeing something is very good reason to believe something occurred. If a whole town had claimed to see a strange aircraft fly overhead, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that actually happened? This being a supernatural event is clouding you judgement.

bbc.com/earth/story/20150413-can-an-animal-stop-evolving

>it has a lot more evidence than just the words of some famers
>such as the words of some journalists
wow I'm so convinced. more words!

Assuming the claim is valid, what about bacteria that survive without antibiotic resistance? What about those that die without antibiotics? What about those that die with antibiotic resistance?

Oh, no, the children who claimed they got the information from the Virgin Mary!!! Now you really got me!!! There is no way I could doubt this super-reliable information!!!

>Lots of people seeing something is very good reason to believe something occurred.
But it's not a good reason to believe this something was of a supernatural origin.

Hundreds of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of liberty vanish.

hey reddit

carbon dating is false also

I think his point was that they predicted it and it happened, whereas you seem to be pretending a congregation just happened to be there when the something strange happened to the sun. Hard to imagine anything more primitive than your replies so far

Genetic traits that were favorable at a certain time in certain conditions can be unfavorable at other times in different conditions.

>I think his point was that they predicted it and it happened
You seem to be forgetting that their "prediction" wasn't revealed until after the events happened

>wrongly
See, it's not easy to get rid of words such as "wrong."

>Even if DNA repair arose in an evolutionary way that doesn't make evolution itself error correcting.
Yes it bloody does, and by definition at that. As if it wasn't correcting the shit out of itself enough, what DNA repair can't correct, selection can, the hard way.

>DNA repair will repair both mutations that can be detrimental and mutations that can be beneficial to your survival.
As you said it yourself they're not evenly distributed. And it is not just one system but multiple redundant ones that guard our DNA, it's serious business. Better safe than sorry.

How can Darwinian evolution explain the following?

> all the new biological structures in the Cambrian explosion
> lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences
> lack of recent significant evolution in sharks
> the evolution of the eye,
> sexual cannibalism of redback spiders
> why women are not born with a tail

>all this subversive bullshit devoted to pushing people back to myths and superstitions

Your "points" are painfully transparent. You're trying to play off of the ignorance of some of the younger readers here to plant confusion and erode the foundations of thought so you can fill their heads with your cultish theories.

It's incredible how religious fools can cling to their dogma so absentmindedly with the facts stacked against them.

The earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur out of the tomb during the resurrection when he defeated the romans with fireballs and confederate flags :^) so redpilled

Haha nice! Fucking conservitards right? America is divided between regular people and jesusland!

Edit: How do I use the green font on this website?

>all the new biological structures in the Cambrian explosion
the "explosion" wasn't as explosive as originally thought. evidence is accumulating of it being more gradual
>lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences
a tiny amount of living organisms ever become fossils and there are most likely many species that were never fossilized. also, it's just hard to find fossils in the first place so some of the current gaps will be filled with enough time
>lack of recent significant evolution in sharks
untrue. the only way this statement can be made somewhat true is if you define "significant evolution" as "major change in appearance" which is not a good definition to use.
>the evolution of the eye
this is the most widely believed theory I think. youtube.com/watch?v=dWFteFfg2J0
>sexual cannibalism of redback spiders
I think there are competing theories on this. one that comes to mind is that this gives the female more nutrients and helps her have more babies and helps her survive for reproduction
>why women are not born with a tail
what

sweet baby christmas
this fucking thread

>this is hard for the larping Christfag to understand