/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4180863
0/10^99999999999

We are exposed to carcinogens in our daily lives in levels that our evolving ancestors never experienced in their lifetimes.

>>4180875
false

So do you think a better explanation is that we were created by an Intelligent Designer who wanted us to get cancer?

>>4180884
yeah that's exactly what I said

oh wait

No it's not

>>4180863

Because you reproduce at like twenty most times.

So all you need to do is survive to twenty and your genes will be passed on. Most cancer is old age.

cancer typically applies selection pressure (i.e. death) after people have already procreated... natural selection only affects things that change one's chances of successfully procreating... typically, cancer arrives too late in life to affect procreation much.

>>4180890

essentially, this.

So if people whose parents got cancer weren't allowed to have children, after a few generations the human race would be free of cancer and none/less of the tragedy and misery of losing loved ones to it would happen?

We do have some mechanisms to protect against excessive early deaths by cancer, telomeres and apoptosis of damaged/abnormal cells.

You have to view this in terms of factors an equilibrium. The species evolved to continually reproduce, for obvious reasons, as a result there is less need for adults to live that long if their replacements are already here. On the other hand it takes resources to produce an adult, it is more economical for a fully grown productive adult to reproduce for as long as possible until it is mauled by a bear or dies of malaria.

These factors vary in importance and an equilibrium is reached, also bear in mind the fact evolution takes millions of years, during which time the environment can change, also when a trait is pushed to extremes the rate of change slows as the "easy" mutations have already occurred while the less likely mutations taht can improve the trait further have not occurred and may take millions of generations to occur by chance.

So, with mice who get eaten all the time there is little need for them to live 50 years. Tortoises on the other hand hardly ever get eaten, especially tortoises stuck on an island with few predators where a low metabolism is not a disadvantage, their equilibrium leans more towards long lifespans. Humans already have long lifespans and were in the process of evolving longer lifespans until recently, the current population explosion, mixing of the races and evolutionary forces of civilization and culture has caused evolution to go haywire, we might start genetically modifying ourselves next. Don't know what will happen.

Theory:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Plausible: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious

Specious: having a false look of truth or genuineness

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster

cancer is a cell replication error and has little to do with evolution.

Science presupposes materialism.
Evolution is only the dominant biological theory because it is the only POSSIBLE biological theory, given materialism.

The correct answer to creationists isn't "you're wrong", it's "you're cheating".

This also means that science cannot "prove" that materialism/evolution is true. That would be like pointing to non-Euclidean geometry to "prove" that the parallel postulate is false. Science is a game, with its own ruleset.

PROVE ME WRONG

>>4180921
This. Organisms whose cells divide infrequently are quite resistant to most carcinogens in the environment.

Business as usual on /sci/.

>>4180926
>>4180926
I disagree with your naive "materialism" concept.

I think that if there was a commonly intervening God, then science would be able to detect him and he would feature in scientific theories. Likewise with ghosts and miracles, etc.

The truth is that science can detect anything that has a third-person verifiable effect. Scientists are often materialists because materialism is the "simplest worldview that fits the facts". They are not materialists by definition.

If ghosts appeared tomorrow in everyone's house, then scientists would believe in ghosts.

>What bothers me the most about evolution is that there's no math behind it. It's not a science
I lost it. All evolution journals are is just pages and pages of shit like this.

>>4180939
>If ghosts appeared tomorrow in everyone's house, then scientists would believe in ghosts.

This isn't true. Well, it might actually be true, it SHOULDN'T be. A good materialist will always consider "sufficiently advanced aliens using physics we don't know about" to be more likely than ghosts. There is no possible event that would make a materialist think that non-materialism was the most likely cause. Aliens are always more likely.

Science is observable, testable, and repeatable no?

>>4180915

yes, sort of..i mean in practice, how long it would take is very hard to predict and in general it would take a long time...

but in general, if we could somehow predict who was going
to get cancer and prevent them from having children it would
lead us down a road of less cancer.

>>4180945
Then there is a materialist alternative to evolution: aliens made us using unknown physics. How is that different to believing in a God who made us?

It isn't. The materialist / non-materialist divide is entirely artificial. There is no meaningful difference between incomprehensible aliens and an incomprehensible god.

>>4180945
You're an idiot, seriously. Why should material aliens be a priori more reasonable than immaterial ones?

>>4180955
>immaterial
>aliens

Pick two.

>>4180955
Because materialism is an assumption that underlies everything in science and history. If you are willing to throw away materialism just because you saw a ghost, then who are you to judge people who think that Jesus rose from the dead on the basis of historical evidence?

>>4180952

Except evolution actually has legitimate evidence behind it.

The problem is is when people assume that evolution of God are contradictory.

>>4180961
>who are you to judge people who think that Jesus rose from the dead on the basis of historical evidence?

You judge them if and only if their evidence is not good enough. Not because rising from the dead is a priori impossible.

Actually, the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead is pretty good, especially compared to other religious claims. It's just not good ENOUGH when you weigh it against the extremely explanatory worldview of materialism. But if the evidence for the resurrection was sufficient, it would overthrow materialism.

>>4180961
No dude, we're not talking philosophy here. People would say ghosts are immaterial. They're not channeling fucking Bishop Berkeley.

>>4180976
>Actually, the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead is pretty good

Elaborate.

>>4180863
>What bothers me the most about evolution is that there's no math behind it.
>there's no math behind it.
>no math
>no math

evolution is nothing BUT math, OP. Genetic mutation and variation get into the biology and chemistry of it, but evolution itself is nothing but statistics. I could pointlessly go on about why your specific example is stupid, but that wouldn't solve your fundamental misinterpretation.

>>4180988
Millions of people say it happened.

>>4180988
The evidence for Christianity is relatively good in the sense that

(1.) Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire for apparently no reason other than that Constantine had a revelation. That is quite odd.

(2.) Many of the first people testifying to Christianity were people who have clear motives to want Christianity to not be true.

(3.) This one is hard to explain, but the story is odd in precisely the way that a true story might be odd. It doesn't have many signs of fakery in the sense that you would think that a fake story would conform more to what people of the time would find convincing. A good example is that it relies on the testimony of women.

most people would die from cancer, evolution is information passed through generations isnt it ? Cant kill a disease if it gets to someone first

>>4180998

Wow, you're good. I almost responded.

9/10

>>4180998
Also, I said "relatively good", i.e. good compared to other religious claims. For example, Islam has practically no evidence. I am literally not joking when I say that the main argument for Islam is that "the poetry in the Koran is so good that a human could not have written it".

>>4181016
I'm not a troll. I'm just an atheist who recognises that Christianity has much better evidence than competing religions. But it's not enough for me.

>>4180998
11/10

Because you're right.

Besides, I'll go with the religion that people refused to give up even undergoing torture that would make /b/ look away, the one based on a dead person that thousands of people saw alive after his public execution. As opposed to the guy who had visions alone in a cave, then told other people about those visions. Or the guy that starved himself so long he went crazy and thought he had attained enlightenment. Or the belief that we evolved from inorganic material, or were put here by aliens (the origins of which you still can't explain).

>>4181019

Upgrading you to 10/10.

>>4181024
Been on /tg/ lately, have we?

>>4181026

Nice samefag. Hint: try to mix up your writing style, it really helps.

>>4181026
>thousands of people saw alive after his public execution.

Huh? What do you mean, person-who-is-actually-not-me-but-may-have-a-similar-writing-style? Who are the thousands of people who saw him?

>>4181017
>(3.) This one is hard to explain, but the story is odd in precisely the way that a true story might be odd. It doesn't have many signs of fakery in the sense that you would think that a fake story would conform more to what people of the time would find convincing. A good example is that it relies on the testimony of women.

You should read up on Biblical criticism sometime.

>>4181050
I don't need to, because I am an atheist and so it wouldn't challenge my worldview. I only read things that challenge my beliefs.

>>4181051
>I only read things that challenge my beliefs.

Are you a robot programmed with the optimum method for trolling Dawkinsites?

>>4181060
No I don't think so, but please write a book that claim that I am so I can read it.

>>4181061
lol critical semantic discourse! I love it!

cancer is actually a function of aging pretty much. It is there because as we live errors accumulate in our genetic code that impair the regulation of the cell cycle. This can be sped up by predispositions (inherited mutations) or viral infections (like karposi's sarcoma virus or HPV). I hope that answers your question

>HEY SCI, IF EVOLUTION IS REAL, THEN WHY IZ THEIR INTO DEATH?!

Jesus fuck, I can't believe people still try to argue against evolution with stuff like this.

OP is an idiot. There are times when evolution fails. deductive reasoning is a form of formulaic thinking, so fuck you.

Evolution has nothing to do with 4chan's cancer. Cancer like you OP.

If evolution is true, why haven't we evolved past the point of being restrained by the impossible? Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb!

>>4180951
um, how does evolution "fail" sometimes? that doesn't even make sense. it's a force, or a pressure, it can't really "fail" or "succeed" anymore than gravity can--

--and if even if it could, cancer wouldn't be an example of failing. Again, evolution only takes into account weaknesses that affect an organisms chances to have offspring. generally, cancer arrives too late to have a significant effect on this probability.