Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS

they should call it random mutation.

Darwin meme to animalize the Slaves, make a competion for fitness causes a division of the unfit to call to God.

Creationism is a meme to numb the will of the salves, cause those who seek to find Darwins monkeys uncles

Together they work quite well to divide and conquer the concrete zoo

Its bungle in the jungle

they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.

they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.

they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.

they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.



just evolve back to the front page, now.

We need some qualified opinions on the subject matter here, really.

Good luck to all (evolutionally speaking).

Pass on your genes without any restraint whenever you wish!!!!

they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.



just evolve back to the front page, now.

We need some qualified opinions on the subject matter here, really.

Good luck to all (evolutionally speaking).

Pass on your genes without any restraint whenever you wish!!!!




I never believed any of that shit for the fact that if we as people evolved from monkeys then why haven't any more monkeys evolved? explain that one. Goes to show its all bullshit. Plus none of the modern day monkeys can speak either.

the instinct will make them choose an alpha male to reproduce with, to have a strong offspring, survivors.and the long term hubbys are nice guys, bearable personalities

Well, there is a body of evidence that suggests women in general respong to cues in the faces of men that are deemed desirable such as the shape of his chin. Women may also respond to pheromones. Combined visual and nonvisual cues may indicate higher levels of testosterone whch may indicate that the male has viable sperm and a strong genetic makeup.
However, a drunk woman may be incapable of making rational choices, and may simply want attention, to get laid, or have a prior history of sexual abuse which would impede her thought processes in general.

Now, let's put Darwin's teachings to a real test here:


When a man "picks up" a drunken "chick" at a bar, does she have any knowledge if his "DNA" is likely to benefit her offspring? Is she a geneticist by definition??? What can she possibly know, even instinctively or subconsciously, about the DNA potential of a person she is going to "fuck" with tonight?

Is Darwinism really right? Do they have a point? Is it anywhere near being valid????

Well, there is a body of evidence that suggests women in general respong to cues in the faces of men that are deemed desirable such as the shape of his chin. Women may also respond to pheromones. Combined visual and nonvisual cues may indicate higher levels of testosterone whch may indicate that the male has viable sperm and a strong genetic makeup.
However, a drunk woman may be incapable of making rational choices, and may simply want attention, to get laid, or have a prior history of sexual abuse which would impede her thought processes in general.



"maybe', "may indicate" - the cautious language of science, of course, especially when we do know that WE DON'T KNOw

Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

Supposedly, as the story goes, a "superior" woman will only choose a male that is able to woo her. Confidence is a must. Confidence proves the male is aware or at least dillusionarily aware that he is great.

Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...




Show me the dog breeder who has been breeding for 40 million years.

The domestication of dogs goes back perhaps as much as 40,000 years. Breeding of dogs rather less than that! There simple has not been enough time for a dog to be bred into a cat-like creature. Not by a factor of at least a thousand. Nor has the direction of dog evolution been towards a solitary, anti-social, nocturnal hunter; we humans prefer our "best friend" to be a social diurnal pack animal that will form close bonds and respect pack status and will hunt in consort with the human alphas.

*headdesk*

Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...




Show me the dog breeder who has been breeding for 40 million years.

The domestication of dogs goes back perhaps as much as 40,000 years. Breeding of dogs rather less than that! There simple has not been enough time for a dog to be bred into a cat-like creature. Not by a factor of at least a thousand. Nor has the direction of dog evolution been towards a solitary, anti-social, nocturnal hunter; we humans prefer our "best friend" to be a social diurnal pack animal that will form close bonds and respect pack status and will hunt in consort with the human alphas.



These time-frame-based arguments are quasi-sciientific, at the very least. Aalways appealing to the time-frames on the scale of millions of yrs still trying to prove their point. A counter-argument is this: over these long times, the environmental conditions have changed SO significantly and sometimes abruptly, that a former 100000 yrs' of "genetic preparation" just goes OUT OF THE WINDOW.

No cat would ever be able to procreate a dog.

No sluts will ever evolve into caring WOMEN.

Genetic "exchanges' are quite random, yet adaptability to the environment plays a role, also as random as the weather.