/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16169456
No, don't be retarded OP, we know what you're up to. Take your shit back to /pol/ or /x/ or wherever you came from.

>>16169468
You can't tell me you're a scientist if you're just going to accept everything at face value.

>>16169456
yeah, it contradicts the entire historical record.

>>16169574
Please explain.

>>16169576
zero(0) accounts of animals shapeshifting into other animals, not from any historians account, or from soientists trying to prove it.

>>16169578
Sheep disprove this, since they weren't fluffy, but then we artificially made them fluffy. (Do this with various other traits and you have an entirely different species)

evolution is so fucking simple. It's essentially
>the change of allele frequencies over time
that's pretty much all evolution is, organisms change overtime. If you deny this you're retarded, and if you start arguing about abiogenesis or something else you're just misinformed. If you want to poke holes in evolution you have to challenge heritability or mutations, and both are incredibly easy to defend so good luck. Any other cope like "muh not enough time" still accepts the tenants of evolution but argues not enough time has elapsed for changes to occur as they have, which then isn't an argument about evolution.

>>16169600
All I'm looking for is any arguments that might understand evolution differently than how it is classically presented.

>>16169578
Plenty of species have been selectively bred into new distinct species.

>>16169603
Nigga that picture is ai generated.

>>16169456
>Does the theory of evolution have any holes in it?
"Evolution" is unfalsifiable. It's practically a causality axiom
The theory of species origins via evolution is falsifiable and does have holes in it, though.
For instance we find almost zero transitional forms for platypus over 100m years (there is somewhat arguably 1 but it's more like a cousin of the extant platypus species) despite it being smaller in size and practically living in mud which is the perfect fossilization environment. Yet for many species of equal size that don't live in mud we find many many fossil examples of and yet they allegedly existed for 1/20th the timeline. .

This is a huge paradox that undeniably suggests these species showed up fully formed in the fossil record, which defies evolutionary origins. A similar idea is punctuated equilibrium.

>>16169602
Too vague to provide a good answer for you, what do you mean by classically presented? It's always been a matter of allele frequencies changing over time, there's no other way you can cut it.

>>16169605
It's not unfalsifiable. See >>16169600.
If you can prove that genes aren't hereditary and/or that genes do not proliferate at different rates depending on how fit for an environment they then you have falsified it. Good luck with that.

>>16169605
So what is a possible explanation of this inconsistency?

>>16169605
How can a lack of fossils (an argument from silence, and you've overstated the dearth of monotreme fossils) be evidence for anything?
What about the fossils that were predicted by the theory of evolution and later found, like archeopteryx and tiktaalik?

>>16169620
That we don't have a perfect fossil map for a gazillion species over billions of years

>>16169605
Retarded argument, fossil evidence is always going to be spotty, even good preservation is still objectively bad (preservation in Oceania is absurdly shit) and it only serves to contextualise theories of descent. We DO have MANY fossil transitional species, and even if we didn't it doesn't alter the fundamental realities of inheritance and mutation. If you yield to both of those simply by proxy you yield to evolution.

>>16169578
good thing that’s not what evolution says

>>16169719
So why do evolutionists claim (without evidence, I might add) that chimpanzees can become Human?

>16169726
Is anyone gonna tell him? Should we let him in on the joke?

>>16169726
They don’t, but you think that anyways since you have a high schooler biology understanding on the topic

>>16169456
no theory if evolution has predictive power.

>>16169726
It's a damn shame how illiterate the average /sci/ user is when it comes to biology. We could be having discussions of a myriad of topics and instead we're stuck with this pea-brained take. It's why all "biology" posts are really about race, evolution and global warming, instead of literally anything else. Just a few weeks ago Nature published the discovery of a nitrogen-fixating organelle in algae and I only saw a single thread about it, with 0 comments. Curiously, it's also an example of evolution, that people on this thread are still grasping to understand.

>>16169456
Most of the holes people point to are actually really a result of our notion of speciation being pretty vague.

Evolution is almost an axiomatic reality. So long as not every member of a species has exactly the same genetic information, and some environmental conditions will consistently favor some sorts of traits over others for many generations, you will see gradual change towards the majority of the population having these traits by one means or another. That's really all evolution is.

The complications come in when you introduce a notion of speciation where you say "this population during this time period concretely changed from species X to species Y." That is a far more difficult notion with a lot more going on.

selective breeding (human selected evolution) proves evolution as it wouldn't be possible if evolution wasn't a thing

>>16169456
Not at all, as long as you take for a fact:
1. Life started in the early universe, 9 billion years before Earth existed.
2. True humans were created by the Anunnaki to work for them and could live up to 900+ years. Current humans are mongrels, a mix of humans with apes.

>>16170174
Babylonian shit-posting is the best shit-posting.

>>16170068
So you're admitting there is no evidence.

micro evolution is real
macro though? LMFAO HAHHA
>>16170174
based knower

>>16170068
You do realize the irony in making post like this while responding a bot right?

>>16169456
>>>/an/

>>16170340
The micro vs macro cope has always and will always be hilarious to me. They are the same thing, what you’re saying is like saying measuring in inches is real but measuring in miles is ludicrous

>>16170431
measuring allegory non argument has always and will always be hilarious to me

>>16170462
>ACKSHUALLY UR THE ONE WHO’S BEING LAUGHED AT
Whatever you say champ. Come back when you can tell us all what mechanism stops small changes from adding up to big changes

>>16170509
no, I like gatekeeping ignorant retards
I'll stay

>>16170512
>cant say what the mechanism is
Thank you for proving the point. Seems like you’re not in any position to call anyone ignorant

>>16170518
I can, I'm just not spoon-feeding an ignorant retard because you would deny it assuming it would fly over your retarded head
I'm just not going to do it out of spite
ok?

>>16170524
Yeah I totally believe that. Something something whales with legs

There's many. Like the existence of living fossil species... in the ocean. How would they have drastically different selection pressures than other oceanic species?

>>16170547
Because "da ocean" is not one singular selection pressure

>>16169602
Look up 'Vox Day'. His blog has tons of evolution skepticism on it which he attempts to present through a scientific and mathematical lens.

>>16170547
“Living fossil” is a misnomer. Just because they look approximately the same externally does not mean they aren’t evolving, tuataras are physically relatively unchanged but are evolving at the genetic level at a comparatively much higher rate

>>16169726
Are you retarded?

>>16169588
>activating different genes = evolution
Where is the institution of science to save us from these idiots.

>>16169612
>It's not unfalsifiable. See >>
It is unfalsifiable. The change in allele frequency over time cannot be falsified. It's an axiomatic a priori fact. It's like saying we can falsify change itself. We can't.

>>16169620
>So what is a possible explanation of this inconsistency?
There is none. It egregiously violates the very core concepts of fossilization

>>16169623
>How can a lack of fossils (an argument from silence, and you've overstated the dearth of monotreme fossils) be evidence for anything?
Have you really never heard of the concept of evidence of absence?
It is an informative condition which can invalidate an hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

>like archeopteryx and tiktaalik?
They spent 150 years fabricating a nice transition of fossils leading up to tiktaalik then found alligator-like footprints allegedly 20 million years before tiktaalik with absolutely nothing in the fossil record showing where it came from. Pic related.
It is a theory-ending paradox that we can find fossils for 150 years showing a supposed lineage, then find NOTHING for a lineage of another. There should be thousands of fossils showing the supposed gradualism leading to the Zachelmie tracks mystery species. We have found none. It would be like finding a human footprint from 20 million years ago. It blows the theory to unrecoverable pieces

>>16170644
Every other species seems to have undergone significant morphological changes due to their environment which is also the ocean.
>>16170586
I get there's things like predator-prey dynamics, but surely it's similar.

>>16169636
>Retarded argument,
nah, you're just too biased and not intelligent enough to grasp it
>fossil evidence is always going to be spotty
Begging the question fallacy. It's spotty because you can't find them but you can't find them bc it's spotty etc.
You have no objective way to determine the rates of fossilization (ie how "spotty" it should be) unless you have a time machine and verify a species existed for 100m years. You merely assume they existed for that long.
>even good preservation is still objectively bad
Good is bad? Maybe that makes sense in your mind but it doesn't to anybody else.
We have a species that is a perfect candidate for fossilization yet we find nothing for "100m" years yet we find hundreds of other fossils of species that allegedly existed for 1/10th that time and in conditions far less conducive to fossilization
That contradiction is what is relevant. You are more likely to find a fossil of a species we have found before than finding a "transitional fossil" yet all animals are transitional in the mind of en evolutionist.
That is a paradox. If the evidence leads to a paradox then your belief system must be flawed.
>We DO have MANY fossil transitional species
Meaningless words. You believe all species are transitional.
>and even if we didn't it doesn't alter the fundamental realities of inheritance and mutation
Sure. Evolution is unfalsifiable. The theory of species origins via evolution is what suffers from the unsolvable paradoxes we find in the fossil record, not evolution itself.
That theory needs to be thrown out.

>religious retards are now claiming evolution isn't falsifiable in order to cling to their creation mythology
The absolute state

>>16171350
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are unfalsifiable.

>>16169456
>Does the theory of evolution have any holes in it?
Nope, no holes. Trust the science. 2 more weeks.

>>16169602
Look up morphic fields and morphic resonance

>>16171309
>Every other species seems to have undergone significant morphological changes due to their environment which is also the ocean
If there’s a shitload of marine living fossils as you say then not every species has undergone significant change. The ocean is not one environment
>but surely it's similar
It’s not. Marine habitats are as diverse as terrestrial ones

>>16171322
>nah, you're just too biased and not intelligent enough to grasp it
The irony is strong
>It's spotty because you can't find them but you can't find them bc it's spotty etc.
It’s spotty because it’s a rare occurrence, it’s not that hard to understand
>You merely assume they existed for that long.
The fact that you think it’s an assumption speaks volumes about how little you know. A species would be thought to have been around that long because you can date the fossils in the fossil record and only further discoveries could change current understanding
>Good is bad? Maybe that makes sense in your mind but it doesn't to anybody else
You may be retarded. It’s clear to anyone with half a brain that even a relatively complete fossil record is not going to be “good” in the sense that it gives you every single step of every single lineage
>We have a species that is a perfect candidate for fossilization yet we find nothing for "100m" years yet we find hundreds of other fossils of species that allegedly existed for 1/10th that time and in conditions far less conducive to fossilization
If you’re talking about platypuses then they often live in places that are absolutely garbage for fossilisation. Fast flowing streams with pebbled beds and often high acidities thanks to the amount of tannic acid they usually have in places like Tasmania would be less likely to preserve fossils than a sand dune. Also platypuses have not been around 100 million years, they likely diverged from echidnas 20-50 million years ago and wouldn’t have become recognisable as modern platypuses until well after that still
>You believe all species are transitional
They are but he is referring to species in the fossil record with obvious transitional traits, like whales with legs
>Evolution is unfalsifiable
Saying this over and over doesn’t make it true

>>16171468
He is right, you simply aren't looking at it consistently at all. The now cannot be the final step in your evolutionary ladder - the whales with legs statement really shows you are clueless. Dates on fossils are chosen specifically to fit into the narrative. Every single one has collections of dates which they attempt to corroborate through various means.
One example that immediately refutes your position relating to a species origin would be the same evolution occurring at different times, especially if only few fossils are found. So, yes, if you don't eliminate the possibility for converging evolution, then it is completely an assumption.You don't know anything about the lineage of a given member. You don't know if it had offspring, except maybe if they are fossilized nearby. You don't know anything about its population size. Links that you think are real can be nonexistent. The fossil record is shit because it is made up, not because it isn't perfect.

>>16170406
you should improve your writing skills for starters

>>16169578
Christcucks seems to believe that evolution works like in pokemon

>>16169578
>zero(0) accounts of animals changing in genetic property over time
sure?
The wild horses, which are now extinct and the alive ones have evolved into domestic horses, come to mind.

>>16171322
Every single one of these rebuttals is embarassing
>fallacy
it's spotty because it's spotty, no fallacy involved. The odds of fossilisation occuring versus something not being fossilised are extraordinarily low. Fossilisation is an anomalous diagenetic occurrence by default regardless of the preservation environment
>good is bad?
Yes, because "good" and "bad" are entirely relative terms. If something has a 1:10000000 chance of happening normally, but then ideal conditions raise that chance to 1:500000, in reference to that category of event the odds are great! But in reference to anything else, the odds are still low. In your situation Oceania doesn't even matter because the climatic conditions there are shit for fossil preservation anyhow, so it's irrelevant
>transitional species
Then by what metric do you wish for me to provide evidence of a transition species? What species is transitional *enough* for you? Yes, every species is transitional because descent with modification occurs over many generations, slowly. But by all means, define your criteria for transitional! I'd be happy to provide a case study, or several.
>evolution not species origin via evolution
You trapped yourself. So which is it? Does change/adaptation/modification or whatever you want to use occur via the means of inheritance and mutation? Or does it not? If it doesn't, which do you object to, mutation, or inheritance? If you yield to that as a biological function, that change can occur, then why are you arbitrarily drawing a line at change occuring only up until a certain point? If you admit change can occur, then by default it is understood that change can occur indefinitely given enough time, unless you provide some rationale for why adaptation would cease after two populations begin to diverge too distantly from eachother over time, but there is no reason for that to be the case.

>>16171499
>you simply aren't looking at it consistently at all
And you aren’t looking at it in the first place, your eyes are closed
>Dates on fossils are chosen specifically to fit into the narrative
Yeah I’m sure that is why we never find mammoths in the same layers as Tyrannosaurs
>One example that immediately refutes your position relating to a species origin would be the same evolution occurring at different times, especially if only few fossils are found. So, yes, if you don't eliminate the possibility for converging evolution, then it is completely an assumption
What does this even mean? Do you think nobody remembers convergent evolution is a thing?
>You don't know anything about the lineage of a given member. You don't know if it had offspring, except maybe if they are fossilized nearby
You don’t need to. If an animal has transitional morphology then you can begin to piece together their history, not to mention genetics are a thing. Ever heard of molecular clocks? If all the dates are made up then please explain to us why there are no trilobites found alongside lobsters. Do you seriously think it makes sense for every extinct animals to have lived together from an ecological standpoint?
>The fossil record is shit because it is made up, not because it isn't perfect.
The fossil record existed and was known about before Darwin was even born

>>16171499
>dates are chosen
dates are published alongside methodologies. You can verify these things for yourself if you understand the methodologies. If multiple dates are determined, and one is chosen over the other, it is due to the fact one set of dates has issues, say a plateau in the radiogenic reference, or using older methods like the law of superposition. Again, these things can be pressure tested. Anecdotally sure, I've personally prepared samples for radiometric dating before, I can tell you how it works.
>convergent evolution
I legitimately just don't understand what you're trying to say here but it doesn't matter. If you admit convergent evolution can happen, doesn't that just mean you're admitting evolution occurs? But whatever maybe I'm just misunderstanding your argument, the main point here is that the fossil record isn't the primary line of evidence for evolution, it only contextualise phylogenies which we can construct through other, more reliable means like genetics. Regardless though, how do you suppose the fossil record is fake? Are all of these finds, publications, universities in kahoots to fake the entirety of the fossil record? why?

>>16171668
>Does change/adaptation/modification or whatever you want to use occur via the means of inheritance and mutation? Or does it not? If it doesn't, which do you object to, mutation, or inheritance? If you yield to that as a biological function, that change can occur, then why are you arbitrarily drawing a line at change occuring only up until a certain point?
This is a pit that really seems to get people like this stuck in a loop. Darwin simply posited that organisms can change in form over time and perhaps if given enough time those changes could add up, and nowadays it’s fucking obvious to anyone with a brain that those changes can occur because they’ve been directly observed since then. So instead they opt to twist things.
>Darwinian evolution only involves large scale changes from a fish to a human, ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution can include something as minor as the beaks of finches becoming different shapes. That would mean Darwinian evolution is real and we can’t have that
>Microevolution is real but not macroevolution. Oh but wait macroevolution includes speciation which is real. Ok so microevolution is real and so is macroevolution, but only up to speciation within a kind. No I can’t define what a kind is you know it when you see it. Galapagos finches are all the same kind even though it’s a family that includes several genera. Humans and apes aren’t the same kind despite being in the same family though, that’d be ridiculous

>>16171455
>Marine habitats are as diverse as terrestrial ones
Can you specify how?

>>16171679
>>16171670
Don't be mad that the primary premise that a species existed over a span of years is directly refuted by possibility of recurring evolution.
The fossil record is an arbitrary and convenient construction, no different from countless religions that make the same of god(s.) Truly shameful.
As for all of the convenient alignments mentioned, why is there no explanation for mass variation overtime in controlled environments? I simply have no reason to believe any fossil dating beyond maybe a million years whatsoever. But I tell you what, in a million years, when science actually has made a testable prediction, I will ask you for an opinion.

I was watching a recent David Attenborough documentary, and while he's a legend, he was saying animals initially didn't see in colour and talking about their behaviour. I get that popsci isn't necessarily very reflective of the field, but come on.

If evolution is real then why do all humans have exactly equal intellectual capability regardless their race? They all evolved in dramatically different environments and those environmental differences resulted in many various adaptations, yet intellectual capability remained exactly equal amongst all races, contrary to what Darwin's theory would predict.

>>16169468
This! Evolution can't stand up to scrutiny, so none will be tolerated here!

>>16171724
if you construct a genetic phylogeny which predicts a split between species x and y at 600kya based on genetic divergence, and then in the fossil record you uncover a species which features traits that manifest as synapomorphies in both species, the most reasonable conclusion is that the uncovered fossil species is ancestral to x and y. All logic suggests this.
>no reason to believe in dating from beyond a million years
why a million? why are you arbitrarily drawing a line there? If you believe radiometric dating can in fact work under a million years through various techniques, why are you drawing the line at one million? Argon-argon dating works perfectly well at this point. Even further, regardless of dates you're missing the bigger picture. If you think the geological age of the earth is as old as current estimates say it is, and you believe in mutation in addition to inheritance, then by default you believe in evolution and the requisite time for all these changes to occur

>>16171710
They range from rock pools where extremes in temperature and salinity change unpredictably to the crushing freezing abyss to crowded coral reefs to the barren expanse of the open ocean. How are they not diverse?
>>16171724
>is directly refuted by possibility of recurring evolution
What is that even supposed to mean? Is recurring evolution supposed to refer to evolution occurring constantly or to repeated convergent evolution, and how does recurring evolution refute evolution if it’s still evolution?
>why is there no explanation for mass variation overtime in controlled environments?
Variation in what, genetic diversity within a tested species? You seem to be allergic to specificity
>I simply have no reason to believe any fossil dating beyond maybe a million years whatsoever
Pretty sure the reason you don’t believe it is because it contradicts your pre conceived world view, because otherwise i don’t see why you wouldn’t believe it when everything about radiometric and other dating methods would suggest so

>>16171735
>Evolution can't stand up to scrutiny
Shitposting is not "scrutiny", Socrates.

>>16171923
Okay why are jellyfish relatively unchanged for 500 million years whereas fish in the exact same region of the ocean appear to have changed drastically?

>>16171935
Because genetic mutation, evolution, and natural selection work hand in hand. The selection pressure on jellyfish is not the same as the selection pressure on fish. Jellyfish float around and effectively filter food that floats into their trap. It isn't entirely passive, but it's not active either. Fish and other vertebrates, however, actively hunt or forage for food - even whales (mammals they might be) that filter feed follow krill swarms.

So to Jellyfish, the question is who is the best at floating around and who has the best venom/best tentacles for trapping prey. For fish and vertebrates it's questions like speed, jaw type, body plan, etc. And there are many fish that find their niche and don't need to change any more. It's not because no genetic mutations are occurring, but because any major deviation from their current genetic profile is actively discouraged.

Imagine a classroom where the teacher is yammering on about whatever. A student raises their hand: "Bathroom please?" The teacher nods, kid gets up. Another student raises their hand. "Bathroom?" The teacher slaps them across the face. Third student raises their hand. "Can I go to the bathroom?" The teacher slaps them across the face. Second student raises hand again. "May I go to the bathroom?" Slap across the face. Fourth student raises hand. "May I go to the bathroom, please?" Teacher nods, kid gets up. After that, all students use 'please' and any other variation is punished. The teacher is the selection pressure, and as you can see only one 'gene' (please) matters.

>>16171952
Is there any theoretical reason we could point to some environmental pressures rather than others and say they negatively select for morphological change? Or do you just base it on the fact such morphological change isn't evidenced?

>>16171935
They are entirely different organisms, trying to compare them like that is pointless because they don’t have the same selective pressures being placed on them. Just because they LOOK the same does not necessarily mean they are unchanged, again they are evolving at the genetic level regardless of how little their form changes. As said before the term living fossil is misleading.
>>16171969
>Is there any theoretical reason we could point to some environmental pressures rather than others and say they negatively select for morphological change?
Yes. Unchanging environmental pressures will likely result in unchanging morphology. Low stress environments will likely result in less morphological change. High success body plans are less likely to be influenced by environmental factors and so are less likely to change drastically.

>>16171977
Jellyfish are predated by sea turtles and some fish and compete for food sources. I'm not seeing how this is drastically different to other cohabitating life.

>>16171987
>Jellyfish are predated by sea turtles
If they survive and reproduce at least as much as they are predated then there isn't necessarily a selection pressure.
Grass has existed for 10s of millions of years without evolving to kill or evade grazes - it's reproductively successful despite the predation.

>>16171993
You're not explaining the details of mapping environment onto adaptations, you're just saying well they must have had an environmental pressure of exact morphological homoestasis like that because they didn't seem to evolve morphologically, which is basically begging the question. Grasses are grazed by many different animals, in different climates, in different soil conditions, competing with weeds and so on. You're saying that all balanced out exactly to exert a negative pressure most other plants didn't seem to undergo despite facing near identical pressures?

>>16169605
>We have thousands of fossils proving and explaining how certain modern lineages have evolved and how they're related to each other, but I'm going to hold onto one of the few spotty family records to claim the theory has "holes" in it
Arguing in bad faith

>>16170143
>this population during this time period concretely changed from species X to species Y."
No biologist genuinely think this has ever happened. It's pretty much unanimously agreed now that species as a concept only hold some degree of meaning when looking within a single and rather short timespan.
We use the term species in the context of the universal fossil record simply to make it easier for us

>>16171987
>I'm not seeing how this is drastically different to other cohabitating life.
Fish aren’t macroplankton that get swept around by ocean currents passively collecting whatever happens to get stuck to their tentacles. Their entire biology and niche was different from the start, they are obviously going to have different selective pressures placed on them. Just because they live in the same place does not mean they are going to change the same amount and have the same environmental pressures placed on them. That’s like expecting lions and antelopes to evolve the same way because they both live on the savannah, despite both having obviously different environmental stresses
>>16172060
Nobody is saying they must have had exactly the perfect conditions to not change. Jellyfish have absolutely changed since they first evolved, they are an incredibly diverse group ranging from plankton eaters to macropredators, thumbnail sized to the length of a passenger jet and even freshwater species exist. Just because they haven’t changed as much as something like fish doesn’t mean they haven’t changed at all

>>16169456
>Does the theory of evolution have any holes in it?
The Theory of Evolution consists of a bundle of verified ideas and many yet to be proven, competing, hypothesis that attempt to explain certain observed phenomena, and so you could "argue" that just because we don't have yet surety of which of those ideas are correct, that those are "holes". Considering those to be "holes" would be a matter of subjective interpretations, I guess. Up to you.

>>16169578
Speciation has already been observed in the wild, a few years back, in the late 2000s, I believe.
However, in the lab it has never been observed because that's a bit like demanding an experiment that wins the lottery.

>>16169604
it actually isn't. It was Lurch, he's dead already, but you can look it up.

>>16169726
>chimpanzees can become Human
no scientist has ever said that, none.

>>16170068
>It's a damn shame how illiterate the average /sci/ user is when it comes to biology. We could be having discussions of a myriad of topics and instead we're stuck with this pea-brained take.
I know, but at least ignorant people can come here and clear their doubts without the fear of public embarrassment, and that's a good thing.

>>16172119
>>16169726
>no scientist has ever said that, none.
and the reason I say this is because both chimpanzees and humans are two species that evolved from a past common ancestor. Chimpanzees are not our ancestors.
Maybe you meant to say this:
>So why do evolutionists claim that apes can become Human?

Besides there's a huge amount of evidence for this, genetic, anatomical, and paleontological.