Evolution is not a scientific theory - problem of falsifiability (Catch 22)

[Anonymous No.13138512]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QDoMaPOqi4

"Evolution is not scientific theory but a metaphisical research programme."

K. Popper

was he right?

[Anonymous No.13138516]

>x has y because its a trait acquired by evolution

[Anonymous No.13138534]

What defines fitness? Survival! Who is the fittest? The one who survives!

Circular reasoning??

[Anonymous No.13138540]

>>13138512
Explain currently existing maladaptations and adaptations without evolution.

[Anonymous No.13138554]

>>13138534
It's an analytic statement you cretin. Maybe you should ponder on Newtons first law next and how it can be falsified.

[Anonymous No.13138555]

>>13138534
>Circular reasoning??

yeah, or historiosophy. the entire "theory" is based on you being in the end of history position and know what is vestigial and what is "way of the future" to put it that way. anglo-hegelian unfalsifiable circlejerk.

>>13138540
>maladaptations and adaptations

natural selection that also perfectly fits into YEC btw.

[Anonymous No.13138561]

>>13138512
Yes he is right.
Popper is part of the reason natural selection is unassailable in biology.

[Anonymous No.13138581]

>>13138554
>It's an analytic statement you cretin.

it looks to me like a semantic joke for some anglo gay orgy, a high brow meme of some kind.
tell me, is this a new mutation that will create a superrace or is it a bodily defect (based on a creationists standard(?) that humans should have 5 fingers)

[Anonymous No.13138583]

>>13138555
>natural selection that also perfectly fits into YEC btw.

Geology, fossils, molecular clocks? Or how about just speed of natural selection?

[Anonymous No.13138603]

>>13138561
>natural selection is unassailable in biology.

natural selection is a testable on observable phenomenon, but evolution=/=natural selection. NS is necesery for evolution to be true but not sufficient proof.

>>13138583
>Geology, fossils, molecular clocks? Or how about just speed of natural selection?

stop it, you said that natural selection is a proof for evolution. its necessery but not sufficient. NS proves evolution as much as it proves YEC.

[Anonymous No.13138628]

>x has y because its a trait acquired by evolution
>what is the proof that it is aquired by evolutioin and not full blown YECrationist?
>because it has y

appendix was considdered vestigial up unti few years ago, guess we made a mistake when we removed uninflamed appendixes tee hee, now its an evolutionary adaptation, I FCK LOOOOOVE SCIENCE!!!!!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

[Anonymous No.13138629]

I'm not even religious in any way, and I agree. Evolution is such a bonkers theory. One day it will be looked on as a pathetic irrational superstition.

[Anonymous No.13138637]

>>13138581
An adaptation is something that increases fitness. Fitness is the ability to produce offspring that can reproduce in turn. The extra finger is a mutation. Probably neutral or slightly harmful from natural selection perspective.
>humans should have five fingers
This is a weird statement. Why? How do you arrive at should?

[Anonymous No.13138644]

>>13138603
>that natural selection is a proof for evolution
Where?

[Anonymous No.13138678]

>>13138644
>Where?

here>>13138540
>Explain currently existing maladaptations and adaptations without evolution.

>>13138637
>An adaptation is something that increases fitness. Fitness is the ability to produce offspring that can reproduce in turn.

how do you test for that?

>Why? How do you arrive at should?

Leonardo da Vinci and Kent Hovinds theories that human is perfectly made.

[Anonymous No.13138696]

>>13138603
>natural selection is a testable on observable phenomenon, but evolution=/=natural selection. NS is necesery for evolution to be true but not sufficient proof.
Yep, you need heredity and mutation for that.

[Anonymous No.13138704]

>>13138512
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature

[Anonymous No.13138709]

>>13138696
>Yep, you need heredity and mutation for that.

and proof that species mutate into each other of which there is non, look up esch coli longterm experiment, they produced total fluff of a proof even after 60k generation and still called it succefull by making post hoc hypothesises.

[Anonymous No.13138727]

>>13138678
You are correct, it should be natural selection instead of evolution.

>how do you test for that?
Test for what?

>Leonardo da Vinci and Kent Hovinds theories that human is perfectly made.

I am not familiar with these, please do elaborate.

[Anonymous No.13138735]

>>13138709
What is a species?

[Anonymous No.13138758]

>>13138678
>Kent Hovind
This is actually embarassing, no wonder /sci/ shits on this board.

[Anonymous No.13138764]

>>13138512
>>13138629
lmao jesus christ

[Anonymous No.13138767]

>>13138758
>This is actually embarassing

based on what actually?

[Anonymous No.13138793]

>>13138767
He was arrested for tax fraud, promotes young earth creationism, has a degree from the unaccredited Patriot University, has lied about his scientific experience, and he also committed mail fraud. Complete joke.

[Anonymous No.13138807]

>>13138793
>He was arrested for tax fraud, promotes young earth creationism, has a degree from the unaccredited Patriot University, has lied about his scientific experience, and he also committed mail fraud.

kool story bro, now prove to me is there a smth to Kent Hovinds theories or is evolution actually falsifiable, because it looks to me like an exercise in semantics?

[Anonymous No.13138813]

>>13138512
The fact that the literature board is a bastion of anti-intellectualism on 4chan is depressing. Sage.

[Anonymous No.13138826]

>>13138709
>cite 1 failed experiment
>ignores all the rest of overwhelming scientific data supporting evolution
Also, of course species turn into another. There is a common ancestor, some of the members evolve into a subspecies by the principles of heredity and mutation over differential reproductive success. Sorry but you reply like you know nothing about evolution.

[Anonymous No.13138845]

>>13138813
>bastion of anti-intellectualism

go go run away from anti-intellectualism run run run run forrest run into the security!!!!!

>>13138826
>>cite 1 failed experiment

so you admit that esch coli was a TOTAL FLOP and that they phised for post hocs?

[Anonymous No.13138846]

>>13138644
Natural selection has been shown in laboratory settings using microbes. Bacteria reproduce at an exponential rate and with rapid generational turnover, so you can measure evolution in them at rapid speed.

Superbugs and new pathogens are evolving and showing up all the time. Not to mention selective breeding of dogs and other domesticated animals is an obvious corollary of natural selection. Except instead of leaving the selection to environmental change and pressures, it's people who decide.

[Anonymous No.13138857]

>>13138845
lol bro now it's clear ur trolling
4/10 you made me reply.

[Anonymous No.13138876]

>>13138512
Indeed, the recent vogue of historicism might be regarded as merely part of the vogue of evolutionism—a philosophy that owes its influence largely to the somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief.

What we call the evolutionary hypothesis is an explanation of a host of biological and paleontological observations—for instance, of certain similarities between various species and genera—by the assumption of common ancestry of related forms.

. . . I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts. [Popper, 1957, p. 106; emphasis added]

There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340; emphasis added]

I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact. [Popper, 1976, p. 167; emphasis added]

The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. [Popper, 1978, p. 344; emphasis added]

polite sage for clarifying your misquote

[Anonymous No.13138893]

>>13138876
To further clairfy, the actual quote says
>I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. [Popper, 1976, p. 168]
and
>. . . because I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme; . . . [Popper, 1976, p. 151]
But wait there's more!
>The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]
>I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]
>The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]

[Anonymous No.13138896]

>>13138857
>lol bro now it's clear ur trolling
>4/10 you made me reply.

RUN FORREST RUN WHERE POSTS HAVE THE INTELLECTUALISMtm SEAL OF APPROVAL RUN FROM THE HERESY AND INTO THE LOVING HAND OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLECTUALISM!!!!

[Anonymous No.13138907]

>this thread

That's gonna be a yikes from me, dawg.

[Anonymous No.13138912]

>>13138846
>Natural selection has been shown in laboratory settings using microbes
Bacteria reproducing is not natural selection.
>Superbugs and new pathogens are evolving and showing up all the time. Not to mention selective breeding of dogs and other domesticated animals is an obvious corollary of natural selection
Artificial selection is not natural selection

Hey as a corollary to this whole thing, have any of you guys ever noticed that the same arguments are repeated again and again on here? I mean, in all honesty, it seems to be a problem with the actual interface. Other people in philosophical/theological threads have noted this as well. The same arguments are made, almost deterministically, again and again.

Sometimes when you critical of a certain mentality or world view you’ll hit upon a certain ‘trope’ which is apparently ‘true’ no matter how you look at it, simply because repeated again and again.

You see what I’m trying to figure out here is if it’s a natural flaw in the interface or something a little more sinister. :3

[Anonymous No.13138927]

Falsifiability is a completely broken theory that no one in philosophy of science takes seriously. Only stem dullards and amateur atheists trying to dunk on others like it.

For only one reason falsifiability is broken, consider that there has never been a single scientific theory that has not in some respect been falsified during its lifetime. Scientific theories are born and die falsified, and if falsification is to be taken seriously as a solution to the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, there is no such thing as science.

[Anonymous No.13138949]

>>13138927
>consider that there has never been a single scientific theory that has not in some respect been falsified during its lifetime.

that means they were falsifiable from the start.

>Scientific theories are born and die falsified, and if falsification is to be taken seriously as a solution to the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, there is no such thing as science.

Wait a sec, when was evolution even close to being falsified?

[Anonymous No.13138955]

>>13138793
>he thinks ideas and books are a place for long-drawn out personal ad hominem attacks

[Anonymous No.13138974]

>>13138512
>brainlets trying to sound intelligent
falsifiability is a human concept and has no effect on whether something is true or not. Why is this garbage on /lit/? Do we even have mods?

[Anonymous No.13138988]

>>13138949
>that means they were falsifiable from the start.
That means falsifiability is not a useful concept to distinguish between any scientific theories that ever have or ever will exist, which is the only point of falsifiability in the first place.
>Wait a sec, when was evolution even close to being falsified?
Pick your poison from amongst any of the testable failings of the theory in its lifetime.

This is not even to mention theory-ladenness or the non-existence of crucial experiments

[Anonymous No.13139020]

>creationists on /lit/
I thought this was the smart board

[Anonymous No.13139034]

>>13138949
>Wait a sec, when was evolution even close to being falsified?
That would actually be really simple. Just have a species that have exactly 0 traits that would allow it to thrive in its environment and yet it somehow does. Natural selection isn't a theory as much as it an observation, though.

[Anonymous No.13139044]

>>13138974
The quote is from a book. You know, literature. :3

[Anonymous No.13139048]

>>13138988
>That means falsifiability is not a useful concept to distinguish between any scientific theorie

Or that proves that all good theories have been falsified?

>Pick your poison from amongst any of the testable failings of the theory in its lifetime.

I see none. Esch coli longterm exp can fail with 60k gence, it disproved nothing about evolution bacuse it can show proof after 100k gens or 10 000k gens which perfectly fits with guidng hand of evolution.

>>13139020
>>creationists on /lit/
>I thought this was the smart board

RUN FORREST RUN WHERE POSTS HAVE THE INTELLECTUALISMtm SEAL OF APPROVAL RUN FROM THE HERESY AND INTO THE LOVING HAND OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLECTUALISM!!!!

[Anonymous No.13139069]

>>13139020
It isn't. It just have a lot of clowns and neomystics that think that writing in flowery language and reading some half-forgotten nutjob makes them smart.

[Anonymous No.13139088]

>>13139048
damn dude no need to get so angry. I'm dont even know science

[Anonymous No.13139112]

>>13139048
>I see none. Esch coli longterm exp can fail with 60k gence, it disproved nothing about evolution bacuse it can show proof after 100k gens or 10 000k gens which perfectly fits with guidng hand of evolution.
You understand that the only thing that evolution would say is that the bacteria population with traits that make them have an edge on their environment would achieve greater reproductive sucess, right? The time that they take to developt said traits isn't actually important.

[Anonymous No.13139175]

Karl Popper was wrong about almost everything. And he hated Plato. Enough said.

[Anonymous No.13139254]

>>13138793
>arrested for tax fraud
based
>promotes young earth creationism
based
>has a degree from the unaccredited Patriot University
fuck accredited transgender jew dominated university synagogues. based
>has lied about his scientific experience
who cares. based.
>committed mail fraud
based af. Can you now tell me why I shouldn't subscribe to the theories of whoever this guy is?

[Anonymous No.13139256]

>these niggas don’t know that popper was btfo ages ago

[Anonymous No.13139261]

>>13138846
If I jog half an hour every day for a month, my lung capacity will be higher. Is that evolution too?

[Anonymous No.13139285]

>>13139254
>>arrested for tax fraud
>based
>>promotes young earth creationism
>based
>>has a degree from the unaccredited Patriot University
>fuck accredited transgender jew dominated university synagogues. based
>>has lied about his scientific experience
>who cares. based.
>>committed mail fraud
>based af. Can you now tell me why I shouldn't subscribe to the theories of whoever this guy is?

REAL RECONIZE REAL
science is an anti-intellectual cult.

[Anonymous No.13139297]

>>13139261
It would be just a biological trait. If, however, it was analysed to see whatever or not the trait would result in a reproductive advantage to the population that have it, then it would be part of the evolutionary field.

[Anonymous No.13139309]

>>13139254
>based
based

[Anonymous No.13139327]

At what point in the theory does /lit/ check out and say it's nonsense?
>A population has some inherent genetic diversity
>Better-adapted individuals whose slight diversity gives them an advantage have more reproductive success
>The next generation is still diverse but slightly skewed in the direction of the previous one's successful adaptation
>Over many many generations this results in characteristic changes as the species adapts
Where is the bullshit? Someone please tell me what part of this is wrong.

[Anonymous No.13139334]

>>13139327
What about macro-evolution?

[Anonymous No.13139340]

>>13138927
no scientists read philosophy of science at all (and that's a good thing).

[Anonymous No.13139346]

>>13138581
Imagine getting fisted by her

[Anonymous No.13139349]

I remember a few years ago /lit/ took anti-science, anti-evolution etc. stances because muh scientism or something, now we're just at "British man bad".

[Anonymous No.13139351]

>>13139334
Say you separate the population at the beginning and place them in two different environments.
The rest of the process will affect them differently because the selection isn't selecting for the same things, so after many many generations, they will end up noticably different. If they're too different, they won't be able to breed with each other, and now you have two species instead of one.

[Anonymous No.13139353]

>>13139327
Nowhere. It's just hard for people who are used to philosophers pulling ideas out of thin air to wrap their heads around evidence derived from observation.

[Anonymous No.13139357]

>>13139334
It is just what >>13139327 said, but more intense/longer to the point that it result in a population that couldn't reproduce with the how it was in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.13139356]

american "christians" are a virus that do as much damage to logic and reason as they do to christianity

[Anonymous No.13139488]

>>13139356
Amerifat christcucks usually don't think at all. the worst you get are some televangelists doing "christian science" Gaytheist liberals worshiping scientism because they think it makes them smart are a much bigger threat to logic and reason.

[Anonymous No.13139517]

>>13139488
>Amerifat christcucks usually don't think at all. the worst you get are some televangelists doing "christian science" Gaytheist liberals worshiping scientism because they think it makes them smart are a much bigger threat to logic and reason.

THIS

[Anonymous No.13139534]

He's not even wrong. Evolution is not a scientific theory because you can't make any sort of predictions with it. Evolution is a history.

[Anonymous No.13139539]

>>13139534
>Evolution is a history.

Its no different than Hegels or Spenglers historiosophy, just lamer.

[Anonymous No.13139676]

brainlets cant even comprehend deep time
everything has to be in a human timescale

[Anonymous No.13139707]

>In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
- Pope John Paul II (1996)

Even the catholic church saw that shit 1,000,000 light years away and caved in. Anyone denying evolution on this board is a brainlet contrarian troll.

[Anonymous No.13139717]

>>13139707
>Even the catholic church

this is very telling

[Anonymous No.13139721]

>>13138709
What in nature limits one species from giving rise to a new one by proceesses of evolution?
If one gene can be changed by natural selection, then all can. If all genes can change in time, then new species are possible to reach as well.

[Anonymous No.13139727]

>>13139721
>If one gene can be changed by natural selection, then all can.

OK, Im done. Enough abyss staring for today.

[Anonymous No.13139731]

>>13138534
that isn't what defines fitness you moron. Fitness is defined by ones suitability to the environment in which it lives (not strictly geological). One that is better suited, therefore, has higher fitness, it is not simply "i kill you, therefore Im fitter".

[Anonymous No.13139737]

>>13139534
Shut the fuck up brainlet. I can predict that genetic drift in isolated populations will change the allele frequency of those populations and result in divergent evolution if put under different selective pressures.
Last year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for a scientist using directed evolution of enzymes. How can that happen if it's not predicted?

Multicellularity was evolved from uni-cellular organisms multiple times once using yeast and the other using algae. It was predicted that this sort of mechanism (response to predation) was involved in the evolution of multicellularity
Read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30787483
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Yeast+multicellularity

[Anonymous No.13139749]

>>13139737
Go back to fucking your retarded wife, JF. Nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.13139763]

>>13139334
that is macro evolution. micro-evolution is understanding why specific loci mutate across individual to individual and so on, this kind of population wide form of evolution is as typically macro as it gets.

[Anonymous No.13139777]

>>13139737
Ignore them, none of them actually know anything about evolution and are just making moronic intuitive critiques.

>>13139749
Why the hostility buddy im not really hearing your argument here.

[Anonymous No.13140101]

>>13139731
sorry i didnt know that survival is not a factor in the theory of evolution

[Anonymous No.13140132]

>the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to living beings
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.13140303]

Evolution is a denial of the natural metaphysical order. To say that the lesser can be the origin of the greater is to ultimately deny the nature of the manifested universe, and create nothing less than a satanic inversion. No matter how much of one substance or characteristic is accumulated, insofar as it remains all on the same plane, it will have no transcendent value to go beyond that which is inherent in its own particular manifestation.

[Anonymous No.13140324]

>>13140132
>earth is a closed system
>organisms are closed systems
imagine

[Anonymous No.13140490]

>>13140101
Obviously it is, but it is not what defines fitness. Survival of the fittest is not the same principle as marvel villians make it out to be.

[Anonymous No.13140549]

>>13140303
what garbage. In what way is a single celled organism lesser than a mammal? you are applying some erroneous moral objectivism to a natural process without any justification, pure dogma.

[Anonymous No.13140657]

>>13140549
fuck off libtard

[Anonymous No.13140664]

>>13140303
All of evolutions observations are more accurately portrayed in a devolutionist theory anyway.

[Anonymous No.13140679]

>>13139351
Not being able to breed isn't the criteria for separate species.

[Anonymous No.13140682]

>>13139349
Anglo lies have turned a general darwinism into the religion of modernism.

[Anonymous No.13140790]

>>13140303
cringe + bluepilled

[Anonymous No.13140800]

>>13138512

>Unironically thinking evolution is wrong

If you this you're mentally ill and shoukd be shot.

[Anonymous No.13140816]

>>13139717
that journo made that up and had to apologize.

[Anonymous No.13140834]

>>13139034
Natural selection is a concept which could be arrived at logically though. No observation is necessary.

[Anonymous No.13141024]

>>13138534
Circular readoning is the only truth.

[Anonymous No.13141256]

Am biochemist. Come to /lit/ for first time expecting well-read, intelligent individuals having at least occasional shots at productive discussion.
Find this shit.
mfw.

[Anonymous No.13141329]

>>13138629
Oh christ haha imagine being this person

[Anonymous No.13141342]

There aren't many scientific theories in the soft sciences that are as well grounded and clearly accurate as evolution. If you doubt it you are either very uneducated or a complete retard

[Anonymous No.13141349]

>>13141342
Evolution is always going to be a theory no matter what you do :3

It hasn't actually done anything beneficial anyway. All of the medicinal or technological gains have been from observed artificial selection.

The theory of evolution, meanwhile, has helped pave the way for eugenics, social Darwinism, etc etc. Things that make the world more aggressive and worse. :3

[Anonymous No.13141375]

>>13141256
Trust me, this thread is the most appalling ball of wool I've seen here, and is also evidently of at least 50% /pol/ manufacture, so it's not representative.

[Anonymous No.13141401]

>>13138912
>Bacteria reproducing is not natural selection.
>Artificial selection is not natural selection
The mechanics are the same

[Anonymous No.13141418]

>>13138764
>>13141329
Probably samefag regardless

NOT AN ARGUMENT

Look up epigenetics btw

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.13141440]

>>13139254
based post
imagine discrediting someone because of "muh tax fraud" like oh no how dare he cheat the largest criminal organization on earth, the IRS? lmaooo cucks

[Anonymous No.13141691]

>>13141418
epigenetics aren't mutually exclusive to evolution
your brain is tiny
those aren't the same people, one of them is me

[Anonymous No.13141695]

>>13139020
>4chan
>having a smart board
lmaoooooooooo
maybe if this board existed in 2006 but it wasnt even around til 2010 and this place was dumb as fuck by then

[Anonymous No.13141771]

>anti-evolutionists still exist in the Year of Our Lord 2019
humanity is fucking wild, imagine being this delusional

[Anonymous No.13141805]

The lack of clarity in this thread is disturbing. Okay what’s evolution. It is change in allele frequencies over time. (Make necessary additions for epigenetics if you wish). It’s not natural selection as genetic drift is evolution too. There is no macroevolution, it’s a heuristic for idiots. It’s all just microevolution.
Natural selection is hard to put to words in an accurate sense. The alleles which tend to increase their frequency more over time, have a larger frequency after some time than the ones that don’t. This is not a tautology, not circular logic. It’s an analytic statement, if any of you niggers had actually read Popper you would know what I am talking about. It is unfalsifiable yes. Does it mean evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable? No. You cannot falsify Newton’s first law. But you can easily falsify his theory of gravity.
A final consideration we need to make is the classic omnis cellula e cellula. Every living thing comes from their immediate ancestor, and the same applies to the immediate ancestor and onwards from it. Note that I am not talking about biogenesis here, this principle only applies after life appears.
These phenomena are not some teleological forces or principles guiding change on this planet. In a sense, they don’t even exist. They are the necessary characteristics resulting from the fundamental structure and physiology of living things. Thus, evolutionary theory is not proved by some historical artefacts. Do not confuse the history of the theory with its present form. The undeniable evidence for it comes from the operations of living organism today. The allele frequencies change. In a manner that can hardly be called random.

>inb4 muh speciation
Species are another heuristic for idiots. There are no species. There are only living cells. Species are a completely artificial tool for humans to classify organisms. There is no meaningful definition for a species. Not one that could be consistently applied to all living things.

[Anonymous No.13141990]

>>13140800
>>Unironically thinking evolution is wrong

it cant be wrong, its entirely unfalsifiable.

>>13141256
>Am biochemist. Come to /lit/ for first time expecting well-read, intelligent individuals having at least occasional shots at productive discussion.

I recommend searching for like minded minds on r/science or r/progressivism.

>>13141805
>Okay what’s evolution. It is change in allele frequencies over time.

this is a bad definition, YEC believe in allele change over time as well. Ill let you figure out why and then we might have a convo.

>Species are another heuristic for idiots. There are no species.

Lets just run into semantics guys, what do words even mean? pottery!

[Anonymous No.13142004]

>>13141990
Well, give me a definition for a species and we can talk.

[Anonymous No.13142022]

>>13142004
>Well, give me a definition for a species and we can talk.

Im sorry but word definition is such a simple heuristic term and I cant use a "definition" to describe species.

[Anonymous No.13142027]

>>13142022
Well I guess we can't talk about speciation then.

[Anonymous No.13142034]

>>13142027
>Well I guess we can't talk about speciation then.

but we can actually. Darwin talked about it as well as enitre modern evolutionary theory despite the fact that you cant "define" it precisely - species (no matter how sloppy you define that social construct) should change into each other, as long as that isnt demonstrated, evolutionary proof is based on semantical manipulation of the word "natural selection".

[Anonymous No.13142069]

>>13142034
If you can't talk about what you want to see, how can I show you the evidence you want? Apparently the readily demonstrable effects of allele frequency changes are not satisfactory in your mind to prove this "speciation" you talk about. Why not?

[Anonymous No.13142090]

>>13142069
>If you can't talk about what you want to see, how can I show you the evidence you want?

I want to see >>13142034
>species (no matter how sloppy you define that social construct) should change into each other

not profane natural selection >>13142069
>allele frequency changes

why isnt there any sign of that kind of proof? Why didnt esch coli longterm exp produced any new trait in esch coli but just selected for already existing ones?

[Anonymous No.13142112]

>>13138555
Footfags absolutely BTFO

[Anonymous No.13142171]

>>13142090
>species (no matter how sloppy you define that social construct) should change into each other
And we have witnessed this several times, in plants as well as animals.

[Anonymous No.13142223]

>>13142090

> Why can't I observe million-years long processes in my limited lifetime or proof of such process which is not a static snap of said process but the process itself (which spans along eons)?

That's how retarded you sound. Of COURSE we can't observe new species suddenly appearing because said process is incredibly long, but we have proof of said processes going on such as the astonishingly high number of very different marsupial species, which are not found in any other place in the planet and whose common characteristics can be traced back to a common ancestor.

The amount of evolutionary proof is beyond ridiculous, and not a single person with serious scientifical education would be as bluntly ignorant.

[Anonymous No.13142230]

>>13142223
But that's false, we can and we have. It just doesn't happen often because of how long it typically takes but there are plenty of examples of new species arising.

[Anonymous No.13142315]

>>13142223
>Of COURSE we can't observe new species suddenly appearing because said process is incredibly long

that means I cant falsify any of your claim, how convinient for you!

[Anonymous No.13142503]

>>13138512
Also K. Popper

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation." [Popper1978].

[Anonymous No.13142513]

>>13138512
https://sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php

[Anonymous No.13142523]

>>13142315
How are planets formed then eh buddy?

[Anonymous No.13142565]

>>13142503
>"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation." [Popper1978].

poor guy cucked hard to save his academic career, it sounds like one of those recantations before cameras hostages make. lifelong academics are such pleb intellectuals and mostly total pussies.

>human mice
t. Feyerabend