Join 45,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!
Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.
Yeah evolution and big bang are low iq like cmon man a big meteor wiped out the dinosaurs then mankind came from apes it's science fiction cope
This actually made me sad bro
Yeah bro keep believing in your failed sci fi movie scripts>evolution
>low iq
Shut the hell up
Low sapiance>evolution
>low iq
Shut the hell up
"failed sci fi movie scripts" you have never debunked evolution or understand it f****t
Dunning Kruger pill from CloneDrone
Low sapiance chimping out no reasoning response k y s
he thinks its a psyop
pretty based reasons ngl
based in a psych ward perhaps
Well I am batshit crazy, so that’s why I probably found it to be based lol
No real evidence only theory's
I see your line of argument, fair enough.
Yeah but that's not evolution you know
Yeah
I see. I’m a Christian personally. What are you?
Christian
Cool! On that note I’m off to bed now, see you tomorrow bud.
Night man
-jew
definitions
....
?) PhD in Biochemistry from Cambridge.... this n***a cannot be fr. Bacteria is a kingdom, just like animal. If for some random example, you get a shrimp to evolve into a lion, but then someone says "they're still an animal", then I would really question their judgement. Snails are falcons, huh? While this is an extreme example, it's meant to demonstrate his lack of knowledge in biology. Seriously? Anyways, a more accurate analogy would be from a wolf to a mastiff or something.
Dnrdefinitions
evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
adaptation: a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment
examples of macroevolution: very long period of time, land dwelling mammals to whales
examples of microevolution: pesticide resistant insects or drug resistant bacteria
....
we also have the LTEE, fossil record, biogeography and observations (embryology, anatomy and molecular biology)
Some homologous structures can be seen only in embryos. For instance, did you know that you once had a tail and gill slits? All vertebrate embryos, from humans to chickens to fish, share these features during early development. Of course, the developmental patterns of these species become increasingly different later on (which is why your embryonic tail is now your tailbone, and your gill slits have turned into your jaw and inner ear) . However, the shared embryonic features are still homologous structures, and they reflect that the developmental patterns of vertebrates are variations on an ancestral program.In general, the more DNA differences in homologous genes between two species, the more distantly the species are related. For instance, human and chimpanzee insulin genes are much more similar (about 98% identical) than human and chicken insulin genes (about 64% identical), reflecting that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than humans and chickens.The evolution of unique species on islands is another example of how evolution and geography intersect. For instance, most of the mammal species in Australia are marsupials (carry young in a pouch), while most mammal species elsewhere in the world are placental (nourish young through a placenta). Australia’s marsupial species are very diverse and fill a wide range of ecological roles. Because Australia was isolated by water for millions of years, these species were able to evolve without competition from (or exchange with) mammal species elsewhere in the world.another example for evolution is darwin's finches
evolution is very slow, you don't expect a species to switch overnight
....
then what is it?
adaptation is a result of/directly involved in the process of evolution, and natural selection drives it
Science has moved a lot since Darwin's time, as mentioned earlier he is not the only reason. You'd have to prove all reasons wrong, not just Darwin, something I've noticed is you mocking and comparing him to a chimp.
Additionally, the quote used is taken out of context--- it was a letter written before his book, On the Origin of Species, addressing issues about plant species, not conceding on the entirety of evolution and the origin of life.
Besides, before Darwin, other scientists had observed and/or tried to explain changes. For example, William Smith observing fossil changes over time, or Lamarck trying to figure out heritage.
One of these quotes-- attributed to Louis Ramond de Carbonnieres, died before the book was even published? He died ~32 years before the book??? Kek at this, taking random quotes out of his ass, missing context, this guy has already established himself as unreliable.
This quote is by Louis Bounoure, and he believed in evolution, just that he thought that evolution made it to its final destination and was irrelevant to study. Overall his quoting is very poor and fails to explain anything. Where is the evidence? If some scientists from long ago disagreed, so what? I want to see their proof, alongside their opinion.
Additionally, I would like to point out that he quotes many people from the 1900s; I would like to see more reliability from contemporary sources where we now understand a lot.
"Obviously, we don't want to appeal to authority in our discussion."- is a Catholic Christian, oh the irony
>Not observed? Lies, evidence above (e. Coli being able to use citrate as a food source, etc.).
Additional:
There are so many more examples, fossil record, etc., easily found if you look for them. It is just that you refuse to.The transition from unicellular to multicellular life was one of a few major events in the history of life that created new opportunities for more complex biological systems to evolve. Predation is hypothesized as one selective pressure that may have driven the evolution of multicellularity. Here we show that de novo origins of simple multicellularity can evolve in response to predation. We subjected outcrossed populations of the unicellular green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to selection by the filter-feeding predator Paramecium tetraurelia. Two of five experimental populations evolved multicellular structures not observed in unselected control populations within ~750 asexual generations. Considerable variation exists in the evolved multicellular life cycles, with both cell number and propagule size varying among isolates. Survival assays show that evolved multicellular traits provide effective protection against predation. These results support the hypothesis that selection imposed by predators may have played a role in some origins of multicellularity.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8
>Doesn't contradict with laws of thermodynamics, is actually the result of them. Earth is not an ideal closed system, energy from the sun*
>Natural selection is observed, we would not be here without it. Don't see how it's been definitively concluded not to exist? Where is the evidence? These are all just claims.
>"B-but... the E. Coli... they're still bacteria!" (?
>Not recreatable in simulations? Flat out wrong, online you can easily find computer models. Ad hoc is in all simulations, all humans have to tweak programs, but we don't make specific desired outcomes, but repeat nature patterns.
>That was a rhetorical question. Literally just taken out of context, this is pathetic. It was answered immediately after by him, using the geological record. Read the chapter online if you want a fuller depth explanation, but it's not necessary.
>Darwin lays out the problem (the quote), then proceeds to explain the problem in the remainder of the chapter (not mentioned in the vid). What is the purpose of this tomfoolery?
>Amino acids have been observed to bind and fold into proteins in many different environments.
>James Tour is an synthetic organic chemist, not an origins researcher. He's also been exposed...
>Sanford guy was on a team that created an evolution simulation.... (A "creationist geneticist", and as mentioned earlier, the guy speaking is against sims), and also the model he created is utter shit because it always ends up in lowered fitness even if you have amazing genes somehow.
>Can't rely on Dawrin all the time, but that aside, we still have found explanations for the evolution of organs such as the eye, etc.
>Brutal explanation of DNA. F
>Gibberish ramblings
>Axioms are different per each philosophical view, not all are universal nor self-evident. For example, he claims evolution violates axioms. If that were true we would all be re-evaluating everything regarding that. But we find that things like quantum mechanics was originally rejected because we thought it violated logic, but upon further studying, we have found, that is is possible, just "weird", or different from what we typically expect. People thoroughly thought through, examined, and studied these things, and it sometimes came at a price of re-evaluating science and philosophy and religion, and whatever else.
>Principle of Sufficient Reasoning is applied here. But its hypocritical, since if he states that this is an axiom, that God must also have a reasoning preceding him as does evolution. Oh, but what a silly question! (Is it, though?) It's also a controversial principle.
>Kek, what is this eye example.
>An effect cannot be greater than its cause is not always true. Depends on how you look at it. However, here, we don't have a closed system, we get energy from the sun, an outside factor, and the atmosphere and environment play a big role.
>Principle of resemblance? Lol, search this up, you'll realize it doesn't make sense.
>If there is something wrong, then we would re-examine our ideas and suggest new ones. We always discover new things and make many alternate ideas that can converge. Nothing is perfect. And in all regards, evolution is pretty damn good.
Final summary: Shakey and shitty video. He hides behind incorrect usage of quotes, principles, and fails to provide evidence. This video has shown nothing, except for utter lack of understanding on behalf of the creators of it. I had higher expectations. All it has done is confirm your bias.
Coping methods at their finest...
View attachment 62233
I hope I put this in a more structured format that you can read and understand, and that you can reciprocate with a well thought out response that acknowledges and successfully refutes or concedes to these claims and proofs.
Best Regards,
sigma
P.S.
The primal avi is very good, I'm glad you brought it back : )
