"Evolution is not a scientific theory but a methaphisical research programme."
K. Popper (before he cucked)
Evolution is not a scientific theory - problem of falsifiability (Catch 22)
Dominic Cruz
Other urls found in this thread:
wnd.com
en.wikipedia.org
sciencedaily.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Alexander Powell
>we are evolving and adapting into a bright future
>turns out we are becoming dumber despite IQ being one of the most crucial adaptive traits
>mouthbreeders: "Praise thee eternal evolutionary wisdom for making us dumber in yee infinite wisdom!"
pic rel
Kayden Parker
how old were you when you realized that evolution is just hegelianism wrapped in a ted talk?
Ayden Cook
That picture is strawmanning nonsense, you don’t honestly expect anyone to argue against it do you?
Evolution is observable, creation is not. Simple.
Owen Reed
>(((K. Popper)))
Colton Evans
>hurrrrr just because two organisms mate and their offspring looks like they did and their offspring is composed of DNA from both parents (or one parent if binary fission) and there are differences in the sequences of different sperm and eggs due to mutation and those mutations that confer fitness to the organism tend to stay in the population and different groups of the population can be separated and undergo this mating, mutation, and fitness selection over hundreds of generations to the point that the different groups of populations can no longer mate and produce genetically viable offspring and we have DNA from hundred of organisms sequenced to the point where we can track lineages for the majority of genes and genetic motifs doesn't mean that something as preposterous as "evolution" exists.
Gabriel Cruz
popper is a cringy autist like you
>high IQ being necessary for reproduction in the modern world
retard
Brody Williams
>Evolution is observable, creation is not. Simple.
>doesn't mean that something as preposterous as "evolution" exists.
Only a persona with an evolutionary demon possession would say such a thing.
PS-(cross species )evolution was never observed, only natural selection.
>wnd.com
nice, but it wont lead anywhere unless you think about semantics.
>>high IQ being necessary for reproduction in the modern world
so IQ isnt a trait that help survival? What is then amerifattness? Is amerifattness the next evolutionary step that helps survival?
What are favourable traits other than constant semantic games you pull?
Joseph Moore
>PS-(cross species )evolution was never observed
Transformation in bacteria my man. In fact the current theory paints a picture of a polyphyletic tree.
Matthew Wright
How could evolution have possibly made such an inert lifeform as the man on the right
Luis Garcia
/thread
Juan Ortiz
>so IQ isnt a trait that help survival?
fertility decreases with IQ my brainlet friend.
Levi Thomas
You can inspect evolution on mouse experiments, it is real.
But man is not a product of it,
Joshua Ward
The fossil record is an excellent source of examples of evolution in action. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Nathaniel Thomas
>Transformation in bacteria my man.
esch coli exp?
You are misinterpreting results then (they did deliberatly) - bacterias had that ability from the start, it was jsut nat actualized until selected for just like lactose tolerance in humans.
Nordics didnt evolved into high lactose tolerance, you just died if you didnt had one - Nordics had high lactose tolerance from begining.
>fertility decreases with IQ my brainlet friend.
which doesnt mean it HAS to - its temporarily specific to today.
Austin Moore
Flat earthers, the face-blind, and Western creationists all need removing from the gene pool as part of eugenics.
Dylan Morris
>which doesnt mean it HAS to
but it does, which is all that matters for evolution. thank you for conceding defeat.
Daniel Peterson
>IQ isnt a trait that helps survival?
If the government is effectively making it so that no one has to think to themselves to survive, no. The low IQ people might not be traditionally successful in society, but that doesn't mean they can't reproduce (which they do in droves).
Samuel Reed
Creationism is a straw man created by modernists do destroy the believe in god and divert attention from the first cause.
John Clark
>PS-(cross species )evolution was never observed, only natural selection.
Ah yes obviously it makes more sense to believe that all species were created just as they are all at once. It's just a coincidence that they're very obviously all related genetically and made to they fit nicely on phylogenetic trees.
Eli Perez
Trying to come up with the odds of an event like abiogenesis or the odds of modern Man evolving is a completely meaningless exercise because it requires the kind of perspective and experience with on the universe that humans don't currently have.
Dylan Cruz
They probably only tested aristocrats back in the 1800s maybe?
The plebs were basically illiterate.
They had a good system. You teach them how to read and write but they're still retarded, and you get pic related.
Henry Parker
EVOLUTION DOESNT PREDICT.
ITS JUST A HEGELIAN MYTH.
>The fossil record is an excellent source of examples of evolution in action.
its a total meme
en.wikipedia.org
to prove scientific nature of evolution you have to make forward predictions.
high IQ increases survival like no other, also it wasnt negativly correlated with births up until recently, stop playing semantics faggot.
> I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE
Only a person with an evolutionary demon possession would say such a thing.
>If
which one is it then?
Does "good health" increase survival?
>Creationism is a straw man
What is epistemiology.
James Sullivan
Demon possession? What?
Jose Diaz
every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out.
Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.
Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.
Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.
sciencedaily.com
In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.
discuss.
example of pseudoscientific thinking inspired by evolution
youtube.com
>Demon possession? What?
its a joke about the lack of falsifiability of evolution.
Isaac Rogers
>also it wasnt negativly correlated with births up until recently
but it is now, hence why IQ is going down. you already conceded once, so while I appreciate it there’s no need to keep repeating yourself
Bentley Walker
Golay didn't come up with those odds, Henry Morris did.
Chase Jones
>They probably only tested aristocrats back in the 1800s maybe?
I dont think so, check out Galtons research from that era.
>but it is now
What is "good health" was negativly correlated with births NOW? would you call it mal-adaptive?
How about homosexuality NOW? You can get major benefits with that label NOW, so its adaptive?
Is that your science, what until it happens and tell a story up until NOW, how about PREDICT?
Jordan Myers
>but it is now
and how you black VS white people NOW in USA? Who is more adapted NOW? Fck leftists semantics fag.
Ryder Ortiz
>>If
>which one is it then?
I was not talking rhetorically, the government IS making it so that people do not need to think to survive.
"If" is not meant as a qualifier, it is a way of expressing an outcome given a set of circumstance.
That's just incredibly pedantic.
>Does "good health" increase survival?
Yes, it does, and the average life expectancy has increased dramatically because of advances in medicine. This means that, on average, people who would have died from not caring for themselves are not dying.
Henry Robinson
>Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.
Hypothesis: Humans used to lose teeth more often and it was convenient to have a few extra come in later in life so you have a full set again.
>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.
It predicts that different organisms will be related to other organisms to varying degrees based on time since divergence. Genetic and morphological evidence supports this claim time and time again.
Elijah King
>evolutionary demon possession
Listen to how fucking daft you sound, you cretin.
Jordan Roberts
>How about homosexuality NOW? You can get major benefits with that label NOW, so its adaptive?
the absolute state of creationists
William Rogers
>I was not talking rhetorically, the government IS making it so that people do not need to think to survive.
correct observation, wrong conclusion.
What if government decided to off all healthy people? Would you call all un-healthy people evolutionary adapted?
>Hypothesis: Humans used to lose teeth more often and it was convenient to have a few extra come in later in life so you have a full set again.
Then teeth should appear in random numbers which they dont.
Meanwhile, under proper conditions, wisdom teeth develop without problems.
>It predicts that different organisms will be related to other organisms to varying degrees based on time since divergence
YEC and genetics tell the same.
>the absolute state of creationists
>Listen to how fucking daft you sound, you cretin.
Only a person with an evolutionary demon possession would say such a thing. Im sorry about your problems anons, when have you gotten obsessed by an evolutionary demon?
Wyatt Cook
>You are misinterpreting results then
I don't know what you're talking about, transformation is easily observed
youtube.com
The LAC operon arrose separately in the human population, it's not a synapomorphy
Benjamin Martin
Just because you're too fucking STUPID to understand something, doesn't make it not real, now piss off.
Mason Rivera
Stay fucking based and note the flags trying to debate you
Ethan Adams
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability.
Reminder that evolution cannot be proven because you need billions of intermediary forms and their blood samples in order to show a common descent.
In other words, scientifically speaking evolution is based on conjectures and assumptions.
Caleb Bennett
SEMANTICS is Hegelian MO
>I don't know what you're talking about, transformation is easily observed
about esch coli exp which was a total flop even after 50k generations.
> I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE
Only a person with an evolutionary demon possession would say such a thing.
>Reminder that evolution cannot be proven because you need billions of intermediary forms and their blood samples in order to show a common descent.
but more importantly, IT CANNOT BE DISPROVEN. you just "wait for fossils to be found", or "it must have happened in this billion of years" etc.
>Stay fucking based and note the flags trying to debate you
#GUCCIGANGinternational
Elijah Martinez
Observable how? What have you seen evolve? The only thing that's really been observed are mutations
Lincoln Price
>link not working
>memeflag
I guess we can toss this argument it the window.
Nathaniel Brown
The link works, moron.
Camden Gomez
I M RETRD BAT I CAN TYP TO THECH BIGGUR RETRADS DAT TEY IZ ERTARDED!
Brandon Rivera
Didnt realize Croats were so based.
Levi Ortiz
They will argue that the changes take too long to be observable and must deduced from fossils. They will bitch and moan and refuse to admit they are a religious cult that aims to deny all other religions because that would fuck with the whole premise of their religious superiority.
Isaac Sanders
but more importantly, IT CANNOT BE DISPROVEN. you just "wait for fossils to be found", or "it must have happened in this billion of years" etc.
>I M RETRD BAT I CAN TYP TO THECH BIGGUR RETRADS DAT TEY IZ ERTARDED!
The only thing that can explain such mindless word salad is evolutionary demon possession. Can you prove to me that you are healthy i.e. that you dont have evolutionary demon possession so I can argue rationally with you?
Justin Perry
*tips crucifix*
Cameron Wilson
>They will argue that the changes take too long to be observable and must deduced from fossils.
or they will equate natural selection with evolution. Semantic manipulation is a big part of their argument (e.g. historiosophy).
natural selection=/=evolution
natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution
e.g. "John is a bachelor", it is necessary that it be also true that he is
1) unmarried,
2 )male,
3) adult
if you have all 3 you have SUFFICIENT proof. but it doenst go the other way ie. if you know an unmmarried person, that doesnt mean he is a bachleor (he might be divorced or a kid)
e.g. II "Evolution exists" it is necessary that it be also true that
1) natural selection/microevolution -100% proof
2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill
3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution - NEVER DEMONSTRATED
so just porving "microevolution" isnt SUFFICIENT proof.
Nicholas Perry
>CROSS SPECIES mutation
Do you mean speciation?
James Parker
>What if government decided to off all healthy people? Would you call all un-healthy people evolutionary adapted?
Uh... no? That would be a completely arbitrary elimination of a certain trait. Maybe I misunderstand the question or you're going somewhere else with this.
Ian Wilson
>2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill
>"proved"
Guessing that's in quotes to highlight the fact that it's done with quasi science guesswork, otherwise you're losing me.
Hunter Clark
>IT CANNOT BE DISPROVEN
When you ask fedoras for evidence (let's say how bacteria would turn into a mouse or a fish) they can't prove how this transformation would be conducted.
If you can't show all the intermediary steps from bacteria to fish I'd say that evolution pretty much is disproven. Also they can't provide the gene sequence changes and reproduce them (if evolution is real they should be able to force bacteria to mutate into a fish in a laboratory environment with ease).
Aiden Rogers
>Do you mean speciation?
that but not making labradors of different colour, but more like making a cow out of a pack of dogs.
>That would be a completely arbitrary elimination of a certain trait.
yep, which I tried pointing out to you since you were arbitrary dismissing high IQ based on current social context.
>When you ask fedoras for evidence (let's say how bacteria would turn into a mouse or a fish) they can't prove how this transformation would be conducted.
I cant disrpove evolution.
They cant disprove their own evolutionary demon obsession.
Both dont belong in realm of hypothesis testing.
Henry Smith
Evolution is an obvious a priori consequence of heredity coupled with selection. Both of which are falsifiable.
Bentley Campbell
>Guessing that's in quotes to highlight the fact that it's done with quasi science guesswork, otherwise you're losing me.
yes, they basically ASSUMED that within 5 billion of years uranium emissions stayed constant (based on the fact that they are more or less constant NOW). That is how they make conclussion about 5 billion years, no joke.
Anthony Nelson
>its a total meme
I took a paleontology course in college, and I was amazed at how thoroughly scientists understand ancient life thanks to careful study of the fossil record. You're just an armchair intellectual. If you actually cared about the validity of your critiques, you would study up on paleontology.
>to prove scientific nature of evolution you have to make forward predictions
That's absolutely false. To prove evolution, all that is required is evidence of natural selection over enough time that significant but quantifiable changes between organisms and their offspring can be observed.
Christopher Johnson
>yep, which I tried pointing out to you since you were arbitrary dismissing high IQ based on current social context.
A sudden and drastic elimination of a certain trait is different than an environment being created in which a new trait gradually emerges or a former trait eventually ceases to emerge.
Carter Roberts
OP is an uneducated non scientist faggot
Chase Gutierrez
That image is so retarded. First of all, that would take hundreds of thousands of years. Secondly, toes are important for maintaining balance. You're a literal retard
Chase Walker
Evolution is real.
Connor Watson
Well this is for a multitude of reason.
1. Our standards of health and nutrition are going down.
2. We are subsiding the poor and stupid to breed through welfare.
3. We're importing million of room-temperature IQ non-whites.
Aiden Mitchell
>mutations that persist through generations and remain in the population aren't evolution
what
Wyatt Gray
technically no, its not
Tyler Wilson
You're a fucking retard. Any change in allele frequency between generations is by definition evolution.
Julian Rivera
Isn't science merely a byproduct of GOD? If you trust in science, do you not by default believe in a GOD? Science is merely bending words to your will. A GOD gave meaning to those words. Science does not exist outside of a universe without GOD. If it did GOD could not be in this sentence. Why would science create GOD if GOD did not exist? Think about it.
Nolan Perry
thats not an observation, but a tautology
youre gonna have to come up with more mechanisms than "it changes"
Evan Green
You can literally simulate evolution on the computer, stop trolling
Caleb Reyes
So, niggers, poos, abos evolved, and the white man was created by the hand of god?
Oliver Reyes
>that pic
>rich people made the world a nightmare
do they seriously believe this? life was way more miserable before being rich was even a thing
Adam Turner
>under proper conditions, wisdom teeth develop without problems.
Not even slightly true. Only someone who is young or doesn't go to the dentist would say that.
Jason Nelson
>Then teeth should appear in random numbers
... why? I can't even imagine what thought process you used to get here... seriously, why random numbers?
>YEC and genetics tell the same.
No, YEC says "yup this all coincidentally perfectly fits in phylogenetic trees that show changes over time but God musta done it anyway in a single snap 6000 years ago lol". Do you understand this??
Colton Miller
Colton Barnes
>... why? I can't even imagine what thought process you used to get here... seriously, why random numbers?
then you are denser than I thought>it was convenient to have a few extra come in later in life
Michael Rogers
Adam Nguyen
Lucas Thomas
>eyes
actually that is a bad argument, if 4.5 billion seems not enough, you can just add a billion, everything can happen, you literally CANT DISPROVE evolution its totally infalsifiable
Parker Rivera
Matthew Mitchell
This is weak bait. Only newfags start ranting from their biology 101 text with wiki links.
Isaac Hall
Yes, that is what I said. So, because there are on average four extra wisdom teeth in most people that come out of the gums at all four ends of your two rows of teeth (top left, bottom left, top right, bottom right), so if one or more of the normal adult teeth is missing, all of the teeth slowly move inward to fill the gap, with a new wisdom teeth at the end of the teeth.
Where does random come in to play here? Why does the number of teeth even matter? All that is important is that missing teeth are replaced via this mechanism.
Cooper Robinson
If evolution is real, why do monkeys still exists?
Fucking idits.
Eli Rodriguez
If people are born gay, why are there more gay people?
Parker Brown
women
Gabriel Reed
>I took a paleontology course in college, and I was amazed at how thoroughly scientists understand ancient life
how does that change the fact that official list of human evolution fossiles is totally lacking?
its not "extra" if you loose one as you claim its there for a purpouse, just like brain cells developing in puberty are not "extra". Conditions you were raised as a child dictate will your developement is optimal or suboptimal to fully develop your body.
But with evolutionary semantics you cant define "optimal healthy" everyhing can be a next evolutionary step, evo relic or a disadvantageous mutation (claimed post-hoc as with every mythology offcourse)
Chase Miller
Why wouldn't they? Did we murder all of the monkeys at any point in human history? No? Then there are still monkeys.
William Fisher
Explain this
Jace Rogers
>"The eye is not of any use EXCEPT in its final, complete form."
"Nothing" can't be improved upon. Evolutionary theory requires something worse to have been improved to be something better in order to be classified as evidence for this theory.
Blake Wood
if we came from the universe, then why is there still a universe?!
Benjamin Sanchez
Funny how you left out the fucking nipples.
Nathan Wood
>"The eye is not of any use EXCEPT in its final, complete form."
They can call eyes a "wrong mutation" or smth, unless you call them for semantics you cant refute them
Nicholas Murphy
I don't know what that is, but if you're going to conclude it evolved from something else, you must both 1. show evidence of the specific things (links) it evolved from and then 2. be ready to explain how that is possible. Just one criterion or the other is not enough to make a reasoned conclusion for evolution.
Joseph Thomas
gas yourself.
Ethan Cooper
And this
Cooper Richardson
>its not "extra" if you loose one as you claim its there for a purpouse, just like brain cells developing in puberty are not "extra". Conditions you were raised as a child dictate will your developement is optimal or suboptimal to fully develop your body.
I have no idea what your point is. You don't seem to really have one. I explained this very basic hypothesis because you said that you didn't know what the purpose of wisdom teeth are.
>But with evolutionary semantics you cant define "optimal healthy" everyhing can be a next evolutionary step, evo relic or a disadvantageous mutation (claimed post-hoc as with every mythology offcourse)
I am explaining something we have observed. You could easily test my explanation by seeing if ancient human skulls had wisdom teeth come through without problems and missing teeth that have been filled in. I made a prediction, now we can test it. What is the problem??
Brayden Rodriguez
>extra wisdom teeth
why dont you say the same things about hands? You have one hand, but one is extra, same with wisdom teeths...
>nipples
serve only to create women prenatally.
Lincoln Carter
this is what happens when you allow christcucks onto anything. They just ruin it.
Nathaniel Lewis
Gene duplication is a well known way to go from something that has no purpose whatsoever to something that has a purpose. Is this what you mean by "wrong mutation"?
Christopher Wilson
That's not provable. Saying "mutation" is a desperate grasping of straws. To make declarative statements, you need evidence. A theory that has too many counterexamples against it is proven to be false, such as evolutionary theory. You cannot run with a consistently-disproved hypothesis, unless you are a fool or have an agenda.
Asher Davis
Hands come from a bisymmetrical body plan. There are two of them just as there are two of many body parts because it is easier to take something and duplicate it than to make a whole new thing. You have wisdom teeth on both sides..... I seriously don't understand what you're even confused about.
Tyler Rodriguez
We dont observe any evoultion
only adaptation
not the same thing
We have observed creation by man in our life time. New food new animals etc