/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8995890
>And the shellgame continues.
in other words, you don't have any actual response to the fact that evolution doesn't predict what you say it does...

>Anything to back that up, seems like maize was created the way it was, not bred from grass. If this were the case, we'd have (non-hypothetical) transitional forms.
there's a nice archaeological record of early maize, actually.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/13/5019.full
>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17608.long
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352688809382264?journalCode=bpts20
Creationists know that their arguments collapse as soon as transitional forms are presented. for this reason, they expend quite a lot of effort pretending that none exist.

>I understand that you're conflating the two.
you think this only because you don't understand the Law of Large Numbers.
with a sufficiently large sample, recorded probabilities approach theoretical probabilities, so even extremely rare events begin to reliably appear.

>What about overpopulation? Such a standard would leave ecosystems devastated.
it's almost as though a population collapse ends up leaving...FEWER offspring behind.
>It's almost as if they were designed in such a way to prevent that.
funny story, given that population boom/crash events are quite common in ecology. why are all Creationists so thoroughly ignorant of actual biology?

>I myself am not, but I know many other people on here are.
>uh, uh, asking for a friend!
if people have trouble comprehending the number 1,000,000 perhaps they'd be better off on >>>/mlp/ than on /sci/
(that means you)

eagerly looking forward to your explanation of why you don't like the evidence presented.

>>8874128
>He didn't say the sun was made of iron! He said there was a presence of iron isotopes in the sun.
Except he DID say the sun was made of iron. His whole claim is that the photosphere isn't representative of the sun's bulk composition and that its density necessitates that it's made mostly of iron. It's well known that the sun has SOME iron in it; this can be determined from spectroscopy. But what Manuel is claiming goes against all the evidence.
Right there in the abstract, he explicitly rejects "the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun".
Think I'm exaggerating? Check out the author's website:
>http://www.thesunisiron.com/

>invert paleo lab
>intro to trilobites
>"here, take any two of the lab specimens and draw them"
>"make sure to label whatever is visible"
>one student draws tiny vague oval with chicken scratch lines on it
>literally one thing labeled
>text picture of drawing to prof with "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME"

>same course, brachiopod/bryozoan lab
>same deal as before, ickle undergrads just need to identify the specimens and pick any two to sketch
>one student asks me if they're just supposed to copy down the generalized diagram I drew on the board
>no.

>same course, echinoderm lab
>students looking at the display cases around the room to help them identify the lab specimens
>one spots something that looks like what he's trying to identify
>reads the label: "Echinodermata, Crinoidea"
>writes down "Echinodermata"
>NO SHIT IT'S AN ECHINODERM, THESE ARE ALL ECHINODERMS

TAing that lab was pretty crazy, and let me just remind you that these were all upper level students who had previously taken historical geo

>>8653523
if you actually READ the graphs, the one that doesn't have enough data only uses GHCN-M v3.3.0, whereas the one that does also uses ERSST v4.0.0
amazingly enough, if you put more data in, you have more data.

>itt: faggots who can't read graphs and think that makes them smarter than the rest of us

>>8598860
the problem is, it seems like maternal SSRI use might not be the issue so much as maternal depression is. a 2016 meta-analysis found that there's no statistical difference in filial autism rate among mothers who took SSRIs while pregnant and those who took other anti-depressants while pregnant. additionally, they found that if you restrict the sample to mothers with psychiatric disorders, the correlation between SSRI use and filial autism disappears entirely.
in summary, this analysis suggests that rather than maternal SSRI use causing filial autism, they share a common cause (maternal depression).
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623816303033

>>8482526
shut up libtard
the online test told him so, it must be true