This kills the evolutionist

>It's a long process
Have you ever observed it first-hand? No. This makes evolution a dogmatic belief, not a truth.

Pretty silly point to make. Have you observed WW2 firsthand? Have you observed a supernova firsthand from start to finish?

>Have you ever observed it first-hand? No
And? Why do I need to see everything first hand? Do I need to see bacteria too? Do I need to see that you have a dick or do you not have any because I don't see them?
>This makes evolution a dogmatic belief, not a truth.
That's not how scientific research works. You can easily verify their claims if you just use any search engine in the world and look up articles and even documentaries about it. Instead of countering their claim with more research, you're just spouting shit here. You can easily disprove that theory because those articles are really detailed with their methodology and observations.

>observed WW2 firsthand
The past is a belief. It only exists from your memory and physical records. WW2 would be near impossible to falsify, so it's extremely likely it happened. The further back you go the more distorted memories and records get. To claim you know a truth from beyond 200 or more years is ridicules and it should never be taken from face value.
>supernova
You shouldn't be detained by beliefs, you should only think something is real if you have the privilege to observe it.

>That's not how scientific research works
That's because usually every study or source has a bias. To even be recognized in the scientific community, you need to appeal to authority. Empiricism is neglected by academia, and has done since the enlightenment.
>You can easily disprove that theory because those articles are really detailed with their methodology and observations
These are written beliefs. You can only rationalize them to make sense. You can't observe them to be correct because they're not primary sources. People lie, so there's always a margin of error and falsehood.

>To even be recognized in the scientific community, you need to appeal to authority
You don't. I've seen plenty of articles criticising mainstream theories.
>These are written beliefs
What are videos? What are pictures?

>if evolution was real then why do women choose because of aesthetics and not who is more fit for survival?

Well here is the redpill: people with symmetrical faces have been shown to be healthier overall and have stronger immune systems.

Because women aren't supposed to gatekeep reproduction in human societies, unless you want to end up like wild animals

>I've seen plenty of articles criticising mainstream theories
There is a degree of "revolution" and "counter-revolution", but they will never challenge ideas that would render profitable industries or colleges obsolete.
>What are videos? What are pictures?
They still exist as "written beliefs" since videos and pictures can be falsified. Media itself isn't a transparent view of something, since it can easily be augmented or pushed towards a conformed bias.

>but they will never challenge ideas that would render profitable industries or colleges obsolete
Bullshit. It's really profitable to be the leading expert in something.
>can be agumented or pushed towards a conformed bias
Prove it then

>Bullshit
You wouldn't understand. If you actually had a grasp on human nature, you would realize secrecy is needed to defend ideas and property. If I controlled the status quo, I wouldn't entertain anything that could overthrow it.
>Prove it then
Just by pointing a camera at something you are obscuring everything else around it. Media is a one way street. You are telling others what to believe. Whether or not the beliefs are true or not can't be attained until you really scrutinize it.

>if evolution was real then why... stupid stuff here
Evolution isn't some perfect event that executes flawlessly. It fails far more often than we realize. Most mutations or adaptations lead to the early death of a creature. It's a roll of the genetic dice.

Women desiring certain traits in a mate is in their DNA, it worked for their mother, their grandmother, etc so why would they change up suddenly without some kind of mutation or environmental pressure?

Why have men always selected for aesthetics? Women never had the ability to choose the prettier girly weak men and usually just got raped or coerced by the ugly ogres with power until technology came along and made physical strength a worthless trait to select for.

Science was the overthrow of the old ideas. It happened. You don't need secrecy if your ideas are really that worthwhile, because otherwise your ideas die with you. Again, you're saying a lot of ambiguous stuff without any substance.
>Whether or not the beliefs are true or not can't be attained until you really scrutinize it.
Then actually scrutinise it. You aren't doing it at all by just writing about stuff that may have happened but also may not have happened.