/sci/ - Science & Math

They're correct evolution is just a theory :v

>>11075768
But they don't know what theory means :(

>>11075675
>just

They also say they love penis in their ass.
So what?

>>11075675
I have zero respect for retards who say this kind of shit
>but it's just a theory, it's completely subjective and could be wrong lol

>>11075675
It's a hypothesis.

>>11075768
No it isn’t. Evolution is a phenomenon like gravity.

>>11075813
Not that either.

>>11075832
That's exactly what it is.

Engineers believe a theory is a hypothesis, engineers believe evolution is an assumption

>>11075844
Evolution is an explanation with limited evidence and a whole host of assumptions.

>>11075850
Natural selection was observed in the Galapagos islands. >>11075830 is correct.

>>11075675
Evolution by natural selection is as close to a fact as possible. It has been tested against rigorously. Scientists jizz at the possibility of being the one to prove evolution wrong but so far no luck. This is different from religion which is unfalsifiable. Evolution IS falsifiable but so far all the data gathered supports it rather than rejecting it.

Engineers believe scientific method is useless

>>11075675
That's what people that don't study evolution say.

>>11075851
Species changing to a different species has never been observed.

>>11075873
>Not knowing the definition of natural selection
>Using a lack of knowledge for an argument.

Engineers should be euthanized

>>11075873
Because evolution is incremental and we're only studying biology since Lamarck, basically since 250 years.
You argument is the equivalent of contesting continental drift because we've never seen continents form or separate in real time.

Besides we define a species based on the ability of two individuals to produce a fertile offspring, so for a new species to be born it would need to build its own population then have their chromosomes be isolated and radically differ from its ancestor species (which would need to survive all this time).
This is a process that takes thousands of years.

>>11075675
real engineers realize that it's all probabilistic and causal. only shitty engineers would think otherwise.

Pic related is a fertile hybrid named "coywolf" who appeared 100 years ago and are progressively overtaking the "pure" wolf population.

>>11075926
I could fight 2 maybe 3

evolution: Things change.
Evolutionary Progress: Things inevitably change in a positive manner.
What is "positive" is an objective absolute constant of nature, light the supposed speed of light; it is never subjective opinion, or relative to the individual.

>>11075884
Natural selection doesn't prove that an animal can eventually evolve into a completely different animal. The different traits found among the same animal are things like size/colour of features, but passing these traits on could never lead to chickens turning into ostriches, traits don't offer that kind of variability.

All engineers should be killed, physicists can do their work anyway

>>11075841
Wrong. Hypothesis are proposed explanations for observations that haven’t made tested predictions.
Evolution is a phenomenon, the thing to be explained by hypothesis and theory.

>>11075873
>Species changing to a different species has never been observed

Not true. Speciation has been observed in the lab, and species aren’t objectively real anyway.

evolution is pretty amazing. i noticed that if my dog is outside barking like a retard in the garden, i feel a tinge of anxiety. i thought i might have some kind of down syndrome, until i realized that, if we were in some hypothetical dangerous situation, the human which pays attention to its' dog barking would have more forewarning and be more likely to survive and reproduce in the future. thus have been selected to respond to my dog barking with a mild alertness/ flight or fight

>>11076004
>Evolution is a phenomenon
Yes. Things change. There is good evidence for this. So what?

“To make the existence and coherent structure of this Universe depend upon automatic activity and upon chance is against all good sense.” [Evolution]
― Plotinus, The Enneads

>>11075991
>Natural selection doesn't prove that an animal can eventually evolve into a completely different animal

Speciation is observed, so you’re just wrong.

>>11075920
How is a new species born in the first place?

>>11076030
Animals having sex.

>>11076018
Whatever retard you’re quoting is proven wrong, so what?

>>11075675
Theory as a science term has a different meaning than just the word "theory".

>>11075873
speciation has been observed in island lizard populations

>>11076038
>the word "theory"
Now means absolute universal constant

>>11076034
So that means the mother has to give birth to offspring of a different species to herself?

>>11076042
They observed lizards of the same specie turn into a different specie?

>>11076055
nah lizards were accidentally introduced to a remote island and a century ago and now they're apparently reproductively non compatible with the source population

>>11076049
Species don’t exist objectively.
That’s where your getting misled

Evolution doesn't mean the transformatrion from a species to others. Evolution means change through the time, that change can be in the same species and speciation is a consequence of those changes.

>>11076062
Then why are they used for taxonomy?

>>11076071
They’re useful for categorization.
That’s about it.

>>11076058
So they mate with each other and nothing happens?

>>11075974
>Making up your own definitions does not validate your argument.

>>11076014
I think it would be more related to hearing a loud noise coming from an animal to prepare you to fight/flee from that animal, since humans have only had dogs for a short period.

>>11076090
What does the word "progress" mean, stupid?

>>11076084
There's a good chance they wouldn't mate at all with one another. If they tried, then either nothing would happen, or they would produce an infertile/sterile offspring.

>>11076062
Isn't it objective fact that the animals we categorise into species cannot reproduce with other species?

>>11076102
>Forward or onward movement in space or time.

>>11076106
Different anon. You are mostly right, but there are blurred lines e.g. with us and Neanderthals. The anon who wrote that though is probably deficient.

>>11076103
So there's no proof the offspring would be infertile? It's just assumed?

>>11076106
The inability to reproduce isn’t used for classifying organisms all the time, and often isn’t. For example, polar bears and grizzly bears can reproduce freely but we still classify them as different species. The same is true of wolves and coyotes, or chimps and bonobos.

An organism’s offspring will always be genetically and anatomically similar enough to it that they’re reproductively compatible, but they may not be reproductively compatible with their ancestor say, ten thousand generations prior due to the minute changes with each generation accumulating. Where a new species “begins” to exist is indefinite.

>>11076107
>Forward or onward movement in space or time.
so there's no backward in evolution, only forward i.e. only positive?

>>11076172
But often it does go backwards, against the backdrop of environmental change. It's called evolutionary mismatch. Other than that I can't tell what you're on about.

Engineers do not even understand how language works. It is "the Theory of Evolution" that is a theory. Evolution is an observed fact.

>>11076219
>>11076230
So Evolution is no different that evolution (small e) - things change, so what?

>>11076114
Are new species born into existence?

>>11076172
Since when did forward mean positive? Read a fucking dictionary, 'tard.

>>11076230
>Evolution is an observed fact.
You SAW a new species "evolve"?

>>11076252
Over time, yes. Hell, we could even say that they immediately do, since e.g. female downies can't reproduce.

>>11076268
Read the thread, faggot.

>>11075853
anon dropping his niggerdick like a gavel

>>11076266
>Read a fucking dictionary, 'tard.
"Forward ...also implies progress.
forward - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com"

You stopped making sense

>>11076138
ANOTHER ANON DROPPING HIS WHOPPER OF A COCK UNTO /sci/'S FACE

>>11076275
Flailing like a nigger's bitch

>>11076271
>Over time, yes.
At what point in time is the new species born?

>>11076291

>>11076294
This asshole
>>11076230
Says he "observed" it

>>11076285
What part of "forward" or "progress" has any mention of "positive"?
You're a moron.

>>11076294
when it BURSTS out of the hostcunt LOL

>>11076301

>>11076301
This is an English language board

Definition of progress
2 : to develop to a higher, better, or more advanced stage

>>11076305
Is the hostcunt the same specie?

>>11076308

>>11076311
i don't fucking know /b/ro, shit's fucking weird in the universe. I got the luxury of listening to sean carroll on c-span yesterday morning. shit was pretty cash /b/ro

>>11076294
Suppose you initially have a population of a particular species, and they become completely separated and these two groups now have different environments. Over time, they will change as mutations occur and natural selection chooses the most suitable mutations for that particular environment. The two groups are then different species when they can no longer reproduce fertile offspring. That is the point when they are different species. It is such a slow process that it is idiotic to say that on a particular date there is a new species.

>>11076307
Jokes are meant to be funny.

>>11076317
YOU'RE LYING, YOU'RE A LIAR YOU'RE A FUCKING LIAR FAGGOT SHUT THTE FUCK UP YOU DONT FUCKING KNOW SHIT

>>11076319
THEN YOU'RE MOM PLAYED A WHOPPER ON THE WORLD WHEN SHE SQUEEZED YOU OUT OF HER PUTREFYING CUNT

>>11076323
>>11076320
You have to be 18 to post here.

Is sci only browsed by 12 years old now ?

>>11076328
>>11076325
no u

I hate people who confuse hypothesis with theory

You are all retarded arguing about "species becoming other species" acting as if what a species is is common knowledge and every scientist can agree on it.

There are like 20 definitions of what a species is and every single one of them has flaws or exceptions to it.

Species aren't a discrete thing - you are never going to observe one species becoming another one. Speciation is a process. At the beginning you have one species, at the end the other, but in the middle it's a blur. It's even harder when it comes to bacteria, as they reproduce asexually and transfer of genes between species is frequent.

Also, evolution is a fact, observed for example in bacteria gaining immunity to antibiotics.

>>11076071
What else would you use?

>>11076172
Evolution is an adaptative mechanism to the environment at the biological level.
We call it "evolution" and not "adaptation" because we observed that life tends to complexify and explode in terms of diversity over time.

Why? It's unknown but it's fairly well documented that it happens.

>>11076350
>Species aren't a discrete thing - you are never going to observe one species becoming another one. Speciation is a process. At the beginning you have one species, at the end the other, but in the middle it's a blur. It's even harder when it comes to bacteria, as they reproduce asexually and transfer of genes between species is frequent.

This has been stated multiple times but I doubt it’s understood

>>11076353
meant to post that

>>11076350
>evolution is a fact
everybody agrees that things change - so what?

>>11076356
Does that picture mean that animals evolved from fungi? Or did they evolve straight from bacteria? I've always wondered about that.

Evolution is a logical inevitability given the premise of objects that can self-replicate but with some variance between generations, with a replication rate based on the inherited properties. We know that DNA is imperfectly inherited and that it grants different replication rates depending on the sequence.

>>11076356
Nice picture, but why show plants, bacteria etc. when it's showing only the diversity of the animals? Bacteria are more diverse than all of the other taxons shown here together, so it's a little misleading.

>>11076357

This process of change with information partially changing when passed along to offspring resulting in organisms of different survivability, the most adapted of whom survive and spread they information better than others is what we call evolution.

I don't get your question, it's a fact.

>>11076366
Animals and fungi are both Opisthokonta - they have share a common ancestor. Eukaryotes are believed to have evolved from Archea (sometimes called Archebacteria) which are believed to have evolved from Bacteria.

>>11076387
Thanks.

>>11076383
I'm not the anon that posted that pic, but I think the point is to show the common ancestors humans have with various species. It isn't really relevant what the precise species of e.g. bacteria is, since they all share pretty much the same common ancestor with humans. That's my guess.

>>11076383
>better
So Evolution mean things change for the better i.e. progress. This isn't science, things only changing for the better is a fucking miracle - Evolution is a religion.

>>11076377
>We
Who is this "we"? Do Evolutionists replicate themselves?

>>11076420
Being good at something has nothing to do with being morally good. Words can have multiple meanings you retard.

>>11076420
Organisms evolve better, worse or neutral qualities. Those that randomly got better qualities may outcompete those with worse qualities, since they are better suited for the environment. Thus, the better adapted survives and the loser goes extinct. This may create an illusion that it's directed or something, but it's not. Also, what's better or worse is subjective and rarely obvious. Larger claws might make a predator more deadly, but they could also hinder movement.

This is an overly simplistic explanation, obviously, but it gets the point across.

You can observe and direct evolution in a lab. How is that a religion?

>>11076423
Literally look at the DNA in someone's regular cells, and compare it with their sperm cells.

>>11076420
>This isn't science, things only changing for the better is a fucking miracle

Wrong. Natural selection causes changes to trend towards increases in fitness or extinction will result.

>>11076450
Not really, it's just survivor bias. Changes happen in all directions, what we see today are just organisms with changes that allowed them to survive. Not necessarily more fit even, just fit enough. Natural selection is just a mechanism by which the unsuitable organisms die off, it's separate from evolution itself. You can have one without the other.

>>11075675
> if its true why not called it a FACT.
>Gravity isnt real its just a Theory.
>im a based engin who make big bucks while approximating what u sci cucks work hard at haha

>>11075778
Theory means an idea and not a fact.

>>11076018
>quoting a philosopher from 1800 years ago to argue against a modern scientific consensus
Cringe. Might as well just quote the bible if you're going to reach that hard.

>>11076571
Scientific theories are models that describe reality and make testable predictions.

Stop talking about "species", that's not a real thing. Evolution is about population drift so that's how we should talk about it.
>population of similar organisms splits
>new populations become separated by geographic boundaries
>populations no longer interbreed
>populations experience different conditions and challenges as their environments change
>natural selection favors the development of different traits in each population to better adapt to their respective environments
>lots of time goes by
>populations eventually become so different that even if they were reintroduced to each other they would not be able to produce fertile offspring
>the end

>>11076350
>At the beginning you have one species, at the end the other, but in the middle it's a blur.
See this is why talking about "species" is obfuscatory in the context of evolution. What you're saying implies the existence of "in between" species, which most people probably imagine as some fucked up chimera looking thing. That's WRONG because every population fully exists in its own right, without needing to be tied to some label or associated with some other population that's sorta kinda like it but not quite.
Taxonomists can twist themselves into knots trying to decide which arbitrary label to apply to a newly discovered population, but ultimately it's a distortion of reality and the natural order that ends up confusing laypeople and giving ammunition to those who think "kind" is a meaningful quality possessed by living beings.

>>11076030
one way or another, part A of a species can't reproduce with part B.
one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>11076688
While I agree, we can't just stop using species as a classification. It's very useful in many cases, we just need to remember that it's arbitrary.