Why would radiation make an animal bigger and stronger? Wouldn't it just need more food

Why would radiation make an animal bigger and stronger? Wouldn't it just need more food

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It isn't radiation, it's FEV

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Congratulations you've discovered that evolution is moronic.

    It's the idea that random mutations would result in animals turning into different kinds of animals, or more broadly, a single-celled organism turning into all life on Earth.

    Darwin’s idea × billions of years × 0 (chance of actually happening) = 0

    Darwinists are so stupid they see a tree gaining a ring every year, and believe if just given enough time the tree will have billions of rings and grow into space. It is the same exact logic they use when they observe natural selection.

    Inorganic dust/water is never going to randomly form into protein, DNA, and a cell. It's absurd that people actually believe this. Even the most simple lifeform is extremely complex.

    But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say this happened.

    Just from a mathematical probability standpoint, based on observable rates and effects of mutation, 3.8 billion years is a laughably small amount of time to allege that this single-celled organism turned into a human, let alone all life on Earth. Mutation will never result in one kind of animal turning into a different kind. The idea that if you just give it millions of years it will happen is completely unfounded, baseless, and non-scientific. It's not verifiable, repeatable, or observable.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your understanding of the theory of evolution is highly skewed and factually inaccurate. Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population over time. It is not the idea that animals “turn into different kinds of animals.” While evolution can result in speciation, the process itself simply involves changes in the frequency of genetic traits within a population over time.

      And evolution is not a random process. Natural selection, one of the driving forces of evolution, is a non-random mechanism in which individuals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with detrimental traits.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did you know young Earth creationists agree with natural selection and adaptation?

        They're unrelated to what is known as "evolution".

        Genetic change over time, sometimes driven by selection, is demonstrably real.

        The disagreement is over Darwinists believing it has no limit ("if we just let this continue long enough, it could do anything!") and creationists believing it could not make one kind of animal into a different kind of animal, of which there is no scientific evidence for.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The scientific evidence for evolution is clear and overwhelming. The fossil record shows a clear progression through the evolutionary history of life, with species changing over time and new species appearing. Genetic evidence supports this, as well, with genes that are found in all organisms on Earth having a common ancestor. Moreover, the evidence from comparative anatomy supports the idea of common ancestry, as organisms share similar structures and features that make sense only if we all shared a common ancestor. The claim that evolution has no limits and can produce different kinds of animals is baseless. The evidence shows that evolution occurs within certain constraints. Speciation, vestigial structures, convergent evolution, biogeography, embryological evidence, and the geographic distribution of organisms, I could go on with evidence. The source of life is likely abiogenesis. There is no evidence of creative design in our known universe.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >creationists believing it could not make one kind of animal into a different kind of animal, of which there is no scientific evidence for.
            Please explain Tiktaalik, what is this animal if not the "missing link" between bony fish and amphibians?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >clear progression through the evolutionary history
            giraffes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >is demonstrably real
          post videos of evolution (not pokemon)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it doesnt exist if there arent any videos showing it
            I mean if you got a video of God I'd be up to see it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            looking at the life stages of a frog is the best examples of how evolution happened, from aquatic life to land life

            ?si=ivfyYBAl01L4PHwR

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have no idea what you are talking about. Youre dumb and gay.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Humans have changed wolves so much over time that they are functionally different animals. We've paired and selected plants over millenia for traits more ideal for harvest, leading to massively abnormal fruiting behavior in the vegetation we eat. Evolution happens every time something reproduces. Things aren't more or less evolved, their is no end goal, no pinnacle. It's just constant change by an incredible amount of influencing factors.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >functionally different animals
        no, they're more or less have the same function.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Put a chihuahua and a wolf side by side. They're vastly different, yet have a common ancestral history. Any dog is innately able to bond with a human from birth, and are easily capable of understanding human facial expressions and tone of voice. Wolves can not. Many dogs have specialized genetic behaviors, such as retrieval, herding, and hunting. Humans have directly changed the behavior and physical characteristics of wolves via genetic manipulation, turning them into dogs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >put a man and a fetus side by side
            yeah, that's totally a fair comparison.
            topkek

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >put a man and a great soft jelly thing side by side
              ftfy

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >a chihuahua is just a wolf fetus that hasn't grown yet
              lol

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nah that comparison would be like putting a wolf and a wolf fetus next to eachother.
              Another distinct difference is diet. Wolves can't process nearly as many food sources as dogs, as we have historically stuffed so much shit in our dogs mouths that they can eat a lot of human food without being poisoned by it. We basically changed them to being omnivores when wolves are not.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >if I feed my Chihuahua long enough it will grow into a wolf
              You are so obnoxiously moronic it's unreal. You know you fricked up and backed yourself into a rhetorical corner yet you keep putting your dumbfrickery on display because you think the honour of getting the last word in will somehow undo the publicly available evidence that you have the mental capabilities of a dehydrated dog turd.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Micro evolution is not the same as macro evolution, which is what anon was talking about.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why cant consistent micro evolutions lead to a large scale evolution.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because as he points out, it's illogical to take a set of data and extrapolate it out to billions of years.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why? He said its illogical but he didnt actually give any reason.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >HUMANS have changed
        EXACTLY! Humans!
        Dogs are not an argument for evolution. In the case of the dog, there is a CREATOR consectively selecting all the characteristics he is looking for, there is a creator and there is an end in the selection of dogs. In the case of evolution, there is neither a creator nor an end. And this is just talking about a simple case, imagine the case of the eyes of complex vertebrates.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You dumb fricking moron.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why does shit like this only happen to Indians?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Have you seen all the filth they roll in?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          inbreeding

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because 1. There's a billion and a half of them and B. They live in a polluted shithole.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Schizo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they have verified and repeated this many, many times with lab mice you absolute fricking clown

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lol, nta but no they haven't, moron. E. Coli is the only alleged laboratory proof of evolution.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't understand scale
      Say no more, bro
      You'll fit right in with the folks who think that because they personally can stand on a beach and look at the horizon, the earth must be flat

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Counterpoint

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A God who can create something as incredible as the human hand also creating bullshit like the laryngeal nerve and the foot makes no sense to me at all
        It's the strongest argument I have heard against intelligent design insofar as it resonates with me the most

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How in the everloving frick can anyone with even half a brain believe in the concept of "intelligent design" when the human body is peak moron design?

          Seriously, a single pump in charge of essential circulation without which the entire organism dies, and there are no redundancies?
          Then you have two filters. You naturally think "okay, I have two, that means one is active, the other is a backup I can switch to when my primary fails and wait for it to regrow". But no. Both are used simultaneously, and when filter failure hits they both fail and again, the entire organism fricking dies. Good job.

          This design isn't "intelligent". This is peak chinkshit. If you believe in god, you need to come to terms with the fact that he is Chinese. Nobody with any capacity for intellect would OK such dogshit design beyond an initial draft, yet your supposedly "intelligent" (dumbass) god somehow saw fit to churn this absolute broken mess out into mass production.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >says something is moronic
            >is a moron himself
            lol

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Explain to my why you would ever set up your filter elements in a crytical system to be permanently in parallel and irreplaceable, as opposed to literally any other kind of layout available to you as an intelligent designer.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's soulful design

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's literally soulless. As in the fictional concept that you call the "soul" is going to straight up leave your garbage body because it failed due to obscenely moronic design decisions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                soul vs soulless

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Animal anatomy is just a very clear and concise explanation of why object-oriented programming is a terrible idea.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe God's boss was feature creeping him and he just shipped whatever worked on a shoestring budget

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm moronic, someone explain this to me, please.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it needlessly loops around the heart?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >humans are short necked giraffes
            at last i see

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      based
      I've never seen someone say trees will live billions of years, but abiogenesis is for literal morons

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Congratulations you've discovered that evolution is moronic.

        It's the idea that random mutations would result in animals turning into different kinds of animals, or more broadly, a single-celled organism turning into all life on Earth.

        Darwin’s idea × billions of years × 0 (chance of actually happening) = 0

        Darwinists are so stupid they see a tree gaining a ring every year, and believe if just given enough time the tree will have billions of rings and grow into space. It is the same exact logic they use when they observe natural selection.

        Inorganic dust/water is never going to randomly form into protein, DNA, and a cell. It's absurd that people actually believe this. Even the most simple lifeform is extremely complex.

        But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say this happened.

        Just from a mathematical probability standpoint, based on observable rates and effects of mutation, 3.8 billion years is a laughably small amount of time to allege that this single-celled organism turned into a human, let alone all life on Earth. Mutation will never result in one kind of animal turning into a different kind. The idea that if you just give it millions of years it will happen is completely unfounded, baseless, and non-scientific. It's not verifiable, repeatable, or observable.

        Is abiogenesis a requirement for evolution?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If your an atheist yes. You could be a deist and believe God started life and it evolved from there

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what a dumb fricking question. do you think living beings were present during the creation of the universe?
          yes living material is required before evolution can take place

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No. Evolution is a study of how living things change not their origin. Guided evolution is another theory some people have.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mutation turns one animal into another
      At least try to understand evolution before making moronic statements about it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah and their theory for the creation of the universe literally contradicts one of their most basic principals

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      damn bro the bait post worked

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean, all the lead poisoning didn't really help
        Between that and Facebook, boomers never stood a chance

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'd take lead poisoning over Facebook and onlyfans

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The most intelligent mid western Christian

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Forget it boys, we can't against this dude
      SIENSE

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Counterpoint

      >inb4 it's actually moronic Design

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Congratulations, you're moronic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't understand evolution, so instead of attempting to understand it, I'm going to make points against what I think evolution might be.
      Wow, way to go bro.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Calm down spaz. No one thinks trees grow all the way to space or whatever gay shit you're gayging on about lol

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The precise origin of the first life on Earth is still unknown, but there are several hypotheses that propose possible mechanisms, such as the Primordial Soup hypothesis or the Deep Heat Origin hypothesis. These hypotheses suggest that the first life could have begun in a self-replicating molecular system driven by chemical processes, or that it could have started from simple self-replicating molecules, such as ribozymes, in a deep-sea vent.

      The process of mutation absolutely produces new genetic information. Mutation is the basis of evolution, and the process can introduce changes to DNA that result in new traits, adaptations, and variations.

      The evolution of sex is complex, yes…but there are several plausible hypotheses. One idea is that sex provided an evolutionary advantage, allowing for more efficient genetic mixing and potentially faster adaptation. Other hypotheses suggest that sex evolved as a way of coping with environmental changes, or that it was driven by the evolution of multicellular organisms.

      There are numerous transitional fossils that have been discovered: Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Australopithecus are just a few examples. All of these fossils show the transition from one group of lifeforms to another, providing evidence of the evolutionary process.

      >evidence of a common creator
      Post examples that aren’t pareidolia i.e human brains trying to seek meaning in patterns.

      Don't you have a flat earth thread to open up somewhere?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Santa Claus

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      holy BASED
      all those (You)s and not one has successful refuted any of (You)r points

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Least atheist Ganker poster

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    SCIENTIFIC PROOF EVOLUTION COULDN'T HAPPEN

    >Origin of life
    There's no known way to turn non-living material into life, it's never been done before even in a lab. The belief that dust/water just randomly formed into functional DNA/proteins etc. capable of reproducing itself is absurd.

    >DNA
    Mutations can't add new genetic information. They can only delete or rearrange existing DNA. This allows for genetic variety and natural selection, but the lie is when you claim this same biological process, if just given enough time, can turn a single-celled organism into all life on Earth. Darwinist logic is so stupid they see a process and think it has no limits.

    >Origin of sexual reproduction
    There is no known way asexual creatures could develop sexual reproduction through mutation. Any benefits (or the obvious -50% efficiency) are irrelevant. It's not possible.

    This is called irreducible complexity, one part is useless or harmful without the other part(s).

    >Missing links
    There is not a SINGLE transitionary fossil series. There is some speculated, but none show transitions.

    The scientific community believed Piltdown Man was a human ancestor for decades before discovering it was a hoax. The entire "fossil record" is unscientific, lining up the remains of different animals is not evidence they evolved into each other.

    >Horseshoe crabs claimed to be the same for 400 million years
    They claim you were a fish 400 million years ago.

    "They're just perfect" is not a legitimate answer to how an animal could remain unaffected by evolutionary force for 400 million years.

    > the evidence from comparative anatomy supports the idea of common ancestry, as organisms share similar structures and features

    This is evidence of a common creator. You can find similarities in the paintings of Van Gogh too.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For:

      The scientific evidence for evolution is clear and overwhelming. The fossil record shows a clear progression through the evolutionary history of life, with species changing over time and new species appearing. Genetic evidence supports this, as well, with genes that are found in all organisms on Earth having a common ancestor. Moreover, the evidence from comparative anatomy supports the idea of common ancestry, as organisms share similar structures and features that make sense only if we all shared a common ancestor. The claim that evolution has no limits and can produce different kinds of animals is baseless. The evidence shows that evolution occurs within certain constraints. Speciation, vestigial structures, convergent evolution, biogeography, embryological evidence, and the geographic distribution of organisms, I could go on with evidence. The source of life is likely abiogenesis. There is no evidence of creative design in our known universe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The precise origin of the first life on Earth is still unknown, but there are several hypotheses that propose possible mechanisms, such as the Primordial Soup hypothesis or the Deep Heat Origin hypothesis. These hypotheses suggest that the first life could have begun in a self-replicating molecular system driven by chemical processes, or that it could have started from simple self-replicating molecules, such as ribozymes, in a deep-sea vent.

      The process of mutation absolutely produces new genetic information. Mutation is the basis of evolution, and the process can introduce changes to DNA that result in new traits, adaptations, and variations.

      The evolution of sex is complex, yes…but there are several plausible hypotheses. One idea is that sex provided an evolutionary advantage, allowing for more efficient genetic mixing and potentially faster adaptation. Other hypotheses suggest that sex evolved as a way of coping with environmental changes, or that it was driven by the evolution of multicellular organisms.

      There are numerous transitional fossils that have been discovered: Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Australopithecus are just a few examples. All of these fossils show the transition from one group of lifeforms to another, providing evidence of the evolutionary process.

      >evidence of a common creator
      Post examples that aren’t pareidolia i.e human brains trying to seek meaning in patterns.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not responding to AI generated replies anymore.

        I knew the first one was AI generated and I still did it anyway.

        All of this is wrong.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          like you weren't spamming copypasta arguments yourself
          nobody brought up horseshoe crabs or cares about them but you lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"They're just perfect" is not a legitimate answer to how an animal could remain unaffected by evolutionary force for 400 million years.
      There actually is. The animals adapt to fit a niche, if the niche the animal adapted to doesn't change, why would the animal change?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"They're just perfect" is not a legitimate answer to how an animal could remain unaffected by evolutionary force for 400 million years.
      Except yes it does you mongoloid. Nature strives to strike a balance of being perfect for a niche (usually this leads to hyper specialization though which can frick a species if its environment is radically changed such as with koalas who are literal brainlets) and/or being good enough for its niche (in which case the species will evolve traits that fit its niche but won’t leave it fricked if things shift). Horseshoe crabs fall on the good enough side of the scale and thus do just fine in their niche but aren’t so rigid that they’ll just up and die as the world around them changes. Short of all of the water on the planet just flat out evaporating or a predator evolving to prey on them exclusively they’re under no pressures that would allow individuals with mutations that would aid in not dying in those situations to breed more prolifically than the main population.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If everything gets bigger, everything can eat more food.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    who the frick let the nerds in here?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lol, who the frick cares you losers. You don't care about the truth, you just want to be right.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it's unbelievable that stuff happened naturally
    >therefore a wizard did it
    I love creationist logic.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It video game. It impossible for ants and scorpions to get that big.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They used to be big.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How would you even fight that?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          .308 JSP (hand load)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          m16a1/m203

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          oxygen destroyer

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I came for newvegas discussion and i got creationist vs darwinist. Who cares where we come from? We all gonna die anyways you dumb homosexuals. (God isint real but i pray to him all the time lmao)

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why would radiation make an animal bigger and stronger?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    While we are on topic of evolution, is there any game about evolution aside from Spore?
    Also, what could have been...

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    can't yoke the 'yote

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As someone who's going to school for a degree in a science that heavily involves evolution, this thread physically hurts me.

    Evolution is survival of the good enough. As long as it mostly works, nature keeps it around. That's all anyone ever needs to know about this shit. Please stop being moronic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're going to school to learn 19th century pseudoscience hypothesis' with no actual scientific backing (i.e. not verifiable, observable, or repeatable).

      99% of midwidts go through college without questioning it, and you know what would happen if you did, so you shouldn't be wondering why no one questions it. Same way people treat radiometric dating despite being demonstrably false with hard physical proof.

      It doesn't matter, no one is going to stand up and shake the boat.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >i could disprove all of these scientific "facts"
        Alright, how did the variety of life forms come into being? Are you going to say it was via the method described in some israelite book?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're the one making an unreasonable claim, not me. I don't have to prove an alternative to tell you yours is false, based on evidence and logic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Got it, you can't.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you cant actually show undeniable proof that its wrong. Wheres the proof?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hide 2 posts
    >95% of the thread is gone

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *