How can you believe in evolution when it's only a theory (a guess)?
Jesus told me in a dream that evolution happened.
>>16108692you can believe in any theory you want just dont be surprised when its wrong
evolution isn't a scientific theory even though it has been called that so often most people think it is. scientific theories are disprovable, evolution is not, not without a time machine anyway. evolution is a conjecture, not a theory. evolution is presuming causation, it isn't scientific. people who believe in it only because of the incessant repetition of the idea that they've been subjected to
>>16108692By not being retarded. The Earth is not 6000 years old.>>16108707https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>>16108739
>>16108739>The Earth is not 6000 years old.The earth's age has no bearing on whether evolution is true. And also you said you believe in past live but have not evidence besides your own dreams, stupid namefag
Evolution has a lot of problems in terms of explaining consciousness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrY_CEGpZCQ
>>16108707>what is abduction
>>16108692Everything we ever come up will be "just a theory", that's how it works. Also, it totally makes sense. There is no other logical explanation for all that shit going on on Earth. I mean God? Does that sounds more likely to you? Inteligent design my ass and also simulation my ass since that just pushes the problem to another level of existence.
>>16109607No it isn't, you don't know what a theory is.
>>16109948>theory of gravity>germ theory>quantum field theoryUnless you're referring to knowledge handed down from a supernatural force, I don't know of a way to describe/explain natural phenomena without theory
>>16109972those are scientism dogma, not scientific theories. scientific theories are subject to disproof
>>16109976>subject to disproofName a single thing that is subject to disproof>Planets aren't moving the way our model says they should"It's just a problem with our telescope">Chemicals aren't reacting properly"There were impurities in our sample"There is no magical way to disprove something, we accumulate evidence and try to build theories which best explain what's happening
>>16109948Enlighten me then.
>>16108707Evolution is not disprovable because it is directly observable that complex things form from less complex things over time, it's ontologically true, otherwise existence would still be a field of fundamental matter sitting there doing nothing, or not exist at all since there was no evolutionary stage which would have created it
>>16110289Evolution is not disprovable because nobody has a time machine to go back and check to see if its true or not.
>>16108692A theory is a narrative that is most consistent with observation. What story is best for explaining changes in species?>zoomer bitches don't know about picrel
>>16110142Have they stopped teaching undergrads about Francis Bacon or have you not yet reached that stage of education yet?
C...cause of science.
>>16110302>The idols imposed by words on the understanding are of two kinds. They are eithernames of things which do not exist (for as there are things left unnamed through lack ofobservation, so likewise are there names which result from fantastic suppositions and towhich nothing in reality corresponds), or they are names of things which exist, but yetconfused and ill-defined, and hastily and irregularly derived from realities. Therefore consciousness is false, mind is false, matter is false, qualia are false, souls are false, the state is false, love is false and even this sentence is false because this sentence has no observational reference. The absolute state of empiricism.
>>16110334Lol you newfags don't know how OP was trolling us.
>>16108692Pov you don't know what a theory isA theory is a guess with so much evidence it's basically fact, except we can't test it.We can't test evolution because it happens over millions of years, same with things like supernovas, but we know they happened because of evidence.Same applys to things that happened before humans -- Earth formation, Big Bang, etc. Besides, the only evidence for any god IS literal guessing + old books
>>16109532How? Cells eventually gained basic consciousness to survive better, which led to more and more advanced brains and conscience
>>16110295You don't have to, you can observe star formations right now, this would not be possible if reality did not evolve
>>16108692Bro, that meme is ancient. I remember these threads from 2009. You made a typo though. It's spelled "geuss".
Fish evolution is different from Animal evolution.
>>16109514>I can't read citations>>16109524>The earth's age has no bearing on whether evolution is trueSo if you're not a creationist then what do you believe?>And also you said you believe in past live but have not evidence besides your own dreams, stupid namefagThe name was part the 2024 April Fool's joke, retard. Not everybody with the "Investor" names was the same person.
>>16108694Based
>>16110295>i know what happened 500 million years ago, just trust meevolutionary science in a nutshell
>>16108692Because of the existence of whales with legs
>>16112627HWALES? WIT LEGS?
>>16109524>stupid namefagLurk moar, newfag
>>16110368Kek.
>>16108707brute force repetition is the most effective brainwashing tool
Something something basilosaurids something legs something something
A great nightmare is this image.
>>16112627that never happened
>>16115980Cope
>>16117700with respect to point 2, this is what they look like
>>16117700It has nothing to do with what the animal looked like in life retard. Whether it was blue or pink or had a fugly mug makes no difference as to whether or not it had legs, since the legs are preserved in a number of species
>>16117700>ifunny watermark>not even the original format>basedentistsThat is disgusting
>>16108739>By not being retarded. The Earth is not 6000 years old.Answer to a comment that criticizes the theory wording because of unprovability on /sci.This site is flooded with idiots, retards ans IQ below room temperature spastics.
>>16108692>(a guess)Not what scientific theory means. Now fuckoff back to >>>/pol/ you science illustrate chuddite.
>>16120072>This site is flooded with idiots, retards ans IQ below room temperature spastics.Yes, unfortunately this website has a lot of christcucks now.
>>16108692by that logic.. how can you believe in literally anything scientific?evolution is very simple, it simply means that one generation is on average different to the last, either because of mate choices or survivability. we know this is true because it has been observed in every context you can think of
>>16121453What is the disprovable alternative explanation to evolution?
>>16121453>reality is not disprovable>theredore reality is fake and doesn't exist
>>16108692how can you believe in god when it's only faith (a guess)?
A theory has evidence and reasoning.
>>16121571Christ is the analytical proof
>>16108692God created all, evolution made us who we were. Aliens made man. We think Aliens are the same as God. The annunaki aren't God, but they might as fucking well be.
>>16121627That wasn't the question I asked.What is a disprovable alternative to Darwinian evolution? There has to be some explanation for how life exists and develops into different species.
>>16121955>I need to be able to claim I know everything because I only care about science as a means to my personal narcissism and my grandiose delusions of intellectual superiority
>>16123062>claim I know everything''I don't know'' is a false pretense. There are only better and worse narratives.
>>16123062So you're saying that there is no explanation for the origin and speciation of life other than evolution. Got it.
>>16108701Gravity is wrong. Go jump of a tall building.
Who do you think did a better job, humans or God?
>>16125781>GodI believe in God, but I also want you to think about this theory: Who says that aliens didn’t come to Earth and domesticated chimpanzees into humans just like how humans domesticated wolves into dogs.
>>16125837We didn't come from Monkeys, we were a separate species.
>>16129842>abiogenesis has been proved to be impossibleSounds like bullshit to me
>>16129913Proving abiogenesis is equivalent to proving that big bang just happened for no reason at all
>>16129914Abiogenesis not being proven in your eyes and abiogenesis being disproven are not the same thing
>>16129914You could run simulations on a powerful enough computer on molecules forming into more complex structures that are able to replicate the structure. Even if its rare you would have billion year timeline multiplied with all the thermal vents of the ocean at a specific moment.
>>16130868Sounds like bullshit to me
>>16132671>doesn’t post said mathI bet it’s that article that makes a mountain of assumptions like the average lifespan of an organism being three years, and uses a calculation that would suggest an organism only reproduces once at the end of its life. Sounds like bullshit to me
>>16124960*jumps with a parachute*hehe see you later newtonians
>>16132801NOOO BUT THE AIR BUT THE CONDITION IS NOT IDEAL IF YOU WOULD DO IT IN THE VOID YOU WOULD DIE *proceeds to create a skycraper ina avacuum chamber*
>>16132807and this is how the CERN was born (more or less)
>>16132807yes, science
Originally this meme was (geuss).
>>16130868Grammar aside, provide this supposed proof. Abiogenesis theoreticians are the most pedantic obsessed nerds I've ever met and if someone actually managed to make a coherent proof the salt would have been noticeable from low earth orbit.
>>16108692Dude, is that Saulie E?
>>16134094>you can look it up in the archives if you're really interestedHard to look it up with keywords or description to use. That said, last time I saw someone post “proof” of abiogenesis being fake in one of these threads it was a load of shit
>>16108694>>16108739why do these posts have corona?
>>16134094you are cringe
>>16134094Dude, they don't even know where they are, you think they're gonna believe people serve interests?
>>16134378Newfag can’t chadpost
>>16134671>you are cringe
>>16108707Evolution is real, it is the observable phenomenon that life is altered in form and function with the passage of time as generations are born and die.The THEORY OF EVOLUTION, is the set of ideas (there are many in there) which attempts to explain that observed phenomenon.Some of those ideas have been demonstrated and proved right, others have not yet.You don't have to believe in the theory of evolution, but if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in reality, simple as.
>>16135523you are cringe
>>16134377I remember the proof, I think. To summarise. >if we make up some probabilities and then multiply them all together, it gets *really* improbable. Ergo, abiogenesis is impossible. QED
>>16135847Yeah that sounds about right
>>16135635Evolution isn't a scientific theory because it isn't disprovable. Scientific theories require the possibility of being disproved and Darwin's theory does not conform to that, which means it isn't science. Darwinian evolution is just a conjecture
>>16136735>Evolution isn't a scientific theory because it isn't disprovableSure it is>Darwinian evolution is just a conjectureIt’s an observable phenomenon
>>16136931>sure it isokay how? Every theory is theoretically disposable, especially the unprovable ones.
Notice how they never ever mention the concept of deflation. It's always inflation this and inflation that.Same thing here. Devolution is real, replicable and fits what we see. We were created by God, were perfect. And slowly degraded over time in the land of the devil. Devolution does the mash potato, and it does the twist.
>>16138292It’s been observed tho
>>16138300no it hasn't
>>16138951Sure it has. Peppered moths, big bird finches, etc
Theory doesn't mean guess, Guido.
>>16140457In Darwin's case it does
>>16141612No it doesn’t. Cope
>>16139499Darwin's finches are all mutually fertile, they aren't different species
>>16143455Yes they are, they’re not even all in the same genus. Being able to produce fertile offspring with each other is an outdated definition of species that nobody really uses anymore
>>16143662If they're mutually fertile then they're the same species
>>16144765No they aren’t, if that were the case there’d only be one species of python for example. Not a single biologist who is aware of that has seriously used that definition in decades
fags
>>16110388Why didn't you give the original sources then instead of the wiki article? Dumb retard you ain't fooling anyone
>>16108694That settles it
>>16108692Bro, I told you to stop trolling 4chan.
>>16143662>Darwins finches are different species because they look slightly different even though they're mutually fertile and all have similar DNA but also >Humans are a single species even though their physical appearances are wildly dissimilar, mutual fertility is between the different races is reduced and human races have substantially different DNA
if evolution is real why can't you get a charizard from a pikachu?
>>16146187>Darwins finches are different species because they look slightly different>Humans are a single species even though their physical appearances are wildly dissimilarDarwin’s finches only look similar to one another if you know fuck all about birds. Two races of people having different coloured skin and a different shaped nose or whatever is not comparable to two species of bird where one is nearly 5 times the weight of the other and fills an entirely separate ecological niche with a different diet. Two finch species aren’t necessarily more physically similar just because you see them as both being vaguely bird shaped>mutual fertility is between the different races is reducedNo it’s not, mixed race people can have kids just fine. But even if that were the case how many studies on the relative fertility of hybrid vs pure finches have you read to say this so confidently?>human races have substantially different DNA>finches all have similar DNADarwin’s finches diverged 2-3 million years ago. Humans as a whole have only been around a few hundred thousand years and each human race diverged after that. What makes you so sure the birds are more genetically similar to each other than different humans are? Because it sounds like you’re just making assumptions and hoping nobody will point out what’s wrong
>>16146611>mixed race people can have kids just finehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274554/Results: Fertility is generally lower among racially exogamous than endogamous unions, especially among Asian American-White couples
>>16148028if you compared it to the rates of infertility in interspecies or intergenus hybrids, the rate of infertility in mixed race people wouldn’t even be outside the margin of error
>>16148156>goalpost shifting you were proved wrong by >>16148028 and now you're trying to cope by saying the fertility issues are not as bad as an elephant trying to fuck a chicken. mixed race couples have increased difficulty getting pregnant compared to same race couples because they're different species, if they were the same species then the enhanced difficulty would not be present
>>16149146>now you're trying to cope by saying the fertility issues are not as bad as an elephant trying to fuck a chickenNo I’m saying it’s not as bad as a hybrid between two different species of Galapagos finches, because that is the topic and he is trying to say that mixed race humans have more infertility issues than a hybrid of two species or even different genera of finch you fucking retard. There is no goalpost shifting here, learn to read more than two posts in a thread or stay in your race bait containment threads you illiterate moron
The hypotheses involving human mental evolution are all absolute nonsense. They have no idea whatsoever how human beings emerged and yet they have unlimited smug confidence that their theory has universal applicability. Trying to pick up the slack by adding culture doesn't help much.
>>16108692What I can't get about evolution is if we came from the ocean, regardless of how much time passed, why the fuck would evolution make multiple successive selections to put organisms on land for no reason? Theres a vid of somewhat explaining it but essentially, a fish needs to grow legs, be able to withstand the suns heat and radiation, needs to be able to breathe and needs to be able to lay eggs and have its offspring all go onto the surface, and even with all that why would they choose to go on the surface if jack shit was up there?
>>16149555What about our hip width being unsuited 0to child birth so that 8+% of births need to be ceasarian. Evolution should have pruned that immediately.
>>16149555>a fish needs to grow legsThis probably came before the ability to actually walk on land, like how Australian lungfish have very strong leg-like fins they can walk on even though they live in water. Legs probably just increased in strength as they became progressively more terrestrial, they didn’t go from fins to strong legs immediately. Even the first amphibians had pretty weak legs and wouldn’t have been walking around much>needs to be able to breatheBreathing air is actually pretty common in fish. Arapaima, catfish, lungfish, electric eels, etc all do, basically anything that often finds itself in low oxygen water like stagnant ponds does. If you’re a fish on its way to living on land you’re probably living in shitty low oxygen puddles and not clean flowing rivers>needs to be able to lay eggs and have its offspring all go onto the surfaceFish weren’t capable of this and never have been, not even amphibians are. This only came much later with reptiles that descended from amphibians who were already living on land as a way for them to sever their reliance on bodies of water to reproduce>withstand the suns heat and radiationAlso came way after fish. Amphibians only kind of got there but still need to stay wet, this is more of a reptile thing again>why would they choose to go on the surface if jack shit was up there?There was lots of bugs to eat and no competition>>16149563It would still be getting pruned if it weren’t for modern medicine. If your baby got stuck in the middle ages it’s likely you would die
>>16149646>It would still be getting pruned if it weren’t for modern medicine. If your baby got stuck in the middle ages it’s likely you would dieThis confirms my point though
>>16149648Natural selection doesn’t stop things like that entirely forever. Two people could have exactly the same hip shape and one could die in childbirth because of sheer bad luck where the baby is a bit too big or is in the wrong position or something
>>16149651It seems like if it's killing 8% of mothers that'd be negatively selected out immediately despite the advantages of bipedalism.
>>16149652Not if in exchange you get a massively increased brain size that allows you to become an apex predator despite being so slow and frail
>>16149660Fag
>>16149662Retard
>>16149660Brain size is one factor but the main one is bipedalism. Also if human level intelligence is so advantageous how come it only evolved once when there are other examples given of convergent evolution
>>16149676>Brain size is one factor but the main one is bipedalismIt’s a combination of the two. There were bipedal hominids with much smaller brains who probably didn’t have the same issue nearly as much>Also if human level intelligence is so advantageous how come it only evolved once when there are other examples given of convergent evolutionJust because something can happen doesn’t mean it must happen. Human level intelligence is a relatively recent occurrence and we’re not the only species who were intelligent, Neanderthals and Denisovans weren’t our direct ancestors and had comparable brain sizes
>>16149682Neanderthal and Denisovans were branches of human. There's a ton of holes in the human evolution story, like how studies put the number of positively selected mutations separating us from chimps at about 250, with most being related to cellular processes and only a small number relating to the brain. That's simply not possible.
In the grand scheme, when you consider the basic fact that water flows downhill, it isn't hard to conceptualize that our current circumstances developed naturally from the starting conditions of the universe. Besides a prime mover, (conceptually, not necessarily the christian God), there's no need for an out of the box intervention like critics of evolution seems to suggest. Amazing jumps can be conceptualized as exponential functions of a mechanism we don't understand yet, so what's all the fuzz about, really?
>>16149695>Neanderthal and Denisovans were branches of humanWhich at least partly developed their intelligence independently of us as H. heidelbergensis is likely the common ancestor of all three but wasn’t quite at the level of us, Neanderthals or Denisovans in intelligence>That's simply not possible.According to who? Assuming that number is correct, what reasoning is there that it’s impossible other than “that number looks too small on paper, I don’t believe it”? You need to actually test that or at least find something that suggests it shouldn’t be to say that. Either way that has nothing to do with other animals convergently evolving human level intelligence
>>16149727It had nothing to do with it because it was a separate point. The human mind is an exquisite machine and you want me to believe like 20 point mutations are responsible?
>>16149732So it is a case of the number looking too small on paper
>>16110362>stars form, therefore apes became humans millions of years agoNo.
>>16149732>The human mind is an exquisite machine So is the mind of most mammals>you want me to believe like 20 point mutations are responsible?A chimp is about as smart as a toddler and a single point mutation can cause cognitive disabilities in humans that give them a child-like intelligence. That number means nothing when you don’t know how big of a change those mutations can have
>>16149563Births are a high % ceasarian because the doctors make more money that way.
>>16143455
>>16149217Holy btfo batman
>>16108692Because its the best we have still , objectively. A "theory" or "hypothesis" is better than a fake fact.Death. Rages against the light. And you can say, you are happy? Evolve.
>>16153972but its not the only one, is it? A God that exists outside of space and time is very plausible, and yet we've ruled it out... why? doesn't seem very "truth-seeking" to me.
>>16108739>longterm>begun in 1988we're not gonna get definitive results for another hundred thousand years. in the meantime, would you mind explaining why its the ONLY explanation?
>>16108692evolution is a religion. there's your answer.
>>16154105Scientism is a religion
