I never said your god or gods weren't real, I said evolution is true. Fighting facts is futile. Even the jew media must succumb to reality in the end.

There's two issues I find with evolution. It's guided by an unknown physiological process removed from natural selection. And, there is no "start" to complex forms nears as I can tell. You have pieces of your anatomy using technological principals that you do not inherently know by default at birth. That logically is impossible.

It's not guided. You should read a standard textbook about the evolution of the eye. There are surviving species with examples of every major stage of its development, starting with a light sensitive spot and ending with the paragon of visual perception, stereoscopic lensed color. Each step increases useful sensory data. As to not knowing how it works at birth, why would you? Evolution takes place on a timescale beyond a human lifespan, at least at the level where there's something we might respond to. The brain needs to dedicate ROM to language processing and pattern recognition. No room for a scientific encyclopedia.

>Why would you? Because its part of your anatomy which your body is using as an understood mechanism that you don't know how it works. There's a logical paradox there. As for stages of eye development. Those are isolated organ/cell structures from different animals presumed to have developed towards but not actually substantiated. Implication>Substantiation. It also doesn't explain why the "older" model is still around. Nor where the drive to have "light sensitivity" for the cell structure came from in the first place.

Photons were just radiating providing useful information, if a perception organ was possible and could develop in small enough steps that each one provides an incremental improvement in survival then it's not surprising that it happened. There is no paradox. You can have an ability and not know how it works. Niggers can play a synthesizer but they can't tell you how it's built.

Before Dawkins jumped on the anti-Jesus gravy train, he had a career as one of the world's foremost science communicators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0

He doesn't actually justify nor explain the change, he makes leaps in logic, backwards extrapolates to fill in queries that no one asked with speculative standards and conditions and hypothetical limits on a process he can't define. And, also suggests logical continuation where no initial logical formation exists as a foundation for it to be laid upon. "A cup naturally follow the light sensitive spot." By, intellectual progression of design, sure... Not by inherited traits/random process. The light sensitive spot developing from nothing is just as strange as any accompanying mechanical aid to it. As it all implies continued development with intent. Where is the intent coming from? Certainly not from the creature as it doesn't even have an intrinsic awareness of how its body functions. Not from "natural selection" either of breeding pairs, because how does a protrusion come about at all? Or, the spot for that matter?

He gives you a clear and logical explanation of how evolutionary pressure could effect such a change. You can call it "hypothetical" and "speculative" since we have no fossilized eyes, but give that lack of material evidence, we have little choice but to pick the most likely explanation. And that explanation is natural selection, which has proven its merit over and over and over again, both in the field and in the laboratory. You apparently do not accept that such a thing as a light-sensitive cell could be created by mutation, so that precludes you from believing in evolution, but IF you were to assume that such a thing might happen, his explanation is perfectly rational and in accordance with what we observe in nature today: eyes of different designs and in different stages of development.

"Evolutionary pressure," again, jargon repurposed to avoid the obvious problems. It's illogical. There is no deduction that substantiates evolution without intent. Those that promote random evolutionary development can't get around this and I don't know why they try.

That doesn't explain the origin of the traits nor account for their further development. It's jargon hand waving nonsense. Also, it spits in the face of actual breeding conditions where availability and access determine offspring, not adaption. It's not the best looking nor most talented guy that gets the girl. It's the guy that simply gets the girl, period. Somehow he'll develop a laser for a penis a billion years out according to "natural selection" theory.

It's only meaningless jargon if you don't believe in the premises, namely that inheritable, beneficial mutations sometimes happen. "It's not the best looking nor most talented guy that gets the girl." Statistically aggregated over millions of individuals and thousands of generations, yes, the best looking or most talented (or most violent) guy gets the girl. And vice versa, of course. The hottest girl gets the chad; sexual selection is the main contender for an explanation for why blue eyes spread so rapidly.

I don't believe in beneficial, random development that clearly isn't random. No. It's obviously tied to a process that is intrinsic to life itself. Which is very cognizant and self aware, or perhaps even something which cognition is derived from. A superior state inherent in reality, or above it.

"I don't believe in beneficial, random development that clearly isn't random" What makes you say that mutations aren't random? "A superior state inherent in reality, or above it." Now, who's spewing jargon?

Because they're functional additions which suit the surroundings of the lifeforms. That isn't random, that is purpose, by anyone's definition. The assumption of that intent being missing because it can't be accounted for is simply that. The direction isn't obvious, so nonsense justification is provided that doesn't fit the otherwise observable facts of an animals becoming more complex based upon intent, not random chance.

They're only functional additions because all the 99.9% fatal mutations are weeded out by natural selection, leaving only (or mostly) the beneficial mutation in the gene pool. And looking back 500 million years, with all the harmful mutations long gone, one might therefore be tempted to say "hey, what a fucking coincidence that all these beneficial traits just happen to pop up in the gene pool in the right order and with the right timing to produce the human eye." The assumption of intent is left out because the theory of evolution by natural selection works fine without that assumption, same way as Newtonian mechanics does away with the necessity of having angels pushing the planets around.

What fatal mutation elimination? There are countless examples of harmful genetic remaining alive and well. The entire Nigger species, Retards, Blindness, etc. These things should have been "weeded" out thousands of years ago. Or, never developed in the first place. And, there is no assumption of intent. It's obvious, even a chain of development intrinsically implies it. Otherwise you'd simply have an "eye," and no between parts. Because it's by chance not "development," as that is an intellectual exercise. And, at some point these eye mutations would show up again or something even more radical, like a laser penis.

Blindness is not inheritable, it's a pathological condition like Downs syndrome - congenital but not inheritable. Most of the detrimental mutations in the genome are on recessive alleles or (as in the case of niggers) were beneficial until the environment changed. And if you'd watched that 15-minute Dawkins video (in the 5 minutes it took you write a dismissive reply about it), you'd have understood why half an eye is perfectly serviceable in a world of the blind, ensuring that half-eyed creatures would quickly come to dominate a population.

I don't listen to unsound logic. There is nothing to be gained by entertaining biased, bad faith arguments. The guy busts out a goddamn cope mountain halfway through as he pulls up half a dozen examples of him being wrong. And, fails to answer the original premise he was trying to answer in the first place. Where did the trait come from. And, how could it ever follow a logical progression without intent. The entire premise nonsense. Equivalent to the idea of a refrigerator building itself from nothing. Or, a new car emerging from a pile of scrap metal.

@doonxib@poa.st @Felix_Krull@poa.st @judgedread@poa.st > Where did the trait come from Biologists answer questions like this all the time - but here's the trick, you've sealed yourself away from learning from them due to your intentional stance of ignorance. I've been in rooms discussing all kinds of evolved traits with a whole bunch of different biologists -- this is very much *the* interesting stuff to them.

You've sealed yourself away from learning from them due to your intentional stance of ignorance

@Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital @Felix_Krull@poa.st @doonxib@poa.st @judgedread@poa.st From biologists? No. I follow a bunch of them. I'm kept from learning more from them because there's a fucking pandemic going on and in-person biology conferences and biology-related nerd nights and other social venues are inaccessible right now to anyone who values their brain. But there's more than enough biology to read - I intend on acquiring a cell biology intro textbook soon, even.

Evolutionary Biology is not a science. Science is the process of formulating and experimentally testing hypotheses. Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not, by necessity, the subject of experimentation. Anything not falsifiable is a faith, not science. Evolutionary Biology is a collection of Just-So Stories, like Kipling's "How the Elephant Got His Trunk."

@Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital @Felix_Krull@poa.st @doonxib@poa.st @judgedread@poa.st >Evolutionary Biology is not a science. good lord where do you people come from > Evolution is not falsifiable. This is like saying 2+2=4 is not falsifiable. > Anything not falsifiable is a faith, not science. Do you accept 2+3=5 on faith? > Evolutionary Biology is a collection of Just-So Stories No it is not. While there *are* just-so stories to be found there's plenty of empirical support and more importantly - hard mathematical proof to be found here.

"good lord where do you people come from" You don't get to invoke the Lord, faggot. "This is like saying 2+2=4 is not falsifiable." No, because 2 + 2 = 4 is experimentally verified "Do you accept 2+3=5 on faith?" No, it is verified by experiment "there *are* just-so stories to be found" Like the evolution of the eye. There is no fossil record, there is not even a logical progression from "light-sensitive cell" to "eye with lens and retina." there are no intermediate steps. But there is a Just So Story about it.

"Evolution is not falsifiable." Of course it's falsifiable. Find me a fossil of a homo sapiens in the Jurassic and this discussion is ended. There'll be a lot of noise, a lot of anguished squealing and kvetching and denial, but if you can satisfactorily prove your find is not a fraud, you will have killed the theory of evolution stone dead.

Just admit that you don't know what falsifiable means. The specific details of what species where are not the hypothesis of evolution. Without a hypothesis you do not have a theory and you do not have science. Besides, the biologists would just make up another Just So story about humans in the Jurassic. Have any of you Evolution Enthusiasts ever heard of the Scientific Method? Do you know what it entails?

@Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital @Felix_Krull@poa.st @doonxib@poa.st @judgedread@poa.st > The specific details of what species where are not the hypothesis of evolution were* > Without a hypothesis you do not have a theory and you do not have science. So your argument here is that "evolution [at least as presented in this thread] isn't a theory" because "it doesn't have a hypothesis"? That's a new one i'll give you that.

@jeffcliff@shitposter.world @Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital @Felix_Krull@poa.st @doonxib@poa.st @judgedread@poa.st The evolution of modern man falls short on the Darwin hypothesis

"The evolution of modern man falls short on the Darwin hypothesis" Why?

It's funny that it's assumed that the evolution of man is the hard problem when the timeline shows that going from single to multicellular life took around three billion years. From the end of the age of dinosaurs to intelligent life is 66 million years, a relative blink of an eye.

Evolution has serious, serious problems with explaining the early universe and early earth if you leave it all up to random occurrences. We have a significant number of tests that indicate that subatomic particles when tested in a collider respond to the wants of the observers. How much more so does the universe respond to the will of God?

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not posit anything about the early universe or subatomic particles.

*Darwin's* theory does not. "Modern" scientists have attempted to extrapolate based on the theory.