If evolution is real, how come humans haven't evolved in the past thousand years?

This is probably bait but.. Humans have actually developed a few negative traits due to living in such easy conditions now. Look into it.

instead of evolution driving us, we now drive our own evolution through technology.

lol i thought that too
yeah like basedboys

Attached: eeeee.jpg (226x223, 35K)

There is no scientific proof of macro-evolution.

There is no way to reproduce it, there is no way to verify it, there is no scientific evidence for it.

It is not science.

Natural selection and micro-evolution is provable. For example bulldogs were bred from a genetic mutation causing them to have short snouts.

It's understanable that certain beneficial traits could become more common in a species in nature, because it allows them to live and breed.

Evolutionists claim that this same process, genetic mutation, if given enough time, could lead to a single-celled organism becoming a human.

Or a fish turning into a bird.

There is absolutely no scientific backing for this claim.

The fossil record is not proof of anything. Lining up fossils next to similar looking animals is not proof that one evolved into the other.

Science has no answer for the origin of sexual reproduction.

Why and how would an asexually reproducing organism develop sexual reproduction? Something that is literally at least 50% less efficient.

Any potential benefits of sexual reproduction are irrelevant, it's not like genetic mutations over thousands of years could be naturally selected based off that, until you had a functional sexual system.

Science doesn't have the answer to this question, don't pretend like you do.

They have no answer for irreducible complexity.

They can't answer why there is animals like horeshoe crabs who have supposedly remained unchanged for 400 million years, while humans were supposedly fish 400 million years ago.

These ridiculous dates come from radiometric dating, a completely unreliable method of dating.

Attached: d6335b2bce8c860d2c77f489238b9403.jpg (785x1000, 180K)

Some of us anyway , eat fish and shellfish my guy

Evolution is a pseudoscience.

The scientific community used to believe the universe just always existed, they thought the big bang theory was wrong because it implied creation.

The scientific community used to think the world was flat.

The kind of fucking morons who believe evolution is proven science tend to be the same retards who deny there is biological differences in intelligence between race (they deny science that fits their world view), and who also think psychiatry is a legitimate medical science.

>not making the link between birth-rates and evolution

The ones who decide the course of human evolution are the ones who have replacement birthrate. Causes might be: ideologies to have as many kids (Turks in europe for example). Those who start families in poor living conditions. These people are currently boosted by gov. gibs. Qualities broadly selected for are for being content in squalor. Or a memetic heritage like islam. The future is bleak.

Evolution doest slow down homie, we are all now diverse animals with myriads of different human mutations dependin on your immediate artificial ecology

I.E. X- men

Taller? Lmao
If anything we are seeing more cases of scoliosis and other spine deforfities due to us insistin to walk upright and to be seated

Do yoga my guy .

If evolution is real why has there never been a meme danker than holeguy?

Attached: holeguy.png (200x200, 39K)

"what's that? you were never socialised or educated properly and now you act like a wild untamed idiot? clearly you have a condition that is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain which can only be solved with this expensive medicine i get payed a commission to sell" - psychiatry

T.Shill probably an emissary from some academic iinstitution somewhere go back home ur family needs you

just because you and the general public haven't doesnt mean the elite that rule this world havent

Get this white guy off my board

Scientifically illiterate nigs

Attached: 1526818213375.jpg (680x499, 48K)

No it isn't, there are plagues to survive and women to convince to raise your children so there's still some pressure to change.

Your ruling elite have seen my ancestors arrow and know that it peirces completely. There is hope

Boujie pig.

how long have you lived retard?
We have hit peak evolutionary capability, our technology is what we must evolve next

kinda true.

a lot of shit in nature just happens randomly for no reason.

I think it's immature to look for order in an originally chaotic world.

We have evolved as evolution is random mutations. If you develop a mutation that helps you survive in the environment then you live and pass it on, if not then it dies with you. Thousand years is a tiny amount of time but modern science has thrown a spanner in the works as it's allowing those with bad genetics to cheat death and past them on. You could have genes that make you more susceptible to cancer and if you live long enough to reproduce then you'll pollute future generations.

>They can't answer why there is animals like horeshoe crabs who have supposedly remained unchanged for 400 million years, while humans were supposedly fish 400 million years ago.
Water as a biome is older than than the forests, plains, which are full of plants and so we have to evolve with the plants more so than than the shit that just needs to swim at a certain depth.
>These ridiculous dates come from radiometric dating, a completely unreliable method of dating.
We don't use carbon dating for animals, we date them relative to the rock layers we can carbon date. Please stop propagating this meme.

The jews have, the gentles on the other hand are still brainlets.

Sexual reproduction allows for the re-mixing of genetic traits, accelerating evolution.
Complex traits can evolve out of simpler ones over time.
Horseshoe crabs are clearly well adapted enough that changing condition apply very little evolutionary pressure. Also, they might very well have changed in ways we cannot discern just by looking at them(metabolism, for example).
>radiometric dating [is] a completely unreliable method of dating
I'd like to see your peer-reviewed paper on that.

Attached: B.A.I.T..jpg (602x222, 26K)

The frozen evolution theory says that species only evolve for a short period of time after speciation. Could be an explanation, but evobio is full of unproven theories.

The jews are hella inbred.

>We don't use carbon dating for animals, we date them relative to the rock layers we can carbon date. Please stop propagating this meme.
I know this, it makes it even less reliable.

You can't even date fossils, or sedimentary rock.

So you find igneous rock next to a fossil, containing radioactive substances, and then date that.

>Sexual reproduction allows for the re-mixing of genetic traits, accelerating evolution.

"Any potential benefits of sexual reproduction are irrelevant, it's not like genetic mutations over thousands of years could be naturally selected based off that, until you had a functional sexual system."

Learn to read.

Literally the scientific community doesn't know how sexual reproduction originated, you're not going to figure this out in a Jow Forums thread.

Intelligent design is no where near as retarded as evolution.

>is this a thing in burgerland???
I'm afraid so.

But they have

Nah, you learn to read. I adressed that point.
Again, it likely started as a simpler trait(possibly doing something entirely different) and gradually changed to become more complex.

>there is no scientific proof of macro-evolution
Because creationists made that up. "Macro-evolution" is simply "micro-evolution" happening on a larger scale. Please explain to me what would prevent small changes(like the bulldog's snout) to accumulate over time until the organism is no longer recognizable.

> "Macro-evolution" is simply "micro-evolution" happening on a larger scale.
You have no proof of this.

>Please explain to me what would prevent small changes(like the bulldog's snout) to accumulate over time until the organism is no longer recognizable

You're the one claiming this is possible. You have to prove this claim.

Just because there can be relatively minor changes in an animal through natural or bred genetic mutations, doesn't mean the same process could cause a dog to turn into an aquatic reptile if just given enough time.

Science is observation and interpretation of existing evidence.
Not everything needs to be recreated in a lab.

That being said, read this you brainlet
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Attached: 8nRqoXW.png (800x729, 48K)

>You have no proof of this.
That is what it is. It's just a classification issue based on the number of different base pairs and DNA length.

What does genetic similarities between all species prove?

It proves they were designed like that. It's no secret you can find similarities in creations from the same designer.

At least it "proves" it as much as it "proves" they were all evolved from the same single-celled organism, the first life, that came out of non-life, from which every single lifeform on this planet evolved from through solely natural means.

There's no scientific proof of this whatsoever, how can you sit there and think this ridicolous bullshit sounds perfectly reasonable but the possibility of intelligent design is completely unreasonable to you?

Science is not about proving things. Proof is axiomatic and tautological. It's what you do in math and formal logic.
Science is about explaining things so people can understand. Evolution is just a proposed explaination. One that is easy to understand and fits well with the facts.
Saying God magically designed everything is a poor explanation because it doesn't help people understand the mechanisms.

Science is about reproducible, verifiable, observable, provable, facts.

It's not about guesses.

>Science is about explaining things so people can understand.
The scientific community pretending like evolution is a proven fact is lying to people.

It is a destructive lie.

>Saying God magically designed everything is a poor explanation because it doesn't help people understand the mechanisms.
The complexity of life, and the Kalam cosmological argument, is better evidence of intelligent design than all the "evidence" you have for abiogenesis and single-celled-organism to human evolution.

You have faith in naturalism and unproven mechanisms.

I'm not making some unbacked claim, I'm simply extrapolating. Small changes happen. Therefore, barring some mechanism to prevent it, these changes can accumulate over time.
Also, you are the one making a claim that contradicts currently established fact. The burden of proof is on you.
>cause a dog to turn into an aquatic reptile
First of all, define "reptile". That's a vague term, taxonomically speaking.
You know what, I'll do that for you.
The term is obsolete.
All animals we would call "reptiles" belong to the clade amniota. They share this clade with birds and mammals, who evolved to lose some reptilian traits(like scales) but kept others(like the amniotic eggs the clade is named after). Since an organism is by definition a part of the clades its ancestors belonged to, they remain amniota. They are also, however, part of mammalia. So no, a dog could not turn into a reptile, since it technically never stopped being one. It could, however, adapt to aquatic conditions, given incentive to do so.

>Science is about reproducible, verifiable, observable, provable, facts.
Mate you don't have a clue what you're talking about. How about taking a class in epistomology.

Sorry, my phrasing suffered a little here. Obviously only mammals are mammalia, not birds.

>Also, you are the one making a claim that contradicts currently established fact.
Only 100 years ago scientists used to believe the universe just always existed.

That was "fact" to them. They had absolutely no proof of it.

When someone suggested the big bang theory, it was rejected by scientists because it implied creation.

Evolution isn't a fact.

> Therefore, barring some mechanism to prevent it, these changes can accumulate over time.
You're the one claiming that it's possible for a fish to turn into a bird, if just given enough time, because you can observe relatively minor genetic mutations in animals.

There's no proof that minor mutations in an animal could lead to major changes, like a single-celled organism becoming a human, if just given enough time.

You have to prove this shit if you want to make claims like this, and call it science.

>So no, a dog could not turn into a reptile, since it technically never stopped being one. It could, however, adapt to aquatic conditions, given incentive to do so.

Could you also make a dog grow useless stumps on it's back that would one day, thousands of years in the future, become wings?

The only difference between minor and major changes is the amount of mutations required.

t. im a brainlet- the thread

Evolution is merely a theory.
Like gravity.

Ok prove it.

The vast majority of genetic mutations in nature and in breeding are deletion of genetic data.

Bulldogs had the genetic information to grow snouts deleted.

It is very rare for genetic information to ever be added by mutation. This would have to be far more common for a single-celled organism to turn into a human and all life on Earth through solely natural means.

Just because you can observe minor short-term changes in an animal doesn't prove that the animal can turn into an entirely different animal through the same process.

>Ok prove it.
There are mathetical models based on the frequency of various mutations that show how long it would take.
>It is very rare for genetic information to ever be added by mutation.
Not really. Duplications, punct mutations, inversions and translocations can all add genetic information. Even deletions can add genetic information by causing genes to be created.
>Just because you can observe minor short-term changes in an animal doesn't prove that the animal can turn into an entirely different animal through the same process.
It does. If it can happen over a lot of small steps and those small steps are all possible, then it could happen.

1) It was fact. It was disproven. Now the fact is something else. It can be disproven, but until that point it remains fact.
2)I made no new claim, I simply took observable fact to its logical extreme. Small changes happen. Therefore, they can add up to large changes, unless some mechanism exists which prevents this.
3)No, those would come completely out of nowhere. I could, however, change its front legs into wings(not feathered ones, however). Evolution works with what is already there. Either a gene is changed, or it is duplicated(that way the two copies can evolve in completely separate directions). It could also be deleted, but that's rarely advantageous.

Attached: Cap can do this all day.png (245x240, 95K)

>It was disproven
No it wasn't. No proponents of big bang will ever want you to phrase their theory that way. They'll sneakily say that the big bang is the origin of the universe in its current form. If they said what OP is stating they'd be laughed out.

autism is the evolution

Alright, where to start?
Genes do not carry information. Their specific chemical structure causes ribosomes to synthesize proteins(simplified)(there are other functions genes can have, but this is the main one).
Second, it is indeed rare for mutations to not be harmful. But beneficial mutations(always in relation to outside conditions) do happen. And that's all we need. Natural selection filters out the rubbish.

>3)No, those would come completely out of nowhere. I could, however, change its front legs into wings(not feathered ones, however). Evolution works with what is already there.
>Evolution works with what is already there.
How were new animals ever formed if this is the case?

How did a single-celled organism turn into all life on Earth?

At some point, an animal had to grow mostly useless stubs until thousands of years in the future they were arms or wings.

If something like eyes, ears, or sexual organs can develop from life without them, then surely an evolve could evolve a new organ that we have never heard of, or a dog could develop wings on it's back.

>Small changes happen. Therefore, they can add up to large changes
Completely unproven claim.

Nothing to back this up.

>unless some mechanism exists which prevents this.
You have to prove there is no limit, you're the one making a claim there is no limit.

>It does. If it can happen over a lot of small steps and those small steps are all possible, then it could happen.
And what if major changes could not be accomplished through small steps over long periods of time? You have no proof this is possible.

The origin of sexual reproduction, or the development of irreducibly complex creatures, are examples where it becomes absurd to think natural selection and genetic mutation could form these through solely natural means.

>Genes do not carry information.

Genes contain DNA and that is information/data.

>genes contain dna

Attached: Registered as a retard.png (211x244, 80K)

>You have no proof this is possible.
If any base can be replaced, added or removed, then you can get any kind of organism from any other.
You think mutations always cause genetic base sequences to be shortened. This is untrue.
You seem to think mutations are always harmful. Also untrue.
Since that mutations can both add bases to a genetic sequence and be beneficial, it is indeed possible for macro evolution to happen through a lineage of viable organisms.

I think one of his problems is that he doesn't actually know high school biology, he's just regurgating talking points from christian "science" websites.

>people have gotten taller
>iq's are have risen in the past 100 years
>quality of live keeps improving
>society is more equal
>humanity is evolving by every objective metric
>people like OP are just artifacts of the past

Attached: 1498990272342.gif (500x273, 956K)

I love how Jow Forums suddenly turned into /sci/.

Attached: Autism dog.jpg (574x382, 44K)

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/gene

These fucking retards think DNA isn't information and say I know nothing about biology.

Attached: 2018-05-20-184605_794x594_scrot.png (794x594, 193K)

>You think mutations always cause genetic base sequences to be shortened. This is untrue.
>You seem to think mutations are always harmful. Also untrue.

Strawman.

I said "The vast majority of genetic mutations in nature and in breeding are deletion of genetic data."

I did NOT say "all mutations are harmful", you fucking moron.

>it is indeed possible for macro evolution to happen
You didn't prove that it's possible for an animal to turn into an entirely different animal through genetic mutation.

Information needs an intelligent mind behind it.
If you left some hidden message in a strand of DNA, it would contain information. Our DNA is just a natural chemical.

DNA is what you call the entire double helix macromolecule.
What you are talking about is called a nucleotide.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

ctrl+f "information": 66 results found

DNA stores biological information. The DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage, and both strands of the double-stranded structure store the same biological information. This information is replicated as and when the two strands separate.

If enough small changes happen, you won't recognize the animal as belonging to the original species.

>The vast majority of genetic mutations in nature and in breeding are deletion of genetic data.
I know what you said, but the implication was that it couldn't happen. Because if it could happen, it could happen and you'd have no argument.

Ok prove this is possible.

This is just a wikipedia article. The fallacy you're commiting is called reification.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Yes we do
Look at the olympics
The best runner is Miles better than Anyone in the past

>I know what you said, but the implication was that it couldn't happen
Do you know English?

Do you know what the word majority means?

Majority doesn't mean "all".

By saying "majority", I literally said it IS possible.

>it could happen and you'd have no argument.
My argument is that it is extremely rare, to the extent that it would have to be far more common than it is to result in a single-celled organism turning into humans, and all other life on Earth, with all of it's complexity, within 4 billion years.

You must literally be a teenager.

All I said was that DNA/genes contain information, which is true.

You're trying to make an argument out of nothing. You're trying to argue about the semantics of information in an extremely sill way.

Honestly you're a fucking moron and you should never argue with someone again if this is what you do.

More vigorous training methods, steroids, nutrition, supplements, larger pool of potential competitors.

People got taller and more feminine.

That's... our evolution.

>My argument is that it is extremely rare, to the extent that it would have to be far more common than it is to result in a single-celled organism turning into humans, and all other life on Earth, with all of it's complexity, within 4 billion years.
Considering that you don't know basic distinctions I don't think it's likely that you have done ANY calculations what-so-ever on this.
Meanwhile there are actually people who do these kind of calculations for a living. If they were wrong it would be quite easy to prove them wrong.

I can't take your language anymore. One organism does not turn into another one. A population evolves.
Also, four billion years are a long fucking time.

>All I said was that DNA/genes contain information, which is true.
I quote:
>Reification is part of normal usage of natural language (just like metonymy for instance), as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such. But the use of reification in logical reasoning or rhetoric is misleading and usually regarded as a fallacy.

> One organism does not turn into another one. A population evolves.

Beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare.

Say that happens in one individual animal among a population.

You're telling me that this individual will breed, pass on the genetic mutation, and it won't be drown out by the other enormous number of animals in the same species/population without the genetic mutation who are also breeding, and that this can happen to such an extent, that major changes among an entire population can occur, like an entire species of fish turning into a species of bird.

You've never observed this even on a small scale.

You've never reproduced this.

You've never verified this.

You have no proof of this.

But you want me to believe this is scientific fact.

A PhD geneticist will tell you that DNA/genes are information.

There is nothing misleading here. DNA is information.

Fucking dumbass.

Information is an abstract concept.
>A PhD geneticist will tell you that DNA/genes are information.
Yes, when talking to a PEASANT like you. When talking with other PhD geneticists they use the ESOTERIC scientific language.

If macroevolution is fake, as you say it is, then why is it that flies in Hawaii are so radically different despite being descended from two (2) species? If macroevolution is fake, they should have stayed the same. Moreover, why is it that similar genes can be tracked down in ancestry and form notable groupings, groupings that far exceed the idea of special creation in that the observed changes over time must require millions of years? Moremoreover, why would you assume the retarded idea of special creation when it makes much more sense for God to create evolution, which would then create the diversity of our planet?

> then why is it that flies in Hawaii are so radically different despite being descended from two (2) species?
Because they were designed like that.

Where is the proof that flies descended from 2 species?

> Moreover, why is it that similar genes can be tracked down in ancestry and form notable groupings, groupings that far exceed the idea of special creation in that the observed changes over time must require millions of years?

Designed like that.

A skilled bricklayer can build brick houses in a different parts of the world, and you will find similarities in those brick houses.

You can find similarities in the creations of a designer.

>Moremoreover, why would you assume the retarded idea of special creation when it makes much more sense for God to create evolution, which would then create the diversity of our planet?
God's creation allows for natural selection and relatively minor changes (adaptations).

This can be observed.

Why would it make sense for God to design all life on Earth through evolution? He is God, he can do whatever he wants.

If God would just do whatever, then how can we conclude anything? Microevolution is just as unverifiable as macroevolution, because God would not need either since he can just do anything he wants.

We can observe "micro-evolution".

Relatively minor short term adaptations and changes.

Natural or through breeding.

You can breed a dog all you want, specifically breeding genetic mutations in dogs would speed up the process of evolution by thousands of times faster than would supposedly happen in nature, yet we've never gotten anything but dogs.

We've gotten all kinds of dogs through genetic mutation.

We have pitbulls and chihuahuas, but they're all still dogs. If it was possible to turn them into anything but a dog through genetic mutation, it would surely be possible to observe the beginning stages of this through the rapidly accelerated methods of breeding.

God has a limit on what change can occur through genetic mutation.

So turning a large, lean and slender, thick coated grey wolf with a pointy snout into a tiny, chubby, short haired, flat faced pug, isn't a huge change? It's a more stark difference than between rats and mice, and we recognize those two be different types of animals.
Different guy btw.

And yet, it's still a dog.

>And yet, it's still a dog.
Kek, that actually works more for me my man I said a WOLF and a pug. You mean to tell me that a Siberian Husky and a wolf are different animals, but the Siberian Husky and Pug are the same animal? When does wolf end and dog start? Are Guinea pigs and Capybaras the same animal as well?

Domestic dogs and the gray wolf are actually the same species.

They are both Canis Lupis.

(A subspecies is still the same species)

No, theres really no chance it cant.

Evolution is still occuring in humans and over the past thousand urs there have been noticable changes in our iq, eating habits, and our avg height.

The fact that half the populatuon is lactose intolerant should say something.

That's because God designed humans with variation.

I think I lost brain cells reading through this thread

Attached: 1520805604808.gif (645x773, 18K)

>there have been noticable changes in our iq, eating habits, and our avg height.

This is just traits being selected.

Not genetic mutations which could lead to humans becoming entirely different animals.

Then we'd have run out of genetic variation during 4 billion years you stupids.

The universe was created in 4004 BC according the genesis.

The flood happened in 2348 BC

Tower of Babel happened in 2242 BC

Atheist scholars agree that recorded history started in 4th millennium BC (4000 - 3000 BC)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history

Christians say it started after the flood in 2348 BC, which destroyed almost all remains from previous human civilization.

The only hard evidence for old Earth dates is radiometric dating. It doesn't work.