I'm not totally sold on the whole evolution thing...

If evolution isn't real then why are chimps as strong and fast as we are smart?

this is terrible bait

Nice quads

Don,t worry about it too much. Your just no as far along the evolutionary scale as the rest of us.
Show me 1 sentence in the bible which mentions dinosaurs. There are none.
And where the fuck are the talking snakes?

When god said "let there be light" who the fuck was he taking to?

evolution isn't a straight line its more like a tree with different branches and dead ends. That picture is outdated and is one of the reasons some people still don't understand something as simple as evolution. This is a better image

I don't even understand what the fuck are you trying to say but anyway

Forget about evolution and information

Just call it "endless self-replicating" molecules governed by the law of universe

And "Russian roulette" mutations.

LOL if you think thats truth. Because if CHIMP really are a strong and fast as HUMANS, then your hard press to find out why they can't beat a human in a RACE. and additionally, if evolution is cumulative as you say, then doesn't it make sense that they would be ADDITIONALLY smart and intelligent as well as fast and unrestrained speed? So how do you explain this in accordance with the feathers of birds, which although making them more intelligent, also making them more fast as well? So this is a direct contradiction to you're "THEORY" of evolution .That's why it's just a theory instead of the law of gravity, because anybody can come up with their own theory and determine the facts or not if they so desire. EVOLUTION isn't the facts!

If you change the color of the ones in the middle to black. You will see them everywhere.

Kek'd

Great point! Something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

...

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

I can't tell if you're trolling or being retarded.

Clearly the work of the flying spaghetti monster, dunno how these things ever get controversial.

You tryin to call me a homo?

We killed and ate them all.

You stupid FUCKING NIGGERS. Really? How can you not see how evolution is a complete lie??

I choose to believe this is bait and will not even type out a rational well informed comment about how common ancestors work. Pro tip, you have no idea.

Because a race of reptilian aliens named the Annunaki came to earth and spliced their genes into our distant ancestors

...

Please explain this more. I have heard of Annunaki but do not know of there significants.

...

Explain this.

Actually it's a law

I love you so much.

You would think after millions of years, our eyes would have "evolved" to the point of us not needing to wear sunglasses every time we're outside.

>all evolve at once

That's the thing, it didn't happen at once. It took centuries of evolution to reach where we are now. Evolution never happens overnight, unless it's due to genetic mutation.

No. there is the law of gravity, which can be described mathematically. Then there's the theory of universal gravitation.

>theory of universal gravitation
Complete and utter bullshit, it's called Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every mass attracts every other mass in the universe.
Please note the "LAW" after Newton's.

The fact that earthen objects fall down and airid objects fall up is the fact. The gravity IS just a theory. what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

Theory>law
It takes many scientific laws to make a scientific theory

take a science class or pay us, no one here gives a damn what you think OP.

Actually it's Newton's law of universal gravitation, not a theory buddy.

Uh no, I don't think you understand what a theory is.

Cuz people smarter than you said so.

Look on Youtube for David Icke and also check out his books "The Biggest Secret" and "Children of the Matrix"

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him; see the History section below.)
Here you go buddy, you seem to need to know the ACTUAL definition instead of your stupid definition.

evolution confirmed

SCIENCE IS A ATHEIST LIE!!! THE EARTH IS FLAT!

Except it's a law, one google search proved you wrong

there you assume the ape species we ascent from is the same as depicted as on the picture and the same as is living now, which is of course not he case. read a book please

>If evolution is real, then why are there STILL apes!?

Asking the question proves you're too poorly educated to understand the answer.

Don't they teach science in high school anymore?

>If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
This makes zero sense. That's like saying that eagles and parrots can't have a common ancestor because only one would now exist. A species doesn't evolve in a split second, and not all groups evolve in the same direction. I don't know why I'm bothering, but really, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what the theory actually claims.

>Calling Newton's law of universal gravitation a theory
Must be hard being underage

Ua yeah it is
and yes i do

WAKE UP SHEEPELE. The illuminati created the theory of evolution to brainwash people into believing the earth is more than 2,000 years old and that we "evolved" from apes. They want you to fall into Satan's trap. Evolution and the idea that earth is 3.6 bilion years old is strictly Satanic!

Because the fossil record says so. Every bit of evidence ever collected (and verified) says that species change over time, eventually becoming new species.

Gravity is just a theory.
If something is heavier than the air it will fall, if it is lighter it will float/rise. Simple

thats just it

its a THEORY not a fact

if it was true and factual there would be billions of ape skeletons and we would know, but as time has gone on turns out theres not, it looks like the THEORY is wrong

...

>This is a GENERAL physics "LAW" derived from EMPIRICAL observation
theirs you're problem. You can't have a "LAW" if its defined by EMPIRICAL observations and not truth-conditional theory.

For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

We didn't descend from apes, we diverged from them. Apes and Humans diverged and took different evolutionary paths. In your pic, the ape-like primate doesn't actually exist anymore as a species.

You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

a theory is about the highest grade you can get in science its not JUST a theory, its a theory and as close to a fact as it can get. the evidence for evolution is astonishing, denying is as denying the world is round

Here is a page with a video of evolution in action for all of the stupid son of a bitches in this thread

wired.com/2016/09/gorgeous-unsettling-video-evolution-action/

in theory your post should of made you look intelligent

but in fact turn out you are wrong

"Theory" = Working Knowledge
It doesn't come from pure guessing. That's a hypothesis. Fossils are not bones either they're rock that replaced organic material over a longer period of time than you have reading about the subject

>If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't
If you believe this, you are misinformed or just willfully turning away from the truth. Humans and chimps share all kinds of "features", not to mention 99 percent of the same genome.

I'm just joking on all this shit. I actually believe in evolution. You autists will fall for anything.

Did we 'evolve' into tiny weak little things or are these the nephilim giants talked about in the bible?

Chimps and humans are considered different species because they have differences chimps and humans share many traits thumbs, bipedal movement, structure of the skeleton ect.

W E W L A D
E
W
L
A
D

its not a matter of believing in evolution, its a fact.

...

...

So draw a line between human and ape

anyone up to the challenge?

youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index=9

You've gotta put more effort in =(

Trolling is meant to be a art but this is more like a children's pacture

...

and hows that

Humans and apes have thumbs. There's one shared feature. Then there's the rest of the >95% of our DNA sequences. Then there's cranial structure, our diets (originally mostly herbivores with some meat), our societal structures, use of tools, and plethora of other things biologist and anthropologist have spent the last few decades studying.

>should of
lol

what connection between these things? Annunaki and nephilists?

Youre not totally sold on a theory that is continually proven wrong and has had years of people hunting and even faking evidence yet has produced exactly 0 proof?

Hmm, probably a good call.

Friggin' APEfrican monkey-men...

To bad its not faggot

>all this talk of "COMMON ANCESTRY"
Think about this example: Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

theres as much prove as there is fish in the sea, thanks

Both are a result of humans and fallen angels mating

yes it is. but tell me whats wrong and ill explain

All I'm saying is if you identify common ancestors based on shared features, whether that's DNA matching or morphological traits, then you can't account for spiders and human relationship. Say you make the claim that shrimp are the common ancestor of humans and spiders. Ok, so 300 million years ago, some shrimp got isolated and underwent speciation. Then later maybe another group of shrimp branched off. The original shrimp population remained unchanged. Ok, as unlikely as that is, even if it were the case, it still doesn't explain how spiders have 8 legs and humans have 2 legs. The common ancestor of humans are mammals, which have 4 legs, so if you compare humans and mammals, their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species. However, if you apply the same comparative method to spiders and mammals, you see that it's impossible to have a common ancestor with that number of legs. Adding shrimp in there just makes things even more difficult, because the common ancestor of humans and spiders now also has to have a common ancestor with a shrimp, which has I don't know how many legs, so you'll get an even more bizarre fraction number of legs.

So then could we evolve and what could that be.. like extraterrestrials

>Just kidding guys, I was only pretending to be retarded!

Humans didn't evolve from chimps though. We have a common ancestor.

>what connection between these things? Annunaki and nephilists?

Annunaki are purebreed aliens
Nephilim are part Annunaki and part human

Explains how structures like stonehendge and this one were built

thanks for making clear ur a troll or got skullfucked too much as a baby

Inductive reasoning works on probability example I dropped 20 white beans in a bag. Inductivley I can say the beans in this bag are white. But it could be wrong if a black bean had already been in the bag. Deductive however works on absolutes example I looked at every bean in the bag, the beans are white. When iT says he Inductivley proved his theory it means he dropped a particle on earth, and that particle was attracted to earth the bigger particle. And it was probable that every other particle acts the same

...

On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.

Averaging 2 legs and 4 to get 3 legs lol...

Not realizing that the ancestor for humans had 4 limbs and the pelvis mutations allowed them to stand turning the "front" limbs into "arms".

4/10 troll, try harder next time you made it too obvious.

time

Annunaki were the Watchers, Watchmen assigned to earth to watch over Yahweh's Creation in the Garden of Eden and Earth . They were created by God as perfect Angels. They went against god and mated with people, creating the nephilim

bait

>lol...
t-thanks user-san

Annunaki Nephilim, in case anyone is serious in this: try, just once, just for fun, googling/youtubing those terms + DEBUNKED and be convinced please

You know too many terms relating to natural selection to be dumb enough to average the number of body parts and claim it's evidence of natural selection being wrong.

2/10 trolling... make it less obvious dude!

this. summer's over faggots

ITT debating high school level biology like it's some grand debate
>I don't understand it so it mustn't be true - despite the fact that I've not actually taken the time to research what it is I have issue with
>Presuming evolution to be 'faked', constantly putting burden of proof on others to have to walk you through one of the easiest to understand fields of science like a child
>Writing large paragraphs only showing your complete ignorance of speciation
>"It's just a theory not a law", misunderstanding the difference between explanation and analytical statements

>nah im just troleing guys
0/10 GOOD shit OP

Either aliens or a previously existing technologically developed human society which was destroyed, or both

We didn't evolve from the apes that are around today. We evolved from other apes that have since gone extinct, just as the apes we live with did. the reason why none of the apes that we evolved from don't exist is because they couldn't adapt to the changing environment the way we did. Also, our complex organs didn't change overnight. It took millions of years to become what it is.
Besides that, dinosaurs were real. if you have a gravel driveway, look through the rocks and you're sure to find an ancient shellfish fossil. There is VERY clear proof that dinosaurs existed. The bible, on the other hand, was written by men, then edited and republished multiple dozens of times to the point that much of it isn't even the same as the original written documents (assuming it's real). So who are you going to trust, the real fossils that you could possibly find in your driveway, or a book written by men that were just trying to find a way to explain things they didn't understand?

fail
for starters, the DNA replication system isn't perfect, although far more accurate and efficient then any machine humans could make at this point, the genome of even bacteria is incredible vast.

since I'm lazy I will quote this source about E.coli

"What are the implications of an E. coli mutation rate on the order of 10^-10 mutations/base pair/replication ? Given a genome size of 5×10^6 bp, this mutation rate leads to about one mutation per 1000 generations anywhere throughout the genome. At the same time, because an overnight culture test tube often contains over 10^9 bacterial cells per ml one finds that every possible single-base-pair mutation is present"

bacteria are a very simple way to comprehend evolution because their mutations and subsequent evolution is observable over days as opposed to millions of years for large organisms.

It's not evidence of natural selection being wrong, it's evidence in FAVOR of an alternative view of evolution in which theirs multiple originations. Therefore because spiders and humans generate a common ancestor with an impossible number of appendages, therefore they must not be ultimately related, though they may both have "evolved" from separate sources.

>where are all these?
brazil

ones in the picture are glacial eratics, they were picked up and rolled around and smoothed out by glaciers and dropped there when the ice melted

aliens built stonehenge

If we evolved from chimpanzees, why are chimps still alive? Checkmate. Can't explain it. Go ahead and try. You're wrong.

>In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.

First off, "same DNA" is almost meaningless, function is always the key, not the actual genetic code. There are hundreds of ways to code a functional globin protein, all of which fold into an essentially identical protein with an effectively identical function.

Second of all:

what the hell are you smoking

a fairly sizable percentage of our functional DNA is interchangeable with fucking yeast genes

Just 1 source of many:
yeastgenome.org/yeast-are-people-too

I really hope you are trolling/baiting/whatever the fuck you faggots call it these days.

>we didn't evolve from the apes that are around today

ITT old trolls recycle bait from the time of the dotcom bubble.

Humans and spiders DO have a common ancestor. Every living thing on Earth does. It was a single-celled organism 3 billion years ago. Not the first one to form necessarily, though.

WE'RE MONKEYS
DEAL WITH IT

religion poisoned everything far too much and still does

>How could something as complex as the mammalian digestive system all evolve at once?

the "at once" tells me you don't understand the theory of evolution

>Really? They should have died out like all the intermediate species.

And the intermittent species did NOT die out.. you my friend are proof of that.

Functional analysis is a meme dude, have you taken any courses in rational inquiry? PURE THEORY requires that functional analasys be considered meaningless

Wow, this totally isn't bait at all

It was aliens all allong you dumbasses.

so this well put together specimen based on fossils that not only fit together perfectly but were also found next to each other in the same terrain and geological time period is just the illuminates attempt to cast Freudian love for ones own mother in an attempt to increase the proportion of inbred simpletons so the general populace is more easily malleable.
right?

That other guy is correct, you don't know what a theory or law in science is.

I would call l it natural selection instead. The name forces people to understand the concept better. Evolution to them just brings forth OPs picture into their minds. If I could ban one image from existence it would be that bullshit monkey to human timeline.

I need more of this. Fuck the rest of this thread. OP is just trolling anyways.

this is not necessarily true, just all life we have found so far has been shown to have a common ancestor, but their is likely life living hundreds of miles down that may not have gone extinct as a result of the increase in toxic oxygen with he advent of the oxygen crisis.

...

"Theory" gravity

"Theory" of natural selection

Who gives a shit. Nobody cares about this topic at all irl other than really washed out loons, the kind who are certifiably batshit and just interpret any discussion they bait as a confirmation of their persecution mania. Its been two decades, they won't be changing their minds so don't try to. Just do what the rest of us does and stop paying attention to the guy holding up cardboard with Leviticus excerpts at the street corner.

Mind if I screencap this thread?

I don't get this. What is the banana for?

Go ahead, faggot.

pieces of matter don't just come together to form complex organs and organisms. things slowly take root and are improved over time.

small molecules came together to form RNA machinery inside of lipid monolayers.

RNA machinery evolved to form self replicating machinery.

self replicating machinery evolved to store information as DNA, a more stable storage system.

Entire organisms were able to take root because DNA was long lasting and stable enough to store the information long enough for mutations to take root that would result in the evolution of more complicated forms.

over billions of years single 'celled' organisms formed into complex life which eventually formed into all life we see today.

so the evolution of 'apes' as you would be foolish to call them, over the course of millions of years is but a tick of the evolutionary clock.

Just a funny meme bro!

We were never not humans. We used to LOOK like small mice or whatever but we were still humans. We cant be descendents of anything but ourselves because they are here today.

Just admit you're a fucking chimp.

like someone who still posts desu or girugamesh
kill yourself

Thanks, buddy!

all apes are not chimps but all chimps are apes
try harder newfriend

...

I don't know how many times we have to go over this. Evolutionairy science is flawed. Base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it. Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 million times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)

>these were in trees
actually chimps are just as modern as humans.

Dang and to think someone shared a different perspective then I

what does this even mean
officially a bait thread
cya

>I'm not actually retarded I was only pretending

There's no way that a chimp has given birth to a human...

some people play football, some people play ping pong

...

>There's evidence in the bible that talks about dinosaurs NOT existing. Jesus said it himself.
uh wot?

"Buh, buh, muh factual evidence from the bibble.. muh bibble.."

...

...

Visa
4929664616788272
CVC
193

Look faggots. Either we evolved here or we didn't. What's all the fuss about. Fuck.

not so fast. that ape could be just a step of creation from dust

ITT
>people that do not understand evolution trying to explain evolution to people that don't understand evolution

Expiration and name on the card pls?

But who created the dust. I guess we'll never know. What if dirt evolved from butterflies?

Edison Vaugh
8/17

please enlighten us, O professor.

>Base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it

Prove it. Genetic duplication and reversal, transplantation, Retroviral insertion. These all add information.

> Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 million times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)

youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

On a different time line we humans invent a time machine and go back to take over an early earth.. All mamals evolved into humanoids.. but the ape/human (us), were the only ones to prevail.
Keep your mind open.. its pretty simple really.

I think the bible evolved from the diary of an ape.

...

...

yoinks matey

the bible wasn't written by god though

"Haha jokes on YOU nerds, I was only PRETENDING to be retarded"

>How does a fish go from swimming to flying as a bird?

The problem is that your trying to make sense of bullshit, evolution has been disproved ages ago it always was a joke to begin with.

If you really want to know the answers I suggest you take some biology courses.

For now, I'll let you know that the picture you posted contains inaccurate information. There aren't actually any of the apes from millions of years ago around today. Modern apes are a different type of ape, a different branch of evolution from a common ancestor.

>How could something as complex as the mammalian digestive system all evolve at once?
>all evolve at once

I lol'd.

Maybe those missing monkeys were desintegrated by a volcano or meteor

the biggest misunderstanding I see in this thread is that evolution is goal oriented
it is not
evolution is a side product of variation within a generation, not every individual of a generation being able to survive, and the variations that are least suited to survival in the environment dieing

the second is that evolution is linear
that is proceeding from monkeys to apes to homonids to humans
it is not
evolution is divergent
if more than one group of a species are in different environments, or if more than one group survives by different means
across successive generations the groups could become separate species with a common ancestor

which brings me to the absolutely wrong concept of "common ancestor" in this thread
a common ancestor of spiders and humans will not have all the traits of both species
the common ancestor will have all the traits SHARED by both species
the the human-spider common ancestor will have
>a central nervous system
>light sensitive cells
>a digestive system
>the ability to respirate oxygen

another misunderstanding is that evolution is about survival of the fittest INDIVIDUAL
it is not
evolution is about the survival and propagation of genes within a population that create traits that enable individuals of that population to survive in the environment

another misunderstanding is that survival is the only means of evolution
sex plays a role as big if not bigger than survival
individuals that attract mates will propagate their genes while individuals that don't attract mates won't, no matter how well they are able to survive
and individuals that have multiple mates, or have multiple offspring will propagate their genes more than individuals that only have one mate or one offspring

to be continued

cont

and the biggest misunderstanding in OP's post is that everything happens all at once
it doesn't
organs and behaviors have slight changes between generations
successful changes will improve an individual's chances of survival and mating
and that will increase the rate that their genes are propagated through the species across successive generations
and eventually, usually over the course of thousands of generations, these changes may lead to a new use for the organ or behavior

and it is upon this same principle that we should kill disabled people at birth, people infected with aids, obese people and people deemed seriously ugly.

No it isn't... Maybe not allow them to breed but not kill them. As for real evolution how the hell does ugly hurt genetics?

except that human's second most powerful survival trait is that we go to extraordinary means to increase the survival of those that would otherwise die on their own
this works for us because of our greatest means of survival
>TOOL USE
because that is entirely a mental ability being
>diseased
>disabled
>old
doesn't make it impossible for these people to aid in the survival of their group
which would be carrying many of the genes of the "unfit" individual

and once you get into eugenics
that crosses the line between natural evolution and a breeding program

and as humans the more deliberate our breeding program has been
the more undesirable traits are brought to the surface

...

They got dead like 99.9% of species that have ever existed, also the delineation of species is arbitrary - we do it so we can talk about things, really the gradiations are so small within a human timeframe that it's functional for us even though we're actually looking at various continua. Also, fossilization is rare and special, demanding fossils of every species ever is ridiculous, most dead things are inside your car's gastank right now and the conditions to create a fossil are fragile and rather specific. Mostly things that died from having shit fall on them are fossilized, they died in landslides, tar pits, peat bogs, avalanches etc.

I know you're a troll I just really like talking about biology because it's my favorite science. Here, I'll do a little trolling of my own:

If you actually understood Richard Dawkins scientific contributions you'd think of him as an amazing person worthy of hero worship. Also, he deliberately took the effort to make his work readable by non-scientists, your only excuse is being unwilling to read a book written by someone you don't like.

Evolution is not linear, you stupid cunts, evolution is an TREE.

...

>crossing freely between biology and philosophy
>literal definition of a crackpot

Define 'undesirable trait' in a way that uses only secular moral philosophy. You have 5 minutes.

>An tree
You should do An hero

as I used "undesirable trait" in the context of a breeding program, aka human selected evolution as opposed to natural selection
>any trait that is not desired by those administering the breeding program

next time try thinking about the context

>Where's evidence in the bible that talks about dinosaurs NOT existing. Jesus said it himself.

When did he do that?

A way to look at it is that if we were made by a all powerful being then evolution would be possible, why would it be out of the scope of a omnipotent being to make it so the life created can adapt to change?

The bible was written by humans and revised multiple times, science is closer to understanding god than the bible ever will be.

always remember that humans selectively bred wolves to the point that we now have chihuahuas, those creatures came from wolves.

fake and gay

also from wolves....Chinese dogs

yes all dogs came from wolves, you say it as if some dogs came from horses or something.

You heavily implied the emergence of unintended traits as the result of heavily controlled breeding, you, in fact, used context to imply that. You're extrapolating from things like hip dysplasia in large dogs and it's very boring to me. Hey look, I found a picture of you.

Darwin's published works are a lot of conjecture, extrapolation and jumping to conclusions. No wonder he died.

please explain how you got that out of this
>as humans the more deliberate our breeding program has been
>the more undesirable traits are brought to the surface
it is very explicitly talking about human breeding programs
I think you are confusing imply with infer