/sci/ - Science & Math

Challenge for evolutionists!!!! 100k $!!!!!100 gees reward!:

to prove to me that evolution is not just mindless hegelian retroactive semantics/mythology but a predictive scientific theory,

1. make a criterium by which you make a:
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT".
100 000$$$$$!!!!!

2. name a scientific discovery or scientific prediction based on evolutionary paradigm like discovering vestigial organs in humans etc. or making a scientificBreaktroughTM that made a good TED talk (inb4-genetics - it already existed before Darwin and can perfectly exists within a YEC paradigm)

>>10671389
footfags BTFO

>>10671382

Reminder that Darwin's Evolution is a metaphor for Woman's Ontology, as distinct from Man's.

>>10671389
1. There really is no distinction physically other than how effective it proves over time and through interaction with other species'

2. TED talks aren't good anyway

$100k pls

>>10671389
>1. make a criterium by which you make a:
>DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT".
>100 000$$$$$!!!!!
A mutation is a change in the genome while a defect is a negative change in function. A mutation does not have to be negative and a defect does not have to be genetic, so they are distinct. How are you going to be paying?

>2. name a scientific discovery or scientific prediction based on evolutionary paradigm like discovering vestigial organs in humans etc. or making a scientificBreaktroughTM that made a good TED talk (inb4-genetics - it already existed before Darwin and can perfectly exists within a YEC paradigm)
OK, long before the mapping of the human genome it was predicted by evolutionary theory that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. This was proven when we found many matching ERVs in the human and chimpanzee genomes at the exact same places. This could only occur from retroviruses inserting themselves into a common ancestor of chimps and humans and then those ERVs being inherited by both. Also genetics was discovered by Mendel after Darwin.

>>10671561
I hope OP hasn't been lying, otherwise he is destined for hell.

>>10671561
>A mutation is a change in the genome while a defect is a negative change in function.
>>10671558
>how effective it proves over time and through interaction with other species'

and how would you falsify that some mutation is or isnt "effective"/"functional" troughout time?

>>10671561
>human and chimpanzee genomes at the exact same places

meh discovery.

>Also genetics was discovered by Mendel after Darwin.

kind of true if you want to split hairs, but hereditary knowledge was here for millenias

Bait post. It’s the same guy that posts retarded shit every few days. Ignore and don’t bump.

>>10671382
Wrong. Evolution is falsifiable. We could observe a population’s allele frequencies never changing over generations.

Delete the thread now.

>>10671382
Do you even understand the basics of evolution? At least amuse us with your low effort bait thread.

Don't bother, this guy is a legit retard who lost to even fucking /lit/

>>10671642
>and how would you falsify that some mutation is or isnt "effective"/"functional" troughout time?
Well look know you're asking me to bring in human conventions of success and apply it to something larger than my comprehension. For example, I would be inclined to answer your question with "attributes that tend to promote the lifespan and reproduction of a species in a positive way over time are effective, while mutations that lead to hardship, predation, or an end of a lineage are not successful" however for all I know true evolutionary success over an extended period of time (way longer than life's already been around) could be best represented by biodiversity or by immortality and thus a lack of need for reproduction. Who knows? Time will tell. But for practical applications of this idea, look at doctors (and even programmers to an extent) that force a disease to evolve into a dead end state.

tl;dr it's usually fairly easy to tell what is and isn't effective but we're too young in our knowledge of the subject to narrow it down to a definitive list of attributes.

>>10671650
What would be the observable difference between evolution as some time dependent stochastic process vs the fine tuning argument for God?

>>10671382
You nigga know Feyerabend

>>10671691
We can observe things evolving but not observe a magical sky fairy tinkering.

>>10671389
>DISTINCTION BETWEEN A "NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP MUTATION" AND A "DEFECT".
a defect and mutation is the same thing and you cant evolve backwards.

Don't quote Sir Karl Popper out of context you fucking mong.
Here's what he really said about evolution:
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]

>>10671661
>Do you even understand the basics of evolution?

stop with these true scottish evolution versions, but try to falsify basic english versions

>>10671679
>Don't bother, this guy is a legit retard who lost to even fucking /lit/

lit is the most perceptive of all boards for this topic since probably are educated enough to understand concepts of falsifaliability and semantics presented as science.
PS-your response was EXACTLY how a person with an evolutionary demon would respond.

>>10671688
>fairly easy to tell what is and isn't effective but we're too young in our knowledge of the subject to narrow it down to a definitive list of attributes.

doctors already made many false calls about human vestigialiarity they retracted - tailbone, appendix, wisdom teeth...all appeared in-effective and useless but turn out crucial for health

>>10671705
>Feyerabend

yes

>>10671747
>We can observe things evolving

you cant, you can actually observe NATURAL SELECTION and then say you observed EVOLUTION which is how fags lie

>>10671759
>a defect and mutation is the same thing

what are implications to medicine then?

>and you cant evolve backwards.

what is "backwards" and "forwards" in evolution?

>>10671770
>Don't quote Sir Karl Popper out of context you fucking mong.

He had to cuck to keep his academic position, all academics do that. I forgive him.

>

It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]

>

This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements. [Popper, 1957, p. 143ff]

>>10671782
>He had to cuck to keep his academic position, all academics do that. I forgive him.

[Darwin's] theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached. [Popper 1976, p. 172]

>>10671770
>>10671783
>>10671787
>Popper quotes

out of all his cuckold retractions, where does he explain his dramatic change of positions and demonstrates that evolution can infact be falsified?

>>10671790
>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]

>>10671759
>a defect and mutation is the same thing

acording to evolution it is, the "defect" comes from a creationists paradigm actually, but what do we do with people that are born with "bodily differences" then?

>>10671782
>Laser Spine Institute pic
fun fact; the company shut down and (nobody knows yet afaik) the building just had a huge water leak on Friday.

Stop replying. Stop bumping. Let the troll die.

>>10671800
>>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]

he doesnt give ONE example on how you could try falsifing evolution so on what basis did he changed his position? Or did he just cucked to the (((academic))) peer pressure? what a pussy lol! His retraction has the intellectual credibility of his politics.

>>10671808
>Im a dumbass and think that epistemiology is a french word for a salad

>>10671806
>fun fact; the company shut down and (nobody knows yet afaik) the building just had a huge water leak on Friday.

spooky!

>>10671814
>Triple parentheses

Thanks for helping out the janitors.

>>10671790
You are the cuckold here because you named yourself Popperian but you don't know his true position and you are unable to apply his analysis to the theory of evolution.

Last year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to a scientist who used directed evolution in enzymes. How can they do that if evolution is not predictable?

The evolution of multicellularity from unicellular organisms was achieved once in algae and the other from yeast in response to predation. It was formulated that this mechanism (response to predartion) was involved in the evolution of multicellularity. Again, how can this happen if evolution is untestable?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30787483
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277146/
http://www.snowflakeyeastlab.com/experimental%20evolution.htm

>>10671389
>name a scientific discovery or scientific prediction based on evolutionary paradigm like discovering vestigial organs in humans etc. or making a scientificBreaktroughTM that made a good TED talk (inb4-genetics - it already existed before Darwin and can perfectly exists within a YEC paradigm)

next year's influenza virus will be immune to this year's vaccine because of natural selection.

>>10671818
>You are the cuckold here because you named yourself Popperian but you don't know his true position

I know his true position, its:
1. evolution is semantics/historiography
2. I want to be a professional academic

guess how he tried to make peace with those 2?

>How can they do that if evolution is not predictable?

abserve natural selection, call it evolution, already used trick like with longterm esch coli exp.

>>10671838
>next year's influenza virus will be immune to this year's vaccine because of natural selection.

you proved natural selection, wow! Kent Hovind approves as well, where is the proof of evolution?

>>10671389
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2

>>10671818
>>10671853
>I know his true position, its:
>1. evolution is semantics/historiography
>2. I want to be a professional academic

unlike pic rel big brain nibba that call bs on ass kissing cult of academia altogether

>>10671389
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_alignment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project#Genes_of_the_Chromosome_2_fusion_site

>>10671853
Natural selection results in changes in allele frequencies over time. That’s evolution. You’ve admitted evolution is real

Please stop with the trolling.

>>10671862
O.K. it's over you went too far with the trolling... I was responding to you to because someone else might read this and wonder why you aren't getting any replies
It's always funny when people like you try to use philosophy of science to discredit science

>appendix is vestigial since evolution tells me so, isnt science great?
>lets remove it by operations even if it isnt inflamed
>turns out its of major importance in gut bacteria
>appendix is an evolutionary adaptation, isnt evolution great!!!????

are these people the biggest group of catch 22 cultists that ever lived?

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

>>10671872
>Natural selection results in changes in allele frequencies over time. That’s evolution.

Kent Hovind doesnt deny natural selection. Do you know what is the difference between a sufficient and necessery logical proof?

>>10671858
>>10671871
how would you react if I post a bunch of links of creationist sites without explaining?

>>10671881
Vestigiality only means it’s lost a prior function. Doesn’t mean it’s useless.
Why do you keep lying?

>Kent Hovind doesnt deny natural selection.

Then he believes in evolution, and just doesn’t like the word.

>>10671814
>spooky!
not even conspiracy theory-tier. Something in the penthouse (usually owned by the building owner and operated by a maintenance worker under the owner, in this case I believe its Highwoods) leaked and ran down through the bus duct (the metal bar that runs through all 7 floors and gives them power). The only conspiracy is why HW doesn't keep up on regular maintenance on their buildings and waits until shit breaks before trying to fix it (hint: maintenance costs money they don't wanna spend)

>>10671887
>Vestigiality only means it’s lost a prior function. Doesn’t mean it’s useless.

Oh, I see, bats with unfunctioning eyes are a proof of evolution, but at same time those eyes serve some new function youll name post-hoc?

>>Kent Hovind doesnt deny natural selection.
>Then he believes in evolution, and just doesn’t like the word.

I cant hold a rational conversation with you unless you can deal with basic logics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

>>10671908

>>10671642
>and how would you falsify that some mutation is or isnt "effective"/"functional" troughout time?
Why would I need to do that? The only one who claimed mutations are the same as defects was you. I simply explained the difference between the two concepts. A mutation can have no phenotypic effect on the organism at all, which by definition is not a defect. Now how will you be paying me?

>meh discovery.
So the fact that humans and chimps must share a common ancestor is meh?

>>10671908
>Oh, I see, bats with unfunctioning eyes are a proof of evolution, but at same time those eyes serve some new function youll name post-hoc?

1. Never said vestigiality was “proof” of evolution. You lied again, as you love to do.
2. Vestigial organs don’t have to have a new purpose, only said that they could. You lied again, as you love to do.
3. Bats have good eyes

If God made an animal that didn’t use eyesight, why’d he give it eyes at all instead of removing them?

>I cant hold a rational conversation with you unless you can deal with basic logics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

You can’t hold basic conversations because you’re dishonest and only post bait. Believing that allele frequencies change over generations is believing in evolution by definition.

>>10671926
Hovind has this silly definition of evolution where he thinks it only happens "within kind" but then he got BTFO by ring species

>>10671382
You're right - the evolution of species to adapt to their environment is an observation.
The process of natural selection is the best theory that explains this observation.
And it's one of the most strongly supported scientific theories that's ever been developed.
And if you don't think it's valid, that simply means you are too stupid to understand it or too dense to look into it.

>>10671933
What the fuck’s a “kind”? That’s a word I’d use to talk about clades to my toddler daughters. “Oh weasels are a different kind of animal than rats.”

>>10671933
What the hell does Hovind know? He claims the earth is 6000 years old because it says so in the bible... he's not against evolution he's against all science
So much for Popper. God damn...

>>10671782
>doctors already made many false calls about human vestigialiarity they retracted - tailbone, appendix, wisdom teeth...all appeared in-effective and useless but turn out crucial for health
You're confused. Calling the coccyx a vestigial tail does not imply that it has no function, it means that it lost its original function of adjusting balance and mobility via a tail. It still serves a secondary function as an attachment point for muscles, which is why it was not lost completely. Creationists frequently assume that vestigial means useless when it doesn't.

>you cant, you can actually observe NATURAL SELECTION and then say you observed EVOLUTION which is how fags lie
Please explain how natural selection is not evolution.

>>10671916
>The only one who claimed mutations are the same as defects was you.

not me, I claim that there isnt proof for mutations into different "species" but that there is proof for defects.
With evolution there is no way by which you can make a distinction between a defect and mutation into different "species" >>10671759


>So the fact that humans and chimps must share a common ancestor is meh?

we share common genetics with plants as well, not a big deal unless you jump conclussions

>>10671926
>1. Never said vestigiality was “proof” of evolution. You lied again, as you love to do.

then make sure your evolutionists friends remove that fallacy, would you?

>2. Vestigial organs don’t have to have a new purpose, only said that they could. You lied again, as you love to do.

so you are right in case you confirm a hypothesis and even if you reject it. This isnt honest science.

>3. Bats have good eyes

they do, so why did they claimed up until a few years that bat eyes are vestigial

>Believing that allele frequencies change over generations is believing in evolution by definition.

I can show you the same kind of mice that changes allele freq over generations, if you think that is sufficient proof of evolution you are simply a self lying dumbass.


>>10671957
>Creationists frequently assume that vestigial means useless when it doesn't.

*Evolutionists

Ive yet to find proof of a creationists proposing to remove an uninflamed appendix.

>>10671790
Of course it can be falsified by observing that a population's genome stays the same.

>>10671965
>observing that a population's genome stays the same.

but populations genomes never stay the same...joke is that that observation proves YEC as much as evolution...

>>10671962
>then make sure your evolutionists friends remove that fallacy, would you?

What fallacy? Vestigiality is supporting evidence for speciation.

>so you are right in case you confirm a hypothesis and even if you reject it. This isnt honest science.

I’m unable to decipher this.

>they do, so why did they claimed up until a few years that bat eyes are vestigial

Who did so in what books or papers? Maybe some species of bats have eyes that became reduced but to my knowledge they’ve instead adapted for low-light conditions, unlike moles who have tiny and weak eyes.

>>10671962
>I can show you the same kind of mice that changes allele freq over generations

That’s evolution.

> if you think that is sufficient proof of evolution you are simply a self lying dumbass.

Empty ad hom

>>10671972
YEC and evolution aren’t even incompatible so I have no idea why you’re contrasting them.

>>10671976
>That’s evolution.

so I dont need to prove that we were evolving for 5 billion years and that by natural selection species change dramatically, just natural selection is enough?

>>10671980
>YEC and evolution aren’t even incompatible

true. I meant to say that you have necessery but not sufficient proof.

>>10671986
>so I dont need to prove that we were evolving for 5 billion years

That’s older than the earth. Proving we were evolving for longer than it has existed sounds like a real struggle.

>and that by natural selection species change dramatically, just natural selection is enough?

Natural selection and sexual selection acting on entities with malleable genomes constitutes evolution, yes.

>>10671976
He accepts evolution without knowing, that's a given his problems are speciation and common ancestry

>>10671997
>That’s older than the earth. Proving we were evolving for longer than it has existed sounds like a real struggle.

then tell me how much is enough?

>Natural selection and sexual selection acting on entities with malleable genomes constitutes evolution

wow we are getting somewhere, so it is necessery, but is it sufficient to prove evolution? >>10671926
>Believing that allele frequencies change over generations is believing in evolution by definition.

>>10671801
>what do we do with people that are born with "bodily differences" then?
nothing because what would we even do?
>>10671782
>what are implications to medicine then?
nothing
>what is "backwards" and "forwards" in evolution?
its exactly what you would think it is and it doesnt exist because evolution is only adapting to an environment and there is no final optimal species to become

>>10672003
>then tell me how much is enough?

Enough what?

>wow we are getting somewhere, so it is necessery, but is it sufficient to prove evolution?

Yes, retard.

100k is still up for grabs so Ill make another challenge:

3. make a (falsifiable) evolutionary prediction

>>10672006
>nothing because what would we even do?

try healing them if a state is making them unhealthy, but since you support medicinal agnosticism I guess we shouldnt do anything

>its exactly what you would think it is and it doesnt exist because evolution is only adapting to an environment and there is no final optimal species to become

so what scientific/predictable use does theory have?

>>10672015
>>wow we are getting somewhere, so it is necessery, but is it sufficient to prove evolution?
>Yes, retard.

you just admitted that you have necessery but dont have sufficient proof, do you know what does that make you? You dont even seem to know what I just asked you, so tiresome...

>>10672028
>3. make a (falsifiable) evolutionary prediction

Humans will become diseased with the common cold multiple times over their lifespan due to antibodies being insufficient to combat the rapidly mutating genomes of the viruses that cause the sickness.

>you just admitted that you have necessery but dont have sufficient proof

Nope. Said the opposite, so I’m curious why you’re lying when everyone can read what was said and see that you just lied.

>>10671962
>not me, I claim that there isnt proof for mutations into different "species" but that there is proof for defects.
There is proof though. Chimpanzees and Humans are different species with different genomes but must have come from a common ancestor since they have many matching ERVs in the exact same spots. Thus the genome of the common ancestor mutated into two different species. If you claim this common ancestor was human then humans mutated into chimps and if you claim this common ancestor was chimpanzee then chimpanzees mutated into humans. Or it was some third species that mutated into humans and chimps. So one species mutating into another is proven.

>With evolution there is no way by which you can make a distinction between a defect and mutation into different "species"
You never said anything about different species in your original question. I already told you, a mutation can have no phenotypic effect at all, which means it can't be a defect, which means mutations are not the same as defects. Now how are you paying me my $100,000?

>we share common genetics with plants as well, not a big deal unless you jump conclussions
It's not simply sharing genetics. You can only get a matching ERV if you have a shared ancestor infected by a retrovirus which then passed the same genetic code to offspring. That's because where the retrovirus inserts its code is random. The chances of two unrelated organisms having the same codes placed in the same places randomly is too low to occur. You can say an intelligent designer designed everything off the same basic genetic code, but there is no reason why a designer would have retroviruses place the same code in two unrelated organisms in the same place.

ERVs are not an assumption of relation, they are hard proof of relation.

Removing the appendix does not imply it's useless, it implies the risk is greater than its function. You fail at basic logic.

>>10672033
>Humans will become diseased with the common cold multiple times over their lifespan due to antibodies being insufficient to combat the rapidly mutating genomes of the viruses that cause the sickness.

this is a YEC prediction as well, Im asking for a uniquely evolutionist prediction...not that you would understand.

>Nope. Said the opposite, so I’m curious why you’re lying when everyone can read what was said and see that you just lied.

then you are even a bigger imbecile that I thought if you claim that natural selection is sufficient proof.

>>10671972
>but populations genomes never stay the same
But they would if evolution was false. Thanks for admitting that evolution is falsifiable.

>>10672040
>this is a YEC prediction as well

In a YEC belief system that allows for evolution, yes.

>Im asking for a uniquely evolutionist prediction

Meaningless.

>then you are even a bigger imbecile that I thought if you claim that natural selection is sufficient proof

Insults aren’t an argument. GG.

>>10671986
>so I dont need to prove that we were evolving for 5 billion years and that by natural selection species change dramatically, just natural selection is enough?
You don't need to do that to prove evolution, no. The fault is solely in your incorrect usage of the terms you're arguing against. Once you admit evolution occurs we can move on to discussing the age of the Earth and speciation.

>>10672028
>100k is still up for grabs so Ill make another challenge:
No it isn't, I answered your question and you have yet to pay me.

>>10672039
>Chimpanzees and Humans are different species with different genomes but must have come from a common ancestor since they have many matching ERVs

one could claim that God made those genes similar to glorify himself...

>which means mutations are not the same as defects. Now how are you paying me my $100,000?

give me the differential criteria first.

>The chances of two unrelated organisms having the same codes placed in the same places randomly is too low to occur.

Possible, but arent the chance of live evolving small as well?

>Removing the appendix does not imply it's useless, it implies the risk is greater than its function. You fail at basic logic.

I dont, dont worry, but your friends that made that claim do.

>>10672041
>>10672043
same retard detected.

>>10672048
>Once you admit evolution occurs we can move on to discussing the age of the Earth and speciation.

I admit that NATURAL SELECTION occurse (why do you call it evolution?), earth age ok fine, but give me ONE proof of speciation.

>>10672052
>No it isn't, I answered your question and you have yet to pay me.

semantic manipulation is not scientific proof.

>>10672054
>same retard detected.

Not an argument, and not even correct.

>but give me ONE proof of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

>>10672054
>one could claim that God made those genes similar to glorify himself...
How does it glorify God?

>give me the differential criteria first.
I did already. Mutations don't have to be negative and defects don't have to be genetic.

>Possible, but arent the chance of live evolving small as well?
Based on what calculation?

>I dont, dont worry, but your friends that made that claim do.
Who exactly made the claim?

>same retard detected.
Wrong.

>I admit that NATURAL SELECTION occurse (why do you call it evolution?), earth age ok fine,
Natural selection is evolution. Natural selection is a change in a species genome due to the environment only allowing members with certain genes to survive. Evolution is a change in a species genome.

>but give me ONE proof of speciation.
I already did, ERVs.

>semantic manipulation is not scientific proof.
What semantic manipulation? Your question was not even an empirical one so demanding scientific proof makes no sense. A mutation does not imply anything about function and a defect does not imply anything about genes. Thus they are different by definition.

>>10672054
>one could claim that God made those genes similar to glorify himself...

>>10672075
You are not arguing in good faith here, I wont answer the questions where you are playing dumber than you are like not knowing what probability is etc...which is EXACLY what a person with an evolutionary demon would say. Either way, you dont get the 100k faggot!

>>10672075
>Evolution is a change in a species genome.

is Downs syndrome evolution?

>>10672099
>You are not arguing in good faith here
How?

>I wont answer the questions where you are playing dumber than you are like not knowing what probability is
I know what probability is, I'm asking what calculation told you the chance of life evolving is small.

You still haven't explained how my answer is a "semantic manipulation" so it appears the only one arguing in bad faith is you.

>>10672099
>not arguing in good faith
Oh the irony
And probability isn't an argument against evolution make an actual argument and I'll tell you why.

>>10672103
>is Downs syndrome evolution?
Downs syndrome is caused by a mutation, but it's not evolution. An example of evolution would be Downs syndrome becoming more prevalent in humans.

>>10672103
>is Downs syndrome evolution?

Yes.

>>10672112
A change at the level of a single organism are not evolution. This is a common misconception.

>>10672105
>I'm asking what calculation told you the chance of life evolving is small.

both can play that game. probably the same one that told you this>>10672039
>The chances of two unrelated organisms having the same codes placed in the same places randomly is too low to occur.

>>10672111
then he made a bad definition didnt he?
what about this answer?>>10672112

100k still up!

>>10672116
>A change at the level of a single organism are not evolution. This is a common misconception.

They’re not infertile, and can pass down traits. They just rarely do because of sexual selection.

>>10672125
Yeah but that doesn't respond to my point. A person having Downs syndrome doesn't mean the prevalence of Down's syndrome has changed in the population over multiple generations, which is what evolution is.

>>10672120
>both can play that game. probably the same one that told you this>>10672039
LOL no, it's much more simple. There are 3 billion locations for an ERV to insert its code. So the chance of the same retrovirus randomly inserting into the same place in two organisms is 1/3,000,000,000. There are tens of thousands of these shared ERVs between humans and chimps, so the probability of all these matching is at least 1/3,000,000,000^10,000.

Now please tell me how you calculated the chance of life evolving.

>then he made a bad definition didnt he?
Who? If you don't want to use the common definitions of words then you should explicitly state their definition.

>what about this answer?>>10672112
It's wrong.

And you have yet again failed to explain how my answer is wrong. You owe me $100,000.
It's wrong.

>>10672153
>Now please tell me how you calculated the chance of life evolving.

its 1:(very big number which is way bigger than yours since many mutations and 5 billion years).

>>10672167
You've provided the odds of life evolving exactly the same as it did today but what are the odds compared to it evolving slightly differently, or completely differently. You only think the odds are low because you see only one result as "winning" when in fact there are almost infinite possible results so the odds in fact aren't low at all.

>>10672175
Early life was incredibly simple, there are a few competing hypotheses e.g. metabolism first, reproduction first or compartmentalization first. The best bet is 1 & 3 combined i.e. RNA world hypothesis

>>10672167
>its 1:(very big number which is way bigger than yours since many mutations and 5 billion years).
If I flip a coin 50 times then the probability of getting the result I got is 1/2^50. But this does not imply anything about whether the coin was flipped randomly since any random result has the same chance of occurring and there is nothing special about the particular sequence we got. It's not the particular sequence of matching ERVs that proves a common ancestor, it's the amount of ERVs. The probability of getting 50 results if you do 50 flips is 1.

>>10672167
If you don't mind I have some quick questions about your version of creationism not to argue over but so I can see what's popular these days.
1. are you a young or old universe creationist? did God poof everything into existence 6000 years ago, or did he poof the big bang into existence then watch it all happen?
2. You accept natural selection and changes in species over time. Does this mean you believe God poofed the genetic ancestors of current life at the same time. Or did he do them one at a time over the course of history over the earth?
3. Do you see current ring species as evidence for god separating species today?
(populations of rabbits and salamanders have been observed that have diverged into subspecies that cannot interbreed and therefore by convention they would generally be considered a different species.)

Faggot, otherwise known as "OP":
Did you know that evolution works on the scale of millions of years?

>>10672283
Im more of an exposer of circular thinking than am a creatonist, but Ill try answering:
1.what is old earth creatonism? Im probably YEC.
2.not sure
3.not familiar with term "ring species"

>>10672344
>Did you know that evolution works on the scale of millions of years?

that means you cant prove it to me cant you? how convinient! Maybe I can help you out, how much is million(s) in terms of generations?

>>10672483
I'm not interested in proving anything, especially to you retard. All I can do is point to the evidence, as others have done in this thread. But your unfamiliarity with certain terms and ignorance of philosophy and scientific literature is not my problem. People like you have a rebuttal for everything but that doesn't mean it's a good rebuttal.

Anyways, since you accept natural selection which causes a change in the allele frequency of isolated populations. If those populations are subject to different selection pressures, divergent evolution occurs over long periods of time and speciation is inevitable.
This is as simple as it gets. You can't argue your way around this.
Ring species is when:
A can mate with B
B can mate with C
C can mate with D
but A cannot mate with D

ergo Speciation with a capital S.
Now fuck off retard.

>>10672587
>All I can do is point to the evidence, as others have done in this thread.

Hey imbecile, is world existing scientific proof that God created world in 6 days?

>Anyways, since you accept natural selection which causes a change in the allele frequency of isolated populations.

correct

>If those populations are subject to different selection pressures, divergent evolution occurs over long periods of time and speciation is inevitable.

you are just half-read, if you were un-read or properly read on the subject you would have wisdom, but half-baked opinions from half-read people are by far the most dumb and over-confident.
>we observed human height rising from early puberty to age 25 ergo it will rise until the end of human life

fck imbecile.

>>10672632
>What is the fossil fucking record

>>10671382
You're right, evolution isn't a scientific theory. The word refers to the observable fact that animals change over time. A theory of evolution attempts to describe how that happens. YECism doesn't attempt to explain the data we have, and is therefore not a scientific theory. First we had Darwin and Natural Selection, and now advances in genetics have led us to genetic based theories.

>>10671382
You can't falsify it /= it is unfalsifiable.

Evolution makes a number of predictions, such as the distribution of species in the fossil record, and these predictions are born out every time.

You could make a better case for Darwin's specific explanation of how natural selection works to bring evolution about, I guess. But the fact that species evolve over time is so strongly established now that you just sound stupid pretending that it is not.

>>10671814
>he doesnt give ONE example on how you could try falsifing evolution


I will.

You could show that the same species persist throughout the fossil record, with no changes within species over time nor emergence of new species.

Do that, and you have totally falsified the theory that species evolve over time.

Get digging: so far, though, the results have not been encouraging for you. But there are lots of fossils still in the ground, maybe you can find the Iguanodon buried with a zebra, and force those bad old scientists to admit you were right all along.

>>10672643
Fucking is not among the few behaviors that really fossilize well.

Fuck off, you get btfo every thread you make. I remember replying and getting a quad in this same thread 1 or 2 years ago. You still don't know shit about biology. Sad. Why don't you fuck off with your lit bullshit and kys?
Keep blabbering semantics , we scientists will keep doing what we do, developing cures and discovering knowledge, all thanks to the evolution theory.
Saged, faggot

>>10672632
>Speciation stops like growth
What stops speciation from happening?

And speciation was already proven to you by shared ERVs so keep in mind that whatever bullshit you come up with is already known to be false.

>>10672997
>Evolution makes a number of predictions, such as the distribution of species in the fossil record, and these predictions are born out every time.
The only falsifiable prediction evolution makes is that a 100%-altruistic species can't live for more than a few generations. If any anomaly in fossil record was found, the timescales would be revised but evolution would be kept.

Evolution isn't a theory. It is one of biology's few laws. That being said it is just as falsifiable as Thermodynamics or Gravity. However it is a lot more complex, since life is a combination of chemicals and energy transfer, which in turn have their own rules (like the aforementioned thermodynamics). And like any other field of science it can be broken down and understood with math. Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable (with our current knowledge), and currently unproven (with our current techniques), so if you want to attack something, attack that.

>>10673240
>And speciation was already proven to you by shared ERVs

I didnt understood anything about that argument. Proving any similarity is very far from causal proof.

>>10673006
>But there are lots of fossils still in the ground, maybe you can find the Iguanodon buried with a zebra, and force those bad old scientists to admit you were right all along.

that wouldnt prove nothing, neither wood le rabbito in precambrion. Its perfectly thessible within the evolutionary paradigm that a rabbit appeared and disapeared in precambrion.

>>10673033
>developing cures and discovering knowledge, all thanks to the evolution theory.

if evolution paradigm wasnt a thing, ALL scientific knowledge would be the same if not enhanced. It serves no scientific purpouse, its just decorative and posthoc story, like mythology. You discovered jack shit withhelp of evolution, you just decorate what you discover with evolution. Know the difference.

>>10673240
>And speciation was already proven to you by shared ERVs

you just found a correlation you want to interpret as you wish, dont you think that experimental proof of speciation (that btw flopped with longterm esch coli exp) is in order to make the conclussion you want to make?

>>10671650
Uh oh. Someone has actually taken a biology class ITT and isnt just talking out of his ass like most of you

>>10673698
All these people explaining evolution are kind of boring, I'm much more interested in what you believe and why. I've been on the fence about evolution for a while so I'd like to hear some opposing viewpoints.

>>10673761
what specifically interests you, Im just into philosophy of science and tried testing out how it works out on evolution - there are plenty of unfalsifiable pseudoscience theories in mainstream science, great example is evolutionary psychology.

Your main rationale on detecting them is how much new discovery they bring forward pre-hoc, not what they claim post-hoc.

>>10671382
One massive flaw with it is thinking that evolution only caters to positive influences, however, traumatic influences can also change DNA.

>>10673698
>I didnt understood anything about that argument.
Maybe this video will help:

https://youtu.be/TUxLR9hdorI

If you don't understand this then you are relying on an argument from ignorance.

>Proving any similarity is very far from causal proof.
It's not simply based on similarity, it's based on the fact that matching ERVs can only be inherited from a common ancestor. You can argue that a designer made everything from similar genes, you can't argue that a designer added code from a retrovirus to two unrelated species in the same place for no reason.

>>10673705
>you just found a correlation you want to interpret as you wish
There is only one causative explanation for matching ERVs. Please give me your alternative interpretation so I can have a good laugh.

>dont you think that experimental proof of speciation (that btw flopped with longterm esch coli exp) is in order to make the conclussion you want to make?
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate the form of your opponent's proof. It's time to put up or shut up. Either counterargue or admit speciation occurred.

>>10674092
He could say, that's why it's unfalsifiable bullshit, you can always say the designer made whatever, even if it's counterintuitive

>>10672632
>we observed human height rising from early puberty to age 25 ergo it will rise until the end of human life

If you think this analogy is fitting, you believe that there is some barrier to genetic divergence at some point.

What is that point? Where is it? Why does it exist, and what evidence do you have of it?

>>10673852
So you don't actually have any beliefs of your own, you just are critical of others?

>>10671382
there is plenthora of proofs for evolution you dummy

>>10674241
Then he would be contradicting his demand for falsifiability of evolution.

>>10674354
He wouldn't, if he set it apart from science, then it wouldn't need to be falsifiable, while evolution being science would need to be

>>10674379
That's called special pleading. It also leaves evolution standing as the superior explanation.

>>10674106
>There is only one causative explanation for matching ERVs.

Says you based on current level of knowledge without being able to experimentally demonstrate speciation. I look more into ERVs, or can you give me some kind of tldr about ERVs - asking in good faith.

>Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate the form of your opponent's proof. It's time to put up or shut up.

crux of evolutionary proof is being able to demonstrate speciation the way we can demonstrate natural selection. If esch coli long term exp had demonstrated that after 60k generations I wouldnt even start these threads.

>>10674354
>>10674379
>>10674241
>that's why it's unfalsifiable bullshit, you can always say the designer made whatever, even if it's counterintuitive

I wouldnt, what he said is falsifiable, but not sufficient proof until we demonstrate speciation.

>>10674106
OK, found it, here you said about ERV>>10671561
>This could only occur from retroviruses inserting themselves into a common ancestor of chimps and humans and then those ERVs being inherited by both.

since you know more about it than I, I ask in good faith, why is the only possible explanation that we have a common anscestor? Couldnt the ERV similarity between humans and chimp be causes and explanied by something else?

>>10674959
>Says you based on current level of knowledge without being able to experimentally demonstrate speciation.
Everything we say is based on our current level of knowledge, this is not an argument for anything. And speciation has been demonstrated experimentally many times: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

>I look more into ERVs, or can you give me some kind of tldr about ERVs - asking in good faith.
Did you watch the video?

>crux of evolutionary proof is being able to demonstrate speciation the way we can demonstrate natural selection.
The fact that humans and chimpanzees must have a common ancestor is a much more dramatic display of the evolutionary big picture than any observed speciation.

>I wouldnt, what he said is falsifiable, but not sufficient proof until we demonstrate speciation.
It demonstrates that speciation had to occur so how is it not sufficient?

>since you know more about it than I, I ask in good faith, why is the only possible explanation that we have a common anscestor? Couldnt the ERV similarity between humans and chimp be causes and explanied by something else?
There are only three possible explanations: inheritance, random chance, or design. It's too unlikely for the same retroviruses to infect unrelated organisms in the exact same places tens of thousands of times, and there is no reason for a designer to do so, so that only leaves one explanation.

>>10674972
There are two dichotomies:

1. Humans and chimps were given matching ERVs separately, or they were not.

2. The ERVs were placed randomly or they were not.

If humans and chimps were given matching ERVs separately, this could not have occurred randomly. This implies a designer, but a designer has no reason to do this.

If humans and chimps were not given matching ERVs separately, then they were inherited from a common ancestor and speciation occurred.

Only the latter provides a plausible explanation.

>>10674994
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

not one of these demonstrates the speciation level that is implied within evolution, all are hybrids based on natural selection. According to evolution you should be able to create an amoeba from esch coli, nothing close to that has ever been demonstrated.

>>10675011
but cant the ERV part of DNA be changed "later", by experiencing some shared virus in the ecology or smth?

Just ignore this guy. He doesn't even know what a catch 22 is.

>>10675029
>not one of these demonstrates the speciation level that is implied within evolution
You keep moving the goalposts and making up arbitrary standards. What is the "level implied by evolution?" Evolution has already been demonstrated to you. Nothing spectacular is going to be demonstrated experimentally because it takes large amounts of time to make large changes. So your demands have nothing to do with proving evolution, you are just demanding impossible tasks. This is not arguing in good faith.

>all are hybrids based on natural selection.
Nope, section 5.2 gives examples without hybridization.

>According to evolution you should be able to create an amoeba from esch coli, nothing close to that has ever been demonstrated.
No, according to evolution this should be able to occur over millions of generations. This does not mean you will ever be able to do so in a lab. But you already know this.

>but cant the ERV part of DNA be changed "later", by experiencing some shared virus in the ecology or smth?
You still don't get it. The retroviruses insert ERVs into random places in the genome, so my calculation already took for granted that they were infected by the same virus. If humans and chimps were exposed to all of the same retroviruses at any points in time, the chance that those infections would be in the exact same places is at least 1/3,000,000,000^10,000

>>10675056
>you are just demanding impossible tasks. This is not arguing in good faith.

it really isnt, you expext to have something more after 60000 generations aside from basic natural selection. There needs to be smth more heavy aside from the light proof we are presented with and claiming "not enough time" proves just how much of an unfalsifiable task it is.

>Nope, section 5.2 gives examples without hybridization.

100k dollar is that we are talking about natural selection there again, you select for those traits, nothing "evolves".

>the chance that those infections would be in the exact same places is at least 1/3,000,000,000^10,000

maybe that is the only place they can be, just making a guess? But either way, making an observation about similarity and then claiming that there must be a common anscestor is a logical jump.

>>10675165
>it really isnt, you expext to have something more after 60000 generations aside from basic natural selection.
Based on what?

>There needs to be smth more heavy aside from the light proof we are presented with and claiming "not enough time" proves just how much of an unfalsifiable task it is.
Whatever is presented to you you claim to be not enough, you would just keep moving the goalposts.

>100k dollar is that we are talking about natural selection there again, you select for those traits, nothing "evolves".
You already owe me $100K for explaining the difference between a mutation and a defect. And you still don't understand what evolution means. How pathetic. As I've already explained to you, evolution is simply a change in a population's genetics. It's evolution regardless of what caused the change. You still haven't provided a single reason why natural selection cannot produce different species, so there's no basis to your entire argument. You lost.

>maybe that is the only place they can be, just making a guess?
Nope, it can randomly be inserted anywhere in the genome.

>But either way, making an observation about similarity and then claiming that there must be a common anscestor is a logical jump.
It's a logical deduction, not a jump. Are you done making up excuses?

>>10675165
>100k dollar is that we are talking about natural selection there again, you select for those traits, nothing "evolves".
So no one seems to be addressing the elephant in the room, what do you mean by evolution. Are you going by the textbook definition, the scientific consensus, or something else? Asking because this statement almost sounds like you want us to show you something like a giraffe giving birth to a zebra, aka one species giving birth to a new or different species, which is NOT evolution

>>10675261
He has no idea what he wants, he says his only interest is in pointing out that the theory is not scientific but all he's succeeded at is displaying that he's utterly content to be ignorant. He doesn't even seem remotely religious so he's not even defending his worldview through ignorance. He just likes the attention I guess.

There can't be phylogenesis without the "Genesis"

>inb4 Adam and Steve