/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15365487
4 bit code and a lot of time

>>15365487
>How does evolution make something like this?
With the hand of God

>>15365487
You know exactly how but the dogmas you learned during your life won't let you accept it.

>>15365487

>>15365538
dogma is by definition something learned. knowing what it is is by definition dogma. this literally means nothing

>>15365538
why would anyone know the evolution pattern of a leaf bug
this is like when irrelevant flyover countries get butthurt when Americans don't know their capitals

>>15365487
Leaf randomly developed an advantage of being sentient, then evolved legs so it could move and not just be pissed off getting sentient and eaten

>>15365487
Leafs are the most efficient form to extract oxygen.

>>15365545
>mutt
>retarded
like pottery

how does evolution make a human?

that's very cool, I never seen this creature before. no idea how such thing would evolve and why it would be that way, if anyone can explain, it seems for the long time that OP has been gathering dust in the catalog that no one tried to explain yet

>>15366086
you're a nice and comfy poster, just hope you know that

>>15365487
I feel an urge to go outside looking at this photo

>>15365487
Trial and error
+
Time

>>15365487
The same way it makes something like this

>>15366086
based saria poster

a Canadian aaaaaaaaa

>>15366204
how would trial and error even "know" to go in the direction of something it doesn't know exists? and to such close accuracy

>>15365487
Bug look vaguely like leaf.

Bugs that look more like leaves don't get spotted and eaten.

More like leaf you look, more you are apt to live to breed.

Rinse, repeat, ~10 billion times.

Bug really do look like leaf.

Hardly the strangest thing in evolution. More interesting question is why so many things completely removed from each other manage to develop the same eyes.

>>15366480
It doesn't "know" anything; it just happens gradually by selecting for genes which are more likely to survive, which in this case are those genes which make it look most like a leaf. And of course it happens on a massive timescale and just kept getting better and better.

>>15366480
Evolution doesn't know shit, but birds have really good eyes, so if you don't pass for a leaf, you're lunch. This, in this case, naturally selects for bugs that look more like leaves with ever increasing accuracy over however many hundred million years.

>>15366488
wrong

>>15366488
this is a non-explanation akin to faith in god

>>15366515
the beginnings of life are not random. We have plenty of data tracing things back through history

>>15366515
is this the guy who "did the math" to calculate the odds of humans arising from unicellular life based on mutation rates, but also made an assumption in his calculations that there were never more than two organisms on Earth reproducing at any point in history?

>>15365487
God created it with magic. Materialists BTFO.

>>15365539
If I pull that off, would it die?

>>15365487
>How
really fucking long time and an astronomically tremendous amount of waste

>>15365487
Evolution doesn't make anything. Think about what survival of the fittest actually means.

>>15365487
Very slowly over millions of iterations. Evolution in insects is faster than in animals due to their short breeding cycle, so they can evolve in more complex ways in the same amount of time. Their size means that their camoflauge should look like single leaves or twigs rather than general foilage patterns.

>>15366488
>it just happens gradually by selecting for genes which are more likely to survive,
More accurately, it selects out the genes that don't survive.

>>15366488
correct.

>>15365487
>How does evolution make something like this?
slowly.

>>15365542
>Right Click
>Search Google for "dogma"
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
>Right Click
>Search Google for "incontrovertibly"
"in a way that cannot be disagreed with or denied."

>>15365487
It doesn't.

>>15366515
Lol you just enjoy latching onto anything and everything that sounds as crackpot and unscientific as possible

Random genetic mutations make some of their ancestors look maybe a little greener and those blend in better and survive to pass on those traits. These random genetic mutations continue generation over generation continually building towards what we have today, there is no path other than through time, this is all the result of random chance and testing, atleast that’s how I understand it

>>15370366
>lol maths is cwaaazy
You are an idiot. Don't respond to any of my posts

>>15366739
I'm not sure you understand the contradiction in your line of thought here

>>15372695
>Random genetic mutations
why would these even happen
why doesnt nature make everything identical like a machinepress

>>15366488
>And of course it happens on a massive timescale and just kept getting better and better.
The problem is the timescale is too short. It would take at least 2 trillion years for that leaf bug to evolve.
If you ask me to prove this claim you must first prove your claim that the leaf bug can evolve in just 2 billion years.
>inb4 muh fossil record proves it only takes evolution 2 billion years to make a leaf bug
The fossil record is not evidence that evolution is the mechanism behind the fossil record, that is obviously begging the question. Try again.

>>15378669
I say you're mentally retarded, prove to me you're not.

>>15378609
Chemistry (both classical and quantum as hydrogen atoms have this nasty habit of jumping around in DNA.)

>>15378669
You can breed wolves into Corgis or Great Danes within a human lifespan. Suffice to say bugs have much shorter generations. I doubt it took more than a million years to go from vaguely leaf to perfect leaf.

>>15365539
cute

>>15379062
>You can breed wolves into Corgis or Great Danes within a human lifespan.
bull. fucking. shit.

>>15365487
It was designed by the insectoids to be adaptable.

It's function to morph its body was built in to it millions of years ago.

>>15365539
CGI, I can tell by the shading. I make renders better than this.

>>15379040
>mental midget just validated my point
"I say [bug can evolve from non-life in 2 billion years], prove to me [it can] not."
Thanks, that was easy.

>>15379062
>You can breed wolves into Corgis or Great Danes within a human lifespan.
Wildly incorrect
>I doubt it took more than a million years to go from vaguely leaf to perfect leaf
based on what? You just proved you don't understand dog breeding timescales by a factor of at least 10.

>>15379705
Google the silver fox domestication experiment. Been done multiple times, usually in under 25 years.

...and you can evolve regular fruit flies into a subspecies that can only eat bananas in days.

>>15378669
>It would take at least 2 trillion years for that leaf bug to evolve.
source: anon's gaping prolapsed anus

>>15379754
>Google the silver fox domestication experiment. Been done multiple times, usually in under 25 years.
There is no need to do this. The claim was pure idiocy
>you can evolve regular fruit flies into a subspecies that can only eat bananas in days
Again, no need to do look into this. I'm well aware of the 20+ established definitions of "species" that are intentionally curated to uphold the "narrative" and it's fairly likely I've been studying biology longer than you've been alive.
>>15379769
Adorable

>>15365487
>>15366086
I guess a plant happened to have leaves, and there was a mantis that happened to look kind of like the leaves. It hunted more successfully when on that plant, so it specialized to hunt on that plant. But the plant evolved over time, so it no longer had leaves that looked kind of like the mantis, but the mantis evolved with it, so it began to look like this.

>>15365487
>The most widely accepted model used to explain the evolution of mimicry in butterflies is the two-step hypothesis. The first step involves mutation in modifier genes that regulate a complex cluster of linked genes that cause large changes in morphology. The second step consists of selections on genes with smaller phenotypic effects, creating an increasingly close resemblance. This model is supported by empirical evidence that suggests that a few single point mutations cause large phenotypic effects, while numerous others produce smaller effects. Some regulatory elements collaborate to form a supergene for the development of butterfly color patterns. The model is supported by computational simulations of population genetics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry#Evolution

>>15378669
>It would take at least 2 trillion years for that leaf bug to evolve
Where did you come up with this number? That is retarded

>>15380951
>the number
>That is retarded
The number is for illustrative purposes only
It highlights the fact the the assumption of "neo Darwinian evolutionary origins of species" is conjecture. If I'm required to prove it takes 2 trillion years then you are required to prove it takes 2 billion years (give or take).
No one has done this and relying on the fossil record is a logical fallacy as I described above.
Hence, an evolutionary origins of species belief is not scientific. It is in fact religious in nature. Simple as.

>>15370357
Literally me

>>15382576
We artificially select for variations in plants and animals all the time. The only difference here is that it's a natural selection that the less the bug passes for a leaf the more apt it is to be eaten before it breeds. It's not even macro evolution we're talking about, this is akin to breeding, which no one in their right mind denies is a thing.

>>15365487
Survival of the leafiest.

>>15382576
>relying on the fossil record is a logical fallacy as I described above
Yup, he’s retarded

>>15365549
>another American seething over Maple Syrup supremacy

>>15383192
>the foot print at the crime scene is proof the foot print was made by a man
>the fossil record is proof the fossil record was made by evolutionary mechanisms
>I am so low IQ and so hopelessly blinded by my evolutionism religiosity I legitimately cannot see the blatant question begging fallacy made with these claims
Yep, you're retarded

>>15382993
>We artificially select for variations in plants and animals all the time
>The only difference here is that it's a natural selection that the less the bug passes for a leaf the more apt it is to be eaten before it breeds
>gives amateur explanation of evolution I clearly am well aware of
We cannot make bugs look like plants via artificial selection. That is your wishful thinking because it needs to be true according to your narrative. Of course, you handwave this issue because your faith-based belief is if we just have enough "muh really really long timespans but ackshully I can't define how long, it's just long okay" we *could* do it.
It's pure religious cult like thinking: belief in something you've never proven or observed. Nothing more.
>It's not even macro evolution
I'm clearly talking about the alleged "evolutionary origin of species"
That's kinda why I used that exact phrase...
>this is akin to breeding
No, it's not. Dog breeding does not require mutations. It's simply pairing different pre-existing genes/traits. To make a bug look like a leaf would require new mutations. It cannot be done by just selecting currently-existing traits so it is not akin to breeding.

>evolution never happened. God made life!
>how did he make life
>he just did, okay?

>>15383896

>>15383880
>Dog breeding does not require mutations. It's simply pairing different pre-existing genes/traits
it's like saying that you can erase genes but you can't make new ones, at this point it's a miracle you're not extinct, but i guess you're correct, god farted and created everything.

>>15383916
>it's like saying that you can erase genes but you can't make new ones
I said it's not required. "New" genes (ie damged copies of other genes) are used in dog breeding all the time, but they aren't required. You should read more carefully.
Most people dont realize this but there is no dog breed that outperforms wolves in any characteristic. The dogs bred for the fastest speeds are still slower than the wolf ancestors they were bred from, the dogs bred for the best tracking have less olfactory ability than the wolf ancestors they were bred from etc.
There are no "new" genes that are better than the originals.
Pic related. All dogs are just wolves with damaged "new" genes that retard or remove aspects from the original design like shrinking the snout or removing the saggital crest.
We can never improve the design of the original wolf by selective breeding.
>but i guess you're correct
Of course I am.
>god farted and created everything
Intelligent design does not imply God. Don't be a simpleton.

>>15383900
That meme doesn't make sense.. Evolution never creates life.

>>15367374
It would be very painful.

>>15365487
>bug shaped a bit like leaf avoids being eaten by bird
>bug reproduces
meanwhile...
>human develops hyperactive pattern recognition because his ancestors favored schizotists survivability
>his environment is continously partitioned further and further into discrete objects
>human mnemonically imparts weights onto these objects which are parsed as 'meaningful differences'
>"that is a leaf"
>"on the leaf there is a bug that looks like a leaf"
>platonism.xml, god.pdf, my-diary-desu.txt [error: this folder is corrupted]
God is too God-tier to make humans the main characters of life. Humans are simply artificially intelligent storage machines for Gods meme collection.

>>15383969
>Evolution never creates life
Take bio 101. Chemical evolution is the alleged explanation for creation of life. Biological and chemical evolution are both types of evolution.

>>15365487
>bug that kinda looks like a leaf doesn't get eaten as often
>proportion of gene that makes bugs that kinda look like leaves in population increases
>gene randomly changes to make bug look more like leaf
>eaten even less by predators
>proportion in population increases
>rinse and repeat for a few million years
>tada you have a leaf bug

>>15365487
variation and selection

>>15365487
Over several millions of years of living in that environment, the organisms there bred themselves bodies that look like that to avoid predators.

>>15365487
Oh, a friend!
Easy, they evolved for the same reason and through the same approximate methods that stick insects did:
They randomly started tricking predators into thinking they were foliage instead of food by pure coincidence and the ones that were bad at it were eaten and never bred.
The ones that looked a bit like leaves bore children that looked more like leaves and the children that weren't convincing enough got eaten before they could breed too.
Repeat until the bugs look a lot like leaves and thus don't get eaten nearly as much.

it's gonna be a real world changer whenever humans finally discover what eyes are for. They finally might advance to animal-stage of intelligence.

>>15366086
>why it would be that way
leaving the evolution discussion aside, why do you think a bug would want to look like a leaf?

>evolution is a slow process occurring over immense periods of time
>any tiny mutation wouldn't even be noticable, let alone propagate through the whole species
Trust the science, goy

>>15387467
We make morphogenic changes in plants and animals through selective breeding all the time. German Shepherds and Chihuahuas were bred from the same animal. Domesticated wheat, carrots, and many other plants look nothing like their wild counterparts. Breed only the puppies with the biggest heads and darkest fur from each litter, and within a few generations, you've got a breed of black dogs with giant heads. Only let the darkest humans in a group breed, and pretty soon everyone in the group is ebony black. Take grasshoppers that are a little greener with a little more pigment in their wings with each generation, slaughter the rest, and even sooner you got grasshoppers that look like leaves.

Natural selection obviously isn't as efficient as artificial selection, but the selection pressure of not looking like a leaf meaning you're more likely to become lunch before you breed is simple enough to apply.

>>15383880
The act of breeding adds new genetic information, because in addition to the random shuffle that happens when the genes are combined, the hydrogen pairs get shuffled as well. Even asexual reproducing bacteria aren't exact copies of each other for this reason. There's always slight variations. Some bugs will look more slightly more like leaves than others, and over time, those changes add up.

>>15383967
Dogs are superior to wolves in one very important aspect: Obedience. Yes, you can tame a wolf if you get it as a pup, but it's a hell of a lot less reliable a thing than it is with a domesticated animal... With the exception of those breeds that were selected for their aggression, and chihuahuas. (I swear, chihuahuas and pugs are exhibit A as to why man should not be allowed to play God.)

>>15365487
Camouflage

>>15388315
>because in addition to the random shuffle that happens when the genes are combined
"shuffling" preexisting alleles in a population does not create anything new. It's just "shuffling." You probably meant to describe genetic drift. Genetic drift does not produce anything new.
>the hydrogen pairs get shuffled as well
Are you trying to say point mutations?
Whatever you are trying to say it is established that the gene is the basic unit of selection in biology.
>Even asexual reproducing bacteria
As apposed to... sexual bacteria? You know that isn't a thing right?
>Some bugs will look more slightly more like leaves than others, and over time, those changes add up
I do not share this faith based belief that fundamentally relies upon handwaving away the detrimental implications of long term antagonistic epistasis buildup within a population.
It is your belief system that a species *can* just slowly get better due to an accumulation of new mutations eventually leading to radical change in phenotype. But you ignore the opposite idea that bad genes remain within a sexually-reproducing population at the same time because they can piggyback on good genes....this is how we end up with situations were a man and a woman might have a 25% change of each of their offspring being potatoes because of "rare genetic disorders" while each man/woman is perfectly healthy.
There is no model that even attempts to address the idea that after a certain time period / timeline every organism within a species will have no other option but to mate with another who has these defective genes. Leading to a sudden and inevitable death spiral of the species.
I see no reason to ignore this dilemma and thus see no reason to share your faith based belief.
>>15388315
>Dogs are superior to wolves in one very important aspect: Obedience
I do not consider damages genes associated with aggression, which you are calling "obedience," a trait of superiority.

>>15383860
>babble the post

>>15383967
>Most people dont realize this but there is no dog breed that outperforms wolves in any characteristic. The dogs bred for the fastest speeds are still slower than the wolf ancestors they were bred from, the dogs bred for the best tracking have less olfactory ability than the wolf ancestors they were bred from etc.
Lol what horse shit. Greyhounds are faster than wolves in a sprint and wolves have pretty poor olfactory sensitivity compared to breeds like bloodhounds

>>15389669
It's not good or bad genes, it's adaptability. Eskimos have timy noses so they can heat up the cold air when they breathe and they have extra fat to insulate them from the cold. Do you think yahweh created the eskimos and placed them where their traits were beneficial to them? Or that humans who lived in those parts of the world adapted genetically to it?

>>15389941
Yeah I think it's a jew who wants to waste our time, its a typical jew shill tactic, to pretend to be retarded and bait people

i don't believe in evolution and im not changing my mind
its not real science

>>15390066
>and im not changing my mind
dover lost years ago, its over.

>>15383967
Also Amoeba, a lot of people do not know this but they're faster than wolves in a spread

>>15389941
>Greyhounds are faster than wolves
Oh no no no no
-"The fastest recorded speed of an Arctic wolf is 46 mph. You may think of a wolf as a solitary animal, but Arctic wolves travel in packs of six or so. These wolves live in incredibly cold climates, so they rarely encounter people."
-"The highest verified speed of a greyhound was 41.8 miles per hour"
Google it yourself faggot
>wolves pretty poor olfactory sensitivity compared to breeds like bloodhounds
More of your bullshit
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859551/
"Pretty poor" is wildly wrong. They are at the very least effectively identical (with wolves possibly being significantly better than dogs because retesting the wolves in the scent experiment showed enormous improvement over dogs). This aligns with my claim that no dog outperforms the wolf ancestors.
Like I said, most people don't realize we can't breed dogs to outperform their ancestors.
Thanks for proving my point.
>>15390027
>Eskimos have timy noses so they can heat up the cold air when they breathe
Nice clueless armchair argument. Meanwhile, you also think (ie swallow the narrative) the ginormous noses of the homo sapiens you randomly call "Neanderthal" are well adapted for cold climates because they are big. Funny how the benefit of nose size in cold climate flip flops whenever you need it to suit your argument
>Do you think
I think you can't think for yourself

>>15390045
>it's da jooos
Go back to /pol/ where you belong you simpleton

>>15366480
how does nature "know" to starve those giraffes whose necks cant reach the only leafing plants during a drought?
hm?