/lit/ - Literature

>>20649479
>>20649479
>SELECTED for from? Wtf does that mean? Something can be selected for and you're trying to confuse it with selected from. You can select for a trait that doesn't exist in a population like the study did with antibiotic resistance.

No hope.

>>20643607
>Thats all you've got?

I have more, but if you werent a midwit you would realize that something like that means that 60% of science is fake.

>>20643615
>But I gave the falsifiable part of evolution

no you described genetics because you are that simple. Genetics is a part of evolution, genetics is a part of biology, genetics is a part of young earth creationism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

>>20643621
>What can be false is genetics but you've already agreed that is empirically true.

yes genetics is true and it existes paralley of whatever mythology you ad to it.

>>20619008
>what makes you think someone who disagrees with you on ontology is a tranny?

*epistemiology

This thread is about epistemiology. Please, sit down enjoy the non-ontological episteomiological discussion, start from OP post and falsifiabiltiy criterion.