there are people here who unironically believe this shit
the image is stupid but evolution is correct though
>>16833372>evolution is correct thoughevolution is made up bullshit though*
>>16833369How did you get this picture of my extended family?
>>16833374as opposed to creationism, which is based upon a vast range of empirical evidence, right?
>>16833369This meme picture gets a lot of stuff wrong, but the general geist is correct. It's not a complicated idea, we have DNA, which slightly varies from parent to offspring, and given geologic time, the changes that allow for a better chance at survival until reproducing are selected by the fact that those are the organisms that reproduce more.You agree that dogs have changed a lot in the past few thousand years, correct? Well now take that idea, and instead of humans breeding the dogs for traits, traits are naturally selected by the fact that they give a better chance at reproducing, and instead of thousands of years it's millions and even billions of years
>>16833379Also want to add it's usually not the best idea to look at evolution as a linear timeline like in that picture (which would be the equivalent of looking at every picture of your mother, mother's mother, mother's mother's mother, etc) and instead a massive tree for which humans are one branch
/pol/tards fuck off from my board
>>16833377>if you don't believe in my pet theory then you're a flat earther schizothis type of disingenuousness demonstrates clearly that the darwinism fundamentalists have no interest in scientific discourse and their beliefs have nothing do to with rationality.
>>16833523How do you explain the diversity of life on earth? Which different organisms relatedness can be measured from the genetic code, and the huge amount of transitional fossils going back hundreds of millions of years
>>16833523please share your theory with us then
picture of your great, great ..... great, great grandpa
>>16833523>my pet theory>the most well accepted and supported by evidence explaination for life and its diversity Nigger>their beliefs have nothing do to with rationality.As opposed to believing... humans came from dirt based on a book written when people didnt know what a brain was?
>>16833703
>>16833759You’re fat and gay
>>16833759So question retardWhat are you questioning in evolution? Or are you just going to cry like a fag?
>>16833374OK, explain the alternative.
>>16833411this type of behavior exposes how the evolution hardliner's beliefs have no basis whatsoever in scientific observation and are purely political. the evolution hardliner has no interest in discussing evidence or alternative theory, their only concern is censoring by any means possible beliefs which differ from their own. they aren't capable of rationally justifying why they consider themselves infallible, their unwillingness to consider that their beliefs might be correct is taken strictly on an irrational emotional basis.of course for a theory to be legitimately scientific then it must be potentially disprovable and if the theory's adherents aren't willing to countenance nonbelievers then they are themselves declaring that evolution is not a valid scientific theory.
>>16833841Answer the questions you retarded faggot>>16833536>>16833540
>>16833841Im gonna give you one more chance to actually try to make a point against evolution instead of just whining "b-but th-the basedentists are not taking me seriously:((((((" before i start to assume youre just trying to bait
>>16833845He’s just pretending not to be a creationist. He knows that there is no alternative theory with any substance and is just coping
>>16833369>NOOO STOP THAT!! WHALES CAN’T HAVE LEGS!!!
>>16833369rolling
>>16833979He's literally just shitposting, /sci/ is generally much better at recognising this and ignoring it when it happens
>>16833979>my theory is correct because the academic establishment does not permit the publications of alternative theories
>>16833801Lack of evidence basically, its mostly imaginary stories. Or so it looks to me, i'm not an expert at all in the subject matter. Which brings an interesting point, why should laymen have the correct understanding of topics they are not experts on? Its harmless if laymen get the wrong idea about things, you basically cant fix that without tyrannically imposing a science police which goes against the spirit of free discussion of ideas and always backfires, politically.Best compromise for you is to stay in your science club and let others stay mistaken.
>>16833379> slightly varies from parent to offspring, So where are the 6 gorilion failures to achieve one positive mutation? > So humans evolved with the planet formation?Further their generation interval is similar to bacteria's?You agree that dogs have changed a lot in the past few thousand years, correct? Isn't breeding a pure argument for creationism?
>>16833841>the evolution hardliner has no interest in discussing evidence or alternative theory,It's a church, they have to hold the narrative.The lack of arguments about critic immediately turns into personal insults. Poor believers, hope there are paid for.
>>16834408Low IQ people will do low IQ things, half the population is below average intelligence and those idiots will always be prone to having erroneous and poorly thought out beliefs. >my beliefs aren't religious and irrational in nature even though i adhere to a rigid dogma that i can't defend or justify because i named my belief system "science" or "atheism" If Darwinism were a rational scientific belief system then challenging it would be not only acceptable, but encouraged and the adherents would look forward to seeing every failed challenger, but instead they censor and ban all challenges to it. The famous (famous if you've actually studied biology, if you haven't then this is probably the first you're hearing of it) case of Warwick Collins' excommunication from academia 50 years ago for disputing a small aspect of Darwinism really pulls back the curtains on what a shabby belief system evolutionists cling to.
>>16834428Collins wasn't excommunicated, he became disenfranchised because of the closed mindedness of his supervisor on any interpretation which went against his life's work. Big problem, but not the one you were trying to showcase. A better example is what they did to Watson when he claimed IQ is genetic.
>>16833369This is a basedjak TREASURE TROVE. GEM after GEM after GEM! Will get to it later today.
>>16833377>creationismmisreading of the bible due to bad translations.Humans are a created species, or at leat adamites/ben'adam are
>>16834447>he claimed IQ is genetic.He didn't claim, he stated it as fact backed by all the data, this upset believers in magic
>>16834404>So where are the 6 gorilion failuresWell you are one, for a start.>So humans evolved with the planet formation?>Further their generation interval is similar to bacteria's?ESL?
>>16835012>he stated it as fact backed by all the dataSo when people go against what you agree with it's not a claim but instead a fact. However, you dislike Darwin so his proponents are acolytes who defend their dogma. You are laughable.
>>16835076Are africans dumb or not? Will them being dumb affect their potential for economic development?Is it right to throw a fit and strip an old man of his hard earned awards because he said something you don't agree with?
>>16833369>>16834989Actually, the illustrations are perfect as they are.
>>16835405
>>16835410
>>16833369Reminder: if you believe that genes exist, you believe in evolution.
>>16835418
>>16834112no, /sci/ is NOT better at ignoring this shit what the fuck are you smokingevery fucking FUCKING day it's thread after thread exactly like this with fucking autistic retards who cant control their power level who get baited every single fucking goddamn time into posting ACKSHUALLY and looking like stupid idiots that only justify the trolls coming here and being faggots
>>16833379Agreed. 100 percent with this post. The only problem I have with many people who misunderstand evolution is they think it's a good thing. Sometimes bad traits get selected for. Some traits make it, some don't. Some are good for you, some are bad. Bassically evolution is directionless. It describes the process of change. Not nessessarily good or bad.
>>16835405>her 3 years into marriage vs her when dating
>>16835498This is part of why Darwin used the term natural selection more than evolution.
>>16834270>why should laymen have the correct understanding of topics they are not experts on? Its harmless if laymen get the wrong idea about things, you basically cant fix that without tyrannically imposing a science police which goes against the spirit of free discussion of ideas and always backfires, politically. Best compromise for you is to stay in your science club and let others stay mistaken.So your best argument is "im a retard but you guys cant do anything about it without imposing a tyrannical dictatorship ;) checkmate atheists"The creationists are not sending their best
BROTHER! CORRUPT "SCIENTISTS" AND DEMOCRATIC TRAITORS ARE HIDING THE TRUTH FROM US!! AND PEOPLE ARE TOO DUMMY TO NOTICE!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!! GOD CREATED US! YOU ARE NOT FUCKING MONKEYS!
>>16835628So true girl! Whitey on the moon, amirite?
>>16834242Quiet, Lamarck
>>16833369yeah bro we all come descended from Richard Karn. totally
>>16835577as soon as anyone starts talking about laymen in order to pretentiously infer they themselves are some sort of superior intellect you know you're dealing with someone on the narcissistic personality disorder spectrum. why does /sci/ specifically attract that class of people in droves?
>>16835707kek
You don't need evidence of every minute detail to posit that evolution is the most likely explanation for how the world we know came to be. You only need a few historic samples, and to understand how a naturally selecting algorithm works. You get, on average, a world much like our own.It would be very difficult to even start to prove a fundamentally different explanation. At best you could say "ok there's this additional influence" (ie sexual selection) or "this parameter isn't set right in our models" - but these are tweaks, or amendments, not alternatives.
>>16835577>So your best argument is "im a retard but you guys cant do anything about it wNot a retard, but not a specialist in the topic. Because of that, i cant tell that the experts are right either. Fact is, i cant tell apart an expert from a non-expert.This is because the subject at hand isnt science btw. I know that a cell phone repairman is an expert if i see him repair a cellphone, with an alleged evolution expert i must simply... trust?Sorry but not, i will kill believing and posting possibly wrong things, because they may be right, i cant be proven wrong, i cant be shown to be wrong and its also fun.And yes, you cant do anything about it.
