No.577339
File: 1668495279347.jpg (188.12 KB, 1000x1000, chie where's the door.jpg)
![](/ota/thumb/1668495279347.png)
If all life on Earth arose from slow mutations from a single-celled organism, then why can't we even find a single convincing example of transitionary fossils? There is very few that even come close to being arguable.
If it happened, if it was true, if all life on Earth went through this, we'd already have found countless of them. But we don't. What we do find is layers of fossils on top of each other with no transitionary fossils between them at all.
There is also no known mechanism which new information can be added to a genome, only rearranged, duplicated, or deleted. (This is why you can have finches with different beaks through natural selection, but they will never be anything but birds). There is also no known method in which you can make life from inorganic matter. Radiometric dating aside from carbon-14 is also demonstrably unreliable to the point of being useless. There is also no known way that random genetic mutation could result in sexual reproduction from asexual creatures, or other similar irreducibly complex mechanisms.
If there wasn't so much dogma in "science" and academia, it'd be plain to see that scientific evidence itself is against the naturalistic worldview.
This is where you link me to the Wikipedia page on "transitionary fossils", yes I know I've seen it, it's very ridiculous how far they stretch for most of them. If these are seriously convincing to you, there's no use arguing with you, your trust in perceived "authority" is too strong.
No.577341
File: 1668495840033.jpg (102.47 KB, 717x1000, sample-e3b02cc0659090ecda2….jpg)
![](/ota/thumb/1668495840033.png)
>>577340>Yeah an asexually reproducing organism just had a random genetic mutation for male sexual organs that just so happened to coincide with a random genetic mutation for compatible female sexual organs.Retards actually think this is possible.
Potential benefits of sexual reproduction are irrelevant. The obvious -50% less efficiency of sexual reproduction is irrelevant.
It's obviously just not possible. There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to show it's possible. The scientific evidence that we do have is against it and molecules -> man evolution in general.
If you start with a naturalistic worldview though, i.e. their CANNOT be a creator, then you have to come up with SOME explanation for things like this, it MUST have happened so now we have to figure out how to "explain" it.
No.577342
If you aren't having good quality sex with as many beautiful people as possible you should kill yourself because you aren't fulfilling your purpose to pleasure yourself and others. This is the only true meaning of life.
Humans come from Bonobo who live in communist style societies where everyone shares and has sex with everyone, even the old and the really young.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_izpq0Ar-Y This is why communism always fails. it is missing the crucial SEX element.
We have zero relation to violent chimpanzees who form brutal fascist/meat eating societies based off patriarchal masculine-power that is looking to dominate and conquer everything. This is why chimps make tools to kill and eat meat, to selfishly take life for their own sustenance. This is why we have problems like global warming/technology, WAR, capitalism, crime and bigotry. Its unnatural and not the way of our true Bonobo ancestors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYMWe should live in a socialist society where we all share free-love.
No.577350
File: 1668511811551.png (2.12 MB, 1284x2000, 1668154683011.png)
![](/ota/thumb/1668511811551.png)
>>577339just admit you can't find an organism which would incorporate some of your dna
No.586719
File: 1677079753394.jpg (263.16 KB, 1200x951, 1677040549798.jpg)
![](/ota/thumb/1677079753394.png)
pusser thread