[ 4chon ] [ new / r9k / gm ] [ nice ] [ meta ]

/ new / - News

News, History, Politics
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Status: No .webm files or files in general over 2mb at this time. Solution will require a site outage and will be announced in advance.


File: 1624429783081.jpg (96.7 KB, 828x1156, lol.jpg)

 No.35265

Evolution is rea-
>>

 No.35267

>evolution

>>

 No.35273

>>35265
Whats that a picture of all I see is a blur

>>

 No.35278

Evolution is real but Darwinism is fucking bullshit.

>>

 No.35287

Why slide

>>

 No.35306

File: 1624461829492.png (142.08 KB, 584x666, söymaster.png)

>DUDE WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS WHICH EVOLVED FROM RATS WHICH EVOLVED FROM REPTILES WHICH EVOLVED FROM FISH THAT CRAWLED ON LAND WHICH EVOLVED FROM WORMS WHICH EVOLVED FROM CELLS

>>

 No.35309

File: 1624472904861.jpg (130.65 KB, 484x484, 1602983323035.jpg)

>DUDE THE HECKIN TRAD SEMITIC FORESKIN SKYDADDY SCULPTED US FROM MUD AND SHIT AND PUT US NAKED IN A GARDEN WITH ANIMALS UNTIL A SNAKE TALKED

>>

 No.35313

File: 1624479775922.gif (56.45 KB, 324x361, pierce.gif)

>>35309
>>35306
We must find the hegelian synthesis between these two fellas

>>

 No.35356

File: 1624531998210.png (67.72 KB, 577x465, 161889201068.png)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/
>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability.

Evolution is a cool story. Not believable, but still a cool story.

>>

 No.35369

File: 1624557267708.jpg (37.54 KB, 334x499, 51YZegg geL._SX332_BO1,204….jpg)

>>35356
I need to read up on what Sheldrake's been writing on evolution and shit

Just skipped thru some parts of pic rel up to this here point

Even though his theory of a morphogenetic field clearly implies intelligent design of some sort he seems to be a steadfast atheist weirdly enuff

>>

 No.35476

No slide

>>

 No.35480

File: 1624634644556.png (589.12 KB, 687x668, taungchild.png)

>>35356
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.html
>By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans.

There is no real evidence for evolution being true. The Taung Child, for example, is just a dead ape that has no human features.

>>

 No.35487

>>35480
Idk this one kinda resembles some niggers i've seen heh

Gedmatch analysis also shows that niggers are closer to apes genetically than evropeans;

>archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/148829731/

>>

 No.35532

File: 1624655453657.jpg (117.93 KB, 1003x1024, 1624603865970.jpg)

>>35487
They have genes that aren't found in Europeans. They clearly differ from us and therefore we cannot have a common ancestor.

>>

 No.35534

File: 1624656329392.jpg (7.87 KB, 210x240, 1590873815621.jpg)

>>35532
Chimp screeching intensifies rapidly

>>

 No.35681

olate
chauvi

>>

 No.35723

File: 1624732375451.jpg (1.91 MB, 1825x3369, 1624105323813.jpg)

>>35534
I find it amusing that people seriously believe that Africans are their ancestral predecessors.

>>

 No.36030

Le slide faec

>>

 No.36123

File: 1624848813071.jpg (344.17 KB, 1000x1000, Olga.jpg)


>>

 No.36173


>>

 No.36207

>>36173
I know.

>>

 No.36211

>>35356
>independent events

So basically you cannot prove that similarity in traits mean common descent.

>>

 No.36224

File: 1625405629479.png (12.52 KB, 1144x225, 1554745524442.png)

>>36211
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-long-does-dna-last/
>A study of DNA extracted from the leg bones of extinct moa birds in New Zealand found that the half-life of DNA is 521 years. So every 1,000 years, 75 per cent of the genetic information is lost. After 6.8 million years, every single base pair is gone. Bacterial RNA is much tougher and sequences have been recovered from ice crystals that are 419 million years old. These are only short fragments of 55 base pairs though.

One thing that is funny about people who believe in evolution is the amount of giant leaps of faith they do. They try to peddle genetic analysis as some kind of irrefutable proof for evolution being true when the material available is so shitty and meager. You find bacterial RNA that contains 55 base pairs and try to "compare" this with the human genome that contains 3 000 000 000 base pairs. This is why the theory of evolution (emphasis on the word 'theory') is 100% theoretical and not factual. You just make shit up as you go along and claim these assumed "evolutionary" events took place without a shred of evidence.

The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating inse tions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well? The problem is that we cannot tell which DNA sequence alignment is right, and the one we choose will contain implicit information about what evolutionary events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally. How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequences in the other species? The answer is that no one knows.

>>

 No.36235

>>35306
>man evolved from cells
But the first cell was formed from a bunch of chemical soup,
then a miracle occured and the soup became a cell.
>>35309
>God created man from mud
then a miracle occurred and He created life.

>>

 No.36237

>>36235
>But the first cell was formed from a bunch of chemical soup, then a miracle occured and the soup became a cell
Then another miracle occurred and single cell life became multicellular life
Then yet another miracle occurred and a certain type of multicellular gained consciousness, whatever that is

>>

 No.36238

OP is a fa-

>>

 No.36250

>>36238
No need to be upset. Evolution is a poorly constructed delusion that you only take at face value if you have the attention span of a five year old.

>>

 No.36317

File: 1625884442392.jpg (182.72 KB, 1080x1382, E55qjwSUYAA9Mrw.jpg)

Evolution confirmed for fake.

>>

 No.36341

>>36317
This just confirms how brittle the whole theory is.

>>

 No.36343

>>36341
Evolution is pure assumption and not supported by real evidence.

>>

 No.36381

>>36317
>evolution
>real

>>

 No.36475

>>36381
It is a funny theory but the evidence is really shitty.

>>

 No.36476

File: 1627241461883.jpg (206.57 KB, 880x576, 20210724_202235 (1) (1) (1….jpg)

>>36381
>you
>having a fullfilling fun life
pick uno
also
i z

>>

 No.36490

File: 1627376812869.png (691.49 KB, 720x720, 1611065462084.png)

>>36476
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/7/2087
>An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007.

>be fedora

>find bacteria that hasn't evolved for billions of years
>bacteria is not affected by environmental pressure and random mutations as causal factors for change in its genotype and phenotype
>fedoras start coping

>>

 No.36545

>>36490
How will fedoras ever recover?

>>

 No.36554

>>36545
They can't.

>>

 No.36586

File: 1628050434542.jpg (60.09 KB, 635x223, base pairs.jpg)

>>36490
Humans have 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA in their genomes, whereas the bacterium E. coli has only 4.6 million base pairs, the nematode worm has 103 million, and the fruit fly has 170 million. However, compared with other organisms that appear to be far less complex, humans are rather low on the scale of total amount of DNA.The trumpet lily has about 90 billion base pairs and the lowly Amoeba dubia has 670 billion base pairs, more than 200 times the total DNA found in humans. According to atheist logic the amoeba should be the most evolved since it has a huge genome and obviously has undergone many mutations over millions of years.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-long-does-dna-last/
>A study of DNA extracted from the leg bones of extinct moa birds in New Zealand found that the half-life of DNA is 521 years. So every 1,000 years, 75 per cent of the genetic information is lost. After 6.8 million years, every single base pair is gone. Bacterial RNA is much tougher and sequences have been recovered from ice crystals that are 419 million years old. These are only short fragments of 55 base pairs though.

One thing that is funny about people who believe in evolution is the amount of giant leaps of faith they do. They try to peddle genetic analysis as some kind of irrefutable proof for evolution being true when the material available is so shitty and meager. You find bacterial RNA that contains 55 base pairs and try to "compare" this with the human genome that contains 3 000 000 000 base pairs. This is why the theory of evolution (emphasis on the word 'theory') is 100% theoretical and not factual. You just make shit up as you go along and claim these assumed "evolutionary" events took place without a shred of evidence.

>>

 No.36595

File: 1628098094223.jpg (351.9 KB, 600x681, zauberlehrling.jpg)

>>36476
Stop fucking around with this shit. It is not funny nor is it particularly effective let alone efficent in achieving what you want you faggot.

>>

 No.36614

>>36586
Good post.

>>

 No.36615

>>36586

You missed out the 'theory' of a sky pixie creating everything in an unfeasibly short time

>>

 No.36619

File: 1628326958821.gif (316.01 KB, 500x290, 156873382560.gif)

>>36615
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/13/how-do-we-prove-a-well-established-theory-like-gravity/
>What is the definitive proof there is gravity?
>There isn’t one. 
>There is no way to absolutely rule out the idea that gravity is caused by invisible, insubstantial pixies that have an obsession with everything having to be as close together as possible.

Gravity is merely a mathematical construct. Just like heliocentrism. There is no objective universal reference point and thus any point in the universe can be stationary and everything else is moving in reference to it. The heliocentric model means that you don't have to do as many equations as with the geocentric model.

>>

 No.36648

>>36619
Interesting!

>>

 No.36669

>>36224
>a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans.

So you are comparing apples and oranges, right? Different sizes that don't match up and a lot of gaps.

>>

 No.36725

>>36669
Pretty much. Evolution as a whole isn't as solid as people think.

>>

 No.36785

>>36725
Evolution? More like fairy tale for atheists.

>>

 No.36790

>>36785
Darwinian delusions.

>>

 No.36803

No, evolution is not real.

>>

 No.36829

>>36803
Only gullible people believe it is.

>>

 No.36839

>>36829
You're right.

>>

 No.36870

>>36839
I know.

>>

 No.36894

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040903-01
>To verify that Bmp4 was directing beak shape, they used gene therapy and protein delivery techniques to overexpress Bmp4 and its antagonist, noggin, in developing chicks. Increased levels of Bmp4 produced beaks with increased length, width, and depth; treatment with noggin reduced beak dimensions.

Bmp4 is responsible for the shape of the different bird beaks throughout the world. Look at the sword-billed hummingbird. It has a long, thin beak that is almost as long as its entire body. What is funny about the theory of evolution is that it cannot explain how, why or when the sword-billed hummingbird suddenly adapted to elongate its beak to such freakish proportions. It feeds on highly specific flowers with this long beak, using its tongue which is also extremely long. But the Bmp4 gene is not responsible for the length or shape of its tongue. If the beak is too short, the tongue gets exposed to air and heat and will dry up, get infected and kill the bird. If it is too long the tongue cannot reach outside of the beak and the bird starves to death. How does random, blind trial-and-error mutations produce an extremely long tongue and beak when there is no need for this adaptation? South America has an abundance of insects and fruits that are far easier to live off and in such huge supply that having absurdly long beaks and tongues that they use to survive is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest.

To say that the whole organism has to evolve in order for changes to happen is beyond ignorant. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare so in order to believe that both the tongue and the beak would become elongated at the same time is to believe the impossible. Natural selection does nothing in the long run because "natural selection" isn't a mechanism. It's just a paraphrase of the word "death". Even animals with beneficial survival traits can die out without passing them on to coming generations. Mutations are the main factor why anything changes so that makes Darwin a certified moron.

>>

 No.36899

>>36894
How will darwinists ever recover?

>>

 No.36902

>>36894
There is so much confirmation bias surrounding evolution that it's not even funny.

>>

 No.36953

Up it goes now

>>

 No.36957

>>36953
Thanks.

>>

 No.36962

>>36894
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188
>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity. However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances. In order to establish this dating method in this application an attempt has been made to trace the sources of the anomalies.

One of the authors of this paper, Funkhouser, tried to use the potassium-argon method on volcanic rocks in Hawaii in order to determine their age. He got the estimated age of 3 000 000 000 years when it was known that the rocks had formed during an eruption in 1801. What is problematic with the theory of evolution is that no one actually knows how old the Earth actually is. People who believe in evolution automatically assume that if you combine tiny, insignificant biological changes with millions of years you get new organisms out of nothing. But, the funny part is, you have no objective evidence for the claim that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.

>>

 No.36964

>>36962
Darwinists destroyed yet again!

>>

 No.36970

>>36964
They were never right to begin with. All their "evidence" is fanciful and imaginative speculation.

>>

 No.37058

>>36962
Good post.

>>

 No.37071

>>36970
As far as I know the whole concept of evolution is flawed from the start. Too many gaps.

>>

 No.37079

>>36899
They cannot recover.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 4chon ] [ new / r9k / gm ] [ nice ] [ meta ]