/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5415451
Physicsfag here. I am so ignorant to biology that I only know where the heart and some other basic organs are. This is the limit of my understanding of biology. Somehow I've managed to never have a biology class in my life and I'm 21.

>>>/r/atheism

>>5415476
You're missing out.
>>5415480
>Implowing understanding phylogeny has anything to do with atheism.

evolution and communism go hand in hand

>>5415519
Uh, no they don't. Communist Russia forbade the teaching for all of the usual reasons.

>>5415523
>Lysenkoism
best post of the day?

>>5415519
creationism and autism go hand in hand

bamps

>>5415451

so...you mean that for example that because humans and gorillas have a diference of one chromosome is a proof that evolution doesnt occur?

>>5415451
genes?
you mean that he meant that because sequences for the same are different in a few base pair in a crab and a mammals gene for some shit, a common origin is disqualified?
i doubt that guy had a real picture of a gene.

>>5416268

Having now read this comment I get why OP was pissed..

In which case:
Fuck that cunt was ignorant!

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
creation.com/age-of-the-earth

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist
youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

Kent Hovind Defeats an Entire Room of Evolutionists
youtube.com/watch?v=BREWm54e0NU


Peer reviewed scientific paper shows there hasn't been enough time in the history of the universe for evolution to take place.

Journal BIO-Complexity, "Time and Information in Evolution," Winston Ewert, Ann Gauger, William Dembski, and Robert J. Marks, II once again show that a mathematical simulation of evolution doesn't model biologically realistic processes of Darwinian evolution at all.

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

Can mutations create new information?
http://creation.com/mutations-new-information

>>5416268
We don't even have a difference of one chromosome, our chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes that remain independent in other primates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

>>5416313
That is what's known as a Gish gallop, posting a wall of fallacy hoping noone will bother to waste time responding. Also, 3.5/10

>>5416323
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utk6FAvsnvU

>>5416328
read the article

>Can mutation create new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘information’. Also, ‘new’ does not necessarily imply ‘better’ or even ‘good’. When evolutionists cite examples of ‘new’ information, they are almost invariably citing evidence of new traits, but these traits are caused by the corruption of existing information. Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes.

>In all the examples I have seen used to argue against creation, evolution is not helped. There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes. In fact, it looks like all examples of gain-of-function mutations, put in light of the long-term needs of upward evolutionary progress, are exceptions to what is needed, because every example I have seen involves something breaking.

>“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” Nilsson, p. 1212.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes22.html


>World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

>Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.

Where are all the people?
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

Why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history! If there were any truth to these false claims by unscrupulous scientists, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions. no writings, no carved stones, no battles, no wars, no countries, no nothing!

>>5416345
whatthefuckamireading.jpeg

>>5416345
How stupid do you have to be to use sources like creation.com and creationscience.com? I realize you're a troll, but you could put an ounce of effort into it.

creationists gonna create.
therefore creationists are god. therefore god is a fag.

>>5416333
Watch the video and read the corresponding article. It's a brand new gene conferring a brand new function. It is new information by every definition.

>>5416341
That is a complete retardation of what is known as carrying capacity. Time is not the only factor in population growth, there are also resources. Note that from 1300 to 1800 the population went from 300m to 1b and from 1800 to present it went from 1b to 7b.

Not just time passed in that frame, but also the most rapid advancements in medicine, agriculture and transportation.

>>5416345
Burial != fossilization. Fossilization requires very specific conditions, a shutout of almost all oxygen during inundation being one of them.

So yes, creation.com is retarded, and they even admit to outright rejecting any evidence they perceive to contradict scripture.

>>5416358
you are now aware that its the mainstream "trusted" sources that are corrupt and rely on you to be willfully ignorant

the christians arent out to get you they actually love you and want you to come to the knowledge of truth

just look at all the failed attempts to make evolution appear fact because they are so desperate in the textbooks and making fake fossils etc
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html


>>5416374
but there isnt any evidence for evolution
and scripture is never wrong thats like our "axiom"

all the prophecy has been fulfilled or will be fulfilled

over 300 about the messiah and even predicting crucifixion some 400 years before crucifixion was invented

Psalm 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

> https://www.coursera.org/course/geneticsevolution

This just started.

>>5416313

to anyone that doesnt want to go through this faggots shitty sourcrs themselves, here is a link to "dr" kent hovind's DOCTORAL thesis:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation

its a fucking joke and anyone who would even mention thr name in a serious discussion deserves to be raped in the ass by 18 pakistani tribals with high capacity assault weapon clips

>>5416391
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5LFObUl1bI

>>5416395
"[...] If the Bible says that something was created a certain way, then that is just the way it happened. Now, as a science teacher I want to keep an open mind and understand why, how, and when God created the earth, if those things can be known."

I lelled hard. More popcorn!

>>5415480
Fuck you

>>5415451
You know who else believed in Evolution?
The Nazis.

Atheist: 0
Christians: 1

>>5415451
What is the purpose of this discussion? To circlejerk over how correct evolution is?

There is zero scientific discussion here, go to reddit to shitpost.

>>5416313
but i see you have quite a lot of creationist hoodoo voodoo on your side. to commence i call upon my first pokemon, scholarly rational inquiry!

Without even addressing your arguments, i alrrady know your arguments are shit. How? For one your sources are heavily biased, unscientific, and in some cases as the hovind character are known fradulent. Hovind is currently serving time in federal prison for tax evaxion if you didnt know.
Secondly, you make spurious appelals to authority claims. posting a large number of 'pieces of evidence' all at once then demanding explanation is an infantile and dishonourable debating tactic. Christfag's 'babblechu' loses 10 hp by trying to escape through the lava of logical fallacies.
3rdly, most of your arguments are not even that, but paragraph long direct quotes from the above mentioned (with questionable validity) sources. Copy pasting someone elses words doesnt do anythi g for this discussion. its not very effective...
Scholarly rational inquiry uses 'skeptical beam'! 'skeptical beam' hits 3 times! Its super effective! Christfag's babblechu fainted.

Which Pokemon will Christfag choose next?
*MythicalLiteraturos
*Jeebus
*babblechu(fnt)
*AdHominos

>2013
>believing in Evolution and other fairy tales
shiggy diggy doo

>>5416499
But I like The Hobbit

>>5415480

So basic knowledge about genetics is equal atheism? I really didn't get this one. Please explain.

You should be one of these retards who keep calling everyone "edgy" by no reason whatsoeven.

I dont understand why people try to compare science and religion, people should be aware when some institution or leader prohibites something in order to keep control of their flock and dont become irrelevant, instead of attack practical knowledge.
steam cells rule

>>5416384
You must be really bored to troll that hard.

>>5415451
I'm a mathfag, but I know some basic things about biology. I once got into a debate with an anti-evolution christfag who was convinced that there was not enough time for evolution to have occurred (?). According to him, it takes so long for something to become an eye and something else to become a hand or something like that. I tried to explain evolution in simple terms, but he still couldn't get out of the above preconceptions.

>>5416481
Hitler was Catholic.
Atheists: 1
Christians: -1

I'm going to use this thread.

Anyway, how did animal camouflage evolve? For example, say an insect mimics a dead leaf but that's a pretty advanced shape to mimic. Either you look like a leaf and you're safe or you don't look like a leaf and you're eaten. There's really no in between on that.

Just curious.

>>5416595
Hitler was not catholic. He was actually a pagan. A satanist.

Now you are either a very delusional gentile or a racial jew.

>>5416658
He was endorsed by the Catholic church of the time, and he made numerous references to the bible in his writings. All we have to believe he was otherwise is your claim.

>>5416655
Pepper moths nigga, peppered moths.

>>5416704
Yes but peppered moths are already that way and merely change color. We're talking about COMPLETE body transformation here.

Seriously, you either look like a leaf or you don't.

>>5416655
> implying camouflage clothing doesn't work because soldiers don't look like leaves/rocks/snowy crags/ etc.

You don't need anything near perfect mimicry in order to avoid being eaten, you only need camouflage so good that the predators would rather try and hunt down the less camouflaged members of your species.

Some time ago I came across a simple evolution game: you have a single tinted background, and dots floating across it with various colors. You could kill them by clicking them, and then they would be replaced by the "offspring" of two random other dots (average rgb with some variance, or something like that). At first, you can easily see every dot, and you can just click as fast as you can (in reality, inefficient predators meant a longer time between clicks at early points in evolution, so the faster replenishment rate at the start isn't unrealistic). Over time, the dots became harder to see, because apparently you're still slightly more likely to click a more visible dot. After some time, the dots are practically invisible.

However, it's perfectly possible to click the ones which are more like the background color, in which case the colors never converge; any intelligent breeder could easily stop camouflage from evolving, but predators aren't breeding ther prey, they're just trying to eat more food than their brethren.

>>5416757
LINK OR LIE

bamp

>>5416710

>Seriously, you either look like a leaf or you don't.

Why?

Wow, the level of faggotry in this thread is amazing.

HURR DURR 101 reasons for young Earth creationism.

With more bullshit from Kent Hovind.