/sci/ - Science & Math

Selective breeding is evolution. Next question.

>>16149017
What about rape ?

>>16149016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

I think it can.

>>16149017
Selective breeding doesn't turn one animal into another one.
>but muh millions of years
Not even then. Darwinism promises missing links that we simply don't find anywhere.

>>16149023
How about life itself ? is life started randomly ? I think it's impossible

>>16149023
Okay, let us know when they evolve into something other than E. coli.

>>16149029
https://newatlas.com/biology/life-merger-evolution-symbiosis-organelle/

>>16149033
That doesn't mean nothing

>>16149034
of-course anon. it's as simple as denying reality.

>>16149025
Yes it does, holy fuck you're dumb

>>16149033
>Altogether, the team says this indicates UCYN-A is a full organelle, which is given the name of nitroplast. It appears that this began to evolve around 100 million years ago
So basically they were studying B. bigelowii and decided that one of its organelles seemed somehow similar to this UCYN-A bacteria and then made up a story that one turned into the other 100 million years ago with no physical evidence other than the (separate) existence of two similar-seeming things. What does this prove, again?

>>16149049
>What does this prove, again?
clearly something you don't like

>>16149052
There's no actual evidence for what they're claiming. They're not saying they observed this taking place, they're just asserting this happened 100 million years ago.

>>16149073
> I don't like an answer back by evidence from multiple sources so I will just call tens of thousands of biologists and a century of science wrong instead.
you're a genius.

>>16149073
I don't actually want to convince you.

>>16149073
Farmers and other animal keepers practice evolution daily

>>16149075
Backed by WHAT evidence? I read that whole article and it's nothing but assertions about what happened tens of millions of years ago. They're not claiming this happened over time in a lab, they're just making up links between things and then dating it all an unfalsifiably long time ago.

>>16149084
let's be real you'd deny anything anyway

>>16149083
Okay, let us know when farmers make cows evolve into an animal other than cows.

>>16149088
He is right , biologists can say anything and the horde will kindly believe

>>16149092
Ok

>>16149093
see >>16149088

>>16149084
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19339

There are tens, possibly hundreds, of experiments like this all showing macro evolution at work and that doesn't even include all the genetic evolution observations. But as the other anon said, it doesn't matter how many examples we give you will never change your mind. You are a perfect example of devolution.

>>16149088
>Evolution can't be proved using experiment.
>Scientists have been observing changes in E. coli over tens of thousands of generations.
>Have they evolved into anything other than E. coli?
>Here's an article about an unrelated bacteria.
>That evolution didn't result from experiment and there's no physical evidence provided at all.
>So I guess you're just smarter than every scientist in history, huh?
>No, there just is factually no evidence nor did this happen from an experiment.
>Even if there was evidence you'd deny it!
Your argumentation method is disingenuous and retarded. First you moved the goalposts to some other equally unproven thing, now you're just flinging insults because I pointed that out.

>>16149110
nah I'm pretty sure you'll deny anything anyway. as I said, I don't want to convince you.

>>16149109
So they successfully bred a strain of fruit flies that can survive in the dark. That's cool, but I never denied that organisms can adapt and change over time. So at what point did they stop being fruit flies and start being a different animal? If they didn't, then your point remains unproven.

>>16149117
>That's cool, but I never denied that organisms can adapt and change over time.
holy shit the Tucker argument

>>16149117
>flies
>different animal

>>16149117
> Evolution can't be proved using experiment.
> I never denied that organisms can adapt and change over time

>>16149117
You're funny and why warning labels were invented.

>>16149119
I see no reason to extrapolate from animals adapting to their environment to animals becoming completely different animals.

>>16149122
Blame disingenuous Darwinists for using the same term for different things so they can shift goalposts at will. Animals changing into different animals (what the theory of evolution proposes) can't be proven using experiment.

>>16149124
>can't be proven using experiment.
how do you always end up with this defense? don't you find it weird? coinquidink

>>16149126
Show me an experiment where one animal becomes another animal.

>>16149121
>insects aren't animals
Retard.

There is nothing in genetics or proteomics which stops accumulated small mutations from leading to large scale phenotypic changes over time. Everything in genetics, biology, the fossil record, anthropology, zoology, literally everything proves evolution is true.
If you want to falsify the theory of evolution you have to show why accumulated mutations in the genome can't lead to accumulated changes in phenotype. Just saying "it can't happen you can't get a whole new animal over time from the ancient ancestor" isn't an argument.
Personally though I don't actually think that you don't understand this. I don't believe that creationists are actually so stupid that they think adding up small things doesn't lead to big things over time. I think you're just scared of death and you think evolution being true means your belief in an afterlife is false.

>>16149129
don't want to because you're not legitimate in your arguments. it's seriously asymmetric in the wrong way for some reason. I don't have to convince you about shit, you should convince me of your retarded position. proof of God anon.

>>16149140
Evolution can be true or false independently of the existence or nonexistence of God.

>>16149154
God and Darwinistic evolution can both be true. tho clearly a different God than the one you'd hope for.