/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7508109

>Shouldn't we have seen one of these "evolutions" by now?

what is the anthropological record.

>>7508109
>I think the theory of evolution is taken too much as gospel

stopped reading there

>what are the Galapagos islands

>>7508109
>How do different species become incapable of producing viable offspring?
I can understand why it is hard for you to imagine one population eventually becoming two different species, but that's not really how it usually works. It might make more sense to you if you think about isolated populations. Let's say organisms from Island A traveled to island B during a rare event that won't occur again. Now Islands A and B have totally isolated populations of the same species. Over millions of years, the populations in both of those places could become different species from each other.

>Why don't we see new species being developed?
We do. Dogs and wolves for instance.

>>7508109
>1. Natural selection doesn't explain changes in genetics.
It isn't supposed to. It's supposed to explain why some changes are kept and others aren't.

>3. Why don't we see new species being developed?
We do.

>>7508109
Look this shit up in google, I'm tired of replying to this repeated bullshit threads in which every single one of these "holes in evolution" is false, or just dumb bullshit.

>>7508109
>1. Natural selection doesn't explain changes in genetics.

No but mutation does. Natural selection merely decides which changes in genetics are passed on.

>2. How do different species become incapable of producing viable offspring?

Genetic drift.

>3. Why don't we see new species being developed?

We do, for example ebola and MRSA both evolved during the last century.

>>7508109
>1. Natural selection doesn't explain changes in genetics.
This is technically correct. Natural selection is merely the favoring of certain genes over others in a population. It does not explain how these genes actually changed. That is explained by genetic mutation, as well as less common phenomenon such as horizontal gene transfer.

>But a bunch of white peppered moths turning black isn't the same as an organism with a different number of Chromosomes, for instance. How does this kind of change happen?
Humans have 23 chromosomes while most hominidae have 24. This occurred because two of the chromosomes in our ancestors were fused together. This has been confirmed both by the fact that chromosome 2 is genetically similar to two chromosomes in apes, and by the fact that chromosome 2 has vestigial centromeres and telomeres inside of it.

>And doesn't each new genetic mutation that counts as "new species tier," need at least two offspring that share the mutation, to continue the new species?
There is no single organism, no single mutation at which a new species is created. It's a spectrum, not a point at which we can say a non-rooster turned into a rooster. Speciation is a process that occurs over a long period of time with many changes. This not just a change in one organism, but a change in an entire population due to natural selection or some other factor. So there are always multiple individuals breeding and changing throughout the process, until we end up with something so different from the original population it came from that it can no longer breed with that original population.

>>7508109
Continued...

>Natural selection can explain perhaps the variation within the dog population. But it doesn't seem to explain how a new species can become so different from its parent, that it can no longer have kids with it.
I don't see how that works logically. If you admit that mutation and selection can change how dogs look then you should also admit that this process can change the interior biology that allows organisms to mingle and breed. It's just a matter of degrees of changes, not a line that natural selection can't cross.

>3. Why don't we see new species being developed?
We do. Have you tried researching this?

>There are billions of humans all over the world. We observe billions of human births, as well as billions of births to animals like dogs, cats, and cattle. Shouldn't we have seen one of these "evolutions" by now?
We do see evolution in all of these populations, just very subtle evolution. If you want to see big changes then you need big selective pressures. Humans are very good at avoiding pressure. We try to keep everyone alive and healthy, including dogs, cats, and cattle. If you want to see evolution in action, try looking at species which have to change to survive and breed fast. This has been done in the lab already with many kinds of microorganisms.

>>7508109
>Shouldn't we have seen one of these "evolutions" by now?
Holy shit dude, you have just got to be fucking with us

So there are humans, and there are monkeys, and we both diverged from a common ancestor, why is there absolutely no record of that ancestor? It supposedly wasn't even that long ago, relatively speaking. Surely at least one fell into a tar pit or bog.

>>7508236
>why is there absolutely no record of that ancestor?
But there is. There are thousands of fossils showing the transition from chimp-like to human.

>>7508236
Great Apes are mammals you retard.

>>7508236
>monkeys
pls learn more

>>7508240

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

> to date no fossil has been identified as a probable candidate for the CHLCA or the taxon Pan prior.

>>7508246

So... your complaint is that we haven't found the link... aside from all the hundreds of links we have found?

>>7508246
That's the LAST common ancestor. There are a few common ancestors, like Sahelanthropus. Anyway, one does not need a fossil of the CHLA when all the evidence we have points to this divergence. The transitional fossils as well as genetics tells us clearly that we share a common ancestor. We are not going to find fossils of every species in the chain from millions of years ago, just as we are not going to find fossils of every individual organism in that chain.

ass

ass

>>7508256
>That's the LAST common ancestor.

The last common ancestor is of the greatest interest when discussing the transition from 'chimp-like to human'. It shows us how recently humans and chimps diverged.

We wouldn't be interested in the common ancestor of all Eukaryotas in this case, would we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus#Relationship_to_humans_and_chimpanzees

>Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, though no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community.

>>7508249

I think it's just a missing piece of the puzzle, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we've found it.

>>7508109
you know the peppered moths , and darwins finches have been explained, it's a great example of natural selection, not evolution. both the black and white moths existed at the same time, as the environment became covered in soot the white moths stood out more than the black moths and therefore were culled by predators. the finches and their beak size was directly related to their food source. natural selection is not evolution. good luck discussing any of this with anyone tho, you are either going to get "SCIENCE IS IRREFUTABLE!" or "GOD DID IT!!" kind of sad really.

>>7508289
>it

There is no single "missing link", every single human ever born is a "missing link" between it's parents and it's children. The number of bodies that fossilise is incredibly small, it's asinine to demand EVERY "missing link". Besides, genetic evidence has filled in the gaps in the archeological record. There's really no reasonable doubt about it,

>>7508236
See this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

>>7508168
Those are islands, we are talking about living organisms.

>>7508171
Dogs and wolves? Really getting tired of such a poor argument.

>>7508125
Glad someone read the whole post before posting.

>>7508214
What is extrapolation error?

>>7508296
>it

That's refers to the species anon. The species.

>asinine to demand EVERY "missing link"

It's equally asinine to claim that it's been found.

>There's really no reasonable doubt about it.
>implying I doubt the CHLCA existed
>implying I'm some sort of evolution denying creationist

>>7508109
>But it doesn't seem to explain how a new species can become so different from its parent, that it can no longer have kids with it.

Usually the genetic isolation happens first and then they drift apart genetically and form new species not vice versa.
They dont even need to be that different, could be that they just started mating at different times, or that their genitals just arent compatible anymore.

After 2 populations have been isolated genetic differences between the two start to accumulate over many generations until they become two separate species.

>genetic mutation that counts as "new species tier"

That only happens seldomly,(like changes in the number of chromosomes) mostly ist small changes over a long time in isolated populations.

>Shouldn't we have seen one of these "evolutions" by now?

What do you mean? Evolution is a slow and gradual process, even if a new species evolved right in front of us it would be too slow for us to realize it, and there is no real criteria for when something would be considered a new species.

What we did with dogs and cattle in such a short timespan is amazing.

>>7508109
Here is your reply

>>7508236
>why is there absolutely no record of that ancestor?
>expects monkey-men to keep records

>>7508302
>What is extrapolation error?
Something which doesn't apply to what I said.

i think this is a great question to look at unbiased , but i don't think it will ever be approached in such a way, and sadly OP doesn't understand enough about the subject to even make it worth while

>>7508109
All your questions are answered with 'a long time'

>>7508320
Clever, but that first part that included "...It's just a matter of degrees of changes, ..." is extrapolation and subject to such issues. That is not to say you are wrong, just that your reasoning should not be used to answer this question.

This is one thing that bugs me about science. On some level extrapolation is used because it is useful, but in other cases it is taken to extremes where the reason breaks down.

Evolution is such an extreme case where such extrapolation should not be used as it is commonly used. I mean people often talk in terms of billions of years. And the "very subtle evolution" you mention is called adaptation and is treated very differently for good reason. Adaptation has been empirically shown to be supported. Evolution is a portrayed as a just a scaled up form of adaptation, but such scaling has not been supported past some interesting theories which have no strong evidence for or against.

>But a bunch of white peppered moths turning black isn't the same as an organism with a different number of Chromosomes, for instance. How does this kind of change happen?
plants do it all the fucking time (on an evolutionary time scale). they have ridiculously active genomes.

and to talk about an organism that isn't a fucking genomic nutcase, humans have spontaneous large-scale chromosome alterations relatively frequently. most cases of down syndrome are caused by a trisomy event, but there is a non-negligible portion of cases caused by a translocation event of part of chromosome 21 onto another chromosome.

>>7508109
>1. Natural selection doesn't explain changes in genetics

Not alone, it does not. Luckily, mutations are common.

>2. How do different species become incapable of producing viable offspring?

By being separated for long enough. If sufficient genetic drift accumulates, even if all of their outward characteristics remain the same, they will no longer be capable of reproduction.

>3. Why don't we see new species being developed?

We do and have induced specation under laboratory conditions. The changes observed on such a scale, however, do not often meet with the artificial requirements set by the creationist folk which are incompatible with the theory of evolution. It is one species of fruit fly becoming two species of fruit fly and things of that nature because we are still looking at fairly small numbers of generations and cannot expect drastic change as a result.

>>7508371

Common descent is well supported by phylogenetic and genetic data. The whale lineage is well documented actually, showing changes in the rear limb and pelvis morphology. What is your alternative hypothesis?

>>7508109
Great points OP; I'd like to share something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>>7508405
You are so fucking dumb it's painful to read this.
Please never have children, your line of ignorance must come to an end.

ass

>>7508405
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>>7508423

>any evidence against evolution

Such as?

>>7508371
>Clever, but that first part that included "...It's just a matter of degrees of changes, ..." is extrapolation and subject to such issues
No, it's not extrapolation, because I'm not extrapolating the existence of other kinds of evolution from dog evolution. I'm merely explaining how your argument is flawed. There is no significant difference between the mutations that lead to different breeds and the mutations that lead to different species.

>On some level extrapolation is used because it is useful, but in other cases it is taken to extremes where the reason breaks down.
Where does the reasoning break down? You've just stated that natural selection cannot cause speciation with no reasoning behind it. Evolution is one of the most well supported scientific facts we have. There is no controversy if you understand the concept and the evidence, unless you have an agenda.

>And the "very subtle evolution" you mention is called adaptation and is treated very differently for good reason.
Treated differently by whom? Not scientists. Adaption is evolution, you are just playing semantic games.

>Evolution is a portrayed as a just a scaled up form of adaptation, but such scaling has not been supported past some interesting theories which have no strong evidence for or against.
That's ridiculous. The fact that we see transitions between species in the fossil record, and that these transitions match perfectly the genetic record, and that we have even used this correlation to correctly predict the existence of transitional species is incredibly strong evidence that evolution exists. All you're doing is shoving your fingers into your ears and saying obvious evidence of evolution is some other word that means the same thing as evolution.

>>7508413
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

>>7508441

>why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor

Where's the conflict here?

>>7508428
Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

>>7508453
You get dumber with each new rant.

>>7508457
It's called bait retard.

>>7508389
Have you read how phylogenetic and other genetic data work? They can empirically show animal X has gene Y which is very powerful stuff. But that is not the same as saying they must be ancestors of animal Z because they also have Y. Such assumptions bring in many other things which are not covered in such work.

As for rear limb and pelvis morphology in whale lineage there are many alternative explanations. One of the more interesting ones is it gives better control over their center of gravity increasing their maneuverability and speed at which they can right themselves to get air.

>>7508109
>questioning gravity thread
>No Christfag or anything, but I think the theory of gravity is taken too much as gospel.

This is how retarded you sound

>>7508458
>x disagrees with me
>x is bait

>>7508469
>bait about bait
>metabait

>>7508446
You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

>>7508470
how many times a day to you metabait, anon?

>>7508471
Human designers frequently reuse the same elements and features, albeit with modifications. Since all living things share the same world, it should be expected that there would be similarities in DNA as the organisms would have similar needs. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function. Organisms that have highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity.

>>7508471
Human designers frequently reuse the same elements and features, albeit with modifications. Since all living things share the same world, it should be expected that there would be similarities in DNA as the organisms would have similar needs. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function. Organisms that have highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity.

>>7508464
Ever since the time of Darwin, evolutionary scientists have noted the anatomical (physical/visible) similarities between humans and the great apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Over the last few decades, molecular biologists have joined the fray, pointing out the similarities in DNA sequences. Previous estimates of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees suggested they were 98.5–99.4 percent identical.1

Because of this similarity, evolutionists have viewed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative.” Most early comparative studies were carried out only on genes (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly three billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, much of the previous work was based on only a fraction of the total DNA.

>>7508109
> There are billions of humans all over the world. We observe billions of human births, as well as billions of births to animals like dogs, cats, and cattle. Shouldn't we have seen one of these "evolutions" by now?

Most retarded thing I've read in this board ever.

>>7508468

>evolution is just as well-documented and proven as gravity

'no'

>>7508464
this raises an interesting point, one about which i never thought about beofre. Assume the truth of the whale-pelvic-bone hypothesis, and then consider the consequences "evolutionarily."
it seems reasonable that the center of gravity of the whale would certainly lower it to the ground during its expansion over many generations, therefore it is likely that to compensate for its enormous girth it would take to the water as the result of Adaptation/adaptions. However, interestingly, this creates one small problem for the calculations of the truth values of the number of legs for the mammal family. If whales do actually belong to said family according to the lineage described, then what is the number of legs that they do have? Is it zero or is it 1? Whales obviously do not have legs in the traditional sense of the word, but in this case a radical reanaliysis of the facts seems to warrant an altered understanding of the notion "leg." therefore, wouldn't it be logical to propose a leg ennumeration system in which flippers and hip bones together constitute one single leg? In this case, the correct predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor should be 1+2+4/3, which is 3.5. Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family.

>>7508485
The theory of gravity, yes
The law of gravity, no

>>7508453

>Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human

Mutation can create traits not seen in an ancestral lineage, so no.

I see now the rest of your post is just troll nonsense, but I can see how the particular part I quoted could be a believable creationist argument.

>>7508464

You would be right if organisms just appeared de novo out of thin air, but we understand lineage and reproduction and how organisms acquire their genes from their prior generation (besides the microorganisms that can under conjugation and other horizontal gene transfer methods).

>As for rear limb and pelvis morphology in whale lineage there are many alternative explanations

While their vestigial bones do serve as anchor points for tail muscles, etc., we have fossil evidence of regression from more capable legs.

ITT a bunch of freshman engineer undergrads flail about trying to discuss something they know nothing about

>>7508485
Listen up moron: the theory of evolution is quite distinct from the fact (yes, fact) of evolution. We have observed that new species arise over time and also go extinct. Natural selection is simply the model which best explains this. So before you travel down the perilous path of evolution denial, you'd better have an alternate explanation for the diversity of living things.

>>7508109
OP you left out the bit where you first learned about evolution and fully understood it before spouting off like an ignorant fool.

Oh you didn't do that. You think based on various random impressions you picked up from nowhere in particular you are in a position to question scientists who have spent their whole lives working on this.

>>7508109
ITT we discuss why we haven't seen "an evolution"

>>7508616
/sci/ is full of edgy underage kids anyways, don't expect them to know the difference between a dinosaur and a dimetrodon let alone grasp evolutionary biology

>>7508491

I count three legs bro.

Seriously though, there's a totally altered understanding of the notion leg, that's why we don't call them legs, we call them limbs or extremities.

Whales have three limbs, so the predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor is ( i don't know of any 2 limbed mammals, sorry) 3+4/2 = 3.5 which is good for whales since they have 3 limbs.

I know this is most likely bait.

>>7508629

sometimes I feel I'm the only biologist on sci

>people actually responding seriously to copypasta

>>7508317
he means fossil record...

So think of a "wheel of life" where you are born, mature, reproduce(hopefully), and die. As this wheel moves forward, it gains ground, and therefore the subject of the wheel change with it

>>7508729
dank philosophy bro

>>7508729
boom. evolution

>>7508109

>>7508109
>2. How do different species become incapable of producing viable offspring.

THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION

>>7508109
You put some thought into your post which is why this merits a response.

>1. Natural selection doesn't explain changes in genetics.

You have two ideas here that are backwards. Changes in genetics is the mechanism that causes natural selection to work. A gene mutates randomly that cases a new trait. Natural selection says that mutation that is a benefit is encouraged and has a higher chance of being retained in future generations.

2. How do different species become incapable of producing viable offspring?
Again, carts before the horse. different species have different DNA that don't line up enough for compatibility. Hence, they cannot produce offspring.

I think what you are trying to ask is how do two lines of the same species evolve to the point that they can no longer interbreed and produce offspring. The answer is time and space. Mutations that occur on one point of the earth do not automatically spread throughout the earth for the same reason cultures are different between people on opposite sides of the earth. Add a lot of time to the equation and eventually a new species evolves that can't breed with the original species that may have been preserved half way around the earth.

The fossil record supports this theory and shows evidence of special/temporal differences and similarities.

3. Why don't we see new species being developed?

We see this happen all the time on a microbiological level. Simian AIDS evolved to be able to infect humans, emergence of drug resistant strains of viruses.

WRT humans, evolution does not need lots of humans, it needs lots of time. We see birth defects all the time that are the result of mutations. It takes a lot of time for a particular mutation that is a benefit to get integrated into the gene pool, and even longer for them to accumulate to the point of introducing a new species.

>>7508109
gr8b8m8ir88/8

>>7508453
Pls b trollin.

>>7508956
>randomly
atheist word for god

>>7508675
It's a toxic environment for biofags to be sure

>>7508932

No it's not, go back to masturbating to a Calculus textbook or something.

>>7508453
trolling too hard, but the whole spider thing is actually interesting . The last common ancestor of spiders and humans most likely didnt have legs, instead spiders and humans developed them independent from eachother.
Arthropode(which contain spiders, crabs, insects etc.) legs evolved from worm like creatures who grew by simply adding identical segments to their bodies.

Over time they evolved tiny barely helpful "legs" on each segment, after that the legs on the front became specialized to help them eat, grew closer together and lastly fused to form the head. If you look at athropod brains you can still see that its organized in segments and each former segment controls the pair of appendages that evolved on it.
Same happened to the rest of the body.

Ofcourse human legs evolved in a completely different almost boring way.

>Questioning evolution
lol fuck off.

I'll just leave this here.
Short vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

Long vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

>>7508109
>Natural selection can explain perhaps the variation within the dog population. But it doesn't seem to explain how a new species can become so different from its parent, that it can no longer have kids with it.

So basically you're questioning the theory of evolution and you don't even has a basic understanding of populations?

Get a load of this guy

>>7508109
thanks for the filter

I was under the impression that evolution had been debunked by people like Dr. Hovind years ago. Why do we still parade it as fact?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

>>7508109
>taken too much as gospel
Taking something "as gospel" means to accept as true an inaccurate report of a mistaken rumour about a misunderstood statement in a poorly-remembered anecdote. Theory is not like that.

>>7509291
this man is exactly correct. the evidentiality of evolution is actually undermined by the fossil record. Case in point, evolutionists claim that many animals evolved from other animals. If that is the case, then where are the transitional fossils between each historical species? why have all the supposedly missing links turned out to be frauds (e.g. coelocanth, tiktaalik, pilktown man, taung child)? additionally, why is it that every time scientists try to point out a change from evolution, for example new kinds of dogs, they never change SPECIES! A dog will never "evolve" into a cat. A frog will never evolve into a repitle. The only evidence is for minor changes WITHIN a species, never between it.

>>7511560

> If that is the case, then where are the transitional fossils between each historical species?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

>why have all the supposedly missing links turned out to be frauds (e.g. coelocanth, tiktaalik, pilktown man, taung child)?

They haven't.

>The only evidence is for minor changes WITHIN a species, never between it.

But those minor changes will eventually add up then such that the single species will separate into two distinct species that cannot interbreed.

I don't think you really grasp the time frame we're talking about here.

Two gorillas didn't do the dirty and pop out a human. Evolution takes place over thousands and millions of years. Every animal could pork it's own parents. Where the species demarcation happens is when you bring in porking ones own greatx10^15 parents.

>>7508109
>Natural selection can explain perhaps the variation within the dog population. But it doesn't seem to explain how a new species can become so different from its parent, that it can no longer have kids with it.


well it depends on the rate of genetic mutation between the 2 populations, and what changes actually take place

if you take 20k labrador retrievers and put 10k f them on 2 appropriately sized islands, then wait - EVENTUALLY genetic changes will turn the 2 populations into 2 different animals - they may both hold the same roles they did before but they will be different for the simple fact that their genetics will change the only thing that matters is if they change together or not (breeding)

species never stay the same genetic mutation is inevitable and unavoidable in nature and no species will ever last forever

>>7511582
So EVERY purported transitional fossil hasn't been totally and utterly debunked, but many of them have been, for example the ones I mentioned. Also, the assumption that minor changes will add up over time is unproven and is based on the biased assumption of uniformitarianism, which also has never been proven.

>no Christfag
lmao you religious twats are not clever to say such a thing when you ask such loaded, idiotic questions.

>>7508302
For your first question, you literately just havve to look up some stuff on genetics--practically everything is explained. A guy above said something about horizontal gene transfer, but gene duplication is a thing too, which allows for an organism to basically always have a functional copy of a gene while the other mutates. This allows the organism live in case of a lethal of deleterious mutation in addition to helpful mutation. Read about homologs, paralogs, and orthologs--that's a good start. The Peppered moth deal is a weird case.

2. Natural selection doesn't explain this, but genetics does.

It seems that much of your confusion stems from not knowing genetics: I suggest you read a good genetics/e. bio textbook.

>>7512417
Gene duplication is a mutation, so technically I did mention it.

>>7512423
Do you legitimately think that we all don't know that this is a troll thread?

You'd have to be the most delusional, dumbest fuck on the planet to actually believe that you're going to somehow stump science and destroy evolution in a /sci/ thread. Who the fuck wastes their time on dumb shit like this?

>>7508464
>>7508475
and more

Is this guy serious?

Let me bring up one point which is not well understood by many people on both sides of the "debate".
>>7511560
>for example new kinds of dogs, they never change SPECIES! A dog will never "evolve" into a cat. A frog will never evolve into a repitle. The only evidence is for minor changes WITHIN a species, never between it.

That's entirely correct. Anyone who tells you that "evolution is about one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal" doesn't know what they're talking about, or is doing the explanation very badly.

Descendants of mammals will always be classified as mammals. It will be obvious for such descendants that they are descended from mammals, and thus they will be classified as mammals.

Evolution never predicts that descendants of dogs will turn into acts, nor anything like that.

For the good /sci/ people out there: When arguing with a creationist, point this out. At some level, it is correct to say that one kind of animal never turns into a separate kind of animal.

The fundamental flaw with the creationist mindset is that Biblical "kinds" encompass all animals and do not overlap. Whereas, in the real world, a descendant of a wolf will always be a wolf, but its descendants might form separate populations that slowly change over time until we arrive at the modern wolf and the modern dog. In evolution, there are many kinds, and many kinds are contained in other kinds. It's the "buckets in buckets" graph. It's a family tree.

Anyone who asks for a crocoduck misses the point entirely.

This is a sufficiently subtle point that I'm not sure this guy is trolling. Regardless, people on the right side rarely explain this point adequately.

>>7512397

>So EVERY purported transitional fossil hasn't been totally and utterly debunked, but many of them have been, for example the ones I mentioned.

How have they been debunked?

>Also, the assumption that minor changes will add up over time is unproven...

Because it's not an assumption. It's a logical deduction. If small changes occur in organisms over small periods of time and those changes are occurring near-constantly, then, given a longer period of time, those changes will cause an organism at one point to be sexually incompatible with its descendant some hundreds of thousands to millions of years later.

>...and is based on the biased assumption of uniformitarianism, which also has never been proven.

And has also never been dis-proven either, unless you somehow know of some place in the universe where the laws of nature do not hold as we have observed them. This is not a biased assumption. We have no reason to assume otherwise.

>>7513987
Also, I should provide the link to a good Aronra video on this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLu3-wYIxI0

>>7512425
Huh? I'm not OP, I'm the guy who mentioned horizontal gene transfer.

>>7508109

>Why don't we see new species being developed?

HIV, any resistant bacteria etc.

>>7509127

Carbs are actually very interesting from an evolutionary point of view, since they're like, 4 different lineages that adopted the same general form.

>>7514752

*crabs

ass

ITT we do hilarious calculations to deduce the amount of legs that some animal should have and then deny evolution if it doesn't work out.

>so if a centipede hass 100 legs and an elephant has 4 legs, but then it has a big trunk, so that's like, sort of a leg, so I guess we'd call that .25 of a leg. Then if we do 100 + 4.25 + 29 / 7 * 14 - 2 * 80 then that equals 2.25!!!! See?!?! WHERE IS YOUR SPIDER GOD NOW CISVOLUTIONISTS!!??

>>7508470

>metabait baiting

>>7514799
you got it wrong, lad
we have 3 special dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, we need to move in the special dimensions with legs, so we need 2 legs per spacial dimension, adding up to 6
the temporal dimension doesn't need legs, since it is already moving by itself, so the temporal dimension itself counts as 2 legs
this means for 3 special and 1 temporal dimension 4 legs (6 - 2) are necessary
BUT humans only have 2 legs and are higher evolved then all quadrupeds
evolution predicts 4 legs, humans have 2
evolution cat explain legless animals like snakes either,
since evolution says that legs are better (humans are better than snakes)

>>7508109
>3. Why don't we see new species being developed?
because it's slow
I mean, if you want to speed it up so bad you can always put your head in a microwave, that'll probably change some of your dna

>>7508109
1.
Genetic diversity isn't obtained through natural selection, but rather through genetic mutation and crossing over during mitosis. Then, the resulting genes are either beneficial or harmful to the individual in a certain environment. An increase in the reproductive success of a certain set of genes allows them to become more frequent in the whole population.

2)
There are a lot of reasons why different species can become incapable of producing viable offspring. Predation, lack of resources, lack of shelter, loss of niche land, in breeding depression etc.

3) Because evolution isn't something that happens over one night. It is so heavily debated because it cannot be seen with the naked eye, but rather occurs over thousands and thousands of years.

>>7514831
also, it cannot account for legless animals that may not have 4 legs in the mammal family, but which do have feet. For example, bats have feet but no legs. this is an exact fundamental contradiction of the assumption that all mutations are "encompassing of all descendants" as not all creatures related to bats have but 2 feet and no legs. any calculation with this number of legs leads to a wildly irrational conclusion to the number of legs to a most recent common ancestor.

>>7508607
This. A thread like this one appears every two weeks or so, and almost all of these have an OP that either ignores or doesn't know about this vital difference.

>>7508109
You can simulate the mechanism of evolution. You can do this with arbitrary preconditions and arbitrary rules for your evolving subjects. It will show you that if you use a system with genetics that this system behaves in way that it allows us explain how we became the way we are now with evolution.

Recombination eventually results in emergent traits.

I dont understand how you guys can tell the difference between the OP, and some new anon agreeing with him. I wish 4chan mods would list the main OP in all his posts. It would be less confusing for me to read.