/sci/ - Science & Math

he also says there's no evidence for dinosaurs among men, well he certainly implies it

I just think if he was really looking for the truth, and not Jooish satanist agent of the devil, you'd think he'd be all over the profound evidence of dinosaurs with humans

Take a course in high school biology.

Alright, at first I thought you were a troll, but since you seem pretty rational, I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

You read this at least correct? Pic related

can someone explain to me how radio carbon dating can date back to millions of years?

Before you accept evolution, you have to be able to accept that species can change over time. And to do that you should accept that DNA changes from generation to generation.

Artificial selection, like with dogs or cows or any domesticated plant or animal, is an example of a species changing to fit its environment. The organisms in a species that meet a certain criteria are more likely to have decendents, who will resemble them because they share the same genes.

The same happens in nature. There is an environment that is lets say, very hot. The organisms that can survive, or perhaps thrive in heat will survive better, and thus are likely to prosper enough to have children.

There are many kinds of selection besides natural and artificial selection, such as sexual selection, directional selection, and extreme selection. These just describe the way in which organisms have to be in order to have more children. When an organism is reproducing more than its peers, over time it will take up a larger portion of the gene pool.

Some anti-evolutionists can accept that species can change over time, but they wont accept that one species can become another. But before I talk about that. I want to make sure we can all accept that species can change over time, through genetic mutations.

I used to be semi-religious, and I honestly thought Dawkins and Darwin were the same person for a while. Course, I thought a lot of stupider things too.

Good explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY

Seriously there is no room for doubt about evolution, only religious nuts are making a big deal about it.

>>2844189
do you know what punctuated equilibrium is?

it dictates species resist change, that is not exactly compatible with evolutionary Darwinism

evolutionist are always bringing of what they call "social Darwinism" but if you ask me, it sounds more like social Marxism, they never want to talk about the actual evolution

For Some Reason

since you'd think the social aspect as far as creation goes or origins go is irrelevant

>>2844191
It doesn't. C14 dating works back to a few tens of thousands of years or so. Further back, we use U-Pb, Rb-Sr, or K-Ar dating.

>>2844198
why don't YOU accept that they don't?

>>2844227
thanks, I'll take note of that

>>2844235

Here is a personal example.

My family has a genetic trait that has changed our biology:

1. We dont have sweat glands
2. we have stronger bones
3. we have abnormal dental structures
4. we have very fine soft hair and bald at an early age.

Now, if my families anatomy was of some kind of advantage, we would gradually mix and become a majority of the gene pool.

>>2844220
change can be induced by both environmental factors (separation in eating habits, cosmic rays causing mutations, separations through geologic/environmental changes..), so punctuated equilibrium does not always apply.

>>2844259
Your family doesn't actually have sweat glands? Or is that just hypothetical? But you did say "personal example".

>>2844268

No I really mean we dont. Its a genetic trait called "Hypohydrotic Ectodermal displaysia"

I live in arizona, so I have to always worry about over heating.

I am not handicapped in any real way. But some people with ectodermal displaysia are. Because its genetic, no one in my family, or extended family are handicapped by it either.

>I don't want this to be an all out shitstorm
>Post a creationism vs. evolution thread
Good luck with that...

God is not falsifiable and thus cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore God cannot be science. If you are trying to prove the existence of God through evidence then that only speaks to the insecurity of your faith, since, by definition, faith requires no evidence. Not that faith is empirically valid, mind you, but if you are going to argue in favor of faith then you should probably at least try to be faithful.

Creationism (at least of the "young earth" variety) implies that the Earth is only about 6000 years old which we know to be impossible according to the laws of Geology and Lyell. The Grand Canyon would have been literally physically impossible with a 6000 year old Earth. We know how various rock formations form and how long it takes. We know about radioactivity and half lives. Both of those things point towards the true age of the Earth. We also know how various types of fossils are preserved in volcanic ash and many types of sediment. We know what kind of geological processes would have had to occur and how long it would have taken in order for fossilized sea shells to be found on top of a fucking mountain.

>>2844300
(continued...)
We know that evolution is true due to a multitude of facts and factors. The very fact that you (hopefully) accept DNA is an actual thing and is a physical biological unit of heredity means that evolution has already won the argument. The only difference between "micro-evolution", which some Creationists accept, and "macro-evolution" is time scale, which can be put into perspective by studying geology, which I have mentioned above. We know of various geographical factors that play into speciation. We understand how mutations occur in DNA through cellular damage, viruses, etc. We have literally thousands of specimens of many different transitional fossils (what some people like to call "missing links") in which you can clearly see skeletal homologies. These similarities correspond with the fossils age according to the geological law of superposition and radio carbon dating. We know that the 'irreducible complexity' argument is invalid because we know that various structures of organisms can be co-opted for different functions throughout evolutionary history. The small bones of the ear (which seems to be a favorite topic for this argument) evolved from jaw bones of early amphibious ancestors as they moved onto land.


I could go on and on and probably write about 20 pages but I'd suggest you simply read any standard biology or geology text book. Or you could just watch some khanacademy videos and try to educate yourself.

>>2844300
>>2844303

Goddamnit you faggot!

He just wanted to know about evolution. He came he honestly and cautiously to learn about evolution. We dont need you coming in here talking shit about God. ITS OFF TOPIC AND YOU ARE ONLY PERPETUATING A GOD HATING STEREOTYPE OF SCIENTISTS.

Just stay on topic okay?

>>2844259
that's the difference between the races, and not all races are human in origin

but of course you would probably call that RACIS

>arguments for evolution

no more "arguments" for evolution can be presented than for the "argument" that 2 is a prime number

If you want the fundamental notion of the theory, then this should suffice:

In optimal conditions, populations will grow beyond that which is necessary to sustain their numbers. Because there are checks to exponential growth, such as famine, fever, and fighting, there will be competition for resources. Those that obtain the resources on average have traits more suited to contributing to one's reproductive fitness. Since there is variation in traits and reproductive success in a population, and traits are inherited, information will be preserved from one generation to the next. Therefore the frequency of "fit" alleles in a population will shift in accordance with what is necessary to sustain reproductive fitness.

>>2844319

I wont call that racist. But I do consider that wrong. All human races are of the same species, in that, they can breed with each other, and share the same DNA.

They arent the same in that, the data in the DATA isnt the same (sorry I am not a biologist).

What is true, that I have heard from my biologist researcher friends, is that the diversity within a human race, is greater than the diversity between human races.

>>2844315
God is undeniably intertwined with the creationist argument. This is undeniable. Also, you obviously didn't read past my first, brief paragraph, so shut the fuck up.

>>2844333
you wont call it racist, but you consider it racist, your word play is enough of an indicator to show me you're a deceiver

>>2844336

So what if God is intertwined with creationism? SO WHAT? What does that have to do with evolution?

Are you trying to say if you were a biology teacher, the first think youd say is some shit about God not being a part of science?

>>2844322
But God made humans, animals, and nature fully grown when he created the Earth. Why wouldn't he the geology as well?

>>2844341
If I was a biology teacher in the US?

Yes, I would.

For answers to some common questions that theists ask, feel free to read the posts in here:

>>2843597

>>2844340

I think racist has some connotations that imply severe prejudice. I am not racist, in that I consider all humans of all races basically human.

I consider there to be differences between the races, and I dont think that makes me racist. If it does, fine, Im racist, but I dont believe thats what the word racist means.

>>2844341
>So what if God is intertwined with creationism? SO WHAT? What does that have to do with evolution?
What do you mean so what?
You just admitted that God is part of creationism. God is NOT falsifiable and is not science. Therefore, an integral part of Creationism is not science and should not be taught as science. It should be taught as theology if anything.

Creationism does not belong in the Biology class room.

>>2844345

Well I think thats horrible. If religion truly isnt a part of science, then you dont talk about it. Thats how it works in my book.

If religion vs science is truly a controversial issue (and I think it is) then I think the teachers only responsibility is to state religion is not a part of science when confronted by the question. Not preemptively. Preemptively comes off as arrogant and rude, and a theist who is already bitter might just think "Psh, look at this typical liberal science faggot"

>>2844353
does this creature looks human to you?

>>2844344
Are you serious? Or just a top tier troll...

>>2844362

I said "so what" because OP wasnt here to talk about creationism, he came hear to learn about evolution, which we should respectfully teach to everyone and anyone no matter what their background is, and not make any aggressive or presumptious remarks about this controversial issue.

Y'all faggots being arrogant and dumb.

>>2844369

Yes

Moronic Design is soooooo cool!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPerur7NHr8

>>2844385
He started the thread by saying he was a creationist and reiterates the point. If he truly is a creationist then he needs to learn about the arguments against his "theory" as well as arguments for evolution.

Also, you are a pathetic creationism apologist who, by your very actions, concede to the ill education and illiteracy of millions of students. I hope you're proud of yourself.

>>2844391
well then you're either lying, or you're hopelessly stupid

>>2844376
Im dead serious. The point of God in the Christian religion is that he is and always will be the same. If he made humans, creatures, and features of nature and science complete and finished why wouldn't he the geology of a planet?

>>2844418
Well, why would he the geology?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-sk
ink-live-birth-eggs/


Please. Please. I don't even see the point of believing in god. There are so many contradictions in all religions. We made up religion. If ANYTHING happened it could have been aliens. But hey, if you want to live your life worshipping and wasting your time on something that isn't there, go for it.

>>2844153
>Richard Dawkins doesn't give evidence for evolution

Someone obviously spends all his time surfing YouTube instead of reading books.

>>2844376
Dead serious. If God in the Christian religion was and always will be the same then why would he make humans, creatures, the universe, natural and science fully developed/made but not the geology of the Earth? That doesn't make sense to anyone who takes the Bible serious...

>>2844418
Why do you believe what the Bible says at all?
Were you there when it happened?
Were the people who wrote those passages there when it happened?
What about all the other religions of the world and their creation myths?
Can they all be right too? Or is Christianity the only right one?
How do you know it's the right one? There are plenty of older religions and they've had their creation myths for longer.
How many more questions that you can't possibly answer empirically do you want me to ask?

>>2844344
>>2844376
>>2844418
>>2844429

This is a real argument used by Young Earth Creationists, and it does work in theory if you already believe in a god, like the Christian God. But it doesn't work if you don't believe, so it's not an option for any atheist. It is a valid theory if you believe in a god like the Christian one, though.

>>2844418
god purveys every single nucleotide mutation in every single life form from toxoplasma gondii to bipedal primate?

>>2844455
>it does work in theory if you already believe in a god
>it does work in theory
>in theory
>theory
You keep using that word.jpg

>>2844463
I used it twice, with different contexts. And it's the right word to use. It is a theory. Just one that requires belief in a god.

>>2844153
might i suggest reading richard dawkins, or how about richard dawkins, or you can read richard dawkins

he wrote 20 books, 1 of them is the god delusion

the other 19 are some of the greatest popular science books every written (the selfish gene is probably the greatest)

>>2844405

If he is a creationist, hes a creationist. If hes a creationist who wants to know about evolution, I tell him about evolution. Nothing more. I dont need to overstep into unrelated territory and start criticizing him for his nonscientific beliefs.

You are right, there are millions of children who could be better educated (whether in biology or any subject really), and I feel by respecting individuals, even ones I disagree with I am making conversation smoother than it would be if I was behaving otherwise.

Thats the real solution I feel.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061220-virgin-dragons.html

Here's an explanation of how mary ended up knocked up, unless she just lied which is the more likely option.

>>2844429
Because God is the same and always will be. Therefore he would be consistent with making everything fully developed, including our planets geology.

>>2844467
>It is a theory. Just one that requires belief in a god.
>theory... that requires belief
No... you don't know what a theory is.

>>2844481
So what is a theory, if I'm not using it right?

>>2844198
>>2844259

I tried.

;_;

>>2844479
But how is the "fully developed" state showing a very long history even remotely reasonable if all of existence was created in 7 days 6000 years ago?

>>2844481

THANK YOU. Finally someone understands the true meaning of a theory. Scientific theories are proven to be true, but we can't witness most of them because we don't live long enough.

>>2844487
A theory is a scientific explanation of empirical data that is supported by evidence and physical law. Belief is not a factor in theory.

>>2844495
The idea is that God planted evidence to fool humanity. Like some kind of a big trick.

>>2844501
Okay, so I would use idea instead of theory?

>>2844452
Were you there when the first animal walked out the ocean and evolved to walk on land? Stop asking stupid fucking ambigious questions. I simply stated as in the Christian religion and Bible because I am indeed a Christian, and it is the religion I know best and can put into the best context.

>>2844487
a theory doesn't require belief in anything, its different ways that can explain facts

right now the theory of gravity is explained by the curvature of space-time, but gravity exist, and we don't have to believe that the space is curved because it has been observed

the theory of evolution explains the mechanisms that appropriate the diversity of life, otherwise known as evolution, which is a fact

>>2844513

No we weren't here. Theres human records from over 6,000 years ago though, which makes all of your beliefs false. Face it, religion is fighting a losing battle.

>>2844524
The idea of Young Earth Creationism proposes that things like that were planted by God as false evidence.

>>2844505
idea would be a more accurate description, yes. Theory is about the highest form of explanation you can hope to develop in science. Theory is supported by actual physical and empirical evidence and it seeks to explain various phenomena that are documented through experiment and observation. Gravitation is an example of a Theory. So is the Germ Theory of Disease.

>>2844495
Are you serious? That is one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen. Its border line ignorant.

>>2844535
Okay. But isn't the phrase "in theory" used correctly in my post? If it's not, I can't think of anything to use in its place.

>>2844153
To first understand evolution, you must put first empirical evidence above argumentation thereof.

To understand that arguments if not founded with solid footing will not stand.

And then creationism falls apart. A house built atop sand cannot stand.

But first you must open your eyes to the world.

>>2844414
Honestly, not him but I consider that human too. Genetically human. Can you prove that he isn't?

This is /sci/, not "unscientific categorizing of ugly people".

People consider both a Great Dane and a Basset Hound both "dogs" too.

>>2844534

So basically, religions are digging that deep to try and hang on? They claim that things aren't real? Like gods playing games? Bullshit. Get real. Religion is simply the uncertainty of the human nature. When we aren't sure of something we wan't someone to lean on. For many people religion is that answer, but its the same as people who like twilight, though your whole life revolves around it, it will never.ever. be real.

>>2844559
Try explaining that to them. Let me know how it goes.

>>2844534
are frame-shift mutations in nucleotide bases planted by god too? seems like an awful waste of time when such things can go about occurring naturally without any divine intervention

>>2844513
>Were you there when the first animal walked out the ocean and evolved to walk on land?
Obviously not, but we have a veritable mountain of data to support our findings. Data that IS falsifiable and has withstood that test.
>Stop asking stupid fucking ambigious questions.
None of those questions were ambiguous in the least. They are all straight forward. You probably just find them uncomfortable.
>I simply stated as in the Christian religion and Bible because I am indeed a Christian, and it is the religion I know best and can put into the best context.
So you admit your own bias then. Do you admit then that you can't possibly "know" whether Christianity and Creationism (if we are to stay on topic of course) is true based on the astounding lack of falsifiable, physical evidence? Did you ever think that if you were born in another culture and brought up in another religion (which you probably deem to be false as a Christian) that you would think that that religion were true and all others were false?

>>2844565

They'll do the same thing that twilight fans do. Cry and insist that it's all real. They're simple minded humans. They don't want to ask the big questions because they're afraid to. They just figure god answers everything.

>>2844542
>creationist calling someone ignorant
No, but seriously, I don't understand.
I get how creating humans with the capability of reason and creating all the geography and animals and plants fully developed makes sense.
What I don't get is how creating the Earth with fossils and layers that appear to be from different time periods makes sense.
If god created everything 6000 years ago, the only way things exist is through being created by god.
If everything was created by god, then there is no such thing as a historic growth process of the earth.
But the earth shows historic growth, which has no reason to exist.
There is no reason for the earth to show a historic growth process, as it is not really an essential part of its existence and does not exist naturally.

I just don't see how this makes sense, are you just supposing the geological history of the earth exists to test the faith of believers?

>>2844559
Hey Kevin

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=762059432

>>2844547
If you want to evoke a scientific or logical argument, then no, your use of "in theory' is incorrect. This is, however, where some miscommunication and misunderstanding arises. In "layman's terms" (you could say), theory is used almost synonymously with idea or assumption. You could probably just restructure your sentence to make it work without using "in theory".

>>2844591
also, lol community college

>>2844598
Alright. Thanks.

>>2844153
>Creationist

>>2844559
Prove to me that it isn't real and there isn't a God and I'll admit you are right. But you can't prove or disprove it, just like evolution.

Also look at it this way, if I'm right when you die, you burn in hell. If youre right when I die, nothing happens to me. Which one is a more logical stand point?

>>2844591

lol?

>>2844615
Pascal's Wager? No.

OP if you want to learn about relativity then don't read Einstein because all that guy did was whine about religious stuff

In all honesty I highly suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" which was written almost 40 years ago. I have yet to meet one person who has read it and not been completely enlightened or overwhelmed by its elegant prose and devastating truth. Knowing how the world works is liberating.

>>2844615
>Prove to me that it isn't real and there isn't a God and I'll admit you are right.
It's impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove to you that something DOESN'T exist simply because the sheer statistical probability.

>But you can't prove or disprove it, just like evolution.
Evolution is provable due to empirical and falsifiable evidence... evidence which creationism lacks entirely.

>>2844615
>prove
>disprove
>evolution
>logic
>right

these are words you should look up in dictionary

>>2844191
to answer the radio-active dating, there are some isotopes naturally present throughout time (i.e. being constantly produced, like carbon 14) and can be compared to other things like carbon 12 that has a longer half life then carbon 14. Comparing the ratios gives an idea of how old it is.
Very rough explanation but one is better then none right?

Also evolution is meant to explain why there is such a diverse range of species on the earth. please for the love of all that is good do not mistake this for how life was started on earth (i.e. how the first cells formed) this is being researched, but is not evolution.

So here is a non-animal related analogy.
You have two workers in a warehouse moving heave boxes, one is a person who works out often and is physically fit. The other is one who is lazy, has more fat then muscle, and can not do as much work as the first. The boss comes around and needs to transfer/fire one of them. who do you think it will be, the one that is well suited to his job or the one who is not? the one who is not physically fit.

this is a basic understanding of evolution. Species that are well adapted to their environment survive longer then there not so well suited counter parts.

Now lets say that the second guy in the example above, lets say he was well suited to do administrated work? The boss might consider putting him in that job right?

again this is a basic idea how species diversify. If they are well suited to a different niece (role in the environment) they will fill it. while they both still had their starts in the same place.

>>2844591

ahahah my email.

>>2844615
Lol.

Prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist!!!! You can't just like you can't prove that the sun heats up the Earth!

Let me ask you something OP, how do you even know that God exists? Did you read that from a book or did your mommy and daddy tell you that?

You would be Muslim if you were born in Iraq or Buddhist if you were Japanese.

Religion is cultural, not divine.

>>2844650
>niece

>>2844668
>implying the Japanese are buddist and don't practice Shinto

the male spoonworm, 1000x smaller than the female, gets snorted up the nostril of the female and spits out sperm into the female's reproductive tract

evolution ∞
god -∞

>>2844570
It wasn't a bias, I used Christianity as an example because its what I know best. And I grew up on a Native American reservation not believing in God or Christianity. So yes if I did grow up some where else not believing it I still would today.
>>2844590
That is a better way to put it. All I can say is that he made the planet aged, and put the signs of age there just like he did on Adam and Eve. I know that there isn't proof to that, but its my mind set and what I believe, although I am open minded to other ideas and listen to them.

>>2844686
How can you honestly believe that you are keeping an open mind when you believe that god created the world with an enormous history that he made up just to confuse us? That's just so incredibly fucking retarded it hurts, and I'm a Christian.

>>2844686
>I grew up on a Native American reservation not believing in God or Christianity. So yes if I did grow up some where else not believing it I still would today.
[citation needed]

if this is true, than i guess you are the chosen one here to bring truth to the nonbelievers

>>2844670
no one ever said i was an English major, in fact that's why i'm a science major period...
Its all firefox spell checker gave me...

>>2844686
>It wasn't a bias, I used Christianity as an example because its what I know best.
Do you always contradict yourself in one sentence?

>>2844703
God placed the contradiction there

>>2844319
OP here I still assert this

>>2844712
Evolution does account for different races on earth, this is not racism.. it is only racism when you forget the fact these races existed, and to some extent still do, because they suited their environment efficiently..
NOT because one race is better then another, rather came from different environments that had different needs to survive.

Before you start trolling me on why i said to some extent i say this because we mingle way more then we did a few thousand, hell a few hundred years ago... and we use tools to adapt to our new environments rather then adaptation. thus slowing any evolutionary process still left in the human species.

>>2844703
Please explain the contradiction?
>>2844695
When did I say God plants evidence to confuse people? That wasn't me, that was a different poster. Again with assumptions.

>>2844739

Not that fag, but there are two possibilities. Either the universe is ~6000 years old, in which case God has gone to CONSIDERABLE effort to plant 'fake' evidence of history that never actually happened, OR, the Universe is some trillions of years old and the Bible has made untrue pronouncements about its age and origin. Neither case looks good for the godfags.

>>2844788
And I know this won't sound good, but I don't care its my last post. That's where it boils down to faith. I don't claim that God "planted" anything, but that he merely made the Earth developed like he did everything else. I will also say, you may be correct and that there isn't a God, but I believe there is, and I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine.

>>2844788
This is why these threads almost always degrade fast. Even atheists make the claim that the bible tries to make scientific facts.

If you look at the bible with the eyes of truths other then literal it has so much more meaning. It was not meant to be a literal work. if you look at the context of the writers in their times, the way to convince them of something was through imagery, not facts....

Do you believe peter rabbit was an actual rabbit? or do you tell, or have been told the story for the truths and lessons behind the stories...

>>2844739
A bias is interpreting phenomena with the aid of preconditions.

Take for instance, systematic error. A weigh scale displays a mass read out that's 2 grams heavier than said mass's actual value, on a consitent basis due to say miscalibration.

Your christianity biases you towards looking at evidence since you have notions of understanding that phenomena already in what Christiantiy has provided you with.

I respect your right to have an opinion, but I personally am going to laugh at you like I laugh at UFO conspiracy theorists.

Bahahaha!

>>2844739
You didn't offer any explanation at all as to how creating a fully developed earth implies creating an earth with a geological history, when creating earth in 7 days means that there is no such thing as a geological history and that the entire concept was made up for some unintuitive reason such as to confuse humans. I'm honestly trying to understand you here, it's hard to express the concept I'm missing but I'm really just not getting it.

>>2844832
Why does the bible have 2 different accounts of genesis?

You can't pick and choose out of a math book like you can a religious text, and there's good reason for that.

>>2844848
Because each of the accounts have different messages. I'm not even going to try an go into my take on these stories, lets face it, there's to many trolls...

>>2844822
hard to respect somebody who doesn't "believe" in evolution or geology, when "believing" in fact is a logically irreconcilable

believe in god all you want, who gives a jack shit

>>2844853
Of course, but which one is correct? Did adam precede eve? Did they arise simultaneously?

Why are there two different family lineages tracing jesus back to david?


I don't see much by way of morals here or creative interpretation. Either one or the other messages or correct. Or both could be wrong, but all words are god breathed, right?

Maybe erwin schrodinger wrote the bible and both are magically true?

>>2844736
I know you're mad because you are part of an inferior brood, but please do not drag others down for your own faults

>>2844873
here you are perceiving 'correct' as literal, and that is exactly what i was saying should not be done.
Ok here is what i mean.
do you believe god painfully ripped the rib out of Adam to create eve?
It has more meaning if you look at it as they made of the same, and therefore equal.

Hold on hold on hold on. OP wanted to ask about evolution. This is an evolution thread.

Why is there even any religion talk about this. I thought we're supposed to just ignore Fundamentalists. The grand philosophical argument is about if there is a God behind of all everything, not if God created everything is some universal status quo 6000 years ago.

>>2844873
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw

>>2844894
i did try....
>>2844650
>>2844736

>>2844890
But which interpretation is correct?
That Adam is equal to Eve?
Or that Eve is merely a part of Adam, given human form?

If you say both are valid, I'm going to accuse you of doublethink.

>>2844894
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

The first step being the acceptance of empirical evidence over preconceived notions.

Without that, you got nothing.

>>2844932
Do you actually read?
They are made of the same and therefore equal

>>2844832

This is possibly the stupidest argument a religionfag could make, and yet so many of them make it! Riddle me this, genius: If some parts of the Bible are allegorical, how do you know which parts are literally true, and which are allegory? When God hands the stone tablets to Moses, was that literal or allegorical? When he smote Soddom and Gommorah, literal or allegory? Now a tough one: When he claims to exist, literal or allegory?

>>2844932
Adam is made from Eve's left rib you moron

though that's hard to believe since Eve existed some 200-250 thousand years ago, and Adam a mere 45,000 years ago

>>2844953
Ok granted that... not all parts a figurative, however the same question can be asked how do you know what parts are literal?
I took the extreme side to try and balance out the extreme other side. I have not spent the time researching the background, and writing time of exodus. so i wont say....

>way to be offended by complete opposing views

i may not like the other views, but i still acknowledge them..

>>2844941
Then why include the story about eve being ultimately adam's rib?

If they're both equal, as god intended, there'd be no need to right? But both are canonical. Both have to be taken in, one as much as the other. At least with Islam, they have abrogation.

A bible that is taken metaphorically, open to interpretation is useless to divine god's will. Should I take Thou Shall Not Kill to mean only humans, or any living being (plants and animals)? You cannot hold two contradictory statements to be true, either. It's either useless or wrong.

>>2844974
given that your interpretation puts them at odds...

>>2844968

Only a literal interpretation of the Bible makes any sense, logically. Unfortunately, a literal interpretation is effortlessly refuted empirically. I guess if you;re a Christian, you have to decide which to offend more: reason or logic.

>>2844956
>"And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man"

And saying that one "acknowledges" something doesn't necessarily mean you are taking it credulously. It's a cheap tactic to make you look respectable without actually thinking critically about the counter argument.

To paraphrase someone: If religious people could be reasoned with, there'd be no religious people.

>>2844615

>Also look at it this way, if I'm right when you die, you burn in hell. If youre right when I die, nothing happens to me. Which one is a more logical stand point?

Also look at it this way, if I'm right when you die, you wasted the one life you have trying appease a god that doesn't exist to indulge in the fruits of an afterlife that won't happen. If youre right when I die, I should still get to heaven if I am a reasonably good person unless your god is a narcissistic dick who gets off on eternally punishing people simply for critically examining the evidence he provided to troll everybody. Which one is a more logical stand point?

>>2844615
Pascal's Wager was revealed as pure bunk years ago, buddy. And evolution is actually testable, since it postulates transitional species resultant from DNA mutations in populations (which we've found in geological excavations and laboratory settings).

Deal with it.

Study history. Study science. Study religion. Stop with the misinformation and intellectually dishonest arguments.

>>2844941

>Eve made from one tiny unnecessary part of Adam's physiology
>Eve conceived simply to entertain Adam and keep him company
>Adam made in god's image, Eve made in Adam's image
>BOTH COMPLETELY EQUAL

If eve is adam's equal, does that mean man is god's equal?

>>2844615
>>2844615
You literally dont know what logic is if you think pascals wager is logical. its so fucking stupid it can be destroyed with out trying ,watch I'll do it right now.

Theres more then one religion in the world.

One single undeniable fact, and the ENTIRE argument is debunked and destroyed,

Oh and please dont go full retard and say something like "AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE IN ANY GOD YOU STILL GET INTO HEAVEN DURR" I get that almost every fucking time I destroy pascals wager, number one, just because you say that doesn't make it true, number two, the majority of majors religion EXPLICITLY state the exact opposite(THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME, etc), number three, what about all the fucking religions that aren't monotheistic, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

>>2844904
If you had really tried then you wouldn't have mentioned anything about Creationism in your OP.

Seriously, you were practically begging for a shitstorm, even though you said you "didn't want one". Wtf did you expect to happen? That's like saying "Hey guys there's this thing over there behind you, don't look at it though...". What do you think they're going to do?

>>2845121
he's not OP I am

I've been spectating the thread haven't been posting all to much

>>2845107

All you have to say to people who call pascal's wager is, god hates people who only love him out of fear and if you do, you are going to hell.

Easy as that

>>2845150

With that tone and wording, they are sure to trust what you say over that of their pastor, scripture, and chruchgroup

>>2844418
If you're thinking about it that way, for all you know the universe could have been created only 2 seconds ago, and all the memories you have never actually happened.

>>2844153
That's because in that video. He is speaking about the case of creationism vs evolution and not about the evidence for evolution.

>>2845159

actually, it was created in this exact moment now because this moment is all that exists, we just have this stubborn ego that creates an illusion of time and sequence because that is the only way the universe knows how to create individual experience and perceive itself from every possible point of perception for all of eternity without things getting too dull

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

That's a pretty good one.

>dinosaurs with humans
A few cave painting/carvings prove nothing. They may have found some bones, or they may be just making shit up that happened to be sorta close to what we think dinosaurs may have looked like. There's all sorts of mythical shit in cave painting/drawings. If you are over 6 years old and believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted, you are stone cold retarded.

HARD MODE:

how do different numbers of chomosomes evolve in species when two species with different numbers of chromosomes are unable to reproduce?

Seems like, even though genetic mutation and drift is obvious, it doesn't account for the chromosome problem

inb4 religous, i don't give one goddamn

>>2845107
you could concurrently belong to many religions.

Pascal's wager is unbeaten by this logic in any case where the number of exclusive religious becomes high.

at any rate, your logic suggests that, given the state of multiple exclusive religions, picking any one of them is superior to picking none.

>>2845406
wtf

did i post after the entire thread died, or are you all on google desperately searching for an answer?

>>2845406

Nondisjunction occurs. Fertility is still possible.

Down syndrome:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080713133313AAhJLoR

You notice how dogs look different because we selectively create different breeds?

Evolution is just like that on a larger and longer scale but with nature as the person that picks which dogs get to breed.

>>2845441
read answer

nondisjunction on 21st causes lower fertility and higher chance of miscarriage

Doesn't sound like something that gets selected for

Also, is there any observed nondisjuntion that makes a species more fit for survival in any way? I'm aware of down syndrome and the XXY on the last pair of chromosomes. XXY is not fertile- a muscular feminine appearance with no ability to reproduce.

>>2845406
chromosomal error is common in all animals, and happens during replication of gametes (meiosis is a delicate process, yet robust nonetheless)

down syndrome is such an error, essentially an extra chromosome 21

sometimes the "error" is not an error at all, but can incur selective advantages

down syndrome is common, and since it is a defect its not inherited

if it weren't a defect and it was a common mutation, then only those with the "error" could reproduce, voila, new species

btw many species can create viable hybrids copulating with mates with different numbers of chromosomes

If God created Eve from Adam's rib they should have the same DNA and hence be of the same gender.
So Eve was a transvestite?

>>2845452

Damn. You just asked about how it was possible. I posted the first thing that came to mind.

If you are actually interested in thorough explanations, get off your ass and edumecate yourself!

Here's a paper on ploidy evolution to start you off:
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/5/571.full.pdf+html

>>2845454
I thought the word species was defined by ability for reproduction i.e. two things are the same species if they can have viable offspring.


What can i read that has evidence of this? Nothing personal, but i've never heard of a case where the chromosomal abnormality was any advantage. In general, I was under the impression that mismatches in chromosomal pairs (in one way or another) generally end in miscarriage or very early death in animals. No idea about plants, bacterias, or fungus.

>>2845454

>btw many species can create viable hybrids copulating with mates with different numbers of chromosomes
aren't the offspring in that situation sterile though?

OP might be interested in
http://www.talkorigins.org/

>>2845483
the paper that dude posted suggests that this is not the case in some bacteria. Not sure that it extends to animals from the study

>>2845454

Something about that extra chromosome fucks with the blood vessels tumors need to exist - meaning Downies don't get cancer, apparently.

>>2845488

Rather, I should clarify:

They CAN get cancer, but tumors and real progress of the disease is rare due to the problem solid tumors have with forming, brought on by the extra chromosome fucking up their blood vessels.

>>2845478

ALL types of mutations are usually deleterious; however, it only takes ONE mutation that is beneficial for the gene to stick around.

Also, you might want to note that the mutations that you are asking about are not as numerous as other types of mutations. Thus, I doubt you will see it in nature as much, but you can read that paper I give you to start to learn more about the evidence that is currently available.

BTW, if you do find something that doesn't make sense, then realize that an appeal to ignorance would be assinine.

It's not "Every aspect of evolution is 100% correct or God did it"

There is strong evidence to define other aspects of evolution. If there is a weak spot, it could just mean that evolution needs to be revamped or more research needs to be done to help understand the gray areas.

>>2845488
I don't think that down syndrome could possibly be seen as a reproductive advantage in any light. Even if cancer was contagious, their reproductive systems are messed up.

also, paper seems to indicate that the ploidy (extra chromosomes) bacteria did better under stressed conditions (salty) vs unstressed.

But by did better, they meant reproduce more. That doesn't seem to be the case with the animal cases that we've discussed in biology. U has paper on that?

>>2845496

Same anon.

One last thing. If you are struggling to figure out how mutations can be beneficial, consider antibiotic, herbicide, and pesticide resistance.

Resistance is not a synonym for magic. Rather, evolution is what causes resistance.

In fact, last semester, I saw evolution occur within a few days that gave some bacteria resistance to a chemical that would normally be poisonous to them.

You need understand that evolution is as much of a theory as gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2LbIE7juOw

OP here just want to throw this out there

humans supposedly left Africa from 70,000-560,000 years ago, those are the suspected, but one geneticist for some reason who pushes equality says 50,000 years ago, even though he's a lying Joo, he claims to be of European descent

pic semi-related although its not a windover bog mummy it's a Germanic mummy

>>2845508
60,000*

>>2845501

Animals don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria.

I hope you realize that we are talking about billions of years of evolution.......

I can't tell if you are just trolling me or are interested in the topic.

Either way, do your own research son.

>>2845501

>I don't think that down syndrome could possibly be seen as a reproductive advantage in any light

But, a fluke with positive aspects...

>>2845503
im not struggling to understand how mutations can be helpful as it is exceedingly obvious that mutations that make you more fit will make you more fit.

I was still curious as to the ploidy effects on animals. The article seems to suggest that species that can reproduce with non-standard number of chromosomes (ploidy, should i daresay I understood the use of the term) tend to drift toward the standard number of chromosomes. Furthermore, it seemed to state explicitly that the increases in ploidy did not seem to account for the changes in growth rates in the bacteria.

If i didn't know better, I'd guess that this was a paper on why the non-standard chromosome offspring are not going to be fit. And, should they be fit, will tend to have their non-standard chromosome levels drift back to the standard level, as is the summary of the paper you supplied.

>

>>2845508
Spencer Wells was his name, he's not in that youtube video I posted he's in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knsf6bZ_v_w

>>2845501

I know I told you to do your own research, but then I realized that I've already had this conversation many, many times and have a cool resource for you.

You are getting confused with speciation and evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

You'll find some good examples here -- mainly fruit flies and plants.

Hmm...did someone already just give you this link? Well, whatever, here it is again if they had.

>>2845514
inb4
>>2845521

call me troll because i don't immediately fall into your line of logic? I'm not even arguing the point- I'm just trying to make sense of the evidence that you gave. How can you possibly have a discussion on this board if everyone who doesn't agree must be troll by default?

>>2845524
Isn't Speciation caused by Evolution?

I thought this was the most powerful claim from evolution? It makes sense that Speciation can happen from evolution without needing valid ploidy offspring- case in point: most primates have same number of chromosomes. All difference species.

>>2845521

You are getting confused with the terminology. Natural selection is dependent on fitness. There are other aspects of evolution though as well.

Evolution is fueled by:
Gene flow
Genetic drift
Natural Selection
Mutations

There is a wiki page for each of those.

I also suggest that you visit the Speciation wiki page and investigate the ways in which speciation can occur (I think there is about 4 main categories)

Good luck in your studies! The topic is really interesting :-)

Also, if you are looking for a Pokemon who will evolve right in front of your eyes, I don't think you will find that ;-).

Google "wild type banana" to get a visual example of something that has evolved. In other words, bananas have evolved from wild type bananas due to natural selection (humans selected for specific bananas).

>>2845532
But I wasn't ever talking about any of those topics.

I specifically asked about the chromosome problem. The paper you supplied came to conclusions that seemed to contradict your earlier statements.

I'm not even challenging evolution, so i don't see any need to bring up any of those topics. my only interest is he chromosomes

>>2845527

I said I wasn't sure if you were a troll or not.

What made me suspicious is that you are scoffing at examples in which a pathway for a potentially beneficial mutation can occur.

You seem to be wanting something to evolve in front of your eyes like a Pokemon in order to be satisfied.

I still gave you many more examples though. Hopefully you'll enjoy sifting through them.

Well, I'm out for tonight. Ciao.

>>2845541

All of those topics specifically deal with the chromosomes......

You were asking about those topics, but you kept on using the word "evolution" instead of proper names like "speciation".

>>2845544
OP here, idk if he's pretending to be me, but he's not OP

if he is pretending to be me

>>2845531

No. That's just what Christards tell people.

Speciation is very different than evolution. Although, obviously evolution helps explain how speciation can occur

>>2845544
>>2845549
Ok Speciation

I use fancy term for what i'm sure you must have understood, or you wouldn't have been able to readily supply the correct term.

I read the examples so fast as is possible given the circumstances that I've not seen any of them before. However, from the wiki page on speciation, it seems that mammals with polyploidy die prenatally. It would seem that, in this case, speciation would not occur in such a way as to yield species with different numbers of chromosomes.

>not pretending to be OP

>>2845557
Wiki:

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise

How else can Speciation occur except by the processes that are covered under the definition of evolution?

>>2844665
Joo

>>2845564
Chaos Magick.

>>2845564
This is exactly why I get suspicious anytime someone starts talking evolution. Start asking some hard questions and no one has any answers.

A simple'we don't have that figured out' would suffice for me, but the evolutionary folk wont be bothered to admit something like that.

ITT: I ask what should be a fairly simple question, get runaround, still have no answer.

D=
>MFW

>>2845603

Whats your question?

>>2845609

>this

>>>2845406


I've been informed that it should be stated more like:

How can speciation lead to organisms having different numbers of chromosomes given the evidence that polyploidy is not selected for in animals and the bacteria article

>>2845603
What are you talking about? The post you referred to doesn't contain any non-rhetorical, unanswered questions.

>>2845617
Huh? did you not read the text after the post reference?

>How can speciation lead to organisms having different numbers of chromosomes given the evidence that polyploidy is not selected for in animals and the bacteria article

i forgot a question mark

>>2845603

Maybe you are asking in the wrong place to the wrong people with the wrong tone... if you are posting here, automatically your sincerity is suspect.

You would probably get yourself some better answers by reading some books or peer-reviewed publications or at very least asking actual organic biologists with credentials rather than asking anons trying to be witty in a creation vs evolution thread on 4chan.

>>2845631
lulz

hurrdurr don't have discussions on /sci/ board under any circumstance

I'm trolling because I have question that /sci/ doesn't seem to have answer to.

So if i ask for a set of complete sufficient statistics for multinomial(p1,p2,p3,p4), am I trolling?

don't even bother answering, I was just curious about an answer to what I had assumed would be a fairly straightforward question about evolutionary processes.

>>2845624
>Huh? did you not read the text after the post reference?
I have, it was this:

>This is exactly why I get suspicious anytime someone starts talking evolution. Start asking some hard questions and no one has any answers.
>A simple'we don't have that figured out' would suffice for me, but the evolutionary folk wont be bothered to admit something like that.
>ITT: I ask what should be a fairly simple question, get runaround, still have no answer.
>D=
>MFW

Anyway, the question in your subsequent post has already been answered in this thread. Your objection to polyploidy stands on pretty shaky ground, given the fact that polyploidy *is* selected for in some species.

>>2845640

>hurrdurr don't have discussions on /sci/ board under any circumstance
It all depends on whether you seek knowledge or confrontation this place is better for the latter.
>I'm trolling because I have question that /sci/ doesn't seem to have answer to.
I was not saying you were trolling (although I definitely get that feeling from your overall tone), but that extracting real information from this place is hard because of all the trolls and if you want good answers, you may be able to find it here, but it will take extra effort and your troll filter must be in excellent shape, but there are far better ways to get the information you seek.

>So if i ask for a set of complete sufficient statistics for multinomial(p1,p2,p3,p4), am I trolling?
possibly, it depends on if you can frame the question in such a way as to be vague enough to have multiple interpretations from which conflict could arise


>don't even bother answering, I was just curious about an answer to what I had assumed would be a fairly straightforward question about evolutionary processes.
too late

>>2844153
Just take a junior's high biology class.

>>2844191
>can someone explain to me how radio carbon dating can date back to millions of years?
It doesn't, for millions of years. Carbon Dating is used for 1000s of years via measuring of the amount of carbon 13/14 in a carbon sample and comparing it to the half life of carbon.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Carbon_Dating
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating

>>2845603
The problem I have with you here is that you're taking answers on 4chan as though they are from seasoned biologists to prove your point that because people on 4chan don't know then no-one knows.

Polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30–80% of living plant species are polyploid, and many lineages show evidence of ancient polyploidy (paleopolyploidy) in their genomes.[8][9][10] Huge explosions in angiosperm species diversity appear to have coincided with the timing of ancient genome duplications shared by many species.[11] It has been established that 15% of angiosperm and 31% of fern speciation events are accompanied by ploidy increase.[12] Polyploid plants can arise spontaneously in nature by several mechanisms, including meiotic or mitotic failures, and fusion of unreduced (2n) gametes.[13]

>>2844340
Disregard that stormfag OP.

Your argument he was replying to is valid.

>>2845689
OP here, I am that stormfag lol

>>2845667
how far can it validly go back?

>>2845712
Well... that's very christianic of you... : /

>>2845720
40,000 years or so

Carbon dating is only used in recent fossils. Other isotopes are evaluated for elder rocks.

>>2845729
that was very jooish aka satanish of you

>>2845743
so I'm assuming the out of Africa theory could never use carbon dating?

and if you ever hear them say carbon dating that's a red flag and a smoking gun?

>>2845747
Wasn't Jesus a Jew?

>>2845712
>>2845747
Not OP

>>2845760
no

he was a white Aryan man

jesuswasnotajew(DOT)com

>>2845562
>However, from the wiki page on speciation, it seems that mammals with polyploidy die prenatally.
That's not what the article says, actually. Wiki:
>Rare instances of polyploid mammals are known, but most often result in prenatal death.
I find it a bit misleading, though, especially since the article doesn't even bother to link to any polyploid mammals, like the tetraploid Golden Vizcacha Rat.

>>2845759
Out of Africa theory makes predictions for a 60-100k years ago split.

I think carbon dating can be useful for tracking down early radiation of human populations.

>>2845781
>since the article doesn't even bother to link to any polyploid mammals, like the tetraploid Golden Vizcacha Rat
Kinda of suspicious since I learned about that rodent from the polyploidy articles' link...

Can you check articles' history please cause I'm tired?

Incidentally, most reporters and such will say carbon dating even if another type was used, as carbon dating is the most widely known.

>>2845798
inb4: article's

sorry tired as fuck

>>2845801

>>2845801
well there should seriously be a law against that

>>2845807
>>2845807
I lol'd

>>2845798
Oh, I was talking about the article you referred to, the one on Speciation.

>>2845801
btw anybody knows which radiodating methods are mostly used for older rocks? I guess something with a longer half-life but dunno what.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about evolution.

You don't learn talking points or watch videos like you do for creationism, it takes years of study to understand it beyond a conceptual level.

>>2845821
Uranium-lead
Samarium-neodymium
Potassium-argon
Rubidium-strontium
Uranium-thorium
Chlorine-36
argon-argon
iodine-xenon
lanthanum-barium
lead-lead
lutetium-hafnium
neon-neon
rhenium-osmium
uranium-lead-helium
uranium-uranium

>>2845851
It seriously isn't that hard unless you want to be extremely technical about it.

>>2844259
>1. We dont have sweat glands
FUCKING WHAT

>>2844259
>1. We dont have sweat glands
>we are dead

>>2845851
it's a lie though what else is to understand

>>2845821
radiodating methods are mostly used for older rocks?
Also carbon dating can only be used on remains of living creatures, not rocks...

>>2845879
This is evolution 101.

If you are an animal who is good at living in your environment because you have an adaption which your peers do not, you will fuck and have babies.

These babies will hopefully inherit your unique adaption and grow and have children of their own.

Because the animals with this adaption are better at surviving than those who don't, eventually almost all of the animals of your species in the area have your adaption through breeding and death of the ones without, and the population is said to have evolved.

>>2845864
Any specifics/preferances according to age (geological period), origin (igneous, metamorph, sediment) of the rock and ecotope of fossilized organisms (marine, freshwater, terrestrial)?

Also why can't we radiocarbon'd large deposits of coal and lignite? Given the quantities of carbon in it can't we make a rough astimation of age by the percentage of C-13?

I'd discourage any die-hard creationist from pursuing this line of inquiry.

Why is there a sculpture of a triceratops in that ancient building?

>>2845906
Coal is too old, the amount of C14 is so negligible we can barely detect it, and it is nowhere near accurate.

Also I just got the list off wikipedia. From memory uranium-lead is used for the oldest and Potassium-argon is used for dinosaurs (not the bones but for volcanic rock nearbye)...

>>2845916
That's a fucking Stegosaurus... oh wait... I got trolled huh?

>>2845562

Wow. You are a little slow.

I gave you examples in which they can survive.

I also gave you links to basic definitions because you clearly are misusing and misunderstanding basic words.

For example, I already cleared up that evolution is not the same thing as speciation.

Another her der moment you seem caught up on is that everything that is part of evolution must increase fitness.

That's stupid and plain wrong.

The only thing that depends on fitness is natural selection.

There is still gene flow, genetic drift, and mutations.

Also, you asked me about how speciation can occur without evolution. Good question. Ask a her der Christard for that answer. I think they usually claim that sky daddy magic fills in the gaps of their uneducated understanding of the world.

Fuck off troll. If you are really interested in learning, crack open a book.