/sci/ - Science & Math

>Living fossils
There's many animals that "science" claimed went extinct "millions of years ago"... until we found them still alive and unchanged.

The real answer is that the Earth is much younger. Radiometric dating is the primary source for all the "millions of years" ages and it's demonstrably unreliable. Rocks of known age that are supposed to date to 1980 (Mount St.Helens) date to millions of years. The Mount St.Helens eruption also made a "mini grand canyon" that appears to be millions of years old, but did not exist whatsoever before 1980.

>Soft tissue in T-rex bones
Yes there is soft tissue found in T-rex and other dinosaur bones. No it's not fake.

If you asked "scientists" before this discovery if soft tissue could be preserved in the ground for 60 million years, they'd say no. That's now their only explanation for this.

2/2

>>15022850
Radiocarbon decay dating system.
Debunk this

>>15022850
Evolution is scientifically proven.
In science, a 'theory' pretty much means that the evidence is clearly there.

>>15022850
I lean towards theistic structualist evolution but based nonetheless

>>15022850
>If all life on Earth went through evolution, we'd find COUNTLESS transitionary fossils but we can't even find ONE.
People would find transitional species alive too since for them to exist they had to be resilient enough to survive for long enough for mutations to happen, yet there is only the monkey and the human, nothing in between (maybe niggers?).

>>15022850
>There is not a SINGLE transitionary fossil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
>Mutations can't add new information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research
>This is what we call irreducible complexity
Every part is contextually useful to its original environment. There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity".
>"They're just perfect" is not a legitimate answer to how an animal could remain unaffected by evolutionary force for 400 million years while others went through extreme changes.
They did not remain identical, just very similar. If your environment remains largely identical, exactly why do you expect change?
>This isn't strictly about evolution but it's part of the belief in evolution.
Nope. Abiogenesis could be false, evolution is still true. It is completely irrelevant to evolution.

>>15022913
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/

Rocks of known age give vastly incorrect dates.

>>15022919
>In science, a 'theory' pretty much means that the evidence is clearly there.
Are you 12 or something? Did you see me use the "evolution is a theory" argument?

You wanted to use this argument so bad you just imagined I said it.

>>15022944
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Pic related. You didn't find transitions, you found different animals and then with no proof claimed they were transitions.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research
You can delete, duplicate, and rearrange DNA, and yes you can get some interesting results.

>Every part is contextually useful to its original environment. There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity".
This isn't even worth replying to you're just saying "nuh uh".

>Nope. Abiogenesis could be false, evolution is still true. It is completely irrelevant to evolution.
It is absolutely part of the bigger picture of evolution and atheist belief.

If it didn't happen then you admit creation by a designer.

If you admit creation then you get into theistic evolution which is even fucking dumber.

>>15022969
>Pic related. You didn't find transitions, you found different animals and then with no proof claimed they were transitions.
You clearly did not read the link.
>You can delete, duplicate, and rearrange DNA, and yes you can get some interesting results.
Duplicating, rearranging, and partially deleting, would result in added information. If I duplicate "the cat sad" and duplicate "the cat sat" with deletions and rearranging, I still get "the sad cat sat". You just conceded you get new information.
>This isn't even worth replying to you're just saying "nuh uh".
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You did not list a single example of irreducible complexity.
>It is absolutely part of the bigger picture of evolution and atheist belief.
Not for me. You're talking to me, not a monolith. It has nothing at all to do with atheism nor evolution for me.

>>15022944
>Every part is contextually useful to its original environment. There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity".
There is.

>>15022981
>If I duplicate "the cat sad" and duplicate "the cat sat" with deletions and rearranging, I still get "the sad cat sat". You just conceded you get new information.

Yet you're using the same letters...

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/evidence-of-new-genetic-information/

>>15022992
>Yet you're using the same letters...
Yet I get new information using the same letters. Same thing in biology: You get new information using the same bases in DNA.

>>15022996
Can you get an eukaryote from the same genes a prokaryite has?

>>15023002
>Can you get an eukaryote from the same genes a prokaryite has?
First and foremost you are going to engage with the basic point: Do you agree you get new information by duplicating, rearranging, and deleting, as demonstrated above? If not, it is completely irrelevant how I answer your current question.

>>15022850
Personally I find the notion of transitional fossils entirely nonsensical.
It implies that organism “A” and organism “E” are the real animals and organisms B through D who all existed for numerous generations upon this earth are simply the stepping stones that A went through as it became E.
But that’s stupid, it makes it sound like evolving into E was a deliberate choice someone made but it wasn’t.
Each generation is in theory going to be ever more suited to its environment than the previous.
If that means over time that radical changes occur than ok, if not then thats fine too.
What’s worse yet is people will discover fossils of an organism that seems to mix attributes between animals found earlier and later and say it’s the transitional form of the two animals.
But what’s more likely is that all three were dead end lineages and the ones that actually “transitioned” into new species haven’t been discovered because the fossil record is so totally fragmentary that odds are we won’t find what we are looking for, ever, because it simply wasn’t preserved and is lost to the ravages of time.

>>15023009
>Do you agree you get new information by duplicating, rearranging, and deleting, as demonstrated above?
Define information in the context of evolution instead of arguing for unprincipled exceptions

God created humans

>>15023020
>Define information in the context of evolution instead of arguing for unprincipled exceptions
The analogy I just used with language is the information in context of evolution. You're the one who never defined it. I went with the sensible default. Shannon information theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

>>15022851
so the Earth is only a few thousand years old but a bunch of volcanos a few thousand years ago made it look a few million years old? Cool I guess haha

>>15022934
>monkey and human, nothing in between
um... chimpanzees? gorillas? orangutans? bonobos? babboons? abbos? I am not arguing against (or for) evolution but just pointing out that your post is wrong

>>15023050
Bonies
A type of rabbit with null ears and a blad shimmering head

>>15023047
More like a global flood that covered even the highest mountains.

Btw we find marine fossils on the summit of Mt.Everest.

Geneis7:19-20

And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

>>15023047
>so the Earth is only a few thousand years old
yeah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees#Trees_with_verified_ages

>>15023055
>Btw we find marine fossils on the summit of Mt.Everest.
And we only find, exclusively find, consistent evidence of local floods. That precludes a global flood, because a global flood would remove evidence of local floods. Such as the missoula flood plains. Simultaneously all these various local floods occur at wildly different times by all the ways used to determine those times. We find marine fossils on mountains because of plate tectonics.

>>15023055
Actually maybe Genesis is right. I think it's in chapter 1, it says that God gave Adam and Eve all seed-bearing plants for food. Looking at our physiological characteristics, we mostly clostly match frugivorous species. So according to both Genesis and physiology, humans are supposed to eat an entirely herbivorous diet consisting mostly of fruits, nuts, and seeds. Our physiology is vastly different from carnivores, omnivores, and even herbivores with leaf-based diets (i.e. horses and cows; yes grass blades are technically leaves).

>>15023050
>um... chimpanzees? gorillas? orangutans? bonobos? babboons?
all monkeys

>abbos
probably just hamites

>>15023062
>We find marine fossils on mountains because of plate tectonics.
I'm not even religious and I have no idea how old Earth is (for all I know it could be thousands or trillions of years old), but
>muh plate tectonics
is such a dumb excuse lmao

>>15023055
>The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
this can actually be tested, I wonder if scientists are interested in experiments if they can show the Bible is true. I don't think so, how would they mke people believe in their scientific cult with all its branches (feminism, communism, etc) if the Bible were true?

>>15023065
apes aren't monkeys bro
humans are apes
but yea babboons are monkeys
r u dumb?
also whats a hamite?

>>15023066
>is such a dumb excuse lmao
It's so dumb you had to side-step the precluding evidence of local floods without any argument at all? Do you think you're fooling anyone?
For that matter this post chain still goes unanswered >>15023044

>>15023062
>And we only find, exclusively find, consistent evidence of local floods
is the evidence they're local floods only the dating or something else?

>a global flood would remove evidence of local floods
because?

>>15023073
>because?
...How could it not? The local floods leave surface evidence of things like ripples and sediment. A global flood would make mountains of sediment wiping that completely clean. Obviously. Do you know fuck all about fuck all even a little?
Plus there's the heat problem: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
That much water would cause so much friction and energy the earth would be uninhabitable. So unless you're going to respond "becuz magic" you've got to admit you've been lied to.

>>15023077
>...How could it not?
Local floods happened afterwards? Now that I think about it, after a planetary (earth is flat) flood it is kind of unreasonable to think all that water would just go away at the same rates at all positions, so some places would get local floods after the big flood itself too

>>15023073
>is the evidence they're local floods only the dating or something else?
I forgot about this one. Isochron dating and similar methods rely on reliable decay rates with zero evidence whatever of having been altered at some point in the past. We can literally peer billions of years into the past seeing old stars and the decay rates are largely the same, with only minute deviations in the utmost extremes that would deviate those time scales by mere thousands of years. This is not "muh carbon dating doe", this is another case where either you admit to reality or claim magic/last thursdayism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating

>>15023085
>Local floods happened afterwards?
Except there was no "before". 1. The heat problem would cause the oceans to boil away and kill absolutely everything, 2. Isochron dating has zero of the supposed "problems" of carbon dating. You have to claim magic in both cases to deny reality.

Oh, and 3. There's zero evidence of a global flood like you find with local floods. Whoopsie.

>>15023077
>Plus there's the heat problem: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Not opening that link, sorry

>That much water would cause so much friction and energy the earth would be uninhabitable
Why? Maybe you meant *according to some scientists' current model*
https://www.discovery.com/science/Massive-Ocean-Beneath-Earths-Surface

>>15023090
>Isochron dating
Irrelevant, real dating (the gold standard of dating actually) doesn't give millions of years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees#Trees_with_verified_ages

>rely on reliable decay rates
Decay rates are nonsense, come back when quantum physics is figured out

>with zero evidence whatever of having been altered at some point in the past
Because scientists have a time machine to check it out right?

>We can literally peer billions of years into the past
You are cracking me up dude

>seeing old stars
Petitio principiii, scientists make assumptions about stars using the model they want to prove using the stars

>>15023096
>Not opening that link, sorry
Thanks for admitting you're a dishonest actor.
>Why? Maybe you meant *according to some scientists' current model*
Feel free to argue with the physics. Which you can't do because you're a narcissist who doesn't know fuck or shit about physics.
>https://www.discovery.com/science/Massive-Ocean-Beneath-Earths-Surface
Riddle me this: How exactly did that water get out of and back into where it is then? And how do you solve the heat problem?

>>15023102
>Irrelevant, real dating
Disregarded due to lack of argument. I provided a resource, you are failing to engage with it.
>Decay rates are nonsense, come back when quantum physics is figured out
Not an argument. Just a claim. Where's your evidence?
>Because scientists have a time machine to check it out right?
So you weren't alive 200 years ago therefore we can't know anything about 200 years ago?
>Petitio principiii, scientists make assumptions about stars using the model they want to prove using the stars
Last thursdayism.

>>15023095
>Except there was no "before".
Because?

>1. The heat problem would cause the oceans to boil away and kill absolutely everything,
Heat problem according to what? The globe Earth model? I'm pretty sure the planet would be really really cold with all that water

>Isochron dating has zero of the supposed "problems" of carbon dating
I never even mentioned carbon dating, who are you quoting?

>You have to claim magic in both cases to deny reality
You do know the difference between your models about your understanding of reality and reality itself right?

>>15023109
>Heat problem according to what?
Friction. Energy. Provided a link. Go read it.
>I never even mentioned carbon dating, who are you quoting?
Preempting bullshit, not quoting.
>You do know the difference between your models about your understanding of reality and reality itself right?
Yes. I also know you haven't the foggiest what that means.

>>15023095
>There's zero evidence of a global flood
Soientists will never find what they don't want to be found

>>15023069
>apes aren't monkeys bro
I'm pretty sure they are monkeys according to my definition

>>15023069
>humans are apes
Speak for yourself, chimpy

>>15023113
>Soientists will never find what they don't want to be found
Admitting one side has all the evidence, and all you have is a conspiracy theory, sure seems like conceding defeat.

>>15023103
>Feel free to argue with the physics.
Uh, what version physics? The current one of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY? The previous one of AETHER? Maybe the even previous one of FLUXIONS?

>>15023121
>Uh, what version physics?
I linked an explanation here >>15023077

>>15023121
"Others have been wrong before therefore I'm right"
Fuckin toddler

>>15023103
>Riddle me this: How exactly did that water get out of and back into where it is then?
Why is this a riddle? It says in the Book
>The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually.

God first opened the fountains of the deep of the planet, which I guess we would call tectonic plates (though the hydroplate theory is more fitting to actual observations, like the fact this planet is expanding, which the globe model doesn't explain well either) and the fountains of the heavens (meaning the dome, there is water above the dome, see Genesis 1). After that the water simply went down or evaporated, probably to rebuild the dome that opened since the dome is a really, really huge piece of clear ice (doesn't seem like the satan minions managed to make a dent in it using atomic bombs, see Operation Fishbowl)

>>15023117
>Admitting one side has all the evidence, and all you have is a conspiracy theory, sure seems like conceding defeat.
Well, aside from all the evidence of a global flood that "science" ignores because they're ideologically poisoned. Every culture has a contemporaneous flood myth for a reason.

>>15023112
>Friction. Energy.
Nigger water absorbs heat

>>15023126
>"Others have been wrong before therefore I'm right"
More like I have never been wrong, therefore I'm right

>>15023133
>Why is this a riddle? It says in the Book
Show me the evidence that actually happened. Where are those massive fountains? Where are those massive sinkholes? Where are the massive ripples and sedimentary deposits?
For that matter: Where's the solution you have to the heat problem?
>>15023136
>Well, aside from all the evidence of a global flood that "science" ignores because they're ideologically poisoned. Every culture has a contemporaneous flood myth for a reason.
Every culture that has floods, or lived where flooding occurred. Not every culture. Again, all you have is a conspiracy theory while admitting the evidence disagrees with you. How pathetic are you?
>>15023137
>Nigger water absorbs heat
Sadly, you really are that dumb.

>>15023139
>More like I have never been wrong, therefore I'm right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

>>15023044
I'm still waiting for the chicken little who tried to argue "muh information dough" to deny evolution. No surprise, he ran the fuck away.

>>15023140
>Show me the evidence that actually happened.
Are all those submerged buildings and empty zigurats in the american continent not enough for you?

>>15023181
>Are all those submerged buildings and empty zigurats in the american continent not enough for you?
Local floods are not evidence of a global flood, no. So where's the answer to the heat problem?
Hint: There isn't one

>>15023186
>Local floods
In the middle of the ocean?

>>15023208
>In the middle of the ocean?
That has to do with submerged buildings... how?

>>15023212
>That has to do with submerged buildings... how?
If local floods submerged entire local civilizations, how big would a flood have to be to submerge cities such that today they're found deep in the ocean?

>>15023223
>If local floods submerged entire local civilizations, how big would a flood have to be to submerge cities such that today they're found deep in the ocean?
There are not submerged cities "deep in the ocean". There are some submerged coastal cities. Stop being mealy-mouthed about what you're on about.

>>15023230
It doesn't really matter if there are cities in the bottom of the ocean floor or not, scientists will just say aan earthquake moved the city there or some bullshit like that. Physicists even preferred to reinvent physics to escape the consequences of the Michelson Morley experiments

>>15023243
Ah yes. More conspiracy theories because you have no evidence. Typical.

>>15022850
>DNA
Mutations can't add new information. They can only delete, duplicate, or rearrange DNA. This allows for some genetic variety among animal kinds and even natural selection, it can even be observed short-term. The lie is when you claim this same biological process can turn a single-celled organism into all life on Earth, for which there is no scientific basis.

Fundamentally wrong. The simplest example to prove you wrong is ploidy, specifically in crops.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

I don’t feel a need to address this much more, I’ve spent years in my field and know well the power of mutation.
If you think DNA can’t add to itself, you deny life and deny reality

>>15023186
>Local floods are not evidence of a global flood, no. So where's the answer to the heat problem?
Local floods mysteriously happening everywhere on Earth? Come on now lol how credulous do you think posters here are?

>>15023257
Has macroevolution ever been demonstrated in a lab? Has any scientists turned a prokaryote into an eukaryote through only natural selection?

>>15022850
>Mutations can't add new information
this shit again

>>15023280
It's scientifically proven. Read Darwin Devolves.

>>15023273
>get BTFO
>switch to a different retarded argument
But to answer your question, how would you do that in a lab? It takes a long time. Maybe we can make a hyperbolic time chamber like in Dragon Ball Z? Why have scientists never reproduced galaxy formation in the lab??

All species are transitory. If you start an argument with a retarded assumption (species are fixed) you should expect a retarded result (there are no fossils of transitory species).

Mutations can obviously add information. Example: primitive photoreceptor only detects infrared light, mutation slightly expands the sensitive range and now the creature can see in the visible light spectrum
Or a gene that originally coded to turn off after profucing one "eye" mutates and fails to turn off, resulting in the production of an extra eye and the attainment of stereoscopic vision.

Radiometric dating: sure it sucks and maybe we can dismiss it as reliable evidence that the earth is a specific age. But how does that lead to the conclusion that earth is younger? It could just as easily be 100x older than we think if all our measurements are retarded.

Don't know enough to argue anything else. Points about origin of sexual reproduction and soft tissue in fossils are interesting if true.

>>15023267
>Local floods mysteriously happening everywhere on Earth?
Local floods mysteriously happening where there've been glaciers, rivers, and so on. Not "everywhere". At wildly different times you'd expect on a geological time scale.

>>15023273
Concerning pro to eu: look into endosymbiotic theory, the genetic analysis will undoubtedly convince you with prowazaki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

Concerning macro evolution check this and pic related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

>>15023284
>Why have scientists never reproduced galaxy formation in the lab??
Well they're wrong about that too, but nevertheless it can be computer modeled for testing purposes.

>>15023304
OK, and? How does that answer my question? How would you observe yookies evolving into prookies in da lab, retard?

>>15023309
Perhaps with a valid computer model. Or perhaps just by raising them to evolve under pressure, like you believe nature does.

>>15023313
A valid computer model of a prokaryote evolving into a eukaryote? Are you retarded? If you think that's remotely possible then you should go back to studying before spouting opinions

>>15023288
>>15023257
>Mutations can obviously add information
A poodle lost the genetic information to stop its hair from growing.

The result is more hair, but the cause was actually a deletion of genetic information.

>primitive photoreceptor only detects infrared light, mutation slightly expands the sensitive range and now the creature can see in the visible light spectrum
And you know this is possible how?

Is it repeatable?
Is it observable?
Is it verifiable?

No? Then it's not science.

>>15023319
>If you think that's remotely possible then you should go back to studying before spouting opinions
Come back with a testable hypothesis and we'll talk about your religion being scientific.

>>15023321
Is it repeatable?
Yes
Is it observable?
Yes
Is it verifiable?
Yes

See >>15023303

One of my favorite quick videos is this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

>>15023321
>And you know this is possible how?
Mutation, gigabrain. Are you denying that mutation can result in enhanced capability, pretending this can't create a reproductive advantage, or wishing advantageous mutations dont aggregate over generations?

>>15023348
Small minor changes are possible through mutation yeah.

Brand new organs that didn't exist before? No.

>>15023358
Maybe lots and lots of small changes overtime result in new organs?
Almost like at jawless fish don’t have a thymus, or classical antibodies, but instead VLR antibody

>>15023288
>mutation slightly expands the sensitive range
Oh, so scientists can pinpoint which genes are responsible for that? Have they replicated it? Have they shown this is even possible without killing the mutated being?

>>15023364
>Maybe lots and lots of small changes overtime result in new organs?
Not if you can't add new genetic information.

Cool thought though, maybe you could repeat it and we could observe this? Or verify it's possible somehow?

>>15023379
Again, address ploidy and polyploidy

>>15023288
>But how does that lead to the conclusion that earth is younger
Because there is a reliable dating method called dendrochronology which says Earth is only a few thousand years.

>>15023293
>rivers just flood entire cities everywhere for no reason

>>15023303
>look into endosymbiotic theory
I don't care about a theory, I want to see experiments, I want to see results

The E. coli became... E. coli in the end of the experiment, they became bacteria. This isn't good evidence for macroevolution

>>15023383
You mean tree rings? Why do you think tree rings day the earth is a few thousand years old?

>>15023394
say*

>>15023364
>Maybe lots and lots of small changes overtime result in new organs?
Maybe you could actually shoe this happening instead of just using >trust me bro
to prove your pathetic induction as if reality somehow had to conform to your mental farts?

>>15023392
What is your definition of a different species? And why does this not fit it

>>15023398
I want to see a giraffe morph into a lizard before my very eyes. Is that too much to ask? Heh.. so much for "science"

>>15023394
Because the oldest fucking tree with verified rings doesn't give a gorilluon years for its age

>>15023398
Are blacks and whites a different species?

>>15023358
Example of how this can happen: Primitive animal has genes that code for a brain with two sensory input schemas, which have enabled the development of specialized sensor organs corresponding to "touch" and "sight". Genetic mutation occurs which grants ability for the primitive brain to simultaneously process three input schemas. As the mutated individual grows up, its brain finds value in assigning a different representational format to a portion of neural stimulus (sensation of vibration becomes distinguished from other "touch"), since this enables a more complex understanding of its environment. This new portion of re-mapped neural stimulus is the first and most rudimentary "ear", which grants the mutated individual a slight advantage in avoiding predation and therefore reproducing. Iterate for billions of generations and you get zoomers making drill rap.

>>15023403
Answer the question >>15023398

>>15023398
Champ I'm not asking for scientists, the psychopaths who like to larp as God, to turn bacteria into elephants or create atoms ex nilo, I'm asking for scientists to turn the simplest fucking living being, a prokaryite, into the supposedly next evolutionary step, meaning the second simplest living being, an eukaryote cell.

How fucking hard is that for intelligent minds with complete control over the eviromental settings? Surely a controlled experiment should speed things up a little. If randomness managed to do it, why can't scientists?

To me a different species is very simple, I know it by its function and how it looks. A bacteria is not a virus for example.

>>15023402
Hmmm yes but you are aware that trees stop forming new rings once they die, right?

>>15023410
What separates E. Coli from Salmonella in your definition of species? Or are they the same species?

>>15023321
>>15023326
>>15023379
You just keeping repeating that it's impossible to replicate a million-year long process in the span of a human clinical trial as if that makes some sort of point. You do understand that things can happen on large time scales right?

>>15023407
>Example of how this can happen: Primitive animal has genes that code for a brain with two sensory input schemas, which have enabled the development of specialized sensor organs corresponding to "touch" and "sight".

>code
>sensory
>input
>schemas
>enabled
>development

Why is a code monkey talking about Biology? You're probably a web shitter too since at least a low level programmer wouldn't be so retarded to try to abstract away things as complex as biological being into "code"

>>15023402
You seem to think that trees started growing the moment the earth was formed, and also that we have fossil evidence of the very first trees, both of which>>15023402
are obviously retarded.

>>15023421
>hurr what is DNA
N I G G E R

>>15023407
>As the mutated individual grows up, its brain finds value in assigning a different representational format to a portion of neural stimulus (sensation of vibration becomes distinguished from other "touch"), since this enables a more complex understanding of its environment. This new portion of re-mapped neural stimulus is the first and most rudimentary "ear", which grants the mutated individual a slight advantage in avoiding predation and therefore reproducing. Iterate for billions of generations and you get zoomers making drill rap.

>finds value
>value
>assigning
>representational format
>re-mapped
>iterate

Look computer buddy, your fanfiction to justify evolution is completely meaningless in the real world if you can't prove it with empirical evidence.

>>15023429
See
>>15023418

Retard retard retard

>>15023413
Yes, and? By evolution*sts reasoning, if a tree is capable of living to 1000 years, it should be able to live to 1 billion years (in case you didn't understand my ironic remark, I'm comparing the evolutionist belief in induction when it comes to microevolution becoming macroevolution with your desbelief in trees not being able to live for millions of years)

>>15023407
This is homosexual scifi bullshit
The reality of mutations looks like this:
>Human has a single mutation in x gene
>fucking dies because his body can't metabolize copper anymore, or his ion channels are damaged that fuck up lung functions, or ends up a cretin because his thyroid doesn't work anymore.
The idea that a single random mutation that is major enough to modify someone's organ function is somehow going to be incredibly beneficial and make their survival much better than the mean which would allow natural selection to work is a fairy tale.
If an animal ever has a mutation important enough to affect organ function, it will always be either damaging (making natural selection impossible) or do nothing (making natural selection impossible).

>>15023416
>What separates E. Coli from Salmonella in your definition of species? Or are they the same species?
They're all bacteria bro. When one of them becomes a parasite like those worms you see we talk.

>>15023435
So you think that trees can live for billions of years, but "ironically"? Am I understanding your argument correctly?

>>15023435
>what is senescence
>what is environmental variation
>what is resource depletion
Try again

>>15023438
So are all mammals the same species?

If you can’t define species very well, I don’t think you can reject the current definitions

>>15023428
Yes web dev, what is DNA? Give the computer program for an entire DNA from atoms alone since that's the bare basics of it. Then write all the "code" for every single function of the cell and then for all the possible interactions of the cells at any given time.

>>15023408
You answer it. Are blacks and whites a different species?

>>15023442
BROOOOO MY TELOMERESSSS NOOOO

>>15023449
I 100% believe in evolution. And I think we are not the same species. Genus yes, species no

>>15023436
You're just hysterically trying to pretend mutations (or multiple mutations within an individual) cannot result in any kind of advantage. Nobody gives a shit about the billions of bad mutations that lead to genetic dead ends (like you). The only thing that matters is sometimes a mutation can result in a variance of function that is well suited to the current environment, and that it gives that individual better than average odds of surviving long enough to reproduce.

>>15023441
I'm saying if there are 4000 year old trees around by the same reasoning evolutionists use there should be 1 million year old trees too somewhere. So far no one has found one which shows they probably don't exist, which means no tree existed in that period.

>>15023442
Somehow all those don't apply o macroevolution of course, in that case only microevolution is enough of evidence to affirm it really happened because of the gorillion years

>>15023447
>some nigger babble
No, stop frantically moving the goalposts.

>>15023444
>So are all mammals the same species?
Of course not. A rabbit is not a monkey evidently. Are you retarded?

>>15023460
What makes them a different species. You aren’t giving a definition

>>15023457
>Somehow all those don't apply o macroevolution of course, in that case only microevolution is enough of evidence to affirm it really happened because of the gorillion years
I can't make enough sense of your ESL to argue whatever point this is supposed to be so I guess you win

>>15023457
>I'm saying if there are 4000 year old trees around by the same reasoning evolutionists use there should be 1 million year old trees too somewhere. So far no one has found one which shows they probably don't exist, which means no tree existed in that period.
And which reasoning would that be?

>>15023454
>muh gorillion of years prove evolution
>how do I know earth has gorillion of years? Uhhh, because things evolved that's why
>it's also because the globe is spinning so it must have gorillions of years
>how do I know it's spinning? Because my globe earth cosmology has a model that gives me evidence to say this planet must be spinning becise in my premise model is it spinning!

>>15023464
Bad faith nigger sprinting around to find any angle to argue. You don't win anything by demanding everyone else define every term just because we engaged with your gay thread full of retard claims.

>>15023469
There go the goalposts again. What the fuck are you talking about?

Embarrassing

>>15023470
You are saying evolution isn’t real because one species hasn’t been proven to be able to become another.

I have asked you what is a species so I can show you an example. You refuse.

See the problem?

>>15023464
>What makes them a different species
Human intelligence, given by God. Just read Genesis, Adam named all creatures, therefore he could tell one type of creature from another. Which means the criteria "you can tell by looking" is pretty solid.

A bird is a bird whether it's a big bird, a small bird, a blind bird, a featherless bird, etc.

>>15023476
You believe in a debunked, racist, nazi chud definition of species. You don't deserve arguments.

>>15023466
My point is that induction alone isn't a good enough, but that's all evolutioniggers have

>>15023467
>microevolution therefore macroevolution

>>15023454
Give me 1 (ONE) example of a mutation in a human being that is:
>Beneficial enough to ensure a higher survival (and reproduction) than the mean
>Important enough to change the biochemical pathways to such a degree that it could be argued that a large combination of these mutations would lead to a mayor change in organ function.
You can't.
>but muh muh there are mutation that make people immune to HIV or other diseases!!!!
Doesn't matter, these are not substantial enough to fit both of the two requirements that are the bare minimum to even argue that there is even the slightest possibility of natural selection and evolution (even if, then it's still unbelievable that it would compound to new species, since you would be talking about one in a trillion chances)

>>15023476
You have me confused with the low IQ op who think he's clever by demanding counter arguments and ideas be rigorously proven while refusing to provide any evidence of his own retarded theories beyond muh tree circles heckin prove zoomer earth

>>15023479
1) that’s not a definition lol
2) by this description, it is my opinion that evolution is occurring every few hundred generation. So I guess evolution is true

>>15023470
OP here.

There's 21 different posters in this thread, I've only made 4 posts aside from the OP.

Inb4 a bunch of "OP here im gay" etc. jokes

>>15023483
So you're saying that
>microevolution therefore macroevolution
implies
>if there are 4000 year old trees around by the same reasoning evolutionists use there should be 1 million year old trees too somewhere
I'm not quite getting the connection....

>>15023484
1) sickle cell anemia protects against malaria and improves fitness especially when heterozygous
2) cystic fibrosis protects against cholera toxin
3) your low iq will prevent you from reproducing, thereby improving the collective fitness of homo sapiens

>>15023476
>I have asked you what is a species so I can show you an example
I will make it real simple for you then.

A species is determined by the size of the being. There are only two possible sizes: micro small and meters big. Now give me an example of a single micrometer being becoming meters long.

>>15023494
Lmao, according to this definition you are no different than a monkey

>>15023493
Jesus fucking christ you are such a fucking double digit homosexual that I can't even fucking believe that I am responding to you.
Sickle Cell Anemia will not make you more fit for survival.
Cystic Fibrosis will kill you before reproducing AND IT MAKES YOU FUCKING INFERTILE YOU RETARDED NIGGER PIECE OF SHIT.

>>15023500
Wrong and wrong. They increase fitness when the environment is particularly full of those diseases.

>>15023491
It's quite simple web dev nigger
>evolutionist will claim a microevolution example like e. coli becoming a more efficient e. coli proved humans had fish as ancestors because you can apply the inductive model of evolution forever, even without evidence for that
>therefore
>if a tree lives to 2 years old you can also extrapolate, using inductive evolutionary reasoning, that it can live to 1 billion years old
>the evolutionist will deny, and say induction doesn't count for trees
>then, by induction, evolutionary induction also does not work for macroevolution for the same reasons

>>15023484
You posed an unanswerable question by demanding a human example of such mutation, despite the fact that we haven't had adequate technology long enough to observe/prove such changes in a clinical setting. This whole thread is just spazzing out over the fact that evolution takes place over very long time frames and clinical lab trials don't. You also constantly dismiss and mock anybody who bothers to write up a plausible explanation while obstinately refusing to provide any evidence of your own non-scientific retard screed.

Grade A nigger

>>15023503
wow thanks anon it all makes sense now!

>>15023493
>your low iq will prevent you from reproducing, thereby improving the collective fitness of homo sapiens
Yet atheists, the sub product of evolution, have the lowest fertility rates, whereas religious people have the best "fitness". Must suck losing at your game. What will be your cope? MEMES? HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>15023502
Cystic Fibrosis makes you infertile and kills you when you are a teenager without modern treatment.
Sickle cell patients start having symptoms in their first years of life making them clearly unfit for survival in a non modern society.
Please don't respond to me anymore you 80 IQ piece of shit.
>>15023504
Ok, show me this type of mutation in any animal. Even fruit flies if you want to.

>>15023498
>the bi*logist doesn't even know what a meter is
I know you cranks fmgo to biology to not have to deal with mathematics or anything involving hard data, but you people don't even know units of measurement?

>>15023503
Hmmm so you are using the evolutionists' own logical tricks to prove that tree rings prove the earth is thousands of years old. Brilliant!

>>15023509
I am actually way more religious than all in this thread and already am married and have kids (going for more).
I believe evolution is the true sign of God’s power and love for us.

Bottomline: The idea that He has guided billions of years of works to bring us about is a true testament to His power and love for us.

>>15023498
Anyway I have you a definition, now give me the example you said all you needed for was a definition
>>15023476
>I have asked you what is a species so I can show you an example. You refuse.
>See the problem?

>>15023517
Your definition does not distinguish you from monkeys. I’m not answering until you acknowledge you believe yourself to be no different than a monkey

>>15023513
You still don't get it? I don't know how to draw peperinos and soijakerinos to make my point retarded tier

>>15023511
1) Mutations have occurred in bacteria to survive in the presence of antibiotic drugs, leading to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

2) A unique mutation is found in people in Limone, a small town in Italy. The mutation protects them from developing atherosclerosis, which is the dangerous buildup of fatty materials in blood vessels despite a high-fat diet. The individual in which this mutation first appeared has even been identified and many of his descendants carry this gene.
(Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and Apolipoprotein A-IParis exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type Apolipoprotein A-I," appears in the journal Biochemistry, 2002, 41 (6), pp. 2089-2096.)

>>15023516
>the atheist now larps to escape the problem

>>15023525
I’m not an atheist lmao. Ask me anything about the scriptures or doctrine

>>15023520
>evolution works with anything YOU BIGOT
>n-no it has to be with monkeys though

>>15023524
>bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant bacteria means fish can become giraffe and giraffe become ameba if enough gorillion years pass by

>>15023521
Don't worry your point is already S-tier retarded

>>15023531
>I'll just ignore the human example cited because I'm a disingenuous faggot

There's substantially more evidence for evolution (some) than creationism (zero). Creationists will ignore this post because they literally cannot provide a single piece of evidence for their fantasy.

>>15023524
>atherosclerosis, which is the dangerous buildup of fatty materials in blood vessels despite a high-fat diet
Cholesterol isn't fat to begin with. Second, cholesterol is made from carbohydrates since it's an alcohol. Third, those plaques in arteries are almost entirely made from protein and calcium, the reason you and other retarded negroes think of "fatty" shit and high-fat diets as the cause for those "fatty" plaques is because of the sugar industry's grip on universities and media.

Are you the web dev monkey? I can't believe biologists don't know basic biochemistry even along with basic maths. What the fuck do you people do? Write papers with long paragraphs justifying how evolutionary advantageous it is to practice vutt sex until men can get pregnant?

>>15023542
>more nigger babble
sneed

>>15023535
>a mutation that supposedly protects against a disease that physicians don't have any idea about its causes or mechanisms since they keep repeating old memes from that low-fat vegan who died of a heart attack anyway proves that humans were ameba at some point because surely beneficial mutations can happen indefinitely for bazingallion uears

>>15023539
You've seen what's been created haven't you? If you see a painting you know there's a painter.

The default is to know there's a designer by seeing the design, the only reason you'd think otherwise is if you've been mind-poisoned by Darwin's fairy tale.

>>15023539
>There's substantially more evidence for evolution (some) than creationism (zero).
You ignorance isn't a good evidence for your point
http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/creation-halos-stand-unrefuted.htm

>n-no that evidence DOESN'T COUNT, it doesn't matter it was published in Nature you fucking conspiracy theorist quack, it is just quack science, so no evidence at all

Damn nigga, if only we had academic freedom, but I guess it would be a shame if someone proved the Earth is flat, hence young, now sciencers can't allow that can they?
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/94fi9r/flat_earth_phd_thesis_proofs_reasons_for_deception/

>NOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN PHD STUDENT, YIU CAN'T PUBLISH IT THIS IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SCIENCERINO. NO YOU CANNOT LET IT GO PUBLIC BECAUSE IT IS A THRRAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY NOE TAKE YOUR COVID SHOTS YOU FUCKING QUACK! ELSE WE WILL HOSPITALIZE YOU AND YOU WILL SUICIDE

>>15023549
>The default is to know there's a designer by seeing the design
That reminds the heckin sciencers too much of the first cause argument which is a big no no, their brains don't allow them to accept anything that resembles it

>"Apart from God there could be no relevant novelty . . . . Apart from the intervention of God, there could be nothing new in the world, and no order in the world. The course of creation would be a dead level of ineffectiveness, with all balance and intensity progressively excluded by the cross currents of incompatibility. The novel hybrid feelings derived from God, with the derivative sympathetic conceptual valuations are the foundations of progress" (Alfred North Whitehead)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232862815_The_Action_of_God_in_the_World-A_Synthesis_of_Process_Thought_in_Science_and_Theology

All fossils are transitionary, they just don't seem like it because
>genes don't leave fossils

>>15023546
>m-mutations can't happen over a long time because... they just can't okay!

>>15023557
>I demand God control novelty
sounds reasonable yet childish

>>15023549
Creator and designer can be different, despite what your particular fairy tale says. I believe in a creator of the universe, and also believe that selective pressures result in emergent "design", because that explanation of how things assumed their modern form more closely aligns with the accumulated body of scientific knowledge.
>inb4 muh creative evolution is wrong because... shut up it just is!!

>>15023559
>m-mutations can't happen over a long time because.
Because of mathematics you dumb motherfucker
http://creationwiki.org/pt/Wistar_Institute_Symposium_(1966)

>>15023560
Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God. This primordial nature is eternal and unchanging, providing entities in the universe with possibilities for realization. Whitehead also calls this primordial aspect "the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire," pulling the entities in the universe toward as-yet unrealized possibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy#On_God

I'm don't mean to proselytize my ontological preference, but it is a scientifically sound solution OP's objections.

>>15023564
>because math! No I can't and won't elaborate. Supposedly there are dozens of obvious reasons but I can't even describe one.
Sad

>>15023582
I'm pretty sure he gave you a source, friend.

>>15023584
I read it and they're saying nothing beyond "it's improbable okay". Which is irrelevant considering they had an outdated understanding of how mutations originate (not quite random) and how complexity and emergence relate.

>>15022934
Transitional species get outcompeted by the later species with greater adaptations duh. Note that the only species we call "transitional" are the ones that went extinct due to competition, the ones that are still alive we just call species even if they served as a transition at some point

>>15023524
>1) Mutations have occurred in bacteria to survive in the presence of antibiotic drugs, leading to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
This is not enough to argue that an animal will be able to develop a new organ thanks to a number of random mutations that just happen to all be beneficial.
Antibiotic resistance is mostly just a single mutation that changes how the cell membrane works, these can compound but it would be ridiculous to say that these mutations would create ever a new organ. Anyways, do you know that antibiotic resistance isn't 100% beneficial to bacteria? Most bacteria loses something when they develop antibiotic resistance, most become less virulent or survive less time outside the body, or become bigger and require more energy to reproduce. You are a fucking brainlet that can't comprehend even simple mutations, yet you try to argue bullshit about evolution.
>2) A unique mutation is found in people in Limone, a small town in Italy. The mutation protects them from developing atherosclerosis, which is the dangerous buildup of fatty materials in blood vessels despite a high-fat diet. The individual in which this mutation first appeared has even been identified and many of his descendants carry this gene.
I never said that there are no beneficial mutations you 80 IQ Monkey, the argument is that a mutation would need to actually change organ function in a meaningful way to ever develop a new organ somehow, somewhere. This doesn't exist. Any mutation that actually modifies organ function in any meaningful way is deadly and usually incompatible with life. A new enzyme here or there that might help with atherosclerosis or help against protecting HIV is not an argument in favor of evolution and natural selection, but rather animals being able to slightly adapt to their environments.
And I know you want to reply to me with it, but being to adapt to your environment in some way does not end in evolution.

>>15023063
Based and veganpilled.

>>15023612
Pedantic nitpicking and arguing straw men, and you also still refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever of an alternate explanation for existence organs. Schizo rings of irradiated rocks are not relevant to the topic of biological "design".

>>15023612
I provided an example of a structurally significant and beneficial mutation. Your sperging about mutations having complex effects is not an argument. I then provided examples of a clinically studied beneficial mutation in humans, and you bizarrely tried to claim to changing enzyme production doesn't count as a "meaningful" change to an organ's function.

Bad faith nigger go home

>>15023671
>>15023680
Idiots
It's sad that you are so low IQ that you think a single mutation will mean change of organs and development of new ones.
I am not even a christcuck, just understand that evolution is idiotic.

>>15023067
Good question.

>>15023731
Articulate a better theory

N I G G E R

>>15023731
>single mutation
Straw man retard

>>15023751
Falsification is independent of replacement.

I’m too lazy to read all of this thread. Who is winning?

>>15023772
Vegans are winning

>>15023772
Me

>>15023771
You didn't falsify anything

>>15023814
Yes I did

>>15022850
>EVOLUTION COULDN'T HAPPEN
correct. its the work of the magic sky wizard that always was who is defined differently by each person's needs, wants, fears, and desperate desires to be true because they are afraid of death. Ignore science, trust in the sky wizard.

>>15023868
>Ignore science
I'm actually doing the exact opposite.

I looked at the science, it said evolution didn't happen.