Evolution refutation

[husshaider]

Yeah bro natural selection just naturally determined that every snake born with an extra weird overgrowth of flesh in the shape of a spider (which probably occurs once every 100 million snakes that are born) are more likely to catch prey and therefore somehow that exact, hyper-specific, anatomically complex, spider-mimicking appendage just happened to be preserved, refined, and standardised over generations.

You’re basically being asked to believe that blind chance produced not just a random lump of flesh, but a convincing arachnid illusion complete with fucking movement patterns that trigger prey instincts before it had any selective advantage, and that this freak mutation then survived long enough to become a defining trait of the species.

Fuck this incentive within science which is hellbent on convincing humans that we are just useless sacks of shit in the grand scheme of things and fuck anyone who blindly believes in it. This is why I’m not one of those faggots who starts soying out when someone questions the theory of evolution. Like yes I believe evolution can be observed on certain scales. Natural selection can explain why a useful trait spreads once it exists but the real question here is how something that specific exists in the first place without collapsing under the weight of improbability, and if you genuinely believe that shit like this occurs completely naturally then you need to kill yourself.

At that point you fucking believe that animals have a skill point selection screen that they unlock every 100 generations that says “invest more point into getting a spider shaped tumour on your tail that acts like a spider”. Eat my shit

By Hussain

 

[husshaider]

Bump

 

[Tenres]

What is your alternative more believable hypothesis?

 

[6ft4]

Good read

Also:

What is your alternative more believable hypothesis?

 

[husshaider]

What is your alternative more believable hypothesis?

In reality there’s not necessarily something more believable. I believe in God so naturally i’m a creationist. However, I won’t act as if it’s a more believable hypothesis, as there isn’t much concrete evidence. My point in this post is that if evolution is the average person’s best excuse for an explanation for the origin of life and yet it can be questioned in such a way, then the average atheist effectively believes in nothing

 

[Tenres]

In reality there’s not necessarily something more believable. I believe in God so naturally i’m a creationist. However, I won’t act as if it’s a more believable hypothesis, as there isn’t much concrete evidence. My point in this post is that if evolution is the average person’s best excuse for an explanation for life and yet it can be questioned in such a way, then the average atheist effectively believes in nothing

I get u. I believe evo (esp on micro scale - like people getting taller because of natural selection of biological processes, whatever they are, that would make someone taller) is pretty believable but I agree it can be unbelievable for a lot of people, some religious ideas (objective morality, purposefulness, lack of of randomness) are more appealing for people.

 

[husshaider]

I get u. I believe evo (esp on micro scale - like people getting taller because of natural selection of biological processes, whatever they are, that would make someone taller) is pretty believable but I agree it can be unbelievable for a lot of people, some religious ideas (objective morality, purposefulness, lack of of randomness) are more appealing for people.

Evolution is basically an unconcerned loser’s excuse for a nihilistic and uncaring approach for how life originated. Btw I am sure there might be plenty of ppl who can argue against this post, I won’t deny that. However, most ppl u will meet (in the west) are atheists and will act all high and mighty for believing in evolution. They will laugh at u for believing in anything besides it, and act like they’re some scientific genius for believing in evolution. Then u ask them why they believe in evolution as opposed to blind faith in religion. Then their response is either:
1. “My parents never raised me in a religion”
2. “I didn’t like/have conviction to the religion I was born into, so I renounced it (and by nature I believe in evolution as that’s the standard for what you should believe if you don’t believe in creationism)”

Then you realise they’re effectively NO different from a person who blindly follows religion

 

[aaronbp]

theistic evo or naturalism evo?

 

[ragingmanlet]

dnr

 

[husshaider]

theistic evo or naturalism evo?

Theistic evolution is cope even tho it’s probably the theory that technically aligns with my beliefs to an extent

 

[aaronbp]

Theistic evolution is cope even tho it’s probably the theory that technically aligns with my beliefs to an extent

did u read alvin platingas argument for theistic evo?

 

[husshaider]

dnr

Ur loss poopid (poop + stupid)

 

[husshaider]

did u read alvin platingas argument for theistic evo?

No. Summarise it if possible?

 

[aaronbp]

No. Summarise it if possible?

na ggs dude youre gonna have to look it up yourself, lmk what u think

 

[husshaider]

na ggs dude youre gonna have to look it up yourself, lmk what u think

Alright, just read a few summaries and for the most part it’s pretty similar to what my understanding of theistic evolution is. The thing is, I reiterate that I kind of don’t even believe in evolution to begin with to a certain extent, i.e I don’t believe we evolved from apes n shit. I do believe in the existence of other hominids but I believe that they were outcompeted by humans (many of them coexisted in the same ecosystems as humans). And once again I believe that humans were probably created exactly in the state that we exist by God. Maybe I wouldn’t believe that if I wasn’t born into a theist household, who knows.

But yeah his argument can be quite easily questioned by naturalists and I just saw a few guys on reddit do so. However, the same can be done to a naturalists’ idea of the origin of life. So overall it’s kind of just a massive mindfuck, and it almost comes to the point where believing in creationism is the easiest belief and somehow equally if not more logical

 

[Whatever]

Snakes have been around for probably a million years and breed at crazy numbers so that's more than enough time and population to produce something that seems so unlikely. This is like anything else in biology or the universe, what seems like even astronomically low odds gets balanced out by how old and big everything is.

It can seem unlikely but it's actually the simplest explanation. Because getting into theistic evolution would raise a whole new array of questions like why would God favor this random snake in western Iran, eventually these questions produce contradicting answers. And contradiction or overcomplication can make the whole thing collapse logically. And then we go back to zero again, the most simplest explanation means not involving any of that.

Fuck this incentive within science which is hellbent on convincing humans that we are just useless sacks of shit in the grand scheme of things and fuck anyone who blindly believes in it.

Saying it's random chance and then natural selection is just an explanation. It's not accusing you of being a useless sack of shit, that's your own negative reaction to it.

 

[husshaider]

Snakes have been around for probably a million years and breed at crazy numbers so that's more than enough time and population to produce something that seems so unlikely. This is like anything else in biology or the universe, what seems like even astronomically low odds gets balanced out by how old and big everything is.

It can seem unlikely but it's actually the simplest explanation. Because getting into theistic evolution would raise a whole new array of questions like why would God favor this random snake in western Iran, eventually these questions produce contradicting answers. And contradiction or overcomplication can make the whole thing collapse logically. And then we go back to zero again, the most simplest explanation means not involving any of that.



Saying it's random chance and then natural selection is just an explanation. It's not accusing you of being a useless sack of shit, that's your own negative reaction to it.

Yeah but that specific evolution is just too ridiculously unlikely for me to just accept it as a naturally occurring thing. There’s many other examples but that one particularly pissed me off. Imo 1 million years isn’t enough time to standardise an appendage across an entire species that acts and looks like a spider. How tf does that even emerge to begin with and then not get erased in its early stages. How does the snake even become aware of how to use that appendage? Relying on sheer probability to explain all of existence isn’t something I wanna do

Also your understanding of theistic evolution is wrong. That objection assumes theistic evolution requires God to arbitrarily “favour” one specific snake in one place, which isn’t what theistic evolution is about. Theistic evolution argues that God sustains the natural laws themselves, not that He micromanages random mutations in western Iran.

 

[Whatever]

Yeah but that specific evolution is just too ridiculously unlikely for me to just accept it as a naturally occurring thing. There’s many other examples but that one particularly pissed me off. Imo 1 million years isn’t enough time to standardise an appendage across an entire species that acts and looks like a spider. How tf does that even emerge to begin with and then not get erased in its early stages. How does the snake even become aware of how to use that appendage? Relying on sheer probability to explain all of existence isn’t something I wanna do

Also your understanding of theistic evolution is wrong. That objection assumes theistic evolution requires God to arbitrarily “favour” one specific snake in one place, which isn’t what theistic evolution is about. Theistic evolution argues that God sustains the natural laws themselves, not that He micromanages random mutations in western Iran.

"Just too unlikely for me to accept"
"pissed me off"
"Imo"
"isn't something I wanna do"

You might not realize this but you're using reactionary, opinionated language. You're trying to uphold a worldview on your interpretation of events rather than the events themselves.

This is basic math. 1 million years is hundreds of thousands of generations of snakes. And they can have 40+ offspring easily. That's billions, probably trillions or even quadrillions of snakes. Freak mutations are almost guaranteed at such huge numbers, and it makes plenty of sense when many organisms develop advanced techniques to hunt or otherwise secure food. Like a Venus fly trap or plenty of other things.

Aggressive mimicry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org