Upload
Login or register
Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
Online User List [+] Online: (1): whoozy, anonymous(1).
asd
#141859 - platinumaltaria
Reply -2
(06/13/2016) [-]
Behold the nothing of June 13th.
#141861 to #141859 - theism
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
Lulz got banned.
#141862 to #141861 - platinumaltaria
Reply -2
(06/13/2016) [-]
I never even saw him here...
#141875 to #141862 - theism
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Unforgivensoul was lulzforsandyhook.
#141845 - whoozy
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Why is all muslim states shit?
Why do muslims hate gays and women?
Why does the Quran tell us to decapitate and cut the fingers of non-believers?
#141865 to #141845 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
u r just mad 50 useless fags got killed. no more boipussy?
#141868 to #141865 - whoozy
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
50 bucks those fags have been more useful than you'll ever be
#141869 to #141868 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
hahahaa. sucking a dick sure useful for society

>>>/Fag/
#141870 to #141869 - whoozy
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
Syrian you are a self loathing faggot and you have sucked dick already

You're really just shooting yourself in the foot
#141871 to #141870 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
take your such fantasy outta here. maybe you dont need to be shot by another omar dont you?
take your such fantasy outta here. maybe you dont need to be shot by another omar dont you?
#141873 to #141871 - whoozy
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Fantasy? It's your reality.

Keep projecting your insecurities
#141874 to #141873 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
nice meme.
#141858 to #141845 - caet
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
because 1500 years ago it was the best they can do, and holy doctrines have a tendency to keep people in the time it was written.
#141839 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
One time I was asked if I was a Mormon because I was riding a bike.
I was a 14 year old kid with long hair in jeans and a band t shirt, probably, in california no less, and he thinks I'm on a Mormon mission cause I was riding a bike
#141755 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
ITT theists explain why their religious text tells them to kill gay people.
#141842 to #141755 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
It doesn't even explain with they shouldn't kill people.
#141768 to #141755 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
#141806 to #141768 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
So god creates gay people
So tells straights to kill gay people
god gives gay people AIDS to contract to straight people for not killing gay people?
#141807 to #141806 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
just having some fun with plat
#141810 to #141807 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
#141802 to #141768 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>>#141801
You realise that india allows the killing of gay people right?
Also they've clearly been operating for a while, because homosexuality has been recorded throughout human history in all parts of the world. And in other animals... Almost like it's not a conspiracy you moron.

Also weird how people aren't suddenly becoming gay out of nowhere...
#141827 to #141802 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>>#141826

more government lies.
#141828 to #141827 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Show me any deaths from fluoride please.
#141829 to #141828 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
it doesn't kill u it makes u gay
#141830 to #141829 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well you've been drinking it your entire life, along with everyone else in the western world, and gay people still only make up 2% of the population.
Also there is no mechanism that could possibly cause that you moron.
#141831 to #141830 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
cus i pray the gay away. alex jones has explained how it happens. open ur eyes sheep
#141833 to #141831 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
If people choose to be gay then it should be easy for you to choose to be gay right now...
#141836 to #141833 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
uh oh. i'm starting to get weird feelings for u plat
#141837 to #141836 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I'm a girl though...
#141838 to #141837 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
so ur telling me it wouldnt be gay to get fucked in the ass by u?
#141841 to #141838 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well unfortunately for you I don't like men.
#141846 to #141841 - whoozy
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
So you're a mtf tranny lesbian?
#141850 to #141846 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
#141847 to #141846 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Congrats on putting 2 and 2 together.
#141849 to #141847 - whoozy
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
Literal Mr. Garrison

Well this is getting ridiculous
#141852 to #141849 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
STOP OPPRESSING HER SHITLOARD
#141855 to #141852 - whoozy
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
Nothing keeps surprising me more than the depravity of man
#141851 to #141849 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
I don't know who that is...
#141853 to #141851 - whoozy
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Probably better that way
Cya around plat
#141854 to #141853 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
I don't like you.
#141832 to #141831 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>stop.
#141834 to #141832 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
fucking sheep. the NWO has enslaved u
#141835 to #141834 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
If an organisation had as much power as you think they do then you wouldn't be able to say shit against them idiot.
#141840 to #141835 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
they stalk me everywhere i go
#141803 to #141802 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
keep drinking the koolaid. the NWO turned you into a tranny and you don't even realise it
#141804 to #141803 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Pretty sure I was born like this...
#141805 to #141804 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
what happens is that when a pregnant woman drinks water with fluoride the baby turns out gay or transgender
#141808 to #141805 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Oh really? So my brother is obviously gay oh wait no he isn't...
#141809 to #141808 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
it can be prevented if u get baptized
#141811 to #141809 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Nope, we were both baptised.
#141812 to #141811 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
you didn't believe hard enough
#141813 to #141812 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I didn't believe at all because a) I was a fucking baby and b) it's fucking water
#141814 to #141813 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
still u could have believed harder
#141815 to #141814 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
0% belief is pretty much the limit.
#141816 to #141815 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
that was ur choice
#141817 to #141816 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
You don't choose to believe.
#141818 to #141817 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
i choose not to believe that
#141819 to #141818 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Yeah and you think fluoride makes you gay... I think we can tell who's the moron here.
#141820 to #141819 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
alex jones proved it.
#141822 to #141820 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Do you know what fluoride is?
#141825 to #141822 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
toxic chemical the government makes in top secret labs
#141826 to #141825 - platinumaltaria
0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Wrong again.
Fluoride (aka. F-) is the negatively charged ion of fluorine, the lightest halogen. Fluoride is added to water because it helps your teeth. How does it do this? Well fluoride slows your tooth enamel's decomposition, which prevents cavities and can actually help repair them in the early stages. The US Department of Agriculture states that the maximum dosage of such fluoridated water able to be consumed with zero risk is 10 litres a day. That's about 3-4 times the amount people drink in a day... And you'd have to keep that up for weeks... so no, fluoridated water is not dangerous at all.
#141823 to #141822 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
it's made by the government to make people gay
#141824 to #141823 - platinumaltaria
0
(06/12/2016) [-]
No.
What is it?
#141821 to #141820 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
OH BOY HERE WE GO
#141770 to #141768 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Wouldn't be surprised if you thought this.
#141771 to #141770 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
you think i dont?
#141772 to #141771 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I think you have at least the capacity to understand that this is bullshit.
#141774 to #141772 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
AIDs cures gays
#141776 to #141774 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
AIDS*
#141775 to #141774 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
AIDS also cures cancer in the same way.
#141777 to #141775 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
people with cancer aren't spreading AIDS
#141779 to #141777 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
People with AIDS typically don't spread AIDS either, what with condoms being a thing.
#141782 to #141781 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Indeed, and would you like to know why?
Because gay men are less likely to use contraception than straight men.
#141783 to #141782 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
natural selection
#141784 to #141783 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>thinking gays reproduce
#141791 to #141784 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
btw they don't have to reproduce. homosexuality is created by homosexuals corrupting the youth. AIDS will drive it to extinction. it's still natural selection
#141792 to #141791 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
So according to you can be turned gay?
#141795 to #141792 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
sure
#141796 to #141795 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
So how does that work?
#141798 to #141797 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Oh boy here we go. Homosexuality is not caused by the following:
Choice
Child Sexual Abuse
Domestic Abuse
Indoctrination
Hormones hormones in the water? really? You're dangerously close to being a conspiritard there

Homosexuality is observed in countless species in nature, so to pretend that it's some aberrant phenomena is just sad.
#141801 to #141798 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>implying they aren't
#141799 to #141798 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>You're dangerously close to being a conspiritard there

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir-WabG3EJ8

educate yourself. the NWO is trying to depopulate the earth
#141800 to #141799 - platinumaltaria
0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Sure they are. Odd how they target countries with low population growth instead of, say, china or india.
#141785 to #141784 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
poetic justice*
#141786 to #141785 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
*basic reproductive biology

Seriously you may actually be retarded.
#141787 to #141786 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
not as retarded as fags who sodomize eachother without wearing a condom and then get AIDS
#141788 to #141787 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Yes well if christians hadn't put a stigma on contraception then it wouldn't have been a problem...
#141789 to #141788 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
we shouldn't encourage it. let them all get AIDS
#141790 to #141789 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I have a question, why did your god create gay people in the first place if he was just going to punish them for it?
#141793 to #141790 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>thinking God makes people gay
#141794 to #141793 - platinumaltaria
0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well why does it happen then?
#141764 to #141755 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Because the authors, like theists themselves, suffered from intellectual disability and a severe lack of motivation to take responsibility of their own life.
No need to ever make a choice when someone does it for you. They are inherently lazy.
#141778 to #141764 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>severe lack of motivation to take responsibility of their own life.

what does this have to do with the realization that gays are evil?
#141780 to #141778 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well it is the underlying foundation of religion.
If people live fully by the doctrines of their religious texts, they will never have to question anything. It is not a realization that gays are evil, if they do not realize this themselves independently.
#141844 to #141780 - whoozy
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Now now
Let's not blame all religion

This is Islam
#141863 to #141844 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
I agree.
#141765 to #141764 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(06/12/2016) [-]
>just like mexicans
#141767 to #141765 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
But don't forget, he was not a real muslim.
#141769 to #141767 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Real muslims have curves.
#141773 to #141769 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
So the legend says, we have yet to see what lies under the mysterious covers.
#141766 to #141765 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
precise
#141725 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I convinced a Christian not to convert to Islam for her bf.
#141856 to #141725 - atoaster
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
That's pretty good. I know a girl who did.
#141734 to #141725 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(06/12/2016) [-]
I once ate a cake.
#141735 to #141734 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
me too
#141759 to #141735 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>>#141758
Well you can't really force it on people...
#141760 to #141759 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
you can force them to pretend
#141761 to #141760 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Pretend to what?
#141762 to #141761 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
be atheist?
if I visited the middle east, you can be damn sure I'd pretend to be muslim if anyone asked
#141763 to #141762 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Oh right
#141736 to #141735 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>not converting them to reality
#141737 to #141736 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I could've have tried to do that, fail and alienate them completely so they just convert to islam
or at least just not let them fool themselves into believing something they don't for their boyfriend, especially fuckin islam.
#141738 to #141737 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well you can't just choose to believe something.
#141739 to #141738 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
no, but they can trick themselves into believing it, if her boyfriend's approval is that important to her.
they already believe in a god, its not that much further to go from Christianity to islam.
#141740 to #141739 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Honestly every day I become more jaded of human males and humans in general.

They're the exact same religion, but don't tell em.
#141741 to #141740 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Except Christianity (modern) isn't known for slaughtering nonchristians
or kill you for leaving Christianity
or kill you for being homosexual
or kill you for getting divorced
or kill you for being a prostitute
or kill you for being a different type of christian
I'd prefer a secular world but if I had to pick, I'd prefer a word dominated by Christianity than islam
#141742 to #141741 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
That sounds like picking between trump and hillary; both are horrible.
#141743 to #141742 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
yes, comparable to secularism, both are horrible but living in America (80% Christian) it's a demonstrably better world than the middle east.
#141745 to #141743 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
In ME 100% of people would want me dead, in america it's only like 40%
#141746 to #141745 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
are you getting the 40% statistic based on how many people actually believe jesus will return in our life time? cause even them I don't think want you dead for bewing atheist. unless you're gay. then yeah 40% sounds accurate
#141747 to #141746 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I'm trans, which means I'm a pedophile obviously.
#141749 to #141747 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
although I could be wrong actually. I mean our country was founded by atheists and deists that weren't really fond of Christianity.
what's it like in brasil on that subject?
#141750 to #141749 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Yes, but the people who came to this country were leaving to make a christian nation.
What does brazil have to do with anything?
#141752 to #141750 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Brazil enjoy many of the same legal protections available to non-LGBT people, with LGBT people having marriage rights available nationwide since May 2013."
welp
#141754 to #141752 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well yes, that doesn't mean people don't like it though
#141756 to #141754 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
im sure more than 40% of USA isn't fond of it. even people that support it might not really like the idea, but want equality.
#141757 to #141756 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
People want what's best for them every time.
#141758 to #141757 - caet
0
(06/12/2016) [-]
example, I don't like religion, but I'm not for censorship and forced atheism or something dumb like that. I'm sure there are people like that but for trans/gay
#141751 to #141750 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
yeah but the constitution was written by deists
brazil is a primarily Christian country, I'm wondering what their stance of gay/trans people is
#141753 to #141751 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
How would I know I don't live there...
According to wikipedia they're about the same as the US
#141748 to #141747 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
okay, then yeah that's accurate.
#141744 to #141743 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
True.
#141717 - evolutionvsfact
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
So a bunch of degenerates got killed at a nightclub. Am I supposed to feel bad for them?
#141719 to #141717 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Consider how you would feel if your family had been killed.
#141720 to #141719 - evolutionvsfact
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
If my family was gay, I wouldn't care in the slightest.
#141724 to #141720 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well congrats on being an asshole.
#141726 to #141724 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
hes literally a troll
#141727 to #141726 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Sure he is...
#141728 to #141727 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
'evolution vs fact'
#141729 to #141728 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
you'd be surprised.
#141730 to #141729 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
yeah but if you've actually seen his arguments and how he talks, hes clearly just trying to sound retarded, like purposely misspelling the same words the same way, even after I call him out on it.
#141733 to #141730 - evolutionvsfact
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Which words have I purposely misspelled?
#141731 to #141730 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
You've clearly not been around stupid people as much as me... nothing would surprise me.
#141732 to #141731 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I don't believe it. like, if my surety of zlane being a troll was a 3, this guy is an 8
#141716 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
guess whats happening tomorrow
#141722 to #141716 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
well now that unforgivensoul is banned, idk it it's been cancelled or not
#141843 to #141722 - theism
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
Why did lulz get banned this time?
#141848 to #141843 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
spamming the politics board with "I wish you good fortune in the wars to come"
#141857 to #141848 - theism
Reply 0
(06/13/2016) [-]
So it's not ok to spam that board then? Lol.
#141723 to #141722 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I thought it was omar's thing
#141718 to #141716 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
No one knows or cares.
#141721 to #141718 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
i bet some people are curious
#141701 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141706 to #141701 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>being this assmad.
#141709 to #141706 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141712 to #141709 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
*defending anyone from "kill urself"
There is no reason to be this salty.
#141711 to #141709 - advocatus
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141713 to #141711 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141715 to #141713 - advocatus
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141714 to #141713 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
nevermind zlane he's an idiot.
#141702 to #141701 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141704 to #141702 - advocatus
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141710 to #141704 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141708 to #141704 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141705 to #141704 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141707 to #141705 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
That seems like a measured response.
#141698 - caet
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141636 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Zlane since you've made it abundantly apparent that you don't agree with evolutionary theory, what explanation do you have for the diversity of life on earth?
#141637 to #141636 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Design
#141638 to #141637 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
So, to be clear, you think that a more plausible explanation than natural selection is that every animal that has ever existed magically popped into existence fully grown?
#141639 to #141638 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
natural selection and allele shuffling accounts for the diversity of life after Noah's flood. one kind(family in terms of taxonomical rank) of animal was brought on the ark, and all the different species that exist now descended from these animals.

but yeah, these kinds were created in their current form, ex nihilo, 6000 years ago.
#141663 to #141639 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
you realize that even dog breeds took 10,000 years to change from gray wolves
4000 years is not enough time for 1 kind of cat to evolve into a totally different kind of cat that can't interbreed.
#141680 to #141663 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
we believe this happened through 2 main evolutionary processes

1. allele shuffling. imagine chapters of a book changed around so that the story is changed. for example, humans have 100s of alleles that affect height. through shuffling over several generations you can get a population of very tall or very short people even from a founding population of 2 people of average height.

2. speciation through reproductive isolation. most animals have many redundant backup systems that kick in when primary systems fail. imagine a species has system A1 with redundant fallback A2, B1 with B2, etc. a geographical divide splits the species into two daughter populations. because there isn't much selective cost in losing a redundant system, over hundreds of years population 1 loses systems A2, B2, C2, D2, and E2 to random mutation. population 2 loses A1, B1, C1, D2, and E2. if you were to put the populations together, per Punnett squares, 75% have a working A system. Only 75% have a working B system, and so on and less than a quarter of the offspring would be viable......so you have different species.
#141681 to #141680 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Wow... you are jumping through so many hoops to reject an old earth.
#141682 to #141681 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
i'm open to the possibility of an old earth
#141683 to #141682 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
then you would accept that it's old. it's been proven through various methodologies.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html
#141684 to #141683 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
just to let you know, there are creationist interpretations of radiometric dating. it's not like this stuff is completely inexplicable to us
#141685 to #141684 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
yeah, you can interpret anything anyway you want when the truth is too hard for you to swallow.
#141686 to #141685 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
why would it be hard for us to swallow? if it turns out that YEC is wrong, that just means we're misinterpreting the Bible, and we have to change how we look at Genesis. i wouldn't go into a deep depression and lose my faith if i was convinced the Earth is old
#141687 to #141686 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
You said you have no reason to take an anti-literal approach to the bible (first of all, bad rationale)
there are many reasons to reject a literal approach. Such as... it's a book... and there's no evidence backing it up.
and all the evidence, piles, mounds of evidence from all major branches of science disproving a literal approach.
Also if you go to the next page, it discusses those creationist interpretations and why they are just wrong.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/creationist_age_earth.html#h33
#141688 to #141687 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
well, i would like to do some research before going into this subject. i'm not ready right now
#141689 to #141688 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
How come you're willing to take creationist arguments on their word but you have to do research for counter arguments?

Also I'd like to talk about this
>>#141644,
What happens when you pray to god for an answer? And has god ever told you you were wrong about something?
#141690 to #141689 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
if i just accepted creationist arguments without doing any research, i'd just copy paste the answers in genesis article on radiometric dating and respond to you with that. that's not what i do. my arguments aren't just copy pasted from creationist sites. creationists typically use weak arguments like "mutations never create new information" and i have no interest in recycling cliche arguments.

i've been wrong before and i've used arguments in the past that i wouldn't use now. i sometimes ask God to help me understand what i'm getting wrong, and where i need to look to get the right answers. i believe that He helps.
#141691 to #141690 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
no, i mean, have you asked god for an answer and had god tell you you were wrong about something you wanted to be right, if so, what?
#141692 to #141691 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
i mean God doesn't directly tell you wrong, He helps guide you to the right answer, which might be as simple as giving us the inspiration to investigate things more thoroughly.

i can't really give you specific examples related to this subject.
#141693 to #141692 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
what does it have to be god that inspired you? you already triggered your own curiosity by praying about it. is it out of the question that it was then your own inquisition to answer your own question? I mean this doesn't really suggest a god.
#141694 to #141693 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
when you pray sometimes you just sort of feel different, like you're ready to do something that you weren't able to do before. idk. you'd have to experience it for yourself
#141695 to #141694 - caet
0
(06/12/2016) [-]
still doesn't really suggest a god.
you had a feeling, and you're ready to base your entire reality on a warm fuzzy feeling. I've had some really nice feelings when listening to music or hearing a great monologue, that doesn't make it divine. if i had to guess, someone told you a long time ago at a very young, impressionable age, that the feeling you have isn't just gained from the idea of god, but actually god himself. so you are reinforced to believe that it's literally god. How can you determine a feeling is actually god? Maybe it's Satan making you feel good so you're worship him, pretending to be god. How can you know? but you would never question it was god because you are trained to believe without evidence and on faith that it's god, and not just a feeling.
#141642 to #141639 - theism
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
What makes that any more reasonable?
#141644 to #141642 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
simply put, it's what the Bible says. I trust the Bible because of the experiences i had after reading the Bible and praying to God. I see no reason to take an anti-literal approach and reject Noah's Ark,
#141641 to #141639 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Well congrats on being the first creationist in history to determine what a kind actually is.

Oooh noah's flood, there's a fun one. I would have thought the complete abscence of any geological record of said event would tip you off, but I guess not. Perhaps you noticed that all marine species would be dead due to the desalination (or possibly hypersalination) of the world's water and that's without asking where the water came from and went . Surely we won't need to mention that there are tens of thousands of families of animal, which could not even begin to fit into said ark, let alone the number required to have a breeding population. We won't go into the complete lack of genetic diversity that would arise from such a bottleneck in reality See the cheetah for a real world example of low genetic diversity . If we have time we might get onto the simple reality that god doesn't actually exist, so you fall flat at the first hurdle. In fact it's not even a hurdle, it's more the doorway leading to the racetrack.
#141664 to #141641 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
where did he distinguish what a kind was?
#141665 to #141664 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
>>#141639
"one kind(family in terms of taxonomical rank) of animal was brought on the ark"
#141666 to #141665 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
I'm not a biologist
#141667 to #141666 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Well neither is he.
#141676 to #141667 - anon
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
well neither are you
#141677 to #141676 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Lucky thing I didn't claim to be then isn't it.
#141678 to #141677 - anon
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
and did i?
#141679 to #141678 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
mfw you're anonposting.
#141668 to #141667 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
so where is that rank? and what are examples of the rank
#141670 to #141669 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
ok so like i said, there are cats that have evolved outside of their ability to breed again. that happened in 4000 years?
#141671 to #141670 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Apparently...
#141673 to #141671 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
nevermind. i looked up the jewish definition apparently that word can mean 'winged creature' sothat's not very solid.
#141674 to #141673 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Yeah, I don't know why you're expecting biology in the bible. This was a theory that came about 200 years ago:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
#141675 to #141674 - caet
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
yes im aware of Lamarck.
#141672 to #141671 - caet
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141646 to #141641 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
"A mouflon population [considered an ancient 'parent' lineage of sheep], bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents. This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time"

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103157.htm
#141649 to #141646 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Oh and...
"We think this has happened because natural selection is more important to the evolutionary process than is commonly believed," he added.
#141650 to #141649 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
neutralists btfo. selectionists ftw
#141652 to #141650 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I'm going to assume you mean naturalists... and there is no such thing as a "selectionist".

That entire quote goes against you, because it's clearly talking about natural selection and evolution as facts.
#141654 to #141653 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Ok then... this means nothing to me because unlike you I don't pretend to be an expert in genetic science.
#141655 to #141654 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
just explaining the difference between advocates of neutralism and advocates of selectionism

neutral theory says that most evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift, and that a large percentage of mutations are neutral, and therefore natural selection is blind to most mutations. neutralism says that purifying selection does almost nothing to increase diversity. there’s also the nearly-neutral theory.

selectionism holds that all mutations affect fitness and that a large percentage of mutations are deleterious, meaning that selection is the main factor in driving evolutionary changes; increasingly complex adaptive features.

Richard Dawkins is the main proponent of selectionism. Kimura, Stephen Jay Gould, and PZ Myers are big proponets of neutralism.
#141656 to #141655 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Guess what percentage of those people agree with evolutionary theory...
#141657 to #141656 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
5%?
#141658 to #141657 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Oooh, so close. The correct answer was 0%.
#141647 to #141646 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
This was written in 2007, and given that the "theory of genetic drift" is still hanging about I'd say it wasn't all that revolutionary.

And again, before we can even begin to talk about this as a possibility you have to prove the existence of god. And not just any god, the god of your specific holy book, complete with magic animal powers.
#141643 to #141641 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
>genetic bottleneck

not an issue. micro-recombination in HLA genes solves this by creating new variations rapidly.
books.google.com/books?id=flmuDNNpYTIC&q=%22There%20is%20evidence%20that%20there%20is%20a%20high%20rate%20of%20recombination%20between%20alleles%22#v=snippet&q=%22There%20is%20evidence%20that%20there%20is%20a%20high%20rate%20of%20recombination%20between%20alleles%22&f=false
"Zangenberg et al (1995) examined the rate of interallelic gene conversion at the HLA-DPB1 locus in sperm from male heterozygous for six regions of the highly variable exon 2. In 111,675 sperm, they observed nine interallelic conversions for a rate of 0.81*10-3, nearly 1 in 10k gametes."

cheetas went through multiple bottlenecks
#141645 to #141643 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I don't think you seem to understand where the problem here lies. You can recombine as much as you want, if you only have 2 copies of the genome you're not going to get much diversity. This is a widely understood phenomenon, and the reason that saving endangered species is difficult.

Feel free to ignore the strongest evidence btw.
#141648 to #141645 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
perhaps these ancestors had all the information necessary to account for this diversity. these animals would have been very different than modern day animals
#141651 to #141648 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
What do you mean "information"? Do you think they had magic dna that could have hundreds of different genes for multiple different species of animal inside?
#141640 to #141639 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
one kind of each animal
#141591 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
zlane has been putting forward the most thought-provoking arguments against evolution I have ever seen. This is mainly because he gets his arguments mainly from John C. Sanford's GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME. The author is a well-respected and intelligent geneticist and thus his arguments are well-read and powerful.

I have found a source that seems to respond to the arguments better than I ever could, since I have not read the book and I encourage anyone who is interested, especially zlane, to read the whole response. There are other articles on the site that respond to other things, but I have not read those, I've only read the response to Sanford's book and it rebuts the whole thing effectively in my opinion.

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/
#141696 to #141591 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/12/2016) [-]
he refers to this study www.genetics.org/content/168/4/1817.full to support his claim that 13% of mutations are beneficial. the study makes a very important important caveat:
“the protocol for measuring fitness may cause mutations that are deleterious in nature to be beneficial in the lab. In the complete medium of our growth assays, several metabolic pathways, such as those involved in amino acid synthesis, are not required. … **Mutations that reduce or preclude production of proteins in these types of pathways might be beneficial to diploid mitotic growth rate, even though they represent deleterious mutations in nature**.”

when he talks about beneficial mutations i think he’s just talking about mutations that increase reproductive success, and in this sense, beneficial mutations might be able “undue” deleterious mutations, but for beneficial mutations to solve the issue i’m referring to, they would have to be function-building. but as Behe says “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution is break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain" .what i’m saying is that many mutations that are called beneficial are actually deleterious since they are eliminating function- in the yeast example, metabolic pathways “such as those involved in amino acid synthesis” weren’t necessary in the fitness landscape of growth assay and “(may have) represented a metabolic load on a cell and cause reduced growth in complete medium” and this reduction of function “might be beneficial to diploid mitotic growth rate”. so these are not mutations i would call beneficial, and they don’t really help solve the issue. remember, i’m not really arguing that reproductive fitness will necessarily be reduced over many generations.

>Human life span is increasing

this is just due to environmental factors. i don’t understand how this goes against the argument.

>we don’t observe genetic entropy

i think the rate of degradation is too slow to accurately measure most of the time,
but there are examples of observed genetic entropy:

"Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report. On average, 164,688 of the variants — roughly 14% — were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years. 'There’s so many of [variants] that exist that some of them have to contribute to disease,' says Akey" Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome, Nature, 2012

"Things have gotten worse, though; with lessened selective pressures (or, more accurately, very very different selective pressures) and lower family sizes, humans are currently performing what might be called a large-scale mutational meltdown experiment (since basically nothing currently stops us from accumulating deleterious mutations)."

i touched on why we don’t see genetic entropy in microorganisms in my previous reply
#141699 to #141696 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
you havent read the whole thing have you?
#141700 to #141699 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
i just skimmed it : P
#141633 to #141591 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
i will give a more in depth response but first let me make a few points

Sandford's metric is based Kimura's studies, which i don't use.

> If the buildup of deleterious mutations were a real phenomenon, it would become apparent over thousands of generations in laboratory flasks of bacteria.

this is all do to body size

1. larger organisms have much larger genome sizes, which increases the mutation rate.
2. micoorganisms have many more reproductions per generation, giving selection more variation to work with. some are bound to be unaffected each generation.
3. natural selection's strength depends on population size

>Synergistic Epistasis

2 years after this article was written, John Sanford published this www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0013 addressing whether synergistic epistasis can solve the problem
#141592 to #141591 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
i will read the article but first let me clarify that my argument isn't the same as Sanford's

Sanford says that we get 10+ mutations every generation that harm reproductive fitness, leading to mass extinction. while it’s obvious that these mutations affect function(protein folding, binding, etc), and affect fitness in regard, i think Sanford might be overestimating their effect with respect to reproductive fitness. it’s conceivable there could exist complex organisms with loosely functional genomes, and i think that over many thousands of generations, that’s what we would be left with. evolution wouldnt necessarily drive everything to extinction, it would just create very different genomes than what we actually observe

so my argument is

(1) mutations negatively affect functionally constrained sequences every generation.(6-32 deleterious(not with respect to reproduction) mutations per generation. 20% is under functional constraint)

(2) natural selection is actually blind to most of these changes since they don't have immediate fitness repercussions. ( they only very slightly degrade function, making a fold is slightly less stable, a binding spot not as functional. like rust on a car)

(3)so they accumulate mostly unhindered

(4)therefore, given millions of years of evolution, you would not expect the genome to be under very much functional constraint(less than 1%)
(prominent evolutionists agree that evolution should create a genome that is only 1-2%functional)

(5) the genome is significantly functionally constrained

(c) evolution sux


and for anyone curious, this is the major argument against evolution i like to use
>>#141041
>>#141077
#141597 to #141592 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
i really dont see how thats different than sanford's argument
#141600 to #141597 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
just because i don't think evolution would lead to extinction. i'll read the article and get back to you. first i have to deal with plat
#141604 to #141600 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
Sanford has a different definition of "deleterious mutation" in mind
#141613 to #141604 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
what do you mean? different from your definition?
#141620 to #141613 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
he means deleterious as in decreasing reproductive fitness.

we don't see mutations affect the reproductive fitness of every offspring every generation or even over many generations, so i reject that
#141625 to #141620 - cleverguy
Reply +1
(06/11/2016) [-]
the papers that are cited measure fitness in multiple ways, definitely not purely reproductive fitness
#141596 to #141592 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Good thing the earth's only 6000 years old and flat, else we'd be in serious trouble.
#141606 to #141596 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
oh and

> believing round earth theory
#141608 to #141606 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>thinking the earth being round is a theory.
#141611 to #141608 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
>not accepting earth-on-turtles-back theory
#141612 to #141611 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
That's not a theory either! Stop baiting me and defend your stupid ;)
#141616 to #141612 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
do your research man
#141618 to #141616 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
You see I wouldn't be surprised if you thought this based on what you normally say.
#141621 to #141618 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
i really do think that. stop attacking my beliefs
#141622 to #141621 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Stop believing stupid shit.
#141624 to #141622 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
YOU CAN HEAR THE TURTLES. OPEN YOUR EARS
#141626 to #141624 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>thinks there's objective morality
>thinks evolution doesn't happen
>thinks the earth is flat
See how these are similar.
#141628 to #141626 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
cept the earth is flat close minded phaggot
#141629 to #141628 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Stop baiting.
#141630 to #141629 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
go away batin
#141631 to #141630 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
You want me to necropost? Because this is how you get me to necropost.
#141598 to #141596 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
it is. and that's the obvious solution to these issues.
#141599 to #141598 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
;-; See I was going to leave those links alone but now you've forced my hand.
#141601 to #141599 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
nah that's alright. lets talk about anime or something
#141603 to #141601 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
2late2butthurt
#141605 to #141603 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
pls
#141607 to #141605 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I'm sorry mate but you're the one who harps on about genetics with no understanding of how genes are even passed on...

IMO genetics is the best evidence for evolution we have, and I consider it insulting to the decades of work by countless men and women to have you shit on their ideas.
#141609 to #141607 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
just let cleverguy respond.
#141610 to #141609 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
What's he got to do with me? I haven't seen him say anything stupid yet, so he gets to remain unmolested.
#141614 to #141610 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
ur a monster. leave our private bits alone
#141615 to #141614 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
If you don't say stupid shit you have nothing to fear...
#141617 to #141615 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
stop molesting me
#141619 to #141617 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I wouldn't even rape you.
#141623 to #141619 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
u want it the other way around eh?
#141627 to #141623 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
You aren't worthy.
#141587 - anon
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Guise. Guise. Here's an idea. Stop responding to Platinumaltaria and he'll go away! It's that easy.
#141590 to #141587 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
No he won't. Stop being assmad.
#141593 to #141590 - anon
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
if i suk ur dik, will u leave?
#141594 to #141593 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Why is it you want me to leave?
#141659 to #141594 - anon
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
/politics/ Look. The perfect place for you. Don't waste your time here on this boring board, they need you!
#141660 to #141659 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I don't know if you know this, but you're an anon.
#141661 to #141660 - anon
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
/politics Come on....they need you. Share your brilliance there. Your intelligence is wasted here.
#141662 to #141661 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/12/2016) [-]
Click to show spoiler
#141580 - anon
Reply -2
(06/11/2016) [-]
Gay people shouldn’t have their balls cut off.. nah they should have their dick cut off and their balls left on. They should have to live with their desires and never be able to act on them.
#141583 to #141580 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
tfw you been sitting actually wondering about cocks and balls
#141581 to #141580 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(06/11/2016) [-]
Why would you make bait this obvious?
#141575 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
just want to clarify that the genetic entropy argument doesn't necessarily say that everything should be extinct by now, just that, evolution cannot maintain a strictly functional genome, and that if evolution were true, we would expect the genome to be almost entirely tolerant to mutation.

btw many evolutionists argue(d) that evolution couldn't have created a strictly functional genome

Thomas Jukes: "Either 99 percent of mammalian DNA is not true genetic material, in the sense that it is not capable of transmitting mutational changes which affect the phenotype, or 40,000 genes is a gross underestimate of the total gene number."

Richard Dawkins: "Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% ".

they seem to agree that if the genome is significantly functionally constrained, the genetic load from mutations would be too heavy.
#141585 to #141575 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141582 to #141575 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I mean that seems to be disproven by the hundreds of geneticists, all of which accept evolution for some crazy reason...

"Evolutionist" is not a thing.
And who? When? Why do I care?

Yay appeals to authority!
Well first off there's only half that number of genes in humans... second I'm not exactly sure that any part of this quote is accurate...
This was a commonly held belief, but it turns out that that's not the case. Least of all because 100% of the dna is required to build said organism (one cannot simply compile a genome without the supposed "junk" bits and get a functional organism).

And yet the field of genetics remains, as does evolutionary theory. So either:
a) You've thought of something that 1000s of highly educated people have not, despite possessing no relevant education beyond... maybe a primary level?
b) Your conclusion is wrong.
Science motherfuckers.
#141586 to #141582 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
>You've thought of something that 1000s of highly educated people have not,

i just pointed out two examples of highly educated people who have thought of this.

>no relevant education beyond... maybe a primary level?

u dun belieb in evolotion therfor ur not edumacated
#141584 to #141582 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
i wasn't even really making an argument here, i was clarifying what my argument is. i'm not sure why you even responded.

>This was a commonly held belief, but it turns out that that's not the case. Least of all because 100% of the dna is required to build said organism

correct.

>evolutionist

a person who accepts evolution

> appeals to authority!

not at all. just pointing out that some prominent scientists have noticed what we(creationists) have noticed. i'm not saying "these scientists have suggested that evolution cannot maintain a genome under high functional constraint, therefore it's true".

>I mean that seems to be disproven by the hundreds of geneticists

now that's an appeal to authority
#141589 to #141584 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>>#141584
Because I'm a cunt, right?

a person who accepts evolution
So every sane human alive?

Oh I get it, they just didn't notice the apparent glaring mistake. Apparently though creationists did... can you not see how there's a much simpler explanation: you're wrong.

No that's not, that's not even an appeal to anything, that's pointing out that the field of genetics and the people therein agree with evolutionary theory, despite being the people to ask about genes.

>>#141586
I'm talking about the whole set, not two people. Two people saying something that you interpret to be evidence for your argument doesn't magically defeat a century of scientific research.

Well yes, when a person flat out denies something that any 10 year old can explain to you I can assume that person is poorly educated. One thing creationists have in common without fail is a total lack of relevant education in biology, physics and other sciences that they attack.
#141576 to #141575 - caet
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
how come the only place i can find that quote is on an anti-evolution website?
#141578 to #141577 - caet
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
i found that one, the first one i mean.
also you know that recently, scientists have discovered there is no junk dna, right? the other 98% has an effect on the 2%, i forgot what exactly though.
and if expert biologists see no problem in this, what makes you think you cracked the code?
#141579 to #141578 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/king.pdf

>you know that recently, scientists have discovered there is no junk dna, right?

uh...yeah that's pretty central to the argument. i've cited the 2012 and 2014 ENCODE study many times.

> if expert biologists see no problem in this, what makes you think you cracked the code?

evolutionists like PZ Myer's weren't very happy about the ENCODE studies, and fiercely ridiculed them. they still believe that the genome is almost entirely loosely functional. i don't know how other biologists have wrestled with this problem, the only counter-argument i've ever seen is that the genome isn't actually under much functional constraint
#141555 - caet
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
documentaryheaven.com/going-clear-scientology-prison-of-belief/
documentary about scientology from the perspective of ex-scientologists if anyone's interested.
#141512 - anon
Reply -1
(06/10/2016) [-]
>Religion is just mindwashing the general population.
>Never mention secular influence like cultural Marxism.
>Believes that what's moral is relative, but evil is absolute.
>Supports evidence, reason, proofs excepts when I don't like it.
#141513 to #141512 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
Context.
#141509 - anon
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
HODOR 13

Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor.
#141504 - mybenis
Reply -1
(06/10/2016) [-]
If there really were missing links in our past, there would be fossils littered everywhere. Not just one or two deformed skulls of humans, but thousands. We would see missing link between other creatures, such as between the Mammoth and the Elephant. We see illustrated pictures of what certain link creatures WOULD HAVE looked like, but never any actual proof. Science has already proven that macro-evolution, the theory that various species evolved too quickly to have decent fossil records, was impossible. So why haven't they been just been dug up yet if they're there?

The absence of these fossil records can make an atheist doubt his ways, but to them, anything is more acceptable than a "creator", and since evolution is the only other possible alternative they blindly accept evolution despite the obvious holes in logic.

Then they have the nerve to mock others who believe in creation because of their "blind-faith" when really their beliefs are as just as unsupported as all the rest. with the exception of the billions of recorded religious experiences throughout history It just irritates me how many Atheists will shove their beliefs down your throat but get mad when others do the same to them.

Atheists, I'm not insulting your intelligence or your beliefs, I'm just pointing out the hypocritical thinking of most of FunnyJunk. A lot of Christians, Jewish, etc. are silenced from expressing their beliefs because they don't want to have to argue with half the internet at once. And neither do I.
#141564 to #141504 - transdegenerate
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Checkm8.
#141514 to #141504 - platinumaltaria
Reply -2
(06/10/2016) [-]
The environment needed for fossils to form is very specific and rare, that is why there are only a few fossils. To summarise very generally the body must be covered quickly (either by mud or soil).

We have several hundred hominid skulls around the world, several thousand if one includes fragments.

We do. Elephant evolution is one of the more well understood ancestries. Here's a rundown of the entire order, of which elephants are the only surviving members:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscidea

Well the problem with fossils is that they only show the skeletal structure in the majority of cases, stuff like skin and feathers can sometimes be kept in traces, but typically the shape of the animal is lost. The drawings you see are based partly on intuition, we can guess that mammoths were built much the same as their living relatives, for instance.

Science has "proven" no such thing, as shown by the unanimous agreement on the subject by scientists. Anyone claiming such clearly has no understanding of how science works.

"Species evolved too quickly to leave a fossil record"? I'm pretty sure that's what's impossible.

To call evolution an alternate explanation to god is frankly insulting: god does not explain anything. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism either, it just so happens that people with no incentive to ignore reality tend to arrive at the truth, aka. evolutionary theory.

No. Evolutionary theory is heavily supported by genetic and fossil evidence, and aptly explains the observed phenomena. In this regard it is the only explanation that accounts for all of the facts, thus it is an accepted theory. Religion has nothing to do with it, this is the domain of science.

Yes you are, you've made numerous blanket statements attacking atheists in this comment alone.
Contrary to popular belief when you enter a public forum your ideas are not exempt from criticism, in fact by doing so you are welcoming criticism. If you want a place where you will never be challenged on anything there are various religious organisations that will prohibit free speech in your favour. But the internet will never be a place for that.
#141524 to #141514 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
well, good job taking down arguments that no serious creationist uses.
#141556 to #141524 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>>#141554
Now that's what I call an appeal to authority! I don't care what he said, he isn't the arbiter of truth, nor does he claim to be.
Well it is. Why do you think he posted this on a blog instead of a journal? Because it's speculation.

No gene is fixated I think you just mean fixed, go easy with the suffixes. Any gene can change.
#141560 to #141556 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
oh, and i'm not saying that there are genes that can't be changed, i'm talking about population fixation
#141557 to #141556 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
it's not an appeal to authority. i'm citing information. if you have some problem with his methodology, go ahead and criticize that.

if the parents each have 10 bad mutations, the offspring, on average, are going to have more than 10. it's not additive, as i've admitted, but there is accumulation.
#141558 to #141557 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
If it's not peer reviewed then it isn't necessarily accurate. And as I said about your claims, if they actually had scientific merit you would publish them and make it into the history books instead of writing blogs or internet posts.

Nope, pretty sure they will have an average of 10... do you not math? The average of 10 and 10 is... 10.
#141559 to #141558 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
if 10 are passed down on average, and new mutations are introduced...thats more than 10
#141561 to #141559 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Let's follow the average number of mutations from the original parents pair over generations.
Gen 1: 10 mutations
Gen 2: 5 mutations
Gen 3: 2.5 mutations
Gen 4: 1.25 mutations
Gen 5: 0.63 mutations
So in just 5 generations the majority of offspring will have no genetic legacy of said mutations... Now, if we take the sum of these we can calculate the total number of harmful mutations in the offspring, assuming each gains 10 mutations:
Gen 1: 10 = 10
Gen 2: 5 + 10 = 15
Gen 3: 2.5 + 5 + 10 = 17.5
Gen 4: 1.25 + 2.5 + 5 + 10 = 18.75
Gen 5: 0.63 + 1.25 + 2.5 + 5 +10 = ~19

After this we cap out at an average of around 20 harmful mutations per additional generation. So in fact after an infinite number of said generations we still only inherit the same total number of harmful mutations from our immaculate parents. Ta daa!
#141562 to #141561 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
more like
parents 10 mutations each
offspring 11-16 mutations+10 new ones
etc
#141563 to #141562 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
No, because as I said you can only get half of a parents genome, one half of each chromosome. Assuming the mutations are random (which they are) you will get 5 from the dad and 5 from the mum.
#141565 to #141563 - zlane
Reply -1
(06/11/2016) [-]
i guess you're right that, on average, you would get half the mutations from each parent. i know that it follows a poisson distribution, and some offspring will get less than half and some will inherent more.

cleverguy, could you should some light on this?
#141567 to #141565 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
the thing about natural selection is that for a mutation to be deleterious it has to decrease chance of survival or chance of having offspring (they usually go together) so the more mutations that offspring have, the less likely you'll see them having offspring in general, so you don't really have to worry about it
#141568 to #141567 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
isn't the term 'deleterious mutation' also used to describe mutations that destroy specific sequences without necessarily having fitness repercussions? because thats how i'm using the term
#141703 to #141568 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#141569 to #141568 - cleverguy
Reply +1
(06/11/2016) [-]
no it is not
#141570 to #141569 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
so maybe i should drop that term altogether, because it's leading to a lot of confusion
#141571 to #141570 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_mutation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous_substitution

here are some other terms that are more specific for future discussions
#141572 to #141571 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975 this talks about deleterious mutations affecting protein stability. do all these 'deleterious' mutations necessarily have fitness repercussions?
#141573 to #141572 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
by definition, a mutation that is deleterious is one that reduces fitness.

if a protein is less stable (can happen due to an amino acid being replaced with one of a less fitting size, polarity, or charge needed for binding the substrate) it will be worse at its job.

proteins work by stabilizing something called the "transition state" of its substrate. there is an active site on the protein where the substrate binds to and the rest of the protein is for other things. the active site binds preferentially to the transition state of the substrate, which stabilizes it and lowers the activation energy of the reaction the protein catalyzes, which makes the reaction go faster. If the protein itself is less stable, then the protein-substrate complex will more than likely be less stable and thus the protein will not perform as well.

not all mutations make the protein less stable and some may make it more stable
#141574 to #141573 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Structural_Biochemistry/Stability,_Mutation_and_Evolvability#Relationship_between_Stability_and_Protein_Fitness

ok so this talks about deleterious mutations affecting protein fitness. it says

" But for the levels of the organisms, the reproduction rates (fitness, W) are not simple and they hardly ever relate with the properties of one type of gene or one type of protein" "Because of the effects of redundancy, backup and robustness at a variety of different levels, the effects of mutations are therefore masked. For these reasons, it is safe to conclude that the effects of mutations is a difficulty for evolutionary biologists. But an equation can be utilized to therefore show a simple model of protein fitness. Protein fitness (W) is the fluctuation of an enzyme catalyzed reaction and this is then systematically related to the fitness of the organism in which this particular enzyme functions."

i'm having trouble understanding. isn't it possible for a mutation to be deleterious with respect to protein function, but not deleterious with respect to the organisms reproduction rate?
#141588 to #141574 - cleverguy
Reply +1
(06/11/2016) [-]
the strict answer to your question is yes, but like the article says, a positive, new function mutation will still reduce protein stability, which is something i did not know.

this is also something that is very specific since the article seems to use a definition of "phenotypic mutation" that I'm not familiar with; i generally include a protein's function with an organism's phenotype, but the article makes some sort of distinction

i think what the article is saying boils down to: protein stability is calculable, but not linked to protein function in obvious ways

since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before
#141595 to #141588 - zlane
0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before

right so hopefully this gives everyone a better idea of what i'm talking about when i talk about deleterious mutations.
#141566 to #141565 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>admitting I'm right
#141526 to #141524 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I have heard these and more used multiple times... And by the way since you can't do much better I don't think there's a point in bragging.
#141528 to #141526 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
> since you can't do much better

whatever helps you sleep at night.
#141530 to #141528 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
You argued against mutation... check yourself please before proceeding to wreck yourself.
#141531 to #141530 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
what are you talking about?
#141532 to #141531 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I can't remember your exact argument but it was something along the lines of "mutations can't happen because reasons"
#141534 to #141532 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
actually you were the one arguing that deleterious mutations don't matter because they're all repaired by DNA repair mechanisms...which is false.
#141535 to #141534 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
I'm pretty sure that it's true, otherwise we would have all of the cancer.
#141538 to #141535 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
"a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and, thus, a mutation cannot be repaired."
#141539 to #141538 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Yes... but a mutated cell with a harmful property will usually just die. Or be afunctional. Or multiply out of control and kill you (aka el cancer).
Where evolution is concerned only reproductive cells matter, these are the ones where mutations affecting a species are done. When one of these mutates, the cell either dies instantly or becomes useless, making it unable to pass on information, or it harms the produced organism, causing it to die. If the cell is not mutated in a way which causes instantaneous harm then the produced offspring will carry that mutation. If the mutation makes it worse for survival compared to unmutated peers then it will lose out and not pass on its genes. If it has no overall effect or is beneficial it will be more likely to pass on said genes. Thus we have natural selection.
#141541 to #141539 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
natural selection selects the least affected every generation...the thing is, every offspring has more deleterious mutations than its parents.
#141542 to #141541 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
No it doesn't. It is perfectly possible (though not probable) for an organism to have no mutations at all.

And again, that is false, because harmful mutations make the organism weaker, and thus worse for competition. This means only the best genes are passed on. One organism that mutates a harmful gene might pass it on if it is less harmful than others, but the next generation would only have a half chance to inherit it, then a quarter etc.
#141543 to #141542 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
the best of each generation is still, very slightly, more defective than its parents. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIDjvpx7w4

>It is perfectly possible (though not probable) for an organism to have no mutations at all.

if we're talking about large genome organisms, then no, that's pretty much impossible
#141544 to #141543 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
No, though I've just realised you've accidentally stumbled across evolution... In fact each offspring is simply slightly different than their parents... aka evolution

That video is literally a "what if" scenario... and it's made worse by the fact that it seems to conclude that mutations can be shared by siblings, which isn't true unless the parent expressed the mutation (in which case said mutation was fit).

The vast majority of sperm and egg cells that the human body produces are accurate replicas of the parent's dna. When dna is copied mistakes are quite rare, and negative mistakes even more so.
#141546 to #141544 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
> it seems to conclude that mutations can be shared by siblings

it only suggests that siblings usually receive the same or similar number of mutations. it doesn't say that they're the same mutations
#141548 to #141546 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
The number of mutations is not likely to be shared either, it's random per each gamete.
#141545 to #141544 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
we get around 100-160 mutations per generation sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/03/estimating-human-mutation-rate.html sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/04/human-mutation-rates-whats-right-number.html

these are mutations that go unrepaired

10-20% of the genome is sequence specific, so that's 6-32 harmful mutations per generation. so yes, each offspring is very slightly more defective than its parents
#141547 to #141545 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Your source is a terrible one, and literally in the title it describes itself as an estimate.
As I said, there is no set mutation rate, there could be one or none or 1000. It's random.

Yes, but again they won't necessarily get passed on, because again genes come from 2 parents, not one. A mutated parent will yield around 50% mutated and 50% normal offspring, and so on and so forth... Useless mutations get drowned out by the amount of normal genes.

Not sure where any of those numbers come from, how they relate to each other or how you drew any such conclusion.
#141551 to #141547 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
> there could be one or none or 1000.

i'm talking about averages... almost every offspring is going to get somewhere between 60-160
#141553 to #141551 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
Averages aren't relevant in this case, because we're talking about a single organism and its offspring.
#141550 to #141547 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>Your source is a terrible one

why?

yes, mutations are not usually additively accumulated from each parent each generation because of the way genes from each parents mix. this helps, but doesn't solve the issue. harmful mutations still accumulate faster than even strong, purifying selection can remove them.

>Not sure where any of those numbers come from

....so you didn't pay attention at all the last time?
#141552 to #141550 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
This is not a scientifically published source, its conclusion is not peer reviewed. In fact as the sidebar text makes clear it's just this one guy's opinion.
And it's an appeal to authority, but I thought I'd indulge you.

No they don't, because mutations don't "accumulate". If a given mutation decreases in spread each generation then it will eventually reach zero, that's how it works. Having mutations doesn't prevent the addition of extra mutations...

Instead of berating me for not remembering a month old conversation try supporting your arguments with data when you cite them.
#141554 to #141552 - zlane
0
(06/11/2016) [-]
>just this one guy's opinion.

the professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto. he knows what he's talking about. besides, he cited evidence to support his conclusion, it's not just an opinion.

>If a given mutation decreases in spread each generation then it will eventually reach zero

yep. but 6-32 significant mutations are introduced ever generation, and a significant number end up becoming fixated.
#141536 to #141535 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
you know that i'm talking about genetic mutations, not DNA damage right? and you understand the distinction, right?
#141537 to #141536 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
You know that genetic mutations are dna damage. They are literally the same thing. I don't know where you got the idea that dna and genes are not the same...
#141540 to #141537 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
here's the complete quote

"DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA... [and] can be recognized by enzymes, and, thus, they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying.... In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and, thus, a mutation cannot be repaired."
#141533 to #141532 - zlane
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
not even close. wtf mate
#141516 to #141514 - mybenis
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
Sounds like your just bullshitting. Tons of fossils have been found and none of them are transitional. Fossils are just bones they don't need to be covered by quickly to be perserved your just making things up.

So we got hundreds of monkey skulls. Big deal. I aint never seen a half monkey half human. We don't see people with tails. The fragments could be anything. Scientists lie all the time and piece together bones from other animals to make fake fossils.

That's just a bunch of theories. I don't see any PROVE of half elephants half mammoths.

Fossils don't tell you anything. You can't even identify the animal based on there skeletan. You guys just make shit up.

Do your research dude. Second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

it's impossible for MILLIONS OF MEMBERS OF A SPECIES TO NEVER LEAVE BEHIND A SINGLE FOSSIL. WE SHOULD HAVE FOSSILS OF EVERY TRANSITIONAL.

Your gonna pay in the end for your denial of God.

THERE ARE NO FOSSILS. GENETIC TESTS CANT PROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE NO ONE UNDERSTANDS DNA.

Really sad how you just HAVE to defend your bullshit story. You have no life so you just attack Christians all day. Your gonna pay for how you've attacked me.
#141517 to #141516 - platinumaltaria
Reply -3
(06/10/2016) [-]
By transitional I'm going to guess you mean a tie between major groups of organisms? So definitely no fossils of:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon
No fossils are not "just bones", they are the impressions of bones made by sedimentary rock. And they do need to be quickly covered, in case you hadn't noticed what happens to bones that are left lying out in the open.

Humans aren't monkeys, neither are our hominid ancestors, we and they are apes.
Hominids don't have tails either, shockingly. In fact this trait is shared by all great apes, both extant and extinct. If I find a bone that looks like it fits between two others perfectly, and we found said bones in the same strata then it stands to reason that they belong to the same creature. Any examples of any scientist doing anything of the sort?

Scientific theories aren't the same as a theory in layman's terms. We call such things theories because they best explain the facts. The word "fact" is reserved for a piece of evidence whose validity is not disputed.
So all the bones we have of Proboscideans aren't enough evidence for you?

Pretty sure you can tell a horse skeleton from a cat skeleton matey.

If you can tell me what the second law of thermodynamics is without googling it then I'll bother to argue that with you.

No it isn't. If the animal is soft bodied there is nothing to leave behind a fossil. And as I said the conditions must be right for them to form at all. If you expect every skeleton of every animal that ever lived to be buried then you have something wrong with you.

I'm not "in denial", I don't believe such a being exists. Therefore your threats of eternal hellfire mean less than nothing. In fact if there is a god he's going to have to explain himself to me.

No, pretty sure there are fossils...
What's to understand? It's a protein that uses four base amino acids in different combinations to encode base-4 data. In fact we have sequenced numerous genomes, including the human genome, and can identify what some of the genes encode (notably genetic diseases). I'd say our understanding is far from lacking.

I didn't attack you, you made a comment degrading science and I dismantled your arguments. I never made any attack against you, in fact I was civil beyond what you honestly deserved. And again with the "you shall pay for your insolence". I don't believe in your god, so threatening me with him doesn't do anything. If you spent more time researching the subject and less inciting divine punishment against your enemies then you'd probably understand evolution a whole lot better.
#141518 to #141517 - mybenis
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
I already told you there arent no transitional fossils. You aren't listening dude. Fossils are just bones, they don't just go away if there left out, bones last forever thats why we have bones from 6 thousand years ago sounds like you need to go back to school.

First you say they arent monkeys then you say there hominids but monkeys are hominids so you lose again you didn't do your research. We aren't huminids if we came from them there would be half hominid half human like a guy with a tail or something. Pretty convenient that all the transtionals are extinct ACCEPT FOR THE THING WE EVOLVED FROM, THE CHIMP, AND US. EVERYTHING ELSE BETWEEN JUST WENT EXTINCT LOL THATS A NICE RATIONALIZATION. The bones could from anything you cant its the same thing just cus its in the same "strata". BTW the stratasphere has nothing to do with rocks its in the sky so I'm sure what you're even talkign about.

You're just saying that because the scientsts came up with some guesses there more important then laymen theories. That's just an argument from authority just because a scientist comes up with a theory doesnt mean its more important or valid then my theories. I don't know what proboscidenas means but I'm guessing it's just another made up theory.

Actually you usually can't because all bones are similar.

Second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is inpossible because its inpossible for entropy to decrease over millions of years. Do your research man.

That's convenient. Soft bodied animals bones are just as hard so theres no reason why they cant be fossiled. You're just making stuff up again to support your narrative.

Your gonna find out the hard way. I tried to warn you.

THERE ARE NO FOSSILS. Nobody understands DNA BECAUSE IT'S TOO SMALL TO SEE WITH MICROSCOPE. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE OR DOES.

YOUR ATTACKING MY BELIEFS AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT.
#141519 to #141518 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(06/10/2016) [-]
When you're lying try not using a double negative <3
So the three examples were not enough?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetidae
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoraptor

Really? Bones just last forever do they? If that were the case why are we not sitting on a giant pile of bones? Where does the calcium come from, since according to you bones don't ever break down?
Sidenote, the earth isn't 6000 years old sweetie

No, exactly 0% of monkeys are hominids. Hominids are the family that include chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans along with our ancestors. Monkeys are still primates, but they diverged from us much earlier.
The loss of the tail could quite easily have occurred in a single generational mutation, people are born with missing limbs all the time.
Well by definition fossils come from extinct animals by and large, see the coelacanth , so yes they do have to be dead first.
The "thing we evolved from" is very much extinct, along with every other species in the genus Homo (that's us). We did not evolve from chimps, we share an ancestor.
Actually the primary theory is that humans outcompeted others, most recently the neanderthals in europe. So actually it was more of a "we murdered them all".
Rock layers (aka strata) always have the same animals in them, as they were all laid down at the same time. If you dig at a certain height you can predict where a fossil will be, this is how Tiktaalik was found.
(Strata, not stratosphere. The descend from the latin root stratus meaning layer.)

No. That's not even close, and frankly I can't tell how you got there. I said that a scientific theory is not a theory in the common use of the word (the word for that is a hypothesis aka a guess.)
Science doesn't use arguments from authority, hence I cited evidence, not "he said this".
Proboscidae is the order of species that includes elephants, mammoths and all their relatives. A basic understanding of biology would help.

Sir a horse is several times the size of a cat. Though I might point out that the similarities of the bones of different species is good evidence for evolution.

Firstly that isn't at all what the second law says that entropy always increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, we receive energy from the sun. Every creationist says this, and it ruins your argument because it shows you don't understand basic physics.

Soft-bodied animals don't have bones or exoskeletons... that's what makes them soft.

*you tried to use the same tired threat that your parents used on you when you misbehaved as a child

Hang on... nope, still fossils. Maybe if you scream it louder?
I'm not sure how you think a microscope works, but I can assure you one is not needed to interact with dna. And to add insult to injury you can see it. Atoms absorb photons, which means you can see them, the same way you can see anything else. Them being small doesn't really do much other than make it impossible for your eye to detect them unaided. We know exactly what it looks like, it is a double helix structure, we know its chemical composition and we most definitely know what it does.

You are fully entitled to believe whatever rubbish you want, but when you make a statement in a public forum it will be criticised, or in this case ridiculed.
#141520 to #141519 - mybenis
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
Those aren't transitional THERE FULLY FORMED.

BECAUSE THEY GET BURRIED IN GRAVES GO BACK TO PRESCHOOL. Yes, the Earth is 6000 years old, if you disagree then your either lying or stupid.

Hominids are monkeys. You just admitted that chimps are hominids so you just losst the argument. Wow talk about ignorance.

EVEN IF IT LOST TEH TAIL IN ONE GENERATION HE STILL HAS THE GENES FOR TAIL IT CANT JUST GO AWAY IN ONE GENERATION. FOSSILS ARE JUST BONES, WHEN YOU DIE YOU BECOME A FOSSIL FOSSILS DONT HAVE TO COME FROM EXTINCT THINGS.

Evolution says that humans evolved from chimps. If this was ture we should be able to see chimps on there way to becoming humans

Rock aren't made of layers. Open up a rock and see that it's one solid thing. Stratasphere has nothing to do with this subject as I've explained.

Scientists come up with things and people listen to them because we're told they know what there talking about. You have FAITH that the scienists are right you HAVE FAITH in there data. ALL YOUR SAYING IS THAT SCIENTISTS COME UP WITH THEORIES AND THEN THERE TRUE ITS JUST ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.
Probosciaea is probably just made up I've never heard that word.

You can't tell what animal the bones are cus the bones are all similar there all the same shape. You cant look at the bones of a horse and tell that its a horse or a zebra

I JUST LOOKED IT UP " All of the systems on Earth are classified as open systems. However, the Earth system as a whole is considered a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged." YOUR WRONG

soft bodied animals still have bones. Just because there flesh is soft doesnt mean they don't have bones. You need to do some basic researh

It's real and you're going there. Most fossils are just made out of plaster. Scientists make up stuff all teh time. YOU CANT SEE DNA NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE ITS TOO SMALL TO SEE.
#141521 to #141520 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
Well of course they're fully formed, did you expect them to have one eye and half a leg? That's not how evolution works.

Do you know what coffins were made of 6000 years ago? Wood. Wood rots. No, the earth is 4.6 billion years old dear.

No. Chimps aren't monkeys either. Pic related for what an actual monkey is.

I can do ya one better, we still have the bone and muscle that used to anchor our tails. It's called the coccyx. The gene absolutely can "just go away" that's called mutation.
When you die you become a corpse, that rots away to leave a skeleton, which (unless you're in a super nice coffin) slowly decays away.

No it doesn't, no biologist has or ever will say that. We're more like distant cousins.
Evolution doesn't work like that: there is no goal in mind, they just adapt over time. It's called natural selection. Chimps aren't trying to become humans.

An individual chunk of rock doesn't (usually) have layers, I'm talking about rock as part of the ground.

No actually people listen because they back their claims up with evidence. I don't care if tomorrow every scientist on earth tells me the world is flat, I'll draw my own conclusions from the evidence. That's the great strength of science, it's true.
Probably because you have never opened a biology book in your life. It's a scientific classification.

If you're a biologist then yes you can. Horses and zebras are also quite dissimilar.

A closed system for matter and a closed system for energy are not the same thing. The earth doesn't get extra phosphorus, for example, so all organisms have to juggle what we do have. This is a good explanation for why organisms eat other organisms: to derive rare nutrients. Energy however is supplied by the sun, and so earth is not closed. The solar system is closed for all intents and purposes, so there is a net entropy increase there.

Just... no. The term "soft bodied" is a reference to their lack of bones. Such animals include worms, jellyfish and squids. You won't find any fossils of those (though you might find fossils of their homes in the case of worms)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft-bodied_organism

Fossils are not typically displayed to the general public, usually museums use casts of a fossil so that they can have a copy. However the original is quite real.
Totally, we don't understand it at all, and yet we can do this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_nanotechnology
#141522 to #141521 - mybenis
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
WHENEVER YOU SHOW ME A "TRANSITIONAL" ITS NOT IN INBETWEEN ONE KIND OF ANIMAL AND ANOTHER. show me a transitional BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS. Half dog half whale. Half chimp half human

Bones don't ever dissintegrate even if there not buried in coffins.

Chimps are monkeys. Chimps are apes and apes are monkeys.

The tail bone helps us sit comfortably it has nothing to do with tails. Genes don't go away in one generation DO YOUR RESEARCH

THATS WHAT I SEE IN ALL THE PICTURES THEY ALL SAY THAT EVEN IF THERE COUSINS THEY STILL SHOULD EVOLVE INTO HUMANS IF THEY DID IT IN THE PAST

You say evolution has no goal in mind yet you believe that THINGS CONSTANTLY BECAME MORE COMPLEX OVER TIME. EVOLUTION SUPPOSABLY MAKES THINGS MORE COMPLEX BUT THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED
Natural selection isn't a thing. You can't have selection without a SELECTOR

YOU CAN'T TELL THE AGE OF ROCKS JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. IF SCIENTISTS TOLD YOU THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT RITE NOW IS JUST THEY SAY EVOLUTION IS TRUE AND THEY SAY THERE ARE FOSSILS

Scientific classifications of animals aren't valid. the Bible defines animals according to there KIND

NO ONE CAN THE BONES ARE THE SAME

I JUST PROVED U WRONG WITH THE QUOTE. ENERGY IS MATTER

So now your just redefining the word to fit your theory. pretty sure squids have bones btw

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS AN ORIGINAL ITS JUST PLASTER.
#141523 to #141522 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
Why on earth would there be any such thing, none of those animals are descended from each other...
The pakicetus is a whale which still closely resembles a land mammal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
This is Sahelanthropus, which after a quick search seems to be the earliest member of the hominin line That's the one that includes chimps and humans . Apparently this creature existed around the time that humans and chimps diverged.

Yes they do, else the calcium used to construct them would be lost. Not to mention that, again, there isn't a giant pile of bones. Do you realise how many animals die every day? How do you think animals digest bones?

No, apes and monkeys are primates. Chimps are not monkeys, they're apes like us. I understand the word is used interchangeably but in biology we use very specific terminology.

The tailbone has nothing to do with tails? Yes they do. Do your research.

They never did it in the past, our shared ancestors split to evolve into either chimps or humans. Chimps have never and will never become humans.

Define complexity?
Yes you can, that's why we call it NATURAL selection. If an animal is poorly adapted to survive it will die and not pass on its genes. Thus only animals that survive can pass on genetic information. Over time this makes animals better and better at surviving.

No, but you can via radiometric dating

Evolution is the best explanation of the facts. No one has yet provided a better explanation, hence evolution is the accepted theory. If in 100 years we discover new evidence then the theory will be modified accordingly. That's how science works, it's a process of discovery.

What exactly is a kind?

Except that horses are larger than zebras... Also since horses and zebras have been around for a short time there would still be dna fragments that could be used to determine which was which.

No, matter is energy. But matter is (for the most part) not added to the earth, and energy is.

Yeah, I even created a wikipedia article for my "new definition", and secretly snuck it into every biology textbook ever written when you weren't looking...
Pretty darn sure that squids don't have bones... Cuttlefish and octopi have bones though.

Because often the original is on display, though usually the original is being used in scientific analysis.
#141510 to #141504 - anon
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
you dont understand how evolutionary theory works therefore evolution isnt true and creationism is true by default. solid logic.
#141508 to #141504 - anon
Reply 0
(06/10/2016) [-]
thanks for the input mybenis.
#141506 to #141504 - cleverguy
Reply +1
(06/10/2016) [-]
so are you gonna say why you think evolution means we should be constantly tripping over neatly ordered fossils, or are you just gonna make baseless claims and then call atheists big meanies?
#141507 to #141506 - mybenis
Reply -1
(06/10/2016) [-]
You believe there were thousands of species between chimps and humans, and MILLIONS of members of each species. We should be able to find AT LEAST ONE OF EACH SPECIES. Out of the MILLIONS of fossils that have been discovered, ONLY A COUPLE HUNDRED past species have been identified. IT SHOULD BE MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THEN THAT. We should be able to find fossils OF MILLIONS OF INTERMEDIATES. I didn't call atheists BIG MEANIES. I just pointed out their hippocracy
#141549 to #141507 - cleverguy
Reply 0
(06/11/2016) [-]
thousands of species between humans and what? what starting point are you at that you need thousands of distinct species to exist between them? why would there be millions of members of each species? why do the couple hundred (thats a shitload) not mean anything to you? evenly distributed how?

you're just making baseless claims?
#141501 - whoozy
Reply 0
(06/09/2016) [-]
The Power of RELIGION Full Version Music Video  Castlevania
#141502 to #141501 - anon
Reply +1
(06/10/2016) [-]
I should've laugh when I cringed.