Genuinely how do people that don't believe in evolution explain this? I'm asking this in good faith, I'm not trolling here.
>>16844875you're on 4chan and don't understand that there's a whole culture around arguing retarded points?
>>168448821/3 of americans don't believe in evolution
>>16844890a little over 1/3 clearly don't believe in evolution. Then another third that accepts evolution but think it was guided, which doesn't really make sense but I wouldn't say they outright don't believe in evolution
>>16844875Your mistake is assuming that people thinkWhen something doesn't fit their worldview, they just ignore it, assume it's a lie, or "god works in mysterious ways"Most people are about as intelligent as a trained dog, and function purely on instinct, reflex and responses programmed into them in their childhood
>>16844892>. Then another third that accepts evolution but think it was guided, which doesn't really make senseIt makes loads and loads more sense than what most pop-sci retards believe.
>>16845028Yeah nevermind I agree with you on this. They might say they believe in it, but at a fundamental level they don't agree with/understand what natural selection is actually implying. Basically just cognitive dissonance
>>16844875all of it is caused by aliens and gods.
>>16845028That's dumb. Even selective breeding is an example of evolution.
>>16844875Have you ever seen an animal evolve? I haven't. Scientists say it takes millions of years. Well that's convenient isn't it, that it definitely happens but only when you're not looking at it because you're dead way before it happens. Give me a break.
If you really want to know the opposing view, you should ask the sources they draw from.Don't ask a scientist why the things rejected from his journals were rejected.That's the meaning of good faith. Read both sides of the debate and then choose.On a similar topic, far too many people "try to find God" by reading Richard Dawkins, when they should read their Bible, because really then what they are doing is looking for excuses to reject God.
>>16845150>50 jpegs and not one attempt to answer the OP
>>16844890Correlates with all the subhumans they have been importing.
>>16845191Browns are much more likely to be religious kek. On the level of rural christcucks
>>16844875Okay, here's the difference. Understanding evolution requires 3 things.Acceptance of the scientific method as a rigorous discipline, so you can generally believe that the vast majority of science is true even if you have not personally tested it yourself.An education in basic biology including the core principles of evolution such as natural selection, genetics, and gene mutation, adaptive radiation etc.An appreciation and solid conceptualization of the vast scale of the global biota on this planet and the immensity of time. The people who can not grasp evolution fail at any or all of these things. They may lack the intelligence to understand the core concepts They may lack the ability to transfer concepts from one area to another, such as understanding the implication of gradual shifts in distribution on a bell graph. They may simply have lacked access to a decent education or poor teachers. They may be hampered by religious dogma and social constraints. They may be simply unable to conceptualize immense scales in numbers, spaces, and time.For example many people have trouble coming to terms with the idea of a million. For most its just "a big number" Start throwing around numbers like 65 million years, 225 million years, or 4600 million years, and it all just the same Chinese to them.
>>16845175>. I take it you're in the retarded 1/3 of Americans whose opinion on evolution is a category error?You would be wrong.Human's selectively cultivating plants based on their usefulness to is no different from those ants that cultivate fungus which is useful to them.If you accept one as an example of co-evolution then you should accept the other as well.
>>16845146>Have you ever seen an animal evolve? I haven't.Look at your father and your mother and then look at the mirror.It's up to you, was that evolvement fit for the surroundings and reproductive.
>>16845148>evolution of caterpillar to butterflyretard>>16845149>clipped before he gives response>>16845160you worship a dead jew and jewish literature (the bible)>>16845151>evolution has no foresighttrue>would select away partial useless structureit does and doesn't. evolution is messy and doesn't need to make sense like uneducated religious nutjobs think it does. plenty of vestigial, unused features are lost over time. plenty of wasteful features are kept as well.your image is also vague as shit. does it imply natural selection will eventually take organs like blood vessels away? if something is born or conceived with a defect like that it will just die long before it can reproduce. it reminds me of people who say evolution must be fake otherwise we humans would have 3 eyes and wings.you are totally ignorant. instead of saving a bunch of jpegs from facebook learn about evolution and natural selection before trying to debunk it>>16845028>A basic premise of evolution is that it's unguidedevolution is change in a species over time. the mechanisms of it are a separate topic>>16845146>Have you ever seen an atom? I haven't. Scientists say they're like 0.000,000,000,001m big. Well that's convenient isn't it, that they definitely exist but only on microscopic scales you can't see with your naked eye. Give me a break.
>>16845210>Acceptance of the scientific method as a rigorous discipline, so you can generally believe that the vast majority of science is true even if you have not personally tested it yourself.In my experience reading posts by online schizos and retards this is the biggest factor. They have no clue how academia works or how talented the people who work in science are. They think science is just a rival religion or something and not a global rigorous pursuit of knowledge with intense competitionIt's exactly like some fat guy sitting on a couch watching world-class athletes play a game and thinking "these guys are so bad" or "I could have done better". it's profound inexperience. maybe they are so dumb that they can't even comprehend how talented many of these scientists and mathematicians are, like a monkey looking at text and just seeing squiggles
>>16845146Yes. Yes I have. Drosophila. Sparrows. Gypsy moths. Evolution is not a mystery, it's an axiom.
>>16846314NTA, but I would say what you are talking about is evolution - by natural selection. Not necessarily evolution in the broadest sense of the term. Selective breeding is still evolution, the frequency of alleles in a population still changes. Stuff like genetic drift also falls into a category of evolutionary process, even though it isn't natural selection
>>16846314The biological definition of evolution is the genetic change in a species/population over generations. The definition ends thereProcesses like natural and artificial selection, which are the mechanisms that cause evolution, are subtly separate concepts from evolution
>>16846348>>16846364I think, in the context of the survey, thinking of it as a guided process makes zero sense and is completely wrong. The survey should specify evolution by natural selection though, because that is what it is talking about
>>16846407The layman understanding of evolution is just "there be some extinct animals that turned into the animals of today over millions of years." There's people who disagrre with that entirely. There's people that agree it happened but was guided by God. There's people that agree it happened and that it was simply a product of natural selection.The survey is fine as is.
>>16845147Why do people keep parroting this bullshit about mutation only causing the loss of information. It’s so blatantly false that I can’t even begin to think of where this idea even came from
>>16846470The best part is they don't even have a definition for information or genetic information, so they don't even have a metric to measure whether there's an increase or decrease in it. It's just a buzzphrase they repeat.
>>16845147>it is not an example of new useful genes evolving through random blind mutationsExcept there are examples like this. Mutations in GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 are implicated in higher sociability in dogs as compared to wolves>it only describes loss of genetic information Gene duplications happen all the time. African clawed frogs have literally doubled their entire genome multiple times to the point there are dodecaploid frogs>require 20^353 permutations in order to produce pectinaseAccording to who?>requires that the organism knows how to use the gene properlyNothing knows how to use any gene. It’s not conscious
>>16844875God designed them to look evolved so that he could test your faith. Stop doubting chud.
>>16845151Irreducible complexity is my favourite argument that creationists make. It just highlights their inability to comprehend that structures can exist in intermediate forms and don’t need to be created as the “end product” in a single go
>>16844875What is there to explain?
>>16844875They don't. They either play dumb or go into full schizo conspiracy mode.
>>16847311Without evolution, explain why there is a fossil record that shows whales at different stages of adaptation to an aquatic lifestyle, over the course of millions of years, starting with a hoofed ancestor and ending with fully aquatic whales, as well as the genetic similarities of modern whales with modern hoofed mammals like hippos
>>16844875The theory of evolution is racist so I choose to not believe in it.
>>16844875>believeThis is a science board (or should be).>>16845147None of this examples is natural selection. Sure it isn't creation because nor evolution. it holds mutations artificial at live wich will dying if their "god" (the dog owner and their environment) cease existence. It is a blatant idiotic example of the church, only apologetics can not see the idiotism in it.
>>16844875>I'm asking this in good faithYou're literally believing in a piece of paper.You've never checked the proof of this.You've never truly researched it.You've never given it any honest skepticism.You see it on a piece of paper and believe in it.
>>16848144Come on man, at least attempt to answer the prompt, don't go full schizo mode right off the bat
>>16848163>WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE A PICTURE IN A BOOK?Why do you?Let me tell you a little story about dipshits like you.When the chromosomes in human cells were first identified and photographed, that first picture was printed again and again in textbooks along with the count of the 24 pairs in human cells.Naive, obedient morons like you repeated that for years until somebody actually looked at the picture and noticed that there were only 23 pairs and always had been.Everyone like you just took it on faith because an "expert" had said there were 24.
>>16844875How do people who don't believe in evolution explain this picture from a book?CHECK FUCKING MATE, SCIENCE DENIERS! CARS EVOLVED! LOOK AT THE PICTURE! LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN THE BOOK AND BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!1!!1!!!
>>16844875People who don't believe in this model (and know about the subject) think that animals can't evolve outside of their order, and mutations doesn't create new information.
>>16848177*that (OP's) modelpic related is what they typically believe in.
>>16844875How and why did the forearms turn into fins?
>>16848171>as tech improves, measurement improves >this means all science is fakeWhen Painter first published his count, they had to hand count the chromosomes in a microscope slide.People tried to repeat his experiment and got a range of different numbers, some as low as 19. They defaulted to the original observation as a general rule (not saying that's a good thing).As techniques improved, they got the accurate count of 23 and that is what they teach today.Now dumbasses like (you) point out this example of science being self-correcting as if it's evidence that you can't trust scientific processes ever.You are a retard.
>>16848173The car development can be explained by changing tastes and improved technology. How does this apply to whale evolution.I'm once again asking you to explain why we have discovered fossils of different ancient whales that have range of traits that show the gradual adaptation to a fully aquatic lifestyle, as well as the genetic similarities between modern whales and even toes hoofed mammals? I'm asking a simple question, one you haven't even attempted to answer
>>16848177This model fails to explain many things. Like why don't we find dogs 400 million years ago, where did they come from? Or why do we find many transitional fossils like tiktaalik, ambulocetus, therapsids, etc, that show a bridge between different "kinds".Also it's logically absurd. Think about it this way, let's say a population of dogs evolves "within its kind" over a million years, now a million years later that population is genetically different, you agree correct? Then we repeat the process for another million years, and the dog population changes further. And you keep doing this for tens or even hundreds of millions of years, guess what, they continue to evolve, there's no arbitrary stopping point. If they can change a little, they can change a lot when you scale the time, it's just logic.
>>16846259>evolution is change in a species over time.no, evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. If you breed dogs that is evolution, but the species did not change.you're a moron
>>16847726There is nothing to explain. Just as a film reel comprised of, say, ten frames, each showing a different man, does not indicate any relation between the ten men, genetic or even spatiotemporal, the "fossil record" (incidentally, likely a fabrication) does not indicate any relation between life forms.
>>16848177This model only exists because there’s so much evidence for evolution now that creationists have been forced to concede that evolution exists but that it stops at some convenient point. This makes sure nothing evolves too much that it becomes an issue and everything can stay in it’s nice little phylogenetic box
My only response to those that don't believe in evolution is "So you're saying God creation is flawed? You saying God is unable to create something like this in our genetic code?Evolution is real the issue people have is pretending that God doesn't have a hand in this. They're just seeking an excuse to dismiss God and those of faith haven't been put in place with the correct response.
>>16848400The fossil record and genetic similarity that conforms to it does in fact indicate relation between life forms. Just going "nuh uh" isn't an argument. The fossil record is not a fabrication.Just as I said in >>16847717 they just play dumb and go full conspiracy.
>>16848193whale evolution is from the changing tastes of female whales (i.e. male whale looks more whale-like) and improved whale technology (i.e. whale with bigger penis)
>>16848439Robert de Niro does not "turn into" Al Pacino in Heat. Likewise, nothing indicates that one life form turns into another. There is, in fact, more "evidence" to support the former claim.
>>16848499No, there is no comparison between a film and the genetic and paleontological data. Making up a false comparison is not an argument. Evolution is not "a dog turning into a cat" and thus your analogy of "de Niro turning into Al Pacino" does not even apply to what evolution is. That you think it does just show how ignorant you are to what is even being discussed.We directly observe evolution and populations changing over time, and we can view how this happened in the past AND make predictions via the fossil record. Claiming a grand conspiracy is schizo denial. The genetic data then conform to the fossil record, and coalescence models then also conform to universal common descent.We directly observe the thing you're saying isn't real.
>>16848505We directly observe Robert de Niro turning into Al Pacino by watching two contiguous frames of Heat. However, this is not the case.
>>16848506Evolution is not "a cat turning into a dog". We directly observe evolution, and thus your analogy does not work. To use your analogy, if we DID directly see de niro turn into al pacino, then you'd be wrong, in the same way you're wrong about your characterization and dismissal of evolution. Your own analogy does not work.
>>16848513No one observes anything directly.
>>16848514Wrong. Evolution is directly observed
>>16848515Totally absurd statement. Your own observation, for example, is just hearsay.
>>16848521Evolution is directly observed. You don't even know what it is. What I'm saying is not "hearsay", that doesn't even make sense.
>>16848525You have not directly observed anything.
>>16848527Wrong
>>16848514>>16848521>>16848527Peppered moths, subway mosquitos, E. coli, etc have all been observed to evolve in real time
>>16848765no you don't understand!! you don't know what you saw!! it was obviously majick!!!! frucking ignorant close minded fricker!!!!!
>>16844875evolution is like an post-match interaction. you have a result in hand. you fit in plausible explanations in such a way that the result is arrived.the explanations are soothing and logically consistent (because environment demanded X, Y species with which hand Z phenotype better survived and reproduced). there ain’t no other explaining. you have the result in hand and you create axioms and logical arguments and finally arrive at your predetermined result
>>16848783Yeah, Darwin had data, and his idea of evolution by natural selection fit the data, that's the scientific method. Then all the studies in biology and genetics in the nearly 200 years since have confirmed the theory without a shadow of a doubt. So if you have a better idea that explains whale evolution, I'd like to hear it.
It would be very nice to live in a world where all those who deny evolution, along with flat earthers, moon hoaxers, and every organized religion have long been removed from existence and every last trace of their repulsive stupidity been erased.
>>16848791>Darwin had data, and his idea of evolution by natural selection fit the data, that's the scientific methodNo, that's the exact opposite of the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis/idea comes first then data is found and either supports or rejects it You're saying Darwin reversed that order, which he did, hence it wasn't the scientific method. Basically he was the first to define the axiom that change + heredity + selection = "evolution" It doesn't require data to support or reject that equation. It's unfalsifiable and thus duh it is still true today. Our understanding of the mechanisms have changed of course. His conjecture about heredity was wildly wrongHe then arbitrarily concluded "evolution" was the origin of all species (hence the book title). That conclusion is falsifiable, the definition it uses is not. >Then all the studies in biology and genetics in the nearly 200 years since have confirmed the theory without a shadow of a doubtYou don't know what you're talking aboutYou're confusing "evolution" with the "theory of evolutionary origins of species/life"They are not the same thing, one is falsifiable and the other is not, and if you disagree you need to take an introductory biology class.
>>16849286A hypothesis derives from a set of data points. Then you make testable predictions and collect more data points, which is what Darwin did.You don't just pull a hypothesis from your assThey are based on prior observations.In short: you have a very naive understanding of the scientific method.
>>16845147>picnylon-eating bacteria
>>16849290>A hypothesis derives from a set of data pointsWrong. A set is not required and neither is data. If you hypothesize a sled will move faster down a snowy hill if you lean toward the front you don't need prior data to think that, etc. >They are based on prior observations.You're flip flopping between "observations" and "data points" and you had to do that because if you didn't then what you said would sound ridiculous. If you had used "data points" both times and been consistent you'd be begging the question as to why data was taken in the first place if there was no hypothesis yet. >In short: you have a very naive understanding of the scientific method.lol. Go look up an introductory explanation meant for children and tell us if it says a hypothesis comes first or data comes first, since you clearly don't know.
>>16849290I hypothesize that you're a fucking retard and I didn't finish reading your retarded post because hypothesis doesn't require analysis, it comes before that, stupid faggot.
>>16849306>You're flip flopping between "observations" and "data points"Observations are data points.>Go look up an introductory explanation meant for childrenThere's your problem.Once again, you have a naive understanding based on what is taught to young children.
>>16849313>words words wordsin all contexts, a hypothesis is simply a midwit buzzword meaning "guess", most often uneducated one, because shit they teach you in school is worthless and you should kill yourself, faggot.Not him btw.
>>16844875I don't deny evolution, but much of it is wrong or pseudoscientific. Your pic is little more than speculation for example. One can speculate against it easily enough. And the idea of random mutation. Our conception of genetics. Both of these are wrong or incomplete.
>>16849316What part of your post even vaguely refutes anything I said?
>>16849317There's a very high chance that you look like pic related and it is a random, unfortunate mutation.>>16849318I didn't know that there was more than one, do you also look like pic related or what is your problem?
>>16849320Moron
>>16849322I can choose to stop being a moron whenever I want to, but can you choose to stop being a downie?
>>16849317what part of it is wrong?
>>16849306>you don't need prior data to think that, etc.I know you are just pretending to be retarded, but you have prior data on what a sled is, what center of mass is, what gravity is, etc. from your lived experiences. Maybe you have never ridden a sled down a snowy slope while leaning forward specifically, but you have ample contextual data to form that specific hypothesis
>>16849327If you have that much data, then it's not a hypothesis anymore.
Can you faggots stop shitting up the thread and simply answer the prompt. How do you explain ancient whale fossils and whale genetics without evolution by natural selection. THATS ALL IM ASKING
>>16849328Why do you say things that are so easily proven wrong?
>>16849336Try reading beyond the first paragraph, midwit.
>>16849334You can argue about whether whale the current evolutionary tree is accurate or whether there was convergent evolution, regressive intermediate steps etc. but "God did it by magic" is the only answer to actually wave the whole thing away without some form of evolution.
>>16849338No shit you don't know the outcome idiot. That's why you run the experiment. But the initial hypothesis comes from prior observations.
>>16849341But I do know the outcome, just because you are stupid and don't know it, has nothing to do with me.
>>16849338>I know that if I walk down a hill leaning backwards it is easier to control and I am less likely to fall on my face>I can use a sled to go down a hill without walkingPrior knowledge>I will probably go slower and more controllably if I lean backwards on the sled compared to leaning forward.Hypothesis
Christ what is this retarded semantic argument going on. Just answer the fucking prompt you troglodyte
>>16849342Breakfast
>>16849346The fact that people would rather argue semantics than address your OP prompt is in itself an answer to how retarded the point is.
>>16849313>Observations are data points.No, not in this context. >There's your problem.>Once againThere's no "again"You were wrong and I already proved it. > you have a naive understanding based on what is taught to young childrenDirecting you to a child's explanation was for your benefit since it's on your level. You're welcome to find a uni level definition that says I'm "wrong", but you can't do that either since I'm right.
>>16849346The answer to your prompt is they dispute the lineage. The fossils are incomplete and based on interpretation and many of the types of people you're addressing don't even believe the Earth is over 10,000 years old so the prospect of having millions of years for a indohyus like population to give rise to a cetacian like population is a non-starter.Happy?
>>16849356>>16849346
>>16849356>not in this contextYes. Yes it is.>You're welcome to find a uni level definition that says I'm "wrong"How about fucking Wikipedia?>>16849336
>>16849357that doesn't explain anything. explain the fossils and genetic similarities. and if you are just being a devils advocate then I don't care what you have to say.
>>16849360Wikipedia wasn't a valid source according to my middleschool teachers, my highschool teachers, my university professors, my employer, and most importantly, according to me.
>>16849361le god was lazy o algo
>>16849363Holy fuck you're dim.Gg
>>16849361Here, have this:https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/animal-genetics/whale-genetics-and-evolution/
>>16849371>And when we begin to look at the dates, we see that all of these evolutionary leaps must have occurred in just a few million years, which by evolutionary standards is a blink of an eye. That is not enough time for all the changes required for the process. Why are christkeks so fucking retarded, according to their niggerbabble nonsense book, Jesus changed entire humanity's fate in just 33 years.
>>16849327>but you have prior data on what a sled is, what center of mass is, what gravity is, etc. from your lived experiencesThose aren't "data points" those are subjective observations and textbook definitions. A "set of data points" are objective measurementsRead the full conversation you midwit
>>16849371Ok I read the whole thing. First off, once again this doesn't attempt to explain anything because they know their position is retarded.
>>16849383And second, if they won't supply an explanation, I'm not going to bother with them shifting the burden. It's a waste of energy. Saying stuff like Rodhocetus and Dorudon aren't transitional fossils is pure retardation, we have eyes.
>>16849377Let me ask you this:Would you have any contention if the word "data" wasn't used and they just said "observation" instead?
>>16849357>based on interpretation They’re not though
>>16849334You are preaching to the choir. The only people who don’t think this happened are a couple of schizophrenic retards who have no argument beyond Darwin actually being a reptilian who came from the hollow earth to lead humanity astray
>>16849360>>not in this context>Yes. Yes it is.No, no it isn't. Data points are objective . Observations are subjective You're not only ignorant of the scientific method, you can't even speak English. >How about fucking Wikipedia>"must be based on observations"It's retard tier and belongs in the trash so I can see how it appeals to you, but if we pull it out of the trash and pretend it's valid it still proves me right because observations are not "a set of data points" in this context. Supporting/conflicting data does not come before a hypothesis according to the scientific method, (and that's painfully obvious because there's no need to test it if you already have supporting data) and thus Darwin didn't perform the scientific method. Cope
>>16849403>Observations are subjectiveThe existence of "observational data" proves you wrong both here and in the rest of your post. Stop using pet definitions for words that are already defined.>Supporting/conflicting data does not come before a hypothesis according to the scientific methodPrior observations are where the hypothesis comes from. And, as already established, data is an observation.You're just wrong, dude. What Darwin did was he collected more data to test his hypothesis. Which is using the scientific methond.
>>16849386>Would you have any contention if the word "data" wasn't used and they just said "observation" instead?Yes I still would for all 3 posts I assume you speak of:The wiki is garbage so a simple word substitution doesn't fix itThe original claim that Darwin performed the scientific method would still be wrong because it would be claiming his observations came first "then" the hypothesis matched the observations. Either way it's claiming he matched what he already had before the hypothesis was made. It doesn't work that way. The hypothesis must match something newly acquired/tested. And the biggest idiot of them all that tried/failed to define the scientific method would still be wrong because a hypothesis does not need to exclusively derive from observations because not all knowlege is observed; some knowlege is deduced.
>>16849425>Either way it's claiming he matched what he already had before the hypothesis was made.Nobody's claiming that.Darwin made an observation, then he constructed a hypothesis, *then he went out looking for more data.* That last part, which you continually ignore, is how Darwin followed the scientific method>not all knowlege is observed; some knowlege is deduced.The results of deduction are a form of observation.
>>16849404>The existence of "observational data" proves you wrong both here and in the rest of your postYou can just as easily say the existence of rocks on the moon proves me wrong. It doesn't make either of your statements true>>Supporting/conflicting data does not come before a hypothesis according to the scientific method>Prior observations are where the hypothesis comes fromDoesn't refute what I said so I have no reason to pick that apart (I could)>And, as already established, data is an observationIt was not established. You just stomped your feet and said I'm "proven wrong" without an ounce of justification. Observations outside of an experiment are subjective, thus they cannot be treated or placed in the same class as observational data.>What Darwin did was he collected more data to test his hypothesisThat's a neat opinion but it's not what the original idiot above claimed and it's not following the scientific method. If the supporting data came first the method is already invalidated. Digging for any further data at that point is called confirmation bias, >You're just wrong, dude. Nah m8, u r
>>16849431>>Either way it's claiming he matched what he already had before the hypothesis was made.>Nobody's claiming thatRead the thread you coping midwit:>>Darwin had data, and his idea of evolution by natural selection fit the data, that's the scientific methodThe original claimant said the data he had before the hypothesis already fit>That last part, which blah blah blahSince you can't read there is no point trying to fix your misunderstandings about the scientific method anymore. Go ahead and pretend I'm reading it "wrong"It's the last predictable desperation you have left>The results of deduction are a form of observation.BHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NoYour cope went through the roof with that one
>>16849434Since you're obviously too low IQ to be convinced in paragraph form, here's a fucking flow chart I pulled off image search (screenshot because webp and I'm lazy). Feel free to replicate my experiment if you wish.You're just embarrassing yourself.
>>16849441>flow chart I pulled off image search >THOUGHTCO.COMHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!I wonNot only were you too stupid to refute me, you degraded yourself to popsci>(screenshot because webp and I'm lazy).Nah you're just cherry picking and needed it to say "observation" and all you could find was webp. There's plenty of non webp flowcharts you avoided posting but they don't say "observation"Pic related was the first google result. I don't even care what website it's from, it's just the first result. The one you clearly avoided It took MORE effort to post your cherry pick, so you lied on top of all this copeYou are soooo absolutely pathetic you deserve to feel utter shame for this. This is a win for me
>>16849452This is what brave shows me. I chose the least retarded looking one. All of these start with "observation."
>>16846470it had to have been a random creationcuck speaker like Kent Hovind saying it unprompted in a random speech with no evidence or source, and other creationcucks simply blindly agreed to it
>>16845147Creationcucks pray to god whenever they're sick enough to have realistic chance of dying, never realizing that maybe our gene pool would heal if they fucking did die.
>>16848765Neither of those are "direct observations". Moreover, again, you have not directly observed anything, and most, if not all, of the papers reporting those cases are likewise written by people who have not observed anything, directly or indirectly.
>>16849441Correction:Have desired outcome > backwardly reason hypothesis > manifest desired result through "experiments" (at least lie that you did) > murder, imprison, slander opposition > get SRS
>>16849455>All of these start with "observation."You're coping so hard you're too blind to read at this point and see one of them does not say that. It says it starts with a questionAmazingNot that it matters since they're all pop sci anyway (that you had to resort to because you lost the argument) thus none of them are validHow embarrassing
>>16849521They are though. The E. coli experiment in particular included thousands of observations
>>16850046You clearly need this "win" real bad. So I'll give it to you. You are clearly highly intelligent and so much smarter than me. I hereby concede your superior intellect and vast understanding of the matter.
>>16849286>No, that's the exact opposite of the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis/idea comes first then data is found and either supports or rejects itYou're not strictly right, but I understand what you're getting at: the point of a scientific hypothesis is to explain some observations in a way that predicts something far beyond the original observations, so that it can be tested. Otherwise you're just doing the human equivalent of what MLfags call "over-fitting". A good hypothesis follows the data that inspires it and predicts the data that confirms it, such that the latter cannot be derived from the former without going through the logic of the hypothesis.
>>16844875How many species had to exist in between all of those animals in your pic?
>>16850363This can't be quantified because the biological species concept is only defined when comparing different organisms living during a specific time of earth's history. Evolution is a continuous grading in which populationa of existing species slowly adapt and change and become new species after thousands, if not milions of years. At what point one species ends and another begins is arbitrary, because too much time has passed for the comparison to make sense.Still, if you're asking how many intermediate forms that are noticeably morphologically distinct (rather than genetically) you need to "complete" the cetacean transition from fully terrestrial to fully acquatic... I'd say we're missing a couple dozen steps at most
>>16850235>You are clearly highly intelligent and so much smarter than meBut I don't need to be to show you're wrongThat's the key >>16850242>You're not strictly rightCope. Being right is being right. >the point of a scientific hypothesis is to explain some observations That is incorrect. The sled example I gave above does not require that we observe a sled in motion before a hypothesis is made. If you do observe a sled moves faster if you lean forward when you test the hypothesis then you can make a new hypothesis as to why it happens and test it by changing variablesHowever, it is not following the scientific method if you already know a sled moves faster by leaning forward and then you test to see if it moves faster by leaning forward.That is just confirmation bias and it's effectively all Darwin did. Hence, sometimes the SM explains non rigorous observations, sometimes it's answering a question that was not based on observations. >in a way that predicts something far beyond the original observations, so that it can be testedDarwin didn't even do that. "Gradualism" in species was already established before he did any research. Darwin didn't perform any experiments. He observed a well-established pattern (ROFL), formed a hypothesis, then went looking to observe the pattern even harder. It's like finding a bunch of rocks for years then "hypothesizing" you'll continue to find rocks the next time you look for rocks. It's completely braindead to claim that is how the scientific method works. It's not a test if the pre-hypothesis action is identical to the post-hypothesis action. You might as well say the test came before the hypothesis since it's objectively the same thing.Thus, Darwin did not follow the scientific method in yet another way.
>>16850633>Cope. Being right is being right.I agree. And to put it simply, what you said is wrong. Not reading the rest of your post because you're clearly low-IQ.
It really was a mistake to shut down middle schools 5 years ago for COVID, because now 5 years later we are seeing the corresponding 20 IQ point drop in posts like this one >>16850646 now that those kids are old enough to use the internet without mommy and daddy setting parental controls to lock them out
>>16850844Evolution by natural selection, put simply, is "what survives and breeds does so. And what doesn't dies off."The "natural" part just indicates that there's no need for any intent to drive it. But there's nothing discounting it as operating in conditions where the intentions of one species drives the evolution of another.The "primary claim" of evolution is that intent is irrelevant.
>>16848193>weYOU have never seen even one of those supposed fossils in your entire worthless life.YOU are taking the word of a picture in a book someone read to you.Look, I understand I'm shitting all over you religion, your church-of-evolution belief system and I know that has to be deeply personal to you that I'm calling your beliefs into question.I'm just telling you your belief system is retarded and there is no factual basis for it.Your kooky religion EXTRAPOLATES speciation from the very observable phenomenon of heredity and a myth you've never seen demonstrated of non-deleterious mutation.
>>16851874>YOU have never seen even one of those supposed fossils in your entire worthless life.Never been to a museum, huh?>b.. but all museum fossils are reconstructions.Incorrect. It's trivially obvious which parts are real and which are reconstructions.
People with callosal disconnection will confabulate reasons why they can't do shit instead of realizing they're brain damaged. Same eegoes with people who believe that the world was created in 7 earthly days but refuse to realize that selection - a technique perfected by humans for millennia - is actually common in nature because species are selected to fit their environment.
>>16848505>We directly observe evolution and populations changing over time, and we can view how this happened in the past AND make predictions via the fossil record.So where are the currently living animals with halfway-evolved wings or other features we can predict?Why is skin color the only environmental adaptation among humans?
>>16851933>where are the currently living animals with halfway-evolved wings or other features we can predict?Mudskippers.>Why is skin color the only environmental adaptation among humans?Sickle cell.
>>16851933>Why is skin color the only environmental adaptation among humans?Congrats, I probably lost 10 IQ just reading your post.
>>16851933>So where are the currently living animals with halfway-evolved wings or other features we can predict?What does half evolved mean? Evolution doesn’t decide on an end product and work towards it. There are literally millions of animals that are poor fliers or can only glide>Why is skin color the only environmental adaptation among humans?It’s not
>>16851933To add to >>16852014:>mudskippers: fish walking on land>flying squirrels: have membranous gliding “wings”, cannot fly but glide similar to earliest bats>platypus: lays eggs, secretes milky fluids via skin glands more similar to sweat glands instead of developed teats (tits for normies)>fishing cat: a species of cat similar to housecat, but spends most of its time in the water as a predator of fish and other animals while retaining most of its land-adapted traits, much like the first seals
>>16845148You will own nothing.You will get in the pod.You will be a beautiful butterfly.You will be happy.>>16851917You belong in a museum.
>>16844875there's no such thing as not believing in evolution any more than there is not believing the earth goes around the sun. evolution is just as true and demonstrable as the earth being round. there's mountains of evidence, if you don't "believe" it it's because you're retarded, not because it might not be true. it's true whether you like it or not. humans are fucking retarded, most people should be in fucking jail, and the rest should be slaves
>>16844875Don't most of them believe in a version of Intelligent Design, so evolution with God steering the wheel? Doesn't seem irreconcilable with any description of the content of evolutionary theory: the chain of skulls and species, just a dispute over causes.
>>16844875Dogmatic thinkers treat their worldview as universal truth so anything that challenges it gets rationalized away rather than prompting them to admit they might just be wrong. The truth is that for many It is a matter of faith and not fact.
>>16856670It isn't even true among its own reference frame. The construction of the fossil record is a line of circumstantial argumentation. The dating on fossils is many orders larger than the life of the fossil in question. Right off the bat, this means there are multiple organizations of this so-called tree of life. You can't say something like this is true because counter examples exist.
>>16851917>I'm literally too stupid to know what a replica is.Many such cases.
No one has ever seen an ambulocetus. It is a creature that exists purely in the imagination of a strange kind of cult given power over our educational institutions.
The evolutionist cult never has to answer for all these lies they've been caught in.And they are telling even more lies now. They never stop.
>>16857114I already addressed your exact point in the same exact post you replied to.It's plain to see which bones are real and which are reconstructions.Most of the skeletons on display do, indeed, contain the original fossils.
>>16857115We have seen their fossils though, and can compare their skeletal structure with modern whales and other prehistoric whale fossils, as well as date them and map them. >>16857116The embryos look very similar aside from the large sack on the salamander one, I don't get your point. I'm not that knowledgeable on evo-devo though. Anyways why is it that I ask for a good faith answer to the question posed in OP, and yet all anyone can do is these weird deflections. How do you explain the genetic similarities between whales and modern hoofed mammals, as well as the fossil record, without evolution?
>>16857172>The embryos look very similarare you kidding? they look like random pieces of chewed gumyou're coping out of your mind
>>16844875There's nothing to explain here. You're side is the one making the argument, so the explanations are your responsibility. Invariably, your side says that the whole idea is so simple a child could understand it, but when pressed on the details of your mad, crazy theory, you say: it's too complicated, you need to be an evolutionary microbiologist to properly understand it. In short, you are unable to explain anything.
>>16857399>your side says that the whole idea is so simple a child could understand it
>>16844875Funny I recently came across a video talking about thishttps://youtu.be/zaKi7x7qkyo24 minutes in he talks about whales
very nice everyone, good job! kongradulashions! this is the worst thread ive ever seen on this whole website EVER! lol! children bickering is all it is... and the two mindsets participating are meant to be respected to some degree? i hope none of you people actually attempt to personally represent your side of the coin... nobody in this thread actually wants to convince or be convinced of anything and the topic is completely irrelevant to all who participate! sad people see an excuse to fight. to make themselves look smarter than everyone different from themselves... can science or religion explain why everyone in this thread is a complete queer?
>>16857541bro who is this skinny tweaked out alibaba rekieta?
if you study animism and evolution properly your ass will circumvent and discover that IQ is metaphysical so evolving with positive attributes like a high iq and low iq are impossible at the granular level
bump
>>16844885This can be said about anything
>>16856869what you're saying is so stupid that i can't even understand it. are you saying the theory of evolution is false?
Evolution was deboonked decades agohttps://youtu.be/BgTG0p1I1G8?si=-Ua0Qqpu6g0crGx8
>>16844875
>>16860673Why would I watch this? What the fuck would you christcucks and mudslims do without science hm?
>>16860790>do without sciencemassive copeStudying evolution is considered "science" yet it has never helped humanityEven tracking COVID mutations is fundamentally no different than dog breeding and tracking pedigree, and humans have understood that literally 1000's of years before Darwin. Thus, we don't benefit from studying microevolution. We're just as well off as before we defined that useless idea because it was already non-formally understood yet reached maximum utility anyway. No utility was gained by formally defining it and "studying" it. For instance we forced some chickens to evolve to be much larger in the last 50 years but humans already knew how to do that 4000 years ago (and it possibly was done on small scales) long before the scientific method was ever even dreamed of. Macroevolution is a fictional idea in the first place so of course "studying" fiction cannot benefit humanity
>>16860908>never helped humanityAh, so Jewish it is. If it doesn’t put pennies in your pocket then you don’t care
>>16844875The average person doesn't know the detail like this
>>16845151>natural selection works to remove anything not providing an immediate benefitLol no it doesn't
For me is easier and more logical to believe that if there's a God, he simply made the evolutionary processes alongside all the other rules of the universe.Dunno why Creationist can't simply see it that way. That God is a being so beyond our understanding, he made the fundamental processes that run biology.I guess the only problem on that perspective, is that it makes God too above us. Like if we are just one of the many species that could have arisen from the evolutionary pool, instead of something personally handcrafted.But eh, dunno. Maybe that's why we are special? The first animal, the first creature to evolve, and attempt to reach God?
>>16860582I am saying it doesn't even have a basic evidence even if you give it maximum charity and accept all of the retarded illogical errors it has. Their collection of bones is ultimately a just-so fairy tale.
>>16862168>this real thing is fakeyou've provided nothing to further the conversation. and nothing you say will ever disprove evolution, it's already proven way beyond a reasonable doubt scientifically. you can actually see it happen with your own eyes, but you'll never do the experiment to prove it. you're just too stupid, do you understand? yes or no. any response except for yes or no is an admission that you're a giant retarded faggot and you automatically concede.
>>16844882im gay thoughbeit
>>16845148damn nigga>>16855880kek
>>16845146>Have you ever seen an animal evolve? I haven't. Scientists say it takes millions of years. Well that's convenient isn't it, that it definitely happens but only when you're not looking at it because you're dead way before it happens. Give me a break.American retard at his proud moment of ignorance
>>16845146>Have you ever seen an animal evolve? I haven't. Scientists say it takes millions of years. Well that's convenient isn't it, that it definitely happens but only when you're not looking at it because you're dead way before it happens. Give me a break.The catch is that being able to arrange a bunch of fossils in a way that appears to show a gradual transitions in morphology is what they define as "seeing an animal evolve". What they can't actually prove is that this transition relates to their just-so story about random mutation and natural selection, which is now known to be false despite decades of their fallacious screeching and acting like they have some intellectual higher ground. kek
>>16845147>requires 20^353 permutations in order to produce pectinaseCreationists love to pull giant numbers out of their ass to describe how unlikely they think something is.
>>16862176Alright, so you said it is proven. What is the mechanism for how a protoliver became a liver?
>>16845148Ive known of this process since I was 6 and yet it's still disturbing to see
>>16862286Darwin's book is literally about selection in farming and how the natural environment has its own selection pressures. It didn't come out of nowhere, it came from thousands of years of knowledge of how to selectively breed species to turn them into things we wanted.
>>16845149are they asking him how different species evolved to have different amounts of chromosomes?
>>16862303Then why is it that when we see evolution of living species in real time you guys just go “nuh uh that’s not enough evolution”
>>16862744you keep asking questions yet you curiously completely ignore that i told you that you can do an experiment that directly proves evolution. don't you think that's a little odd? don't you NOTICE this? i noticed. it's almost like you're retarded, it's almost like you're running on a script that you can't deviate from. hmmmmmmm, weird. can you name me some evolutionary biology books that you've read front to back?
>>16862926Asking for science. How deeply did your grandafther fuck you up the ass in order to displace your brains with your own shit?
>>16862935>no response stillyou keep asking questions yet you curiously completely ignore that i told you that you can do an experiment that directly proves evolution. don't you think that's a little odd? don't you NOTICE this? i noticed. it's almost like you're retarded, it's almost like you're running on a script that you can't deviate from. hmmmmmmm, weird. can you name me some evolutionary biology books that you've read front to back?
>>16862920There isn't, always selection of existing variations.It proves nothing btw, a creator can use the same mechanism evolution claims for their theories. Me not wondering they do not see that simple thing.
>>16863036>There isn't, always selection of existing variationsThat is evolution. Also define “existing variations”>It proves nothing btw, a creator can use the same mechanism evolution claims for their theories. Me not wondering they do not see that simple thingESL or actual retard?
>>16863038>That is evolution. Also define “existing variations”Usually it's called selection >ESL or actual retard?Thanks for admitting of no arguments by going personal.
>>16863071>Usually it's called selectionYou mean natural selection, aka the process by which evolution occurs>Thanks for admitting of no arguments by going personalHe says as he doesn’t answer the question about what an “existing variation” is
>>16862926Yes, you say it is proven but you can't point to any proof. So you are living in a hallucination where you expect others to believe your government sponsored education center.And I am telling you no. Demonstrate your claim or fuck off.
>>16863154>Yes, you say it is proven but you can't point to any proof. are you going to AGAIN ignore that you can personally do an experiment to prove it? are you also going to ignore that we can visually see it occurring in species? i guess you have to ignore everything to keep saying it's fake. >believe your government sponsored education center.wait, so you think going to school is fake and stupid? are you retarded? do you have zero education? what is your degree in? and what do you do for a career? i would LOVE to know so i can laugh my balls off. let me guess, you're either unemployed, or some low level warehouse worker or some pathetic nonsense. are you the guy who puts the fries in the bag for me?>Demonstrate your claim or fuck off.read a book you fucking retard. bruh do you even know why bacteria and diseases become immune to drugs? are you really this fucking stupid?
>>16863241Read the library of congress and you will know why God is real. DuhYou can literally sacrifice a child to find out the truth about witchcraft! Just do it bro! It is just one child between you and immortal sovereignty.What is the mechanism for how a proto-penis evolved intandem with the proto vagina?
>>16863290>What is the mechanism for how a proto-penis evolved intandem with the proto vagina?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
>>16844875I don't like evolution because evolutionist trannies hate epigenetics for no good reason.
>>16863241>torture animals to prove my demonic nonsense is true, goyno ty
>>16863424>evolutionist trannies hate epigenetics for no good reason.What?Epigenetics is literally a driving force for evolution.
>>16863428>Epigenetics is literally a driving force for evolution.I don't know a single mainstream evolutionary biologist who would argue epigenetics are fundamental in the same way genes are. Central figures are more likely to owe it lip service compared to back then, but its not a commonly held position that epigenetics are primary drivers of anything.
>>16863432https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12915-023-01770-4Also, I didn't say "primary." I just said they were a driving force. What was on my mind as I typed that were the fact that treehopper horns are coded by the same genes that code for wings.
>>16863432>>16863449This article seems better, actually. Much more detailed in explaining the role epigenetics appears to play in evolutionary processes:https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/376/1826/20200111/31553/How-does-epigenetics-influence-the-course-of
>>16863403None of that describes a mechanism. Better try again.
>>16863290>talking about evolution>beings up godthis is how fucking dumb you are. religious prove they are stupid as fuck yet again>>16863427>some bullshit unrelated to evolutiondumb fuck. people who attempt to argue against evolution are pretty low IQ
>>16863537Only if you don’t read it
>>16844875The whales having knee bones is strong evidence for it. Why would a god have a fish make these bones?
>>16864020>they're knees>....BECAUSE THEY JUST ARE, OKAY?!
>>16863839>>some bullshit unrelated to evolutiondarwin "proved" evolution by going around torturing small animals. this is exactly what you mean by "proving" evolution. seethe, sadistic tranny.
>>16864074It looks like a leg fused to the flesh to me. Fish never had these and whales are a kind of mammal indicated by the teats. That's roughly how it's done.
>>16864079>It looks like a leg fused to the flesh to me. So what, that doesn't mean anything. The existence of pelvic bones in whales is not evidence of "mindless design", whether or not you truly believe it to be vestigial.
>>16864081I don't think it's vestigial. I think it was retained because it helps with moving the tail. So a whale with fused legs could move faster in the water than a whale without them and so have a fitness advantage.
>>16864075evolution is provable by experiments that you can literally do yourself, but you're just too stupid lol. also can you explain how diseases become resistant to drugs without evolution? still waiting for an answer.
>>16863989there is no mechanism in there. Some retarded fag said it was proven, but they don't even have a mechanism. Why are evolutionary biologists such pseuds? Why is their standard of proof so low as to just be made up stories?
>>16864109yes, go dissect more helpless rats.
>>16864109>also can you explain how diseases become resistant to drugs without evolution?We're not germs, take your meds evolution schizo.
>>16864074>TNEY AREN’T LEGS BECAUSE THEY JUST AREN’T OKAY?!Cope
>>16864112The mechanism for the evolution of a proto-penis and proto-vagina is evolution. Evolution is the mechanism. What you actually seem to be trying to ask is why and how would that evolve, but you’re too retarded to know the difference. To answer that the ‘why’ is to more efficiently transfer sperm from one organism to another, and the ‘how’ is that they originated as nubs in a cloaca which served to more efficiently deliver sperm. The penis is just a more derived version, and has evolved independently across multiple amniotic lineages. You seem to be very curious about penises anon, do you want to tell us something?
>>16845035Well, it's possible that evolution is mostly natural, but humanity in particular was aided by something more intelligent at points. I think this is the most likely.>>16844875Jesus faked the fossil record to test our faith.
>>16864126>yes, go dissect more helpless rats.no idea what this mean>We're not germs, take your meds evolution schizo.no clue what this means. anyway, can you explain how diseases become resistant to drugs without evolution? no? got anything?
>>16844875What you are experiencing OP is one of the great filters.You will have noticed by now that it does not matter what is said to an evolution denier. They remain entrenched in their world view. Similar to flat earthers, these people can not be reasoned with, they lack the cognitive ability. and are unwilling to be impartial or educated. >Wtf about this great filter?As a species we stumbled upon energy reserves which fueled our population growth and technological development. First it was wood, then coal, then oil.These increasingly energy dense fuels are the only reason we have reached our current level of civilization. All our political development, economic growth, educational institutes, medical advances, science, and technology, is built upon the the long dead bodies of plants and animals which died millions of years ago. It has created a vast abundance, but with that has also come a morality and political system which lags far behind and is still struggling to catch up. We permit unreasonable and willfully ignorant people to exist. We tolerate the stupid. We allow them equal political power. We allow them an equal voice. We permit them to breed.This is the great filter. For by tolerating them we hamper our development to the point where our society stagnates, and will likely degrade as the fossil fuel bonanza is squandered before an suitable replacement can be developed. Once that happens there is no escaping the gravity well of the sun.A pragmatic solution would be to encourage the breeding and education of smart reasonable people while sterilizing the stupid and severely restricting their consumption of limited resources. Naturally something other than universal Democracy as we currently know would also have to be adopted. Perhaps weighted Democracy instead.As a matter of course the evolution deniers, along with other dolts, would be silenced by simply being bred out of existence.With those monkeys off our backs we could reach the stars
>>16864342>an evolution denierDog breeding is evolution. Nobody denies the mechanisms behind that thus nobody denies evolution. You're using desperate verbal trickery to "bait-and-switch" the unfalsifiable concept of microevolution with the weak hypothesis that all species on earth naturalistically evolved from a single common ancestor and pretend that if someone denies/refutes the later it means they deny the former. It's pathetic and mentally low IQ. You have to strawman and pigeonhole their position like that because you need to ignore how much you personally rely on denialism to prop up all your beliefs you can't defend.
>>16864292>anyway, can you explain how diseases become resistant to drugs without evolution?Therefore monkey men.
>>16864196>Evolution is the mechanism.So its just a tautology, got it.
>>16864196Now evolution is a mechanism and not a scientific theory? What is its theory of operation?
>>16864627>Therefore monkey men.wait, do you think humans came from monkeys? you just proved you're fucking retarded
>>16864707>Now evolution is a mechanism and not a scientific theory?you clearly don't know how to use a search engine or AI to look anything up. spending 1 second to type that question would have given you the answer, moron. it's a scientific theory. what's wrong wit you that you're this stupid? how can this be possible that you morons are actually this retarded LOL
>>16864707>Now evolution is a mechanism and not a scientific theoryBeing reminded that people like you are able to vote certainly is depressing
>>16864633Only if you ignore the rest of what was written, but I don’t blame you for being unable to understand it
>>16864741No, he said it is a mechanism. It can't be both. AAre theories conceptual?
>>16864800>i ignored what you said completely, please repeat it exactly so i can try againyou clearly don't know how to use a search engine or AI to look anything up. spending 1 second to type that question would have given you the answer, moron. it's a scientific theory. what's wrong wit you that you're this stupid? how can this be possible that you morons are actually this retarded LOL
>>16864852He's word-brained. It's chronic, unfortunately. His brain simply cannot understand that [word for thing] is not [thing].I can guarantee he's the same guy in the other thread arguing that the arbitrary nature of taxonomic classifications is evidence that evolution isn't real.
>>16864852So is it a theory or a mechanism?
>>16864857Theory of evolution describes what the mechanism of evolution entails.
>>16864859What phenomenon are associated with evolution?
>>16864861Reproduction with variation. Natural selection. Genetic drift.
>>16844875If you can believe in complex life just happening you can also at minimum believe a complex life form appeared one day and started making other life. Humans have made all sorts of things and are still trying to develop technologies for editing and outright creating life.
>>16864572It will be a wonderful day for Civilization when your willfully ignorant stupidity is humanely extinguished.
>>16864196>The mechanism for the evolution of a proto-penis and proto-vagina is evolution. Evolution is the mechanism>the evolution . . is evolution>the mechanism . . is the mechanismYou're the reason why the internet needs a sub 75 IQ filterWhat's even more embarrassing is the fact you're going to predictably double down and continue to think there was nothing circular in your excrement-for-brains gibberish
>>16864738>pedantry
>>16864748Natural selection is strictly a destructive process. Saying this is a mechanism for novelty to emerge is retarded.
>>16844875Am I supposed to believe that the huge blue whale 100 ft long and weighing 300 tons evolved from a small land animal that looks like a cross between a deer and a rat?
>>16864900Living proof that universal democracy was a bad idea.I dont mind so much that you are stupid, but the fact you can vote ( or soon will be able ) and the fact that you have a voice is problematic.Taking those away would be the first step in advancing Humanity to the stars, although having you sterilized in addition would be a better longer term solution.
>>16864883You’re asking what the mechanism of a mechanism is, when you’re trying to ask what the reason for it is. Incredible that I can plainly explain the question you should be asking instead and you still can’t understand. Let me study your shrunken ape brain you basal troglodyte>>16864895>Natural selection is strictly a destructive processIt’s not>Saying this is a mechanism for novelty to emerge is retardedSaying that it isn’t would be retarded. I don’t know where this idea that mutation only destroys genetic information comes from. There are animals that have doubled their entire genomes. One frog species has done so six times even
>>16864020Whales aren't fish, for starters.>>16864914You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are, responding to rage bait in earnest for days at a time. The most intelligent thing you'll ever do is commit suicide.
>>16864963Whales are fish and so are you
