/sci/ - Science & Math

Creationism is debunked here:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>15337383
>What happens if?
So you have to throw in events to disprove the statement. Each of those require a womb and vagina to even be possible. You retarded fucks can't even be intelligent and use hermaphrodites or xyy/xxy people as examples of grey areas . It's always surface level retarded shit that could be air lifted onto equal insane concepts like killing sleeping people or defending incest.

/thread

Climate change deniers remind me of creationists. Similar modes of argumentation, similar ignorance of evidence when presented.

>>11912329
Then why woud you post such a strawman?

>>11196523

This.

>>10711243

Retard.

>>10694396

>>9779320
microevolution directly implies macroevolution my dude

>>9654873
>muh microevolution
>but not muh macroevolution!
learn2incrementalism
pic related

>>9654886
>What makes you think those changes even exist?
directly observing them in nature.
see: sympatric speciation in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella

>>9654913
>theory of evolution v2 of 4.5. billion
the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
if you want to argue about the age of the earth, we can talk about radiochronology instead, but that's not evolution.

>>9619004
>>9619014
this image is a good explanation of how microevolution becomes macroevolution.

>>9215094
>being this mad
the point is that everything we find in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory.

>>9215102
>Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
back2gradeskool 4 (You)

>>9215183
this has been done, and they proceeded to freak the fuck out and claim it was all a fake.
>https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

>>9215762
electromagnetism is just a theory (a gauss)

>>9155459
that's like saying there's a difference between an object falling to the ground and the Earth orbiting around the Sun.
it is the same exact process seen at different scales. pic related.

>>9031411
>evolution of novel traits in the lab doesn't count because muh macroevolution is different
listen here you stupid cockmongler

>>8994435
>Claims that if we come from animals, we have to act like animals.
Is-ought distinction. We come from ancestors who rarely bathed, could neither read nor right, lived in the same room as their pigs, and were lucky to see their thirtieth year. That doesn't mean that we should be unwashed, unlettered, uncivilized, and unenduring; we have improved ourselves. And of course, this has no bearing on whether evolution is real, merely whether it is pleasant to think about.
>What use is half an eye?
Plenty! Suppose an organism has a light-sensitive protein. It's advantageous to express it in the skin, since that's what's exposed to light. Now you have an organism that can tell day from night, which is very useful for feeding or avoiding predators. Now suppose the area is indented, forming a rim around the edge. This allows for simple directional vision, telling the organism whether it is facing towards or away from the light, which is invaluable for telling up from down in the water. Let's raise that rim a little more, improve the directionality of vision. Well, what if a clear membrane grows that can maybe focus the light a little, helping to discern simple images? That's how you get an eye, maintaining some sort of useful function all the way.
>Claims some systems are irreducibly complex.
Just because a system might not function with the loss of any of its components doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. It might previously have had MORE components, making up some other structure for some other purpose, that was repurposed and gradually lost all non-essential parts.
>Claims microevolution and macroevolution are completely different.
Small incremental changes can and do lead into large dramatic changes. Pic related.
>Scientists are changing their theories all the time. Evolution could be the next one they discard.
And if conclusive evidence against evolution appears, then and only then will we reject evolution. We make decisions based on what we KNOW.

(5/5)

>>8981096
bro, that is actually a cool story and I mean that sincerely.

I know this is b8 but fuckit

>>8686422
>Most of it should be gone by now, considering the earth's supposed old age.
>not knowing that 14C is continually generated by the impact of cosmic rays on the atmosphere
>not knowing that this has been observed experimentally
ISHYGDDT

>When did we see creatures that are supposedly related to one another (cats and frogs) diverge into entirely different creatures? We don't know, we weren't there.
I know because I WAS there. Prove me wrong fgt.

>>8598853
>>8598880
>>8598934
what color is the text in the bottom of this image?