Why religion isn't the problem

[Gargantuan]

To start off, I don't consider myself to be a 'religious' person, because I don't follow any mainstream denominations that exist within religion. I do, however, worship and believe in God, so I guess most people would label me as a Christian, despite the fact that I have no affiliation to any of the mainstream denominations.

But from time to time, I see people making threads, or comments, on how religion is supposedly a 'cope', used to keep us 'docile' and 'stupid' and turns you into a 'cuck' etc. And in the Western world, this seems to be a popular narrative as well, these days.

This begs the question, would we actually be better off without it? Has religion been replaced and are we better off now?

What happens when you take religion away? The fact of the matter is that nearly all of the time, people will find something else to worship; be it celebrities, be it scientists, politicians, athletes, you name it.
The spectrum of 'worship' or in a lot of cases, 'idolatry' is very broad, yet people seem to think that it only applies to religion, which couldn't be further from the truth.
They'll find someone else who tells them how to think, how to act, how to behave etc. I would go as far as to suggest that it's a fundamental aspect of human nature, most humans have a natural yearning to worship and to be ruled over by some type of authority, that they perceive to be higher than themselves.

This is how people are, always have been and always will be, no matter how hard you try to 'educate' them or hand out degrees, you cannot change human nature.

So has religion been replaced? Look at how normies/NPCs (for lack of a better term), who are notoriously dismissive of religion, most of the time, WORSHIPPED science during this whole covid nonsense. When there's a figure of authority placed in front of them, like Fauci, Gates (not even a scientist btw, jfl), someone from the WHO or whoever, they will listen to this person as if they are religious fanatics, listening to their religious leader.

They don't question what he's telling them, because they had already acquiesced before the figure of authority they were listening to, had even attempted to open their mouth.

So when people who adhere to this mentality are trying to have a go at the old religions, keep in mind that, funnily enough, they probably behave in the exact same manner in which their ancestors used to behave when they got orders from the pope/church/iman/mosque or whatever the case may be (I'm not trying to have a go at these religious people, btw).

The thing is, being anti-religious doesn't make you more of a divergent thinker, most of the time. Because you will end up filling that vacuum with something else, which will usually turn out to be quite similar to religion.

It's the same mentality.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

To start off, I don't consider myself to be a 'religious' person, because I don't follow any mainstream denominations that exist within religion. I do, however, worship and believe in God, so I guess most people would label me as a Christian, despite the fact that I have no affiliation to any of the mainstream denominations.

But from time to time, I see people making threads, or comments, on how religion is supposedly a 'cope', used to keep us 'docile' and 'stupid' and turns you into a 'cuck' etc. And in the Western world, this seems to be a popular narrative as well, these days.

This begs the question, would we actually be better off without it? Has religion been replaced and are we better off now?

What happens when you take religion away? The fact of the matter is that nearly all of the time, people will find something else to worship; be it celebrities, be it scientists, politicians, athletes, you name it.
The spectrum of 'worship' or in a lot of cases, 'idolatry' is very broad, yet people seem to think that it only applies to religion, which couldn't be further from the truth.
They'll find someone else who tells them how to think, how to act, how to behave etc. I would go as far as to suggest that it's a fundamental aspect of human nature, most humans have a natural yearning to worship and to be ruled over by some type of authority, that they perceive to be higher than themselves.

This is how people are, always have been and always will be, no matter how hard you try to 'educate' them or hand out degrees, you cannot change human nature.

So has religion been replaced? Look at how normies/NPCs (for lack of a better term), who are notoriously dismissive of religion, most of the time, WORSHIPPED science during this whole covid nonsense. When there's a figure of authority placed in front of them, like Fauci, Gates (not even a scientist btw, jfl), someone from the WHO or whoever, they will listen to this person as if they are religious fanatics, listening to their religious leader.

They don't question what he's telling them, because they had already acquiesced before the figure of authority they were listening to, had even attempted to open their mouth.

So when people who adhere to this mentality are trying to have a go at the old religions, keep in mind that, funnily enough, they probably behave in the exact same manner in which their ancestors used to behave when they got orders from the pope/church/iman/mosque or whatever the case may be (I'm not trying to have a go at these religious people, btw).

The thing is, being anti-religious doesn't make you more of a divergent thinker, most of the time. Because you will end up filling that vacuum with something else, which will usually turn out to be quite similar to religion.

It's the same mentality.

I agree. Calling religion 'just a cope' doesn't hold any weight. Most people who throw this where already atheist before they even knew about blackpill or psl. If anything, various studies show that humans are hardwired in accepting God's existence.

 

[Deleted member 2729]

Why water is wet

Agree tho tbh ngl even tho I barely read anything it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above retardation levels

 

[Deleted member 4332]

Great thread by a great mod

 

[SubhumanCurrycel]

 

[Baldingman1998]

I agree. Calling religion 'just a cope' doesn't hold any weight. Most people who throw this where already atheist before they even knew about blackpill or psl. If anything, various studies show that humans are hardwired in accepting God's existence.

The same study that said this?

This is the most attractive height for men and women

It’s not what you’d expect

www.standard.co.uk

Bald men are perceived as more attractive and masculine, says study | The Times of India

According to a study, bald men are considered to be more attractive, powerful and strong by people around them.

m.timesofindia.com

 

[SkinjobCatastrophe]

Yeah normies will say they “believe” in science which shows they dont even understand what science is, they just pick a few people who are doctors or “experts” to listen to, like you say most people want to be handed their knowledge from someone instead of thinking about it themselves. At least with religion thats unchanging, in a book or set of beliefs but when people subscribe to these celebrities or big name doctors or scientists they just hop on a new trend every year. Now its the covid pandemic and race but soon enough it will be something different

 

[Growth Plate]

View attachment 1194256

just assume all athiests are soycuck consoomers theory

 

[SubhumanCurrycel]

just assume all athiests are soycuck consoomers theory

Not all but statistically speaking 9/10 atheists vote liberal

 

[Deleted member 10913]

The same study that said this?

This is the most attractive height for men and women

It’s not what you’d expect

www.standard.co.uk

Bald men are perceived as more attractive and masculine, says study | The Times of India

According to a study, bald men are considered to be more attractive, powerful and strong by people around them.

m.timesofindia.com

Man idc if you find disagreement but this is probably the largest study ever made regarding this subject.

(PDF) Natural-Theological Understanding from Childhood to Adulthood

PDF | On Sep 13, 2018, Olivera Petrovich published Natural-Theological Understanding from Childhood to Adulthood | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Read it if you want. I made a thread about it a while back and got 7 pages of attacks without any atheist actually reading the content of it. It doesn't make sense.

The only reason people laugh at these studies you show is because of other studies that critique it. And even to do something simple as laughing at a 'handsome baldness' study required someone to read it first. If that makes sense

 

[Deleted member 2729]

Yeah normies will say they “believe” in science which shows they dont even understand what science is, they just pick a few people who are doctors or “experts” to listen to, like you say most people want to be handed their knowledge from someone instead of thinking about it themselves. At least with religion thats unchanging, in a book or set of beliefs but when people subscribe to these celebrities or big name doctors or scientists they just hop on a new trend every year. Now its the covid pandemic and race but soon enough it will be something different

normies always act like science is highly precise and some sort of hivemind where everyone agrees jfl. They also think it's not affected by societal norms and societal pressure. Just shows they have never worked in a scientific field

 

[Deleted member 12344]

Not all but statistically speaking 9/10 atheists vote liberal

These atheists would be religious af if they born into a religious family they are like a mutant tbh educated but dumb at the same time

 

[BigJimsWornOutTires]

To start off, I don't consider myself to be a 'religious' person, because I don't follow any mainstream denominations that exist within religion. I do, however, worship and believe in God, so I guess most people would label me as a Christian, despite the fact that I have no affiliation to any of the mainstream denominations.

But from time to time, I see people making threads, or comments, on how religion is supposedly a 'cope', used to keep us 'docile' and 'stupid' and turns you into a 'cuck' etc. And in the Western world, this seems to be a popular narrative as well, these days.

This begs the question, would we actually be better off without it? Has religion been replaced and are we better off now?

What happens when you take religion away? The fact of the matter is that nearly all of the time, people will find something else to worship; be it celebrities, be it scientists, politicians, athletes, you name it.
The spectrum of 'worship' or in a lot of cases, 'idolatry' is very broad, yet people seem to think that it only applies to religion, which couldn't be further from the truth.
They'll find someone else who tells them how to think, how to act, how to behave etc. I would go as far as to suggest that it's a fundamental aspect of human nature, most humans have a natural yearning to worship and to be ruled over by some type of authority, that they perceive to be higher than themselves.

This is how people are, always have been and always will be, no matter how hard you try to 'educate' them or hand out degrees, you cannot change human nature.

So has religion been replaced? Look at how normies/NPCs (for lack of a better term), who are notoriously dismissive of religion, most of the time, WORSHIPPED science during this whole covid nonsense. When there's a figure of authority placed in front of them, like Fauci, Gates (not even a scientist btw, jfl), someone from the WHO or whoever, they will listen to this person as if they are religious fanatics, listening to their religious leader.

They don't question what he's telling them, because they had already acquiesced before the figure of authority they were listening to, had even attempted to open their mouth.

So when people who adhere to this mentality are trying to have a go at the old religions, keep in mind that, funnily enough, they probably behave in the exact same manner in which their ancestors used to behave when they got orders from the pope/church/iman/mosque or whatever the case may be (I'm not trying to have a go at these religious people, btw).

The thing is, being anti-religious doesn't make you more of a divergent thinker, most of the time. Because you will end up filling that vacuum with something else, which will usually turn out to be quite similar to religion.

It's the same mentality.

People will never change. They believe in what they see or can explain. They can't solve the Almighty. Arrogance - Ego - Feeling too exceptional and special.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

I agree. Calling religion 'just a cope' doesn't hold any weight. Most people who throw this where already atheist before they even knew about blackpill or psl. If anything, various studies show that humans are hardwired in accepting God's existence.

Blackpill kind of disproves God (or at least proves evolution) though. Incels are literally experiencing natural/sexual selection returning to a natural state (1/17 men reproduce) which is what caused humans to evolve to what they are now.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Blackpill kind of disproves God

No it doesn't. I don't see how it does. lmao how did you came up to this conclusion??

(or at least proves evolution)

Yea.. the question is what kind of evolution? where is the 'proof' for abiogenesis again? where is the proof for the tree of life? why should darwinian evolution be favored from all other theories? Need to add that the whole 99% of chimp similairity is nothing more then a wrong quote. The actual quote is that out of 2% of the entire human genome there is a similarity with Chimps, so with dogs, swines, birds or even flies. Even the 99%. with chimps isn't true, it's lower.

Incels are literally experiencing natural/sexual selection returning to a natural state (1/17 men reproduce) which is what caused humans to evolve to what they are now.

this doesn't take or give anything to my argument.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

No it doesn't. I don't see how it does. lmao how did you came up to this conclusion??

Yea.. the question is what kind of evolution? where is the 'proof' for abiogenesis again? where is the proof for the tree of life? why should darwinian evolution be favored from all other theories? Need to add that the whole 99% of chimp similairity is nothing more then a wrong quote. The actual quote is that out of 2% of the entire human genome there is a similarity with humans. Even this is not 99%.



this doesn't take or give anything to my argument.

It only disproves God if your idea of God involves creation.

Abiogenesis is hard to prove or disprove since we don't know what conditions the Earth was in when life started and we also don't know if it started in a distant unreachable place where the conditions could be met (another planet, deep in ocean, Earth's core, etc). Tree of life has decent fossil proof but again you can see slow evolution by the diversity of different species. Dogs were able to evolve into incredibly diverse and almost unrecognizable animals from wolves in a mere 10-15k years so I don't doubt that the same can occur naturally given a large timespan. I agree with Chimp/human similarity. Just because DNA is similar doesn't mean they evolved from each other.

Darwinian evolution is basically random mutation and natural selection which then transitions to sexual selection once more intelligent animals evolve. Random mutation = Sean O'Pry's parents both being normie and him being Giga Chad due to some genes being changed (although it's more like genetic recombination). Sexual selection means women choose tall, strong, and handsome men and the ones who don't fit that criteria suffer and die alone. Seems pretty accurate to me on the basis of the blackpill as opposed to something like intelligent design. Why would an intelligent designer create incels and other genetic disorders. Even if we assume intelligent design is true, why would it take 14.8 billion years and immeasurable generations of humans before we became civilized enough for religion?

 

[reptiles]

I agree. Calling religion 'just a cope' doesn't hold any weight. Most people who throw this where already atheist before they even knew about blackpill or psl. If anything, various studies show that humans are hardwired in accepting God's existence.

I wanna see these studies ngl

 

[BrettyBoy]

XD

 

[Deleted member 10913]

It only disproves God if your idea of God involves creation.

What?? you mean creationism? in the end everything what a 'blackpill' holds is that one is biologically determined wether you hold darwinian evolution or any other doesn't add or take anything. For this reason are those who where atheist still atheist and theists are still theists. I haven't seen someone here changing his creed because of biological determism.

Abiogenesis is hard to prove or disprove since we don't know what conditions the Earth was in when life started and we also don't know if it started in a distant unreachable place where the conditions could be met (another planet, deep in ocean, Earth's core, etc).

Darwinian evolution is basically random mutation and natural selection which then transitions to sexual selection once more intelligent animals evolve. Random mutation = Sean O'Pry's parents both being normie and him being Giga Chad due to some genes being changed (although it's more like genetic recombination)

Yea for darwinism to be stronger then any other theory it should've been an easy case, however it isn't. There is nothing that seem to prove abiogenesis. If it can't be proven the 'randomness' in evolution doesn't hold it's place imo.

Sexual selection means women choose tall, strong, and handsome men and the ones who don't fit that criteria suffer and die alone.

yea what of it? who disagrees on this ? survival of the fittest is not exactly equal to the sexual choice of women. How would it be the same?

Seems pretty accurate to me on the basis of the blackpill as opposed to something like intelligent design

you mistake intelligent design for perfect design. It's a misconception that the word 'perfect' in Abrahamic religion is meant as biological perfection.

why would it take 14.8 billion years and immeasurable generations of humans before we became civilized enough for religion?

you won't make sense of it if you hold view that humans where at one point exactly like animals. It can't be denied that mankind is exceptional then every other animal. Are animals even aware of death? you have mantis who dies on the day he mates, you think he could know about this or if he did would he still take the same action?

 

[Deleted member 10913]

I wanna see these studies ngl

I made a post of it some time ago. There are many done but the one i showed is the best among it. It directly gains information of children from atheistic Japan, it's not the same like you would do it in any middle eastern or african countries. That's why it's valued alot.

Atheism=cope

INFANTS are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned, according to an Oxford University psychologist. Dr Olivera Petrovich told a University of Western Sydney conference on the psychology of religion that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of...

looksmax.org

 

[Deleted member 7725]

you mistake intelligent design for perfect design. It's a misconception that the word 'perfect' in Abrahamic religion is meant as biological perfection.

you won't make sense of it if you hold view that humans where at one point exactly like animals. It can't be denied that mankind is exceptional then every other animal. Are animals even aware of death? you have mantis who dies on the day he mates, you think he could know about this or if he did would he still take the same action?

It's all literary semantics then. If you interpret the Bible in a non-literal way then yeah, evolution can still occur, the universe can still be 14 billion years old, genetics can still be faulty, etc. But the same can be said about any work of literature. You can interpret any writing in multiple ways but the Bible verses related to creation seem to have their interpretations changed in order to conform to science. If the Bible is the perfect word of God and made to be read by man then why should people have to interpret it in metaphorical ways?

Yea for darwinism to be stronger then any other theory it should've been an easy case, however it isn't. There is nothing that seem to prove abiogenesis. If it can't be proven the 'randomness' in evolution doesn't hold it's place imo.

Okay so outside of our current understanding of abiogenesis, everything about Darwin's theory is still true. All you need is a self replicating cell and then it can, eventually, evolve into humans. Obviously it's a lot more complex than that but I don't think it's a giant hole in his theory. I don't see any comparable explanations.

yea what of it? who disagrees on this ? survival of the fittest is not exactly equal to the sexual choice of women. How would it be the same?

It shows that even though humans are well evolved, we're still incredibly primal and still select mates based on characteristics that date back millions of years. Why does a modern man need deep set eyes, jawline, etc? Why not high IQ or something that is a modern characteristic of success? You can't really prove that human exceptionalism means we're completely separated from animal lineage when we still have animalistic qualities and instincts (such as having sex, etc).

 

[Deleted member 5189]

I know of a certain religion that definetely IS the problem

 

[Deleted member 10913]

It's all literary semantics then. If you interpret the Bible in a non-literal way then yeah, evolution can still occur, the universe can still be 14 billion years old, genetics can still be faulty, etc. But the same can be said about any work of literature. You can interpret any writing in multiple ways but the Bible verses related to creation seem to have their interpretations changed in order to conform to science. If the Bible is the perfect word of God and made to be read by man then why should people have to interpret it in metaphorical ways?

Im am no athority on the bible so can´t say anything regarding if it should be interpret literally or figurative. Their church holds the view that both are applied for the understanding of their text. Make what want of it but that´s how they view it. My earlier point was not that i argue for something to be read figurative. For example it´s today that word ´day´ in Arabic is ´youm´ it wasn´t in the past. Same word could be used for stage/period of time but the moment you translate something it's up to the person translating it. In the Quran you find somewhere that 'the world is rolled out like a carpet' something along these lines, i have seen many atheists think that this talks about the world's creation being flat nothing of the original sentence in Arabic is understood like this. What's being talked about instead is the hospitality of Arabs. This is what's understood when you mention it to a 7th century Arabian. Todays British does not because he can't. Once you translate any text from it's original language you are stuck with the limits of anothers language and understanding. If we want to speak about what the bible said one must do so in Aramaic. The points you mention could occur if it doesn´t contradict scripture. That's it.​

Okay so outside of our current understanding of abiogenesis, everything about Darwin's theory is still true. All you need is a self replicating cell and then it can, eventually, evolve into humans. Obviously it's a lot more complex than that but I don't think it's a giant hole in his theory. I don't see any comparable explanations.

It shows that even though humans are well evolved, we're still incredibly primal and still select mates based on characteristics that date back millions of years. Why does a modern man need deep set eyes, jawline, etc? Why not high IQ or something that is a modern characteristic of success? You can't really prove that human exceptionalism means we're completely separated from animal lineage when we still have animalistic qualities and instincts (such as having sex, etc).

For darwinism to be abiogenesis must be a part of it. you can't have randomness if you already have a first cell in mind. Right now you left darwinism, it's not a creationist view but neither are we speaking of darwinism here. The whole idea that humans have similair ancestry with animals depends on this darwinian tree of life, however what's discussed right now by evolutionary biologists is a web of life. Humans don't need to share ancestry with animals for them to share similair traits. We can be entirely different from day one and still be 'similar'.

Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism, is the belief that human behaviour is directly controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning.

From the start what should be discussed is this. according to many to many on this forum nothing in here is necessarily dependent on darwinism or any other model of evolutionary biology. You can reject evolution entirely and still hold the view above. I don't understand how it would be dependent or why creationism itself is inheritly forced to reject biologism?

At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be “transcendent” meaning beyond human experience, and constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear

somehow you already took a step away from your original statement.

Blackpill kind of disproves God

It only disproves God if your idea of God involves creation.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

god simply doesn't care about us, even if he exists. Simple as that.

how would you explain prophethood, scriptures, the historical rise of religious empires, langue and so on?

 

[Deleted member 4301]

>I fucking love science!

 

[Deleted member 10913]

cons. simply stories forged by geniuses who like manipulating people

Then it should´ve been like the Soviet empire right? it's entirely forged and had way better methods in keeping it's population in check. It died after 90 years tho, The whole ideology itself died for a matter of fact. It it was forged it wouldn't have lasted. Even then how would you 'forge' succes. It's impossible to forge something like that. In the end most of humanity is was guided by people who we call prophets, scriptures are available to read and everyone is going to die. Nothing is hidden away from you. Atleast read it before you make up your mind i would say.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

Im am no athority on the bible so can´t say anything regarding if it should be interpret literally or figurative. Their church holds the view that both are applied for the understanding of their text. Make what want of it but that´s how they view it. My earlier point was not that i argue for something to be read figurative. For example it´s today that word ´day´ in Arabic is ´youm´ it wasn´t in the past. Same word could be used for stage/period of time but the moment you translate something it's up to the person translating it. In the Quran you find somewhere that 'the world is rolled out like a carpet' something along these lines, i have seen many atheists think that this talks about the world's creation being flat nothing of the original sentence in Arabic is understood like this. What's being talked about instead is the hospitality of Arabs. This is what's understood when you mention it to a 7th century Arabian. Todays British does not because he can't. Once you translate any text from it's original language you are stuck with the limits of anothers language and understanding. If we want to speak about what the bible said one must do so in Aramaic. The points you mention could occur if it doesn´t contradict scripture. That's it.​

For darwinism to be abiogenesis must be a part of it. you can't have randomness if you already have a first cell in mind. Right now you left darwinism, it's not a creationist view but neither are we speaking of darwinism here. The whole idea that humans have similair ancestry with animals depends on this darwinian tree of life, however what's discussed right now by evolutionary biologists is a web of life. Humans don't need to share ancestry with animals for them to share similair traits. We can be entirely different from day one and still be 'similar'.


From the start what should be discussed is this. according to many to many on this forum nothing in here is necessarily dependent on darwinism or any other model of evolutionary biology. You can reject evolution entirely and still hold the view above. I don't understand how it would be dependent or why creationism itself is inheritly forced to reject biologism?


somehow you already took a step away from your original statement.

Don't think so. Creationist imo is someone who believes in the biblical account of creation. "Youm" literally means day in Hebrew. Actually it doesn't, it more closely means half a day. It can't be replaced with "cycle" or anything else, it's an attempt to rewrite the bible in order to conform to science.

I don't think there are any actual evolutionary biologists who believe in a web of life as opposed to a tree. Inceldom itself is a product of Darwinism. If you aren't able to have sex/get gf then that means you're the genetic trash that needs to be weeded out of the gene pool through sexual selection. Over time, the male population will be a lot more "Chadish" and the recessed incels will be slowly weeded out of the gene pool. Pretty solid proof of Darwinism to me.

I don't think Darwinism is dependent on abiogenesis. It's simply the theory that all life evolved form a common ancestor through natural selection, sexual selection, and random mutation. It's not dependent on abiogenesis at all.

 

[Beetlejuice]

Great thread by a great mod

 

[BigJimsWornOutTires]

Arrogance and greed are the deadly foes of this Earth. If we can eradicate those two; peace and love would then rule this world.

 

[Gargantuan]

Arrogance and greed are the deadly foes of this Earth. If we can eradicate those two; peace and love would then rule this world.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of atheists are nihilists and these are people who have no 'moral code'. If they do have a code, it can change from day to day, week to week etc. based on the way that the social engineers at play try to manipulate them.

Whereas with religious communities, it's a lot more difficult to try and manipulate them because they are following the teachings of their religious book.
Obviously, the powers that be are still able to manipulate them, to some extent, away from their original teachings, but it's more difficult to get them away from their set of beliefs and subsequent traditions/behaviours.

Whenever the powers that be/the social engineers try to push radical changes in society, religious people are usually the only group of people to oppose them whereas atheists will simply let it slide

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Don't think so. Creationist imo is someone who believes in the biblical account of creation. "Youm" literally means day in Hebrew. Actually it doesn't, it more closely means half a day. It can't be replaced with "cycle" or anything else, it's an attempt to rewrite the bible in order to conform to science.

No ?

Noun. يَوْم • (yawm) m (plural أَيَّام‎ (ʾayyām)) day, period from sunrise to sunset quotations ▼ Antonym: لَيْلَة‎ (layla) day, period of twenty-four hours. age, era, time, epoch.

I don't think there are any actual evolutionary biologists who believe in a web of life as opposed to a tree.

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".

For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

Inceldom itself is a product of Darwinism. If you aren't able to have sex/get gf then that means you're the genetic trash that needs to be weeded out of the gene pool through sexual selection. Over time, the male population will be a lot more "Chadish" and the recessed incels will be slowly weeded out of the gene pool. Pretty solid proof of Darwinism to me.

It's simply the theory that all life evolved form a common ancestor through natural selection, sexual selection, and random mutation. It's not dependent on abiogenesis at all.

yea.. only if it also could proof abiogenesis, shared ancestry, tree of life. Sexual choosing doesn´t seem to prove any of this on it´s own, it´s part of natural selection even then how would this alone inevitably prove anything of that sort?

I don't think Darwinism is dependent on abiogenesis.

However to be from a common ancestor accepting this is also needed.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Blackpill kind of disproves God (or at least proves evolution) though. Incels are literally experiencing natural/sexual selection returning to a natural state (1/17 men reproduce) which is what caused humans to evolve to what they are now.

cope

 

[Deleted member 7725]

yea.. only if it also could proof abiogenesis, shared ancestry, tree of life. Sexual choosing doesn´t seem to prove any of this on it´s own, it´s part of natural selection even then how would this alone inevitably prove anything of that sort?

However to be from a common ancestor accepting this is also needed.

Appeal to authority. 97% of scientists believe in evolution from a common ancestor and I'd assume that number is even higher for evolutionary biologists. Not hard to find 1 guy to say something without much evidence or peer-reviewed articles for it.

Darwinism = natural selection, sexual selection, and random mutation. What other theory is comparable for the means of evolution?

I don't think so. You only need evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor. You don't need to know how that common ancestor came to be.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Appeal to authority. 97% of scientists believe in evolution from a common ancestor and I'd assume that number is even higher for evolutionary biologists. Not hard to find 1 guy to say something without much evidence or peer-reviewed articles for it.

Darwinism = natural selection, sexual selection, and random mutation. What other theory is comparable for the means of evolution?

Oh yea ofcourse, In Turkey many of our evolutionary biologists hold views of theistic evolution. They don´t share the opinion that atleast Human life didn´t come from or have ancestry to animals. Sexual selection is accepted but things like shared ancestry and life from inanimate objects is not accepted.

I don't think so. You only need evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor. You don't need to know how that common ancestor came to be.

Then would you say it is atleast needed to explain naturalism??

 

[Deleted member 7725]

Oh yea ofcourse, In Turkey many of our evolutionary biologists hold views of theistic evolution. They don´t share the opinion that atleast Human life didn´t come from or have ancestry to animals. Sexual selection is accepted but things like shared ancestry and life from inanimate objects is not accepted.

Then would you say it is atleast needed to explain naturalism??

What is theistic evolution? I'm not sure why the need for a guiding deity is necessary for evolution and why it would take billions of years. Theistic evolution doesn't account for people in Papa New Guinea and other places that are basically less evolved and still hunting and gathering, no writing, etc. Why is it unreasonable to believe that humans had a gradual evolution if there are still remnants from the past and a decent amount of fossils to prove it?

Yes, abiogenesis is needed to explain naturalism but doesn't prove theism.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

What is theistic evolution? I'm not sure why the need for a guiding deity is necessary for evolution and why it would take billions of years. Theistic evolution doesn't account for people in Papa New Guinea and other places that are basically less evolved and still hunting and gathering, no writing, etc. Why is it unreasonable to believe that humans had a gradual evolution if there are still remnants from the past and a decent amount of fossils to prove it?

Yes, abiogenesis is needed to explain naturalism but doesn't prove theism.

yea that human life is distinct from that of the animals, similarities with animals doesn´t necessary prove shared ancestry. In the end you can look at fossils and draw many conclusion out of it.

Theistic evolution doesn't account for people in Papa New Guinea and other places that are basically less evolved and still hunting and gathering, no writing, etc.

Well what do they lack then ? they are a society and their own language right?

 

[Deleted member 7725]

yea that human life is distinct from that of the animals, similarities with animals doesn´t necessary prove shared ancestry. In the end you can look at fossils and draw many conclusion out of it.

Well what do they lack then ? they are a society and their own language right?

Where's the evidence that humans aren't related to animals? There's a trail of fossils pointing to different lifestyles evolving from humans and a gradual change from apes to humans. Hunter gatherers with cave drawings, then agriculture, then more built up civilizations, etc. and there are still remnants of those less evolved civilizations today in remote areas. The only missing area is abiogenesis which is close to impossible to prove since it happened billions of years ago in unknown conditions.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Where's the evidence that humans aren't related to animals? There's a trail of fossils pointing to different lifestyles evolving from humans and a gradual change from apes to humans.

We aren't in the same condition as animals, the earlier critique on the tree of life, virus dependance on host, decrease of telemores and the Y chromosome itself, while X chromosome is a mixture from both male and female it should not be the case for the Y chromosome. For the fossil finding you mention i have no knowledge on this however is it the case that the information of it can be only interpreted in one way?

 

[Deleted member 7725]

We aren't in the same condition as animals, the earlier critique on the tree of life, virus dependance on host, decrease of telemores and the Y chromosome itself, while X chromosome is a mixture from both male and female it should not be the case for the Y chromosome. For the fossil finding you mention i have no knowledge on this however is it the case that the information of it can be only interpreted in one way?

Different animals have different genetic systems. There's no reason to believe they couldn't have evolved naturally.