-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 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 722 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ 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.


Delete post []
Report post