/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11364314

Well, most "true" intellectuals have always known that evolution is bullshit, but very few were willing to challenge others in the scientific community. Being an outcast can be difficult, but sometimes you just do what you have to do.

>>11364323
evolution isn't bullshit we just don't have enough information available to understand it on a grand scale

>>11364323
Evolution is a fact. Living beings evolve thanks to genetic mutations etc... It's 100% observable.

>>11364307
Nothing exists outside my perceptual radius in time and space.

>>11364307
>Debunking Darwin's theory is actually quite easy.
yea it is, and those retards keep failing

>>11364396
lolgettem'

>>11364396
everything is both true and false.

I.E. within your brain Darwin's theory is wrong.

And in mine true.

>>11364403
>>>/x/

>>11364420
>implying DMT and acid trip discoveries are invalid

Seethe

>>11364449
>drug-induced hallucinations are valuable
idk maybe lol

>>11364449

>Implying they are not

>>11364455
>>11364453

tell me more about how certain states of consciousness experience reduced contact with reality, and how actual reality is told apart from fake reality.

>>11364461
>tell me more about how certain states of consciousness experience reduced contact with reality
how you feel determines your perception of the world. fucking with the chemicals/nerves in your body changes how you feel. changing how you feel changes how you perceive the world. actual reality exists independent of your perception.

>>11364461

Reality is a constant, hallucinogenics merely alter the way information is processed by your brain through your senses. It'll be akin to stabbing two knives in my eyes, then claiming the world is nothing but darkness because my unfit senses tell me so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NArlXzSFt2Y

>>11364307
How do you explain that the chromosom 13 in humans has some of the chimp's chromosom 24 ?
Isn't that a proof that humans and chimps have had an earlier ancestor with 24 chromosoms ?

>>11364677
No more so than two watches having a couple of identical looking gears proves both watches "evolved" from a common ancestor.

You can gather enough information to prop up evolution yourself in a few days with a sample of E. Coli, some antibiotics and a few dozen plates of growth medium.
There are very few theories more completely understood and better supported by evidence than evolution by natural selection.

>>11364722
>m-muh walk through a meadow

The fact that evolution deniers haven't come up with a new metaphor in several centuries is party to the outdated credibility of their views.

>>11364722
>Debunking Darwin's theory is actually quite easy.
If you don't use science, but only propaganda and false logic, yes it is.

>>11364722
>No more so than two watches having a couple of identical looking gears proves both watches "evolved" from a common ancestor.
>a couple
The genome is over 95% identical.
You should buy yourself a good book about biology, instead of being proud of ignorance.
Genes coding segments in our body are identical with genes coding Arthropod segments.
Existence of half-adapted forms is an evidence of evolution process, otherwise the god who created those organisms would be rather a weak and incompetent designer.

>>11364307
>Debunking Darwin's theory is actually quite easy.

If it is, cite scientific papers that do so.

>>11364323
> Well, most "true" intellectuals have always known that evolution is bullshit

Prove it. Cite papers.

>>11364722
False analogy. Watches don’t reproduce, mutate, and aren’t subject to selection pressures from their environment. They also don’t have vestigial telomeres embedded within their chromosomes that demonstrate that some chromosomes originated from other chromosomes fusing.

Stop talking about things you don’t know anything about. It is sad.

>>11364472

Yeah, fuck it. Who needs a wife and family right? Just eat a lot of chocolate. Problem solved.

>>11364857

*YAWN* There is no denying that adaptations occur. Now, have you actually observed the creation of a new species? NO.. You have not. I rest my case.

>>11364957

Prove the obvious? Yeah, I don't doubt you are dumb. You probably never sat foot in a peer review meeting or have taken any part in scientific research.

>>11364368
>Evolution is a fact. Living beings evolve thanks to genetic mutations etc... It's 100% observable.

Kek.. uhhh no. Nobody has ever observed the creation of a new species. That has never happened. Try again.

>>11364955

I guess you were too lazy to watch the video.

>>11364403

Well, you need to prove that Darwin's theory is true before it becomes fact. You have not, so there is no reason to take you or Darwin's theory seriously.

>>11365365
where the hell is this comin from?

>>11365397
>Well, you need to prove that Darwin's theory is true before it becomes fact.
You don't seem to know what is a scientific theory.
If something becomes a theory, it means it have been proved experimentally and empirically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
And yes it has been proved by way too many evidences.

>>11365381
>Kek.. uhhh no. Nobody has ever observed the creation of a new species. That has never happened. Try again.
Evolving, not creation and we can actually see it with our bare eye - antibiotic resistant bacteria, moths changing color from white to black, because of air pollution, races of dogs and breeds of plants, although created by human in the process of artificial selection, you can see well how different traits you can get:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed
There is also fossil evidence of evolution.

>>11364307
>>11365370
>have you actually observed the creation of a new species
How do you make sense of the fossil record if you deny evolution?

>>11365370
>There is no denying that adaptations occur.
Adaptation + inheritance = evolution
Random mutations give organisms different adaptations, then environmental pressure kills some of them, the ones that survived reproduce. Repeat the process for a long time and you have new species.

>>11365370
>ow, have you actually observed the creation of a new species?

Speciation has been observed in studied populations of organisms.
Now, are you aware that species are human-made constructs and don’t literally exist?

>>11365375
>Ad hominem, completely abandons pretense of evidence-based argumentation

Every time.

>>11365385
>I guess you were too lazy to watch the video.

Videos aren’t peer-reviewed scientific literature, and no one in the video is even a biologist, so why waste the time?

>>11365424
>You don't seem to know what is a scientific theory.

Oh I am very aware of scientific theory, but that does not mean that evolution is real. Now, when I say "creation" of a new species I was basically referring to something evolving into something else. If you claim that this has been observed, then I would have to call you a liar because it has not ever been observed.

>>11365381
>Kek.. uhhh no. Nobody has ever observed the creation of a new species.

https://www.g3journal.org/content/6/2/365

Species are human constructs.

>>11365491
>Now, when I say "creation" of a new species I was basically referring to something evolving into something else.

Define what quantifies “something else”. You’re using indefinite terms as weasel words because you argue on feelings, not quantifiable, empirical data.

>>11365490

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and evolution has never been proven.

>>11365496
>The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and evolution has never been proven.

Changes in allele frequencies over successive generations has been proven hundreds of times.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

>>11365495

No, you're just too stupid to understand what I was saying. NOBODY has ever observed a species evolving into another species. The way you try to avoid answering the question of "where are all the missing pieces" is by saying it takes a long time for it to happen, but this does not mean that it actually does happen.

>>11365504
>NOBODY has ever observed a species evolving into another species.

That’s not true.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/27/13440

Say, which species concept are you assuming?
There’s a few of them because species aren’t actually real.

>>11365491
>Oh I am very aware of scientific theory, but that does not mean that evolution is real.
Evolution is a scientific theory, yet you don't accept it, so you don't really know what does it mean.
>Now, when I say "creation" of a new species I was basically referring to something evolving into something else.
It is hard to observe a process that usually takes millions of years, but it doesn't prove it didn't happen.
And you still can literally see it - bacteria not resistant to antibiotics evolves into bacteria resistant to antibiotics, white moths are eliminated from population and black moths dominate the population, fossil records of slowly developing adaptations such as wings, fins, skulls, etc.
And what do you mean by "something evolving into something else"?
Evolving means changing slowly.

Look at the picrel - for me the big dog is different from the small one, the big can't breed with the small one, because of how body is built. This means the separation created a new species (at least taking one of many definitions). Let's imagine we push the changes even further, to the point those dog breeds are genetically incompatible.

>>11365504
>>11365543
Also this picrel - something evolved into something different by a mutation, if the mutation is inheritable and would be good for fitness, then there would be a new species of human having additional fingers.

>>11365504
>NOBODY has ever observed a species evolving into another species.
NOBODY has ever observed an IDtard respond to the many many examples that debunks their lies.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

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

I bet the silence will be even more deafening when the IDtard is asked to explain how thousands of matching endogenous retroviral insertions can occur in two species that have not evolved from a common ancestor.

>>11364866
Not an argument.

>>11365808
>Not an argument.

Not an argument.

>>11365493
We've never seen a lifeform produce viable (let alone 'better') offspring that have a different number of chromosomes.

>>11364323
>Being an outcast can be difficult, but sometimes you just do what you have to do.

Actually being an outcast is a piece of cake, the hard part is knowing that everyone disagrees with you but defending your ideas regardless of the status quo, which of course you would never do, because you're wrong

>>11365820
Is this where the goalpost has been moved to now?
Okay.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

>>11364307
Here's some info about Stephen Meyer, the gnarly looking cunt on the left that convinced the other two guys to stop supporting Darwin's theory

"Meyer graduated with B.S. degrees in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College,"

"In Fall 2002 he moved to the position of professor, Conceptual Foundations of Science, at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. He continued there to Spring 2005,[11][7] then ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[12]"

It's hilarious that even seemingly intelligent people can be swindled by religion like that

source: Wikipedia

>>11365839
Is that the guy who made up the “irreducible complexity” nonsense?

>>11365828
>"species is a human construct!"
>okay, offspring with extra chromosomes
>"hurr you moved the goalposts!"
Why are evolutionists so intrinsically deceitful?

>>11365862
>Why are evolutionists so intrinsically deceitful?

Why did you neglect to mention the fact that your assertion that “We've never seen a lifeform produce viable (let alone 'better') offspring that have a different number of chromosomes.“ was wrong? Instead, you decided to spew more childish insults. This doesn’t make you look very honest or interested in good-faith argumentation. Sometimes, chromosomes fuse together. This is called a Robertsonian translocation and it is relatively common in humans, and doesn’t cause ill effects.
So let’s see:
The first goalpost was “We’ve never seen a new species evolve”.

We have.

The second goalpost was “ We've never seen a lifeform produce viable (let alone 'better') offspring that have a different number of chromosomes.”

We’ve seen that too.

Is there a third goalpost or are you going to admit you’re wrong?

>>11364959
>similarities in watches can been observed in the same way we observe similarities in species
>WATCHES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN SPECIES DUMBASS!
>THAT MEANS EVOLUTION IS REAL
Not the original watch analogy guy but you literally bolstered his point.

>>11365820
Several examples of just that were already given to you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Lying fag.

>>11364307
even things like atmospheric pressure can alter how a organism develops.

>>11365884
>similarities in watches can been observed in the same way we observe similarities in species
>WATCHES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN SPECIES DUMBASS!
>THAT MEANS EVOLUTION IS REAL

Strawman. Try again.

>>11365876
Double X, double Y, etc are somewhat harmful mutations (mild retardation) and - more importantly - are not passed on to the progeny of the xyy afflicted individual.
Once again, this chromosomal abnormality is not passed on to children, so meaningless in terms of evolution.
If you were not an inherently deceitful person, you'd know this and not pretend it bolsters evolution.

What's so bullshit about evolution? The earliest forms of life came into existence ~550 million years ago. That's A LOT of time for change to happen.

>>11365918
>Double X, double Y, etc are somewhat harmful mutations (mild retardation) and - more importantly - are not passed on to the progeny of the xyy afflicted individual.

So that’s the third goalpost shift. Since your previous assertion was disproven, you’ve had to retreat further. If you keep it up, you may find yourself marching backwards into the sea in an inversion of the path taken by our tetrapod ancestors in the Devonian era.

> Once again, this chromosomal abnormality is not passed on to children, so meaningless in terms of evolution.

Robertsonian translocations can be inherited and even produce offspring with 44 chromosomes.
Now what?

>>11365923
>The earliest forms of life came into existence ~550 million years ago. That's A LOT of time for change to happen.

You’re off by over two billion years. You’re thinking of macroscopic life, most likely.

>>11365937
It's not inheritable, retard.
How can a chromosomal abnormality that can't be passed on be considered proof of evolution?

>>11365950
>It's not inheritable, retard.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6510025

It’s statistically improbable for you to be as consistently wrong as you are.
It’s a miracle!
God proven!

>>11365954
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6510025
>Their parents are first cousins
Yeah, that's gonna be the beginning of a healthy new species.
Also:
>paywall

>>11365950
You didn't ask for proof of evolution, you asked for "viable (let alone 'better') offspring that have a different number of chromosomes." Lying fag.

You've already been provided with plenty of proof of evolution. You've also been provided with proof of speciation. You were also asked to explain how unrelated species have thousands of matching endogenous retroviral insertions. You have not responded to any of it. You're pathetic.

>>11365954
>Fertility is discussed
No further info given
Wow, proof positive that we evolution is real, all doubters btfo!
>It’s statistically improbable for you to be as consistently wrong as you are.
Projection.

>>11365973
Where did you ask for "healthy new species" you goalpost moving faggot?

And when are you going to respond to >>11365702 and >>11365886 ?

>>11365976
You're either trolling or hopelessly deluded.

>>11365983
Not an argument, you lose. Thanks for admitting evolution is real, speciation is real, and you share a common ancestor with chimps.

>>11365973
>Fourth goalpost shift

Holy fuck dude you’re on a roll! I haven’t seen this many goalpost shifts before, and so close together too!

> Yeah, that's gonna be the beginning of a healthy new species.

Incest is pretty common in biology, and not per se harmful.
Here’s one without a paywall, though I doubt you can actually read and comprehend scientific literature.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4912789/

So let’s list the goalpost shifts since I feel like it. It’s a hilarious pace of retreat that hasn’t been seen since the Germans took Paris.

“We’ve never seen speciation”
We have.

“We’ve never seem organisms produce viable offspring with a different number of chromosomes”
We have.

“These chromosomal abnormalities aren’t inheritable”
They are.

“Muh incest. Muh paywall”
Doesn’t even matter.

>>11365978
>Wow, proof positive that we evolution is real, all doubters btfo!

You didn’t ask for proof of evolution. You asked for proof of inheritable chromosomal abnormalities.

Evolution makes sense if you give up the notion that everything is random and that there is some sort of natural law that works in opposition to entropy and builds structures of higher order and energy.

>>11365820
>We've never seen a lifeform produce viable (let alone 'better') offspring that have a different number of chromosomes.
What is Triticale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triticale
What is wheat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat
What is triploid banana you eat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_(genus)

Triticale is the best example, because it it purely human made plant, created from wheat and rye, having different number of chromosomes those two species have, has better properties and is fertile.

>>11364722
But watches evolved you retard. Do you think the first watch invented looked like a modern watch?
It's shape and mechanisms kept changing with the advance of technology and society pressure, you might say it's even a light form of evolution.

>>11367178
>But watches evolved you retard. Do you think the first watch invented looked like a modern watch?
Evolved - yes, biologically - no.
Watches are human made, life is not.
Have you ever seen two watches having sex and passing their combined genes to offspring?
Have you ever seen watches eating?
Have you ever seen a watch doing self-repair?
I guess you didn't because watches are not alive.
Watches have no genes coding their features inside.

>>11367187
>Watches are human made
Actually, they aren't. If a stick falls from a tree and gets stuck vertically on the ground, it becomes a primitive watch by itself. Man that forcibly evolved it through social need.
Humans "breed" different watch styles from the primitive watches to create more "evolved" (meaning the most successful form of a watch that will not be broken down or substituted by other kinds of watches or cease to exist).
Yeah it's not the watches itself that passes their "genes", but humans that choose which "genes" the next watch will have (meaning natural selection, just like gut bacteria and other animals forced human natural selection to evolve in a certain way).
There's no biology here but the idea of evolution still persists. It even happens during the creation and arrangement of matter after the Big Bang.

>>11367118
>artificially bred under direction of another advanced lifeform to benefit itself
>this is proof of evolution occurring naturally without intelligent design
Mouth-breathing evolutionists, everyone.

>>11367218
>Mouth-breathing evolutionists, everyone.
You constantly change your point, and use ad hominem, that's not how you lead a discussion.
You said that:
>We've never seen a lifeform produce viable (let alone 'better') offspring that have a different number of chromosomes.
Which I proved false, because we've seen two lifeforms producing viable and better offspring. If such a lifeform can be made only by fusing gametes in laboratory, without genetical engineering, then such a lifeform can emerge spontaneously and that's what have happened to Cavendish bananas - two diploid (2n) species gave a triploid (3n) species.

>>11365424
>antibiotic resistant bacteria
not proven to be evolution
>moths changing color from white to black
faked research
>races of dogs
not evolution
>There is also fossil evidence of evolution.
The fossil record has been unable to prove Darwin's theory of gradual change and increasing complexity. The theory is dead,

If Evolution is a scam, where did everything come from?

Do people believe that a beeing like "God" created everything? Who created God then?

>>11368672
read the Bible, idiot. it clearly states god is eternal and wasn't created by anybody. not everything needs a creator. all the answers are in the Bible if you retards would take the time to read it. actual knowledge.

>>11368679
Why is the bible the correct holy book?
Why not the koran?
Why isn't the religion of the sumer the right one?

>>11368557
>not proven to be evolution
Says who? By who?
Adaptation in the way of natural selection and random mutations is evolution. You just don't know what evolution actually is.
Give me a definition of evolution.
>faked research
You have no source for this.
>races of dogs
>not evolution
Organisms changing their form in the way of any kind of selection and having random mutations are undergoing evolution process.
In this case instead of natural selection, you have artificial selection.
Anyway its not human who creates traits of animals, human just picks them, but traits have its beginning in random mutations.
Still, you don't know what evolution actually is.
>The fossil record has been unable to prove Darwin's theory of gradual change and increasing complexity.
That's not true. There are types of organisms only found in rock layers from certain era. As we go up with the layers, the complexity of fossils you find is increasing. You can't find fossils of humans form Mesozoic, because there were no humans yet, on the other hand you can find dinosaurs, and fossils of early birds, which evolved from dinosaurs. Why can't you find dinosaurs living today?
There are eras where you can barely find anything, because of mass extinctions, yet millions years later life is blooming again and organisms are similar versions of those who survived.
What's your explanation for this? Or are rock layers also faked research?
>The theory is dead
More like education system of your country.

In conclusion:
You lack basic biological and geological knowledge and think every research that do not support your arguments is fake, although you have no real evidence, only youtube videos made by people who are not even related to biology, are not biologists.
Read Darwin's book "On the origin of species", read the basics of genetics and geology, then come back and we can talk.

>>11365370
ring species, now fuck off

>>11369403
Neo darwinism has been debunked, so that is not an adequate explanation for resistant bacteria.
Most of the famous proofs of evolution are fake or debunked. Look it up.
Artificial selection in dogs is not evolution as you are selecting traits already present in the original DNA set of the wolf. No evolutionary biologist or scientist could argue otherwise. You are only removing information to create specialised or retarded animals not evidence of the possibility of new species further down the line.
That is not to say that animals can't change, but how such changes occur and to what extent they do occur is still up doe debate and lacks evidence.
"Complexity of life is increasing"
This is unfortunately not true. The cambrian explosion comes out of nowhere with 96% more Phila present than today and all fully formed. Your ignorance is staggering and humorous to me. No transitional fossils between bacteria and these fossils. Darwin irrevocably blown the fuck out.

Evolution is such a nigger-tier topic for discussion. Religious beliefs are always in the background.

>>11364307
Correct, just look at James Tour’s videos calling out origin of life research as bullshit

>>11364307
*coronavirus disappears from existence*

>>11366254
> and that there is some sort of natural law that works in opposition to entropy and builds structures of higher order and energy.

Earth isn’t a closed system so the second law doesn’t apply.

>>11367260
>Which I proved false, because we've seen two lifeforms producing viable and better offspring.

They’ve done like ten back pedals so far. They’ve retreated so much that we’ve captured their capital city, so the war is won.

>>11369772
>Artificial selection in dogs is not evolution as you are selecting traits already present in the original DNA set of the wolf.

Wow, I guess dogs have magical genomes seen nowhere else in life that can’t mutate, ever.

Just stop replying to this retard. He backpedals and backpedals. Thread is over.

>>11369772
Fuck off retard. You know nothing.

>>11364307
It's crazy the lengths people will go to in order to hang on to religious beliefs, you never hear of non-religious people trying to "debunk evolution". Why would I have a problem with Darwin's theory if I'm not religious? All of these guys throw out Darwin's theory and then replace it with their own theory of "intelligent design" which has no empirical evidence and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses (unlike evolution). It exists only to posit the existence of God and specifically a Judeo-Christian God. Not scientific at all.

>>11365370
do viruses count? if not why not and if so yeah we have in real time.

>>11369973
If you aren’t religious and don’t believe in intelligent design, then evolution is the only explanation you have. I’d be willing to bet you are more defensive of evolution than most religious people are of religion.

>>11364307
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2019/05/David-Gelernter-gives-up-on-Darwin.html

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2019/07/A-dramatic-new-mathematical-challenge.html

>Noooooooooooooooooooooooo this empirical data conflicts with my retarded deterministic view so this data and all theories must be false! or we just don't know why and we will never know!
why can't deterministic fags comprehend the fact that stochastic processes exist?

>>11370205
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

>>11364491
Excellent video.

Why do you faggots keep feeding the trolls. Sage

>>11370205
Optimal pixel is not a square.

>>11370285
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZrxTH-UUdI

>>11369403
Thanks for your effort in arguing with religious trolls who come here looking to annoy everyone

>>11370485
Tour is based. He is one of the few persons calling out the bullshit that is the “prebiotic soup”

ITT: godtards R us.

Godtards: even if you could disprove the theory of evolution, and you can’t, you are still left believing in a god which comes with the same amount of supporting evidence as the thousands of other gods that you know are fake. That amount is zero.

>>11370510
It’s not up to me to disprove evolution. The burden of proof is on you to prove it nigger

>>11370521
It’s already done, derpy. Your magic invisible floating faggot in the sky does not change that fact. Step forward and claim your Nobel prize if you can demonstrate that it’s wrong.

>>11370528
not him but you probably talk like a faggot.

>>11370528
>it’s already been done
No it hasn’t. If it had been proven people would be just as convinced of it as atomic theory. It’s not a theory it is a conjecture and the only reason people like you hold on to it so dearly is because it appeases your tiny materialist mind.

>>11370535
Quality point, mate. I’m a godtard now.

>>11370546
lol I imagine you talking with a nerdy high-pitched voice and making statements that sound like questions

>>11370536
>No it hasn’t. If it had been proven people would be just as convinced of it as atomic theory.
It’s only clueless godtard mongs like you who doubt it.
>materialist
You’re as dumb as dogshit, champ. Don’t reproduce, ok?

>>11370179
Not really, I don't feel like I have any fundamental stake in the theory of evolution. Since I'm non-religious I can treat all theories describing the formation of life equally, it's just that no other theories have proved to be nearly as adequate as evolution. If there was a new theory that was proving to be better than evolution I would find that very exciting.

>>11370552
I will be happy to reproduce and have many intelligent Christian children. Also homos are degenerates. Is that why you are so angry? You like butt secks with other men?

>>11370558
>intelligent Christian children

>>11370564
Yes.

>>11370572
>needs to go back 300 years to find a smart godtard
Top keks

>>11370645
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y