-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 12458)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 639 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603
12458

File 145750821398.jpg - (22.25KB , 900x600 , crop-538599cc8101c-imgID3636752.jpg )

Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?


>>
Anonymous 16/03/10(Thu)21:17 No. 12459 ID: eb915c
12459

File 145764105212.jpg - (202.30KB , 800x600 , 1414357093868.jpg )

Nah. He thought bears could evolve into whales if they spent enough time in water.

He was a autist that started tipping his fedora because he couldn't understand why predators kill their prey in such cruel fashion (as if nature is supposed to be a giant hugbox). Basically, he copied Herbert Spencers phrase "Survival of the fittest" and built up this pseudo-scientific notion that there is a harsh struggle for survival in the wild when in reality even sick or deformed animals can survive.

If natural selection was true then genetic defects wouldn't exist.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/10(Thu)22:21 No. 12460 ID: 9fcbea

>>12459
I think you need to do some reading.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/11(Fri)00:41 No. 12461 ID: eb915c

>>12460

Not really. I think you, on the other hand, need to.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/22(Tue)09:56 No. 12472 ID: 89ff48

>>12459
Wow, another tard on the net who doesn't realize how stupid they really are. Great.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/22(Tue)17:48 No. 12477 ID: eb915c
12477

File 145866531621.gif - (140.94KB , 287x344 , 143321257863.gif )

>>12472

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/3

Charles Darwin took a stab at accounting for whales in the first edition of Origin of Species. He noted that black bears had been seen swimming with their mouths open for hours at a time on the surface of a lake, feeding on floating insects. "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths," Darwin concluded, "till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." His critics poked such loud and gleeful fun at this image, however, that he eventually omitted it from later editions of his book.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/29(Tue)12:19 No. 12486 ID: 5cf9b7

If you mean the people who didn't want to reproduce died out, and only left the people who want to reproduce, then yes.

>>12459
Look up "gene mutations". It's the reason why there are both defects and fittests. Read a book


>>
Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)01:13 No. 12489 ID: 44cd17

>>12458
No, that was Douglas Adams.

It's 42.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)02:02 No. 12490 ID: eb915c
12490

File 145929617412.jpg - (49.59KB , 780x437 , 143321075219.jpg )

>>12486

Genetic mutation is not natural selection. Natural selection according to Darwin is "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

In other words, bears swimming around in water with their mouths open will produce a larger body and gills. The man that discovered that genetic mutation produce new phenotypical traits was Hugo de Vries. Hugo de Vries, when he discovered this, presented it as a alternative theory to Darwins pants-on-head retarded idea about bears simply being in the water for x number of years. Of course, since Darwins fanboys got proven wrong about their notion that suggests organisms as passive in the face of random selection, they simply adopted de Vries ideas as part of Darwins narrative.

"Natural selection" is no real mechanism or a valid theory. It is conflated concepts that form a circular argument for fedoras tippers: if it isn't the active role of inherited traits (passed on for x number of years and rarely change at all) that makes a organism develop, it is the passive role of the organism itself just being in a environment.

Natural selection itself makes zero sense because stability is the norm and not change. Darwin himself bred pidgeons and actively changed their traits but somehow came to the conclusion that the environment itself is what makes organisms change and since he called randomness to be the cause for change, he basically went full retard.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)02:37 No. 12491 ID: 314113

>>12490
>muh anti atheism meymeys

Fuck off.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


>>
Anonymous 16/04/03(Sun)21:27 No. 12496 ID: eb915c
12496

File 145971166793.jpg - (63.63KB , 550x550 , Angry autist.jpg )

>>12491

Angry autist spotted.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/10(Sun)08:04 No. 12498 ID: 98407e

The question of the meaning of life is arguably the most meaningless question available.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/22(Fri)17:58 No. 12509 ID: eb915c
12509

File 146134072247.jpg - (64.56KB , 550x550 , Intelligent.jpg )

>>12505

Nope. Darwins first theory was that bears simply had to be in water in order to develop new bodily traits. Deal with it.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/22(Fri)21:32 No. 12511 ID: eb915c

>>12510

The point is that Darwin was wrong from the very start and his autistic fanboys adopted other scientists ideas in order to make his retarded idea valid.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/24(Sun)16:26 No. 12513 ID: eb915c

>>12512

lol, you are retarded. It is the genes that make the beaks differ in shape and size.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/uu-eia041516.php

A team of scientists from Uppsala University and Princeton University has now identified a gene that explains variation in beak size within and among species.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)18:17 No. 12515 ID: eb915c
12515

File 146160102119.jpg - (33.86KB , 550x550 , Autism.jpg )

>>12514


Hey, I'm not the retard that thinks De Vries ideas was something Darwin came up with.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR BEING TO AUTISTIC TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIATION AND SELECTION.)


>>
Anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)23:29 No. 12518 ID: eb89c4

Wow, so our silly mods still get triggered by non-fedoras.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/26(Tue)23:29 No. 12519 ID: eb915c
12519

File 146170615375.jpg - (43.91KB , 550x550 , Maximum autism.jpg )

>>12518

A typical euphoric temper tantrum from a power tripping neckbeard.

Notice how he became so infuriated that he couldn't spell "too" properly in "being to autistic". Must be heartbreaking to realize that Darwins idea was moronic from the get-go and only autists think it is valid.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/26(Tue)23:37 No. 12520 ID: 04b9df

>>12519

Not part of this conversation up until now, but really if you people want to discuss philosophy you should be capable of doing it in a more tact and intellectual manner than you're all displaying.

No person genuinely interested in philosophy would act like so ridiculously out of order. I'm expecting far too much from this board in saying that, considering most of it is image macros and generic idle questions.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/30(Sat)16:51 No. 12528 ID: eb915c
12528

File 14620278845.jpg - (30.16KB , 550x550 , Asperger man of great tipping.jpg )

>>12525

Selected via nature? lol, did you even read what you just wrote? There is no selection, you moron.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/02(Mon)15:19 No. 12536 ID: aee2e1

>>12528

Isn't selection for maximum number of offspring the entire point? Or are you conflating that with intentional selection? It's not called "selective pressure" for nothing.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/05(Thu)16:05 No. 12540 ID: eb915c
12540

File 146245713561.jpg - (32.46KB , 550x550 , Aspergers.jpg )

>>12530

I love how oblivious you are about your own statements.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/06(Fri)03:19 No. 12543 ID: 5a53ee

>>12540
I love how you insult everyone the instant they point out the holes in your logic.

You've already been banned once for it, I guess you want round two?


>>
Anonymous 16/05/06(Fri)19:34 No. 12544 ID: eb915c

>>12543

Do you seriously believe "natural selection" is valid? lol, you're the one with twisted logic if you think there is any kind of selection involved.

Fedora logic.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/06(Fri)21:15 No. 12545 ID: 319e01

>>12544
What is the alternative, that some very specific conception of God shat out all the animals in more or less their current forms no earlier than 10,000 years ago?

...but don't just let me make a strawman. Tell us how you understand the history of life on Earth.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)01:32 No. 12551 ID: eb915c

>>12548

Ah, so you DO admit that there is no actual selection taking place and that the term "natural selection" is a oxymoronic pile of garbage? Good. Because the concept is a meaningless conflation and actually shows how circular your logic is.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)05:17 No. 12552 ID: 319e01

>>12551
Oh, okay, I get it now. For a moment there I hoped you would provide a more compelling model of the history of life on earth, but in fact you're just arguing the semantics of the phrase "natural selection."

So what you're saying is that you would have chosen a different name for that phenomenon, therefore everybody else that doesn't agree must wear hats that you find silly.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)05:27 No. 12553 ID: eb915c
12553

File 146259165633.jpg - (37.75KB , 550x513 , 146245713561-1.jpg )

>>12552

No, you autist. It is not about semantics. "Natural selection" is a oxymoron and is devoid of logic. You're pretty dense.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)15:42 No. 12556 ID: 319e01

>>12553
So clearly you're so autistically furious that you typed "a oxymoron" instead of "an oxymoron" because as you explained yourself in >>12519 making typos and usage mistakes is the sign of an angry losing autist.

To deal with more substantial issues, you still haven't explained what you would call the process if not "natural selection," or, if you reject that model entirely, what model you'd use instead to explain the origins of life on Earth today.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/07(Sat)16:18 No. 12557 ID: eb915c

>>12554

There is no selection. Selection requires a motivated action and the environment doesn't act. So sorry, you're obviously too dense to understand what you're saying.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/22(Sun)19:05 No. 12571 ID: 3811dd

>>12458
You could argue, from a certain point of view, that perhaps he had.

Darwin had discovered that life on earth seeks diversity and adaptation in order to occupy every niche of every environment with life. He was limited by the knowledge and technology of his time--imagine if he knew bacteria grow deep in the crust of the earth!

He was perhaps among the first to lift the veil of human vanity and see life itself as a unified force of proliferation, to get a glimpse of the order of nature over which humanity had not dominion, but profound interdependence. From this perspective I would argue he discovered the meaning of life is to proliferate, to expand, multiply, and diversify indefinetly--and consistently raise the bar on the "top" of the food chain.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/06(Mon)18:13 No. 12584 ID: eb915c

>>12559

You call me retarded and yet you can't even link to your own post properly. Congratulations.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/18(Sat)11:51 No. 12606 ID: ede32c
12606

File 146624348414.jpg - (26.57KB , 569x428 , 3345289.jpg )

Why don't we permaban eb915c for thinking he's right by using his own logic so that he'll return to that one site where using your own logic to win an argument is very common


>>
Anonymous 16/06/18(Sat)18:35 No. 12607 ID: eb915c
12607

File 146626774612.jpg - (55.46KB , 520x292 , 143355065140.jpg )

>>12606

Our biological similarity to the apes was known long before there were geneticists or even before Darwin and his pants-on-head-retarded idea was known.

It is not uncommon to encounter the statement that we are something like 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. You can count the number of base differences among the same region of DNA in humans and chimpanzees and gorillas, and add them up. The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating insertions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well?

Tabulating both nucleotide substitutions and insertions/deletions, researchers have found the chimpanzee and human genomes not to be over 98 percent identical, but closer to 95 percent identical. The problem, however, is not that the two genomes are “only” 95 percent identical, but that any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. Neither number has the force of accuracy, because the precise number obtained depends on what one recognizes as a meaningful difference, how one counts it (is a three-hundred-base insertion three hundred differences or only one?), and whether there is any scientific value at all in trying to derive an official amount of genetic difference between the two species’ genomes in the first place when the official amount necessarily combines differences of quantity and quality.

In other words: euphoric fedoras love to conflate different concepts in order to fit their narrative.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/22(Wed)02:11 No. 12612 ID: 0c11cc
12612

File 146655431594.jpg - (11.40KB , 275x183 , images.jpg )

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.


>>
Anonymous 16/09/01(Thu)18:57 No. 12665 ID: 7cf7bd
12665

File 147274905824.jpg - (32.54KB , 331x448 , 0317b6aaf8e0f245d3d5aea0cf4d5efb.jpg )

>>12612

Jesus, just like Abraham and Moses, was a schizophrenic moron. pic related, Jewish insanity in a nutshell.


>>
Anonymous 16/09/20(Tue)19:51 No. 12673 ID: eb915c

>>12665

All Abrahamic religions are just as retarded as atheism.


>>
Anonymous 16/10/11(Tue)21:54 No. 12680 ID: 56a6ee

>>12673
Let me guess, backpacker Buddhist read a self-help book and took a getaway trip to some shitty temple only to come back and tell everyone how worldly you are?


>>
Anonymous 16/10/17(Mon)22:52 No. 12685 ID: 27c313

>>12489
Fuckin fuck it is.

Seriously though, given the opportunity, Darwin could rock the shit out of any evolutionary theory modernists attempt to propagate into effect.


>>
Anonymous 16/10/17(Mon)23:00 No. 12686 ID: 27c313

>>12665
Abraham and Moses were Schizophrenic, but neither were morons. In fact, for being alive in the age and era they grew to recognize, they were 2 pegs short of genius. Jesus was an idiot who didn't like rich people, lived in a golden age of Roman idiocy, and for it, was romanticized as the savior it is necessary to worship even if he is a rotting corpse. If you read the New Testament, it says Jesus 2 to 5 times on every page.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/01(Tue)17:58 No. 12698 ID: 7cf7bd
12698

File 147801952970.jpg - (5.15KB , 299x168 , images.jpg )

>>12673

Yeah. Fedora autists are the worst, though. Basement dwelling atheists that watch way too much sci-fi movies and Ancient Aliens conspiracy crap. Tinfoil experts, basically.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/05(Sat)08:17 No. 12701 ID: d78ba2

You mean that there is no meaning? Probably.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/21(Mon)22:52 No. 12724 ID: 7cf7bd
12724

File 147976512651.jpg - (3.27KB , 182x160 , images-1.jpg )

>>12701

*tips fedora*


>>
Anonymous 16/11/26(Sat)10:13 No. 12727 ID: 57a468

>>12698
> Basement dwelling atheists that watch way too much sci-fi movies
> Ancient Aliens conspiracy crap.
Pick one.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)07:49 No. 12728 ID: a6be23

From a purely biological standpoint if you are a nihilist.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)19:27 No. 12733 ID: 7cf7bd
12733

File 148035767585.jpg - (7.41KB , 223x226 , images-1.jpg )

>>12727

Butthurt euphoric fedora spotted. Go and make a tinfoil hat, manchild. The aliens are coming, lol.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/30(Wed)02:04 No. 12735 ID: 44a931

>>12490
Intentionally bothering with traits within animals (and plants) is called artificial selection. Natural selection is just the proposed idea that animals most tuned in with their environment will most likely survive, and will shape the future of the species as a whole. The bear in water thing is pretty stupid, however, and such big changes in a species seems too silly to be possible.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/13(Tue)03:32 No. 12748 ID: 7cf7bd
12748

File 148159635283.jpg - (40.23KB , 546x531 , 146160102119-1.jpg )

>>12735

http://www.colorado.edu/today/2015/08/05/natural-selection-can-impede-formation-new-species
>"This is one of the best demonstrations we know of regarding the counteractive effects of natural selection on speciation,” said Flaxman of CU-Boulder’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, second author on the new study. “We show how the brown population essentially carries genes back and forth between the green populations, acting as a genetic bridge that causes a slowdown in divergence.”

You're stuck in your self-perpetuating fedora tipping logic. Darwins ideas are just as dead as he is.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/16(Fri)16:30 No. 12751 ID: f5c439

While I don't think that he did, I do like the idea of our purpose being to continue developing and bettering ourselves one generation at a time whether that be physically, mentally, socially or however.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/16(Fri)20:54 No. 12753 ID: 28edad

>>12748
every time i see people using less than a century of research to disprove evolution i feel more sorry for humanity as a whole.

just because your limited perspective doesn't allow you to see the long term effects of environmental change and migration on a species doesn't mean evolution isn't happening.

the world was not made in seven days; the quasi-christian posit that it's only about 5000 years old makes no sense by either christian theology or science.

Natural selection takes centuries.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/17(Sat)01:33 No. 12754 ID: 7cf7bd
12754

File 148193480988.jpg - (6.73KB , 194x259 , images.jpg )

>>12753

http://www.phys.org/news/2015-02-scientists-hasnt-evolved-billion-years.html
>Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years

Keep on clinging to your fedora and your outdated, autistic 17th century neckbeard idol, keyboard warrior.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/17(Sat)12:04 No. 12755 ID: e41ff4

>>12753
You really have to hand it to people who are so oblivious that they take an active role in demonstrating that people with low IQs are drawn to conservative ideologies.


>>
Anonymous 17/01/08(Sun)03:58 No. 12784 ID: eb915c
12784

File 148384432780.jpg - (121.57KB , 1281x770 , 144055111375.jpg )

>>12754


>>
Anonymous 17/01/19(Thu)17:38 No. 12792 ID: 1dd666

>>12784

Truly euphoric.

*tips fedora*


>>
Anonymous 17/01/22(Sun)23:38 No. 12798 ID: eb915c

>>12792

Fedora tippers are hilarious. All they do is regurgitate whatever some old conspiracy nut like Dawkins writes. How can anyone take him seriously? Aliens, lol.


>>
Anonymous 17/01/31(Tue)23:46 No. 12806 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12798

This thread pretty much proves that evolution as a theory is so flawed it is laughable. Darwins idea have zero credibility.


>>
Anonymous 17/02/01(Wed)20:07 No. 12807 ID: eb915c

>>12806

I'll say it again..fedora tippers just repeat whatever they read on Wikipedia or what some clown like Dawkins write.


>>
Anonymous 17/02/02(Thu)03:53 No. 12808 ID: eb915c
12808

File 148600401891.jpg - (94.58KB , 500x500 , Cognitive dissonance.jpg )

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03
>Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal "power plants", called mitochondria.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30263-9
>A Eukaryote without a Mitochondrial Organelle


>>
Anonymous 17/02/04(Sat)17:29 No. 12809 ID: f88b20

>>12459
read out "recessive alleles"
fucking retard


>>
Anonymous 17/02/04(Sat)20:28 No. 12810 ID: eb915c
12810

File 148623653023.png - (148.68KB , 558x418 , 1387381150755.png )

>>12809

Why so mad? Are you too euphoric? Genetic mutation =/= natural selection


>>
Anonymous 17/02/04(Sat)23:27 No. 12811 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12810

Ignore the fedora autist. He's just tipping his headgear as quickly as possible in order to counter his cognitive dissonance. The fact that Darwin was wrong from the very beginning hurt his feelings and now he's going to 420 blaze it so he can forget about the tears he shed.

"Natural selection" is so moronic it's funny.


>>
Anonymous 17/02/23(Thu)21:53 No. 12836 ID: eb915c
12836

File 148788320771.png - (13.26KB , 372x360 , 1430430903005.png )

>>12811

His theory is so flawed it's comical. It's a haphazardly constructed fairy tale for euphoric neckbeards.


>>
Anonymous 17/03/16(Thu)08:24 No. 12853 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12836

https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/general-news/2014/2014-08/taung-childs-skull-not-human-like.html
>Taung Child's skull not human-like

Don't forget how inconclusive the fossil "evidence" is. Most fedora neckbeards have no idea how retarded Darwin was.


>>
Anonymous 17/03/16(Thu)20:18 No. 12854 ID: eb915c
12854

File 148969189254.jpg - (72.84KB , 439x640 , darwin.jpg )

>>12853

>not human

Darwin...forever a dunce.


>>
Anonymous 17/03/17(Fri)01:11 No. 12855 ID: c7c493
12855

File 148970949629.png - (616.47KB , 860x639 , DTChar2.png )

Nooooo


>>
Anonymous 17/03/17(Fri)01:12 No. 12856 ID: c7c493

And the meaning of life is 102


>>
Anonymous 17/03/26(Sun)14:27 No. 12867 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12854

Yeah. His ideas are far from believable and poorly substantiated. Like how the so called "Java Man" was supposed to prove that humans come from monkeys when in reality it was an extinct ape. The fossil called Java Man was the femur of a modern man along with the skull cap of an unrelated species. When this was discovered 100 years ago, the man claiming ownership, Dubois, then hid the bones under his porch for decades and
refused to confess his crime.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:18 No. 12879 ID: 946ad3

Darwinism is a realism, people seem to forget.
Also, no. Darwinism presupposes a theory of meaning, which is not grounded, and quite probably cannot be grounded. If you mean meaning in the gay sense of bigger meaning, then no, it's a regress question, that lay outside the limits of possible knowledge, which is not a skepticism but an agnosticism, which is necessary.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/08(Sat)20:12 No. 12891 ID: eb915c
12891

File 149167514372.jpg - (57.52KB , 540x360 , laughing-hysterically-540x360.jpg )

>>12505
>>12510
>>12512
>>12514
>>12525
>>12530
>>12554
>>12559
 
>something went wrong (blank response) 

lol, the retard deleted his posts. Typical fedora tipper.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/13(Thu)08:33 No. 12894 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12891

He realized how dumb he really is.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/19(Wed)20:23 No. 12907 ID: eb915c
12907

File 149262618647.jpg - (37.95KB , 479x720 , tip.jpg )

>>12894

He's a manchild. He loses the argument and deletes his posts (maximum damage control). Your average atheist in a nutshell.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/25(Tue)20:51 No. 12914 ID: 1d10b2

>>12891
Deleting an entire series of posts...on an anonymous imageboard?

That has to be one of the saddest things I have ever heard of; not that this is the first time I have ever heard of this particular thing.

How butthurt can you be that you try to salvage the reputation of a non-existent identity by erasing its history?

sage, because unimportant.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/04(Thu)08:28 No. 12919 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12907

Well, most atheists are basement dwelling manchildren that watch anime so that's not too shocking.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/09(Tue)21:25 No. 12925 ID: eb915c
12925

File 149435795411.jpg - (6.12KB , 300x168 , images-1.jpg )

>>12919


>basement dwelling manchildren that watch anime

Opinionated Wikipedia readers that repeat whatever they read online.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/11(Thu)23:50 No. 12928 ID: 1e262e

>>12919
And all religious people are complete morons who willingly allow themselves to be controlled by entities that manipulate world governments so they don't have to pay taxes and can wage wars when and where they please, several of which have entirely convinced its followers that cutting off pieces of your baby's genitals makes them better.

What's your point?


>>
Anonymous 17/05/12(Fri)16:17 No. 12929 ID: 3722aa

>>12919
>>12925

What is more frightening about atheists believing in alien civilizations is the fact that they seriously believe that all humans come from Africa.

There is no real evidence for the claim that the mitochondrial Eve originated in Africa. That's just an assumption and basically a bedtime story that they use to comfort themselves.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/15(Mon)21:45 No. 12935 ID: eb915c
12935

File 149487752635.jpg - (32.03KB , 487x491 , 148600401891-1.jpg )

>>12929

It is kind of hilarious how they always use circular logic. If bacteria evolves, "natural selection" is proven right. If it doesn't evolve, "natural selection" is proven right.

It's like talking to someone that is legitimately retarded.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/18(Thu)02:21 No. 12936 ID: cfee17

>>12935
That's like saying "If one plus one equals two, then math is right, and if one plus two equals three, than math is also right."

Evolution isn't a theory, it's simple fact at this point. The only alternative is A WIZARD DID IT! which solves nothing and accomplishes nothing. The reason why science exists is because it can be applied to improve the lives of people. An understanding of quantum mechanics made GPS possible; if they had just assumed that the speed of light was infinite because "God made it so", we wouldn't have GPS.

Religious beliefs, by comparison, are useless.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/18(Thu)08:09 No. 12937 ID: eb915c

>>12936

>simple fact

Nope. You obviously haven't read the thread. It's so flawed it makes me snicker. You just choose to ignore when it is contradicted.

Stay angry, fedora lord.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/22(Mon)23:52 No. 12940 ID: 32c8ba

No it was Anaximander


>>
Anonymous 17/05/24(Wed)14:36 No. 12943 ID: ca3ad7

>>12937
You obviously haven't read anything. You just listen to what other people tell you to think. Science is empirical: anyone can go outside and test it for themselves and the reality will bear itself out.

But you would rather sit inside with your curtains drawn, sitting in a pile of your own shit and garbage, clutching your ancient book of bullshit, believing with smug satisfaction that you're already correct.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/24(Wed)20:40 No. 12946 ID: eb915c

>>12943

Time to put on your hat and tip it, my neckbeard friend. Why not watch some anime and play some video games while you're at it?


>>
Anonymous 17/05/24(Wed)21:52 No. 12947 ID: 7cf7bd
12947

File 149565552592.jpg - (18.89KB , 584x388 , f32.jpg )

>>12946

https://www.phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html
>"While great apes typically have two or three separate and diverging roots, the roots of "Graecopithecus" converge and are partially fused - a feature that is characteristic of modern humans, early humans and several pre-humans including"Ardipithecus" and "Australopithecus""

The Taung child is a so called "Australopithecus" and it's not human at all. Yet another dead ape they claim is human. It's funny how they grasp at straws.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/25(Thu)19:50 No. 12950 ID: eb915c

>>12947

That's modern anthropology: inconsistent drivel.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/30(Tue)20:19 No. 12964 ID: 7cf7bd

>>12950

Couldn't agree more. There are so many flaws in the anthropological "evidence". It's painfully obvious but fedora tippers suffer from confirmation bias so they just willfully ignore it, like the manchildren they are.


>>
Anonymous 17/06/04(Sun)22:48 No. 12969 ID: 0c0342

>>12947
Its amazing what people will come up when they're grasping at straws trying to fit a predefined explanation that doesn't match the evidence.

Graecopithecus has been championed by a deeply religious white supremacist whose claims have been repeatedly discredited over the years. This latest paper is following the same track as his earlier claims and will likely suffer the same ignominious fate.

Yet keep grasping at straws guys, you're totally not looking desperate and ignorant of the scientific method.


>>
Anonymous 17/06/05(Mon)06:14 No. 12971 ID: eb915c

>>12964

The fossil record is so flawed and still fedora lords try to convince themselves that it is scientifically valid. They rely on conjectures and assumptions.

That's basically all they got. Sad but true.


>>
Anonymous 17/06/05(Mon)15:42 No. 12972 ID: e0157c

No. He only found out hoe life came to be and adapt to its surroundings.


>>
Anonymous 17/06/05(Mon)18:03 No. 12973 ID: eb915c

>>12972

He didn't. He thought that bears could turn into whales by simply being in an aquatic environment and it is laughable. His whole theory is retarded.


>>
Anonymous 17/06/08(Thu)07:39 No. 12976 ID: 24fc38

>>12973
Better than the Bible btw


>>
Anonymous 17/06/23(Fri)08:57 No. 12984 ID: 2b7151

>>12973

This thread proves how inconsistent fedora tippers are. It also shows how poor and feeble Darwins theory is. It's hilarious to see how little they actually know about Darwins kindergarten tier theory and how flawed it really is.


>>
sage 17/06/23(Fri)09:54 No. 12985 ID: 913c4a

This thread shows how the trolls from olgino spend their free time.


>>
Anonymous 17/06/23(Fri)10:08 No. 12986 ID: 2b7151

>>12985

>Darwins theory is poorly substantiated
>Several flaws are pointed out in the thread
>Call it "trolling" because you suffer from confirmation bias and ignore any evidence that contradict your precious fedora tipping delusion

Neckbeard spotted.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)09:02 No. 13004 ID: eb915c

>>12986

Fedora tippers are immature manchildren. Anything that doesn't conform to their own worldview is labeled as trolling because everything is just a meme to them. They're Richard Dawkins tier pseudo intellectuals.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)15:45 No. 13037 ID: 7cf7bd
13037

File 150099031621.jpg - (9.32KB , 176x287 , images-1.jpg )

>>12986

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefalo
>"Beefalo", also referred to as "cattalo", or the "American hybrid", are a fertile hybrid offspring of domestic cattle ("Bos taurus"), usually a male in managed breeding programs, and the American bison ("Bison bison"), usually a female in managed breeding programs

According to fedora tippers, this shouldn't be able to work since the American bison and domestic cattle are different spieces.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/26(Wed)09:16 No. 13041 ID: eb915c

>>13037

Yet another reason why atheists and their buffoonish fedora overlord Darwin are discredited.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/26(Wed)13:16 No. 13042 ID: 7cf7bd

>>13041

Regarding the human fossil record it is quite funny to see how scarce and inconsistent the succession of skeletons are. Not only are they all apes in terms of osteological comparison but all of these million year old fossils have zero genetic material to prove they are related to humans.

Fedora tippers just assume everything is human because they can't actually prove it.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/27(Thu)11:48 No. 13043 ID: eb915c

>>13042

The same can be said about the transition of mammals to reptiles. There is a huge gap between mammals and reptiles when it comes to evidence for the claim that mammals evolved from reptiles.

Mainly this: mammals have one lower jawbone, reptiles have six. Mammals have three ear bones, reptiles have one. Fedora tippers have, once again, no evidence to present. The earliest mammals are small rodents, but there are no traces of "evolution" in the fossil record.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/27(Thu)18:17 No. 13044 ID: 7cf7bd
13044

File 150117222124.jpg - (23.55KB , 600x352 , CjmS0DsVEAAJ6cF.jpg )

>>13043

>earliest mammals are small rodents

Wow...that means that bears, elephants and even whales came from rodents! I truly feel euphoric now!

*tips*


>>
Anonymous 17/08/01(Tue)12:20 No. 13051 ID: eb915c

>>13044

What is astonishing about the fedora tippers fanatical belief in Darwins bogus theory is that when you look at how different species are supposed to have evolved from others, the lack of transitional forms are mind-boggling.

If, for example, snakes evolved from lizards (which fedora tippers claim) there should be thousands if not millions of lizard skeletons with retracted limbs in various stages. But there isn't.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/02(Wed)22:03 No. 13056 ID: 7cf7bd

>>13051

Shouldn't there also be invertebrates with rudimentary backbones, fishes with incipient legs and reptiles with half-formed wings lying about everywhere?

They should be pretty common and those specimens should be a rule rather than exception.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/05(Sat)08:44 No. 13057 ID: cd2c7d
13057

File 15019154556.jpg - (84.96KB , 650x488 , Tetrapodophis.jpg )

>>13051
>there should be thousands if not millions of lizard skeletons with retracted limbs in various stages
If you bothered to look instead of just standing around with your fingers in your ears, you might find some.

Besides that, what's your alternative to evolution? GOD? Don't make me fucking laugh.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/05(Sat)08:59 No. 13058 ID: eb915c
13058

File 150191639174.jpg - (58.78KB , 900x900 , photo.jpg )

>>13057

So you admit that Darwins whole theory is seriously flawed and lacks credible evidence? Good.

Now run along and keep tipping your fedora, son. Your euphoria must give you quite a rush.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/06(Sun)18:39 No. 13060 ID: d9030c

I wondered where eb915c had run off to.

You may as well talk to a brick wall, he's been living in that echo chamber for too long.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/07(Mon)21:30 No. 13062 ID: 7cf7bd
13062

File 150213424131.png - (210.13KB , 500x320 , 3a0.png )

>>13060

> I wondered where eb915c had run off to. 

>You may as well talk to a brick wall, he's been living in that echo chamber for too long.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/08(Tue)06:40 No. 13064 ID: eb915c

>>13062

There is no point in talking to fedora tippers. They're blinded by their fanaticism.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/08(Tue)19:06 No. 13065 ID: 7cf7bd

>>13064

It's just blatant irrationality. The same kind of suicidal disregard for reasoning like a person with schizophrenia have.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/10(Thu)17:51 No. 13066 ID: eb915c

>>13065

>irrationality

You could say that, yeah. They claim they're guided by common sense and the scientific method, but whenever they get confronted with incongruities in their precious theory, they simply turn away their eyes and avoid the obvious flaws.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/21(Mon)06:31 No. 13073 ID: 7cf7bd
13073

File 150328991575.jpg - (23.00KB , 320x320 , 14616.jpg )

>>13066

I don't think they're guided by common sense. They just spout whatever they get told to believe by National Geographic and various David Attenborough documentaries.

The scientific method is only valid if it confirms their own bias.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/22(Tue)05:37 No. 13074 ID: 03d3db

>>13057
>God
From past conversations... yes, it's God.

He thinks somehow we'll never, ever suspect him of doing something if he yells loudly over and over about how everyone else is doing what he's currently in the process of doing. When studies are brought up that contradict what he claims, he immediately claims the studies are invalid or that nobody but himself is capable of reading the study correctly.

Such is the joy of eb915c and the sock puppet who mysteriously always replies shortly after him. Across all posts. Across all boards.

It got so lonely in that echo chamber he created a friend.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/22(Tue)06:31 No. 13077 ID: eb915c

>>13073

True that. I wonder if fedora tippers are actually capable of critical thinking? It doesn't look like it.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/26(Sat)01:15 No. 13082 ID: 9fd7e5

Yeah, fuck those fedora-tipping assholes with their tipping fedoras and not believing in...whatever the fuck is supposed to unite anti-fedoras? That's never been clearly established, and ironically, it's the same problem that those who adopt the label "atheist" run into. Congratulations, you told me what you don't believe in; now tell me what you actually do believe in.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/31(Thu)08:28 No. 13084 ID: 439740

>>13082
>now tell me what you actually do believe in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)09:11 No. 13096 ID: c1e2c7

>>13077

There are fruit flies that, even though they're genetically identical, are described as different species. Quite contradictory, considering that the term 'species' means that they should be able to reproduce if they're genetically identical.

But (as >>13037 pointed out) there are species that are genetically different that are able to mate and give birth to healthy offspring. Fedora tippers pretty much have nothing in terms of evidence.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)09:59 No. 13097 ID: 439740
13097

File 150433915172.jpg - (53.06KB , 500x708 , Morty.jpg )

>>13096
Glad to see you pointing your reply out to yourself. It's important to remember things.

Here's to hoping an effective treatment to Alzheimer's is found before its too late.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)10:07 No. 13098 ID: c1e2c7

>>13097

What are you talking about?


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)11:42 No. 13101 ID: c1e2c7
13101

File 150434535838.jpg - (57.98KB , 400x507 , Darwin_ape.jpg )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4844832/Fossil-footprints-shake-human-evolution-timeline.html
>A trail of 5.7 million-year-old fossil footprints discovered in Crete could upend the widely accepted theories on early human evolution.
>The new prints have a distinctly human-like form, with a similar big toe to our own and a ‘ball’ in the sole that’s not found in apes
>But, the researchers say the prints found on the Greek island were created during a time when it’s thought early human ancestors were still in Africa – and, when they still had ape-like feet.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/03(Sun)17:56 No. 13105 ID: c1e2c7
13105

File 150445421310.jpg - (106.54KB , 480x457 , e5a73d10dbbf668234da460df2d1b2bf.jpg )

If humans come from apes, how come there are human footprints older than most ape fossils?

Fedoras BTFO.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/04(Mon)10:36 No. 13106 ID: 6a082a

>>13105

Darwin confirmed for biggest moron in history. Fedora tippers are pretty gullible, obviously.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/06(Wed)19:39 No. 13108 ID: c1e2c7

>>13106

"Evolution" is not believable at all.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/11(Mon)14:49 No. 13110 ID: 8d357a

>>13108

Of course it isn't. It is highly invalid. You'd have to be absolutely retarded to believe it.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/16(Sat)19:31 No. 13120 ID: c1e2c7
13120

File 150558307263.png - (6.60KB , 200x197 , 5e6.png )

>>13110

Fedora tippers always engage in mental gymnastics and circular logic. Despite that this whole thread points out how flawed Darwins theory is, it becomes fairly obvious that the euphoric neckbeards are just as fanatical as the people they deem unenlightened.

Evolution is a cute pacifier for the childish mind.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/16(Sat)21:43 No. 13122 ID: fe9887

>>13120
>>13108
>>13106
>>13110
I hope all of you understand that the idea of Evolution has gone beyond theory at this point. It is essentially a fact of life. The transitions from one species to the next are well documented at the DNA level. Museums are full of overwhelming evidence.

Your posts are only a reminder of the sort of people that visit this site. It's scary that I document /my/ ideas here thinking that the userbase is intelligent enough to understand them, because what I am reading here and the level of ignorance is astounding.

I wish we had a definitive method of immediately calculating one's intellect so that a forum online somewhere can filter these people out.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/17(Sun)16:46 No. 13123 ID: c1e2c7

>>13122

>The transitions from one species to the next are well documented at the DNA level.

lol, no. If you've actually read anything about it you would realize that clearly isn't the case. Your armchair expertise is quite amusing.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/17(Sun)21:44 No. 13127 ID: fe9887

>>13123
>>13123
"lol'. Rather, if /you/ picked up a book and read you'd see the overwhelming evidence found in the DNA across species.

The precise continuum of change hasn't been shown because evolution is extremely slow and Evolution was only theorized a few hundred years ago, but if you cannot see the relationships between DNA of similar species, the relationships of the physicality of similar species, and the fact that the body adapts to changes in environment, then this is a testament to your lack of ability to think and reason. Just because you are unable to rationalize, that does not mean the idea is false. Your stupidity is not the centre of all reason.

Given that the idea of Evolution explains everything, including our wisdom teeth which can barely fit in our mouths, it will be very difficult or you to find a reason that proves it wrong.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/18(Mon)05:39 No. 13128 ID: c1e2c7

>>13127

>change hasn't been shown

Like I said: it clearly isn't the case. There is no need to be upset just because your theory is wrong by default and can't be backed up by evidence.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/18(Mon)07:13 No. 13134 ID: fe9887

>>13128

The change has been shown but on a larger scale. You seem to lack the ability to understand what you read, and maybe this is where your issue begins.

Do you know what a continuum is? Basically you can think of each generation as slightly different from the one before it. Side by side, you can hardly tell a difference, but span the generations to hundreds of thousands to millions, the differences at the opposite ends of this continuum will be enormous to the extent that you can call them two different species.

This is the concept behind a continuum of change. 100 years is not enough to observe this change by the human eye and mind, but the dramatic differences of this change can be observed on the DNA level as well as physical (appearance) one while still existing remarkable similarities.

An example that might hit home a bit better is the difference between black and white humans. Their skin colour is different as well as the shape of the skulls yet are remarkably similar in many ways. This is because all humans ultimately derive from Africa. The black people you see today stayed there longer than we did, the rest of us moved elsewhere to a new environment where the environment (whether from being indoors too often or a lack of direct sunlight) eventually changed our physicality to make us better suited for it. It's called adaptation. Your body has atrophied over the course of many years sitting lazily on the computer. It is adapting to this change. It hasn't reached the level of your DNA to change your offspring's physicality yet, but give enough time of future generations being lazy, the environment has definitively changed by virtue of remaining consistent and thus you will notice significant lack of muscle definition because their environment doesn't require it. Your body is doing you and your children a favour by constantly changing and adjusting. It is no coincidence that women lack muscle definition even if they exercised fairly often. For thousands of years, they stayed relatively sedentary looking after the children while men toiled outdoors, which also explains why it is so easy for them to get muscular bodies... Some people are taller than others, some have bigger bone structures than others. We all know that children are likely to resemble their parents, so the tall parents are likely to produce tall offspring, while others... quite a difference. Think of all those carrier genes as well as the drastic change of environment with the new age of technology. Some have high cheek bones, some have eyes that hang lower than others. Are you telling me all of these changes in shapes and sizes of humans of different backgrounds is not the hallmark of change of evolution? It all ties into Evolution. It is all right in front of you. How it blows by your head still amazes me.

I hope this explanation was clearer for you. I doubt you even made it this far since you don't seem to understand what you read.

Of course this logic probably means nothing to you. In the face of your own personal experience to reenforce the notion of Evolution you still deny it. What amazes me more than the fact of Evolution is your ignorance.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/18(Mon)10:32 No. 13136 ID: 6a082a
13136

File 150572353492.jpg - (29.21KB , 236x736 , b6417e8c8c1b42fb5d8f223fe0e91e5c--school-staff-sch.jpg )

>>13128

>Him: transitions from one species to the next are well documented at the DNA level. 
>You: lol, no
>Him: change hasn't been shown

Hahahahahaha! Just fantastic! Even though he admits he was talking out of his ass, somehow, you're the stupid one.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/18(Mon)14:35 No. 13138 ID: fe9887

>>13136
If you attempted to read the post after it instead of skipping it because it seemed rather long, you'd gain the insight you are looking for which would render your response a bit silly. Of course change has been documented. The sort of change you want shown is over a span of 200 years which is not doable, but that isn't to say change doesn't exist on a larger scale. We can see it in DNA and from the physicality of other species. Try read my post before it and you might gain better insight. "Somehow" you /are/ the stupid one for not being able to relate seemingly different events to a common source. This is the whole idea behind intellect. You see patterns enough to draw rational conclusions from them, which you obviously lack.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/18(Mon)17:40 No. 13139 ID: c1e2c7

>>13136

Just ignore him. He's a moron. He didn't even read the thread. >>12607 pretty much explain why fe9887 is a mental midget.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/19(Tue)02:06 No. 13143 ID: fe9887

>>13139
Carl Sagan said that he could find intelligent people in his class who did not know the Sun was a star. Just because the person you cited "appears" to have knowledge, it may only be a superficial/isolated understanding or even rote memorization, which is unfortunate because they would be missing the bigger picture and how it all ties together.

You excuse a 95% similarity between us and chimpanzees as still not being enough? Not even 90%? There are going to be genetic differences, whether it's 95%, 98%, or whether insertions or deletions exist (which must given the fact that while we are close on a taxonomic level, there is still a tremendous separation in time and environment among us), the bottom line is that among the group of all hominids are obvious physical differences in terms of size, shape and behaviour, yet we see an obvious similarity both in terms of physicality and genetic makeup. It's a relation but on a larger scale. For whatever reason you excuse this is based on yet unsurprisingly another misunderstanding or an inability to piece together concepts logically I'm sure.

It's a good thing we have Internet to archive history so that people 100,000 years from now can look at this and be amazed that there existed people who refused to see what is plain and obvious even now. It's also a good thing we don't live for thousands of years, because not only would you perpetuate your stupidity onto the world, but your response when you actually start to notice the change yourself would be nothing but anger and /still/ denial because you can never admit you are wrong. Imagine the uproar of people who side against evolution actually seeing it and observing the change themselves. I wonder if they would apologize for their stupidity or if they would start a war.

I'm genuinely curious: do you believe that we aren't heliocentric? Ever more interesting, do you believe the Earth is flat?


>>
Anonymous 17/09/19(Tue)05:50 No. 13145 ID: c1e2c7

>>13143

You seriously believe that you can compare human DNA and chimpanzee DNA? Did you even understand the post? 

>any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. 

You're basically saying that even though you have no genetic evidence proving that humans comes from apes you still think that by comparing genetic lineages over vast time spans (impossible in a practical sense) somehow will give you a definite answer. 

In terms of genetics, you have no idea what you're talking about.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/19(Tue)07:08 No. 13149 ID: fe9887

>>13145
Are you sure it is not you that doesn't understand? The logic of Evolution is so well understood that immense effort has been made to categorize every species on the hierarchical tree of life based on the similarities of DNA of each species relative to others.

It's the /similarity/ of DNA between us and chimps that is the evidence. The precise amount of similarity can be an endeavour for scholars with interest. You're looking at every tree. Start looking at the forest as a whole.

Do you understand that you pass your genes on to your children? Do you understand at least the idea behind genetic mutations? Do you understand that if your DNA sequence changes it might, rather, probably will, later affect your descendants by means a recessive gene that finally manifests itself?

The same person you are quoting (eb915c) also goes on to criticize Darwin's hypothesis of the evolution of bears if they continue to feed with mouths open underwater for extended periods of time. Does it sound funny to them? Their immaturity in finding humour in it defines the mindset of this person despite having supposedly a background in DNA analysis. A bear /might/ keep its mouth open for extended periods of time if the food source is lacking on the surface and it finds it an effective method to survive (an instinct we all share) in that given environment and doing so would strengthen and weaken certain muscles around the mouth, promoting that method of feeding which would then cause it to rely on that method of feeding. The offspring of this bear would learn and probably would end up doing the same thing. If this method of feeding is reliable and stable, the length of time that this would be done would redefine the muscles to make it more effective at catching underwater nutrition which would help it to survive even better. How can they laugh at the idea? It's because they simply do not understand what he is saying. Evolution is all about causality. The cause of your stupidity is uncertain, but I can tell you for certain that your genetic reproduction is not favoured. The world is stupid enough as it is.

I am so thankful I was blessed with a working brain. I'm not trying to be offensive; I say this with the utmost due respect as everyone has the right to voice opinion. The harmony of an idea pieced together logically is one of the most empowering, beautiful, and one of the best feelings on Earth. I am so sorry you will never get to experience this.

Just let the Internet archive document history so that the natural course of human Evolution will shut you people up once you realize you're lacking a few too many neurons and contribute absolutely nothing to us.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/19(Tue)18:21 No. 13152 ID: 6af4de
13152

File 150583810965.png - (12.52KB , 1144x225 , DNA.png )

>>13145

>impossible in a practical sense

This. Fedora tippers have no idea what they're talking about.

Take pic related for instance. You have human DNA and orangutan DNA. The structure of DNA.is built up of four simple subunits. Each of our reproductive cells has a length of DNA encompassing approximately 3.2 billion of these subunits, but there are still only four of them: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, or A, G, C, and T. This creates a statistical oddity. Since genetic information is composed of DNA sequences, and there are only four elements to each DNA sequence, it follows that two DNA sequences can differ, on the average, by no more than 25 percent, and when we choose the alignment with the smallest numbers of mutational events, we still have to decide whether a gap “equals” a substitution, or whether a gap should be considered rarer and, therefore, worth, say, five substitutions, which make the similarity lower.

How similar are these stretches of DNA? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species, and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem: What is the precisely corresponding subunit between these two? The one we choose will contain implicit information about what "evolutionary" events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally.

So basically, it's all guesswork. To say there is a 98 or 95% similarity and claim that it's a "proven fact" is ridiculous.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/22(Fri)08:49 No. 13156 ID: d15088

>>13152
The human and chimp genomes have been mapped. We know what all the genes do and where they are in the DNA sequence. It's not a difficult problem.

>This creates a statistical oddity. Since genetic information is composed of DNA sequences, and there are only four elements to each DNA sequence, it follows that two DNA sequences can differ, on the average, by no more than 25 percent
And you also fail basic math, so this ignorance shouldn't really be surprising. After all, your only argument is
>Darwin's theories were wrong, which means THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION IS BUNK!
Does that mean that, because the Geocentric model of the universe was wrong, that all of astronomy is fake...? You're like fucking flat-Earthers, you know that?


>>
Anonymous 17/09/22(Fri)18:10 No. 13158 ID: c1e2c7

>>13156

He's right, you know? Comparing orangutan, chimpanzee or gorilla DNA with human DNA is all guesswork. You're the one who lacks basic understanding of genetics.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/22(Fri)18:31 No. 13159 ID: c1e2c7

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

>Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.

>35 000 000 changes
>5 000 000 insertions and deletions

Like a previous poster wrote: how do we know which corresponding subunit fits into another species DNA? The answer is that we don't know. Claiming that there is a 98 or 95 percent similarity is laughable.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)06:27 No. 13163 ID: fe9887

>>13159
Don't let the numbers terrify you. A DNA strand in one cell would stretch 2 meters across. Those are /a lot/ of base pairs. 35,000,000 is virtually nothing. Without being so hasty to copy and paste anything that fits your agenda in the name of confirmation bias, let's not get too excited that we forget to review the next few sentences after it:

In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.

The relentless work of many scientists who actually understand what they are doing doesn't end from an ignorant fool who doesn't. I sure hope you don't think that the genome of a child, their siblings, and their parents are identical.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)07:51 No. 13164 ID: c1e2c7

>>13163

I think you're still ignoring the fact that there is zero evidence for the claim that humans come from apes.

>Through comparison

That means that they actually have no idea what the 35 000 000 changes are. Tell me then what the correctly corresponding subunits are.

Begin with the first one and count all of the right combinations all the way up to number 35 000 000. To say that means nothing is your excuse to cover up the holes in the so called "proof".


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)08:18 No. 13165 ID: 6af4de

>>13164

>That means that they actually have no idea what the 35 000 000 changes are.

Exactly. The most comprehensive comparison there is, actually infinitesimal in scope, is about forty thousand bases of the region of some hemoglobin genes on chromosome 11.

Bits and pieces have been compared between humans and chimpanzees, amounting to less than 100,000 DNA bases in length. But there are 3.2 billion bases in a human genome, so obviously we have here a minuscule proportion and the comparison is biased toward regions that contain functional units, genes which tend to be where people look for DNA to sequence.

You can tell from the lack of comprehensive studies that DNA comparison between the two species is so flawed that it's scary to even call it scientifically valid.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)09:51 No. 13166 ID: c1e2c7
13166

File 150615308087.gif - (492.99KB , 485x380 , oooh.gif )

>>13165

>less than 100 000 nucleotides have been compared
>there are 5 000 000 insertions and deletions
>35 000 000 changes
>out of 3 200 000 000


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)10:33 No. 13167 ID: 6af4de

>>13166

Not only that. mtDNA is a tiny fraction of DNA located outside the nucleus and because mtDNA mutates at a much higher rate than nuclear DNA two organisms, therefore, will be far more similar in their nuclear DNA than in their mtDNA.

It means that you have to conflate different mutational processes and call it evidence. But that's what fedora tippers do and always have.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)16:06 No. 13169 ID: fe9887

You let your stupidities encourage and re-enforce one another.

Go to the microscopic level, and DNA is really all that's there. We understand the idea behind mutations. What other possible explanation is there? There isn't one. That is because it is understood how DNA works, regardless of the few differences across species there may be.

Intelligence involves being able to look at events and deduce facts from these events that occur in a predictive fashion which is acceptable based on the fact that there is literally nothing else to look at at the atomic level of biology. If you understand the simple idea behind genetic mutations, and that the genome slightly changes with each generation, you will understand that reproductive change begins at the DNA level. Remove the theory, and you are resorting to witchcraft and divine powers which wouldn't surprise me given the lack of brain power you are putting forth to understand anything it seems.

You've never actually seen the evidence that we are heliocentric, yet you believe it I presume? Take the great "leap of faith" that this is the way things are given that we've explored almost everything in the system.

I can't expect really anything from you, though. You folks need special attention, and I'm always here to provide it to those in need.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)16:08 No. 13170 ID: c1e2c7

>>13168

There is no need to get upset. Just because you have no genetic evidence you don't have to throw a temper tantrum.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)16:27 No. 13172 ID: fe9887

>>13170
Unsurprisingly another baseless assumption... this time that I'm upset.

I'm just trying to help you. You're like a stubborn retarded child that needs their hand held along every step of the way.

The evidence is the logic of evolution and the similarities that have been documented already (a lot of effort will be needed to map the meanings of all the 35,000,000 differences).

For what ever reason your poor brain cannot understand, the logic speaks for itself. It's as simple as your ABCs and 123s. This is just an insult to yourself and your offspring.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)16:37 No. 13173 ID: c1e2c7

>>13172

>35 000 000 differences

....and comparing 3 200 000 000 bases "at at the atomic level", lol.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:16 No. 13175 ID: fe9887
13175

File 150618339115.png - (14.58KB , 489x399 , AT_DNA_base_pair.png )

>>13173
The genome is immediately compared based on the differences in sequence but the cause of each change is uncertain. Some are documented, most aren't. I'm not sure how much simpler one can get. You're still confused. People like you are a phenomenon. I'm not upset, a better word would be "amazed".


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:19 No. 13176 ID: c1e2c7

>>13175

Once again: compare 3 200 000 000 bases and prove humans come from apes. Simple as that.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:22 No. 13177 ID: fe9887

>>13176
Wow. You are unbelievable.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:35 No. 13178 ID: c1e2c7

>>13177

You have no real evidence, you know that right? Stop being so upset about it.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:41 No. 13179 ID: fe9887

>>13178
Why do you assume things so freely? Where do you get the idea that I'm upset?

The logic and available explained differences thus far are the evidence. Even if 35,000,000 explained differences were laid out in front of you you wouldn't read any but one of them. Guess what: we did the same thing, but maybe a great handful more than one.

I daresay you have no reason to go against it especially when there is no other logic that can possibly support life. We know the bases are there, they serve a function, we understand that function, and it leads to only one conclusion: Evolution is the only logical explanation of life that will ever exist. I'll do you a favour and recommend that you to not endeavour academically in the sciences. If you focus on every tree in the forest rather than the forest as a whole, you will get absolutely nowhere.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:46 No. 13180 ID: c1e2c7

>>13179

The genetic data available is microscopic in terms of comparison. Out of 3 200 000 000 bases, there are only a handful that have been compared (40 000 in one chromosome).

You're grasping at straws here.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)18:53 No. 13181 ID: fe9887

>>13180
Do you think that flat-earthers think that sphere-earthers are grasping at straws too? You can pull any argument you think is valid (which happens to involve a number greater than /you/ can fathom, rather than a multi-core processor which does all the processing of DNA), but the fact remains that Evolution, and the Earth being spherical, is true, regardless if you understand it or not. Anyways, it's impossible to argue with the religious zealots, the flat-earthers, and likewise with you. I wish you all the best luck, you truly need it in a world that's getting smarter.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/23(Sat)19:04 No. 13183 ID: c1e2c7

>>13181
 
You keep deviating from the subject. As pointed out earlier by another poster there are different kinds of DNA that change at different rates and different ways. They aren't interchangeable when comparing bases because they're different in kind rather than amount. 

Keep spouting your self-affirming beliefs, though. Your fedora must be tilted to the maximum by now.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/26(Tue)07:23 No. 13184 ID: fbe3c3

>>13183
>You keep deviating from the subject
There is no subject. It's just you making shit up and then screaming at the top of your lungs like a toddler about "fedora tipping" whenever anyone disagrees.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/26(Tue)15:30 No. 13185 ID: 612b33

>>13183

You can tell from this thread that fedora tippers have no idea what genetics is about. They don't even have basic knowledge about it.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/26(Tue)17:29 No. 13186 ID: 6af4de

>>13185

>fedora tippers have no idea what genetics is about

The fact that mtDNA and DNA mutate at different rates and can't be compared is university tier knowledge. But manchildren that sit behind a computer screen all day never attend college or university. They just wallow in their own self-importance while they google Wikipedia articles.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/27(Wed)03:18 No. 13192 ID: fe9887

>>13186
A reminder that this person assumes there can't be noticeable strings of similarities and patterns using 4 base elements which comprise DNA.

An axiom which holds true in all cases:
An assumption of another's motive is only a reflection of oneself.

The beautiful irony is that you are more likely to be the one quickly researching before posting in an attempt to hold up your silly position.

Our reality is so well understood by people who possess logic that we have manipulated it using the properties of electrons to be able to communicate to each other across the globe in a tiny fraction of a second. The fact that you can sit in front of a logical device of our [rational beings] creation using these properties * and tell us that there exists no logic to a logical system forming the understanding of Evolution, similar to the logical system used in creating the computer, is a test of my patience with you. Both start at the atomic level (computer: electrons -> semiconductors -> NPN & PNP transistors, capacitors, resistors, diodes,... ; evolution: atoms -> molecules -> G A C T -> DNA -> mutations) to work up to a general idea or product. Evolution is as well-understood, realistic, and factually-based as the computer you use to tell us we are wrong. The DNA analyses and comparisons are even documented on said device.

Anyone but a fool will take you seriously.

* = (a computer, partly composed of billions of memory-storing transistors which have been expertly downsized to a near-atomic level for portability at /your/ convenience)


>>
Anonymous 17/09/27(Wed)05:59 No. 13193 ID: c1e2c7

>>13186

Yeah, pretty much. Wikipedia reading armchair experts are hilarious. Like watching a kindergartener playing with fingerpaint.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/27(Wed)07:43 No. 13194 ID: 0e52b1

>>13184
> It's just you making shit up and then screaming at the top of your lungs like a toddler about "fedora tipping" whenever anyone disagrees.
That's pretty much par for the course for /phi/ these days.

One sad pathetic little boy claims he knows everything, skims wikipedia to know what he should claim is wrong because his grade school teacher he had a crush on told him wikipedia is always wrong, then doesn't bring up any specifics besides fedora tipping and other pointless bullshit to distract from the topic at hand.

Notice how never claims what IS correct, only what is NOT correct. That's because of his wikipedia skimming. Everything there is wrong, but he has no idea what's right.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/27(Wed)14:03 No. 13195 ID: 49dbf2

>>13193

Fedora tippers repeat whatever they get told to believe. That's why mediocre charlatans like Dawkins have such a huge fanbase. Neckbeards keep on spewing funnay maymays and masturbate to their own pseudo intellectual know-how.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/28(Thu)11:23 No. 13196 ID: 2013f3

>>13195

>Neckbeards keep on spewing funnay maymays and masturbate to their own pseudo intellectual know-how.

This. Every atheist in a nutshell.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/29(Fri)09:47 No. 13198 ID: 16cd3d

>>13186

The closest a fedora tipper comes to an education is playing sci-fi video games and watching Star Trek.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/01(Sun)18:26 No. 13200 ID: 6afcdf

>>13198
I'm just passing by to state that there's nothing wrong with video game/star trek/wikipedia education, only a fool who's so absorbed by his own academic achievements or a fool who's so susceptible to the perceptions that the academic churches, I mean schools manage to distribute. Fuck academies, if I had a dime for every academic idiot I met so far, Trump wouldn't be president now. A diploma doesn't make you anything less of a pseudo-intellectual, in fact, I'm biased to think of you more as a self-righteous prick whose main knowledge base is the stinking residue of years of indoctrination and elimination of real thought, logical or otherwise.
Go suck some dusty old man's dick, every sip makes you smarter! ;)


>>
An Idiot 17/10/01(Sun)22:52 No. 13201 ID: 19870e

>>12458
Suppose that evolution isn't environmentally determined, then how would it be determined? Chance? Chance for what exactly then?
We might as well be discussing the re-emergence of perpetua mobilibus or geocentric theories.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/02(Mon)12:21 No. 13202 ID: e14bb1
13202

File 150693971982.jpg - (14.01KB , 383x300 , cringe7-1.jpg )

>>13200

Silly sheep! You are not truly enlightened like myself. I have graduated from the university of Wikipedia and read over 9000 Wikipedia articles. As a freethinker I have ascended beyond puny diplomas and good grades. From my mothers basement I acquire knowledge that is out of your reach, you plebian.

*tips fedora*


>>
Another Idiot 17/10/02(Mon)14:31 No. 13203 ID: b2041f

>>13202
My basement is far more enlightened than yours, I've assembled a free energy device, and I painted the walls with 10 000 000 LED's!

* tips fedora five times *


>>
Anonymous 17/10/02(Mon)15:43 No. 13205 ID: 33df00
13205

File 150695181855.jpg - (32.03KB , 512x512 , ZT-187nr.jpg )

>>13202

>this post

Can't handle all that intelligence. I just got a euphoria overdose.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/05(Thu)09:29 No. 13209 ID: 32ca83

>>13202

Truly enlightened by your intelligence. Doesn't get more euphoric than that.


>>
Android app developer Danieldiock 17/10/06(Fri)17:28 No. 13215 ID: 306cec


>>
Anonymous 17/10/07(Sat)19:21 No. 13216 ID: 6af4de
13216

File 150739691196.png - (61.40KB , 300x250 , dpkEdaX3Gz-14.png )

>>13193

Couldn't have said it better myself.

>>13198

>The closest a fedora tipper comes to an education is playing sci-fi video games and watching Star Trek

Yeah. Sad, but true. Creepy manchildren that howl like autists and furiously type uninformed garbage on the Internet. Not only is mtDNA and DNA comparison like comparing apples and oranges but the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees also differ in a slightly more complex treatment known as C-banding. C-banding mark specifically a few chromosomal zones containing highly redundant DNA sequences (satellite DNA). In the human the characteristic zones are at the middle (centromere) of each chromosome, slightly below the centromere on chromosomes 1, 9, 16, and make up most of the Y chromosome.

We are the only species with such a pattern. If one looks at the chimpanzee’s cells using the identical procedure then the marked regions of chromosomes 1, 9, 16, and Y do not contain satellite DNA.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/09(Mon)11:29 No. 13218 ID: 09a262
13218

File 150754139527.jpg - (6.97KB , 240x210 , images-1.jpg )

>>13200

>I'm just passing by to state that there's nothing wrong with video game/star trek/wikipedia education, only a fool who's so absorbed by his own academic achievements or a fool who's so susceptible to the perceptions that the academic churches, I mean schools manage to distribute. Fuck academies, if I had a dime for every academic idiot I met so far, Trump wouldn't be president now. A diploma doesn't make you anything less of a pseudo-intellectual, in fact, I'm biased to think of you more as a self-righteous prick whose main knowledge base is the stinking residue of years of indoctrination and elimination of real thought, logical or otherwise. 
>Go suck some dusty old man's dick, every sip makes you smarter! ;)


>>
Anonymous 17/10/09(Mon)17:14 No. 13219 ID: 4306a0

Samefaggotry approaching critical mass


>>
Anonymous 17/10/09(Mon)19:24 No. 13220 ID: c1e2c7

>>13216

They sit behind a computer screen all day long. Their whole lives revolve around being autistic savants without the savant, hence their repulsive personalities and lack of education.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/10(Tue)06:37 No. 13222 ID: 6af4de

>>13220

I think their repulsive personalities stem from mental illness. If you sit in front of a computer screen all day you're either schizophrenic or autistic.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/10(Tue)13:33 No. 13223 ID: 0387ca

>>13222

Speaking of mental illness: should insane people be allowed to use the Internet? Considering that, schizophrenics for example, live in a literal fantasy world of their own and poison the Internet with wacky conspiracy theories based on their own hallucinatory delusions.

I mean, to some extent they're more dangerous when they have free access to the outside world. At least an asylum keep them contained.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/11(Wed)03:19 No. 13224 ID: 1cc147

>>13223
Enforceability strikes me as the greatest challenge here. How will we know who's mentally ill on the internet? Sure, some stand out: >>/rnb/21604, >>/b/772913, >>13158. But "crazy" isn't black and white, there's a whole rainbow of psychosis out there and who will split the moderately insane from the "healthy" internet users?


>>
Anonymous 17/10/12(Thu)11:35 No. 13226 ID: 2013f3
13226

File 150780090586.jpg - (37.35KB , 750x419 , jones13n-1-web.jpg )

>>13223

No. Insane people should be locked up. Pic related is one of the reasons why. Not only does he scam regular people with his utterly useless "products" but he is schizophrenia enabler. His target audience is mostly lunatics that actually believe his sci-fi Orwellian conspiracy theories.

You'd have to be a basket case to take him seriously.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/14(Sat)14:06 No. 13228 ID: 32ca83

>>13216

It becomes quite clear that fedora tippers have, even at a cellular level, not a single shred of evidence to support Darwins amateurish theory with.

How they take themselves seriously is beyond my understanding.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/18(Wed)11:40 No. 13229 ID: 9e2079

>>13228

They never had any proof to begin with.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/19(Thu)08:54 No. 13230 ID: 32ca83

>>13229

Exactly. The only "proof" they have is resemblance. "WOW, monkeys are bipedal, just like us! WHOA! Apes can use rocks and sticks as tools, just like us!"

Other than that they have nothing.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/19(Thu)17:31 No. 13231 ID: f789f7

We'll never find the meaning of life.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/20(Fri)14:42 No. 13232 ID: 487af6

>>13231

Maybe somebody have figured it out and you have not?


>>
Anonymous 17/10/21(Sat)18:06 No. 13235 ID: 6af4de

>>13228

Yes. To believe in Darwins theory is only something a cretin would do. Even when you compare other chimpanzee cells with human ones, measurements have shown that a chimpanzee cell has 10 percent more DNA than a human cell. Both technically and comparatively it all is extremely farfetched.

Apples and oranges.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/25(Wed)11:14 No. 13237 ID: 0a9892

>>13226

Alex Jones is a insanity catalyst. He makes absolutely retarded predictions all the time and his followers gobble it up like flies swarming around shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA


>>
Anonymous 17/10/26(Thu)11:33 No. 13238 ID: 2013f3

>>13237

He's a living cartoon character. His only goal in life is to acquire as much wealth as possible while he's scamming his audience.

>I am an actor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj-m5U3IdrY


>>
Anonymous 17/10/26(Thu)14:15 No. 13239 ID: ec9b1c

>>13235

Darwinists are experts at mental gymnastics.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/27(Fri)02:01 No. 13241 ID: 43ed39

>>13228
Darwin's theories are not the same as the theory of evolution. Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, but when you start talking about fedora-tipping, it's clear that you're just ignoring all scientific fact for convenience sake.

If creatures did not evolve, via one method or another, they could not exist without divine creation. Is that what you are suggesting is reality?


>>
Anonymous 17/10/27(Fri)06:24 No. 13242 ID: 6af4de

>>13239

It's not even mental gymnastics at this point. It's flat out denial. They say there is evidence to support their claims but there isn't. Fedora tippers all live in their own little containment zone where they only listen to what they want to hear.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/27(Fri)08:39 No. 13243 ID: 16cd3d

>>13242

That's what's so convenient about being a fedora tipper. They say they're right a priori so therefore they can dismiss everything that contradict their world view.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/27(Fri)18:27 No. 13244 ID: ebab07

>>13230
There are paleontological proofs too


>>
Anonymous 17/10/28(Sat)11:27 No. 13247 ID: 6af4de
13247

File 150918282845.jpg - (45.08KB , 404x620 , Archaeopteryx.jpg )

>>13243

So true. The paleontological "evidence" has come to naught. Comparative anatomy is humorous because like >>12853 mentions there are so many gaps in the fossil record and many of the features they claim are attributed to humans are actually apelike. The Taung Childs skull isn't human.

Pic related is another example. The idea that Archaeopteryx had descended from dinosaurs was first suggested in the 1870s by Thomas Huxley because of the simi­larities of the legs and hips of birds with those of dinosaurs. How­ever, Huxley was ignoring one inconvenient fact and that is that Archaeopteryx, like all birds, has a wishbone (analogous to the clavicle or collarbone in mammals) whereas dinosaurs did not have collarbones.

Fedora tippers always ignore facts that doesn't support their claims.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/30(Mon)10:08 No. 13248 ID: b9726c

>>13247

I guess their euphoria works as anesthesia so they can cope with their sore rectums.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/30(Mon)16:02 No. 13249 ID: feaec9

>>13248
Darwin may not have found the meaning of life, but his "theory" does account for one mechanism of it. Holes in the fossil record tend to get filled; carbon dating is more accurate than ever and modern projects use multiple dating techniques to improve their accuracy. This doesn't mean you can't have your Abrahamic nonsense if you really need it; the man himself didn't intend to conflict with any Abrahamistic notions of the divinity of man you might have.

Just because alien interlopers interfered with the evolution of apes in the fertile crescent doesn't mean it didn't happen according to the plan they entrusted to Noah before abandoning our strip-mined planet while it underwent some climate change.

>people who believe god of love from the sky made them in his own image and is coming back for those still loyal to him and to punish the rest for eternity.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/01(Wed)09:43 No. 13257 ID: 3c4694

>>13248

Indeed. Fedora tipping gives you an enlightened numbness that shields you from critical thinking.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/01(Wed)11:19 No. 13258 ID: 826ee7
13258

File 150953157091.jpg - (47.27KB , 469x463 , ec9603bc80ce46a8a0202ce33cc3fc4a--photo-tips-fedor.jpg )

>>13243

>They say they're right a priori so therefore they can dismiss everything that contradict their world view.

This thread pretty much prove it. It's interesting yet sad at the same time. The so called champions of science get surprisingly unscientific whenever they get confronted with evidence that negate their Darwinian "fact".

They act just like the people they deem as fanatics.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/02(Thu)08:53 No. 13259 ID: 32ca83

>>13249

>carbon dating
>accurate

lol

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/02/07/radiocarbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/
>the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been steady throughout history. In fact, it has fluctuated a great deal over the years. This variation is caused by both natural processes and human activity. Cosmic rays and changes in Earth’s climate can cause irregularities in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere


>>
Anonymous 17/11/03(Fri)15:20 No. 13261 ID: 487af6

>>13259

>it is only accurate from about 62,000 years ago to 1,200 A.D.

So much for "million year old fossils", hahahahaha.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/07(Tue)21:11 No. 13271 ID: 6af4de
13271

File 151008546234.png - (422.12KB , 524x551 , 1509992531988.png )

>>13248

Most atheists have mental health issues.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-church-shooter-devin-kelley-escaped-mental-health-facility-after-attacking-wife-stepson/
>The man who shot and killed 26 people in a Texas church Sunday was checked into and escaped from a mental health facility in New Mexico in 2012, according to a police report

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/devin-kelley-atheism-texas-shooting-who-was-he-creepy-weird-classmates-latest-a8041161.html
>Texas shooter 'preached atheism' and was an outcast, say former classmates


>>
Anonymous 17/11/09(Thu)12:15 No. 13273 ID: 44a1c4

>>13271

Now that's a highly euphoric gentleman right there.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/09(Thu)14:17 No. 13274 ID: ec9b1c

>>13259

Once again it is shown that fedora tippers have no proof for their claims.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)08:54 No. 13281 ID: fe9887

It's interesting how the it's usually the Illogical that thrive on the approval of others, especially in great numbers, in some sort of "circle-jerk" fashion. The exchanges of agreement here almost appear to come from a movie script or some stage act. It looks like it could come from a conversation someone might have with themselves. "I can't be the only one that is noticing this. Right?"

Understanders of evolution don't depend on the approval of others, because they understand it so well that it is beyond the necessity of discussion at this day-and-age and forming a herd about it -- you either understand it or you don't; you either think macroscopically or microscopically. I feel no hostility towards these people (or person) at all. With understanding comes peace. Their deviation from fact has left them clueless and prone to mock and ridicule as well as to get angry and hostile in defending their unsolvable/conclusion-less position, much like every religion and cult in the past. Evolution is an understanding that is shifting from theory/belief to everyday fact: most are silent about it now because there is no reason to defend it. The onus is on the stragglers who still don't get it, and whose descendants are likely to fall behind as the world's understanding advances and as the rest learn more about our world and universe.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)11:24 No. 13282 ID: d60c6c

>>13281

>The exchanges of agreement here almost appear to come from a movie script or some stage act. It looks like it could come from a conversation someone might have with themselves.

You sound schizophrenic, m8. Time to walk away from the keyboard and get some fresh air.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)17:33 No. 13283 ID: fe9887

>>13282
"Haha, no kidding! So true. Indeed. These fedora tippers who think we are one person schizophrenically samefagging, to give a faulty and weird impression that because many people agree with me, "here", that I am right and they are wrong, should have their head examined. I couldn't have said it better myself."

Your dialogue is painful to read. It's actually cringe-worthy.

Without trying to come across as condescending or arrogant, may I ask how old you are? Or is any answer but the truth expected in the same way you've evaded it in something as now simple as the origin of life?


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)18:17 No. 13284 ID: d60c6c

>>13283

So you basically think that everybody else in this thread except you are one and the same person? https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/schizophrenia-paranoia
>People with paranoid delusions are unreasonably suspicious of others.

Maybe you should try spending less time behind your computer or get some medication.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)18:32 No. 13285 ID: fe9887

>>13284
I'm not stating it as fact, but I'm suggesting that it is very likely. The "pat on the back and high five" approach you take to express an agreement among your "supporters" is stilted like that one would see in an act. It's very hard for me to believe that it's possible for there to exist this many people who cannot understand evolution in a time where information is readily available and in excessive amounts, but since most understanders of evolution choose not to get involved I suppose one would only see the vocal idiots. So in light of this it certainly is possible that there is no samefagging, but like most if not all things in life: "trust your intuition". To me it's obvious you are samefagging. Whether I'm wrong or not has no effect on me. It's just a way for me to find solace in the lack of understanding of your lack of understanding.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)18:37 No. 13286 ID: d60c6c

>>13285

You have legit issues, dude. Seek professional help.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)19:02 No. 13287 ID: fe9887

>>13286
Knew that was coming from no one other than someone like you who cannot reason for themselves.

Here's a "plot twist": maybe /you/ need the psychiatric help.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)19:04 No. 13288 ID: 32ca83

>>13274

Carbon dating is about as accurate as guessing (and that's about it). The margin of error is huge.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)19:48 No. 13289 ID: d60c6c
13289

File 151042610016.jpg - (241.08KB , 672x615 , youarebeingwatched.jpg )

>>13287

>plot twist

Oh, boy. Whatever you say, Truman. Don't forget to look for hidden microphones in your pillowcase.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)20:37 No. 13291 ID: fe9887

>>13289
Hence the quotations. You folks use memetic phrases so frequently I thought I'd return one of them. Even you, who uses them carelessly, see how ridiculous and silly they are.

Have you ever looked at yourself or is this all an act?


>>
Anonymous 17/11/11(Sat)21:11 No. 13292 ID: d60c6c

>>13291

Have you considered getting a girlfriend? Maybe afterwards you won't come off as a goofy weirdo.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/12(Sun)03:38 No. 13293 ID: 9fd7e5

>>13292
I was going to criticize your argumentum ad amicam, but there's an even bigger underlying truth here. The premise of a line such as "wow dude you like seriously need a girlfriend bro" is that one's value is based on one's reproductive fitness, and that being a goofy weirdo harms a person because it hinders that end. That sounds suspiciously like the mechanics of natural selection.

In a sense, this fact might make you, d60c6c, even more noble. Even though they would quickly label you a neckbearded fedora-tipping Cheeto-guzzling My Little Pony fucker, you still defend those users as more than some lazy troll samefag or circlejerk. If only we could all be more like you.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/12(Sun)06:31 No. 13294 ID: d60c6c

>>13293

What are you talking about? I just said he needs a girlfriend because his mental health is damaged. He could use a helping hand in dealing with his paranoid delusions.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/12(Sun)08:57 No. 13295 ID: 6af4de

>>13288

Wouldn't that mean that carbon dating lacks consideration for the amount of radiocarbon distributed in various areas? Radiocarbon begins to decay as soon as it is formed. When a quantity of radiocarbon is produced in the atmosphere, half of that amount will have decayed away after 5,700 years. So, 5,700 years after a tree dies, it contains only half the proportion of radiocarbon that exists in a living tree. After a total of 11,400 years, or two half-lives, it will contain only one quarter. After about five half-lives, or roughly 30,000 years, only an immeasurably small residue remains and so the radiocar­bon test is only good for dating remains younger than this natu­ral "ceiling." To assume that radiocarbon is spread evenly across the Earth isn't really believable.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/12(Sun)17:42 No. 13296 ID: 9fd7e5

>>13294
If it were specifically someone who could help with paranoia and schizophrenia, you could have more credibly suggested an actual mental health professional. You didn't. You went straight for girlfriend, and that's very revealing.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/12(Sun)18:55 No. 13299 ID: d60c6c

>>13296

I actually said earlier that he should seek out professional help. But since he's a total spastic with major trust issues he would never talk to a therapist.

He probably needs to get laid and that's why he should get a girlfriend. A therapist won't suck his dick, you know.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/13(Mon)06:05 No. 13300 ID: 32ca83

>>13295

Exactly.

https://matthew2262.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/examining-radiocarbon-dating/
>As straightforward as radiocarbon seems to be there are actually a large number of underlying assumptions that the entire dating process relies on.
>The atmosphere has had the same amount of C14, (in terms of production, mixing and transfer rates) in the past as it is now.
>There has been complete and rapid mixing of C14 throughout the various carbon reservoirs on a worldwide basis.
>C14 rapidly mixes and is spread evenly throughout the biosphere.

The whole method itself is kind of unreliable when you consider how little scientists know about previous stages of distribution throughout prehistoric times.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/13(Mon)08:52 No. 13304 ID: fe9887

>>13299
I simply have a hard time believing that here can exist this many people lacking a basic reasoning capacity.

My only resort is to assume that the silly exchanges of agreement were nothing but one person trying to give some sort of pretense that they are right. If I'm wrong, what it means would be even more horrific, because then what we're really dealing with is a larger percentage of "slower" people, not only here but likewise elsewhere, than I originally thought. My doubt is the result of a general optimistic outlook on humanity, not a schizophrenic distrust that someone with a very limited mental capacity like yours would assume.

It's okay, even if you don't believe in the accuracy of carbon dating, I still remain optimistic that there is hope for you. But here's the hard part for you: use the brain you were given and draw conclusions based on the logic, which non-coincidentally manifests itself when you go to places specifically designed to house the thousands upon thousands of specimens and fossils of families and phyla and see the transitional change over time chronologically ordered from carbon dating and DNA analysis. It is no coincidence that the result is a hierarchy.

Despite this overwhelming evidence that someone possessing the slightest intellect can see as a pattern, somehow it blows straight past you and you instead settle for a simpler notion that because you don't understand it and because some guy blogs about the integrity of carbon dating, it must therefore be false.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/13(Mon)15:17 No. 13305 ID: 979e29
13305

File 151058264587.jpg - (480.70KB , 2048x1536 , Ra.jpg )

>>13304
Post of a fedora image and a complete avoidance of everything you mentioned in 3... 2...

Its been a long, long, long thread and we're still waiting to hear what these fedora posting nogoodniks believe. All they can do is claim that everything posted on Wikipedia is incorrect because of reasons they won't illustrate, because doing so would explain what they believe, opening themselves up to the ridicule they deride everyone else with.

Enjoy your co-opted pagan holidays fellas. May as well get it over with and start worshiping Ra.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/13(Mon)20:13 No. 13306 ID: 6af4de

>>13300

I wonder how fedora tippers rationalize their failed theories. There's a huge gap in the fossil record, their taxonomy is poorly constructed and the most trustworthy dating method they have relies on mainly one thing and that is that this one isotope is evenly spread across time, areas and organisms, which they can't even prove.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/14(Tue)15:37 No. 13308 ID: 0a2684

>>13306

maybe it's laziness combined with indifference? like, "oh, look at this huge flaw! meh, whatever. let's use it anyway"


>>
Anonymous 17/11/16(Thu)08:55 No. 13309 ID: 32ca83

>>13306

They're so far into their comfort zone that they can't be bothered to examine those theories.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/20(Mon)12:04 No. 13313 ID: 09a262
13313

File 151117585472.jpg - (155.24KB , 363x519 , 1511108050495.jpg )

>>13308

>laziness

Can't argue with that. Mostly because fedora tippers consume hot pockets and soda.



[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason