Evolutionists: How does an animal like a butterfly develop the process of metamorphosis?
Evolutionists: How does an animal like a butterfly develop the process of metamorphosis?
Evolutionists: How does an animal like a butterfly develop the process of metamorphosis?
Never forget that atheists believe this is possible
Wauf is more schizo than /x/
Will the christschizo ever frick off? They even bought all the ads for this board. Frick.
The more they post the more I understand why varg burned those churches. They will be the end of decency. Any morality they claim is instantly disproven no matter what rational men say. Any fact they discover is invalidated in the public eye for it’s buried in outright lies and falsified evidence. They distrust the experts because they themselves are liars with an agenda.
Evolutionists glued a baboon jaw to a human skull and tried to pass it off as a missing link.
That was an orangutan. If you want to try deny evolution at least get your own points right
It was an orangutan jaw, and chimpanzee teeth. Either way, a total hoax. There's so much evidence for evolution they have to fake it for the appearance of legitimacy.
I guess Jesus is fake because of how many “authentic pieces of the cross” get sold in markets in third world countries
>"evolutionists"
One isolated fraudster trying to get famous
And notice, people admitted it was fake when the truth came out.
Your position is not one isolated fraudster you have an entire storybook of lies that multiple people are passing off as truth despite extensive evidence to the contrary, to the point that you believe there are grand unified conspiracies suppressing it.
"Evolution must be fake, because someone faked a fossil to acquire fame and money from an emerging fad in archaeology"
This is not a logical statement.
if someone was capable of logic they would not be a christian. it is a system of calculated delusions formulated by literal rabbis to control illiterate peasants who were genetically prone to schizophrenia, as a tribe. christianity is one of the earliest documented psychotherapy-based treatments for a delusional disorder, akin to affirming to a transvestite man that he is in fact a woman to meme him into being somewhat functional in life instead of just molesting little boys and killing prostitutes.
christianity takes the voices in your head and tells them to say somewhat productive things while retaining a hint of insanity so the schizo does not catch on
Who said anything about Christianity?
Neither is dating strata layers millions of years apart when trees have been found in multiple layers, yet it is done anyway.
No, that is perfectly logical. You don't understand how things are actually dated besides "le carbon 14!!!!".
100% of creationists either follow a judaistic religion, or schizos who are making up their own religion and therefore are not worth listening to or arguing with. No other religion has one absolute creation story and 100% of creationist organizations are purely christian.
It is logical to assume that a creationist is either a christian, or a christian-like schizo who may as well be one because he gets most of his ideas from some sect of christianity or another.
They don't? Not tengrism, not zoroastrianism, not vodou, not tenrikyo, not sikhism? All of these are monotheistic religions with a creator deity. None of them are Abrahamic. And no radioisotropic dating of any kind can be considered reliable. There's too much inconsistence results with the different methods. Use argon dating and nitrogen dating on the same sample and you end up with wildly different results, that can never be confirmed. They've used argon dating on new samples of volcanic material and have found radioactive argon in the samples, destroying the idea that they can't be formed with it, which throws the whole theory of the dating method out the window. And if you're going by erosion estimation for age, that is also being reconsidered by geologists, since things are eroding at a faster rate than previously estimated. No matter how you look at it, the "evidence" for evolution is shoddy assumptions that aren't holding up to time. Even carbon14 dating has problems, wince more carbon14 is being created than it is decaying, which means earth has not reached an equilibrium in the carbon cycle. Further proving the younger age of the earth.
>Lists dead faiths
No one would believe a dead faith because no true god would allow his faith to die.
>And no radioisotropic dating of any kind can be considered reliable. There's too much inconsistence results with the different methods. Use argon dating and nitrogen dating on the same sample and you end up with wildly different results, that can never be confirmed. They've used argon dating on new samples of volcanic material and have found radioactive argon in the samples, destroying the idea that they can't be formed with it, which throws the whole theory of the dating method out the window. And if you're going by erosion estimation for age, that is also being reconsidered by geologists, since things are eroding at a faster rate than previously estimated. No matter how you look at it, the "evidence" for evolution is shoddy assumptions that aren't holding up to time. Even carbon14 dating has problems, wince more carbon14 is being created than it is decaying, which means earth has not reached an equilibrium in the carbon cycle. Further proving the younger age of the earth.
Holy fricking wrong. Not even worth my time.
>Can't refute it so runs away
Typical. Many such cases.
the creator of the universe and all of humanity be like "aight only like 50 people worship me thats fine whatever"
nah its just shared delusion from a culture that died because of military/economic conquest a while back, there was never any god, just the shared belief in a particular ghost/spirit that magically explained everything (including the kings power)
>please break down my wall of disinfo
you argue like a flat earther
afraid to post sources because theyre all crackpot blogs and infographics you found on /misc/ and /x/
I can. I have many times in the past. I get sick of doing it over and over again just for some anon too lazy to challenge what the Rothchild foundation funds and teaches.
All you've done many times in the past is get exposed for posting sources that use blatantly altered or entirely fabricated data, rant about chinese and israeli conspiracies, and say things like "if you say my source is invalid, all of your sources can be invalid because it's a satanic conspiracy le gods of death schiz schiz schiz"
Go back to /x/, schizo moron.
>idiot schizo misunderstands the age range of radiometric dating methods, quotes disinformation that has been proven wrong since the 1800s
idiot schizo
shut the frick up and go back to /x/
Strata are rough estimates, averages, used to estimate that something must be as old as something else. The earth does move about. Older and newer rocks mingle and melt together and yet the isotopes may remain unchanged.
Radiocarbon dating is used for things that are clearly recent, ie: made by humans. Any older and contamination is a concern. Radiocarbon dating is not accurate past 40,000 years.
Argon dating is most accurate for extremely old (half mil onwards) samples and is less prone to contamination. Uranium isotope dating sits between them, and is most accurate from 40k to 500k years.
The earth is known to be roughly 4.5 billion years old through multiple-isotope radiometric dating of geological, lunar, and cosmic samples.
This is what happens when modern conservatives take over a place. It becomes this tucked up paradox where they feign morality while being both full of hate and obsessed with sodomy and other perversions.
I seen them do this shit on the fricking cooking board too. I didn't think they would go and duck withWauf but I was wrong.
It evolves at levels 7 and 10
If you believe God is literally real and evolution is not, you're as delusional as a troony or a Marxist.
I just want a delusion-free future, but maybe I'm delusional for expecting that to be possible.
Humans are utterly irrational animals.
Why are you implying that God couldn't have come up with the process of evolution?
Because that's not what is written. Belief in evolution is a lack of faith for the word.
>what is written
by who? priests and politicians mulling over what would be convenient in canon and fabricating entire books hundreds of years after they were meant to be written, including such godly passages as "every ruler is ordained by god, follow their orders or burn in hell".
i dont believe in israeli/roman apocrypha.
and neither does god.
evolution is a fact, and the earth is over four billion years old.
Damn why can't christian landmarks stop being struck by lightning
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/16/touchdown-jesus-statue-burns-down
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/police-fire/2012/04/03/Perrysburg-church-steeple-struck-by-lightning/stories/20120403034
https://wpde.com/news/local/surfside-presbyterian-church-struck-by-lightning-catches-fire-severe-weather-south-carolina
I know someone might say "ackshually its soi-ence, trust the experts, lightningerinos take the shortest path to ground via the tallest object" but we all know what's REALLY going on. We're deeper into kali yuga, which started on 18 February 3102 BCE, approximately 1000 years before the founding of judaism, and krishna is getting antsy.
Except that they find carbon14 in diamonds thought to be billions of years old.
And yet "they" have also used zircon dating, electron spin resonance dating, and other methods to find older rocks (3.8-4+ billion years old), and dated these with such certainty that the only dispute is that they may be newer rocks formed of older rocks (so the planet is still at least that old).
Your unsubstantiated statement that only means some diamonds are younger than expected.
>inb4 creationist wacko source
Yes, and man is a pig-chimp hybrid, if you can find a wacko source, I'm sure.
You've already been over this. You got BTFO. Dogs are better than cats, bigfoot is not real, not all chinese fossils are fake, some theropods undoubtedly had feathers, and brian engh is trolling you in particular.
Funny, because they've used the same dating on these diamonds which is how they came up with the original ancient date in the first place. So which method do we believe, the one which cannot and will not ever be corroborated, or the method we can actually confirm using dated scrolls?
>what is written
God is killed by Doomguy in the DOOM Eternal 2nd DLC. It is written (in the code) by id Software.
...but hey, one fiction's just as good as another, amirite?! Deny what is written by id is fact, and yours is destroyed too. Just as we see God in Bruce Almighty, we see God in those two DLCs
If God couldn't appear in court to back up the defense in Kitzmiller vs Dover via
's pic , then no wonder they lost that case: and the judge there - a conservative Christian - was personally appointed to the Federal bench by the Creationist George W Bush: in turn voted in twice by Creationist voters. Their Big Book of Hearsay is no longer admissible as evidence in a court of law - as a result of that case - therefore is proven to be lies. So-called 'Truth'=Lies. Proof: according to the Creationists 'Word' of their 'God', insects have four legs. A proven lie. Their 'True' God is a proven liar. Ergo, 'Truth'=Lies. Facts backed by evidence is impossible to dispute.
No 'God' to appear in court in 2005 to support his Be-lie-vers there, certainly to prove the prosecution wrong, therefore he never existed in the first place. Prove otherwise, Christains: and only to our satisfaction. Why can't you? Because you're too shit scared to admit you're more than wrong.
What is written in ink means nothing except as an analogy. The word is an expression for giving life to this universe by making it vibrate and what is written in the rules that govern matter is actual scripture. God gave you the privilege of having a soul to understand, express, and enjoy its own creation through flesh.
Okay. Show us your 'God' in physical form (no 'Jesus' allowed) appearing to everyone in the world simultaneously to prove the opposite to Evolution (species adapting to their environment): and we who aren't religiotards DEMAND to be proved wrong.
Check and fricking Mate, Christains. *Tips Trilby*
>Evolutionists
b8
God is obviously real and so is evolution. Everyone who says evolution must be real because Christianity is fake and gay are obviously moronic highschoolers who you should ignore. But I can't fathom how someone could possibly not believe in evolution even as a believer in God. How can you just "not be convinced"? What the frick is there not to be convinced about? Evolution makes perfect sense and explains literally everything we observe about organisms. It's the simplest idea in all of science, and biology is even a woman's field because of how easy it is to understand. It explains why you can sort animals into a treelike diagram to classify them. It explains how animals come to suit their environment and why animals look different in different places. It explains why the corn we eat today looks different than the corn the natives used to eat. It explains why the flu is slightly different every season. It's supported by fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and even direct observation of evolution in the lab and in species that humans have interacted with throughout our history. We even fully understand the mechanism by which evolution happens, with the DNA mutations, which was discovered after the theory came out and still confirmed it.
The only way you could possibly not believe in evolution or even have a single doubt is if you've been first convinced that evolution is contrary to your religion, or that it's a corrupting liberal and globalist idea, or that scientists and the scientific establishment are nefarious or untrustworthy, or something to that effect. Like there has to be an ulterior motive or deeper inspiration for you to start questioning it in the first place. I refuse to believe that someone could see with their own eyes that wolves evolved into Chihuahuas, something that happened during the course of recorded human history, but then for absolutely no reason, just refuse to accept that the same thing could happen even more over an even longer timeframe.
>God
>Singular
There are mutliple things all claiming to be god and you have no way of knowing which one is real.
It's ultimately a cop out, believe in it when you find it. For real. Not on a biogenic DMT/cannabinoid trip.
What? The universe has a creator and this is self-evident. I don't believe in any particular religion invented by humans.
>The universe has a creator
This is not self evident. It could easily have multiple creators. It could be the prime mover in itself, stuck in a mindless cycle like a cosmic self-regenerating amoeaba. Or it could not be purposefully created, but be the dream or side effect of a greater being.
There are other planets that could support life.
The only sane poster.
Thanks
>The only sane poster.
...
>God is obviously real
I don't think so
>but then for absolutely no reason, just refuse to accept that the same thing could happen even more over an even longer timeframe.
Here's the harsh thing to understand, it took me a long time to accept it. Some people lack the mental capacity to conceptualize complex things.
I don't know if it's innate, or if it's due to education or if it's intellectual laziness. But at some point their understanding breaks down.
They can understand a wolf turning into a chihuahua, because they're very similar, some smaller and a bit deformed, but if you want to go from a fishlike creature to a wolf the number of changes is so great and over such a big time frame that at some point their brain gets overloaded and they can't go further.
Much smarter men than you have also concluded god is real. You are on the midwit portion of the bell curve.
It's possible to be a world class mathematician and also believe in Scientology or fall for any other scam. They can also fall on bad times and buy lottery tickets even though they know for a fact it's a bad investment. Even the most brilliant people are still often slaves to their instinct and the common flaws of human psychology.
The concept of god is a meme, in the purest sense. It's something we repeat because it feels good to do. Many of us would desperately like the meme to be real. One day someone will just save us from all our problems. Fantasizing is one of our primary coping methods, and we can get trapped in it pretty easily.
There is absolutely zero evidence to support a god existing. You're just fooling yourself because you want one. You're wasting your efforts in fantasy which could be spent better navigating reality.
personal opinions don't make a truth. Even incredibly smart people are subject to faulty reasoning or from having psychological needs that they fulfill with belief in god, or by believing in magic or in homeopathy.
Individually even the smartest person can easily make mistakes.
But if you look at large amounts of people higher culture and intelligence ties to lower belief in god.
But of course that doesn't matter either. Belief in god only represents belief in god. The existence of something is independent by what people believe.
People who don't believe in viruses still get sick.
But god and fairies and spirits and other mystical stuff disappears if you stop believing in it
Evolution is real
And the patterson/gimlin bigfoot hoax is not
there are some things only explainable because of God
Who created God?
God is the unmoved mover
Or his mom made him by thinking or something gnostic
>hes just there ok!!! or something magic babble harry potter spell mumble mumble
I’m not convinced.
Why would you need to be convinced? you're an atheist right? doesn't matter to be convinced nothing is le real or whatever
>noooo stop asking me to justify my beliefs you already disagree i-i-it's a waste of time
It's so you can prove yourself wrong to yourself.
Why do you care if I'm wrong if you already believe I'm wrong?
God is real, I don't see how he could not be real
To save your soul from being devoured by a demon. His name is yhvh the deceiver, the gluttonous flame, and he created your religion.
Accepting the truth of evolution is the first step to freeing yourself from his clutches and seeing the true god above all, beyond the measurable universe, the one for whom flaming plants, split seas, and squabbling tribes are nothing. The one who fathered Christ, and who turned his back once more in the eyeblink he witnessed the church.
“Allah” is an archon of the demiurge who betrayed him as yhvh betrayed God and took credit for what he willed
Realize the truth of evolution and you will see God’s design is greater than the demiurge’s lies of creation.
Oh I'm not a Judeo-Christian
That doesn’t mean you aren’t possessed by the same evil.
Isn't it interesting how Gnosticism has never been eradicated no matter how hard they tey
imagine trusting someone that looks like fruit spread
just in case
>muh allah
Imagine shilling a primitive cult that tells you to slowly torture animals to death and explicitly approves of raping and then killing them… on a board about liking animals.
Thank you very much for opening my eyes, kind anon
But I believe in God, not in the Books of Men
I love animals of course
Not more than God
I hope
I love animals too
This is about butterflies, not hairy rams. And is Wauf halal?
Check and fricking Mate, moronic Mooslimes. *Tips Headrag*
Haram
As-salamu alaykum
>claims anon is haram
>posts on a very haram website
Why are all religiontards such flagrant hypocrites? Why do they need to believe in a sky fairy so they don't just decide to rape their neighbor's infant daughter and skullfrick her to death because otherwise they have no self control? Why do they need guidance from a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of sandBlack folk who convinced everyone around them to cut off their foreskin because they were jealous of every culture that wasn't born in a desert had access to clean bathing water?
Why is humanity so stupid, gay, superstitious, and spiteful?
Allah created everything other than himself
Where this question comes from – from the Shaytan;
Stop pursuing these thoughts and these tricks of the Shaytan
Say, “I believe in Allah and His Messengers”
Seek refuge with Allah from the Shaytan.
Mashallah.
The man in your .GIF isn't a Muslim or you'd show real ones praying properly
You're no more a believer in your so-called Mashed Allah (under the tracks of a Merkava Iron Chariot) than I am: otherwise you wouldn't be here. Checkmate, moron. (Tips Trilby)
There used to be a whole lot more things only explainable because God.
Then we advanced and figured that shit out
>People get sick because demonic forces or God's divine punishment. There's no other explanation!
A century later....
>Oh, there's various living organisms smaller than we can see, and many of them can make you sick.
another century later....
>sharp uptick in heart attacks? must be winter vegana
Forgot your meds, huh?
Miasma theory was unironically good enough for millenia, the fact 1800th century morons thought miasma was specifically poison and not some vague magical aura is why they thought it couldn't spread from feculence and it took discovering bacteria to make them stop dumping shit in their drinking water.
Allah made the butterfly.
The larval stage of more derived insects is the same thing as the nymph of a more primitive insect moulting into the next instar, just more complex and with more defined stages that have bigger differences between them
The slide threads are getting out of hand.
Do your fricken jobs, jannies
First you must understand what could’ve caused insects to pupate in the first place. The reason why insects developed pupation and metamorphosis was to reduce competition with their parents. Let’s say a certain type of insect eats a certain part of a flower, the petals only for example. When these insects reproduce their young hatch from eggs as miniature versions of their parents and they possess the same diet. When parent and offspring share the same food source they will inevitably compete with each other, it should be obvious why this can be detrimental to the species. So over time some of the baby insects get behavioural mutations that make them eat lower on the petal to avoid competition with the parents, of course the parents eat the whole petal still so over even more stretches of time the babies eventually start trying to eat the harder green parts of the flower just below the petals, it’s less nutritious and it’s hard to chew through for them but it just barely allows them to survive to adulthood and pass on this behaviour.
Generations later the baby insects get stronger jaw muscles to better cope with eating the green parts. Eventually this leads to physical changes where the babies gain sharp jaws to bite through the green parts and different gut flora to aid in digestion. Meanwhile this process also works in vice versa and the parents have gone from eating petals to drinking nectar and they too are getting specialized adaptations to help drink nectar. This is where the first kind of metamorphosis comes from and the babies are so different from the adults they can now be called nymphs.
Nymphs still look slightly similar to the adults but they gain specialized body parts later on in their life. From here the nymphs and adults only get more and more distant until eventually they look nothing like each other. In order to undergo such radical changes in body plan the nymphs eventually gained adaptations that caused their bodies to harden into a protective shell, turning themselves into a pupa or a chrysalis. These adaptations most likely came from the young entering hibernation in a dark safe place while they slowly gained their adult body parts. Now we reached a point where point baby and adult have optimized body plans with the babies being wingless, soft, leaf eaters that eventually become winged, hard, nectar drinkers, and when they enter metamorphosis their bodies release special hormones that causes them to grow and rearrange their body plan within their bodies own protective prison. Soon after the adult breaks free with no resemblance to it's former self and now competition between the two is reduced to zero.
Of course there’s countless other variables that go into this but this is the general idea simplified. If you’re wondering how silk came about then as some anons mentioned silk originates from anchoring glue that could’ve came from a byproduct of their bodies. But this is all I’m typing for now.
Wait, I think you confuse nymphs with larvae. A nymph will moult until it becomes an adult, mostly the last nymph stage's only difference to an adult is the lack of wings.
T. Used to keep assassin bugs as pets
>schizo arguing with himself
Like all natural phenomenon, evolution is a thing-in-itself. It doesn't matter if you do or don't believe in it because it exists regardless. Some day you were not and the creatures here evolved. Some day you will not be and the creatures on this planet will still be evolving.
a nonchristian creationist is either going to hell for believing in a false god or is just embarrassingly wrong
its a lose/lose wager. pascal would be disappointed. if a creationist is intelligent and rational they will be a christian of some denomination.
is your FEATHERS FEATHERS FEATHERS israeliteS israeliteS israeliteS TRANNIES TRANNIES TRANNIES thread not getting anymore attention?
Having a stroke there buddy?
Okay, God made butterflies but every other species evolved, you happy?
a caterpillar is just an advanced larvae. aren't you amazed at how maggots turn into flies?
same way a fetus turns into a baby
i don't even know how this registers as an evolutionary conundrum unless you're a colossal midwit
So a worm just decides one day to weave complex proteins in the form of butt silk to gestate and liquify itself in to form a completely different body? How did this process develop?
Gradually with many steps in between where the mutation was no better or even worse but they survived anyways. The larvae is the pronymphal stage that normally occurs in the egg, but it hatched early. The metamorphosis that follows is just a prolonged moult, similar to what occurs inside of the egg. It all starts with one frickup: the pronymphal stage becoming motile inside of the egg and eating its way out early instead of just pulsating there and absorbing yolk.
Then it spirals into increasingly bizarre defects turning out to work fine because insects reproduce and mutate very quickly. They have high evolvability, their more strictly segmented body plans and prolific breeding allow for changes to persist easier.
Makes more sense than “this specific schizophrenic babble is right! proof? the schizo doing the babbling said the other schizos are wrong, the voices in his head told him!”
You're asking this question backwards, it's not:
> "How did caterpillars evolve the process of pupating into a butterfly"
but:
> "How did insects evolve a larval stage"
And that ignorance shows you won't be happy with any answer and you're neither knowledgeful not interested in the subject, but only in arguing.
Says it best, larvae are to insects what embryos are to other animals, the ancient form of insects past that came with a vengeance. (the vengeance of fulfilling a separate niche than its adult form to avoid same species competition)
No, I'm interested in the theory. So your saying the butterfly came first and gave birth to worms who, were deformed and made a cocoon where it could gestate further because it hatched early?
>So your saying the butterfly came first and gave birth to worms who, were deformed and made a cocoon where it could gestate further because it hatched early?
You're thinking in discreet steps, evolution is a granular process.
You don't understand. It just happened. Slowly. A worm hatched out early and managed to survive, and continued to change into a butterfly outside the egg in the elements without nutrients instead of starving to death and without getting eaten. And this kept happening over and over again instead of the genes correcting themselves like they tend to do in the case of deformities. And while it was a worm it just so happened to develop the ability to make silk, gradually, over time. And it just happened to one day weave itself an entire new egg where it could liquify itself, slowly, where it could change into a butterfly. Instead of, molting into a butterfly like it had been doing. Magically, I mean slowly.
>It just happened.
you are not very good at explaining your ideas.
>It just happened
>WOW OKAY. moron.
>...slowly. And here's how.
>UH SORRY I DIDNT GREENTEXT AND REACTION FACES THAT PART
Reading these was enlightening... It's almost one of those "just-so" ancient stories about how animals got their features.
It's seems even more ridiculous because these events are supposedly random, whereas in the just so stories they are willful. I think they knew intuitively about the power of living being to affect the matrix
>Just so stories
Just so stories were ancient theories.
The difference is, with these theories, you are allowed to question them without the bible saying that you are to be stoned to death with 5 faithful and forgiven christians bearing witness or the quran calling you an agent of shaytan threatening the traditions of boywives and goatbawds who must be thrown off a building.
There are no questions too stupid to ask, just don't cry when you don't like the most likely answer at the time, or if you just state something that has already been proven to have a high likelihood of being flat out wrong, and refuse to put up evidence when THAT is questioned.
considering that larvae bear biological similarities to the developmental stage before a hatched nymph and their hormone levels even track how one would develop in an egg just with different timing, it's one great just so story compared to
"god made the bugs that way because he just did, he's that smart, now worship him idiot"
Well you're asking questions about specifics when there's no continual, direct evidence. Insects don't fossilize well under most circumstances, and the bulk of their evolution happened fricking ages ago. Of course the explanations are going to be hand wavey since we're forced to paint in broad strokes. However we believe the process was natural selection based evolution. Reaso being, there's currently no counterexample to that theory, and there are massive piles of evidence supporting it. You're basically asking "did the sun set a billion years ago?", then getting smug about there being no proof when people tell you the Earth was very likely spinning back then.
It wasn't even a butterfly yet. It was just... a fly-like animal. One day one was particularly genetically fricked up from radiation, toxins, mating with an individal who was too distantly related, etc, and its offspring did not develop correctly. They woke up early and continued to develop by eating, and then moulted outside of the egg to become nymphs and then adults, just like they would have inside of the egg. That's a great start for a bizarre change. It's doubtful they even did the coccoon thing yet, they probably just hid out in dirt while they did it and bodily secretions may have happened to form the dirt into a stable chamber if one were particularly slimy. Over time they stayed worms longer as their bodies maintain levels of juvenile hormones since that allowed them to gather more energy without competing with adults and survive their attempt to finish fetus-hood.
It is like if somewhere in india, a woman had a very premature birth. This very prematurely born baby was lucky enough to survive with some difficulty by just being bathed in milk. It reached adultood and its children had the same problem, and the same solution, and this turned out to be good for them because instead of walking around heavily pregnant the women would just keep their babies bathed in milk. Did they just decide? No, objectively, it is a genetic disorder, but it creates a new environment where new mutations may make something good out of it, like developing larger brains that would never fit through a vegana.
This already happened just not to such an extreme.
>Fricking what?
So to make a comparison here. A baby is born prematurely. It's mother fricks off, because flies don't take care of their young, so it's a fair comparison. The baby, being a fetus, manages to survive and grow up into an adult. And this keeps happening over and over again, and eventually the bizarre line of fetuses manage to grow enough hair that they can weave into a basket, and they sit in the basket, completely liquify, and turn into an adult? But it happens slowly, so it makes sense of course.
>Kek
>Ok
Yes. It’s the same shit they were already doing inside of the egg. Then mutations built up that changed it a bit.
The earth is billions of years old and insects have existed for a lot of that.
That's not convincing in the slightest as someone sitting on the fence for this topic. The old, well things are old, so it just happened, is honestly less convincing than someone saying God made it that way. It's easier to imagine someone designing an organism to perform those deeds than to say a fetus survived the wild and changed incrementally all on it's own over and over again. That honestly sounds ridiculous.
The natural rate of mutation is less believable than
>MY SPECIFIC SCHIZO BABBLE IS RIGHT BECAUSE MY FAVORITE SCHIZO SAID THE VOICES IN HIS HEAD TOLD HIM THIS AND OTHER SCHIZO BABBLE IS WRONG BECAUSE THE VOICES IN HIS HEAD TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS OK
>STOP ASKING QUESTIONS
>EVEYR SCIENTIST IS IN A CONSPIRACY WITH MY SCHIZOS LEAST FAVORITE VOICES TO PROVE HIM WRONG
>STOP BELIEVING THEM
>OKAY ACTUALLY ITS A METAPHOR
You really know how to win people over. Yes, believing in intelligent design makes more sense to me than a premature fly passing on some premature trait over and over until he can make a womb for himself to ferment in. Doesn't mean somebody believes in a particular religion. And your schizo freakout because someone expresses doubt makes me see evolution itself as some kind of religious cult.
>Believing in intelligent design makes more sense to me
Okay, first off, intelligent design only exists in some religions, not others. What is the basis for these religions being right? Surely, you will not say because they are popular, because many religions have prophesized that as the end times approach, people will begin believing in false religions even after the truth was revealed at last. Who created the god? Does something existing without a beginning really make sense? How do you know there is only one god, and how do you know they directly created life on earth, instead of creating the basis for the natural process and then guiding it? And how do you explain creationism in the face of evidence that conflicts the claims of every holy text that says it happened, such as the earth being older, and the entire fossil record showing macro-evolution, as well as evolution being observable in real time? We even have the missing link between modern and early man walking around, in the flesh.
The more you ask questions the more complex it gets. You must find conspiracy theories everywhere, say carbon dating is fake, etc. Everyone has to be lying, across the whole world. But there is a simple answer.
One day some mutant flies were being born prematurely and they did alright because they were eating stuff and nothing was eating them
So because some religions are inconsistent, I have to believe that there is no creator and animals evolve like pokemon?
Because religions are inconsistent and none of the gods seem to be interested in rectifying that like they say they do in all their myths, you might as well assume they don't exist.
Some animal with a birth defect being lucky enough to continue fricking makes lots more sense. We can observe that happening today. If any religion is right, it's the one that agrees that this happened, and god merely guided random chance so it would produce the results he wanted in a timely fashion. That would best align with the strong evidence for evolution, and that it seems to work too well. Said religion does exist, and it is the catholic church.
For instance, humans are tall and intelligent animals with strong chins. Your mother and father are mutants who managed to reproduce, and now here you are. A short and ugly moron. If you pass your defects on again, possibly by breeding with your cousin, a change in kinds will occur as 100% of your children will have an extra chromosome.
I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced of evolution.
So? I never said I believed in a single creator. You people are very tribal. You either have to be one or the other in your book. I said it's easier to imagine intelligent design for this particular instance. You're the one jumping to presumptions. Which is exactly my problem with believing in evolution. It's all theories with no confirmation and a ton of assumptions.
It's easier to imagine intelligent design, based on a god or gods you can't even explain, than "a birth defect wasn't so bad and was lucky enough to be passed on"?
Evolution is a proven fact. The only theories are about how animals we see today evolved, but the mechanism itself is well understood and has been observed during human history.
You know what's an assumption? In any creator. You can't tell us who this creator is, where they came from, what proof you have for their existence, etc.
>Proven fact
I've done my research on evolution, took a few college courses. If you think evolution is a settled science with no room for doubt, it's because you haven't.
Wouldn't an evolutionist go to hell as well? And if evolution is true and I end up not believing in it, what consequences will there be? Some rando on fourchin might think I'm dumb for asking questions and having doubt? Gasp, oh no.
I have, and evolution is a settled fact. Only historical evolution events are theories.
>wouldn’t someone who believes in the proven and self evident truth go to hell
No, because i follow a religion that leaves room for evolution, and for established faiths, but not making up your own god.
So riddle me this. Why do they find carbon 14 in dinosaur fossils?
You do understand that fossilization is the process of a bone being partially replaced by newer minerals correct? The carbon 14 comes from later inclusions. That is why radiocarbon dating is not used as an absolute age for fossils. Uranium, potassium, and electron spin resonance dating are used instead. Otherwise fossils can be contaminated with a mix of new and old material due to new uranium decay or bacterial/geological alterations.
You didn’t go to school you went to a creationist blog.
Please spare us the “soft tissues” (proteins preserved due to high iron levels) next. You already had this argument.
Like I said. You don't know what the frick you're talking about. The high iron theory has been proven to be bunk. Many samples where soft tissue has been found have not had high levels of iron. Not to mention the tests which supposedly observed the preservation used pure hemoglobin, and was sealed in a temperature controlled environment. A far cry from any expected conditions for the tissue. And the fossilization process can take as little as four decades. By then the fossils are completely sealed from outside contamination. There are overlapping fossils, where specimens have been found in multiple sediment layers dated millions of years apart. There are fossils speculated to have lived in completely different eras found buried together. I'm not saying evolution can't be true, but to say it's beyond question is as believable as doctor Fauci.
This entire post is false
Go to bed jose
The rapid fossilization is false? Might I recommend:
"Rapid Wood Silicification In Hot Spring Water: An Explanation of Silicification of Wood During the Earth's History," Sedimentary Geology, pages 219 to 228.
Fossilization has occurred in gills, which start to decay in a matter of hours. There have been many tests on rapid fossilization. So much so that despite the attempt of telling me evolutions theories are settled, I still find many holes in the theory.
Rapid fossilization does not preclude later inclusions.
If it can be contaminated with Carbon14 after fossilization, then that lessens the likelihood of the tissues ancient age.
No, not really. ESR dating does not have this problem. Multiple pieces of the sample can be dated multiple times to determine the age of each individual atom. You are not as smart as you think you are.
No, you are educated by macroevolution pig theory tier blogs you sought out on /misc/ and /x/. I’m sure you also rage about dogs, bigfoot, and brian engh.
>Wouldn't an evolutionist go to hell as well?
I don't think "being wrong about how God created the earth." counts as a sin, or everyone before Galileo is fricked.
>Wouldn't an evolutionist go to hell as well?
The one and only church of jesus christ and his apostles has this position, officially, as approved by every credible biblical scholar and the pope:
Intelligent design is possible, but the church accepts that evolution is highly likely and that god created the mechanisms by which it acts and directed its processed according to his will to test our faith and awe us with his brilliance.
>We got proven wrong so well appeal to God of the Gaps
The Church is a fricking joke.
>animals evolve like pokemon?
, the God Pokemon, appeared one day from a cosmic egg. With his 1000 hands he made the world and all the Pokemon.
Exactly. Life, regardless of place and conditions, is universal and is subject to universal mechanisms. God on the other hand is not universal, and is a culture-dependent, synthetic concept. This lack of universality is what falsifies god(s)/ religions.
>according to this one guy in the middle east this "god" came out of nowhere, said all the other gods were wrong, promised the people of israel and israel alone that they were his favorites, and told them that he created everything individually 6000 years ago and then wiped it all out with a flood and did it again
>then he had not-sex with a random woman in nazareth, had a son, and his son said everyone was israel now, and his friends know god better than you so they totally know exactly which ancient texts were really gods word and not and some of them totally talked to god's dead son in their dreams, and one of them even talked to god. why? he said so. just trust them.
>no evidence of global flood
>earth turns out to be more than 6000 years old
>new animals never mentioned in the bible
god spoke to me and said it was all fake and evolution happened. i saw a giant light in the sky and a booming voice said "the fossil record is real and carbon dating works"
Did anyone mention Christianity?
Every single component of the intelligent design movement is christian. Even muslims - they're a sect of christianity. Non-christian creationists basically don't exist. No other religion has a single creation story and ultimate eternal creator who is responsible for one single indisputable creation.
Do you realize how short the lifecycle of most insects is?
>announces confirmation bias
lol, youre not a fencesitting, youre literally the opposite
>It is like if somewhere in india, a woman had a very premature birth. This very prematurely born baby was lucky enough to survive with some difficulty by just being bathed in milk. It reached adultood and its children had the same problem, and the same solution, and this turned out to be good for them because instead of walking around heavily pregnant the women would just keep their babies bathed in milk.
More info? Links?
butt silk probably happened because they first had protein secretions show up for attaching themselves to surfaces (a very old trait dating back to fricking sponges) and gradually animals that used more butt protein and less body hardening were more likely to survive
You're overlooking how many billions of worms we're talking about. Even today you can probably find stupid ass worms doing wiggly things that if it survives will probably lead to something helpful.
No one cares about your stupid robot fan fiction. Evidence. Measurable data, not
>Well according to this theory you doubt, it could’ve happened like this
I know how an evolutionist would explain it, and it sounds moronic. Give me evidence.
give evidence of intentional creation besides “it sounds good to me” because mutant worms fricking makes a lot more sense than the sheer amount of cope the religious /misc/yps spew on Wauf. even then, the only church ordained by anyone who may have spoke to a real prophet of a real god has accepted evolution as a fact so you don’t even make sense, you’re a schizo making up your own god.
I’ve not made any claim that my position is indisputable, that’s the difference. I at least know as much that not even scripture states that. “Keep testing that the word is is true.” The Bible tells you to question it. Not even Buddha claimed to have the truth. But scientists? Oh, they’ll play god all day long.
Any thread I dislike is a slide. On Wauf no less. I’m sure the bots and shills are focused here, good work Sherlock.
I asked a question. You did not answer.
Goodbye.
When? You want evidence? How about the mathematical probability of dna showing up spontaneously. How about soft tissue surviving hundreds, of millions years defying all known understanding of decay.
A highly documented phenomenon I might add. The flood myths that span continents and languages and cultures. All call for suspicion at the very least.
>The flood myths that span continents and languages and cultures.
So I take it you believe in dragons, ghouls, and vampires too?
Sure. I’ve met a israelite or two.
It’s almost like different places flood and so they all have stories about floods. Different cultures tend to also have stories about wildfires and droughts so I guess the world was also lit on fire for a while
>unlikely things never happen
>no one predicted preserved proteins so uh, ghosts!
>floods happen so le gawd!
What a fricking moron
And yet if someone used the same argument to explain a religious event you’d call him crazy. Hypocrite.
>It just happened
>No I won’t explain it, but I’ll demand you do
You evolutionists really are insufferable
>explain it
>"duhhhh so you have no explanation"
most sentient creatard
>How about the mathematical probability of dna showing up spontaneously.
Lines up pretty well with the fact there's a billion trillion planets out there and every single one but ours is dead.
Invert autist here, some of those little guys don't weave themselves a silk coccoon. They straight up moult into the chrysalis, shedding off their face, legs and all that other shit. Look it up on youtube.
You're falling for shitty b8. Just caeij and move on.