Sohan Lalwani

I should specify, I

Why the fuck can we not just leave scientific and medical facilities alone? Let’s try attacking the oppositions armies not fucking civilians, DID WE LEARN NOTHING FROM SARAJEVO

So then applying the same logic would it be ok to say all Canadians are ice hockey fans?

I can only hope they follow their strict objective

They need to place staunch limitations on that you can’t bomb hospitals within a 6-8 km radius, I don’t know why in the 21st century with all that we have discovered that we still haven’t learned this. Has the world no watched and learned from Sarajevo?

You won this arguement 10000% with that single grammar correction. Consider running for the leader of earths unified government

Such things as rough mortality dates are with genetics, death itself isn’t genetically transmitted what are you reading 💀

My friend I don’t think you understand inherited traits at all 💀

Packicetus > Ambulocetus > Kutchicetus > Dorudon - later whale diversification I recommend watching this video: https://youtu.be/8cn0kf8mhS4?si=mDwwkf5ei_-bjvpV

What does inbreeding have to do with evolution? What are you basing this off of Adam and Eve?

Maybe because I’m not referencing a single source 😱🤯 Your welcome! A bit disappointing you didn’t know to do that for 18 years. 8, not 18. Apologies! See how I used the quote function buddy? The more you know!

@Wigberto for what you are saying on evolution, it is equivalent to me reading a religious textbook, finding one inaccuracy,a den then completely disregarding its value

Sure, there should be a button titled “quote” highlighted in blue. Click on it.

I get that you’re saying radiocarbon dating isn’t perfect because it needs adjustments, and yeah, science is always refining its tools. But here’s the thing — that is exactly how science works. We don’t just throw out methods because they’re not flawless. We test, calibrate, and improve constantly. The fact that scientists know nuclear testing affects Carbon 14 levels and can correct for it is proof they aren’t blindly trusting numbers. Saying unknown variables could mess it all up is basically saying “I don’t trust science because maybe something we don’t know exists.” That’s not how progress happens. We work with what we can measure and cross-check everything. Uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon, and others have been tested so many times with samples we know the age of, like moon rocks. They hold up. If decay rates randomly changed, we’d see it everywhere, and we don’t. On species — yes, fertile offspring is a good rule of thumb, but biology isn’t that simple. Nature laughs at our neat definitions. Some species can interbreed and some can’t, but that doesn’t always fit into tidy boxes. The reality is messy. You say it’s about genes and not geography or preference p, but gene flow depends on those things. When populations don’t mix, they evolve separately. That’s how new species form. It’s not just a matter of genes existing in isolation. You can’t cherry-pick one factor. Now about fossils and layers being out of order, sure, geologists sometimes find strange layering. But they don’t ignore this. They study it intensely and figure out if tectonic forces flipped or shifted things. Geological processes absolutely explain these oddities. The idea that all layers are only arranged by geological shuffling and not by time is nonsense. That would throw away everything we know about Earth’s history and how sediments build up over millions of years. It’s not some conspiracy where scientists just assume stuff. They use multiple clues — fossil types, radiometric dates, sediment characteristics — to understand the timeline. When you say “they never consider geological factors,” you’re missing that this is exactly what geologists do every day. It’s their whole job to figure out where and how layers have been altered. Look, science is not perfect, and it doesn’t pretend to be. But dismissing radiometric dating, species definitions, and stratigraphy because of “unknown unknowns” or exceptions is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to seriously doubt these frameworks, you need a better explanation that fits the huge amount of data from all over the world, not just pick apart tiny details and pretend that means the whole system is broken.

Do it again

When you say genes “become established” and cause congenital diseases, you are confusing deleterious mutations with beneficial or neutral genetic variants. Yes, harmful mutations exist and can cause diseases. That is biology 101. But that is not the entire story of evolution or gene propagation. Natural selection does not favor harmful mutations. It actively weeds them out. That is why congenital diseases that severely reduce survival or fertility tend to disappear over generations unless they are recessive or maintained by some unusual mechanism like heterozygote advantage. So the mere existence of congenital diseases does not contradict evolution; it confirms it because natural selection is continuously acting on gene variants. Now about your point on fertility and survival. Exactly. An organism with a congenital defect that prevents survival or reproduction will not pass on those genes effectively. This is the basic mechanism by which harmful mutations fail to accumulate. On the other hand, genes that improve fitness, whether by increasing survival, fertility, or other advantages, tend to become more common. This is what evolutionary biologists mean by genes “competing” or “consolidating” in populations. You mention inbreeding and “gene consolidation.” Inbreeding is indeed problematic in many cases because it increases the chance of homozygosity for recessive deleterious alleles. That leads to inbreeding depression, which reduces fitness. But this is not the same as the overall evolutionary process that acts on large, outbreeding populations with genetic diversity. Many species avoid inbreeding naturally through behaviors and dispersal. The concept of the selfish gene does not mean “selfish” in a conscious or negative sense. It is a metaphor coined by Richard Dawkins to describe how genes that promote their own replication increase in frequency. This explains many evolutionary phenomena such as altruism, cooperation, and complex behaviors. The selfish gene theory is backed by extensive genetic, ecological, and behavioral evidence. It is not some baseless assumption. If selfish genes did not dominate, we would see random gene frequencies and no adaptation at all. Instead, we see very clear patterns of adaptation, convergence, and diversification that can only be explained by genes influencing organismal fitness and reproduction. Domesticated species suffer from congenital diseases because human artificial selection often reduces genetic diversity and inadvertently amplifies harmful alleles. That is not natural evolution failing. That is human-driven breeding with its own goals and constraints. Finally, real populations have mechanisms to maintain genetic health, such as recombination, mutation repair, selection, and genetic drift. These ensure that species persist and adapt despite the constant background presence of harmful mutations. Evolution is messy and ongoing, but it is far from random or meaningless. Please stop trying to disapprove evolution 😑 It’s not going to happen my friend and frankly creationism (In the scenario you are one) is a worse explanation quite frankly.

I thought they were purely doubtful of certain aspects in evolution, are you sure they are a creationist? This is helpful to OP how? Perhaps engage in the discussion more, you likely have some good things to say instead of little snippets of humor.

To my knowledge there is no max capacity of replies in a thread, it isn’t wasting space at all. Also, learn to use the quote function, it helps notify users that you are talking to them

I posted a relatively large amount of sources, I suggest you use calmer language because you are coming off as incredibly pissy. I recommend OP go to google and look for sources that demonstrate the earth is a sphere

Saying all Americans are gun happy is like saying all Canadians guzzle maple syrup. Let’s avoid using stereotypes

Bone structures are literally how paleontologists figure out how species are different and such structures show evolution over time. I’m trying to keep a leveled head here but this is just embarrassing

They didn’t even answer my question 😭

First, your concern about Carbon 14 dating is a common confusion. Yes, scientists do adjust radiocarbon dating for variations in atmospheric Carbon 14 levels. This is not a flaw in the method. It is evidence of how precise and self-correcting the method is. We have calibration curves based on dendrochronology, which uses tree rings to give us exact annual carbon data going back more than ten thousand years. That means we do not just guess about the Carbon 14 content of the atmosphere. We measure it. And yes, nuclear testing increased Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. We noticed. We accounted for it. That is what science does. More importantly, your argument takes an issue relevant only to Carbon 14 and wrongly applies it to other radiometric systems. The decay of uranium to lead or potassium to argon is unaffected by atmospheric conditions, magnetic fields, or nuclear tests. These systems are not calibrated by assumptions. They are governed by nuclear physics. The half-life of uranium 238 is four point four seven billion years. This is not a guess. It has been measured by laboratory experiments and confirmed by cross-dating methods again and again and again. No credible evidence has ever shown these rates to change under any natural conditions. Now let us tackle your comments on fruit flies and reproductive isolation. You are underplaying the definition of speciation. Speciation does not require that two organisms be utterly incapable of ever reproducing under artificial or forced conditions. What matters is reproductive isolation under natural conditions. If two populations evolve different mating behaviors, times, or preferences, and stop exchanging genes, that is speciation in progress. Biologists do not define species purely by can it mate if we force them to. They use gene flow in nature as the criterion. When gene flow stops, evolution goes in different directions, and species diverge. Your analogy to short people and tall people misses the point entirely. Preferences within a population do not lead to speciation unless they create isolated breeding pools that no longer intermix. In fruit flies, for instance, we have observed lineages that develop such preferences, alongside chromosomal changes and behavioral barriers. They do not just prefer different mates. They actually stop mating, and in some cases, even produce sterile offspring. That is textbook reproductive isolation, not just a popularity contest. Your China example is anthropological, not biological. Humans are a single species with global gene flow. Racial or ethnic mating preferences are cultural, not genetic barriers. Human populations across the globe can interbreed and do so frequently. That is not at all analogous to what we observe in diverging fly populations that, over generations, lose the ability or tendency to interbreed naturally. Next, you take a swing at comparative anatomy, claiming that comparing bones is like sketching a criminal suspect. But that analogy is backwards. A sketch of a suspect is based on vague recollection. Comparative anatomy is based on detailed, quantifiable data. The homologies we see between species are not superficial guesses. They involve the exact same structures arranged in the same order, developing from the same embryological origins. For example, every tetrapod has a humerus, radius, and ulna in the forelimb, regardless of whether it is used for flying, grasping, or swimming. That is not coincidence. That is inherited architecture. Homology is not just looks kind of similar. It is deeply embedded in development, gene expression, and structural position. When we look at bird wings and bat wings, we see convergent function but different structures. When we look at a whale flipper and a human arm, we see divergent function but shared structure, pointing to common descent. These comparisons are not suspicion. They are data-rich evidence that supports evolutionary relationships. You say homologies are not solid evidence because you think they are based on biased assumptions. But that is exactly the kind of claim that collapses under cross-disciplinary confirmation. Genetic data confirms homologies predicted by comparative anatomy. Fossils show stepwise transitions that link structures across time. For example, the inner ear bones in mammals evolved from jaw bones in early synapsids. We see this transformation in the fossil record, we observe the migration of the bones in embryology, and we confirm the genetic pathways that regulate it. This is not a hunch. It is a convergence of multiple scientific methods. Now let us address the final claim about the fossil record and dinosaur dominance. First, yes, the fossil record is incomplete. No scientist denies this. Fossilization is rare. It requires specific conditions such as rapid burial, low oxygen, and mineral-rich water. That is why we do not have fossils for every animal that ever lived. But that does not make the record meaningless. Despite its gaps, it shows consistent patterns in space and time. Dinosaurs appear suddenly in the Triassic, diversify in the Jurassic, and dominate through the Cretaceous. Then they vanish except for birds right at the Cretaceous Paleogene boundary. You say museums only have a few specimens. That is an exaggeration. There are tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils catalogued in institutions around the world. We are not talking about five bones in a glass case. We have full skeletons, fossilized nests, trackways, and even preserved skin impressions and feathers. Entire ecosystems have been reconstructed from fossil deposits like those in the Hell Creek Formation or the Liaoning beds in China. The data are vast and growing. You say they find variety, not abundance, but this is inaccurate. In many fossil beds, dinosaur bones are the dominant vertebrate fossils. Hadrosaurs in North America are found in large bone beds, suggesting herding behavior and population density. Theropods like Allosaurus are found with healed injuries, signs of scavenging, and even in combat poses. We do not just have bits and pieces. We have ecosystem snapshots, complete with plants, insects, invertebrates, fish, reptiles, mammals, and yes, dinosaurs. Moreover, dinosaur dominance is not based solely on bone count. It is based on their ecological roles, size distribution, geographic spread, and morphological variety. Dinosaurs filled nearly every terrestrial role, from small omnivores like Troodon to massive herbivores like Diplodocus to apex predators like Tyrannosaurus. This is not speculative. It is drawn from data across hundreds of sites worldwide. And just to clarify another point you imply, yes, some fossils are incomplete. That is expected. But paleontologists are trained to identify fragmentary remains with high accuracy, and new technologies like CT scanning and isotopic analysis help reconstruct missing parts with incredible precision. The field is not based on guesswork. It is based on a century and a half of rigorous work, peer review, and technological improvement. So to summarize, your critique rests on several misconceptions. Radiometric dating is not an assumption. It is a cross-validated physical measurement. Speciation is not a matter of preference. It is about gene flow and isolation. Comparative anatomy is not a sketch. It is a structural blueprint observed across deep time and species. And the fossil record is not a handful of bones. It is a global database of biological history confirmed by multiple sciences working in harmony. Skepticism is healthy. But when it disregards overwhelming evidence across disciplines, it is not critical thinking anymore. How does this answer my question at all? What makes YOU think the dinosaurs never rose to dominance. My friend, as interesting as you may think you sound, it’s getting painful. Trying to deny the entire Mesozoic era is a little nuts

Evidence for such suspicions?

Look at the Wallace line, the environment on both sides is relatively tropical. HOWEVER, they present vastly differing fauna