Why do people deny evolution?

[Baldingman1998]

Just look at this

 

[Deleted member 17791]

huh? how does that prove evolution?

 

[Baldingman1998]

huh? how does that prove evolution?

 

[youngmax]

huh? how does that prove evolution?

Looks like a black person

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Looks like a black person

but monkey is cute prettyboy.

 

[Baldingman1998]

but monkey is cute prettyboy.

Looks like he has an afro as well. Similar hair type.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Looks like he has an afro as well. Similar hair type.

It has a fucking tentacle hand. wtf.

 

[Deleted member 7580]

Dn watch

Not sure how true evolution is but I don’t like Muh science bcz of Reddit cucks

 

[Baldingman1998]

Dn watch

Not sure how true evolution is but I don’t like Muh science bcz of Reddit cucks

Blackpill science, looksmaxing etc is all based on science

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Blackpill science, looksmaxing etc is all based on science

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

Because there has never been observations in the entirety of human history of one species of animal turning into another or being in the process of it. The only evolution that is documented is micro evolution which means individual cells adapting to a changed environment. But it never results in all the cells around it changing so dramatically as to morph the organism to look/act so different to its "predecessor" that it becomes a seperate species.

All mid-species animal bones 'found' have been forgeries. Every single one (Lucy, Heidelberg man, Java man as examples)

So this means that we have either always been here and have not changed or we were created by something vastly superior to ourselves (a God). That cute little monkey was created by God to look exactly like that, maybe because its so cute xx

 

[Baldingman1998]

Because there has never been observations in the entirety of human history of one species of animal turning into another or being in the process of it. The only evolution that is documented is micro evolution which means individual cells adapting to a changed environment. But it never results in all the cells around it changing so dramatically as to morph the organism to look/act so different to its "predecessor" that it becomes a seperate species.

All mid-species animal bones 'found' have been forgeries. Every single one (Lucy, Heidelberg man, Java man as examples)

So this means that we have either always been here and have not changed or we were created by something vastly superior to ourselves (a God). That cute little monkey was created by God to look exactly like that, maybe because its so cute xx

So maybe aliens made us then? Btw everything you said is wrong. Micro evolution is evolution

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

So maybe aliens made us then? Btw everything you said is wrong. Micro evolution is evolution

Micro evolution is not macro evolution. At face value it might seem that if enough individual cells change then over time the structure of the whole organism will change but that isn't what happens. Mostly the cells that change are immune cells due to changing disease prevalence. Humans are anatomically exactly the same as cro magnon hunter gatherers from hundreds of thousands of years ago and yet we do look different. The reason we look different is because of domestication which always results in the skeleton becoming less mature and child-like. But that is an immediate environmental selection pressure. The children of the domesticated parents (if raised in the Masai tribe for instance) would develop properly with mature features due to a different environment.

Evolution is not genetic in nature as darwin suggested its individual and based on environmental pressures. Therefore there is no way for there to be intermediate species as it is not passed on through generations. Especially not enough to radically change an organism which takes millions of years according to the very people that believe in evolution. It's a lot of nonsense and misunderstood.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Because there has never been observations in the entirety of human history of one species of animal turning into another or being in the process of it. The only evolution that is documented is micro evolution which means individual cells adapting to a changed environment. But it never results in all the cells around it changing so dramatically as to morph the organism to look/act so different to its "predecessor" that it becomes a seperate species.

All mid-species animal bones 'found' have been forgeries. Every single one (Lucy, Heidelberg man, Java man as examples)

So this means that we have either always been here and have not changed or we were created by something vastly superior to ourselves (a God). That cute little monkey was created by God to look exactly like that, maybe because its so cute xx

Another low iq brainless post, glad ur keeping consistent

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

Another low iq brainless post, glad ur keeping consistent

Evidence does not support the theory of evolution

As president of the Centre des Etudes et de Prospective sur la Science (CEP), I would like to present some arguments which, I…

www.irishtimes.com

Read that and then blow your brains out.

 

[hebbewem]

Because there has never been observations in the entirety of human history of one species of animal turning into another or being in the process of it. The only evolution that is documented is micro evolution which means individual cells adapting to a changed environment. But it never results in all the cells around it changing so dramatically as to morph the organism to look/act so different to its "predecessor" that it becomes a seperate species.

All mid-species animal bones 'found' have been forgeries. Every single one (Lucy, Heidelberg man, Java man as examples)

So this means that we have either always been here and have not changed or we were created by something vastly superior to ourselves (a God). That cute little monkey was created by God to look exactly like that, maybe because its so cute xx

What about artifical selection

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

What about artifical selection

You mean like dogs? That is selecting for traits humans find appealing and almost always result in a group of beings that are unfit for natural survival therefore it is an aesthetic change like I spoke about with the domestication of humans. Same idea, those dogs would die if they were released into the wild and only those closest to wolves (dog ancestor) would survive and reproduce with actual wolves to go back to the mean.

 

[hebbewem]

You mean like dogs? That is selecting for traits humans find appealing and almost always result in a group of beings that are unfit for natural survival therefore it is an aesthetic change like I spoke about with the domestication of humans. Same idea, those dogs would die if they were released into the wild and only those closest to wolves (dog ancestor) would survive and reproduce with actual wolves to go back to the mean.

Because humans wants those traits and they don't care if the animals can survive in the wild. But it proves that traits or allel freqency can change with pressure so proving evolution

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

Because humans wants those traits and they don't care if the animals can survive in the wild. But it proves that traits or allel freqency can change with pressure so proving evolution

Nature only gives a shit about animals surviving or not. Unnaturally changing dog breeds to be unsuccessful (usually by artificial insemination) in nature has nothing to do with what would happen without human intervention. It's just something humans can do.

Almost every single dog breed other than a wolf has some sort of crippling genetic condition that results from this human experimentation. Joints being damaged, breathing problems, limb problems, psychological problems etc etc. You cannot select for a canine that isn't a wolf without genetic problems that would get them wiped out in nature.

Wolves do not have genetic problems they are apex predators unless there is a fluke in which case nature wont allow that wolf to pass on its genes. Getting it yet?

 

[AbandonShip]

Because humans wants those traits and they don't care if the animals can survive in the wild. But it proves that traits or allel freqency can change with pressure so proving evolution

you are arguing with someone who read some articles on evolution and now is an expert on the subject.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Because there has never been observations in the entirety of human history of one species of animal turning into another or being in the process of it. The only evolution that is documented is micro evolution which means individual cells adapting to a changed environment. But it never results in all the cells around it changing so dramatically as to morph the organism to look/act so different to its "predecessor" that it becomes a seperate species.

All mid-species animal bones 'found' have been forgeries. Every single one (Lucy, Heidelberg man, Java man as examples)

So this means that we have either always been here and have not changed or we were created by something vastly superior to ourselves (a God). That cute little monkey was created by God to look exactly like that, maybe because its so cute xx

Evolution is the gradual change in a species over time. A monkey giving birth to a human isn't darwinism.

 

[hebbewem]

Nature only gives a shit about animals surviving or not. Unnaturally changing dog breeds to be unsuccessful (usually by artificial insemination) in nature has nothing to do with what would happen without human intervention. It's just something humans can do.

But it does prove allel freqency can change traits.and you agreed with that.

Do you belive thqt every animal in a species. in the same enverioment have the same chance of surviveing?

And if you answer no do you belive some traits might increase the chance of surviving?

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

you are arguing with someone who read some articles on evolution and now is an expert on the subject.

So I guess I'm not allowed to ask the question on if they have found intermediate species and the answer turns out to be no? That every single fossil found ever has been a fully fledged species and yet for some reason I am supposed to believe we change over time and yet that is not indicated in the fossilized remains that have been found nor is it indicated in observable science today.

 

[Deleted member 15309]

Nature only gives a shit about animals surviving or not. Unnaturally changing dog breeds to be unsuccessful (usually by artificial insemination) in nature has nothing to do with what would happen without human intervention. It's just something humans can do.

Almost every single dog breed other than a wolf has some sort of crippling genetic condition that results from this human experimentation. Joints being damaged, breathing problems, limb problems, psychological problems etc etc. You cannot select for a canine that isn't a wolf without genetic problems that would get them wiped out in nature.

Wolves do not have genetic problems they are apex predators unless there is a fluke in which case nature wont allow that wolf to pass on its genes. Getting it yet?

shit take

 

[Deleted member 15309]

But it does prove allel freqency can change traits.and you agreed with that.

Do you belive thqt every animal in a species. in the same enverioment have the same chance of surviveing?

And if you answer no do you belive some traits might increase the chance of surviving?

i love u

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

But it does prove allel freqency can change traits.and you agreed with that.

Do you belive thqt every animal in a species. in the same enverioment have the same chance of surviveing?

And if you answer no do you belive some traits might increase the chance of surviving?

It can change traits with sentient intervention. It doesn't occur without sentient intervention aka 'in nature'.

Not sure I understand the second question. Do I think the bigger wolf has a better chance than the smaller wolf? Or the smaller mouse than the bigger mouse?

 

[AbandonShip]

So I guess I'm not allowed to ask the question on if they have found intermediate species and the answer turns out to be no? That every single fossil found ever has been a fully fledged species and yet for some reason I am supposed to believe we change over time and yet that is not indicated in the fossilized remains that have been found nor is it indicated in observable science today.

If evolution or macro evolution as you like to call it is false then wheres the massive amount of literature(books/papers) denying evolution as compared to the massive literature in support of evolution? why are there no biologists discussing this issue?

And if you've read any serious literature denying evolution, not a bite sized article or a 2 hour long youtube video by some basement dweller, then link it here. Something that debunks the monument of evidence against evolution one by one

 

[hebbewem]

It can change traits with sentient intervention. It doesn't occur without sentient intervention aka 'in nature'.

Not sure I understand the second question. Do I think the bigger wolf has a better chance than the smaller wolf? Or the smaller mouse than the bigger mouse?

And on the first part you can't just assume that

Yes do you think the bigger wolf has a better chance of surviveing?

And did you answer the third question ?

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

If evolution or macro evolution as you like to call it is false then wheres the massive amount of literature(books/papers) denying evolution as compared to the massive literature in support of evolution? why are there no biologists discussing this issue?

And if you've read any serious literature denying evolution, not a bite sized article or a 2 hour long youtube video by some basement dweller, then link it here. Something that debunks the monument of evidence against evolution one by one

Imagine thinking you are smart for making this an example as to why evolution is true.

Go ask someone in 1953 why there are masses of scientific papers saying Thalidomide is perfectly safe to use by pregnant women who is telling you it will cause birth defects. But, ummm all the scientists agree Thalidomide is perfectly safe? And ummm all papers secretly being released get quashed by pharmaceutical companies so that means its also safe right?

This idea that I can just find hundreds of controversial papers on Google at a whim is utterly ridiculous. It's a trap to make someone look like they are being silly or don't understand what they are talking about when I cannot provide them.

That article I sent has very prominent professors such as Jeffery Schwartz as well as others not mentioned like Rupert Sheldrake who all come from the exact same field. Maybe you should be looking into their work instead of passing the article off as rubbish even though you clearly didn't read it otherwise you would know Jeffery Schwartz. Rupert Sheldrake isnt mentioned in that article as he wasn't involved in it but he is another person you should read into if you genuinely care enough and aren't just trying to make someone you disagree with look stupid for internet points.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

If evolution or macro evolution as you like to call it is false then wheres the massive amount of literature(books/papers) denying evolution as compared to the massive literature in support of evolution? why are there no biologists discussing this issue?

And if you've read any serious literature denying evolution, not a bite sized article or a 2 hour long youtube video by some basement dweller, then link it here. Something that debunks the monument of evidence against evolution one by one

Evidence of Evolution – Concepts of Biology

opentextbc.ca

Yeah any dumbass can find an article that supports their claims, this guy probably read "evolution isn't real" in the tic tok comments of his cringe pfp and decided to believe it

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Imagine thinking you are smart for making this an example as to why evolution is true.

Go ask someone in 1953 why there are masses of scientific papers saying Thalidomide is perfectly safe to use by pregnant women who is telling you it will cause birth defects. But, ummm all the scientists agree Thalidomide is perfectly safe? And ummm all papers secretly being released get quashed by pharmaceutical companies so that means its also safe right?

This idea that I can just find hundreds of controversial papers on Google at a whim is utterly ridiculous. It's a trap to make someone look like they are being silly or don't understand what they are talking about when I cannot provide them.

That article I sent has very prominent professors such as Jeffery Schwartz as well as others not mentioned like Rupert Sheldrake who all come from the exact same field. Maybe you should be looking into their work instead of passing the article off as rubbish even though you clearly didn't read it otherwise you would know Jeffery Schwartz. Rupert Sheldrake isnt mentioned in that article as he wasn't involved in it but he is another person you should read into if you genuinely care enough and aren't just trying to make someone you disagree with look stupid for internet points.

BTW your source hadn't claimed he believes evolution isn't real, he simply has stated that the means by which we understand how evolution works is logical and reasonable however due to the way the data is collected, conclusive evidence can't be produced (don't really understand the specifics tbh but my quote confirms this)

"In criticizing Darwin, Dr. Schwartz does not dispute his theory that humans, animals and plants evolved from other species. In fact, one of his books, “The Red Ape,” argues that orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest evolutionary relatives of human beings".

Mf absolutely believes in evolution and even believes we come from apes, his model of evolution is not the same but he cleary believes our ancestors are not human. Given that you weren't aware of this you obviously haven't done a lick of research on your own argument.

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

its tail looks like a tentacle

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

BTW your source hadn't claimed he believes evolution isn't real, he simply has stated that the means by which we understand how evolution works is logical and reasonable however due to the way the data is collected it (don't really understand the specifics tbh but my quote confirms this)

"In criticizing Darwin, Dr. Schwartz does not dispute his theory that humans, animals and plants evolved from other species. In fact, one of his books, “The Red Ape,” argues that orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest evolutionary relatives of human beings".

Prof Schwartz claims that instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. Not only are the links missing, but professional evolutionists now admit they cannot even imagine how one species could be linked with another.

 

[Deleted member 13332]

god made a human and gave him a chance to evolute (evolution fuck english )

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

I'm perfectly happy to find out evolution is actually real if they have observed one species turning into something else. If that has been documented in nature then I will absolutely believe in evolution but it has never EVER been observed.

 

[Deleted member 14984]

Just look at this

A nigga yesterday wrote: „the man wants to rather believe to be a degenerated angel than a evolved ape.“

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

Similarly, I am happy for someone to show me fossils of one species changing into something else. But once again, no such fossils exist.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Prof Schwartz claims that instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. Not only are the links missing, but professional evolutionists now admit they cannot even imagine how one species could be linked with another.

He believes we came from apes, he believes in evolution, so this entire paragraph you typed doesn't matter retard

I don't care if you re word it, a source which believe in evolution is not proof that evolution isn't real dumbass

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

He believes we came from apes, he believes in evolution, so this entire paragraph you typed doesn't matter retard

I didn't type it. I copy pasted it from the article I sent, its his own words.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

I didn't type it. I copy pasted it from the article I sent, its his own words.

Yeah those are still words from a guy who believes in evolution. Cleary you know this so why are you wasting your own time

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

He believes in a different model of evolution as I said that doesn't mean he thinks evolution isn't real its really not that hard to understand dumbass, I suppose your lack of mental capacity is not surprising considering you have a tik tok girl whom you jerk off to daily as a pfp, obviously you're a subpar member of the human species.

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

He believes in a different model of evolution as I said that doesn't mean he thinks evolution isn't real its really not that hard to understand dumbass, I suppose your lack of mental capacity is not surprising considering you have a tik tok girl whom you jerk off to daily as a pfp, obviously you're a subpar member of the human species.

Dis nigga getting so mad he double posted me. Stop getting your knickers in a twist over something you think is "stupid".

 

[AbandonShip]

Dis nigga getting so mad he double posted me. Stop getting your knickers in a twist over something you think is "stupid".

you lost the argument tbh

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Dis nigga getting so mad he double posted me. Stop getting your knickers in a twist over something you think is "stupid".

What you meant to say was

"Oh he's right, I came here to argue with people about whether or not evolution is real but since I have no valid rebuttal I will instead pretend that I don't care and that the person arguing with me is angry in order to appear as confident even after actively backing out of an argument"

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

What you meant to say was

"Oh he's right, I came here to argue with people about whether or not evolution is real but since I have no valid rebuttal I will instead pretend that I don't care and that the person arguing with me is angry in order to appear as confident even after actively backing out of an argument"

I didnt come here to argue about anything. I just made a comment about it and you niggas got mad asking me to upload libraries of literature supporting my retarded claim. Stop getting mad and go speak to someone else if its pissing you off so much

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

you lost the argument tbh

I wasn't intending to have an argument but I suppose I did lose it since I dont have mountains of evidence to shove up your ass. If you take that as a win then so be it.

 

[Deleted member 14077]

It denies religion, although its actually an aspect of religion

 

[AbandonShip]

I wasn't intending to have an argument but I suppose I did lose it since I dont have mountains of evidence to shove up your ass. If you take that as a win then so be it.

you lost

 

[NuclearBrainReturns]

you lost

and is your life better now? Is an argument victory on an incelforum the highlight of your day? Pretty sad if you ask me. But you're right I did lose as I said.

 

[AbandonShip]

and is your life better now? Is an argument victory on an incelforum the highlight of your day? Pretty sad if you ask me. But you're right I did lose as I said.

yes. And you have no browridge