I reject darwinsim because it is philosophically grotesque.

>>24546358 (OP)
you should because it's scientifically inaccurate. epigenetics blow darwin out of the water.

>>24546358 (OP)
You would hate post-modernism and much of the modernist philosophy then.

>>24546361
But in a world where it was true, it would be our moral duty to deny it anyway.

>>24546372
absolutely. we have the divine power of choice anyway.

>>24546372
I was about to congratulate you for entering the 20th century until that

>>24546358 (OP)
How dare you question the state-funded religion's creation myth.

>>24546387
We need more money because individuation and speciation have remained open questions since the 1970s

>>24546358 (OP)
can you describe your understanding of it so I can be sure that you don't know whar you're talking about? I have read both the Origin of the Species and Voyage of the Beagle, so I'm qualified to ridicule you in public.

>epigenetics

>>24546541
evolution by natural selection?

>>24546551
i think i'll read about this word

>>24546358 (OP)
What is grotesque about it? It's basically "the ones that live live, and the ones that die die"

>>24546358 (OP)
Lamarck broke Darwin's buck.

>>24546358 (OP)
What do you mean?

>>24546361
darwinism is true as fuck. Just because it doesn't exactly describe every bit of evolution doesn't make him wrong. Just like newton wasn't wrong for not understanding relativity.

faggot

>>24546694
He probably thinks it means "survival of the fittest" when it actually means "survival of the fit enough."

>>24546406
Some clout-chasing "academic" claiming he discovered a new species because a recessive gene became apparent isn't the proof you think it is.

p.s. The scientific method was invented in opposition to academia.

>>24546803
>moving goal posts
>stupid fool's semantics word games
>being wise in your own conceit
It's all so tiresome.

>>24546796
>It's so true that we can't even prove it, just have faith and trust the experts, goyi- I mean, guys!
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1751479009618545.webm

move this garbage to >>>/x/ already

>>24546932
It's funny how you people melt when your indoctrinated beliefs are challenged, you can't defend or prove it so you first lash out in anger then resort to demanding censorship; because your beliefs die without indoctrination and censorship.

>>24546932
>Origin of Species isn't a book

>>24546929
been proven countless times, go lie elsewhere dumbfuck

>>24546358 (OP)
>>24546361
which one of these posts is dumber I cannot decide

>>24547169
name one proof

>>24547601
Whale legs

>>24546358 (OP)
>philosophically grotesque.
Can this mean anything other than "it hurt muh feefees"

>>24547603
whales don't have legs, dummy

>>24547608

>>24547637
um... where exactly are those supposed legs?

>>24546929
evolution denial is obvious retardation, intentional blindness. I only condemned Darwinism specifically.

>>24546358 (OP)
Survival of the fittest is what bred me into a sexxy bitch. Mmm I was genetically engineered to become the Ubermensch Superman posting in this thread on this very board to enlighten you with comment adding to your thread. Think of it- if I am sexy bitch how’d I get that way? Survival of the fittest and natural selection

>>24547855
There are specific genes evolved to rape people like you and free ride on your sexy genes until they separate again and then rape your sexy predecessors again

>>24546934
If you think about it, evolution is their only possible explanation for why anything at all exists without God. Therefore it must be true, because it is the only thing that explains life without God. If you understand this, then you will understand their fanaticism.

>>24548022
The gods willed evolution.

I support Darwinism because I'm racist

>>24546358 (OP)
I’m suspicious of Darwinism because it’s clearly something the eminent Freemasons of the early to mid 19th century (like the Saint-Simonians and certain Hegelians, though not necessarily Saint-Simon and Hegel themselves) wanted to exist before they ever had any evidence. And we know Darwin was a fan of Comte, Saint-Simon’s greatest disciple.

It's hard to deny the basic fact of natural selection, but we apply a lot of spurious interpretations to it. I think the mechanisms that drive selection are actually very complicated and difficult to "know". There is also the issue of memetic selection i.e. genes and memes (or other non-genetic structures) must be in competition, which makes things very complicated.

>>24546358 (OP)
So did the Soviets.
The result was agricultural disaster and famine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

You can afford to "reject" modern biology because you are irrelevant in regards to its application. Nobody cares what you think about it, nor does it matter. Thus you can afford trivial nonsense opinions about it.

Alright, I'll attempt an idea. Evolution is a bad philosophical foundation for a human method of living, because it takes away agency from people. Humans are not evolutionists, but revolutionists.

>>24548202
>HURRR IF YOU QUESTION THE BLIND ASSUMPTIONS OF DARWIN YOU MUST CLEARLY AGREE WITH A GUY WHO THOUGHT PLANTS ARE COMMUNIST

>>24548253
The question is "what are you replacing it with?"
What is your model?
Oh that's right you don't have one.
Good luck wallowing in irrelevance while those who actually care about the subject continue their inquiries.

I reject Abrahamism because it is philosophically, morally, aesthetically, intellectually, and emotionally grotesque, starting with the very first chapter of Genesis which dictates absolute human supremacism:

>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

>And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

>And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

>>24548221
>Humans are not evolutionists, but revolutionists.
I kinda like this phrase. I'm going to steal it.

>>24548221
this makes no sense lol

>>24546358 (OP)
How is Darwinian evolution philosophically grotesque”. Darwinian evolution is descriptive, not normative. It merely describes what happens in nature. That’s like saying “I reject thermodynamics because it’s morally grotesque”. It’s a nonsensical statement.