/sci/ - Science & Math

Give me the brutally honest answer for what evidence we have of evolution occurring?
>inb4 /pol/
i just want to be informed, if i ever get in this debate, how we can prove evolution did happen

>>10808817
I think they will be a lot smarter than we are

>>10066345
Evolution is such a bare-bones rough outlining of events that there's nothing to refute. There isn't even a consensus for the model outline, and definitely not for what happened within it. Even Plato talked about eugenics so he understood species' change over time. A subconscious understanding of natural selection is written in our genes, that's why we prefer some partners over others. Neo-Darwinism is just stripping away everything else.

>*tokes* what if it was just like .. natural selection and MUTATIONS and then like.. a span of like billions of years and that's how a worm turned into a lizard and that lizard fucked a rabbit that turned into a monkey, and then like a monkey fucked a bigger monkey and then you had a human-monkey

it's a non-explanation at this point.

>>9008276
remember that abiogenesis is inherrently tied to the theory of evolution.

>>8998784

>>8993744
>when evidence shows up that they can't explain, they simply lie about it.

>>8989154
>provides 25 valid arguments against evolution
>tries to trivialize them in a bingo game to avoid actual discussion of these arguments
>being this dogmatically attached to a failed theory, rather than the pursuit of understanding all possibilities.


>applies several no true scotsman fallacies to evolution and abiogenesis , when the former cannot exist without the latter and vice vera.

when both are nonsensical without unobservably vast scales of time and have not once been recorded or observed in nature therefore hold no foothold in reality.

explanations over observations

>>8971841

>>8972433
>>8972450

Is it common practice in science to be wrong but assert that you weren't wrong but rather "miscalculated"?

Has it become a convenience in scientific speculation to reach calculations with figures reaching indescribable/unverifiable distances and time scales to protect validity of the theory?

If a theory utilizes immeasurable time scales and distances can they ever be proven wrong?

Say evolution consensus recently determined homo sapien origins to 500,000 years

new discovery forces consensus to claim evolution of modern humans occured 100,00 years sooner than previous figure.

How do they date the rock cast of bones, and stone tools?


How in anyway can this be verified emperically, except by sifting around the artifact of interest
for organic matter to date to verify a nonorganic material such as a fossil, which is a rock cast from millions of years of organic material being replaced.

I find it strange that with theories such as the big bang which was created by a Jesuit Catholic priest Georges Le Maitre and Evolution, if you simply use large distances and time periods, you can shelter your theory indefinitely even if it doesn't match the reality of new discoveries.

>>8964554
who cares what I say about it, not like it's the bible?

There are no transitional species and Darwin himself states his entire theory rests on the hope they would be found by future generations which hasn't happened except the counless fakes of human ancestors and companies in China and Canada that manufacture dinosaur bones.

I feel like public education and science tv shows fucked up our brains as children when we though we were learning.

41/147

Also if anyone's interested, im a Muslim but i believe in Evolution, evolution was called "The Mohammadenian Theory Of Evolution From Lower Species" before darwin came out. lots of evidence in teh quran.

Obviously evolution is a myth but, on the other hand, evolution is obviously also true. Evolution simply means change. Things change over time so evolution is true. The myth relates to how and how much things change. The devil is in the details as they say. That's where scientists, philosophers and wisemen disagree. If economists using powerful computers can't figure out the economy or weatherforcasters the weather, can you expect scientists is explain what happen eons ago and how it happened. Like pornographers defending their trade angainst moralists and then fighting each other tooth and claw for market share, evolutionists defend the general concept of their theory and then present their costumized version and denounce the others as errant. Over time these theories change as cultures changes. Right now our culture is more interested in social and financial evolution. We've seen a lot of social and financial change lately. We haven't seen a new spieces of man in recorded history. Hitler tried but Nazi blond isn't new!