-  [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 602 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.



[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason