/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11370834
Is it?

If so, cite peer-reviewed scientific literature to justify your claim.

>>11370839
Peer-reviewed literature? You clearly have not even listened to these men speak. This is not a scientific paper. This is criticism from three great minds about major problems in modern Darwinism. Listen and think for yourself.

>>11370839
>peer reviewed scientific literature

>>11370914
this

>>11370834
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

>>11370862
>This is not a scientific paper.

Yes, so it’s not worth considering as a source. None of them are even biologists.
Please return with actual papers written by actual biologists.

>>11370914
Congratulations on contributing literally nothing to the thread.
Do you think YouTube videos are just as reliable sources as actual science?

>>11370941

Only non biologists would be willing to criticize mainstream biology

>>11370941
>none of them are even biologists
Spoken like a true Darwinist. This is a blatant ad hominem. One need not have the title of biologist to present an argument against evolution.

>>11370947
>peer reviewing is what makes science science
Ok

>>11370952
>Only non biologists would be willing to criticize mainstream biology

How weird that people unqualified to discuss biology are the only ones to do that. It’s almost like....they’re ignorant or something.

>>11370834
>reposting your thread after it lost traction
>>11364307

>>11370962

You can also ask why most people criticize string theory are not strong theorist

>>11370962
>>11370965

See
>>11370938

>>11370960
>This is a blatant ad hominem.

Yep. Insults are the only necessary rebuttal when talking to people who cite YouTube videos as scientific sources. Please cite actual papers published in journals and I’ll say something other than “You’re a gay retard” and similar fun assertions.

>peer reviewing is what makes science science

Screening papers for errors and replication of results by other researchers are very important to maintaining scientific rigor.
Or you could have people who aren’t biologists babble for a conservative think tank.

>>11370938
big numbers, interesting vid.

>>11370965
>You can also ask why most people criticize string theory are not strong theorist

No, you couldn’t. Biology encompasses more than strictly evolution, though to be fair there is very little in biology that isn’t at least parallel to evolution because evolution is real and very important in the context of biology. String “theory” is actually just a hypothesis and hasn’t made any verified predictions whereas evolution is trivial to observe.

>>11370966
>Muh YouTube videos

>>11370983
>ignoring James Tour because “muh YouTube videos”
>information in a YouTube video is irrelevant because it’s a YouTube video
How retarded can you possibly be?

>>11370986
>How retarded can you possibly be?

Well, I haven’t started citing YouTube videos as my sources, so there’s levels of retardation yet to be achieved.

>>11370989
But you have implicitly used ad hominems because you for some dumbass reason think the information in YouTube videos is useless because it’s in a YouTube video. Did you even listen to James Tour in the video I linked? Stop being a pussy and watch the goddamned video

>>11371006
>Watch muh YouTube videos about biology from people who aren’t biologists

How about you cite one single paper to support your position?

>>11371010
>talking about biology
>doesn’t realize the video is about prebiotic organic chemistry because he didn’t even watch 60 seconds of it
James Tour is more than qualified to talk about origin of life research.

>>11371023
>James Tour is more than qualified to talk about origin of life research.

He’s not a biologist, so not really.

Do you have any papers to cite or does your repertoire consist solely of YouTube videos from non-biologists?

>>11371026
>He’s not a biologist, so not really
Ad hominem. Keep acting like a dumb cunt

>>11371031
>Keep acting like a dumb cunt

Ad hominem. :)
Do you have any actual scientific papers to cite?
Yes or no.

>>11371026
>>11371033
You do realize that “prebiotic” means pre-biology right? Origin of life research is not biology it is chemistry. James Tour presents very good arguments against the idea of a prebiotic soup.

>>11371033
No. I'm a retarded god-botherer who spams the same shitty videos over and over, constantly moves goalposts, and runs away after repeatedly being BTFO in every thread. Somehow I think being a massive twat will get me into heaven.

>>11371040
>James Tour presents very good arguments against the idea of a prebiotic soup.

Okay, I’ll be happy to read the scientific paper in which he and whoever he wrote the paper with discuss this.

>>11371041
Who said anything about a god? This thread is about how Darwinism and evolution is bullshit

>>11371040
>You do realize that “prebiotic” means pre-biology right?
No, it means pro-life. Obviously you would need top understand life to explain how it can be created, otherwise you have no clue what you're trying to explain.

>James Tour presents very good arguments against the idea of a prebiotic soup.
If they were very good arguments they would be published in a peer reviewed journal. If they're pseudoscience then they won't be published and will appear on YouTube.

>>11371045
Define “scientific paper” and what makes a paper “scientific”?

>>11371046
>This thread is about how Darwinism and evolution is bullshit

If that’s the case, then why can we observe evolution in the lab?

>>11371046
Oh so you don't believe in God and creationism? Don't you know lying will send you to hell?

>>11371047
>If they were very good arguments they would be published in a peer reviewed journal

>>11371048
Peer review

>>11371049
In basic undergraduate labs, students are taught that a calibration curve is only useful in the range over which it is tested (ex. UV-Vis, Beer's Law is only demonstrated over the range of prepared sample standards and not any more, unless you prepare more samples)

Evolution demonstrated in a lab is on a timescale orders of magnitude lower than the grand timescale required for it's full extension to Darwinism.

“The mainstream view of biologists is wrong!”
“Wow! What biologist published research proving this?”
“No biologist published research proving this.”
“Oh, I guess they weren’t a biologist. That’s okay. What scientist published the research proving this?”
“No scientist published research proving this.”
“What’s your source? A biologist speaking in an informal setting?”
“No.”
“Well, what is your source exactly then?”
“YouTube videos by people who aren’t biologists.”
“That’s convincing and seems like a perfectly acceptable and reliable source of information on the topic. Thanks!”

LMAO

>>11371058
>Evolution demonstrated in a lab is on a timescale orders of magnitude lower than the grand timescale required for it's full extension to Darwinism.

Darwinism?
Darwin died over one hundred years ago. Please talk about the modern understanding of evolution and not outdated ideas that predate our grandfathers.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over successive generations. This is observable in the lab.

>>11371058
>Evolution demonstrated in a lab is on a timescale orders of magnitude lower than the grand timescale required for it's full extension to Darwinism.
So you admit evolution exists? Why did you deny it before?

What is "Darwinism" anyway?

If i recall correctly they didn't so much say evolution was wrong so much as there is more left as yet unnexplained.

>>11371067
>>11371066
Evolution is change in allele frequencies over successive generations
Darwinism is somehow using this as proof that god isn't real and not realizing the absurdity that this has nothing to do with religion

>>11371073
>Darwinism is somehow using this as proof that god isn't real and not realizing the absurdity that this has nothing to do with religion

So.................
Evolution exists exactly as it’s understood to exist, but it doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist.
Literally everyone knows that.

Can someone tell these guys that evolution can still exist with god?

>>11371064
>if one makes a statement regarding biology but they don’t hold the title of biologist then what they say is irrelevant
>what is an ad hominem
This is how stupid you sound.

>>11371066
Correct. It is observable in a lab. Do you have empirical evidence that all life came from a common ancestor? Can we test this in a lab?

>>11371073
>Darwinism is somehow using this as proof that god isn't real and not realizing the absurdity that this has nothing to do with religion
Who espouses this and what does it have to do with Darwin? If it has nothing to do with religion why are Bibilicsl loyalists virtually the only ones talking against Darwinism? And lastly, why do you claim evolution is false in one post and then say it's true in the next?

>>11371080
>>if one makes a statement regarding biology but they don’t hold the title of biologist then what they say is irrelevant
Yes this is literally true. The only thing that matters is scientific evidence published in peer reviewed journals. Arbitrary statements from random individuals are irrelevant.

>Do you have empirical evidence that all life came from a common ancestor? Can we test this in a lab?
Yes, it's called genetics.

>>11371083
Change in allele frequencies does not prove a common ancestor, give an answer to >>11371080, this is an important question.

>>11371093
I honestly can’t tell if this is satire or not. If it is not then you are literally mentally retarded.

>>11371080
>Do you have empirical evidence that all life came from a common ancestor? Can we test this in a lab?

Yep. Simple as sequencing genomes. It’s within plausibility that organisms exist somewhere on Earth that are part of a separate lineage but they’ve not been detected.

>>11371098
>Change in allele frequencies does not prove a common ancestor

No one said it did, dummy.
Genome sequencing is used to determine relatedness. So far, every genome sequenced indicates relation to everything else.

>>11371108
Ok cool. So where is the experiment to prove this? Because it sounds to me that you are observing physical facts in the present and using them to support an already set belief about what happened in the past.

>>11371114
>Ok cool. So where is the experiment to prove this?

Every genome sequencing ever done.

> Because it sounds to me

No one cares.

>>11371098
>Change in allele frequencies does not prove a common ancestor
Ate you capable of making an srgument without strawmen and goalpost shifting?

>give an answer to >>11371080 #, this is an important question.
I did, all I got in response was a shitpost, as usual.

>>11371107
I honestly can’t tell if this is satire or not. If it is not then you are literally mentally retarded.

>>11371115
So similarities between genome sequences prove a common ancestor and a Darwinian explanation of the origin of life? Please provide peer reviewed scientific papers to support your interpretation of history.

>>11371123
>So similarities between genome sequences prove a common ancestor

Yes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09014

> and a Darwinian explanation of the origin of life?

No idea what a “Darwinian explanation” is. You are obsessed with Darwin despite Darwin’s ideas being outdated and replaced long ago by further research into evolution.

>>11371128
> These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.
Cool. So where are the results? The paper is hidden behind a $200 paywall, which is typical of academic journals.

>>11371114
>So where is the experiment to prove this?
Let's start with humans and go from there. Humans have these lines of code in their genomes that come from viruses inserting their genetic code into random places in the host's genome. Each line of code is different. When you look at the genomes of other animals, like chimps, you notice that they have the same lines of code in the same places as humans. Thousands of different codes, all in the exact same place in humans and chimps.
How can that be if the virus puts their code in a random place? If humans and chimps were infected, the virus would insert its code in one random place in humans and another random place in chimps. But they didn't. The only explanation for how this could occur is if humans and chimps inherited the same code from a common ancestor that was infected with that code. You can even track how closely related species are by how many codes they have in common and how many codes they obtained separately. This tells us that all animals infected by these viruses share a common ancestor. Once you admit that we can move on. Do you admit humans, chimps, and all other animals share a common ancestor?

>>11371144
>asks for citation
>is given it
>whines anyway
Dishonest scum like you are going to hell, you know that right?

>>11371144
You can preview the paper for free. You’d know this if you ever seriously engaged with science.

>>11371145
>Humans have these lines of code in their genomes that come from viruses inserting their genetic code into random places in the host's genome
So we have observational evidence this is what happened? How do we have observational evidence this happened before we were around to observe it?

>Thousands of different codes, all in the exact same place in humans and chimps
Only for genetic code. We have no idea what is in the non-coding DNA. Not to mention the fact that similarities in coding DNA do not prove common ancestry. This is just one interpretation.

>Do you admit humans, chimps, and all other animals share a common ancestor?
No.

>>11371150
I will gladly read the paper if you buy my subscription anon. I have paypal so it will be very easy.

>>11370834
What's the alternative then?

>>11371167
>So we have observational evidence this is what happened?
Yes, we have observed retroviruses inserting code into cells in the lab.

>How do we have observational evidence this happened before we were around to observe it?
We have these things called brains that allow us to determine what happened in the past based on information that was left behind.

>Only for genetic code. We have no idea what is in the non-coding DNA.
Non-coding DNA is part of the genetic code and this is a non sequitur. Regardless of whether the viral insertions are in the coding region or not, they show common ancestry.

>Not to mention the fact that similarities in coding DNA do not prove common ancestry. This is just one interpretation.
These particular similarities do since they can only come from a specific virus inserting code in a specific place. This can't coincidentally occur to two different species even a single time, let alone a thousand times. So the only explanation is that the two species inherited the choice from a shared ancestor. If you would like to give an alternative interpretation then do so, but we both know you have none. Instead you gave a vague response that doesn't respond to the argument. This proves you're not arguing honestly and you're going to burn in hell for all eternity.

>>11371173
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+preview+scientific+papers+for+free

>>11371173
www.sci-hub.tw
get doi from link
don't know what that is? it's this guy: 10.1038/nature09014
paste doi
get paper

>>11371198
>Yes, we have observed retroviruses inserting code into cells in the lab
So you didn’t answer the question? Got it

>>11370977
>evolution
>a process that purportedly takes hundreds of thousands of years
>is trivial to observe
good job, you just outed yourself as a retard

>>11371221
>So you didn’t answer the question? Got it
I did, you're just unable to accept the answer.

>>11371296
>a process that purportedly takes hundreds of thousands of years
>>11371073
>Evolution is change in allele frequencies over successive generations
Pick one, retard.

>>11371684
No, you stated
> we have observed retroviruses inserting code into cells in the lab
Which is an observable phenomenon (literally how retroviruses operate). The claim that humans have code in our genomes that came from a virus inserting it is a historical claim. You can say that it is a hypothesis about what happened, but no one was around to observe this supposed event, and it is certainly not a scientific fact. The evolutionary claim of the origin of life is nothing more than a science fiction story that satisfies the materialist mind.

>>11371182
Epigenetics and convergent "evolution".

>>11371182
>>11372399
Creation

It's true. Spending one day admitted in a psychiatric ward made me realize the true purpose of the scientific institution.

>>11372437
>Pic of a priest
Catholics are more likely believe in evolution than creationism than any authentic form of religion.

>>11370960
>peer reviewing is what makes science science
yes

>>11371296
>a process that purportedly takes hundreds of thousands of years

Strawman

>>11370834
Is the hoover institution youtube audience so bad they have to turn comments off? For some reason I remember their being comments when I'd watch economist interviews or something.

>>11372456
Yeah maybe, the outdated version-deductive science.

>>11370952
So what? If you think the only valid experts aren't valid you're just fucked. It doesn't mean the invalid experts are a good source of ideas.

>>11370962
>How weird that people unqualified to discuss biology are the only ones to do that. It’s almost like....they’re ignorant or something.

Ironically, thomas sowell who's done a lot of of talks on this same youtube channel describes this problem. People who are experts in one field vastly overestimate their knowledge in other fields. Which is paradoxical. You'd think understanding one expert field would make you understand just how much knowledge you need to be an expert.

>>11372481
Fuck authoritarian cunts. I give zero shits about your phd you can fuck off.

>>11371080
>Do you have empirical evidence that all life came from a common ancestor? Can we test this in a lab?

If this were true, all the findings in the field of genetics would be consistent with that. If it wasn't true, you would find a lot of exceptions. It's not something one could be mistaken about.

>>11372492
What do you give a shit about? That you, a non-expert, liked the opinion that another non-expert offered? Name a worse epistemological system than the one in your head right now.

>>11372493
>ask for empirical evidence all life shares a common ancestor and complex life evolved over time
>”I don’t have evidence but you should just accept it because it makes sense”
Ok

>>11372507
I hate authority and it should always be challenged don't give a fuck how flawless you think your system is.

>>11372507
Not him but this obsession that many academics have with being an “expert” instead of focusing on the information or arguments is downright retarded. You don’t need a PhD in a field to present good arguments pertaining to it.

>>11372511
>ask for empirical evidence on /sci/
>no on here is a biologist
>surprised you don't get it
>you couldn't understand it if you did get it
>instead of studying biology you keep browsing 4chan and believe you're an intellectual maverick

>>11372522
But anon, the evolutionary theory of the origin of life is a fact. Therefore, when someone questions it we should just call them dumb and say they aren’t an expert. We could of course provide tons of evidence to support it because it is a FACT after all. One more thing, I fucking love science!

>>11372513
Authority has to be challenged by people who know better than the authority. Not being an authority isn't a qualification.

>>11372519
You need to be an expert to have good information and good arguments. That's what being an expert is. You seem to interpret being an expert as having a degree or belonging to consensus in the field. Biology is not a hobby and it takes rigorous study to be one just like it does to be a mathematician or a computer scientist.

>>11372519
>You don’t need a PhD in a field to present good arguments pertaining to it.

Technically true, but when this non-expert speaks contrary to the actual experts, and outside of the context of scientific rigor.....

>>11372527
This is just a wojak non-sequitur. Facts aren't defined as something that's commonly understood and effortless to demonstrate. Trusting experts isn't science, that's for the scientists. Trusting experts to insulate you from even more retarded ideas than what scientific consensus could be wrong about.

>>11372528
>Authority has to be challenged by people who know better than the authority.
I do know better but my knowledge is measured outside of the framework in which you grant authority to an opinion. For instance I am anti-psychiatry and use no scientific studies to form my views yet I am correct and psychiatrists are wrong. I am totally justified in thinking that way too.

>>11372527
>But anon, the evolutionary theory of the origin of life is a fact

Evolution and the origin of life are distinct things.

>>11372529
>and outside of the context of scientific rigor.....

But other scientists arguing against his paper is authority and I don't trust authority. I only trust myself and people that provide opinions I like.

>>11372532
>For instance I am anti-psychiatry and use no scientific studies to form my views yet I am correct and psychiatrists are wrong.

Take your meds uncle.

>>11372532
I'm star struck that I could be talking to the real tom cruise right now

>>11372537
Fuck off your abuse will end one day and you will get what you deserve.

>>11372538
You can laugh all you want but I know the reality of psychiatry and how abusive it is and how it is totally invalid and not deserving of praise.

>>11372539
Cringe.

>>11372529
Define “scientific rigor”
Define “expert”

>>11372545
>Le cringe
>le science man

>>11372548
>I put “le” in front of words and then posted.

Probably a better contribution to the thread than the evolution denier schizos.

>>11372549
>if I call people schizo the scary creative ideas they espouse seem less frightening

>>11372528
Define “good” and what makes information and arguments good? I have seen plenty of well formed and intelligent arguments against Darwinian theory but because these people did not have a biologist title the lay person won’t listen at all.

>>11372557
> scary creative ideas

Those are all well and good as long as they have empirical evidence. Got any?

>>11372560
Empiricism is a cancer plaguing humanity. The cursed mythos of modernity.

>>11372558
>I have seen plenty of well formed and intelligent arguments against Darwinian theory

There is no “Darwinian theory” anymore. This is not 1889.
We can observe allele frequencies change over successive generations in a lab environment.
What exactly about evolution triggers you?

Retard explanation: New species just popped into existence, I'm not saying they were created by god, but I'm just going to not explain it and pretend that that's ok.

two neuron explanation: Speciation didn't "explode". The ability of nature to preserve fossils sharply drops off before the cambrian period. Speciation was probably at expected levels before this, the fossils just didn't survive at a linear rate.

And that's something easy. If you trusted these guys to get genetics right when you yourself don't know shit your world view is going to be permanently retarded.

>>11372388
>You need to physically observe an event to be able to say it happened
I guess all the murder cases where there were no witnesses should be deemed mistrials and the murderers acquitted.

>>11372562
>Empiricism is a cancer plaguing humanity

Cringe. Have fun trying to learn anything without making observations.

>>11372542
>he still hasn't gotten his freedom medal of valor

>>11372399
>>11372437
How is epigenetics in support of creationism and not evolution? It seems all random to be.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371177/

>>11372564
>Retard explanation: New species just popped into existence, I'm not saying they were created by god, but I'm just going to not explain it and pretend that that's ok.

It’s a Strawman. Strict gradualism is outright wrong and dramatic changes can occur within relatively short timespans provided there are sharp selection pressures. The “Cambrian explosion” was millions of years long.

>>11372558
>Define “good” and what makes information and arguments good?
Ideas that were attempted to be disproven by scientific method

>I have seen plenty of well formed and intelligent arguments against Darwinian theory
How do you know? Are you a scientist?

>>11372569
The point is science is only useful for pragmatic affairs but it is flawed when dealing with human and spiritual concerns. In fact it can even be abusive.

>>11372580
>The point is science is only useful for pragmatic affairs but it is flawed when dealing with human

Prove it.

> and spiritual

Provide empirical evidence anything “spiritual” exists.

>>11372582
Go fuck yourself. Do you think child abuse is something that has proof? Do you think you should only believe it happened if you have physical proof? There are so many things like that in life especially painful things. But you fuckers have taken over and the consequence is a modern world where everyone is in pain but detached from the cause because they aren't allowed to believe in it. Even love is not something real to you fuckers it is just chemicals. What a load of crap.

>>11372573
Epigenetics is only relevant in terms of transgenerational inheritance to non-mammalian life and in terms of life history and development relevant in ways that do not provide comfort, new therapeutic techniques in medicine or coherent mechanisms which molecular biologists have an adequate understanding of approaching what we expect for a process like say transcription.

>>11372589
>Ad hominem Strawman Strawman Strawman Strawman

>>11372563
Nobody cares for your bullshit semantics.

>>11372565
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>11372578
>I need to have a PhD or have the title of scientist to recognize the validity of an argument
More mental retardation from the I-fucking-love-Science crowd.

>>11372593
>Nobody cares for your bullshit semantics.

Sorry, not letting you avoid the question.
We can observe evolution in the lab. What is your problem with this?

>>11372589
>the epistemological methods for deciding criminal cases and explaining natural phenomena over vast time spans should be the same

Cringe

>>11372599
>the epistemological methods for deciding criminal cases and explaining natural phenomena over vast time spans should be the same

Why shouldn’t they be? Gather empirical evidence in the present and use it to reconstruct past events.

>>11372591
>Epigenetics is only relevant in terms of transgenerational inheritance to non-mammalian life
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579375/

>>11370914
>((((peer)))) reviewed

>>11372596
Define “evolution.” If you mean changes in allele frequencies then sure, we can observe this. If you mean a prebiotic soup leading to the formation of life and then the evolution of all complex life forms, then no. You seem to be equating the two, which is typical of an evolutionist.

>>11372593
>I need to have a PhD or have the title of scientist to recognize the validity of an argument

You brought this requirement up, not me. Why are you obsessed with PhDs? Why do you believe you need a PhD to be a scientist and then accuse and complain about other people believing that?

>>11372611
Based

>>11372613
>Define “evolution.” If you mean changes in allele frequencies then sure, we can observe this.

Okay we agree GG

> If you mean a prebiotic soup leading to the formation of life and then the evolution of all complex life forms, then no.

Abiogenesis is not understood yet.

> You seem to be equating the two

No, I specifically pointed out they aren’t the same thing in this very thread.

>>11372616
>How do you know, are you a scientist?
>I didn’t say that

>>11372613
>Define “erosion.” If you mean changes in the shore line then sure, we can observe this. If you mean rivers leading to the formation of a vast canyons, then no. You seem to be equating the two, which is typical of a geologist.

But the funniest part was your profile picture

>>11372633
>won't even call himself a scientist

Then why should even you care what you think

>>11372632
You may not but the lay person does not know the difference. So when we have people saying we can observe evolution in the lab the lay person thinks that abiogenesis and the evolution of complex life is now a fact. This is a rhetorical mistake at best and purposely misleading at worst. For this reason many opponents against evolution will differentiate between so called micro and macro evolution, even if the only technical difference is timescales.

>>11372641
See
>>11372657

>>11372606
See

“A critical view on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans” (Horsthemke, 2018)

Im familiar with the famine and maternal trauma hypothesis they’re not particularly convincing when one considers life history shifts caused by changes in rearing practices under social stress and calorie restriction in young mothers in a high mortality environment. Rapid response to population level perturbations seems plausible via quick regime shifts in mating and resource allocation patterns, very implausible that epigenetics can explain long accumulated differences in quantitative traits like body size and behavior.

>>11372657
>the lay person thinks that abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the one possibility barring the actions of aliens, which while conceivably possible, only kicks the can down the road.

> and the evolution of complex life is now a fact.

It is a fact that complex life evolved.

>>11372669
>it is a fact complex life evolved
Since it is a fact you should have no problem proving it.

>>11372657
>So when we have people saying we can observe erosion in lab the lay person thinks that erosion of entire canyons is now a fact. This is a rhetorical mistake at best and purposely misleading at worst. For this reason many opponents against erosion will differentiate between so called micro and macro erosion, even if the only technical difference is timescales.

What is the problem? That some people don't like the results over long periods of time? Who cares?

>>11372675
>Since it is a fact you should have no problem proving it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605046
https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml

Isn’t it weird how organisms in the fossil record are less “advanced” the older they are? It’s as if they’re evolving or something.

>>11372675
This right here is the heart of the ignorance

That topics in expert fields can be explained and demonstrated in a 4chan post without an education. You wouldn't understand the vocabulary or implications of any explanation you could be given. If you did understand these things you would be arguing with other biologists and not literal whos.

>>11372693
>Cambrian explosion
The so-called Cambrian explosion is a problem for evolution, not in support of it. Nice try though. Have any actual evidence?

>>11372693
in b4 didn't read gish gallop lol

>>11372709
>The so-called Cambrian explosion is a problem for evolution

How so? Explain exactly how organisms changing over time is a problem for the idea that organisms change over time.

>>11372713
Having such a quick development of so many complex organisms is against the idea that life slowly evolved through minute changes in genetic code from generation to generation. Unless you want to argue that life is capable of evolving far quicker than commonly believed through some different mechanism.

>>11372724
>Having such a quick development

Fifteen million years isn’t “quick”.

> is against the idea that life slowly evolved

Outdated view of evolution. Populations can change very quickly given harsh selection pressures and HOX genes that allow for diverse and new forms. You are behind evolutionary biology from the 70’s.

>>11372724
saltation, punctuated equilibrium and simple misinterpretation of the radiation of new life during that period owing to dependence on paleontological evidence preference over molecular evidence might be good explanations. There’s no reason that the maintenance of low evolutionary speed is necessary in all situations or that under the right conditions a group of well adapted organisms cannot overtake the dominant species and rapidly differentiate occupying new niches not previously accessible to the older species

>>11372713
>Here's an explanation
>He doesn't read the explanation
>Well explain why this abstract concept concept is wrong in abstract terms

Or he could read it. But he can't because he can't understand it. The worst thing you can do is ask him to stay in his infantile level of abstraction and continue to not understand anything.

ITT: evolutionists going through massive cognitive dissonance and realizing they believe in a science fiction story.

>>11372749
>This is totally happening. It’s true because I typed it.
Also, Jesus rose from the dead.

>>11372763
>Jesus rose from the dead
Yes.

I still don't understand why creation (as in an omnipotent being created the universe) and evolution are contradictory
Is it just specific claims in the Bible that contradict with it because otherwise the conflict makes no sense to me

>>11372388
>The claim that humans have code in our genomes that came from a virus inserting it is a historical claim. You can say that it is a hypothesis about what happened, but no one was around to observe this supposed event, and it is certainly not a scientific fact.
Doesn't follow. There are plenty of scientific facts that are historical claims, because we can deduce facts about the past from evidence in the present. For example, fingerprints are evidence of contact with a specific individual, even if no one observed the contact as it happened. Retroviral insertions are no different.

And you still haven't picked a consistent definition of evolution. Why? Are you really this dishonest?

>>11372767
No one observed that, so it's bullshit.

What's so wrong about evolution? There's nothing absurd about life gradually changing over the course of hundreds of millions of years to get where it is today. I don't think that discredits god in any way or am I supposed to believe out of the ~3 billion years or so that Earth has existed for it's been completely devoid of life until 6000 years ago?

>>11373618
>retroviral insertions are no different than fingerprint evidence

>>11373630
>what is the entire New Testament

>>11373679
>retroviral insertions are no different than fingerprint evidence
Yes.

>>11373684
No one observed Jesus rise from the dead in the New Testament. Also, no one observed that what's written in the New testament was observed by anyone who wrote it. Are you really this much of a hypocrite?

>>11373679
>Excuse me counselor, but did you observe the defendant put his fingerprint on the murder weapon? Because if not, how do you know he touched the murder weapon? Case dismissed for lack of evidence.

>>11373706
>retroviral insertions are no different than fingerprint evidence
No.

Many people interacted with him after resurrection. Keep seething atheist

>>11373712
>still comparing a historical claim regarding supposed events millions of years ago to a modern criminal trial

>>11373663
The odds of the mutation math adding up are longer than the age of the universe

>>11373713
>No.
Wrong. You lose.

>Many people interacted with him after resurrection.
Did you observe the interaction? No? So it's bullshit.

>>11373715
>still has no argument against the comparison

>>11373724
No, you lose.

>>11373727
>still thinks it’s any kind of comparison at all

>>11373720
The odds you have any clue how to calculate probabilities involving mutations and evolution are 0 to 1.

>>11373730
>No, you lose.
Not an argument, try again.

>still comparing a historical claim regarding supposed events millions of years ago to a modern criminal trial
>still thinks it’s any kind of comparison at all
Why are you constantly contradicting yourself?

>>11373731
This guy understands odds ratios

>>11373731
Did I blue screen you? I just stated simple well known facts.
Either the age of the universe is wrong, we are missing a key component of genetic change, or evolution was guided (or its wrong).

>>11373732
>Not an argument, try again
Also not an argument, try again.

>Why are you constantly contradicting yourself?
I’m not. What are you such a Jew?

>>11373737
>I just stated simple well known facts.
So then it should be a piece of cake to show the math behind this simple and well known fact. But you never will, because it doesn't exist.

>>11373745
I have the math. So if a fixed mutation takes 69 years, but we only have 420 years left, then how are we supposed to obtain 69420 fixed mutations in that time frame? Got it retard?

>>11373738
>Also not an argument, try again.
My argument is here >>11371145. You failed to respond with a counterargument and instead denied that we can infer the past from evidence, which has been disproved.

>I’m not.
You called my comparison a comparison and then said it wasn't a comparison. You seem to have an issue with telling the truth.

>>11373747
Thank you proving it doesn't exist. You lose.

>>11373748
>You called my comparison a comparison and then said it wasn't a comparison
I can’t tell if this is bait or not. I pointed out the flaw of comparing the two situations and also stated it isn’t a comparison at all. Both statements imply the same exact thing. Again, why act like such a Jew?

>>11373750
I just proved it. I worded it in a way so your tiny brain could understand it

>>11373753
>I pointed out the flaw of comparing the two situations
What flaw?

> I pointed out the flaw of comparing the two situations and also stated it isn’t a comparison at all.
>comparing two situations
>not a comparison at all
>comparing
>not a comparison
Massive retard.

>>11373754
>I just proved it.
Yes, you proved it doesn't exist. Thanks for confirming that you're a pathetic lying hack.

>>11370834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

>>11371093
>hasn't seen the peer reviewed papers on the efficacy of peer review