/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15801840
It's not a logic gate it's just the body doesn't want any more of whatever it's blocking or keeping in

>>15801840
Evolution didn't intend to make a ball and chain. It's simply that the cells that didn't have a way to block sodium were at an evolutionary disadvantage to the ones that could. That structure likely served an entirely different purpose before it was used to block sodium. Isn't evolution great?

God is good. Ignore the shills and spiritually dead man-babies

>>15801863
> Evolution didn't intend to make a ball and chain
proof?

>>15801977
to get proof evolution didn't intend shit you'd first need proof evolution CAN intend shit. then we can talk about it intending or not with various shit.

>>15801977
Evolution is a description of a concept. Descriptions can't have intent. Neither can concepts. Therefore evolution cannot have an intent. QED.

>>15801840
Yah it is pretty stupid. The NPCs that latch into this kind of thinking have no idea of how statistically impossible it is, like cracking PGP with an abacus, brute force trying every combinations til something works. It wouldnt take billions of years it would take a unfathomable amount of time you couldnt even type out with a lifetime of typing zeros. But you will never get that dog off this bone, just move along

>>15802365
just because you can't fathom everything that is happening all at once, everywhere, does not mean you are clearly not a product of the universe's forces on the matter you are made out of.

They also evolved bevel toothed gears just for shits and giggles, apparently

>>15801850
action potentials are literally the cause of computations in the brain though

And a system that copy-pastes the entire DNA molecule with identical information to another cell when it divides, like copying a file on a computer.

>this logically contingent thing happened but it's a self-evident truth that logic is only ever after the fact
>why? i deduced it, t. brain

>>15802315
The amount of convoluted bullshit you need to invent to justify the precipitation of these adaptations by purely random actions (not to mention the behavior of life as a whole) is ludicrous and akin to adding additional epicycles to justify a geocentric view of the solar system.
Darwin explains life under stress; i.e., mere survival. He does not explain life, which seeks to expand and control, and in this way can selectively pass down information, behavior, and adaptations.

at what point does it simply become more probable that an intelligent creator created something versus chance? or is it that modern scientists have formed their own dogmas and refuse to even think about it?

>>15802447
Also bacterial motors, just for the lulz

>>15801840
It's not a ball and chain, it is a tiny anal bead evolved for an tiny anus.

>>15802888
>at what point does it simply become more probable that an intelligent creator created something versus chance?
lol it's weird that you don't understand how retarded that sounds.
if you have an environment which permits something, even if at a mindboggling low chance, whenever that something happens you have no choice but to accept it. it's as valid as the other something which had 99.999999999999999% happening. as long as the environment allows it, the chance itself has no bearing on it's validity, once it happened.
>oh you're so fucking rare that you're not real
see that pretty fucking retarded when you think about it. primitive even.
it's not real only if it's not permitted by the environment. holy shit it's insane I have to explain this

>>15802888
Perhaps natural selection is evidence of God in action. By and large natural selection seems to operate in our favor. Things could be worse but they aren't.

>>15801840
Is that an actual picture or a rendering?

>>15802315
proof that the lack of a negative proof proves the positive?

>>15802323
so did that particular biological system create the ball and chain with its environment? yes or no

>>15803260
clinically retarded

>>15803260
lmao

>>15802365
>10 to the power of 40000 is 1040000
I don't think I'll trust this guy

>>15803443
You heard the man

>>15803633
It's some fool fucking up the formatting. They've just copied the text with the 40k as a superscript into plaintext.
This is Fred Hoyle, after all, I think he knows what exponentiation is.

>>15803657
how did he calculate the probability of any of that? isn't he some yec preacher?

>>15802398
how many times/ years would it take for you to throw a bin full of legos into the air and they all assemble into a death star before they hit the ground?

>>15803824
doesn't matter. the chance is irrelevant if possible and it happened. you cannot use a small chance to prove the existence of god. that's chimp tier retarded anon, why don't you see it?

>>15803828
> you cannot use a small chance to prove the existence of god
I never did this why are you making shit up? I know god exists and wrote the proofs likely before you were born. The only people who debate are simply ignorant of the proofs (and I have met countless people too stupid to understand the proofs as well)

>>15803824
and it's not legos in the air, it's certain matter, not in air, with certain conditions. you take that and run it gorrillion of times in parallel. out of all it seems it's possible to form self-replicating simple forms, based on this universe's laws.

>>15803832
you are delusional, nothing in the Universe is random

>>15803834
>you are delusional
that's rich brother.
>>15803834
>nothing in the Universe is random
reality and observation seems to contradict you
if there is a god, at most it's controlling randomness. that's as much as I can give you

>>15802488
So? It isn't doing it on purpose. The body has too much of something so it gets blocked, and it can't be hijacked for controlling the logic gates. It's something else

>>15803445
Sure, in the sense that the environment provided the context for success. You can't reproduce of you die from the sodium concentration.

>>15801840
because the cells that evolved gates and pumps could live in more environments than the ones that maintained perfect equilibrium with their parent environment. it wasn’t a total win, since even now we’ve still more or less taken the primordial ocean with us (cytoplasm, blood plasma, etc.) rather than live totally apart from it like tardigrades sometimes do, because that also provided our ancestors with advantages.

>>15801863
>evolutionary disadvantage
There are no goals to evolution hence there is no such thing as an evolutionary advantage/disadvantage in nature.
The correct term is "propagation disadvantage" but that is just sugar coating: without these gateways any cellular precursor "life" would die almost immediately, in the order of seconds. That isn't a "disadvantage," that's just death, hence your statement should have been "the cells that didn't have a way to block sodium were at [nonexistence]"... a paradox to evolution.
>That structure likely served an entirely different purpose
Evolution of gaps fallacy: you don't know therefore evolution is what produced it and did so in a sensible way. Proper science dictates it's not naturally possible until you can prove it is.
>Isn't evolution great?
Not when you turn "evolutionary science" into a religion like you're doing.

>>15803667
>Fred Hoyle
>"Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and was one of the authors of the influential B2FH paper"
>"So influential did the B2FH paper become that for the remainder of the twentieth century it became the default citation of almost all researchers wishing to cite an accepted origin for nucleosynthesis theory"
>"Hoyle therefore predicted the values of the energy, the nuclear spin and the parity of the compound state in the carbon nucleus formed by three alpha particles (helium nuclei), which was later borne out by experiment."
>"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio"
>Denied the 1983 Nobel prize for nucleosynthesis despite being the founder of stellar nucleosynthesis and his co-author of the B2FH paper receiving it, simply due to a previous criticism of the Nobel committee
>picrel
Yeah anon, he's just some nobody yec preacher

>>15805081
forgot pic

>>15801840
it's not like everything got to where it is now then just randomly grew a sodium channel, those came first

>>15804091
And exactly how did it do this?

>>15805227
A certain number of mutants formed with a minor alteration to an existing structure which increased their chance to survive until reproduction. You know google is free, right?

>>15805064
Take your meds. Most evolutionary changes exploit structures that were used for something else. That's the use of half an eye.

>>15803260
Put a few grains of salt under the microscope and you'll indeed see they all have Na+ marked balls

>>15801863
the probability of advantageous mutations compared to disadvantageous ones is a googleplex lower. The probability that they occur in reproductive cells, and that those celles are used is orders of magnitude too low to even have 1 case occur.

>>15805519
Nonsense.

>>15801840
>I'll just evolve a fucking ball and chain
Theoretically this might only require a single-nucleotide change called a stop-loss. In fact, it might be interesting to examine the sequences downstream of stop codons in ion channel genes using Alphafold. Do these have more or less 'ball and chain potential' than sequences in the 3'UTRs of other genes? Is there phylogenetic evidence that coding-balls-and-chains originated from sequence previously a 3'UTR?

>>15805543
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060052

>>15805469
>no argument, resorts to ad homs because I challenged his dogma
Yep. It's a religion to you.
>Most evolutionary changes exploit structures that were used for something else
>pretends this means it's not evolution of gaps fallacy somehow
Wildy wrong and shows basic lack of understanding of biology. All evolutionary changes (that we can verify, so all of them) are merely macro evolutionary and almost universally serve no function. Your children having different genes than you is an evolutionary change. That is how often evolution happens.
Even pretending "most" were that way, that is a pure ad hoc assumption on your part invented because species that are wildly different have organs that are somewhat similar, and the debunked idea of macroevolution magically filled in the gaps without evidence. Your dogmatic assumptions don't belong in science.
>That's the use of half an eye
There is no such thing as half an eye. A feature either directs/obscures light towards/away from a photosensitive point in an organism or it doesn't.
Nowhere in the animal kingdom exists a single celled organism that has a "halfway point" between pic related (single cell plankton with a lens directing light to focal point) and a general photosensitive cell like in bacteria. It would serve no function to be some fictional "half an eye"


More dogma

>intelligent design
lol
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/student-contributors-did-you-know-general-science/unintelligent-design-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve

>>15805666
This is retarded. I guarantee in fiftty years they will know that this is the best possible way to do it. It is even worse to imagine it existing in dinosaurs, as if such waste in energy is mandatory and never changing. When did biologists become such suck outs?

>>15805682
yeah but it makes sense considering how it evolved in time. there's plenty clues to figure out what happened, it just so happens those particular ones are completely ignored by intelligent design morons

>>15805690
>yeah but it makes sense considering how it evolved in time
There's countless basic biomechanical mechanisms (of which we have complete understanding, they are very trivial), that don't make sense as to how they could ever possibly "evolved in time" but they are completely ignored by evolutionist morons.
Why do you have the double standard where it's only bad when others ignore things?

>it just so happens those particular ones are completely ignored by intelligent design
It's not ignored by ID
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_recurrent_laryngeal_nerve_/
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/wolf-ekkehard_lonnig_under_neo/

>>15805660
Take your meds. Things don't suddenly mutate a new arm or an entire eye. Small changes selected for over time are how big changes happen and the structure being developed will be used in very different ways as it develops.

>>15805643
Did you even read that paper? It does not back your claim.

>>15805666
>https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_recurrent_laryngeal_nerve_/
>While the path of the RLN is unintelligent, perhaps future research in this field can reveal something more intelligent.
this >>15805706 is not it

>>15805706
>"evolved in time"
we have water eyes. our tears are fucking salty. we see in the spectrum that penetrates water at the shallow depths it was formed. we see land developed eyes are pretty different.

>>15805465
specifically which mutants and what physical process was used to create them?

>>15805791
The ancestors of the cells we're discussing. The process that creates them is called mitosis.

>>15805804
that doesnt answer my question, try again

>>15805706
>literally intelligent design of gaps
thanks for playing

>>15802488
there is so much wrong with this statement that i don't even know where to begin.
thanks for reminding me that no one on this board knows anything.

>>15805845
How is it wrong? Neurons fire a signal, signals release neurotransmitters, they get picked up from the synaptic cleft by the downstream neuron, which causes more changes depending on the receptor
This is literally how it works

>>15805784
Lurker here, which animals have land eyes?

>>15805848
yes, that's how it works if your name is santiago ramón y cajal and you are back in the late 19th century.
the reduction of neurons to somatic activity has been a disaster for computational neuroscience.

>>15805860
What's the alternative smartass?
>The brain is beyond our understanding because... it just is okay?!?!

>>15801840
>just evolve an maxwell's demon
it's that easy bro

>>15805868
synaptic transmission is actually pretty unreliable, and it's typical to find that the majority of presynaptic activity doesn't trigger neurotransmitter release. furthermore, most of the computations in a neuron are actually performed locally in dendrites. uh oh, turns out that dendrites can also release neurotransmitters and have their own "action potentials" that drive somatic activity.
the alternative, dumbass, is that most of neural activity is actually subthreshold.

>>15805907
>is that most of neural activity is actually subthreshold.
And? This doesn't do anything to prove your point. The whole reason why we aren't perplex machines like a GPT bot is because chemical synapses are inherently probabilistic.
AP are the main cause behind computations in the brain, this is such a basic unassuming statement to argue against.

>>15805920
(somatic) APs are not the "main cause" of computation, that would be the active properties of dendrites.
try harder, cajal.

>>15805809
That answers your question exactly. Did you mean to ask a different question?

>>15805809
>give me the exact genes thar changed and when or else you're wrong
Not how it works pal. Mutants that did a job continued on to multiple. Those that didn't, died. Any nit pick is your soggy asshole itching.

>>15805750
>Take your meds. Things don't suddenly mutate a new arm or an entire eye.
They don't slowly do that either, but I never made your absurd strawman it's done "suddenly" anyway.
You think most evolution is change in previous "structures." It's clear you haven't even taken high school biology. Keep projecting I need meds while ignoring the fact I proved you wrong on every single count. It's laughable.

>>15805773
>>15805784
>>"evolved in time"
>we have water eyes.
>land developed eyes
ROFL. I'm just going to assume english is not your first language and not bother.

>>15805837
Thanks for losing

>>15807263
Are you high? Animals slowly grow and lose limbs all the time. It takes tens of thousands of years for a structure as large and complex as an arm to develop and before it's used as an arm it will be used as a flipper. That flipper will represent an advantage, a disadvantage, or a neutral change and selected for or against accordingly. Look up vestigial organs.

>You think most evolution is change in previous "structures." It's clear you haven't even taken high school biology.
A assume you're talking about genes. When you get older and go to college you will learn about phenotype which is the expression of genes. Structures that are altered reflect a change in phenotype which implies but does not necessitate a change in genotype.

>>15801840
Why not bro? If it works it isn't stupid.

>>15801863
If it works, it isn't stupid. Also evolution doesn't necessarily need to be random, reactionary evolution where epigenetics causes genetic changes has been observed.

>>15801840
Play with the particle life, it'll expand your mind
The secret ingredient to life is determinism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4YirERTVF0

>>15803824
it dont happen just like that. you throw the legos at the air and i assembles a wall of the deathstar for exmaple. then you start trhowing the legos with that wall alreday assembled and with time all the pieces form he death star. its the same principle behind neural networks, it doesnt just put random pixels on screen until it gets a perfect image of goku in the nuremberg trials, it begins with creating a image with only gray colors in it, then from there on keeps ramdomising that image until it gets a basic room shape or jury shape and from that point onwards rolls the dice to put goku on it.
first dome random molecules in the primeaval soup formed a structure capable of replicating itself in a very basic manner but many of those attempts failed bc is very fucking hard to make a self replicatin structure

>>15802488
hey retard the brain does not work on discrete logic, niggerfaggot.

>>15805784
birbs, probably.

>>15806424
Which mutant? Post their complete dna code.

>>15807557
>Animals slowly grow and lose limbs all the time.
Lose yes, in extremely rare occasions
>It takes tens of thousands of years for a structure as large and complex as an arm to develop and before it's used as an arm
I don't share your religious assumption based on a flawed and biased interpretation of fossil homology.
>it will be used as a flipper. That flipper will represent an advantage, a disadvantage, or a neutral change and selected for or against accordingly
The Zachelmie tracks blow this religious belief to pieces. They are proof of terrestrial appendages that are missing 25 million years of supposed evolution to create them. There is no possible excuse for the missing transitional forms other than the fact they never existed. It's not logically possible to not find a single fossil among allegedly hundreds or thousands of species that supposedly existed. It's like finding a 25 million year old human footprint.
>Look up vestigial organs
lol. Look up punctuated equilibrium
>A assume you're talking about genes
For an evolution lecture I'm giving you? Galaxy brain conclusion you came to there.
>When you get older and go to college you w
You think "most" evolution is "structural". That is so egregiously wrong it's proof you have not taken high school biology. The vast overwhelming changes produced by evolution are merely non functioning mutations and genetic drift.
Like I said, I proved you wrong on every count and it's laughable you keep pretending you haven't made a fool of yourself

>>15801840
What else could it have been?

>>15805920
>The whole reason why we aren't perplex machines like a GPT bot is because chemical synapses are inherently probabilistic.
??

>>15809260
Intelligent design

>>15808087
>>15805854
have you seen insects?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225470988_Evolution_of_Insect_Eyes_Tales_of_Ancient_Heritage_Deconstruction_Reconstruction_Remodeling_and_Recycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

>>15809365
humans are still massively retarded, like this anon here

>>15808146
No. We told you the processes. Don't believe us, prove the alternative
>proving a negative whine whine
If you think it's something else by all means show us. If not, shit and piss your diaper.

>>15807927
wrong, pic rel wasnt created "one lego at a time"

>>15809240
Take your meds, dawg.

>Doesn't understand the difference between genotype and phenotype
Figures. Why don't you try this larp again when you're older.

>>15803443
Lack of a positive proof is commonly considered to prove a negative, which is the basis of the scientific method and therefore the computer you used to type this. So the fact that your message exists shows this method of knowledge is useful

>>15809645
Yeah, they're definitely impressive, but if we're talking "land eyes", numerous sea shitters had them. Everything came from the sea anyway so the whole concept is beyond retarded, but birds of prey have disgustingly acute vision, which i suppose makes them as far away from light sensing proto-eyes as you can get.

>>15810044
life keeps evolving photensitive cells, happened over and over again to many forms of life. that in itself is not in question here, rather the fact that our eyes have been developed primarily in water, and we're limited in the spectrum we see because that's what made it in the water where we developed them. when we got out from the water, with them...there was shit on the land. like insects. which took different routes, than we did. we can see these differences now. look at insect eyes and look at our salty watery eyes that happen to see to the spectrum that goes in the water. kinda funny all these coinquidinks no?

>>15810059
Birds, with their watery eyes, see into the ultraviolet range. iirc they just use it to see each other's uv-reactive plumage so they can get sum fuk. seeing a few extra nm left or right of our spectrum probably has equally unimpressive benefits to everything else that can see it. it's the visual version of hearing subsonic mice chitters for a cat; it helps them, yeah, but it doesn't mean every other animal that can't hear it is broken.

>>15810093
the nature of the complexity is such that it will always permit faggoting around details. you can always peck at them, because there's so many things involved. pretty sure humans from 500 years in the future will still have flatearthers and the like, even living on space stations.

>>15809270
Chemical synapses allow for more complex computations unlike a computer because it isn't deterministic

>>15805666
Not trusting those digits

>>15809725
>keeps on projecting his ignorance after being destroyed
Most evolution is not structural and that is an introductory level fact
Take high school biology kiddo,

>>15802365
I love how in one breath he'll say that evolution is so unlikely that it's impossible, but in another he'll say that he has unshakeable faith that a very specific deity, dreamed up by Levantine goat herders 3000 years ago, undoubtedly created life, the universe, and everything.

>>15810944
Genetic changes are not evolution. Phenotypic changes are evolution. Phenotype is the expression of your genes. Your phenotype interacts with the world. Your genotype does not. Honestly you should have learned this in high school biology, but I'm sure you can take a remedial class when you're old enough for college.

>>15811111
quint

A man plants a sapling in his garden
The next day he goes outside and sees the sapling as it was the day that he planted it
A man plants a sapling in his garden
The next day he goes outside but he is surprised because the garden is a lot shadier than he remembered and as he looks out onto his garden he sees that the sapling has grown into a large mature tree
A man stands at one end of a stadium and kicks a basketball to the other side
It reaches the other side and falls into a hoop
A man stands at one end of a stadium and kicks a basketball to the other side 50 times every day for 10 years
On the 30th day of the 10th year it falls into the hoop

>>15811259
I am a theist who believes in evolution but I'm very confused by all of this btw

>>15805064
>There are no goals to evolution hence there is no such thing as an evolutionary advantage/disadvantage in nature

>>15811111
>Genetic changes are not evolution
A change in allele frequency among a population over time is, in fact, the very definition of evolution. That is a genetic change.
Again, take high school bio and stop embarrassing yourself kiddo.

>>15811308
Evolution has no goals. Would you like me to embarrass you with textbooks that state this?
Without goals there can be no advantage/disadvantage. If you have a card game with no goal, what advantages can you have? None.

>>15811611
No, that's the definition of genetic drift. Evolutionary changes are expressed through phenotype. It sucks that your high school was too shitty to teach you that, but when you're old enough for college you'll learn all about it in your remedial biology class.

>>15811643
>Evolutionary changes are expressed through phenotype.
>t. NPC

>>15811643
>No, that's the definition of genetic drift.
I can't stop laughing at your supreme arrogance as you continue to make a fool of yourself.
>Evolutionary changes are expressed through phenotype
No, they are not. I've already given you the definition and anybody can google it in 3 seconds to verify it so I won't bother giving a link.
To make a mindlessly trivial oversimplification that should be on your level: your parents can all have brown eyes while having genes leading to blue eyes being suppressed. You may or may not receive the recessive genes for blue eyes and can still have brown eyes, but lets say you have brown eyes. Hence, your phenotype has remained unchanged respective to your parents while your genes have changed and left the human species' phenotype every so slightly less likely to express blue eyes in the future. Ergo, evolution has occurred but phenotype has not changed.

Keep coping and try to get a GED someday kiddo. I don't want my taxpayer dollars to subsidize failures such as you.

>>15811665
>>15811852
At best you are confusing genetics with evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
>In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show', and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism.[1][2] The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior.
>Wilhelm Johannsen proposed the genotype–phenotype distinction in 1911 to make clear the difference between an organism's hereditary material and what that hereditary material produces.[4][5]
>Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has hidden subtleties. It may seem that anything dependent on the genotype is a phenotype, including molecules such as RNA and proteins. Most molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype;

Care to guess what that means? It means your underage, uneducated asses should have paid more attention in high school and you'll need to take a remedial biology class in college.

Atheists and materialists are willfully stupid. There is no other explanation.

Patterns and things themselves cannot exist without a mind. Emergence does not exist without a mind to do the emerging.

I hate atheism and materialism. Idiots are holding humanity and science back.

Praise God let us get past the atheist delusion.

>>15812418
You're an idiot

>>15812423

Not a refutation. Seethe harder.

>>15802365
It doesn't matter how impossible life is though since you're only here to see it since it happened. It could be that nowhere else in the universe has actually evolved life and that only one in a googol big bangs ever produces life because the living will only be around to marvel at it when it does happen. It could be equally as likely as the big bang coincidentally producing the right amount of forces and materials to send a fully functional toaster hurtling off into space for all the probability matters

>>15803062
What provided the environment and what decided the rules ? How can you prove the low chance wasn't artificially created out of no chance ? It's Russell's teapot. You can't say for sure either or, why can't you understand this ? All your heart does is seek out things to hate and put under you, your entire post is spoken with malice. Why does it have to be this way ?

>>15803062

Hey bro. Spacetime is just energy. How could energy interact with itself to form patterns of things with emergent properties? How can anything exist in the first place? Explain pls.

>>15812877
>What provided the environment
maybe there's like a sort of source/factory that produces everything you can imagine, and only that which makes sense and forms a stable system remains. one such system might be our universe. you can think of our universe as an evolutionary thing, other non stable ones went to shit, ours makes sense so it stayed

>>15803033
Manifestation of genetic memory. The knowledge is universal and inherent. Ideas are iterations of mechanisms tried and tested by all litany of organisms. The entirety of nature is within and without. Nothing new under the sun means precisely that. Man does not imitate nature, nor does nature mimick man. Logical progression of concepts and optimizations that manifest asymmetrically through beings. Be it an architect or sequential circumstances that have driven, could also be surmised in generalization. The underpinnings of frustration of being drive these discussions. Objectively speaking, we should seek peace and progress with or without a creator, and to do what is benevolent and sustainable. Preservation of integrity and resources.

>>15802365
>infinity
>talking out his ass about probability
If you weren't here you'd only be somewhere else, ever thought about that? Faggot

>>15812121
>copypastas a wall of cope that doesn't even mention evolution once
>can't refute my example
You think a phenotypic change is evolution
When you get fat from eating too many cheetos, your size changes, which changes your phenotype because size is part of your phenotype. You think that is evolution. It's not.
You fundamentally have no clue what the word evolution means.
>It means your underage
Along with biology it's clear you haven't taken high school English either, kiddo
>should have paid more attention in high school
You think evolution can happen during an organisms lifetime because you erroneously think "Phenotypic changes are evolution"...Oh but would you look at this?
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/teach-evolution/misconceptions-about-evolution/
>MISCONCEPTION: Individual organisms can evolve during a single lifespan. CORRECTION: Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve
Ouch
>you'll need to take a remedial biology class in college
I took college bio while I was still in high school and earned credits that transferred to uni.
Only brainlets wait to take it in college, not that it matters to someone like you who will never attend. .

>>15813968
>You think a phenotypic change is evolution
>When you get fat from eating too many cheetos, your size changes, which changes your phenotype because size is part of your phenotype.
Incorrect. You might as well pretend that aging or behavioral changes are evolution too. Phenotype does not refer to your mood on any particular day or your waistline after you diet.

>I took college bio while I was still in high school and earned credits that transferred to uni.
Doubtful. If so at least you saved the money on your clearly substandard education.

>>15813978
>You might as well pretend that aging or behavioral changes are evolution too
Your argument requires they are bc those are phenotypic changes which you falsely claim is the definition evolution itself.
>Phenotype does not refer to your mood on any particular day
Phenotype plasticity has no qualifier prohibiting "any particular day" ..what a desperate made up lie
Behavior can have trends that last years too, such as adolescence being immature but becoming more mature in adulthood. Developing more mature behavior in adulthood is a phenotypic change and an example of "evolution" by your ridiculous false definition.
>or your waistline after you diet
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/207-genotype-and-phenotype
>Phenotype is the observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an individual organism, determined by both genetic make-up and environmental influences, for example, height, weight and skin colour.
Being "after a diet" is an irrelevant qualifier just like "any particular day" above. After a drought many organisms' phenotypes change bc it's "after a diet" of less food due to famine.


Keep proving you have no clue what evolution/phenotype means and that you've never completed high school kiddo, this is hilarious

>>15812649
>the big bang
and these are the people who say you believe in "fairy tales." Your faith - and let's be clear that is what it is, faith - is no less irrational than those you deride. The kicker is however, deists/idealists can actually provide the proofs for their assertions whereas you just cling half cocked theories from delusional minds with zero proofs, just wild conjecture