If evolution is true, wouldn't it be evolutionarily beneficial for lions to be omnivores?

If evolution is true, wouldn't it be evolutionarily beneficial for lions to be omnivores?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    clearly not since lions are well adapted to being carnivores

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No because a lion is a lion.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And why is that?

        >christlard discovers things don't change just because they fricking want to

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sure they'll if I pray hard enough

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously not

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And why is that?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's unfalsifiable and operates as a heuristic instead of a discrete theory.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m not going to argue with you about this, I’ll just explain it.
    Different organisms fulfill different niches. cats are very successful hunters and their physiology including their teeth are perfect for killing other animals, but would be less suitable for eating plants. They essentially don’t need to eat plants, though if you’ve ever had a cat they will sometimes eat plants regardless.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I’m not going to argue with you about this
      I would have been glad if you could.for starters.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You’re acting like I’m just giving my opinion, there’s a whole field where people with an average of 125 IQ dedicate their entire lives to studying animals with the best modern technology and well over 100 years of cumulative study to these standards.
        Cats eat meat almost exclusively because they are perfectly adapted for it. There is no need to evolve plant eating teeth and digestion because they survive, thrive and reproduce on just meat

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even if we disregard your fallacy of equivocation, that still doesn't answer the question.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot pic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If animals were intelligently designed it would make sense for all of them to be omnivores, evolution is not 100% perfect, it’s just that animals which survive and reproduce pass on their traits.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Meat is the most nutritious dense type of food available and requires significant caloric expenditure to attain it. Grasses are some of the lowest but readily available. If within an environment, far too many low level feeders are herding then the end result becomes meat is readily available and something will adapt to harvest said nutrition. A cat becoming omnivorous would make it less adapted, not more, as a different type of digestion, enamel, vision would be needed and the high power and high energy consumption body would have to become much less adapted to eat lower nutritional meals.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, at least when it comes to calories, lean meat isn't that great, and fat is hard to come by.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If evolution is true, wouldn't it be evolutionarily beneficial for lions to be omnivores?
    Yeah, which is why they are. Lions can absolutely digest certain kinds of plant matter. They can't digest cellulose, but then no macroscopic lifeforms can (cows and the like actually have gut microbes that digest it for them; the cow actually digests the gut microbe's waste).

    If you're asking why they aren't grazers, that's because they are specialized in killing large prey. Any adaptation towards grazing would make them less effective at hunting prey, and the gains from grazing would be too small to compensate for the loss in hunting effectiveness.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If this is the case then why aren't there plant eaters that can also eat meat?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bears come to mind. Also, cows will eat chicks - look it up.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Believe it or not deer will sometimes eat small animals. Carnivorous behavior requires adaptations to teeth and digestion, sight, extra brainpower, extra n muscle in specific places, limb structure, claws, all sorts of costly adaptations that are going to not be so beneficial to a grazing or tree eating herbivore

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There are. Cows, horses, and goats eat small animals like rodents and birds all the time. They're just not very good at getting ahold of them, and the less intelligent herbivores lack the instincts to actually hunt unless something blunders into their mouth while they are hungry.

        Obligate herbivores tend to be rare, mostly being invertebrates with hyperspecialized mouthparts that are incapable of consuming flesh.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >why aren't there plant eaters that can also eat meat?
        Lmao, there are.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So if they were omnivores, it wouldn't be beneficial for them?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        NTA They don’t need it essentially. They survive and reproduce fine without evolving the traits to eat and digest acorns or pine needles or grass.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not true unless you're saying lions don't ever die of starvation or starve at all.
          So yeah, they very much need it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They do starve sometimes but it doesn’t happen enough to pressure an evolutionary change to omnivorous behavior, which comes at its own costs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The ones that die of starvation probably aren't the ones reproducing.
            The ones that reproduce didn't die of starvation.
            The fate of the individual lion doesn't matter.

            This just brings us back the the lion and zebra, the predator and prey point which exposes the order in nature.

            Let me ask you a question.
            Shouldn't a zebra be much faster than a lion for survival?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But then shouldn't the lion be faster so that it can eat the zebra? Congrats, you've just discovered how adaptations in one species drive adaptations in other species in a constant arms race that gives rise to complexity and variety.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, you just made my point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon you really don’t seem to grasp the concepts at hand.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And I just told you, the very concept of predator and prey does not work without the order.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is a sort of order in nature. Your question is why don’t zebras evolve to outrun lions. They do, and they have. Lions get around this by ambushing and attacking the young, sick, old, weak and injured. They also hunt in groups which allows for flanking and cutting off escape routes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can't say that there is order in nature and from fish comes philosopher simultaneously.
            The unconstrained implications of evolution are chaotic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re really trying to shift the conversation now. Just start a new thread about this topic. We answered your question.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can't say that there is order in nature and from fish comes philosopher simultaneously.
            The unconstrained implications of evolution are chaotic.

            Heck, is a species even possible with it?
            It always comes back to abiogenesis which is just impossible.
            We just cannot do a leap of logic and take evolution for granted.
            This thread made me realise this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Abiogenesis and evolution are different concepts. Even if Jesus Christ himself performed a miracle to create the first RNA or bacterium, evolution would remain the same. Evolution just addresses how already existing life changes. Abiogenesis is about how the first organism came into being.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Abiogenesis and evolution are different concepts.
            You would like that, wouldn't you?
            But no, no more leaps of logic.
            You're just begging us to grant you the obfuscation you need to work with when you do that.
            Adulthood only is how it is because of how it was conceived at inception.
            They are not different concepts, no no.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's the other way around, actually. You can't argue against evolution so you try to lump the two together and argue against abiogenesis.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look who's talking lol. The lack of self awareness is ridiculous.
            Anyways this

            https://i.imgur.com/QAKEQJ3.jpg

            >Theists: Hey, an intelligent force is the only answer.
            >atheists: Your answer is WRONG.
            >Theists: Then what's the answer?
            >atheists: No need for the question, it's a different concept, we don't know.

            is what you're doing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They are clearly two different concepts. Abiogenesis is life from non-life, evolution is change in existing populations via mutation and natural selection. Saying that the two things I just described are the same thing is like holding three fingers in front of my face and insisting that you're holding four fingers.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All you've been saying so far is NUH UH.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. I've been saying that life from non-life and change in existing populations via mutation and natural selection are not the same thing and you've been saying nuh-uh.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon they are literally different concepts and are even taught as such in university. One describes how existing life changes, one is an attempt to describe the possible ways in which the first life arose from non-living matter

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Let me ask you a question.
            Shouldn't a zebra be much faster than a lion for survival?
            It’s an arms race, they for sure can outrun lions and lions need to get a good ambush to even catch them. Predators tend to go for the old, injured and weak anyway.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are many strategies prey use.
            Perhaps it turns out that in the zebra's ancestral line, speedsters weren't able to outcompete herding/dazzle camouflage.
            Or the Usain Bolt of Zebras broke a leg, or caught a bad flu, or got sat on accidentally by his mother, and so his superior genes never got passed on.
            Then speed requires a lot of modifications to work, and especially to not injury/overstress the animal. It's not inherently better, as seen by the lack of a speed arms race in the animal kingdom.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A cool fact about this is that pronghorns are much faster than any other extant predator, and we of course found the reason. A recently extinct cheetah like cougar species

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The ones that die of starvation probably aren't the ones reproducing.
            The ones that reproduce didn't die of starvation.
            The fate of the individual lion doesn't matter.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Great point. To starve they basically have to be kicked out of their pride. Even with solitary cats a male who can’t catch his food likely isn’t seducing the ladies or is getting their ass kicked when they try to mate with one

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't have to frick around with thought experiments, you can just compare them to omnivores of a similar size. Raccoon to wildcat, bear to tiger etc. Do you think these omnis are somehow massively outcompeting the cats?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We need to be clear about what we mean by "omnivore" here. Being able to digest something if you get it into your stomach and being able to acquire it easily are two different things. We humans are great at acquiring cellulose, but we cannot digest it. No macroscopic lifeforms can, as I said herbivores that "digest" cellulose actually eat the waste biproducts of microscopic lifeforms that live in their guts.

        Lions are hyperspecialized to hunt large prey. This affects their metabolisms, they can't get certain nutrients (complex proteins) on their own, they have to consume flesh to get it (literally, they get it from the muscles of herbivores that can make it on their own). Because they are so specialized, the gains from being better at acquiring plantmatter would be less than the losses from not being as good at acquiring animal matter. So, it's not that being better at acquiring plantmatter wouldn't be beneficial, it's just that the more-omnivorous lions wouldn't be as efficient at getting food (and thus indirectly at breeding) than the less-omnivorous lions.

        It's unlikely that they could randomly evolve digestive omnivory without a selection paradigm for it (which would necessarily include plant acquisition), but they absolutely could. Humans have, twice, evolved the ability to produce lactase after birth, allowing us to drink milk past infancy. It's entirely possibly, albeit unlikely, that something similar could happen to lions. If they evolved the ability to produce the aforementioned proteins that they currently cannot produce and must hunt for, then they'd absolutely benefit from it. But, the gains from doing so wouldn't be all that much (why make what you can take?).

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Animals adapt to certain niches in the wilderness, and eating plants vs. animals requires different traits, and of course generalist omnivores aren’t rare. Cats in particular are so proficient at predation that there really is no pressure to adapt to eating plants. A cat that has better chewing molars doesn’t give it a big enough competitive edge to outcompete other cats. If they’re hungry they are perfectly capable of killing another animal and eating it

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It would take more time than the existence of the universe for complex life to evolve according to evolutionary theory.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That’s what enzymes are for

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And enzymes are created from biological processes as proteins. They are highly structured molecules that would unlikely be created in a natural environment. And you need to consider that enzyme functions require a proper sequence of enzymes in order to function, much like a computer program, together and this further is unlikely to come out of a natural environment in an entropetic environment.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The earth is not an entropic system. What’s that really bright thing outside during the day that bathes you and everything it touches in heat and radiation anon?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And what happens when that really bright thing outside during the day that bathes you and everything it touches in heat and radiation is set and not providing energy to maintain such a possible reaction? Who are these enzymes in a free floating environment that require specific arrangements suppose to coalesce in a plausible fashion when there are 1.78e+430 valid sequences for enzymes to 6.16e+1441 invalid sequences. Without evolution to create mechanisms to sort valid sequences to invalid sequences, there would be no mechanisms to construct a valid protein from these free floating enzymes.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what is the urey miller experiment?
          >durr I can't comprehend a timescale of billions of years so it must be false

          And what happens when that really bright thing outside during the day that bathes you and everything it touches in heat and radiation is set and not providing energy to maintain such a possible reaction? Who are these enzymes in a free floating environment that require specific arrangements suppose to coalesce in a plausible fashion when there are 1.78e+430 valid sequences for enzymes to 6.16e+1441 invalid sequences. Without evolution to create mechanisms to sort valid sequences to invalid sequences, there would be no mechanisms to construct a valid protein from these free floating enzymes.

          >herp derp the atmosphere or the oceans don't provide protection to these organic molecules

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you that guy from /b/?
            I thought you'd already learn your lesson.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh yeah, you always forget the full picture of the implications of evolution being true when you always immediately try to argue against it.
      It really brings into picture the moronic implications when you actually consider it.
      But then again, it's not like the atheist scientific community or the current zeitgeist can afford to abandon it, even when it's the most unscientific thing.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=kAbziNhpS0yVp_pw&v=UXVNJXu4R1c&feature=youtu.be

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/0DqDTVb.jpg

        It would take more time than the existence of the universe for complex life to evolve according to evolutionary theory.

        Evolution makes a lot more sense once you understand the effect that polyploidy has.
        People tend to imagine it's just happening one nucleotide at a time, but in reality duplication events can literally as much as double the size of a genome in a single generation. And it turns out when you have multiple copies of a gene, genetic errors aren't nearly as damaging as you'd think since there's usually a back up.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's not how that works.
    Evolution can be thought of as optimizing, but it does not produce global optima.
    If there is some rival set of traits, and one offers more advantage than the others at some point/in some environment, that one will tend to spread through the population. If it completely outcompetes rival traits, than all future descendants will express that trait. Depending upon genetic drift, the changing environment, the mutational pathway etc. it may be so unlikely to move to recapture an earlier trait that the option is effectively forever foreclosed.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let’s put it this way anon.
    The wild is a sports complex. You only get to stay if you can play at least one sport at a high level. Some people would be absolutely fantastic at darts but unable to make the team at the other sports on the grounds. Some people could make the team for many sports, but you only need to make one to keep your membership

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I find young earth creationism fascinating, but I feel like most of you guys on this site only shill it out of contrarianism. With the bible belt boomers you can tell that they at least honestly believe it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Zoomers are pretty dumb man. I think smartphones ruined their attention span to the point where they can’t grasp complex ideas very easily. It takes extended focus.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly believe animal planet, nat geo and discovery channel turning into reality show programming is a serious disaster for our society.
    It really did a good job of combining interviews with scientists and visual explanations of basic science while making it entertaining enough to draw people’s attention.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most species opt to do one thing well rather than being mediocre at everything

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Neither magical evolution nor necessary evolution works. There are boundaries, orders which if it wasn't there, well I already told you the implications.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s not magic anon, certain traits are better at survival and reproduction than others. One of the results of this is that certain niches arise where there is a diet of slot for certain traits to fit in. You didn’t respond to it but really think this will help you understand.

        Let’s put it this way anon.
        The wild is a sports complex. You only get to stay if you can play at least one sport at a high level. Some people would be absolutely fantastic at darts but unable to make the team at the other sports on the grounds. Some people could make the team for many sports, but you only need to make one to keep your membership

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this why the scientific community wants to separate the subject so much?

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >obliterates YEC
    Not much else to be said really.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Theists: Hey, an intelligent force is the only answer.
    >atheists: Your answer is WRONG.
    >Theists: Then what's the answer?
    >atheists: No need for the question, it's a different concept, we don't know.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Theists: Well if the answer is wrong then it's not an intelligent force which is too absurd to be true.
      >atheists: Personal incredulity.
      >Theists: Is it personal incredulity to say that a tornado can't build a house cause it's too absurd? Huh?
      >atheists: Yes, cause it's possible.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it would, but they are doing fine while not being omnivores.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >op gets elaborate explanation of answers to his question
    >never acknowledges and gives up because he knows he’s got an answer
    >shifts to questioning abiogenesis (valid) and also claiming it’s part of biological evolution (false)
    There is no way that if Jesus were alive today he would think this level of shiftiness and dishonesty is in line with his teachings

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I already made my point regarding the subject of evolution though.
      And as a side note

      [...]
      Heck, is a species even possible with it?
      It always comes back to abiogenesis which is just impossible.
      We just cannot do a leap of logic and take evolution for granted.
      This thread made me realise this.

      I argued that it cannot be separated from abiogenesis upon further inquiry as it is a leap of logic. That you can't just brush it away by calling it a different concept when the implications are questioned.
      And now, you slimy weasels are accusing me of changing the subject by intertwining the things I said (to save face?), and I didn't make any comments about so you thought it was valid?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I argued that it cannot be separated from abiogenesis
        And you’re wrong. They are separate concepts. Scientists could be completely wrong about the origin of life on earth being natural, that wouldn’t change a thing about evolution, because it only describes how already living things change.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The accusation out of nowhere started from here

        It's the other way around, actually. You can't argue against evolution so you try to lump the two together and argue against abiogenesis.

        .
        He couldn't argue against the point my question made so he tried to lump the two together to argue against point my order argument.
        And then these two dumb fricks jumps in out of nowhere thinking I was guilty and at loss seeing as I made no comment about his projection.
        I feel I'm in Black social site in these atheist circles.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How would the thread go if you hadn't made no comment about it at all?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Seeing as three morons already chimed in to participate in just a matter of minutes, that would be scary.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon gaslighting doesn't work when everyone can go back to read the comments.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Make that four.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone can go back to read the comments.
            Demonstrably false it seems.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your comment here

            https://i.imgur.com/LWSIApX.jpg

            >Abiogenesis and evolution are different concepts.
            You would like that, wouldn't you?
            But no, no more leaps of logic.
            You're just begging us to grant you the obfuscation you need to work with when you do that.
            Adulthood only is how it is because of how it was conceived at inception.
            They are not different concepts, no no.

            was explicitly about abiogenesis and evolution being the same. When people pointed out that this is bullshit, you couldn't defend the claim, but you don't have it in you to admit that you're wrong so now you're just pissing and shitting yourself over the fact that people have the audacity to point out your idiocy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My comment here

            The accusation out of nowhere started from here [...].
            He couldn't argue against the point my question made so he tried to lump the two together to argue against point my order argument.
            And then these two dumb fricks jumps in out of nowhere thinking I was guilty and at loss seeing as I made no comment about his projection.
            I feel I'm in Black social site in these atheist circles.

            which you replied to was explicitly about lumping two different arguments as the same to argue against it. When morons, like you, did so, I pointed it out. And you denied that that was what happened and you argued against it by doing it again.
            Lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I never argued against two different points. I argued against a single point - that is, your claim that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing.
            Feel free to directly quote any of my comments where I lump another argument with that if you think I did it. Protip: you can't because I didn't, moron.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Abiogenesis and Evolution is the same because... because it just is okay?!
    Great thread.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >anon literally cannot imagine that life could be created supernaturally and then diversify via mutation and natural selection
    How would you have felt had you not had breakfast yesterday?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >food analogy
      Do Americans really?

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Common descent is impossible because I refuse to believe abiogenesis is possible
    This is like saying I refuse to believe the Tower of Babel story is true, therefore we all actually still speak one language.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The tower of Babel is not true because I refuse to believe the Bible.
      FTFY.
      Anyways, the probability of abiogenesis being true is the same as a tornado creating a house, this is me being generous by granting the materials to boot, lol.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's still higher than your Judaism being true, however.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >FTFY
        No, I said what I meant. It’s exactly that stupid. Evidence for common descent is manifest, even if you want to say God magically created the common ancestor of all life ex nihilo. Evidence for many languages is manifest, even if I want to say they have familiar relationships in cladograms with time depths of more than 10,000 years, like Afroasiatic.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Because they moved very far down into an evolutionary path. The further they moved down this path the more it required high protein low carbohydrate diets to synthesize everything in their body from neuro chemicals to fast twitch muscle fibers. They're hungry for meat because their body requires it.

    If your body was screaming for protein because it needed it, you wouldn't be motivated to grass. This is pretty much observable in humans too. You're not going to sustain yourself eating leaves and grass for long. Our body requires more complex foods to operate because of our specialization.

    It's important to understand evolution is not some sentient god, it's something that just happens over time. Arguably random mutation happens until it gains an advantage.

    The advantage that large lions eventually got to his hyper-specialized hunters that on a chemical level need the food that they eat to continue to be specialized hunters.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If intelligent design is true how come we all shit and piss and fart and why is sex so messy? If intelligent design is true then why is any creature a carnivore or herbivore? If intelligent design is real how come we are so inefficient at processing oxygen that we breathe nearly 17% of it back out where its completely wasted?
    If intelligent design was real, why isn't life more ideal? Why don't we get our nutrients through photosynthesis like plants do? Why isn't our respiration 100 percent efficient? Why don't we reproduce by budding?

    Either intelligent design isn't real, or it is and God just isn't that intelligent.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If intelligent design is true, how do you reconcile God designing you to be such a dumb, annoying, homosexual?

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At some point - something WANTED to try FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH FLESH

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Could have been more out of necessity. I'm going to consume you, or die... And lo - the first carnivore ever was born.

      Now you get obligate carnivores that can only eat flesh. Really sucks to be them - they're dependant on everything else.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Good thing we're at a point where we get to choose - eh?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          "Yeah - but misery just tastes SO GOOD..."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            At some point people have to see that they are thoroughly delusional.
            You need to delude yourself to keep going.
            You need to delude them to make them think that this is good.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because then there wouldn't be any competing species left since the lion can eat both the grass and the antilope

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The lion would be farming them both.
      It's lazy as frick....

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >wouldn't it be evolutionarily beneficial for lions to be omnivores?
    Why would it be beneficial?

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why is it so hard for creationist larpers to accept a rethoric different from theirs?

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    creationism is basically
    “Things gets out of ground because someone or something wills it”
    which is ok somewhat but it is more philosophical than naturalistic as an approach as simple as it is. it implies that everything has a will while honestly, most animals and plants are not capable of having emotions and intentions beyond basic insincts. Same obviously applies to inanimated things like materials.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would it be better if bullet trains could drive on roads? Yes, technically it could be goid, but you would have to change so much that it would no longer even be a bullet train.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because that niche doesn't exist in the plains of Africa since otherwise Africa would probably have bears.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it's another "I don't understand evolution therefore it is wrong" thread
    Go to

    [...]

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's simply more efficient to eat one meaty vegan homosexual every other day

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It is our contention that if random is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws. -Murray Eden.
    Kek. The emperor has no clothes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wow one old chemist israelite denied evolution, stop the presses. Meanwhile the entire disciplines of biology, genetics, paleontology, botany have been fractally contingent on evolution for over a hundred years and you won’t find a single person working in any of those fields who agrees with him at a level higher than high school teacher.

      Thread was over here

      https://i.imgur.com/ANrdNYV.jpg

      >obliterates YEC
      Not much else to be said really.

      but you’re too moronic to understand it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, we saw you post this in

      [...]

      already.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing seems to rustle an atheist like debunking evolution for some reason.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >debunking evolution
          never happened

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >implying

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Traits have costs anon, evolution doesn't create perfect life forms otherwise we'd just all be the same lifeform it just adapts to certain inputs and outputs. In an environment where there is plenty of meat there would be no reason to adapt omnivorous diet even if it would be beneficial in a hypothetical future. Evolution isn't sentient or intentional.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theistic Evolution makes the most sense

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