/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10399253
Can you imagine finally becoming a sentient race only to find out that your race mimics bird poop?

green ant didnt get spoted by hunter

>>10399253
god btfo eternally. fucking crickets, bro, they put that last nail in god's coffin fuck god, shit is gay

>>10399253
The ones that didn't stand out didn't get eaten. Pretty simple. This is what happens after millions of years of predation

>>10399566
how does it just end up looking like a fuckin leaf though, evolution doesn't have eyes

>>10399572
The ones that didn't stand out didn't get eaten and had more babies. Predators evolve alongside their prey and have more babies if they can detect food that's hiding. After a long fucking time you get things that look like non food items.
Do you have an understanding of time? How long is 200 million years?

>>10399572
but predators do - and they are improving generation by generation too.

hunter bugs that aren't able to tell the difference between a green ant and a leaf will starve, leaving the hunter bugs that can. with only hunter bugs left, green ants need to either start looking a lot more like a leaf or die. repeat until leaf ant.

>>10399572
The last part of your post is probably the issue. We have a lot of inactive DNA, and there's no basis to assume that the nervous system or some other logic doesn't operate to guide some sort of auto-evolution. Via some hardwired metric for how to change, or even a rough plan embedded from the very beginning.

So tired of people resenting the idea of a creator, or thinking standard Darwinian selection is all there can be. I'm not religious, that's exactly why it's frustrating.

>>10399619
>We have a lot of inactive DNA, and there's no basis to assume that the nervous system or some other logic doesn't operate to guide some sort of auto-evolution.
I would like to see any evidence you can produce that supports your theory.

>>10399625
Don't have any. Came up with it as a child and it's stayed in the back of my mind.

DNA has properties of a fractal antenna though, and the assumption that all mutations are equally likely is deeply flawed. So mutation probability has to do with the makeup of the gene itself, the genetic material surrounding it, the placement of the histone groups, and its overall shape and coiling. All of these are mechanisms of control whereby an organism can make certain regions more susceptible to mutation than others, which are more conserved and protected. Some will naturally be more susceptible. Naturally an organism that gained this ability ear on would have a massive advantage. Although, we could say that advantage is the transition to DNA itself. Very different antenna properties than RNA.

>>10399572
ML algorithms don’t have eyes either

>>10399293
Yo.. what the fuck!

>>10399845
The weak should fear the strong.

>>10399633
Their is no assumption that all mutations are equally likely, it isn't necessary for the standard view on natural selection

>>10399619
I'm open-minded but why adopt this point of view when another simpler and more functional one already exists?

>>10399572
>how does it just end up looking like a fuckin leaf though
It's Canadian

>>10399253
At some point something has had it away with a leaf

>>10399253
>a fucking leaf

>>10399253
It's one of the thing we can't explain, right now, without magic or intelligent design.

It's literally impossible that's an organism is-enough aware of his environnement to see a leaf and decide to copy it perfectly.

>>10399301
It's not just green and didn't spoted by hunters, it's literally a LEAF.

Since down the line everything on Earth is related, couldn't you get the information for a leaf from your dna?

>>10400351
It's easy, think of evolution as random mutations over time, you get an insect that is prey and another that is predator. Focusing on the prey one of them will get a look that will make it harder to spot than the rest of its kind, making it more likely for this to pass it's genes, after a while the predator will catch up and the last genotype won't be as useful as it was the first time, but mutations Don't stop and new changes create in ever new generation groups that are easier to spot and those who aren't, those that are easier get eaten, and those who don't reproduce. Repreat this process for a few millions of years and you slowly get insects that look less and less like their original forms and more and more like a local leaf. All according to god's keikaku

>>10400356
Not if it was a mutation posterior to the separation of your lineage, though you could always change genes until they resemble something similar

>>10399633
Bro that's like saying there's a plan to life and the universe because of causality. No shit, it doesn't mean anything though.

>>10399253
You'd know the answer if you understood evolution correctly. Not trying to be mean but the way you asked that question makes it seem like you are trying to show to others why you think evolution is stupid.

>>10400348
>It's literally impossible that's an organism is-enough aware of his environnement to see a leaf and decide to copy it perfectly.

10/10 I'm mad.

>>10399253
just dat natural selection and shiet
lel
i see

>>10400348
>intelligent design.
>see a leaf and decide to copy it perfectly
aren't they the same thing?

>>10399572
There is no choice in evolution you retard

Anything that gets eaten CAN'T pass on its genes, anything that doesn't get eaten CAN pass on its genes. A bug that looks like a leaf is less likely to be eaten than a bug that doesn't, because it can blend in with the actual leaves so predators will pass it by thinking its just a leaf.

It did not choose to look like a leaf, it happens to look like a leaf because the ones that didn't look like a leaf got eaten.

>>10400348
>It's literally impossible that's an organism is-enough aware of his environnement to see a leaf and decide to copy it perfectly

That's some tasty bait

>>10400351
This.

>>10399253

>>10399625
>>10399633
>>10400133
>>10400441
bfy(.)tw/MNWY

>>10400351
So what it's Canadian

>>10399253
Let's compare it to some other of its specifies, many times one trait used for one thing ends up slightly mutated and being highly successful for another thing

>>10400680
*Other relative species
God I'm tired

>>10399253
How God do this?

>>10400774
With uncanny malice.

>>10400774
I assume it gets around similar to the frog fish?
What does it eat?

>was a prominent proponent of intelligent design
anyone know why he changed his tune?

>>10400639
>was a prominent proponent of intelligent design
anyone know why he changed his tune?

>>10401038
>Back in 2005, Dembski wrote a sarcastic blog post on Uncommon Descent, announcing his retirement from ID, due to the ‘rancour and daily vilification'(2) by many critics of his views. Fast forward to ten years later, and again, Dembski announces that he is retiring from intelligent design, only this time it’s no joke.
>In November 2015, he refurbished his website and in his first post noted that ‘In the last few years, my focus has switched from ID to education, specifically to advancing freedom through education via technology.'(3) In a revealing interview with Christian apologist, Sean McDowell he also noted that:
>>With regard to my research, it has shifted quite a bit these days. I’m largely retired from intelligent design. My last serious writing effort on intelligent design was my 2014 book Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information. It encapsulates my two decades work on intelligent design, and I’m not sure I have a whole lot more to add.
designdisquisitions.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/william-dembski-moves-on-from-id-some-reflections/

Because there was nothing left to show those who refuse to see the abundant counter-evidence to the baseless theory of random, mutation driven evolution, as what little evidence has been offered is a farce (fabricated intermediary "missing link" fossils). Truly an overbeaten horse.

>>10401078
Are you for guided evolution or just dismiss evolution?

>>10399253
>>10399572
>>10399619
>>10400348

Natural Selection, brainlets

>>10400667
The chance of any one person winning the lottery is incredibly small, but people still win the lottery.

>>10401101
All I know is the mathematical fact that there isn't enough time in the "official," or any model of the universe to account for even one protein being assembled "from nothing," AKA through chaos.
I formerly believed evolution and creation were perfectly compatible, but the more I researched the actual body of evidence, the more obsolete evolution became as theory. The main tenet of more fit organisms being more successful in reproduction was not an original idea to the theory, and thus it can be disposed of without losing the truth to which it alludes.

>>10401157
>All I know is the mathematical fact that there isn't enough time in the "official," or any model of the universe to account for even one protein being assembled "from nothing," AKA through chaos.
That's wrong.

>>10401157
What is your explanation as to why humans share many characteristics with primates?

>>10400115
This is the will of Zamorak.

>>10401170
Same reason we share much with any creature, convergent evolution? More like one template for all of creation. Simian similarity is just as the word implies, they are behaviorally closest to us, yet undeniably distinct in that what they lack in reasoning aptitude, they make up for with greater spatial memory (trade-off hypothesis.)

>>10399598
>After a long fucking time you get things that look like non food items.
you kind of skipped the part of how that happens though. just saying "its a long ass time" isn't an explanation
>>10399613
>hunter bugs that aren't able to tell the difference between a green ant and a leaf will starve
but how does it START looking like a specific object in the first place. how does a micro organism, or whatever, suddenly decide "looking like a leaf would probably help me survive, I should start doing that"
>>10400556
>A bug that looks like a leaf is less likely to be eaten than a bug that doesn't
well duh, I'm asking how does it even start looking like a leaf

>>10399619
>there's no basis to assume that the nervous system or some other logic doesn't operate to guide some sort of auto-evolution. Via some hardwired metric for how to change, or even a rough plan embedded from the very beginning.
It's called evolutionary pressures, random mutations, and most importantly, sexual reproduction.
Sex allows two "successful" genealogies and to create offspring that inherit traits from both parents, which greatly increases the chance of beneficial genetic changes, which in turn increases the change of continued survival of the genealogies.
The only logic is the logic we use to explain why evolution worked the way it did. Evolution is purely based on chance.

>So tired of people resenting the idea of a creator, or thinking standard Darwinian selection is all there can be. I'm not religious, that's exactly why it's frustrating.
Darwinian selection (when done properly) uses the least amount of assumptions necessary to explain how life became what it is today. Explaining processes that are feasible to occur in nature without any intelligent causes is something that we can test and observe (we have). The only way you can have a creator that is testable is to make the assumption aliens created us. There's no reason to assume that when there are much better explanations based on fewer assumptions.

>>10401231
>you kind of skipped the part of how that happens though. just saying "its a long ass time" isn't an explanation
>but how does it START looking like a specific object in the first place. how does a micro organism, or whatever, suddenly decide "looking like a leaf would probably help me survive, I should start doing that"
see >>10401319 specifically
>It's called evolutionary pressures, random mutations, and most importantly, sexual reproduction.
>Sex allows two "successful" genealogies and to create offspring that inherit traits from both parents, which greatly increases the chance of beneficial genetic changes, which in turn increases the change of continued survival of the genealogies.
>The only logic is the logic we use to explain why evolution worked the way it did. Evolution is purely based on chance.

>>10400667
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

>>10401319
Occams razor doesn't guarantee the correct conclusion. It's a heuristic.

>>10401325
I read it but I'm a retard and don't fully understand. It seems like you guys just keep saying "it receives the most beneficial traits of both parents and since looking like a leaf is beneficial, it starts to look like a leaf" but evolution is mindless, how would it even be aware that leaves exist.
also, while responding to that post
>The only way you can have a creator that is testable is to make the assumption aliens created us.
aliens would still beg the question of who created them though. God is the only answer that doesn't beg that question. Ofc it isn't testable, but using a philosophers definition of a God is the best solution we have

>>10401348
Occam's razor isn't meant to give you the right answer, it just lets you slice away the answers that are almost certainly wrong. An intelligent creator, even without any supernatural assumptions doesn't explain where the intelligent creator came from. On top of that it doesn't even change darwinism anyway, because it has been observed, and could even be used to explain your intelligent creator. Why even assume the creator at that point?

>>10401364
At some point in the genetic lineage that made the leaf bug, there were likely a number of bugs that happened to be born more green instead of whatever color they were before. It was likely a very low amount initially, with most of the green strains dying out, but because enough survived, it allowed for their genes spread, which allowed more and more of the bugs to turn green over countless generations. After a while all the non-green bugs of this species died out simply because the green bugs were less likely to be seen by potential predators.
After all the non-green bugs were gone, that meant predators had to adapt to see the green bugs. Over countless more generations the bugs that had slightly flatter bodies had a higher chance of survival, which let their genes spread until the only ones left were flatter. Over time the more flat and leaf like the bugs were, the more likely they were to survive.
The bugs' survival was so greatly influenced by how much they blended in with their surroundings, that they literally started to look like they leaves they fed on, because anything else would mean certain death.
Of course these are all just assumptions. No one can actually go back in time and look at all the generations of this species to see how they actually evolved, but you're unlikely to come up with a better explanation.

>aliens would still beg the question of who created them
Correct. So it's moot.

>God is the only answer that doesn't beg that question
God isn't testable, making them outside science.

>>10401424
so why is God "not testable so its outside of science" but then you say
>Of course these are all just assumptions. No one can actually go back in time and look at all the generations of this species to see how they actually evolved
doesn't that make it untestable and thus outside of science as well? you literally say "these are all assumptions"

>>10399253
Random mutations and survival of the fittest over vast swaths of time.

>>10401439
>I pretend I understand by repeating common catchphrases

>>10399625
Not him but this sounds pretty similar to this.

https://youtu.be/EFtbwP4UuFM?t=525

>>10401435
No, because assumptions are testable. Science is just a bunch of assumptions people make that have yet to be proven wrong. The assumptions are based on observations we make, such as looking at living organisms, fossils, or how the geology of the Earth was in the distant past.
Assuming there's a God in a higher plane of existence that we do not have access to is something we cannot possibly observe, so everything about them is an assumption based on the word of other people who came before us.
Even if there is a God, and believe, that doesn't have anything to do with science. Saying "God designed this bug to look like a leaf" doesn't tell you anything about how the bug actually started to look like a leaf. God created everything after all, so obviously the leaf bug was too. Science is about explaining.
Even Darwin believed in God.

>>10401435
You can test the individual components of the theory and find it valid without needing to repeat all 4 billion years of earth history in a lab.
There are undeniable facts that lead to the current theory.
Traits can be passed on to offspring.
Traits can be influenced by selective breeding and over generations a drastically different result can occur with the same starting animal.
DNA exists.
DNA codes for various traits of an animal.
Modifying DNA can change those traits.
Some DNA is spontaneously changes, this is called mutation.
These mutations can be passed down to offspring.
Mutations, which act on DNA, also can effect the traits for which DNA encodes.
Some traits are beneficial and others are harmful to the survival of the animal in it's environment.
Animals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce which makes these traits more common.

All of these individual statements can be tested and have been found to be true.

Try to make a list of statements about god that can be tested.

>>10401456
Are you sure you linked the correct video? Because that video is about comic books.

>>10401473
so in what way is the assumptions about the leaf bug testable?

and I'd argue God creating life is observable because we can observe that a life form can only come from another life form. the only exception we have of this law (biogenesis) is God. this is philosophical rather than scientific, but God by "nature" must transcend science. and its impossible to sustain a consistent view of science without some philosophy sprinkled in. I'm not saying God MUST be true, but I'm only saying that hes the best explanation we have.
>>10401495
well all of those are far more simple than the leaf bug example.. Its as simple as "we can breed a dog to have more or less fur based on its environment" but it doesn't necessarily extend to "we can breed something to mimic another species entirely". this hasn't been tested, afaik
>Try to make a list of statements about god that can be tested.
life can only come from life
nothing cannot create something
thats all I got at the moment

>>10401495
>There are undeniable facts
Nothing is undeniable in science. Every observation is prone to error, most actually include a margin of error these days.
Even if you assume we have irrefutable facts however, that doesn't mean we understand them. Quantum physics is the most accurate theory science has ever created, but no one actually understands the implications, such as what the wavefunction is in reality, or if it's even real at all, among plenty of other examples.
Treating science as objective truth is not science. Science is wrong, it's just less wrong than everything else people have come up with.

>>10401534
Neither of those can be tested.

>>10401535
>Every observation is prone to error
How many times do scientists have to observe the existence of DNA to make that error zero?

>>10401540
sure they can, test every life form in existence. did any come from anything other than another life?
test every object in existence. did any of them come from literally nothing?

>>10401555
How do you test those things?

>>10401559
>find life form
>where it come from? another life form?
>do it again for another life form
>repeat over and over and over until you see a trend

>find object
>where object come from? appear from nothing?
>do over and over and over again until you see a trend

>>10401534
>so in what way is the assumptions about the leaf bug testable?
You can look at fossil records, bugs of closely related species that live in different environments, their DNA, etc to make inferences. I'm not a biologist, so I don't know the actual currently accepted theory for how they formed.

>>10401547
DNA didn't lead to darwinism though. Darwinism is just an assumption based on observations of different organisms in their natural environments. Archeology and the discovery of DNA greatly support Darwinian evolution, but they do not prove the theory is the correct one.
It's always good to keep in mind. I don't disagree with your post in general, I just think you're not being careful with the way you're using science to support your argument.

>>10401506
Yeah, I accidentally linked at a bad part but the modernized eternalism aspect was what I attributed to the poster's point. In that when our species is represented through time, it makes sense to have subconscious ideas, instincts, and possibly even evolutionary patterns be passed down in this manner. It relates to superheroes in that when you look at the concept of Superman you have a, well, super man that is capable of solving every problem. Grant Morrison showcases how this is an idea that is ingrained into the 4th dimensional representation of humanity; for example with Pico de la Mirandola philosophizing about aspiring to act like the angels we created and Nietzche's ubermensch, as well as countless other iterations through time.

>>10401567
>You can look at fossil records, bugs of closely related species that live in different environments, their DNA, etc to make inferences.
I'd like to know which of these specifically apply to our leafy friend, but its okay

>>10401562
If I pick up a rock from the side of the road and bring it to you to test how do you test that it didn't spontaneously pop into existence before I got there and picked it up?

>>10401567
>DNA didn't lead to darwinism though.
You haven't answered my question.

>>10401578
by looking at other rocks, and other objects in general. you notice a trend of how things don't pop into existence, so therefore that rock probably did not as well.

>>10401570
That isn't evidence of anything, that's another vaguely related theory based on the works of a fiction writer who enjoys philosophy.

>>10401589
What you seem to be saying is "I don't know what testable means."

>>10401599
ok

>>10401594
Lmao don't worry bro I'm not trying to prove any of it. I think that guy's idea is neat but doesn't line up with reality. I mean fuck, evolution is probably one of the most studied fields out there, I think we would have noticed if we were drastically wrong about how it works by now.

>>10401603
>that guy
I meant >>10399625
I think Grant's ideas line up with reality but have no foundation or support (Would love to be proven wrong tho). You're totally right about him just being a fiction writer that enjoys philosophy

>>10401577
You'd have to ask a biologist. I gave you a general outline that was based on the currently accepted evidence, the most important being observing evolution in real time in the lab.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
I don't know the currently accepted theory of how the OP's leafbug formed. But it almost certainly formed in a similar way to what I outlined.

>>10401584
Depends on how certain you want to be that it's DNA. It will never be perfectly 100% though. Maybe you have a celestially rare micro-structure that looks like DNA, has similar to properties to DNA, but isn't DNA For some reason. You don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule

God knows

>>10401608
we haven't observed evolution on such a drastic scale as the leaf bug though. the e coli is still e coli.
>But it almost certainly formed in a similar way to what I outlined.
bold statement, to follow "I don't really know"

>>10401619
>we haven't observed evolution on such a drastic scale as the leaf bug though. the e coli is still e coli.
You do not need to observe the entire chain of evolution from beginning to present to observe a general pattern.


>bold statement, to follow "I don't really know"
How would you go about proving anything regarding evolution. Proving with 100% certainty, beyond all doubt. Actually don't tell me, go tell a scientific journal, because you'd become immortalized.
Science doesn't "know" anything. It's just very educated guesses. Anyone who says otherwise isn't actually doing science.

>>10401633
>You do not need to observe the entire chain of evolution from beginning to present to observe a general pattern.
so what has been observed then, to imply such a drastic change. be specific, don't just say a general term thats only been observed on a much smaller scale

>>10401608
>Maybe you have a celestially rare micro-structure that looks like DNA, has similar to properties to DNA, but isn't DNA For some reason. You don't know.
>If you haven't checked every animal on earth for DNA you can't know that howler monkeys have DNA
You are arguing from an absurd position now.

>>10401640
>so what has been observed then
The fossil record.

>>10401633
>Science doesn't "know" anything.
F=ma

>>10401652
prove that the fossils are traces of evolution though, and not separate species entirely or deformities

>>10401640
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6426/499

>>10401656
>prove that the fossils are traces of evolution though
You can see the gradual changes in an organism.
>and not separate species entirely
No other species looks like that.
>or deformities
When a deformity is passed down enough it is a trait.

>>10401640
What "drastic change" are you talking about? The bug? I already told you I don't know what scientists believe about the OP's leaf bug. I said that three times now.

>>10401646
This is how science works. Particle physics requires a 99.9999998026825% certainty before physicists are willing to admit they observed something. The line between "observed" and "not observed" is completely arbitrary and depends on the requirements of your experiment.

>>10401679
This isn't particle physics.

>>10401662
they're just changing color. they aren't adopting the shape and texture of the dirt like leafy boi. its still small scale, and plus it didn't adopt a new trait, it always had the genetic variants in its dna.
>>10401665
>You can see the gradual changes in an organism.
only on a very small scale, as I said. we can see a dog gaining more fur in colder environments, giraffes necks becoming longer, etc. I'm still waiting for a large scale specific example thats been observed. if you're gonna say "fossil record" be specific. thats like me saying "no, God did it because research proved it" but explaining nothing
>>10401679
well I'd settle for any drastic change thats been observed. Its just kind of boggling why you're adamantly defending something just because its the consensus despite the fact you say you don't know.

>>10401685
There are only gradual changes.

>>10401697
then why believe the more drastic changes over time? going from long hair to short hair is entirely different from swimming to flying. and don't be a smartass and say "evidence" or something, be specific

>>10401714
Because flying things wouldn't exist if not flying things didn't turn into flying things.

>>10401729
how you know this

>>10401735
Because complex organisms don't pop out of nowhere.

>>10401737
how you know this

>>10401742
It violates entropy.

>>10401682
It doesn't need to be. You can't say anything with 100% certainty however, except maybe "There is existence". Just because the standards for most sciences would allow for a 99.7% certainty to be safely seen as "observed" doesn't mean much, because the certainty is never 100%. There's no such thing in the universe as far as science has shown.

>>10401685
>well I'd settle for any drastic change thats been observed
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=30
Here's a bunch of examples Berkely put together for people to use. This seems to be a good example specifically.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

>going from long hair to short hair is entirely different from swimming to flying. and don't be a smartass and say "evidence" or something, be specific
If we can observe the smaller changes, and have fossils which allow biologists to see how species seemingly changed over time. A fantastic example of this is how the dinosaurs and birds are believed to be related.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

>>10401749
>You can't say anything with 100% certainty
This is a sophism, you aren't arguing in good faith anymore.

>>10401749
If we can observe the smaller changes we can generalize the pattern to situations we can observe. That's what I should have wrote. I don't know how I only wrote half a sentence.

>>10401751
It is. But it's also accurate and correct.

>>10401364
>since looking like a leaf is beneficial, it starts to look like a leaf" but evolution is mindless, how would it even be aware that leaves exist.
Evolution is guided by the environment the lifeform is in.
If it evolved to look somewhat like a leaf, the ones that survived better would be those that look more like leaves which guides the evolution further.

>>10401755
>It is. But it's also accurate and correct.
You cant say that with 100% certainty.

>>10401759
I believe we rationalize our actions after we've already done them. So you're absolutely correct. I can't truly know why I like being so pedantic, I just do.

>>10401748
my own hubris
should have asked for an example of a complex lifeform coming from a simple life form with a specific example of evidence
>>10401749
the galapagos birds still aren't drastic changes. they're still birds.
>Archaeopteryx was recognized as an intermediate between birds and reptiles
but why though. why can't it be considered a separate species entirely? to jump from "birb to intermediate to reptile" is still a fucking massive leap. just because we have a potential intermediate isn't evidence as we're still missing a loooooot of change in between
>>10401757
>If it evolved to look somewhat like a leaf
but how does evolution even know to take that first step towards leafdom? evolution doesn't know that cold exists, longer fur just naturally happens because the short fur variants die. so how do micro organisms starts actively looking like something that they can't comprehend like a fuckin leaf? that seems a lot more guided and conscious than natural selection.

>>10401777
>how does evolution even know to take that first step
It doesn't, mutations are random.

>>10401789
seems like it lucked out pretty hard on the rng then

>>10401777
>but why though
Because it has similar features to both birds and dinosaurs. You know the claw on the back of a dog's leg? That's what they have instead of thumbs. Even whales and dolphins have a similar structure in their fins.
You can compare how organisms are similar and different to infer how the evolution may have happened.

>why can't it be considered a separate species entirely?
Likely because it wasn't convenient to. Taxonomy, the way science names things, is pretty arbitrary. There's no reason to call a dolphin a fish, even though people used to think they were a fish. Dolphins have too much in common with other mammals, so we consider them a mammal, even though they look more like fish than your typical mammal.

>to jump from "birb to intermediate to reptile" is still a fucking massive leap. just because we have a potential intermediate isn't evidence as we're still missing a loooooot of change in between
There was a massive amount of time between dinosaurs and birds too. This one creature is just the first fossil to be found that linked birds to the dinosaurs, and it was in the 1860s. There have been plenty of new discoveries since then, even feathers from a dinosaur.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/

>>10401793
When you roll the dice billions of times it isn't luck if you eventually get a 6.

>>10401806
You got a 6

>>10400264

>>10401805
isn't it still an assumption to assume that similar traits means a common ancestor? especially if we don't have a much more detailed and consistent genealogical line. it sorta sounds like throwing your hands in the air and saying " it isn't much but its all we got". saying "theres millions of years of timespan" just makes the evidence look even less impressive in the greater scheme of species

>>10401868
>sorta sounds like throwing your hands in the air
Time machines do not exist so we can only work with what is left after millions of years buried underground.
You act like there is another way other than to use the evidence available to you to form theories.

>>10401868
>isn't it still an assumption to assume that similar traits means a common ancestor?
Absolutely, but it's an assumption based on evidence. Of course we could be looking at the evidence in the wrong way, and it could turn out they're actually not related at all, but I don't know enough about this field to say why they're so confident.

>saying "theres millions of years of timespan" just makes the evidence look even less impressive in the greater scheme of species
If you can accept smaller genetic changes that happen on human timescales, it isn't a big leap to assume those smaller changes accumulate into greater changes when you have a huge amount of time. You could again argue that we can't say that for certain, and you'd be right, but there's no reason to assume otherwise, and seemingly plenty of reasons to make the assumptions currently being made.

>>10399253
By accident but then it kept reproducing even with evolution continuing to try and constantly kill it off

>>10401339
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
I actually found this link first while searching for the quote about the tornado and the 747; at a glance it seems to refute Hoyle's claims, and while it's true his hypothesis necessarily makes many assumptions to derive the probability, you could use any set of numbers you want, the point still stands solid that the chance of something 'being created randomly from nothing' is not only intuitively unconvincing, but also illogical, revealing ignorance of the miraculous rate at which all evolutionary developments would need to have occurred in order to fit into "the established picture of history." Poking holes in his model is fine, but it quickly devolves into a pedantic lesson of how statistics can deceive, which is hopefully nothing new to a scientific reader.

>>10399253
God designed it that way. Natural selection and random mutations cannot create more complex organisms from simpler ones no matter how much time you give the process. I.e ameobas don't arise from mutated bacteria.

>>10401777
>but how does evolution even know to take that first step towards leafdom?
It doesn't. That's random.

>>10401939
>the miraculous rate at which all evolutionary developments would need to have occurred in order to fit into "the established picture of history."
Change over millions of years is not a rediculous rate. We can get bacteria to evolve in a matter of days by changing the environment they are in.
>b-but bacteria reproduce quickly!
It took a long time for large creatures to evolve and they evolve at slower rates. It's not a problem, you just don't want to see the solution.

>>10399273
kek thanks for the pic

>>10401939
So basically you will post a probability with no argument or critical thought, yet when presented with an argument which shows abiogenesis was highly likely to occur, you ignore it. The only thing you've shown is that you're a hypocrite.