Evolution is bullshit. Look at the Stick Bug...

wrong pic

Picrel is Eudryas grata, however it's supposed to look like bird shit too.

average Christcuck theologian

Christcucks are retarded people

why can't DNA be consciously changed and not just random bullshit.

Like I said its not random, some force is obviously driving it and sciencefags cant explain it so they say its random. It probably can even be changed consciously we just dont know how yet.

The horrible truth that everyone instinctively slides, is that 99% of all living creatures were hideous genetic failures the instant the Big Bang happened

what makes it retarded? Explain to me how a bug knows what its surroundings are and that it won't get eaten if it looks like them. So bugs just know how they are perceived by others? answer that without saying "muh thousands of years"

Its pointless. All this hasse for what? Suffer longer. I dont even know Why i like children or have my one of my own. So weird. Like Why do i Do any of that or Why you guys or me or any or what. Tomorow Why is IT. Why Now. Why any

ITS NOT THE GOD DAMN BUG BRO, nature did it TO the bug. Imagine the bug being an npc and nature is the game creator, nature decided that bug will fucking be erased if it remains in non-stick error mode so it changes it to adapt.

Luckily 90% of that biomass was liquidated into oil, which people never considered why the oils all roughly the same age

It can actually, complex animals use alternative splicing of the exons and methylation of chromosomal structures to control what protiens are coded for.

methylation turns on and off genes within tissues and responds to environmental input including neural activity. Basicly the methyl groups act as a bike lock preventing the gene from working.

Alternative splicing is basically a file compression system built into DNA, where 1 gene can be assembled into many different protein isoforms. You have a gene that makes subunits A,B, and C. The organism for example can assemble them as protein AB or BC giving you two separate functions from the same gene.

It's a valid train of thought and a persistent point of debate in academia. The complexity and nuance of certain structures, formations, and mechanisms (e.g. bioluminescence, elaborate camouflage in various insects) have not been explained within the framework of natural selection - what would be selected for? The closest anyone has come with bioluminescence is that convergent evolution took place.

Don't be a cargo-cult science-worshiper, we don't have all the answers.

Look into Rupert Sheldrake and morphic fields, he talks about this

Elaborate camouflage was literally the first real proof of evolution though. Moths literally evolved to look like soot stains

Basically living things create an electrical field around them and information is shared with their environment and other creatures, humans included.

Are you retarded? Camouflage is present in many different living organisms and is explained by evolutionary pressures giving these organisms a clear advantage when it comes to survival. Why do you single out this bug instead of say polar bears?

You will never be a woman

You are a simpleton.

you are science worshipping retard. keep appealing to your science overlords that tell you that men can be women. Your authority figures have your best interest in mind LMAO

Is this why niggers look like feces? So that we won't eat them?

You are an utter imbecile.
You will never be a woman, and you will never be made of magic visiting your magic sky daddy in magic forever land.

holy fucking cringe LMAO

Insects that blend into their surroundings are less likely to get eaten, thus they are more likely to reproduce their camouflage

explain how an organism that lacks intelligence is able to know what camouflage to use? go on I will wait

They actually look like poop because the 6 member arene rings in melanin are very good at trapping and shuttling the free radicals created by UV

The ones that began to look more like sticks than not survived, and got to fugg.
Thats all evolution really is. The ability to fugg
So OP, sorry, youre an evolutionary dead end.

You haven't been here very long then.
Either that, or your practicing hyperbole.

Moths literally evolved to look like soot stains

I'm talking about evolutionary pathways that would have a substantial cost with no obvious payoff until the feature was fully evolved.

to know

know what, retard? you think everything is intentional?
how does a cloud know to block the sun? that's the level of retardation you're on

You're an infant and an idiot.
You think everyone who doesn't swallow your superstitious monkey horseshit Magic Man beliefs is a leftist, because you are a simpleton and a child.

obviously it is fucking intentional since it resorted to camouflage in the first place

Or it could be a side effect of orchid sap consumption.

Ever see the preying mantises that look like flowers? Flies that look like bees? Spiders that look like ants?

They all seem to heavily exist near orchid flowers.

So what's the mechanism? BUG EATS SAP. BUG GETS EATEN BY OTHER PREDATOR BUG. PREDATOR BUG EXPRESSES PHYSICAL TRAITS OF PREY BUG IN ITSELF OR OFFSPRING.

Why this system? It creates more pollinators.
The fly that became bee-shaped is less likely to be eaten by bees of other predators. The fly now exhibits bee traits that assist in pollination.

The ant that sucks orchid stem juice? When the spider eats the ant, it resembles the ant, making it into a less effective spider, but a superior mimic predator.

The praying mantises that resemble orchid blooms those mantises also suck orchid sap, but primarily eat orchid eating bugs? They eat the bugs that eat the orchids, so they now are incentivized to hang around orchids exclusively and eat the orchid sap-sucking bugs and their success rate improves.

Evolution is bullshit. Look at the Stick Bug. So you are telling me some bug knew that if it were stick then its predators would leave it alone? That requires intelligence. A bug needs to know what it surroundings are. It needs to know how it is perceived by others in its surroundings. It needs to know that looking like its surroundings then it won't get eaten. BUT science worshippers tell me that over time that shit happens. yea not buying it

(you)

Thing though is that doesn't happen, I can't think of a structure where we don't have transitionary examples of how it developed. Even eyes have a shit tone of examples showing how something like a chloroplast slowly evolved a sensory apparatus through a few billion years of refinement.

The weirdest thing about eyes is they all use the Pax gene, despite eyes evolving like a dozen separate times using a gene for melanin, the brain and skeletal muscle. Every eukaryote uses a Pax gene even if they evolved eyes at different times

is this underage africans post their 'doing black science' while stoned day?

Pretty sad that all you worthless science cucks can't answer my original question. Guess you have to wait for your next peer review journal to come out.

I've already given you a big one: bioluminescence. If you have a solid theory on how this came about, you should write a paper on it.

eyes

Eyes aren't an irreducibly complex structure and their evolution is easily explained.

Now, how do you change a bug into resembling another bug?

Human women are stripey, they suppress the other X-Chromosome and have stripes of DNA of X-chromosome from mom or dad. Bugs have INSTAR phases (larva, bug, bigger bug mating stage, old bug dying stage). Suppress one of those stages with another bug's development blueprint and you get MIMIC PREDATORS.

Another choice is mitochondrial absorption.

Ant sucks orchid sap.
Orchid sap allows easier mitochondrial absorption of ant cellular mitochondrial powerhouse into bug that eats ant (ant eating spider).

Now the spider gets its reproduction RNA overwritten by ant blueprints, but only partially. Spider absorbs ant mitochondria which is pushing ant development DNA. Spider mitochondria gets suppressed for periods of time (probably in sunlight). Result, you get mutated spiders that begin to resemble the prey they eat.

FLOWERS DON'T HAVE EYES.
Correct.

So how can an orchid create stamins and other features that resemble insect shapes? There isn't a mind gathering and duplicating, it's pure mimickry by DNA. It's also highly probable that the orchid itself didn't invent this system, but a parasitic lichen that lives within the orchid stem. The orchid just became an ideal passive host.

The result strongly benefited the orchid plant, which spread itself, the lichen, and the mimic predator bugs very widely.

I have never found it too exciting sho I can't tell you too much in depth on it, except that I recall there were multiple times it evolved and luciferins/luciferase are a synthetic grouping of enzymes and molecules that are lumped together based on function and not evolutionary history. I know dinoflagellates luciferins are shaped quite like chlorophyl so its probably evolved from the electron transport mechanism in chlorophyll from them at least. Its not really that odd of an idea, I know there are a bunch of electron shuttling pigments that transfer energy from one wave length to another more useable for photosynthesis.

GFP, the green florescent tag used in science is once of these, it takes photons that are filtered by water and skewed to the wrong color and essentially changes their frequency to be more useable. The blues and deep reds in tropical forest plants do the same thing. Once you have the structures and are capturing light and changing what it is emitted at, it doesn't seem to me to leap to making light from your own chemical energy instead of just shifting its spectrum.

Insects that blend into their surroundings are less likely to get eaten, thus they are more likely to reproduce their camouflage

ASKING PERPLEXITY AI...
What is the most common plant mimic predator insects resemble?

The most common plant mimic that predatory insects resemble is a flower. Notably, the orchid mantis (Hymenopus coronatus) is a prime example-it mimics orchid flowers to attract and ambush prey, often being more effective at luring insects than real blossoms. Other predatory insects, such as some species of praying mantis, also use flower mimicry for aggressive mimicry, drawing prey close enough to capture.

Besides orchid mantises, a few other insects are known to mimic flowers:

Other flower mantises: Several mantis species, collectively called "flower mantises," exhibit floral mimicry similar to the orchid mantis, though most do not imitate a specific flower but rather a general floral appearance to attract pollinators as prey.

Flatid bugs (Flata nigrocincta): These bugs have been suggested as potential flower mimics, although the evidence for their mimicry is less robust than for mantises.

Certain spiders: While not insects, some spiders use flower-like coloration and patterns to attract pollinators, functioning similarly to flower-mimicking insects.

Most documented examples of flower mimicry among insects remain within the mantis family, with other cases being rare or less convincing.

====

SO OBVIOUSLY THE ORCHID PLANT must be ignored as a source of the orchid mimicking bugs... says many a dumbass in this thread.

Test

Eat shit you faggot nigger.

Genetic mutations occur over time.
The majority of these are negative things like deformities and genetic diseases.
Some of the mutations end up improving the organism though, which increases its ability to survive and reproduce.
As millions of years pass on, if the species is still around then the mutations accumulate to the point where it turns into an entirely different species which may no longer resemble its distant ancestors.

Evolution is literally retarded.

G

evolution can't be true because I don't understand it.

evolution must be true because some authority said it was

bug that does not look like stick gets eaten

bug that looks more like stick gets to mate and make stick looking bugs that get more stick looking

stick looking bug babies fool predators and survive to make better stick looking bugs

Time for the turnaround skeptic question.

IF ORCHIDS ARE NOT THE SOURCE OF MIMIC PREDATOR BUGS...

What is so fucking special about them that SEVERAL mantis species decided to mimic them specifically? Are there orchid eating bugs so delicious that its the best survival option for the mantis? There's no reward in mimicking failures.

But any plant that exhibited the trait of generating Mimic Predators would generate an ecosystem around itself, protecting itself, of creatures that almost exclusively eating bugs that eat that plant.

Wouldn't a mantis be better off mimicking a berry plant or corn or apple leaf? Yet there's dozens of orchid mimicking mantises.

This would make an existing and vital structure significantly less efficient. The complexity of the final, demonstrably useful structure would necessitate organisms to shoulder this cost for generations and continually iterate on it, not as an honest display of fitness, but for no apparent reason at all. This goes against the conventional premise of natural selection, and yet this feature has convergently evolved in more than a dozen species.

We obviously don't know, but I'd imagine much in the way certain elements bond with others to form compounds according to the laws of physics, it is likely that certain structures will inevitably evolve in a similarly deterministic manner.

Evolution is going around with it's magic wand deciding "you're gonna be a stick insect. You'll be butterfly. You'll be a bee" You're fucking retarded.

This would make an existing and vital structure significantly less efficient over many generations. The complexity of the final, demonstrably useful structure would necessitate organisms to shoulder this cost again and again and continually iterate on it, not as an honest display of fitness, but for no apparent reason at all. This goes against the conventional premise of natural selection, and yet this feature has convergently evolved in more than a dozen species.

We obviously don't know for sure, but I'd imagine much in the way certain elements bond with others to form compounds according to the laws of physics, it is likely that certain structures will inevitably evolve in a similarly deterministic manner.

how did the bug look like a stick in the first place??

Take a pool of hundreds trillions of bugs of different species, at least some of them accidentally resemble a stick.
Those of them that happen to hang around trees and not explicitly look like bugs get to survive long enough to reproduce because predators like birds and reptiles may not want to waste their energy trying to find out if something is a stick or a bug.
Then the ones that are the best at fooling reproduce.
Repeat this process over a very long time and this is how you get stick looking bugs and leaf looking bugs.
You can actually observe this process happening in real time with fruit flies

Your entire identity is being smarter than christians for not believing in god but you're actually a retard who had atheism indoctrinated into him in public school. Eat shit you drooling moron.

Likely you would have a gene duplication event where you now have 2 copies of the gene that assembles the photosynthetic proto structure for biolumenscie so you don't have a loss of the original function, and then this second copy isn't needed for photosynthesis as the gene for it already exist, it gets worked on by evolution. First maybe it boost photosynthesis by some small percentage, then it evolves to shift light spectrum to feed into other photosynthetic organelles, then it starts taking energy from phosphorylation to produce its own light. Doesn't seem that complex of a story?

okay so how does DNA "know" that the object the animal is living on is the reason for the increase rate/chance of reproduction. Doesn't that require some sort of intelligence to "know" how it is perceived by "others". The bug you posted is just about 100% of a match to the leaf it is trying to mimic.

The amount of wrong guesses needed to create anything useful is impossibly huge, there would be trillions of dead ends for every positive change. There is no evolution.

Evolution says slugs will evolve into disposable vapes

The DNA doesn't know, the RNA knows.

and RNA knows how???

Evolution is absolutely not bullshit. The rest of your point is valid, saying things like "random" is absolute bullshit

You don't seem to have a good enough base knowledge of the topic to be able to understand it, and I don't have the time to teach a class now.

So you are telling me some bug knew

No. We're telling you through a series of mutations over a long period of time, the bugs that evolved a more stick-lookong appearance in their environment went unnoticed more often by predators, thus died less, thus reproduced more, thus spreading those mutations more as becoming regular parts of the species.
I don't know why you keep saying things no one told you.

Failing to understand something as trivial as evolution is one of the biggest and most reliable retard flags out in the wild.

DNA does not "know" anyting, in the same way you would not say sugar "knows" that is it sweet to us.
About the bug that I posted, don't you think there are millions of extinct species of bugs that failed to look like a leaf or a stick enough to fool predators? Their extinction was not a process of who tries to be more like a stick, but who happens to look more like a stick to survive in their respective environments. If trees would be gone and a desert would appear, they would be gone too, and cactus looking bugs would persevere.
The ones that survived happened to look enough like an inanimate object to survive getting swallowed before reproducing.
Traits get inherited by the offspring, just like how if 2 midgets had a baby, it would be likely to be a midget as well.

What did the stick bug look like before these "mutations"?

if anyone thinks some fishy being evolved to become a human he is utterly retarded
evolution clearly is fake and science tm gay

why doesn't everyone agree with my retarded misconception of how evolution works?

You're a retarded nigger.

Yeah right? If the fishes have magically "evolved" into humans, then why are there still fishes in the ocean?

Failing to understand something as trivial as evolution is one of the biggest and most reliable retard flags out in the wild.

how is it aware that it went unnoticed by predators? how did DNA/RNA decide that and thus mutate its cells to look like the object it was on? that has to be some sort of conscious or intelligent decision

It needs to know that looking like its surroundings then it won't get eaten

are you retarded? this in no way contradicts evolution. the bug doesn't need to know shit, you moron. if you're going to argue against evolution then pick a decent point like beavers building dams or something.

holy fucking retard. it doesn't need to be aware of anything. if it blends into its surroundings, it doesn't get eaten and fucks more.

tell me Mr. Science worshipper since you are so smart. Explain how did DNA/RNA decide that and thus mutate its cells? It is okay I can wait

do stick bugs know stuff

No creature knows anything or consciously does anything. One mutation lends itself better to survival, so that one has a slightly higher reproductive output. Do this over 1000 generations and suddenly the entire population possesses this trait, and at superlative values. The only “thinking” entity here is the almighty and all-knowing analog game theory engine that is “life on earth”

Here’s another example. The girls select for large, tall men, with a high capacity for violence. They do this because this selection strategy mogs all the other ones, because this produces large sons who are more likely to be sexually successful. Do you think the girls are rationally calculating to this end? No. They’re total slaves to their instincts and the tingles, developed over millions of years, that pull them towards tall Chad.

To fully grasp how retarded evolution is imagine having a schematic of every single part of your car, now change some measurement randomly. How many random changes would it take before you make a better car? It would be billions. And a car is much simpler than animal. The amount of dead animals needed to guess the correct configuration of a species would fill up the whole fucking earth. Random mutation and natural selection is horseshit.

durr time make thing more better

shut the fuck up you retard.

So you are telling me some bug knew that if it were stick then its predators would leave it alone?

No one is telling you this. Go take remedial high school biology.

Can a car part reproduce? Is it a living organism that can pass on its genes to its offspring?

Mr. Science worshipper desperately searching the web lmao

I'm a leaf insect

just going to hang out on this boulder oh fuc-

Ofcourse it needs to know that it's camouflaged or it'll hang out in places it's camouflage doesn't fucking work.

methylation turns on and off genes within tissues and responds to environmental input including neural activity. Basicly the methyl groups act as a bike lock preventing the gene from working.

So, Lamarck was right?

But the answer is literally “muh thousands of years”

Thousands of years, thousands or millions or generations, accumulating mutations in each one and selecting in one particular direction, maximizing the values of some trait, and over “Muh thousands of years” you have a population that looks a bit different from the one it started off as. Run this for another million or so years and they’re so different that they’re different species.

And before you retort with “but who’s selecting”? selection just means that not all values of a given trait have an equal reproductive output, and the bias is not random. So the donors of this trait to the next gen have, on average, a DIFFERENT value than the generation that came before.

Irrelevent, this should demonstrate how impossible it is to GET even one good mutation, how to pass it on and getting natural selection to select for it is an even bigger problem.

So you are telling me some bug knew that if it were stick then its predators would leave it alone?

YEAH AND IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS WHY ARE MONKEYS STILL AROUND???? HUH?????

it gets worked on by evolution.

How? If it's not being expressed, how is it selected for? If it is, it's demonstrably making this entire process less efficient; it's not competitive.

You would agree to get from AZ you have to go through B,D,C, etc. In this case, BY are simply less efficient, and considerably so. Z doesn't necessarily represent current biolume, but rather a point at which there is some tangible benefit to the organism.

For living things to produce, there must be a male and female (for the most part). How did things evolve without the other? So there was ALWAYS a 100% compatible male abd 100% compatible female in the same vicinity at the same time for billions of years? Or was everything reproducing on its own, then it someone made it harder by doing a male and female necessity?? Wouldn't self replication have stayed the way with unguided, blind, evolution, since thats exactly what it is??

IMPORTANT REMINDER: You cannot be racist and and not believe in evolution. Otherwise, you're just a "behavior racist" and would be fine with niggers if they acted White.

DO NOT FALL FOR THIS OBVIOUS PSYOP.

Is this a schizo theory? Cause if it’s not, then wtf is in orchid sap? Something that alters the DNA of the thing that ingest it to visibly resemble the thing that ate it first? Sounds schizo.

The mimicry is done for the same reason the leaf bug looks like a leaf. To reduce risk of predation. And for predators, so it can “hello, fellow prey” among its prey.

No. We're telling you through a series of mutations over a long period of time, the bugs that evolved a more stick-lookong appearance in their environment went unnoticed more often by predators, thus died less, thus reproduced more, thus spreading those mutations more as becoming regular parts of the species.

I don't know why you keep saying things no one told you.

This makes evolution a completely worthless theory. Every form of life that exists today evolved to be that way because otherwise it would've gone extinct. You can't falsify that, therefore it's not science.

Kinda, individuals can adapt there body to environmental stress (like muscle building or being short with limited food) and the ones with the most phenotype plasticity towards beneficial traits survive

its easiest to see in trout. Steelhead salmon and rainbow trout are the same fish, the ones that hit sea water change color, size and behavior. The genes basically have the codes for a whole second fish in the rainbow trout genome waiting for the file read system to uncompress the code differently

eyes aren’t an irreducible complex structure.

They must have started off as very remedial photoreceptors that nevertheless granted a gigantic advantage to its owner, that set off an arms race towards 20/20 vision. A new sense unlocked and in its infancy. But anyways. What are some examples of irreducible complex structures and do we have any explanations for how we went from not having the structure, to having it? I imagine some organ(s) would fit this bill, right?

Your ignorance doesn't disprove centuries of scientific study.

Well you can track the evolution of kidneys from simple fish regulating osmotic balance systems to mammals, we still have these pronephros as an embryo and then we start developing our more complex kidney and they are shut down and become vestigial

Evolution/adaptation actually works quickly. It is a simple response to environmental stimuli, from sunlight to the food you eat and stressors your body is wrecked by which begin to transform you and gives your children more of these similar traits which your body has become abundant in.

Some athletic (muscle mass, strength and muscle fiber ratio) and even cognitive affinities are passed down.

This is all shit I just made up btw. I’m just assuming. It sounds correct to me.

As for the OP, you’d have to look into how a bug turns into a stick, but likely they already had the genetic potential for it, probably already kind of look like a stick, and many animals can change colors/camouflage, but it also could just be the diet helping out (depending on where they hang out. Even light exposure and temperature can create a change in development as nutritional values are different). You’d have to get to the nitty gritty and try to figure out what is turning on which gene. In humans genes are always turning on and off for simple shit.

That’s what I’m saying. Atleast I have rational grounds on which to be racist. “100k years separate man from the niggers, yada yada harsh winter conditions blah blah blah and that’s why niggers do not couple well with high-energy environments outside Africa and that’s why their economic niche is theft and gibs”. But an evolution-denying racist is hating god’s children. Are Christian’s blank slatists? If not, do they believe that different races run on different software? What is their explanation for how all the diff races came about? Did they materialize all at once, in diff part of the world, and just so happen to have sexual compatibility? I have a million questions for racist evolution-deniers.

There had to be viable options for stick looking bugs to mate in their respective ENVIRONMENTS in order to get the stick bugs you know today. If a bug could not even defend itself by fooling or evading predators or fighting back it would not really have much of a change to reproduce.
Evolution does not explicitly guide anything .Every living organism is a product of its environment. If you lived in an environment where you had to crawl around to get food and survive and survive long enough to raise offspring, how long do you think tall specimens would survive?

Don't think too much about it.

Darwin's theory was based on logical observations in the Galapagos. You have a dozen different species of finches specifically adapted to feeding on the different resources uniquely available on a dozen different islands, and then you have the finches on the mainland of South America to compare them to. It's really fucking obvious that animals adapt to their environment over time if they survive. He didn't even know about dna or microbiology or chromosomes or the mechanisms of mutation and inheritance back then, and everything we've learned since only reinforces what he discovered.

I don't think it is irrelevant at all anon, there is no way to compare biological mechanisms to car pats.

holy fucking unc moment look at those 2 coons

There is natural variation in organisms. That variation is further increased by sexual reproduction. Do cars fuck?

Fuck Barry and Big Mike. Kill all niggers.

visualize big mike's girth. Now you're thinking about it. Now Obama's caressing it gently. You're welcome.

Makes more sense than the 5,000 year old myth of gawd did it the end.

My name is big Mike
I walk around with a thick pipe
pig dyke
I scratch my balls cause it feels right
I'm stuffin Barry in the bussy and he real tight
Dirty Harry with my uzzi and I just might

smoke these fucks
rub my nuts
feel em

get the bucks
fuck the mutts
kill em

Big house down in martha's vinyard
I ride around with the kikes and sinners
dropping bombs but it's not laughs and glitter
when I pull up all you see is just the shiny spinners

Me and obama are niggers we run the crips and bloods
We're building camps down in FEMA we let the spics and floods
I'm killing all of you wiggers ripping out spleens and guts
The blood will flow down the rivers filled up with hicks and chuds

You're gonna eat the bugs and drink the kool aid
I'm friends with Bill Gates you're sick with jew aids
here to snuff the rooster get another booster
gonna pull the plug don't blink the light fades

you think a cloud intentionally decides to block the sun?

of course why else would it intentionally block the sun

kek in the ideal world religious people should be the servant class

Spain's armpit sure is retarded

What makes you think they aren't exactly that?