Charles Darwin & Evolution

Julian Wright
Julian Wright

So i was thinking about the evolution of humans & animals as proposed by Charles Darwins evolution theory.

Can somebody tell me if its actually accurate? Are we as a species really just descendants of upright walking hairy cave monkeys or is there more to the story?

I mean to me at least the theory sounds to some extent logical but you could also argue that it was invented to keep humans small and insignificant and to make it easier for people to abandon their morales (Animals have gay sex so its "natural", animals always follow their sexual urges so its "natural" to have sex with everyone you want)

Well im on the fence about the whole topic so please enlighten me.

Attached: charles-darwin.jpg--1920x1080-q85-crop-subject-location-630,678-subsampling-2.jpg (219.84 KB, 1131x1080)

Other urls found in this thread:

analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Gérard_Depardieu_Cannes_2015_3.jpg/200px-Gérard_Depardieu_Cannes_2015_3.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1134
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan
colchestercollection.com/titles/chunk/I/imperium/chapter9.html
paoloviscardi.com/2011/04/21/apes-are-monkeys-deal-with-it/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
bitchute.com/video/LDbRjMXb1nlv/
ucg.org/the-good-news/dna-the-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution
openbible.info/topics/fool
answersingenesis.org/genetics/information-theory/51-what-is-information-the-view-of-information-science-ob17/
patriot.dk/ravage.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5326421/Orange-cave-crocodiles-mutating-new-species.html
archive.fo/PuH1W
arxiv.org/abs/1801.05872
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
academic.oup.com/mbe/article/35/2/417/4627828
science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/04/27/science.1205358
icr.org/article/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-did/
businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2#humans-have-used-artificial-selection-to-create-crazy-specific-dog-breeds-4
khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction
aei.org/publication/99-9-of-all-species-have-already-gone-extinct/
pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567
researchgate.net/publication/6336726_Darwin's_greatest_discovery_Design_without_designer
history.com/topics/british-history/enlightenment
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18007650
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html
earthwatch.org/Expeditions/Darwins-Finches-and-Natural-Selection-in-the-Galapagos
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2016/august/piltdown-man-charles-dawson-likely-fraudster.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronospecies
drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compatible-genome-research/?fbclid=IwAR0Zuy90Ab-NxP2jt-wcnFddDlBFBOviU_zWN2S_Y2Bn4iRQBthhBGwpVWA
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212011396
sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

Nathan Garcia
Nathan Garcia

"If you believe in Evolution and apply it to man, you're a National Socialist"
~George Lincoln Rockwell

Wyatt Ortiz
Wyatt Ortiz

Yes he is right.

What this means though is that there are some who are better than others. This is why Evangelicals during the 2000's hated him because they believe that all people are the same.

analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf

Lucas Peterson
Lucas Peterson

Also no. Homosexuality and stuff are not normal. Those are people trying to project Human stuff onto Nature.

Gonna copy/paste a comment I saw on Youtube with Bill Nye

2. No one knows this girl from Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.
3. Humans are now apparently referred to as "bipeds" which is ableist against war vets with 1 leg.
4. "World of ours" implies the earth belongs to humans, which is western chauvinism and not environmentally friendly.
5. If she has a vagina, she does not have the option of "hard"…she's stuck with "moist."
6. Her vagina does not have a voice; that's gross. If it makes a sound it is actually air escaping and is rude.
7. When she sings about her vagina she holds her stomach not her vagina. Anatomy error.
8. "Metaphorical voice" is 6 syllables and she crams it into a 3 syllable section of the music.
9. The woman is so out of shape she can't do a proper front kick her dance and looks like an elephant trying to walk up steps.
10. "Butt stuff" is not highly related to evolution. Any mammal that does "butt stuff" routinely will actually be selected out. It's evolution in the same sense that extinction is evolution.
11. Sex "stew" assuming it refers to bisexual orgies actually are taboo in most societies. Anthropology error.
12. This is Gerard Depardieu: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Gérard_Depardieu_Cannes_2015_3.jpg/200px-Gérard_Depardieu_Cannes_2015_3.jpg
13. Singer declares that she will have sex with anything. And is proud of this.
14. No one is boxing in her box.
15. She recommends jerking off strangers.
16. After 1:30 minutes of singing she is out of breath. This is pathetic.
17. Sexuality is not a spectrum. See evolution of mammalian sex. The book Red Queen gives a good description (by Matt Ridley)
18. 1:38 Bill Nye grooving is sexually repulsive.
19. No one uses a Fleshlight outdoors. It is used inside, with appropriate shame.
20. Bill Nye grooving again.
21. 2:03 Watch her try to kick. It's like watching someone on their first day of training.
22. 2:10 - Ironically tells normal people who are going about their business to get off THEIR soapbox while lecturing Americans from a position of ignorance.
23. Bagels with lox are disgusting…and so maybe her box is better than that.
24. 2:20 The face of Satan appears.
25. Ignorant non-scientist calls this "exactly the right message."

Get into Deep Ecology, realize that Humans are a part of Nature. Read Pentti Linkola

Colton Perry
Colton Perry

Anyway, I'm not a biologist so I cannot give your some in depth essay on why evolution is true or not. However, I have seen enough evidence to convince me that it is the accurate theory.
Now, I don't want to insult all the spiritual folks who think we're descended from the Gods or are Aryan Aliens that became trapped on this planet and are awaiting for the Annunakki to come pick us up along with Hitler in the underground city in Antarctica. However, the idea that we're just here because of magic or something kind of belittles our race's accomplishments. Why strive for anything if everything was just created by magic?
This is the flip side to your point about evolution making us simply animals.

Obviously that alone is not proof. The evidence I find to be convincing is the massive fossil record showing clear evidence of evolution over time. Look up the evolution of whales in the skeletal record. Also, did you know that modern whales STILL have feet and a hip bone?
Neat huh.

Oliver Kelly
Oliver Kelly

Darwin was a kike

Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen

What are your guys thought on Yockeys views on Darwinism? Personally I think he raises a fair bit of good points.

Jackson Wilson
Jackson Wilson

The fuck I aint grow wings yet nigga. Advantageous af.

Brayden Cooper
Brayden Cooper

Forget about the application and just look at the theory. Functioning genetic algorithms can be very useful in figuring out intricate problems a human can't be bothered with or would take way too much guess and check to get working right.

Brayden Rogers
Brayden Rogers

No. He proposes that creatures advance as they change. The truth is that they lose information with each mutation.

People were smarter in the past.

Attached: 1421015101561.png (331.48 KB, 601x589)

Gabriel Murphy
Gabriel Murphy

Darwin is not a kike. His genealogy goes back at least a hundred years and he's 100% anglo.

Jack Ward
Jack Ward

Research Anunnaki and Nibiru

Attached: anunnaki2.jpg (54.23 KB, 610x283)

Cameron Lewis
Cameron Lewis

I died on the inside when i first watched that episode, it was pure agenda pushing garbage aimed at kids to basically encourage them to whore around and just listen to their "feelings".

It really fucking pisses me off that suddenly everything goes in our society, nothing has any value anymore.
Nobody encourages you to start a family anymore.

Christian Butler
Christian Butler

It may have been posted already, but I don't care to look.
He had it right, but what he couldn't know at the time was there are 2 branches of humanoid that evolved separate from each other. Rhesus Negative and Rhesus Positive.
There is no reason, there is no evolutionary tale, there is no logic behind differing blood types and the fact that RH- Wombs will often reject RH+ babies.

Xavier Thomas
Xavier Thomas

Filthy lying Creationist bullshit. Mutations add "information" all the time - it's why Whites are able to digest lactose past childhood, and pathogens are able to add resistance to antibiotics and the like.

Connor Morales
Connor Morales

It's a masonic lie. No transitional specimins have every been found.

Michael Kelly
Michael Kelly

In fact, mutation isn't even close to the only mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Remember Natural Selection, dumbass?

And to answer your question, OP. Humans didn't evolve from hairy monkeys - we still are hairy monkeys, in the exact same way we are still mammals, synapsids, vertebrates, and eukaryotes all at the same time - because evolution is descent with inherent modification, meaning every new species is just a modification of their ancestral clade. You never grow out of your ancestry. I recommend studying the Law of Monophyly and learn what nested hierarchies are.

Jaxon Gray
Jaxon Gray

People were smarter in the past.
This is wrong, christcuck. Falling average IQ in the west is the result of nonwhite immigration. White people are not getting less intelligent. The population on average is getting less white, and thus, less intelligent.

Brody Jackson
Brody Jackson

Every species is transitional. Not every species clearly demonstrates how newer species are descended from older ones - but there are definitely those that fit the bill, such as Archaeopteryx.

Nathaniel Thompson
Nathaniel Thompson

This. Also Darwin was a fatherless edgelord, didnt even believe his own theory by the end of his life, and the only reason you know his name is due to relentless masonic shilling

Easton Wright
Easton Wright

Can somebody tell me if its actually accurate?
If it wasn't there would be no point to be a National Socialist.

Lucas Evans
Lucas Evans

btw that's all the redpills you need on the subject and when leftards claim that conservatives are anti-science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Asher Mitchell
Asher Mitchell

didn't believe his own Theory at the end of his life
That's a fabricated Christian lie. Here is a lengthy refutation:
apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1134

masonic shilling
Except he was subject to immediate and constant criticism. The fact that his findings withstood the rigorous testing is why we know about it.

Hunter Reed
Hunter Reed

Thanks for bringing that up. It blows the Christian Creationist argument that "Communists love evolution" out of the water.

Logan Anderson
Logan Anderson

George Lincoln Rockwell was truly a good man, but very unfortunate that he fell for the Evolution meme and denounced Christianity as "the poor man's opium". Evolution is the inherent belief that chaos is the natural state of the universe, and out of that chaos comes order. The belief of God is also the belief that the universe has a natural order, and that man brings chaos into this established order. In short, Evolution (and Judaism and Communism) is absolutely αντι λόγος and, as every anti-Christian development in the 19th century, one puzzle piece of one giant Jewish trick.

Brody Jackson
Brody Jackson

Anybody who tells you that humans come from monkeys and niggers is guaranteed to be a kike or a golem. The idea that non-human things can become human with enough time and luck is as fully jewish and as fully pernicious as an invention can be.

Attached: jewliar.png (105.05 KB, 665x459)

John Gonzalez
John Gonzalez

Quit disparaging the poor monkeys by comparing them to niggers, please.

And the evidence shows us that humanity didn't just pop out of the ground, but instead are descended from pre-existing ancestral clades.

Jacob Ortiz
Jacob Ortiz

Evolution is the belief that chaos is the natural state
1. You're posting on a board with a history of worshipping a frog god of chaos, so don't disparage chaos as something Jewish when people know better
2. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. It is the process of change in allele frequency in any given population of organisms.

Jace Ramirez
Jace Ramirez

The criticism levied against him wssnt masonic so your comment is moot.

Thr entirety of the (((theory))) is that the strong survive and the weak die off. The other part is that spontsneous evolution is develops beneficial adaptations leading that benefit the suevival of a slecies and make it more likely. This latter assertion is not proven by any measyre let alone imdisputable lol

sry for typos

Nicholas Green
Nicholas Green

Evolution has nothing to do with belief
Of course it is a belief. It is a theory, it is not proven. Atheism is a belief, Evolution is a belief, and the board worshipping an Egyptian god post Trump is not an excuse. Zig Forums was and is inherently Christian. Worshipping idols is something what kikes do. You should know better.

Easton Sullivan
Easton Sullivan

It is a fact that the genetic code evolve. Sorry but you are spreading lies, you are an ignorant lier

Joshua Butler
Joshua Butler

ignorant lier
oh the humanity!

Jordan Morris
Jordan Morris

Genetic code has been proven to mutste, nit evolve
In fact, the evidence leans heavily toward devolution at the genetic level rather than evolution

Ryan Torres
Ryan Torres

Evolution was at one time both a Scientific Theory and a fact. Nowadays, there is no such thing as a Theory of Evolution since it is now known as the Theory of Evolutionary Developmental Biology.

But that's irrelevant since your dumb ass doesn't know what a Scientific Theory (Better phrased as a "Scientific Explanation") even is and why it's not the same thing as a common uneducated guess, or a belief.

Are you sure? Do you realize how many big-name critics of Darwin there were? It's stupid to assume none of them had ties to Masonry, especially Sir Richard Owen. He was the supreme authority of paleontology at the time - something Masonry would be very interested in.

Ethan Jackson
Ethan Jackson

mutate, not evolve*

Eli Perez
Eli Perez

You are a golem or a kike.
See how easy it is to spot one? They will cling to their monkey-nigger theorem because they need to believe that either time and luck will make them human someday, or that it is okay to abandon their humanity and behave like a nigger monkey

Attached: 346346523dfhy4684.png (113.95 KB, 355x189)

Mason Howard
Mason Howard

stupid imbecile that is exaclty what Darwin is arguing for. He provide a book full of documental proofs. One century after that we had genetic proofs of evolution

Colton Jackson
Colton Jackson

The question is - Are you sure?

cause i am sure

Brayden Stewart
Brayden Stewart

mutste
???
Do you mean mutate?
devolution at the genetic level
Wrong. Do you know how common mutation is? The average person carries 60 mutations from error during reproduction between their parents, and the vast majority are benign. However, some are objectively beneficial, and some are detrimental. Usually they are about equal to eachother.

Hunter Bailey
Hunter Bailey

and denounced Christianity as "the poor man's opium"
He did retract that

Luis Smith
Luis Smith

It is the poor man's opium. None of the elites are credulous enough to believe in Christian memes.

The belief of God is also the belief that the universe has a natural order
So essentially, the belief in Yahovah is a feel good religion. Kinda like opium. You believe in all this nigger-magic nonsense because it feels good.

Communism, Christianity, and liberalism are all universalist religions. Judaism is indeed the opposite of Christianity because it is an ethno-religion. It is also the opposite of communism.
None of the elites actually believe in communism or chrustianity or liberalism. Communism and all the other religions are just tooks to motivate lemmings.Communism IS opium for the poor. Christianity IS opium for the poor.

Blake Brooks
Blake Brooks

reddit spacing
becoming vulgar
defending you kike theory

Attached: Who-could-it-be.png (26.19 KB, 472x594)

Ryan Hill
Ryan Hill

He isn't arguing for anything because he's dead, you absolute genius. Darwinism posits that positive, beneficial mutations cause a species to be more likely to survive. Lol at your arrogant ignorance. Deadly combo bud. Keep it up lol

Ian Foster
Ian Foster

Darwin was a kike
offers no proof of his accusation and also post only once in the thread.
Sometimes I wish I was a mod, people like you deserve a ban, even if you change your IP, the extra effort you'll have in order to post here again will be worth it.

Sebastian Lewis
Sebastian Lewis

There are not enough beneficial mutations to support the theory.

Sebastian Richardson
Sebastian Richardson

Is infinite chan dead too? People used to at least feign intelligence and be able to think rationally. This board is nearly worse than reddit now

Jace Brown
Jace Brown

It is much more complex than that but you want to discuss your idiotic point let it be! Some mutations are beneficial some neutral some negative , and this normally depends from the environment. Think about sickle cells disease that gives you resistence to malaria in the heterozygotic variant

Daniel Ross
Daniel Ross

that's false
It's impossible to determine what is "strong"
Are cockroaches "strong" cause they'll survive

Jackson Sanchez
Jackson Sanchez

it fucking depends from the environment you brainlet. Basically it is "strong" what gives you a positive advantage

Oliver Powell
Oliver Powell

Humans are monkeys. We fit every taxonomic and physiological criterion of the word. "Monkey" is properly known as "simiiformes" and no honest person can say that humans are not simians.

Does this excuse objectively degenerate behavior? It doesn't even come close. Even the dumbest of the other monkeys act with a conscience (Mourning the dead - vid related)

Ryan Sanchez
Ryan Sanchez

This board is nearly worse than reddit now
then get the fuck over to reddit cunt

Easton Cook
Easton Cook

What Charles Darwin advocated (theoretically) was very logical and reasonable. Whether we evolved from an ape specie is irrelevant tbqh; as the logical next step is based upon 'Natural Selection'. Natural Selection has manifested into reality the level best that a human can achieve in the spirit of this time.
This is not to suggest that any other "humans" are inferior, but only that there are humans today that have reached the pinnacle of their abilities in the spirit of this time.
This said; Nature and Biology are the most cruel, unforgiving, emotion-less Eugenicists of the day. The mere gall of any human today to suggest that their ideology trumps Nature&Biology is a crime against all humanity and should be extinguished.

Connor Lee
Connor Lee

Yoy kids love to call people stupid and shit like that for no justifiable reason at all, just because someone disagrees with you amd completely unprovoked. Attacking wrongthink is your duty and privilege though, so please forgive me! Lol

Thomas Young
Thomas Young

one spaced sentence = Reddit spacing
Are

you

sure

about

that?

Aiden Anderson
Aiden Anderson

Mutation isn't the only mechanism of evolutionary change, retard.

Gavin Richardson
Gavin Richardson

Genghis Khan is a human proof of a man with a great competitive advantage, having 16 millions descendents in Asia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

A part from that, his life story is more akin the life of a god than that of a human..

Parker Murphy
Parker Murphy

None of the elites are credulous enough to believe in Christian memes
Yeah, and your precious elites are the kike's henchmen for the dirty work, treacherous and without any integrity left. They play by the kike's rules, and that's the reason they enjoy their success and elite status in the first place. You realize that Jews hate Jesus Christ more than anyone else in history? Do you even know why they hate him? He was the literal anti-Jew and called them out on their hypocrisy and evil nature. Who are you to talk about politics if you haven't even read and understood the very fundament of Western Civilization? There is no other book as preserved and copied as the Holy Bible, and exactly this book exposes the Jews from the Old Testament up through the entire New Testament. The New Testament coined the word "Jew" from a racial term to a theological one; a "Jew" is everyone who is against Christ, and everything that is good and wholesome in our natural order.

Is infinite chan dead too?
Yeah, but I didn't search for an alternative since imageboards have always the same circle. Also, staying too long on them rots the mind.

Juan Campbell
Juan Campbell

I heard once that the guy who caused blue eyes to come into existence was someone who pretty much murder/fucked it into existence.

Luke Watson
Luke Watson

Sounds like Jewish propaganda to make Whites look bad.

Jordan Edwards
Jordan Edwards

a "Jew" is everyone who is against Christ
That definition includes a whole lot of self-declared, Church-going Christians.

Ryder Cox
Ryder Cox

Of course it does, but your point is? Hypocrites are not a new phenomenon.

Adrian Diaz
Adrian Diaz

Pretty sure it was a woman and she got the chadest of all men out of it since blue eyes is such an alluring physical trait to sexually select for.

Oliver Smith
Oliver Smith

We are talking about genetic mutation and it is the primsry mechanism
Spamming "retard" to anonymous strangers just because they disagree with you indicates that you are unintelligent.

John Walker
John Walker

I would argue that anyone who worships the vile (((YHWH))) is opposed to Christ and his noble teachings - so that would make just about every "Christ"ian a Jew.

Blake Richardson
Blake Richardson

Mutation isn't even the primary mechanism. Natural Selection is.

James Gutierrez
James Gutierrez

And getting called a retard is tame stuff compared to getting called a kike shill like so many ar fond of spamming.

Christopher Gray
Christopher Gray

Mutation is the ultimate source of any genetic variation, though. Natural Selection is informed by mutations.

Thomas Thompson
Thomas Thompson

No elites have ever been Christian. Just as no elites have ever been communist or liberal. It's just a label to motivate lemmings.

Jews hate Jesus Christ more than anyone else in history?
Kikes don't care about a dead jew. Maybe the religious zealot kikes who bob their heads and suck penises think that, but none of the jewish elites give one shit about Yeshuah other than how they can use him to get people like you to have sex with niggers.

Jesus was a BASED jew who was anti-jewish
If Jesus was anti-jewish, he should have exterminated them. Why didn't he? Hitler is a far better anti-jew than Jesus. Worship him instead.

you haven't even read and understood the very fundament of Western Civilization?
Literally everything about Western Civilization that is good is EUROPEAN in origin, not Christian. EUROPEANS created the law codes and archetecture and ideas and traditions. Even most of Christianity is stolen from European traditions.

Also, I want to rephrase what you said to make it more honest
You don't worship me jew????
You must not have read my Torah!!!!!!
See, this is why we know that communism is a religion. When a communist encounters someone who is not a communist, they assume that you have not read Das Kapital.
Religious lemmings cannot comprehend how people could read their books and not be convinced that they're accurate.
That's how dumb they are. Pure NPCs

The New Testament coined the word "Jew" from a racial term to a theological on
One more reason why the Torah mark II is shit. Jews are a RACE not a theology.

a "Jew" is everyone who is against Christ
Again, notice how perverted Kiketianity is. This Christian is not loyal to his race. He is loyal to Jesus. And he thinks that White people who do not follow his religion are the enemy. And he thinks that jews who "convert" to his religion are his friends.

Attached: Christianity-has-contributed-so-much-to-Europe.png (5.17 MB, 700x3775)

Christian Smith
Christian Smith

Stop with your gnostic nonsense. Read the Holy Bible. There is no difference between our Lord and Redeemer in the Old and New Covenant. God is always the same and never changes.

Christian Carter
Christian Carter

It's not the only source of genetic change. There's plenty of other mechanisms that yield genetic change, such as genetic recombination that occurs during sexual reproduction, or epigenetic changes.

Jackson Long
Jackson Long

Yeah, you go enjoy worshipping a vile demon that slaughters White babies. I'll stick with Jesus who hands out bread and fish.

Bentley Cruz
Bentley Cruz

that it is okay to abandon their humanity and behave like a nigger monkey
how does evolution theory excuse that?

Blake Harris
Blake Harris

It doesn't. He just subscribes to a nonsensical false dichotomy.

Anthony Gutierrez
Anthony Gutierrez

race-worshipper
You know that God created everything, also the white race? If Caucasoids decide to be degenerate Sodomite animal worhsippers then they need to be cleansed entirely. The white race is the best of all, but with great abilities comes great responsibility. And if whites decide to do the most heinous acts then they deserve to nuked. It is a disgrace to the natural order. This is why whites right now are slaughtered en masse, because they choose to sin and not repent. They had it coming and do not listen to the prophets of our time, instead trade with the merchant and worshipt the Synagogue of Satan.

Owen Howard
Owen Howard

Dont try to reason with it. It will just csll youna kike and retard. So much for intellectual discussion. Boring

Matthew Kelly
Matthew Kelly

Those are incredibly insignificant. Again, mutation is thr primary mechanism of the theory.

Do you know what any of these words mean?

inb4 kike retard. Yes i am a jewish downie. I concede! You win! You are the mighty enlightened one!

Isaac Collins
Isaac Collins

I guess I was a little quick to the draw on that, then. You're correct, recombination does account for genetic variation, but the way I see it recombination doesn't create new expressions in the same way a mutation would. You do bring a good point about epigenetics, though. I'm not too familiar with the current consensus on exactly how it works, although I get the impression that its ability to change things is played up to appease certain ideological goals common to academic institutions. Muhterial condishuns and all that.

Brandon Turner
Brandon Turner

I posted a reasonable response here:

race worship
Race trumps faith any day. Would you rather your daughter marry a non-Christian White man, or a godly Christian Nigger from Africa?

Landon Garcia
Landon Garcia

Attached: 1468977001148.png (377.82 KB, 440x442)

Dylan Morgan
Dylan Morgan

Mutation itself is extremely common and yields beneficial traits all the time.

Anywho, we're stuck arguing genetic process when that's a done deal. We know for a fact we share common ancestry with every living organism on the planet, and that's just looking at the shared genetic material. We can see fossil evidence, and we can see new species arise all the time. I don't actually know where you object, but I assume you object in good faith so I will try to help as much as I can.

Jacob Kelly
Jacob Kelly

Would you rather your daughter marry a non-Christian White man, or a godly Christian Nigger from Africa?
Neither. Miscegenation deserves capital punishment according to God. Negroes can be Christians but Christianity is not meant for Negroes or Asians in the first place. Christianity - or really the Holy Bible - is the history of the white man, from the white man and for the white man.

Race trumps faith any day
You shall not worship the created, but the Creator. Whites are literally the Herrenrasse (Lord's Race). We are only that way because God intended us to be so.

Thomas Long
Thomas Long

I'm sure I can find a picture of a preacher wearing a shirt saying "We're all God's Children" but the egalitarian implications of both messages would both be unfounded and run counter to our understanding of genetics which shows that equality is a myth.

Anthony Garcia
Anthony Garcia

"Neither" wasn't a listed option. non-Christian White man, or godly Christian Nigger from Africa?

Jason Russell
Jason Russell

If anyone is interested here is the part from the book.
colchestercollection.com/titles/chunk/I/imperium/chapter9.html

Carter Adams
Carter Adams

Again, there are not enough positive, beneficial mutations to support the theory
Furthermore the vast majority of all mutations are detrimental (like downs syndrome for example)
Again we sre talking about genetic mutatipn here.
Ive already said all this earlier in the thread.
This is the scientific fact and because it doesnt support Darwinism dogma, it is ignored.

Cameron Gray
Cameron Gray

You can be a child or act like an adult. You don't tell me what to do, you can do that with women and children, but not with men in a discussion. Learn etiquette, read the Holy Bible and then come back.

Adrian Edwards
Adrian Edwards

vast majority of mutations are detrimental
Wrong again. The vast majority of the average 60 per person are benign.

Julian Green
Julian Green

I don't disagree with you on a single point but I am going to tell you that you're fighting the losing fight.
You are not going to win the knowledge battle against the jew. Spirituality/Religion is what makes men die for a "cause greater than their own."
There's no point in trying to enlighten the masses, user. Nobody will ever thank you for being so smart and nobody will ever remark of how pleased they are that you showed them the light.
Work with what you have at your disposal, don't try to tear down what's already built and readily available.

Thomas Price
Thomas Price

Well I certainly don't hold you in contempt for anything really. I suppose I just got a little self righteous and wanted to split hairs as I often do. I do maintain skepticism on the importance of epigenetics when it comes to variation, though. It all sounds very Lamarckian to a pedestrian like me.

Define a "positive, beneficial" mutation
Also, you say that there aren't enough. How much is enough?
Do you think evolution is about developing more muscle mass so you can lift cars or something?

Caleb Wood
Caleb Wood

REEEEEEEEEE DON'T MAKE ME PICK FROM TWO OPTIONS! DON'T MAKE ME REVEAL MY LOYALTY BETWEEN RACE AND RELIGION! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
If you don't want to answer honestly, fine. It just makes you look (((suspicious)))

Joshua Parker
Joshua Parker

the basis of evolutionary theory is the sum of four basic facts.

1. Organisms vary. "every organism is genetically unique."
2. Traits (Including mutations) are inherited.
3. There is differential success. "some things have more babies than others" (success being surviving to generate offspring).
4. Resources are scarce. "organisms better at getting resources have better success than others."

These four facts together make the fact of biological evolution.

Attached: 000Shouldhavekilledthecommiestoo.jpg (67.1 KB, 1560x922)

Jonathan Wilson
Jonathan Wilson

Humans are NOT monkeys.

We are apes. Like gorillas and chimps.

Caleb Evans
Caleb Evans

When a discussion involves a body of knowledge, I want to contribute my understanding. I never once said that the spiritual is irrelevant to the good fight, I just didn't bring it up until others had done so because it is irrelevant to this thread.

Benjamin Smith
Benjamin Smith

We are both. All apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes.

Leo Mitchell
Leo Mitchell

I'd rather have my daughter become a spinster than marrying her off to an ungodly man or a negro. The former would corrupt the morals of my descendants, and the latter would corrupt my bloodline. Stop being a nigger.

Gabriel Bell
Gabriel Bell

Lamarckian
So it would seem. But it doesn't actually supplant the conventional descent with inherent modification that defines biological evolution - it complements it.

Kevin Lee
Kevin Lee

apes are to monkeys what bears are to canines.

Daniel Barnes
Daniel Barnes

So one has to be Christian to be morally upstanding or godly in the conventional sense? Ridiculous.

Cameron Ramirez
Cameron Ramirez

Except monkeys are the older ancestral clade within which apes are found. Apes are to monkeys what dogs are to wolves.

Carson Bennett
Carson Bennett

Lamarkianism is bullshit.
it's the pseudoscience equivalent of epigenetics.

Jordan Howard
Jordan Howard

I agree with you. My position on this matter is not that we need to do away with all religion or even that religion is bad. And I agree that telling the masses that they're religious is pointless (though it really does upset the leftists to hear that their precious ideologies are in fact nearly identical to other religions)

That said, I really do believe that Christianity is not a good ideology to base a nation around. As we know, universalist religions both cause feelings of brotherhood with subhuman niggers who happen to adopt it, while simultaneously causing strife and disloyalty among White brothers. So these kinds of religions ironically cause outgroup bias while creating in-group conflict.
Awful.
Fortunately, religions can be edited, changed, or created by whoever succeeds the jews. I believe that we need a White centric religion that is unconnected with the Torah or any jewish literature. Personally I'd favour ancestor worship as that is traditionally European in origin and also impossible to corrupt. However, I think that nationalism could be made into a religion all on its own. We simply need to replace the warm, fuzzy feeling that people get when they pray to Jesus or Allah or whatever with a warm, fuzzy feeling when they do good deeds for their race and nation.
Obviously this can only happen once we have overthrown the thieving kikes and their collaborators. But it is interesting to discuss.

Attached: comfy-fire.jpg (64.67 KB, 445x298)

Colton Walker
Colton Walker

Here is some further reading for you:
paoloviscardi.com/2011/04/21/apes-are-monkeys-deal-with-it/

Jose King
Jose King

telling the masses that they're religious is pointless
is pointless

Jackson Walker
Jackson Walker

saying apes are monkeys is like saying apples are roses. phylogenetically they're in the same branch but they are not the same end.

Parker Ramirez
Parker Ramirez

You pretend like our current values you esteem as good are from a vacuum. You take them for granted. They are all based on Jesus' teachings and His Moral Law. To be morally upstanding is to be godly and just. God wrote His Law into our hearts, we know right from wrong, yet we always choose every moment to do what is right and wrong. We just know it, and the values that have been instilled relentlessly over 2,000 years manifested our perception on the moral code. If you read any history book, like the Travels of Marco Polo, you'd know how fucked up many cultures outside of the Western World really were and still are. Our moral foundation is not taken to be granted.

Tyler Young
Tyler Young

fair enough
I just see so many anons thinking they have some super secret knowledge that separates them from the "idiots" because they discovered the "hidden truth" about religion that only they know and nobody else can comprehend!
Its all so tiresome

Jace Clark
Jace Clark

No, no, I must have messed up what I was trying to convey. Lamarckianism is bullshit, but epigenetics (Which that poster said resembled Lamarckianism to him) is one additional means of genetic change, alongside mutation and genetic recombination that occurs during sexual reproduction.

Lincoln Gutierrez
Lincoln Gutierrez

I'm sure you're a fat kike-blooded faggot. That's why you worship the finite material over the infinite eternal. It's in your genes to hate Christ.

Attached: synagogue-of-satan.jpg (617.47 KB, 2004x1524)

Gabriel Turner
Gabriel Turner

you might as well say we're reptiles.

Ryder Russell
Ryder Russell

Voltaire would call him an idiot. Everyone from antiquity would. He's your plane jane fedora. Completely oblivious to anything besides himself.

Elijah Cook
Elijah Cook

I'm not saying modern monkeys are the ancestors of modern apes, but the two have common ancestry. The common ancestors in question, however, could only be defined as monkeys by their physiological traits, and thus modern apes are still monkeys as according to the Law of Monophyly.

I think the cause of this debate is that "monkey" and "ape" are not scientifically accurate terms. The basal monkey clade is called "simiiformes" and all apes (hominoidea) are simian.

Noah Thompson
Noah Thompson

We are, though. Our synapsid ancestors were reptiles, so we are still reptiles. You never grow out of your ancestry - that's why we're still vertebrates, and chordates, and mammals, and Eukaryotic organisms.

Brayden Collins
Brayden Collins

(((YHWH))) wrote morals on everyone's heart
that's why people on this side of the world don't even know about these morals
Que? Besides that, the Ten Commandments are inferior moral precepts as the moral systems that were around long before your precious Israelites made them up, the Law of Hammurabi was already a thing, and did a better job at pointing out moral imperatives than some goatfucker's ramblings forbidding boiling a goat in its mother's milk.

Joseph White
Joseph White

"The basal monkey clade is called "simiiformes" and all apes (hominoidea) are simian."

YES. accurate.

Zachary Myers
Zachary Myers

fedora
Not one single time did I say there are no Gods.

Jackson Smith
Jackson Smith

Equality is from atheism. From you kikes. Here is your Enlightenment values.

Attached: enlightenment-values.png (629.56 KB, 400x558)

Charles Harris
Charles Harris

You did not negate my addressing of your moral understanding, only insulting God. Repent, the wages of sin are death. You should stop being a French liberal and humble yourself.

Attached: 177e18b98fd94cfbc21edb88009d63309a749846033750c34b830f50be6ca7c0.jpg (82.26 KB, 470x960)
Attached: six-stages-of-temptation.png (330.72 KB, 1010x783)

Ian Gray
Ian Gray

we are not reptiles.
reductive classification is endless.
You could claim that we are a Cell.
we are not a cell. we are made of cells. that's not the same thing.
we are not reptiles, but have a reptilian system underpinning our structure.
accuracy matters.

Lincoln Hall
Lincoln Hall

As if you believe in anything.

Attached: nu-fedora.png (330.11 KB, 899x525)
Attached: 1395358027201.jpg (8.57 KB, 200x181)

Cooper Bell
Cooper Bell

Remind me what "Catholic" means again.
I mean not only is this a guilt by association, but Christianity is hardly free from criticism in this regard. Just take a look at where the Anglican church has gone, and what the Pope spends his days doing.

John Cook
John Cook

Darwinism is a bullshit theory; he had it totally wrong. They don't even teach his shit anymore. DNA makes his theory impossible: basically, there are endcaps on the DNA strands (or whatever) that show they were created with a fixed length.

Matthew Adams
Matthew Adams

you're thinking of telomeres and they weren't 'created' they self assemble like magnets (ass all DNA does) and they're repeating segments of DNA just like all the rest. nothing special,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere

Colton Reyes
Colton Reyes

Where in the Bible does it say that Europeans are superior to niggers and kikes?
Also, all you need to do to get to heaven is believe in the kike on a stick meme.
Sounds like pure equality to me.

Meanwhile, evolution is all about survival of the fittest and race wars within different animal species.

Brody Nelson
Brody Nelson

Please study the Law of Monophyly.

telomeres
Oh, you mean the length that shortens when organisms age? What a concrete limit on genetic change.

Christians screech about "Hurrrr we iz alll gawdz chillunz 'n sheeit" all the time. One of the most common objections to the reality of evolution that Christian apologetics bring up is that evolution is bad because it influenced racists like Hitler who believed in bigotted social Darwinism. Christians reject evolution because it says we are not all equal. The Biblical perspective is egalitarian, because according to the Bible, we are all god's children

Can you really claim Christian morality to be completely Christian if most of it is stolen from other cultures and religions?

Ryder Reed
Ryder Reed

Where in the Bible does it say that Europeans are superior to niggers and kikes?
The answer it simple yet quite complex to explain for someone who has never read the Holy Bible. Be a bad goy and invest at least one hour before spouting nonsense: bitchute.com/video/LDbRjMXb1nlv/

John Wood
John Wood

Macroevolution is a clumsy theory that would have never been formulated if Darwin had known what we know today of DNA. The religion of big "S" Science will never admit to an intelligent creator, so you'll have to seek out alternative sources.

ucg.org/the-good-news/dna-the-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution

Jose Williams
Jose Williams

who created the creator?

Alexander Gonzalez
Alexander Gonzalez

Macroevolution happens all the time. Do you know how many observed speciation events have occurred?

Benjamin Hill
Benjamin Hill

If you don't agree with my theology YOU DIDN'T REED MY BOOK!
Already read it and it was as convincing as Das Kapital.

Also,
I have no idea how to defend the Bible so I'll just accuse him of not reading it! That's a sound argument that won't out me as a loser with no argument!

Austin Baker
Austin Baker

Keep at it, brother.
first image
I would say lurk more, but at this point you need to look elsewhere to do research. Try not to post cancer like that, bro.

Attached: northern-crusades.png (407.24 KB, 1806x809)

Samuel Rodriguez
Samuel Rodriguez

Are you assuming that the creator lives on our time axis? I highly doubt that, given all the dimensions we can describe.
speciation
All organisms reproduce according to their kind.

Noah Evans
Noah Evans

Can you really claim Christian morality to be completely Christian if most of it is stolen from other cultures and religions?
The burden of proof is on you. I have the Holy Bible. Which scriptures do you have to support your claim that it is all stolen together? Moral code is eternal and unchanging. Some cultures might have had similarities, but were not perfect. As said, our very impulses signal what actions are good and bad. Deeply within our subcounscious we know. I do not claim, I believe it to be true. As said, if you hate Christ so much, there is nothing I can do about it. Your heart is hardened and you choose to keep it that way.

Stop being a child and invest more time and not the absolute bare minimum.

Read the Holy Bible, stop applying Christian morals to people who need forgiveness. You need a foundation.

Nathan Richardson
Nathan Richardson

There is no such thing as a "kind", only taxonomic clades.

Blake Walker
Blake Walker

meaningless rhetorical bullshit.

Jonathan Taylor
Jonathan Taylor

I don't have a problem with Jesus, I have a problem with (((YHWH))) and his "Christ"ian sycophants.

Wyatt Watson
Wyatt Watson

You want proof of evolution?
Look no further than the petri dish.
viruses
fungi
single celled organisms
You can watch 'evolution' (CHANGE) via natural or unnatural selection in all of these due to rapid reproduction cycles.

Change propagates through mutation.
Some mutations are beneficial (to the organism) and you get things like whites being more intelligent, or capable of digesting lactose, or smaller scale: drug resistant strains of infections, pesticide resistant weeds, poison resistant bugs. Some changes are bad and generally cause the death of those that have them (or sterility, or general poor health), thus selecting them out of future breeding.
We call these collective good changes 'evolution.'

Did man evolve from monkeys or niggers?
No.
Man evolved beside them.
Niggers are a fork in the evolutionary branch of human-kind. An evolutionary dead end sustained only by
1.) their high reproductive rate
2.) the kindness of other races, mistakenly giving them resources they can't get themselves.

Can religion coexist with evolution?
Sure.
So long as you can accept that God is the scientist and the world his petri dish… and you the single-celled organism.
Or maybe it'd be more accurate, to put it in biblical terms, to say that the Earth is God's sheep farm and we're all his sheep. That go down better?

Samuel Peterson
Samuel Peterson

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Charles Darwin (The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York: A.L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178)

tl;dr it's absolutely true and should not be up for debate anymore.

Ryan Lewis
Ryan Lewis

"kind" in "according to their kind" is merely a linguistic limitation of an unscientific culture lacking the vocabulary of biology.

Tyler Cook
Tyler Cook

Zero comprehension, doesn't understand the physical dimensions, refuses to learn. Filtered.
There is no such thing as a "kind", only taxonomic clades.
A "kind" is any group of animals that can interbreed.

Liam Wilson
Liam Wilson

It is quite pleasing to see all of the energy(ies) spent on derailing the OP topic in lieu of creating a meme that just never grows legs. The anti-NatSoc sentiment is being ignored, and it is beautiful

Ian Evans
Ian Evans

We already have a better word for that - species.

Ethan Stewart
Ethan Stewart

A "kind" is any group of animals that can interbreed.
And bridges are meant to be jumped off of; change my mind.

Benjamin Lewis
Benjamin Lewis

You cannot love the Son and hate the Father, as you cannot love Father without the Son. You think like a Jew, but reversed.

Samuel Thomas
Samuel Thomas

if you had any understanding, you'd simply answer the question. instead you project your own lack of understanding. blinded.

Julian Williams
Julian Williams

Precisely. "Kind" does not exist.

Brody Kelly
Brody Kelly

You… you do remember that canonically the son IS the father?

Zachary Smith
Zachary Smith

"Kind" is a plain term, easy enough to understand, not just when speaking of reproduction. You can't say it doesn't exist; it's a valid description.

Henry Edwards
Henry Edwards

in modern usage for that intended meaning. it's simply too vague for modern understanding.

Lincoln Cook
Lincoln Cook

Christ is cool, he whipped Jews and didn't afraid of anything. (((YHWH)))? He made Jews his Chosen and got scared of iron chariots.

Jacob Taylor
Jacob Taylor

He made Jews his Chosen and got scared of iron chariots.
Except that whole thing where, because Jews renounced (and killed) Christ, they were no longer the chosen.

Daniel Robinson
Daniel Robinson

Except it's not valid because it's just the Christian word for species. But Speciation happens, so riddle me that.

Joseph Hall
Joseph Hall

I like Jack better than Jesus. Jack chopped down a bean stalk and killed a giant.

Mason Harris
Mason Harris

"kind' is a word Christians invented

Attached: 1db97fe7dd5d2ef0efc9fc0597ce9d074205bf85d711a924dd59c790b82f62f7.jpg (42.8 KB, 549x563)

Eli Long
Eli Long

The religion of big "S" Science will never admit to an intelligent creator, so you'll have to seek out alternative sources.
given the existence of of jews and niggers and others, i hstrongly doubt the intelligence of that creator

Adrian Harris
Adrian Harris

He still (Allegedly) commanded morally reprehensible acts, like that time he supposedly had White Egyptian babies slaughtered in his name. That shit didn't happen btw, there were no Jewish slaves on that scale in Egypt

Jaxon Morris
Jaxon Morris

Can't answer the question because it's true.
Better start namecalling
Christians = liberals

No argument
Better start namecalling
Christians = liberals
Same tactics.
Same lack of argument.

Wyatt Baker
Wyatt Baker

Speciation is not an example of macroevolution
but of micro.
Show atleast one observed example of the macro.

Cameron Harris
Cameron Harris

It's mostly only Christians who use it in the context of reproduction.

Daniel Martinez
Daniel Martinez

Anthropology corrupted Darwinism because it was too racist. They use evolution to attack Christianity, but refuse to acknowledge evolution in actuality. It's trotted out like a dog and pony show when they want to use it, but is never actually discussed in depth and no real attempts to prove the theory nor come up with any alternatives. Darwin science refuses to even fix the dinosaur narrative.

Its similar to Einstein physics - they destroyed Newtonian/Aether physics to perpetuate the Einstein myth. Modern physics is a dead end with no future. They no longer advance it - just verbal masturbation and self citing for more and more unprovable hypothesis to prop up the nonsense of Einstein.

Most science has hit deadends because of Jews propping up their fake intelligentsia.

Attached: dinosaurs---birds.png (112.68 KB, 1202x1424)

Ayden Miller
Ayden Miller

Darwin science refuses to even fix the dinosaur narrative.
what dinosaur narrative?

Sebastian Perez
Sebastian Perez

Speciation is macroevolution by definition.
Microevolution is change within the level of species
Macroevolution is change at or above the species level

Anthony Rodriguez
Anthony Rodriguez

God gave you something to fight and kill without remorse in order to test your resolve, something to wage holy war upon in his name, and you complain?

There were white (caucasian) Egyptians. Red hair, blond hair, straight.
And everyone knows that any time you talk to God, it's called prayer. When God talks back, and commands you to kill children, it's called psychosis.
Unless they're nigger children, in which it's called cleaning up.

Michael Ward
Michael Ward

that's so fucking metal.

Identifying nonsense = name calling.

Angel Campbell
Angel Campbell

Anunnaki and Nibiru
= CIA Scientology

Attached: hillary-pepe-alien.jpg (162.79 KB, 1440x979)

Wyatt Martin
Wyatt Martin

It's a masonic lie. No transitional specimins have every been found.
Freemasons believe in muh Jew god

Jacob Sullivan
Jacob Sullivan

all these anons responding to this post without reading the link
There is a desire to avoid any knowledge of the Creator. The Bible teaches us that its because they love their sin, and do not want to be held accountable for it.

Attached: 69850d7e18b56818917b72ecbaebe52aa30f1926e90790eed21d620b1096d7a6.jpg (7.6 KB, 320x180)

Henry Gonzalez
Henry Gonzalez

yes. Christians. the very people who refuse to understand science by trying to fit the round peg of reality into the square hole of their dogma.

Brody Rodriguez
Brody Rodriguez

macro =when completely new species pops into existence with completely new genetic info
not reused one or recombined.
micro= variation within species
Show atleast one observed example of the macro

Austin Turner
Austin Turner

The New Testament coined the word "Jew" from a racial term to a theological one; a "Jew" is everyone who is against Christ, and everything that is good and wholesome in our natural order.
John 4:22

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."
(((Jesus)))

Attached: jesus-true-form.jpg (68.15 KB, 652x760)

Jack Jackson
Jack Jackson

openbible.info/topics/fool

Attached: leftist-trash.png (99.02 KB, 933x581)

Adrian Diaz
Adrian Diaz

macro =when completely new species pops into existence with completely new genetic info
micro= variation within species
mutation is not new info?

Oliver Morales
Oliver Morales

John 4:22

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

(((Jesus)))

Attached: spartans-religion-jesus-blood.jpg (125.26 KB, 1200x733)

Gabriel Rogers
Gabriel Rogers

Attached: 1533509555355.jpg (278.35 KB, 848x1480)
Attached: snownigger-copypasta-board.jpg (452.38 KB, 1116x1323)

Austin Harris
Austin Harris

"Prove it."
1 Thessalonians 5:21

Ian Fisher
Ian Fisher

That definition of macroevolution (Which isn't the real definition - micro-/macro- evolution were both terms created to define the difference between change within the level of species and change at or above the species level by Yuri Filipchenko) would actually violate evolutionary law. All new specie are just modified forms of older, preexisting specie.

Henry Bennett
Henry Bennett

We cant discuss science, philosophy, history, or creation on Zig Forums because of Christkikes

Read the Holy Bible, stop applying Christian morals to people who need forgiveness. You need a foundation.
John 4:22

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

(((Jesus)))

Attached: let-jesus-in.png (1.27 MB, 660x845)

Camden Reed
Camden Reed

Mutation is the destruction of the present genetic info.
Not the addition of it.
Show atleast one example of the macro.

Gabriel White
Gabriel White

civilization is from non-whites
(((Varglodyte)))

Attached: bb9327b0003830301262b8895facd10d53f2ca5c244b024b1585936eabfc06d6.jpg (152.31 KB, 900x796)
Attached: 1534348340544.jpg (91.68 KB, 654x558)

Blake Davis
Blake Davis

Mutations add new "information" all the time, hence why pathogens are able to add resistance to medicines.

Speciation is macroevolution by definition.

Nathaniel Nguyen
Nathaniel Nguyen

we need to LARP in the woods like our troo ancestors
(((Varglodyte)))

Attached: 1539065405071.jpg (54.19 KB, 676x501)

Elijah Ward
Elijah Ward

oy vey goyim you can't do thing because INSERT GROUP I HATE HERE
wow you sure do hate GROUP I HATE now too, don't you
ha ha go ahead and attack GROUP I HATE
lol what's D&C
Global report.

Ryan Myers
Ryan Myers

Can you folks quit derailling? We've had a nice thread so far.

Ayden Harris
Ayden Harris

Truth is nonsense
Notice how dishonest these Christians are.
What he is calling "nonsense" is the fact that according to HIS OWN ideology, niggers and kikes get into heaven by simply "accepting Yashuah into their hearts"

Attached: Children-of-Israel.png (31.07 KB, 685x313)

Oliver Richardson
Oliver Richardson

There is no such thing as derailing anymore. Any content may be posted here at any time.

Charles Martin
Charles Martin

snownigger
Saul, enemy of Jesus
Prove it
death metal guy!
death metal guy!!!!

John 4:22

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

(((Jesus)))

Evolution, eugenics, selection, all your food, all your life, small incremental changes.

Hurrrrrrrr mutants!

Attached: 43626436234.jpg (66.32 KB, 500x666)

Adam Robinson
Adam Robinson

for salvation is from the Jews
JUDEANS
Judea was a land. Territory. Not a people.
Pharisee/Edomite = Jews in todays translation

Don't be a retarded nigger! Fuck off!

James Rivera
James Rivera

Stop hating!
this is Zig Forums!
We worship a jew!
D&C!
I'm telling Jim on you!

Attached: 525321464641164.png (183.29 KB, 407x405)

Justin Long
Justin Long

suck dicks for magic
we wuz indo-pooreans
we wuz romans
we wuz vril
we wuz gods an shieet
(((Varglodyte Acolyte)))(you)

Attached: ARYAN.jpg (885.6 KB, 1748x1597)
Attached: 1518187296103.png (1.93 MB, 1904x7200)
Attached: HAIL.jpg (161.1 KB, 1019x760)

Aiden Murphy
Aiden Murphy

We've had a nice thread so far.
Bullshit you did.

1. Evolution is real because: x.y.z
2. The Jew god reeeeeee!
3. Mutants!!!!!!

That's the level of this thread. One group trying, the other two claiming natural change does not exist.

Attached: neanderthal-arab-jew-vs-cromagnon.jpg (574.22 KB, 1280x1283)

Lucas Lewis
Lucas Lewis

I knew you'd out yourself like this from seeing your first post. Might as well start spamming "WHITE GIRLS FUCK DOGS" like your hero CuckoldFilth.

Dylan Wilson
Dylan Wilson

You can tell Jews push (((Christainity))) on us goy when they're posting race mixing and gay shit.

Attached: is-your-child-a-nazi.jpg (178.51 KB, 1079x1032)

Zachary Parker
Zachary Parker

How many people are on your Discord right now?

Attached: larping-kike.png (294.66 KB, 590x639)

Brayden Rodriguez
Brayden Rodriguez

I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to help my brothers understand scientific concepts.

Jace Thomas
Jace Thomas

Remember that you will be killed for this.

Attached: cumswilling-christians-draft-1.jpg (1.06 MB, 947x3003)

Jack Sanders
Jack Sanders

paid shill repeats things only paid shills say
acts surprised that he was instantly exposed
No selfies, please. Reported.

Xavier Wilson
Xavier Wilson

JUDEANS
Why are you re-translating Jesus? Isn't that a sin? The woman he was talking to was from Judea. And Judeans could be anyone. Why would fucking Judeans be the only ones who can save you?

Mental breakdown.
John 4:22!
salvation comes from the JEWS (not citizens of a Roman provence Judea) JEWS!

Attached: npc-death-people.jpg (102.46 KB, 1024x651)

Zachary Diaz
Zachary Diaz

Discuck
I've kept away from that cancer. I think there might be some CommonFilth discord servers for you to enjoy, though.

Zachary Gray
Zachary Gray

We already have a better REAL not (((Christian))) thread on this called the "Origins of race". If you weren't such a fucking 4chan trained monkey you wouldn't be here explaining 8th grade science, you'd be bumping that.

Attached: neanderthal-jew-loves-white-women.jpg (158.78 KB, 900x674)

Logan Garcia
Logan Garcia

invented to keep humans small and insignificant and to make it easier for people to abandon their morales

Another illiterate christfag shilling thread that can't comprehend basic science or logic. Go away.

Ayden Turner
Ayden Turner

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. People are shown the real part, which makes them ready to believe the imaginary part. That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Jace Cooper
Jace Cooper

You must be looking at a different thread. I'm not the one posting CuckoldFilth-tier image macros.

Liam Jackson
Liam Jackson

And for your patience in that I commend you.

Ah, yes. Where would we be without the "neanderkike" spam?

Leo Morris
Leo Morris

Fuck off you dirty fucking Pharisee fuck
Samria is a land
Judea is a land
Jesus was a fucking ROMAN!
You have no salvation. God has no covenant with you! Enjoy your time in eternal hell.

Parker Russell
Parker Russell

This thread's only problem is that there are posters not contributing in good faith.

Austin Diaz
Austin Diaz

Are we as a species really just descendants of upright walking hairy cave monkeys or is there more to the story?
Yep, pretty much.
Might be injection of something 'foreign' (ie extra-terrestrial) somewhere in there, but generally speaking?
Yes, you evolved - over millions and millions of years and countless instances of genetic variation - from a proto-hominid which was much askin to "upright walking hairy cave monkeys".

Hell, if you go back further, its even craizer - those cave monkeys derived from what ever basically rats scuttling neath the heels of the dinosaurs, and those rats derived from weird repitlian proto-mammals, which themselves derived from reptiles, which themselves derived from amphibians, which themselves derived from fish, and now we're back in the primordial soup…

… Which is where the real question lies, because while evolution is factual and pretty-strongly supported by evidence across scientific clades, there's a massive piece of the puzzle still missing:
Where the fuck did the original life forms come from, or rather, how did they emerge?

The standard narrative at present appears to suggest life just sort of spontaneously arrived as the result of some sort of anomaly wherein chemical and electrical and physical conditions of all sorts came together to a perfect Goldylocks scenario as to allow non-living material to achieve the spark of life, these unicellular organisms eventually coming together to form colonies (ie proto-tissues), those colonies eventually becoming highly specialized conglomerations (ie proto-organs), which eventually oriented themselves as to achieve a symbiosis whereby they created the first multi-cellular organisms.

See: Mitchondria, which were, far as we can tell, separate unicellular lifeforms back during that miasma period, which formed a symbiosis as described above and incorporated themselves as energy production mechanisms within the early uni-cellular lifeforms, now existing in basically all living things at the cellular level, still acting as energy production mechanisms and being reproduced by the cells themselves generation to generation.
Its wildly creepy shit.

Colton Anderson
Colton Anderson

Filtered you dirty heathen. Nothing you say has any value. You can't say a true word even if you ahd to.

Brody Bailey
Brody Bailey

See also:

Attached: Graecopithecus-A-Ignatov-color-trans-NvBQzQNjv4BqAj1HBHl2hPCCymTUYDy5U1bowxn-8wL7Ef86bIbmbUc.jpg (263.73 KB, 1280x2048)
Attached: Evolutionary-Racism-for-Kids!.jpg (1.82 MB, 1528x3336)

Jeremiah White
Jeremiah White

In this thread, notice how when presented with evidence, logic, and argument the Christian always reverts to namecalling and lying. Christians never actually refute anything. They simply namecall and insist that
YOU DIDN'T READ MY BOOK

Compare and contrast to how liberals argue. The liberal, like the Christian, cannot comprehend how someone could attend a university and still have the WRONG opinions. The credulous liberals simply cannot defend their taught positions so they start namecalling.
"Don't agree with me? That's cuz YOU'RE UNEDUCATED!"
"Oh yeah? Well YOU'RE A RASIST!"
"The reason why you don't accept that diversity is good is because YOU'RE JUST IGNORANT!!!"

Christians and liberals are unable to defend their positions because they are not based on facts and logic. They're simply emotional, mental children who have been trained how to respond to criticism.

Christian Evans
Christian Evans

Jesus was a fucking ROMAN!
Well now that's a new low Christkike

John 4:22

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."
(((Jesus)))

This thread's only problem is that there are posters not contributing in good faith.
Yeah, they're called Christians. And they've been destroying our race for 1500years in the East, and 800 years in the West.

Attached: jesus-was-a-middle-eastener.jpg (418.96 KB, 979x1254)

Henry Perry
Henry Perry

There have never been such limits to genetic change demonstrated, and mutation adds "information" that can prove beneficial all the time.

Brayden Perez
Brayden Perez

christkike saves and posts gay porn
Par for the course.

Asher Gonzalez
Asher Gonzalez

Ah, yes. Where would we be without the "neanderkike" spam?
What you said your average amount of time spent here is (((Druid)))? 12hrs a day?

Ethan Scott
Ethan Scott

Pic related.

someone saved that
Nice.

Attached: Christianitys-Jewish-God-in-Action.JPG (355.25 KB, 1545x866)
Attached: Hate-and-Fear.png (147.31 KB, 1166x595)

Jacob Foster
Jacob Foster

They're entitled to believe what they want as long as we're on the same page with the JQ.

Matthew Allen
Matthew Allen

Actually this one applies nicely too.

Attached: Christianity---Its-The-Opposite-of-What-Is-Said,-Goy.JPG (281.66 KB, 2577x615)

Parker Long
Parker Long

They're entitled to believe what they want as long as we're on the same page with the JQ.
This is why you fail.

Attached: Hitler-on-the-Alt-Right.png (1.44 MB, 2376x6008)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (696.03 KB, 2104x1077)

Blake Allen
Blake Allen

YOU DIDN'T READ MY BOOK
I have a feeling you haven't read the bible.
Before it got (((translated))) it's the single most anti-semitic (see: Pharisee/Edomite/JEW) book that's ever been written.
Nothing you say will ever compare to a 2,000 year old historical record of jew-hating and naming the kike.
But yeah, go ahead and throw away the best resource for waking up whites to the JQ. I'm sure that will work really wall. Hell, you can even sit back and laugh about it with juden over a beer on the weekend!
You're in (((good company)))

Landon Lopez
Landon Lopez

Evolution doesn't answer the question of the origin of life because it doesn't have to. The definition of evolution doesn't apply to anything beyond change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms, and since that requires living organisms, it can't apply to pre-life Earth, or the origin itself, until the lifeforms started reproduction. As far as abiogenesis goes, our understanding has increased greatly since the talk of primordial soup was popular.

Christian Robinson
Christian Robinson

Oh here's another one of their good ones.
YOU DIDNT READ MY BOOK!
<Yes I did. Examples….
THAT WASN'T THE REAL ONE!

Christians and Communists, peas in a pod.

Attached: Ancient-Judaism-v-Christ-=-Modern-Zionism-v-Marx.JPG (282.83 KB, 2497x725)

Dylan Wood
Dylan Wood

They're entitled to believe what they want as long as we're on the same page with the JQ.

This is why you fail.
THIS

No one is entitled (boomer hippie faggoty) to lies on Zig Forums. This is gladiator school for intellectual debate and that's why (((Christians))) are sacrificed.

Attached: 1505918912585.jpg (351.03 KB, 880x762)

Tyler Martin
Tyler Martin

Evolution doesn't answer the question of the origin of life because it doesn't have to.
Agreed, but once you have evolution understood to some degree, the question then inevitably becomes "well what did we evolve from?" and when you follow that line far enough, you hit a dead-end.

As far as abiogenesis goes, our understanding has increased greatly since the talk of primordial soup was popular.
Not really, I've been monitoring that discussion for a long time and we're still basically at "uh i dunno and i cant repeat it myself in a lab anywhere but here are some nifty ideas…" and yeah, no.

Austin Sanchez
Austin Sanchez

Stop derailing the thread with your petty religious spats. I spend far less time on this board than you do because I can read words outside of infographs. You really should try it some time.

Andrew Carter
Andrew Carter

Dude, we've seen whole RNA strands assemble themselves or someone. Abiogenesis isn't my focus.

Brody Butler
Brody Butler

Attached: If-you-really-think-about-it.png (922.73 KB, 1461x779)
Attached: I-do-whatever-the-Bible-tells-me-to.jpg (60.32 KB, 625x468)
Attached: fb91855c72de3a34b0eea925335edb19--atheist-memes.jpg (82.27 KB, 736x720)

Cameron Torres
Cameron Torres

Are you going to take your own advice, or are you going to ignore this and continue with your JEW PROGRAMMED thought?

Attached: JewHistory1.PNG (264.76 KB, 461x871)
Attached: JewHistory2.PNG (202.69 KB, 445x842)
Attached: JewHistory3.PNG (253.02 KB, 449x862)
Attached: Jewhistory4.PNG (224.2 KB, 449x874)
Attached: JewHistory5.PNG (496.62 KB, 445x890)

Brayden Lopez
Brayden Lopez

I'd leave Christians alone if they would leave White people who don't want to be part of their cult alone. They are so arrogant and many actually threaten openly to murder White people who have the WRONG thoughts about their god.
And yet for all their arrogance, they argue in the most childish way possible.

But I'd tolerate their childishness if they would tolerate infidels. But like muslims and liberals, they simply cannot do so because everyone outside their cult are infidel WRONG-thinkers.
Universalist religions cause out-group brotherhood and in-group treason. It's insane and they are no different than the liberals in this regard.

Owen Thompson
Owen Thompson

or something*

Nolan Ramirez
Nolan Ramirez

Evolution doesn't answer the question of the origin of life because it doesn't have to.
Yes it does. Life is ego. Ego developed through small incremental changes in chemical interactions of self replication.

Attached: evolution-obama-trump.jpg (286.37 KB, 1028x808)

Lincoln Phillips
Lincoln Phillips

petty religious spats.
You mean the mind control that is building this NWO? Fuck off. You didn't say that to the 40 (((Christian))) posts that came before me. We know what you are race traitor

Jace White
Jace White

You have been lied to and you bought the lie!

Attached: jewhistory6.PNG (380.8 KB, 446x887)
Attached: JewHistory7.PNG (204.19 KB, 447x878)
Attached: JewHistory8.PNG (338.23 KB, 446x836)
Attached: jewhistory9.PNG (169.5 KB, 448x713)
Attached: Jewhistory10.PNG (188.07 KB, 444x828)

William Long
William Long

Evolution is descent with inherent modification, but that only applies to living organisms. Enzymes and molecules assembling themselves falls under abiogenesis, not biological evolution.

Jason Flores
Jason Flores

Dude, we've seen whole RNA strands assemble themselves or someone.
Yes, and?
Abiogenesis isn't my focus.
Neither is it mine, but the fact remains: We don't have an answer. We have scenarios wherein we can achieve conditions as might be required for a given thing to transpire, but we cannot bring about the transpiring of that event itself, we cannot 'create life', so to speak.

I gave advice?
biblicism institute
Yeah, no thanks. If I want to examine history, I'll do it without the lens of a semitic death cult getting in my way, thanks though.

Christopher Taylor
Christopher Taylor

your jewish book is nonsense
<NUH UH! LOOK AT WHAT MY JEWISH FRIENDS SAY ABOUT MY JEWISH BOOKS CONTENTS! ITS NOT JEWISH! ITS NOT!!!1! REEEEEEEEE!111!!
K.

Christopher Walker
Christopher Walker

Mutations and selection cannot be a source of new or different information. The evolutionist assumption that simple construction plans could produce more complex plans by means of mutations and selection is false according to information theory. No such event has ever been observed; on the contrary, the inverse is valid: The main result of heredity is to keep the distinguishing characteristics of all kinds of organisms constant.

What Is Information? The View of Information Science - Dr. Werner Gitt
answersingenesis.org/genetics/information-theory/51-what-is-information-the-view-of-information-science-ob17/

The transfer of information is one of the fundamental principles of life. When insects carry pollen from one flower to another, it essentially comprises a transfer of information (genetic information); the actual substance being used is unimportant. A general rule is that any piece of information that has to be transmitted requires two conditions, namely
<a physical carrier for storage and for the control of processes and
<an unambiguously defined coding system for representing ideas in the form of symbols that can be copied.

(much more at the link; no room to copy/paste)

Jaxson Garcia
Jaxson Garcia

Yeah, no thanks. If I want to examine history, I'll do it without the lens of a semitic death cult getting in my way, thanks though.
Exactly!
You are no better than those you make fun of. Blind to anything that doens't fit your narrative. Where did that come from, huh?

Clown! You're pathetic. You believe that anything that has to do with the bible or Christianity is automatically about a magician who walked on water and a talking snake.
You're EXACTLY what the jew wants you to be! EXACTLY!

Mason Nelson
Mason Nelson

What? You aren't a communist?
YOU DIDN'T READ DAS KAPITAL
Again, note how utterly stupid these kike worshipers are. Their only argument is screaming that you can't go to their universities and read their books and disagree with them.
I did read your shit book. The only noteworthy thing about it was how dumb it was.

jew-hating and naming the kike.
Pic related. Christians are the reason why the jews can hide behind their religion.

throw away the best resource for waking up whites to the JQ.
The best resource is the truth, not the fucking Torah-lite.
Do you even believe in the Torah-lite?
I think you are one of those idiots that doesn;t even believe in Chrustianity but peddles it because you think you can trick people into hating the jews with it.
The best redpilling weapon is the TRUTH that jews control our media and political institutions. Not the irrelevant scribblings of (((Saul))) about how we're all equal if we just accept (((Yeshuah)))
No one but you kike worshipers gives a shit about what went on in Judea 2000 years ago.

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown

You haven't been reading the thread, then (not a surprise, really). I care even less for those faggots because they reject evolution entirely.

Andrew Cruz
Andrew Cruz

ITS NOT!!!1! REEEEEEEEE!111!!
Mmhmm, k bro.

Clown! You're pathetic.
Wow, a cultist of a semitic death cult called me a clown. Whatever shall I do.

You believe that anything that has to do with the bible or Christianity is automatically about a magician who walked on water and a talking snake.
No, its about jews, and other gross sandfolk that I don't care about beyond wishing they never existed to begin with.

Luke Hernandez
Luke Hernandez

This is Jesus! Not a sky king. Not a demi-god. A ROMAN!
You bought the jew lie hook line and sinker and you're anti-Christian BIAS won't let you even consider what I'm showing you! PATHETIC!

Jesus was legitimate on his mothers side, Mariam of Arimathea (tin merchant family from Britain who supplied the Roman Empire with tin to make weapons) Married to Herod Antipater's son from his first wife Doris. It was an annoyance to Herrod that Rome refused to recognize his second marriage to Maccabean princess Mary Magdalene (THE WIFE OF HEROD; who also cut off John the Baptist's head. Mary Magdelene, mother of James and Salome, who danced before Herod.) So, because Rome had declared his son heir to the region and it was unbreakable and because he was a moral man and extremely popular with the people, Herod had him murdered.

Mary, his pregnant wife, fled the country with her brother, Joseph of Arimathea (the heir to the tin fortune of Britain) and was never heard from again until after Herod died. As a young man, Herod Antipater Grandson, he returned to the region to be crowned as king in the place of his enemies. He was listed as "the son of Joseph" to keep his head firmly attached to his shoulders until he could prove his position and be reinstated as THE KING OF THE JEWS. It didn't work out that way, but as an extra added bonus he was raised in Glastonbury near the Tor and learned all the ways of the Druids. So when he appeared in Judea and confronted the Pharisee and Herodian factions he was legitimate 'priest/king' or Melchizedek that the region handn't seen in more than 2,000 years.

Jesus was a ROMAN, of ROYAL ROMAN BLOODLINES that were opposed to the pharisee jew/edomites power structure.

When he is murdered for 'sedition' against the Roman state, it is really sedition against the jew/edomite pact that was forged in 150BC when the jewish state absorbed Edom on pain of death into the 'jewish' people and forced them to convert to the 'jewish faith.'

Aiden Ross
Aiden Ross

JESUS WAS A ROMAN!
I thought he was a celt from london?

Attached: Christian-Fantasies.jpg (698.94 KB, 864x2780)

Noah Anderson
Noah Anderson

Reminder that fedora LARPagans will be hunted down and annihilated for being the godless Leftists that they are.

Attached: trump-white-vote.png (33.38 KB, 722x622)
Attached: 1535894193076.png (302.2 KB, 598x588)
Attached: 1544192793005.png (125.36 KB, 1643x591)

Connor Clark
Connor Clark

he was raised in Glastonbury near the Tor and learned all the ways of the Druids
OH SHIT YOU ACTUALLY WENT THERE! PFFFFTHAHAHAHAHA

Ayden Walker
Ayden Walker

Our beliefs are not incompatible because we share the same ideals and goals. You can tip your fedora all day but you're not going to change anyone's religion. Christians are our white brothers and an attack on them is an attack on our movement's unity and strength.

Aiden Roberts
Aiden Roberts

note how utterly stupid these kike worshipers are
I'm literally posting anti-Chrisianity as a religion FACTS and your bias won't let you even read what I'm posting.

YOU ARE BRAINWASHED!

Connor Stewart
Connor Stewart

AiG
Pathetic. These guys hate evolution for being racist, plus they work with that slimey liar Eric Hovind.

Liam Lopez
Liam Lopez

Mkay bud.

Attached: American-Christianity-in-One-Image.JPG (195.31 KB, 2051x1070)
Attached: Christianity---Demographics.png (41.44 KB, 560x323)
Attached: Christianity---Quiet-Down-Jews.jpg (487.06 KB, 1068x1744)
Attached: Christians---Cop-Outs-and-Cowardice.jpg (779.02 KB, 2530x1484)

Evan Perry
Evan Perry

Christians are our white brothers and an attack on them is an attack on our movement's unity and strength.
Which is why christcuck is a favorite slander by the jew.
Daily reminder: kike literally means anti-Christian

Caleb Gutierrez
Caleb Gutierrez

Our beliefs are not incompatible because we share the same ideals and goals.
No, they don't.
You can tip your fedora all day
This really is all your kind have left.
Christians are our white brothers
You can't be White and Christian. Its one or the other.
Those who choose to be Christians are denying their Whiteness.
I don't view Christians as White, regardless of their skin color.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is, IMHO, acting to attack our People's unity and strength.
I don't care about 'movements', I care about my folk.

Connor Flores
Connor Flores

attacking the people rather than the information
Classic ad hom, brosef.

Tyler Diaz
Tyler Diaz

Actual biologistfag here. Evolution is real. It's really the cold hard truth and frankly not even so different from the red pill. Evolution is a general way to say Natural Selection which is broadly known as survival of the fittest. It's actually survival of the breeders. Natural selection is a process by which life gains adaptations to certain environments in order to survive and reproduce. If they cannot do both, the species goes extinct, because of this, the genes of the world of today have been naturally selected for by our ancestors choices and our own methods of adapting (physically, biologically or in terms of behavior) to the environment around you. You can see evolution happen in real time if you work with certain types of bacteria. Influenza is one example, rapidly mutating yearly to survive vaccinations boosting the immune systems of its hosts. Why are we on top? Cause our brains and hands to do things with are the greatest weapons nature ever came up with. I'm honored to have been given this by our ancestors as our birthright and you should be too.

It quite literally explains our societies today; Jews behave as parasites on a host because that is their evolutionary strategy for survival and reproductive opportunity. They have high successes because they have found a way to exploit the white environment around they inhabit. Same with niggers in the west, they survive and pass on their genes because they've exploited the environment as best as they can. Even at our expense. That's the true nature of the world user, it really is kill or be killed and almost every species that ever lived has become extinct. Evolution is a good intro to redpilling normies because it's a harsh reality that they can't avoid. A tiger doesn't care when it eats your child, foreigners with no relation to you don't care either, they want what's best for themselves then their group because that's who they have the most to gain from. Your people are what keep some of your genes alive. Accepting evolution means rejecting the modern world because you know the result will be extinction as you become more and more isolated from your people. It explains demographics meaning extinction as well.

You may think it makes us insignificant but in fact you couldn't be more wrong. Our ancestors since the dawn of life have endured horrors beyond our imagination just to keep the spark of life going. Having your own children to pass the torch of life to, with the sole mission that they do the same, is the purpose of life. Preserving a tradition going back over several hundreds of millions of years. You focus on the ugly start instead of the incredible results. Mankind, the greatest conquerors of literally all time, the product of so many infinite dead from all forms of life just so we could rule today. It's only pure ignorance that allows you to call one of the universes most amazing splendors insignificant.

Caleb Long
Caleb Long

No, kike means 'kikel', relating to the fact that Jews don't like to make crosses - because they hate the jew called Yeshua who they view as a traitor to their kind - and so instead made circles, or in hebrew, 'kikel'.

Jeremiah Peterson
Jeremiah Peterson

Enzymes and molecules assembling themselves falls under abiogenesis, not biological evolution.
Because the separate the classifications, genius. But it did evolve from that. Putting a demarcation line inbetween is for analysis not debating into absurdity.
Evolution is descent
That sounds like a personal opinion, not evolution.

Evolution:
natural selection by ways of tiny adaptations occur in organisms constantly over millions of years. Gradually, a new species develops that is distinct from its ancestors.

pic 4u

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (49.35 KB, 474x468)
Attached: jesus-cult-vs-pagan-philosophy.jpg (829.6 KB, 1068x1744)

Leo Hill
Leo Hill

Not bad.

Camden Sullivan
Camden Sullivan

Forgot pic

You're a brainwashed Nazi if you disagree with what this (((book)))
He said as churches brainwash children to blindly follow the opinions of a crappy book.

Attached: Chrustianity.png (53.96 KB, 1263x341)

Luis Morgan
Luis Morgan

When I think about incredibly complex structures like venom, I can't help but think that random evolution is not the way it went. I think directed evolution (by God) is more likely.

Nolan Howard
Nolan Howard

Actual biologistfag here
What came before "Life"? Chemical replications or no replications but a spontanious happening that created the first replicating life?

Attached: water-monsters.jpg (314.85 KB, 1050x905)

Luis Clark
Luis Clark

He said as churches brainwash children to blindly follow the opinions of a crappy book.

Attached: Hitler-vs-Christendom.jpg (4.43 MB, 1896x8296)
Attached: National-Socialism-and-Christianity.jpg (4.66 MB, 1960x8280)

Nathaniel Baker
Nathaniel Baker

He said as churches brainwash children to blindly follow the opinions of a crappy book.
Know that by that statement alone, anyone actually taking the time to read what I wrote knows that you didn't.

Josiah Young
Josiah Young

They didn’t want to write an X because it looked like a cross, a symbol of Christianity which they despised. They were then called “Kikels”, Yiddish for circle since they would write that instead. In short, the name “kike” comes from how much they hate Christianity.

Asher Perez
Asher Perez

When I think about incredibly complex structures like venom
Venom is not really that complex…
I can't help but think that random evolution is not the way it went. I think directed evolution (by God) is more likely.
That depends on you assuming that the existence of God is more likely than the nonexistence of such a thing, firstly, and second, the complexity of functionality and the manners in which such can arise is one of the strongest demonstrations of the absence of a necessity for the divine in the emergence and propagation - and subsequent evolution - of life on Earth.

Zachary Nguyen
Zachary Nguyen

What came before "Life"? Chemical replications or no replications but a spontanious happening that created the first replicating life?
We don't know.For all we now it may be work of a deity-level being.

Nolan Torres
Nolan Torres

No.12474152
Mutants =/= macroevolution
They are a result of duplication of the SAME genetic information that is already present
which was caused by a mutation(destruction of the sequence in dna)
Two headed dog is not a new species.

Pathogens surviving medicine is an adaptation
and you said there is "new" info being added
no it's not the case because pathogen actually sacrifices some of it's already present genetic info in order to survive

i said show atleast one example where there is appearance of completely new species with completely new genetic info and completely new biological systems.
adaptation=/=macro

Jordan Ortiz
Jordan Ortiz

We don't know.For all we now it may be work of a deity-level being.
Sounds like you're not a biologist but a larper

Bentley Ward
Bentley Ward

patriot.dk/ravage.html

Excerpt from:

A Real Case Against the Jews by Marcus Eli Ravage

"And oh! I almost forgot the reasons of reasons. We are the stiff-necked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder.

But I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, we crucified Jesus but because we gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you!

Your loose, contradictory charges against us are not a patch on the blackness of our proved historic offence. You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit the charge. What of it? Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheavals a mere street brawl.

You make much noise and fury about the undue Jewish influence in your theatres and movie palaces. Very good; granted your complaint is well-founded. But what is that compared to our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and your governments, and the very thoughts you think every day?

A clumsy Russian forges a set of papers and publishes them in a book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which shows that we plotted to bring on the late World War. You believe that book. All right. For the sake of argument, we will underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. But what is that besides the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we never have denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read?

If you really are serious when you talk of Jewish plots, may I not direct your attention to one worth talking about? What use is it wasting words on the alleged control of your public opinion by Jewish financiers, newspaper owners, and movie magnates, when you might as well justly accuse us of the proved control of your whole civilization by the Jewish Gospels?

You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest Great War but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of nearly every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long, we shall go on doing it.

Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, care-free pagan race. You worshipped countless Gods and Goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. War and slavery were fixed institutions in your systems. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of the social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.

But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.

We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the world, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to unexplored ends of the earth."

Attached: tumblr-m61gz7y7sx1qbypelo1-1280.jpg (185.25 KB, 616x721)

Benjamin Ward
Benjamin Ward

I can declare an opinion on a source all I like.

And the article is bullshit since it states willful ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics to pretend that "information"/genetic material can not inrease, only decrease over time, despite the fact that mutations that add genetic material happen all the time, and sometimes this addition is beneficial to the organism depending on selective pressures.

Thomas Edwards
Thomas Edwards

Me
Christians can't argue so they just accuse you of not having read their books
You
I have a feeling you haven't read the bible.
YOU DIDN'T REED THE BIBULL!!!!!!!!!!

We have IDs dumbass. People can read what I wrote and figure out that you are arguing in bad faith.

Jace Gonzalez
Jace Gonzalez

An actual biologist? Can you double-check my posts to see if I've stayed correct and helpful?

Easton Peterson
Easton Peterson

They
Who?
<Jews
Okay, carry on.
didn’t want to write an X because it looked like a cross
Yes…
a symbol of Christianity which they despised.
… yes…
They were then called “Kikels”, Yiddish for circle since they would write that instead.
… yes…
In short, the name “kike” comes from how much they hate Christianity.
Not really, the name kike comes from them being jews that hate christianity… Which they hate because of the perception that Yeshua was jewish and was acting as racial traitor to their kind when he did what he did, and subsequently in the arising of a faith around what the jews perceive to be a race traitor.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If a White woman started preaching race-mixing and the downfall of the White race, and she was killed, and (assuming the US theoretically wasnt such a shithole) her followers were driven from the country and fled to Africa, wherein the created a cult around her beliefs which spread throughout the land and she was therein praised as being unto a God, if not actually a divine entity, and her symbol was basically a Z, and Whites WERE driven into the mud and eventually there were only a few of us left as we lived in diaspora being driven from one place to another for hundreds if not thousands of years, always on the basis of being White and often driven out by those who associated themselves with the Cult of Miscegenation… How keen would YOU be on writing the letter "Z"?
I wager not very.

Nolan Diaz
Nolan Diaz

it's the single most anti-semitic (see: Pharisee/Edomite/JEW) book that's ever been written.

John 4:22

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

(((Jesus)))

Oliver Jones
Oliver Jones

We have IDs dumbass. People can read what I wrote and figure out that you are arguing in bad faith.
And people will read and know that I have in no way advocated the religion of Christianity!
To dismiss the bible is to dismiss the only historical records we have of a time period in history. To not adapt that to other texts and genealogical records is lazy and incompetent.

Your bias against the religion of Christianity made you THINK that I was an advocate for it when I actually advocate against it as a religion and did so in this exact thread.

You are brainwashed. Welcome to a different reality. Your bias against a religion made you not read a word of what I wrote and automatically assume an outcome.

Lincoln Foster
Lincoln Foster

Attached: Rabbi-Ravage.jpg (1.06 MB, 2512x1332)

Logan Morris
Logan Morris

Not really. He's pretty much right.
You asked:
Chemical replications or no replications but a spontanious happening that created the first replicating life?
And we have yet to generate chemical replications as to achieve life, so…. Basically, you don't know.

Evan Barnes
Evan Barnes

I can state my opinion on a source
Sure, but its rather off topic.
And the article is bullshit since it states willful ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics
No, it seems you didn't read it because it's about information theory.

Alexander Harris
Alexander Harris

To dismiss the bible is to dismiss the only historical records we have of a time period in history.
<historical record
But its not a historical record, its rife with fictional implantation and has been subject to repeated modification.

The Bible is about as much a 'historical' tome as the recounting of Odysseus' journey home.

Nicholas Wright
Nicholas Wright

And we have yet to generate chemical replications as to achieve life
I think it's all life, what we need is to achieve some sense of ego (self reflection/protection). Everything is alive, but "life" generic is ego/awareness/self-proctection…

I just wonder how much moern (((Judeo-Commie-Christian-Freemasonry))) is censoring scientific findings so they can push aliens CIA scientology propaganda.

MARS BRO!

MARS!!!!!!

Attached: article-0-152D53DC000005DC-559-634x556.jpg (206.94 KB, 634x542)

Josiah Edwards
Josiah Edwards

20th century immigrants were angry about Jesus as a race traitor
not the last 2 thousand years of getting their ass handed to them by Christian European nations
Not even the Pharisees of Jesus's time leveled that complaint. They hated him for negating their traditions and calling them out.

Xavier Sullivan
Xavier Sullivan

We don't have a definitive answer. One hypothesis is that early stages of life had cellular components living individually, claiming a mitochondria was essentially absorbed by a larger cell and evolving symbiotically until it became a multicellular organism, once that occurs it reproduced itself and made more because it exploited a resource in a new way. From there, multicellular organisms differentiated into several different forms of life such as plants, dinosaurs, modern day people, etc. Another hypothesis is "God did it."

I don't know why you'd think chemical reactions aren't life user. You literally are nothing but chemical reactions occurring endlessly. You drink water because its used everywhere by your body as a literal chemical. Plenty of reactions in your body need water to occur. Not having a specific chemical reaction can cause serious illness and disability. Jews that lack hexoseamanidase A or B will develop neurological problems, difficulty speaking, swallowing, moving and eventually die as the ganglioside they can't break down kills them. Chemical reactions are life.

Adrian Gonzalez
Adrian Gonzalez

If there were an example of what you wanted to see, it would seriously challenge and maybe even debunk our understanding of biological evolution. No such thing has ever been seen, and evolution does not teach anything even close to that. All living organisms on Earth share genetic material in common, there's not a single one that has completely unique DNA with no reused genetic material from an earlier lifeform.

And you keep trying to define macroevolution as something it has never meant. It has always meant "change at or above the species level" and since it's a scientific term, you have no authority over its definition.
Speciation is macroevolution by definition.

Jayden Morales
Jayden Morales

64 posts
tell me ones you specifically have doubts on, I'll try doing some of the early or more recent ones.

Brody Turner
Brody Turner

It's about Creationist interpretation of information theory. I happen to be very familiar with AiG ands its bullshit.

Jace Evans
Jace Evans

I have in no way advocated the religion of Christianity!
You in no way indicated that in your post. The context was me pointing out the flaws in Christianity and how Christians argue by accusing everyone of not reading the Bible… then you come along and accuse me of not reading the Bible.
But whatever, I apologize for assuming based on loads of context that you were a Christian.

To dismiss the bible is to dismiss the only historical records we have of a time period in history.
Ignoring all the Roman and Greek texts from that period that are more relevant and accurate.
The Torah/Bible is as much a historical record of ancient Judea as Schindlers List is a historical record of Germany in 1944.
Honestly, Josephus though a jew is still a better source of historical record than Saul. Personally, I'd trust Roman sources first and take everything written by jews with an extra dose of salt.

Jaxon Anderson
Jaxon Anderson

Just skim through. I just want to make sure I haven't said outright bullshit or outdated teachings.

Wyatt Reyes
Wyatt Reyes

(67)
still no substantive engagement with the theorems listed
Are you jewish? Honest question.

Alexander Jenkins
Alexander Jenkins

It would be very helpful if you could help explain the Law of Monophyly better than I think I have, and to provide observed examples or Speciation/Macroevolution.

Brody Perry
Brody Perry

I don't know why you'd think chemical reactions aren't life user.
I said the opposite. I wanted to know if a chemical reaction could be self-replicating. I dont care about definitions of "life" because modern science if fucking insane and define shit however they can to push narratives. But if chemical compounds can self-replicate, then you have the foundations of life. Cells or no cells, it's only a matter of small incremental changes.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (262.89 KB, 500x652)

Caleb Ward
Caleb Ward

I think it's all life, what we need is to achieve some sense of ego (self reflection/protection).
Everything is alive, but "life" generic is ego/awareness/self-proctection…
Eh, well, thats a concept I've marinated on myself… But I can't say I agree with it. Not at present, at least.

20th century immigrants were angry about Jesus as a race traitor
They were and are today.
not the last 2 thousand years of getting their ass handed to them by Christian European nations
They were also annoyed by that, I'm sure… But given they were often getting their asses handed to them, only to go to another Christian nation to re-plant their asses, I don't think its so much a hatred for Christianity as it is hatred for the cult of a perceived race-traitor emergent within a foreign people.

Not even the Pharisees of Jesus's time leveled that complaint.
1) They totally did.
2) The extent was not as feasible because the death cult of Yeshua didn't yet exist amongst the goyim, certainly not in any signficant number.

They hated him for negating their traditions and calling them out.
No, they hated him for 1) threatening their hegemony via his cult (traditions = power to those overseeing such = loss of power to those same when traditions negated) and 2) kvetching loudly at them about certain things (namely, them not being kikes in the style Yeshua deemed appropriate - though, really, all indications suggest he was himself aiming to acquire power through his actions).

For a more in-depth pontification, see image and following text:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If a White woman started preaching race-mixing and the downfall of the White race, and she was killed, and (assuming the US theoretically wasnt such a shithole) her followers were driven from the country and fled to Africa, wherein the created a cult around her beliefs which spread throughout the land and she was therein praised as being unto a God, if not actually a divine entity, and her symbol was basically a Z, and Whites WERE driven into the mud and eventually there were only a few of us left as we lived in diaspora being driven from one place to another for hundreds if not thousands of years, always on the basis of being White and often driven out by those who associated themselves with the Cult of Miscegenation… How keen would YOU be on writing the letter "Z"?
I wager not very.

Attached: Ancient-Judaism-v-Christ-=-Modern-Zionism-v-Marx.JPG (282.83 KB, 2497x725)
Attached: Christianity---What-Did-It-Bring.png (3.89 MB, 700x3775)

Dominic Allen
Dominic Allen

Woops, second part aimed for

Juan White
Juan White

still waiting for a reference to Pharisees or even their successors, the Talmudic Jews, accusing Jesus of being a race traitor.

Aiden Sullivan
Aiden Sullivan

its not a historical record,
No, it literally is.
You've been hoodwinked!
That's the big fucking lie. It's a historical document littered with antisemitism and it's EVERYWHERE!

Why do you think they've had it (((edited)))? With ever reprint, they manipulate some word like "juean" to "Jew" when that's not at all what it originally said or meant. Pharisee was the practice of what we today call jewry/judaism. It was never referred to as that before.

That's the big lie! These mother fuckers have you/everyone so fucking turned off to Christianity and associated the bible with it, now nobody even bothers to read the fucking thing!

The biggest warning of the jews was sitting next to every single person in the world who stayed at a hotel for 50 fucking years and nobody even bothered to pick the fucking thing up and dissect it.
It's baffling when you see the reality of just how controlled even the "woke" people are on the JQ. They control EVERYTHING! You're exactly where they want you to be.

Lucas Edwards
Lucas Edwards

epigenetics isn't evolution

Connor Bailey
Connor Bailey

I wanted to know if a chemical reaction could be self-replicating.
A chemical reaction, no. A chemical component, yes.
And if a chemical component can self-replicate, then, effectively, chemical reactions which are reliant upon or which act upon said components are, in theory, through extension, capable of self-replication.

I think.

Levi Diaz
Levi Diaz

Mkay bud, that's nice, tell us more about Celtic Roman Jesus … Not really though, I'm just mocking you, I don't actually want to hear anymore of your drivel.

still waiting for a reference to Pharisees or even their successors, the Talmudic Jews, accusing Jesus of being a race traitor.
Well keep waiting nigger, because if you think I'm going to scour through ancient texts looking for evidence of some kike having written down "The Kikes don't like Jesus because he's a race-traitor", you're dumber than you seem, because you know as well as I do that I could provide you that fucking verbatim and you'd still be splitting hairs about it.

And if you need evidence of Talmudic Jews disdaining Yeshua for collaborating with gentiles, well, you're basically functionally retarded.

Benjamin Foster
Benjamin Foster

No, but I am busy reading the bullshit. It's a bit to parse through

Ethan Gutierrez
Ethan Gutierrez

Woops, first part meant for this cuck

Jaxson Cruz
Jaxson Cruz

mutations add information all the time
Actually, no. Deletions, inversions and nonsense mutations don't really "add information". Mutations add random bonuses or detriments. In your example, Whites can digest lactose because the ones who can survived more than the ones that couldn't. Being able to eat cheese in European winter was a survival advantage that aided survival. Since lactose intolerant Euro's are a minority, the original developer of the cheese digestion mutation wins out and anyone with this gene enjoys more food options. Conversely, it can work in the opposite way. Cystic Fibrosis is an illness that removes Cl ion channels from cells and leads to medical complications. However, when Cholera was around having a gene for CF helped you survive the Cholera epidemic even if it means life with another illness.
mutations aren't even close to the only mechanism behind evo change
correct
evolution is the process of changing allele frequencies in populations
Good way to put it.
A chemical component, yes.
Some things bind irreversibly, like Laughing Gas and B12.

Ryder Reed
Ryder Reed


No one is talking about authority.
What is your one example of "change at or above the species level"
Speciation=variation
Different cat dog breads
roses humans cows of different color
different sharks ,whales; like whale sharks or killer whales.

Variation(Speciation)=/= new biological systems or genetic information(Which MUST be macro) it is just a reusage of SAME genetic material.
If that what i described is not observable then how did we jump from monkeys to humans or whales to cows?
If scientists fail to demonstrate that then what they call evolution?
If you can't present any examples then maybe evolution is non existant?

Henry Campbell
Henry Campbell

The Torah/Bible is as much a historical record of ancient Judea as Schindlers List is a historical record of Germany in 1944.
That's where you're very wrong
Books were very hard to make and only seriously important things were kept as books 2,000 years ago.
They didn't just write shit for the sake or writing it. Kings and nobility were the only ones who were written about.
That was my entire point to what I posted so far. Kings and nobility. Not slaves and fishermen.
Jesus is a real historical figure, but not a water walking magician. You have to adapt to the time period in which it was written.
It all makes sense if the bias is removed and you allow yourself to use it as an addition to other knowledge, but it doesn't work as the basis of all knowledge like the Chrsitcucks have been led to believe.

Hudson Johnson
Hudson Johnson

Some things bind irreversibly, like Laughing Gas and B12.
Some, yes.

Charles Miller
Charles Miller

Jesus was a race traitor
no references to that claim by his contemporaries or even modern Jews
tries to shift burden of evidence onto me
lol filtered

Josiah Turner
Josiah Turner

Here, I'll let someone else do the refuting, since I want to post other stuff:
"Information Theory and Creationism"
talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html

Easton Turner
Easton Turner

Demands literary evidence of the fact that contemporary kikes viewed Yeshua as a traitor due to his association with gentiles and opposition to the notion of Judaism being for the Jews alone
Demands further evidence of the fact that modern Jews view Yeshua as a traitor due to his association with gentiles, opposition to the notion of Judaism being for the Jews alone, and collective hostilities levied against Jews on behalf of gentiles associated with the death cult of Yeshua
OY VEY GOYIM PROVIDE ME TEXT OF JEWS BEING HOSTILE TOWARDS RACE-TRAITORS!
lel, thanks for giving up

Wyatt Morales
Wyatt Morales

Here is a relevant link regarding mutation and addition of genetic material. It would be better than what I posted since my memory can be shoddy:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Adam Barnes
Adam Barnes

But your original claim that new information comes from mutations was not substantiated.

Luis Butler
Luis Butler

12474604
Speciation is not just variation, it is the creation of new species - something that has been observed. Therefore macroevolution has been observed.

Dominic Harris
Dominic Harris

The evolution theory is right to an extent
species do mutate to adapt to their surroundings and the ones with the most succefull mutations live longer, breed more often and survive their competition
where the theory fails is when it starts measuring the age of our species
i think the theory says humans are barelly a few hundred thousand years old when the truth is that we are millons of years old
i doubt the tale of the Anunaki creating mankind so that we worked for them extracting gold from the planet is real, i'm gonna need more evidence that some old Sumerian tales to belive in that creationist myth
but i am convinced there once was an advanced human civilisation some 12.000 years ago that got nuked back to the stone age by a meteorite wich caused the great biblical flood at the end of the last ice age

i've always wondered if the reason why there are no human fosil records older than a few hundred thousand years is becos the pre-dilubian civilisation had already dug most of them out with their own archeological expeditions and they all got sunken along with their museums

Attached: ancient-pyramids.jpg (94.2 KB, 546x695)
Attached: ancient-serpen-riders.jpg (165.02 KB, 677x959)
Attached: ancient-twin-snakes.jpg (81.54 KB, 564x415)

Xavier Moore
Xavier Moore

Not all new information is provided by mutation. I said mutation can provide "information" or genetic material. This is a fact. Please read:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Elijah Collins
Elijah Collins

You can't blame biological evolution for the estimated age of humanity provided by (((Anthropologists))). That is entirely the fault of their nefarious Boasian agenda.

Christian White
Christian White

A chemical component, yes.
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?

Attached: tardigrade-water-bear-esa-schill.jpg (464.45 KB, 999x934)

Jack Cooper
Jack Cooper

I will read it. I just finished with your first link, and it does not refute Gitt.
It would be more proper to state that Gitt offers at best a restriction of Shannon, and at worst, an outright contradiction.
No contradiction was established.

Ayden Harris
Ayden Harris

Attached: 7C3B2C2F-0B05-49BB-BF41-A7E8FBCC758A.jpeg (48.18 KB, 259x320)
Attached: 71EAF26D-D363-401D-9B25-61644A41D7E7.jpeg (280.53 KB, 750x1196)
Attached: 7BD8592A-C579-4652-A2F1-35D79574A8D5.jpeg (18.13 KB, 240x328)

Bentley Bell
Bentley Bell

No.12474498
No one is talking about authority.
What is your one example of "change at or above the species level"

Speciation=variation
Different cat dog breads
roses humans cows of different color
different sharks ,whales; like whale sharks or killer whales.

Variation(Speciation)=/= new biological systems or genetic information(Which MUST be macro) it is just a reusage of SAME genetic material.

If that what i described is not observable then how did we jump from monkeys to humans or whales to cows?
If scientists fail to demonstrate that then what they call evolution?
If you can't present any examples then maybe evolution is non existant?

Joshua Howard
Joshua Howard

12474711
Are you spamming at this point?
Here is a list of observed speciation events, all of which meet the definition of macroevolution:
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Lucas Walker
Lucas Walker

OK I've read your 2nd link, but he seems to think gene duplication is a form of new information. Ridiculous!

Anthony Cooper
Anthony Cooper

Contact the author. I am not interested in your misbegotten AIG information theory discussion.

Connor Hernandez
Connor Hernandez

No.12474735
Speciation is Micro-evolution NOT macro
reread what i posted.

Sebastian Evans
Sebastian Evans

It would be better if you can explain the law of monophyly better than I think I have
Monophyly is basically a fancy word for clade which is another fancy word for "we're in this group because of a shared ancestor". It's basically tracing back your family tree for hundreds of millions of years. You probably don't have much in common with this species, but you can trace back certain features. An article showing how diverging into new species stretches the branches of the tree puts things into perspective:
"A group of mysterious orange cave crocodiles who live in complete darkness in Africa may be mutating into a new species. Scientists led by the Institute of Research for Development in Marseille found about 30 specimens in the cave, including 10 orange crocodiles. 'We could say that we have a mutating species, because [the cave crocodile] already has a different [genetic] haplotype,' lead researcher Dr Richard Oslisly told the Guardian. 'Its diet is different and it is a species that has adapted to the underground world.'
Younger members of the group can leave the cave through a number of small openings because they are small enough, but once the reptiles grow to a certain size, they become trapped in its rooms and must feed on whatever they can find in the cave to survive.
<'They are somehow in their own prison,' Dr Oslisly said. 'They eat bats that live in these caves by the tens-of-thousands and also crickets that swarm the walls.' The reptiles' unusual colouring is likely the result of living in a mixture of water and bat faeces or 'guano', the researchers said.
The orange crocodiles live in a similar way to their outdoor cousins, but the team suggest that they are genetically different from the three other species of African dwarf crocodiles found in Gabon. A set of genes found in one of the orange reptiles did not match those found in other African dwarf crocodiles

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5326421/Orange-cave-crocodiles-mutating-new-species.html

Essentially, being labeled a new species just means making enough changes, physically or behaviorally to the point where the average of that species differs from it's ancestor enough to be noticeably different. The orange color is an adaptation that other crocs don't have. It's present in 10/30, but if it helps them camouflage to hunt better, then they will eventually overtake the cave and orange color will dominate. Even if they don't, they've still obtained different diets, behavioral traits and physical traits whose differences are confirmed to be from genes adapting to the new environment. Speciation isn't necessarily some huge jump like gorilla to chimpanzee like most people think it is, it's literally just a bunch of small changes like these that can be recognized as distinct from this other species.

Dominic Long
Dominic Long

It is the addition of genetic material, and it can have a profound effect.

Adam Lopez
Adam Lopez

Forgot to use archive link: archive.fo/PuH1W

Alexander Morales
Alexander Morales

Speciation is macroevolution by definition. You don't get to redefine macroevolution as you like, it is and always was "Change at or above the species level" and Speciation fits the bill.

Jace Cook
Jace Cook

Gene duplication is not adding information though, information isn't even a good word since it's just chemicals. It's just read and made rather than interpreted as you would information.

Nathaniel Ross
Nathaniel Ross

Fuck I hate (((Christians))). Another thread killed

Attached: 12046613-952896311450068-3946556669415607846-n.jpg (35.15 KB, 500x554)
Attached: 12074691-1280523988640534-3349217525649539670-n.jpg (35.18 KB, 236x754)
Attached: 12096056-1614120565520162-425266602714481494-n.jpg (103.85 KB, 800x688)

Adrian Diaz
Adrian Diaz

Thank you. I like to summarize the Law of Monophyly as "You never grow out of your ancestry" - is that accurate or helpful?

Joshua Bell
Joshua Bell

No.12474787

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (26.95 KB, 480x360)

Ethan Ortiz
Ethan Ortiz

But we share 80% of our DNA with cows, bigot. Get fucked

Attached: 139EFA38-4DAE-4705-B508-F28811D9F8F9.gif (607.45 KB, 1200x600)

Easton Diaz
Easton Diaz

When Creationists use the word "information", they never define it. I mad a mistake in describing genetic material and DNA as information like they do.

But gene duplication does add material, literally doubling it, and it would seem to have an effect at times.

Juan Nelson
Juan Nelson

only seriously important things were kept as books 2,000 years ago.
That is ridiculous. Roman authors wrote books about what to name your dog. Also, do you want to preserve the other Biblical books that were written or just the ones written by (((Saul)))?
In one version of Yashuah's tale, he had a pet dragon. In another, he slaughtered a bunch of annoying kids.

They didn't just write shit for the sake or writing it.
Neither did they write Schindler's List for the sake of writing it. It, like the Torah was a bit of historical fiction intended to impart a message. The characters were mostly real. But the deeds and story was mostly fiction. At least such was certainly the case in Schindler's List.

Kings and nobility were the only ones who were written about.
Okay, so you have not actually bothered looking up historical texts. For your own good, please look up historical texts. You'll benefit a lot and find the experience very enjoyable.
There are hundreds of examples of historical texts about things other than kings and nobles. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a fact. I mean, just take Diogenes for example. The guy was a flipping bum yet he had many ancient texts written about him.

Kings and nobility. Not slaves and fishermen.
And pet dogs and pretty much whatever a writer felt like writing about.
Yeshuah is a religious character anyway. That's equivalent to a king according to believers. The King of kings. People write about what is important to them and if people think that the tales of Yeshuah are important, they'll write about them.

Was Yeshuah a real guy even if he was not a magician? I don't know and I never said that he was not a regular man who was deified after his death. Maybe he actually thought he was a god, maybe he was just a cool guy who preached peace and love and stuff and never even claimed to be God and Saul just used his name to create a religion around. I don't know and no one does. Maybe he actually was a carpenter and part time fisherman. Or maybe he was just a wise bum like Diogenes. Who knows.
But that he was written about is not as special as you think it was. Writers write about what is important to them.
Also, and this is kind of a tangent, but according to the Torah, Jesus was an aristocrat by blood. This is actually pretty common in fairytales. Heroes are nearly always related to Kings and Jesus was related to king David… if you take the Bible at its word anyway.
So Jesus actually falls into the whole "nobles and kings" stipulation anyway.

Nicholas Bennett
Nicholas Bennett

No.12474787
It is not. Look at the picture.>> No.12474812

Jace Ortiz
Jace Ortiz

It's somewhat accurate but not the best explanation. Many people think speciation is literally huge jumps like pterodactyl one day and bird the other. I prefer the endless family tree one myself because it gives more scale to just how small the changes are but how over a long period of time the changes do add up, it also reinforces the basic principle of natural selection quite obviously, if you have a family tree to trace back the first thing you'll notice is you're just tracing people having children who indirectly share your genes but more closely than the general population. This behavior ironically was something Darwin couldn't explain for ants, the solution is because the queen gives birth to everyone, every eunuch ant has a close degree of relation to her so supporting her is the best chance they have at having the closest thing to reproducing yourself occur.

Lincoln Price
Lincoln Price

The only distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is scale. I mean, it's pretty easy to see that birds are dinosaurs, for instance.

Now if you're demanding to see a dog give birth to a non-dog, that would violate the Law of Monophyly.

Jace Sullivan
Jace Sullivan

Don't substitute a thoughtful response with random Google results if you're unable to integrate the info into our conversation. As is, you've lost the plot.
duplication is new genetic material
You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

Colton James
Colton James

What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
vWhat chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?
What chemical components are capable of self replicating?

FUCKING ANSWER ME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

I need to know for my research!

Attached: New-Avengers-36.jpg (88.91 KB, 533x800)

Isaac Jenkins
Isaac Jenkins

Did I say the word "New"? I did not, but I did refute the Creationist claim that mutations can only subtract genetic material.

John Campbell
John Campbell

We share even more than 80% with niggers, you gonna claim they're the same species now when they clearly aren't? Different mixing (neanderthals for whites but not blacks), different environmental and selective pressures. Different behaviors, diets, physiology, observable physical characteristics… Does the fact that we share DNA refute the reality that they're a different species or are you gonna cuck out and claim niggers are just the same subspecies of human as you?

Jackson Lee
Jackson Lee

but I did refute the Creationist claim
Do you even need to talk to race traitor scum of the earth? Come on, user. They're not even human anymore

Grayson Myers
Grayson Myers

No.12474864
How did a dinosaur give birth to a non dinosaur(Bird) according to your "scale"?
Where is your example for this transition(Macroevolution)?

Liam Mitchell
Liam Mitchell

What book is that?

Dominic Price
Dominic Price

Thr point here is that there js no fossil record showing interspecies stages of evolution. There dhould be millions of fossils that show intermedisry stages of evolution from primates to modern man. But they dont exist. I wonder why.

Jaxson Torres
Jaxson Torres

Did I say the word "New"?
Granted.
I did refute the Creationist claim that mutations can only subtract genetic material.
No you did not.

Anthony Rogers
Anthony Rogers

Why are there so many different types of insects? Mutations and adaptations from environmental influence on genes. It's ironic you used dinosaur to bird given I just mentioned it as the type of ignorance many people have. See

Levi Davis
Levi Davis

Birds are not non-dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs.

Jaxon Edwards
Jaxon Edwards

How did a dinosaur give birth to a non dinosaur
LAZY

Attached: magic-jew-magic.jpg (45.07 KB, 474x575)

Asher Smith
Asher Smith

So did gravity not exist before Newton studied the phenomenon? Of course not. When he first questioned why things fall and at what rate, does the lack of measurement mean gravity isn't a real observable phenomenon?

Landon Hill
Landon Hill

new genetic material
Strawman fallacy. Duplication is not "new" information.

Kayden Davis
Kayden Davis

Because modern man is still a primate? Do you not remember Australopithicus afarensis?

Daniel Hall
Daniel Hall

No.12474922
You still didn't provide any observed example for the macro evolution.
"Mutations and adaptations from environmental influence on genes."
Yes that's an observable example but of MICRO-evolution NOT MACRO.

James Ross
James Ross

Irony: the post

Jaxon Hill
Jaxon Hill

No, but a mutation that splices genes laterally between species would count, yes?

Juan Green
Juan Green

Evolutionists are always on team jew, because every evolutionist is a degenerate.

Attached: -1112018080947.jpg (133.32 KB, 692x572)

Nicholas Ross
Nicholas Ross

I don't know off hand, actually.

A chemical component could be something like a macromolecule which acts as a catalyst for the reaction which generates more of itself from base stock, is basically what I was getting at, but as for a specific example, I don't know of any offhand.

That said, if thats the case, in theory one could argue its the reaction that is self-replicating, but I would argue its the component in that bereft of the component the reaction cannot transpire but bereft of the reaction the component can exist, if that makes any sense.

I don't think a chemical reaction can replicate more of itself, because its not really a thing, so much as an event… In theory, the event could result in the generation of more such events, but usually thats going to be in the context of the molecular component rather than the event.

arxiv.org/abs/1801.05872
We set up a general model for chemical reaction systems that properly accounts for energetics, kinetics and the conservation law.
We find that (1) some systems are collectively-catalytic where reactants are transformed into end products with the assistance of intermediates (as in the citric acid cycle), while some others are self-replicating where different parts replicate each other and the system self-replicates as a whole (as in the formose reaction);
(2) many alternative chemical universes often contain one or more such systems;
(3) it is possible to construct a self-replicating system where the entropy of some parts spontaneously decreases, in a manner similar to that discussed by Schrödinger;
(4) complex self-replicating molecules can emerge spontaneously and relatively easily from simple chemical reaction systems through a sequence of transitions.
Together these results start to explain the origins of prebiotic evolution.

Jayden Reed
Jayden Reed

Speciation is macroevolution.

Hudson Johnson
Hudson Johnson

Too much variation causes sterility and prevents macroevolution.
Wrong. Too much selection *too quickly* causes sterility.

Because selection that happens too fast causes massive inbreeding; and lack of the latent genetic diversity needed to continue selective breeding stops you from continuing your motion towards a newly optimized animal because the genes for it simply haven't appeared yet.

Why do religious fucks and spiritual philosophers routinely lack scientific imagination?

Kayden Richardson
Kayden Richardson

Mkay bud.

Stealing is always wrong.
<Stealing from your racial enemies in the midst of wartime is wrong.

Lying is always wrong.
<Lying to your racial enemies in the midst of wartime is wrong.

You are not equal to men.
But I'm not a Christian and I believe all that too, so that's just kind of a nonsensical claim as-goes association with Christendom. I mean, Orthodox Jews fall more in-line with your 'Christianity' bit as far as their own communities go.

Faggotry is always wrong.
wrong
Applying morality to psychological/biological dysfunction.
Faggotry isn't "wrong", its aberrant, like Tay Sachs. Its not a question of morality, its a question of biologic functionality, and faggots are not biologically functional, rather, they are dysfunctional and espouse psychological aberrancy.

Humans were made by God on purpose.
<Prove it.
OY VEY DONT QUESTION YAHWEH!
Hmm.

Angel Nguyen
Angel Nguyen

Not unless you are operating with the same problematic definition of information as when duplication is considered new information.

Owen Taylor
Owen Taylor

Anyone here that denies evolution even ironically should be b&

Juan Diaz
Juan Diaz

This quote from Thomas Dixon's the Klansmen has often been falsely attributed to Darwin. I've used the Darwin version to short-circuit some libtards recently, since he is a notable name and it sounds like something he would say.

Attached: Screenshot-20181106-095914.png (629.31 KB, 1200x1920)
Attached: dixon-quote-about-africans.jpg (43.88 KB, 526x480)

Lincoln Myers
Lincoln Myers

ban everybody who disagrees with my faggot-enabling atheist worldview
Seems you're lost, friend. /trannypol/index.html

Jose Taylor
Jose Taylor

How about a mutation that splices a protein with another, defunct protein that results in a new protein with a new function?

Blake Morgan
Blake Morgan

fossils are invisible forces of nature
evolution dogmatists kvelching violently
lol

Owen Cook
Owen Cook

IF you mean speciation where we can see different variations of species being formed from different climates then yes THAT IS OBSERVABLE and it is SPECIATION
But we don't observe TRANSITIONS OR PROCESS OF TRANSITION WHERE A FISH STARTS WALKING AND THEM DEVELOPS NEW BIO SYSTEMS TO FLY
Which is the REAL MACROEVOLUTION
You showed not one example and FYI
Evolution(MACRO) can't exist without the observation of this process.

Austin Reyes
Austin Reyes

You're falsely assuming that new information trickles in by mutation.

Kayden Smith
Kayden Smith

Or can't be stated as a fact.

Lincoln Anderson
Lincoln Anderson

God created humans. Evolution is a kike myth, you retarded fedora tipper.

Evan Peterson
Evan Peterson

faggot enabling
Disease-ridden Sodomites are hardly the definition of evolutionary fitness.
atheist
Many folks who believe in Gods also understand that evolution happens.

Josiah Ramirez
Josiah Ramirez

Genes are not information, they're computer code. Here's how it works:
If [insert gene present here] then [turn it to rna]
If [rna is created] then [turn it to proteins]

It's not information, it's a chemical reaction that occurs to adapt to changes in the cellular environment. A good example is the lac operon in some bacteria. They're not aware, they just do because of chemistry.
I see you're too stupid to realize the point was gaps in the full picture (the rate at which things fall) does not disprove the validity of what you see (things falling). We may have gaps in evolutionary history but the fact is we can observe evolution happening in real time with bacteria since they have such low generation times. You can pretend this isn't happening all you wan't but it is and it's damning evidence. I don't need to show you fossil records to prove evolution is real, a microscope is really all it takes.

Lucas Smith
Lucas Smith

You are a fantastic retard. Denying obvious mathematical columns like the genetic algorithm is the hallmark of a knucklehead who doesn't possess a visual imagination. An NPC.

12475051
Where do you get your support for the idea that new alleles can't appear in a chromosome. That's absolutely fucking stupid.

David Gonzalez
David Gonzalez

Speciation can be brought about in a myriad of ways, including mutation. It doesn't necessarily require selective pressure from a given climate.

James Lee
James Lee

Thinks agreeing with jews and demanding proof that xirself isn't the offspring of niggers will prove xirself isn't a raging faggot on team niggerjew

Attached: e0stFTO.png (83.75 KB, 800x800)

Jayden Thomas
Jayden Thomas

You missed to read this part:
"But we don't observe TRANSITIONS OR PROCESS OF TRANSITION WHERE A FISH STARTS WALKING AND THEM DEVELOPS NEW BIO SYSTEMS TO FLY
You showed not one example and FYI
Evolution(MACRO) can't exist without the observation of this process or can be stated as a fact."

Henry Jones
Henry Jones

Anyone who thinks modern humans evolved from modern sub-Saharan African niggers doesn't understand evolution.

Jaxon Morgan
Jaxon Morgan

has no meaningful response to the argumentation presented
Hmm.

Jose Sullivan
Jose Sullivan

Exactly this.
Even the creator of the Out of Africa theory says its bullshit.

Nathaniel Ward
Nathaniel Ward

You think this is about teams. It isn't. It's about the fact my board is riddled with a latent population of mouthbreathing retards who are incapable of reflection or imagination.

Jeremiah Peterson
Jeremiah Peterson

That still isn't the definition of macroevolution, and evolution doesn't teach that fish spontaneously grows legs and wings and fly.

Carson Sanders
Carson Sanders

If I randomly take the suffix of one word and append it to the prefix of another random word, did I create a new, meaningful word?

Bentley Price
Bentley Price

Proteins aren't words, yokel. Words don't serve biological functions.

Daniel Barnes
Daniel Barnes

I accept the programming of every TV show, movie, and govt-funded brainwashing program
you're the NPC

Attached: i7657i6gukyjytr76gigyfukygiri76kiglruyitkyhlkhkuyoigkuy.PNG (329.09 KB, 428x542)

Nicholas Garcia
Nicholas Garcia

Prions do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

Julian Stewart
Julian Stewart

For the sake of your own metaphor, which you didn't think through - you created a meme, which can be spread, or which might die entirely on it's own merit. Memes themselves submit to a form of darwinism

Dylan Smith
Dylan Smith

That's not at all the point
I'm not asking you about the spontaneousness
but of the observed slow process that allowed
a sea organism to turn into monkey and them into human.
Which actually is macroevolution cause in order to have any changes you will need NEW genetic information for new BIO SYSTEMS to come to existence.

Aaron Phillips
Aaron Phillips

cross-comparing the subjects of a metaphor rather than the relations
This is something a 75 IQ black woman would do. Are you legitimately retarded or just floundering so badly that you've tossed rationality to the wind?

Jace Edwards
Jace Edwards

It's espoused in the mainstream, therefore it's wrong.

If they didn't mix truth into their lies, they would be very bad liars.

Dominic Powell
Dominic Powell

MSM programming
You can observe evolution in real-time yourself.

Gavin Rodriguez
Gavin Rodriguez

Sometimes a strawman is so egregious, it warrants being filtered. This is one of the times.

Elijah Phillips
Elijah Phillips

LALALA I'M PLUGGING MY EARS NOW

Creationists are so fucking stupid it's amazing. I hope you fall for even more bullshit.

John Clark
John Clark

No, Macroevolution isn't. Macroevolution is change at or above the species level, though. Look up the definition in your search engine.

So if a new protein is created by a genetic mutation, that also happens to be beneficial to its carrier, it still doesn't meet the requirement to be called new "information"?

Sebastian Cox
Sebastian Cox

Your definition is correct but you still ignore the elephant in the room which is this
slow process that allowed a sea organism to turn into monkey and them into human.

So do you have any observed example or evidence for it?

Leo Powell
Leo Powell

That'd take millions of years my dude. We can't live that long, but we do live long enough to see new species arise all the time, and speciation is a good example of macroevolution by definition.

Brayden Sullivan
Brayden Sullivan

Found the original btw.

Attached: original-OC-donutsteel.jpg (215.54 KB, 1045x673)

Jaxson Turner
Jaxson Turner

So having rats of different colors(SPECIATION)
Will somehow allow you have bio systems to fly is that what you are saying when you say "Speciation"?
Also if unobserved why state it as a fact?

Isaiah Scott
Isaiah Scott

I responded "Tautology." but deleted it after re-reading your post. If its a random mutation, then no, its not new information, by definition. It's just a mangling of the previous information. I refer you to Gitt again.

Nolan Rivera
Nolan Rivera

different colors
<speciation
Wew lad.

So do you have any observed example or evidence for it?
blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe.
As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.
This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

Liam Baker
Liam Baker

There is more distinction between species than just simple color.
Speciation is the smallest scale example of macroevolution, and is observable, so it is the most useful example.

Evolution is a fact because the change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms that defines it is an irrefutable reality.

Benjamin Foster
Benjamin Foster

Reminder that religious morals themselves are subject to darwinism. If they teach dumbshit nonsense morals, they kill their hosts and fail to spread. Ergo. You can build an entire working moral system that resembles traditional values and morals, but is far superior in every way, just by observing what is best for your survival.

Religious morality is obsolete. We don't need it. It shall die. And so shall those who cannot build a real morality in the age of information.

Isaiah Ross
Isaiah Ross

Anyone who denies evolution, and therefore eugenics and the betterment of the white race through selective breeding; is a nigger or a "We're all G-d's children!" cuckold.

Thomas Robinson
Thomas Robinson

Whole lot of (1) and done baitposting in this thread.

Hunter Martin
Hunter Martin

I don't have a time machine OP, so I have to use my brain. Here are some facts that we know.

1. Life emerged 3.5 billion years ago. The oldest fossils we can find are of single celled organisms.
2. More "complex" organisms (i.e., organisms with larger bodies, bilateral symmetry, different cell types) are found more recently in the fossil history. The oldest hominids are a few million years old.
3. Mutation and recombination are frequent occurrences when organisms reproduce.

So you put all of these things together and you get evolution. The theory of natural selection provides the impetus for the direction of the evolution, which is to create organisms that are better suited to the environment than their competitors.

no transitional species have ever been found.
Finding a living "transitional species" would require seeing into the future.

Jaxson Flores
Jaxson Flores

Mangling of preexisting genetic material, huh? Even though it provides great benefit.

Gene duplication does count as additional genetic material though. It is why we have wine and beer, because of a gene duplication mutation in yeast. New material, new function.
I refer you to Gitt as well
talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html

Christopher Parker
Christopher Parker

If its a random mutation, then no, its not new information, by definition. It's just a mangling of the previous information.
If I refuse; long enough to make sense of things other people say; maybe they'll give up, and let me shit up the board with my knucklehead nonsense.

Look you nigger. New DNA can, in fact appear in a chain; via insertion, or duplication.

Also why do you think that information isn't information if it's been generated randomly? That's fucking stupid. You've been buying the canard of someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

Liam Mitchell
Liam Mitchell

Again, you conflate material with information.

Nicholas Foster
Nicholas Foster

I never denied this type of speciation which is the only OBSERVED type of Evolution.(MICROEVOLUTION)
If you take 2 cats and put them on different continent yes will have same as demonstrated in the article thatyou gave
BUT THEY WILL STILL BE CATS
Or isolated cows WILL STILL BE COWS
Isolated mosquito WILL STILL BE MOSQUITO

But you still din't present ANY example where
NEW BIO SYSTEMS ARE FORMED WITH NEW GENETIC INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT

It doesn't matter if separated species refuse to breed
show where one of them become flying species
another marine species or whatever type because of this separation where they no loner are considered not only no longer a variety of pre existing creature but where they have
New GENETIC INFO NEW GENETIC STRUCTURES
Owl and Eagle are both birds
But you can't say the say about Owl and a bat

Attached: 61275-evo-resources-resource-image-322-original.gif (16.43 KB, 354x253)

Jose Murphy
Jose Murphy

You keep using the word information when its not accurate to describe DNA as such.

William Collins
William Collins

can't say the same*

Gabriel Hernandez
Gabriel Hernandez

And you know what? Their descendents will always be cats too. Even if they become something their ancestors weren't, they'll never stop being cats. Know why? The Law of Monophyly. It's also the reason why we're still vertebrates, and Eukaryotes, and synapsids, and mammals all at the same time.

You keep asking to see examples of things that would actually debunk evolution if they existed.

Sebastian Foster
Sebastian Foster

Again, you conflate the medium with the message.

Luis James
Luis James

new genetic information
Define "genetic information".

Anthony Torres
Anthony Torres

Also duplicating ALREADY EXISTING CHROMOSOMES DOES NOT EQUAL
NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.

Adam Allen
Adam Allen

There is no such thing as genetic information.

Brandon Brooks
Brandon Brooks

I'm not a nigger, I'm a different kind of mutant ape who thinks ethics are situational and that nobody chooses to be homosexual
<I think this makes me different than a jew
YOU WILL NEVER BE WHITE

Easton Gonzalez
Easton Gonzalez

a gnome allows you to be a human
it allows others to be cats dogs birds
The nucleus ,sequence in dna the heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna.
And what are you a geneticist ?

Jordan Ward
Jordan Ward

I asked you to define "genetic information". What do you mean by that term? What you just typed was incoherent. Try again.

Sebastian Hughes
Sebastian Hughes

There is no such thing as genetic information.
<mfw its the representative example in the dictionary definition of information

Attached: Capture.PNG (11.97 KB, 668x227)

Luis Lewis
Luis Lewis

He's trying to say that DNA sequence is genetic information.

Ethan Hernandez
Ethan Hernandez

Baseless accusations. Homosexuality is an evolutionary disadvantage and morals are objectively verifiable in nature..

Jayden Brown
Jayden Brown

Believe me, the gnome thing was confusing enough. I had to check my garden to be sure, but the answer came to me eventually.

Anthony Johnson
Anthony Johnson


You keep hiding behind "Speciation"
as if it's only evolution people talk about
and no what i ask for IS evolution itself
something that allows animals to transition into others species (not different variation) with NEW ORGANS NEW CODING in DNA that allows it
You say it debunks? NO That is evolution
Without transitions from organism to organism how is it possible?

Thomas Moore
Thomas Moore

The absolute state of nu-Zig Forums.

William Ortiz
William Ortiz


What is "genetic information" according to you them?

Leo Adams
Leo Adams

Last chance: Define what you mean by the term "genetic information".

Matthew Harris
Matthew Harris

It's late at night. DNA contains information about protein shapes. So what?

Samuel Rogers
Samuel Rogers

He's equating the term with DNA sequence. New, different sequence = new "genetic information".

Listen I'm having an existential crisis over gnomes here at least let me decipher some of this ESL tier shit.

Cooper Lewis
Cooper Lewis

Saved. You are too good for this cuckboard.

Wyatt Wright
Wyatt Wright

Evolution is descent with inherent modification from common ancestry, so no, a new organism popping out of the ground that shares no genetic material with anything else is not Evolution. All new species are just modified versions of older species.

Jackson Green
Jackson Green

Do you consider it information at all? LoL

Xavier Sanchez
Xavier Sanchez

New organism???
Yes those older species how did they transition into new ORGANISMS ??

Christian Barnes
Christian Barnes

Shit bot or shit troll. Easy to spot.

Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson

More jew language
Silly faggot. You think I'm trying to disprove your jewish gibberish. I don't argue with jews or their golem retards, I simply remind everyone that same creatures pushing evolution also push homosexuality, feminism, race mixing, capitalism, communism, 3rd world immigration, etc and their stupid golems gobble it up. Even if you adopt just one jewish ideology, you're still a golem. Say some more things to support your jewish ideology. Tell me that your ancestors were apes. Tell me that your ape ancestors are better than the African ones lol

Attached: 20-d.jpg (75.34 KB, 960x932)

Lucas Cook
Lucas Cook

Troll ?
He is the one evading what i ask for lol ?
And tries to act smart.

Adam Rivera
Adam Rivera

Sure, and these posts are just 0's and 1's.

Adam Nelson
Adam Nelson

Jewish ideologies are defined by egalitarianism. Evolution does not fit that definition.

Michael Walker
Michael Walker

All modern organisms are modified versions of older organisms. Birds are feathered dinosaurs. Trees are fibrous eukaryotes. Humans are bipedal mammals.

Jonathan Cooper
Jonathan Cooper

You are such an incredible fuckup. The only reason Jews want anything to do with the verifiable, immutable fact of evolution, is that they can use it to momentarily strip kids of their parents religion, so that in its place they can insert Neoliberalism.

They never expand on the ramifications. They never delve too deep. They never apply it to humans.

In truth, Darwinism is absolutely true. It is a huge force in nature, and if properly observed, makes men into NatSocs. Those who deny it are simply brainlets through and through.

Cooper Reed
Cooper Reed

"Popping out of the ground that shares no genetic material with anything else"
When did i ever refer to this type of evolution?
"Birds are feathered dinosaurs"
How did dinos acquire genes to fly?
"Humans are bipedal mammals."
How did those bipedal mammals acquire genes to become human and NO don't tell me biological systems developed themselves from adaptation

Dylan Anderson
Dylan Anderson

Feathers are composed of a very complex biological systems which will require special genes.

Jackson Johnson
Jackson Johnson

So what's your argument? The same as Gitt's?
Gitt has convoluted deductive and inductive logic to make an invalid model based on weak, untestable assertions based on a false comparison between DNA sequences and artificial texts and algorithms. It makes ridiculous claims about the natural world with basing itself on real observations, and screeches (like you) about "more" or "less" information about information that isn't quantifiable. It's untestable and unverifiable - and therefore worthless.

Adam Harris
Adam Harris

Prions do.
Godin damn it! That's not good enough. That's based in living large animal tissue. I need a source machination.

Attached: naughty-pig.gif (544.59 KB, 250x230)

Julian Myers
Julian Myers

The changes happened over time due to Evolution by means of natural selection.

The genes are there, they have been found, and the structure of feathers is based on the preexisting structure of dinosaur scales. The whole of this is pretty damning when you take into account the fact that pre-avian dinosaurs have been found with feathers.

Dylan Cook
Dylan Cook

with basing
Without basing*

Isaiah Gonzalez
Isaiah Gonzalez

My point is that information is encoded.

Zachary Wilson
Zachary Wilson

Change over time which bio created systems and you say we can't observe it sounds like fairytale not science.
"the structure of feathers is based on the preexisting structure of dinosaur scales."
Feather and scales are completely different BIO SYSTEMS. Feathers are not simple.
And avian dinosaur like Archaeopteryx is fraud.

Attached: watercolor-feathers-vector-1884864.jpg (204.12 KB, 1000x1080)
Attached: Dinosaur-Skin-2.jpg (216.52 KB, 1153x804)

Dylan Kelly
Dylan Kelly

That it needed a creator to get it where it is now? No problem with that idea, maybe thd Gods guided the course of evolution. Or are you arguing that life today is irreducibly complex?

Brayden Cruz
Brayden Cruz

fraud
I'm gonna put the Germans who discovered archaeopteryx above your baseless screeching. Archaeopteryx was a real creature, and many pre-avian dinosaurs had feathers.

Jace King
Jace King

feathers and scales are completely different
Wrong. The genes responsible for developing the two are the same.

Jeremiah Harris
Jeremiah Harris

I like how you understood the metaphor better than you initially let on ;)

Kayden Evans
Kayden Evans

How did scales evolve into feather do you even believe what you are claiming ?
And it's you who was screeching about speciation pointlessly.
"I'm gonna put the Germans "
So if it's German it can't be a fraud ? Nice Logic. They must be omnibenevolent to you .

Julian Lewis
Julian Lewis

Here is a scientific article on the subject:
academic.oup.com/mbe/article/35/2/417/4627828

John Thomas
John Thomas

Read

Luis Clark
Luis Clark

No need to reference twice.

John Morgan
John Morgan

And deprive some user of his (You)?

Attached: 581a62598d78001dd7a521dee19f59d93245c688122c4c30e5f78e5b14ab0c02.gif (2.98 MB, 300x157)

Michael Brooks
Michael Brooks

No, Germans are not omnibenevolent. But Archaeopteryx would be an impossible fraud for the period's tech level.

Joshua Flores
Joshua Flores

they have literally found fossils of prokaryotes next to Eukaryotes. shit so sacred.

Kayden Russell
Kayden Russell

Most of those Archaeopteryx found were made in China…

Jaxon Howard
Jaxon Howard

The first was not.

Christian Taylor
Christian Taylor

Oh he definitely was…

Christopher Howard
Christopher Howard

evolution is proven easily enough when you realize that antibiotic resistant bacteria are proof of the concept of evolution.
antibiotics create an environment of extreme stress, 99.99% of bacteria die, the few that remain had random mutations that allowed for their survival, or were just very lucky. These living bacteria procreate and spread their antibiotic resistant genes.
now as opposed to 0.001% of bacteria in a sample having the gene, then 0.002% of the bacteria are present next time. Each time the microbes are better evolved to survive the conditions of our modern synthetic antibiotics and fewer of them die. This is, by definition, evolution.

Dylan Watson
Dylan Watson

No, it was not. Archaeopteryx was first discovered in Germany.

Jacob Long
Jacob Long

Bacteria sacrifices some of it's genes or genetic information in order to survive those antibiotics.
That is NOT beneficial mutation because bacteria actually losses genetic information.

Luis Howard
Luis Howard

Not really. It specializes, sure, but it doesn't sacrifice DNA like you think it does.

Robert Thomas
Robert Thomas

They presented him like a bird with teeth in it's beak and claws on it's wings
But there are plenty of birds with those features today.
He was mostly glued together
and MADE IN CHINA

Jaxon Jackson
Jaxon Jackson

Attached: iron-pill-protects-against-division.png (1.49 MB, 700x5762)

Justin Miller
Justin Miller

Genetic information is lost; the population loses the ability to produce individuals which are sensitive to that antibiotic.

Chase Peterson
Chase Peterson

him
You do realize multiple specimen have been found, right? The first two were discovered in Germany.
teeth on its beak
No bird alive today has teeth.

Brayden Martin
Brayden Martin

It is not proven
Except it has, we've had long lasting experiments on trying to prove it 100%
Ever hear of the Russian Fox experiment, I don't need any more proof on evolution than an actual recorded evolutionary change that happened over such a reletively short time (50 years)

Lincoln Harris
Lincoln Harris

Quantify that "information" then.
population loses ability to produce individuals sensitive to antibiotic
Tell us how great a deal of the DNA is lost in those asexually reproducing organisms then.. You do realize bacterium DNA is flexible, right? They gain and lose genes all the time, and share genes between species constantly.

Brandon Stewart
Brandon Stewart

Evolution is just change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms.

Mason Clark
Mason Clark

Hummingbird got teeth.

And where you saw those specimen in a museum?

Jackson Williams
Jackson Williams

Yes they can reacquire that information through contact with other populations, but it was still lost.

Zachary Moore
Zachary Moore

Ducks and goose got teeth.

Josiah Hughes
Josiah Hughes

Ayo hol up dawg jesus lookz loik dis

Attached: shhhheit.jpeg (53.15 KB, 494x626)

Zachary Walker
Zachary Walker

E. Michael Jones does a good job explaining the flaw in evolution. Saying that given enough time a single cell organism will become human creates a problem. Something cannot come from nothing, so where is the beginning? This lends credence to the belief of a prime mover, who could only be the supreme personality of God. He would describe it as logos.

The idea of an infinite chain of evolution is like the Hindu flat earth theory. The earth is a disc on top of elephants, and the elephants are standing on turtles. What are the turtles standing on? Well, you see, its turtles all the way down. Darwinism gives us the answer of "its evolution all the way down."

Darwinism is incomplete. Organisms have an innate ability to adapt to their environments. This cannot be denied without rejecting truth. However, Darwinism is politicizes into a anti-truth/anti-logos form.

Fools often see the turtles all the way down, then impose the idea that there is no beginning/God. Once there was nothing then BAM there was something.

Social Darwinism is a pillar of satanism. A small minority of kikes gets to decide who is worthy of reproducing in a centrally controlled eugenics program.

Darwinism is often used to push the idea that modern humans are better than our ancestors because we are more "evolved." This is a rejection of reality as adaption to an environment can be either eugenic, or disgenic. The domestication of humans from animals capable of politics into modern bug men is an example of this.

Darwinism/biology is a lower form of being. It's demands need to be fulfilled before ascending into metaphyiscs, but it is not the end all be all.
Full fill your biological roles. Reproduce with the healthiest mate you can. Understand that human subspecies fill niches in their environments. Embrace eugenics, while knowing your capability to fall into disgenics. The indo-Aryans failed to uphold their race/religion & now they are street shitting abominations.

Attached: e9e1545c0d18abcc322db829fec0a9c5d410a1ec6934d2917f0603940ca8e9f1.png (254.15 KB, 506x450)

Isaiah Price
Isaiah Price

Exactly matey and there has been documented change of this happening ergo proving evolution is a real thing and that why I'm even having this argument is kinda retarded

Lucas Foster
Lucas Foster

Cells originanly formed from Carbon based structures and adapted from there, do you even know biology or chemistry

Aaron Murphy
Aaron Murphy

No, they don't.

Quantify that lost "information". It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Have a video explaining how evolution adds new "information"

Justin Rodriguez
Justin Rodriguez

Ridges in a beak =/= teeth. Teeth have roots and hardened enamel.

John Williams
John Williams

Yes, and what was before chemical evolution into biology? Physical forces? What was the step before atoms? What was the step before subatomic particles?

Carson Sanchez
Carson Sanchez

Attached: Ironpill-Gets-Redpilled.jpg (2.8 MB, 1536x8192)

Gabriel Powell
Gabriel Powell

12475794
Yes they do stop lying.

Attached: 3Y8A-9788-Tooth-billed-Hummingbird-utria.jpg (30.34 KB, 700x488)

Evan Long
Evan Long

Just stop. Biological evolution only applies to living things. What happened before there were living things were around is irrelevant.

Spikes in the beak =/= teeth.

Levi Moore
Levi Moore

You need only look at how easily humans have created different dog breeds to see that traits can, and are selected for by environmental pressures. Denying evolution at this point is pure retardation.

Christopher Jackson
Christopher Jackson

science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/04/27/science.1205358

From an ICR article on the study:
icr.org/article/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-did/

In the researchers' scenario, RlmN was supposed to have "evolved" into Cfr. But the actual changes from RlmN to Cfr involved losses of information! RlmN found in what is presumably the original, wild bacterial population has some flexible regions that Cfr does not have. It looks as though this RlmN lost these regions to become the similar Cfr.

That's no help to big-picture evolution, which is faced with accounting for the origin of all of life's information—like the precise spatial and "electrostatic surface potential" distributions in these vital enzymes—without any intelligent source.1 To demonstrate evolution, organisms would need to show a continual gain of new information. However, changes due to loss of information typify examples of bacterial antibiotic resistance, as well as bacteria's "learned" ability to metabolize new substances such as nylon.2

The study's authors made a stunning suggestion in their final sentence:

<If loss of these motifs [flexible regions] allows Cfr to modify a different site [carbon number eight], their distance from the active site is noteworthy and leaves open the possibility that the enzyme/substrate complex uses an extended interaction surface to fine tune control of substrate [ribosome] binding and site selectivity.1

In other words, nothing was lost from the core of the enzyme, where the critical chemistry takes place, after changes had occurred elsewhere. Even very tiny changes to the enzyme's active site would have broken the enzyme and irreparably damaged the bacteria. Instead, only the flexible protein regions were removed—just the modifications that one would expect from a machine designed to fine-tune its operational effectiveness without completely destroying its function. The chances of just the right kinds of adjustments being made randomly to this enzyme are very tiny, and therefore point directly to mindful purpose.3

It looks as though the RlmN enzyme was created with adaptive programming to "fine tune" its application, yet without disrupting its core function. Thus, adaptive programming, not evolution, is responsible for the ability of this strain of bacteria to survive in methicillin. If verified by further research, the origin of this spectacular adaptive design would only be explainable by an ingenious Creator.

Jaxson Edwards
Jaxson Edwards

I mean it is relevant, but it doesn't negate the fact that evolution happens. It like asking why buoyancy matters if it doesn't address/we don't know where a given body of water came from.

Jacob White
Jacob White

science can't yet explain our interpretation of the facts
therefore god did it
Hasn't happened yet.

Luis Cooper
Luis Cooper

Check my post again fam-a-lam-a-ding-dong. I do not deny evolution. I make the claim that it is not all encompassing the way many want it to be, and it is manipulated for bolshevik political gains.

Colton Miller
Colton Miller

12475845
Maybe comparing modern lizards to birds isn't a good way of showing that birds and pre-avian dinosaurs were different? We know regular dinosaurs were very similar to birds, especially in their respiration.

Carter Hughes
Carter Hughes

quantify the loss of information
<OK here's a study proving it
lol rekt

Samuel Flores
Samuel Flores

Any idiot who tries to define evolution as anything other than change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms, just plain doesn't understand evolution.

And Bolshevism is based on Egalitarianism. Equality is an evolutionary impossibility.

Jeremiah Nguyen
Jeremiah Nguyen

The reason why bacteria survives is because the transporter gene is broken cause of mutation and the poison from antibiotic can't get in.
Not Because the bacteria is evolving.

Nathaniel Green
Nathaniel Green

Genes get lost all the time, so what? I never said genes don't get deleted. However, Creationists are quick to argue against the fact that genes do get added to DNA strands all the time.

Brandon Clark
Brandon Clark

That is one of many means of antibiotic resistance.

Charles Barnes
Charles Barnes

so what?
Not really. It specializes, sure, but it doesn't sacrifice DNA like you think it does.
Yikes. REKT

Oliver James
Oliver James

Feathers and scales are both made of keratin
and that's where the similarity stops.

Reptiles and birds have different lung system

Different heart system: birds have 4 chambered heart ,reptile 3 chambered

They both lay different eggs

Scales and feather attach to body differently and develop from different genes on the chromosome.

Archaeopteryx is sad fraud.

Levi Gonzalez
Levi Gonzalez

I can accept being wrong about antibiotic resistant bacteria, it's a lot better than pretending that mutations never add new genes, or that there are no beneficial mutations like Creationist loons believe.

Nolan Johnson
Nolan Johnson

Ah, I see. Your words are much bigger than mine. I concede the argument. Nicely done, my well versed faggot.

What I'm about to say might shock you; BOLSHEVIKS ARE LYING. They lie about class struggle. They lie about the value of labor, & they lie about evolution.

Attached: 11ec5f3ca3d81cf70d79e54590eaa5b68d57dda6f43af34aedd6a17cb1e2b260.jpg (87.97 KB, 720x676)

Adrian Jenkins
Adrian Jenkins

Reptiles and birds huh? You do realize birds are reptiles, right?

Justin Clark
Justin Clark

I can accept being wrong about antibiotic resistant bacteria
If you can't even understand the simplest organism's basic adaptations, why should anyone take what you have to say seriously about more complex information systems?

Joseph Edwards
Joseph Edwards

Communists reject evolution in favor of Lysenkoism because Lysenkoism doesn't hurt people's feelings.

Jason Price
Jason Price

Not really reread about the difference again.
They are not.

Owen Butler
Owen Butler

Because you've drawn up false frontlines? This wasn't an argument over who understands bacteria better, it was an argument over whether or not mutation can add genes.

Andrew Ward
Andrew Ward

Just to be clear, there were multiple people in this thread who had the right answer on loss of information. And then when you tried to move the goalpost with yet another "so what?"… so obnoxious. Feels good to nail you down, especially on something so basic and essential to this conversation. Good night :)

Anthony Robinson
Anthony Robinson

Simple organisms don't exist.
They are all complex.

Zachary Brooks
Zachary Brooks

Birds are reptiles though. They are Diapsids - reptiles by definition.

Ryder Davis
Ryder Davis

Lysenkoism & social Darwinism are both used to manipulate much the same way communism & capitalism are two sides of the same coin.

Thomas Martin
Thomas Martin

They both have completely different biological systems but no it's not enough for you
You rather believe imaginary pictures.

Jason Stewart
Jason Stewart

If you take 2 cats and put them on different continent yes will have same as demonstrated in the article thatyou gave BUT THEY WILL STILL BE CATS
For awhile, yes.

Or isolated cows WILL STILL BE COWS
Isolated mosquito WILL STILL BE MOSQUITO
For awhile, yes. But not indefinitely.
Give it 1,000,000 years and the 'cats/cows/mosquitos' you took from will differ significantly from the population you isolated, arising from variation in phenotype as the consequence of variation in genotype subjected to variable selective pressures (ie a mutation arising giving reduction in a dark pigment may be selectively-beneficial/fitness positive in one environment, fitness negative in another).

a gnome allows you to be a human
A specific orientation of alleles which dictates biological structure and/or function thereof.
the heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna.
Why/how is it heritable?
Through the process of reproduction, the sequences are copied and reproduced, with variation arising from the process of transcription and incorporation from differing sources (parents).

But you still din't present ANY example where NEW BIO SYSTEMS
What is a 'new biosystem'? If you're referring to, say, new biological traits in the phenotype, these arise gradually and actually you DO see that - you simply do not see AS EXPANSIVE a phenotypic shift as you are demanding.
You're basically asking "How come I don't see any examples of like, frogs becoming amphibious?" and the fact is, YOU DO, you just don't have the foresight to be able to discern such in real-time; hence why most of the evidence we DO have involves organisms which are easy to observe and/or have a rapid reproductive cycle and transpire at a smaller scale/lesser degree than something as expansive as you're requesting

ARE FORMED WITH NEW GENETIC INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT
There is no 'new genetic information', merely a new form of expression of extant information as the consequence of aforementioned genetic variation between individuals as the by-product of biologic reproduction, which may or may not result in speciation should selective factors in the environments in question vary sufficiently to create divergent selective pressure.

David Nelson
David Nelson

show where one of them become flying species
Humanity has not existed for a sufficient period of time to transpire for a process of that extreme nature to be visibly observed, to my knowledge.
The process of, for example, going from being a terrestrial creature to being a semi-arboreal creature to being a flying creature is an extreme phenotypic adjustment which would take a very very long time to arise.

another marine species or whatever type because of this separation where they no loner are considered not only no longer a variety of pre existing creature but where they have New GENETIC INFO NEW GENETIC STRUCTURES
Look at dog breeds. How do you think a dachshund came about? See also: African Wild Dog and Asiatic Dhole - significant change from their origin stock, exemplifying co-evolution alongside populations from the same stock which migrated into different environs, resulting in things that LOOK LIKE dogs… But most-assuredly are not.
Here's some more examples.
businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2#humans-have-used-artificial-selection-to-create-crazy-specific-dog-breeds-4
It seems you're asking for evidence of mass-scale evolutionary change that has transpired under human observation, seemingly while being fully aware of the fact that said change cannot transpire in the limited timeframe under examination, even while less-extreme examples of the same HAVE transpired in such time.
Again, no NEW INFO, merely NEW INTERPRETATION.
Consider the following:
Binary
111000110010
010011000111
010101010101
Same info, different orientation, and thus, different interpretation, different output.

Owl and Eagle are both birds
But you can't say the say about Owl and a bat
Totally different phyolgenetic clades of organism you're comparing there.

Attached: Genus.jpg (3.17 MB, 3664x5028)

Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen

Night, fag. You think you won because I conceded I would accept if I'm wrong ? I haven't looked at your Creationist bullshit article all the way through.

Thomas Young
Thomas Young

There is no "both". Birds are Diapsid reptiles. That's their classification.

Zachary Kelly
Zachary Kelly

Feather and scales are completely different BIO SYSTEMS.
Not really, no.
They're made of the same material, and it wouldn't take all THAT MUCH for random mutation to create proto-feathers, and for natural selection to generate selective pressure making such structures selectively beneficial/fitness positive.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (126.84 KB, 600x271)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (154.38 KB, 2690x282)

Elijah Myers
Elijah Myers

Humanity has not existed for a sufficient period of time to transpire for a process of that extreme nature to be visibly observed,
The issue is that there hasn't been any pressure for such a development to occur. Certainly not now, when we've outsourced all our abilities to the inventions of creative minds.

Christian Perez
Christian Perez

yes they are made of same material which is keratin

Caleb Reed
Caleb Reed

Quantify that "information" then.
Its a code. Thats it.
The genetic information isn't "lost", its merely shuffled in a manner such that it is not expressed in a given organism's phenotype. In theory, its still in there, and if you knew what the correct coding sequence was, you could potentially implant it and the result might be that the organism begins to demonstrate the trait over time as the consequence of replication.
Point is, the information isn't lost in a physical sense - its lost conceptually, in that the "information" is a specific coding sequence in a specific location on the chromosome such that it is activated and expressed during replication and thus in the organism.
I think.

Brayden Wilson
Brayden Wilson

If and only if:
There exist:
Differential reproductive rates for diferent populations in certain environments over many generations.
Heritable traits necessary for said differential reproductive rates.

Then:

Those heritable traits shall increase in populations over generations in said environment, changing the trait composition of the original populations.

It´s a possible mechanism for the gradual arisal of different species, by no means the only possible one.

Adrian Perez
Adrian Perez

Forgot to add:
(((Popper))) says its pseudoscience due to unfalsifiability.

Easton Howard
Easton Howard

And they develop along very similar pathways (both scales and feathers begin developement from placodes), from similar conditions and origins (in individuals, as opposed to in evolutionary terms - though, in theory, both are accurate contexts).
An instance of genetic variation later, boom, evolutionarily novel trait, natural selection dictates viability, etc etc.

The issue is that there hasn't been any pressure for such a development to occur.
Ehhhhhhh, that's true, in a sense - but depends on your perspective as-goes evolutionary theory.
Some theorize its a situation or sudden, rapid selective factors which has dictated the majority of evolutionary events, but there's counter-argument in the context of a longer-scale range for such processes to occur.
Certainly not now, when we've outsourced all our abilities to the inventions of creative minds.
Oh, well, I wasn't necessarily referring to humanity, but that's true I suppose.
That said, I would say technological innovation is demonstrable of a change in selective factors such as might well be having evolutionary selective impact on our populations. The World Wars almost-certainly had an effect as well, in that the conflicts selected for and against certain traits (generally speaking, for example, brave men died [and thus did not pass on their genes], while cowards tended to live [and thus at least had that opportunity]).

I was more referring to animal life, in which case, yes, I'd say humanity itself has represented a major selective pressure - and, what a surprise, we have all these drastically-divergent organisms derivative from domesticative processes which are in many cases physiologically (if not genetically) inhibited from reproduction.
Consider, a miniature dachshund or chihuahua could, in theory, mate with a grey wolf… However, physiologically, there would be extreme inhibition in, AT LEAST, the case of a male wolf attempting to mate with a female chihuahua; namely, that lil bitch would be ripped in half trying to birth those puppies via naturalistic processes.

Gavin Evans
Gavin Evans

You always say "give it time" yet you present not explanation on what's going on during that time. How can you be so sure that time and randomness will absolutely create such biological structures that cant even today with our modern technologies. What exactly starts or creates that adjustment you don't present
if that adjustment cant even be observed why even call it science

"Look at dog breeds. How do you think a dachshund came about? See also: African Wild Dog and Asiatic Dhole - significant change from their origin stock, exemplifying co-evolution alongside populations from the same stock which migrated into different environs, resulting in things that LOOK LIKE dogs… But most-assuredly are not."
When i say new genes or info i mean completely new internal orans heart system lung system muscular system i'm not only talking about mere phenotypic appereances
I also mean where does the organization for the acquirement of gills of claws beaks, ..

Joshua Sanchez
Joshua Sanchez

Anywho, the argument of the article is that antibiotic resistance did not evolved, but was a design feature from the author's God.
How would we test for this? We can't. They have the same mechanism, one is just asserted without evidence. We know antibiotic resistance is a trait that bacteria evolved to develop. How? They changed their allele frequency to get there - the definition of evolution. The ICR crooks want to insert God into the picture by pretending it wasn't possible without intelligent design - even though the study clearly involved biological entities. The justification? Because the margin of error for these bacteria to survive the given antibiotic with its new enzyme that defends against it, is so small. This doesn't really point to a fine-tuning, but a "good enough" natural genetic adjustment, honed by untold generations of development. And the genetic adjustment did involve loss of genes, but that literally happens all the time with bacteria.

Like I said, I can accept being wrong about something irrelevant to the main point. This whole bacteria debacle was a distraction from the Creationist argument that mutations never add new "information", or translated to a useful term, genes that have new functions.

Kevin Butler
Kevin Butler

Mutation is random. Natural Selection is not.

Blake Diaz
Blake Diaz

The mindless goy cannot answer this. All they can say is "define information" or some other red herring bullshit. Notice how the thread was completely dersiled by edgelord faggotry which makes up the vast majority of posts itt…

It has been half a day and they have been responding with the same tripe. This generation cannot think for themselves. They dont have the ability. They have been lobotomized by (((propaganda))) since before they were born. Pitiful.

Andrew Reyes
Andrew Reyes

Answer what? Image macros? Pictures for ants? Misbegotten half-right summaries? None of it refutes the fact that evolution happens.

Levi Bell
Levi Bell

12476086
Those aren't teeth.

Gabriel Adams
Gabriel Adams

Ducks and goose got teeth

And who told you those are spikes? What are they a hedgehog to you

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (415.23 KB, 543x708)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (269.96 KB, 460x426)

Liam Morgan
Liam Morgan

Comes up with half-baked canard only tangentially related to reality.
Harps it endlessly without ever really explaining what it is or how it works.

Litrally no different than flat earthers and their "vanishing point" retardation; There's no way to explain how retarded they are to them because they themselves do not understand how their own points work. They just know that harping it stumps their opponents.

Ryan Hernandez
Ryan Hernandez

I have already stated the refutations multiple times as have others. You are emotionally immature and therefore cannot think calmly and coherently. This is obviously a matter of dogma and you act as a zealout. You set Darwin, Bill Nye and black science man up as your prophets in a sordid effort to glorify yourself.

Where are the millions interspecies fossils? There arent any let alone the millions that would exist if macroevolution were true

I'll leave it at that solitary question to keep it simple for you

Nolan Bell
Nolan Bell

Just like i said . A bunch of name calling and childish emotional talk lol faggot

Lincoln Powell
Lincoln Powell

Natural selection only selects it doesn't create anything related to new bio structures.

Mutation only destroy neither are beneficial

Adrian Martinez
Adrian Martinez

Every species is transitional. You have a stupidly warped understanding of evolution, as though you think evolution teaches that organisms transform into completely different organisms every full moon or something. Evolution is descent with inherent modification, that means every species is just a modified version of its ancestor specie that came before. This is exactly what the evidence very clearly points to, in every living organism today when you organize them in the correct cladistic category.

bill nye
Science is against his "gender is a spectrum! gay is okay!" bullshit. AIDS is the most damning evolutionary rebuttal to sodomy.

Christopher Garcia
Christopher Garcia

Hey buddy you didn't respond to my questions.
Just in case you missed it the second time around, I'll post them here again also:
Define a "positive, beneficial" mutation
You say that there aren't enough positive beneficial mutations. How much is enough to convince you?

and don't get confused now but I'll add another:
Why do mutations have to be positive or beneficial to validate evolution?

Angel Adams
Angel Adams

Mutations can be beneficial, this is a demonstrable fact. And naturally selective pressures force species to develop evolutionarily advantageous traits, or die. That includes structures of the body.

Jacob Clark
Jacob Clark

Am go sleep.

Hudson Reyes
Hudson Reyes

Please do come back later when that dude starts grandstanding again from lack of responses.

Dominic Gomez
Dominic Gomez

One of the major problems in all western thought manifests itself when discussing darwinism.

Darwin and his type merely observe the world as it is and describe a mechanism that explains these observations. World-as-is

Yockey and his type observe the principles that move men to act and create philosophy based on these principles. World-as-spirit.

If you read Yockey as a scientific explanation of how the pure material world functions, you'll become a confused and out of touch idealist (as Yockey was).
If you read Darwin as a philosophical explanation of the nature of man, you'll become a spiritless bugman.

The reality, for humans atleast, is the manner in which world-as-spirit and world-as-is interact with eachother. There have been attempts to do so, I know only of Lev Gumilyov but I'm certain others exist.

Jason Martin
Jason Martin

This is the fundamental argument that needs to be addressed anytime you're discussing evolution.

Everything else is just extra shit tacked on.
The cultural implications, the source of the mutations, the religous implications.
All worthy debates, but none of those are directly debating Darwinism.

Attached: abandoned.jpg (290.33 KB, 1600x897)

Adrian Garcia
Adrian Garcia

Darwin and his type merely observe the world as it is and describe a mechanism that explains these observations. World-as-is
That was certainly the goal, in which Darwin, of course, failed spectacularly. It's mindboggling that such an empirically flimsy theory forms the conceptual framework for the whole of biology today.

These four facts together make the fact of biological evolution.
Agree, but we're talking Darwinian evolution here, i.e. the idea that whole new species will appear by natural selection. Which is obviously bullshit and has never been observed either in the lab or in nature.

Oliver Barnes
Oliver Barnes

'The Origin of Species' (1859) and 'The Descent of Man' (1871), each arguing in its own way that….children are (the evolved product of) their race of origin, some 'favored'…some not"

Darwin was ahead of his time. He knew the threat of inferior races and warned against them, it hasn't been centuries after his time yet, the inferior subhuman savage races can still be and will be exterminated. Too bad it won't be the whites doing it but the chinks and their genetically engineered supersoldiers.

Benjamin Evans
Benjamin Evans

Darwin was ahead of his time.
No, he wasn't, because racial awareness was the default position in earlier times.

Ayden Clark
Ayden Clark

Beautiful reply.
If you read Darwin as a philosophical explanation of the nature of man, you'll become a spiritless bugman.
This is the part of Yockey's critique I really like. If you take pure darwinism and lead it to its logical conclusion you basically end up with marxism. The only thing that matters is your surrounding (see economics in the pure marxism form) and if we change that, then we are all the same.
The reality, for humans atleast, is the manner in which world-as-spirit and world-as-is interact with eachother. There have been attempts to do so, I know only of Lev Gumilyov but I'm certain others exist.
I agree. Here is one reason why I really like NatSoc. They basically take this stand point (which is basically a kantian standpoint). See people like Alfred Rosenberg and houston stewart chamberlain

Kevin Hall
Kevin Hall

That was certainly the goal, in which Darwin, of course, failed spectacularly. It's mindboggling that such an empirically flimsy theory forms the conceptual framework for the whole of biology today.
As a physicists, the theory is very sound from a theoretical point of view. The ToE is basically optimization to find the path of least resistance, which is exactly what most physics is basically based upon with hamiltonian mechanics.

James Wright
James Wright

Show one example of such observed then.

Adrian Rodriguez
Adrian Rodriguez

So you essentially agree with the Jew on the first two points.

Jason Wilson
Jason Wilson

And like fish, you are still a chordate. You never stopped being a chordate.

Anthony Cox
Anthony Cox

Don't remember him saying that but good statement

Ayden Mitchell
Ayden Mitchell

“nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state.” -Adolf Hitler

This kind of theory was described as jewish science back in the 1930s

Parker Myers
Parker Myers

Sickle cell anemia. It is an autosomal recessive disease. Homozygous individuals usually are killed from it, but heterozygous have a significant advantage because they don't express it and at the same time are protected from malaria. For the environment it was developed in, it is a significant advantage over normal individuals, even despite the higher mortality rate of those who express the trait. As a result, it is much more common to come across individuals who are carriers for the anemia than it is normal individuals or ones who express the trait. This is a trait developed in humans as a response to natural selection by selective pressures related to fitness (i.e malaria).

Nicholas Jackson
Nicholas Jackson

Also there is nothing in the claims supporting evolution that state the changes have to be strictly beneficial, just that they have to allow the organism to fuck and concieve at some point in its life. It is a ridiculous point that for some reason you faggots won't let go of. Evolution is not about moving towards more complex modes of life for the sake of complexity and "beneficial" traits, it's about producing fertile offspring.

Jace Ward
Jace Ward

Without authorship and intention, there is no meaning. This is because only a creator can choose a creation’s purpose. For centuries, it was assumed by nearly all white people that there must be some kind of creator who has decided the rules for reality. For most, this was the Christian God.
Darwin (I don’t know if he has any connection to Jews, but it wouldn’t surprise me) was a trained theologian from a largely secular university. He traveled aboard the Beagle to the Galapagos and years later used that travel as an excuse to invent a new religion that would play off of Enlightenment values (the same Enlightenment that saw Jews unbanned from many countries in Europe). This new religion (which has come to be called Darwinism) was created to directly contradict one of the most important stories of the Bible, the Fall of Man as depicted in the early chapters of Genesis. This story is important because it establishes Man as fallen and sinful so that he can later be redeemed by Christ. Without Adam and Eve, there is no need for salvation. This would also mean that the Bible “was wrong” about creation, and because of this casts doubt on the existence of the Christian God at all.
This new religion based itself entirely on extrapolation of observed morphological differences. Darwin made the braindead observation that birds with different beaks are different things and eventually chalked that up to birds and humans having descended from a common ancestor. Yes, Darwin really does want you to believe that pigeons are the estranged brothers of Man.

So the ultimate effect of Darwinism is demoralization in two ways in descending order of importance:
rejection of God
Man portrayed as just another beast

There are a bunch of problems with Darwinism, addressed by both Christian thinkers and philosophers such as Nietzsche.
One thing few people know about that further casts doubt upon Darwinism is that its adherents created the myth of a widespread belief among historical Christians in a flat earth. Darwinists in the late 19th Century actually revised history so they could portray Christians as backward and unscientific.

Henry Rivera
Henry Rivera

A flat stationary Earth at the centre of our world was the default belief of all civilisations predating Christ

Attached: hqdefault[1].jpg (49.96 KB, 480x360)

Brayden Ross
Brayden Ross

Well, in fairness that statement was made back in the 30s. Hitler did not have access to the fossil record that we do. Besides, a lot of his close associates were into mystical Thule Society ideas.

In any case, National Socialism fits more in line with the scientific view of the world than most religious views of the world. At least, moreso than the Abrahamic faiths. The idea that everyone is equal in every way is a ridiculous, unscientific idea. If you follow the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion, you eventually come to the realization that Europeans are simply different from Africans mentally and physically. And since racial survival is natural, it should be our policy.

Wyatt Bennett
Wyatt Bennett

Well, the Greeks came up with round earth far as I know and I think that was at least a few decades before Jesus was born.

Jayden Cox
Jayden Cox

White people are getting less intelligent as a result of gynocentrism and women picking low IQ men to reproduce with

Connor Campbell
Connor Campbell

Okay, after a dozen posts all pretending that Hitler believed in the jewish fraudulent science of Darwin's theory of evolution I must concede that was a complete lie
b.b.b but Hitler did not have access to the fossil record that we do. Besides, a lot of his close associates were into mystical Thule Society ideas.
Show us these fossil records we now have access to proving the link between monkey transforming into man

There is absolutely no evidence presented at any point to prove the link between monkey and man that wasn't later shown to be an elaborate hoax

What you niggers are forgetting is that Kampfy can no longer instaban anyone veering away from the jew-approved narratives any longer

Owen Scott
Owen Scott

he's not wrong. we have never really observed much change within a species. scientists would argue that we havn't been observing long enough to see a change, which is fair. but considering how quickly selective breeding can work ( for example; dogs) its fair to assume we should have seen change atleast as radical as that over the course of hundreds of years, but we have not.

evolution is an interesting topic and there is alot of interesting grounds for discussion.
unfortunately most people accept it as settled fact and dont allow for any discourse or room for new ideas or new theories, especially within the scientific community.
its treated like a secular religion.

Attached: 1446136326823-0.jpg (285.08 KB, 621x1000)

Elijah Russell
Elijah Russell

What the fuck are you talking about you flat earth retard

Jackson Moore
Jackson Moore

Show us these fossil records we now have access to proving the link between monkey transforming into man
There is evidence of many different species of hominids.
In my last class of human evolution i had, the latest ancestor would be ~3.5 million years.
The evolution of humans is one very delicate subject because it redpills any honest scientific trying to study it.

To be precise, this is one of the possible trees of human evolution.
And to answer OPs question, with what i studied in mind, and by observing modern humans and humanoids (africans) as it is now, i would say that what makes europeans so unique, is the fact that they were already intelligent and developed, with many brain fissures, but then racemixed / interbreed with H. neanderthalensis, which by default had a bigger brain.
The result was a new hominid type, similar to humans but with a more developed brain. This would be a very "drastic" or quick in time, change in that population. The fossil record would show a very fast change in types found in specific parts in Europe, and so this is what is actually observed.

You see, natural selection is not the whole thing. There are other factors (like genetic drift) to take into account.
"The fittest species survive a given environment" is part true part false. Because by random chance, a very fit species can die rapidly when a disaster event happens. And a not-so-fit species can occupy it afterwards, rapidly expanding its population, despite not being so well adapted as the previous one.

I hope this message reaches someone not completely ofuscated by their ideology but rather honest and who wants to discover truth, which in my opinion is far more important than anything else.

Attached: humanevo.jpg (76.41 KB, 960x720)

Angel Wilson
Angel Wilson

The idea that everyone is equal in every way is a ridiculous, unscientific idea
It is also not a Christian one. Christianity says that everyone will be judged by the same standard, but that is it. Otherwise, it clearly states that elders are superior to youth, men are superior to women, masters are superior to servants, believers are superior to heathens, kings are superior to subjects, gentiles are superior to jews (who are not really jews but are the synagogue of satan), etc.

Aiden Walker
Aiden Walker

0c3444
I was replying to user ID [0c3444]
You forgot to log out of the current VPN client you were using to respond to me

Anthony Ortiz
Anthony Ortiz

You asked a question for me to prove evidence of fossils found proving that monkey transformed into man which I claimed existed, after you had demonstrated that unlike our earlier claims Hitler didn't believe in jewish science fiction
Behold, I present to you, no more than a drawing!

Jose Watson
Jose Watson

Darwinist wignats will not touch this post because they know it is true

Cameron Hill
Cameron Hill

Evolution is the inherent belief that chaos is the natural state of the universe, and out of that chaos comes order.
This is true though, and God (or gods) create and maintain this order

Lucas Howard
Lucas Howard

the last panel says "cock"
Heh.
default belief
So a bunch of people who only ever saw the world from one point of view believed it was flat. What a surprise.

Jace Robinson
Jace Robinson

DAILY REMINDER TO GO AND BUY A COPY OF
CULTURE OF CRITIQUE WHICH GOES
INTO GREAT DETAIL OF HOW DARWIN IS RIGHT
AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY JEWS IS
PURE POLITICAL AGENDA
READ A FUCKING BOOK
READ A FUCKING BOOK
READ A FUCKING BOOK
READ A FUCKING BOOK
READ A FUCKING BOOK
READ A FUCKING BOOK

Ethan Roberts
Ethan Roberts

It's the same "I believe in god because I can't explain something" crap you faggots always spout. "God did it, now I don't have to think". It's exactly why Christcucks are seen as backwards and unscientific. Always willing to put the same explanation to everything they don't understand.

Lincoln Sanders
Lincoln Sanders

DARWIN IS RIGHT
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY JEWS IS PURE POLITICAL AGENDA
<Darwinism is required curriculum in high school
mfw
bullshit vagueries and strawmen that do not address anything specifically contained within the post
you are scared

Attached: thinkign.gif (66.76 KB, 256x192)

Asher Morgan
Asher Morgan

Am back, slept good.

Noah Ross
Noah Ross

The Jew School says that genetics (race) doesn't matter and that intelligence is purely a product of one's environment that they live in. It does not take into account evolution. As a matter of fact, they are totally against the Darwinian school of thought.

Joseph Fisher
Joseph Fisher

What kind of fucking retard boomer are you faggot? I've only heard this shit from boomer christcucks. This shit is so tired and ridiculous. I feel like I'm back in the fucking 1990's again with the retarded religious right.

Faith in god/belief in a religion is not the same as accepting a scientific theory as the best guess we have about how we got here.
Faith, even when presented with evidence contrary to the believers faith, requires that one continue to believe despite said evidence.
The scientific method on the other hand demands that the "believer" reject an old theory when new evidence comes to light that makes the old theory proven false.
No matter how much I try to convince you that God isn't real, you won't change your mind.
But, if you can prove that evolution is wrong, or even that God is real (with actual evidence, with reproduceable results), I will be forced to accept this new information, if I have any integrity toward the truth.

Parker Bailey
Parker Bailey

but that is because we all share a common ancestor user, stop being such a bigot
I do see where you are coming from now, selective teaching of Darwin, they focus on Origin of Species without touching Descent of Man.

Kayden King
Kayden King

evolution is a satanic attempt to take glory away from God

Noah Barnes
Noah Barnes

Not at all. Whites came from niggers, sure, but we improved and became better, smarter. Evolution applied to humans is easily the most red pilling thing that whites can use to prove why it is important to maintain our genetic integrity and respect our lineage and ancestors.
It's christcucks like you who undermine our racial integrity by following a jew who said all races are equal before God, when the fact is that it is demonstrably false that the races are equal, let alone even similar in behavior or attitudes withing large social groups.

Jason Sanders
Jason Sanders

Humans are apes. This is a fact verified by taxonomic definitions and genetic analysis. Hitler couldn't have known about DNA, but Carolus Linnaeus - a man who believed all things were made by a God - understood that humans fall under the ape clade back in the 1700's, and demanded an explanation from other religious folks at the time for why this was the case if man was supposedly made in a God's image.

Ethan Ortiz
Ethan Ortiz

Is every explanation of the laws of nature an attempt to take away glory from god?
Fuck gravity, god keeps me on the ground
Surely god is capable of automating stuff…

There was a period of a couples years where I began to appreciate Christians for not being Muslims, but now I realize you're just dumb whites. You're not fit to call the shots on anything, only to be led, and used as cannon fodder on the frontlines of war.

Gabriel Ross
Gabriel Ross

boomer
/cuckchannel/index.html
Faith in god/belief in a religion is not the same
here are a few definitions of faith from Merriam-Webster:
belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
something that is believed especially with strong conviction
Faith, even when presented with evidence contrary to the believers faith, requires that one continue to believe despite said evidence.
Don't make things up, lack of evidence != a contradiction. There are no facts that contradict Christian creationism that do not also contradict Darwinism.
You have this hypocritical jewish fantasy logic where "rules are for thee but not for me". There is no proof of your evolution theory yet you continue to hold it and ask me (technically not me) to prove to you that God exists.
laws of nature
evolution
this is how you immediately out yourself as unlearned
The reason why Christians take specific issue with Darwinism is explained here:

Owen Scott
Owen Scott

There is evidence to support this questionable theory, I can't find the right picture drawn yet to prove this theory, but it's a fact right
Again, there's more evidence that hitler personally gassed 6 million jews in one afternoon than there is for the Darwin THEORY or evolution
No evidence

Josiah Gutierrez
Josiah Gutierrez

believers are superior to heathens
<Niggers who accept Yahovah are SUPERIOR to White people who don't
And this is why Christianity is a dumb cult.

Ignore all the evidence
Ignore all the evidence
Ignore all the evidence
Ignore all the evidence
Ignore all the evidence
Ignore all the evidence
Oh yeah? Show me sum evidence huh?
And when I do, you'll just say
THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE. SHOW ME A HALF MONKEY HALF PENGUIN!!!!!
HA! Evolution debunked!
You're beyond stupid. You're a nigger.

Worshiping a jew is not the jew approved narrative
You people are so fucking stupid it is astounding.

Aiden Morgan
Aiden Morgan

Have you a solitary piece of evidence to support Darwins THEORY?
It's an important point in a thread filled with those insisting there's tons of proof, yet we've seen more proof of the holoco$t lie than of man evolving from monkeys

Remember you;re the ones screaming about all the masses of proof you have, yet 600 posts ion and you've not provided any other than abuse and insults

Kayden Allen
Kayden Allen

What evidence

Pro-tip
When you claim to have furnished us all with tons of evidence, it would help your cause to provide at least a solitary piece of evidence.

So far you've provided none

Michael Ortiz
Michael Ortiz

Attached: why-evolution-is-a-religion-and-not-part-of-science.png (375.34 KB, 1744x305)

Michael Reyes
Michael Reyes

Looking at your imagined world from a CGI graphic isn't another true perspective but an imagined one…

Jonathan Diaz
Jonathan Diaz

Behold, I present to you, no more than a drawing!
I have one picture of the many fossils presented in my class ; would that help? i would dox myself also, which i prefer not.
There are many fossils out there, in museums.

What's your point again?
That humans spawned from nowhere?
If you explain your proposed theory of human evolution, i would listen, and try to debunk if it is false, or accept it if it explains all available data.

Brody Walker
Brody Walker

You're too ignorant to waste much effort trying to convince.
Start here, nigger
khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

Nicholas Reed
Nicholas Reed

Darwin made the braindead observation that birds with different beaks are different things
Yes, there are, but it is more evident in islands, where a small population of birds would colonize and afterwards evolve independently of another, relatively close in distance, island.
When that happens after many thousand years, specialization would occur (and thus speciation).
This observation leads us to believe that many related species arise from a single one, its population would split and specialization would occur, which with time gives different species with different observable traits.
Applying this to all life gives the complete darwinian theory of evolution (which is not complete ; it lacks the knowledge of genomics, gene evolution, and the important concept of genetic drift).

So i ask this question, because as a nationalist myself, i honestly don't understand some of you in this thread:
Do you believe in a rival theory of human evolution? Do you believe in the Bible as a literal tale of what humans were and how they were created?
It is possible you are being dishonest just for the sake of believing in a certain religion, instead of acknowledging the truth that can be obtained by detailed observation of nature and history (fossil records)

Grayson Young
Grayson Young

unfortunately most people accept it as settled fact and dont allow for any discourse or room for new ideas or new theories, especially within the scientific community.
I think you are right when talking about human evolution.
This subject in particular is highly controversial, because scientists have determined - by ((( consensus ))) - that all current living hominids on Earth are members of the (artificial) group "modern human" , and thus if you put that as an axiom, there is so far you can get.
The available data suggests that there are at least 4 branches of humans, which diverge themselves from anywhere from 40k to 500k years. It would be "wrongthink" to question the moder human group having this in mind.

Regarding other species, every now and then someone proposes a rival and exotic theory, like symbiont theory, to explain some specific clades of living beings. But it is possible tha not one single theory explains everything.
Rather, many theories explain many different situations when their hypothesis are checked. When they are not, another theory would explain the evolution of that clade.

Evan Sanchez
Evan Sanchez

There are many fossils out there, in museums.
Why haven't you posted a single one of them that proves what you claim, instead of dozens of posts filled with unjustified ridicule because you have zero evidence to back any claim
What's your point again?
You are unable to provide proof, your response again provides none.

Why would I now have to appease and provide for you proof of a "theory" that I haven't made any claim to, only you have…

Zachary Walker
Zachary Walker

You;re too ignorant to understand my lack of ability to present any proof of the claims I make
It's not ignorance realising that you've simply repeated jewish lies without a shred of proof to support a word you've said

Ian Clark
Ian Clark

This post is what is known as a gish gallop. Dishonest Creationists know if they lie enough, some people won't be interested in pointing out the truth. Too bad I have weaponized my autism.

Without authorship or intention
There has never been demonstrated to exist an intended goal in evolutionary development. Only many attempts at survival, with extinction being the main outcome for the vast majority of species:
amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction
aei.org/publication/99-9-of-all-species-have-already-gone-extinct/
there is no meaning
This does not refute the testable, observable reality of change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms that defines biological evolution.
Only a creator can choose purpose
Natural Selection chooses all the time, creators need not apply. If an organism has for instance developed a shell that offers protection from the selective pressures it faces, we can describe the shell as having a protective purpose and the creature as being relatively designed to handle its surroundings, all while describing a new structure of the species' body that wasn't around before (i.e. Whenever it was supposedly created).
Design without Designer:
pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567
researchgate.net/publication/6336726_Darwin's_greatest_discovery_Design_without_designer
used that travel as an excuse to invent a new religion
The process of evolution requires no faith or belief to see. And to characterize the years of field studies that Darwin underwent to ensure that his findings would be well-researched and understood before publishing it as just one ship ride is a rejection of reality
Enlightenment Values
The Enlightenment proposed egalitarianism as a foundational belief, which evolution rules out as even being possible:
history.com/topics/british-history/enlightenment
Darwinism
His findings and proposed implications hit the hammer on the head at the time, but our understanding of evolution has increased drastically since those days. The Theory of Evolutionary Developmental Biology is a prime example of how much we have learned:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18007650
was created to contradict Bible
Wrong. Charles Darwin only brought up ideas that were based on actual evidence, as well as the evidence itself. No further intent behind it than to characterize the natural phenomena that he had studied. If your religion directly contradicts reality, it's wrong by definition.
observed morphological differences
Morphology stems from genealogy, so it stands to reason that obviously related animals with different traits will have slightly different development due to the way their family line developed to fill a given environmental niche, all from a common ancestry between them. They are different species, but they had a recent common ancestry. Charles Darwin wanted to know how one ancestral group of birds became many different species:
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html
earthwatch.org/Expeditions/Darwins-Finches-and-Natural-Selection-in-the-Galapagos
humans and birds have common ancestry
This is true, but completely irrelevant to the point that these new finch specie had branched of from the same finch trunk.
pigeons are the estranged brothers of man
This is true. We are both eukaryotic, chordate, vertebrate, tetrapod, amniotes. It's obvious that we share a common ancestry, and that the split happened at the most recent commonality. Birds are diapsid reptiles (a more accurate word would be amniotes), and we are synapsid reptiles/amniotes.
The ultimate goal of Darwin is demoralization
Wrong. His goal was to explain how new species arise through Natural Selection, and he succeeded with flying colors. We see speciation happen all the time:
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
Flat Earth
Irrelevant, but it is taught in the Bible.

A whole lot of bullshit in a short span - a gish gallop.

Charles Roberts
Charles Roberts

Well, fossils have a bunch of issues. For one, it's impossible to know if a fossil actually successfully passed on its genetics. Additionally, it is almost impossible to recover a mostly intact skeleton of an organism, for some ancestral human species the only evidence for their existence is a fragment of a jaw! It is likely there is Jewish frankensteining of skeletons occurring all the time in paleontology.
They find a jaw somewhere and a few fingers somewhere else and combine them together to make man-apes.
Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
Also could be argued that this is evidence of a common designer.
DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
same as the last point
The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
microevolution/natural selection, this is generally accepted by learned Christians
We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
yes, microevolution, as I said no one worth their salt disputes this
The issue Christians take offense with is the supposed possibility of one animal changing greatly, such as a monkey into a man or a dino into a bird. We do not believe compounded genetic variance can cause this to occur.
I meant to say "ate different things". I have talked about some of the thins
Do you believe in the Bible as a literal tale of what humans were and how they were created?
yes
It is possible you are being dishonest just for the sake of believing in a certain religion, instead of acknowledging the truth that can be obtained by detailed observation of nature and history (fossil records).
A near identical question could be asked of you. You have already assumed that evolution is true, and thus the evidence falls into place in accordance with your worldview. I would argue that nature's beauty and the ingenuity of the creations it contains are evidence of intelligent design. How could something like the neck of a giraffe evolve?

Christian Jackson
Christian Jackson

gish gallop
Steam of pointlessness commences
See, gish gallop
Any evidence for this jewish science theory of evolution?

nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state. -Adolf Hitler

Jaxon Howard
Jaxon Howard

Wow you gish galloped around the whole point that post was making!
It is clearly observable that darwinism has caused the degradation of our social morality.

Andrew Gonzalez
Andrew Gonzalez

Another Christcuck peasant thinks I'm unlearned. How will I ever recover?!

Levi Smith
Levi Smith

Boomer
I call you retards boomers because your generation of retarded christ fags destroyed the gop, literally sold the party to kikes. I grew up watching you retards do this shit. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.
You fucking boomer Reaganite christ cucks did this. You fucking retards surrendered science to the communist kike left when you started pushing your strict evangelical creationism.
Additionally, I dont need to convince you of anything, because that's not the intent of my post. My intent is to call out your amazingly retarded comparison of faith and acceptance of a scientific theory as equivalent. They're not the fucking same and you out yourself as a fucking brainlet NPC boomer who listens to retarded fundamentalist Christian apologists.

I'm not trying to convince you of evolution you dumb faggot, I genuinely do not give a damn if you accept the theory or not. I'm calling out the bullshit comparison of equity you dumb fundie christ cucks make between faith and someone's acceptance of a scientific theory.
If you're going to argue for creationism at least argue with integrity you dumb lazy faggot boomer christ cuck.

Jose Anderson
Jose Anderson

THEORY
You're misusing that word. First of all, Darwin's Theory isn't really Darwin's anymore because the vast majority of modern Evolutionary Developmental Biology Theory is based on other people's work. Darwin was a ground-breaking pioneer ahead of his time, but he didn't know half the facts of the process of evolution (Something you can't refute by screeching) that we know now.

Second of all, a Scientific "Theory" is a well-substantiated explanation of a given aspect of the natural world, based on a vast body of evidence including datasets, facts, observations, tests, and experiments. They are not the same thing as a common guess like you seem to think, and the Theory of Evolution has withstood rigorous scrutiny and testing for well over a century, and it's still standing strong.

there are no facts the contradict Christian Creationism that do not also contradict evolution
The Earth isn't 6,000-10,000 years old like Creationists think. That fact does nothing to hinder the change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms that defines biological evolution, and in fact helps it by giving enough time fore more substantial speciation events to transpire
there is no proof of Evolutionary Developmental Biology
Except evolution as a process happens. Evolution is both a fact of reality and a Scientific Theory.
evolution
not a law of nature
Descent with inherent modification is a fact of biological reality. It is a natural phenomena that can be described, and has been described and defined as biological evolution. Therefore it fits the definition of a natural law.
take issue
Read:

Isaac Wright
Isaac Wright

A theory isn't a theory if it's an unproven theory, you're misusing the word!
I think you'll find it's you misusing the words

Colton Powell
Colton Powell

With the risk of doxxing myself, here are some fossils of "midway" hominids presented to me.
Some of them correspond to the evolutionary tree that i posted before.

Why would I now have to appease and provide for you proof of a "theory" that I haven't made any claim to, only you have…
I don't know if we both are playing by the scientific method rules. Or maybe you are being dishonest and don't seek truth, rather a "truth" that corresponds to your ideology or religion. Which is not necessarily objective truth.
There is a reality from where we can extract data ; from the data available, we try to generate a model to explain everything or as much as we can. There could still be things unexplained until a rival theory explains everything much better than the previous one.
That's why i asked you for a better theory to explain everything.
Until a better one is presented, the "not-so-good" theory still holds.

So the not-so-good theory is this:
humans evolved near-linearly from Au. afarensis (ape-like hominid , NOT A CHIMPANZE), from ~3 mill.years until H.habilis 1.5 mill years ago. From habilis comes an H.antecessor (partial fossil found - granted, only a few dental pieces and parts of the craneum were found) which links to H.heidelbergensis, 500k years ago, from which the last common ancestor between europeans, asians, and africans would span. A separate hominid, H.neanderthalensis (older whch spans before habilis, see picture for a fossil record), crossbreed with europeans, giving modern europeans.

The one i posted is one of the "accepted" ways humans evolved. It explains many fossil discoveries made worldwide.
Notice that many fossils were discovered, for example the Cromagnon fossils, the H.Floresciensis fossils, among others, and were published in many papers like Nature . You may disregard this, because obviously not everything ever posted is true. To discuss this, we would need to discuss first which data is true.
Sure, there could be many fossils that contradict the theory ; i hope a rival theory someday explains everything but most of evolutionists think that it is very unlikely as with time - thousands or millions of years - some of the evidence gets buried or destroyed by natural phenomena

I'm not saying that what i'm saying is 100% truth or what truly happened, but it is what the data shows us until now, supposing data isn't fake, and is the simplest theory to explain most of the data found. If you have a better one, please explain it.

Attached: image-2018-1.jpg (737.89 KB, 852x1072)
Attached: image-2018-2.jpg (868.45 KB, 888x1295)
Attached: image-2018-3.jpg (725.47 KB, 888x981)
Attached: floresiensis-1-NOT-MINE.jpg (114.9 KB, 800x600)
Attached: cromagnon-1-NOT-MINE.jpg (260.46 KB, 1280x697)

Jaxon Bennett
Jaxon Bennett

Why is arguing against an unproven theory mean I am arguing for a different unproven theory?
Did you arrive from the Anglin/Kampfy school of
Oy vey you won't support ZOG plan B, therefore you must support ZOG plan A

Liam Garcia
Liam Garcia

Every single skeleton and fossil find used in every attempt to 'prove' Darwin's theory was later found to have been an elaborate fraud.

Not a mistake, or accidental misunderstanding, but a calculated hoax designed to mislead and trick people into believing a theory of which there isn't a jot of evidence to support it.

That is every single find ever brought forward, not just one or two, but.every.single.one.

nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2016/august/piltdown-man-charles-dawson-likely-fraudster.html

Josiah Evans
Josiah Evans

You're dense as fuck dude. Or you're being obtuse on purpose.
Either way, you're the exact kind of cancer that shits this place up and makes the threads you're in feel like a 1990's internet bulletin board with retarded schizos and low IQ zog bots following the CIA crafted conspiracy theories designed to distract from the real conspiracies going on each day.

Brayden Wood
Brayden Wood

I care about my folk.
Alright, great, we can start from there. If you don't learn to get along with and even befriend your fellow Whites despite how they might differ in ideology and belief with you, your "folk" is not going to make it, comrade. You're sowing salt in your fields, telling everyone what a rich harvest you are hoping for this year; you're acting like an inbred moron when you say:
I don't view Christians as Whites, regardless of their skin color.
What you're essentially saying is that you don't care about your people if they hold a certain belief, you're an anti-white, after all it seems. Read the attached file all way through and you too will understand how retarded you sound when you utter such notions. Come to realise that when the time is right, you will have to learn to cooperate with military, ex-convicts, white street gangs and bikers, even confederate re-enactors for all I know. All of these groups might not even share your views at all, but in order for our people to survive you will need them, finally on top of that there are klan/skinheads/national socialists who you might ideologically agree with on a few points, although they are just as White as the rest lot. What's to take from this? Don't tolerate infighting, be a leader.

Parker Johnson
Parker Johnson

monkey into man
Humans are monkeys by definition. But you wouldn't know because you don't know what "man" or "monkey" actually means. And birds are dinosaurs, there is no distinction.
fossils might not have produced offspring
A follower of thatslimy fraudulent scumbag Kent Hovind, I see. No, we can't tell from a fossil whether or not there was successful reproduction, but we can use comparative anatomy to see what traits of an extinct species were carried on by modern creatures, and a whole slew of details regarding the life of the fossil in question
common designer
We can test for that, you know? It has been determined that common ancestry and genetic material is the cause of homologous structures.
same as last point
When you share genetic material, you are related by blopd by definition. We only know common ancestry to cause common genetic material, never have we seen otherwise (at least in sexually reproducing organisms.
Microevolution
There is no distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution exept for time scale. Macroevolution is to Microevolution what hours are to minutes. We have seen Macroevolution happen.
assumed Evolution is true
Creationist projection. Religion starts with its conclusion and cherrypicks evidence to try to support it. Science starts with the facts and draws consclusions after.

any evidence for Evolution Theory
The process of biological evolution happens.

There was no main point, it just jumped from assertion to assertion every half sentence
degredation of morality
Morals can be found in nature as they objectively apply to social specie. No need to look in a goatfucker's holy book to see it.

Ian Brown
Ian Brown

You have already assumed that evolution is true
Well, rather than "assumed", there are many facts (i.e. data apparently true) that points at modern evolution being true, and i've come to accept it as the simplest explanation.
If there appears many facts that contradict heavily the evolution theory, i would drop it altogether until a better theory comes. It didn't happen yet.
and thus the evidence falls into place in accordance with your worldview
because evidence makes much more sense with this lens, even to a point human evolution (safe for recent degenerations which are jewish-orchestrated - who would have thought that the superior germanic aryan race would have fallen at hands of the traitorous jews and their golems? this would have been unthinkable a few thousand years ago - not even Darwin predicted this aberration)
I would argue that nature's beauty and the ingenuity of the creations it contains are evidence of intelligent design
This is a good point.
Maybe the universe is designed by God, and its design is so intricate that we "thought" it was actually not designed and were looking for "scientific" ways to explain it, when the explanation was God all along.
When evidence spawns pointing to this, i would give it a chance. I (personally) would never bury actual evidence even if it points to God being the true designer or something similar.

Austin Jenkins
Austin Jenkins

Zig Forums is exactly the right place to tell christians to go fuck themselves. In the real world they'll be humored so long as they don't attempt to dictate the direction of the nation with their childish bullshit.

Carson Jones
Carson Jones

That is every single find ever brought forward, not just one or two, but.every.single.one.
Keep telling that to yourself.
It's true there have been forgeries, but it is also true that many discoveries were made in many parts of the world.
Do you have proof of their forgery for each one of them?

You must understand that, while many laboratories have jews in important positions, many non-jews honest europeans work there. When they carbon-date a specific fossil, if it were recent, the non-jew european investigators would scream forgery and the investigation cease.
It happens, but it doesn't happen in each excavation because not all fossils are forgeries.

Once again, considering all data is false, i have no theory for human evolution. They "appeared" one day. Suprisingly at the same time in many distant continents.
Now do you have any theory to explain the non-existant data?
Do you even believe in any scientific data at all?

Dominic Garcia
Dominic Garcia

Your low IQ is ruining this board by insisting on evidence for our outlandish jewish lies without any evidence to support them

Jacob Evans
Jacob Evans

Scientific Theories can not be proven, by definition. Only substantiated. You have no idea what you are talking about.

See above.

every fossil was found to be an elaborate fraud
You're conceding defeat by rejecting reality to this degree.

Jack Robinson
Jack Robinson

Keep telling yourself that the forgeries were forgeries
Yes, it's true that there "were forgeries"
Yet they were all forgeries, that isn't me telling myself that,it is incontrovertible fact that they all were fraudulent claims.
That has nothing to do with me but everything to do with the liars who made these claims.

Ryan Gonzalez
Ryan Gonzalez

Evolution is both a Scientific Theory and a natural process. Even if the Theory of Evolution was debunked (Near impossible at this point), the process of biological evolution as defined as change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms will still be happening.

Nicholas Scott
Nicholas Scott

Scientific theories can be proven with substantial evidence,evidence which is verifiable and can be repeatable.
Until such time it remains a theory until proven as fact.

No matter how you paint it, there is nothing wrong with a word I wrote and everything wrong with your unproven claims

Alexander Green
Alexander Green

Every sing skeleton/fossil
This isn't even remotely true.
Piltdown man was found to be a hoax yes, but you're really stretching in claiming that all fossils are hoaxes.
This is why you're like a schitzo dude. One lie doesn't equate to the entire thing being a fucking hoax. The scientific community even admitted the truth once they hoax was uncovered.
That's the point of the scientific method and the admittance of it being found to be a hoax shows that there are many in the scientific community who value truth over any narrative that might benefit them.
You're making connections that don't exist. One idiot liar does not inevitably prove your claim that all skeletons and fossils are fake/false/hoaxes.

Michael Thomas
Michael Thomas

Your low IQ is ruining this board by insisting on evidence for our outlandish jewish lies without any evidence to support them
There is evidence which you claim all is fake.
The most obvious, non-fake evidence is the fact that we have artifacts from other primates (even from other mammals) in our own genome.
When we look at any cell of our body, we don't see anything far different than what other animals look like.
Why would we have tail-like relic genes from distant ancestors if humans were designed by God?
Why would God not remove those genes and make it as perfectly as possible, for example removing garbage so that we don't have diseases or illness?

All of this is assuming your rival theory is that God created humans as it is. If not, please explain your theory that explains the current data available (the one you claim is true, not the one that you say is false)

Tyler Baker
Tyler Baker

You're going off the deep-end with your delusions. You have no idea just how many fossils have been found.

Luis Collins
Luis Collins

Theories are explanations, not guesses. You can only prove that an explanation is accurate by substantiating it with facts. You can not honestly say a given explanation is 100% true unless you know literally everything. Scientific Theories/explanations use what we know to describe aspects of the natural world.

Evolution as a process, happens. It's a fact that helps substantiate Evolution as a Scientific Theory.

Josiah Anderson
Josiah Anderson

The scientific community didn't just acknowledge frauds as fraudulent, they were the ones who proved the frauds as fraudulent.

Josiah Collins
Josiah Collins

niggers begin arguing whether or not evolution happens

seriously? That does nothing at all to address the topic of whether or not humanity is solely a product of evolution, but then again this always happens.

Caleb Harris
Caleb Harris

You can look at the DNA records yourself. Many of the bones have been studied at this point.
Unless of course you believe these are fraudulent as well.
Because the stance your taking is implying a massive conspiracy across the entirety of biological sciences and has been effectively maintained for 159 years.
And then, you must ask, if this is true, who benefits here? We're talking a century and a half of lies where no one benefits and everyone is sworn to lies and secrecy.
The people who went into these fields were all interested in truth, but ended up spending their entire lives helping to maintain a lie.
It's a ridiculous proposition on its face.
This is why you're like a schizophrenic man.

Christian Turner
Christian Turner

Evolution applies to humans too. It's evidently how we got here.

Kevin Roberts
Kevin Roberts

Some would suggest filtering, but that's cowardly.

Andrew Bennett
Andrew Bennett

I think this thread is a perfect example of why people hate christcucks. They openly hate evolution, the basis for race realism and inequality in humans, because it destroys their egalitarian worldview. They try to make everything centered around their religion be it Zig Forums, National Socialism, or European history in general, and they are the ones who started the shitflinging in this thread calling everyone a shill or kike for not towing their line and merely disagreeing.
pic related

Attached: palestinians-are-indigenious.png (1.74 MB, 1700x1800)

Jaxson Lee
Jaxson Lee

again though, it's not answering the question of whether any spiritual aspect to humans exists or if we're just purely a chemical composition created by millions of years of evolution.

Christian Morgan
Christian Morgan

You have no idea just how many fossils have been found.
The fact you are unable to provide the evidence suggests nor do you
So far none have been found that didn't later turn out to be an elaborate hoax,not an honest mistake or miscalculation but an abject fraud.

This is how I know i'm not dealing with an honest user, because the very fact that every single find brought forward to prove Darwin's THEORY turned out after using the scientific method, proven they were elaborate hoaxes made by combining the bones of dozens of separate species of animals.

Anyone with an honest bone in their body would be quite intrigued by the need for fakery for a theory you feel so deeply for.

Austin Ward
Austin Ward

As a physicists, the theory is very sound from a theoretical point of view. The ToE is basically optimization to find the path of least resistance, which is exactly what most physics is basically based upon with hamiltonian mechanics.
There isn't a single "Theory of Evolution", only theories, of which the Darwinian one is the most extreme and, unfortunately, the most well known, despite the complete lack of evidence.

Attached: Eschatron.jpg (57.93 KB, 733x550)

Christopher Taylor
Christopher Taylor

I don't claim the evidence presented is fake, it has been scientifically proven that all claims [see Piltdown man etc] were hoaxes

This all happened before you were born, I wasn't the scientist involved in proving the hoaxes presented as truth were fraudulent.

Facts are facts, theories are unproven until such time that facts supporting their argumentare found.
To date none have been found

Carter Price
Carter Price

He refuses to admit he's a creationist. He refuses to admit to any belief.
If I hadn't seen his kind so much in the 90's and early 00's internet I'd call him out as a shitposter or maybe a shill, but his kind is more common than I like to admit, they pop up all over the place and they'll argue endlessly about this stuff.
The zogs really did a number with their evangelical zionists back in the day. It really corrupted an entire generation of right wing conservatives.
It's only been the last 5 years or so that I've begun to see some normalcy and reason returning to the rightwing movement.

Michael Brown
Michael Brown

You think it would be worth archiving this thread, for posterity?

False dichotomy. Who is to say that material doesn't have spiritual qualities?

Quite a deluded worldview you got there. Tell me, did those pernicious Germans fabricate Archaeopteryx?

Brody Campbell
Brody Campbell

Who is to say that material doesn't have spiritual qualities?
I'm not one to say that, but if "spiritual qualities" arise randomly for no reason purely because of material interactions, then what you have is a non-spiritual spirituality.

Thomas Taylor
Thomas Taylor

The only modern Scientific Theory that applies to Evolution is the Theory of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, also called evo-devo.

No, not every fossil was a fraudulent fabrication. Not even close.

Lucas Ramirez
Lucas Ramirez

Holy fucking shit. Thanks for posting this, I had no idea that anyone could be this retarded. I can see why the left would like to forget this ever happened.

Jose Price
Jose Price

If not, please explain your theory that explains the current data available (the one you claim is true, not the one that you say is false)
That's not how science works. A theory does most emphatically NOT get automatic default status only because there is no ideologically palpatable alternative at that time.

Fact: there is no single shred of evidence - none at all, zero - for the Darwinian theory of evolution. Anybody still pushing it is per definition a fraud.

Attached: 1466704566696.png (349.11 KB, 508x335)

William Hall
William Hall

Who is to say that spiritual qualities have no value if they are random?

Gavin Diaz
Gavin Diaz

Archive it user. Let it be a cautionary tale for any wandering newfags

Jason Hernandez
Jason Hernandez

The only modern Scientific Theory that applies to Evolution is the Theory of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, also called evo-devo.
Only if it doesn't repeat Darwin's error, i.e. thinking that natural selection can create entire new species.

Attached: 1446631739398.jpg (2.1 MB, 1500x1060)

Michael Kelly
Michael Kelly

In the absence of an ordering force for the universe, I can only imagine value is impossible, but I'm willing to hear an alternative explanation.

Ian Jones
Ian Jones

Natural Selection happens. Descent with inherent modification happens. Change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms happens. The Theory of Evolution has solid foundations.

Nolan Howard
Nolan Howard

I personally can not.

Speciation by Natural Selection happens and is accounted for by evo-devo. What does that have to do with the number of Scientific Theories?

Hunter Moore
Hunter Moore

The qualities stand up by themselves. I am just saying that debating to choose between all-material and all-spiritual is a false dichotomy. Reality has both a material and a spiritual aspect.

James Wright
James Wright

Natural Selection happens.
Correct.

Descent with inherent modification happens.
Correct.

Change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms happens.
Correct.

The Theory of Evolution has solid foundations.
What you described are merely facets of natural selection, very trivial. What Darwin did was much more extreme - he posited that this process of natural selection produces entire new species. THAT is Darwin's claim to fame, a claim for which does not exist a single piece of evidence, to this very day.

Speciation by Natural Selection happens
Provide evidence. NOT post-hoc storytelling, but actual evidence of an actual case speciation happening.

Chase Morris
Chase Morris

chaos
It's only chaos from the perspective of a finite being. The laws of nature are set, and anyone omnipresent, and aware of those laws would see exactly how the story of life would play out.

William Smith
William Smith

You're deluded because you don't accept jewish scientific theory as fact because us press-ganging kikes have amped up the activity on a thread
If that makes me deluded then I can accept that
Why can't you accept that anons here are from a stronger strain of hominid not easily coerced into agreeing with jewish science just because an infinite number of hasbara spam a thread.

In the old days you could just hit report and Kampfy would come clean up in an instant, now it takes a few days for kampfy and his crew to silently gas a thread

Oliver Wilson
Oliver Wilson

You're deluded because you don't accept jewish scientific theory as fact because us press-ganging kikes have amped up the activity on a thread
If that makes me deluded then I can accept that

Why can't you accept that anons here are from a stronger strain of hominid not easily coerced into agreeing with jewish science just because an infinite number of hasbara spam a thread.

In the old days you could just hit report and Kampfy would come clean up in an instant, now it takes a few days for kampfy and his crew to silently gas a thread

Jordan Ortiz
Jordan Ortiz

(checked)
The laws of nature are set, and anyone omnipresent, and aware of those laws would see exactly how the story of life would play out.
Quantum mechanics made mechanistic determinism superfluous - you're 120 years late. The very concept of "natural law" doesn't hold much sway anymore in physics.

Elijah Watson
Elijah Watson

entire new species.
As determined by humans. Nothing in life is created, only transformed. For easier consumption by the mind, we classify things.

Xavier Sanchez
Xavier Sanchez

Dog breeds
Fact: there is no single shred of evidence - none at all, zero - for the Darwinian theory of evolution. Anybody still pushing it is per definition a fraud.
Let's start simple. Dog breeds.
If there is no basis for natural selection, let's start with human selection.
How does a wolf become pic related if controlled breeding can't influence genetic output?

Attached: gray-wolf-closeup.jpg (1.4 MB, 1600x900)
Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (25.62 KB, 474x322)

Kevin Scott
Kevin Scott

You're wrong for reasons
That you apparently can't articulate.

Grayson Diaz
Grayson Diaz

controlled breeding
evidence of Darwinian evolution.

Attached: 8Jks0jr.png (261.31 KB, 630x565)

Jaxson Cook
Jaxson Cook

It shows that pressures create changes. And humans do not exist outside of nature.

Matthew Bailey
Matthew Bailey

piltdown man, etc.
What are these "etc"?

Dominic Edwards
Dominic Edwards

Observed Speciation Events:
blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
ad hoc
Says the Christian who thinks (((YHWH))) made the universe with a magic spell.

Repeating the same post is spamming, is it not? You failed to address anything of substance.

Christopher Rodriguez
Christopher Rodriguez

Macroevolution? No evidence whatsoever. Microevolution? You're mentally ill if you deny its existence, because the evidence is fucking everywhere.

THAT'S the hangup, user. That's why people still ✡argue✡ about this. It's just like ✡global warming✡ being purposely conflated with environmentalism, such that you "can't" be an environmentalist without believing ✡global warming✡.

Jordan Bailey
Jordan Bailey

Biological evolution is defined as change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms. Artificial Selection is a means of enacting evolutionary development, no matter how much you screech that it isn't.

Ryder Butler
Ryder Butler

Okay. So you admit controlled breeding can create different genetic output.
Tell me then how natural pressures over the course of a million years or more can't provide similar results of a changing genetic output.
Selective breeding by humans managed to turn a wolf into domestic dogs in around 20,000 years or so. Russian breeders have managed to create super docile foxes with floppy ears and changes fur colors in only a few generations through selective breeding.
Are you insisting that environmental pressures can't allow for the resultant genetic output of species we see today?

Andrew Gray
Andrew Gray

Macroevolution is defined as change at or above the species level. Speciation is Macroevolution.

Adrian Wright
Adrian Wright

Oy vey you have provided evidence of known elaborate hoaxes made to prove the jewish lie of Darwin's theory, I want more examples
Please expand on this
Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud.
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man.
Java Man
et cetera…

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen

As determined by humans.
Nothing in life is created, only transformed.
Let's not get too metaphysical for the moment. I'm talking about the term "species" as commonly used among current biologists and geneticists.

Dog breeds
Exactly - breeds, not species.

How does a wolf become pic related if controlled breeding can't influence genetic output?
That's not the point - of course natural selection happens. Can natural selection create entire new species, THAT's the question, and the scientific answer is a loud and clear "no".

That you apparently can't articulate.
QM is a microphysical theory positing that the building blocks of matter consist of ultimately non-deterministic parts, i.e. contrary to your earlier claim, any given end state can not be calculated from the starting configuration. Even in theory. Now if that is true is another question entirely.

(check)
Cite specific examples, not just lazily pump out some links.

Says the Christian who thinks (((YHWH))) made the universe with a magic spell.
I'm talking strictly science. Please no reference to religion at all.

Attached: 6qEsE0Q.gif (4.81 MB, 245x164)

Jose Lewis
Jose Lewis

I think we're getting microevolution and macroevolution confused here

Microevolution has been observed and witnessed in our lifetimes, macroevolution is unproven jewish science fiction

Hunter Scott
Hunter Scott

Is Lucy such an example? Quit looking at Kent Hovind's material.

Daniel Phillips
Daniel Phillips

Oh, that's another thing that jews have purposely conflated. The concept of "genetically modified organisms" is… selective breeding. Artificial selection. We've been doing this for MILLENNIA. Yes, there's another kind–which is that of artificially inserting genes of totally different and OTHERWISE incompatible species into a plant or animal–and yes, there's the evil kind, which is engineering a plant to be immune to a literal carcinogen so that you can spray it on them to kill bugs–but there's nothing inherently wrong with the CONCEPT of GMOs.
Exactly; and we've never SEEN that. It's still theory. We've only seen microevolution. Theoretically, yes, microevolution eventually causes speciation, but there's no instance of it yet on record. We could almost certainly artificially do it, but that doesn't count.

Luke Diaz
Luke Diaz

So what's your definition of "macroevolution"?
How exactly is a wolf becoming a shitzu more acceptable than bears and wolves sharing a common ancestor?

Jaxson Ortiz
Jaxson Ortiz

Theories cannot be proven. Proofs are only mathematical.

Jack Foster
Jack Foster

No, "we" aren't. You are deliberately misrepresenting Macroevolution into a strawman. Microevolution is defined as change within the level of species - Macroevolution is defined as change at or above the species level. Speciation is Macroevolution.

Evan Smith
Evan Smith

QM
Is a "god of the gaps" argument. It's useless bullshit. It's "I don't know, therefore X" tier.

Jonathan Price
Jonathan Price

We have seen Speciation occur, both naturally in the field, and in laboratory settings. We have seen Macroevolution happen.

Kevin Flores
Kevin Flores

Microevolution has been observed and witnessed in our lifetimes, macroevolution is unproven jewish science fiction
Well said. Natural selection ≠ creation of new species. That term has a very specific meaning.

Are you insisting that environmental pressures can't allow for the resultant genetic output of species we see today?
Microevolution isn't the question here, of course we all agree on that. Do you have evidence for natural selection creating entire new species, that's the point of the discussion.

So what's your definition of "macroevolution"?
"Macroevolution" is a term for the disproved Darwinian hypothesis that natural selection creates entirely new species.

Is a "god of the gaps" argument. It's useless bullshit. It's "I don't know, therefore X" tier.
I partially agree, even. Take it up with the physicists, though, I'm more into biology.

Attached: 601239687db4b74a52d22571930e5b08a2eb859bc3b5a21d145e88e5b94067ad.gif (214.03 KB, 640x480)

Alexander Butler
Alexander Butler

So what's your definition of "macroevolution"?
See the continued conversation above. Definitions are not personally held, user. Definitions are objective and exist outside the mind. Don't behave like a leftist.
How exactly is a wolf becoming a shitzu more acceptable than bears and wolves sharing a common ancestor?
It's fine. In fact, I use that example in my book to explain why there are 3-5 SPECIES of humanity–not even subspecies. Here's a very rough, PARTIAL first draft of the relevant chapter. Note the section on Haldane's Law. I'll also be talking about bears, bison, and dolphins which can mate outside the species.
Oh, huh. I'll have to look it back up again.

Blake Miller
Blake Miller

Speciation can occur through many different means, not just Natural Selection.
Every new species is just a modified form of an older species.

Ryan Clark
Ryan Clark

They all stem from optimization so it doesn't really matter.

Brody Brown
Brody Brown

physicists
Science funded by people who want my entire race dead is of zero value to me.

Robert Roberts
Robert Roberts

Since when do physicists want you dead? ✡Climatologists✡ want you dead, ✡psychologists✡ want you dead, ✡sociologists✡ want you dead, ✡pharmacists✡ want you dead, and a handful of ✡biologists✡ want you dead… but what have physicists done?

Jason Nelson
Jason Nelson

I had no idea that anyone could be this retarded
Never heard of marxists before?

Jaxon Cox
Jaxon Cox

do we have evidence that Natural Selection can cause Speciation
We do.

Josiah Hill
Josiah Hill

Fuck me, I didn't even include the right pages. That's what I get for having an unfinished draft… Here; just have the text.

Miscegenation, also known as interbreeding, interracial relations, or intermarriage, is the act of intercourse with members of another race–usually to the point or purpose of conceiving offspring. Between the vast majority of species, interbreeding is impossible. Genetic distance is simply too great to produce viable offspring. Sometimes even the number of chromosomes differs. In rare cases, however, species can interbreed and produce not only living offspring, but viable ones. Viable, in this case, refers to the ability of said offspring to breed themselves. Many interspecies relations end in sterile mixtures. The most well known of which is probably the mule–the result of a cross between a male donkey (equus asinus) and a female horse (equus caballus). Mules cannot reproduce–neither with donkeys, nor horses, nor even other mules–due to the genetic distance between their parents (different numbers of chromosomes, in fact). Because mules can’t reproduce, they are not given an official taxonomic designation, and are not their own species. They are, however, sometimes referred to as equus mulus or in full as E. asinus × E. caballus, referring to the species mix that created them.

There is an axiom in genetics known as Haldane’s rule, which discusses fertility between species. It says, “When, in the offspring of two different animal races, one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterogametic (XY; male) sex.” A common claim made about human miscegenation is that humanity is a single species because fertile offspring exist as the result of miscegenation. But what do we see in the real world? Although African-European mixes (often called mulattoes) are not sterile and males are not absent, males are statistically more rare than females. Even further, the argument regarding Haldane’s rule is meaningless because different species in the animal kingdom can breed and still produce fertile offspring.

Let’s return to a previous example: the wolf (canis lupus) and the dog (canis lupus familiaris). The various types of wolf and domesticated dog are considered subspecies of the same species (canis lupus), but the coyote (canis latrans) and the common jackal (canis aureus) are separate species. Yet all can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Two species of orangutan (pongo abellii from Sumatra and pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed, despite having different chromosomal numbers. The common chimpanzee (pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (pan paniscus)–and even many species of birds, such as the pintail (anas acuta) and the mallard (anas platyrhynchos)–can interbreed as well. The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid. Some species that aren’t even in the same genus can interbreed.

Let’s look at that human example again, specifically the people called “Black Americans” (or African-Americans). They are a hybrid race of around 22% White ancestry, due to primarily to some interbreeding, long ago, between slaveowners and slaves. This hybridization is the cause of multiple negative health effects due to genetic incompatibility. Consistent with Haldane’s rule, unmixed Blacks from Africa and White Americans do not have the same rate of birth problems of hybrid “American Blacks.”

Ayden Walker
Ayden Walker

We have seen Speciation occur, both naturally in the field, and in laboratory settings. We have seen Macroevolution happen.
we
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to cite some examples, should it?

Speciation can occur through many different means, not just Natural Selection.
Cite ONE example of speciation occuring. Just one.

Every new species is just a modified form of an older species.
Begging the question - you don't even have established that "new" species develop from "older species" in the first place.

They all stem from optimization so it doesn't really matter.
You must not be a biologist, then - for them, the correct definition of the term "species", and how the species came to be, is of overarching importance.

Science funded by people who want my entire race dead is of zero value to me.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Science is a tool and can be used for many things.

Since when do physicists want you dead? ✡Climatologists✡ want you dead, ✡psychologists✡ want you dead, ✡sociologists✡ want you dead, ✡pharmacists✡ want you dead, and a handful of ✡biologists✡ want you dead… but what have physicists done?
False dichotomy between "evil scientists" and allegedly morally clean ones. No, all sciences, and most especially physics, are corruptible.

We do.
This "we" again… always speak of and for yourself, never of and for others. Go on, then, present the evidence for your claim.

Attached: 1318565264961.jpg (689.86 KB, 1366x768)

Nicholas Campbell
Nicholas Campbell

Forgot link
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I'm not spoonfeeding.

Grayson Taylor
Grayson Taylor

I'm asking YOU to define it because many here have called you out on your apparent definition. That's asking you to explain yourself. You're using a term incorrectly, as many here have called you out for already, so I'm asking that you define it.
Also, asking someone to clarify their position isn't "acting like a leftist" you fucking faggot. Don't redirect on this, because THAT'S leftist behavior you dumb zogbot.

Liam King
Liam King

This. Genetic recombination of pre-existing traits is the main reason for fitness in the natural selection process. Mutation and subsequently speciation become the main drive of evolution in cases of rapidly changing environmental factors, like extinction events, that put new selective pressures into the population.

Landon Evans
Landon Evans

begging the question
Not really.
haven't established
Evolution is descent with inherent modification. Every new discovered species is a modified form of an older species. As per the Law of Monophyly.

David Brown
David Brown

all sciences are corruptible.
Yes.
and most especially physics
Why, and in what way has this been shown?
I'm asking YOU to define it because
That's still not relevant.
many here have called you out on your apparent definition
… No, they haven't. Learn how to read IDs. I've had a conversation with one person.
Also, asking someone to clarify their position isn't "acting like a leftist"
No one said otherwise. Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned. Read what is written and reply to what is written before making up your own arguments.
Don't redirect on this
Yeah, already answered. Learn how to fucking read.

Jacob Flores
Jacob Flores

Microevolution is defined as change within the level of species. Macroevolution Is defined as change at or above the species level. Speciation is Macroevolution.
Keep asking the same question. The answer will not change.

Aiden Bailey
Aiden Bailey

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater
I'm not. I'm throwing out conclusions reached by my enemies. Science I personally conduct, and understand is of value. Science conducted by people who share my goals is of value. But science today is funded by kikes, and conducted by good goys.

Ryan Bennett
Ryan Bennett

Show one example of such observed then.
Antibiotics and insecticide resistance happens every day, Jethro. When population, breeding frequency and selective pressure are big enough, like the case with bacteria and insects being chemically bombarded, it's then when beneficial mutation really shine.

Henry Thompson
Henry Thompson

What you call "macroevolution" is just a sum of "microevolutions" accumulated over time you literal retard. No one claims that a species is born overnight in a single generation. There are even cases we can't even pinpoint speciation events even in the scarce and fragmented fossil record:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronospecies

James Williams
James Williams

I would disagree with robbing, European tradition dictates that it's okay to take from enemies, robbing imply's slinking around for fear of retribution. Taking is giving the enemy a chance to fight back so any loot is seized fair and square

Carson Thompson
Carson Thompson

Mutation and subsequently speciation
There is no evidence at all - zero, zilch, nada - that speciation actually occurs. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it, otherwise get that unscientific gobbledigook out of here.

All your speculations about how speciation is supposed to work are worthless when you can't even prove that it exists in the first place. What you're doing could be called metaphysical speculation, but it sure as hell isn't science.

Why, and in what way has this been shown?
Because physics deals in the fundamentals of material reality, and material reality is where political power ultimately manifests and becomes real. Hence, anyone interested in power, especially in the modern age, keeps a close watch over and nurtures physics and the natural sciences. That's the politic-scientific theory, which gets borne out if you compare funding for the different sciences since the establishment of the military-industrial-scientific complexes since aprox. the beginning of the 20th century. Physics and the closely associated engineering disciplines always got the lions's share. Of course we also have to keep in mind that it's the oldest and most established of the natural sciences, and therefore had more time to develop military and politically relevant aplications.

Attached: image-147094-galleryV9-bhbi.jpg (123.67 KB, 850x668)

Cameron Hughes
Cameron Hughes

Implying I'm a kike shill for asking you to back up your assertions.
Fuck you. You're a real piece of shit. You're a little faggot who refuses to make definite statements and you continually refuse to define your terms and assertions, all the while deflecting with accusations that someone is a kike shill.
I'm calling you a christcuck evangelical retard, but at least I'm being honest in my insults. At least my insults are assuming you are what you claim to be, I'm at least respecting you enough to assume you are arguing from a position of honesty toward your own beliefs. I'm not calling you a shill or a shit poster. But you can't give anyone here the minimum respect of assuming they're arguing fro. A position of good faith.
Seriously you're a pile of shit and you're the exact kind of faggot that causes so many to hate you fucking christcucks.
inb4 you're not arguing in good faith with insults.
inb4 u mad
No I'm not arguing in good faith anymore. You're a shit bag and I'm wasting my time trying to have a fucking discussion with you, because you are NOT arguing in good faith here.
And yes I'm fucking mad, and you're a piece of shit.

Brayden Cooper
Brayden Cooper

millions of fossils as well as molecular and evidence largely corresponding to morphological evidence of transition are elaborate frauds

Attached: HLRG-Evolve.jpg (18.13 KB, 625x218)

Wyatt Price
Wyatt Price

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it, otherwise get that unscientific gobbledigook out of here.

How about you visit a fucking zoo?

Easton Stewart
Easton Stewart

I think you're confusing me for someone else here, or you're confusing my point with something else. The guy I'm responding to is deflecting here and refusing to define his terms.

Nolan Young
Nolan Young

Not that user, but fraud (although regularly occuring since its inception during the 19th century) is the least of Darwinism's problems. The problem simply is that it has no evidence. Not "a bit", or "experts are debating the evidence" or "the evidence is still conroversial" - no, there simply is none. None at all, after almost 150 years of investigation. Darwinism is the flat earth theory of biology, and that's being unfair to FE.

How about you visit a fucking zoo?
A zoo houses many species, yes. And…?

Jeremiah Lewis
Jeremiah Lewis

et cetera…
There's no etcetera

Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud
Wasn't a fraud and it hasn't been demonstrated as being erroneous other, it's just an oversimplification, and yes, all animals start their life as a morphologically similar zygotes and their first steps of divergence still reflect their broader taxonomic status.

Attached: Difference-Between-Protostomes-and-Deuterostomes-2.png (196.64 KB, 577x527)

Zachary Butler
Zachary Butler

learn to read id's
I guess that means anything I say is worth ignoring because I failed to follow a thread line.
Think is, you're still deflecting and you're still refusing to define it.
Here's the thing, I know you won't define it because you realize it's a vector of attack against your underlying arguments.
Once you explain your statements and define the words behind your assertions you know people will be able to hold you to those definitions and you won't be able to squirm around and weasel out of the corner you keep backing yourself into.
Funny, you caed me a kike earlier, but you're the one acting like a kike.

I'll ask one last time, is your definition of macroevolution this: Or this: Or is it something else?

If you can't answer this, I'm going to be convinced that you're a kike shill here who is simply trying to derail the thread from an actual discussion about race and genetics, and that you're simply playing at being a dumb evangelical christcuck.

Jaxon Cox
Jaxon Cox

Wasn't a fraud and it hasn't been demonstrated as being erroneous other, it's just an oversimplification
It's a bit more complicated than that, and from an artistic PoV I highly respect Haeckel, but let's not kid ourselves - based on our current standards of scientific ethics he would most definitely be called a fraud today, or at least as having committed serious scientific malpractice. It's not even about the recapitulation part, but about the complete invention of the radial "ur-organisms" which were supposed to exist by the Darwinians during his time.

Kevin Garcia
Kevin Garcia

A zoo houses many species, yes. And…?
Why did Yahvee create 50+ different species of eagle with gradual morphological similarity to each other? Why even create smaller species of eagles when falcons and hawks would suffice for the niche? Why can the European Buzzard hawk for the burgers can reproduce with the Golden Eagle but the Bald Eagle can't?

Carter Turner
Carter Turner

There is no distinction between Macroevolution and Microevolution. They are fundamentally the same process, just applied on different time scales.
You and
don't even understand what you're trying to ask, because you can't grasp the concept. Examples come after.

Biological Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms over time, right? In sexually reproducing organisms, this happens through the easily-seen descent with inherent modification. Follow me so far? Microevolution is a change in allele frequency that doesn't cause the given population of organisms to cross the necessary threshold to become a new species. Macroevolution at the smallest, most possible to observe for mortal humans, scale is when the change in allele frequency does cause a speciation. Natural Selection comes into play because in a given environment, there are selective pressures that weed out individuals with sub-par genes by either actively killing the disadvantaged, or by causing to thes with superior, fitter traits to reproduce more and therefore become the dominant genetic configuration? Capiche?

Are you asking to see a new species that is a modification of an older species, like evolution tells us to expect, or are you asking to see a new species that has nothing to do with their ancestral clade genetically? If so, why? Do you think evolution says that this happens? It doesn't, and in fact it would violate evolutionary principle. So, Kent Hovind asking to se a "Dog produce a non-Dog" is asking for a scenario that evolution doesn't say will happen, and would actually debunk evolution if it was found to happen.

Nathaniel Cox
Nathaniel Cox

The indo-Aryans failed to uphold their race/religion & now they are street shitting abominations.

Attached: keksimus-maximus.jpg (41.59 KB, 596x628)

Adam Cruz
Adam Cruz

Thanks for providing cartoons and zero evidence to back up your claim

PS - if someone asks for elaboration and then provides elaboration, to respond there is no "etc" fools nobody but your bosses who charged you with the task of keeping Zig Forums onside of the jewish illusions

Bentley Bailey
Bentley Bailey

Nice cartoons to support your theory
Any facts?

Luis Taylor
Luis Taylor

Fuck you. You're a real piece of shit. You're a little faggot who refuses to make definite statements and you continually refuse to define your terms and assertions, all the while deflecting with accusations that someone is a kike shill.
You asked me to elaborate and I did
Then you did the anglin/Weev thing where a cowardly kikelike you acts like an internet tough guy, hoping everyone forgets you are wrong

Luis Martinez
Luis Martinez

asks for evidence
dismisses evidence as "cartoons"
You wouldn't know what evidence for evolution is if it hit you in your stupid skull.

Julian Roberts
Julian Roberts

You "elaborated" by providing a false definition.

Brandon Sanders
Brandon Sanders

The huUr-durrrganism concept is only retarded in our modern understanding because we know about genes and how horizontal gene transfer is a common thing and that nucleic acids can be created abiologically, as an hypothesis of that era it was pretty close to the modern concept of LUCA.

Ryder Smith
Ryder Smith

drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compatible-genome-research/?fbclid=IwAR0Zuy90Ab-NxP2jt-wcnFddDlBFBOviU_zWN2S_Y2Bn4iRQBthhBGwpVWA
What if we just look at the Bible … nakedly?

Jaxon Allen
Jaxon Allen

Attached: EvolutionFraud.JPG (150.31 KB, 1190x778)

Dylan Fisher
Dylan Fisher

What do you want me to do? Find two zygotes cyto-tracing pigments and grab your hand while you look into the microscope for the next 9 months?

Noah Butler
Noah Butler

Why did Yahvee create 50+ different species of eagle with gradual morphological similarity to each other?
I don't care, I'm talking strictly science and comparing evidence for and against theories and hypotheses here.

(check)
There is no distinction between Macroevolution and Microevolution.
Protip: different words almost always have different meanings - that's why different words came to be in the first place.

Biological Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency in a given population of organisms over time, right?
That's not how Darwin defined evolution, and we're strictly talking Darwinism here.

wall of text
I'm not interested in your speculations and what-ifs. For an empirical scientist there is and only can be one question, and that is '''Is there any reliable evidence demonstrating the existence of speciation"? The answer is, of course, a resounding "no". Now WHY that is the case ("i-it was really a long time ago!" or "i-it's not merely a breed, it's a species! even if we have to change our definition of the term "species"!"), that's where we can endlessly ruminate about - feel free to do so. I keep with the scientifi facts in the meantime.

Attached: frank-frazetta-monsteroutoftime.jpg (267.75 KB, 907x1200)

Carter Rogers
Carter Rogers

I elaborated by providing previous instances where liars brought forward elaborate hoaxes to prop up the theory of Darwin's evolution.

Each one I cited was scientifically proven to be a fraud.

Yet you class that as false definition?
Then try to argue that an unproven theory, where all evidence presented was shown to be a hoax is reality, without a shred of proof?

hmmmmm

John Nguyen
John Nguyen

muh not an artform
Here's some pretty photographs, goon.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212011396

inb4: >microscopes are just fraudulent image-projectors

Gavin Parker
Gavin Parker

I have no proof, what do you want me to do, provide proof or something?
Yes, some proof and evidence would suffice, so far all we've received is unqualified ridicule and harassment interspersed with the odd diagram written by a fraudster

Aaron Walker
Aaron Walker

There is no evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution, the cartoons you presented make you look like a cunt, considering we're 700 replies in one would suspect even retards would realise they're on a losing track by now

Nicholas Young
Nicholas Young

Book titled Evolution: Frauds
cover pic depicts scala naturae - not evolution
Yeah, I'm not taking that seriously.

You are dishonest and refuse to grasp a simple concept. If you refuse to accept the definition of evolution to be what it really is, I have no more words for you. You are not posting in good faith.

Caleb Lopez
Caleb Lopez

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212011396
Real microscopic incontrovertable proof is contained within
I suppose you don't respect these drawings I present to you

For the second image, just what exactly do you think that proves?

Attached: 1-s2.0-S0960982212011396-fx1[1].jpg (27.43 KB, 375x301)
Attached: 1-s2.0-S0960982212011396-gr1[1].jpg (60.66 KB, 655x508)

Adam Lopez
Adam Lopez

You must take me seriously because so far I have thrown abuse and invectives and yet not one shred of proof to support my jewish fable

Josiah Stewart
Josiah Stewart

Guess who proved those to be hoaxes? Evolutionary scientists. Not Creationists. The frauds were not used to support evolution as you say they were. Keep it up, and I'll list them out.

Brody Diaz
Brody Diaz

I'm talking strictly science and comparing evidence
rejects all provided scientific consensus evidence that were recognized even by "notorious ebul rayzists " like James Watson

Attached: literally-Mengele.jpg (9.11 MB, 2985x2996)

Carson James
Carson James

Obviously you should know that pol retards don't do well with"breaking the illusion"
I mean they refuse to acknowledge that Hitler went to Argentina and left them to be persecuted by the jews, they can't accept the fact that ww2 was not fought between Jews and Germany, that it was whites fighting whites FOR bankers and businessmen and royalty, that Hitler took fund and allied himself with "subhuman" Indians, Muslim, japs, Jews ECT and that globalism was the Nazi goal and that the EU and UN are exactly what they wanted

Obviously they can't handle science based on Jewish propaganda, I mean they love socialism bro. 98% tard ai, shills, and mirror image sjws.

Attached: 2f97d630f3e854cdc7ee521d56f63826168521c858d67ff7c001fb19ba2ddfa7.jpg (118.77 KB, 490x750)

Andrew Bailey
Andrew Bailey

abuse and invectives
I have been reasonably trying to help explain a simple concept, but you keep ignoring what words really mean and pretending that your definitions are what count.

Justin Ramirez
Justin Ramirez

Not the second image I'm talking about.

Comparison between jellyfish and a protostome embryo development, it needs more protostome though.

Attached: 1-s2.0-S0960982212011396-gr3-(1).jpg (97.83 KB, 505x597)

Christopher Sullivan
Christopher Sullivan

oh look a quote vague enough to be applied to literally any century

Dylan James
Dylan James

needs more deuterostome though.*

Adrian Lee
Adrian Lee

That doesn't apply to a certain time, it applies to a certain mentality of population at a time.

See u r dumb. Point proven

Zachary Parker
Zachary Parker

Every single piece of evidence presented to prop up the jewish lie of Darwin's theory was found to be fraudulent, not by creationists but by other evolutionary scientists, that makes our hoaxes legit

clap clap clap

PS - It was scientists of all persuasions, not that it matters, what matters is that all evidence ever presented to prop up Darwin's theory was later discovered to be a fraud

Juan Wood
Juan Wood

excuses vague enough to do damage control with

Xavier Nelson
Xavier Nelson

muh hitler was a rothschild
muh evangelical bible thumbers are the last bastion of white identity
Jesus fucking Christ… I did not want part in the "muh zog_emperor_touching_the_kike_wall.jpg" DnC but the r/thedonald infilitration is palpable nowadays.

Grayson Nelson
Grayson Nelson

Hey, friend. Since this thread is nearly dead, and its Creationist detractors refuse to post honestly, how about we just talk till it's over? You ever watch a guy by the name of AronRa? I highly recommend him. Here is one of his videos

Cooper Wright
Cooper Wright

Last reply to you, o wizened brainlet.
No. Not all evidence. You don't know what Evolution is, so you don't know what would substantiate it. Quit talking about shit you don't understand.

Matthew Robinson
Matthew Robinson

The problem is that you didn't provide evidence. We all fully agree that that many species with many different phenotypes exist in the world, so you merely restated what we all accept here in the first place.

You are dishonest and refuse to grasp a simple concept. If you refuse to accept the definition of evolution to be what it really is, I have no more words for you.
Right back at you, especially in your denial of the crucial difference between micro and macro evolution.
Microevolution, i.e. natural selection, exists. Macroevolution, i.e. speciation based on natural selection, does not exist. There simply is no evidence for it. None at all, after 150 years of very thorough searching.

rejects all provided scientific consensus evidence
Provide ONE piece of evidence for the existence of speciation. Just one. You won't, because you can't.

and its Creationist detractors refuse to post honestly
Religion doesn't enter into the picture at all. Darwinism is scientifically disproven. What Christians, or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever think about the matter is completely irrelevant.

Attached: 1459298057731.jpg (144.03 KB, 816x979)

Ethan James
Ethan James

Don't tempt me to go full ballautistic on (((molecular taxonomy))) for the shake of argument. I fucking warn you, I have no qualms on calling in sick and spend a day creating a single OC shitpost to semi-ironically prove a point.

Attached: (((ENTOMOLOGY)))-2.jpg (285.19 KB, 783x1128)
Attached: (((ENTOMOLOGY))).jpg (653.83 KB, 1167x1646)

David Richardson
David Richardson

Provide ONE piece of evidence for the existence of speciation
For the retards in denial of the taxonomic continuum? God breeds.

Blake Anderson
Blake Anderson

Did you know different species of butterfly proves Darwin's unproven theory of evolution
Let's just wind down this thread to 750 replies and Kampfy can come clean up the anons who refuse to play along with our jewish sci-fi

Easton Jenkins
Easton Jenkins

different species of butterfly do not prove that man evolved from ape

Dylan King
Dylan King

You lie about the definition of Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution is not "Natural Selection", and Macroevolution is not just Speciation based on Natural Selection. You keep strawmanning both terms and have not corrected yourself when others point this out.

Speciation is a fact, and has been observed. What are you asking to see? A new species that is a modified form of an older species, or a new species that has nothing to do with their ancestral clade genetically?

Nolan White
Nolan White

Different species of everything, great apes included, does.

Gavin Adams
Gavin Adams

The fact that man is an ape is proof that man evolved from ape. You don't know what the words "man" or "ape" mean, though, so of course you're stuck with a non-argument.
I don't count this as a reply since you don't get a (you)

Andrew Reed
Andrew Reed

I just wanted to offer a recommendation for that channel since I enjoy the guy's content.

Chase Phillips
Chase Phillips

Posting pictures of butterflies ≠ evidence that those butterflies appeared by speciation.

*sigh* You have no evidence for speciation (no surprise there), so of course you have to engage in word games to maintain a semblance of face.

Speciation is a fact, and has been observed.
Don't just repeat your assertions; you have to provide actual, reliable evidence if you want others to believe you.

What are you asking to see? A new species that is a modified form of an older species, or a new species that has nothing to do with their ancestral clade genetically?
Speaking as an empirical scientist, even a new species as such would suffice (because that was Darwin's principal claim, as modern genetics didn't exist yet at his time). I.e. a completely new one, not simply a recently discovered one.

Different species of everything, great apes included, does.
No, it really doesn't, although this logical error is quite widespread. Multiplicity of pheno- and genotypes ≠ proof of a common origin of said multiplicity.

Attached: RogerDean3.jpg (639.55 KB, 1920x1200)

Eli Bell
Eli Bell

questions whether species exist
Might as well argue why frogs and ants are the same thing.

Jeremiah Cruz
Jeremiah Cruz

Might as well argue why frogs and ants are the same thing.
Species exist; speciation doesn't.

Michael Stewart
Michael Stewart

I don't recall the exact source but I remember a video of him saying that.

Michael Bell
Michael Bell

TOO FUCKING LATE FUCKER!

Prepare your anus for fully illustrated papilionid phylogenetic tree based on morphological instead of (((molecular))) traits!

Owen Smith
Owen Smith

Posting pictures of butterflies ≠ evidence that those butterflies appeared by speciation.

I wasn't talking to you you triple posting retard but still it fucking does.

Ryan Hall
Ryan Hall

but still it fucking does
Perhaps in your local debate club, but sure as hell not in science. Describing some thing is very different from explaining how that thing came to be.

Adam Reyes
Adam Reyes

Did you watch the video? It covers morphology in detail.

I never said anything about newly discovered species. Creationists pretend that evolution teaches that Macroevolution means an organism producing something that doesn't fit into the ancestral clade of the original, like pine trees producing elephant babies or the like.

Carter Foster
Carter Foster

Forgot to add that the advent of new species coming from older species has been observed, such as when a española cactus finch flew into the Daphne Major island and mated with a local medium ground finch and produced hybrids. These hybrid offspring are now a self-contained population - a new species.
Sources:
sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos
blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Jace Ward
Jace Ward

I never said anything about newly discovered species.
I know, I just wanted to preempt the possibility of yours pulling it up.

Creationists pretend that evolution teaches that Macroevolution means an organism producing something that doesn't fit into the ancestral clade of the original, like pine trees producing elephant babies or the like.
I don't know about Creationists (which are a tiny and for all intents and purposes irrelevant minority where I live), but what you say is only a satirical exageration, not a counter-argument per se. Why? Because the very essence of the term "species" is non-reproduceability. So yes, pines and elephants are obviously different species, but so are many phenotypically almost identical ones.

Nathan Phillips
Nathan Phillips

Correct. When have I implied otherwise?

Joshua Cox
Joshua Cox

Correct. When have I implied otherwise?
I'm not sure, perhaps I meant another user. Do you really have 186 posts in this thread?

Jayden Fisher
Jayden Fisher

Yes, and it's not spam at that.

Nolan Gonzalez
Nolan Gonzalez

muh evangelical bible thumbers are the last bastion of white identity
Well, their birthrates prove that to be the case. It's rare to see evangelical parents with less than five children. We only need to unkike the envangelicals, and comparatively many men there seek strong and radical role models. If you want to unkike them then use their own tools. The worst that can happen is that your words will fall on deaf ears, the best is that one, only one will remember what you said and did, and did not falter. Every man and woman with integrity will regard you highly for that, and they will remember. Being honest despite all the flak you get back is universally loved, some despise you openly, yet behind closed doors those that hate you esteem you higher than themselves.

Attached: Make-it-happen.jpg (22.59 KB, 720x450)

Matthew White
Matthew White

Also could be argued that this is evidence of a common designer.
It also could be aliens. But since I'm not a moron, I'll go with the scientific theory.

same as the last point
Could have been fairies.

this is generally accepted by learned Christians
If you accept micro-evolution, you accept macro. Christians are just too dumb to figure out that they're admitting evolution exists.
<I accept that micro economics exists BUT THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS MACRO ECONOMICS!!!!

The issue Christians take offense with is the supposed possibility of one animal changing greatly,
I know. Christians are dumb, emotional children.

We do not believe compounded genetic variance can cause this to occur.
That's because you don't know anything and allowed priests to rape your minds and close your brains to the truth.

Jason Lewis
Jason Lewis

Yes, and it's not spam at that.
Ok, I didn't read the whole thread. So… are we arguing the truth of Darwinism, or not? I mean, we don't HAVE to, I'm sure there will be thousands of other opportunities.

It also could be aliens. But since I'm not a moron, I'll go with the scientific theory.
False dichotomy. Since the building blocks of life are supposed to be identical everywhere, life according to science HAS to exist in other places. Us not finding it until now is what lead to Drake's equation, after all. "Extraterrestrialism" is the default position within science, it's not some loony outsider idea or some such.

If you accept micro-evolution, you accept macro.
No, not all, especially given that to-date no evidence for speciation has ever ben found.

I know. Christians are dumb, emotional children.
And yet you get some pretty basic things wrong in your posts…

Connor Roberts
Connor Roberts

Checked.
Do try to enlighten them. However they are absolutely impervious to new information. You might as well try converting communists, they are so pig ignorant and proud of it.
As for Evangicuckism being the last bastion of "implicit Whiteness," that's like saying that Antifa is a bastion of White identity because they're mostly White. Evangelicals are, like liberals, members of a universalist cult that views White people as the enemy up until the point where they start to listen to their ideologues and worship IsraHell. And they view ALL fellow Evangelicals as brothers, especially when they're black or brown.

William Taylor
William Taylor

it's not some loony outsider idea or some such.
I never said it was. I am responding to one unlikely possibility with another. Actually, it is 1000000000000000000000000 times more likely that aliens created life than one particular penis obsessed jewish war-god.

In fact, almost every other explanation outside of specific gods is about 100000000 times more likely than specific gods or goddesses.
For obvious reasons. If you don't understand what I said or why, you're too dumb to continue having this conversation.

to-date no evidence for speciation has ever ben found.
False. No matter what I say, you'll just reject the evidence because you're an emotional child.

Sebastian Clark
Sebastian Clark

Evangelical birth rate
Irrelevant when they adopt nigger children all the time and do not oppose miscegenation.

Isaac Robinson
Isaac Robinson

You must not be a biologist
I'm not. I'm a physicist. That is why im drawing the similarities between evolution and calculus of variations

Easton Murphy
Easton Murphy

Darwinism
The process of evolution is just called evolution, not "Darwinism". "Darwinism" is a term used by Creationists to pretend that evolution is a religion.

Leo Butler
Leo Butler

Why christians are incompatible with whites: the thread
Being white gives us morals, not dead kike on a stick. just look at black christians, no different that africans. "but they're not real christians."
without christians, jews would have no worshipers and would all be crucified (a roman symbol, not a christian one.)

Isaac Roberts
Isaac Roberts

Speciation has occurred.
Read

Jonathan Brooks
Jonathan Brooks

When Christians demand evidence, what they are trying to do is force you to type out long essays of evidence for evolution so that they can just say
Nuh Uh!
Yahovah did it!!!!!
And leave you speechless at just how stupid they are.
No matter what you say, no matter how much evidence you have for something Christians will reject it because they have an emotional need to believe in their little jewish fairytales. Their feelz trump all evidence and logic. They simply don't care. Wasting ones time trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with a liberal.

The only people worth sharing evidence with are non-Christians.

William Rivera
William Rivera

Meant to say observed Speciation, within human life spans. Anywho, if 99.99 % of all species on Earth are extinct, and the species around today weren't around 200 million years ago, how does a statement like "Speciation is not possible" even make logical sense?

Connor Ross
Connor Ross

Actually, it is 1000000000000000000000000 times more likely that aliens created life than one particular penis obsessed jewish war-god.
Perhaps, although this obviously only pushes back the problem further.

In fact, almost every other explanation outside of specific gods is about 100000000 times more likely than specific gods or goddesses.
Do you sufficiently differentiate between "God" and "the gods"?

False. No matter what I say, you'll just reject the evidence because you're an emotional child.
No, it's that you simply haven't provided any. I'm serious, not facetious, not trolling etc.

I'm not. I'm a physicist. That is why im drawing the similarities between evolution and calculus of variations
Ok, thanks for the clarification.

The process of evolution is just called evolution, not "Darwinism". "Darwinism" is a term used by Creationists to pretend that evolution is a religion.
No, Darwinism is the idea that evolution creates entirely new species, and as a term is quite widespread among biologists. And what is it with the "Creationists" - are you a burger? Here in Europe, creationists are a really, really tiny minority. Irrelevant, really. I'm speaking from a strictly scientific point of view, religion doesn't enter the picture at all.

These hybrid offspring are now a self-contained population - a new species.
Stopped reading right there. Species is NOT simply a synonym of "self-contained population" - being a species requires reproductive autarky as well as exclusivity, i.e. the new species must by definition be unable to reproduce with its parent species (otherwise it would only be a breed, or race, as in the case of dogs. Ok, I lied a bit - I did, in fact, read the article, but imagine my surprise when finding no reference at all to that all-important piece of information. Why would they omit such a crucial detail?

Attached: a6ba48bd74687bb9eb0f30c4b71ea754b6c79325eafd1cf7e813b34dfabb108a.jpg (203.57 KB, 900x672)