/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

[Post a Reply]
[Hide]
Posting Mode: Reply
Säge:
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5000

Files
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.

11/30/20 Our server migration on 11/29/20 was successful!
08/28/20 Come and join our Matrix/IRC servers, the info can be found here.

Report Shills!
[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(322.41 KB 612x540 follow the jewish science.png)
Aryan Science Thread Blackshirt 04/14/2021 (Wed) 15:39:43 ID:cb48d6 No. 2551
The main purpose of jewish science is to demoralize and undermine societies. The phenomenon of jewish science has gradually formed over time, but by the 19th and 20th centuries it has become a openly anti-White, anti-Nature force. Prime examples of jewish science include the following: >materialism >eliminative materialism >abiogenesis >Big Bang (esp. according to the mainstream account) >'heat death' of the universe >atheism What is the purpose of each of dogmas of modern science? Demoralization. Relativism. Nihilism. The views listed above, held by many, many scientists and atheists, lead one to think that the only thing that exists is matter occupying time and space, that their mind and thoughts are just illusions and products of 'folk psychology', that magically life arose from non-life despite no evidence that such processes can occur, that the universe came into existence out of literally nothing, violating the most basic intuitions of metaphysics, that nothing comes of nothing - such ideas make rational analysis feasible in the first place. It is materialism that has led, first and foremost, to relativism, hedonism, nihilism and other modern, jew-influenced doctrines. We can hope that one day, true science will again displace these. Nothing is as it seems.
>>2551 >Big Bang Can you elaborate on this one? I don't know much about this one.
(394.00 KB 602x787 ClipboardImage.png)
>>2559 Pic related is what theoretical physicists nowadays are proposing when it comes to the origin of the universe. There is no time, no space, no matter, and then it inexplicably pops into existence from literally nothing with no cause. Of course this point is pilpuled a bit, they define nothingness so that just inexplicably the laws of physics just happen to exist independent of space, time and everything affected by said laws, as well as laws of quantum mechanics. Theories like this are being churned out by jews regularly. The particular excerpt attached to my post is taken from the book 'The Mystery of Existence: Why Is There Anything At All'. The particular section is written by a Soviet-born jew named (((Alexander Vilenkin))) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vilenkin Another prominent cosmologist working with (((Vilenkin))) and pushing out these theories is (((Alan Guth))): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem This is why I specifically mentioned the mainstream Big Bang theories being put out. The theory itself could be true, but I have almost wondered whether intentionally absurd theories are pushed out to the public after reading things such as this. It is of course worth noting that a Jesuit Georges Lemaître is behind the Big Bang too
>>2563 Thank you for the explanation!
>>2563 >The theory itself could be true It isn't, not only does it lack evidence along with skeptical scientists debunking it, but the ancients themselves have explained that the universe has always existed.
>>2570 Any good starting places to look into this stuff? I know that our ancestors either believed in an eternal model or a cyclical eternal model. I'd be interested to see how things like Olber's paradox, redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation are explained, since these are apparently their main pillars in the theory. Granted, the latter two could be bullshit for all we know, I've never observed it
>>2572 I forgot the links I had for Dharmic and pagans, but I do have scientists explaining why there couldn't have been a bang that started the universe and how it cannot ever be calculated to date the beginning. >https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html >https://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/
(153.61 KB 500x483 i love integralist pepe.png)
Post Integralist-chan!
The real radical change in Aryan science, I feel, will be a shift away from materialism, reductionism and the denial of the reality of consciousness.
There is no jewish science and White science. There is only truth and falsehood. It would be a grave mistake to allow ideology to overpower science; that's what happened in the Middle Ages, and it's also what happened during the (((Soviet Union))).
>>4990 >There is no jewish science and White science. There is only truth and falsehood. I am really confused on why some anons here did not come to realize that science is knowledge of truths, and that there can't be a such thing as "jewish science".
>>4995 There's no such thing as jewish science, but there is such thing as jewish ((("science"))).
>>4995 "Science" as peddled by the jews is a very specific type of thing. The world has become totally perverted from its original meaning.
>>4459 Indeed. Modern Jewish science deals almost exclusively with the objective aspects of Nature, and in doing so they have attempted to reduce everything to physics, chemistry and the workings of blind scientific laws and the laws of chance. This quote by Albert Szent-Györgyi sums up modern Jewish science: <“In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers.” Materialists today sometimes even deny that consciousness has any existence at all, or somehow a mixture of particles and chemical reactions magically produced a unique, subjective point of view. It's bonkers. Consciousness is a superior reality to body, though the quality of the body can absolutely effect how well the conscious self manifests its latent abilities. Good software will not run well on awful hardware (I do not like to use computer analogies since they are a favorite of materialists but this one is not bad)
>>3984 >This sort of "fun" is just slippery slope to trannyism. No they were mentally ill perverts in the first place, anime was just idealized version of reality they could project themselves onto >>3990 Is it possible to dox people just through discord names alone? I've been on there before you can post without actually signing up
(268.56 KB 1920x1080 1607178204721.jpg)
>>4014 >It has to due with the nature of the anime girl in the general. Anime girls are perfect, idealized young females. The art-style too accentuates everything people like in girls to extreme proportions. It's a supernormal stimulus. These men would not be drawn to these idealized characters if they had access to real women. None of these men would have ended up in these situations, had they been offered the option to live a normal life. Anime girls represent the standards that men have had of women for most of history but which they (women) no longer have to live by, as they now rely on the state rather than on their husbands. I know I am not saying anything profound here, as this has been said so many times already but when it comes to this topic, some people still prefer attacking the symptom (delusional escapism in this case) rather than the underlying problem that caused it. Despite feminist ideas being so widespread today, the idea that all societal problems must be the fault of men and fixed by men is still the norm. Of course, men do have natural obligations but in the present day, there is not much t be changed about the Women Question yet young men will still have their libido and a desire for a mate, thus they'll redirect that energy elsewhere until society offers them an alternative.
>>8745 I think one reason men may feel they have "lost access" to women is because we have an unnatural courting structure compared to other apes and mammals in general. There isn't supposed to be an even split of genders practicing monogamy. Men are intended to slaughter each other and hog multiple partners. I wonder if there is any conscious motivation behind the push for monogamy, things like if maximizing how many men are given partners encourages them to labor and feel invested in the system, maximize birthrates to create more laborers and to dilute the gene pool with stupid and weak beings who are easier to control overall. Whether or not it was consciously pushed, it seems like that practice is eroding. At least, officially so as more couples divorce and fewer marry to begin with.
>>8750 Also should've added that another reason for monogamy failing now could be the easy access women now have to sperm, completely separate of men. Unlike a womb, sperm doesn't have to be synthesized. Women already have full reproductive control to themselves if they so please.
>>8750 >I think one reason men may feel they have "lost access" to women is because we have an unnatural courting structure compared to other apes and mammals in general. There isn't supposed to be an even split of genders practicing monogamy. Men are intended to slaughter each other and hog multiple partners. The system of arranged marriages that many cultures have is technically unnatural as well, but it works in having men perform functional roles within society as they don't have to worry about being incel as long as they have a stable income. And no, just because these marriages are arranged doesn't mean there is no attraction, I think people in an arranged marriage will actually desire each other more at the start of their marriage as they didn't have the time to get used to each other, like people who dated' before marriage. I'll agree with you though that this wouldn't be an issue with ongoing warfare killing off part of the male population so that the gender ratio works in our favor. >I wonder if there is any conscious motivation behind the push for monogamy Monogamy is the norm for humans. Not for apes but for humans. We aren't niggers, who live on natural instinct alone. Male-oriented monogamy has been the norm in every functional human society, with exceptions being made for higher-class men who were allowed multiple wives in return for their contributions. Allowing women to control the courting system has turned 50% of men into 'oogabooga muh dick' retards who think of sex only and the other 50% into mentally ill loners and faggots.
(45.38 KB 454x720 hitler anime girl.jpg)
>>8745 >These men would not be drawn to these idealized characters if they had access to real women. None of these men would have ended up in these situations, had they been offered the option to live a normal life. Anime girls represent the standards that men have had of women for most of history but which they (women) no longer have to live by, as they now rely on the state rather than on their husbands. Yeah, this is 100% true. There are definitely aspects of anime girls that are specifically designed to be hyper-appealing to males, but part of the large root of it is that they are actual feminine-acting characters which are completely absent in modern Western media and increasingly in the West itself. As a side-note, the video below has been posted here before but it's a good analysis of this, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2prtR2ZNIk Despite being designed to be so appealing though, like you say, almost no men would pic anime and hentai over a real 3D woman that loves and cares for them if they were presented the opportunity to have one. Unfortunately the dating-game and the behavior of both sexes has been increasingly perverted from historical norms into a very unhealthy environment which creates nothing more than divide among Whites, increasing numbers of incels, beta males, men lost in escapism, whores, female entitlement and much more. It is an unfortunate situation, but you're definitely right that the sort of unhealthy escapism associated with anime and otaku are ultimately a symptom of a much larger problem. The problems between the sexes are actually one of the most dangerous aspects of the JQ, since nothing is more fundamental to society than this relationship, and when this goes wrong, everything else will follow.
>>8752 I would imagine even very early humans had similar practices to other apes, though, and I think it is important to think about the practices of pre-human ancestors as well. In the grand scheme of Earth's history, humans are something of a footnote having only been around a couple hundred-thousand years. Sophisticated language has greatly differentiated us from our closest non-human relatives (and even different races have achieved incomparable results from how far they each managed to make use of that adaptation), but I don't know how much our own compound knowledge as a species matters in the face of millions of years of evolutionary conditioning. Anyway, I always get this sinking feeling I was the type of man who was meant to be shipped off to war and either find glory and perspective or be culled from the pool. Can't say the service looks very appealing nowadays. Don't want to die on behalf of oil jews looking to test out new toys on West Asians.
>>8750 Widespread monogamy leads to healthy and stable societies, that is why the vast, vast majority of marriages throughout history has been of one man and one woman. Polygamy being the norm leads to more unstable social structures and amounts of young men who are barred access to females due to a small number of wealthier men monopolizing young women. There is a small bit more women in society than men though statistically, so if some men have a few more wives, it can work out, especially since men are more likely to die young than young women too. It is not something that I would legalize though, if I were in control of a government, or if I would, it would be among a very small select portion of the population that ought to be having more offspring than the masses. Think among the elite of the elite of the SS. Rumors are that Himmler had this idea in mind. I don't even think the system today promotes monogamy though, at least if we are defining monogamy as an (ideally) life-long partnership between a man and a woman in order to create a family. That is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The atomization of society, along with 'women's liberation' and the destruction of closeknit kin-networks has created an ocean of rootless cosmopolitans who less and less are getting married, and if they do get married, they've been having so much casual sex and degenerate hookups that they can't even pairbond with their partners. This is what ZOG wants - a completely plastic society of completely interchangeable drones who have no connections to each other than the most base and lust-driven, with no lasting connections formed, no deeper connections at all. Families, and indeed any sort of natural conenction between individuals other than the organization of the state, are anathema to ZOG, and must be destroyed, as they compete with ZOG's power even at a tiny level. That is why stuff like clans or tribes don't exist in modern states, the state destroyed them, atomized them, and subordinated them to the law of the land. We are already seeing the Jews push for even more degenerate forms of relationships now, such as 'polyamory' and the like, or 'open relationships'. This is straight out of communist pushes for 'free love' that go straight back to Bolshevik times with the writings of Kollontai and others. Notice though that Jews hate Mormon style 'plural marriage' where there is actually a bond and families are being formed, but still there are enough issues with polygamy where it can never be openly promoted. It's just not a good idea.
>>7982 I wonder what happened to all of these farmers that he's talking about. Did they all just retreat into the various layers of conservatism? There is old footage of Tom Metzger's public access TV-show where he mentions that he had millions of viewers (at least 2 million IIRC). What happened to all these people? Did they just die? Didn't they have any children? You almost never hear anyone say they were raised as a WN, even-though there used to be millions of WN's in America. It baffles me every time I think about it.
(848.75 KB 2640x1760 shutterstock-707687803.jpg)
>>8755 I'll have to be honest that I am increasingly skeptic of the evolution theory after reading the works of occultists such as Evola or the views of Himmler. The fact that so many civilizations have stories of gods intermixing with animal-like monsters is not a coincidence I think. There is also the fact that theories such as the evolution theory and out of Africa theory are often used uses for political ends. At any rate, there's still too much we do not know about human origins, during the Enlightenment some people theorized that we descended from orangutans. But I do think my point still stands that the concept of monogamy was essential for the establishment of functional societies and that there is something about humans that makes us strongly desire monogamy. Although, it's not like there aren't any animals who do not have concepts similar to monogamy or infidelity. >Similarly, emperor penguins also stay together to care for their young. This is due to the harshness of the Antarctic weather, predators and the scarcity of food. One parent will protect the chick, while the other finds food.
>>8840 Well, I wouldn't say I wholeheartedly believe evolution, but I think it is on the right track. All human interpretations are subject to dire refinement. I don't think we directly descended from chimpanzees (not saying that's what you think, but a lot of snobbish libtards do think something similar to this, not realizing chimpanzee have also undergone the same length of divergence as us if we do share a common ancestor). I know these concepts are politicized and I try not to speak from that angle on it, but I just think about how all these different animals share many similar traits to each other. Humans have analogous parts to birds, bugs, fish, lizards, mammals, etc. Some creatures are wildly-divergent, too, like cephalopods seem to be (although even they still share some similarities). There has always been this view that human is separate from animal, but I don't think it is minimizing the issues humans currently face to recognize all lifeforms are distant kin. In fact, it's funny how libtards speak on how race is a construct yet love diversity (meaning less Whites and more browns who look the same). It seems like race is a precursor, to me, to subspeciation and then full speciation. If someone really loved diversity beyond the scope of humanity, they would be more amazed by the great diversity of forms and lifestyles of the life in its entirety instead of just darker shades of skin color. Also, I know humans are not the only ones who practice monogamy. I specified mammals, as no other mammal with the same practice comes to mind. Many bird species essentially practice lifelong monogamy. Birds are very intelligent and interesting creatures. I just speculate on monogamy since the most similar creatures to humanity don't seem to practice it much, if at all. I don't know if there is any truth in it, but it seems to me that bird language may be more complex than it's credited to be.
>>8840 >There is also the fact that theories such as the evolution theory and out of Africa theory are often used uses for political ends Because they are and always have been. The Out Of Africa theory has been debunked numerous times, because the hominids that they keep claiming are our ancestors have been found outside of Africa. It's been shown in several studies and research that Europeans and Asians lack the DNA that the negroid race and certain apes have that would prove we come from them. The evolution theory is judiac nonsense that is pure materialism and a lie to dispell the thought and possibility that we come from gods. It doesn't make it any better that the guy who invented the theory was an liberal ancap along with the possibility that he was a jew himself, considering how much Yahweh's (((chosen ones))) love to shill all of his works even without any proof. If anything I think it's only possible that apes come from humans and the gods, rather that we come from them.
>>8844 I would imagine there might be a problem in the interpretation that the first humans were black (as if that should matter nowadays anyway). Chimpanzee skin is generally a much lighter complexion than a nigger's. As whatever pre-humans grew more neotenous and less hairy, the ones still in Apefrica would have to develop some protection against the intense sun while the ones who left had no such evolutionary pressure.
(968.15 KB 2322x1600 Wolf-mates.jpg)
>>8843 >I don't think we directly descended from chimpanzees That's what tends to come to mind when I hear someone speak of evolution. If we really do descend from primates, then I think either 1. negroids are more closely related to primates, which explains their behaviour and appearance or 2. different races (caucasians, negroids and mongoloids) may descend from different types of primates, explaining their differences in appearance and mentality to some degree. I know the latter sounds a bit outlandish but that may explain why the social structure and behaviors of sub-saharan Africans more closely resembles that of apes native to Africa, such as bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas. Whereas apes native to Eurasia, such as macaques and orangutans are far less aggressive and have different social structures. It could even be that these apes are somehow more evolved than their African peers. >no other mammal with the same practice comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals#Monogamous_species >Other monogamous species include wolves,[56] otters, a few hooved animals, some bats, certain species of fox, and the Eurasian beaver. This beaver is particularly interesting, as it is practicing monogamy in its reintroduction to certain parts of Europe; however, its American counterpart is not monogamous at all and often partakes in promiscuous behavior. The two species are quite similar in ecology, but American beavers tend to be less aggressive than European beavers. In this instance, the scarcity of the European beavers' population could drive its monogamous behavior; moreover, it lowers the risk of parasite transmission which is correlated with biological fitness. Monogamy is proving to be very efficient for this beaver, as their population is climbing.
>>8847 >first humans were black (as if that should matter nowadays anyway). Except it does matter for it shill the misunderstand of "muh mutation theory" and empower Afrocentrist nonsense. >Chimpanzee skin is generally a much lighter complexion than a nigger's. Does it matter? Chimpanzee and other apes all differ from skin tones anyway. No apes on Earth has a complexion as light as Europeans nor Asians. The idea that it was mere evolution doesn't make any sense. >As whatever pre-humans grew more neotenous and less hairy, the ones still in Apefrica would have to develop some protection against the intense sun while the ones who left had no such evolutionary pressure. Or maybe the idea that skin-tone and heat resistance is a lie and we never grew from any "pre-human".
>>8840 Yeah, evolution is a hoax that plays on a confusion between simple varieties and species. I used to believe it in wholeheartedly, but I took the time to actually research it, and sure enough, it is another facet of modernity designed to dehumanize, demoralize and to force certain strains of thinking down our throat, such as the myth of progress. On top of this, there is a good deal of anomalous evidence out there that is systematically covered up by the scientific community because it doesn't fit their theories. This evidence is mainly evidence such as bones and artifacts of advanced human antiquity stretching back past 100,000 years and even out to a few million at least. One will also see to that this has a better fit with the legends of the past, which are unanimous in proposing a top-down devolution from higher states to lower more degenerate states today. And looking at the history of humanity, we have certain seen a degeneration from the earliest pre-history. The fact that textbooks still publish fake info from the 19th century to support their meme (Haeckel's embryos, etc) and push it so hard in schools is really telling as well.
>>8844 >It's been shown in several studies and research that Europeans and Asians lack the DNA that the negroid race and certain apes have that would prove we come from them. Well there is more to the ideas of evolution than an out of africa theory. And even if out of africa is used for political ends, so what everything is. I don't see how it matters if there were distant common ancestors between Europeans and Africans anyways, other than some gut reaction of disgust at the notion. It would just show that Europeans continued evolving more past that distant ancestor.
>>8856 > Well there is more to the ideas of evolution than an out of africa theory. You mean the ignorant hypothesis concerning mutations and selective breeding that likely did not happen at all? >And even if out of africa is used for political ends, so what everything is. This is a shit argument and proves that you are from plebbit. The evolution theory goes against Aryan wisdom and thoughts. The OFA is a lie filled with fallacies and holes and yet it is still taught in schools. It does matter, because it prevents humanity from knowing one of the most important eternal truths that will btfo the jews control of the world. >I don't see how it matters if there were distant common ancestors between Europeans and Africans anyways, Nigger are you stupid? The DNA results between Euros and Afros shows that we don't have distant common ancestors and that they're actually different species who barely could interbreed with each other. Hybridization is the likely conclusion why Europeans and Afros can intermix with each other now that probably happened thousands of years ago. Evolution my ass. > It would just show that Europeans continued evolving more past that distant ancestor. No it doesn't, because there exist no evidence of that evolution and we already have evidence that the Cro-magnons, who are our ancestors not only are a different species from the African's ancestors, but that they were way smarter and robust, while the negroid has always been dumb and lazy. To claim that it's mere mutation is illogical and unscientific in itself. Why are there anons on this board who are so blue-pilled?
>>8856 i agree, but i guess i believe jew "theories", so my opinion is tainted and nothing about evolution could ever be true, like that's any different than how christniggers consider it.
>>8856 >Well there is more to the ideas of evolution than an out of africa theory These are even weaker forms of evidence than the OoA theory too kek
>>8866 in the end, any talk of evolution is jewish to you. it's ok.
>>8867 I'm not even sure that evolution can be called 'Jewish', unless we are using Jewish here as a byword for materialism / mechanistic science. Jews certainly use the concept for their benefit, but I think there are many more clearly Masonic links with it than there are Jewish ones.
>>8857 >The evolution theory goes against Aryan wisdom and thoughts Well that's your opinion. I don't have a deep enough knowledge of biology to make any bold claims, myself.
(33.54 KB 236x472 evolution hoyle.jpg)
>>8870 Don't let scientists gatekeep you, this is how they have power over our societies today. Research, learn and question. These are unironically what they fear most of all. What that anon is saying about evolution being counter to Aryan wisdom is 100% true though if he is referring to what Aryans traditionally said about the comsos. The modern worldview is based on the principles of nominalism, materialism, naturalism, reductionism and a bottom-up view of how things came to be. Traditionally according to people like Plato, Socrates, Plotinus, Vedic Aryans, etc., there was a top-down holistic view of Being, where the lower comes from the higher.
>>8867 He's not me, but yeah Charles' evolution is fake and gay. True evolution comes with mind and soul. >>8870 >L-look h-he's racist, so that means he's our guy! Anglos were also racist and yet they cucked out in the end and still do not regret it. I don't care if he's racist or not, he's worldview does not correspond with ours and there is no reason to take his theorizes seriously. >Well that's your opinion. No it's a fact and it does goes against the Aryans, I like how you aren't counterarguing me with any proof. This is wishful-thinking, not truth. He's a liberal and I think you're the same one from the QTDDTOT who's been shitting up this board with your mental illness about how the idea of state is cuckoldry. I'm not going to listen to someone who has a imbecile mindset. I'm not against science, I'm against jews.
>>8874 >theroizes Meant theories.
>>8873 If evolution is 'contrary to Aryan wisdom', how do you explain how the diversity of lifeforms on the Earth came to be? Some sort of creationist story?
>>8881 > how the diversity of lifeforms on the Earth came to be? Some sort of creationist story? Are you an a*glo or just retarded?
>>8881 >how the diversity of lifeforms on the Earth came to be? >Some sort of creationist story? No one knows how all creatures came to be on Earth, but it most certainly isn't just "evolution" and random mutations. Darwin was wrong and non-Aryan in mind, get over it and stop being a gigantic faggot. A creationist's story holds more ground than the theory we came from apes do, and you can't dismiss it as merely superstition, because you have no idea what the answer lies behind what brought life and the various creatures here on Earth. We hear stories about how new animals have just appeared out of our rainforests and it makes more sense than what a bunch of lab-coats who serve the jew publishes.
(37.63 KB 425x314 homo.png)
>>8873 >What that anon is saying about evolution being counter to Aryan wisdom is 100% true though if he is referring to what Aryans traditionally said about the comsos. Yeah that makes sense. >>8874 I was just pointing out Darwin was aryan so it's hard to say that evolution goes against aryan thoughts when it's a hypothesis primarily put forth by aryan researchers. If you are going to jump at shadows and start pinning every boogeyman on me though I will bow out.
>>8881 Ultimately I have to agree with what >>8891 said. Intelligent design has far better supporting evidence in my opinion from the research I've done, at least good enough to make me drop evolution over time. >>8892 Aryans can of course think and say non-Aryan things, though. It is like the millions of Aryans today demanding what is basically communism and complete degeneracy. These people were driven by the spirit of materialism of their age and had a lot less knowledge of biology than we have today. The version of evolution actually held in mainstream science today is a lot weaker than Darwin's and even more laughable.
(325.79 KB 1600x1030 index.jpg)
>>8897 >intelligent design has far better supporting evidence from the research I've done. What research? >>8891 >No one knows how all creatures came to be on Earth, but it certainly isn't just evolution and random mutations. Is it really so hard to accept the idea that living things would change over time with random mutations? You can see this process at work with dogs and horses. Both animals are bred to select for traits favorable to their owners, causing distinct breeds to emerge over time. Competitions and sexual selection is such an important part of the natural process that trying to deny it reeks of egalitarianism and christkikery. It makes it sound like the world is some sort of elaborate diorama where nothing every changes and everything in it was designed with a specific purpose in mind. >It makes more sense than what a bunch of lab coats who serve the jew publish I'm not saying that everything they publish is correct. In fact, a lot of what they publish seems fraudulent or self serving. Still, certain theories are firmly established enough that they are difficult to plausibly deny. Evolution is one of those theories.
>>8901 >What research? Here's some good links to look into carefully and with an open mind. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html https://back2godhead.com/science/ https://archive.org/details/WilliamA.DembskiJonathanWellsTheDesignOfLifeDiscoveringSignsOfIntelligenceInBiol/mode/2up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/ >Is it really so hard to accept the idea that living things would change over time with random mutations? You can see this process at work with dogs and horses. This is a classic evolutionist ruse, actually. They point to the intentional breeding of animals like horses and dogs... showing that we get horses and dogs with specific traits. There is no new information being added here, it's literally just shuffling around existing traits. This has been known for millennia. This unfounded assertion that varieties can gradually become entirely new species through breeding is the crux of the whole Darwinian meme. Those with experience in breeding have acknowledged this: Luther Burbank (American botanist and horticulturalist responsible for developing more than 800 strains and varieties of plants): <I know from experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or two-and-a-half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit, I have roses that bloom pretty steadily for six months of the year, but I have none that will bloom twelve, and I will not have. In short, there are limits to the development possible. (from Norman Macbeth's Darwin Retried Pierre Grassé (French zoologist and author of over 300 publications): <In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study of sera, hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process. (quoted from Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial) Francis Hitching (British author): <It is now absolutely clear that there are firm natural limits to what can be done. Remarkable achievements can be made by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. Between 1800 and 1878, the sugar content of beets was raised from 6 to 17 per cent. A half century of further breeding failed to make any difference.” (quoted from Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe) The assertion that varieties can turn into species is simply not supported by the evidence.
>>8907 Damn, you beat me to most of what I was going to say.... Yeah, but I'm going to have to agree with the other two anons as well. The idea that all it took was selective breeding to evolve is unlikely and far too sketchy. I'm more inclined to believe that we never really evolved, but grew and adapted to our environments and intermixed, instead of requiring certain genetic traits that may or may not gives us advantages. If you take a close look at nature and how it functions, everything just seems to have been designed in a orderly fashion rather than sudden coincidences we call mutations, and were designed by God(s) on purpose. I still support eugenics and selective breeding, but I still believe that spirituality is going to take part for creating the übermensch. I do not believe that eugenics will automatically make you superior.
>>8911 Funnily biologists always struggle not to use design-centric language when discussing how organisms’ bodies are planned. They try to discourage this and say that none of these organs or limbs (etc.) were really ‘designed’ for anything, but that it was really just a fortuitous and wholly unguided process. Wherever we see specified complexity in Nature we can almost be sure that we are dealing with works of intelligence. Body parts are clearly purposeful in their structure for certain ends, and they are extremely complex systems. It’s really on the level of looking up in the sky and seeing a poem spelled out unambiguously in the clouds, but concluding that this just happened due to gases in the atmosphere and winds alone with no intelligent agency behind it. <but muh monkeys on a typewriter
>>8881 God made White people only. The other races were created by an inferior diety. The nonWhites serve as pawns for Whites, that's why darkies are subhuman.
(4.26 KB 557x108 image.png)
(95.28 KB 466x420 image2.jpg)
>>8937 based and Lovecraftpilled >>8901 >I'm not saying that everything they publish is correct. In fact, a lot of what they publish seems fraudulent or self serving. Still, certain theories are firmly established enough that they are difficult to plausibly deny. I agree, I have the same opinion as in pic related. It doesn't matter how much the kikes try to bend reality to their own psychopath purposes, nature and truth will always find a way to prevail. If they believe they will succeed in their delirious transhumanist agenda, they're deluded. They will just cause unfathomable amount of pain and suffering to the human race trying to realize it, but will eventually fail (like with the anti-human ideology called Communism, which has constantly failed every time and everywhere they attempted his practical implementation).
>>8891 >We hear stories about how new animals have just appeared out of our rainforests sounds like a gross misinterpretation. they are discovering new species, those species aren't just popping up out of thin air. rainforests have incredible biodiversity.
>>8946 >sounds like a gross misinterpretation It makes more sense than claiming that a new species is born, due to selectable breeding which hasn't had reports of happening since Alexander the Great went to go btfo the Iranians. >those species aren't just popping up out of thin air And they aren't popping up because of intermixture either. At this point you're just refusing to acknowledge the laissez-faire liberal was wrong. Evolution is not the way to becoming a superman, why is it hard for you accept this? https://archive.is/i1DKc
>>8949 key phrase of the article is "previously unknown." the creatures had already been there a long time and humans have only discovered them now.
(24.66 KB 512x384 nordic aliens.jpg)
(307.09 KB 413x283 ClipboardImage.png)
>>8937 The real redpill is that only White people existed on Earth in the beginning, but due to the cyclical degenerative process, the humans of this planet have gradually become more and more brown. This thread >>2541 has what might be some evidence for this assertion. I vaguely recall reading in the Srimad Bhagavatam as well that in the Golden Age there is only a single caste. They began like the first pic, and many have become like the second.
>>8950 >key phrase of the article is "previously unknown." I was posting this article as point of reference. Do you think this is a gotcha moment? I have nothing in my previous posts that claims that animals just popped up out of existence.
>>8956 that's what i quoted sounded like to me. i never said said anything on new species arising from getting dicked by jamal the caterpillar either, and different species that can breed with each other make non-viable offspring as far as i am aware. mutation isn't separate from evolution anyway. it's one aspect of it. it makes a lot more sense when you look at the entire picture. at the same time many natural processes are much larger than a single human lifespan (let alone the entirety of all human generations), not only evolution. i never said anything about selective breeding and dogs are only subspecies of wolf as far as i know. there is no reason dogs (or even individual dog breeds) couldn't become as genetically distinct from wolves as other canids are, given enough time. speaking generally about this conversation, i don't see why it's demeaning or jewish to sympathize with other species or to see human as animal. they are only a part of nature, not above it, and given the countless manmade blunders against the environment i think that should deflate the species' pride quite a bit. i think it's instinctual to view one's own species as above all others and that could have had an effect on the vast diversity of lifeforms Earth has hosted over its history.
>>8958 >There is no reason dogs (or even individual dog breeds) couldn't become as genetically distinct from wolves as other canids are, given enough time. Again you have no evidence of this, it just feels right to evolutionists, even though it's completely unobservable and baseless. Evolutionists are actually a bit concerned why they can't find the sort of gradual but constant change they expect to see in animals. It just isn't there, leading scientists like (((Stephen Jay Gould))) to posit even more unscientific and unobservable theories such as punctuated equilibrium or the (((Richard Goldschmidt))) and his 'hopeful monster' monster theory where one species can just magically give birth to a new one all of the sudden. > i don't see why it's demeaning or jewish to sympathize with other species or to see human as animal. they are only a part of nature, not above it, and given the countless manmade blunders against the environment i think that should deflate the species' pride quite a bit. It's not Jewish to sympathize with other species at all, quite the opposite. Humans are animals as well, not believing in Darwinian memes does not mean that one does not imply that humans are not animals (what else would they be?). Personally I don't adhere to any sort of Jewish / Abrahamic anthropocentrism. Man is part of the Nature. Weird though how when (((scientists))) begin to push that 'we're JUST animals' and that 'we're JUST a bunch of chemicals and attitudes fortuitously arranged and no more' that rapidly people degenerate into self-serving individualists and subhumans.
>>8969 >It's not Jewish to sympathize with other species at all, quite the opposite. Humans are animals as well Sooo what I can infer is that a guy sympathizing with other races ain't jewish? Well any guy doing that will get insults raining down on him around here.
>>8954 In norse mythology there are two kinds of elves, the black elves and the light elves. The black elves are said to be disgusting , repulsive, and evil beings. I think this could be some sort of explanation on where niggers and other non-Whites come from, not from evolution but are created by some sort of higher intelligence.
>>8960 >Evolutionists are actually a bit concerned why they can't find the sort of gradual but constant change they expect to see in animals. Pic related would suggest otherwise.
>>8988 How does this demonstrate evolution? This is just the shuffling of existing traits.
>>8978 i can sympathize more with a stray dog being vicious because it isn't provided endless social safety nets nor even offered some false pretense of equality as niggers are. a bear or tiger killing and eating me to get by is more relatable and justifiable than jews infiltrating everything to corrupt and plunder until nothing is left and millions die.
(188.06 KB 611x524 Jew_against_marriage.png)
>>8965 >In terminally pozzed countries like America if you even are looking to get with an 18 year old as a man in his mid to late twenties you'd be judged as borderline pedo-tier Maybe. Although that will mostly just be jealous betas and other women shit testing you. Your peers will just think you are cool and respect you for landing an 18 year old. Besides the USA is a federation as large as Europe. In reality the individual states have different laws and in many of them there is still a lower age of consent like 16. So what you say has some element of truth but it's also slightly exagerated as well since many states have age of consent laws aligned with mid/peak puberty. And it goes even lower if the guy is within a few years of age of the girl.
(31.87 KB 552x374 pull yourself together.jpg)
>>8992 Sorry posted in the wrong thread.
>>8989 Except the genes that encode the size of the spots are being mutated in future generations, and natural selection is promoting those mutations.
>>8988 This isn't evolution. >>9004 >Except the genes that encode the size of the spots are being mutated in future generations, and natural selection is promoting those mutations. Or it could be that they've always had these traits, these aren't mutations, you losers won't give up realizing that evolution was a fraud.
>>9010 Sounds like you are setting a really high bar for what is evolution now. What is your definition if it's not genetic drift over generations leading to divergence? And what kind of proof would you need to see of evolution to reconsider your position?
>>8988 >fish changing colors It’s a nothingburger. This is dog-breeding tier once again
>>9015 >Sounds like you are setting a really high bar for what is evolution now. That's a high bar it's the fact that you're coming to conclusion based off something that is no different than how they mix horses. At this point evolution is nothing more, but a shill. Genetics shifts take years to process and you don't magically transform into a new species, because you acquired a new trait. What you're showing is not evolution, but selective breeding. You guys are indeed retarded.
Guys these moths were known to have blackened for a century before changing back to their original color *therefore* all life spontaneously assembled in a chemical soup and complex organs, consciousness and irreducibly complex structures of organisms emerged totally unguided!1!1 Creationists on suicide watch
>>9024 What the mosquito picture is showing literally falls under microevolution.
(67.02 KB 366x451 Creationists BTFO.png)
>>9026 You don't understand, the exoskeleton became the spine, dude. It just makes sense
>>9030 I like how they slip in highly complex structures and complete changes in body-plan between the ‘stages’ and expect you to believe it. JUST TURN OFF YOUR BRAIN, GOY
(639.09 KB 2000x1233 EVPFKBsUMAAwzlC.jpg)
Regardless of if Darwin was right or not, his ideas have been used to promote the worldview that humans are merely animals who ended up wearing clothing. If you believe that you are nothing more than an animal whose sole purpose is to fulfill his physical needs, that invites a lot of chaos.That also happens to be the ideology of (((Levy's))) Satanic Church. The consistent historical drive to ascend to something higher than merely a combination of physical instincts and all the progress that humanity has made (and I know the word progress has a leftist association to it today but is not a bad thing on its own) reflect a divine spirit imbued in us that animals lack.
>>9033 You're talking about one of the most fundamental evolutionary changes though, half a billion years ago, with the chance to occur over many rapid iterations of short generations of a primitive lifeform. And it only had to happen and survive once to provide the foundation for other animals with a spine. The changes between different stages of mammal evolution aren't so drastic when you compare the stages directly before and after.
>>9039 >You're talking about one of the most fundamental evolutionary changes though, half a billion years ago, with the chance to occur over many rapid iterations of short generations of a primitive lifeform <primitive lifeform Yeah I don't think a complex multicellular organism like the one depicted above can in any way be classified as 'primitive'. That's just an excuse to handwave away changes that literally make no sense, not to mention that there is literally no evidence for what is depicted in that image. The Cambrian times had lifeforms just as complex as today, and it's undeniable. <And it only had to happen and survive once to provide the foundation for other animals with a spine You're literally using (((Richard Goldschmidt)))'s theory that animals can magically shit out offspring that are of a completely different species now kek. LET'S NOT FORGET THAT EVEN IF IT HAPPENED ONCE IF IT CAN'T REPRODUCE WITH OTHERS OF ITS OWN KIND IT'S USELESS >Darwin's finches More varieties that can interbreed. Dog-breeding shit again >muh homology Common ancestry or common design? Appealing to the fossil record is a horrible idea as well. Darwin realized that the fossil record was the weakest part of his theory, and even paleontologists and biologists today start sweating behind the scenes regarding it. <Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory t. Darwin
>>9042 Once again your response is either "that's not evolution!!!11" or "that's jewish!!!112"
(92.48 KB 600x600 smug pepe.png)
>>9043 It's because the only reason someone would think that these things 'prove' evolution would be if they were already indoctrinated into the theory. Pointing at some shit that people literally have known since the dawn of time (dog-breeding) as some sort of proof for evolution is pants-on-head retarded, and you have been told this over and over again. Also something being used by Jews is not a frivolous objection, as >>9037 points out. I would recommend you start reading the links: >>8907
>>9042 >EVEN IF IT HAPPENED ONCE IF IT CAN'T REPRODUCE WITH OTHERS OF ITS OWN KIND IT'S USELESS What if it could reproduce with the others around it and start passing down that genetic mutation? Then the mutation becomes more widespread due to marginal advantages the adaptation provides in its immediate environment. Only sometimes or after a great enough divergence would they no longer be able to reproduce with other variants around it. >Appealing to the fossil record is a horrible idea as well. But there is evidence of some gradual change in the fossil record. Not all mutations would have to be small either. There could be some that cause large changes as well, and a mix of those small and large changes would add up to serious divergence over time.
(33.74 KB 620x452 transitional forms.jpg)
>>9054 >What if it could reproduce with the others around it and start passing down that genetic mutation? Since you have no evidence that a creature can magically give birth to a whole different species, this hypothetical isn't even worth address. You seem extremely desperate to hold onto this theory if you are even willing to entertain absurdities like creatures giving birth to new species with wholly different body plans and they are still able to reproduce and somehow produce more of the new species top kek. >But there is evidence of some gradual change in the fossil record Prove it. >a mix of those small and large changes would add up to serious divergence over time. No evidence. You have to work with the evidence, you can't bend reality to fit your theories. The issue with the fossil record not supporting evolutionists claims is well-known as well, in that there are no transitional forms as one would expect. Darwin himself said that this is 'the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory'. In Darwin's time geological layers outside of Europe and North America were still largely unexplored. Today paleontologists have carried out excavations from all geological time periods and in all parts of the globe, uncovering thousands of extinct species. Not a single intermediate species or chain of intermediates has ever been found though. Swedish botanist Nils Heribert Nilsson summed it up in the following way: >It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possi­ble to make a caricature out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. De­ficiencies are real. They will never be filled ... The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Heribert-Nilsson Paleontologist David Raup said: >[W]e are about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup Paleotologist and Evolutionist Niles Eldredge said: >No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting from cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate far too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge From this comes all sorts of gay attempts to get around the lack of evidence and to preserve the theory like Goldschmidt's and SJG's 'punctuated equilibrium'.
>>9057 >Since you have no evidence that a creature can magically give birth to a whole different species The new species are created through compounded mutations over time, not in a single birth. Just because an animal has a mutation for say a different bone growth pattern doesn't necessarily mean they would no longer be able to reproduce with the others around them. But since carry the gene for the mutation, it may propagate to future generations. >Prove it. Pics related
>>9074 So what you're telling me is that you have no proof. Thinking that homology implies common ancestry is not established, showing that again you are making theory-laden observations. Common structures can also imply common design, and indeed this is how it was understood in the past. Even according to evolutionists' theories, we can see them admitting that similar structures are not necessarily due to common ancestry, such as with the extra 'thumb' of both giant pandas and red pandas. Or the structure of an octopuses' eye and the eye of a human, which are apparently very similar in some ways, but they are not thought to be related by even mainstream scientists. They've even resorted to a circular argument to use homology as an argument for their theories. Ernst Mayr, an architect of Neo-Darwinism, is a good example, who said: <After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense... Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor. Ernst Mayr The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932) An evolutionist who wants to determine whether some parts of a vertebrate are homologous must first determine whether they are derived from a common ancestor under this definition. There must be evidence of a common ancestry before limbs can be called homologous. But then to turn around and argue that homologous limbs point to common ancestry creates a vicious circle: common ancestry establishes homology, which in turn establishes common ancestry. Ronald Brady has spoke on this: <By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained, we express not scientific hypothesis but belief. We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we are trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science Ronald H. Brady, "On the Independence of Systematics," Cladistics 1 (1985) Since you are doing cute little tables over time, we must also bring up biologist Tim Berra's blunder in his 1990 book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism where he compared the fossil record to a series of Corvette models, saying that if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, and then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. What is hilarious about this example from an evolutionist is of course that the increase of complexity and somewhat common features of his model are a product not of blind natural forces and an unguided Darwinian process, but conscious design that has resulted in a series of models with common features. So in short: >homology does not prove common descent or evolution >appeals to homology are circular arguments under current definitions >homology is wrought with theory-laden observations >the fossil record doesn't support the theory >evolutionists still try to bend reality to their theory
(453.94 KB 828x821 chad fucking hate science.png)
I might as well take this opportunity to shill for my thread here on the topic of true Aryan science: >>2551 >>2551
(58.32 KB 560x283 Giraffe acacia.jpg)
How correct is the theory of evolution as currently understood by mainstream science? Continuing the discussion started in the /fascist/ OC thread. >>9074 >>9076 >>9078
(72.58 KB 452x640 trust science.jpg)
(337.99 KB 750x678 science 3.jpg)
Reposting some good links against evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html https://back2godhead.com/science/ https://archive.org/details/WilliamA.DembskiJonathanWellsTheDesignOfLifeDiscoveringSignsOfIntelligenceInBiol/mode/2up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/ Don't be fooled by the second article connected with the Hare Krishna movement, it's actually a solid article written by Richard L. Thompson (Sadaputa Dasa), who received his Ph.D. in mathematics from Cornell University and studied things such as mathematical biology. By far the greatest potential objection comes in with the problem of consciousness, however. If matter is all alike unconscious, it is impossible to believe that a combination of one, two or even thousands more unconscious things can add up to a unique subjective experience out onto the world with a continuity of identity over time. Either all matter is conscious down to the smallest atom (panpsychism, which is wrought with issues in itself), or there is a locus of consciousness distinct from the body.
>>7101 <“In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers.” Maybe life isn't so speshul after all and the speshulness that he was looking for only existed in his head all along.
>>9081 >Either all matter is conscious down to the smallest atom (panpsychism, which is wrought with issues in itself), or there is a locus of consciousness distinct from the body. That's not true. It can be speculated that conscience is an emergent property of the brain.
>>9084 >It can be speculated that conscience is an emergent property of the brain. Of course it can, but it's a weak case, since it involves something wholly mental, self-aware and subjective arising from something that is none of those. It's brute emergence. In nature we have cases where one property arises from another, e.g. liquid arising from individual molecules of what is not a liquid, but this sort of emergence is perfectly intelligible. But here we are dealing with conceptually homogeneous concepts. non-experiential things are interacting to create a new, qualitatively different non-experiential thing (liquid from molecules, etc). But with consciousness we have something experiential arising from the non-experiential (to someone holding the materialist emergentist viewpoint), And again, this was basically addressed in the previous post, there's no reason to expect that a combination of unconscious chunks of matter somehow magically become conscious when placed into a certain arrangement (that rose out of blind-chance too) with a continuity of identity and experience over decades of someone's life. When we add in the cases of evidence for reincarnation and especially near-death experiences, or out-of-body experiences (which are increasingly well-documented), we start to get a very interesting view of the world as concerning consciousness and the body, very much in line with ancient Aryan conceptions of the world. >>9083 Life comes from life. No proof to the contrary. I hope you understand that the Jews want you to think that you are worthless, that our race is nothing but a chemical reaction and a product of meaningless chance and random mutations.
>>9076 I showed you multiple examples of transitional fossil records over time in >> 9074 . Some of your points before this were compelling and piqued my interest so I thank you for that. But the points in your last post read more like theologian wordplay and give me the impression of coming to a dead end.
>>9088 I don't see anything too egregious there, but then again it is my post, so who knows. >I thank you for that No problem, anon.
>>9081 >Hare Krishna movement Why do anons keep mentioning this? What does it bring to the table? All I know is that Dravidian niggers are worshipping their gods in Hinduism. My guess is some indian is going around mentioning people like "prapododu" or whatever. HEY SHITSKIN - WE DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR GAY RELIGION. NONWHITES ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE WHITE PEOOLE TO BEFRIEND THEM. FUCK OFF AND DIE.
>>9074 None of these pics really prove that we come from a single ancestor to be honest. Skull type and shapes doesn't correlate to being relavtives nor does it imply that multiple species evolved from an ancestor and there variants due to mutations. These look to be more of hypothesises and not conclusions or confirmed studies. Not much detail or explaination is going on in your pictures either and theories like evolution implies that niggers are human or can be like Whites, affirming that skin-color has no correlation at all or doesn't really matter outside of it being a tone color. I don't see how any fascist or racialist could accept evolution, while being a dharmist and acknowledge that Europeans have a Faustian spirit when Origins Of Species flushes metaphysics and theology down the toilent. If anything Evolution is blue-pilled and National Socialist Germany never believed that we came from monkeys, instead thought that our origins are from Godly Nordic Whites. I can't see how Charles Darwin and the other Anglos were Aryans when Aryans never mention evolution through monkeys. >>9076 You seem to know a-lot, hasn't been debunked that mutations aren't really hereditary enough to create a new specimen?
(102.95 KB 413x599 ClipboardImage.png)
>>9093 Probably because they are a lot more notable than you think they are. Prabhupada produced massive amounts of translations of Vedic texts and commentaries on them, brought thousands of Westerners into his movement, especially in Russia and other post-Soviet states, and has been an important force in exploring topic such as the connection between science and spirituality, so-called 'forbidden archeology' (Thompson and Cremo's book on the matter made waves in the scientific community, causing them to kvetch hard) and much more. Since this board talks about this sort of topics a lot, it's no surprise that a notable figure comes up. Also the article has nothing to do with the movement itself, pic related. There's no reason to cry over it. It has good content, so I posted it.
>>9094 >hasn't been debunked that mutations aren't really hereditary enough to create a new specimen? I haven’t researched the exact thing you’re asking about here, unfortunately. The real problem is finding beneficial mutations at all. Of course for mutations to contribute to evolution, they have to benefit the organism, and if it harms the organism it will tend to be eliminated, rather than favored. The only beneficial mutations that have been observed in bacteria or any other kind of organism has been biochemical. There are no known beneficial mutations affecting morphology, or shape. All known morphological mutations are either neutral (i.e., they don’t have any noticeable effect on the organism’s fitness), or they are harmful—and the bigger their effect the more harmful they are. Darwin’s theory (i.e., the origin of new species, new organs, and new body plans) clearly requires changes in shape. So, there is no evidence for a role for mutations as providing raw materials for Darwinian evolution. Pics related– the next steps in human evolution, courtesy of mutations. Random mutation as a provider of raw material for change is a really weak mechanism for evolution too. Darwin believed in pangenesis, and the inheritance of acquired characteristics along with natural selection. So if there was a drought and the ancestor of the giraffe had to stretch its neck for leaves, its descendents would inherit gradually longer and longer necks. Creatures deterministically adapt to the demands of the environment. Neo-Darwinism doesn’t hold that. It’s completely random, and natural selection merely ‘sifts’ mutations. But odds are an organism is not going to get the mutation it needs when it needs it (like in the example the giraffe ancestor and the leaves above). And this is especially damning in the light of my previous paragraph. >If anything Evolution is blue-pilled and National Socialist Germany never believed that we came from monkeys, instead thought that our origins are from Godly Nordic Whites. Yes, exactly. It is almost as if Hitler and his entourage of Himmler & co. were well aware that the real risk was degeneration of the archetype of the White man. The 14 words is a statement of *preservation* and betterment of the kind back to its original Hyperborean state
Can we also move the evolution debate into the Aryan science thread please?
>>9137 Whites are derived from White Nordics and Red Nordics. Jews and Semites come from Armenids. Most people know this. Evolution is supposed to answer what came before those races.
>>9166 >Whites are derived from White Nordics and Red Nordics. Jews and Semites come from Armenids. Most people know this. Evolution is supposed to answer what came before those races. You're retarded.
>>9166 Did (((David Reich))) teach you that?
Moved over 70 some posts from the OC thread into this thread. I’m not able to move individual posts so I am going to be remaking the OC thread in a second. I archived it beforehand too.
>>9137 >The real problem is finding beneficial mutations at all. Every positive trait is the result of a beneficial mutation.
(85.33 KB 1000x700 yikes pepe.jpg)
>>9203 More theory-laden observations. <muh theory must be true, so therefore every positive trait is a result of the workings of my unobservable theory, we just don't see any beneficial mutations today!!
>>9203 You're just a shill at this point.
>>9204 not defending the other anon, but >we just don't see any beneficial mutations today doesn't agree with the DDT resistant mosquitos posted earlier
>>9209 >doesn't agree with the DDT resistant mosquitos posted earlier You're taking one of the very few cases. He's saying that mutations generally and usually do not pop-up with benefits.
>>9209 We definitely see those occasionally, as is mentioned here >>9137 ("The only beneficial mutations that have been observed in bacteria or any other kind of organism has been biochemical") but the sort of mutations required by the theory just don't exist. And even if there are mutations that can bring about a gradual and complete change in body plan, they must be so rare and infrequent that it would almost statistically impossible to get the variety of life that we have on Earth in the time-frame theorized by scientists today.
>>9166 >Whites are derived from White Nordics and Red Nordics This doesn't make any sense. What is a Red Nordic? >Jews and Semites come from Armenids. Jews and Semites are orients. They come from the Levant and most of their ancestors can be traced back there. >>9190 >Did (((David Reich))) teach you that? Reminder that David Reich is the same guy who claims that purity never existed and that any race can achieve as much as Whites had through "hard work".
(476.75 KB 637x353 ClipboardImage.png)
>>9214 >Reminder that David Reich is the same guy who claims that purity never existed and that any race can achieve as much as Whites had through "hard work". "Sounds like the perfect material to base my Indo-European™ youtube channel on!"
>>9216 Unfortunately, SP also thinks he's legit as well, because he confirmed race on a article. Even though his own books does not acknowledge the possibility that we had pure ancestors and the true reason why Europeans are simply stronger and smarter.
>>9212 It's not "very few." This happens all the time with microbial life. Overuse of antibiotics is improving their resilience through evolutionary pressure.
>>9224 This has already been addressed. It doesn't prove what you think it does at all <but muh dog-breeding <but muh biochemical changes
>>9226 <If I say it isn't evolution, then it isn't. Same with the color-changing shit. Doesn't matter how superficial an adaptation is. All that matters is its effect on the organism's chance of survival. There's a reason you don't see LGBTQP flag faggot moths instead of ones colored like tree bark. Nobody is saying evolution is all figured out, either, but so far nothing sounds like a better explanation to me.
>>9224 Now you're just saying shit without evidence and only have wishful thinking. You're repeating arguments and are quite dull in argumentation.
>>9236 Do you have a superior explanation or are you content to give non-responses, argue the semantics of evolution and/or complain about how it's imperfect and still developing?
(102.48 KB 785x594 evolution man.jpg)
>>9230 You seem to think that well-known examples of microevolution prove that your wild theory about life spontaneously assembling from a chemical vat at random is true, or that stuff like muh dog-breeding can be extrapolated to infinity. This shit has already been debunked a dozen times in this thread. You are just a shill at this point. The entire Darwinian delusion rests on a confusion between simple variations and species.
>>9242 >offers no alternative >continues crying about how the science isn't settled (no shit sherlock) and how anything he doesn't like isn't evolution >creation_cope.jpg attachment >muh shill oh, i see the light now. these were great arguments all along.
>>9246 >implying one needs to offer an alternative to criticize a theory and show that it is full of holes And regardless, if you had been following this thread even in the slightest, you would have known that it is intelligent design that is being offered as the alternative. Your theory is full of holes and is literally retarded either way.
>>9242 > your wild theory about life spontaneously assembling from a chemical vat Ridiculous strawmanning is one tactic of a liar. >posts pic that looks like something atheists would make to mock Christians
(568.83 KB 749x725 evolution jews school.png)
Evolutionists have been reduced ITT to tears. Hilarious
(1.39 MB 599x936 Gigantism.png)
>>9213 >We definitely see those occasionally, as is mentioned here >>9137 ("The only beneficial mutations that have been observed in bacteria or any other kind of organism has been biochemical") but the sort of mutations required by the theory just don't exist There are literally mutations that make people super tall.
(538.09 KB 440x651 ClipboardImage.png)
>>9256 >posting a picture of Robert Wadlow Oh, you mean the man who because of his gigantism required leg braces while walking and had almost no feeling in his legs and feet? And that died at the age of 22? So beneficial! Truly the next stage in evolution. Here he is hobbling on his cane
>>9256 You do realize that gigantism makes you really ugly and reduces your fertility right? This is only a benefit if you mind having freakishly large bones. Now you're just reaching for straws.
>>9260 Being super tall can be an overwhelming advantage in a large amount of scenarios. All it takes is a freak mutation like this in the proper environment and you essentially end up with an organism that's drastically different from the starting one. It might carry negative side effects with it at the short term, but in time other body systems will also be selected and create what's essentially a new species. Everything is observable and logically sound. The only reason that you can give why it can't happen is because you don't want it to lol.
>>9248 >implying one needs to offer an alternative to criticize a theory and show that it is full of holes Well, yeah, if you actually want people to come around to your side. Where's this compelling evidence for intelligent design? I just see emotionally-invested and stubborn posters nitpicking what constitutes evolution and whining about how it's imperfect. Of course it is. Humans aren't infallible and science takes time to refine. I back it to some degree because I have yet to hear a more sensible and substantiated explanation. That doesn't mean I am blindly or entirely accepting anything the scientific community says. One of the articles linked by someone even supports microevolution and yet there are people here playing word games, claiming populations changing appearance or gaining antibiotic resistance have nothing to do with evolution, it's just a "shuffling of traits." Well, yes, that's partially what evolution is. Traits conducive to survival are selected for. Even artificial/human selection, domestication and breeding, is considered some small part of evolution. To me, macroevolution is indeed extrapolated microevolution (which is why it is far more complicated to soundly prove, and either the concept itself or insufficient explanations of it can fall out of favor). If something more logical or provable comes out, what reason would I still subscribe to macroevolution? Or why should I throw the baby out with the bathwater if it isn't yet wholly sufficient, but overall more sufficient than anything else I have heard? Is there rigorous study of some intelligent design model using the scientific method? You are free to post it or reference a post I may have missed already speaking on it. Kids being miscarried or born with terminal illness doesn't seem very intelligent or intentional to me, though. >>9254 Trying to prod a mature discussion out of you is being jewish/mad? I don't see what's inherently demeaning about evolving from another ape, or monkey, or rodent, or fungus, or bacteria, etc. Humans aren't those things just because they could've descended from them. It has no bearing on the modern world. It doesn't change the fact niggers have always been worthless or that Whites are solely responsible for virtually all significant history. Yes, it's very clear Whites are the superior creature in every way. You can also say humanity can be much more depraved than other creatures in some ways: capitulating to violent and whiny niggers, making LGBT and other dysgenic crap out to be virtuous, practicing usury, destroying their own habitat, etc. Surely, humanity is the apex above the apex, but right now they act like a child who just found its father's loaded handgun in a shoebox underneath his bed. They fuck with natural forces they have little understanding of with no care for what consequences they might bring. Edit: missed a typo before posting
>>9261 Some drastic mutations that are advantageous and can also be viably passed on may be, while ones that are not advantageous or cannot be passed on likely won't. This seems pretty obvious.
>>9264 >Being super tall can be an overwhelming advantage in a large amount of scenarios. Being gigantic is not an advantage. Most giants live very short lifespans, have low fertility rates as said, and their height can make hunting and spying a-lot harder. Being tall is an advantage, but not freakishly. > All it takes is a freak mutation like this in the proper environment and you essentially end up with an organism that's drastically different from the starting one. No, that's not how this works. The environment would not change the mutation, because having gigantic parts means you will generate more blood cells than what the human body can handle and thus the person will probably contact cancer or some other disease. Giants die too early and have a low sperm count to be able reproduce and birth enough children who will be like the parent. What you're going to be looking are naturally tall people, but they've always existed and never were a different species. > It might carry negative side effects with it at the short term, but in time other body systems will also be selected and create what's essentially a new species. I can't believe that they are people dumb enough to think that producing an entire group of giants will create a new species.
>>9268 >Some drastic mutations that are advantageous and can also be viably passed on may be, while ones that are not advantageous or cannot be passed on likely won't. Do you just enjoy making stuff up? Do you wanna become a fiction writer instead?
>>9266 >One of the articles linked by someone even supports microevolution > even supports microevolution Lol even retards like Ken Ham believe in microevolution. Do you think they deny muh dog-breeding? >To me, macroevolution is indeed extrapolated microevolution (which is why it is far more complicated to soundly prove, and either the concept itself or insufficient explanations of it can fall out of favor). If there is no hard proof your theory is groundless and unscientific. THERE ARE LIMITS TO BREEDING:, as is amply attested by biologists, horticulturalists and botanists: >>8907 >Or why should I throw the baby out with the bathwater if it isn't yet wholly sufficient, but overall more sufficient than anything else I have heard? Because there are far more problems than just what you are saying, including the fact that there are no examples of speciation, barely any examples of beneficial mutations that don't involve something like biochemical changes making an organism immune to some antibiotic, insufficient evidence in the fossil record (said by Darwin himself to be the gravest objection to his theory), no explanation for irreducibly complex structures at the cellular level and above that, no examples of life arising from non-life, no explanation for the genesis of consciousness, no evidence of wholly new complex organs being formed from gradual, imperceptible changes, etc. The whole thing rests on the fact that a variety of an animal can be infinitely extrapolated until it's unrecognizable, and again for this there is no evidence at all. >Is there rigorous study of some intelligent design model using the scientific method? You are free to post it or reference a post I may have missed already speaking on it. https://archive.org/details/WilliamA.DembskiJonathanWellsTheDesignOfLifeDiscoveringSignsOfIntelligenceInBiol/mode/2up >Kids being miscarried or born with terminal illness doesn't seem very intelligent or intentional to me, though. Important to mention that ID theories do not speculate on the nature of the designer, as that quickly turns into theology and the non-verifiable rather quickly. This sort of stuff is located more in the question of the problem of evil than science itself. The trademark of intelligence in nature is specified complexity. This is basically the signature of intelligent work in nature. And this is exactly what biological organisms exhibit - structures that are clearly purposeful, and are complex, i.e. not easily reproducible by chance, made up of multiple composite interacting parts, etc. Neither of these alone are sufficient, but together it is a pretty good bet.
(221.43 KB 871x654 ClipboardImage.png)
>>9268 >Some drastic mutations that are advantageous Don't exist >can also be viably passed on may be "maybe" - keyword here. There's no evidence for any of this. I used to be a big evolution sperg and used it the rhetoric of Darwinism constantly, but then I looked into it. At first I was skeptical, then I thought about the theory and thought if it really seemed plausible, entered into a period of agnosticism, and then I dropped it entirely upon more research.
>>9275 I will give the book a read, thanks. On the subjects of no evidence for speciation and a lack of corroboration from the fossil record, what alternative explanation is there for different creatures living in different eras (if all life cannot be proven to share ancestry)? Just as there are no dinosaurs now, there are no human fossils from their time. How else could newer species exist if they aren't derivative of older ones?
>>9266 >You can also say humanity can be much more depraved than other creatures in some ways I am certain that you are Jewish. Do you know why? It is because of how you speak of humanity. The humanity I know designated groves as sacred. The humanity I know worshiped the fruits of nature as if they were divinity. The humanity that I know produced works so great that their value to the hearts and minds of men continues to richen even today. Now, what of your "Humanity", the usurers and enslavers? What have they done? I'll tell you what they've done. They've propagated sickly ideas like evolution, that would have us believe all of our achievements come down to luck, and that we are nothing more than fish that crawled out of the mud. Your materialistic views are designed to rot the soul. It is only under the leadership of your people, your religion, that we were subverted into the humanity you describe.
>>9281 This isn't a constructive post by any measure so it will not get a constructive response. Have a good evening.
(304.22 KB 1017x579 itu aru sou tairusomu.jpg)
>>9281 Why interpret posts in the worst way possible and make reckless accusations? As if the humanity you know didn't also kill their brothers in a 30 years war over which was the preferred head canon of an old jewish cult book.
(1.46 MB 1511x1885 laetoli footprints.png)
(1.17 MB 857x725 dorchester pot.PNG)
>>9280 How far back humans go is actually an up-in-the-air question, surprisingly. There exists a good deal of anomalous human fossil evidence and evidence of artifacts that have been dated to be far older than the accepted time-scheme laid out by mainstream scientists today, who say that humans of the modern type only arose some 100,000 years ago. It is mainly through a process of knowledge filtration that this evidence is suppressed, since they scientists are exceedingly skeptical of any evidence that would reflect badly on their evolutionary theories, and thus call it all into question. For example - One interesting example is the Laetoli footprints. They have been dated to 3.7 million years ago, preserved in volcanic ash. Typically these footprints are assigned to the hominid Australopithecus afarensis. There is one problem though. Australopithecus afarensis' has feet that are very unhuman like. The footprints of the Laetoli find are identical to those of modern humans. The discover of the footprints, Mary Leaky, herself admitted that the footprints were basically indistinguishable from anatomically modern humans Being an evolutionist though, she cannot say they are from humans, said only to have existed for 100,000 years. Compare the prints yourself though. The first image attached are the Laetoli prints. The second is the foot of Australopithecus afarensis. They don't match. In 'The Fossil Footprints of Laetoli' Mary Leakey admits the following: >They show the rounded heel, uplifted arch and forward-pointing big toe typical of the human foot. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24966522 V. Capecchi writes: >The prints at Laetoli are those of adult human or humanoid beings, of heights between one metre and one metre twenty, and of a child, each of whom must always have gone barefoot. Not only did they show no pithecoid features, but they do not differ from those of modern man" https://www.jstor.org/stable/29539518 To get even more schizo - In September 1862 the following appeared in the Scientific American: <A FOSSIL MAN.-The La Salle Press states that in Macoupin county, Ill. , the bones of a man were re­cently found on a coal bed capped with two feet of slate rock ninety feet below the surface of the earth, before the run cut any part away. The bones when found were covered with a crust or coating of hard, glossy matter as black as coal itself, but when scraped away left the bones White and natural . https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24963192 The coal in which the Macoupin County skeleton is part of the Interior Province, or more specifically the Eastern Interior or Illinois Basin. These deposits are estimated to be of Pennsylvanian / Upper Carboniferous age, which lasted from roughly 323.2 million years ago to 298.9 million years ago. The Dorchester Pot: In June 1852 it was reported to the Scientific American that in Dorchester Massachusetts that after blasting through 15 feet of solid rock a beautiful metalic vase was discovered with silver inlaid floral patterns, blown in two pieces by the explosion. The stone from this area at that depth falls into the Roxbury Conglomerate, dating from Precambrian Age, or some 600 million years old. See image #3 There are literally hundreds of examples of anomalous artifacts and skeletons like this across millions of years of time that have been found. A good deal were found, not surprisingly, in the 19th century before evolution was cemented as the dominate theory. Out-of-place artifacts have continued to be occasionally found even in more modern times as well. It's important to point out though that even if all of these examples I have posted above and the rest of the evidence of 'forbidden archeology' was wrong, that this wouldn't prevent there being many possible alternative explanations that could be made. One could easily take the current prediction of 100,000 years for humans and say that they were created 100,000 years ago, and that there was another age where different creatures were created for a time before they went extinct or were terminated, I can't really say, really. This wouldn't be what mainstream people or even other people ITT would be saying, probably. I'm getting into /x/ territory here, but it's worth considering the evidence, because it does exist.
>>9281 I don't think you're entirely wrong in what you're saying but I don't think that that anon is Jewish. Some of the anons have been a bit frustrating at times ITT (including him) but we can at least see him saying that he'll check out a book and seems to be trying to argue in good faith. The retards bringing up gigantism and shit are the real shills ITT
>>9289 It really starts to click once one realizes that the mainstream timeline pushed by academia is literally a covert version of the linear judeo-christian scheme Modern mainstream view: >unique linear timeline >civilization only began a few thousand years ago >it began in the Middle East >all humans come from one common ancestor Bible: >unique linear timeline >Earth created a few thousand years ago >civilization began in the Middle East >all humans descend from Adam and Even Makes me think
>>9299 >It really starts to click once one realizes that the mainstream timeline pushed by academia is literally a covert version of the linear judeo-christian scheme I've noticed this way beforehand and seen the pattern as well. It's not just Judeo-Christianity really, but it's every Abrahamic/Oriental shill who wants to kangz history as a whole. Same guys who are trying to say that the Minoans and the Greeks were Middle Eastern and/or North African, despite the fact that they and their ancestors were found to be European. Mainstream science does not really contradict that much in the bible, which really makes you think.
>>9309 >Same guys who are trying to say that the Minoans and the Greeks were Middle Eastern and/or North African, despite the fact that they and their ancestors were found to be European Yup, they try to do this so much in regards to Greek history. Everything that happens in European legends is a 'myth' (Trojan War, etc), and all of the gods of the Greeks are just 'appropriated' from Semitic and Egyptian cultures. The goal is to paint Europeans as passive recipients and appropriators of everything, while all of Semitic history has a grain of truth to it. Anyone who attempts to revise the chronology or look seriously at history is immediately branded a 'pseudoscientist'
>>9309 It does, actually. The bible is just a shitty old jewish book. The only reason it sells and people pay lip service to it is because they think they'll get magic heaven points when the ogle it. In fact, the bible isn't even internally consistent. There are huge lists of bible contradictions on the internet. Turns out the jewgod seriously needs some editors. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
>>9325 >It does, actually This is true when comes to Abrahamic fundmentalists because mainstream science only contradicts their respective central religious texts when scientists come out with research and studies that goes against some of their verses. For example, while religious Christians uphold every statement and sayings of the bible as truth, there are still similarities and things that they both would agree on and support as far as confirming as a science. The idea that our Earth is only a couple thousand years old, European ancestry comes from West Asia, High-culture orginated in the Middle-East, eugenics is fake, the universe's birth can be calculated, etc are some ideas that are exclusive to the jews and their other sects, whether they're secular or zealot. A fair number of (((modern scientists))) are either one of these or both them, ironically. Mainstream scientists only differ in opinions and ideals of how they see the cosmos and life itself, and that they reject the idea of having a soul and spirit.
>>9325 We're not talking in a strict sense, but in the basic outline. This happens a lot in modernity. Something seemingly becomes non-Christian / non-Abrahamic, but really it just becomes a covert form of Abrahamism that pretends to be objective, secular or scientific. For example, leftism is basically a form of Abrahamism. The same can be said even more so about Marxism in particular, which contains Messianic and borderline eschatological linear thinking much like Abrahamic religions. Suspiciously the idea of civilization only beginning a few thousand years ago is 100% reconcilable with the Biblical narrative, as is the fact with how the first cities, first writing systems, first forms of agricultural, animal domestication, etc. all came out of the Middle East (where Eden allegedly was). The Big Bang is another Abrahamic intrusion into science, formulated first by Jesuits and is used by Christian apologists to argue for the ex nihilo creation of the Universe (see William Lane Craig, etc). The entire notion of a unique linear timeline too is purely Jewish in origin.

Delete
Report