My liberal science teacher is trying to red pill me on evolution through adaptation.
Is it true or just bullshit?
Post your proofs
Is evolution through Darwinism real?
Joshua Hernandez
Other urls found in this thread:
mileswmathis.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Cameron Thompson
there are several philosophical arguments against evolution. Things like:
1. It does not satisfy falsifiability
2. Arguments for development of organs are reductionist (an "eye" evolved from "light sensitive cells" which are really already an "eye"). This is akin to Zeno's paradox
3. Evolution is often used to make rediculous Metaphysical claims about the non-existence of god, but Biology has little application to Metaphysics. It's like trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics using Moral Philosophy.
Kevin Reyes
Yes, evolution is real and has been observed numerous times.
"Natural selection" is kind of a misnomer, though, and "survival of the fittest" is outright wrong. It's more like attrition. Weaker individuals are more likely to die before breeding or to have fewer offspring. If it doesn't kill you, it gets passed on.
Charles Ward
If I'm not mistaken there is adaptation and mutation, mutation is larger jumps at deeper levels
Carson Powell
Blake Hernandez
If you dont believe in evolution then you might aswell call yourself a liberal.
Lucas Lewis
>non-existence of god
>conflating the spiritual plane with the material plane
The absolute state of today's goyim folks. Isn't it tragic?
Grayson Williams
Its True. But often Darwinism is mistaken for survival of the fittest (and that's partially true) but as Darwin himself noted, it's actually those who are more "adaptable" who are more likely to live on.
For Example
>Be weakfag
>Attain enough resources that'll give you the edge on your competion
>poke holes in condoms of the prostitutes you nail
>Spread seed in millions of girls to spawn franchises future generations
>Profit?
>JK I'd never bring a child into the world.
Aaron Taylor
evolution is very real, and I can't believe people still think that it isn't. It's particularly observable in organisms which have very short generational sequences like bacteria. Hence why they can become resistant to antibiotics.
>t. Molecular biologist
Caleb Cooper
what's wrong with that guy? did he fall off his bike?
Charles Peterson
the bulgur speaks the truth
Landon Roberts
epigenetics + natural selection + eugenic selection = evolution of man
Easton Torres
that guy looks like hes seen better days
Hunter Thompson
Before making us Christians look retarded...
>1. It does not satisfy falsifiability
Wrong. If an animal does not naturally respond over generations to a stimulus, then evolution is proven wrong. The issue is that animals quickly do adapt.
>2. Arguments for development of organs are reductionist (an "eye" evolved from "light sensitive cells" which are really already an "eye"). This is akin to Zeno's paradox
Wrong and an incorrect usage of Zeno's paradox. A cell is not an organ. The eye is an organ specialized and composed of cells but the cells themselves are developed as a result of advantageous mutations
>3. Evolution is often used to make rediculous Metaphysical claims about the non-existence of god, but Biology has little application to Metaphysics. It's like trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics using Moral Philosophy.
This works but is tangential to the question
Juan Gomez
Modern Society doesn't select for the fittest traits
hell, even feudal society didn't, they were all inbred by the end of the 1900s and couldn't chew right or had ridiculous medical or mental problems
social darwinism is bs, look at how many retarded rich people there are
Brayden Brooks
Is he sleeping?
Liam Clark
The part about evolution that I’m skeptical of is that random mutations supposedly explain the diversity of life on earth. Aren’t random mutations extremely infrequent and more often than not detrimental?
Jaxon Rivera
>I’m too dumb to think for myself. Please post articles that tell me what to think.
Ftfy.
Christopher Adams
>If an animal does not naturally respond over generations to a stimulus, then evolution is proven wrong
This does not prove evolution is wrong, because it is possible that you just didn't give it enough time which is what the other guy meant by not falsifiable.
Asher Barnes
>how many rich retarded people there are
>rich
>retarded
pick one
Colton Lee
He was also talking about macroevolution not adaptation.
Robert Cruz
>not his bike
Julian Robinson
>what is inheritance
see: billionaire heir Rodrigo Alves, famed for losing his nose and taking out his ribs
Jose Powell
if money is genius, then rodrigo should be our god
Kayden King
>I don't trust my science teacher, so I'll ask a bunch of autists on a political forum instead
Blake King
Wrong.
Brandon Clark
Evolution via natural selection
Landon Turner
Simply put.
>Microevolution is an observable phenomenon.
>Macroevolution is at present an unproven and untestable theory which represents science's best shot at explaining how species are generated.
Literally just state this and move on. The evolution debate isn't something worth spending time on.
I've never understood why anyone actually cares either.
Caleb Jackson
Evolution doesn't avail liberal ethics, it destroys them
Brayden Morales
Fuck you Satan. My great grandpa rode dinosaurs.
Carter Williams
What is the name of this disease?
Someone give me a quick bogdown.
Asher Nguyen
homosexual masochism
this is what a billion dollars and a childhood of mulatto inferiority complex looks like
Michael Gutierrez
> If an animal does not naturally respond over generations to a stimulus, then evolution is proven wrong
Can the theory of Evolution be used to make quantifiable, provable predictions? No it can't.
> A cell is not an organ. The eye is an organ specialized and composed of cells but the cells themselves are developed as a result of advantageous mutations
This is exactly what I meant by reductionist. If we talk about the cellular level you'd reduce to molecular ad infinitum.