There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ -
Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new
Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7:
.m3u file. Music via
Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?
Nah. He thought bears could evolve into whales if they spent enough time in water.
He was a autist that started tipping his fedora because he couldn't understand why predators kill their prey in such cruel fashion (as if nature is supposed to be a giant hugbox). Basically, he copied Herbert Spencers phrase "Survival of the fittest" and built up this pseudo-scientific notion that there is a harsh struggle for survival in the wild when in reality even sick or deformed animals can survive.
If natural selection was true then genetic defects wouldn't exist.
I think you need to do some reading.
Not really. I think you, on the other hand, need to.
Wow, another tard on the net who doesn't realize how stupid they really are. Great.
Charles Darwin took a stab at accounting for whales in the first edition of Origin of Species. He noted that black bears had been seen swimming with their mouths open for hours at a time on the surface of a lake, feeding on floating insects. "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths," Darwin concluded, "till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." His critics poked such loud and gleeful fun at this image, however, that he eventually omitted it from later editions of his book.
If you mean the people who didn't want to reproduce died out, and only left the people who want to reproduce, then yes.
Look up "gene mutations". It's the reason why there are both defects and fittests. Read a book
No, that was Douglas Adams.
Genetic mutation is not natural selection. Natural selection according to Darwin is "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
In other words, bears swimming around in water with their mouths open will produce a larger body and gills. The man that discovered that genetic mutation produce new phenotypical traits was Hugo de Vries. Hugo de Vries, when he discovered this, presented it as a alternative theory to Darwins pants-on-head retarded idea about bears simply being in the water for x number of years. Of course, since Darwins fanboys got proven wrong about their notion that suggests organisms as passive in the face of random selection, they simply adopted de Vries ideas as part of Darwins narrative.
"Natural selection" is no real mechanism or a valid theory. It is conflated concepts that form a circular argument for fedoras tippers: if it isn't the active role of inherited traits (passed on for x number of years and rarely change at all) that makes a organism develop, it is the passive role of the organism itself just being in a environment.
Natural selection itself makes zero sense because stability is the norm and not change. Darwin himself bred pidgeons and actively changed their traits but somehow came to the conclusion that the environment itself is what makes organisms change and since he called randomness to be the cause for change, he basically went full retard.
>muh anti atheism meymeys
Fuck off.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
, Angry autist.jpg
Angry autist spotted.
The question of the meaning of life is arguably the most meaningless question available.
Nope. Darwins first theory was that bears simply had to be in water in order to develop new bodily traits. Deal with it.
The point is that Darwin was wrong from the very start and his autistic fanboys adopted other scientists ideas in order to make his retarded idea valid.
lol, you are retarded. It is the genes that make the beaks differ in shape and size.
A team of scientists from Uppsala University and Princeton University has now identified a gene that explains variation in beak size within and among species.
Hey, I'm not the retard that thinks De Vries ideas was something Darwin came up with.(USER WAS BANNED FOR BEING TO AUTISTIC TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIATION AND SELECTION.)
Wow, so our silly mods still get triggered by non-fedoras.
, Maximum autism.jpg
A typical euphoric temper tantrum from a power tripping neckbeard.
Notice how he became so infuriated that he couldn't spell "too" properly in "being to autistic". Must be heartbreaking to realize that Darwins idea was moronic from the get-go and only autists think it is valid.
Not part of this conversation up until now, but really if you people want to discuss philosophy you should be capable of doing it in a more tact and intellectual manner than you're all displaying.
No person genuinely interested in philosophy would act like so ridiculously out of order. I'm expecting far too much from this board in saying that, considering most of it is image macros and generic idle questions.
, Asperger man of great tipping.jpg
Selected via nature? lol, did you even read what you just wrote? There is no selection, you moron.
Isn't selection for maximum number of offspring the entire point? Or are you conflating that with intentional selection? It's not called "selective pressure" for nothing.
I love how oblivious you are about your own statements.
I love how you insult everyone the instant they point out the holes in your logic.
You've already been banned once for it, I guess you want round two?
Do you seriously believe "natural selection" is valid? lol, you're the one with twisted logic if you think there is any kind of selection involved.
What is the alternative, that some very specific conception of God shat out all the animals in more or less their current forms no earlier than 10,000 years ago?
...but don't just let me make a strawman. Tell us how you understand the history of life on Earth.
Ah, so you DO admit that there is no actual selection taking place and that the term "natural selection" is a oxymoronic pile of garbage? Good. Because the concept is a meaningless conflation and actually shows how circular your logic is.
Oh, okay, I get it now. For a moment there I hoped you would provide a more compelling model of the history of life on earth, but in fact you're just arguing the semantics of the phrase "natural selection."
So what you're saying is that you would have chosen a different name for that phenomenon, therefore everybody else that doesn't agree must wear hats that you find silly.
No, you autist. It is not about semantics. "Natural selection" is a oxymoron and is devoid of logic. You're pretty dense.
So clearly you're so autistically furious that you typed "a oxymoron" instead of "an oxymoron" because as you explained yourself in >>12519 making typos and usage mistakes is the sign of an angry losing autist.
To deal with more substantial issues, you still haven't explained what you would call the process if not "natural selection," or, if you reject that model entirely, what model you'd use instead to explain the origins of life on Earth today.
There is no selection. Selection requires a motivated action and the environment doesn't act. So sorry, you're obviously too dense to understand what you're saying.
You could argue, from a certain point of view, that perhaps he had.
Darwin had discovered that life on earth seeks diversity and adaptation in order to occupy every niche of every environment with life. He was limited by the knowledge and technology of his time--imagine if he knew bacteria grow deep in the crust of the earth!
He was perhaps among the first to lift the veil of human vanity and see life itself as a unified force of proliferation, to get a glimpse of the order of nature over which humanity had not dominion, but profound interdependence. From this perspective I would argue he discovered the meaning of life is to proliferate, to expand, multiply, and diversify indefinetly--and consistently raise the bar on the "top" of the food chain.
You call me retarded and yet you can't even link to your own post properly. Congratulations.
Why don't we permaban eb915c for thinking he's right by using his own logic so that he'll return to that one site where using your own logic to win an argument is very common
Our biological similarity to the apes was known long before there were geneticists or even before Darwin and his pants-on-head-retarded idea was known.
It is not uncommon to encounter the statement that we are something like 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. You can count the number of base differences among the same region of DNA in humans and chimpanzees and gorillas, and add them up. The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating insertions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and ﬁfty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well?
Tabulating both nucleotide substitutions and insertions/deletions, researchers have found the chimpanzee and human genomes not to be over 98 percent identical, but closer to 95 percent identical. The problem, however, is not that the two genomes are “only” 95 percent identical, but that any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. Neither number has the force of accuracy, because the precise number obtained depends on what one recognizes as a meaningful difference, how one counts it (is a three-hundred-base insertion three hundred differences or only one?), and whether there is any scientiﬁc value at all in trying to derive an official amount of genetic difference between the two species’ genomes in the ﬁrst place when the official amount necessarily combines differences of quantity and quality.
In other words: euphoric fedoras love to conflate different concepts in order to fit their narrative.
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Jesus, just like Abraham and Moses, was a schizophrenic moron. pic related, Jewish insanity in a nutshell.
All Abrahamic religions are just as retarded as atheism.
Let me guess, backpacker Buddhist read a self-help book and took a getaway trip to some shitty temple only to come back and tell everyone how worldly you are?
Fuckin fuck it is.
Seriously though, given the opportunity, Darwin could rock the shit out of any evolutionary theory modernists attempt to propagate into effect.
Abraham and Moses were Schizophrenic, but neither were morons. In fact, for being alive in the age and era they grew to recognize, they were 2 pegs short of genius. Jesus was an idiot who didn't like rich people, lived in a golden age of Roman idiocy, and for it, was romanticized as the savior it is necessary to worship even if he is a rotting corpse. If you read the New Testament, it says Jesus 2 to 5 times on every page.
Yeah. Fedora autists are the worst, though. Basement dwelling atheists that watch way too much sci-fi movies and Ancient Aliens conspiracy crap. Tinfoil experts, basically.
You mean that there is no meaning? Probably.
> Basement dwelling atheists that watch way too much sci-fi movies
> Ancient Aliens conspiracy crap.
From a purely biological standpoint if you are a nihilist.
Butthurt euphoric fedora spotted. Go and make a tinfoil hat, manchild. The aliens are coming, lol.
Intentionally bothering with traits within animals (and plants) is called artificial selection. Natural selection is just the proposed idea that animals most tuned in with their environment will most likely survive, and will shape the future of the species as a whole. The bear in water thing is pretty stupid, however, and such big changes in a species seems too silly to be possible.
>"This is one of the best demonstrations we know of regarding the counteractive effects of natural selection on speciation,” said Flaxman of CU-Boulder’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, second author on the new study. “We show how the brown population essentially carries genes back and forth between the green populations, acting as a genetic bridge that causes a slowdown in divergence.”
You're stuck in your self-perpetuating fedora tipping logic. Darwins ideas are just as dead as he is.
While I don't think that he did, I do like the idea of our purpose being to continue developing and bettering ourselves one generation at a time whether that be physically, mentally, socially or however.
every time i see people using less than a century of research to disprove evolution i feel more sorry for humanity as a whole.
just because your limited perspective doesn't allow you to see the long term effects of environmental change and migration on a species doesn't mean evolution isn't happening.
the world was not made in seven days; the quasi-christian posit that it's only about 5000 years old makes no sense by either christian theology or science.
Natural selection takes centuries.
>Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years
Keep on clinging to your fedora and your outdated, autistic 17th century neckbeard idol, keyboard warrior.
You really have to hand it to people who are so oblivious that they take an active role in demonstrating that people with low IQs are drawn to conservative ideologies.
Fedora tippers are hilarious. All they do is regurgitate whatever some old conspiracy nut like Dawkins writes. How can anyone take him seriously? Aliens, lol.
This thread pretty much proves that evolution as a theory is so flawed it is laughable. Darwins idea have zero credibility.
I'll say it again..fedora tippers just repeat whatever they read on Wikipedia or what some clown like Dawkins write.
, Cognitive dissonance.jpg
>Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal "power plants", called mitochondria.
>A Eukaryote without a Mitochondrial Organelle
read out "recessive alleles"
Why so mad? Are you too euphoric? Genetic mutation =/= natural selection
Ignore the fedora autist. He's just tipping his headgear as quickly as possible in order to counter his cognitive dissonance. The fact that Darwin was wrong from the very beginning hurt his feelings and now he's going to 420 blaze it so he can forget about the tears he shed.
"Natural selection" is so moronic it's funny.
His theory is so flawed it's comical. It's a haphazardly constructed fairy tale for euphoric neckbeards.
>Taung Child's skull not human-like
Don't forget how inconclusive the fossil "evidence" is. Most fedora neckbeards have no idea how retarded Darwin was.
Darwin...forever a dunce.
And the meaning of life is 102
Yeah. His ideas are far from believable and poorly substantiated. Like how the so called "Java Man" was supposed to prove that humans come from monkeys when in reality it was an extinct ape. The fossil called Java Man was the femur of a modern man along with the skull cap of an unrelated species. When this was discovered 100 years ago, the man claiming ownership, Dubois, then hid the bones under his porch for decades and
refused to confess his crime.