Why are people trying to deny evolution?

>the average first "humans"

Attached: 1433248590409.jpg (365x259, 31K)

There is zero evidence of information being added to the genome of an organism. In order to get man evolving from a unicellular organism, we would expect to see genetic information improving and increasing over time. There is zero evidence for this. The opposite we find regularly. Getting a chihuahua from a husky is not evolution, it is genetic decay. Animals adapt and change over time, but they never become a new animal. Finches stay finches, dogs stay dogs. Evolution posits that new animals arise through speciation, but this has never, ever been documented. It is just a drawing on a chart that people believe because it is in a textbook.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Mark 7:7 KJV

Yeah, niggers stayed in Africa (if that hypothesis is assumed to be true in this argument) and as such had similar selective pressures to the apes. Why should you get really smart if food, water, and shelter is never a scarcity in the jungle?

I'm convinced they don't understand it. But just show them something like pic related.

This family-sized population changed phenotype in just one generation due to environmental circumstances (in this case, social pressure to burn coal). Now, apply a series of changes over MILLIONS of years. Then, they can see how a monkey becomes a man, or how a wolf becomes a whale.

Attached: heidi-klum-children-grove[1].jpg (300x300, 25K)

to continue...

if I had a flatworms brain how would by C7 and C8 nerves use my hands to type? you could make the argument that I have an advanced apparatus...

I didn't make such a claim. I mentioned academia (which I'm no longer part of) would. In fact I explicitly mentioned that your degree does NOT negate any potentially valid argument you may make? Did you read that part? I'm not an academic elitist.

I tend to agree with that sentiment, but it does not necessarily follow logically from an extra-scriptural sense.

Attached: evolution_childrens_book_annabelle_aiden.jpg (1280x640, 231K)

This doesn't disprove evolution in the slightest.

>Evolution posits that new animals arise through speciation
False, it only posits that allelic frequencies change in response to changing selective pressures. It makes no definitive statement that says new species should arise.

This guy built the pyramids you son of ah bitch!

there is now way to falsify your claim and it is therefore outside the realm of science

>Then, they can see how a monkey becomes a man
I guess with your example it would be more fitting to say
>See how a man becomes a monkey

deceleration is still acceleration

>but this has never, ever been documented
except it has user, even in less than a hundred years
nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.13756

devolution is a lot easier to explain than evolution, don't confuse the two

empirical scientists are looked down upon for using the terms "prove" or "proof". please take a refresher in the last topic

What does this even mean?

Agriculture is dependent on evolution. Domestic animals and plants evolved from wild ancestors.

"Devolution" is still evolution. It's simply adapting to your immediate environment. If that environment allows you to be a weak, docile retard, then the average will regress to that.

Evolution implies natural selection used to improve the fitness of a population. The dumbest of humans pass on their genes more than than the intelligent, and this leads to a decline in the overall fitness of the population. We could be colonizing other planets, but instead we are investing heavily in babysitting low-IQ mongrols that require their needs be provided to them. We're not devolving. The word is involuting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involution_(esoterism)
However I disagree with this definition as well, because it implies this state is a precursor to ascension that will allow us to evolve. I think we're on the precipice of our extinction.

Attached: darwin.jpg (850x400, 64K)

Go on

Indeed. Evolution doesn't have an opinion, as God wants us to control our own destiny.

What, in your opinion, accounts for adaptation?

>"they"
I'm convinced no one actually denies evolution, because it is simply a theory that proposes a mechanism to explain the similarities between various forms of life.
You can only deny a mechanism by proposing a competing mechanism. People don't deny evolution, they just deny it being used as an excuse to dictate the beliefs of others.

Debate me. You know I'm right.

This makes no sense. The banana tree is the whole organism. The banana is just the ovary.

>There is zero evidence of information being added to the genome of an organism.
You should look up "competence" and "horizontal Gene transfer"
Also polyploidy

Yeah ... like Ted Haggard ... oh wait.

There is only evolution. There is no "bad" or "good," just extinct and extant.

don't bother he's just a retarded leaf who will only look up more bible verses

I'm an unironic Christian but I can still appreciate dolphin fingies

>Evolution implies natural selection used to improve the fitness of a population.
No it doesn't. Evolution only implies that the population is changing in allelic frequency.

Attached: dolphin.jpg (3000x3000, 288K)

>There is zero evidence of information being added to the genome of an organism.
No, we see this happen regularly.

A blowhole is just a nostril that has moved.

I don’t trust science or scientists. I’m not saying evolution isn’t real. But I remain open to all sides of the argument, for one reason. I don’t fucking trust what anyone says that’s paid to say it.

Evolutionists believe that all animals share a common ancestor, which is obviously false. It's so obviously false that you just tried to dodge around it with your allele frequency shit. Do animals share a common ancestor or not? How did life arise? How do you explain abiogenesis? You can't because it never happened and "millions of years" is a gay unprovable meme

No, I have buddies (all former White Nationalists who now believe niggers are our friends in Christ) who sincerely believe evolution is completely false.

I know that seems retarded. Because it is.

>Christian
>Comfortable with evolution
Please breed lots

Smart

>no, I have buddies (all former White Nationalist who now believe niggers are out friends on Christ)...
Yea, and I have a vagina.

No you see information being lost. DNA is an information language system. Matter and natural processes cannot produce intelligible language systems. DNA is the result of a mind, which created everything. That is God's handiwork

Everything is evolutionary. It's why we must have brutally honest discussions about genetics.

>Evolutionists believe that all animals share a common ancestor
there's nothing to believe because DNA and genetics shows that we do
>dodge around it with your allele frequency shit
oh sorry for yknow doing science
> Do animals share a common ancestor or not
yes
>How did life arise? How do you explain abiogenesis
outside of the realm of evolution but thanks for playing
>You can't because it never happened and "millions of years" is a gay unprovable meme
ok lol go argue with geology, paleontology, physics, astrophysics, and every other discipline of science

>You can't
>because it never happened
The former does not guarantee the latter

could you please post links to the articles this review refers to? there are mostly behind pay walls

the process of science involves falsifiying hypotheses. typically using positive and negative controls. none of these conditions are possible to study the length of time macroevolutionists describe. it cannot be falsified any more than the existence of God can be falsified

essentially my views here are in line with microevolutionary theory

>It's so obviously false that you just tried to dodge around it with your allele frequency shit.
No, it's just that "Natural History" and "Evolution" are often conflated. Evolution is so well vetted that it borders scientific law. Natural history still has a lot of kinks that need to be worked out, but common ancestry is the simplest and most direct answer, and the mechanisms proposed are the most realistic.

>Do animals share a common ancestor or not?
All life shares common ancestors.

>How do you explain abiogenesis?
Why do I need to? Even if aliens or god did it, that doesn't change the actuality of evolution.

To be fair, that is true, but you'd have to go back over a billion years most likely. The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is like 1.6 billion years old.

>appealing to (((scientists))) when it confirms your beliefs

>No you see information being lost
Gene duplication events are a regular occurrence. We even see entire genomes double. Information is regularly added to genomes.

>Matter and natural processes cannot produce intelligible language systems
says who. chemical processes happen all the time, you dont need a sky daddy to do them

>Evolutionists believe that all animals share a common ancestor, which is obviously false.
Why is it "obviously" false?

>How did life arise? How do you explain abiogenesis?
How is that at all related? You need to stop living in 2002. Evolution does not invalidate Christianity. You are embarrassing me, an actual Christian who appreciates God's design.

abiogenesis is only hypothetical. natural selection is observed in every single generation of every single species on earth. I have never met anyone who denies that the process exists without being able to coherently explain the process. feel free to change that.

>DNA is the result of a mind, which created everything
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
At no point does evolution kill God.

Okay, whatever

>believing in a (((semetic))) desert religion and ignoring evidence and proof in your face because it tears down your retarded beliefs

Evolution is the theory that allele frequencies change in response to selective pressures.
Everything else is a generally untestable hypothesis, although the data points to it being true.
Germ theory, evolutionary theory, genetic theory, and cell theory all have one thing in common. The data that we have was used to formulate a description that we call a theory. Any hypothesis is an idea that may have come from a data set, but it is untested.

So everyone's a degenerate then?

Social scientists =/= actual scientists. Most actual scientists think social scientists are just (((coat tail riders))).

Source: My grandmother is a chemist and worked for the government in Eastern Europe

Attached: 1566963859377.jpg (553x480, 54K)