Macro-evolution BTFO

Nice strawmen, faggots. Where are the intermediary species?

>copypasta from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Back to shitposting, leaf.

Theropsids were protomammals that were intermediaries between reptiles and mammals.

Dinosauria were intermediaries between reptile and bird and some contained protofeathers.

I could show you one but I get the feeling you'll just demand more intermediaries between it and the rest.

So, no find them yourself.

...

According to statistics and probability theory there is, you ignorant fuck. (Look up 'central limit theorem' sometime if you're still literate.)

An infinite amount of small random changes does *not* result in an infinitely large random change. Quite the opposite, it results in a net zero change. This is a basic law of mathematics and reality, deal with it. (And learn some fucking math in the process.)

To name a few,
Apostrothilificus Africanus (pardon my spelling, not a biologist)
Homo Erectus
Homo Florensis
Homo Neandrathalus
Homo Sapiens - niggers
Homo Sapiens Sapiens - Whites

There are many more intermediary species of course

Most Europeans have traces of Neandrathal DNA btw (so actual race mixing)

>le micro macro evolution meme

no such thing

there is only evolution

>The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists
>creationists

Worship your kike-on-a-stick faggot

>I don't have a counterargument but I noticed you're Canadian haha nice try bud

Evolution is a prevailing theory, as nothing else is even as remotely close to being proven as fact. Does this mean evolution is definitely how we came to be? No. It is best guess. Stop being an obstinate retard.

It can be disproven later with evidence, but how you feel is not a valid argument.

>copypasta's from wiki macroevolution page wiki
>whines about the term being used in debate.

Ah the leaf, what a strange but intriguing little autistic creature it is.

Shutup leaf. Copypastas from wiki aren't an argument.

>Does this mean evolution is definitely how we came to be? No. It is best guess.

Best guess with literally no evidence of it happening between species. Yet you believe it anyway. I suspect your feelings are much more invested in this than mine.

Well, he provided you a source, claiming 'muh wikipedia' like some mentally deficient middle school english teacher is not helping you. Wikipedia requires sources. click on the lttle number after the passage in question and refute the source it cites.

this

You might want to read it too considering that was Darwin's own criticism of his own theory, you fool. Darwin didn't think he was right Louis Agassiz told him he was wrong, Darwin also agreed to that. You losers have been fondling a dead theory, who's own creator knew it was wrong.

>This evolved

People believe this shit, top kek

They're dead.

>mfw bible thumpers think that religion and science are mutually exclusive

You know it is possible to believe in a god that created the universe and all the physical laws that govern it, such as natural selection and evolution, which allowed for diversification of life to occur on its own.

I will be honest, biology and evolution are not my area of expertise. But, claiming the prevailing scientific theory is wrong without even trying to say as to why is ridiculous. I am naturally skeptic, so I wonder if you are correct, but that is about as far as it goes. Meanwhile, in the corner of Darwin, we have over a century of research from numerous doctorates claiming as to why they think evolution exists. Unfortunately, solipsism prevents us from believing anything fully. We were not there to see it, so we cannot be certain. But shouting that it is unequivocally wrong without saying why is, again, ridiculous.

Oh how convenient.

What did you expect, it was a long time ago. Did you also doubt the existence of your grand-grand-grand-grandpa until they exhumed him?

Shouldn't you be at mosque paki scum?

It's from the same page m80 :^)

>OP's sister

That's the missing link we've been looking for.

Top bantz lads.

He is asking why have we not found them. Did you read the picture? It is not graduated, there are no stages of let us say a T-rex for example. When we find fossils of anything, it is already there completed. There are no in-betweens. It is either a T-rex or it is not, where are the bones of what lead to a t-rex.

None.

Birds are technically the last surviving dinosaurs.

>jesus put it there
>People believe this shit, top kek

it's funny how crusader evolutionist types have twisted Gould's discussion of punctuated equilibrium into something that's supposedly consistent Darwinian gradualism.

>a space nigger whose son is from the middle east put that there

lmao

literally worshiping a dead jew on a stick - the bastard child of some cuck called joseph and a whore called mary.

what a faith system

>confirmation bias: the post
The tragic story of all Abrahamic faiths. New evidence comes out, turns out it was God's plan all along goy, doesn't matter that the last 400 years we spent denying it and telling people they will burn in hell!

Those fossils are actually an enormous rarity. In fact they couldn't actually exhume his grand-grand-grand-grandpa, because there's most likely nothing to exhume anymore. Very special conditions are required to ensure any remains survive for thousands of years untouched for us to dig out. Populations of transitional species are likely to be very scarce up until they hit the jackpot and evolve into a T-rex. Just statistically it's much more likely we find fossils of successfull, established species than of some unfeathered dickhead walking on tiny legs. It similarly stands to reason that some are not found at all, and some are never even formed.

>Atheists when their fragile belief system is prodded.

>autistic muslim when you try to show him the reality of his shitty belief system

>why arent fossil records from millions of years ago 100% accurate.

kek

Actually Statheists like you have much more in common with Mudslimes than the good Christian people who founded the values and principles of western civilization. Statheists like you are responsible for the leftist policies that have blown up the welfare state and destroyed western society. That's how you repay the Christians who funded science and set up the University system. Statheists are the ultimate self-loathing cucks because they have literally nothing to believe in or live for. They're no better than the Mudslimes they pretend to dislike.

every generation is an intermediate between the one before it and the one after

Please understand the difference between micro and macro evolution before commenting.

>there is none
done

it's all the same shit you retarded fag, you literally believe in a jewish fairy tale ? ? ?
go fucking kill yourself

Get back to Burger King, you fat 350lb American shit.

lolwut

4/10
Tort and crude trolling, but you got the job done.

An omnipotent entity knocked over the dominoes of existence, and all life is a result of natural dominoes taking the path of least resistance.

Russell Brand?

that Marxist can go die in a ditch. I stand by my statement.

>Things evolve, but not to an extent that threatens my personal faith based beliefs

You would be laughed at by any sophomore who has more than 3 hours in a biology course. What a fucking embarrassment.

articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/31/news/mn-27505

Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep.

people don't believe in macroevolution in 2016 seriously user, finish these idiots off and drop some truth on them, toss up some examples of the whales to cow evolution.

There is not such thing as an "in-betweens" you retard.

Organism are constantly changing and evolving, labeling and grouping fossils is an arbitrary human tool for categorizing.

We have found plenty of organisms with genetic relationship the proved without a doubt common ancestor, if that is what you are wondering.

macro evolution takes a long period of time? tens of thousands to millions of years? yet there was a mass scale extinction of dinosaurs ?
A recent explanation, supported by many scientists, suggests that dinosaurs died out soon after a huge meteorite crashed to Earth near the Gulf of Mexico. A giant meteorite, they reason, could have landed with an impact that kicked up enough dust and debris to block out sunlight for a long time — leading to a deadly chain of events. Without the sun, all the plants died; without the plants, all the plant-eaters died; and without the plant-eaters, all the meat-eaters died. Sounds reasonable. But there is one problem with this theory: Paleontologists have not yet been able to find dinosaur skeletons in rocks dating to the period of impact. Some evidence even seems to indicate that all the dinosaurs had died before the meteorite hit.

how does this make sense?

>There is not such thing as an "in-betweens" you retard

Said it perfectly. Macro-evolution BTFO.

1. how do you get from no material, to material

2. how do you get from material with no life, to material with life?

3. how do organisms get more and more complex with no external influence?

monkeys > chimps > humans

Checkmate you fucking retard

The search for the missing link?

A little late on this one, bud.

That's not quite correct.

If you have two random walks, they are more likely to separate than converge because when the points are apart, they have a 50% chance of staying equidistant, 25% chance of converging, and 25% chance of diverging.

When they have converged, there's a 50% chance of staying together and a 50% chance of diverging.

So overall there's a slightly higher chance of diverging than converging.

Kill your self leaf

>It has long been thought that the hip bones of whales and dolphins are essentially useless.

>But scientists have now discovered that in fact the opposite is true and that they are very important for mating in the species.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2749561/Whale-sex-revealed-Useless-hips-bones-crucial-reproduction-size-really-matters-study-finds.html

>actually believing we evolved from monkeys

Speak for yourself, chimpcuck.

amazon.ca/Macroevolution-Professor-Steven-M-Stanley/dp/080185735X

Macroevolution: Pattern and Process

Steven M. Stanley (born November 2, 1941) is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.

amazon.ca/Genetics-Paleontology-Macroevolution-Jeffrey-Levinton/dp/0521005507

Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution

Jeffrey S. Levinton

Education: Yale University (1971)
Books: Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology, more
Awards: Guggenheim Fellowship for Natural Sciences, US & Canada

There's a bunch of intermediaries between apes and humans in Africa. I think your country has been importing them for a while so you should able to go see one in your wife's bedroom.

>Show me the intermediaries, evocucks.

Literally every organism.

The concept of species seems really black and white when you know fuck all about biology, but it isn't.

;) most vestigial organs and bones are not 'useless' they say that our 'tail bone' is vestigial as well, yet without it we would be pretty fucked up

It must just be a coincidence 99% of our DNA is the same, huh?

we also have 90 % in common with a cat and 50 with a banana

>Evolution is fake.
>Somehow.. Races and IQ is real.
Sorry does not compute. Off back to /r/christcuck with you.

>what is reading comprehension

Hey retard, I never said the term doesn't exist. Look at my first post. Creationist christcucks have been intentionally obfuscating this real term for decades now, it even has a section on the Wiki page.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Semantics_issue

>Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of[24] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics dismiss any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".

99 is biggerer than 90.

yes because believe it or not all forms of life share a common ancestor, and much of that dna that makes us organic is very similar with, wait for it- other organic forms of life
because the closer in percentage we share in genetic information, the more related, or in other words, pay attention to this part, the more recent our common ancestors are. IE the differences in genetic information between your parents in relation to you is much smaller than the difference between that of you or your parents in relation to chimpanzees.

THEY ARE ALL INTERMEDIATE LINKS FAGGOT

THATS THE FUCKING POINT OF FUCKING EVOLUTION YOU RETARD.

if God made everything, why would he use completely unrelated material?

of course we share percentages of DNA with each other.

K
L Peacemakers

>The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists
>creationists

so you are saying that your argument is what?
if the prevelent theory is that a global event wiped out the dinosaur , how do you explain the evolution of dinosaur to what we have today

he scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era. A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.

What? I'm atheist, and your logic is tard-tier.

If god created millions of other species, he could have created humans and niggers separately, too.

The biggest problem evolution has is instinct vs function . like for example spiders would use the wind and their web to play spider man , if they played spiderman without the abilty they would just fall to their death and spiders became extinct

Conclusion: we are more like our parents than we are like chimps.

Much profound information.

killer quads

Yes because we look like monkeys , god has a weird sort of humor

Jelousy breeds contempt.

>creationist christcuck can't accept a real term could be intentionally misused

>The fossil record indicates that birds are the last surviving group of dinosaurs, having evolved from feathered ancestors within the theropod group of saurischian dinosaurs. True birds first appeared during the Cretaceous period, around 100 million years ago.[3] DNA-based evidence finds that birds diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Palaeogene extinction event that killed off all other dinosaurs. Birds, especially those in the southern continents, survived this event and then migrated to other parts of the world while diversifying during periods of global cooling.[4] Primitive bird-like dinosaurs that lie outside class Aves proper, in the broader group Avialae, have been found dating back to the mid-Jurassic period.[1] Many of these early "stem-birds", such as Archaeopteryx, were not yet capable of fully powered flight, and many retained primitive characteristics like toothy jaws in place of beaks, and long bony tails.

Because the birds obviously survived you retard.

This. Fags are in heaven now and all the Crusaders got shafted by PR

He could, but why then? What's the point in creating lesser races if your chosen race already e mists on the planet and what's the point in giving inferior races brains, languages and the ability to kill your chosen race if you (god) don't intent to help your creation?

Why not just create the Jews and give them the world.

My logic is so flawed that this logic makes perfect sense?

Either God is racist or not. He seems more like a globalist Kike if he did all of that to learn humanity a lesson.

Does God also determine which individuals die and which genes get passed on?

How about the genetic composition of populations far removed from each other temporally?

>"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER BIRDS IF EVOLUTION HAPPENED THEY WOULD STILL BE AROUND"

inb4 I hear this again.

youtube.com/watch?v=4F3ZDqLIw7c

Same goes for the kangaroo , a kangaroo uses his tale to support his whole body , if his tail was to weak it would break , there for we must conclude that the tail of the kangaroo always have been strong enough to support its whole weight.

>Humans were always living in New York
>Whales in the sea
>Birds all had wings and could fly

I hope you mean the exact species of marsupial rat that became a kangaroo could support itself by its tail. A previous ancestor of Kangaroos probs didn't use its tail like it did until, well when it became more convenient.

Archaeopteryx kek

>Macro-evolution
never heard of this, is this some creationist pseudo-science?

That would be true only if the changes were purely random.

also what about that fossil record, whats the deal with polystrate fossils?

If evolution is wrong, what do you think how everything was made?`By god? kek

Maybe "god" sparked the big bang, but since that were on our own

a rat is a rat and not a kangaroo , this is just fairytales against real science, oh we found a creature among the billions what supports his own body weight , that must be a ancestor of the kangraroo

Yes, but it's all still text.

Dumb-ass

the big bang theory was invented by a catholic jesuit priest

onsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.

physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

This whole stupid argument suggests that there are no species, at all.

That there are no divisions or boundary lines between anything.

pretty much this. it's why evolution and creationism debate , evolution is not a true science.

A truly omnipotent, all-knowing God would not need to intervene. Even if the big bang theory is correct, as you can see from the cosmic background radiation mass, energy etc. was not evenly distributed. The exact arrangement of compenent parts which later grew into the universe we see and occupy today could have been deliberate, with specific results in mind.

tl;dr science will never disprove creationism because god can be blamed for everything if you break it down enough

>These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between non-avian dinosaurs and birds.

So when a clear example of a transitional genus is identified, you laugh at it?

I think we're done here Christ-cuck, enjoy kneeling for refugees and Israel, don't forget to turn the other cheek like a good goy.

Wait hold the fucking phone i just found the ancestor of the elephant

livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html

transitional fossil between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. good luck with that

>Archaeopteryx turned out to be a basal bird, again," Foth said. "Interestingly, we also found Anchiornis and Xiaotingia on the stem-bird branch, even more basal than Archaeopteryx. Per definition, these guys would [now] be the oldest representatives of stem-birds, but Archaeopteryx would be the first definitely fightable representative

Christ-cuck can't even read his own sources.
Remember to wash the refugees feet and let him into your home like the kike-on-a-stick wants you to, good goy!

Shh don't give them ideas.

lol you realize that archaeopteryx has been contested back and forth since the early 90's if not earlier. this is the problem with evolution there are not dozens of examples of transitional fossils. it's the opposite, all birds share common ancestry with Archaeopteryx.

Instead, a newfound fossil from China suggests Archaeopteryx was not a bird after all, but one of many birdlike dinosaurs, a finding that could force scientists to rethink much of what they thought they knew about the origin and evolution of birds.

whats a bird like dinosaur? a feathered dinosaur

muh evolution

now for some hoaxes i stil had left

haha ;)

and offcourse the embryo hoax used in text books 100 years after the fact , a little revised but still fake

ernst haeckel, those drawings are still used and defended even tho it's been proven many many times to be nonsense. scientific integrity

They faked it because darwin said it would be that way ,

funny how that worked out for darwin and the people shilling evolution. much like the Archaeopteryx

"The type specimen of Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Archaeopteryx seemed to confirm Darwin's theories and has since become a key piece of evidence for the origin of birds, the transitional fossils debate, and confirmation of evolution."

pretty good timing

If its in textbooks 100 years after the fact you should really ask your self the question ; why in earth did they need to keep the fraud, until they had a better theory what would refute darwins is my guess

using a lie to propagate erroneous science is pretty fucked.

to add to that i think they are cherrypicking from all the embryos there are to link a common ancestor, to another

when i google i dont even see a alternative, hackel or bust

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_tithymaloides#Ring_species
In this moment i am euphorbic.

>pretty good timing

You people are fucking retarded, we have computer simulations with millions of bone fragments in them. We have deduced with a 50% probability the evolution of most known animals. Please go back to reading your Bible but stop trying to disturb Science. These people are working with REALITY.

>We have deduced with a 50% probability.

ring species are still biologically compatible tho, it is usually physical differences that make them incompatible , example a great dane fucking a tea cup poodle, physically won't work, artificial insemination would work, tho.

using a man made simulation to prove evolution, sounds a lot like intelligent design to me.

also i was raised atheist/agnostic father and mother hated religion. i've only been in church 4 times, 2 weddings and 2 funerals

stop trying to disturb science , you mean like user did with
bretty unscientific , infact ignoring the reality of science because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion of the world sounds like something a religious faggot would do

>there's a missing piece of evidence so a magic sky wizard did it because goat fuckers wrote some scribbles 2000 years ago that say so

wew

What do creationists call that change "not evolution"?

you realize that evolution can be wrong without making creationism right. creationism is a philosophy it has nothing to do with science, it is as scientific as believing in heaven , or god.

i don't think i understand your question.

Every creature that has ever need is transitional, you illiterate nigger.

Don't be jealous because you're being excluded from the club.

So one can't quote articles on macroevolution as evidence for macroevolution?

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/

Nevertheless, the results do show a “ring species” of a sort: isolation of two “end” populations of a ring that makes them look like two species, even though all through the ring you don’t see reproductive isolation of adjacent areas.

that may answer your question.

creationists consider species 'kinds', an example of evolution would need to be animals breeding and creating a different 'kind' .
wolf is a 'kind' of dog, so a dog and wolf could fuck , and make a dog, but would never make a cat or horse,or a dog and a cat couldn't fuck and make a whatever catdog.

yet evolutionary scientists will publicly debate creationists ..

When 1 population becomes 2 populations that can't interbreed you call that what? The devil trying to trick you?

Cristians pretending to be "the answer" against jews and mudslims. Despite literally having the same religious system, the same god.

it is one population tho, you can read dozens of examples of it. also it's not really evolution when(using the gull as an example) they are both gulls who still share a breed-ability throughout the 'ring'

To have a complete lineage, every organism that has ever lived and reproduced would have to be fossillized. To get a comprehensive lineage, you need the majority of species to have been fossilized.

Too bad neither is possible

Gulls don't artificially inseminate and why would they suddenly need to if evolution is not true?

ok , well the problem with those gulls in the ring

European herring gull

Lesser black-backed gull

their incompatibility is largely their nesting habits

tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00063659709461067

the problem isn't genetic incompatibility.

do you understand the difference?

Its a change in species because of the environment . All the other things are not science

exactly , natural selection. which is 100% factual and well documented.
darwins finches are a great example of this

>largely
Are you saying they can interbreed or not? Go ahead and don't believe in survival of the fittest. See how that goes.

survival of the fittest isn't evolution LOL
seriously man, open a book.

survival of the fittest or natural selection is very well documented. it has to do with environmental conditions , darwins finches for example their beak size varies greatly within a few generation, and it has to do with ability to eat

right on

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
>take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

evolution is not science people a bird is still a bird

Evolution and change are synonyms.

Why create centipedes, then, too? Or anything else? Why not just create a glass cube with a single Jew in it?

Something with the power and intellect to create everything that is on Earth would have motives that we cannot understand. God would be as difficult for us to understand as it would be for us to understand a post-singularity AI, or for a chimpanzee to understand humans.

One Christian argument would also obviously be that some things in the world (Jew's chosen nature, some demographic divisions, etc) are the result of humanity's free will rather than divine decree.

Yes, you're a fucking retard. I've literally known middle schoolers who were more intelligent, and less arrogant. Really, the satisfaction you take in your own stupidity dehumanizes you. I hope you get your teeth kicked in when you mouth off to your superiors IRL.

no they are not, natural selection is not evolution.

One of the tenets of evolutionary biology is that it requires time, but some microevolutionary changes can occur with surprising rapidity. The Grants have studied Darwin's finches in the Galapagos for over 30 years and have observed many changes. Recently they reported a change in the beak size of the medium ground finch on Daphne Major. In 1977 a drought reduced the number of small seeds available for the birds, forcing them to rely on larger seeds requiring considerable force to open. Within a couple generations, beak size, and hence ability to open large seeds, had increased.

we do this all the time it is known as selective breeding.

again that is not evolution it is adaptation

if you guys don't understand the difference you should really do more research. otherwise you just wasted like an hour on a topic you know nothing about, or care enough about to do some very basic research

but i dislike using the word evolution because it is false , a dinosaur does not change in a bird it has no reason to , it has reason to change the beak so it can eat harder food better , it has no reason to grow wings

>it has no reason to
Do half of poltards have brain damage?

It is a key mechanism of evolution. Are you in elementary school?

nice ad hominem , try to refute it

Why should I argue with some retard from completely irrelevant country, who doesn't even know basics?

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html
natural selection is using what is already there genetically , example given is darwins finches, 'instant evolution' 1977 there was a drought there were only hard seeds to eat, so larger beak finches survived, small beaked starved and died off. by 1982-83 there was heavy rain , lots of soft seeds and then all of a sudden that instant evolution was reversed and all the small beaked finches were able to survive.the DNA for small and large beaks was already present, the environment changed and their population shifted.

God wanted you to exalt your self over certain people , niggers are the ultimate test

and you will be crying when the niggers fly in to heaven and you go to hell because you saw each single one of them as animals.

Yes they are.
>thesaurus.com/browse/evolution?s=t

Then say nothing retard.

You just said animals change over time and then you say evolution is false.

It already has feathers you mongoloid. Wings formed as it helped them escape from predators. The early species simply glided. Later when their bones evolved to be lighter they were able to fly.
Do you think Pterasaurs just suddenly existed because God said so? lmao. Why would God make birds that can't fly have wings like Penguins, Chickens, Ostriches...? Is he retarded?

seriously ?

did you even read that list.

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles: There is variation in traits.

they key thing there is MUTATION .

natural selection is as i described it.
the mutation is where it falls apart, there are almost no examples of positive mutations, usually the positive mutations used to support evolution is in simple celled organisms like viruses, altho in every case the un mutated organism will over take the mutated version. again viruses are the best/easiest area to study these mutations.

Already have, you fucks just cover your eyes an insist that you haven't seen 'em yet.
The flatards are here too, now that I think about it. Have creatards and flatards joined up with CTR to flood this board with trash?

Guess what means the same thing as shifted.

Just like the politically correct establishment is based around the denial of the criminal nature and low IQ of the Negro, so is Creationism based around the denial of genetics and archaeological evidence found since Darwin wrote that.

> Why would God make birds that can't fly have wings like Penguins, Chickens, Ostriches...? Is he retarded?

youtube.com/watch?v=yBK5lRp9aeQ

Are you retarded?

thats not evolution tho, where is the mutation? seriously do you not even understand the most basic definition of the word, and if that is what you think evolution is then i would recommend dogs, humans have breed a pretty huge variation of dogs. look at that real time evolution.

instituteofcaninebiology.org/whats-in-the-gene-pool.html

All of the genetic variability that will ever exist in your new breed is present in these dogs. Mutations probably won't add new, useful genetic variation because most mutations are detrimental. If the mutated gene is dominant and detrimental, it will likely be weeded out very quickly. If the mutation is recessive, it is not expressed unless an animal is homozygous for the allele by inheriting a copy from each of its parents. In the heterozygote condition, a mutated recessive allele can lurk in the genome for generations without ever causing a problem. So, unless additional "founders" are added to the population at a later date, all of the genes you will ever have to work with in your breeding program are present in these dogs.

muh evolution

Doesn't explain the organ that restricts blood flow to the brain when it lowers it's neck to drink and how it got there

Well both the globe earth and evolution are hoaxes. The only reason the theory of evolution exists is to help explain the big bang theory and gravity. Once you take one of those out of the equation the entire scientific paradigm comes crumbling down, and that's what you're beginning to see now. Get used to it, because it isn't going away.

Ya it backs up exactly what i said. We weren't talking about natural selection. You're an idiot.
>thesaurus.com/browse/natural selection?s=t

Life is just a coincidental mix of 18 chemicals that when aligned correctly have ionic bonds that react in just the perfectly right way to automatically duplicate themselves.

Lol, stay mad, cuck.

you are fucking retarded, the earth is a sphere. even the bible says the earth is a sphere.

If this pic were accurate every 40yr old neckbeard virgin would have a 12 inch cock.

>even the bible says the earth is a sphere.

like i said

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

natural selection is a part of evolution, it is not evolution. a battery is a crucial part of a car,but it is not a car.

Dont fall for the bait idiot are trying to shill the flat earth meme

Says retard, who tries to shill for mah creationism meme.

These are the crucial things evoltards seem to forget

kek them trips

Ya it is.

Not trying to shill anything. It's sad how you're both red-pilled on evolution but are both still blue-pilled gullible globe goys.

Ah i knew it was you satan

Go ask an expert.

already answered this question
all the genetic variability is already there, thats not evolution.

Because the world is round , its even in the bible

If Trump will be elected - americans would move to canada.
If Hillary will be elected - americans would move to Europe, because China will nuke USA.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corers of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

it does

>it's a "Cred Forums tries to be armchair biologists" episode

I'm just going to say that I'm not the brightest when it comes to some of the grittier, specific details of biology, especially specifics of how evolution works (I understand the concept, but it's been a while since I took biology for a class).

However, seeing you all reciting articles to try and pretend to know WTF you're talking about is hilarious. Both sides need to shut up about whether it's true or false unless you have actual biologists involved.

>Evolution exists to help explain the big bang theory and gravity.
No it doesn't. Evolution (the theory, not the colloquial term for change over time) is the scientific theory which provides a plausible explanation for biodiversity (why species are different from each-other). It does nothing to address the beginning of the universe, the attributes of the Earth, or even the beginning of life, the only purpose to the theory of Evolution is to explain how life became diverse.
Big Bang/Singularity theory is it's own entirely separate theory and in point of fact resides in a completely different field of science.
The same goes for gravity.
>We're seeing the crumbling of the scientific pardigim.
As a matter of fact we are seeing the exact opposite, the number of creatards and flatards has been slowly but consistently falling as the Abrahamic religions lose their ability to influence the curriculum taught to children in school. You and people like you will rapidly fade into utter irrelevance if you haven't already. Islam is rapidly becoming a far more pressing threat than you ever were. The only substantive difference between you is that they're willing to do violence in the name of their shit ideas.

The bible says the sky is a dome to hold back water, are you really this retarded?

Wild animals have a hard life and weaklings more easily die off.

I also believed 2 weeks it could be flat , but after research i soon discovered its just round , dont buy in the flat earth meme its mostly fake videos on you tube , questioning science and then making up their own science

youtube.com/watch?v=-xIx-LHG8Wc

If that does not convince you , keep in mind they cant cgi a 24 hour stream

he who denies evolution denies national socialism. now fuck off retard

>Isaiah 40:22
>It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Circle. Not sphere.

>Getting meme'd by a CGI video.

This is why you're so gullible.

the bible is a collection of books from 2 thousand years ago, does it really matter what it says. and in regards to evolution, why do evolutionary scientists feel the need to place their theory in the same arena as religion/creationism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation–evolution_controversy

why doesn't any other branch of science engage in debates with religion. science and religion have virtually nothing in common, yet evolution is always debating with creationists.

Good job misquoting the bible

I will take 1 verse

>1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corers of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

The earth does not have corners , the understanding of the earth was pic related , so corners cannot be literal ,because they thought it was a circle

This kills the flatcuck

>It does nothing to address the beginning of the universe

That's just a lie. Without the big bang macro-evolution would be completely disregarded due to lack of evidence. Big bang sets the precedent for 14bn years of evolution which evocucks need to explain their bullshit theory.

>You and people like you will rapidly fade into utter irrelevance if you haven't already.

Keep telling yourself that, globe goy. You're in for a nasty surprise.

You wouldn't even admit evolution exists and now you want to tell me how it should work?

>yet evolution is always debating with creationists

Because you retards are actively trying to promote "muh kike shit" as an alternative to be taught in schools?

"Oh goyim, why learn about evolution we are all equal under GOD! You evangelicals are my best allies!"

since this thread is going to shit, i'll help you shill.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]

big bang theory created by the catholic church

During most of Lemaître's tenure in the academy, Pope Pius XII occupied the Chair of Peter. The Pope delivered his famous speech, "Un'Ora," after he analyzed Lemaître's science with the intent of developing a philosophical argument that one could ultimately use to prove the existence of God.

. . . contemporary science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux, which along with the matter there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation . . . Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, modern science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the creator.10

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Do your research please. Those bible quotes were not misquoted in the slightest.

Big bang theory created by a jesuit priest, no surprise there.

>This is why you're so gullible.

No you are gullible if you never found out the truth wich i did soon after researching, and its more then 1 video the meme is huge

There are, people just look at human imposed definitions of what a species is and ask why there's nothing in between.

It's like asking why isn't there anything in between monday and tuesday, those words are our categories for a certain length of time.

Just like how calling a tiger and a lion different species doesn't stop them from breeding.

Woah cut myself on that edge. You gonna ignore Chickens, Turkeys, Cassowarys, Ostriches, Emus or what? christcuck
God confirmed Mongoloid. Can't even create fully functioning creatures.

The truth which you found by viewing a meme CGI video. Okay then.

not exactly tho, the only argument that creationists have made is that evolution has no relevance in natural science , the big bang is used to support the theory of evolution (big bang being a catholic creation theology) therefor it has no place in school ,and should be removed.

amazon.com/Moment-Creation-Physics-Millisecond-Universe/dp/B005Q7512O

The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from Before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe

ames S. Trefil (born September 10, 1938) is an American physicist (Ph.D. in Physics at Stanford University in 1966) and author of more than thirty books. Much of his published work focuses on science for the general audience. Dr. Trefil has previously served as Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia and he now teaches as Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University. Among Trefil's books is Are We Unique?, an argument for human uniqueness in which he questions the comparisons between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. Trefil also regularly gives presentations to judges and public officials about the intersections between science and the law.

theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/26/universe.physics

scientists can now tell us what happened in nearly every millisecond of the big bang. Robert Matthews takes us through the first crucial moments [please note, superscript numbers in this article are represented with the prefix ^]

Pinning down the date of creation with such precision is impressive, but scientists have gone much further. They have begun to piece together the whole history of the universe, from the big bang to the present day. The very earliest moments are still the focus of intense research, and the final word is not yet in. Even so, the timeline of events now emerging is every bit as astounding as the creation myths of the world's religions.

science..

every bit as astounding as the creation myths of the world's religions.

hmmmmmm interesting that the theory was created by a catholic priest .

I am no biologist retard , only penguins popped in my mind

chickens do use their wings. They can fly short distances, wild chickens sleep in trees for safety. They also use their wings to help incubate eggs and when the babies are hatched, the young ones spend a lot of time under their mom's wings to keep warm. They also use them to communicate and show emotions, chickens' wings do serve a purpose other then flying

>haha the BBT was theorized by a cucktholic priest therefore evolution and science is wrong and my invisible semitic desert sky deity is right.

You're retarded, please kys cucktholic.

science is not wrong lol seriously get your shit together man, or get better at shilling.

biological evolution may very well true, there is no evidence to suggest that it is, when it is place with the big bang theory it loses all credibility however. what we know about natural selection is that DNA contains near limitless combinations within the species , again see dogs, and selective breeding.

i'm not a theist , so there is no point in criticizing me for being one, and if i was going to worship it wouldn't be the catholic faith LOL literally the worst religion next to islam, tied for worst really.

Do your own the map you shown is from 1893 , while the hebrew earth was thousand years before christ

>In 1893, Ferguson, of Hot Springs, South Dakota, published his Map of the Square and Stationary Earth. It depicts the world spread over a basin with a mound in the middle. Lining the rim of the basin is the jagged coast of Antarctica, which forms the icy edge of the world. The sun and moon are depicted as rotating lamps suspended at the end of arc-shaped arms rooted in the Arctic.

Just out of curiosity, how is a neadrathal defined genetically seperate from sapians?

Is it just abritrary they are not defined as sapian, yet Asians, whites and blacks are all in one group? Or is there something specific that makes them completely seperate

i do like this as the default response tho, someone points of the fallacy of evolution and the big bang theory, i have never worshiped any religious deity , if there is a god is not pertinent to this discussion either way. it's not whats right, god or evolution, it is simply what is right or wrong with evolution.
you can't provide an example of evolution being right there for you attack religion, thats retarded

genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

humans and neanderthals were closely related and interbred.

Yes and the "artists impression" of the Hebrew earth was from 2012. Lol at you nitpicking over some representation of the earth which doesn't show it having corners and concluding that the entire flat earth model must be false because of this.

Yes I know that, but since they can interbred, what defines them as seperate, yet doesn't define blacks whites and Asians as seperate.

Why are whites, blacks and Asians all considered "sapian" (instead of three distinct groups) but neadrathal not consider "sapian", especially consider we can interbred.

interesting, so you are saying that monkeys were created monkeys, fish were created fish, but that different types are created through evolution?

it was just an attempt to have a 'missing link' , the more we learned about dna and the anthropology about them then more me realized that they were us.

>they havnt filled out the fossil record since the 19th century

american education

i'm saying we don't know either way, there really is no proof, it basically comes down to philosophical world views.

if we did evolve we have yet to find any real evidence of that, or how it could happen. natural science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a monkey will always create a monkey, a human will always create a human.

we birth millions of chickens for consumption every year, and yet we don't ever find they birth anything other than chickens. all mutations that we do find are just corruptions of DNA that is already present, extra wing, two heads, etc.