“There’s tons of records of adaptation and you see it in your own life. I mean, I have a lot of dogs. I see a lot of adaptations in dogs…but no, there’s no evidence at all, none, zero, that people evolved seamlessly from a single-cell ameba, no, there’s not. There’s not,” Carlson insisted. “There’s no chain in the fossil record of that at all. That’s why you don’t actually hear people — you hear them make reference to evolution because the theory of adaptation is clearly, obviously true, Darwin’s theory is totally — that’s why it’s still a theory almost 200 years later, you know?”

Asked for his own theory to counterbalance what he claims is a lack of evidence to back up evolution, Carlson cited God.

“God created people, you know, distinctly, and animals. I mean, I think that’s what every person on Earth thought until the mid-19th Century, actually. It’s not a new idea!” Carlson said.

Rogan pushed back on the age of the idea, backing it up as somehow true, arguing that people have a better “general understanding” of the world today thanks to major advancements in technology.

“Do you think we understand more now?” Carlson asked.

“Yes,” Rogan said.

Carlson broke with his friend again, declaring the world is more ignorant today because it tolerates the development of AI by “childless” software engineers.

“We understand way less,” he said. “We understand so little that we’re actually sitting here allowing, like, a bunch of greedy, stupid, childless, childless software engineers in northern California to, like, flirt with the extinction of mankind.”

Carlson faced a round of mockery on social media for his take on evolution from his usual critics, but once-ally Elon Musk added his voice to the chorus of critics agreeing with a post calling Carlson a “zealot.”

ITT we discuss the opinions of a shill, who got fired from cnn and fox, to the opinions of teams of scientists around the world whom are all in agreeance.

>>1289580
Nevermind this evolution thoughts. His ancient astronaut the theorist tangent was otherworldly to watch in person.

who knows wtf happened 100k years ago.. i mean the only thing that can really explain the platypus... aliens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind

Not a particularly novel form of idiocy.

2 talking intellectual heads like this aint my idea of a fun time.
I prefer, like the OP, the way the other kind of dumber heads communicate.
https://mygaysites.com/

>>1289580
carlson is playing dumb, trying to play the conservitards

That anyone could really believe something as complex as DNA (which we still have only an infant understanding of) could miraculously appear on its own out of nothing only speaks to the massive hubris of modern man.

>>1289625
>trying to play the conservitards
Every wannabe fascist leader who wants $ and ego building has to pretend to be as dumb as the audience that they're trying to reach.
'A man of the people'

>>1289625
The only person dumber here is op interpreting extinction to mean a rejection of evolution

>>1289625
You really think he's lying about believing in creation?

>>1289645
i really don't care

uh, no wait, sorry i mean
I'M OuTRAGED HE OUGHT TO APOLOGIZE!!11!

>>1289655
If you don't care, then why bother responding?
Do you think Tucker is playing dumb and lying or not?

>>1289627
Nobody said DNA appeared out of nothing. They said all life evolved from a common origin. As you said, DNA is ridiculously complex and thus capable of mutating into all life after its appearance. To think otherwise would be to decry a miracle of nature.

>>1289656
Tucker Carlson's opinion is not news, therefore this is a shitposting thread.

>>1289670
>Nobody said DNA appeared out of nothing.
If you think there is no supreme being, then this IS what you believe. And you're honestly dumb for thinking it's even possible.

>>1289677
How did you get this misinformed?

>>1289679
Explain to me your third option.

>>1289677
>If you think there is no supreme being, then this IS what you believe
1. I do believe in God.
2. This was about evolution, not the origin of DNA. The theory of evolution has literally nothing to do with the origin of DNA. If you want to change this to an entirely different discussion because you're being completely blown out in this one, feel free. Do you believe God is incapable of creating something which can evolve, heretic?

>>1289680
DNA appeared via a combination of basal components which self organized via natural processes relating to attraction between matter in various environments and conditions. The same thing happened to those basal components beforehand, iterated all the way back to the beginning of the universe as we know it.

It's almost like reality is governed by physical laws or something.

>>1289681
>1. I do believe in God.
>2. This was about evolution,
Talk about some hairsplitting.
>>1289682
>DNA appeared via a combination of basal components which self organized via natural processes relating to attraction between matter in various environments and conditions.
Where's your proof though, faggot?

I mean, he's not wrong, technically.

>>1289580
He's not wrong.
You can test and prove adaptive traits through breeding, but it's basically impossible to prove that evolution over millions of years is how life came to fruition.
Most of the arguments in support of evolution come from the fallacy that two things must be immediately related to each other if they bear similarities.

>>1289625
gotta get that redneck money

America has creationists. This is old news. He probably spent too much time around christcucks like Kent Hovid, Ray Comfort, or Ken Ham.

>>1289685
>Talk about some hairsplitting.
It's a scientific theory. Specificity is the entire god damn point.

And conflating the two is your basis for treating arguing for evolution as arguing against God. Fuck off.

>>1289685
>Where's your proof though, faggot?
Light from billions of years in the past actively reaching the earth as we speak.

Where's your proof?

>>1289632
OP posted the article and you still didnt even read it

>>1289695
It's not an article it's a dumb opinion piece. Literally no one cares what Tucker Carlson thinks, not even Tucker Carlson.

>>1289693
>And conflating the two is your basis for treating arguing for evolution as arguing against God.
It's just a piss poor argument. If you accept God exists already, then evolution was his creation, if it exists at all.

There's no reason to split that hair.

>>1289686
>>1289688
He is wrong though. He doesn’t understand evolution.

>>1289700
How's that?

>>1289697
he has a large following and is influential among that following. him being retarded is news

that also doesnt address the person being incapable of reading one paragraph before sperging out in defense of Carlson

>>1289702
He basically plays a weird game of semantics by replacing the word "evolution" with "adaption" and then thinks the entire theory can be debunked because we don't have a fossil record of the first single-cell organism that life sprung from. Its like saying the big bang theory is false because we don't have a picture of the bang happening. It ignores the mountain of evidence that precedes the initial event which bolsters the theory. The issue is that he isn't wrong in the sense that the theory of evolution isn't iron-clad scientific fact and that their might be some other explanation but he has no intelligent engagement. His reasons for evolution being debunked make no sense.

>>1289580
Cucker Tardson doesnt believe that you can be religious and also believe in the theory of evolution as well. he's too deep into shill territory and is incapable of being honest.

when Joe fuckin Rogan makes you sound dumb, youre pretty fuckin dumb.

>>1289706
>Its like saying the big bang theory is false because we don't have a picture of the bang happening.
You don't have direct evidence of that happening, though. Just abductive reasoning using smaller theories as a stepping stool.
You're making unfalsifiable claims and treating everybody around you as retarded because they don't agree with you.

>>1289772
new to science bud?

>>1289774
..this isn't science. You can't actually test or reproduce any of the bullshit you're claiming on the scale you think this happens.

>>1289776
should prevailing scientific theories apologize to you?

>>1289779
Can men get pregnant?

>>1289772
>You don't have direct evidence of that happening, though.
...genetics?

>>1289776
>You can't actually test or reproduce any of the bullshit you're claiming
What can't we test? Species exist. We can show they exist because of their genetics. We can show that various changes to genetics can be caused by random mutations which could account for all observed genetic variation (and in fact scientists deliberately cause random mutations all the time while studying genetics).

Seriously, what can't we test? That the thing that is provably physically possible and remains the best explanation for how various species came to be didn't happen? That's tantamount to saying the cops can't prove you killed someone because God might have planted semen matching your DNA in the raped corpse and it wasn't on camera. Even if we recreated an evolutionary split identical to one that already exists, you'd just say that doesn't prove the first split didn't happen.

Fundamentally your claim is not that evolution is impossible or that it doesn't account for all species on earth evolving from 1 or that it isn't the most likely explanation consistent with all observed physical evidence and processes, but that time travel doesn't exist. Fuck you.

>>1289787
Can you define "men"?

>>1289790
>What can't we test?
Evolution being the origin of all life, over billions of years.
You can't even adequately define the parameters of your theory because we don't have a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary biology.

>>1289772
>You don't have direct evidence of that happening, though.
Saying the big bang didn't happen because we don't have a picture of it is a pants on head retarded argument. There's plenty of things we don't have direct evidence of that we substantiate through a series of other logical methods.

>You're making unfalsifiable claims and treating everybody around you as retarded because they don't agree with you.
Incorrect. I'm demanding intelligent engagement with the topic. I'm more than happy to hear and engage with differing opinions but if "Well, I didn't SEE it happening therefore its debunked" is all you have then I'm speaking to a toddler who knows nothing about scientific theory or how we build hypothesis.

>Just abductive reasoning using smaller theories as a stepping stool.
Yes, welcome to theory building 101.

>>1289810
>t. amateur 4chan scientist who hasn't been to school or studied on the topic but definitely knows more than the experts

>>1289813
You're right. Maybe I should've payed 90K a year to shout pro-hamas slogans and date communist chicks. That way I could've become an expert.

>>1289820
Do you find pivoting to random talking points that have nothing to do with the conversation an effective way to distract people from the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about? Hows that working for you?

>>1289700
But evolution isn't proven. That's not to say that I think evolution isn't plausible, but it's definitely not proven to be true.
No one has ever observed a creature that has evolved in the span of humanity's short history.
The science hasn't been proven that's why it's the "theory of" evolution.
Don't they teach you fucking faggots this shit in retard school?

>>1289821
>nothing to do with the conversation
School has nothing to do with becoming accredited? Really?

How many crayons did you need to eat before becoming an expert?

>>1289825
Unfalsifiable science isn't science, it's religion. Faggot.

>>1289824
>No one has ever observed a creature that has evolved in the span of humanity's short history.
Yes we have, numerous times. You just don't understand what that means.

https://now.northropgrumman.com/5-animals-that-have-evolved-recently

>>1289846
>https://now.northropgrumman.com/5-animals-that-have-evolved-recently
>5 Animals That Have Evolved Rapidly
>Guppies Adapted to Predators
>Green Anole Lizards Adapted to an Invasive Species
>Salmon Adapted to Human Interference
>Bedbugs Adapted to Pesticides
>Owls Adapted to Warmer Winters
Are you really this fucking retarded?

>>1289855
Imagine being this low IQ and bragging about it.

>>1289856
BTFO'd.

>>1289855
Like I said, you don't understand what evolution is.
Evolution is changes in populations due to natural selection.

>>1289810
>You can't even adequately define the parameters of your theory
Life forms reproduce and therefore have a tendency to become more numerous.
Factors such as predation and competition work against the survival of individuals.
Each offspring differs from their parent(s) in minor, random ways.
If these differences are beneficial, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce.
This makes it likely that more offspring in the next generation will have beneficial differences and fewer will have detrimental differences.
These differences accumulate over generations, resulting in changes within the population.
Over time, populations can split or branch off into new species.
These processes, collectively known as evolution, are responsible for the many diverse life forms seen in the world.

Also, thank you for admitting you simply object on the grounds that time travel is impossible. Eat all the dicks.

>>1289865
>Believing that any adaptation that life makes proves evolution
Jesus you are that fucking retarded, I guess. Goodluck faggot.

>>1289868
He's right you know

>>1289871
Are clothes proof of evolution too? How about shoes? Electricity and lights? Making tools? Is there anything that doesn't qualify as proof of evolution to you? Is there any chance you could lower that bar any more than you already have? Lying faggots.

>>1289875
contrarian faggot

>>1289868
nigga adaptation by natural selection IS evolution. That's what Darwin's theory was.

>>1289878
See
>>1289875

>>1289882
natural selection refers to adaptations in each generation from random mutations in the genome, not fucking clothes or technology dumbass.

However, humans have faced selection pressures due to civilization. One example is lactose tolerance, which spread from the Near East with the domestication of cattle and the regular consumption of cow milk and products like cheese.

>>1289884
>natural selection refers to adaptations in each generation from random mutations in the genome, not fucking clothes or technology dumbass.
So now you're arguing evolution is only changes in DNA? What DNA sequence changed to allow people to digest lactose? Isn't that purely gut bacteria that obviously has nothing to do with human DNA?

Or how about lets go to the previous examples given:
>https://now.northropgrumman.com/5-animals-that-have-evolved-recently
>Guppies Adapted to Predators
>Resznick wanted to watch evolution happen in real time, so he experimented with changing the predators in guppies' environment. He moved one group of guppies to a stream without predators to see if they would thrive, and added predatory fish called cichlids to guppy sites that previously didn't have predators.
>In just four years, or six to eight guppy generations, the guppies adapted to their new environments. The group in the stream without predators were larger, matured later and reproduced slower. The guppies who lived with cichlids matured at an earlier age and produced more babies.
How is that an example of DNA changing over time, lying faggot?

>>1289891
>What DNA sequence changed to allow people to digest lactose?

>Some people are also more genetically likely to be lactose intolerant than others. Located on Chromosome 2, the LCT gene contains instructions for making the enzyme lactase. People with a functioning LCT gene produce lactase and can process dairy foods without unpleasant symptoms.

>>1289846
That's not evolution.
Once again, I'm going to need you to redo retard school, you stupid fucking faggot.
Every animal that adapted in that article is still the same animal.

>>1289893
https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/correlation-vs-causation/

>>1289891
>How is that an example of DNA changing over time, lying faggot?
What do you think governs size, rate of growth, and fecundity?

"DNA changing" in the context of natural selection refers to the frequency of alleles appearing in a population.

Natural selection is a part of evolution, but it does not create new genes. It alters the frequency of genes passed down. Mutation is ALSO a part of natural selection and is how new genes arise, which are then selected for or against by natural selection.

>>1289897
>What do you think governs size, rate of growth, and fecundity?
Behavior and environment, fuckhead.

Humans that don't get proper nutrition don't grow normally compared to ones that do. That doesn't mean there's a relevant genetic difference between them.

>>1289896
...I wasn't making a correlative argument. This is a biochemical process that we know the intricacies of. This shit is purely causative.

Do you have brain damage?

>>1289899
>This is a biochemical process that we know the intricacies of.
This is an unfalsifiable assumption, like most of your pathetic beliefs.

>>1289898
>Behavior and environment, fuckhead.
Partially, yes.

>Humans that don't get proper nutrition don't grow normally compared to ones that do. That doesn't mean there's a relevant genetic difference between them.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/
>This question can be rephrased as: "How much variation (difference between individuals) in height is attributable to genetic effects and how much to nutritional effects?" The short answer to this question is that about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition.

Serious question: Do you think chihuahuas and huskies have different sizes due to diet and environment?

>>1289900
Genes can be turned on and off in a lab setting. No it isn't. We're literally talking about how cells produce enzymes and what those enzymes do to other chemicals they come in contact with. This isn't debate. You're just wrong.

>>1289905
>https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-
>He says North Korean men are, on average, between 3 - 8cm (1.2 - 3.1in) shorter than their South Korean counterparts.
>A difference is also obvious between North and South Korean children.
>"The height gap is approximately 4cm (1.6in) among pre-school boys and 3cm (1.2in) among pre-school girls, and again the South Koreans would be taller."
>Schwekendiek points out that the height difference cannot be attributed to genetics, because the two populations are the same.

>>1289907
My bad, I fucked up the link.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17774210

>>1289907
>>1289908
What even is your point? I'm not the one claiming nutrition can't contribute to changes in size.

Also, YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE IS POINTING OUT THAT GENETICS HAS TO BE RULED OUT BECAUSE IT CAN IMPACT SIZE.

>>1289911
>What even is your point? I'm not the one claiming nutrition can't contribute to changes in size.
>>1289897
>What do you think governs size, rate of growth, and fecundity?
>>1289898
>Behavior and environment, fuckhead.
Thanks for playing faggot.

>>1289895
>Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] It occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations.[3] The process of evolution has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

>>1289916
>Thanks for playing faggot.
>That doesn't mean there's a relevant genetic difference between them.
Thanks for playing, fuckhead.

Also, if you're saying only behavior and environment control size, rate of growth, and fecundity (which you are), both our sources say you're wrong.

>>1289953
>Also, if you're saying only behavior and environment control size, rate of growth, and fecundity (which you are), both our sources say you're wrong.
No, I never said DNA doesn't affect those things. But I am saying behavior and conditions affect those things a lot more than DNA does. It doesn't matter what DNA you have; if you don't eat you don't grow. If you don't seek out reproduction, you don't procreate. So when you link somebody else saying something as retarded as
>The short answer to this question is that about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition.
Where do these bullshit numbers come from exactly?

Big bang created all the material, space, and time itself
but somehow a few wallmart sharters is too "complex"
>where is the shart record?
indeed where is it
why didnt big bang lay out a complete shart record of every sharter that crawled out of earth's mega anus?
why is reality soooo inconvenient

Creationists never talk about DNA
>Why is that?

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-vast-dna-tree-life-revealed.html

>>1289968
>Creationists never talk about DNA
I literally used to work in a lab processing DNA samples. For about 10 years. Most of you silly faggots don't know you can see DNA with the naked eye.

>>1289968
What's there to talk about? God created DNA. Shocker.

>>1289972
The code proves inheritance, evolution, etc.

>>1289971
Processing them how? Fotr what?

>>1289975
I worked at a government fish hatchery doing "conservation biology", otherwise known as milking taxpayers and wasting fucking time. The goal was ostensibly to prevent specific endangered species (of fish and amphibians) from going extinct. The reality was we killed more "endangered" fish than anything else. There's a reason animals never make it off the "endangered" list.

In order to maintain appropriate genetic diversity they needed constant sampling. They also used this information for hybridization with other species. Which is actually usually how they "keep them alive" - by selectively breeding them with another species that isn't endangered.

>>1289979
Every once in a while we would have a facility-wide "Fish Fry" - everybody loved those and they would make a nice potluck out of it.

Thanks for the fish, faggots.

>>1289971
>Most of you silly faggots don't know you can see DNA with the naked eye.
I can, you blind ass bitch.

>>1289979
>government fish hatchery
>conservation biology

Pick one

>>1290032
Do you know somebody else that pays billions of dollars to keep fish alive?

>>1289866
You could use this argument to justify why cryptids and other fantasy creatures exist, which would be equally retarded.

>>1290074
>You could use this argument to justify why cryptids and other fantasy creatures exist
You can't because they don't. The theory of evolution explains where species that exist came from. It doesn't say any particular species must exist or have existed except for the first life and the intermediate species between it and modern life.

Now if some random cryptid actually does turn out to exist and stop being a cryptid, then evolution would explain where it came from...but so would literally any theory of the origin of life? Nothing says gods or aliens can't make yetis within the theories that hold them up as the origins of life. So I'm not sure how the fuck your angle of attack is supposed to work.

Course I suppose in theory some god could have created chupacabras, aliens created elves, and everything else evolved naturally, but
1. I would wager any life we discover going forward will be shown to be related to and share a common origin with all currently known life.
and
2. Speculating about the origins of things not shown to exist is nonsensical.

>>1290089
>So I'm not sure how the fuck your angle of attack is supposed to work.
The theory of evolution asserts that two separate organisms must necessarily be associated with each other if they share similar physical characteristics.

If this assertion could be made by going backwards through time, then it could logically be made going forwards through time as well, by anticipating the evolution of fantasy creatures that have similar characteristics to those which already exist.

This is the natural consequence of a theory which is completely unfalsifiable. It isn't science, it's dogma.

>>1290104
>The theory of evolution asserts that two separate organisms must necessarily be associated with each other if they share similar physical characteristics.
No. It doesn't. Hence the phrase "independently evolved" as in "certain traits independently evolved several times", an example being red hair in humans. Glad we sorted that out.

>If this assertion could be made by going backwards through time
It isn't.

>This is the natural consequence of a theory
It isn't.

And again, if gods or aliens created humans then who is to say they couldn't later create dragons?

>>1290108
>Hence the phrase "independently evolved" as in "certain traits independently evolved several times", an example being red hair in humans.
But we're talking about evolution as the origin of contemporary life, right? Which means that all evolved creatures, predecessors and associated decedents must be necessarily associated with each other in some manner.
>And again, if gods or aliens created humans then who is to say they couldn't later create dragons?
I dunno m8 you're the kind of person who things a raptor could turn into a chicken. Your theory has just as much validity as young-earth creationism.

>>1290116
>Which means that all evolved creatures, predecessors and associated decedents must be necessarily associated with each other in some manner.
Yes which is not the bullshit you spouted which essentially amounted to "any creature imaginable could someday evolve" which doesn't account for natural selection or biological possibility.

>I dunno m8 you're the kind of person who things a raptor could turn into a chicken.
Raptors didn't turn into chickens. Their cousins did. Over the course of an unimaginable number of generations. And that's still less weird than the contagious tumor that evolved from dogs 11k years ago.

Are you saying God couldn't turn a raptor into a chicken? Or a rib into a woman?

>>1289580
If you believe in evolution you're an NPC, one of the sheepeople.

You just believe what they tell you.

Think for yourself.

>>1290667
imagine calling other people sheeple when you listen to Kent Hovind.

>>1289580
It's almost just arguing semantics at this point. Replace "evolution" with "adaptation" and it's the same thing. Tucker's a retard.