why was ross so upset that phoebe didn't believe in evolution?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
why was ross so upset that phoebe didn't believe in evolution?
why was ross so upset that phoebe didn't believe in evolution?
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
israelite
Without the laugh track Ross is clearly a psychopath.
That is true for every sitcom character
we get it, hes israeli, we know
i love women who were raised to be moronic
>Cinemaphile calls others normies while consooming OP's pic related
lmao
He's a paleontologist.
so he should know why evolution is bullshit
wake up honey new goalpost of moronation just dropped, you have follow it or else you are a woke lefty
So he can show us the beneficial mutation rate that would take 500 billion years to turn a land mammal into an aquatic one.
>beneficial
moron. As long as a mutation isn't a hindrance to reproduction, it gets passed down. That's why parkinson, cancers etc exist and why they're being bred out.
if you just add random shit into computer software it will crash in 5 seconds, it's not any different with genetic code.
This might be the dumbest post on Cinemaphile right now.
also i'm trans i don't know if that matters
If the "crash" happens after I've reproduced, it's irrelevant you fricking Black person. The human species could mutate a middle nipple and it'd be useless, but also since it would not impact my ability to bone your mom it'd be passed down to my many ancestors with her.
Cells were around for billions of years before sexual reproduction.
They still reproduced you fricking moron. Even for monicellular organisms, a mutation would only be a problem if it hindered mitosis, fission.
well obviously they still reproduced, but the question would be how did they keep the genome from racking up errors.
"Errors" that prevented reproduction got bred out, "errors" that didn't stayed in the genome. All living organisms are full of "errors", what's even your point?
during meiosis or scnt the genetic code is "reset" back to what it was before, but before that how would the genetic code know to fix itself if there are no enzymes around like I mean very early on in the first cellular lineages.
If the "error" is fatal, then it doesn't propagate. If it isn't fatal, then it isn't a big deal and it propagates.
Right and without dna repair enzymes and their rna it's certainly going to be fatal nonwithstanding all the other problems like spontaneous generation of amino acids that have no reason to do anything. There's no reason for chemistry to start doing complex things, that's another problem.
>it's certainly going to be fatal
Then it'll die out whereas individuals that don't have that particular "error will thrive".
>no reason for chemistry to start going complex things
every living organism is incredibly complex, why wouldn't it do complex things.
Yes, biochemistry does amazing things. But why would non biological molecules that normally just sit there decide to start replicating when there's no observation of this happening ever.
Because thats what they do. You put the right string of RNA together and it starts replicating due to simple chemical reactions. Add 3 billion years and you get morons arguing on the internet.
rna that they take from a living cell will start replicating if you force it with the right lab equipment. you can't just take non biological amino acids and put them together and have them polymerize, they've tried that for decades and it doesn't work.
>they've tried that for decades and it doesn't work.
Given that it may have taken over a billion years for life to arise naturally. It's not surprising.
Pretty sure they've succeeded in replication and improving on the test variable shown in that study from the 50s anon.
> get called a turbohomosexual.
> proceed to claim Reddit.
You must be new.
only rna that's already existing taken from existing cells and giving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of prodding can replicate.
If I'm looking at the study right it looks like they're claiming the acids created were infact more complex even than those needed by "early life".
depends on what they mean by complex I guess. they used a lot of chemicals that weren't in abundance on primordial earth in their experiment.
The paper making that claim is subsequent to the original, from 2002 at Princeton labs. Apparently the claim is "generally accepted" academically, which suggests no one's called it bullshit in a while.
If the claim is that someone can make their own amino acids and polymerize them it's bullshit, but the paper is likely a misleading headline and claims something else in the print.
Speaking as an archaeology grad who has seen enough to basically disprove creation myths reading the paper is making my eyes bleed with the scientific complexity. Carbon dating and molecular analysis is bad enough without going into particle physics with spark reactions, but practically speaking we're well past whatever the frick the other moron is spouting at this point.
Nta, but the protein strands associated with the primordial soup of life is a different thing that's still interesting enough to have been worked on since before the second world war. The theory was landed credibility when lab testing showed it was possible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
they did create a few amino acids, but they're not in the chiral form that would do anything useful.
Why is it almost impossible for a fully aquatic animal to mutate into a semi-aquatic while the reverse happening is extremely common? What is it about the water bros? would we be happier underwater?
land into sea transitions i find very sussy. you would have to rearrange so many key systems for the monster dog-fish to be able to heat and cool itself and give birth underwater.
It's the opposite land to see happens a lot but sea to land is extremely rare. It literally only happened a couple times.
Well I have a large bone for him to examine
LOL
kek haven't heard this one since 2012-14 Cinemaphile I think
>He was a israeli liar who convinced the nonfaithful that the bones of great demons and dragons from the Bible were in fact just big lizards
i forget that a new incel thing is that ancient israelites put bones in the ground to trick dumb goys 5,000 years later into thinking dinosaurs existed
>dragons from the Bible were in fact just big lizards
What are dragons if not big lizards?
>What are dragons if not big lizards?
Weirdly small actually...
that horse is gay
>TFW lefties shove a furry LGBT side character into your historical epic
It's like saying you don't believe in gravity
gravity is an testable phenomenon
Your ugly fricking face is a testable phenomenon.
So is evolution. It's a tool regularly used in biological sciences
>an testable
Yet gravity, too, is a mere theory. As we cannot fully describe the mechanism.
Jew
He's israeli but so was everybody not matt and le blanc
do you really think matt perry isnt israeli?
kek
He was an old-style WASP and a Canadian. Easy to confuse that with a israelite, especially since he dated lots of israeliteesses.
homie,only two of the cast were israelites.
Wait. People here think evolution is not real???
Did you take a wrong turn on your way to reddit or something?
So, you think evolution is not real? Please tell me it's true so I finally find an actual white people that are more stupid than Black folk.
kek
groids are the ones that believe stuff like evolution and out-of-africa theory
congrats on being like them
>esl can't think for himself
>relies on reddit science that he doesn't understand to feel smug
>thinking for yourself = ignoring facts
>believing in common sense fact makes you reddit
Not everyone on Cinemaphile is borderline moronic like you, anon
Cinemaphile is terminally contrarian.
/misc/ morons come here to complain about israelites, blacks, women, chinese, gays, liberals and everything else so we end up getting flooded with the dumbest takes on the internet. You can't throw a rock on Cinemaphile without hitting a creationist, flat earther or ancient alien gronk.
you think Cinemaphile is only contrarian when it comes to media?
People use it as tenet of the atheist faith, it's why it tends to leave a sour taste.
But atheism existed before evolutionary theory, anon. It's just no one really made a big deal about it until the enlightenment-era catholic church decided to put Galileo under house arrest for heresy.
That still does not change what I said.
I'm not trying to debate you anon, it's called a fricking conversation. No wonder you're having difficulty. Early theologians would think you're a fricking homosexual too.
if atheists said breathing was good, a mentally Cinemaphile midwit would hold his breathe
Evolution is unironically the biggest midwit trap. You can’t look at everything in the world and universe, and see how absolutely perfectly it all fits together and not think it was designed.
>You can’t look at everything in the world and universe, and see how absolutely perfectly it all fits together and not think it was designed.
Did god design childhood bone marrow cancer and flesh-eating amoeba
No, but israelites did.
more like their god, satan
>more like their god, satan
Why would god let satan do that?
choice is essential to free will, anon
it's not
you obviously have no scientific education if you think that
>Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] It occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations.[3] The process of evolution has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation.[4][5]
Obviously evolution doesn't make sense if you deliberately refuse to understand what evolution is.
the first 2 statements are fine
the third one is questionable if they are not just talking about diversity within the genome of populations
also
>wikipedia
kek
See
you don't even understand what is being said
100% chance you never took any sciences past a grade school level
>choice is essential to free will, anon
Do children who get cancer get a choice?
If israelites had the power to alter human biology at the cellular level, why would they use it to give random children bone marrow cancer instead of just using it to make everyone a israelite
If everyone was a israelite, who would they call anti-semitic?
>jews can manipulate the very fabric of biology even thousands of years ago when these diseases still existed
pretty amazing master race
Watchmaker analogy. Ironically this line of reasoning came around about 50 years before the origin of species because science was dunking on theology so hard at the time.
>looks at the outcome
>refuses to consider the process
>what are the odds????
You're the kind of moron who looks at a virtuoso and thinks it's innate while disregarding the hard work put into the craft.
What process? The process of evolution? Learn how every single time scientists have tried to prove that something can get better by evolving they’ve come up wrong. Look into the fly mutation experiments.
There is no "better", this is such a childlike understanding of the world. Is a tiger "better" than a cat? Is an owl "better" than salmon? That's not what evolution is about.
>there is no "better"
>also the entire crux of natural selection is that some populations are better adapted to the enviornment
>there is no "better"
>le survival of le fittest
Again, that's not what evolution is about. Only reproduction matters.
It is not the world that is of divine design but the grand mechanisms that govern existence. No mind in those ancient times could fathom the passing of eons. Errors seem inevitable in the transcribing of the divine by woefully mortal hands. The cosmos is song sung from the lips of god over the course of billions of years, the saga of our world a lyric in the infinite.
everything does not perfectly fit together, thats a laughable room temperature iq take.
If evolution is real then how come I'm still a monkey?
I'd say it's about 70% (you) baiting and 30% moron facebook boomers
no Cinemaphile is just a branch of nu-pol and they're broken to the point of just being pic related + crying about israelites and sucking muslim dick 24/7
this place fries the brains of introverted loners like tiktok does with zoomies making them troonys
holy shit embarassing, hey guess what, the israelites got exposed, maybe thats why its spilling all over you hook nosed heeb
/misc/ isn't nearly as uniform as you think it is. There's definitely a lot of older reddit tourists who embody every christian conservative stereotype out there but a larger portion of it are younger anti woke types who either larp with or unironically agree with the tenants of Nazism. There's also a ton of lolberts and general anti authoritarian types who probably think that bot infested hellscape is the only place they type Black person jokes. There's a good reason the board is constantly infighting on whether Israel is the holy land or should be bombed to death by Palestine because it's the israelite homeland
go watch Tucker Carlson pretend he really totally believes in creationism because evolution has no proof and you'll see what the shills here think too
ITT
>evolution is fake therefor the old israeli lies are true
this tactic never works
>doesn't explain sexual reproduction
>doesn't explain complex interspecies relationships
>doesn't explain anything
>morons still believe in it
believing in evolution is the biggest moron take possible
That’s cause it’s a religion. It’s the religion of self.
i stopped "believing" in evolution once i read about punctuated equilibrium which is the "accepted" form of what evolution is and is nothing like what everyone thinks evolution actually is
Could've just said "I'm moronic" anon
good rebuttals "i hecking love science"
>unironically pretending to be moronic on Cinemaphile
Silence contrarian
Ross was wrong because the world is full of people like Phoebe and you should get used to it. I once lived with a girl who believed in ghosts. She was convinced and would get really angry if you challenged her on it. You can either argue with them and alienate them or accept it
>You can either argue with them and alienate them or accept it
Thank you for being a trans ally
What's wrong with believing in ghosts?
It's kino and fun
>what was a mediocre joke in the 00s in now a reality
everyday we are straying further into Idiocracy being a documentary territory
Goyim aren't supposed to question the lies.
He was a paleontologist, evolution is a pretty important piece of his job and education
Because «science people» are worse than religious fanatics. Pheobe's point in this episode is that there is room for error in sience, and that future discoveries might put into perspective what we believed to be the absolute truth.
science isn't even about truth, in the literal sense. not a single scientific theory is literally true, but it's all just an approximation towards truth, which isn't the same thing. it's more like making educated guesses
>there is room for error in science
So she believes a bunch of dumb bullshit instead. I agree with Ross's autistic rage here. If you want one example of how annoying these people are look at fatties that act like they can just ignore the massive body of evidence that says loading yourself with added sugars and excess calories will balloon you, and then act like it isn't their fault that they're morbidly obese.
explain how sexual reproduction 'evolves'
If I remember this episode correctly, she doesn't believe anything in particular, she just wants to mess with Ross and make him understand that all of his knowledge is only temporary until we understand more. He acts like a typical science zealot who can not possibly be wrong because he has a phd. Anyway in the end he admits the possibility that he might not know everything and even though Pheobe is a nutcase he still tolerates her because she's his friend.
No, it ends with him conceding that there is a possibility that evolution isn’t real, and she says she would’ve respected him more for holding his ground.
Imagine getting shit-tested by a woman you're not even trying to frick. Jesus Christ.
new knowledge only expands on the previous or re-contextualizes it, it never invalidates it.
all facts evolution will always be true forever, they just may fit into a larger picture we havent seen yet. denying it outright is moronic.
>massive body
Heh
I hate David Schwimmer
pretty sure the episode ends with her saying ''haha i was trolling the whole time''
it's a bit for a sitcom
Phoebe was mentally handicaped but she was never wrong about anything. If she said eating poop was good then it would have been the good thing to do, because phoebe being sad is a bad thing.
I had a dog named Phoebe and she used to eat poop.
There is literally no scientific evidence for evolution. Its a theory that cannot be tested or reproduced. Its junk science. Dare I say it? israeli science.
Evilution is a shoddy theory propagated by liberals.
>witness Supreme moronation
>get upset
He's a israelite, they're uneducated morons that rejected the messiah
Phoebe would have definitely been an anti-vaxxer
>Phoebe is an anti-vaxxer
>Monica wears two masks
>monica tries to get phoebe vaccinated under false pretenses
>Covid episode
>Ross is being a hypochondriac
>Joey is actually sick but trying to pretend its just a cold
>Chandler gets raped by a home invader
homie, that’s literally his job.
>it's not any different with genetic code.
Except it fricking is. A computer is literally a binary system, it either functions or it doesnt.
DNA is far more complicated and subtle. You've probably heard it described as the "instructions" to build an organism. But thats an analogy for gradeschoolers and morons.
so why are biologists always so worried about off target mutations. because one nonsense mutation can easily kill the organism.
this is a false equivilancy and you are too stupid to realize it.
DNA doesn't care. Its a biological machine that self replicates. Literally all of life is a byproduct.
Since it doesn't self replicate perfectly, you get mutation. Sometimes mutation is useful and sometimes it kills the organism and stops further replication.
Thats the entire fricking mechanism behind evolution. Survival of the fittest. Or maybe survival of the most not deadest.
As far as "as single mutation will kill", sometimes thats true. But pretty much every organism has mechanisms for preventing, repairing or limiting the damage from extreme mutations, particularly on the most expressed sections.
how did dna obtain the ability to self-repair anyway, it would have to be built in beforehand to fix the mess that would occur without dna repair.
A lot of cell basic functionality comes from single celled organisms where mutations hit immediately since they reproduce by copying themselves.
DNA repair was a random mutation that helped one cell live a lot longer thus creating a bunch more duplicates.
That's some satanic factory shit
Yeah when you get into it biology is amazingly freaky
prove you listened enough to be able to cogently dismiss evolution in the first place. describe mendelian inheritance, an allele, common descent, and speciation to a minimully acceptable standard.
none of those things, except speciation, really has anything to do with the modern, popular understanding of evolution
and speciation doesn't happen, strange
evolution is for midwits, at best
great. describe them if you are so familiar because that is the prerequsite for logically processing the ideas.
>discussing science topics with a redditor
no thank you
right so your education is a mish mash of internet articles and the occasional quick splash into wikipedia to take stuff out of context. got it.
kek
i actually have an undergrad degree in biology
the fact that you thought those terms (besides speciation, which is just flat out false) have anything to do with evolution belies your ignorance
>Ummm actually I have an undergrad degree so I'm actually right but I'm still not going to explain how
how would you like me to explain in a way that you will understand?
how about I start with these questions already posted itt:
How does evolution explain sexual reproduction?
How does evolution explain complex interspecies life cycles?
you're not just pretending to be smart on the internet, are you, anon?
>How does evolution explain sexual reproduction?
More efficient genetic recombination, vastly increased diversity, increased rate of mutation. Bacterial plasmids are a analogous method of DNA propagation and plasmid sharing was a likely precursor to sexual reproduction. TLDR, it helps DNA replicate itself because it increases the fitness of organisms and allows beneficial traits to propagate more efficiently.
>How does evolution explain complex interspecies life cycles?
You went to university and you need a "flower and bee" example for interspecies relationships?
you are so stupid that you think that just because something 'makes sense' means that is somehow evidence for evolution being true
you aren't even smart enough to see how stupid your statements are
let's try again:
How did random mutation + selection end up with the mechanics of sexual reproduction?
there are far more complex examples than 'flower and bee', you fricking brain Black person
how about parasites that create memetic proteins causing a host grasshopper to endanger itself by exposing itself to sunlight so that it can be eaten by a bird because the same parasite requires being passed through a bird gut in order to reach its next life stage?
there are far more complex examples
how does this 'evolve' out of random mutation + selection?
try to actually convince someone you're intelligent, for once
How does a plant grow through concrete. It doesn't know how to do it, but by growing it eventually gets there.
Same as mushrooms, incidentally.
>non-sequitur nonsense belying a complete lack of argument
it's ok, anons, you made a gambit of trying to seem intelligent and failed
good thing we're anonymous here
> cell culture evolved the ability to take on nutrients from previous inedible substance.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
Oh hey look you're a homosexual.
>an example of mutation + selection + adaptation is an example of evolution
t. brain Black person
this is why I didn't want to discuss science with fricking redditors that don't know what they're talking about
> Discredits a 30 year microbiological study because it shows he's a fricking idiot.
Get better arguments and I'll waste some more time on you.
i didnt discredit the study, you Black person
i discredited your understanding of what the study is demonstrating - which was clearly appropriate
> Study performed by evolutionary biologists.
> Isn't a successful demonstration of evolution.
> Denying this isn't a discredit of the study.
it's not a demonstration of evolution
it's a demonstration of selection leading to population adaptation
you don't know enough of the topic to even discuss it
So if an artist drew a picture of a flower, would that be a piece of art or would it just be an arrangement of graphite scratchings on paper?
>a redditor tries to explain how evolution makes sense
im not
that's the opposite of what im doing kek
> Doesn't answer the question.
Ah, it must be because you're a fricking idiot who is attempting to pretend to be a moron without realising that are infact moronic.
i didnt answer your question because it is non-sequitur nonsense
>redditor evolution science lover can only understand thing in redditor baby brain terms
>Evolution is the mechanism
KEK
thank you for exposing your complete lack of scientific background
species don't change, idiot
populations do
we can observe and understand the mechanisms of mutation/diversity/selection/adaptation
you think that 'time' magically makes things make sense when there is no sensible mechanism hypothesized
you are, at best, a midwit
Pretty poor job at dodging the creationist accusations there anon.
im not dodging any accusations
these reddit Science(tm) lovers are just exposing their completely lack of scientific understanding
so, you don't have an argument and nothing to say? got it
you're finally starting to understand what I am saying, but not fully
Evolution is not adaptation via natural selection, redditor
t. believes in abiogenesis and speciation leading to all genetic diversity on record
>Evolution is not adaptation via natural selection, redditor
Oh so you're like. REALLY moronic.
Why did God give whales toes?
C'mon buddy. I wanna hear about how life was created by an invisible man in the sky. Lay it on me.
He won't answer because he knows that there's a metric frickton of evidence to disprove whatever bullshit religious theory he has to offer.
The fact is that modern science has no religious analogue. In ancient times they would take the natural science into account with their bullshit but we're that far ahead now that the bullshit is obvious.
>The fact is that modern science has no religious analogue
LOL
ft. Buttdevastated moron. What, people can't have a conversation without you inserting your homosexualry?
>how DARE you not accept le HECKIN SCIENCE you dirty heretic!!!!!
> Please pay attention to me.
Here's your (you) you fricking idiot.
you're the one getting assmad that anonymous people aren't worshipping at your altar of Scientism, bucko
> Scientism.
Generations of natural philosophers both empirical and rational would line up to piss on your grave, moron.
>a theory is a fact
no
I'm not even talking about evolution anymore. Even the original scientists that worked for religious authorities and believed 100% that it was all just god's plan would think you're a fricking freak.
courageous of you to ask something that can't be proven. on the flipside, big bangisms and evolution also can't be proven either. it takes a giant leap of faith to think since dna is similar that there is a common ancestor, life possibly sprung from abiogenesis and that the universe all came from nothing. people are going to lean in the direction the believe benefits them more.
So there's no evidence for God, but there is some evidence for evolution.
Hmmm thats a tough one. Should I believe in schizo fanfiction or a theory which is based off exploring and understanding the universe.
you could see intelligent design in life through science and attribute it to an eternal creator though; and that is just as reasonable as suggesting everything came from nothing and we overcame statistical improbabilities to be here.
Except there's no evidence for intelligent design and a bunch for evolution.
kind bringing forth different kind is all guess work, anon. there's absolutely no evidence other than dna similarities, which can be attributed to a system of intelligent design.
If intelligent design why haven't we seen god create a species in a lab?
If you saw a PS5 lying around on the sidewalk you think "somebody made that". But for some reason it's different with even more complex objects.
Who made god then? He must be amazingly complex.
And you're right. If I saw a PS5 I would think that it was created by a person, who presumably was created by their parents, and so on until abiogenesis. The complexity logically arising from natural processes.
I wouldn't see a PS5 and think "Damn some supernatural entitiy must have created that" or "Well somebody must have made that PS5, but that person could only exist because their entire species was created by a supernatural entity".
an eternal being has no beginning or end. you're applying finite principles from our existence to an incomprehensible being. a being that creates time, space and matter doesn't need to follow the same framework.
>an eternal being has no beginning or end. you're applying finite principles from our existence to an incomprehensible being. a being that creates time, space and matter doesn't need to follow the same framework.
Or... they just don't exist.
>sky man created everything because some dirt farmers said so thousands of years ago
>PS5
>evolved from the PS, PS2, PS3, PS4 with divergent evolution producing the PSP, PS Vita, PSTV
Outstanding example anon.
Those are a lot of words for someone guilty of having sub-saharan African IQ.
>you won't accept my super smart argument of "because it's SCIENCE" so I will insult you heh, pls upvote this fellow science lovers
>Yes. organisms can change due to DNA mutation
>Yes. populations will change over time due to selection pressures
>No. evolution does not occur
Theres' no cure for stupid I'm afraid
yet you are using it as evidence of evolution. why?
>it can't happen because it's impossible!!!!
We tried dumbing it down for you, showing that it does happen for relatively cases. There's overwhelming evidence that it happened for evolution too. You can even observe evolution in a time span of a couple of years.
you posted while I was posting this but it is very applicable to your Black person tier post
you also didn't provide any examples or show any 'cases'
you talked about a flower growing through concrete like you're fricking tupac, kek Black person
I mentioned software, the plant was the other guy and was a more abstract metaphor so it's not surprising it flew right above your head. Now I posted the example of the peppered moths evolving during industrialisation to survive their environment. This is something children learn when they're 13 btw.
you posted an example of mutation causing diversity, environment causing selection, and the population adaptation you can see from that
that is not what people mean by evolution these days, and that is not what im arguing against
your programming 'metaphor' was equally moronic
>bro moths that blended in the background survived that proves apes turned into humans!!!
wut
why does the tree bark change color?
coal smoke
unironically? so the white butterflies became predated as they could more easily be spotted on tree bark? why were there black butterflies in the same region to begin with or maybe why did they choose to sit on tree bark if it kept getting them killed?
There were trees with dark bark already. But after the industrial revolution almost all the trees were dark, so whities took a big hit.
ah okay, that makes sense. I was imagining it like a koala situation where the butterflies all only sit on one type of tree for autistic reasons.
>le moths being selected for color means le fish became reindeer!!!
Low IQ individuals often struggle to grasp large numbers, in that case hundreds of millions of years. It's not your fault you don't get it, up until recently low IQ didn't matter for reproduction, you're the unfortunate outcome of evolution pulling downwards.
>give it enough time and things that are mechanically impossible will happen
kek, the 'smart redditor', everyone
>reddit spacing
>no actual mechanical explanation provided
go back
Alright then. You tell me how sexual selection came to be since you're the infallible arbiter of truth.
I'm guessing it involves an invisible man who lives in the sky or aliens?
>no actual mechanical explanation provided
Evolution is the mechanism, surely you understand that much?
>I can believe a species can change a little in a couple of years but there's NO WAY a species can adapt more than a little after hundreds of millions of years
You can tack on little changes on top of little changes and, after thousands of iterations, the last state will look like a big change when compared to the big one. I bet you called your math teacher a heretic freak when he introduced the concept of exponentials when you were 12.
>You can tack on little changes on top of little changes and, after thousands of iterations, the last state will look like a big change when compared to the big one.
any examples in history?
a sabre tooth tiger was still a cat, moron
>it was a long long time
>no there is no evidence
it's a fantasy
You do know you can whip out a 150 lines python script that, through reinforcement learning without prior knowledge, can solve various tasks that your moronic logic would have you think only god could devise.
You obviously never went to university if you don't see how genetic sharing in current day bacteria would serve as a basic mechanism for recombination and sexual reproduction in stem eukaryotes.
I cant be assed giving you a biology 101 lecture since my job isn't educating developmentally disabled folks. Suffice to say, there's a lot of very good reasons that biologists think that evolution via natural selection exists and the existence and dominance of sexual reproduction is one of them.
>it may have happened like this
>but i cant explain how and there is zero evidence of it
ok, genius
oh shit let me get in my time machine and go back 2.2 billion years.
Or I could make observations about the current day and build models based off empirical evidence.
Lets have a look around... Well some bacteria have a primitive method of sharing DNA, thats interesting. That implies that sharing DNA must be beinficial in some way, and that our early "bacteria like" eurokariotic ancestors could have done something similar.
It seems reasonable that as they evolved this DNA sharing could have become more sophisticated. After all we can make these bacteria evolve and even force them to swap plasmids pretty easily in a lab, after all its an experiment that first year biology students will do.
Add in a bit of understanding about DNA recombination and mitosis and you can pretty easily put forward a mechanism to logically explain the existence of sexual reproduction in eukaryotes.
Is it proven? hell no, like I said "Time Machine". Does it make sense with all the data? Sure.
You have a degree in biology and don't believe I'm evolution? That's so wild, you must be some mid west moron who went to a state school.
What are your science backgrounds btw anons. I studied archaeology at university so I can explain a thing or two about proto-humans that existed before the israeli bible that creationists don't realise they're worshipping.
I once read a magazine in a doctors office but really just the pictures.
Magazines are cool. Most people just shitpost on the internet these days though. It's weird how electromagnetism explains so much that the ancients chalked up to divine sky fairy farts.
>Cannot engage with high school biology subjects
>no thank you
don't forget both share similar rates of suicide
Remind me why Phoebe and Joey were even remotely present on the show.
because the other characters weren't very likeable outside of wanting to have sex with courtney cox and/or jennifer aniston.
So, they could have literally just had a show with Joey and Phoebe in it and the others would be side characters?
Remind me why you watched this crap in the first place
>Remind me why you watched this crap in the first place
it was on primetime television before the age of streaming services and DVR/TIVO, you moronic as frick zoomie
/tvpol/ is truly brainrot general now. sad
Evolution is the how not the why
if evolution is real, how can there still be monkeys? how can a dog become a cat?
checkmate atheists
Monkeys are based but humans are moreso, and hyenas.
Your move.
What if god did the evolution by personally altering every single nucleotide?
Dinosaurs aren't real
Unfortunately early abrahamic religions believed their fossils to be mythical and biblical creatures, so you can't ignore Dino's without simultaneously discounting religion.
It’s a TV comedy, it’s funny for him to get upset over someone not believing in evolution
>yeah so basically God created this fish and gave it toes and made it so it'd have to surface for air or something
If you're a creationist, then you'd have to believe God is a moron. And if you believe God is a moron, you're not Christian.
Evolutionists are the furries of science. It doesn't matter what field you're in, one of them always tries to make it about their made up cartoon animals having sex.
>cannot explain the mechanisms behind their beloved religion of evolution
>start flailing around with redditisms
Can you explain the mechanisms behind god? Who made him? How does his power work? What is he made of? How much does he weigh?
Sure
>Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter (/biˈɒnseJ/ bee-ON-say;[11] born September 4, 1981)[12] is an American singer, songwriter and businesswoman. Dubbed as "Queen Bey" and a prominent cultural figure of the 21st century, she has been recognized for her artistry and performances, with Rolling Stone naming her one of the greatest vocalists of all time.
the inexplicable nature is the defining feature of an unmoved mover
nice try at deflecting from the fact that you cannot explain the mechanisms of this theory that is supposedly so true as to be obvious
>nitpicks opposite side with ascientific babble, demands primary sources hundreds of millions of years ago and won't accept anything short of 100% complete account of every single step in evolution
>meanwhile his argument is: I ain't gotta explain shit
I know you're trolling and I have to commend you on writing such a moronic post
>cannot explain the mechanisms behind their beloved religion of evolution
It's pretty straightforward. Let's take orcas as an example. Going back to the earliest aquatic mammals, there was an advantage in being darker in the top half of the body and lighter on the bottom half. So those aquatic mammals who had those characteristics were more likely to live longer and reproduce more. Over tens of thousands of years, this resulted in a species that has a 50/50 split of dark skin on the top of its body and light skin on the bottom.
Basically, a mutation that gives a species even the slightest advantage leads to that mutation becoming more and more common among the species as a whole, until you get species that are almost specialized for certain tasks. Humans are another example, we're uniquely good at throwing objects accurately at high speeds, if the rest of the animal kingdom is Nestor Cortes, we're Gerrit Cole. This was the result of a long process of certain apes using rocks for hunting/combat (the earliest evidence of this being the famous "Lucy" skeleton, an Australopithecus afarensis killed by a rock blow to the back of the head). Apes who were better at this lived longer and had more offspring, leading to more apes with those traits, and so on until modern homosexual sapiens sapiens are such naturals at it that even toddlers can throw better than an adult chimp.
>weakling believes everything he's told by authority
Why is this such a common character trope?
>Modern biology and the theory of evolution is based on the work of hundreds of devout Christians, many of whom were literally monks or priests
>trad groyper Cinemaphile posters say it's all a israeli conspiracy
jesuits and their slaves are not honest religious believers, they infiltrate to decieve. also convinced others to kill jesus. so not exactly hard for them to trick someone such as yourself to believe their tricks even though you know they are full of shit...
Jesus never existed anon. You might as well wait for Goku to appear than wish for a second coming.
>assumptions
why do i have to believe in one just because i doubt the other?
I'll ask you the same question but better - what reason do you have to believe any written history from before two hundred years ago is fact.
i dont. its all been rewritten and sources raped to death by conquerers... almost nothing is accurate
So why would you believe what was written 1400 years ago about some make believe turbo crackhead called jesus, let alone that horseshit in the old testament?
You forget anon. He dosen't need proof when its his beliefs. That would be silly.
>assumptions again
never said i believe anything biblical like i said sources raped to death and back. i just also dont believe science theories should ever be considered facts
>le genius fence sitter
*yawn*
>i just also dont believe science theories should ever be considered facts
If we were standing at the top of a very steep hill and I pushed you, how long would you have to keep rolling before you believed Newton's theories about inertia?
so because i dont believe in the big bang, i also dont believe in physics? huh.
You don't believe in expansion? That tiny anisometries in the quark gluon plasma developed into the pockets of matter observed today?
again youre just stringing together made up words that only mean something to those that agree with eachother over their questionable definitions.
all words are just made up dummy. yes physics words only make sense toe people who have studied physics. what physics have you studied?
the type where i test gravity by dropping feathers and then bowling balls to see if they crack your skull open by gravity or weight and pressure
But then why believe in the Bible? What distinguishes it from any other Roman Empire era religious document?
the sheer amount of documentation from both secular and non secular sources about jesus differentiate it from other religions. not only that but all other religions point to jesus in some fashion as well. christ like conciousness for yoganandas, prophet to islam, buddha in buddhism, etc.
>the sheer amount of documentation from both secular and non secular sources about jesus differentiate it from other religions
But the anon I was replying to was saying that almost all historical documentation is inaccurate. How do we know that the other sources weren't also made up? To be clear, I do think the Bible has value as a historical source, and there's plenty of evidence for Jesus being a real person, I'm just trying to figure out what his argument is. You can't say "it's all been rewritten and sources raped to death by conquerors" while simultaneously pointing to this one specific document as (literal) gospel.
If goku appeared in front of me I'd probably try to sack tap him. Yes I know its dumb and I'd probably die but it'd be so funny
If Goku appeared in front of us we'd probably call him jesus anyway.
>Jesus never existed anon.
you could say the same thing about Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, yet we all know you unequivocally believe they existed. Why?
Not him but with Caesar at least we have his voting records, documents from other senators calling for his arrest, payment records to his soldiers, records from Celts, Germans, Spaniards, Greeks, and Egyptians who had dealings with him, statues, carvings, records of the Senate deifying him postmortem, and of course his nephew Augustus using the name "Gaius Julius Caesar" and the countless legal documents that come with having that name stamped all over the Roman government for nearly 100 years.
It's not really a fair comparison.
You think there's a grand conspiracy, spanning more than 1000 years of biological research spearheaded by Christian scholars (btw the jesuits weren't founded until 1540, so this must have been one hell of a plan), of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox sects, all across Europe, just to convince people that animals changed slowly over time?
This would have been the greatest conspiracy in history, and for what? To explain why cheetahs have spots?
The israelites plans are measured in centuries.
truly high IQ super beings
Reminds me of the Japanese reaction to Mein Kampf. The Germans were like "oh god, we've got to stop the israelites, they're only 1% of the population and they control the world!" and the Japanese were like "holy shit these guys control the world despite being 1% of the population, we've got to get on their good side because they're clearly fricking geniuses".
But anon I thought it was antisemitic to associate Isreal with da joos.
I've never understood why religious people point to biological life as evidence for a creator when there's much stronger evidence in the fabric of the universe. Any attempt to use life as proof of intelligent design can be quite easily challenged with the theory of evolution and the mountain of evidence supporting it. But the basic building blocks of the universe, such as the fine structure constant, cannot have been caused by any natural phenomenon, since they are by definition the most basic components of this world that we live in. If something like the fine structure constant exists and could have been something else but isn't, then that strongly implies that an intelligent creator made a choice to make it what it is.
Checkmate atheists.
>If the universe was different it wouldn't be the way it is
Damn you got me. I guess god is real.
No, the point is that physical constants exist that could have been something different. This fact implies the hand of a creator.
Couldn't it have been random?
>physical constants exist that could have been something different
>The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect",[1] is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life.
you don't know how many other universes might have been structured differently. You don't know anything about the how and why of the universes structure, and so you resort to "a wizard did it.
3000 years ago you'd be saying that lightning is from zeus, as you don't have any other explanation for the seemingly inherent properties of reality.
>you don't know how many other universes might have been structured differently
There are no other universes as far as we know, just this one.
>as far as we know
well then surely the coincidental aspects of the universe must be the result of god, and not instead mere coincidence
Copenhagen interpretation is known as the Copenhagen approximation now get with the times gramps this aint the 50s anymore.
Multiverse theory advocates are clowns.
That "base building block" that your undeniable genius has come up with is just math, buddy. The universe is a mathematical structure. It exists because it is possible for it to exist. Other possibilities also exist.
how would you know that?
Because I'm way smarter than you...
You’re way fatter than me haha but maybe not in le alternate dimension
its the only way those types can cope in life. believing theres an extreme chungus universe just for they/them, someplace where everythings perfect. "we suffer here and now for the good multiverse bro"
I don't believe that at all?
>But the basic building blocks of the universe, such as the fine structure constant, cannot have been caused by any natural phenomenon
Why not?
>since they are by definition the most basic components of this world that we live in
And that means they can't have occurred naturally? Why can our cells, the most basic building blocks of who we are as organism, be natural, but the building blocks of the entire universe not be natural?
If this hypothetical "basic building block" is itself caused by some other natural phenomenon, then it isn't a basic building block. Unless the laws governing the universe are themselves an infinite chain, then there must be certain particles or rules that just "are".
There is no such thing as randomness in a universe based on rules. We perceive many phenomena as essentially random because they're too complex for us to predict or comprehend.
>There is no such thing as randomness in a universe based on rules. We perceive many phenomena as essentially random because they're too complex for us to predict or comprehend.
Therefore... god? I don't follow the logic.
It feels like this is just the Anthropic Principal at work. If the universe did not support intelligent life then we wouldn't be there to observe it. There could be infinite universes with different constants, but we would only arise in one which was hospitable, so it seems like it's tailored to us, but it could just be happenstance.
Or it implies that this universe is a part of an infinite spectrum of level 1 multiverses in Hilbert space. We find our selves in a universe where matter can exist because matter can exist here.
>gobbledyasiatic
>infinite spectrum of level 1 multiverses in Hilbert space
People who take the multiverse theory seriously are clowns. It is the most ridiculous, trash, nonsensical theory ever invented in physics and a complete joke that should never be mentioned in educated conversation.
I explained my reasoning and it has absolutely nothing to do with humans existing to observe the universe. The fact that there is one universe and this universe is based on rules, and some of these rules appear to be arbitrary, implies to me that a creator must have made some design choices. Again, you cannot explain away something like the fine structure constant by citing some natural phenomenon. Maybe sometime in the future a cause will be discovered and explained with a new theory, but that theory will itself have some base assumptions. You can peel this onion layer by layer, but unless the rules governing the universe are infinite, then at some point you'll reach something that I call a "basic building block", something that just is and cannot be explained by anything else. This basic building block will have properties completely independent of everything else in the universe. How did it come by these properties, properties that could have been different, if not by a creator making a choice.
Its amusing that the "god of the gaps" has shrunk to the point where he's hiding behind the cosmological event horizon.
>no rebuttal
You're just stating that physical principals MUST have been set by god. I can't really refute that because its not provable either way. I could say that a time traveling house cat did it and you'd be in my position.
There's no reason to think that physics and the universe couldn't just be random.
>I could say that a time traveling house cat did it and you'd be in my position.
No I wouldn't, since that would essentially support my argument. I'm not arguing for the existence of the Abrahamic god, or any other kind of god invented by humans. All I'm saying is that the nature of this universe strongly implies the existence of some "prime mover". That's it.
>ad hominem, the post
Well lets play this out.
I propose that the universe and everything in it was created accidentally by a house cat looking for its litter box. Where did the cat come from? Frick you thats where.
Now you give me logical rebuttals to refute my baseless assertion which presents no testable facts and relies on information which might exist outside of the observable universe.
>Now you give me logical rebuttals to refute my baseless assertion
A cat is a product of this universe and couldn't have been around before it existed. There, happy?
Any attempt to clarify the nature of the deity goes beyond what I'm trying to say.
>no rebuttal
its a space cat. it doesn't come from this universe
You have to explain why the space cat isn't more likely that just random chance.
There is no "random chance" in a universe based on rules. We only see things as random because of our limited nature. "Random" is a human abstraction expression our inability to predict the outcome.
The rules were made by a cat. On accident. It isn't random. The prime mover just moved... randomly.
If you want to call the prime mover a cat, fine.
>The prime mover just moved... randomly.
This is just non-sensical.
So the prime mover can't create universes willy nilly? it has to make them a certain way?
Whats the point of the prime mover then. If the conditions of the universe are fixed then it need not exist and if they're not then they could just as easily be random.
What is the most advanced math course that you have completed?
Try to respond to what I'm saying instead of trying to find new avenues for ad hominem attacks.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Its a legitimate question. Math is the language of the subject. What is the extent of your mathematical training?
the one where i wasnt circle jerking others theories because i was too stupid to see things for what they are
very smart sounding answer
>i live my life by believing hypotheticals NOT reality
What kind of math is fake math to you? Can you describe it?
E=MC2
but that verse was fire tho
Me, I liked contact, the book
The aggressive ignorance. The surety of an avid wikipedia reader. The casual disregard for things that disagree with his base intuition. This is a legion that thinks itself one. The complete lack of mathematical rigor or training in theory outside of half remembered self indulgent late night autodidactism.
This is what being a midwit looks like.
Avoid being this creature anons, keep learning.
>you'll reach something that I call a "basic building block"
Wow anon, have you submitted this to AHEP? This is groundbreaking stuff!
Funny how christians flip flop between
>science is just satanic lies meant to deceive and turn people away from god!
and
>look at this scientific proof of god!
It's especially confusing considering that modern science has overwhelmingly been driven by men who were Christians. Can you imagine any other religious group pulling this shit? Like israelites saying that Einstein was a satanic loser, or Muslims discounting al-Khwarizmi coming up with algebra because math is the work of the devil*?
*Tbf it's entirely possible that the modern govt of Iran unironically pushes this, so maybe not the best example
>mentions iran out of nowhere
shalom rabbi
>out of nowhere
Al-Khwarizmi was Persian, you fricking moron. He's as relevant to Iran as Socrates is to Greece.
youre the one that mentioned him moron
>youre the one that mentioned him moron
I mentioned him because he's generally credited with being the father of algebra. I also mentioned, as a joke, that the modern version of his homeland might discredit him because they're a lunatic theocracy. The same way somebody might make a joke about Jonas Salk dealing with American anti-vaccine people. You're the one who decided this was somehow tied to the israelites.
What in the baconing narwhal? Do people actually not believe in evolution? Y’all, seriously. I’m on the brink of not evening. Somebody call Dawkins and tell him to bring the troops, apparently Christian gladiators are still out there hunting down nonbelievers with their vicious doggos.
dae like ron paul?
It's like an engineer being told electricity isn't real.
dinosaurs aren't real though
i mean seriously how has the smithsonian fooled us all so deeply. they got rid of all the giants and criptyds remains and pushed fake shit. wtf is the point. is it to remove us further from reality, god, deepwater israelites... idk anymore
>a government entity would NEVER lie to us!
why are you people absolute NPCs? what happened to actual scientists?
huh? who the frick are you quoting? im literally saying youre a midwit if you trust the smithsonian on any scientific or historical level
your post reeked of reddit sarcasm triggered by the statement that dinosaurs don't exist
>EVERYTHING IS FAKE THEYRE TRYING TO TRICK ME
We get it, your Dad wasnt around.
no anon, they told you my dad wasnt a round man. as in the circle jerk you like to partake in round after round
It's not like that at all
How do creationists even explain the existence of species that predate humans? Why would G-d create dinosaurs, wait millions of years and create humans?
god put dinosaur bones in the ground as a joke
your life is shitty because you're just not that smart, it's that simple
Anyone interested in the notion of the multiverse shuld check out Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark.
your god is a brown israelite, kneel you mentally ill homosexual
Post your favorite Josh episode guys, heres mine
?si=EIKXDUKcn3yNnXUZ
>ross "get" imam
"get"s down with genociding an
>spirituality and ordered structure of rituals has been part of humanity since the beginning
>also le religion was created a couple thousand years ago
the saddest thing about modern 'le science' midwits is that they are some of the most ignorant people around
>People who believe in myths are smart and its the ones who send robots to other planets and create machines and medicine who are stupid
myths are the foundation of civilization and culture, so yes.
>robots to other planets
imagine actually believing this horseshit
>medicine
most 'medicine' is just shit that naturally grows in nature and then is altered so it can be patented and sold
you really are a fricking midwit, aren't you?
>imagine actually believing this horseshit
Whats the part you're struggling with. Rockets obviously exist, there's loads of evidence, hell you can buy one depending on where you live. Robots exist too, also extremely purchacable. Doesn't it follow that a big enough rocket and a good enough robot could go somewhere very very far away and do robot stuff there?
>most 'medicine' is just shit that naturally grows in nature and then is altered so it can be patented and sold
Well who alters it? shamans and witch doctors? or is it scientists. Also what about the medicine which doesn't come from nature. How did a bunch of ignorant people know how to create them from chemical precursors?
>Machines
No response to that part I noticed. Hard to argue against physical science when you're typing on a computer I suspect.
were herbalists in the middle ages, "scientists" anon?
nope. but there's a huge gulf between making willow bark tea and genetically engineering a strain of e-coli to produce insulin.
yes you doofus. guess what else. you coevolved with nature. plants being medicinal meant better survival, as in, if you didnt respond to therapy it was dinosaur time. nature is in so many ways your other mother.
No you see all you have to do is call it fake and then it is fake.
The human nasal passage is pretty strong evidence against intelligent design.
Why would a competent creator who had the problem pretty much solved already, as we see in most other living things with noses, just decide to nonsensically frick it all up like that?