-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 13431)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 812 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Darwin and his mental retardation Anonymous 18/02/22(Thu)09:43 No. 13431 ID: 44a1c4

File 151928899017.jpg - (97.22KB , 479x327 , ch2f1.jpg )

>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability.

>Taung Child's skull not human-like

How can anyone seriously believe in "evolution" when it all is based on a incomplete fossil record, that proves nothing, and comparative genetics that's just conjectures.

Fedora tippers are grasping at straws.

Anonymous 18/02/23(Fri)04:53 No. 13433 ID: d60c6c

>not an experimental fact

Not really surprised. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. No one has been able to prove that unicellular organisms can turn into higher ones, like an earthworm, in a laboratory environment. But of course, fedora tippers rely on the lowest common denominator to actually show that it's true. They look at the most insignificant and tiny similarities and disregard the overwhelming majority of differences.

Anonymous 18/02/23(Fri)12:41 No. 13434 ID: ead14b

File 151938608465.png - (86.43KB , 463x469 , 1518860385060.png )


Anonymous 18/02/23(Fri)14:51 No. 13435 ID: 487af6

File 151939388829.jpg - (13.63KB , 300x180 , 3564.jpg )

Archaeopteryx (pic related) has been said to be descended from dinosaurs because of the simi­larities of the legs and hips of birds with those of dinosaurs. How­ever, Archaeopteryx, like all birds, has a wishbone (analogous to the clavicle or collarbone in mammals) whereas dinosaurs did not have collarbones.

The fossil record isn't even convincing when you look at how disparate the remnants are.

Anonymous 18/02/23(Fri)20:14 No. 13436 ID: 590f5b

ITT: Jesusfags who learned critical philosophy in school and rejected every other scrap of knowledge offered to them. Dejected, they spend their days hurling insults at passerbys on city street corners, patrons unfortunate enough to stumble across them in their minimum wage jobs, and anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex who finds /phi/

Anonymous 18/02/23(Fri)23:47 No. 13438 ID: 076c1b

>a functioning prefrontal cortex
At first I thought it must be some kind of sarcastic joke, but every time I come back here I find it full of threads like this, and it is apparent whoever posts this inane drivel really believes it.

Anonymous 18/02/24(Sat)13:59 No. 13439 ID: d60c6c


Don't forget that fedora tippers have zero evidence for the claim that all of the fossils are millions of years old. They almost entirely use the radiocarbon method when dating anything.

Radiocarbon begins to decay as soon as it is formed. When a quantity of radiocarbon is produced in the atmosphere, half of that amount will have decayed away after 5,700 years. So, 5,700 years after a tree dies, it contains only half the proportion of radiocarbon that exists in a living tree. After a total of 11,400 years, or two half-lives, it will contain only one quarter. After about five half-lives, or roughly 30,000 years, only an immeasurably small residue remains and so the radiocar­bon test is only good for dating remains younger than this natu­ral "ceiling." To assume that radiocarbon is spread evenly across the Earth isn't really believable.

>the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been steady throughout history. In fact, it has fluctuated a great deal over the years. This variation is caused by both natural processes and human activity. Cosmic rays and changes in Earth’s climate can cause irregularities in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere

Another flawed dating method besides carbon dating is the uranium-lead method. If you use the uranium-decay method on the rocks of the Earths crust you get the conventionally ac­cepted age of over 4 000 000 000. But if you use the same method on the atmosphere, you get an age of only 100 000.  

Same can be said about potassium-argon dating.  
>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity.  
>However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances.  

J. G. Funkhouser and J. J. Naughton used the potassium-argon method on volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea and got ages of up to 3 000 000 000 years when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801.

Anonymous 18/02/26(Mon)12:21 No. 13440 ID: 8d357a

File 151964410483.jpg - (33.33KB , 550x519 , eyeem-60701676.jpg )

>it is only accurate from about 62,000 years ago to 1,200 A.D

>62,000 years

That's nowhere near millions of years.

Anonymous 18/02/27(Tue)12:01 No. 13441 ID: 74f36d

Isn't it ironic how their claims are supported by vague estimations that have no basis in facts? It's all guesswork, and by the looks of it, wishful thinking.

Anonymous 18/02/28(Wed)16:00 No. 13442 ID: b7d346



Anonymous 18/03/01(Thu)16:07 No. 13443 ID: 86440b

File 151991684544.png - (148.65KB , 385x307 , obj612geo333pg8p8.png )

>62 000

Evidently it is quite impossible to say that fossils have a higher age than that. Not accurate in the slightest.

Anonymous 18/03/05(Mon)13:53 No. 13445 ID: 8fafd8

File 152025442242.jpg - (11.28KB , 300x229 , lol.jpg )

>that pic

Anonymous 18/03/06(Tue)09:07 No. 13446 ID: 4f87d4

>insane drivel
You'll find a lot of that here. This thread is chock full of it.

Almost as much as confirmation bias.

Anonymous 18/03/06(Tue)12:27 No. 13447 ID: 37c815

File 152033567835.gif - (595.28KB , 460x600 , giphy.gif )

>You'll find a lot of that here. This thread is chock full of it.

>Almost as much as confirmation bias.

Anonymous 18/03/06(Tue)14:41 No. 13449 ID: 33df81

>No one has been able to prove that unicellular organisms can turn into higher ones, like an earthworm, in a laboratory environment

That's a very good point. Fedora tippers always refer to the scientific method when it suits them but immediately ignore anything that contradicts their point of view. Natural selection, for example, isn't a experimental fact. It is hardly even real.

>An intriguing study involving walking stick insects led by the University of Sheffield in England and the University of Colorado Boulder shows how natural selection, the engine of evolution, can also impede the formation of new species.

It's cute when someone says that evolution is undisputable and, somehow, self-evident.

Anonymous 18/03/07(Wed)06:49 No. 13450 ID: e3e161

You poor boy. Show me where the bad woman touched you.

Anonymous 18/03/07(Wed)15:57 No. 13451 ID: 3f5dbb

File 152043465534.jpg - (168.46KB , 500x672 , 25wsub.jpg )


Anonymous 18/03/08(Thu)01:32 No. 13452 ID: a870df

>At first I thought it must be some kind of sarcastic joke, but every time I come back here I find it full of threads like this, and it is apparent whoever posts this inane drivel really believes it.
I suspect someone's unemployed perpetually greasy uncle has been hard at work in /phi/. He has a bunch of alts and proxies and lots of free time, not to mention untreated mental illnesses.

You know that bored grandparent who perpetually emails/texts you about how Obama is from Uganda or is trying to overthrow the United States? That's the kind of person at work in /phi/.

Best to ignore them and let their mental illness fester until it explodes and they commit suicide by cop like all their peers. Also, don't become a cop, even though they're filth they're still a human being and you will regret having to kill them. Or you'll become a hardened psychopath. Either way not a good outcome.

Anonymous 18/03/08(Thu)08:12 No. 13453 ID: 44a1c4

Good post.

Yeah, the timespan is quite vague. There is no definite age that can be objectively proven.

Wow, Darwin is a complete buffoon! Who would have thought?

Anonymous 18/03/12(Mon)05:17 No. 13454 ID: d60c6c


You begin to wonder how fedora tippers convince themselves that their weak attempts at dating fossils and rocks are legitimate when their methods are flawed and far from accurate.

Anonymous 18/03/12(Mon)10:54 No. 13455 ID: effbed

Confirmation bias.

Anonymous 18/03/13(Tue)14:12 No. 13456 ID: 128771

>natural selection, the engine of evolution, can also impede the formation of new species.

How tight are their fedoras around their heads at the moment? I bet they need to tip several times a day to cope with all that cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous 18/03/17(Sat)08:04 No. 13457 ID: 195cb2

File 15212702833.png - (298.18KB , 750x533 , Zoning Laws.png )

>Confirmation bias
Looks like the greasy uncle has learned a new phrase.

Anonymous 18/03/18(Sun)06:37 No. 13458 ID: d60c6c


True, but it still doesn't explain why they cling to methods that are practically useless.

Anonymous 18/03/18(Sun)17:22 No. 13459 ID: d18aab

It kind of does. They use it because it tells them what they want to hear. If that sounds retarded, it should. That's why its a logical fallacy.

...I don't think they understand the concept of natural selection...

Anonymous 18/03/20(Tue)11:47 No. 13462 ID: 37c815

I think it's because of their unwillingness to admit they're wrong.

Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)09:00 No. 13464 ID: ba3d0c

They exhibit the same stubbornness that small children use when confronted with the truth. Massive amounts of denial and repeating the same debunked claims over and over again.

Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)09:38 No. 13465 ID: 44a1c4


Can't say that you're wrong.


lol, yeah. Haven't met any fedora tipper that can back up his belief other than with ad hominems and 3rd grade knowledge of biology.

Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)10:41 No. 13466 ID: 195cb2

File 152171167392.jpg - (48.62KB , 750x701 , Anything Is Possible.jpg )

>debunked claims
I especially love when you cherry pick sentences that seem to imply the work is deriving the exact opposite of its actual meaning, when in fact its just a sentence taken out of context to fit your preconceived narrative, is an incredible work of debunking.

Why you're not doing anything in the world more important than writing post after post after post trying to imitate multiple people in /phi/ is truly a question for the ages.

By the way, mom wants you to take out the garbage again. Your basement is starting to smell a bit ripe.

Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)11:08 No. 13467 ID: 195cb2

File 152171329094.jpg - (13.96KB , 640x463 , BBFP.jpg )

>Indeed, if we take two sequences of 100 amino acid residues each that have, say, 80% identical residues, we can calculate the probability of this occurring by chance, find that it is so low that such an event is extremely unlikely to have happened in the last 5 billion years, and conclude that the sequences in question must be homologous (share a common ancestry).
>For example, although sequences of the ribosomal protein L36 from different species (Figure 2.1) exhibit considerable diversity and only a single amino acid residue is conserved in all the sequences, they align unequivocally and are indisputable homologs.
>The second, probably most convincing, argument against convergence as the principal explanation for the observed similarities between proteins has to do with the nature of structural constraints associated with a particular function. A fundamental observation is that a single function, such as catalysis of a specific enzymatic reaction, is often performed by two or more proteins that have unrelated structures [187,271]. In 2.2.5, we discuss this phenomenon in some detail and present several specific examples. These observations indicate that the same function does not necessarily require significantly similar structures, which means that, as a rule, there is no basis for convergent evolution of extensive sequence and structural similarity between proteins. This is not to say that unrelated enzymes that catalyze the same reaction bear no structural resemblance whatsoever. Indeed, subtle similarities in the spatial configuration of amino acid residues in the active centers are likely to exist, and these are precisely the kind of similarity that is expected to emerge due to functional convergence. These similarities, however, do not translate into structural and sequence similarity detectable by existing methods for comparison of proteins (at least in the overwhelming majority of cases). By inference, we are justified to conclude that whenever statistically significant sequence or structural similarity between proteins or protein domains is observed, this is an indication of their divergent evolution from a common ancestor or, in other words, evidence of homology.
I know, big words, long sentences, not your strong suit.

Let me sum up: Not only are you wrong, your entire life has been one continuous stream of mistakes.

Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)19:02 No. 13468 ID: d60c6c

File 15217417224.jpg - (66.19KB , 593x431 , SulfurCycle.jpg )


>Massive amounts of denial and repeating the same debunked claims over and over again.

I hear you.

>Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

What they do is that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's astonishing how childish they act. It's even far beyond mental gymnastics. A sulfur cycling bacteria doesn't evolve even though that it shifts through various surroundings for a considerable amount of time (this somehow proves evolution is real).

Anonymous 18/03/23(Fri)15:03 No. 13469 ID: 084b56

>they're trying to have their cake and eat it too

I agree. Evolution as a concept says that every organism evolves, not the other way around. It's not 99.9999 percent of all organisms that evolve but exactly all of them. This bacteria pretty much proves that evolution is apodictically false.

Anonymous 18/03/26(Mon)06:14 No. 13470 ID: d60c6c

File 15220376792.gif - (410.67KB , 300x299 , fedora logic.gif )


They're a parody of themselves.

>If it evolves: it's evolution
>If it doesn't evolve: it's evolution

Anonymous 18/03/26(Mon)14:35 No. 13471 ID: d18aab

The reason it "proves" evolution is because evolution is the idea that organisms change over time to better suit their environment. Random mutations only become the norm when it benefits the species. No change in environment, no change in species.

That said, I don't like this bull shit using "proves" and "given evolution is fact" crap he's spewing. Especially the latter. I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt and say he's using logical deduction and the paper took it out of context; but treating things as a forgone conclusion is the bane of the scientific method. Actual scientists need to be careful not to get swept up in the political bull crap.

Anonymous 18/03/27(Tue)15:47 No. 13472 ID: 74f36d

Wow. Fedora tippers got destroyed by science. How ironic.

Anonymous 18/03/27(Tue)17:27 No. 13473 ID: 1ca66f

No, they did not. Please try to think clearly. This is a con; no rational person disbelieves evolution. It seems to be a meme particular to 7chan/phi to stick hard and fast to points of view that are laughably and obviously incorrect.

Anonymous 18/03/28(Wed)06:53 No. 13474 ID: 9d4072

I'd say its prime evidence that parochial teaching simply doesn't work.

Anonymous 18/03/28(Wed)10:14 No. 13475 ID: e672ae

>Fedora tippers got destroyed by science

Yup, pretty much! The same goes for their claims about abiogenesis. They have no experimental proof for it. It's basically self-evident because they imagine that in some primordial sea it all began at random "just because", and the conditions are so complex and unattainable in a laboratory environment so they can't verify it.

Bacteria, by the way, are extremely sensitive to environmental changes and almost instantly rearrange their protein production to suit hot and cold climates. This bacteria proves that evolution is bogus.

Anonymous 18/03/29(Thu)13:41 No. 13477 ID: ddb593

I've been wondering if this is representative of the generation that grew up with "creative design" in their science classes.

Anonymous 18/03/29(Thu)14:38 No. 13478 ID: d60c6c


Another flaw in Darwins theory is the lack of transitional forms that show how all species developed over time. If snakes evolved from lizards there should be thousands of lizard skeletons with retracted limbs in various stages. But no, there aren't any. There should also be invertebrates with rudimentary backbones, fishes with incipient legs and reptiles with half-formed wings buried all over the place.

Those transitional forms should be pretty common and should be a rule rather than exception.

Anonymous 18/03/31(Sat)04:48 No. 13479 ID: a870df

File 152246449675.jpg - (87.79KB , 625x416 , Fusion.jpg )

>creative design
Actually that particular piece of schlock is called intelligent design.

Did you hear about the Intelligent Design book that was published shortly after ID was pushed as a valid point of view? The author had written it as a Creationism book but with the specter of a few desperate and perpetually ignorant states opening their checkbooks he did a search & replace.

Unfortunately he bolloxed the thing up by not searching for the entire words, so he ended up with some Intelligent Designisms and, shall we say, curious grammar in the final work. Took a few revisions to get rid of them all, by which time his book was removed from classrooms due to, well, being Creationism and violating the separation of church and state.

Anonymous 18/04/02(Mon)14:06 No. 13482 ID: 32ca83

File 152267080466.png - (235.96KB , 474x528 , 1487995195590.png )

>Life just randomly appear
>Never mind that we can't prove it

Anonymous 18/04/04(Wed)12:31 No. 13483 ID: fe36d9

My misnomer wasn't all that far off; it reflects the degree to which I took this horse shit seriously: I barely even know what to call it.

The sad thing is, I know those responsible for damaging this generation will never be punished. Idiocracy is happening; with each failed experiment in our education, we inch closer to a society of pure stupidity. Given how little is getting done about it, you could say we are already there.

Anonymous 18/04/04(Wed)15:17 No. 13484 ID: 6a082a

More like:

>Makes a statement
>Can't back it up with anything
>Tips fedora

Anonymous 18/04/05(Thu)09:34 No. 13486 ID: 32ca83

Yeah. To argue with them is like arguing with toddlers.

Anonymous 18/04/08(Sun)08:25 No. 13488 ID: de56af

I think the problem is the religion they believe in relies on things that can't be physically observed. Some guys in the desert who were tired of having sex with goats back in antiquity figured out a way to scam suckers like them out of money, thereby giving them the ability to have sex with women instead of goats. Since they believe in the religion everything that threatens to expose their farm animal copulating ancestors must be attacked.

They feel threatened by science since it relies on physical observation and the hypothesis/theory process of applied intelligence. This thread and others like it in /phi/ are all about making science a matter of faith as well, so they can discount science as simply being a different faith, which they can attack like any other religion.

Science must be another religion, otherwise they'll feel bad for not believing in science. Even though they take advantage of scientific advancement every day, like typing out these posts on computers, they feel threatened every time the goat fuckers are insulted.

Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)14:24 No. 13489 ID: effbed

Why do they cling so hard to Darwin? His theory seems to be more like a pacifier for the childish mind than actual science. So old and stale.

Anonymous 18/04/11(Wed)14:38 No. 13492 ID: c4821f

>Those transitional forms should be pretty common and should be a rule rather than exception.

And yet they're quite elusive to find at all. Maybe it's because *cough* the whole theory is bull *cough*.

Anonymous 18/04/11(Wed)16:55 No. 13493 ID: 86597d

This might be the most insightful post I've ever read on /phi/.

>Science must be another religion, otherwise they'll feel bad for not believing in science.
I always thought propaganda campain the upper eschelons of organized Abrahamism had sold to the stupid masses, but this better accounts for their dedication to it--like every other silly superstition they cling to, it comes from a fear of knowing the truth.

Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)14:24 No. 13494 ID: ec9b1c

You begin to wonder how fedora tippers take themselves seriously when their own scientific method doesn't support them.

Anonymous 18/04/19(Thu)08:45 No. 13501 ID: 32ca83

Even when there are so many disproven claims they still hold on for dear life when they fervently try to convince themselves that Darwins wacky theory is true.

Anonymous 18/04/19(Thu)15:36 No. 13502 ID: 4e144d

This thread belong to /sci/, not /phi/.

Anonymous 18/04/21(Sat)18:07 No. 13505 ID: ba3d0c

As if they know anything else besides using ad hominems.

Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)10:11 No. 13508 ID: 37f869

Yeah but the scary uncle knows he'll get laughed out of /sci/ if not banned outright for abject stupidity

Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)19:35 No. 13509 ID: 44a1c4


They even lack the most basic logic. For some reason they seriously believe that snakes evolved from lizards. There is absolutely no evolutionary advantage in regressing back to a state of being where an animal loses its legs both for defense against enemies and for climbing. You have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics in order to believe that.

Anonymous 18/05/11(Fri)15:51 No. 13521 ID: 595557

You get kind of worried when their comprehension of basic biology is so low that they need to go back to middle school.

Anonymous 18/05/19(Sat)19:41 No. 13535 ID: 1e4c65

Because it's a lot more likely than anything else which could explain species always being suited to their environments.
Besides, muh taung child was likely just too niggerish to have evolved to the same level as modern humans.

Anonymous 18/05/19(Sat)19:46 No. 13536 ID: 1e4c65

But what if the bacteria was simply well-suited enough to its environments that it could live easily in any one of them, and therefore only evolved slightly?
Besides, trusting such a sensationalised headline as that is just asking for trouble.

Anonymous 18/05/19(Sat)19:47 No. 13537 ID: 1e4c65

What about heat loss, energy cost of keeping legs? Think over your posts before writing them, please.

Anonymous 18/05/20(Sun)08:29 No. 13538 ID: d60c6c


The whole theory is indeed bull. Homology disproves it, for example. The development of the vertebrate kidney shows that different organs aren't generated from homologous embryonic tissue in several species. In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, but in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney. It's formed from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.


That's because they want it to be true (wishful thinking). They can't physical prove it because all of those transitional forms that would represent the development of snake to lizard are nowhere to be found. I guess all they can do at this point is to tip their fedoras.

Anonymous 18/05/29(Tue)14:55 No. 13545 ID: 77725f



Anonymous 18/06/16(Sat)20:52 No. 13546 ID: 5cd711

File 152917512679.jpg - (23.72KB , 300x400 , 1528802902005.jpg )

>Homology disproves it

I think you mean embryonic homology, to be more specific.

The alimentary canal is formed differ­ently in different vertebrates. In sharks it is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity and in the lamprey it is formed from the floor of the gut, from the roof and floor in frogs and from the lower layer of the blastoderm in birds and reptiles. These inconvenient facts is what fedora tippers ignore in order to say with certainty that evolution is real.

Anonymous 18/06/17(Sun)17:27 No. 13547 ID: c259d7

ITT: /phi/ again attempts to apply logic to denial of reality

Anonymous 18/06/17(Sun)20:10 No. 13549 ID: d60c6c

Yeah, true. My bad.

Evolution, even by scientific standards, is so retarded that you've got to be a fedora to actually believe it.

Anonymous 18/06/25(Mon)10:33 No. 13560 ID: d17e03

Kind of sad how fedora tippers ignore contradictory evidence. Science, obviously, isn't valid when they say so.

Anonymous 18/07/10(Tue)15:42 No. 13563 ID: ba3d0c

>The development of the vertebrate kidney shows that different organs aren't generated from homologous embryonic tissue in several species. In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, but in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney. It's formed from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.

Great post. I had no idea!

Anonymous 18/07/18(Wed)21:57 No. 13564 ID: 59fee1

Still wondering what you guys have for a competing theory.

God? Magic? Random chance?

Anonymous 18/07/20(Fri)10:44 No. 13566 ID: 682fb7

File 153207627296.jpg - (10.78KB , 250x243 , 1409155419732s.jpg )

>Evolution, even by scientific standards, is so retarded that you've got to be a fedora to actually believe it.


Anonymous 18/07/20(Fri)12:58 No. 13567 ID: 91da41

Not sure if I am just being autistic or something, but this seems like /sci/ discussion.

Anonymous 18/07/23(Mon)14:41 No. 13574 ID: d60c6c

It's not that they ignore evidence. They can't comprehend that their beliefs are false. It's too much for them to handle and that's why they viciously deny that evolution is wrong. To them it must be true and like >>13560 pointed out they only trust scientific research when it proves them right. Think of a child that doesn't get what it wants: it screams, cries and flails its arms around to show how displeased it is.

Anonymous 18/08/05(Sun)19:05 No. 13592 ID: 7d5109

File 153348873446.jpg - (59.11KB , 600x600 , 1532889168756.jpg )

>Beefalo, also referred to as cattalo or the American hybrid, are a fertile hybrid offspring of domestic cattle (Bos taurus), usually a male in managed breeding programs, and the American bison (Bison bison)

According to fedora tippers these two species shouldn't be able to mate and conceive fertile offspring and yet they do. When you look at the classifications they use such as "genus" and "family" it becomes clear that it all is highly arbitrary. There are so many inconsistencies in nature that are impossible to fit inside a system of hierarchical nomenclature. It's pretty much mental masturbation for autists.

Anonymous 18/08/05(Sun)20:30 No. 13594 ID: 06fc37

This. It's so vague that it becomes pointless.

Anonymous 18/08/16(Thu)13:45 No. 13598 ID: ec9b1c

File 153441990481.jpg - (52.57KB , 640x640 , 8ab.jpg )

How dare you question the validity of evolution, you plebian! Calling taxonomy vague is sacrilege!

*tips the hat of social Darwinism*

Anonymous 18/08/26(Sun)22:06 No. 13602 ID: cbc430

I have a feeling this guy believes in abiogenic petroleum too.

Its a shame he can't get help for his mental illness.

Anonymous 18/09/03(Mon)16:26 No. 13604 ID: bc76b4

Isn't it ironic how fedora tippers think science is some kind of infallible solution to everything? Almost on the verge of being autistic, if you ask me.

Anonymous 18/09/11(Tue)15:45 No. 13613 ID: 48f52c

File 153667352665.gif - (648.97KB , 263x396 , Tipper of fedoras.gif )

>believing in evolution

Anonymous 18/09/12(Wed)04:15 No. 13614 ID: a420f5

We’ve bred dogs to be completely different proportions, sizes, and colors. They have unique advantages and disadvantages. Do you deny a force like that could exist in nature?

Anonymous 18/09/12(Wed)19:33 No. 13615 ID: 8bf6d2

Why do you bother wasting your time to come up with an argument? There are many people you'll never convince.

Anonymous 18/09/12(Wed)22:32 No. 13616 ID: 4d8b2d

Still wondering what you guys have for a competing theory.

God? Magic? Random chance?

Anonymous 18/09/12(Wed)23:37 No. 13617 ID: a870df

File 153678824687.gif - (411.12KB , 500x281 , Words.gif )

I suspect they're nihilists.

Or Russian.

Or Russian nihilists.

All they will ever talk about is what they don't believe in. Almost like the guy paying their salary doesn't want them engaging in a conversation.

Anonymous 18/09/13(Thu)04:32 No. 13620 ID: c5d903

It took like thirty seconds of my time.

Anonymous 18/09/13(Thu)16:35 No. 13621 ID: 8a8133

File 153684931064.png - (11.82KB , 469x463 , 1520748814196.png )

>natural selection
>survival of the fittest

Anonymous 18/09/18(Tue)16:30 No. 13623 ID: 4df1db

Nice. Pretty much summarizes fedora tippers and their delusions.

Anonymous 18/09/25(Tue)11:57 No. 13632 ID: 37c815

File 153786943620.gif - (389.92KB , 473x473 , Rainbow fedora.gif )

Evolution is absolute rubbish. Fedora tippers can't even show one example of a single organism turning into a completely different one (Yersinia pestis mutating into Sphingomonadaceae, for example). Their whole theory is so badly thought-out it's funny.

Anonymous 18/09/25(Tue)18:59 No. 13633 ID: 5e9b44

This must have started as a meme and gotten out of control. The premise is obvious meme-stuff: take an unpopular, incredulous point of view like denying decades of conclusive scientific fact, and (t)roll with it. Unfortunately I think the trolls attracted some actual luddites to who unwittingly hijacked their meme and now congregate in 7chan/phi/ to circle jerk in the little corner of the internet where their Jesus beat science.

Living in denial is a miserable burden, they shouldn't have to suffer such stupidity. Unfortunately being stupid is no longer a detriment to survival thanks to all the security measures and medical technology our highly evolved brains developed.

Anonymous 18/09/25(Tue)19:51 No. 13635 ID: cb64ca

Nice assertions you've got there. Didn't really demonstrate anything, though. Appealing to consensus is, unfortunately, not an argument. Sorry...

Anonymous 18/09/25(Tue)21:04 No. 13636 ID: 5e9b44

Listen to yourself; you can't even talk like a human being any more. I'm just having a conversation, not a formal debate, and not even with you. Go outside, get some fresh air. Consider that you are one of many land-dwelling species to evolve after the Oxygen Boom.

Anonymous 18/09/26(Wed)09:07 No. 13639 ID: 35c2fd

File 153794562952.png - (145.80KB , 592x624 , 144026983381.png )

>Everything that I disagree with is a funnay maymay


Anonymous 18/09/26(Wed)10:29 No. 13640 ID: 4568a3

Evolution is a meme.

Anonymous 18/09/29(Sat)08:15 No. 13641 ID: 27723a

Denying evolution is a meme; evolution is a fact.

Anonymous 18/09/29(Sat)11:41 No. 13645 ID: 988da9

Simpsons did it.

And better than these morons ever did.

Anonymous 18/09/29(Sat)16:37 No. 13646 ID: d60c6c

>Evolution is a fact

Nope. That's just your autism acting up again.

Anonymous 18/09/30(Sun)13:28 No. 13648 ID: 7d5109

File 153830693716.png - (271.58KB , 541x480 , Asperger fedora.png )

>That's just your autism acting up again.

You nailed it right there.


Anonymous 18/10/02(Tue)15:10 No. 13650 ID: e2fbd5

Thinking that everyone who knows evolution is how life works is an atheist is another delusion.

Autism makes a person an intellectual island; not a member of the overwhelming majority.

You need psychiatric help--case in point, how did you even come across a video like that?

Bob ross, the soundtrack....

Anonymous 18/10/02(Tue)15:39 No. 13652 ID: 4df1db

File 153848757810.png - (7.53KB , 390x470 , e4c6a202efb6bb4b48e1bff276abbb43.png )

>that computer generated dialogue

So...this is what a world full of fedoras and autism looks like.

Anonymous 18/10/02(Tue)16:17 No. 13653 ID: e2fbd5

I think the style of it has a lot more to do with autism than atheism. The guy who made this created a scene of himself being interviewed in order to express his opinions on religion, neurological conditions, and interpersonal relationships--on top of using CGI characters and voices. I get the impression this is a peek at how he experiences reality.

And that music... that's going to give me nightmares... it's just the same two notes forever...

Anonymous 18/10/09(Tue)14:09 No. 13659 ID: c68e89

File 153908697826.gif - (474.21KB , 600x580 , d89.gif )

>that whole video


Anonymous 18/10/09(Tue)18:04 No. 13660 ID: 9667b8

File 153910105124.jpg - (115.69KB , 436x316 , rofl_by_chrisge709-1.jpg )

I'm losing my shit watching this.

Anonymous 18/10/15(Mon)10:10 No. 13663 ID: 26c116

File 15395910141.jpg - (32.30KB , 600x683 , spedepasanen.jpg )

This has got to be the most autistic video ever created.

Anonymous 18/10/15(Mon)14:50 No. 13665 ID: d4ae80

Something all of us can agree on: >>13663

Anonymous 18/10/17(Wed)10:45 No. 13672 ID: 4568a3

That video pretty much sums up fedora tippers and their lives.

Anonymous 18/10/17(Wed)21:48 No. 13673 ID: 85c584

Nah, it just exemplifies what happens when you combine equal parts autism with internet; the atheism background is kind of secondary.

Anonymous 18/10/18(Thu)08:45 No. 13675 ID: 32ca83

File 153984510615.png - (181.06KB , 500x320 , Tipped too much.png )


Anonymous 18/10/19(Fri)10:56 No. 13676 ID: ead14b


Anonymous 18/10/20(Sat)05:41 No. 13677 ID: a870df

File 154000688066.jpg - (35.23KB , 500x500 , The Ones Who Cant Though.jpg )

The samefaggotry in this thread is overwhelming.

Anonymous 18/10/22(Mon)18:39 No. 13681 ID: d60c6c

That video is so sad. Being a fedora tipper must be really depressing. He sounds dead inside.

Anonymous 18/10/23(Tue)15:59 No. 13682 ID: 4df1db

>That video is so sad

lol, no. It's hilarious.

Anonymous 18/10/24(Wed)00:24 No. 13683 ID: a870df

What's the point of learning if you knew it all along?

Anonymous 18/10/24(Wed)11:18 No. 13684 ID: ea3836

Not really.

Anonymous 18/10/25(Thu)16:27 No. 13685 ID: 810f9f

>He sounds dead inside.
He's using synthetic voices; they inherently sound soulless and dead because that is what they are.

Not that you are entirely wrong. The music is seriously something to kill yourself by; and the topic of the "interview" is more or less how his life fell apart due to undiagnosed aspergers. The rest of his channel's content is even worse--and I don't mean like fail so hard it's win worse, but just generally worse; so bad you will wish you'd never bothered to look.

Anonymous 18/10/27(Sat)08:27 No. 13688 ID: d60c6c

No, it's horribly sad. He's so hollow and starved for real human interaction that he makes up fictional characters and dialogues. The whole video is him talking to himself.

Anonymous 18/10/30(Tue)16:27 No. 13691 ID: 4df1db

That's why it is so funny, you sperg.

Anonymous 18/10/31(Wed)10:43 No. 13692 ID: ea3836

Do you have autism?

Anonymous 18/11/02(Fri)11:21 No. 13695 ID: ead14b

Redundant question. His whole post reeks of autism.

Anonymous 18/11/07(Wed)10:27 No. 13698 ID: ea3836


Fedoras in a nutshell.

Anonymous 18/11/11(Sun)21:02 No. 13706 ID: 404e35

File 154196656888.gif - (416.06KB , 400x200 , Noo.gif )

You're why embed isn't allowed in /phi/

Anonymous 18/11/12(Mon)09:33 No. 13708 ID: 26c116

File 154201159974.jpg - (30.50KB , 528x437 , 303.jpg )

Now that's some real euphoria right there.

Anonymous 18/11/13(Tue)10:29 No. 13709 ID: 37c815

I wonder how many video games that man has played. His anime hard drive is probably large enough to enlighten him with pure intelligence.

Anonymous 18/11/14(Wed)10:10 No. 13710 ID: ea3836

File 154218665768.png - (220.60KB , 365x360 , 021.png )

>he believes in evolution
>he's an avid anime expert
>he has read "The Selfish Gene" more than once

Anonymous 18/11/15(Thu)07:50 No. 13711 ID: 32ca83

File 154226461391.gif - (422.06KB , 440x285 , Lnti.gif )


Anonymous 18/11/16(Fri)08:54 No. 13712 ID: f100db

If everybody wants you, why isn't anybody calling?

Anonymous 18/11/16(Fri)12:32 No. 13714 ID: ead14b

Oh man. A modern day Darwin.

Anonymous 18/11/19(Mon)08:00 No. 13725 ID: b44204

When you look at the mutation rate of bacteria it becomes impossible to believe in evolution. Typical mutation rates for bacterial genes range from about 1 to 100 mutations per 10 billion cells so when someone claims that an ancient bacteria in a primordial sea spawned all the living creatures that you see today you would have to believe in a surreal chain of events, so precise, so flawless that the probability for it to occur becomes non-existing.

Anonymous 18/11/19(Mon)15:40 No. 13727 ID: 6504eb

According to the fossil record (triggered yet?), evolution has occurred in waves. There are long periods of stagnation and brief periods of proliferation, most likely triggered by changes in the global environment. Darwin observed natural selection in response to a population being distributed in varied environments, and posited what would become known as evolution on a small scale.

I wonder how whatever we become ten thousand years from now will look back at this time. Will they see our technology as crude and brains as undeveloped, like we see the neanderthal now? For a time, the neanderthal was the apex of life on Earth. They had tools, clothes, burial rituals, and possibly even art--but we think of them as primitive brutes because we came up with agriculture and music.

Anonymous 18/11/20(Tue)11:45 No. 13733 ID: 37c815

You know what else is kind of retarded about this whole theory? Mutation rates in prokaryotic cells are calculated per cell division and when you look at what causes mutations it is mostly spontaneous replication errors. Replication is amazingly accurate because fewer than one in a
billion errors are made in the course of DNA synthesis. So when bacteria propagate themselves they rarely produce new genetic features and when they do it's harmful, genetic mistakes that aren't beneficial to the organism.

But what's even more ridiculous about fedora tippers and their mental gymnastics is that if this ancient bacteria that floated around in this vast ocean of scarcely available nutrients, all of a sudden, created other bacteria different from itself then that means it created more competition for food. Basically it's evolutionary suicide.

Anonymous 18/11/20(Tue)17:01 No. 13737 ID: 4513a1

>mental gymnastics
Says the guy who disputes over a century of scientific research because he doesn't grasp its most fundamental concepts.

If random mutations serve no purpose, why does every form of life present them? If all life on earth were created and designed in the state it is in now, why isn't it better at staying that way?

Most random mutations are not beneficial. Once in a rare while though, a random mutation leads to an advantage and a species is forever changed. That may be an advantage in surviving a hostile environment, an advantage in acquiring sustenance, an advantage in fending off predators, or an advantage at cooperating with a sympathetic lifeform.

The problem with people like you is that no amount of scientific proof will ever be enough. You don't believe anything that doesn't happen right in front of your face within your extremely limited attention span in a way simple enough for you to comprehend. No life in the universe except on earth because you haven't seen it. No evolution because we haven't changed much in the last few thousand years.

Yet you dispute atheists because they don't believe in a divine purpose and design that puts our species at the center of an infinitely vast universe?

Please, go meet your maker. Say hi for the rest of us.

Anonymous 18/11/22(Thu)15:16 No. 13745 ID: 1371da

File 154289620550.gif - (243.16KB , 500x281 , 8ae.gif )


Anonymous 18/11/25(Sun)08:51 No. 13755 ID: aa9701

The fundamental problem you have is an inability to grasp how much time we're talking about. As a mortal being, you can only really understand the breadth of your own lifespan, which is about 70 years. As a member of a human civilization, you can almost sort-of understand the breadth of time that humanity has had civilization, which is a bare few thousand years. Beyond this, however, and your brain just goes fuzzy; the numbers are just too large.

The typical argument about how evolution cannot be true is something about a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working airplane. First off, that's not a good analogy because machines are not self-organizing, while life-forms are. Life is formed off of basic rules like symmetry and fractals and the golden ratio, which can give rise to complex forms with only simple instructions; it's not all random.

But the real crux is just time. You just don't get how long a billion years really is, which is how long it took life to evolve from bacteria to humans. You can't grasp how many generations that is, how many mutations that is. If you have thousands of tornadoes hitting thousands of junkyards, every single day for a billion years, you'll eventually get one of them (probably many) producing a perfectly functional airplane. Given enough time, ANYTHING is mathematically possible, even an entire functioning human brain spontaneously popping into existence from a void.

>when you look at what causes mutations it is mostly spontaneous replication errors
This is patently false. Most mutations arise via the process of gene shuffling inherent to sexual reproduction. It's not an "error", it's literally part of the intended purpose.

Anonymous 18/11/25(Sun)19:18 No. 13758 ID: 725b8e

File 154316991768.jpg - (19.53KB , 474x528 , 143282744067.jpg )

I love fedora tippers. Their arguments are so weak. For example, several human diseases are connected to defects in DNA repair (and thus connected to mutations). These diseases are often associated with high incidences of specific cancers, because defects in DNA repair lead to increased rates of mutation and obviously fedoras don't understand that mutations, both in bacteria and humans, are rarely positive. One genetic disease caused by faulty DNA repair is an inherited form of colon cancer called hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. This cancer is one of the most common hereditary cancers and it comes from mutations in the proteins that carry out mismatch repair.

Fedora logic 101:
Q; If you can't show us how single cell bacteria miraculously mutate into other types of bacteria that are completely different, in a laboratory setting, then what proof do you have?
A; It takes time.

Q; If you can't show us how single cell bacteria mutates into higher organisms like flies or even fungus, in a laboratory setting, then what evidence do you have?
A; It takes billions of years, duh.

Q; If you can't prove, in a laboratory setting, that life spontaneously arise from thin air, then what proof do you have?
A; Billions of years, dude. Like, you gotta have shitloads of time, bro.

It all boils down to this blind faith in something they can't control or even experimentally verify.

Anonymous 18/11/25(Sun)22:34 No. 13759 ID: 572061

File 154318167950.jpg - (25.34KB , 397x397 , Read.jpg )

Notice how the guy always replies to his earlier posts and never replies to anyone else's posts.

He's given up any pretense at having an honest discussion. If you follow his discussions in this thread you can chart his descent into mental illness.

Anonymous 18/11/26(Mon)08:52 No. 13765 ID: 26c116

Good summary, anon.

Anonymous 18/11/27(Tue)16:02 No. 13767 ID: 4df1db

>evolutionary suicide.

Spot on.

Anonymous 18/11/29(Thu)08:56 No. 13776 ID: 32ca83

File 154347817263.jpg - (106.30KB , 478x301 , 143969377728.jpg )

>Q; If you can't prove, in a laboratory setting, that life spontaneously arise from thin air, then what proof do you have?

A; If it didn't happen then how could we all exist? Checkmate, mate!

*tips fedora*


Anonymous 18/12/01(Sat)17:14 No. 13777 ID: 442957

>blind faith
And your counter argument is based on what exactly?

Anonymous 18/12/01(Sat)17:29 No. 13778 ID: b44204

Errors arise whenever information is copied; the more times it is copied, the greater the number of errors. A complex, multicellular organism faces a problem when it transmits genetic instructions each time its cells divide.

A huge amount of genetic information and an enormous number of cell divisions are required to produce a multicellular adult organism. Even a low rate of error during copying would be catastrophic. A single-celled human zygote contains 6 billion base pairs of DNA. If a copying error occurred only once per million base pairs, 6000 mistakes would be made every time a cell divided and those errors would be compounded at each of the millions of cell divisions that take place in human development.

Not only is the copying of DNA astoundingly
accurate, it also take place at amazingly speed. The single, circular chromosome of E. coli contains about 4.6 million base pairs. At a rate of more than 1000 nucleotides per minute, replication of the entire chromosome would require almost 3 days. These bacteria are capable of dividing every 20 minutes. E. coli actually replicates its DNA at a rate of 1000 nucleotides per second, with less than one error in a billion nucleotides.

When you look at how rigid and fast DNA replication is you start to realize how evolution is not only impossible but also, like the OP states, full of conjecture.

Anonymous 18/12/02(Sun)20:25 No. 13780 ID: 725b8e

>When you look at how rigid and fast DNA replication is you start to realize how evolution is not only impossible but also, like the OP states, full of conjecture.

I agree. Neurofibromatosis is a disease that produces numerous tumors of the skin and nerves. It results from mutations in a gene called NF1 and it shows how synthesis of DNA is a complex process, fundamental to cell function and health, in which dozens of proteins, enzymes, and DNA structures take part in the copying of DNA. All you need is a single defective component, such as a DNA polymerase and it will disrupt the whole process and result in severe disease symptoms.

Anonymous 18/12/03(Mon)00:24 No. 13781 ID: 69f2f6

File 154379304710.jpg - (69.19KB , 500x432 , Rudimentary_hindlegs_spurs_in_Boa_constrictor_snak.jpg )

Actually there exist many transitional fossils. Flatfish fossils in particular, show the transition of eyes from one side of the head to the other.

If that is not enough, you have plenty of modern examples in the form of vestigial appendages and organs. In humans alone, you have the remnants of gills in the ears, the appendix, wisdom teeth etc.

You can see a clear verifiable genetic lineage in many modern lifeforms. Dogs come from wolves and differ in several ways from their progenitors(notably the fact that they are not obligate carnivores). Europeans are the result of the intermingling of Neanderthals and cro magnons.

Now evolution is not a perfect theory and it's certainly not gospel. However, given the theories we do have, it has the highest truth value.

Anonymous 18/12/03(Mon)08:07 No. 13782 ID: b44204

As far as I know bacteria use a certain DNA polymerase to correct mistakes in the genes they synthesize, but humans use another DNA polymerase which is more prone to make mistakes. When you conflate these two polymerases you obviously grasp at straws. You can't compare bacteria and humans in terms of genetics.

Anonymous 18/12/04(Tue)10:46 No. 13784 ID: 37c815

It's not just evolutionary suicide. Mitosis produces only genetically identical progeny. Through mitosis bacteria produce androgynous clones of themselves. This is how all organisms reproduced for the first 2 billion years of Earth’s existence according to fedora tippers.

So, in that case, what is the point of reproducing through sexual contact if you could survive for billions of years without it? Mitosis is superior in terms of survival. You don't need to worry about finding a mate because if you don't find one then your species goes extinct and you don't have to care about your offspring because mitosis generates fully mature organisms.

Anonymous 18/12/05(Wed)08:13 No. 13785 ID: 0ee36c

>blind faith

True. I wonder if they understand that.

Anonymous 18/12/05(Wed)15:36 No. 13787 ID: 8a0547

I wonder if you understand that you have absolutely no chance of disparaging the scientific process. No amount of trolling atheists or pretending the wealth of scientific proof against you doesn't exist will reverse the rest of the world being smarter than you. You will always lose, not only because you are wrong, but because you have no counter argument to make.

Only retarded midwestern american bible thumpers really don't believe in evolution. You are either one of them, or you are a troll. Either way, you have nothing of value to contribute to humanity. Please remove yourself from our genepool. You don't have to die to do this, although I'd appreciate it if you'd be so kind. Cutting off your balls and eating them would suffice.

Anonymous 18/12/07(Fri)07:31 No. 13792 ID: 16ed5f

File 154416430947.png - (77.83KB , 968x447 , Resist.png )

I'm pretty sure this guy is a fanatically devout member of the russian orthodox church... who just so happens to get paid by the post.

This is why they always reply to themselves. They have no ability to maintain a discussion with other people, they just want to earn their ruble a post so they can keep drinking themselves into oblivion on the cheapest liquor they can find after work.

Anonymous 18/12/09(Sun)19:57 No. 13801 ID: 725b8e

>bacteria use a certain DNA polymerase to correct mistakes in the genes they synthesize, but humans use another DNA polymerase which is more prone to make mistakes

From a evolutionary point of view that's moronic. Single cell organisms suddenly "evolve" to higher, multicellular organisms with worse DNA polymerase synthesis that makes more errors which in turn causes diseases. Only a fedora tipper could believe that.

Anonymous 18/12/10(Mon)10:34 No. 13802 ID: 26c116

That is a good point. Why make survival more complicated when you already are perfectly attuned to your environment. The theory of evolution really is a theory and a pretty dumb one at that.

Anonymous 18/12/11(Tue)10:06 No. 13804 ID: 37c815

And it's another thing fedoras can't prove. Why does bacteria not randomly develop genders and procreate through sexual intercourse instead of androgynous mitosis? The answer is that evolution is false.


Delete post []
Report post