Message from @ChinaGirlNL

Discord ID: 660065203035308042


2019-12-23 08:47:53 UTC  

thats a pretty poor analogy. Pyramids are not alive, and are therefore not subject to evolution

2019-12-23 08:48:08 UTC  

plus we know what pyramids are. All the examples we have of pyramids are those man has constructed

2019-12-23 08:48:18 UTC  

we have evidence that points to them being manmade

2019-12-23 08:48:24 UTC  

and no evidence that points to them occuring naturally

2019-12-23 08:48:53 UTC  

im stating a hypothetical where we dont know who the pyramid builder is

2019-12-23 08:49:52 UTC  

well we have no evidence of proteins forming out of nothing either

2019-12-23 08:51:00 UTC  

and i still find it fascinating how perfectly we are built, i cannot emphasize it enough

2019-12-23 08:51:36 UTC  

it takes a lot of deep thought to realize it

2019-12-23 19:49:13 UTC  

creationism has way more evidence and backing than evolution

2019-12-23 21:11:47 UTC  

@ProgrammerVerbatim ok lets hear some

2019-12-26 03:35:01 UTC  

Why are we talking about evolution when we could be talking about rocks?

2019-12-26 05:07:24 UTC  
2019-12-26 05:07:32 UTC  

Watch that

2019-12-27 10:11:44 UTC  

@Riley i have a question for you , why we as humans we have only one shape i mean if the evolution was true there should be many shapes of human , for example there should be a humans with third hand from their neck ? So my point is why we have the monkeys and suddenly they transformed to humans?

2019-12-27 10:12:19 UTC  

Story from my biology teacher incoming...

2019-12-27 10:15:49 UTC  

So, once there were monkeys, they didn't have their hands free because they used them to walk. Once, there was a weird mistake. One of them could stand tall. That was a bit weird, but he was able to see further. This way, he could see dangers come from afar. It helped him to flee earlier, so he survived, unlike his siblings who couldn't stand. This 'mistake' also got kids, who could do the same. They grew out to humans, those who couldn't, were mostly killed by natural selection (this doesn't mean they're extinct, it only means there are more humans). Mistakes with a hand in the neck were also weird (if they existed), but they were no special survivors.

2019-12-27 10:16:00 UTC  

I mean aren’t their signs of humans with a whole fish tail @Citizen Z

2019-12-27 10:16:10 UTC  

I get what ur saying

2019-12-27 10:21:37 UTC  

@ChinaGirlNL (no offense) but this is a joke lol. Yet it didn't answer my question because we cant see the stages of human evolution . If we can see the monkey then we should see the following stages of the evolution but suddenly all of these stages are disappeared with no trace . Can you explain?

2019-12-27 10:22:35 UTC  

_~~Seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't recognise the tone of a joke? 😂~~_

2019-12-27 10:23:27 UTC  

Nobody would get it, but my biology teacher is a funny storyteller, because he's way too enthusiastic about his subject

2019-12-27 11:10:38 UTC  

Well .... i was shocked of the logic of ur teacher lmfao

2019-12-29 05:23:12 UTC  

@hamed473 "If we can see the monkey then we should see the following stages of the evolution but suddenly all of these stages are disappeared with no trace."
Can you clarify the first part and second part?

2019-12-29 07:05:32 UTC  

If evolution happened by a series of slow changes, we should see a continuum in the fossil record. but we don't.

2019-12-29 07:06:12 UTC  

we see distinct organisms. why would any one form of an organism persist longer than any other if there is constant evolution?

2019-12-29 07:07:06 UTC  

Forget "missing links". it's "missing continuum"

2019-12-29 07:19:57 UTC  

how would you show a continuum
by showing more and more missing links

2019-12-29 07:20:38 UTC  

"why would any one form of an organism persist longer than any other"
can you elaborate?

2019-12-29 07:22:31 UTC  
2019-12-29 10:42:47 UTC  

if animals are constantly and slowly evolving, we should see a continuum of these animals in the fossil record. we should see evidence of the gradual changes. why would we not? as soon as one small "mutation" gives an organism a competitive advantage, then we should find examples of that small change because they supposedly outcompeted the previous one. and for every subsequent small change.

2019-12-29 10:43:51 UTC  

but instead we find distinct animals and have to search for "missing links" . why would those distinct animals be in such abundance relative to the small changes that led up to them and took them to the next "advancement"?

2019-12-29 10:44:08 UTC  

doesn't make sense logically

2019-12-29 10:47:22 UTC  

we find missing link
***Look there are 2 gaps***

2019-12-29 10:47:58 UTC  

there should not be links. there should be a continuum

2019-12-29 10:47:58 UTC  

How small does the difrence have to be to show a continioum

2019-12-29 10:48:24 UTC  

What would a continioum look like

2019-12-29 10:48:25 UTC  

if a small difference gave enough advantage to outcompete the previous one then we should see it

2019-12-29 10:48:46 UTC  

we should see the evidence of every single small step. why wouldn't we?

2019-12-29 10:49:04 UTC  

if it was an advantage then those animals would have thrived over the previous ones right?

2019-12-29 10:49:17 UTC  

because we don't have all fossils and not all lifeforms get fossilised

2019-12-29 10:49:20 UTC  

that's what defines it as an advantage as per "natural selection"