| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#155
-
N. Korean citizen (05/02/2012) [-] 
actually retard, evolution "theory" is a fairy tale for idiots.
1. genetic limits- genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?
2. Cyclical change - Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macro evolutionary theory requires, they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex, Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during droughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence
3. Irreducible complexity - An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order, at the same time, for it to function, therefore any intermediates would be nonfunctional
4. Molecular isolation - It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain would not even exist
5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat
1. genetic limits- genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?
2. Cyclical change - Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macro evolutionary theory requires, they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex, Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during droughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence
3. Irreducible complexity - An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order, at the same time, for it to function, therefore any intermediates would be nonfunctional
4. Molecular isolation - It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain would not even exist
5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat
#245 to #155
-
ahj (05/02/2012) [-] A few things:
your so called 'genetic limits'. Your example is a failure. Dog breeders are not aiming to create a new species. There is, however, an example using dogs that counteracts your point. Man domesticated the dog, and in doing so, created a new species in the gene 'canis'. Dogs were at one point wolves. Next, 'cyclical change'. I don't think you properly understand the theory of natural selection. Natural selection says that traits of individuals who are best suited to survival are most likely to be passed on, as those animals are the most likely to survive to reproductive age. With Darwin's finches, it was a simple matter of the wider beaks being better suited to survival during dry years, and narrower beaks being better suited to survival during wet years.
your so called 'genetic limits'. Your example is a failure. Dog breeders are not aiming to create a new species. There is, however, an example using dogs that counteracts your point. Man domesticated the dog, and in doing so, created a new species in the gene 'canis'. Dogs were at one point wolves. Next, 'cyclical change'. I don't think you properly understand the theory of natural selection. Natural selection says that traits of individuals who are best suited to survival are most likely to be passed on, as those animals are the most likely to survive to reproductive age. With Darwin's finches, it was a simple matter of the wider beaks being better suited to survival during dry years, and narrower beaks being better suited to survival during wet years.
#246 to #245
-
ahj (05/02/2012) [-] Thirdly, irreducible complexity. There are many reasons that so called 'irreducible complexity' is false, but I don't want to list them here as they would take up a lot of space; I will say, however, that there have been several studies that show that even if irreducible complexity were always true, it could show up in evolution, and it has on some occasions. Fourthly, 'molecular isolation' as you call it, which is a completely inappropriate title for what you described. The amazing thing is not the fact that humans and apes are closely related, but that they are more closely related than humans are with other animals. This is similar to the relationship between brother and sister compared to the relationship between third cousins. This means that, like brother and sister compared to third cousin, humans and apes must have a more recent common ancestor than humans and other animals. This, once again, points to evolution. Fifthly, your so-called 'nonviability of transitional lifeforms'. Once again, your example is a failure. Birds did not evolve from reptiles, they evolved with reptiles. They evolved from dinosaurs, and at no point did they have scales and feathers. As a matter of fact, there is proof that some dinosaurs such as velociraptors had feathers. They could have grown these feathers for the purposes of insulation, waterproofing, or some other reason. Your argument has once again fallen flat on its face. Finally, the picture you used is normally used in a sarcastic format. Checkmate, anon.
#240 to #225
-
kamikazeren (05/02/2012) [-] This isn't the place to post your beliefs when an overwhelming majority here on FunnyJunk disagrees with you, and will rip you to shreds because of it. Plus, it is inappropriate timing to post something like this when it isn't even relevant to the subject matter. Also, at the end of the day no one don't give two fucks about your "opinion" so you can suck on my strap-on dick. Look who's the retard now.
#197 to #155
-
kbxcn (05/02/2012) [-] Mm, yes. This is TOTALLY the place for such seriousness. Religion isn't the place for the internet. Didn't your mother ever tell you? "Religion is like a penis, you don't just go shoving it down others' throats." (I'm not saying you are, but who the hell knows where you've been.)
Personally, I don't believe in evolution either, but if people want to believe, let 'em!
Personally, I don't believe in evolution either, but if people want to believe, let 'em!
#255 to #209
-
N. Korean citizen (05/02/2012) [-]
I'm not sure if Christian or not but, I'm Christian, and I don't believe in Evolution per se, but I can understand how it could make sense to people who are hardcore evolutionists. I'm hung up on verses in the Bible that say "gain wisdom, gain understanding" or "seek the truth". If evolution has hardcore evidence and increases my understanding, God wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Since he told me to do so anyway? Again, I'm on the fence, because there's a whole thing of arguments for and against it, but I can't argue that credible scientists are pretty smart dudes and probably have a reason for believing a theory. There's my two cents.
#258 to #255
-
N. Korean citizen (05/02/2012) [-]
The only arguments that have been made against evolution are arguments based on bad science and logical fallacies. Some creationists try to build arguments out of childish word games, which they use to obfuscate the truth. If you think there's any strong case against evolution then you're an idiot.
#212 to #209
-
N. Korean citizen (05/02/2012) [-] "I don't believe in Evolution because it doesn't make sense how an animal of totally different nature can evolve into another totally different one."
Science isn't based on intuition, just because it doesn't seem correct, doesn't mean it's not. Basically, evolution is an very gradual process fueled by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. I could elaborate on this, but I doubt you'll listen or care.
Science isn't based on intuition, just because it doesn't seem correct, doesn't mean it's not. Basically, evolution is an very gradual process fueled by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. I could elaborate on this, but I doubt you'll listen or care.
#191 to #155
-
rawrasaurus (05/02/2012) [-] **rawrasaurus rolled a random image posted in comment #11 at Nicknames can be hurtful ** Okay, but where in the post did it say anything about Evolution? Just wondering where this came from.
#199 to #196
-
rawrasaurus (05/02/2012) [-] **rawrasaurus rolled a random image posted in comment #4214836 at FJ Pony Thread ** Let me get this straight anon, Atheist brought up how the Evolution "theory" is a fairy tale... I'm getting out while I still can.
#175 to #172
-
salmonofwar **User deleted account** (05/02/2012) [-] I read through the entire thing, and it's all B.S., so I would've given you a 0/10, but you took the time to write it out so I gave you a 1/10. And guess what, I didn't give you a 0/10. Bumped up to 2/10 for making me reply a second time
#214 to #176
-
N. Korean citizen (05/02/2012) [-] Actually it is not an Ad-hominem, that would be if he attacked you personally. As a matter of fact you used a form of implied ad-hominem when you called him your "angry atheist friend". Actually you used a surprisingly diverse combination of fallacies in those two sentences as you also merged tu-quoque and argument from fallacy when you not just answered his criticism with criticism rather than an actual rebuttal but also based your criticism off of a perceived fallacy which you labelled incorrectly. Oh and finally, false cause as you assumed that there was a causal link between him believing in evolution and him being an atheist, two thing which do not necessarily lead to the other as one could believe in god and evolution simultaneously. Now that we have established that, would you care to try you hand at arguing with me? If you would I would be more than happy to oblige you.
#250 to #242
-
ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-] Hmm, well you do have pretty good point there. Fair enough :). But please next time you argue someone make it like that comment, which is perfectly valid, rather than the first one it makes it harder for people to argue and people wont post wizard of Oz images to point out where your wrong. Good game, good day, etc,
#229 to #222
-
ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-] Where in that statement did I ever state that I thought that? Just because I pointed out the incoherency in your statement does not mean I stand on the opposite side of it, as a matter of fact I don't stand on either side. I simply offered to indulge your need to argue.
#235 to #183
-
salmonofwar **User deleted account** (05/02/2012) [-] 1. genetic limits- You can't breed a dog into another animal because it takes millions of years for that much change, even if you are breeding it to change
2. Cyclical change - Species are evolving to adapt to their environment, you literally just said their bodies adapted to survive, that's evolution. Shall I continue? Sure, cause I'm bored
3. Irreducible complexity - Bodies change very slowly, over thousands or millions of years, for example, we still have a tailbone and an appendix, both are useless because our bodies no longer need them after thousands of years of evolution.
4. Molecular isolation - With this one you said that they are almost exactly the same DNA wise, so have a common creator. No other life forms are as closely related DNA wise as we are. So we could have had a common ancestor/creator, but we evolved to be different, we just split off from apes later in life's existence.
5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection doesn't cause that large of a change from a species to another species. A lizard species won't be a bird species in a thousand years because of this. The birds are birds, and will evolve to other birds, and lizards are lizards, and will evolve to other lizards, but won't become birds.
6. The fossil record is pretty spontaneous, but that's because conditions were rarely correct to make fossils, so there are in fact gaps between species.
I just satisfactorily answered all of those things
2. Cyclical change - Species are evolving to adapt to their environment, you literally just said their bodies adapted to survive, that's evolution. Shall I continue? Sure, cause I'm bored
3. Irreducible complexity - Bodies change very slowly, over thousands or millions of years, for example, we still have a tailbone and an appendix, both are useless because our bodies no longer need them after thousands of years of evolution.
4. Molecular isolation - With this one you said that they are almost exactly the same DNA wise, so have a common creator. No other life forms are as closely related DNA wise as we are. So we could have had a common ancestor/creator, but we evolved to be different, we just split off from apes later in life's existence.
5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection doesn't cause that large of a change from a species to another species. A lizard species won't be a bird species in a thousand years because of this. The birds are birds, and will evolve to other birds, and lizards are lizards, and will evolve to other lizards, but won't become birds.
6. The fossil record is pretty spontaneous, but that's because conditions were rarely correct to make fossils, so there are in fact gaps between species.
I just satisfactorily answered all of those things
#168 to #159
-
N. Korean citizen (05/02/2012) [-]
I apologize for thinking the best of your intelligence and assuming that you were simply a somewhat clever troll. Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may Joe Pesci have mercy on your soul.
