Everyone acknowledges that if humans selectively breed an animal or plant, it will change over time. If you want a dog with a long nose, you keep breeding dogs, picking the ones with the longer noses and breed them together, eventually you’ll get a dog with a longer nose. (Humans select which animals reproduce more: artificial selection.)

Likewise if an environment existed where longer noses were beneficial, say in a dry environment where a long nose conserves moisture, animals that possess the most beneficial traits will reproduce more. (Nature selects which animals reproduce more: natural selection)

It’s really not that hard to understand.

>>512560384 (OP)
You're not going to be able to modify a potato into a cabbage no matter how much selecting you do.

>>512560384 (OP)

>>512560384 (OP)
When I was reading your post minute ago you were a faggot, and right now, when I am typing my post - you still a faggot. Evolution disproved.

>>512560384 (OP)
evolution does not disprove God as well, think about the concept of luck and probability, the chances of something can be measured yet they still happen in a random way, only a high entity could design something like that and it needs to be designed because it is quantifiable

on top of that there is the consciousness, we humans inheritly know what is good and what is wrong but what decides that? how are we so sure our laws follow what nature would consider good or bad? according to all religions human consciousness is connected to God, you can also call it genetic memory, there are some things like rape and adultery that can't be hard coded by evolution as bad things

>>512560748
>yet they still happen in a random way
nothing is truly random. every reaction requires an action.

>>512560556
And? That’s like saying “you’ll never give birth to your sister so having a daughter is impossible”.

Potatoes are underground tubers of a leafy green plant, they’re essentially just bits of root that get really fat. Why couldn’t you selectively breed cabbages to have fat roots? No you can’t turn it into a potato but you can get a functional equivalent.

In Australia many marsupial animal-equivalents were found, like marsupial “rats” or anteaters.

>>512560748
Why are you bringing god into this? It’s irrelevant like you said.

>>512560384 (OP)
Some people are just retartds as much as it's frustrating to accept. You have the share the planet with them.
See >>512560556 for example

>>512561257
I think you thought I was implying something I wasn't. I only meant to imply that there are pretty severe limitations to what sort of changes you can expect to see from selective breeding, which you seem to agree with.

>>512560384 (OP)
young earth creationists also believe in selective breeding.

>>512560384 (OP)
Luv me bimbos

>>512560384 (OP)

>>512560556
Evolution isn't transmutation.
>>512562518

>>512563099
It's obvious that you are religious since you think """da atheists""" are as dumb as you. Your religion on the other hand needs no strawmaning because it is literally pic rel.

>>512560384 (OP)

>>512563325
>Evolution isn't transmutation.
Wouldn't it have to be though? Somehow you get from space-spunk to fish to lizards to monkeys. There's gotta be some transmutation along the way much more magical than potatoes into cabbages. People just hand wave it away with big numbers and call it a day, even though mathematicians have looked at average DNA mutation rates and shown that it would take orders of magnitude more time than they say the Earth has been around. Maybe it would be possible if the Earth is much, much, much older than they say, or maybe it would be possble if Earth life originated on another planet, but that's not what evolutionists propose.

>>512563821
>thing existed then
>thing exists now
>checkmate evolutionists
I assume you know atleast how man domesticated wolves to create dogs. Wolves still exist though. What do you think of that?

>>512562903
What are the severe limitations and by what mechanism do they exist?

>>512563960
The calculations that you’re referring to are built on the false assumption that mutations happen in sequence, when in fact they happen in parallel. Not only within an individual but within a species, since if your sister and I have a mutation they would pass on to our offspring.

Tell me, if you didn’t know about dogs and I showed you a husky and a chihuahua and said they diverged a couple hundred years ago, would you believe me?

>>512563821
Why hasn’t the wheel been improved upon? Checkmate engineers

>>512564852
Wolves were drawn to human settlements by discarded food scraps and waste. Wolves less fearful of humans would have had better access to these resources, leading to a survival advantage and the passing on of less aggressive traits over generations.

Now my turn, where are the missing intermediary species between monkey and man? Monkeys exist, and man exists, but where's the intermediate between the two?

>>512565325
I would say the most obvious one would be the rate of change. DNA is only going to have so many mutations per generation. You're only going to get so many generations per unit of time. These can be measured and you can have a somewhat precise limitation defined then and there without knowing anything about the selection process.

Another limitation would be in regard to how many concurrent mutations would be required for a noticeable effect to occur. For example if you would typically see 5-10 mutations per generation, but a certain change would require 5000 mutations to all happen simultaneously, then that effect will just never happen no matter how severe the selection pressure because the odds are essentially 0%. This is a pretty severe limitation.

>>512565787
You seem to get the concept of evolution by natural selection, mission accomplished!

>>512560384 (OP)
What you've just proven is someone external piloting evolution and not random evolution, retard.

>>512566072
Just to clarify, just because I don't believe the evolution theory, doesn't mean that I deny natural selection.

>>512565649
>The calculations that you’re referring to are built on the false assumption that mutations happen in sequence, when in fact they happen in parallel. Not only within an individual but within a species, since if your sister and I have a mutation they would pass on to our offspring.

I don't believe those calculations make that assumption. All that matters is how many mutations can occur per generation, you would obviously take into account mutations on both the mother's and father's sides.

>>512560384 (OP)
>If you want a dog with a long nose
Israeli greyhound ?

>>512565787
>moving the goal post
lol you are the one posting the "argument" that if something looks the same now as millions of years ago means there is no evolution.

Imagine turning around so fast to explain to me the evolution of wolves

So now you want to talk about the intermediary species between monkey and man? Literally the entire Homo genus.

Now you, where are the intermediary species between wolf and dog?

>>512563960
We came from a type of Ancestral to Apes Monkey as Mammals which came from Primitive Synapsids. Our entire ancestry is in the fossil record. Nothing remains the same. Even if similar.

>>512566397
Evolution isn't real uwu

>>512566538
stay out of it kid, you'll learn about it next year as part of the science curriculum.

>>512560384 (OP)
And their retort is "BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT ONE KIND CAN MORPH INTO ANOTHER!!!!!????? THERE IS PROOF THAT MICRO EVOLUTION WORKS, BUT MACRO EVOLUTION IS A FAKE FALSE SATANIC THEORY!"
You are arguing with retards that cannot put two and two together

>>512566037
>5-10 mutations per generation
Not quite, almost there. A more accurate number would be 5-10 per offspring per generation. Multiply that by the number of offspring produced by the species and you’ll get a more accurate number.

Let’s take the atlantic cod as an example. If a single offspring has about 5-10 new mutations that the parents didn’t have, and each generation produces about 1015–1016 eggs, then you’ll get a fair amount of new mutations per 6 year generation.

>>512560384 (OP)
What a retarded thread.
>disprove this easily observable thing that man has had mastery of for thousands of years in the animals he has domesticated
Replace traits selected for by humans with traits selected for by nature and you have evolution. Fucking duh.

>>512566689
Formatting didn’t work

There are about 10^15 - 10^16 atlantic cod offspring produced each year, which means roughly 100,000,000,000,000,000 new mutations for the species every 6 years

SCIENTIFIC PROOF EVOLUTION COULDN'T HAPPEN

>Origin of life
There's no known way to turn non-living material into life, it's never been done before even in a lab. The belief that dust/water just randomly formed into functional DNA, proteins, a cell, etc. capable of reproducing itself is absurd.

>DNA
We OBSERVE genetic mutations delete data over time (e.g. we started with a grey wolf and only got increasingly retarded dogs like pugs and chihuahuas). You're just deleting or changing data randomly, and SELECTING from what is already there, and over time it always results in a net loss.

This alone proves Darwinism couldn't happen. Natural selection is real but it has limits, Darwinists are so retarded they look at a process and think it must have no limit.

https://youtu.be/jyATE9StbK8

>Origin of sexual reproduction
There is no known way asexual creatures could develop sexual reproduction through mutation. Any benefits (or the obvious -50% efficiency) are irrelevant. It's not possible.

This is called irreducible complexity, one part is useless or harmful without the other part(s).

>Missing links
There is not a SINGLE transitionary fossil series. There is some speculated, but none show transitions.

The scientific community believed Piltdown Man was a human ancestor for decades before discovering it was a hoax. The entire "fossil record" is unscientific, lining up the remains of different animals is not evidence they evolved into each other.

>Horseshoe crabs claimed to be the same for 400 million years
They claim you were a fish 400 million years ago.

"They're just perfect" is not a legitimate answer to how an animal could remain unaffected by evolutionary force for 400 million years.

>>512566744
Natural selection is real, the belief that it has no limits isn't.

>>512566538
Dog breeds must be an illusion then

>>512567071
How exactly is that evolution, nigga? You are just mixing the traits of two different doggos into one-that isn't evolution nigger

>>512567071
Dog breeding actually disproves Darwinism.

It's a great example of the limits of mutations and selection.

Mutations cause a loss of information over time, for example pugs lost the DNA for their snouts

Poodles lost the information that tells their hair to stop growing

etc.

Sit there for 20 trillion years, you will never get anything but increasingly retarded dog-like creatures.

Yes it's artificial selection instead of natural selection, but it shows the biological limitation of what mutation is capable of.

>>512567168
Be silent.

>>512567007
Nah.

>>512567325
He just got BTFO'd

>>512566397
Well, the canis lupus genus? As the wolves who came into human settlements breed, they would gradually look like dogs as we know today.

But there's also dog breeds who still kept the "wolf" gene after all these years. The siberian husky comes to mind. Not to mention also the wolfdog breeds. Those would be your intermediary between wolf and dog.

But still, the intermediary between monkey and man is pretty unexistable. Not to mention all the forgeries that happen in the evolution field. One example of this is Piltdown man.

But seriously, T-rexes became chickens? Fish grew legs and became cold-blooded species. I don't know man.

>>512567007
>Origin of life
The theory of evolution does not concern itself with this, it’s off topic.

>DNA
>Always result in a net loss.
That’s simply untrue. Duplication mutations are easily observable, where a mutation leads to more DNA, which can then be acted upon by further mutations, thus providing a mechanism for the addition of unique DNA.

>Origin of sexual reproduction.
Is indeed an interesting topic in evolutionary theory, and a problem posed to all college freshman taking intro evolution courses. The benefit lies in more rapid exchange of DNA that allows for more rapid adaptation. One can research microbes that have evolved ways of injecting and receiving plasmids, a rudimentary form of sexual reproduction / DNA exchange.

>Missing links
Every fossil is a transitionary fossil. Archaeopteryx is a famous one that might approach your definition of transitionary. Ultimately, it turns out that not every animal produces a fossil, that being said, we still have an extensive collection of fossils that show changes over time. Plant fossils especially document the evolution of features like compound leaves, pollen, and flowers.

>Horseshoe crabs
Are an example of living fossils, a byproduct of the constraints of evolution. (A constraint also found in training LLMs, fun fact) is that evolution cannot produce something worse than its predecessors (or at least, produce it and have it last very long), such that species can find themselves on “peaks” on evolution mountain where any change they make will be detrimental. They haven’t gone extinct because it works good enough. They’re not perfect, but they can’t improve any more by evolution.

>>512567325
>>512567793
Refer to part two of this

>>512567007
Have you heard of a gene duplication?

>>512567168
Evolution is change over time. Dog breeds are a result of humans deciding which individuals reproduce. When nature decides (based on who is most fit), it’s called natural selection.

>>512560384 (OP)
Look up " Darwin's dilemma".

>>512560384 (OP)
Evolution is real, but highly non-random and quite directional. There is a limited number of possible stable morphologies and genomes, and you're not switching between them by random single-gene drift.

>>512567620
It seems you firmly grasp and believe in evolution by natural selection. Why do you find it hard to believe that big changes can occur over big periods of time?

>>512568010
I agree, a good example is an image I posted earlier of convergent evolution exhibited between marsupials and placental mammals

>>512568010
In fact, random genetic drift mist of the time will either barely do anything or outright kill you. What really drives evolution is changes in epigenome and regulation of gene expression. That's how you get lightning speed adaptations (including all the dog breeds), which under random drift model would take millenia.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”


Lmao atheists are the eternal pseud

>>512567007
>natural selection isnt real
Thats just as easy to disprove. You can do it in humans too.

Size and strength in men. Women's inclination to side with invaders they perceive to be "successful conquerors".

Tiny dudes and women that didnt fall in line when their tribe was conquered were slaughtered. The tiny dudes didnt have any kids and the women who didnt fall in line typically had their kids killed in front of them too. This is expressed in modern humans as people laughing at manlets and women being ultra pliable to social pressure and adjusting their beliefs to match whatever man has fucked them the best.

Every Darwin Award death you've ever seen or heard of is also natural selection in the most literal sense. If theyre too retarded to avoid ending up in that clip their genes got selected against.

>>512567974
Look up Gould’s work on punctuated equilibrium. tldr, Darwin was mistaken on exactly how fast evolution can occur. Turns out, it can happen pretty fast under high selective pressures. Dog breeds keep coming up in this thread because they’re a good example. Most dog breeds we know today were created over only a couple hundred years.

>>512560384 (OP)
Not everything would evolve at the same time. Every new day is a million years for something on this planet. We should see something new evolve and leave that ocean every day. We don't and never have. You're retarded.

>>512568327
>most of the time.
Yes, most mutations are deleterious or neutral.

>>512568134
Because not only those big changes happened way too long ago (over millions of years ago), but we also have no way of knowing for certain that it happened this way. Even with the technology of today, we have a hard time knowing what happened just 5000 years ago. It could just be a fabrication for all I care.

Not too long ago, there was this theory where the first life form on earth began with electric charges in meteorites that landed on earth. It goes also against the "primordial soup" theory, which is what I've been taught in school. I don't know man, they could just be fabrications.

>>512568497
I must be because I don’t understand a fucking thing you said

>>512568497
The fastest evolving thing I (we) know of is viruses and those evolve all the time, just look at the common cold reinventing itself yearly to stay virulent

>>512568376
Another good one for humans is social conformity in general. In our species infancy, exile meant death. Exile usually was a punishment for crimes against others - a lack of social conformity. Those that didnt conform were cast into the wilds to meet their fate.

In modern humans, cancel culture is the most recent stand-in for exile and take a good look at how social conformity played a role in that.

>>512560384 (OP)
Why would I need to disprove evolution
Mankind is made in the image of God
That's all I need to be certain about there
Who's to say apes weren't a step in that process?

>>512560384 (OP)
I've read that Darwin got his ideas from reading Malthus
however, even a cursory reading of Malthus shows he was incredibly wrong about human society constantly growing to food scarcity
every pile of rock stacked on another for vanity argues against it
what if survival isn't that special and difficult and doesn't create enough pressure to drive changes? even remarkably retarded things like panda bears 'survived' and show no signs of changing their way out of their poor choice of food

>>512568545
You’re right, we don’t know for certain, it’s very difficult to know anything for certain. Just like if a suspect’s fingerprints were found on a knife at a crime scene covered in blood next to a dead body and cctv footage showed someone matching the suspect’s height and weight and the suspect kept a diary saying how much they want to stab someone to death, we wouldn’t reaaally know for certain, but we can take a very educated guess.

What we do have is a mechanism by which organisms change over time, fossils showing that different organisms existed in the past that don’t exist today, and organisms that exist today that didn’t exist in the past, and a whole lot of time. How many dinosaur generations can happen in 500 million years? We know for a fact that small changes can accumulate over small periods of time, it follows that large changes can happen over large periods of time. And while we don’t know with 100% certainty that that is what happened, it appears to be the best we got. What’s your alternative hypothesis? And why do you believe that?

>>512569072
You’re touching on an interesting concept in evolutionary theory. Everyone associates evolution with “survival of the fittest”, but a more apt phrase would be “survival of the good enough”. Most of the time, selective pressures aren’t at their strongest, and mediocrity can spread. Extremes are where it’s at. Extreme conditions that happen rarely but consistently often are where natural selection really wields influence. Extreme draughts, once-in-a-century heat waves, floods, etc. Events like those are what really cull the unfit from a species’ population.

>>512568910
Exactly, many are foolish enough to believe that an all powerful god and evolution by natural selection are incompatible.

>>512561394
>>512562524
A jew and a nigger jerk each other off.
How is this political you fucking faggot?
Its not.
In all fields.
Still waiting for Epstein files stupid cunts.

>>512569210
>What's your alternative hypothesis?
I'm going to be seen as a crazy, insane lunatic but here goes nothing:

I believe in evolution through natural selection, but I don't buy the official narration. I believe God created all the species and us humans, and natural/artificial selection took place ever since. I don't really believe in prehistory, there is only one history that started at year 1. I don't know when the universe first existed.

>Why do you believe that?
Mainly because I'm born Catholic. And I don't want to abandon my faith, since it is a part of who I am.

And also this is off-topic, but I research a lot on ancient history and even recent history. And I also don't believe in our timeline (gregorian calendar). I don't think we're in 2025. We don't really know when we are.

It's a long post by now, by one example I'll give is the Arc de Triomphes in France. The official narrative says that it took 30 years to build it. I don't believe it. I've seen the monument and there's no way they built a monument this beautiful and precise and intricate this fast. Maybe this is why I'm so skeptical of prehistory. Sorry if this comes as a long and schizo post.

>>512569210
Pandas are niche partitioned to monopolize their "poor" choice of food; avoiding competition with other species. Gause's law of competitive exclusion.
Their low reproductive rates prevent them from overpopulating and decimating their monopolized food supply, as they have no natural predators.
Pandas are perfectly adapted to their niche, you just don't know what you're talking about.

>>512569072
Survival of the "good enough" is not a thing in serious evolutionary theory.
"Fitness" means optimization within your niche. If selective pressures are low, fitness means metabolic efficiency. Organisms that are less "classically fit" (strong, fast, intelligent, whatever) lose out to organisms that are slow and stupid because they burn less energy. That's still fitness. They are the fittest lazy-fuckers.

>>512560384 (OP)
dna of archaic hominids, and advamced analysis destroyed ooa

>>512567007
It's all circumstantial
Can you directly prove the existence of god

>>512560384 (OP)
There is no evidence to suggest that nothing turned into inorganic molecules or that inorganic molecules turned into organic or that single cells turned into multiple cells or that multiple cells turned into small aquatic creatures or that small aquatic creatures turned into mammals or that mammals turned to monkeys or that monkeys turned to humans. That is sciencism and not science.

>>512570750
It does come off as a little schzio, but you seem very nice and you articulate your thoughts well, so I wouldn’t call you stupid by any means.

That raises a couple questions from me- doesn’t the Catholic church acknowledge the possibility of an old earth? It was a Catholic priest after all that hypothesized the age of universe to be in the billions of years.

Second, what do you think about many of the seemingly nonsensical design choices of a hypothetical intelligent designer? For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve goes from the brain to the larynx, that’s all it does. However for some reason it goes down, loops through the aorta, then comes up to the larynx. An extra distance of a foot or so of nerve doesn’t appear utterly ludicrous, until you look at giraffes, who also share this peculiar feature. Their nerve goes allllll the way down their neck, loops around the aorta, comes aaaaallll the way back to connect to the larynx. Inefficiencies like that are often seen in engineering projects where it has to work at every step of the way, and awkward choices have to be built upon or else it would require a costly overhaul. If one were to build a giraffe all in one go it appears an utterly foolish design choice.

If I were an omnipotent being, I would totally create a single replicating molecule and watch evolution happen because it’s sick as fuck. So the idea that an intelligent designer created all the species at once seems to clash with the logic of design that we know.

>>512572565
Is there evidence that god made a man out of clay and a woman out of his rib though

Evolution is a genuine thing. But I understand that because I have the introspection and critical thinking ability to rationally put two and two together. Because I am white. I'm not some third world fucking stupid dipshit.

All of us are anatomically modern humans with biological discrepancies based on our most recent ancestral lineages. East Asians and Europeans with strong genetics have the highest capacity of surviving in structural modern society. Unfortunately third world brown and black idiot retards (like the person reading this, statistically-speaking) aren't necessarily up to par. I guess evolution favored other means of survival (like exploiting people and not giving the slightest shred of shit about others' emotions)

>>512571982
I suppose I would reframe “survival of the good enough” in that it applies to a subset of species, particularly large animals, where most live to reproduce. I.e. the top 60-70% survive to reproduce. In that sense it feels more like the worst are getting culled rather than only the best pass on their genes. You’re right in that it’s not really a thing in evolutionary theory, just like “survival of the fittest” isn’t really a theoretical definition, more of just a truism that attempts to convey a broader idea.

In most species like plants or insects, only the top few percent of a generation reproduce, making the “fittest” phrase more apt

>>512572565
Again, abiogenesis and the origin of the universe are outside the scope of the theory of evolution.

How did dog breeds become different from each other?

>>512572681
Ya the word of God. Who is a metaphysical being.

>>512573164
Dogs have always been able to select traits from a range of available expressions. This is true of all creatures.

>>512573440
So from your perspective, the chihuahua was in the first wolf that approached humans? It just took hundreds of generations of selective breeding to express it? What about microbes that rapidly adapt to antibiotics? Do mutations play any part?

>>512573243
However the word of god is disproven on many instances
Genesis
>3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
>And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

>16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

>19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Soooo, god made day at night on the first day but he made the Sun and stars on the 4th day. What was the daylight on first three days since it clearly states they were separated.

Also
>12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

So fully developed plants such as trees existed without photosynthesis
How does that work

>>512573440
Even if what I say turns out to not be true and random chance of new never before seen features can occur at random, this still doesn't help the case for evolution. Like the other poster stated the chances for genetic mutations to change from self replicating, budding, asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction can't occur because it would require not just one creature but a multitude of creatures undergoing these changes (thousands if not millions at the same time).

My theory is currently unprovable because I'm not all knowing and I can't even fathom to test a creature for every single possibility it could potentially have stored.

>>512573752
Yes
>>512574244
I wasn't there at creation of the universe, but if I were to hazard a guess. The light that shines from God. Every appearance of God in the Bible was followed by blinding light.

>>512574752
>The light that shines from God.
It says that god created light so it wasn't him who was shining because he was there before the light
Also, he separated day and night, what was the night then, was the god blinking or something

>>512574752
Ok so we agree that organisms can change over time due to selection. So fundamentally you agree with evolution by natural selection? I assume you would argue that there is a limit as to how much a certain species can evolve. What is that limit, and how does it work?

>>512566647
>im smort because I believe in something that’s never been observed

Macro evolution is the dark matter of biology

>>512576576
What is stopping "macro evolution" from happening if you concede to "micro evolution"? It works by the exact same observable mechanisms that "micro evolution" does

>>512576576
Have you observed India?
>but other people have observed India
Did you observe them observing India? How can you be sure India is real and isn’t a hoax?

>>512560384 (OP)
Why has nobody bred monkeys into humans yet?
Why has nobody bred fish into land traversing animals yet?

>>512577531
Takes too long.

On the topic of breeding, how do dog breeds work?

>>512560384 (OP)
Evolution is real but the theory of evolution is wrong

Species die all the time and humans give names to anything that changes slightly (wolf and a dog or a mustang and a domesticated horse). Whether something changes enough is anybody’s call and so that’s why different species is arbitrary or subjective to someone’s opinion. I’m a Christian and we can see that Adam was also the one that names the animals in Genesis. I’ve came to the conclusion that an atheists god is time and I pray that the mystery of what I know is the truth (Christ) is given to them or that they seek it.

>>512577586
Same way skin colour does.
You breed good dogs - you get good dogs.
You introduce niggers into equation - you get niggers all the way down.

>>512572547
There’s a lot of proof like the Jews and the promises that they’ve been given which have been fulfilled 80-85 percent of the way through. By all accounts that race should’ve been exterminated already but here they are and the world spins around them all because God wants to show us a lesson.

>>512560384 (OP)
Niggers
Existance of those dead end subanimals is anti darwinst
Also jeets and their coprofagic diet

>>512577643
Elaborate

>>512572681
The same substances that exists in dirt or whatever the original translation is for clay, exists in the human body.

>>512560384 (OP)
Smash a spider with a book.

The genes in that spider don't carry to the next generation because that one was too slow.

Now, assume that instead of smashing that spider, that spider is *just* fast enough to run away.

You've favored fast spiders even though you don't know it. Spiders are now evolving to be faster because of you.

>>512577586
Okay, you can breed bacteria and still would be able to show results. Create multicellular more complex lifeforms out of single cells.
And yet we have nothing

>>512577782
So if people select which dogs reproduce based on a certain trait, that trait increases in prevalence over time? What happens in the wild if nature selects which organism reproduces based on its fitness?

>>512577789
No, only the West spins around them because of Christianity and if god loves them so much why does he make them suffer so much ? 2000y without a land + pogroms, they are now enjoying 80y of prosperity after 3000y of suffer and they fucked up again and they are gonna lose it.
And btw that's not a proof of anything, especially of what I asked for lol

>>512574244
Those ones are very easy so I won’t bother (search up on ChatGPT how this could be possible from a biblical judeochristian perspective). However, I’d like to hear more contradictions that you find in the Bible because you won’t find a single one

>>512577911
Like proteins, carbs, fats and vitamins ? Why don't you eat clay ?

>>512578199
>Those ones are very easy so I won’t bother
Debunk or stfu, Jew

>>512577937
That also takes too long. If you want examples of humans guiding evolution you can take a look at any domesticated animal or plant. It’s a simple process, people select for traits they want like tame behavior or thick wool, and the prevalence and magnitude of those traits increase over time. Why can’t that happen in nature?

>>512578224
Dont like the taste

Nobody has ever created a new species, only a variant of an existing one. Also the dates that are always given don't make any fucking sense. It's literally just "trust me bro" but with a magic wand of millions of years

>>512575060
the book of Job will give u all the answers

>>512578316
Can a variant of a species eventually become a new one?

>>512577936
And still squirrels aren’t able to cross a road without getting hit lol

>>512560384 (OP)
Do you believe intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive or that they can both be true?

>>512560384 (OP)
Of course evolution is real, but the theory of evolution is hogwash.

The core of the theory is that evolution is random and the best survive. This is obviously bullshit.
You put a set of black birds on a brown island and in a few generations they are all brown. Did they randomly try green, red, purple and only brown ones survived? not at all. They will grow beaks that adapt to their prey in two generations. Build a highway overpass and their wings will shorten to take advantage of it. Invent cars and birds take off distance shortens. All random right?

hogwash

>>512578070
Has there been a recorded occurrence of dogs giving birth to different species? Or in any other form of life?
>>512578297
So you can't reproduce the stated phenomena. I rest my case.

>>512578678
They’re not inherently mutually exclusive no. One could argue that an intelligent designer created life that then evolved.

>>512578160
Haha my bad. Didn’t want to go too off topic but Jews suffered thousands of years before Christians. Salvation came for the Jews but the Jews rejected Jesus and that was Gods plan so that non-Jews could be saved (the book of Romans talks about this). That group has been kicked out of every country because they’re successful everywhere they go since they have Gods material blessing on them (but not spiritual since that belongs to those that accept Christ)

>>512578758
You failed to answer the question

>>512578740
Evolution is not random, it is driven by natural selection. Evolution is random like dropping sand into a sieve yielding the smallest grains is random

>>512578160
Oh my bad. Didn’t answer your question again but the Old Testament talks about Jews suffering because of their disobedience. But yet every time God brings them back. We’re in the last days since we’re witnessing first hand the nation of Israel. I believe there’s a prophecy that says Israel will appear to be surrounded by enemies with no way out and that’s when Jesus 2nd return is (which the Jews will believe is His first)

>>512578224
Both the human body and soil contain elements like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen

>>512578517
No. But us humans love naming new things. It’s biblical as well. Adam named the animals in Genesis which is fascinating to me. New species are arbitrary but they’re not really new species (a wolf and a dog is a canine and a tiger and a cat are felines)

>>512578605
There's a slight difference between smashing a spider with a book and gunning over a squirrel with your Ford F-150

>>512578781
"Intelligent design" is just a rewrapped version of "god".

>>512578958
The theory of evolution mentions natural selection as a way to explain why some random evolution changes take hold and other are discarded. This is obviously wrong.

Evolution happens much faster and with fewer errors. It is obviously not random, until they fix that the theory will continue to be that a theory and a hogwash one

>>512578868
why should I? I didn't claim anything and am not defending a retarded ideological "theory".

Yes i can, it’s never been proven. There done.
Haha. Fucking brainjobs and their NPC religion sheeeiite. You’re funny stoopid.

>>512579225
Species are indeed arbitrary, as it’s hard to find a single definition that works for asexual and sexual organisms etc. But the definition that works most widely is basically “organisms that can and sometimes do reproduce with each other in the wild”. Going off of that definition, it is possible to breed new species. For example if one were to breed plants it’s not terribly difficult to select for a flowering period that doesn’t overlap with its parent species. Thus any mutations are contained within that lineage, and by the dominant definition of species, a new one is created.

>>512579426
Yeah of course.

>>512560384 (OP)
the burden of proof is on you, it is called theory for a reason

>>512579485
Just say you can’t answer the question, it’s ok

>>512579720
It’s called a theory because that is the scientific term for an explanation of natural processes. It doesn’t “graduate” to a law or anything. You know there’s the theory of gravity right?

You’re right the burden is on me so I’ll prove it with three facts.

1. Offspring look like their parents (inheritance)
2. Not all members of a species are identical to each other (genetic variation)
3. Not all individuals live to reproduce (struggle for survival)

With these three facts as its foundation, the theory of evolution posits that the individuals most fit to their environment are the ones that reproduce, and that traits that increase an organism’s fitness will increase in prevalence over time. Thus, species change over time as their environment changes. (Evolution literally meaning change over time)

QED

>>512579720
Hypothesis =/= theory

God made you. It’s a test because of the fall. The universe isn’t the physics model at random it is daft to suppose that it is (for no raisin at all). It’s not the sci fi universe. It’s creation. The reason why physics are not chaos. Like an engine, but not. More than we can understand.
Evolution is really funny & bad and resembles so much other fluid absolute fact bullshit. You don’t have to take such silly trickery seriously. Behind the curtain the great voice of oz is a little man, i’m very clever and I know and admit it wisely. Our minds scrape the surface we don’t ‘get’ most of what’s going on. Lying has to stop. Science can suggest a theory but it’s no more valid than a Ron Howard book in the end, they ask the wrong questions. Like a dyslexic man weighing and measuring a book and comparing its weight to a ghetto blaster to ‘prove’ the book contains no words. The conclusion suits him, notice.

>>512581037
>Sir, we’ve finished collecting evidence from the murder scene. We found the suspect’s shoe prints in mud leading to the front door, a series of mud boot prints on the door, broken hinges, and a trail of muddy foot prints straight to the bedroom. We searched the bedroom and found fingerprints of the suspect on the doorknob, and a bloody knife still in the victim with the suspect’s fingerprints and DNA on the handle. We also have a note written in the suspect’s handwriting detailing his motivation behind the murder, with his signature at the end. Home security footage shows a man that resembles the suspect kicking down the door and going up to the bedroom. What’s your conclusion detective?

>…

>I can suggest a theory but it’s no more valid than a Ron Howard book in the end, the case goes cold.

this is boring
>who dares to debate me on evolution
that's you. you literally sound like that
you're all That Guy
i'm leaving
this thread is poo

>>512579965
you told me nothing I didn't know and proved less

>>512580394
prove the theory then
who are you protecting?

>>512581523
>we get perfect eclipses by pure chance

>>512580394
hinduism = retardation
bri'ish elite = demented retards
bri'ish east indian company = turbo demented retards

>>512582381
Your claim was that "it's called a theory for a reason".
What is the reason, according to you ?
The reason is that, in your opinion, not even scientists consider it proven.
I showed to you that "theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis" as you thought, therefore they call it a theory because they consider it proven, so your argument is invalidated.
That's all.

>>512583124
>>>/wsg/5943758
one could say, at least y in 'evolution/eugenics/bioethics' poo-bri'ish cult,
they did "evolve" to poo in the loo

>>512560384 (OP)
> Try to disprove evolution (you can’t)
True, I can't. Nobody can. It's defined such that it can't ever be FALSIFIED by no empirical observation whatsoever and therefore it's not a "scientific" theory.

https://philotextes.info/spip/IMG/pdf/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf

>>512583912
>It's defined such that it can't ever be FALSIFIED by no empirical observation
Can the Bible be though

>>512583326
> not even scientists consider it proven
You mean "not proven true"? No theory is ever proven true, only falsified. But there is a lot of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

>>512584091
>Reading comprehension: N/A

>>512584024
The claims of the bible are no theory though, they are dogmatic.

>>512567007
evolution was a jew psyop to make people fall away from God, it really is that simple

>>512584179
You are speculating about the "reason". It's a theory because there is supporting evidence not because it's not proven true. No matter what the other anon may think.

>>512584300
From which god ?

>>512583326
deflection is not proof in any language I know of

>>512584514
>Reading comprehension: N/A

>>512584646
Then why are you deflecting ?
You claim it's called a theory for a reason. What is the reason ?

>>512560384 (OP)

Show me a gorilla that turned into a human

>checkmate atheist

>>512560556
Holy shit this is a nigger tier post.
If you're going to have bigger opinions a out natural selection then stick to the "why are there still monkeys" one you dumb fucking nigger

>>512584757
the burden of proof is still on you
can't turn it on me yet

>>512584946
Yes, just answer
You said >>512579720
>it is called theory for a reason
What is the reason ?

>>512585044
because it is pure speculation that can not be proven but is the most logical solution
now prove it

>>512585393
>it is called theory because it is pure speculation that can not be proven
I've already showed you that argument is completely wrong.
You're conflating "hypothesis" and "theory". See picrel here: >>512580394

>>512585549
theōria "contemplation, speculation, viewing; a sight, show, spectacle"
are we speaking the same language?

>>512585780
There's colloquial language, Greek and contemporary scientific.
We're obviously discussing contemporary scientific here so refer to >>512580394

>>512585946
ah, colloquial so anything goes?
your fine chart proves shit all about anything and even less about evolution, good semantics though

>>512586395
Define the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" in modern scientific context, anon

>>512562524
Malachi I want my own cookies and I REFUSE to share with this fucking retard.

>>512560384 (OP)
done

>>512586518
why is this so important to you? really really hurt you didn't I? prove the theory of evolution and I will concede that you are in fact

>>512587099
>Moves goalposts
Just clarify your position by defining the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" in modern scientific context so we can continue.
Are you afraid to state your case ?
I win already.

Op, Explain specific gene fixation.
Explain how many specific individuals in a given population need said fixation in order to continue to spread a new fixed mutation.

Contemplate the mathmatical absurdity of this in relation to primate reproductive cycles and then account for many many millions of allel fixations needed to go from the so called common human-chimp ancestor to modern human.

Take your time and use a calculator, because like all biologists, you can't into math.

You should also consider the obvious: A dog breeder isn't introducing mutations to get the best of a breed. He's selecting strong showing adult dogs of specific traits over weak showers as breeders. This is a massive forced bottleneck in an unsustainably sized and maintained poplulation. The weak traits are all still there. The dog breeder getting lighter Golden Retrievers is a retarded example for your cause.

>>512588878
>This is a massive forced bottleneck in an unsustainably sized and maintained poplulation.
You're (probably deliberately) overlooking the incredibly short period of time, like most European breeds came in the last 150 years but they've been around for decades so under 100 years for a new breed