Space Things

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

With the same calculations, human ancestors started walking upright about 6 million years ago which is only 600K generations from clever little monkey to big less hairy idiots. 500K generations until we get to the homo sapien species. Less of you want to consider a ~15 year generation cycle.

I don't have a problem with that type of evolution, it's basically a different form of the same animal. Quadruped land mammal to a massive finned aquatic mammal is a completely different thing in my mind. Not saying it didn't happen, I just can't reconcile it.

[wbradley]

Want to try to explain Darwin's theory to me? lol

The web is full of people trying to show you they know something.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yea, i get that and it sort of makes sense over many generations as the ones with a little extra skin survive over ones that don't.

What I can't map my mind around is that something that looks like a dog that happens to move his family to the beach is eventually starting the process of their 1000x grandchildren to basically be air-breathing water mammals that are 200x the size of the grandparent by breeding and no real plan.

Like Spuds said, it is more than 1000x, but essentially there was a niche and nature exerted a pressure that made for progressive evolution. There may have been plenty of crabs, clams, small fish in tide pools that dog-like species found an advantage. Progressive generations resulted in a black-lab-like animal with a long snout looking and behaving more like seals with a long snout, and then more like dolphins and small whales, which progressed to large toothed wales to the much larger baleen whales.

Being large is better for conserving heat and avoiding predators, if there is a food source, and in the case of baleen whales, they evolved through progressive generations to filter batches of fish and krill. Whales that had features that were better at filtering at more and reproduced more.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

All of your "real fossils" are fake replicas made in China by a company called Zigong City Ocean Art Co., Ltd. They are the primary supplier to all of the major museums.
https://zgdy.en.alibaba.com/
Your entire paradigm was made by Jesuits and Freemasons, who created The Royal Society to act as a gatekeeper in sabotaging and eliminating scientific evidence that opposed their narrative/agenda of mass mind control. Today, the "evidence" used to support the psyop is made in China... How fitting.

Go see the real ones. Figure out where they are and go. There are hundreds of countries in the world and tens of thousands of museums with all types of real fossils and not just the replicas. Talk about it after because you need to see them like I did, so go see. Have a good time. Your other option is to pay thousands to millions of dollars to buy some real ones.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Adaptations in in a single species are not evidence of Darwin's theory of evolution. Adaptation is not the same thing as evolution, in which a species would literally have to transform into an entirely different species over time; there is no real evidence of a species, changing to a new species, over time.

Micro evolution is evolution just the same as macro evolution. The difference is time. Of course we haven't personally witnessed millions of years on pictures, video or anything tangible. The idea is ridiculous.

Luckily, we don't need to witness first had macro evolution to know it happened. We have an extensive fossil record. We have an extensive DNA record showing a family tree. What's more we can look at features of our DNA like endogenous retroviruses, which I mentioned before. We look at these to further show our common ancestry to other animals like chimps. This evidence is a smoking gun. We don't need to have first hand evidence of witnessing macro evolution to know it is true. It must be true.

The only other viable option is that some creator made everything in a way that it looks like we evolved from apes and other common ancestors--just poof, magically created our DNA to appear like we share a common ancestor and evolved over millions of years to share retrovirus insertions with common ancestors, even though we were poofed into existence 10,000 years ago. What a trickster. Or maybe the creator just hit the fast forward button on the magical remote like in the movie Click with Adam Sandler, so it seems like million of years, but in its time, it was an instant, and humans have only been living at regular speed for 10,000 years. Or, it is actually millions of years old, but a creator was controlling nature to guide humans into existence, but that would still make Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be true, except the natural selection part was artificial selection by the creator. No evidence of anything from a creator, so we could dump that part, but at this point, your young, earth creationists model is looking bad.

How can you refute the evidence in this video? In light of this, it is impossible for you not to believe in evolution, even if you think some creator had a guiding hand in the matter; chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

[villainous_frx]

How can you refute the evidence in this video?

Well that part is easy...

[Irace86.2.0]

Unplugem's struggle:

[wbradley]

Just what I always wanted, to be spammed by someone's unpopular narratives.

Can we switch to the Ukraine war? Try to convince me Russia is only acting in self-defence.
Or even better, blame Israel for everything happening with Hamas.

[Spuds]

Reported for spam.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

pics

Go to museums and see for yourself. Stop looking at internet pictures, get off your butt, drive to a museum and see for yourself.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

pics

Evolution does not claim that we would have millions of half creatures. You clearly don't understand evolution.

Your picture shows a fish changing into a frog. Have you not seen tadpole from a frog? We have living transitional species that show hybrid characteristics like the frog, and we have transitional fossils, and every species living today is a transitional species.

24k and 4.7k years ago is not very long. Macro evolution happens in millions of years, not in thousands. Evolution is based on pressures in niches, so all animals don't evolve. This is the same for artificial selection and why we have many different breeds of dogs; if you can understand why all dogs aren't pitbulls then you can understand why all animals/apes haven't evolved into humans, or why all reptiles haven't evolved into mammals or birds.

This is a shut case. The video unequivocally shows that we share a common ancestor with chimps, and this is true of all living things. It explains how the smoking gun in our DNA is retroviral insertions, but there are a host of other genetic comparisons that we could make. Your ability to think and reason seems severely compromised if you are claiming that there is NO mechanism for DNA growth when the video just described viruses inserting their DNA into our DNA. Wouldn't that be growth? There are many different types of ways bacteria share DNA and animals can replicate DNA in polyploidy, which can result in duplicate information that will be subject to its own mutations over time.



This crustacean has 31k genes, more than humans.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118530

114 chromosomes from this White-bellied pangolins.
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/w...s-conservation

These salamanders have 38x the DNA than humans.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/s...na-transposons

Some fish have as many as 400 chromosomes due to polyploidy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

pics

"Information always has an intelligent source." You are making a claim without demonstrating it to be true. You are using the watchmaker example in a different form, but this is flawed. DNA is a natural source of information, and since you can show that it isn't a natural source of information then you can't assume it is unnatural. You simply should only claim that you don't know, but you are making a claim, so you need to demonstrate that DNA is unnatural and can only come from a creator; you can just inject that assumption.

The list that follows is also full of assumptions; a la, "I can't understand why it could have happened, therefore it couldn't happen. I'm ignorant therefore it must be false."

Yes, we can't directly observe millions of years because we didn't have cameras then, but we don't need cameras to know it happened. We have DNA evidence, living species, fossil evidence, geological record, biological evidence, etc.

Abiogenesis (life from organic molecules) is a theory completely different from Evolutionary Theory. The fact that you confuse the two continues to show your ignorance.

None of those are fatal flaws or flaws at all or even arguments against evolution or true statements.

Again, this is done, over. I demonstrated unequivocally evolution is true using DNA evidence in the video. You can post as many ignorant memes that you can find, but you know you lost this argument. Why don't you go back to your echo chamber forum somewhere with other young earth creationists and flat earthers and try to come up with a real argument. In the meantime, here is the video again.

[bcj]

Oh FFS

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

pics

Are you saying dinosaurs didn't exist that fossils are all fake? Well no because you admitted earlier that fossils are real.

Are you saying a creator just put dinosaurs here for show for a generation, and then they all died out because they couldn't procreate?

How do ostriches, whales, alligators, iguanas, elephants, birds, turtles and all other weirdly shaped animals reproduce? Go look it up. You really think dinosaurs couldn't?