/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14664975
>one kind becoming another kind?
what the fuck does that even mean? What exactly do you expect to see? An alligator with wings? Or a fish with legs or that can breathe above water? Oh wait, that actually exists.

Also, do you not think the fact that life has evolved for billions of years may have made evolution more stable? All organisms are already well suited to their environments, so there isn’t much need for change in most cases.

>why is there not one single scientifically documented case of one kind becoming another kind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor

A fucking microbe evolved from dogs. Eat shit.

>>14664975
Things mutate, opposites attract, life is one long series of mutations

>>14665008
>the fact that life has evolved for billions of years
You literally cannot observe or repeat that. You're just stating your religious dogma.

>>14665035
Mutations are harmful and hereditary mutations will kill off all of mankind one day.

>>14665023
>wikipedia
You're fucking retarded. Kill yourself. :-)

>>14664975
>gets turned into purple drank by wakandan scientists

>>14664975
evolution isn't true, but you sound like dweeb for asking that

>>14665061
way to ignore 90% of my post

>>14665070
>One quart of horseshoe crab blood sells for $15,000.

Almost spat out my banana

>>14664975
Because it takes a long time to happen and us modern humans haven't been around too long to observe such changes taking place in larger organisms.

We have observed all the mechanisms of evolution take place in smaller microorganisms that reproduce rapidly for example antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

If we apply all these aspects of evolutionism to all of the fossils and historical findings we have observed it fits in perfectly, no other explanation really comes anywhere close to fitting in as perfectly as the theory of evolution does.

>>14665065
Bitch you can scroll down to the bottom of the page for the real shit.

>>14665065

>>14664975
Nylon eating bacteria.

>>14664975
>If evolutionism is true, why is there not one single scientifically documented case of one kind becoming another kind?
takes a lot of generations. bacteria reproduce extremely fast so we can see this new traits appearing right in front of us. animals take a lot of time.
taxonomy doesnt consider domesticated animals to be a different species but i am pretty sure that a 2000 years old dead jew would consider different dog breeds to be different kinds. here evolution of new kinds right in front of us

there is literally a snake with legs that can't decide whether it wants to lay eggs or give live birth right now, anon

>>14665159
There are snakes without legs that give live birth (e.g. common garter snakes), so that's not really evidence of a transition.

>>14665148
Yeah this. We've evolved plenty of animals and plants into different kinds, we just don't consider them as such because the definition of a species is arbitrary.

At the same time, we consider some slightly different birds living on different continents to be different species.

>>14665199
you don't understand.
the legs are a meme.
the fact it's transitioning between birthing types, right now, as it's studied, are what's relevant.
think, anon, think. and read the words before your eyes.

I see a blue car.

Five years later I see the blue car again, this time with a splatter of red paint.
This is interesting, so I take note
Five years later I once again see a blue car, this time with two splatters of red paint.
I note this down again, this may be the beginning of a long trend towards a red car.

Another person walks up to me and asks "have you ever personally seen a blue car turn into a red car?".
At the same time, another blue car with three red splatters drives by in front of us.
"No? Well, I guess cars can never change, then.", he says.

>>14665065
Criticising Wikipedia is the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

>>14665288
He is correct in the sense that wikipedia has long been overrun by shills of the views and beliefs pushed by mainstream media.
However, criticizing an argument solely because it cites wikipedia is a beyond retarded thing to do.

>>14665307
You should attack the sources it uses
>This Wikipedia article cites X for Y claim, but I think Z study disproves this
rather than just it being Wikipedia.

>>14665307
no, its completely reasonable to expect that anyone who references wikipedia is doing so because they know that wikipedia is a dishonest source of information and they are referencing wikipedia specifically to take advantage of the site's dishonest nature.

>>14665338
What if I think you are the dishonest one, anon?

>>14665338
If you truly believe that they're being dishonest and are voting a dishonest source, then prove it.
Find the sources that the wikipedia page they cited uses and determine the validity of those sources. Don't just mindlessly disregard their argument because muh wikipedia

>>14665113
>>14665123
>>14665288
Found the cock gobbling plebbit retards.

>>14665260
Adaption =/= evolution
Retard

>>14665288
>Criticising Wikipedia is the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.
He wasn't criticizing Wikipedia, he was criticizing the people who use it. Even they aren't so stupid as to take themselves seriously.

>>14665390
>Adaption =/= evolution
>Retard
Words cannot express how fucking stupid you are.
Explain in your own words how evolution and adaptation are different.

>>14665110
>yeah dude a cat can evoluve(!) into a birb if u give a bajillion years bro its crazy!

>>14665070
Why cant you just farm those things? and if you can, how can they be so expensive

>>14665217
You can make a wolf into a pug, they can still breed together too. You cannot then a wolf into a fish that its ancestors couldnt breed with. Evolution leads to interspecies changes obviously but it does not develop new species the way its presented, i.e slowly and methodically.

Further, animals are designed much too well to be due to random. Many designs like wings dont offer any advantage (and actually may offer a disadvantage) until the structure is completely evolved.

If evolutionwas real we should see occurances of randomly mutating creatures with designs that arent extremely refined yet, but we dont. Everything is the same forever and always.

>>14665457
We dont know how to breed them, I think. I believe theres a place that does farm them though, but last i looked synthetics will soon likely be replacing it.

>>14664975
Darwin theorized about evolution 200 years ago before modern understanding of genetics and microbiology. He did not understand the mechanism underpinning the traits he observed so it is excusable that he thought traits could simply spontaneously materialize. What isn't excusable are the holdout proponents that have access to this incredible knowledge yet still cling to his outdated theory. Which is ironically holding us back in our attempt to understand the mysteries of life.

>>14665070
If this picture doesn't prove definitively that we live in Hell I don't know what does. Jesus Christ.

>>14665446
Adaption is change in the genetics of a species but it remains the same species. Evolution is complete change in species.
The only retard here is (You).

>>14665532
Evolution IS adaptation.
If you believe animals change over time to adapt in the short term, what happens in the long term?

the problem is you will never live long enough to notice it happening in your lifetime and so your instinct is to be skeptical. ultimately your life and opinions are irrelevant though so i hope you enjoy what little time you get to be alive.

>>14665008
>>one kind becoming another kind?
>what the fuck does that even mean?
"Kinds" are how creationists cope with microevolution and macroevolution. E.g. speciation events have been observed, but creationists say that it doesn't count because they are the same "kind".
Creationists also use "kinds" to try and reclassify macroevolution events; see also how foxes and wolves are of the same "kind" despite being as removed from each other as humans and chimpanzees.

>>14665446
my worldview says that evolution is impossible, yet adaption happens in front of my eyes. therefore these things cannot be related, because my worldview cannot possibly be wrong.

Years of mathematics, countless examples of micro-addition but not one single documented proof of macro-addition, 1 million + 2 million, what is it? You simply can't count that far in a human lifetime.

>>14665399
>He wasn't criticizing Wikipedia, he was criticizing the people who use it
The counterpoint is he wasn't criticizing the actual evidence put fucking forward, so he's a fuckwit regardless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Fucking ironic in a thread about evolution.

>>14665832
>https://en.wikipedia.org/

>>14665870
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Own_goal

>>14665907

>>14665532
species are not even real, they are just an arbitrary grouping we invented. The natural world does not obey our invented concepts. There may exist a boundary between adaption and evolution, but that boundary is not species.

>>14665023
>A fucking microbe evolved from dogs. Eat shit.
Transmissible cancer is not classified as a different species and it has happened a few times, another one involves Tazmanian devil if I remember correctly. If anything it would be classified as a really really fucked up dog breed, not a microbe. I'm pretty sure that wikitard article even tried to claim it was a different "new" species a few years ago but people deleted that shit.
I know you claim "devolution" is not a real thing but the blatant reality is that is what is describing the situation of transmissible cancer. In every possible sense that cancer is less complex than host dogs. What you believe was evolved has now been taken away. "evolutionism" cannot rely on taking things away. You could provide a million examples of taking things away and it wouldn't make any difference in supporting your fundamental beliefs.

>>14665446
>Explain in your own words how evolution and adaptation are different.
Not him but heritable epigenentics is one example of adaptation that isn't evolution.

>>14664975
>Why aren't we allowed to criticize or question evolutionism on /sci/?
Probably because "evolutionism" is a creationist buzzword, and creationism is not science. Also because whenever proof is played you ignore it and post the same thread.

>>>/x/

Here's the proof you asked for and will ignore: https://youtu.be/TUxLR9hdorI

>>14665061
>You literally cannot observe or repeat that.
You can repeatedly observe it in the fossil and genetic records.

>Mutations are harmful
No, most mutations do nothing at all. What prevents mutations from being beneficial? Or is this just dogma?

>hereditary mutations will kill off all of mankind one day.
How so?

>>14665390
Adaption via selection of mutations = evolution

Retard.

>>14665532
>Adaption is change in the genetics of a species
That's literally the defintion of evolution. LOL

>Evolution is complete change in species.
No, that's speciation. Why can't adaptive result in speciation?

>>14665461
>You cannot then a wolf into a fish that its ancestors couldnt breed with.
Because?

>but it does not develop new species the way its presented
Because?

>Many designs like wings dont offer any advantage (and actually may offer a disadvantage) until the structure is completely evolved.
Have you actually looked at explanations for wing evolution? You're probably assuming pre-wings could serve no other purpose than flying, thus could not have evolved.

>If evolutionwas real we should see occurances of randomly mutating creatures with designs that arent extremely refined yet, but we dont.
We do. Every single organism on Earth has mutations. Most of these mutations do nothing. Some are harmful, so why would they be "designed?" Some are beneficial, but have not yet spread through the population. Once they do spread through the population due to selection, that's a "design being refined."

You deny evolution based on lies you've been told. Try using your brain.

>>14665483
>What isn't excusable are the holdout proponents that have access to this incredible knowledge yet still cling to his outdated theory.
Who?

>>14665667
>Years of mathematics, countless examples of micro-addition but not one single documented proof of macro-addition
Wrong.

https://youtu.be/TUxLR9hdorI

>>14664975
>If evolutionism is true, why is there not one single scientifically documented case of one kind becoming another kind?
Because the classifications are not particularly rigorous in the first place.

>>14665970
>>hereditary mutations will kill off all of mankind one day.
>How so?
Not him but there are already contradictions in peer review regarding mutation rate vs long term suitability of species.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/our-cells-are-filled-with-junk-dna-heres-why-we-need-it
Two quotes from same article:
>The international collaboration explored the function of every letter in the genome. The results of the massive undertaking called for a reassessment of junk DNA. Though less than two percent of the genome makes proteins, around 80 percent carries out some sort of function
>Graur estimates in a 2017 paper in Genome Biology and Evolution that no more than a quarter of our genetic code can be functional — any more and we would accumulate deadly mutations at an unsustainable rate.
A blatant contradiction. If evolutionary origins of species is a valid hypothesis then only one of these peer review positions can be correct. However, to a YEC this is no problem at all. Our DNA was only made a little while ago and these deadly mutations have not had too much time to accumulate. I'm guessing at some point in the future, maybe 10k or 100k or 1m years from now, multicellular animal life will go extinct from a sort of "Children of Men" movie scenario where genomes are so messed up from accumulation of deadly mutations that no embryo can make it to term.

>>14665231
>the fact it's transitioning between birthing types, right now, as it's studied
is pure speculation. they could have been doing so for the past fifty thousand years and it's just never been observed.

>>14666065
>>The international collaboration explored the function of every letter in the genome. The results of the massive undertaking called for a reassessment of junk DNA. Though less than two percent of the genome makes proteins, around 80 percent carries out some sort of function
Selective quotations. If you had simply quoted the next few sentences you would reveal there is no contradiction:

>What fell into ENCODE’s definition of functionality was pretty broad, however. Any “biochemical activity” was fair game — getting transcribed into RNA, even if chopped later in the process, qualified sequences as functional.

>Questions and much debate remain around junk DNA. If Graur is right, a vast portion of it might just be scratch pages that protect the useful stuff from mutations.

They agree with each other, they are just using different definitions of "useful."

>>14666113
>Selective quotations
Not at all
>They agree with each other, they are just using different definitions of "useful."
Not at all. You are selectively deciding (dishonestly so) the qualifying word is "useful" when the only common qualifying word is "function" for both entities. Nowhere does the article make a claim regarding ENCODE describing it's findings in terms of being "useful," nowhere. Repeating myself: the article says ENCODE claims up to 80% of genome involves some functionality, and as you decided to point out it uses broad inclusion of functionality. And again for the paper by Graur they verbatim claim it says "no more than a quarter of our genetic code can be functional."
Broad inclusion of functionality is still some degree of functionality; it can't mean no functionality. Hence the next sentence I left out about broad functionality is irrelevant. It's excluded in the second entity no matter if it's broad or not.
If you want to get into the details regarding the entities instead of pretending I'm wrong about the pop sci article that's fine, but the contradiction in the article obviously remains.

>>14664975
>one kind becoming another kind
Define """""kind"""""" immediately.

>>14664975
But we can observe it currently even: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8959000/8959574.stm

>evolutionism

>>14666649
>ENCODE claims up to 80% of genome involves some functionality, and as you decided to point out it uses broad inclusion of functionality. And again for the paper by Graur they verbatim claim it says "no more than a quarter of our genetic code can be functional."
Then ENCODE and Graur are using different definitions of functional, or one of them is wrong. Does that disprove the massive amounts of genetic and fossil evidence that supports evolution? No, you idiot.

>> waah you said evolutionism
that's like saying "sciencism" you retarded fuck.
nobody; literally nobody in science is questioning on whether it's an "absolute belief".
the very nature of science is based on theory and observation and proof and guess what; there's countless of example that indicate the theory is true; you have nothing that proves it wrong (other than you prove you are a retarded religious idiot (specifically evangelical christian too probably (what a lucky coincidence you were born in the "correct" family with the "correct" religion too you retarded stupid fuck))).

the reason those morons exist
basically the very existence of their religion includes built-in the lunacy that they believe it without proof and they KNOW and ADVERTISE that they are morons who don't need or want proof to be morons.

when humanity progresses further we'll find ideology in whole is similarly retarded.

>>14666715
>or one of them is wrong
>I have no evidence these peer review entities are wrong but if my dogma requires one to be wrong I will blindly believe one must be wrong
kek. It wasn't my primary goal here to bait evolutiontards into admitting their religious adherence to their dogma is more important than peer review, but I knew it would happen sooner or later in this particular dialogue. I thought it would take longer.
And of course the 3rd scientific option is both are right, like I said. But you are too blinded to acknowledge that because it violates your dogma.
>Does that disprove the massive amounts of genetic and fossil evidence that supports evolution?
Weak deflection. It's another nail in the coffin that is already riddled with nails