/sci/ - Science & Math

>finches with different beaks are different species
but also
>humans with different noses are all the same species

>>15633892
Been disproven by genetic sequencing, they are all identical. Also beak shapes have been observed to change drastically even generation to generation. They are just like cats or dogs.

>>15633852
Even if you truly do think you're smarter than the entirety of academia the world over, what's the motivation behind posting about it?
Are you trying to convert people or just trying to satisfy your ego?
Because you're doing a terrible job of both.

>>15634109
Even if you truly do think you're not smarter than the entirety of academia the world over, what's the motivation behind posting at all? Shouldn't you just be shutting up and quietly trusting the soience?
Are you trying to convert people to your soientism religion or just trying to satisfy your ego?
Because you're doing a terrible job of both.

so which theory of evolution is correct in your opinion then

>>15633852
>Darwinian evolution is obviously wrong
Lol
>the finch justification is completely unscientific.
Lmao
You keep posting these shitty threads, and all you do is show you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. Also, they just found another whale with legs

>>15635573

>>15637344
one of the sure sign of being retarded is to take anything JBP takes seriously

>>15637344
LMAO

>>15633892
That's just what modern basedentists believed
Everyone in the 19th century loved eugenics and social darwinism

>>15637344
lol. lmao, even

Darwinism is just soience creationism for atheists

>>15633892

>>15633892
The laws for what a species or subspecies is is nonsense even AMONG animals. It’s stupid to even bother thinking about it

>>15634315
Darwinian evolution theory is just another facet of the soience rewrite of the book of Genesis. The bible is key to understand all of western culture, all of the subsequent ideas of western culture spring from it's biblical subconscious.

>>15637344
…shit, I think he’s right.

>>15634298
>no response
lmao

>>15633852
>>15634298
>>15638918
>>15640835
>evolution is bad because... because... IT JUST IS, OKAY?

>>15637344
true
source: myself

>>15640835
You did everything but answer the question. What part of the book of genesis even hints that populations change over time and can lead to the development of entirely new species, genera, families, etc?

>>15637344
They’re malicious all right, however they are also correct

Whales (say it with me now) with legs

>>15641657
you got the wool pulled of on you so easily by the soience scam because you are low iq and now you don't want to admit you were tricked because that would be a blow to your ego

>>15642653
>you are low iq
Says the one who doesn’t understand taxonomy

>>15633852
>provides no justification
>goes against a dead beat subject in science
Man, what this board has become?

>>15642653
You’re telling me whales with legs are a trick?

>>15634315
Not OP, but I think it happens not by strong individuals dominating over a weaker individuals, but by other organisms destroying organisms that are harmful to them, and supporting those that are beneficial to them. So that organisms evolve to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, as well as able to identify threats and support the benefivial organisms. This is how you get these widespread betworks of mammals spreading the seeds of plants which get pollinated by insects and suplied by fungi, instead of the expected vicious monsters brutally fighting each other.

>>15634315
Not OP, but I think it happens not by strong individuals dominating over weaker individuals, but by other organisms destroying organisms that are harmful to them, and supporting those that are beneficial to them. So that organisms evolve to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, as well as to be able to identify threats and support the beneficial organisms. This is how you get those widespread betworks of mammals spreading the seeds of plants which get pollinated by insects and suplied by fungi, instead of the expected vicious monsters brutally fighting each other.

>>15634315
Not OP, but I think it happens not by strong individuals dominating over weaker individuals, but by other organisms destroying organisms that are harmful to them, and supporting those that are beneficial to them. So that organisms evolve to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, as well as to be able to identify threats and support the beneficial organisms. This is how you get those widespread networks of mammals spreading the seeds of plants which get pollinated by insects and suplied by fungi and nitrogen fixing bacteria, instead of the expected vicious monsters brutally fighting each other.

>>15645458
>not by strong individuals dominating over weaker individuals
This isn't what "survival of the fittest" ever meant. "Fit" in the Darwinian sense has always meant "suited to survive and reproduce." Altruism can be a source of fitness, as can selfishness, depending on the environment.

>>15645482
It rather completely changes the dynamics. Instead of competition being the default (and cooperation the special cases) benevolence becomes the default, and competition the special case. It turns it on its head, even.

>>15645502
>competition
>cooperation
These words get abused for political and moral reasons in delusional ways. A boxing match is both competitive and cooperative from all sorts of perspectives. These words are too abstract to describe reality accurately.

>>15645502
In an environment where no one is altruistic, being altruistic is a death sentence.
In an environment where everyone is altruistic, but has mechanisms in place to catch cheats, being selfish is a death sentence.
Both strategies are viable, it just depends on the environment.

>>15645525
How is a boxing match cooperative? Please void the bullshit like coaches etc.

>>15645525
>>15645525
How is a boxing match cooperative? Please avoid bullshit like coaches, referees etc.

>>15645573
That basic strategy is dominant over both altruism and selfishness. It even forces the rest of the environment to turn its way once it appears, as suddenly organisms that happen to not be harmful to it get an extra boost from its presence.

>>15645588
>>15645593
>two guys make a shitload of money by fighting, sometimes making an agreement prior for rigging outcomes or drawing out a match

>>15645620
But many organisms still evolve to be harmful to others even in the presence of cooperative ecosystems. Even "herbivorous" animals like deer are known to engage in predatory behavior on occasion, because opportunism rules the animal kingdom.

>>15644209
>she thinks taxonomy is real
low iq

>>15646621
taxonomy only exists in textbooks and in the minds of the deluded sºyence fangoys.
"""herbivores"""" don't exist in nature, only in textbooks and in vegan propaganda

deer eating a rabbit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWvQfGXO6rI
elephant eating fish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEuDFjDdU4
cow eating a snake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMmUHXiB4ak

>>15645641
Based peaky blinders knower

>>15647707
“Herbivore” is not taxonomy retard. An elephant is an Afrotherian, cows and deer are ungulates. Those are taxonomical classifications

>>15648752
He has no clue what you're talking about, middle school is too much.

>>15647940
Even Dawkins has seen the error of his ways, when will the rest of the atheists retract?

>>15633892
"Species" absolutely doesn't mean "they look different." If that were the case, bulldogs would be a separate species from chihuahuas, but that's not the case now, is it?
The objective definition of species means that they can't produce fertile offspring together. If even one successful fertile hybrid between two species is born, their classifications are invalid. Because humans aren't omniscient there are many "species" that are wrongly classified, but that will be sorted out sooner or later as more specimens are observed.

>>15646621
taxonomy is autism

>>15649919
>The objective definition of species means that they can't produce fertile offspring together. If even one successful fertile hybrid between two species is born, their classifications are invalid
This isn’t objective and there’s a shitload of exceptions

>>15649919
>The objective definition of species means that they can't produce fertile offspring together.
The majority of species are asexual bacteria.

taxonomy isn't real science

>>15633852
Those finches can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. They're all the same species. Darwin's theory was based on shoddy investigation

>>15653513
>Those finches can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring
How do you know this? Hybrids have been observed in a couple but not all of these finches, and for most of those hybrids their fertility is unknown
>They're all the same species
There's multiple genera, let alone species

>>15653553
source?

>>15655326
Look up how many species of Galapagos finch there are

>>15645588
It’s cooperative in that it isn’t a lawless street fight. The boxers agree to fight by the rules.

>>15656477
theres only one, they can all breed and produce fertile offspring. they can also breed and and produce fertile offspring with mainland finches

>>15656785
That is an outdated definition for species that nobody serious uses any more. Paddlefish and sturgeons which are separated by nearly 200 million years of evolution yet have interbred
>they can all breed and produce fertile offspring
How would you know this when some have never even been recorded interbreeding?

>>15656503
inconceivable

Legs with whales

>>15657688
alligators have had legs for 100 million years, how come they haven't evolved into fish yet?

>>15658293
>alligators have had legs for 100 million years
Alligators haven’t existed that long, but I’m gonna assume you mean crocodyliformes in general
>how come they haven't evolved into fish yet?
they did

>>15657688
fake asf
darwinism is a total lie based on fake skeletal reconstructions created by the replication crisis crew
can't believe soiboys are dumb enough to fall for this junk

>>15659839
coping so hard.
after being blown out of whale-leg bro, you can only cope harder.

>>15659839
>it provides evidence contrary to my beliefs therefore it must be fake
>pic made by /an/‘s paleoschizo
Fossils of whales that directly preserve legs or are from families where all known members had legs are super fucking common, and have been known for centuries. A new tiny Basilosaurid was described in the time this thread has been up, and just a few days before this thread was posted a gigantic one had been described

>>15660552
soience faggots are all lying shills for the atheistic soience religion, you have no rationality, only schizophasia

>>15661341
>NO U!!!!!
whale-leg bro got you so bad.
you ask for proof, you receive proof, and then cry about it.

>>15658293
Evolutionary niche. For instance hippos are closely related to whales, but asking why hippos havent evolved into whales is tantamount to asking why chimps still exist after humans evolved. Also it seems the only successful ocean faring reptiles right now are turtles.

>>15661341
Is your schizo tantrum over yet?

>>15661341
>you have no rationality
>a whale with legs? It must be a hoax, I cannot rationalise its existence within the scope of my beliefs otherwise

>>15661353
>proof
hey guys, i found half of a rib bone.
from this bone i can guarantee that this animal also had legs

i can't believe the ifls idiots are really dumb enough to think that such blatant intellectual overreach is anything other than total cringe.
>trust the soience!!!
>trust the experts!!
meanwhile the experts spend their free time fucking dogs when they're not busy pulling tall tales out of their ass

>>15662147
>hey guys, i found half of a rib bone.
>from this bone i can guarantee that this animal also had legs
The cope keeps flowing. Plenty of Basilosaurids are relatively complete and the hip and leg bones have been preserved in a number of species, that is how we know they had legs in the first place. Picrel

>>15662147
And just to add insult to injury, Basilosaurus was described 4 years before Darwin even came up with the theory of evolution and over 20 years before it was published

>>15640835
>>15642653
>doesn’t answer the question

>>15662210
>i fuck dogs
>thats why you should trust me

>>15664324
Kek. Absolutely nothing to say, but you’ll still keep making these shitty threads and saying you just don’t think evolution “makes sense” or “is logically sound” despite not being able to actually come up with any arguments as to why

>>15650641
yes, its for deranged mentally ill retards

>taxonomy exists to classify species as single groups
>Linnaeus did so to illuminate god’s works
>now creationists are saying taxonomy isn’t real
Kek

>>15665503
Darwin was an atheist

>>15666765
No shit really? What a shocker. Not sure what that has to do with Linnaeus though since he was a Christian and died before Darwin was even born

>>15667380
he's using a red herring, probably to distract himself from the facts.

>>15667479
Try as he may, he cannot ignore whales with legs

>>15667607
Those are not legs anon.....

>>15668019
What are they then

>>15640835
Fuck off dumb low iq gorilla.

Do you really think Jezus would aprove 4chan. Fuck yourself

>>15669030
>i'm an atheist who has never read the bible
>thats why i presume i can speak for jesus
>all of my knowledge of christianity originates from tv, hollywood movies and schoolbooks all of which were published by jews
explain how your lack of knowledge and studying begets your expertise on this topic, is it this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

>>15669030
He obviously would not, but his job is not to spread the gospel, it's to stroke ego while getting btfo in actual discussion.

Same as the kitsmiller v dover case, where it was found "Cdesign Proponentsists" were trying tp sneak religious propaganda into pur schools, against the wishes of the founding fathers. But the honest Christian judge saw through the lies and ruled against them on all counts.

>>15640835
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Protocol 2, part 3
>DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
>3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

>>15649887
Saying that one group of deluded fools would be useful to fight a worse group of deluded fools does not mean that the deluded fools are not deluded fools.

TL;DR
Evolution requires that
A: A bacteria is able to come into existence through inorganic means
B: A bacteria is able to evolve into a multi-celled organism (and survive)

Until science proves either of these, evolution remains unproven.

>>15671475
>inb4 darwinoids post whale with legs as "proof"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUO-or638ow

>>15671475
microevolution is pretty much proven, but yes macroevolution or evolution as an origin is absurd; there is 0 evodence that life can come from non-life.

i also enjoy watching atheists squirm when asked if they believe the universe came from nothing.

>>15671475
you don't prove a theory in science, you support it.
Though for multicellularity, id look at recent experiments that show algie evolving it in only a few generations. (Though bacteria becoming eukaryotic and.multicellular is not possible cause they are not ancestral to eukaryotes, it's a totally different branch)

Also evolution is just changes in allele frequencies in a population, if any god made life, that would not make evolution untrue. Im not pretending origin of life research is done, we have a long way to go.
>>15671571
If you want a gotcha
if your retarded theory had any truth to it, why would the christian judge throw it out as obvious propaganda?

>>15671808
>you don't prove a theory in science, you support it.
This is not science.
Making a major claim and then working your way backwards is not a part of the scientific method.
The only reason why a theory might be useful in science is if it has a factual basis proving that it's even possible.
Instead of dancing around the issue, maybe scientists should get to proving the very basis of evolution, which should have been done before the theory was ever crafted.
Oh that's right.... They've spent several decades cultivating bacteria in perfect conditions and still haven't gotten a single one to even change species
They've also spent several decades attempting to create life in a lab using inorganic materials
Even with man-made materials they still are not able to create life
Both of these very basic prerequisites are unproven
Therefore there is no reason to support Evolution even as a theory, as there is no real evidence backing it.

>>15671832
>Making a major claim and then working your way backwards is not a part of the scientific method.
Making a theory is more like a model "if my model is true, you will find X", and for evolution, we have found a large amount of the Xes that we need.
>maybe scientists should get to proving the very basis of evolution
the basis is changes allele frequencies in a population over time, that is all.
>Even with man-made materials they still are not able to create life
cause they have to make prebiotically relevant conditions, and this has nothing to do with evolution, please read me again
>if any god made life, that would not make evolution untrue
hell, with big bang cosmology, even if origin of life research finds all the breakthroughs tomorrow, you could still fit a god in.

>still haven't gotten a single one to even change species
we've seen specialization many times in the lab, unless you mean making a whole new species in one generation, which no one says happens. no ones says a frog becomes a mammal in one generation, and no one claims anyone believes that, other than charlatans.

>>15671910
>the basis is allele frequencies in a population over time
Nope. In order to have a multi-cell organism, first a single cell organism must mutate into a multi-cell organism.

>>15671910
"if my model is true, you will find X"
is NOT science.
>creating life from nothing has nothing to do with evolution
this is the basis of the universal common ancestor AND the basis of life, which this evolution fraud is based on.
>We've seen speciation many times in the lab
There has never been a single documented case of one species actually becoming an entirely different species. Speciation is a weasel word that presupposes a shift in species will happen, i.e. circular logic

>>15671930

>>15671930
>>15671932
Not reading your gay book
Go back to >>>/x/thread/35632237

>>15671930
>>15671932
>>15671936
Not reading your gay book
Go back to >>>/x/cdf

Some times I think man I wish there were fewer untreated schizophrenics on this website but then I remember that's part of the fun.

>>15671808
>why would the christian judge throw it out as obvious propaganda?
He threw it out on grounds that it violated the separation of church and state clause, committing a genetic fallacy simply because the book that was proposed to be used as source material was written by young earth creationists. Also, the book was written in 1998, while some of most compelling evidence for intelligent design came from the completion of the human genome project, which wrapped up in 2005, the same year this case was litigated.

Also of interesting note, Eric Rothschild was the leading trial attorney for the plaintiffs. Make of that what you will.

>>15671915
>Nope
yes it is, being that's all it says, coping with some made up version does nothing.
>this is the basis of the universal common ancestor AND the basis of life
LUCA could have been made by god for all scientists studying evolution care, many of them are christian and probably do believe that, are those scientists fake ones?
>There has never been a single documented case of one species actually becoming an entirely different species
evolution never claimed a weasel becomes a dog, charlatans have really gotten to you, populations change over time, one species giving birth to another entirely different one would disprove evolution.
>>15671973
It wasn't just written by them, it was made as YEC propaganda, but it was sloppy at hiding it, hence "Cdesign Proponentsists", cause it's the same shit just repackaged, and this was after an earlier case that ruled that YEC was also religious propaganda.

>>15671994
The claim of evolution is that species split into different species over time
If this were true, then it would require that a species can do that
This hasn't been proven at all.

>>15671484
>inb4 darwinoids post whale with legs as "proof"
Of course I will, you have no answer to why whales would have legs

>>15672002
>you dont have an answer for this
>therefore evolution is true!
>armscrossed.jpg
kek

>>15672005
>just because modern whales have hip bones doesn’t mean they evolved from a terrestrial animal
>even though they’re ungulates
>even though the most primitive whales have functional legs
>even though whales halfway between have non functional but still external legs
Kek

>>15672005
>you don’t have an answer for how early life could originate
>therefore evolution is fake!
>armscrossed.jpg
Kek

>>15672011
>They have legs
>Therefore unrelated theory is true
lmao i have all day

>>15672013
I never claimed evolution is fake. I claimed it was a scientific fraud because it's completely unproven.

>>15672014
>the evolution of whales from a terrestrial ancestor is unrelated to the theory of evolution
Umm sweaty?

>>15672014
>I claimed it was a scientific fraud because it's completely unproven
You can’t even get what the theory poses right, you are in no position to claim anything about fraud

>>15672018
Assuming that the legs were an evolved feature is not evidence for evolution
The fact that some whales have "legs" is unrelated to evolution because there's no evidence that these "legs" were an evolved feature.

>>15672022
It poses that species evolve over time and become a separate species.
There's zero evidence for this.

>>15672023
>The fact that some whales have "legs"
All whales have legs
>there's no evidence that these "legs" were an evolved feature
This is the funniest thing I’ve read today. You can’t come up with a reason as to why whales would evolve legs in this manner so you try to dismiss transitional forms as not even being evidence. What ever happened to you people demanding to see where all the transitional fossils were? If they aren’t an evolved feature then please enlighten us as to why a marine animal would require legs that directly inhibit movement in water
>>15672026
You keep going on about the origin of species, yet that is not evolution in the first place
>It poses that species evolve over time and become a separate species
It does not pose that it must be change at the species level. You need to use the species as a baseline because there is too much evidence below the species level that contradicts your world view. What stops smaller changes over a long enough period adding up to speciation? We’ve observed even the formation of subspecies in things like domestic pigs, so why do you think it’s impossible for that to pile up into speciation?
>There's zero evidence for this
There’s fucking mountains of it. When given an example you’ll just go “oh but that’s microevolution, not macroevolution”. Darwin was only alive a couple hundred years ago, you need a little more than that for a species to evolve. Molecular clocks show us when species diverged pretty well even if we weren’t there to see it

The creationist fears the Perucetus

>>15672045
>You cant come up for a reason
>therefore my theory for why these things i call legs exists in whales is correct
This is a non sequitur & shifting the burden of proof
If it is an evolved feature, please show the evidence proving that it is an evolved feature
try to do this without shifting the burden of proof onto other people or claiming that their lack of explanation is evidence for your explanation, as these are logical fallacies

>>15672045
>you need a little more than that for a species to evolve
Like 33,000 generations of bacteria?

>>15672060
>You cant come up for a reason
That is literally your entire argument about how life could have developed from non living matter
>these things i call legs
Look you can try and make it seem like they’re not legs but that’s pretty hard to do when they’re complete with toes, a pelvis, a femur and tibia, etc that are all the same bones in the same positions as you’d see in a horse
>please show the evidence proving that it is an evolved feature
The earliest forms of whale were at least partly terrestrial, transitional forms have vestigial external legs and modern forms have vestigial internal hips. These are the exact steps expected to be seen in the transition from a terrestrial to aquatic lifestyle. These hindlimbs get progressively smaller between earlier and later species within those three stages, and the genes that encode the formation of legs in whales are the same as those in terrestrial ungulates
>>15672064
Define species of bacteria. They do not sexually reproduce, and you people seem to just love the definition of species being an objective group of organisms capable of interbreeding. Bacteria are usually classified based on physical and genetic similarities, if they are being raised under stable conditions in a lab then they are not likely to demonstrate any major change in form or genetics, especially when they all originate from the same stock. We have observed genetic change in bacteria in a lab setting, but you’ll ignore that because it’s just “microevolution” since they didn’t turn into multicellular worms within that time

>>15672089
>transitional forms
is an assumption based on extinct species of whale, it's not a real observation of transition from one species to another.
>define species of bacteria
A lab has been cultivating E Coli for 33 years and counting
Yet they haven't seen any change that would give any amount of credence to the idea that one species can become another species over time. The bacteria 33 years ago and today are both still E Coli, despite 33,000 generations

>>15672064
>Lenki found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species
Uh oh germsisters
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

>>15672097
E Coli already has the ability to use citrate. It took them 33 years to activate this ability in a bacteria that had this ability already LMAO
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/viral-video-overstates-the-evidence-about-bacterial-evolution/

This is simply a case of a scientist extremely exaggerating their claims

>A 2016 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Bacteriology, “Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA,” co-authored by Van Hofwegen and biologists Scott Minnich and Carolyn Hovde, has the answer. In their research they witnessed the same trait, the ability to use this “lemony dessert,” arise in under 100 generations and 14 days. This result was repeatable 46 times. They found that the trait is not very genetically complicated — again, akin to flipping a switch — and that there is more to the story than is being been told. Indeed, their paper shows that no new genetic information arose during the evolution of this trait.

>>15672096
>is an assumption based on extinct species of whale
More like based on a shitload of species from multiple families demonstrating a clear loss of hindlimbs leading up to today
>it's not a real observation of transition from one species to another
You seem to think people would see speciation of an animal within a lifetime
>Yet they haven't seen any change that would give any amount of credence to the idea that one species can become another species
According to who? Did the people carrying out this experiment say this or are you making this up regardless of what they would actually say about whether or not their bacterial cultures had the capability of speciating?

>>15672096
You've apparently made up your mind to be contrarian so doubtful you'd accept any argument in favor of evolutionary theeory, regardless of the evidence.

>>15672103
>You seem to think people would see speciation of an animal within a lifetime
Evolution requires proving that this is possible. If you cannot prove that this is possible, evolution is unproven.

>>15672103
The people conducting the experiment made exaggerated claims about their findings after 33 years when similar results are well known already and can be achieved in just 100 days because E Coli already possess the ability to use Citrate
see >>15672102

>>15672102
>E Coli already has the ability to use citrate. It took them 33 years to activate this ability in a bacteria that had this ability already LMAO
Not all strains have that ability, including the one that gave rise to this culture
>Indeed, their paper shows that no new genetic information arose during the evolution of this trait.
It proves that a gene that allows them to synthesise citrate developed, so yes it did

>>15672116
>not all strains
isn't relevant because a strain is below a species on the taxonomic rank
Evolution requires a change in species, not simply a change in strain.

>>15672107
>Evolution requires proving that this is possible
But it does not require one species turning into another within one lifetime. If you look at anything on the scale of transitional forms of whale and dismiss it and then to changes of alleles in bacterial cultures and dismiss it then you are never going to find anything because you shut your eyes whenever you’re presented with anything that contradicts what you were raised to believe. You still have not answered the question of what exactly prevents smaller changes from adding up to larger ones, that is like saying measuring in inches makes sense but measuring in miles is absurd

>>15672120
It is relevant, as the strain used in the experiment is incapable of synthesising citrate, yet developed the ability to. Just because other strains of E. coli can doesn’t mean now new genetic information was developed

>>15672122
>But it does not require one species turning into another within one lifetime.
That is correct, and I have never claimed this.
It requires one species to turn into another species over time, which has never been proven.
Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

>>15672125
Yes, microevolution is real. Small changes like this are possible. However no new information was created in this development, as other strains of E Coli already have this ability, and it is also not an indication that the E Coli could become another species.

>>15672128
>However no new information was created in this development, as other strains of E Coli already have this ability
It is a new development within that strain. Whether or not other strains have it has no bearing on whether or not a new gene was developed, as they are entirely independent of one another and there is no option for genetic flow between the two making it an independently evolved trait
>Yes, microevolution is real. Small changes like this are possible
So microevolution is real, meaning evolution is real in one way or another. You specifically dislike the idea of macroevolution. The fact that evidence has piled up to the point where creationists now have to make a distinction as to which evolution is bad is hilarious

Say it with me now, whales with legs

>>15672131
>microevolution is real, therefore all evolution is real
kek

>>15672135
>microevolution is not evolution, ignore the name
>macroevolution is though, because it’s in the name
You’re not very good at this

Can I get a whale with some extra legs?

>>15672138

>okay google what is evolution
>the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (as natural selection or genetic mutation)

>okay google what is microevolution
>Microevolution is defined as changes in the frequency of a gene in a population. These are subtle changes that can occur in very short periods of time, and may not be visible to a casual observer.

Microevolution and evolution are not the same thing.

>>15672141
Not legs, sorry.

>>15672142
>google definition must be the entire scope of the theory
Kek. The first one literally even says changes in varieties are included, a variety is usually used to refer to something below species level

>>15672145
What are they then?

>>15672148
>stooping to arguing semantics
Alright, have a good night. I need to sleep.

>>15672157
You’re arguing semantics here >>15672142 retard
>runs off as soon as he’s asked what exactly Basilosaurid legs are if not legs
He fears the whales with legs

>>15672162
I claimed that microevolution and evolution mean different things
It's not a semantic argument, it's just reality
You want to change the meaning of microevolution to support the unsupported fraud known as evolution. You are arguing semantics.

>>15672168
>microevolution and evolution mean different things
Microevolution is evolution below species level, while macroevolution is above species level. It is literally half of evolution as a whole. That’s possibly the most retarded thing you’ve said in the entire thread

>>15672175
Evolution is above the species level
Microevolution is just a fancy term for changes in genetic expression
These terms are unrelated
Have a good night

>>15672179
>spends the entire thread drawing a line between macroevolution and microevolution
>turns around and says macroevolution is just evolution and microevolution is something else
You’re retarded

They frighten him

>>15672179
That’s arguing semantics, and is also incorrect

>>15672194
I will carry the torch for my sleepy comrade.

So what if whales had legs? It doesn't mean they are a transitional species, in fact the scientists who wrote the paper about it thought they used their "legs" for stability during copulation.

>Gingerich P.D., Smith B.H., Simons E.L. (1990). "Hind limbs of eocene basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales"

>>15672208
woah woah woah, words mean things, and they matter, especially at the scale being discussed here.

Let's clarify, that evolution is basically randomiz8ng bits of code in DNA, which works really good at making small variations in existing functions, like in the finch beaks example. When you are talking about adding new functions, though, you need to add new code (ie. if you add a gut, you need to add all the supporting processes for that gut, like enzymes). Now any computer programmer will tell you, the more lines of code you randomize, the probability of failure increases exponentially whereas the probability of success is inversely proportional.

So, yes microevolution is very well documented and makes sense logically, macroevolution does not.

>>15672396
>thought they used their "legs" for stability during copulation
If that is the case then why don’t modern whales have them? And why would they be legs in the first place if they didn’t originate in a terrestrial ancestor when any flap of skin would suffice for stabilisation during sex? Why do they shrink between earlier and later basilosaurids? The idea they used their legs for stabilisation during sex is shaky at best, and unlikely given that whales don’t exactly require that since their prehensile penises make sex in water easy
>>15672412
>words mean things, and they matter
I didn’t say they don’t. He was the one bitching about stooping to semantics, while arguing semantics himself
>Now any computer programmer will tell you, the more lines of code you randomize, the probability of failure increases exponentially whereas the probability of success is inversely proportional.
This is not an issue if you code that impacts the wider program were weeded out, which is where natural selection comes in

>>15672396
>So what if whales had legs? It doesn't mean they are a transitional species
The legs are not the only part about those whales that are transitional. The teeth, blowholes and ear bones are all transitional. There is not a single doubt that they demonstrate a transition from land to sea. Even the digestive systems of modern whales reflect the herbivorous diets of their terrestrial ancestors, being multi chambered like a cow despite being carnivores
>the scientists who wrote the paper about it thought they used their "legs" for stability during copulation
Some scientists wrote a paper on one species, and the paper is speculating about what the legs might have been used for. Even if they were used during sex that does not make them non-transitional, as these traits no longer exist in modern whales

>>15672461
Did you read the paper? The legs are too small to support their weight on land and don't articulate with the vertebral column, which also lack true sacral vertebrae. So they never could have used them on land anyway, because they weren't designed for terrestrial locomotion. Since they aren't around to observe, we can only guess their original purpose.

>weeded out
Pruning useless code is a function of microevolution, and an acceptable explanation of why whales don't have legs now.
But it still doesn't explain how evolutionary process can add new code. That problem is compounded when adding organs that are irreducibly complex, like an eye; you need to code the entire thing at once or it doesn't work and gets pruned. So, we went from throwing paint at a canvas at random and getting something that might resemble a picture, to throwing paint at a canvas and recreating van Gogh's Starry Night. The probability is so small we are firmly in "finely tuned" intelligent design territory.

>>15672493
>Did you read the paper?
I skimmed it
>The legs are too small to support their weight on land
>So they never could have used them on land anyway, because they weren't designed for terrestrial locomotion
Well fucking obviously. Basilosaurus was fully aquatic and not semi aquatic or terrestrial, nobody said otherwise. The fact that they are too small to support their weight on land is the whole reason they’re seen as transitional, since they’re also too small to be effective at paddling either and would inhibit the hydrodynamics of the whale. Nobody is saying Basilosaurus could walk, earlier whales like Pakicetus are the ones that were partly terrestrial

>>15672493
>But it still doesn't explain how evolutionary process can add new code
Easy, mutation.
>That problem is compounded when adding organs that are irreducibly complex, like an eye; you need to code the entire thing at once
This is false, the eye is not irreducible complex and we know this because there are living organisms at every stage of eye complexity. You start with a simple photosensitive cluster of cells, give it a dip and now you can tell what direction light is coming from, close it up a bit further and now you can focus light through a small opening, cover it with any minor bit of translucent tissue and now you’ve got a lens. The evolution of the eye is exceptionally well understood
>So, we went from throwing paint at a canvas at random and getting something that might resemble a picture, to throwing paint at a canvas and recreating van Gogh's Starry Night.
If you keep throwing paint at a canvas for a million years and undo the mistakes by covering them up as natural selection weeds out imperfections then you’d get a pretty spot on painting

>irreducible complexity
Uh huh...

>>15672476
>not transitional
Changing existing functions is not the scientific definition of a transitional species the community is looking for because it can easily be explained by microevolution.

A true transitional species would have functions of both species from whoch it diverged (ex a bird that has mammalian traits).

>>15672523
>Changing existing functions is not the scientific definition of a transitional species
If the function it serves at the transitional stage is so minor that is does not warrant preservation and is lost then it is still transitional
>ex a bird that has mammalian traits
Why would a bird have mammalian traits?

>>15672516
>You start with a simple photosensitive cluster of cells
Slow down Lash LaRue, you're skimming over the most important part: the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first "photoreceptors" still defies explanation, and the proposed series of infinitesimal steps to get from a cluster of photoreceptors to a fully functional eye translates to vast, complex leaps in evolution if viewed on the molecular scale. The Earth simply hasn't been around long enough for this chain of events to have reach probabilistic levels of success without some outside help.

>mutation
This process has only ever been oberved in changing bits of code, and not adding new code. Also, somatic mutations do not pass on to offspring.

>>15672527
>it is still transitional
Only in the most basic sense using the most generous definition possible; it is evidence of microevolution, and not macroevolution.
>Why would a bird have mammalian traits?
I'm not the proponent of macroevolution, that's why I'm asking you! Mammals supposedly diverged from birds and reptiles around the same timeframe, so there ought to be a transitional species with characteristics of both parent species, and evolutionary divergent counterpart.

>>15672520

>fails to mention at any point these systems all fail if something goes the other way

try that shit with the immune system or assembly systems in your body, you materialist retard. your faggy pic has still never been proven or demonstrated btw.

slightly off topic but its fun to poke you retards with

>odds of a single protein forming under perfect conditions on a planet entirely made of amino acids is 1 chance in 10^164

basically impossible. you're welcome now kys.

>>15672563
>the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first "photoreceptors" still defies explanation
Not really, photosensitivity just requires a pigment that causes a chemical reaction under light. To create a photosensitive pigment all you’d need is a gene to encode it, but even if that weren’t the case it entirely disproves the idea an eye is irreducibly complex
>The Earth simply hasn't been around long enough for this chain of events to have reach probabilistic levels of success without some outside help.
Says who? I’d say the couple billion years life has been around is plenty of time
>This process has only ever been oberved in changing bits of code, and not adding new code
Bullshit, we watch it make new code all the time. And even if that were the case, rearranging a piece of code is perfectly capable of resulting in an entirely new trait like a single mutation causing a colour or pattern mutation in a designer snake
>Also, somatic mutations do not pass on to offspring.
Nobody specified somatic mutations, but if were talking about single called organisms that reproduce by cellular fission then yes they absolutely do.
>it is evidence of microevolution, and not macroevolution.
Whales losing limbs is macroevolution, as it occurs above species level
>Mammals supposedly diverged from birds and reptiles around the same timeframe
You’re mistaken, birds did not diverge from mammals, so they have no common traits that reptiles don’t also have. Mammals diverged from reptiles much earlier on than birds did. We have birds with reptilian traits and mammals with reptilian traits, but not birds with mammalian traits or vice versa. Birds and mammals did not diverge from one another, they both independently diverged from reptiles at different times

>>15672576
>these systems all fail if something goes the other way
No they won’t
>your faggy pic has still never been proven or demonstrated btw.
Those eye stages are all from modern species dumbass, you can observe them if you go to the beach
>basically impossible. you're welcome now kys.
Whales with legs

whales have
>brains
>vertebrae
>lungs
>skin
>arms (flippers)
>a heart
>a brain
>eyeballs
>tens of thousands of genes that are almost identical to those of any other mammal

but ZOMG NO LEGS THEREFORE THEY COULDN"T HAVE ORIGINATED FROM LAND MAMMALS

how can you look at a whale and say it *isn't* related to other mammals? It literally is a mammal. Do you think it came from outer space or what?

>>15672623
Whales are a fantastic example because they have such a complete record from terrestrial to aquatic, and even better nobody in this thread can match the autism about the topic that the whale legger has

>>15641678
Perfectly designed and part of God's infinite plan. Just like Ebola.

>>15672590
>all you’d need is a gene to encode it,
That's the whole point! So, simply grant you one miracle, and then your theory makes sense? Isn't the whole point of this theory to exclude supernatural origins?

>the couple billion years
That assumes the process was sucessful on its very first try. A second miracle, then?

>new trait
Mutations produce variations of an existing trait; colors of scales and shapes of beaks, sure. You can't add new traits, like a bird with breasts.

>but if were talking about single called organisms
I think you're mistaken, single cell organisms don't have somatic cells!

>it occurs above species level
The addition of new structures is what is being challenged here. Since modern soientists refuse to recognize this distinction, they have to arbitrarily hitch it to taxonomic rank (which is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand) in order to muddle this very conversation.

>>15672627
>Whales are a fantastic example because they have such a complete record from terrestrial to aquatic
Kind of a massive red herring though, since what is under question is not the evolution of existing functions, but the addition of new functions.

Yeah Darwin is an atheist duplicitous bitch.
the only difference between darwin and lamarck is that darwin made up a theory about a population and lamarck made up a theory about an individual.
Now here is the thing. in order to work with ''a population'', you need to use statistics. and statistics dont lead to proofs and even less to truths.
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable and atheists are gaga about this, even though in public they say falsifiability is awesome.
In fact, the atheist concept of a ''a population'' is not even well defined. At best you they come up with a fuzzy definition.
So with darwin theory you get no predictive claims and when you try to get numbers out of it, you only get few stats about a population and if the theory fails, the atheists will say the numerical results are just statistical artifacts, no big deal.

>>15633896
>>Been disproven by genetic sequencing, they are all identical.
Cute but genes do not define people. Genes are not relevant to the discussion.

>>15672627
>>15672623
The direction is pretty simple for bugs like you: go to your lab and do real science by engineering a mammals which then evolves into a whale. Protip you can't. Biology is not a science and never will be.

>find some creatures vertebrae
>durr burr it had to have legs!!!

I hate soience so much its unreal

>>15672685
>So, simply grant you one miracle, and then your theory makes sense?
Pigments are not hard to make or lose, that is not a miracle. A single mutation can grant a massive overabundance in pigments in reptiles or mammals, let alone a small patch in a microbe
>That assumes the process was sucessful on its very first try. A second miracle, then?
Not really since that is roughly how long life has existed
>You can't add new traits, like a bird with breasts
Sure you can. A mutation allowed a lizard to produce either live young or eggs depending on which population you looked at despite being the same species. I'm curious to know what you would mean by a "new trait" as virtually all traits are just modifications of existing ones
>The addition of new structures is what is being challenged here
Define "new structures"
>>15672691
I thought the ability for speciation to occur is what was under question. You people can't seem to come up with a solid definition of what is vs what isn't macroevolution
>>15672711
The legs are preserved, that is how we know they had legs in the first place. Had the first Basilosaurus specimen not had legs preserved we would have assumed it was like any other whale and that it didn't have external legs

>>15672703
>by engineering a mammals which then evolves into a whale
whales are mammals retard

>>15672743
>You people can't seem to come up with a solid definition of what is vs what isn't macroevolution
it's the goalpost that's meant to be moved, like a dynamic motte and bailey, if they gave a consistent definition, it would be too easy to disprove.

>>15672743
>>15672762
Evolution as an origin is the actual theist objection (life from non-life) but nobody here is ever interested in that conversation because even the best models have impossible odds. It's the same case in physics threads; if the big bang is true, then everything came from nothing which is pretty much a dead end logically, so people start devolving into shitposting.

>>15672774
the person that discovered the big bang was a christian. (inb4 schizo rambling)

>>15672781
But there is pretty strong evidence to support it (CMBR, expansion, etc). Also, that's a pretty obvious genetic fallacy; the Human Genome Project was run by a convert to Christianity, should we throw that out, too?

>>15672791
>he Human Genome Project was run by a convert to Christianity, should we throw that out, too?
when did i say we should ever throw out the contributions of christians? i was actually saying the opposite.
the point is that believing in the big bang has nothing to do with what you believe happened before expansion.

>>15672743
>it can adapt to either produce live young or eggs
It's almost as if god designed those animals to have that option
Also, they are still the same species, so it's not macro evolution.
To prove macro evolution, you must prove that
A: An organism can arise from inorganic matter available at the time they claim it did
B: The organism (single cell) can evolve over time to become a multi-cell organism
OR: Any organism can evolve over time to become a different species
These two very basic prerequisites to macro-evolution have never been proven. Until then, macro evolution remains completely unproven.

>>15672817
My apologies fren! Usually when someone brings up the Christian connection to the big bang, they usually imply that's it all part of some grand conspiracy to prove God or something.

>>15672875
that's very strange.
something to make clear that despite my disdain for YEC and it's clone "intelligent design", i have very little disdain for the christian faith (at least relative to being a bi athiest, and yes, the jokes write themselves, i love them too) past a few jokes, and respect it's civilization.
which is why ive stressed that you can be a christian and accept mainstream science.

>>15633892
These traits are less well differentiated than finches.. this thread is bait

>>15672885
You have very little distain for the Christian faith because they stopped stoning you to death and exiling you for being a homosexual
This was their first mistake

>>15672889
lol, i think you confused christians for muslims (wasn't the punishment in christians countries burning? that was the real mistake).

>>15672892
Either way they should have killed you or exiled you, filthy faggot

>>15672960
did i bother you in some way? Seems a bit strange you would cling onto that part in a science forum lol.

>>15633852
I remember reading somewhere about some internal recursive mechanism for driving evolution, seemed a bit out there but interesting nonetheless.

>>15672157
sleep won't fix your retardation.
reading through your post i retcognize that you need serious help. you seem incapable of thinking. this is what religion does to a mf.
>>15672138
he's probably mentally ill. delusion has clouded his vision.
that guy shitposts on other boards too. he's literally attack everything anti-his-religion and has never provided any proof or reasoning for anything. it's sick.

>>15673135
This is not an argument, but nice try
>muh whales with feet
is not evidence for macroevolution
>muh genetic changes
is not evidence for macroevolution

Macroevolution (Really it's just evolution, but since you guys decided to cry about it, i'll call it macroevolution, even though it's the same thing)
has never been proven.
Macroevolution requires that a single cell organism be able to become another species over time, and be able to become a multi-celled organism over time.
Neither of these cases have been proven or even observed, even in perfect lab conditions.
Similarly, the basis for universal common ancestor requires that a bacteria or simple cell be able to come into existence using inorganic materials that were available at that time

Neither of these hypotheses has ever been proven, therefore "Macro"evolution and Common Origin has NEVER been proven.
No amount of muh whale feet, muh beaks, muh fossils will ever satisfy that pre-requisite for either.
The fact that we have multi-million dollar labs with all of the right materials that cannot even create a cell or bacteria with primordial material just goes to show how incredibly unlikely this phenomenon is, especially given the age of the earth.
It is not proven, and will never be proven because it's a scientific fraud.

>>15673302
Forgot to fill in my tripfag box

The most suprising thing about evolution (correct me if I am wrong) is how we are able to piece so much information not from skeletons, or bones but bits of bones and not even that but fossils of bits of bones with no live material, literally just bits of bones whose form was preserved by hard rock, a process that is supposedly also quiet rare. How do you even extrapolate so much information from this?
If anything evolution makes too much sense with how clear all these “transitional” bits of bones fit together almost as of they know what narrative they are supposed to fit into. Imagine a very far away civilization looking at fossils of the modern global ecosystem it would be a fucking mess, how would they know K9s and Chihuahuas are the same species, what weird stories would they come up with?
>>15672623

Don’t shark have brains, hearts and vertebrae as well?

>>15673582
>how we are able to piece so much information not from skeletons, or bones but bits of bones and not even that but fossils of bits of bones with no live material, literally just bits of bones whose form was preserved by hard rock, a process that is supposedly also quiet rare. How do you even extrapolate so much information from this?
You don't. This is known as conjecture. They are only guessing.

>>15672870
>An organism can arise from inorganic matter available at the time they claim it did
That’s not macroevolution
>The organism (single cell) can evolve over time to become a multi-cell organism
There are bacteria that transition from unicellular to multicellular aggregates, it is not hard to see how that could become a single organism
>>15673302
Macro evolution are changes in an organism at or above species level, it does not have to be a single called organism becoming a multi called one. You’ve changed your definition again
>muh whales with feet
>is not evidence for macroevolution
What would you call evidence for a transition from land to sea in cetaceans? Because it sure as hell isn’t microevolution
>>15673582
>How do you even extrapolate so much information from this?
If you know your anatomy it’s not that hard, there are still things you can’t know but even if you found just the jaw of a theropod dinosaur you could probably pick what group it belonged to based on the shape, time and place

>>15672691
All new functions are just modified old functions in some form or another

>>15674563
It isn't evidence for a transition from land to sea because it presupposes that this is what occurring, despite lack of evidence. In other words, it's pure conjecture and circular reasoning.
"macroevolution is true because cetaceans transitioned from land to sea because we assume macroevolution to be true"
Science requires direct observation, not speculation.

>>15674563
>An organism can arise from inorganic matter available at the time they claim it did
>That’s not macroevolution
If you payed attention to what was being said, I did not claim that this was macro-evolution. I claimed that this was the basis for Universal Common Ancestor.

>There are bacteria that transition from unicellular to multicellular aggregates, it is not hard to see how that could become a single organism
Actually, it is. They have no reason to, and they have never been observed doing such a thing.

Either route you decide to go, you have to engage in circular reasoning in order to support your conclusion. This isn't scientific.

>>15674728
>despite lack of evidence
The progressive reduction in hindlimbs is a pretty good indicator they stopped walking and started swimming
>Science requires direct observation, not speculation
If you can’t interpret evidence in the first place then this means nothing
>>15674752
>They have no reason to, and they have never been observed doing such a thing.
Please look up colonial Cyanobacteria aggregates. Why do you people insist on arguing about something you know fuck all about

>>15674784
>progressive reduction in hindlimbs
is an assumption, not an observation of something actually happening.
>They have no reason to, and they have never been observed doing such a thing.
Please look up colonial Cyanobacteria aggregates. Why do you people insist on arguing about something you know fuck all about
Nope, I was replying to your claim that "It is not hard to see how that could become a single organism", hence why my response says "Actually, it is [hard to see how they could become a single organism]"
Bacteria has never been observed to have become a single organism, nor has bacteria been observed to gain cyanobacterial morphology through genetic mutation.

>>15674812
>is an assumption, not an observation
It’s an observation, as later species have smaller hindlimbs. If they did not get smaller over time then why do earlier forms have larger hind limbs than later ones?
>Bacteria has never been observed to have become a single organism
But we have observed them forming aggregates that are what would be expected from the early stages of multicellular life
>Actually, it is hard to see how they could become a single organism
You finding it hard to see is irrelevant to whether or not it’s actually likely
>nor has bacteria been observed to gain cyanobacterial morphology through genetic mutation.
Cyanobacteria are bacteria

>>15674867
>It's an observation
Again, you're assuming these species are related, i.e. transitioned from one to the other through evolution. Circular reasoning, remember? Try to avoid that
>We have actually observed them forming aggregates that are what would be expected from the early stages of multicellular life
Only in bacteria with the ability to do so. Bacteria has never been observed to gain this ability through genetic mutation. Only bacterial species with this ability can actually do this.
>Cyanobacteria are bacteria
I didn't say they weren't. I am saying that bacteria that do not have cyanobacterial morphology have never been observed to gain this morphology through genetic mutation.

>>15674871
>you're assuming these species are related
That is not an assumption. You would have to be blind or know literally nothing about whales to think they’re not
>Bacteria has never been observed to gain this ability through genetic mutation
>I am saying that bacteria that do not have cyanobacterial morphology have never been observed to gain this morphology through genetic mutation
These are some nice sweeping assumptions. How long have you studied bacteria to be able to make these claims with confidence? Or are you just making an assumption and hoping there’s no examples that would contradict it. Also what “cyanobacterial morphology” are you referring to? That is not specific at all. Please tell me you’re not talking about photosynthetic traits

>>15674871
>Only bacterial species with this ability can actually do this.
Bacterial aggregation is facilitated by proteins in the cell. Variation in these proteins can allow for varying levels of aggregation between strains of bacteria, if a mutation changes the structure of these proteins then they can become more efficient or less efficient at forming aggregate colonies

>>15674934
what “cyanobacterial morphology” are you referring to
Any whatsoever.
>ummm ackshullly no ur making the assumptions
These are not sweeping assumptions. These things have never been observed, and if they had, my claim would easily be disproven.

>>15674871
>Again, you're assuming these species are related, i.e. transitioned from one to the other through evolution.
An assumption based on observation, i.e deductive reasoning.

>>15675498
>an assumption based on observation, i.e. deductive reason
So, in other words, a hypothesis.
Because you cannot go back and check that these are actually related animals, you have to rely on assumption, which isn't scientific.
It may be relevant when the prerequisites for that model are proven, but without fundamental evidence proving the underlying theory, it's just words in the eyes of science.

>>15675460
>These are not sweeping assumptions
Yes they are
>>15675526
>Because you cannot go back and check that these are actually related animals
You don’t need to, they are whales through and through.
>”umm ackshually you can’t know they’re related because they’re extinct. No I don’t know anything about anatomy, why do you ask”
That is staggeringly retarded
>you have to rely on assumption, which isn't scientific
You rely on the morphology provided by the fossils you have, which is not a hard task at all for Basilosaurids and co since they are exceptionally well represented in the fossil record with a shitload of species and nearly complete specimens. You couldn’t actually say why they aren’t whales since you have no fucking clue about the subject you’re so set on arguing about. If they are not whales then what are they exactly? Why do they possess so many characteristics diagnostic of being a cetacean like their unique inner ear bones?
>but without fundamental evidence proving the underlying theory, it's just words in the eyes of science.
The evidence is there, you just choose to ignore it. “Oh they’re not whales” and “oh those hindlimbs aren’t actually legs”. Stfu, you can’t even remotely come up with any reasoning behind those statements. And before you say that their placement as cetaceans is based on an assumption, no it isn’t. It’s based on their anatomy, you not having the education on a subject to know what you’re talking about doesn’t suddenly make everything an assumption

>>15676140
>you cant come up with a reasoning for why whales have legs
>therefore macro-evolution is true!

Evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy

>>15676140
it's amazing how transitional fossils have been asked for so long, but once you show them, they can't be honest about them.

the only one that is relatively honest is todd wood, especially cause he said that pretending there's no evidence causes people to leave the faith cause its so clear that they have been lied to, and now there's a witch hunt against him.

how did whales ever have legs if their legs supposedly evolved into their flippers?

>>15676697
the front legs are front flippers, the back ones are vestigial.

>>15676147
>you can’t come up with a reason for why life would come from non life
>therefore macroevolution is false!
Pot, kettle

>>15676697
Do you see any whales with hind flippers?

>>15676147
>addresses none of the points made
If you can’t come up with a reason then why are arguing against it retard? You ask for evidence and when you get it you shut your eyes

>>15677516
Did not make this claim.
Also, burden of proof is on you to prove that Macroevolution is real, not on me to prove it's wrong. I'm simply pointing out that the basics for macro-evolution to even be possible have never been observed. Not even in a laboratory with perfect settings.

>>15677525
The "evidence" he provides are based on observations of bones whose meaning could be interpreted a number of different ways. Simply defaulting to "macroevolution" as the best explanation isn't scientific, therefore it cannot be used as scientific evidence to prove macro-evolution, as that would be circular logic.

>>15676140
models based of prediction is not science according to him.
you can't find the proof you're looking for as proof cause he doesn't like it, even if whales with legs is a novel prediction.

>>15677701
>I'm simply pointing out that the basics for macro-evolution to even be possible have never been observed. Not even in a laboratory with perfect settings
It’s almost like the time scale involved is way too high for that
>>15677708
>whose meaning could be interpreted a number of different ways
No, no they can’t. You don’t “interpret” something, you look at the diagnostic features of a group to classify an extinct animal. What you are saying is like stating that you can’t prove a Smilodon is a cat because it is extinct. In what way would we have any more information on how to classify Basilosaurids were they alive today? You would have genetic information, but that’s not necessary when we already have the morphological indicators to classify them as cetaceans. Whether a prehistoric whale is alive or dead makes 0 difference in terms of the skeleton

whales never had legs

Whales had legs

>>15677795
>time scale
what a massive cop out. time doesn't matter since we know the formula and have the blueprint, yet we are unable to recreate this phenomena in a lab given the most favorable conditions possible. yet we are supposed to believe that in the intensely hostile and chaotic environment of primordial earth, inorganic material randomly and spontaneously arranged itself into a living organism, working AGAINST the laws of thermodynamics by DECREASING entropy??? pardon me for being a little skeptical here but thats. fucking. bullshit.

>>15671249
Darwin was jewish

>>15679674
That explains why he is considered an irrefutable god by the soience crowd same way that Einstein is

>>15678786
>time doesn't matter since we know the formula and have the blueprint, yet we are unable to recreate this phenomena in a lab
We don’t know what the conditions life started under were like though, so we have no blueprint
>conflates abiogenesis with evolution for the gorillionth time
Why are you people like this

>>15672135
What stops mutations from accumulating?

>>15677795
>the time scale involved is way too high for that
Which, in other words, means your claim is unfalsifiable.
>Yeah guys I believe there used to be magical unicorns that could heal everybody instantly but it takes hundreds of thousands of years for one to appear, and it only lives for 100 years
>See? there's evidence of ancient unicorns
>that means my MAGICAL unicorn that can heal everybody instantly must also exist but it only occurs every 300,000 years

>>15681255
The mutations only occur within a range that is possible for that species.

>>15638918
What does this even mean

>>15671571
>there is 0 evodence that life can come from non-life.
Wrong

>>15681745
show me a laboratory experiment where they were able to create life from inorganic materials

(pro-tip: you cant)

>>15681749
Do you know what the difference between organic and inorganic means?
Anyway the Miller-Urey already produces 11 of the amino acids 70 years ago, all 20 were produced a few years back
If you unironically watch the discovery Institute youre really sad

>>15681780
Were they able to create life from inorganic materials yes or no?

>>15681745
This, the bible says that god created life from nothing

>>15682467
>Darwin says atheism created life from nothing
>The Bible say god created life from nothing
The Bible was there first, why can't atheists invent their own origin stories, which everything in the atheist belief system just Bible stories with the word "god" omitted?

>>15681730
What the fuck are you on about

>>15684013
Genesis itself is retarded. Creating the earth before the sun is laughable.

>>15681730
How do you know this range exists and what even decides said range?

>>15684313
Because despite thousands of years of humans fucking with plant and animal genetics and well over a hundred years of fucking with these in laboratories, we've yet to breed them to a point that is outside of their species. A corn has always been a corn, and a pig has always been a pig. A cow has always been a cow.
While they've changed significantly, they are still the same species as they were 10,000 years ago.

>>15633852

>>15684619
Cows are not the same species as their wild ancestors, pigs are at the very least not the same subspecies and possibly not the same species, corn depends on what strain and how you would define being a new species as many are hybrids. Lots of domestic animals are no longer considered the same species as their wild ancestors

>>15684619

>>15684619
ur argument got owned by a nectarine, bro

What other explanation IS there besides evolving from simpler forms?
>god did it
okay but how did god do it?
>iunno, he just did, okay?

what is the anti-evolution guy's mental image of what happened?
>one day there was this barren rock
>and then there was instantly life

the only mysterious part about the origin of the universe is how we went from singularity to a big-bang. after that, it's just new_state = update(old_state);

>>15681749
show me a laboratory where they were able to create the roman empire from etruscan precursors

you cant? i guess that means history isn't a science

>>15684822
That is incorrect.
If the genetic variant of the cow & pig back then were to come back today, it would still be able to interbreed, because they're the same species.
>>15684837
That's still corn
>>15684840
That's still a peach

>>15684866
Species never stop being think ancestors, do you think humans stopped being mammals or something retarded like that?

>>15684874
macro-evolution requires a change in spdcies

>>15684884
Species*

>>15684884
Yes, but that doesn't change your group.
in the same way spanish doesn't stop being ultimately based on latin, groupings in evolution are a nested hierarchy (same with language), you don't outgrow ancestry.

>>15684898
The point is that macro-evolution is unproven, despite the thousands of years of humans tampering with genes, we've never seen a single example of a species changing into another species

A planet is formed when an accretion disc condenses into a solid ball of rock. This ball of rock flies around its primary star for a few billion years until the star runs out of hydrogen to fuse, swells, and swallows the planet. Do creationfags also have a problem with the processes of planetary formation and destruction? Or is it only when you throw matter organising itself into self-replicating forms that the objection arises?

>>15684917
Space isnt real

>>15684912
Speciation has been done in the lab, what you want is a cow giving birth to a pig, ridiculous shit you saw in pokemon.

>>15684922
Speciation is a weasel word. It assumes that micro-evolution will go on to produce macro-evolution, when macro evolution has never been observed

>>15684927
>"there has never been a change in species"
>there has been
>"well, it wasn't like pokemon, so its not real!"
You're complaining the macro-evolution is not pokemon shit, you're admitting it right now.
speciation is macroevolution.
any response will be cope.

>>15684936
Macro-evolution requires a change in species. At no point did i say it required it to occur immediately.

>>15684912
Evolution is proven because we know that the species who existed millions of years ago were vastly different that the ones who presently exist, and we also know that what's living now came from what was living millions of years ago. The only conclusion is evolution.

>>15684941
Nope, it's likely those were the same species or they went extinct.

>>15684944
when you find the 500 million-year-old mammal or angiosperm fossil, let me know
until then, I'm right

>>15684950
The earth is not that old my friend

>>15684952
oh, you're a retard
stop talking

>>15684950
>>15684952
And even if this were true, you're still engaging in evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy
E.g. "god would not have done it that way, therefore evolution is true"

>>15684955
it is true
you're a retard
stop talking

>>15684956
Cope

>>15684957
retard

>>15684958
Fossils from the great flood are not evidence of evolution
Carbon dating is fake

>>15684950
The "creation scientists" are working hard on finding the elusive pre-cambrian bunny.

>>15684968
Nope, carbon dating is fake. There's a large gap because God created some of the creatures first.

>>15684961
okay, so what is your estimate of the age of the earth and how did you arrive at that estimate?
Forget about arguing over evolution, for if we can't agree on the history of the earth itself, then we will surely not agree about how life arose

>>15684961
>>15684972
Yes, like how we "creation scientists" debunked uranium lead and potassium argon dating by saying the ultimate response.
>"god did it"

>>15684976
Like i said, even if it were real, it relies on fallacious argument.
"God wouldn't have done it that way, therefore evolution!"

>>15684991
how old is the earth?

>>15685004
Has macro-evolution ever been observed?

>>15685009
Yes. In the fossil record many times.
Now how old is earth? You say "it's not that old." Then how old is it and how did you arrive at your estimate?

>>15685019
That is speculation on the history of the fossils, not direct observation of macro-evolution.

>>15685025
Alright, then the existence of the Roman Empire is speculation based on the existence of the Colosseum.

>>15685027
No, because there is direct human observation of what occured that was written down. We assume that we as a species created these things because we are the only creature ever observed to be able to build things like that, on a different note, I assume God created every animal, because he is the only thing that is proven to be capable of doing so, whereas macro-evolution has never been proven to occur.

>>15684991
An omniscient intelligent designer wouldn't flaw its creations. Pretty sure a reality-warping God could have created a world where multiple sclerosis doesn't exist yet we still have a fullj functioning immune system are mutually exclusive.

>>15685050
Maybe God likes to play, fedora. :^)

>>15685050
Disease arose from sin, we live in a fallen world

>>15685050
Jesus Christ, I did not proofread lol

>>15685054
> be God
> love creation
> creation did bad
> punish generations of creation afterward

Seems legit. Hope your granddad smacks you for each time your dad backtalked him in his teenage years.

>>15685073
It's woke collectivism.

>>15685073
Sin is passed on. There is not one person on this earth without sin. It also explicitly states in the bible that God punishes the subsequent generations for the sins of their fathers.

>>15685036
>No, because there is direct human observation of what occured that was written down.
Typical christfag retard logic that places man above animals, or above rocks, for that matter. (You) have no observation of anything that happened before you were born. Thus, deducing the evolution of civilization from caveman to astronaut by piecing together evidence from ruins is exactly the same process as deducing the evolution of life from fossils, from billion-year-old protists to thousand-year-old ice mummies.

>bu-bu no evidence of macro evolution
no shit. proving a billion-year process that takes an earth-sized laboratory isn't the same as proving something simple like proving that a wave refracts when it enters a different medium. Nevertheless, life evolving from rocks over the billion-year life of this planet is the best explanation given the clues we have.

>>15685082
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>15685088
>places man above animals, or above rocks
yes
>deducing the evolution of civilization from caveman to astronaut by piecing together evidence from ruins is exactly the same process as deducing the evolution of life from fossils
No
>tl;dr macro-evolution is unfalsifiable

>>15685097
exactly
ergo, you are a retard
stop posting please

>>15684940
>speciation is not a change in species...cause it's not like pokemon.
yup, a cope.

>>15685112
Speciation is not a change in species, that is correct
Which means that observation of speciation is not evidence of macro-evolution (change in species)

>>15685004
Roughly 6000 years, as can be deduced by tracing the line of Jesus back to Adam.

>>15685124
>a change in species is not a REAL change in species cause the goalpost was met, so i must move it to a pokemon-ified version.
>>15685137
The yazitis have been counting for 6700 years.

>>15685141
Speciation is not a change in species

>>15685143
>my magical pokemon definition was not met, you're not supposed to use the actual definition.

>>15685153
>muh pokemon

From merriam webster:
Speciation
the process of biological species formation

Macroevolution:
evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

As I've stated earlier, Speciation is a weasel word, as it presumes that the process that is occurring will go onto become macro-evolution, when there's zero evidence of this process actually having gone to become macro-evolution

>>15685183
>"the process of species formation"
>(as in species formation)
owned by your own definition

>>15685208
>the process of species formation
NOT
>species formation
Basic English

>>15685208
But if you want to play retard, we can certainly take a look at another word:
Baptism: an act, experience, or ordeal by which one is purified, sanctified, initiated, or named

Based on this definition, if I were to observe a baptism, does that mean that this "purification, sanctification and initiation" is actually real? Yes or No.

>>15685215
after speciation, there is a new species afterwards.
>>15685231
I'd rather not comment on the Christian religion in general, cause i don't know. But if it's true, then yes, baptism does do that.

>>15685243
The point is that the word describes the process, not the result of the process.
The word Baptism describes an act, experience, or ordeal which is claimed to purify, sanctify, or initiate someone
That does not mean that observing the act of a baptism proves that someone has been purified, sanctified, or initiate.
Similarly, The word Speciation describes the process of species formation. Observing the process of speciation does not prove that a new species can be, will be, or has been formed.
How you can't understand this is beyond me

>>15685088
Christians are better than animals, but you are not a Christian

>>15685288
It is remarkable how insistently stupid some people are. YEC are truly the most retarded people on this Earth.

>>15685791
It's remarkable that you can't understand basic English, and you're trying to convince people that the earth is 4 billion years old and was populated with giant monster alien creatures

Speciation has never been observed to have become another species. When you're observing speciation, you're observing THE PROCESS, which they claim goes onto become another species.
When you observe a Baptism, you're observing
the act which is claimed to purify, sanctify, or initiate
When you observe an execution,
(the act or process of executing)
that does not necessarily mean that something was executed.
-ion, -ing, -ism =/= -ed
evolving =/= evolved
execution =/= executed
baptism =/= baptized
You can observe the first without the second being true.
You can perform an execution, and fail, meaning it wasn't executed.
You can also observe this execution.
The observation of the execution does not mean it was executed.

If you could perform speciation, and it failed to result in a new species, that means that no new species was created.
The observation of speciation does not prove/mean that a new species was created

Let me repeat
The observation of speciation does not prove/mean that a new species was created

And again
>The observation of speciation does not prove/mean that a new species was created

And again
The observation of speciation does not prove/mean that a new species was created

>>15684866
>would still be able to interbreed, because they're the same species.
That’s an outdated definition of species. Ball pythons and carpet pythons can reproduce despite not even being in the same genus. There are 2 species of modern domestic cow, neither are the same species as the Aurochs they descend from

>>15684927
>Speciation is a weasel word
Fucking kek

>>15685082
>There is not one person on this earth without sin
I am

>>15685124
>Speciation is not a change in species
Speciation is one species changing over time into another, that is the entire definition
>Which means that observation of speciation is not evidence of macro-evolution
You retards can’t even come up with a definition you can stick to. What happened to observed speciation being the criteria for saying macroevolution has occurred?

>>15685936
>stooping to arguing semantics
Tsk tsk. I thought you were above that
>was populated with giant monster alien creatures
Ah, he’s one of those dinosaur deniers. That makes too much sense

>>15686603
Observed speciation was never the criteria for macroevolution.
The criteria for macro-evolution is for a change in species to occur, which has never been observed.

>>15686663
>speciation was never a requirement for macroevolution
>a change in species was
So speciation then
>which has never been observed
Even if an emerging species were to be recognised as distinct within our lifetimes you’d just dismiss it as being the same species, just like you dismiss all the domestic animals that are not considered to be the same species as their wild ancestors that we bred into existence. You’ve already made up your mind and have no intention of changing your view regardless of what you’re shown

>dirty namefag mogged by a funny looking whale: the thread

>>15686721
There already have been species observed to be significantly different, what he wants is pokemon style evolution where a an animal makes something totally different.
It's about moving the goalposts to an impossible and retarded standard, not honest discussion.
if you want a more honest YEC, todd wood is the only one i know of, but the YECs hate his guts and are trying to witchhunt him, he's a "main enemy" now

>>15633852
I encourage you to read this book. It's really good.

>>15686721
Speciation = the process of changing species
Speciation =/= change in species

Change in species was never observed.
>just like you dismiss all the domestic animals that are not considered to be the same species as their wild ancestors
They literally are the same species.

>>15686755
>significantly different
Still the same species
>he wants is pokemon style evolution
Nope, as i've stated already.
We've had thousands of years of interacting with cattle and crops, and have yet to produce a SINGLE example of species developing into another species under our observation.

>it's about moving the goalposts to an impossible and retarded standard
THAT YOU CREATED, DUMBASS
>b-b-but it takes millions of years to develop a new species
You cannot claim this, and then claim i'm being disingenuous when I say that the development of a new species has never been proven.

>>15687303
>Speciation = the process of changing species
>Speciation =/= change in species
Semantics
>They literally are the same species
They’re not. Modern domestic cattle are either Bos taurus or Bos indicus, they both descend from Bos primigenius. The domestic goat is Capra hircus and descends from Capra aegagrus. There’s lots of examples
>in b4 they can breed therefore same species
Nobody has seriously used that definition in taxonomy for half a century
>We've had thousands of years of interacting with cattle and crops, and have yet to produce a SINGLE example of species developing into another species under our observation
We have but you’ll choose to ignore them

>>15687383
Not semantics at all. This is how it is used in all of the research you claim proves macro-evolution. They are observing the process that they claim will lead to a change in species, they are not observing a change in species
>They're not
>Modern domestic cattle are either Bos taurus or Bos indicus
These are the same species, with some differences. They can still breed.
>Nobody has seriously used that definition in taxonomy for half a century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
>In biology, a species (pl: species) is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring
oops

>>15687399
>These are the same species, with some differences
If that were the case then they wouldn’t have been split
>They can still breed
Fertile hybrids are common within the same species, and can often occur within different genera and rarely even between different families. Doesn’t make them the same species
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
>While the definitions given above may seem adequate at first glance, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species
oops

>>15687399
>They are observing the process that they claim will lead to a change in species, they are not observing a change in species
Unless they actually do observe a change in species. What term would they use if not speciation? Saying speciation is the process of changing a species but doesn’t refer to a change in species that has already occurred is staggeringly retarded

>>15687591
>within the same species
Within the same genus*

>>15687608
The change in species would be macro-evolution
>>15687591
>Fertile hybrids are common within the same genus
Sure, but that's an outlier, not the rule. That would be like saying there are multiple sexes because there are genetic defects on our chromosomes that give us extra X or Y chromosomes
I would argue the exception proves the rule.

>>15688353
>Sure, but that's an outlier, not the rule
Fertile hybrids within a genus may be as common if not more so than infertile ones, it’s hardly an outlier if a large number do it let alone a majority

>>15688404
An outlier because it can only occur in the same genus. You cannot hybdrid a pig and a horse, nor a dog and a cat.
When the species is no longer able to breed with it's ancestor species, that is when i would consider it a new species. This isn't a radical concept.

>>15688478
>because it can only occur in the same genus
It can occur outside a genus
>You cannot hybdrid a pig and a horse, nor a dog and a cat
But you can breed a ball python and a carpet python, or a serval and a house cat, or a sheep and a goat
>that is when i would consider it a new species
When you personally consider it is irrelevant to whether or not it has actually diverged as a species

>>15688557
>Personally consider
This is the most widely accepted definition of macro-evolution
You can keep trying your semantic games, but it doesn't change the fact that a change in species has never been observed.

>>15688557
Also, the offspring of these hybrids are not fertile, which is specifically what I was speaking about. Cross species fertility in hybrids isn't common, and doesn't exist outside of a genus.

Either way, none of this changes the fact that a change in species has never been observed by mankind despite thousands of years of history.

>>15688568
>This is the most widely accepted definition of macro-evolution
Your definition is the most widely accepted? Wow you must be the most famous person in the world
>Also, the offspring of these hybrids are not fertile
Incorrect. Ball x carpet python hybrids are virtually always fertile, female serval x cat hybrids are virtually always fertile and sheep x goat hybrids are sometimes fertile. The python hybrids are an especially good example, as nearly all are fertile regardless of the combination
>Cross species fertility in hybrids isn't common
That’s a fucking lie lmao
>doesn't exist outside of a genus
Except for when it does
>a change in species has never been observed by mankind despite thousands of years of history
Except for in domestic cattle, goats, cats, guinea pigs, etc

>>15688639
>domestic cattle, goats, cats, guinea pigs, etc
Nope

>>15688659
>Nope
Yup
>Bos taurus vs Bos primigenius
>Capra hircus vs Capra aegagrus
>Felis catus vs Felis lybica
>Cavia porcellus vs Cavia tschudii
I’m curious to know how you expect to define when these species aren’t the same species as their ancestors since it’s clear that hybrids within a genus are very often fertile meaning you can’t use whether or not they can reproduce successfully as an indicator of whether or not speciation has occurred

>>15672145
>doesn’t know what a leg is
Smartest namefag everyone

>>15688672
>Bos taurus vs Bos primigenius
Same thing
>Capra hircus vs Capra aegagrus
Same thing
>Felis catus vs Felis lybica
Same thing
>Cavia porcellus vs Cavia tschudii
Same thing

>>15688672
It's not like pokemon, so it's not real speciation.