Evolution is bullshit

...

...

That is natural selection. Of course the wolves with thicker coats will be more likely to reproduce in a cold environment. But it doesn't follow that those wolves would ever become anything other than wolves.
Very scientific.

But they were still human.

...

...

...

...

...

...

and you're talking about creationism as the alternative explanation. That makes god a talking point,, and I think god carries a heavier burden of proof than evolution.

I logically explained why you cannot "see" evolution. Tell me why our loving creator hides from us.

...

...

Loook, you obviously dont understand how time works or can imagine time on a grander scale.

Cant you see thst if natural selection were on to go for a longer time the changes would be much more drastic, combine that with the enormous amount of evidence we have with DNA and that the fossil record might miss the letter G that doesnt mean the whole alphabet is a myth.

...

...

Good job putting words in my mouth.
Let's say for the sake of argument God doesn't exist and Intelligent design is bullshit. Does that add any validity to evolution?
No, frankly, it doesn't.
And i rebutted your "logical" argument.

Then enlighten me.
Yes, just look at the massive amount of diversity between dog breeds. They're still dogs, though, and are basically domesticated wolves.
Like what?

...

So the purely logical position is that both theories are invalid and that species diversification remains unexplained.

Both theories are unsubstantiated, yes.
Human beings are great at finding answers. However, they are terrible at finding the right answer. We love to find a plausible explanation and throw our hands in the air saying "I have solved the puzzle!" I make a living training people how to troubleshoot machinery and this is the very logical barrier I fight against every day. My pupils have the instinctual default of coming up with a possible answer and concluding that it is the only possible answer. It takes a while to get them out of the habit of swapping parts out when all that's needed is a little clean up.

My students come in falling for every red herring I throw their way even when I explicitly tell them there's a red herring. Only the most accomplished ever really "get it."

...

lol im making a rainbow

...

...

...

ill be back

...

...

...

are you denying separation of races?

...

...

YES
OP is retarded

...

...

...

...

that's micro-evolution

elaborate

Why are you people such fucking dumb shit retards.

You can assert your position, that's good. But can you justify it?

pํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํํ

separation of races is many thousands of years, over 80 thousand alone not counting interbreeding with close human relatives in our recent prehistory
micro evolution is something you can observe in your lifetime
youre trolling art needs more skill

no, micro evolution is the evolution within one species as opposed to one species turning into another species. separation of races is a prime example of micro evolution in action.

separation of races is a process to speciation
in fact by every biological definition races are already separate species just like different specie of elephants, panthers, tigers

they are still essentially the same animal.

Semites and Semite-worshipers really do hate and fear nature.

Cutting down trees without good reason Like keeping yourself alive is the most Jewish thing one can do.

Look how much the nickel noses fear nature religions:
archive.is/WxZsU

OP neeeds to have sex

This is a good post

wew

You're asking if anybody is a million years old.

Not every species concept, races arent different species under the biological species concept for example. The morphalogical species concept is an easy one to argue for speciation of different races though

I'm asking if anyone's seen any real evidence of one type of animal turning into another.

There are 2 assumptions

1) Everything is created
2) Everything is not

If everything is created, who created the creator.

If everything is not created, then a creator is not necessary hence doesn't exist.

and that has what to do with evolution?

Uh oh! Lets make another assumption

Some things were created

A creator was not created, and everything else was.

Good argument

the "if they can breed they are same species" is poor argument because of many examples of how false it is

Thats why there are different concepts

There are exceptions to all definitions of species is evolutionary biology, including morphological and genetic isolation concepts.

Furthermore, your picture is a poor use for your argument (although the argument is sound enough), as the biological species definition states thats different populations must make stable offspring, many hybrids in your picture are sterile, or their offspring are (which actually proves the opposite point, as they are considered different species by the bio species concept).

*definitions of species in evolutionary biology

there is only one coherent use of species
and that concept makes africans who prefer africans and europens who prefer europeans to be separate races

Doesn't that depend completely on how you define "type of animal"?

I mean, my father didn't like writing, but here I am, in love with the keyboard. So we're two different types of animal, literally.

Your first sentence isnt true.

Your second sentence makes no sense.

For example, we have seen that finches can become other kinds of finches. But have we seen finches become anything other than finches?
Rinse and repeat for other types of animals.

Actually it can be studied in real time. Ever hear of the Grants study?

pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session4/elaborate_b_pop1.html

nobody's arguing against natural selection.

You have not defined the term "type of animal".

If you think that having a different name makes it a different type, you're crazy. We could give the finches different names tomorrow.

I think that OP is a species called Troll which evolved from Homo Sapiens in this new Internet environment.

But, that aside, OP's argument is the old, old one…. small changes are possible, large changes are not.

The flaw in that argument is that there's no barrier between "large" and "small". There's only time. It's like saying "I accept continental drift, but only for the first few inches".

we could give them different names, but that doesn't change the argument as we give dogs and wolves different names yet they're the same type of animal.

I'll admit, such a distinction is hard to define. But it is intuitive to any intellectually honest person. Can you define the way an apple differs from an orange in the same way you can define the way a lizard differs from a bird? No, you can't. But the differences are clear and definable when you directly compare one to the other.

It's not a "small vs. large" type argument though.That's a strawman. the differences between a pit bull and a golden retriever are quite large yet they're still dogs. We can see many kinds of animal evolve into variants of the same type of animal. We don't, however, see one type turn into another. Those are fundamentally different things.

Again, no. Large continental drift is the exact same process as small continental drift. that's not true about micro vs macro evolution. Micro evolution exaggerates existing traits by virtue of natural selection. Macro evolution implies new traits will come out of nowhere.

You're trying to make this argument true by INSISTING on it?

The difference between an orange and an apple is huge, but it's an accumulation of many small differences. I don't see how you can argue against that?

Wait - I see a way for you to prove your point.
Give an example of a "trait" that could NOT have evolved gradually. One that simply HAD to appear, fully working, out of nowhere.

That's a clue to tell us that it doesn't exist - or, at the very least, that YOU don't know what you're talking about.

...

...

yes, and they are quite easily definable. but you were asking about a way to define a "type" which would work across the board. So if you want to retain intellectual honesty, define those differences in a way which could be applied the SAME WAY that the differences between a lizard and a bird are defined, as well as a bear and a hyena, as well as an antelope and a whale.

The fact that they're different kinds is obvious. You could EASILY compare any two of these things and point out the differences, but they don't differ in the same way and therefore a universal definition is hard to come by. That's my point.

Let's go with fur, or anything which extrudes from an animal's skin like scales, feathers and such. Sure, you could postulate that the small differences required for fur to form can occur over time, but it's not at all about the extent of the differences, it's about their ability to appear in the first place. Smooth skinned invertebrates at some point developed a trait which caused shit to come out to cover that smooth skin.

...

Ok, it's getting late. I do look forward to see your evolutionist rationalizations in the morning though. But until then I need to sleep.

...

lol. get fucked evolutionfags

Life was actually built by tiny nano robots, all called Geoff.

Bear with me on this creationists:
Evolution is real
and
The God that created this universe carefully designed all life throughout the process.

OK, consider this;

1. Smooth uniform skin, all cells the same
2. A mutation causes some fraction of the cells to be darker
3. The darker cells offer better protection from UV, purely by accident
4. Natural selection drives these cells to become larger, offering more protection. It could have made them more numerous instead; it depends on the vagaries of that particular animal's DNA. But in this case, it makes them larger.
5. The cells offer more protection if they protrude. Therefore natural selection drives them to do so.
6. As they replicate, they tend to offer more protection when the child cells are on top. So, selection drives them in that direction.
7. The animal now has miniscule protrusions. Further mutations and selection drive them to become larger, to gain stiffness and other properties, eventually becoming hair.

There is no NEED for this feature to be full and complete before it becomes useful. It is useful from the get-go, and every step of the way makes it slightly MORE useful.

God is the entire system we're in, including all individuals and things inside it.
You're talking about "god" the alien.

Yes, and you assume that God, the largest physics engine in which everything is constantly discharging energy from atom to atom like axons and dendrites does not have a consciousness.

A million-year tornado won't put all the parts of a helicopter together, dumbasses.

lol, that's evolutionists' answer to everything. have we ever SEEN a beneficial mutation come about in the history of ever? All we have ever seen mutation do is destroy complexity, not increase it.
no they wouldn't. protrusion is wasted surface area. If anything, the opposite is true.

I never said it did. but the building blocks for the trait to come about in the first place essentially have to come out of nowhere, which you rationalize with "mutation" even though mutation has historically been nothing but destructive.

== ONLY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST CAN THE MYSTERIES OF GOD BE UNDERSTOOD == by blatantly closing your mind to science and logic

Recent research has shown that acquired behaviours can be inherited by offspring. This is an element of the evolutionary process which Darwin overlooked.
In one study, rats were exposed to the odour of rosemary and then frightened with a loud noise. They learned to fear the smell. Their offspring, raised by hand without parental influence, exhibited fear of the rosemary odour when adult.
In another, chimps from a tool-using tribe were separated at birth and raised by non-tool using chimps. In adolescence, the tool users' offspring began to teach the adoptive tribe tool use. This study is fascinating because it wasn't just pick up a twig to catch termites type tool use, it was a complex process of selecting the right rock as a hammer and the right rock for an anvil to open seedpods.
The fossil record contains good proof of species level change over time, notably those organisms like marine mammals which began as marine micro organisms, later became terrestial animals and finally returned to the oceans to become whales, dolphins and porpoises.
Evolutionary theory will always be theory, but then so is everything in the intellectual sphere if you examine it philosophically, except pure logic. And as Wittgenstein pointed out, logic tells us nothing about the world.

sounds like some cool shit, can i get a source? Do we any good hypotheses about the intricacies of this mechanism?
That's still not evidence of anything other than micro evolution though.

except it doesn't.

Are you implying that we can't prove anything that takes longer than a human lifespan?
Also flies and moths are macroscopic you dunce.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_scale

No, tons of things do. But we are able to accelerate such processes by exaggerating natural phenomena. Sedimentary rocks are an example of this. We know basically how they would form, and we can see the exact same process happen in real time in things like concrete. We can't do so with macro-evolution.
Macro/micro don't always refer to visibility. Read the thread to get an idea of what the terms actually fucking mean you mongoloid.

B-b-b-but muh bibble.

da Oerth bey 4000 yrs old, only commies disagreeable to da facts

Ironically you're probably the best argument against evolution. No-one as shitty at baiting as you could've survived natural selection on 8ch.

...

My sentences are all true because I studied this field before getting my degree and I currently work in this field. I am sorry if you are sjw minded (cancerous psychology) and can't comprehend the basics of evolution.

That is not the case.
Randm mutations occur all the time (literally in your somatic cells every time they divide because there are millions of them and trillions in your whole body at any given time). Most mutations cause detrimental effects or even death for the offspring before they are born. A mutation such as a different color or a longer tail might be beneficial. If it is really beneficial over generations the short tails and other colors might be entirely removed from the population or only exist as unexpressed recessive genes in a small percentage of the population. As mutations continue happening you might get one that has longer or stronger nails. You might get one that has no nails and this might be a positive adaptation for the species or a part of the species that lives in a particular environment. Let's say it is good for part of the species in a particular environment. Over time that subgroup would become separated from the main group because it can live better in the particular environment and maybe no longer has interaction enough to interbreed with the ancient population. Now you have two group that (as you argue) are still the same type of animal. However random mutations do not stop. Now the group with the nails might mutate more nails/claws or nails that never stop growing. The other group might retain nails/claws but only on some limbs and none at all at any point in their life on other limbs. They will begin to walk and act differently and certain behaviors might now be beneficial due to their different movement. You see where I am going with this? Of course you have to assume the devil didn't plant all those fossils in the ground separated by measured amounts of sand/stone making it Appear as if they evolved even though they have not ( :^) ).

0/10 fuck off and never visit any imageboard again

Ok, what about antibiotic resistance genes? These are completely new genes that code for completely novel proteins that have only appeared over the last 50 years that we've been regularly using antibiotics. You're never going to see a wolf evolve into a bear in your lifetime, because their lifespans are too long. Your sedimentary rock comparison is also bullshit because we never actually modeled the natural process, we just managed to produce a similar result.
Finally, your micro/macro distinction is equally weak. If the only distinction is the occurrence of a novel trait, we see mutations occur all the time. It's just that most of them don't encode anything useful.

All religions believe in evolution and worship devolution.

Calling an individual inferrior and progression to coward that of them more complex.

longer tails or fingernails is not the same thing as the genesis of tails and fingernails.
of course the offspring are going to deviate in length or color would occur, but the fur itself, the tail itself, the fingernail itself, etc, etc, etc, can't just pop out of nowhere.

they already have the ability to produce proteins, antibiotic resistance was only an alteration of an existing trait.
yes we have
the chemistry is identical

but not the spontaneous occurrence of a new set of traits, only an alteration of existing ones.

How many so called "micro-evolutions" does it take to equal one "macro-evolution"? Answer the question.

they are two different things.
micro-evolution is the alteration of an existing trait
macro-evolution is the occurrence of an entirely new trait

Macro is what micro amounts to
if you walk 1 metre per minute, then you will eventually walk a kilometre

you clearly didn't read my post.
fingernails getting longer is not the same thing as fingernails emerging

no because for fingernails to emerge they would have to be made out of thin air (or keratin but lets keep on the point)
See it like this
Oh wait shit in your mind a mutation of existing technology cant exist so colour photographs dont exist
Oh wait shit no mutations of technology cant exist according to you

my point exactly
that is LITERALLY the opposite of what im saying. existing "technology" CAN be altered.This doesn't explain the creation of NEW "technology."

once again,you have proven you didn't read my post.

what is this shit about new technology?
Also im not reading every single post you made explain yourself scoundrel

nvm I think were debating for the same side of the argument, I thought you were OP
even though youre not explain yourself im confused

micro-evolution (the one that happens) is corollary to improvement of cameras in your analogy.
Macro-evolution (the one that doesn't happen) is more equivalent to the invention of the camera itself.

you didn't even need to read every post, you only needed to read the ones you responded to.

i am.

not really.. we're all going to fail to reproduce so our genes won't get passed on.. That, good sir, is natural selection.

b-but cameras did get invented. . .

and it was intelligently designed. what's your point?

fucking hell youre making no sense at all
Youre saying macro evolution doesnt exist for all the wrong reasons, then you continue to say that macro evolution DOES exist but god did it?
What the fuck man
Macro evolution doesnt state that an ape turns into a human
macro evolution takes 2 animals, a descendant and an ancestor and says, look! We got 2 animals who are relatives but still look completely different, this is because when you tweak the nose 1 inch every 10000 years and you move the ears up 2 inches every 10000 years then it will have ears 4 inches higher after 20000 years

the reason it doesn't exist (which i explained to you) is that new traits can't come out of thin air
i was pointing out how shit your analogy was hoping you'd realize it was shit yourself.

nope, that's micro evolution still. micro evolution is the alteration of an existing trait (in this case, like a nose or ears). macro evolution is the generation of an entirely new trait like the ears or nose themselves.

You know people exist with more than 10 fingers right?
Oh where did those extra fingers come from?
Genetical mutations esé
If a box has no holes in it but his son does have a microscopic hole in it thanks to this tiny mutation, and then over the course of the millions of years the tiny hole in the box grows out to be a giant hole in the box
voila I explained it now go jump off of a bridge and go to the heaven you were promised for being a dumbass

Where is your fucking intelligent designer and who made him?

Infinite regress is a problem here.

and they already had the genes for fingers. that's not the same as the first fingers ever forming.
but a mutation wouldn't cause that initial hole.

im not advocating ID. i was pointing out how ludicrous his argument was.

that's literally bullshit though. the way cells conglomerate and work together is a deterministic, repetitive process. the default is no holes because the cells would normally want to just conglomerate into a pile. the shape and structure become defined by the genetic information (also electromagnetic force which would generally result in a uniform lattice structure). there is no "no hole" gene. the gene doesn't say "don't make a hole here." what they do say is "make this shape." a hole would be part of that shape if the hole is specified in the genetic information.

that is an alteration of the 10 finger gene though. macro evolution would be the formation of the first finger.

to clear up confusion, pic related was the post i was responding to

Actually there is a no hole gene, humans also have a no hair gene and a no tail gene, because back in the day (as more primatal primates I guess) we needed that, and they recessed
But sometimes these genes fuck up and humans are born with extra hair or a tail

And I fucked up that comment, im tired and im kinda done taking your bait, cheers man

except we do have hair and a tail. they're just not as pronounced.

because they are
but the gene that makes sure it doesnt get pronounced sometimes fucks up

This is what happens when science goes up against religion in a court room. Teaching simple high school biology lead to a federal court case, protests and death threats to the judge.

Judgment Day, Intelligent Design On Trial. PBS NOVA.

youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I

We also have a gene that makes sure our anus doesnt become a mouth, we dont develop a beak etc, its just that these genes almost never fuck up because they are MUCH further down the line of the evolutionary path

ill entertain your argument just to show how it still doesn't address my argument:
the genes for those traits exist, sure. what im talking about is from where those genes originate. they didn't come out of thin air, you said it yourself.

and that is the whole point here. micro evolution tweeks existing traits. the spontaneous generation of entirely new traits is what's up for debate here.

i never said anything about religion

Actually I cant explain this
Im not saying your correct but my bioligy classes are really failing me

You didn't have to. It is blatantly obvious.

yeah, im sure you think im a feminist communist too.

>also your faces have gotten shorter since you don't need to poke your noses into holes to sniff out your grub anymore, and when that feature's not necessary, the inherent benefit of not being a jew having a shorter schnozz wins out via natural selection

There's your macroevolution

shit, picture didn't post

Stop lying using green text.

You couldn't even deny it. You are a creationist. Just admit the truth.

wtf is wrong with that bears teeth?

yes
actually a recent one in bacteria where they began digesting a synthetic petrochemical that would not occur in nature in any significant quantity under any natural circumstance due to alternative chemical reactions that are more energy efficient
the bacteria literally gained a random shitty mutation and then began outcompeting their neighbors when they ate our synthetic chemical

i explained to you how small traits can cause other small traits to be beneficial and begin forming entirely different types of things that before had no purpose or way of being beneficial

What are you talking about? It's design seems downright intelligent :^)

WEW, HOLY FUCKING SHIT
since when did religious CUCKS not believe things they did not SEE, the whole fucking foundation of religion is believing everything you cannot SEE at ALL ever.

Over time, the genes in your body have faults when replicating (which can be exacerbated by radiation), some of these changes to the genes can generate shit like "wew lad, this formerly pointless section of the gene now makes the precursor to antlers on your noggin"

Also, viruses can affect stuff, like, there's this one virus which caused us to have longer pregnancies as a side effect.

I'm not a biologist though, if you really want the answers, check out google scholar

Nigger do you even know about sweet potatoes?

it's good bait today

I'd love to see your proof that what you claim to be "entirely new traits", can't in fact be small-scale mutation and continuous micro-evolution supported by finding new uses for certain traits.

Also you have yet to prove that mutation can't be beneficial.

Here's my mental picture of OP :

"I can't imagine Relativity, so I'll just accept what the experts say."

"I can't imagine molecular dynamics, so I'll just accept what the experts say."

"I can't imagine brain surgery, so I'll just accept what the experts say."

"I can't imagine evolution so IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!!"

Australian snakes have evolved to have smaller heads in response to the introduction of the poisonous cane toad.

Evolution is just selective breeding. Humans have been known to do that as well. It's how new types of crops are created. Happens all the time.

ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎ฏ๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎๎

u dont know what a mico-evolution is, let alone what evolution is

natural selection is the driving force of evolution. 1 of 3. Ofc wolves wont turn into non-wolves, just like humans didnt stop being mammals, vertebrate, animals or eukaryotes

finches turning into "not finches" isnt how evolution works. Organisms descend COMMON ancestor. They turn from simple to more complex. How come finches r still birds? How come they r have tissue, if they r finches? Why r they made out of cells, if they r finches?

so if anything takes longer than an individual humans life, its unobservable?

How? That's just blatant denial, it is further proved that you are in blatant denial by you offering no argument back, your just completely dismissing it an not providing any explanation as to why
GAS YOURSELF YOU GOD BOTHERING, BIBLE BASHING JEW

C'mon now.

Asking the same question to you religioncuck.
And just in case you're some government shill attempting topic dilution, here's a sage.

This is some high quality bait. Not only did I skim through the thread, but you made me doubt in evolution for a second.

what evolutionary purpose pedophiles have? children can't get pregnant. what's the use of it? why evolution decided to create pedophiles?

what evolutionary purpose does being sick have? What evolutionary purpose does being born without a leg have?
Evolution debunked right here.

why would a perfect god give children bone cancer? Why would a benevolent god give some people 1 leg and others 3?

dat bait

obviously u dont get that its a mockery of quoted argument.

so i herd u liek mockery in your mockery?

shiggy diggy my niggy
Ive heard the argument before so I took it as serious,