youtube.com
"Evolution is not scientific theory but a metaphisical research programme."
K. Popper
Challenge for evolutionists!!!! 100k $!!!!!100 gees reward!
To prove to me that evolution is not just mindless hegelian retroactive semantics/mythology but a predictive scientific theory, make a criterium by which you make a:
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT".
100 000$$$$$!!!!!
discuss.
in short - is pic rel a A) "defect" or B) an "evolutionary
mutation into a superrace"?
if:
A) What is the reference point for a "healthy body"
B) I guess you got me, but at the same time you imply that there is no such thing as "health" and that transgenderism is legitimate
Sir I think that money would be better spent on your medical treatment, because you are actually retarded.
>Sir I think that money would be better spent on your medical treatment, because you are actually retarded.
that is EXACTLY what a person obsessed with an evolutionary demon would say.
the ones who have these weird appendages will tend to die, because they consume energy and don't contribute value.
Evolution is the idea that those who mutate into something useful will tend to survive.
People with random useless mutations, will either die out or remain a minority and die out later.
people who have useful mutations will replace everyone over millions of years, cause everyone else will die when their mutation will save them
TLDR:
a next evolutionary step is a random mutation that is useful and helps you spread your genes and survive at a higher rate
a random mutation is something that is useless or harmful and will eventually die out
>the ones who have these weird appendages will tend to die, because they consume energy and don't contribute value.
>Evolution is the idea that those who mutate into something useful will tend to survive.
I follow but you only know who will survive AFTER it survives. Scientific testing is about thinking about the FUTURE from PRESENT.
Your method can only test the PAST from PRESENT.
>people who have useful mutations will replace everyone over millions of years, cause everyone else will die when their mutation will save them
False, there are plenty of mutations that can occur which do not substantially change mortality rates. This argument is stupid.
The human body is the way it for efficiency. That many fingers is a defect. It requires more muscles in the forearm to control, more bones and muscles in the hand, more nerves to enervate, and does not accomplish any more work than 5 fingers can. The capacity for injury and malfunction is increased, as well as the energy requirements both during fetal development and daily living, as more equipment requires more fuel. It's inefficient and therefore undesirable from a survival perspective.
I accept Bitcoin.
best example: the appendix, which was useful in the past, is now just a serious health risk, that's why when it has some infections we just cut it out.
if we didn't have modern medicine, the first person born without an appendix would start the next evolutionary step, cause over millions of years his line would have one less health risk, over a long while he would tend to survive, while others die at higher rates.
Eventually, all humans would be born without appendix, and be distantly related to the first people randomly born without it.
And then some retard on Jow Forums would ask why our body is so perfect, and why god designed us without a useless appendix
That's how survival works, though. You need environmental pressure FIRST. It is, inherently and by definition, a REACTIVE process.
Hello OP, can you confirm to me if the Dark Ages were a myth?
no but they are an advantage in spreading your genes or gain reccources or something else.
otherwise they'll just consume your bodys energy and make you weaker by doing so.
which in turn makes it harder to fight infections and makes you starve faster
any "random mutation" is either a net gain or net loss.
On long timeframes this makes a lot of difference
The appendix is absolutely necessary as part of the lymphatic system you dunce, it's all lymphatic tissue similar to your tonsils, it is the last gate, so to say, before the large intestine.
Easy:
Positive benefical evolution ---> The handiwork of God
Undesirable mutation ----> Bad genes and the god of hell.
I see the mentally ill are out in force.
Must be another day ending in y.
what do you mean? that's like asking if yesterday was a myth, on the other hand if someone went around saying that yesterday-(or any other)people used iron maiden devices to torture people, yeah that'd be a myth
nope it's not, thats why people cut it out so easily. It used to protect against bacteria of unprocessedfoods, which we dont need anymore, by now its just a waste of space that easily gets infected and can lead to death.
Ever since agriculture and fire came around it's a danger rather then benefit
Post pic of an actual human.
>That many fingers is a defect. It requires more muscles in the forearm to control, more bones and muscles in the hand, more nerves to enervate, and does not accomplish any more work than 5 fingers can.
what rationalization would you give me if I posted a pic with 4 finger or just 1 arm? adaptation since less weight?
>That's how survival works, though. You need environmental pressure FIRST. It is, inherently and by definition, a REACTIVE process.
possibly, but then its totally unfalsifiable like Popper called it out.
>the appendix, which was useful in the past,
appendix is usefull ALWAYS, they called it vestigial removed by operation even uninflamed appendixes and made a quiet retraction later. Bet you havent heard that in biology textbooks?
sciencedaily.com
>benefical evolution
>Undesirable mutation
none are scientific terms and also totally unfalsifiable since>only know who will survive AFTER it survives. Scientific testing is about thinking about the FUTURE from PRESENT.
>Post pic of an actual human.
pic rel
>I see the mentally ill are out in force.
that is EXACTLY what a person obsessed with an evolutionary demon would say when challenged in an epistemological discussion.
>DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT".
An evolutionary step is a trait that makes the species more competitive in its environment, a defect is something that deviates from the norm for that species and which doesn't bring any advantage or even is a hindrace. Seriously, it's not that hard to get
>An evolutionary step is a trait that makes the species more competitive in its environment, a defect is something that deviates from the norm for that species and which doesn't bring any advantage or even is a hindrace.
unfalsifiable. you have no idea how can a temporary disadvantage prove in the longrun.
e.g.
wings - drain of blood energy and
big brain - drain of blood and energy
2 hands instead of 1 - drain of blood and energy
pretty laughable explanation.
pseudo science one calls this. Evolutionary scientists do this all the time. Basically they pull some half assed explanation out of their hat that's presented as authoritative. It becomes evident quickly that it's just made up and things could easily be different
>none are scientific terms
Pretending that evolution works as if guided by a deliberate intelligence like you are is not very scientific. Evolution is merely accidental, so it cannot be predicted.
But I'm sure that by this you meant jew god all along in your LARPS.
Here user, a pic of your favourite book where you picked up these "scientific" notions of evolution.
as for your pic, the "evolution man" would go extinct compared to the "creation man" since most of his features are either vestigial, senseless, pointless, useless or just because. All those mutations require more energy to keep the tissues alive, thus from a purely caloric point of view the creation man would be far more efficient
>DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT".
Is it beneficial to the survival of the organism?
Even if we were in a creationist universe, who's to say God didn't chose evolution and that the true religion is indo-aryan evolution of consciousness (final step of evolution) through meditation?
But of course, let's drop headfirst into a dark age because kike on a stick says so.
>you have no idea how can a temporary disadvantage prove in the longrun
That's not how evolution works. Certain traits remain because they prove advantagues in that moment. Those advantagues traits become dominant through a species and spread around. From these basic advantagues traits new mutations start: some are better refinements of the current trait and will end up replacing it, some are not advantageous or even an hindrace and go extinct.
Evolutionary pressure makes it so that the best traits become more diffused
>pseudo science one calls this. Evolutionary scientists do this all the time
its no different that Hegels philosophy or any kind of historicism.
>Here user, a pic of your favourite book where you picked up these "scientific" notions of evolution.
it was introductions about Popper and Kuhn but think what you like.
>Is it beneficial to the survival of the organism?
Idk, can you empirically test that claim or is it unfalsifiable?
>That's not how evolution works. Certain traits remain because they prove advantagues in that moment.
so can you empirically test the advantegeous traits or is the whole thing unfalsifiable?
>In short
Okay, I'll guess I'll take the easy option you made for us.
>Dichotomy between defect and evolutionary mutation into a superrace
This shows how little you understand about the topic. Evolution isn't "towards" anything, this is a condition placed on it from a theological perspective that has no grounds for doing so. A given mutation isn't an "evolution" like this is pokemon or something.
Mutations are going to be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous to reproductive success. Reproductive success increases the odds the mutations are passed on to subsequent generations. The change of a descendant relative to its predecessor is the evolution of that lineage, if you like. The fact of evolution is the past informing the present as we observe in genetics and fossils. The theory of evolution via natural selection is broadly what I stated - mutations will have advantages/neutral/disadvantages vis. reproductive success and reproductive success influences the odds of the mutation persisting in the future.
How do we judge advantage/disadvantage? We quantify the effects of a mutation; is it a mutation that makes the organisms' biochemistry more efficient by even a fraction of a degree (which can definitely be done in vivo)? Suit their metabolism better in their current environment (also in vivo)? The challenge is some of these things are hard to quantify, as in a very laborious task - nobody in their right mind thinks they can't be quantified for some Fundamental/Logical reason.
Hard, not impossible. If we observe or induce changes in an organism like a rat or fruit fly we can both predict what will happen based on what changes we make *and* observe the results due to their short life cycles. Surprise, the theory that advantages like energy efficiency confer increased reproductive success and disadvantages like killer genetic diseases decrease reproductive success is observed when you run these *predictive* experiments.
100k dollars please.
>wings - drain of blood energy and
>big brain - drain of blood and energy
>2 hands instead of 1 - drain of blood and energy
What is your point with this? Are you implying that since all those traits are potentially beneficial we should therefore have a species exibiting all those traits?
It's impossible, because creatures fill different ecological niches and certain traits are not necessarily advantages in a specific situation.
This leads to extreme specialization of organism that have very well defined traits adapted the both their specific environment and ecological niche. Couple this with the fact that as organism evolve their ability to crossbreed is reduced and you have your asnwer as to why we don't have humans with wings
See, you are being insincere, if there is no such thing as evolution, forcibly, there must be some sort of creation, and I am going to brave that this creation is going to have a jewish god as responsible for it.
India has so many birth defects because they had nuclear war in their old dayz
>so can you empirically test the advantegeous traits
Yes of course. Why did birds evolve beaks rather than keep fanged snouts? Because beaks are more advantageousfor the specific niche they occupy: that of small insectivores that would have otherwise being more adapted to hunt small (think mice sized) prey, but this other niche was already filled when birds evolved. Thus birds with fanged snouts died off in favor of etter adapted birds with beaks. Of course it doesn't happen overnight but through millions of years
I am christian and I do believe in creation. I simply believe in evolution as well
>a croat offering money
stop giving this gypsy any attention
>4 fingers or just 1 arm
Also a negative. 1 arm for obvious reasons, but 4 fingers would also be disadvantageous. 5, for various logical and metaphysical reasons, is the perfect number of digits. 4 fingers and 1 thumb, specifically. It provides best weight distribution, best fine motor control, best tactile flexibility, all at the most efficient mass and energy wise.
And yes I was very aware or the importance of the appendix as a filter/lymphatic organ, I worked under an endocrinologist at a major hospital for several years, I learned quite a few things about how barbaric medicine used to be, and in many ways, still is.
100 000$, not $100 000.. leaf dollars mb
my point is that its all PSEUDOSCIENCE. You cant test for an "(dis)advantageous trait", its all historicism maskes as science.
>if there is no such thing as evolution, forcibly, there must be some sort of creation
your basic logics isnt up to point.
>The challenge is some of these things are hard to quantify, as in a very laborious task - nobody in their right mind thinks they can't be quantified for some Fundamental/Logical reason.
>If we observe or induce changes in an organism like a rat or fruit fly we can both predict what will happen based on what changes we make *and* observe the results due to their short life cycles.
none of the can test "advantegeous" in the long run since you dont know how the run ends.
e.g.
>wings - drain of blood energy and
>big brain - drain of blood and energy
>2 hands instead of 1 - drain of blood and energy
>Why did birds evolve beaks rather than keep fanged snouts? Because beaks are more advantageousfor the specific niche they occupy: that of small insectivores that would have otherwise being more adapted to hunt small (think mice sized) prey, but this other niche was already filled when birds evolved.
interesting story, but this is post-hoc historicism, not pre-hoc scientific thinking.
What are your prediction on human body then?
>we invented straws and liquid food so well loose teeth
>we watch a lot of computers so our eyes will grow bigger
>we faced food shortages in old days so our metabolism slowed
>we have a lot of food now so our metabolism will accelerate
>1 arm for obvious reasons, but 4 fingers would also be disadvantageous. 5, for various logical and metaphysical reasons, is the perfect number of digits. 4 fingers and 1 thumb, specifically.
we can all day until you realize how circular the evolutionary paradigm is.
>2 arms, why not 4 arms, more work to be done!
>4 fingers and 1 thumb, why not 8 fingers and 2 thumbs per hand or 9 fingers and 1 thumb!
And evolution isn't necessarily unfalsifiable per se, more like the only ways we have observed it so far are unfalsifiable in hindsight. If we were to artificially construct and manipulate an environment that we could then observe, we could make inferences about what would happen. For example, we could control the environment to make it steadily colder, or drier. We could predict what sort of adaptions would occur based on what we have seen happen in the past. The problem with this, of course, is that it takes several generations, and complete control. The closest example I can think of is the do estimation of foxes happening in Russia. You could call that evolution. We took the knowledge we have of domesticating dogs, and applied it to foxes, with the prediction that the same or similar results would happen, and we were right in this instance, very interesting stuff, only the last few years have the results been obvious.
>100k $!!!!!100 gees reward!
Can I get a scan of your bank account as evidence you have the money incase I wanted to take this seriously? I'd also like this challenge to be signed before a procurator, sealed and so on.
The difference between "an evolutionary step" and a "defect" is whether or not it is beneficial to survival and reproduction.
however, the question at hand proposes a false dichotomy in which all mutations must be advantageous or disadvantageous. There are certainly mutations that are neutral.
>If we were to artificially construct and manipulate an environment that we could then observe, we could make inferences about what would happen.
already done - the infamous longterm evol esch coli exp that produces nothing even after 60k of generation, just basic selection.
>The closest example I can think of is the do estimation of foxes happening in Russia. You could call that evolution.
I would call that natural selection, not evolution.
>The difference between "an evolutionary step" and a "defect" is whether or not it is beneficial to survival and reproduction.
here>advantageous. disadvantageous. neutral.
you cant test for any of that its totally unfalsifiable. Reminds me of deceiving "empirical proofs" that homosexuality is normal.
>All day
>Why not X Y Z
No, we really can't. It's not circular in the least. It's about efficiency. How can the body, do the most work, for the least cost. It's a cost-benefit analysis not dissimilar to streamlining a factory, for example. 4 arms? What can 4 arms do that 2 can't? What shape would the torso have to be? How would the neck and skull be supported? Where would the eyes be? How many more muscles would there have to be? How much bigger of a heart and lungs? Humans shape is largely dictated by physics and, yes, evolution.
What do you think is the difference between evolution and natural selection?
>What can 4 arms do that 2 can't?
you said you worked at a hospital...just imagine what kind of super surgeon would you be.
>What shape would the torso have to be? How would the neck and skull be supported? Where would the eyes be? How many more muscles would there have to be? How much bigger of a heart and lungs?
irrelevant, the advantageous of a supersurgeoun would win over those disadvantageous.
>difference between evolution and natural selection
YEC accepts natural selection, evolution requires proof of species making BIG genetical changes + 5 billion years.
>my point is that its all PSEUDOSCIENCE.
That's your opinion
>You cant test for an "(dis)advantageous trait", its all historicism maskes as science.
That's how evolution works. The point is that it is a combination of cators that make a trait advantageous or not, not just a single testable one
>interesting story, but this is post-hoc historicism, not pre-hoc scientific thinking.
>What are your prediction on human body then?
>we invented straws and liquid food so well loose teeth
>we watch a lot of computers so our eyes will grow bigger
>we faced food shortages in old days so our metabolism slowed
>we have a lot of food now so our metabolism will accelerate
All those are heppening already at a certain level.
>teeth are becoming less and less prominent. We have people often born without wisdom teeth. Canines are much smaller than they used to be
>our eyes are becoming more used to seeing a monitor up close. This translated in frequent modifications to our eye muscle resulting in eyesight problems like miopia (shortsightedness). If we had to constantly live in caves our eyes would become much bigger: this is a trait that many animals already have
>our metabolic rates are slowing down, not because of lack or abundance of food, but because more and more people lead a sedentary lifestyle: we no longer have to run down an elk, we just have to go to the supermarket and sit for 8 hours a day in front of a monitor.
These are just examples of minor adaptations on a very short time span (think few hundred years since the industrial revolution and few ten thousands since agriculture). To see actual evolution you'd have to look on a longer timescale, which for humans in the modern sense doesn't exist because we simply haven't existed that long
Hurr durr science and biology dumb. My non explanation is vastly superior xD
>none of the can test "advantegeous" in the long run since you dont know how the run ends.
That's retarded. You can track lineage and you're presupposing there's an end - that's your theological presupposition that evolution is towards some goal acting up again. You are incorrect to do that and it shows how ignorant you are. You're just making a continuum fallacy and assuming we can't make predictions and check them because the process doesn't "end", which is also an arbitrary standard you've imposed without and grounds for doing so. You can make a prediction based on the effect to reproductive success and then do every kind of test you want to track it across time and verify that your prediction is coming true as it happens, just as we'd do with tracking the trajectory of a moving object: it doesn't have to "end" for us to verify the object is following the trajectory we expected.
The word "evolution" itself implies a continuous process, from the Latin word for "unrolling". Some lineages do end, sure, but that defeats your point as well because by your standard "disadvantages" can be quantified in all cases.
tl;dr: you're a fucking idiot who owes me 100k
So pretty much this person is retarded.
You can predict the future of evolution from the present and you can see it happening today. You can see selective pressured in action. For example look at the interbreeding of niggers and humans. Before hand you have beautiful aryan person wwho slips in judgement and breeds a nigger. The selective pressures currently are an innate lust driving the aryan and a society that let the niggers in first place. After an offspring is conceived the halfing now erases the purity of the nigger and the human. We have biologically driven mate selection in humans already, just look at the fact we find some attractive and others not. There is an extremely low probability of the retarded and genetically deformed person will pass on their genes. Theres also a cultural influence that creates in groups and out groups. People cant rape anymore without consequences so that line of breeding method has died and those with a stronger incling to rape are still less likely too. Violent genes get passed on less with regards to that. Genes play an extremely important roll in defining the field of potential action for an organism and this can be seen consistently.
Every time you post this shit thread, in which you sperg out with the same broken (I can hardly name it such) logic, I hate you a little more.
EVOLUTION MAN IS COMING, FOR YOU!
>e.g.
>>wings - drain of blood energy
Brainlet, you're only listing costs. Wings let you *fly*, if you don't see what effect that could have on your access to food and escape from predation then there's no hope for you.
>>big brain - drain of blood and energy
Allows language and communication, accumulation of knowledge across generations (memes as well as genes) to make each successive generation more efficient than the last. Again, if you don't understand how a bigger brain has benefits as well as costs, you're beyond help.
hands instead of 1 - drain of blood and
2 hands allow you to apply a couple-moment to an object - a torque and no force. You can't do that with just one hand. 2 hands allows for many more tasks than just one, but the same can't be said for adding another hand; the cost increase is the same but the marginal utility is lower, so there's a point where adding extra hands is just detrimental.
100k please.
>Irrelevant
Absofuckinglutely NOT irrelevant, at all. Do you know how much more blood you would need to have to support 4 arms? How many more muscles, requiring that much more energy? How big your heart and lungs would have to be to supply those arms? How many more nerves you would need to have, both for gross and fine control? The benefits to a modern surgeon are irrelevant, because we wouldn't have gotten that far to begin with! I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't debating in good faith, croat. Applying even a sliver of logic to what you said causes it to collapse, you can't be serious about putting that forward as a counterpoint.
>Evolution requires species making BIG genetic changes + 5 billion years
Does it? Is that really what evolution is? Is that the actual definition of evolution, or is that just what you want evolution to say, so you can argue against it easier? Don't strawman evolution, dude
Evolution is 100% provable. The existence of dog breeding alone proves this (not to mention bacteria and viruses).
Natural selection therefore is highly evidenced as well.
Replace human control with environmental pressures (or lack thereof).
Just go have sex with vox, you catching.
>DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT"
Defect gets you killed before you breed
Next evolutionary step mutation doesn't
Mr ''evolutionary demon'' is a paid shill that shows up on the chans once a month.
Suddenly, Darwinism ain't so simple, heh?
yep
Of course not. This shit is very complicated and needs to be taken seriously, more seriously than a pithy condescending frog with a baguette jammed in both holes is treating it
I love these threads. It’s great seeing “I FREAKING LOVE SCIENCE” types presenting decades or even centuries past invalidated “evidence” because, for some reason, the same lies that got people kicked out of institutions or publicly shamed are still in the textbooks.
You don’t need to lie to support a good theory.
in a way, that "evolution man" isn't far off from reality, if you consider that every strand of body hair is senseless and vestigial.
>breed dogs for a few hundred years
>they are all still dogs
Lmao.
>body hair is vestigial
Then why does literally every mammal have hair when they evolved from something which didnt?
Evolution is when, another entity from another space and time, come to earth and split their Gene's with ours. There is no such thing as natural evolution, only manufactured evolution.
>That's how evolution works.
Im not asking you what is your religion, but how do you test for it?
>>teeth are becoming less and less prominent. We have people often born without wisdom teeth. Canines are much smaller than they used to be
because kids are MALNOURISHED during puberty
and exposed to MESSED UP ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS
>shortsightedness
DERORMATION AGAIN.
>our metabolic rates are slowing down, not because of lack or abundance of food, but because more and more people lead a sedentary lifestyle
so why dont we see an adaptation that counters sedentary lifestyle?
>You can predict the future of evolution from the present and you can see it happening today.
>You can see selective pressured in action.
Selective pressure exists even with YEC. HAIL KENT HOVIND!!!
MAKE A LIST OF VESTIGIAL HUMAN BODY PARTS FAGGOT!
>You can't do that with just one hand. 2 hands allows for many more tasks
cool, so why dont surgeouns or mechanics develop 3 or 4 hands? Why dont I have 4 hands to help me respond to idiots faster?
>Do you know how much more blood you would need to have to support 4 arms? How many more muscles, requiring that much more energy? How big your heart and lungs would have to be to supply those arms? How many more nerves you would need to have, both for gross and fine control?
Ill make a guess - not as much as DEVELOPING A SYSTEM TO FLY!!!!????
>Defect gets you killed before you breed
>Next evolutionary step mutation doesn't
so Downs syndrome is a next evolutionary step?
>Suddenly, Darwinism ain't so simple, heh?
>Of course not. This shit is very complicated and needs to be taken seriously
all semantical games are self-complicating.
>It’s great seeing “I FREAKING LOVE SCIENCE”
the more you FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE, the more you hate epistemiology 101. Enjoy the thread!
this is what >evolutionists believe
>we invented straws and liquid food so well loose teeth
>we watch a lot of computers so our eyes will grow bigger
>we faced food shortages in old days so our metabolism slowed
>we have a lot of food now so our metabolism will accelerate
>we are overpopulates so HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ADAPTATION to overpopulation
>we dont need muscles anymore only brains since brave new world so only our IQ will rise
meanwhile in reality
>pic rel
>so Downs syndrome is a next evolutionary step?
technically yes, even if most downies are too downie to get rowdy and downism itself doesn't seem to be hereditary.
As long as downie doesn't die due to his or her downiness and manages to get a kid, they can be that next evolutionary step
assuming that when you think about concept of 'next evolutionary step' you don't think about something downie brained like 'muh guided evolution', obviously
Note that all of those beliefs align with their grey alien fetish.
They are different dogs, which came from wolves . The naming is arbitrary, people make it up.
>downism itself doesn't seem to be hereditary.
>he doesnt know
There's no such thing as vestigial human body parts. Every cell in our bodies is used for something, none of them are irrelevant. Whether we can survive without them or not is beside the point and a terrible metric to use.
>Why don't surgeon s or mechanics have 3 or 4 hands
Why didn't our ancestors? Why don't other primates? You are being deliberately obtuse and not even addressing my points about efficiency. More hands need more arms. More arms need a place to go. There isn't room on a human torso to support more arms.
>Developing a system to fly
What the fuck do you mean? Humans invented machines to fly, yes. Are you asking me why humans can't naturally fly?
Why is (((god))) so shit at creating he accidentally made evolution appear correct?
Victorian era Britainn was the best period of recent history:
Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today.
Most Jow Forums users sperm cells are vestigial, to be fair.
goddamn one could work the shaft while one swallows the balls
>step
Taking about "next step" in evolution shows you dont understand evolution
evolution is not a theory, it's a narrative.
It's almost as if rescuing the morons from what used to kill them is bad for the population. Modern medicine and technology are to thank for that.
>There's no such thing as vestigial human body parts.
so body hais isnt vestigial?
>There isn't room on a human torso to support more arms.
ok, so why exactly, according to evolution, shouldnt we accept humans developing more arms to help browisng the internet?
>this thread
>AGAIN
you've been answered a shit ton of times already, it's clear that you have mental issues
Answer this question to me
>Why do you have absolute faith is something that you cannot prove and that is completely unfalsifiable, while you criticize evolution for the lack of proof?
There is actually video of them blowing a dude.
Kek okay sure maybe in practice, but thats not the sperms fault
Evolution deniers are low IQ, always. I know you can't understand it, even when explained, you literally think monkeys turned into humans or something. Realize that you are not smart enough to comprehend some concepts, you are literally incapable, stick to what you know best, like flipping burgers or installing drywall.
the "evoulution man" is not an optimal usage of resources. he would need to spend time acquiring extra food to maintain his extra body parts while the "creation man" fucks his wife.
it's a neutral mutation from human perspective. like heterochromia. if the local hindu cult thinks she's a goddes, and everybody wants her as a wife than it's positive.
You're right, i've misread one article about male downies fertility, my bad.
Downies do have 1in2 chance of making a new downie
I am using the same terms as OP so he doesn't find himself lacking the capability to understand me
Although i'd argue that you could call each new living being as next evolutionary stem, if one was into semantics.
No more jewgle captchas
I would also like to see this
>Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours.
and guess another thing about Victorians? Sex outside of marriage was extremly rare. Their natual selection of people who will have kids was on level.
>>this thread
challenge is still up, 100k for grabs, DEBATE ME YOU EVOLUTIONIST POS!
>Evolution deniers are low IQ, always. I know you can't understand it, even when explained, you literally think monkeys turned into humans or something.
and he posts that pic, damn son...also, what you said is EXACTLY what a person obsessed with an evolutionary demon would say when challenged in an epistemological discussion.
You can offcourse disprove to me that you are a madman with an evolutionary demon but we have to talk epistemiology then, are up for it you half-read FAGGOT?
No, body hair isn't vestigial in the slightest. It is central to tactile sensation, as well as temperature regulation and hormone communication. Our sense of touch would be significantly impaired without it, and it would be much more difficult to find mates.
>Why shouldn't we accept himans with more arms to help browse the web
... Because being able to brows the internet does absolutely fucking nothing to further survival, and the cost to energy and bodily structure demands would be crippling.
>because kids are MALNOURISHED during puberty
>and exposed to MESSED UP ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS
Lol no. Animals are exposed in many cases to much worse toxins than us yet don't show the same signs. Dogs living along humans do not show signs of losing teeth or smaller caninens (at least compared to their dog breed, compared to their common ancestor, the wolf, they will)
>DERORMATION AGAIN.
Which if we were in a compltely natural environment with high level of evolutionary pressure would lead to the extinction of people exhibiting this trait.
If early homonids had been mostly shortsighted they would have been unable to hunt and would be aesily ambushed by larger predators and would have become extinct.
Nowadays evolutionary pressure for humans is almost non existant in the modern world, thus allowing even disdvantageous evolutionary traits to be passed down
>so why dont we see an adaptation that counters sedentary lifestyle?
I see you don't understand evolution. Having a high or low metabolic rate isn't an advantage per se. This is what you get wrong.
Depending on the environment a high or low metabolism is better, not in absolute.
Which is why, if our environment doesn't need higher energy expenditure associated with high metabolic rates (think running after an animal you want to kill) it will lower metobalic rate and thus energy consumption (think sitting in front of a PC)
>Another thing about victorian's
Good for them. I wish we could go back. But we can't, so what the fuck is your actual point?
>I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't debating in good faith
No shit sherlock
You don't know how a pocket calculator works, let alone a computer. Yet you think you are smart. And we all know you don't have $100K lol
>keeps ignoring the question
impossible being such a delusional, obnoxious obsessed faggot. You must be satan's spawn or something
Bigger dicks.
Fuck off to neingag if it’s so great, you stupid cunt.
But it’s shit which is why you’ve spent months trying to get more than 12 people to post there.
