/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11417933
>hysterical unkempt roastie thumbnail
no god damn fucking way in hell i'm watching any bit of that

I kind of wish /sci/ would just ban youtube links. most of the time it's just schizophrenic posters, conspiratards, or anti-science religious cultist videos

>>11417936
I was about to call you an incel but then I heard the way she talks...yikes

>>11417970
LOL YOU'RE MISTAKE BRO NOW YOU GOTTA LIVE WITH IT FUCK THAT SHIT

>>11417933
Who are you going to believe? Her spouting endless roundabout rhetoric, or the people making glowing cats and genetically manipulated spider goats using evolutionary scientific principals?

>>11417933
>No proof of evolution exists
What are you talking about? The theory of evolution is the only one that puts every scientific observation of alive organisms together
Also, there were made lots of experiments with a wide range of living organisms on natural selection that proved Darwin's theory

>>11417933
>No proof of evolution exists
What are you talking about? The theory of evolution is the only one that puts every piece of scientific observation on life together
Also, we are certain that mutations do happen and there were made lots of controlled experiments on natural selection that confirmed Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. Those two things only should be enough to convince anyone that isn't an attention seeking faggot trying to be right on a subject they have no clue about by picking an argument so retarded as "there's no proof of it" when evidence is available everywhere

>>11418023
Explain how the principles of evolution and our understanding of mutations explain how winged animals came to be.

>>11418044
shit mutated and got the ability to fly yo

>>11418053
i know you're trolling, but actual "scientists" can't come up with any more intelligent ways to explain evolution besides "it just kinda happened". it's pathetic.

>>11417933
Can you please cite scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals? I think I saw some YouTuber review this video months ago and it was annoying enough that I’d like to not see it again.

>>11418082
the fuck do you expect? we'd need a magical tiem machine to look into to see what really happened in real tiem to explain this shit. What the fuck is your alternative?

>>11418090
The video was clearly a joke.

Burden of proof isn't on me. Keep trying, retard.

>>11418044
>Explain how the principles of evolution and our understanding of mutations explain how winged animals came to be.

Which ones? Insects flew first, so I’ll refer you to that topic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216314610

>>11418096
> The video was clearly a joke.

That’s conceivably possible but should be met with skepticism, as people like this do really exist.

> Burden of proof isn't on me.

It is, since you said “ No proof of evolution exists.”. All claims have a burden of proof, so get to proving that evolution has no proof.

>>11418082
>but actual "scientists" can't come up with any more intelligent ways to explain evolution besides "it just kinda happened".

That’s not true. You’d know this if you read any scientific literature.

>>11418091
shit on top of having that tiem machine we'd need to have the ability to dissect those creatures and study shit and even still, much liek QM, god probably wouldn't let us have that information no matter how hard we tried

>>11418044
>Some aquatic insect with large gills can do big leaps out of the water with help of those appendixes
>These insects that can give big leaps can get food and run away from depredators more effectively because they can move further distances in shorter periods of time
>The leaping insect population evolves by natural selection into flying insects
>Primitive flying insect branches into different kinds of flying insects
Both birds and bats are believed to have attained the ability to fly to eat insects (apart from the same 2 reasons why I mentioned insects might have developed functional wings)

>>11418108
Or you could just, you know, sequence the genomes of living organisms.

>>11418117
So where do mutations fit into all of this?

>>11418120
Well well well. Reasonable anon arrives to set things straight. What took you so fucking long?

>>11418125

Since Google isn't working for you, I'll link the Simple English answer: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

>>11418138
Please explain to me with citations how mutations of an individual's genome can ever bring about changes as dramatic as winged flight.

Please refrain from buzzwords such as "survival of the fittest" and "millions of billions of years". Rather, precisely explain how those buzzwords, along with random mutations, bring about such large changes.

>>11418144
>Please explain to me with citations how erosion of an individual river can ever bring about changes as dramatic the grand canyon.
>Please refrain from buzzwords such as "Angle of repose" and "millions of billions of years". Rather, precisely explain how those buzzwords, along with random erosion, bring about such large changes.

>>11418144

Since Google isn't working for you, I'll link the Simple English answer: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

>>11418153
False equivalence. Keep trying.

>>11418153

>>11418156

>>11418144
>Please explain to me with citations how mutations of an individual's genome can ever bring about changes as dramatic as winged flight.
> individual's
> individual's
>individual's
this bitch literally has no idea what's even going on here does he?

>>11417933
nice bait, good meme :)

>>11417933
Yea, it's pretty clear that humans are either an alien expirement in genome manipulation, or a divine creation. Evolution just isn't panning out as a theory. They still can't explain how we evolved beyond mere sentience into rational thought. The evidence for evolution gets more and more convoluted as time goes on.

>>11418153
Geologists don't seem to have such a hard time explaining how water erosion works. Theory of evolution has an awful lot of "missing links".

>>11418217
Last time I checked rocks don't migrate.

>>11417953
>anti-science religious cultist videos
>guy who came up with the big bang was a anti-science religious cultist

>>11418200
>They still can't explain how we evolved beyond mere sentience into rational thought

>>11418289
Yes, experiencing a sensation and rationalizing that sensation are two drastically different things. There is only one species on the planet that has this distinction, and science still can't explain why, even with all of their snide.

>>11418179
yeah, individuals mutate, generations don't. How does one mutation provide enough benefit to have any effect whatsoever on survival, let alone happen to also be passed down to offspring, which pass it down to their offspring (and so on), all while other mutations also are happening which also have enough benefit (and synergy with the former mutations) to enhance survival rates to somehow eventually manifest as wings which allow flight. Run on intended.

Explain this scientifically.

>>11418232
check again

If evolution isn't real then what the fuck is the alternative? Creationism? Because it's complete horseshit. It's not that hard to fit god and evolution together if that's her problem.

>>11417933
>no proof
Idiot.

There's plenty of evidence btw.

A friendly message that no scientific research has ever produced a new species nor witnessed one produced naturally. And with our understanding of genetic inheritance there is no known mechanism for it to occur. Normal mutations and time do not accomplish the restructuring of the genome, only changing specific genes within a static structure.

>>11418438
>How does one mutation provide enough benefit to have any effect whatsoever on survival, let alone happen to also be passed down to offspring, which pass it down to their offspring (and so on)

Honestly, evolution is not that hard to understand. Imagine a species of bird of which the males have a conspicuously long red tail. A tail that doesn’t make it fly any better. Let’s see if evolution theory can explain how a bird might end up with such a long red tail.
We assume that in the distant past the tails were not so long and not so red as we see them today. Let’s assume that the average tail used to be 2 inches long and brown, with a slight reddish hue. And today the average tail is 8 inches long with a bright red color.
So, we start with the old population and the first thing we notice is that both the tail length and the color vary between the individual males. The average might be 2 inches, but there are also males with shorter (1.5 inches) and longer (2.5 inches) tails. Same goes for the color. Some tails are brighter and redder end some are less colorful.
Even if we limit ourselves to one agent of evolution -in this case sexual selection- it is easy to see how long red tails can evolve.
As with many birds the females are doing the selection. They decide with which males they mate. As both the color and the length of the males’ tail indicate health and strength, the females prefer the longer and more reddish ones over the shorter en more brownish ones. The genes for both having a long red tail (in males) as well as preferring a long red tail (in females) will be passed on more frequently than the genes for having (and preferring) shorter tails. Hence, our species of bird will have males with longer and redder tails as the generations go by.

>>11418583
>Normal mutations and time do not accomplish the restructuring of the genome, only changing specific genes within a static structure.
Any proof?

>>11417933
>non-jewish woman
>talking about science

>>11417953
>just schizophrenic posters, conspiratards, or anti-science religious cultist videos
So flatearthers?

>>11418583
Why

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

do

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

you

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

lie?

>>11418217
I don't believe in Revolution. Governments can't simply rapidly change

Thanks for trying, but I only see examples where populations become isolated while still capable of interbreeding, or become mutually sterile through duplication of chromosomes. That's not an adequate mechanism of speciation and doesn't account for the genetic changes in the hypothesized phylogeny.

>>11419266
>>11418822

>>11418460
lol fukkin 10/10 post

>>11419266
>That's not an adequate mechanism of speciation
Why not?

>doesn't account for the genetic changes in the hypothesized phylogeny.
What do you mean?

>>11419789
Because species that appear to be related to each other don't just have different numbers of similar chromosomes, they have different sets of genes. And to be clear, my point is that they don't just have different variants of any gene, but entirely new ones.

No mutations that occur in meiosis can account for this, but possibly viral infections could. Either way, the picture of gradual evolution through genetic drift is an outdated oversimplification.

>>11417953
Rather this than

>iq threads
>loser crying about not being smart enough to go into X
>"scientifically speaking, <insert offtopic bullshit>?"

>>11417933
Slime-moulds doesn't make sense!
They are single-celled but with multiple nuclei, they can propagate (via spores) in both in their haploid and diploid form and are capable of learning.
Despite this humans are more closely related to mushrooms than slime-moulds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkVhLJLG7ug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B79Z56vl02A

>>11420096
>Because species that appear to be related to each other don't just have different numbers of similar chromosomes, they have different sets of genes.
Species that have had millions of years of evolution have that, yes. You're basically just constantly moving the goalposts and demanding observations of whatever can't be observed, even though evolution and speciation have already been shown to you. It's a pathetic tactic. You don't actually care about what you're arguing about.

>No mutations that occur in meiosis can account for this
Why not?

>Either way, the picture of gradual evolution through genetic drift is an outdated oversimplification.
Why?

>>11418091
look at thqat
mr autist 16-bits poster finally comes out of his shell
What took you so long anyway and why do you consistently keep spamming this board with all your gifs

>>11420353
>>11420353
>why do you consistently keep spamming this board with all your gifs
i'm mentally ill or something

>>11420358
eating sometimes hurts because i clench my teeth/jaw so tightly while horrible images/scenarios/ideas playout in my mind's eye that it actually makes me sore. among other fun shit

>>11420353
I think they're alright, add a bit of colour or something. Quite a few naff ones though

>>11420420
fukkin callemout when u see'em bro

>>11418460
>The pioneers used to rise these babies for MILES!

>>11420471
FUKKIN LOL

>>11417933
i also dont like when people/scientists say something like 'first ever' or something.
atleast include a qualifier like 'probably/may have' or 'kown' or something, just cause something seems to make sense doesnt make it true.
there are lots of things that with a little evidence makes sense but is wrong

>>11418217
yes retard, because not everything dies in a place where it can be fossilized. The stuff we find is an incredibly small percent of the all the life that has ever existed on this rock.

>>11420534
i've always wondered about this, liek how there isn't just piles of bones in the dirt all over the earth. my retard brain struggles with shit, how the fuck do some bones last throughout tiem and others not?