/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16493692]

What books on evolution do I need to read so that I am able to formulate predictions based on the theory that have the potential to be tested and falsify the theory?
It's a scientific theory, so it must be able to generate falsifiable predictions, yes? So how do I do it? What are the laws of evolution that will allow me to generate predictions?

[Anonymous No.16493698]

Judea Pearl, "Causality"

[Anonymous No.16493721]

>>16493692
Prove a parents dna is unrelated to its offspring.

[Anonymous No.16493736]

>>16493721
It's an observable fact that parents dna is related to its offspring. What's your point?
>>16493698
What's this?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16493764]

First study what it is

This was a very good introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa4q9d-lbkQ

[Anonymous No.16493768]

>>16493764
>a fucking popsci audiobook
Go away butts, you're drunk. Also nobody likes you.

[Anonymous No.16493782]

>>16493736
Then you're on a fools errand aren't you?

[Änönymöüs No.16493794]

>>16493692
Too late, anon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16493821]

>>16493768
So dive into a meatier book. Your OP reveals you.

[Anonymous No.16493831]

>>16493782
>Then you're on a fools errand aren't you?
How so?

[Anonymous No.16493833]

>>16493692
>It's a scientific theory, so it must be able to generate falsifiable predictions, yes?
No. Science was never about falsification but creating theories that explain stuff better than other theories and give operationalizable knowledge. Popper was a philosopher not a scientist.

>What are the laws of evolution that will allow me to generate predictions?
Species change over time. You can find physical evidence for this. Maybe those skeletons were planted there but that's a more outlandish idea.

[Anonymous No.16493840]

>>16493736
>It's an observable fact that parents dna is related to its offspring. What's your point?
The DNA isn't the same, there's differences. Follow that over a long time span under a changing environment and you end up with big change.

[Anonymous No.16493853]

>>16493692
Ask on /sci/
YOU FUCKING RETARD

[Anonymous No.16493860]

>>16493833
So it's impossible to falsify evolution?
>>16493840
Of course. This is a well-known fact. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.16493865]

take a sample of mice, put half of them in one environment and the other half in another
check them out in 50-100 years

[Anonymous No.16493875]

>>16493865
You're a retard. Read the OP again and then reply.

[Anonymous No.16493877]

>>16493860
No, it's just really hard

[Änönymöüs No.16493879]

>>16493865
That's why we already did it with bacteria, fucking read the wiki page at least OP,>>16493860

Here >>16493794

[Anonymous No.16493882]

>>16493877
Wo s

[Anonymous No.16493885]

>>16493692
You just have to refute a process of reality that was filtered through the scientific method that got refined for multiple generations by many scholars and scientific research, You might even win a nobel prize. No. 18 and I trust in you Anon you can do it.

[Anonymous No.16493895]

>>16493879
Did what, retard? That doesn't answer my question in the least. Go read the OP again you moron.

[Änönymöüs No.16493905]

>>16493895
Than read about the prediction of Xanthopan Morganii by Darwin.

[Anonymous No.16493906]

>>16493895
Take your teehee I'm stoopid/10 troll thread and choke on it

[Anonymous No.16493908]

>>16493885
>process of reality
How do you refute a process of reality?
I'm talking about the theory scientific theory of evolution here(if it even exists).

[Anonymous No.16493933]

>>16493908
You're not. You are pretending to be a parrot who learned the words science and falsifiable
If you were actually interested, you would just go learn about the theory of evolution instead of talking out of your ass and pretending other people should spoonfeed you under the guise of looking for a "book"
This is /lit/ go die already

[Anonymous No.16493936]

>>16493865
Yes, they will still ALL BE MICE

[Anonymous No.16493947]

>>16493692
I think this is better on >>>/sci/ however you'll probably have more allies here

[Anonymous No.16493954]

>>16493875
dear faggot you can make prediction based on the fact that there are going to be different selective pressures in the environment and thus you will end up with mice who have a different genome than the original stock

[Änönymöüs No.16493961]

>>16493936
Wait a couple millenia instead of centuries and you will have different mice races. Wait maybe a million years and you will have whole new creatures adapted to much different lifestyles. Just like dogs and bears are relatively close related. Or humans and negros.

[Anonymous No.16493966]

>>16493936
they could end up becoming a different subspecies of mice, and eventually given enough time they could even reach the threshold of species once they can't reproduce with the original group

[Anonymous No.16493968]

>>16493821
Alright... Who's the girl?

[Anonymous No.16493984]

>>16493966
Sounds like a great sci fi story to me. I'll call it 'The Mice that were Mice'

[Anonymous No.16493990]

>>16493961
Nigger, dogs and bears live in the same environment. They've always been different species.

[Anonymous No.16494007]

[Anonymous No.16494009]

>>16493990
you can literally look at the bones of the common ancesters of dogs and bears you braindead faggot christ tranny

[Anonymous No.16494014]

>>16494007
What's this? Seems completely unrelated to OP.

[Anonymous No.16494026]

>>16493954
You must be the dumbest person I've ever interacted with on /lit/.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16494032]

>>16493968
Lala Ward

https://youtu.be/TczNORJu7Vk

[Anonymous No.16494039]

OP: How do I systematically make predictions using evolutionary theory (if it's a theory)?
Moron #1: Here's this experiment which PROVES evolution
Moron #2: Here's another experiment which PROVES evolution.
Moron #3: Here's a book on why creationism is wrong!
Moron #4: Here's a prediction that evolutionists made that came out to be true!
This is bad, even by standards of /lit/...

[Änönymöüs No.16494041]

>>16493990
Good lord, why are you making up such threads when you are actually clinically retarded?

[Anonymous No.16494044]

>>16494014
It refutes the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable and that science is about being falsifiable when it talks about that being one of the scientific creationist's biggest criticisms of evolution.

[Anonymous No.16494048]

>>16494026
ok explain to a retard how he is wrong, you can make the prediction that there are going to be adaptations and an eventual divergence from the original population based on the conditions of the environment, if that isn't the case then evolution btfo

[Anonymous No.16494049]

>>16494009
No you can not. Liar.
>>16494041
Not my thread. Sometimes the retards are right.

[Anonymous No.16494050]

>>16494039
>Moron #3: Here's a book on why creationism is wrong!
See >>16494044

[Anonymous No.16494051]

>>16494044
How does it refute the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable? Please outline the argument.

[Anonymous No.16494054]

>>16493692
>It's a scientific theory, so it must be able to generate falsifiable predictions, yes?
You seem like a cute girl so I will answer your question.
The only place the THEORY OF EVOLUTION figures as such is in Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." Otherwise it's not a scientific theory but a phenomenon.
As for the theory itself, it states that characteristics are inherited from the parents, and fitter parents (meaning those which can handle their environment better) can produce more offspring that get to grow up and reproduce themselves. There is also a set quantity of default mutation and different manners in which it's determined what you inherit from which parent... in fact if you get down to the brass tacks, it's kind of a shitshow of a leaking ship... but the phenomenon itself is real and exists. It's the very lax rule that affords for very many exceptions, hence you cannot really falsify it using an exception. That's why the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is in that book and what "evolved" since then is the PHENOMENON OF EVOLUTION.

[Anonymous No.16494058]

>>16493860
>So it's impossible to falsify evolution?
yes if its true it cant be falsified

[Änönymöüs No.16494059]

>>16494049
But this aint one of them.

[Anonymous No.16494072]

>>16494054
>it's not a scientific theory but a phenomenon
>As for the theory itself
So is it a theory or is it not?
>fitter parents (meaning those which can handle their environment better)
How do you determine which animals are fitter? Or is this just tautological (fitter animals are those that get to reproduce, and the animals that are fitter get to reproduce)?

[Anonymous No.16494083]

>>16494072
>So is it a theory or is it not?
The common term theory has nothing to do with the scientific theory. Jesus Christ, this is so 2005.

[Anonymous No.16494086]

>>16494058
So it's not really a theory then, is it?
According to wikipedia
>A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge
There's no way to test and verify it if it doesn't make predictions.

[Anonymous No.16494087]

>>16493692
you dont need to read anything retard, take a few wild animals, breed the most docile and kill the least docile and the population will be more docile in general, if this didnt happen youd have disproven evolution

[Anonymous No.16494089]

>>16494054
christ im tired of you brainlets posting about things you can't comprehend

[Anonymous No.16494091]

>>16494054
All you're doing here, and I have to say that you're a cunt for it sorry, is obfuscation by way of arguing over shifting terminologies which furthermore have not been agreed upon and you are being disingenuous to the OP.

There's absolutely zero proof for your phenomenon of evolution either, it is totally un-observable.

[Anonymous No.16494092]

>>16494087
>>16494039
You're a moron.

[Anonymous No.16494093]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability

[Anonymous No.16494103]

>>16494087
Don't they have to become new species?

[Anonymous No.16494104]

>>16494091
>>16494092
Absolutely delusional. But I shouldn't be surprised, it's daytime in muttland again.

[Anonymous No.16494109]

>>16494093
>Evolution could be falsified by many conceivable lines of evidence, such as:

the fossil record showing no change over time,
confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating in a population, or
observations of organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.[57]
So wikipedia claims it CAN be falsified! That's great. Now how do we do it? How do we generate predictions? What are the laws of evolution?

[Anonymous No.16494111]

>>16494072
>So is it a theory or is it not?
It's a cow so people can milk it.
>How do you determine which animals are fitter?
It says right there in my post you stupid troll.
>>16494091
No, that's why your people (atheists) are doing in order to milk the cow some more. In practice the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION died with Darwin. You can go and prove his theory by modern quantitative measures, if you want to, I won't stop you...
>There's absolutely zero proof for your phenomenon of evolution either, it is totally un-observable.
Now you are just being a schizo.

[Anonymous No.16494112]

>>16494092
I gave you an example, take animals and selectively breed them for a trait, if the trait doesnt become more likely in the population you will have probably disproven evolution (assuming the trait isnt 100% environmental which doesnt really happen as far as Im aware)

[Anonymous No.16494113]

>>16494109
>Now how do we do it? How do we generate predictions? What are the laws of evolution?
Why are you asking? Do you want a recommended book in evolutionary science?

[Anonymous No.16494122]

>>16494113
I want a book that will teach me the assumptions of evolution so I can generate predictions on my own which could be falsified like the scientists did in the wikipedia article.

[Anonymous No.16494125]

>>16494049
there you go

[Anonymous No.16494127]

>>16494113
We could probably use one more cancer researcher... what do you say, shall we point him in he direction of the book?

[Anonymous No.16494140]

>>16494122
What do u want to become when u grow up anon?

[Anonymous No.16494147]

>>16494103
the term "species" doesnt exist in nature its just a lable to differentiate groups of animals (that doesnt mean the term shouldnt be used) so yes if you do your experiments enough you could create a new species

[Anonymous No.16494150]

>>16494111
>It says right there in my post you stupid troll.
What? Is it "those which can handle their environment better"? What does that even mean?
How do you compare between two animals which one is able to handle their environment better?

[Anonymous No.16494158]

>>16494140
I'm 21, so I'm already kind of grown up. I want to be a mathematician though.

[Anonymous No.16494164]

>>16494150
>What? Is it "those which can handle their environment better"? What does that even mean?
No,
>>16494054
>fitter parents (meaning those which can handle their environment better) can produce more offspring that get to grow up and reproduce themselves
If you can't parse that grammar you are most probably Spanish speaking lol.

[Anonymous No.16494171]

>>16494158
Martin Nowak Evolutionary Dynamics

[Anonymous No.16494173]

>>16494164
But that's what I said.
>fitter parents (meaning those which can handle their environment better)
>meaning those which can handle their environment better
>those which can handle their environment better

[Anonymous No.16494179]

>>16494171
Tho if you don't want to die of hunger you should probably use it in service of medicine (it has chapters relating to that too i.e. start and evolution of cancer)

[Anonymous No.16494184]

>>16494173
The parenthesis referred to FITTER PARENTS, not to "fitter" in general. Go pray to Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16494187]

If the alphabet was originally in the order QWERTY... instead of ABCDEF... we would have evolved an extra finger by now.

[Anonymous No.16494194]

>>16494184
So how do you define fitter?

[Anonymous No.16494208]

>>16494150
>How do you compare between two animals which one is able to handle their environment better?
evolution isnt about two individual animals, its about the trend that animals which are better adapted have more offspring

[Anonymous No.16494212]

>>16494208
Ok I realize now that you're a troll. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.16494216]

>>16494194
The result of its fitness function is higher than those of its competitors.

[Anonymous No.16494223]

>>16494212
>Can't tell if it's me or another anon.
... You are unfit...

[Anonymous No.16494228]

>>16494212
why would I be a troll

[Anonymous No.16494232]

>>16494039
jesus just how fucking retarded are you?
the premice of the theory of evolution is that genetic recombination (in sexually reproducing organisms) and random genetic errors which are subjected to environmental conditions that create a selective pressure, these mutations accumulate over the span of generations eventually leading to speciation
>systematically make predictions
we are going to see the emergence of new species as old biological niches are freed up due to climate change but it's something that we will observe in at best half a century if not more

[Anonymous No.16494254]

>>16494232
>How do you systematically make predictions? Here, look at my prediction! You're a retard!

[Anonymous No.16494261]

>>16494223
>>16494228
>As for the theory itself, it states that characteristics are inherited from the parents, and fitter parents (meaning those which can handle their environment better) can produce more offspring that get to grow up and reproduce themselves.
So what does "those which can handle their environment better" mean in this context? How is this not tautological?

[Anonymous No.16494298]

>>16494254
i don't understand what is so confusing to you
you can make your own predictions based on the general mechanism of how evolution works which i just mentioned in my post
are you just baiting? i honestly can't tell considering the iq of the posters here

[Anonymous No.16494299]

>>16493908
A scientific theory is the way we humans can explain reality in the most precise way we are able to. If you want to falsify a SCIENTIFIC theory you have to play in the scientific field don't you think? First you need to understand decades of evolutionary research, then you need a big fucking brain to rebuke every tiny detail you can think of just to realize you are decades late to the game, then you need an even bigger brain to make a significan scientific breakthrough just to realize you are helping evolutionary research not falsifying it. Just give up for now seriously, take a metaphysical approach like most /lit/izents, like, is evolution real!? how do you know!!?? is reality really real? How do you know is real!!?? whoaaa!!! You know, and all that jazz.

[Anonymous No.16494319]

>>16494298
There's obviously way more to evolution than the single vague prediction you just made in your post.
Your IQ is not bigger than what you imagine the average IQ on /lit/ to be.

[Anonymous No.16494360]

>>16494261
>So what does "those which can handle their environment better" mean in this context?
that depends on the environment, for example, in a desertlike environment it would mean being able to conserve as much water as possible or in a cold environment it would mean to radiate as little heat as possible

[Anonymous No.16494373]

>>16493936
They could also both be extinct

[Anonymous No.16494379]

>>16494319
as i said you can make any sort of predictions based on the knowledge that gene recombination + random mutation + environmental selective pressure = population variation

[Anonymous No.16494387]

>>16494379
worthless

[Anonymous No.16494397]

>>16494261
>How is this not tautological?
Because we are talking about evolution (across generations) not adaptation (at a single point in time).

[Anonymous No.16494405]

>>16494397
So how do you determine if an animal or a population is able to handle their environment well?

[Anonymous No.16494406]

>>16494373
Or have no difference between them because they all believed in the same Lord and Savior

[Anonymous No.16494417]

>>16494405
Anon, if they exist, it means that they handled their environment pretty well over a few millions of years (at least).

[Anonymous No.16494425]

>>16494387
thanks to this we know that the over use of antibiotics will lead to the spread of a new strains of them that are resistant to antibiotics

[Anonymous No.16494438]

>>16494425
yeah that's how antifa evolved, by letting each retard pass high school with flying colors and then get into harvard

[Anonymous No.16494439]

>>16494425
But this is obvious and common sense. There's no need for any scientific theory to realize this.

[Anonymous No.16494444]

>>16494125

[Anonymous No.16494450]

>>16494439
Yeah that's why the phenomenon of evolution is true, even though naming it "theory" is problematic.

[Anonymous No.16494451]

>>16494417
So then it's tautological. You're saying those who pass on their genes and reproduce are those that pass on their genes and reproduce. What kind of theory is this?

[Anonymous No.16494457]

>>16494451
I didn't say it was a theory, I said it was a phenomenon.
Evolution means that autists like you get drowned in a bucket of piss few months after birth. Think about that before asking stupid questions.

[Anonymous No.16494459]

>>16494439
it's obvious because we have the theory of evolution in the first place
otherwise there would be no reason to conclude the there would be such adapations or that they would spread to future generations

[Anonymous No.16494470]

>>16494444
have you looked at the fucking mandible your retard

[Anonymous No.16494472]

>>16494112
Unless evolution also has a hand guiding it deliberately in a desired direction, that is not a valid experiment at all

[Anonymous No.16494474]

>>16494450
Yes. The phenomenon of animals changing due to environment and mutation in genetics is very real and observable fact.
But clearly many people think there is more to evolution than this fact, that in some way evolution can be considered a science or part of science. I'm trying to understand why they think this. Other people in the wikipedia article about objections to evolution give concrete examples of how it could be falsified (contradicting anons ITT who say it can't be falsified). Is it scientific consensus that it can be falsified or no? If it is, how do you generate predictions or equivalently how do you determine whether X fact will falsify evolution.

[Anonymous No.16494478]

>>16494459
>you need an actual theory to say that if half of the population dies, the rest will multiply
Bucket of piss was your destiny too, although not for autism...

[Anonymous No.16494485]

>>16494459
No but there's no need for any theory. The fact that organisms change because of gene mutation is an observable fact. The fact that antibiotics can create resistant bacteria is directly inferable from this fact.
Where does any kind of "theory" come in?

[Anonymous No.16494521]

>>16494474
>animals changing
The fuck?
>But clearly many people think there is more to evolution than this fact, that in some way evolution can be considered a science or part of science. I'm trying to understand why they think this.
Why didn't you ask this in the first place? It's easy. Today it's politically dictated that all progress is "good" hence all "evolution" is in the positive direction. This way they get away with anything, like pedo Biden and tranny shows featuring 6 year olds.
In reality evolution can go in any direction it wants: "positive," "negative," whatever. That's why the Greeks came up with the idea of BEAUTY and GOOD and TRUTH, so they don't have to solve this problem over and over again. In reality the positive direction is called "eugenics" (which is a science, just as you wished "theory of evolution" was) and the negative direction is called "dysgenics" (the one currently pushed by the globohomo racemixing agenda).

[Anonymous No.16494554]

>>16494451
stop, you don't understand the meaning of the word "tautology" and how it is applied
it's getting really sad

[Anonymous No.16494566]

>>16494478
> if half of the population dies, the rest will multiply
they would all die if there were no mutations that allowed at least one of the to survive in the environment

[Anonymous No.16494572]

>>16494554
>"those who pass on their genes and reproduce are those that pass on their genes and reproduce" is not a tautology

[Anonymous No.16494575]

>>16494554
It's ok man, maybe if we treat him like he's human, he won't become a communist. That should be the number one priority. Number two priority is "no mercy."

[Anonymous No.16494588]

>>16493840
>Follow that over a long time span under a changing environment and you end up with big change.
You are making a big leap here.

[Anonymous No.16494613]

>>16494566
>they would all die
That's not how it works. You generally wipe out between 85% and 99.5% of bacteria. What remains doesn't have to have mutations to multiply (although it most certainly helps). Otherwise antibiotic resistant super-bacteria would have arisen 10 or 15 years after the discovery of penicilin.

[Anonymous No.16494615]

>>16494485
>The fact that organisms change because of gene mutation is an observable fact
yes
> The fact that antibiotics can create resistant bacteria is directly inferable from this fact.
Where does any kind of "theory" come in?
No, you would have no way of knowing that the mutation would have any form of benefitial effect for the survival of the organism.
>Where does any kind of "theory" come in?
It is called that way, but it should rather be called the fact of evolution

[Anonymous No.16494623]

>>16493840
>Follow that over a long time span under a changing environment and you end up with big change.
Most ironically it was communism that proved that that's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.16494626]

>>16494615
So why are there some scientists who think evolution can be falsified?

[Anonymous No.16494643]

This whole thread proves that evolution is fake nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16494650]

>>16494613
>What remains doesn't have to have mutations to multiply (although it most certainly helps)
Which then wouldn't make it antibiotic resistant lmao
>Otherwise antibiotic resistant super-bacteria would have arisen 10 or 15 years after the discovery of penicilin.
Mutations happen often, but since they are random it's very fucking rare for them to have any sort of benefitial effect let alone the specific benefitial effect needed in that context. So it takes a shit ton of time for that coincidence to happen but when it does it spreads quite fast.

[Anonymous No.16494653]

>>16494643
The problem is not finding something fake but finding something non-fake.

[Anonymous No.16494658]

>>16494650
>Which then wouldn't make it antibiotic resistant lmao
Exactly.
>often but rare
Please kill yourself. I am very serious.

[Anonymous No.16494659]

>>16494572
>the people who perform such and such action win the game
>ohhhhhhhhhhh so those who win win but thats a tautology reeeeeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.16494667]

>>16494626
we also have the theory of gravity, and i'd rather call it a fact
you could try to falsify both of them though i think it would be a waste of time

[Anonymous No.16494669]

>>16494659
That's different and not a tautology. A tautology would be
>the people who win the game win the game

[Anonymous No.16494673]

>>16494659
That's why the lefties hate Trump (and generally the USA and the Western World): because they hate winners. Why? Because they are losers. And would remain losers even if they won.

[Anonymous No.16494676]

>>16494658
>>often but rare
>Please kill yourself. I am very serious.
Is it so difficult to read? Mutation happen all the fucking time, but the mutations that are useful are rare.

[Anonymous No.16494677]

>>16494667
You can falsify gravity if you drop something in a vacuum and it doesn't fall.

[Anonymous No.16494682]

>>16494676
Man you agreed with me on both accounts but try to somehow swindle the discussion in your direction. We have enough Jews. Remember what happened the last 109 times we had enough Jews? Enough is enough.

[Anonymous No.16494696]

>>16494669
>the organism that manages to survive long enough to reproduce gets the chance to spread it's genes to the next generation
>win = genes in the next generation
>condition = survive long enough and reproduce

[Anonymous No.16494702]

>>16494667
You're a retard. Theory of gravity gives a set of laws to systematically generate concrete predictions (whether it be Newton's or Einstein's).
There's no such thing in evolution: everything is ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.16494708]

>>16493692
you don't need a fucking book you retard you need a PhD in biology and if you had that you would understand that evolution is 100% true

[Anonymous No.16494714]

>>16494708
Not what I'm asking for, moron.

[Anonymous No.16494717]

>>16494677
>if you drop something in a vacuum and it doesn't fall.
lmao, were the fuck did you heard such bullshit kid

[Anonymous No.16494718]

>>16494677
Indeed my fellow flat-earther

[Anonymous No.16494733]

>>16494702
>There's no such thing in evolution: everything is ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.16494743]

>>16494717
well, if it wasn't a vacuum a wind could have caught it, fellow nigger

[Anonymous No.16494755]

> It's a scientific theory, so it must be able to generate falsifiable predictions, yes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
tl;dr: No.

[Anonymous No.16494766]

>>16494702
you can predict the position of the planets with the theory of gravity
you can predict speciation due to geographical isolation with the theory of evolution
i guess what triggers your autism is that it isn't mathematical enough or that it doesn't happen fast enough

[Anonymous No.16494772]

>>16494755
>a paradox is a theory
You, in the piss bucket too!

[Anonymous No.16494774]

>>16494766
>you can predict speciation due to geographical isolation with the theory of evolution
What things can you predict about the speciation? How do you do it?

[Anonymous No.16494778]

>>16494743
it's still affected by gravity retard

[Anonymous No.16494781]

>>16494766
>mathematical enough
...

[Anonymous No.16494784]

>>16494778
Not if it doesn't fall, retard

[Anonymous No.16494795]

>>16494743
Fucking based

[Anonymous No.16494804]

>>16494774
you will have to look at the specific enironment to see what ecological niches are available to be filled

[Anonymous No.16494810]

>>16494784
google it faggot

[Anonymous No.16494819]

>>16494804
Like what plants could provide a good source for nutrition?
What kind of ecological niches?

[Anonymous No.16494830]

>>16494810
Hey, everybody, this faggot says gravity doesn't exist!

[Anonymous No.16494837]

>>16494819
How beautiful is the sunset

[Anonymous No.16494838]

>>16493692
The prediction would be, given artificially controlled selectors designed to widen genetic differences between a control and experimental population, the experimental population achieves no significant genetic variance from control over N generations.

[Anonymous No.16494858]

>>16494819
yes you would have to look at the available sources of nutrition, potential competition for resources, potential predators, and then you could make the prediction that in a specific environment will emerge a new species of carnivors unless a species from a different location is introduced, problem is that it will take many generations and you can't put a precise date on it because mutations are fucking random so it's impossible to create a mathematical formula for it

[Anonymous No.16494866]

>>16494830
you are the one saying that the object wouldn't fall in a vacuum

[Anonymous No.16494908]

>>16493860
Yes, the fact of evolution cannot be faliafied because it is a fact. However, the theory of evolution by natural selection can be falisfied, because it is a theory.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16494922]

>>16494673
The hate for your big orange daddy has more to do with his being an interloper of the establishment. He’s only superficially an outsider now though. He does as he’s told even though he says what he wants.
The left-liberal media are just following orders to step up the racism rhetoric. In secret Pelosi and the rest of them pass all same plans-as-usual. This is all for the oligarchy that actually rule these people. They win no matter who you vote for.

>Posting deep fake of Artemis
Shame.

[Anonymous No.16494927]

>>16493692
Well most predictions from the theory would be fairly straightforward based on adaptive responses of species to their environment. Look into moths responding to pollution.

[Anonymous No.16495012]

no really a theory. just that things change over the course of an organism's life and in its offspring. biology is incoherent without this, whatever its particulars may be, incrementally creating it. anyone who invokes evolution is likely bullshitting because it will be some darwinistic or evopsych nonsense. on the other hand, the particulars are part of it but don't really invoke it as a whole.

[Anonymous No.16495021]

>>16494922
how does that lead you to vote for bidet?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16495096]

>>16495021
It leads me to not participate in their game anymore. I hate Biden and all the rest. They’re complete tools

[Anonymous No.16495578]

>>16495096
you stink

[Anonymous No.16495603]

>>16494838
With that prediction you're only proving that evolution doesn't exist over N generations. That's like me proving God doesn't exist by spitting on the Bible and not being struck by a lightning.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16495609]

>>16495578
>Vote Biden!
Direct democracy or nothing

[Anonymous No.16495612]

>>16494858
Let's face the facts, there are as many dimensions as subatomic particles (and their states!) in the environment of that animal.

[Anonymous No.16495613]

>>16495096
Based. Imagine listening to the opinions of the incomplete sex.

[Anonymous No.16495618]

>>16495609
>Direct democracy or nothing

Nothing would be preferable to direct Democracy.

[Anonymous No.16495639]

>>16494922
>He does as he’s told even though he says what he wants.
Because if he didn't, your life has no meaning.
Bottom line is that I prefer Russia (Trump) to China & Iran (Bidet). While Russia insists on getting worse, Iran had its chance with Obama and blew it like some Balkan country, while the only things China does is shout RACISM ATOM BOMB RACISM ATOM BOMB while trying to genocide ethnic minorities.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16495651]

>>16495639
>He still believes the discredited Russia-gate sham
Hillary lost because she’s shit. Putin had zero to do with it

[Anonymous No.16495654]

>>16495609
Direct democracy would work only without centralized media. With centralized media direct democracy would be identical to Democrat victory, police abolished, "laws" enforced by Anteefa and having your handler carefully watch over you voting on stuff (and if you mistakenly vote what you shouldn't, he will kindly offer you another chance).

[Anonymous No.16495661]

>>16495651
If anything, Russia was helping Hillary. Are you paid for the disinfo or doing it for free?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16495758]

>>16495654
Hmm. I don’t see any reason why a series of communities would keep a centralized media.
Funny concerns.

>>16495661
The official policy of the US security state is to “contain” and encroach on Russian borders. I’m sure Putin would prefer we overthrow DC. Hillary is a war-hawk

[Anonymous No.16495928]

>>16495758
>Hmm. I don’t see any reason why a series of communities would keep a centralized media.
Because the largest one starts eliminating the rest, you dumbfuck commie propagandist.

[Anonymous No.16495936]

>>16495758
>>16495654
>>16495609
direct democracy is just another term for "untraceable foreign influence" peppered with slavery

[Anonymous No.16496065]

I don't know why we're talking about politics now but evolution is just a way to look at data that we have through observable traits in living things (mammals and reptiles are both animals) and through genomic data (number of mutations and type of mutations in conserved genes like the ones coding for DNA polymerase). Through observable traits and fossils and physical things, there was already a proposed family tree of how organisms evolved, like the tree of life that you see pretty often. Now that we are able to sequence entire genomes and track sequential changes that are still present, the tree that is formed through data is nearly a perfect match to their physical traits. In bacteria, mutations happen fast enough that I leave a plate of antibiotic agar on a bench, within a week or two, some sort of microbe will already have developed a basic tolerance to the antibiotic through random mutations. The whole system of evolution is actually very cool

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16496085]

>>16495928
Oh. You think think they’d keep market capitalism? No no no no. No monopolies in media or anywhere else, thank you.

>>16495936
Not at all possible. The manageably sized community would likely not let those occasional drifters vote, though I hardly see this swaying any measures. As for slavery. No one wants to see their neighbors in chains. The economy to replace market capitalism doesn’t work like that and wouldn’t produce the ugly slavers economy of debt and accumulative currency

[Anonymous No.16496573]

>>16493692
bret weinsntine predicted some evolutionary shit bro and if u arent one of the greatest biological minds of our time good FUCKING luck applying evolution theory to actual predictions u fucking psued "what books do i need to read so that i can be a 0.0001 percentile level scientist, i want to do the impossible that only a few people ahve ever done before" yeah good luck u nonce faggot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16496631]

>>16496085
>You think that they’d*

[Anonymous No.16496682]

>>16493692
white fragility

[Anonymous No.16496712]

>>16494470
Yeah, it's a canine-like mandible. It's just a very old wolf dog not some half wolf half bear mythological fantasy creature like a cockatrice or some shit.

[Anonymous No.16496720]

>>16494643
I've come to the conclusion that the evolutionists know this, and they are altering the accepted meaning of the word and term 'species'.

[Anonymous No.16496735]

>>16496573
Nice attempt at dissuasion, asshole.
>you aren't smart or clever enough so don't you dare even try, just trust the smart ones
Fucking bootlicker swine!

[Anonymous No.16498267]

Should I read Darwin's Descent of Man? I found a nice leather-bound copy and was wondering if its worth reading to day.

[Anonymous No.16498295]

>>16498267
Bro just read it.

[Anonymous No.16498314]

>>16498295
Is it worth $35?

[Anonymous No.16498327]

>>16496720
As soon as natural selection was discovered, it was realised the term “species” is meaningless. The reason that we don’t move past it is because if the idea of the human species is done away with then suddenly ethnic plurality becomes a detriment to societies

[Anonymous No.16498492]

>>16498314
Don't pay for it idiot, just read it and later buy it if you like it.

[Anonymous No.16498494]

>>16496085
>No monopolies
You retard, monopolies are the natural state... all market capitalism does is to create a MARKET, hence an alternative to monopoly, you dumbfuck communist shill
>occasional drifters
What the fuck are you blabbering about, shitbrain? A foreign army commando comes and says he will kill everybody if they dont vote on issue X so-and-so. Probably it's enough to take hostage a single child.
>No one wants to see their neighbors in chains
Oh and what are they going to do about it? Call the police? Get mowed down by machine guns? Or you are one of those retards who thinks guns should be confiscated and only criminals should have them

[Anonymous No.16498501]

>>16498327
>The reason that we don’t move past it is because if the idea of the human species is done away with then suddenly ethnic plurality becomes a detriment to societies
Not to mention that if we move past it, suddenly we realize that the only beings that could be classified as "human" are white people. Not that it's an advantage or a disadvantage.

[Anonymous No.16498605]

>>16498492
Sure, I just wanted to collect it for my library

[Anonymous No.16499312]

>>16498605
yes that is a fair price for a leather bound copy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16499401]

>>16498494
You’re not thinking clearly about this.
Lemme try to layout a path for this.
In order for this to work the masses need to organize themselves, come up with the lifestyle, their socioeconomics completely revolutionized, set this program across the world. It’s adopted because it’s a better alternative. Soldiers defect, nationalists are appeased. The program as I see it consists of direct democracy, in neighborhoods and workplaces, coupled with a non accumulative currency (that can be easily done without among friends. It’s a training wheel currency for a gift economy where no one charges for anything. Needs are just met) a generation of this would be enough to 1, absorb the stragglers, 2, raise children under a drastically different culture.
Can you now image what this world world look like?
What’s a monopoly look like? A small town needs only one cobbler? Alright. He wouldn’t hold a grudge with someone for picking up a pair of shoes in the next town, would he? What could he possibly do if he about it? Go to the town meetings and speak before the 4000 assembled and ask they ban outsider shoes? Why would he?
An “invading army” could only come from a sick capitalist world, or an old feudalist world. What time tunnel they step out of?

[Anonymous No.16499492]

>>16498327
>>16498501
What does the term 'species' mean?

[Anonymous No.16499699]

>>16499401
>Lemme try to layout a path for this.
No.

[Anonymous No.16499758]

>>16499492
Maximal commutative subalgebra.

[Anonymous No.16499769]

>>16499401
In places where there are, for example, three levels of government namely: local, state/provincial, and federal/national, this can be quite effective as a sort of devolution and giving more authority (and with that more responsibility) to the local government.

[Anonymous No.16500465]

>>16493692
The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235362665_The_Mating_Mind_How_Sexual_Choice_Shaped_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature

[Anonymous No.16500517]

The problem for creationists is that DNA analysis put a stake through its immortal heart, destroying its credibility forever, and to this day, even the modern creation-tards omit all reference to DNA in a pathetic attempt to conserve their dwindling numbers of adherents, who, being ignorant, won't notice the difference. Without any understanding of DNA, creationism seems as viable a theory as it did to the superstitious peasants of the 19th century.

tl;dr creationists ALWAYS omit DNA

[Anonymous No.16501473]

>>16499492
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114508/
It's a good one, enjoy!

[Anonymous No.16501479]

>>16500517
>plants & animals have to understand DNA to live
Piss bucket for you too.