Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:38:26 UTC No. 16167083

>>16167028
they meant that we descended from african monkeys

Cult of Passion at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:40:31 UTC No. 16167089

All political and scientific smoke and mirrors to disgrace what it means to be human. They are satanic.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:40:56 UTC No. 16167232

>>16167089
Santa Claus is going to be very cross with you this year for that kind of rhetoric

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:06:21 UTC No. 16167439

>>16167028
he was insanely racist achtually

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:26:22 UTC No. 16167459

Yeah evolution is so easily debunked.
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.
Guess which theory is true according to them:
theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth
theory 2: humans transition from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fishes today dont transition into monkeys and monkeys today dont transition into humans, just trust me bro. Btw, humans still transition into trannies, that's completely natural and scientific :^)
Face it, atheism-scientism is a religion too, and the whole religion replacement was a power grab by atheists. Atheists make Darwin their new guru. But like all gurus, Darwin is an atheist duplicitous bitch. The only difference between Darwin and Lamarck is that Darwin made up a theory about a population and Lamarck made up a theory about an individual. Now here is the thing. in order to work with ''a population'', you need to use statistics. and statistics dont lead to proofs and even less to truths. Darwin's theory is not falsifiable and atheists are gaga about this, even though in public they say falsifiability is awesome. In fact, the atheist concept of a ''a population'' is not even well defined. At best you they come up with a fuzzy definition. So with darwin theory you get no predictive claims and when you try to get numbers out of it, you only get few stats about a population and if the theory fails, the atheists will say the numerical results are just statistical artifacts, no big deal. In fact ''truth'' is not even defined in statistics. So whatever atheists come up with with their stats, they can't say it's the truth.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:47:48 UTC No. 16167590

>>16167459
>yet it was never observed
In contrast to "the world was created in le six days"?

You don't need to OBSERVE something while it's happening btw, you look at the signs all over the place and come to a conclusion. Look at whales for examples
>they have lungs, unlike other fish
>they are mammals, unlike other fish
>they have useless rudimentary hindlegs INSIDE of their body with no function
All these observations lead to the conclusion that they were once land mammals that developed into water animals and slowly undeveloped the hindlegs.
So if you have land animals turning to sea animals, why should that not be possible the other way round?

Also other interesting observations
>there are literally fish that walk on land RIGHT NOW (look up "walking fish")
>there are animals that live on land AND in water, like seals, sea lions etc
>there are animals that live on land AND ON water, like ducks
>there are other animals that are very flexible, like sea crabs
You can see how not black and white this all is. So why is it so hard to imagine for you that a water animal that had the capabilities of being semi-aquatic slowly developed into being more and more of a land animal over billions of years?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:58:38 UTC No. 16167600

Evolution is easy to prove axiomatically
>Do organisms most fit for survival reproduce the most?
yes
>Do children inherit their parents traits
yes
>Do mutations happen sometimes the prove to be more beneficial for survival
yes
If you put these all together you get animals that are more and more suited to their environment especially since it's always changing.
It's always people that don't understand evolution that seem to be the most confused
>buh yoo say yooman come from monke!?
nobody has ever said that.
Notice how I didn't say anything about religion because it's irrelevant.
>But muh atheists use it to disprove God and feel superior!
Nobody can disprove God and I don't care if some group of people are being fags
>But I'm CHRISTIAN
Science doesn't conflict with religion. There are christian scientists.
>The scientism ahhhhhh
Science is not something that should be worshiped under any circumstances.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 18:24:18 UTC No. 16167721

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 02:54:03 UTC No. 16168410

>>16167028
False dichotomy bait thread of argumentation between creationists and gradualist-evolutionists. Each side's critique of the other is often valid:

Fossils of different "species" often do appear (and disappear) suddenly in the geologic layers (saltation) rather than gradually.

There is no generally accepted explanation for why different "species" have different numbers of chromosomes; point mutations leading to different alleles of genes clearly can't achieve that. So there has to be a mechanism of "chromosome mutation." Such bulk reorganization leading to a new karyotype, which might be called a speciation event.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:01:52 UTC No. 16168419

>>16168410
I still know which side I'd bet my money on being true.

Are you implying that a god intervened at certain points to cause a speciation event? Or are you simply pointing out how the theory is incomplete? If the latter, then fair enough.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:08:25 UTC No. 16168430

>>16168410
Also, on human origins in particular: It is quite remarkable just how many anatomical differences there are between humans and the other apes. So we are to suppose this creature with upright gait, advanced thermo-regulation, and a larynx (none of which are present in chimps) as well as a hundred or so smaller anatomical differences must have appeared pretty much all at once. Why all at once? Because humans have drastically less physical strength than chimps, and so the only way to survive in the beginning would have been to run out of the shady forest onto the sunny savannah, where chimps cannot follow due to their almost non-existent thermo-regulation.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:14:17 UTC No. 16168437

>>16168419
>Are you implying that a god intervened at certain points to cause a speciation event? Or are you simply pointing out how the theory is incomplete? If the latter, then fair enough.
Yes, some form of evolution had to have occurred, but I don't see evolutionary theorists doing an adequate job of addressing the objections that their opponents raise.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:14:24 UTC No. 16168438

>>16168430
They didn't appear all at once my friend. This has been a continual process, which is continuing to this day. Look at all the different breeds of wolves we have as pets.

Fundamentally this debate is not really about the science of evolution. It's about the viability of religious mythologies and their claims about the cosmos. People deeply desire an eternal afterlife to assuage their death anxiety. That's the core of the matter.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:18:09 UTC No. 16168446

>>16168437
Science is incomplete, yet ever expanding.

Which side do you bet is going to get it right? The one which has ushered in vast knowledge that is inundating the modern world? Or the backwaters of trad copers?

We could discuss technicalities on the graduate level if you want, but it's pretty obvious what the real emotional motivation is for this discussion.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:25:15 UTC No. 16168454

>>16168437
I mention the larynx because it seems to me a completely arbitrary claim that paleontologists make that language appeared 40,000 or maybe 200,000 years ago, with the justification that language requires abstract thinking. It's a fact that sub-Saharan Africans are deficient in abstract thinking ability, but they have language. I see no good reason why the earliest humans would have lacked language, and they surely would have needed it to organize into hunting and defensive groups, considering their puny physical attributes: in the forest were apes that have greater physical strength and huge fangs, and on the savannah there are lions and hyenas, so they probably would have had to eke out an existence on the forest margin.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 04:21:58 UTC No. 16168513

>>16167028
Europeans are more advanced than Africans in some dimensions. Asians are getting the edge of Europeans. This why is self-improvement and eugenics is important.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 04:52:20 UTC No. 16168535

>>16168410
>Fossils of different "species" often do appear (and disappear) suddenly in the geologic layers (saltation) rather than gradually.
Fossilisation is a rare occurence. It is not unusual for a species to be known only from a few or even a single specimen
>There is no generally accepted explanation for why different "species" have different numbers of chromosomes
Chromosomes can split or fuse. That has been known for decades

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 06:30:35 UTC No. 16168623

>>16167028
reminder that darwins theory has no predictive power.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 07:02:58 UTC No. 16168654

>>16168438
It's really about evolution being required to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" as Dawkins put it. That's why people get so angry when you point out holes in things like abiogenesis and human evolution, it's the central pillar of their faith, so they react worse than when you attack more surface details of it.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 07:30:51 UTC No. 16168666

>>16167028
Monkeys are a paraphyletic group and therefore don't really exist, so we can't really be descended from them.

We're descended from other apes.

And plenty of people come from Africa, eg Elon Musk. If you're referring to ancestry, you'd need to specify a specific timeframe though, cause our ancestors come from all sorts of places depending on when you're looking.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 08:09:20 UTC No. 16168686

>>16167600
It does require a bit of doublethink to be a Christian scientist tho
Or you have to accept that the Bible is not accurate and just another book of human imagination

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:16:25 UTC No. 16168778

>>16168686
The Bible literally begins with 2 mutually contradictory versions of creation.

Literally nobody in their right fucking mind considers it infallible.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:20:29 UTC No. 16168782

>>16168778
You STEMtards need to read Hegel. Contradictions are in everything.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:39:07 UTC No. 16168800

>>16168782
>need to read Hegel
If that nigga actually wrote like a real human I would maybe read him. Schopenhauer already shred him into pieces for writing like a elitist faggot. Hell, even Gauß dunked on him for that.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:39:52 UTC No. 16168802

>>16168782
>Contradictions are in everything.
ex contradictione quodlibet

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:47:28 UTC No. 16168807

>>16168654
>That's why people get so angry when you point out holes in things like abiogenesis and human evolution, it's the central pillar of their faith
Usually it’s more because the holes you’re talking about are either a lack of knowledge on the subject or just plain untrue as in the last five evolution threads that have been posted here

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:52:10 UTC No. 16168812

>>16168430
>So we are to suppose this creature with upright gait, advanced thermo-regulation, and a larynx (none of which are present in chimps) as well as a hundred or so smaller anatomical differences must have appeared pretty much all at once
No, because they didn’t appear all at once

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:37:39 UTC No. 16169373

>>16168778
What's the point of the bible then? Just a recipe for making up your own religion in your head?

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 07:45:03 UTC No. 16170417

>>16167028
We are related to a group of monkeys that descended from something to assume was a monkey, who fucking knows cause it's braindead hard to classify and find the missing link. What could it be that apes evolved from? Anyways you all deny it because you don't want to realize the truth that we're all apes in clothing pretending everythings fine.