So they say that we evolution basically went like this:
>bacteria
>jellyfish
>fish
>frog
>lizard
>squirrel
>monkey
>human
All thanks to random “mutations.” For example a fish had a random mutation that resulted in a leg. The leg gave him a leg up, so genetics carried the mutation forward.
This all seems kind of absurd and makes me lean towards the creation theory. Ie God.
What day you Jow Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
newscientist.com
en.wikipedia.org
news.nationalgeographic.com
seapics.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
curious.astro.cornell.edu
twitter.com
There has never been one single recorded observation of a positive mutation. By this I mean all recorded mutations tend to negatively impact the subject. Ie cancer, sickle cell, Down syndrome mutation. We have never seen a mutation that gave an animal a genetic advantage. Ie an extra arm
>american education
>We have never seen a mutation that gave an animal a genetic advantage.
Wrong. We have seen bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
Snake heads can literally breath out of water.
Even were the whining about evolution seeming implausible to you enough to entirely disprove evolution, the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Your alternative explanation is likely that an imperceptible yet supremely powerful Sky Kike did it.
Not good enough.
First you have to understand the concept of
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS
That’s not a mutation. We have never seen a bacteria mutate to become a different type of bacteria
The idea that the earth and all that is on it being made in 6 days sounds more reasonable to you? Another person our education system has failed.
My huge cock is a pretty good mutation.
>There has never been one single recorded observation of a positive mutation.
Yes there has:
youtube.com
Moving goalposts. Typical dishonest creationist.
Why it's always Mutts who are against evolution?
What is video? I can’t watch now
>That’s not a mutation
Yes it is. It is a random change in genetic structure.
>We have never seen a bacteria mutate to become a different type of bacteria
A bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics is not the same as a bacteria that isn't, they are different types after that mutation.
Evolution is based on science.
Creation is based on hebrew bedtime stories.
There is no debate, only the illusion that delusion is a plausible conclusion..
Just what do you think a mutation is?
>There has never been one single recorded observation of a positive mutation.
Please don't talk about shit you know nothing about. That's all we ask.
newscientist.com
>Hebrew bedtime stories
Who do you think funded evolution into the mainstream? Cough cough. Rothschilds cough cough
>By this I mean all recorded mutations tend to negatively impact the subject.
Sure, billions of people die when bitten by a radioactive spider. But once in a great while...
Bacteria mutating to adapt to a more antiboitc rich environment.
Evolution happened, your grandmama was once a sponge, get over it.
>What is video?
It's a video that shows bacteria evolving branching strains and colonies as it attempts to grow across a table that has progressively stronger and stronger antibiotics
>unironically defining random mutations using purely subjective terms like "good" or "bad"
You need to be at least 18 to post here.
That proves nothing. Where is the study where bacteria changes to another bacteria?
Here are some examples in humans: malaria resistance without sickle cell anemia
higher metabolic rate as a response to a population consistently living in cold environments, HIV/AIDS resistant proteins in humans, osteoporosis resistance in the Dutch Afrikaner population, Cardiovascular resistance in certain Italian populations that supercharge their body's ability to handle cholesterol and fat to reduce blood pressure and clear out their arteries, etc.
The current president of the united states of America may possess a beneficial mutation to the DEC2 gene which allows him to operate with no slowdown on 2 or 3 hours of sleep, even when doing difficult and demanding work such as being CEO and president.
You could have found examples of beneficial mutations in humans in 5 minutes of using an internet search but you are incredulous that this could be the case, so you didn't believe it. The argument from your incredulity and ignorance is a piss poor argument!
You're looking at it. In fact bacteria change into other bacteria all the time, this even happens without mutation.
en.wikipedia.org
>bacteria changes to another bacteria
Your choice of words discloses how little you know about what you're talking about.
Sickle cell gives the people that have it an increased resistance to malaria.
>get BTFO
>lol I will just change the definition of words to suit my argument
What is induction for 100?
I don’t think you understand that there is no empirical evidence for large scale macro evolution. It enters the realm of metaphysical philosophy of how we came to be.
Congrats you’ve explained adaptation. Not macroevolution.
So what you're wanting to see is millions of changes that make specimen A vastly different from specimen B. That's not an instantaneous thing. A shitload of minor changes - like increased resistance - is what gives you what you're looking for. Not a single change.
This is what you call the continuum fallacy.
when something happens over a long period of time and you can not pin point the exact second when something changes classification, that doesn't mean the change does no occur.
shouldnt you be paying attention to class, tiger?
>Ie an extra arm
An extra arm would have a pretty heavy biological cost, at least 15% more metabolism. But a stronger beak for cracking seeds instead of eating bugs? Literally Darwin's finches
I believe in ID. Otherwise you'll be like the tiny dick faggots on this board who try to explain everything by godless evolutionary psychology and cliches. "Muh white europeans are accepting today because they used to engage in winter butt sex for survival in caves to establish trust" "Blacks are fast because lions selected the slowfags out"
Its always a mutt creating those threads
>Who do you think funded evolution into the mainstream?
Who do you think pushed the Hebrew bedtime stories?
Checkmate, hebephiles!
He never asked about macro evolution. And if you want to be facetious about empiricism, you can measure the rate of mutation in amino acids at a given radiation and replicate it.
A mutation is a physical change to an organism. Like a fish being born with lungs. Or a jelly fish being born with a backbone. A mutation is not an organism developing a resistance to something.
>I believe in ID.
Then who designed your infinitely regressive gods?
>my god is so powerful that he can set in motion a completely self-sustaining and ever-evolving ecosystem.
i think he absurdity come from the lack of information (((they))) withhold from us.
>A mutation is a physical change to an organism. Like a fish being born with lungs.
Or a fish born without eyes? We have rock-solid proof this happens all the time. Eyes in perpetual darkness is a biological cost without any benefit.
>an all powerful God can't design perfect biological computers that evolve over time
kill you are self kid
Yes but that eyeless fish will die and not start producing a bunch of eyeless fish
Too much chloride in the water really fucks up your brain it seems.
isn't it Americucks?
Some people are born with a mutation that makes them immune to HIV virus.
Immunity to something is not a mutation. I’m talking a mutation that changes your species. At some point, according to evolution, a fish was born with lungs.
Dude did you take high school biology
news.nationalgeographic.com
>what is basic biology
>Science's magical explain-all wand.
>At some point, according to evolution, a fish was born with lungs.
Yes: seapics.com
Because it happens overtime for thousands of years and you dont question it because its not faulty or lived enough to see it mutate.
Thats why its called evolution, because you evolve.
Dude immunities are mutations/adaptations 100%. Look at bacteria evolving to become immune to antibiotics.
Your lung example is wrong. Hundreds of millions of years ago an ancestor to ancient fish developed air breathing and migrated to land and split off from aquatic. Species. Mudskippers are the same today: fish with lungs
Ok and why would a fish grow lungs? It has no biological reason to. The fish with no eyes adapted to its surroundings. That’s not mutation!
We still have "fish with lungs" .. ever heard of a whale or dolphin?
>Ok and why would a fish grow lungs? It has no biological reason to.
The lungfish developed air breathing lungs because it's environment frequently has low oxygen or water levels
Oh so I guess this animal just stopped “evolving” after it grew lungs.
this
>this animal just stopped “evolving”
??? nothing stops evolving
this, evolutionists are retarded
>Science
>unprovable, unrepeatable and unpredictable
How do you just develop air breathing lungs? Do you know how unlikely that is, statistically speaking? “Scientists” have never observed such an astounding mutation
No proof that evolved over millions of years, God can create animals to love in the water and land, like frogs
>the creation theory
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Darwin didn't think so. It only contradicts if you believe the (((Old Testament))) account to be literal.
Retard.
>Yes but that eyeless fish will die and not start producing a bunch of eyeless fish
Here in America we have thousands of caves with eyeless fish in them that can be traced genetically to species living just outside the caves with eyes. Fish with eyes adapted to their new environment and lost the unusable bits.
>How do you just develop air breathing lungs?
They aren't "real" lungs though, they are just gills that have higher oxygen absorption than most other fish
How do you think fish go up and down in the water? Just wondering how much you know about fish. If you know the answer to this, I'll offer you a hint: dual purpose.
It's really obvious that none of you have even the most basic understanding of evolution, adaptations, genetics, and inheritance. Please go take high school biology before presenting retarded arguements.
Air bladder
>Ok and why would a fish grow lungs?
Lungs are an adaptation from gills. Look at any human embryo and it has gills. In fact, all animal embryos have gills
All mutations, EVERY SINGLE OBSERVED MUTATION has stemmed from the LOSS of information. This proves Einsteins theories correct in which ALL matter breaks down over time, every object on the planet decays over time through various processes. Thus since we can definitely say things decay and get less complex over time hence making darwin style evolution impossible. We have known this for over 50 years now but they still teach evolution because it's the preferred religion of the state.
>Popper has an opinion
>Therefore gravity doesn't exist
This is why people laugh at you.
You need to read up on WHY it becomes resistant. It losession genetic information that in turn would trigger the said antibiotic thus the mutations are from a loss of information not the gaining of it.
There was a dumbass christian girl in one of my high school classes who memorably said "Look at that plant over there. Could that just evolve into a dog? No."
"I don't understand it so it must not be true" is not a good argument. You're just calling attention to your own idiocy.
Also strange of you to invoke "absurdity" when your preferred explanation is an anthropomorphized invisible controller of the entire universe. Do you think the earth is 5,000 years old you fucking retard?
>can not pin point the exact second when something changes
What is a fossil record? Proof that your "unguided random majik" doesn't exist.
Low IQ strawman. You can do better, mutt.
Perhaps you should make the argument from de-evolution? High IQ Europeans land on new soil and in 200 years turn into low IQ mutts. This must be definitive proof, no? Could make for a fascinating argumentation.
What makes you think an advantageous change must be the result of a gain?
>We still have "fish with lungs" .. ever heard of a whale or dolphin?
ugh, the level of stupidity in this thread is nauseating.
Ok and why would a jellyfish develop a backbone and become a fish? No biological need to do so
>One million fish born in a lake with low dissolved O2 water
>1% have a mutation that allow them to absorb O2 better or even take air at the surface
>99% don't and die off
>Remaining population thrives
>More O2 loss
>Need to take surface air more
>Over millions of generations and years the better surface breathers survive
>Spend more time near shore for food/air
>Better adapt to slide onto shore
>Eventually need less time in water
>Some fish literally start to live on land, others remain in water and split off genetically
Literally middle school biology that you can see today
The fossil record is really the worst argument. Fossils are dated from the layer of strata they reside in. The strata is dated using the fossils found in it. It's circular reasoning at its finest.
Evolution is not Pokemon you dumb fuck. Random mutations occur from generation to generation. In bigger ann complex organisms like humans a small change in the genetic code wont be seen. Also, there wont be a sudden physical change from gen to gen
Wrong retard. Entropy works perfectly with evolution curious.astro.cornell.edu
So you are saying complex life formed from the loss of information? If that was the case then all fossils would be vastly more complex than humans.
Look how mad you get about merely the idea that there is a creator and we didn’t evolve from single cell organisms. Really telling. This is triggering to many people
>some highschool girl said sumting dumb, so i use it to put down other people who dont beleive in muh fairy tale.
>i know the age of the planet
Yikes man, you must be a genius!
Compare fossils from different layers, tardo.
I'm a sedevacantist Catholic and this factual debate seems absolutely retarded to me
So mutation are not randomn but occur for survival purposes? The body literally senses it needs oxygen so it magically develops lungs? I can understand theveyeless fish example. If you don’t use it you lose it.
I tell you what, as soon as they discover a mutation that adds genetic information I will consider your fairy tale
That’s nice theory. But just accept that there are no recorded observations of this kind of mutation happening
>replies to self
>calls himself “tardo”
I don't know what you consider to be a "loss of information", but I can tell you this... it's not about a gain or loss of whatever you determine to be "information". When you decide to define those terms you keep tossing around, we might be able to make progress.
It almost seems like you're saying genetic code is taken out or something... and that's not accurate. Most of our genetic code is shit that doesn't work anymore. It wasn't removed - it's still there.
>Ok and why would a jellyfish develop a backbone and become a fish? No biological need to do so
Well you're right, there is no need. They can have eyes though.
I’ve never seen a miracle happen so how do I know there’s a god?
What if I've read the Hebrew bedtime stories and about evolution
and still don't really care all too much where the starting point was?