/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8563111

prove it

if you want to disprove evolution so badly then give us precambrian rabbits instead of making b8 threads over and over again

sage

>>8563116
>>8563117
Why not a Paleocene dinosaur?
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/paleocene-dinosaurs-and-the-reinforcement-syndrome/

>>8563119
not a precambrian rabbit

should be easy if earth is only ~6000 years old, just find one in the strata :^)

>>8563125
>avoids the issue by claiming that I haven't proven the strawman
Modern scientists, everyone. While their predecessors sought out to crush dogma, this generation embraces it.

>>8563111
True story anon

OP is just a butthurt member of a disintegrating hegemony-exerting class, experiencing existential dread as he faces the prospect of having no function in an increasingly diverse and automated society.

>>8563131
>avoids the issue

the issue of precambrian rabbits that you haven't disproven and I mentioned in my very first post here >>8563117

?

Sounds like ~someone's~ just lazy and unwilling to dig to prove his g-d. Religious men of old went off to foreign desert lands to slay Saracens, you won't even dig. Sad!

>>8563153
That's a strawman. I presented you with paleocene dinosaurs, dinosaur fossils after their supposed "extinction," and you still reject it.

Darwinism is a big one. Very untenable field, this evolutionary biology, standing on its foundation through one book written less than two centuries ago. I do not believe it will stand the test of time.

>>8563160
>one book
And a fossil record.

>>8563162
You mean the one that shows multiple biomes living in the general vicinity of one another on a supercontinent some 5,000 years ago? Then yes.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/where-are-all-the-bunny-fossils/

is that supposed to be a surprise?

>>8563170
>Creationism
>Wrong

>>8563170
> science adjusts it's views based on what's observed
> religion denies observations in order for faith to be preserved

>>8563158
>Still too lazy to dig

Sad! Religious used to be men. Now they're just women shitposting on 4chan.

>>8563177

>>8563184
>moving away from anon's precious and sacred naive viewpoint is a "descent"

Theories are not singular objects that are thrown out by isolated contrary pieces of evidence. They are frameworks for explanation of phenomena. All theories have faults. The key test of a theory is whether it can explain all extant phenomena, even anomalies, and failure to do so after some time results in rejection of the theory.

So, if we consider evolution, we should ask ourselves not whether it has problems, but whether those problems are so persistent and crucial to the core theory that another theory can make better predictions.

Amd the answer is no. There are definitely outstanding questions in biology that evolution has been ill-equipped to answer, but of all theories ever proposed for describing the modification of life over time, no theory has ever performed as well as evolution.

If there ever comes a time when a theory arises that can explain all observed facts as well as the known anomalies but does not introduce more anomalies than it solves, then evolution should be abandoned. But until then, we stick with it.

OP's approach to science is how we end up with Flat Earthers.

>>8563177
>> religion denies observations in order for faith to be preserved

>Believing this strawman

>>8563219
>flat-earthers

>>8563111
So, pretty much everything /pol/ related.
>>>/pol/

>>8563111
Oh I get it. Science is bullshit!

>>8563111
>Darwinism and global warming/cooling/climate change are just two examples of this.
Well thank goodness Darwinism and global cooling are no longer accepted scientific theories then. If you mean biological evolution as a whole, then what alternative theory do you propose? And what is your objective, emotionless alternative to science that is less prone to peer pressure and "media bias."

>>8563346
Special creation of course.

>>8563348
Based on what evidence? Even if you disprove evolution, you still have to present positive evidence that life was designed/created.

>>8563352
The flagellum: complex structure, unable to arise in a piece-by-piece manner
http://www.discovery.org/a/24481

The eye: the structure itself cannot arise in the way postulated by darwinists
http://www.discovery.org/a/18011

The bombardier beetle: if it were to develop each organ for its combustive juices separately, the entire thing would explode.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1139

>>8563366
Also, anything mentioned on the files.

>>8563370
>Fibonacci spirals

Give me one example where a Fibonacci spiral consistently appears in nature. No I don't mean any logarithmic spiral, I mean a specifically Fibonacci spiral.

On top of that, excitation goes that had any significance.

>>8563366
Even if we take those examples at face value, you are trying to disprove evolution. None of that is evidence of design or creation.

>>8563366
But irreducible complexity is neither evidence of special creation nor a counter-argument to evolution.

>>8563370
Mount Saint Helens, no? They literally misused a tool and then tried to claim the tool useless, whereas, carbon dating should only be used on organic compounds.

That's like trying to paint a wall with a hammer and then proclaiming the hammer useless. If anything, all this shows is the scientific illiteracy of creationists.

>>8563131
>>8563170
>>8563370
>comics as a base of evidence

Literally the same value as /pol/ tinfoilhat rightwingers.

>>8563478
https://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.php

They get really mad when you tell them to prove it.
Usually resorts to "You don't get it" or "It's common sense!"

>>8563728

You're >>8563249

See >>8563721

>Entire thread is people telling OP to prove that they can't prove it instead of just proving it
Scientists everyone

>>8563398
You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
You're entire field is based on a single axiom.
It's not the fault of the world that you can't accept alternate theories.

>>8563735
There is a literally on-going experiment that pretty much confirms evolution( the E. coli long-term evolution experiment). The bulk of criticism against evolution comes from a few fundamentalist groups that cherry pick data that suits their interests while ignoring the data the contratics it, when they are not just outright lying or deliberately misinterpreting the theory.

>>8563757
This still applies.

>>8563177

Or just maybe faith gives answers to questions that can't be definitively answered and that aren't really worth spending that much time arguing on so that people can spend time on things that do matter, like caring about each other.

>>8563757
>This still applies.
No it doesn't. Evolution is just adaptation to the environment through mutation and seletive pressure. The loss of a certain element of the genetic data being favored by the environment in which the bacteria is actually supports it, as the bacteria that is more resistant or imune to the antibiotic will survive and reproduce, while the that don't will die and go extinct within that environment.

>>8563776
Shit, it was meant to >>8563764

>>8563776
Holy shit you're retarded.

>>8563794
>Holy shit you're retarded.
What is wrong, exacly.

>>8563740
>You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
Yes you can, but that doesn't matter. Classical mechanics has been disproven but we still use it. If you want evolution to go away, provide an alternative that yields better results.
>You're entire field is based on a single axiom.
Not even remotely related to my field. But considering that there is an entire, very fruitful field
>It's not the fault of the world that you can't accept alternate theories.
So far you haven't presented any alternate theories. You have a single, very weak hypothesis, that fails to yield any meaningful answers. Why don't animals have wheels? Evolution provides a clear answer to this, but if life was made in a workshop this answer don't work.

>>8563131
What a shitty chart.

>>8563757
No, it confirms evolution on a microscopic scale of time and space under very particular circumstances. It's a redundant confirmation of the obvious.
Evolution on a grand scale needs to be modeled mathematically. How the entire system converges over billions of years into different paths and their probabilities to do so needs to be derived.
Before this is done, there is no theory.

>>8563184
>"No Virgin birth" and "No resurrection" come after "No miracles"

>>8563764
Except what is typically targeted by an antibiotic is something that is essential to the cell.
If the genetic code no longer coded that specific thing then the cell would probably be in just as shitty of a situation as the cells targeted by the antibiotic.
Antibiotic resistance is probably going to mostly deal with pumping the drug out of the cell, neutralizing it or whatever.

The longterm E.Coli experiment doesn't even deal with antibiotic resistance to begin with.

>>8563131
........---PHILOSOPHY---........

1. Complete this exercise with logical laws.

>we used to think we couldn't fly
>but it do
>we used to think we couldn't MEMEdriving
>???

Solution: but it do

__________- 2 -__________

>>8564155
Still lost information. Evolution adds.

>>8563152
>tfw

>>8564200
>Evolution adds.
no it doesn't. the theory of evolution states simply that alleles can change frequency in a population. it doesn't say anything about the necessity of adding or reducing complexity.

if your conception of evolution were true, we wouldn't have alcohol flush reaction or lactose intolerance in east asian populations

>>8563249
Nice how you latched on on to one statement so you could feel justified in ignoring the whole post.

>>8564200
>"Information"
Evolution doesn't necessarily add.
Devolution is a nonsense term and I should have addressed this in my prior post.
As evolution concerns itself with the change in allel frequencies over time in a population, all change of these is evolution.

Vague and ill defined ideas of gains and losses of information are also fairly nonsensical to consider, given the way genetic information is encoded and replicated and how this affects the subsequent proteins and how these then affect the organism.

As for the image:
The image juxtaposes "Natural Selection" with "Evolution".
The "Natural Selection" example is rather obviously misused as an example, given that it is artificial selection which is primarily at work and humans are the ones selecting for arbitrary traits at the expense of others.

There's also a rather arbitrary distinction of upward and downward trends superimposed on a process that doesn't really have upward or downward trends.
Again, it's just changes in allel frequency over time.

The staircase example also completely fails to show any radiation of species.

>>8564237
Did you even read what it said? You kept on saying how closed-minded I was, or how I didn't accept change. I accept it happens, but only on small scales, like dogs and wolves, or the Galapagos Finches. Dogs are still dogs, finches are still finches.

>>8564255
>Did you even read what it said?
Considering that I wrote it, yes, I did.

Why does there even need to be "spotless" scientific theory of darwinism? Do you need scientific theory of thrist to know when to drink water?

Really you can explain evolution just by saying that things that have properties which increase the likelihood of survival of increase number of offspring tend to increase in prevalence because well, because of exactly that.

>>8564098
Is this chart accurate? Was there really a crash in 2014?

>>8564257
I was referring to >>8563249

What is even under fire when it comes to a lot of the common mechanics of natural selection?

I get that macroevolution is highly debated, and microevolution is largely accepted, but I don't really get exactly what is being critiqued with the theory that makes it non-passable as a framework of understanding.

>>8564272
Do you believe in macro gravitation but not micro gravitation?

Because that's how you sound.

>>8564284
No, I believe in both.

Read my post again. On your example, I'd be asking this question:

Given that macro gravitation is so widely accepted, on what basis do so many people believe micro-gravitation doesn't exist?

I'm just not sure where it is people criticize and claim macro-evolution to be necessarily false. I would understand subscribing to a theory with equal founding and evidence, but to flat-out say macro-evolution is bullshit is weird to me.

>>8563370
Why did you post a comic instead of the cartoonist's supposed evidence?

>>8564255
Where did the fossil record come from?
Why can't we replicate fossilization without prohibitively long spans of time?

>>8564438
https://www.trueorigin.org
>>8564455
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/experiment-fast-formed-fossils/

>>8563158
Your article merely states that dinosaurs survived up to a million years after the k-t extinction, which was pretty much already known even in 2003, excluding the fact that dinosaurs aren't extinct.

>>8563366
>The bombardier beetle
Now I know you're memeing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY

This thread is just a bunch of neckbeards roleplaying as creationists and trolling each other for laughs, r-right?

>>8564464
These experiments haven't recreated calcite-aragonite alteration or mineral replacement: both occur broadly in the fossil record.

>>8564492
Here you go.
https://sixdays.org/fossils-confirm-the-biblical-creation-and-the-genesis-flood

>>8564464

Fill in the blank.

Advocates of ___________ practice __________ when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.

(a). a literal reading of the judeo-christian bible, creationism
(b). the scientific method, evolutionary biology

>>8563119
>answersingenesis.org

>>8564510
B

>>8564499
This doesn't account for the occurrence of mineral-replacement fossils or calcite-aragonite alteration within the time provided.

It would make perfect sense if we assume God created these fossils by ignoring all observed physics, but then there can be no meaningful overlap between the scientific method and "biblical truth."

>>8564523

"B" is the same thing as "b"

This is what brainlets actually believe.

>>8564525
What about the sequence of horse fossils? Modern equines were found in the same layer as their supposed ancestors. Not to mention the eohippus is actually closer to the hyrax than the horse.

I will grant that abiogenesis still confounds me, I'm not very educated in organic chemistry and maybe that's why I don't understand how a self replicating molecule like DNA/RNA could come into being, but I'm not in any way going to just assume that supernatural forces were involved. Regardless of how you think life got here, the fact is that it is here, and it all has more or less the same genetic framework. What people 'Darwinism', or the idea that all life here decended and diverged from a single event is undeniable. The evolution of life is just the natural outcome of how DNA functions, replicating and mutating, and the evolution model perfectly applies to every single observation we have of life on our planet. Of course Darwin hkmself got things wrong in his theories of how evolutionClams at the bottom of trenches, the mites in your pillow case, the grass in your yard, the cold you got, and your own body all confirm a branching tree of life model with the very molecules that make them up. You have to know absolutely nothing about genetics to not see it. The great part is that the genetic evidence matches up perfectly with what we observe in the fossil record. Only a totally unknowledgable person can be a creationist. If anyone found a shred of evidence going against evolution it would overturn the entire field of biology. No one is trying to stop that from happening. Think of how much funding someone could get from cross waving politicians if they got research results refuting it.

This is a troll thread but I'm high, fuck you /sci/

>>8564553
If this were the case, it seems more likely that the species was mistakenly included in Hyracotherium than to throw out the rest of the transition fossils.

>>8564553
It doesn't matter. If you can't account for the spans of time implicit to fossilization, the Earth cannot be ~10,000 years old.

>>8563366
there's actually a lot of solid science explaining how flagellums have evolved

>>8564255
Do you accept molecular dating and the current scientific consensus on the age of life?

>>8564553
Your horse fossil claim is horseshit. Do your own googling on the equine fossil record.

>inb4 posts an assertion which was already refuted above

>>8564601
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm

>>8564616
http://crev.info

>>8564621
Not understanding the evidence doesn't mean it's bullshit.

Evolution is mostly true, but what about mankind?
It's an anomaly.
The beauty of human beings is far too coincidental to be mere accident.
God could guide evolution once it reaches an apex.

>>8564623
This is an inaccurate characterization of paleontology.

>>8564629

>far too coincidental

Our species is unique among other living species, but how is it more coincidental? How are other species less coincidental?

>>8564630
Is that right?

>>8564637
>Is that right?
of course not.

>>8564636
The morphological difference between humans and chimpanzees separated by 10 million years and the morphological difference between two species of frogs separated by 10 million years is starkly contrasted. It boggles the mind.

Also, humans are the most glorious looking creature who also happen to be the self-conscious ones?
Common sense people. Use it.

>>8564637
Essentially, cases like in your picture don't happen. There are a lot of factors in dating, and nobody says it's exact.

In fact, science exists under the very principle that it's not set in stone (heh) as it were. Only idiots take science and confuse it with objectivity, science only provides theories or explanations.

If there is a lot of evidence suggesting the age of a rock or fossil, including the relative positions of surrounding rocks and fossils given evidence that can give a more precise reading (such as carbon dating), scientists will posit that a rock or a fossil is this old, given the data, and then show the data. Anybody can then look at that, and provide an alternative explanation for as to the age of the rock, or they can say "it simply isn't logical, or worthwhile to use this form of evidence.", to which they would need to back up why it wouldn't be valid.

That's the beauty of science. It's not shoved down anyone's throat. It's up to others to make their own interpretations, scientists just collect data and then provide an interpretation of their own.

>>8564637
Posting more (oddly jewish looking) straw-men doesn't prove you right. It only proves someone has more illustrations than knowledge of sedimentology and stratigraphy.

>inb4 radiometric dating is bullshit

>>8564650

>>8564643

The same could be said about chimpanzees 10 million years ago, and chimpanzees today. The speed of population mutation is determined largely by the environment. Species such as frogs are much less versatile, so you don't see them breaking into small populations and experiencing genetic drift. Species such as chimpanzees, or humans, can migrate over vast distances and split up into smaller pockets so as to better use resources/naturally follow where competition is lowest. Thus, in smaller populations, genetic drift will hit the hardest.

To explain it, take blue eyes and brown eyes as the classic example. In a population of a few thousand, the equilibrium of blue eyes to brown eyes, so long as neither is selected for, will remain equivalent, with some generations having a few more, and some having a few less. In a population of 6, however, with 3 blue eye and 3 brown eye people, assuming no selection for either, then in a few generations it's completely possible for everyone to have brown eyes, or everyone having blue eyes. Thus, the entire population has 100% of a certain feature, which previously may have only existed in a relatively small portion of a population.

This happens over and over again, with new traits being introduced through random mutation and then becoming prominent through either being selected for because it gives a boost in fitness, or because a small population will cause genetic drift to have it randomly take over the population.

>>8564643
You only notice the difference more because you're a human. We look like hairless apes to everything else on the planet, and our bodies completely match that bill. The rate that evolution happens is different in every situation but other mammals have probably diverged roughly the same ammount genetically in 10 as we have from chimps. The only thing that makes humans special among other life is intelligence. And maybe long distance hunting. Go look for your god in the gaps psychology has or something because there are virtually no gals left in evolution for it to exist.

>>8564667
http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-dna-comparison-research/

>>8564643

Instances of punctuated equilibria are not uncommon in the fossil record. Phyletic gradualism may be more intuitive but it doesn't align with the data.

>most glorious looking
>common sense

pick one

>>8564675
>creation on display
>the IRC life sciences team

>>8564664
So you're claiming only apes experience increased genetic drift? Citation needed.

>>8564667
With a keen awareness I can more clearly differentiate between species.
Hmm.. most mammals have differentiated the same amount? Citation needed.
According to actual geneticists there is a greater morphological difference between chimpanzees and humankind and most other species. This is due to the types of mutations involved, which would be mostly regulatory genes.
Citation needed as well.

>>8564663

Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A in Pashin, J.C., and Gastaldo, R.A.

>>8564681
How convenient. Almost as though someonw constructed a "peer reviewed" story involving the age of the earth or evolution, both of which are shoe-ins.

>>8564679
Not at all. I was explaining a reason apes do is because they have a wide range of resources they can make use of, meaning that their 'habitat' is way larger than say, a frog's.

A frog can't just up and travel through a forest, and it has no reason to. So it keeps in smaller populations, perpetually surrounding a certain resource pool like a lake.

Woodland animals, as well, usually have very vast expanses they can travel as the resources they can access, such as water, food, and nesting is spread out over a large expanse. Say there's a river flowing through a forest. All along the miles of the forest and river, there's a fairly identical resource spread, so it's much more possible for a small section of a herd to get separated or go off, and look for more resources/form a new population. Before you say citation needed, I'm not providing evidence here, I'm simply using reasoning and asking if you agree with the reasoning.

also
>with a keen awareness I can more clearly differentiate between species

Can you define species for me?

>>8564663

In other words, trees found in swamp sediments show signs of regeneration while sinking. Modern trees are also observed growing with partially-buried trunks.

It's telling that the layers in this picture are all labeled "strata" instead of their proper names.

Also
plural: strata
singular: stratum

>>8564694
See >>8564688

>>8564688
How convenient. Almost as though someone constructed a "sacred and unquestionable" story involving the age of the earth or creation, both of which are shoe-ins.

>>8564679
Evolution doesn't always have to result in drastic morphological changes, you seem to only be judging its rate by this. Like other anon said, the rate that evolution does happen usually increases with environmental change, and the adaptation of intellinge in humans allowed us to drastically change our environments through the formation of societies. We've not only changed everything we eat, but directly changed our environment migrating all over the planet. If your unbased claim that humans have diverged at a faster rate than other apes, that is why.

>>8564700
That's not an argument.

Daily reminder.

>>8564700
What a terrible comic

>>8564700
>scientific mindset and god beliefs
>compatible

>>8564708
>environmentalism and global warming

>>8564701
You mean a infallible historical record inspired by an allmighty being, which has since been verified by archaeological finding after archaeological finding, and the only detractors are old bitter atheists?

>>8564707
See pic related

>>8563249
The only reason anybody talks about flat earth is to undermine research into Ring Earth Theory.
You're shilling for the alien menace.

>>8564715
>poe's law the post

>>8564692
It's a reasonable hypothesis to explain certain degrees of variance we observe(remember I do believe most of evolution), but it over extenuates itself. The difference between two species of bird/sheep/squirrel(whatever example you are trying to imply) and man/chimps is still vast.
I'm pretty certain the current research is into what kind of mutations would cause a radical difference if the rate of mutations are indeed similar among other species.

Species is difficult to define, but I say generally a group of animals that can successfully mate with one another to produce offspring that can also successfully mate. There are obvious outliers to this definition, but for the most part it works.

>>8564712
>nature worship and liberal mythology.

>>8564703
That is just one possible explanation, but still marks the curiosity of all the other species involved in mankind's evolutionary line, they all died out or changed into man.

>>8564726
Anything and everything with human genetics is sacred and magic and deserves personhood.

>>8564720
Aliens aren't real.

>>8564739
You're SHILLING for them right now.

>>8564738
The result of a fallen world caused by our sin.

>>8564726
Took me a good minute to figure out what this is supposed to be satirizing

>>8564726
Animal emotions and intelligence deserve no respect because god says so. Sorry animals.

>>8564715
Show me these archaeological findings.
Archaeology doesn't mean the same thing as paleontology.

>>8564743

>>8564750
What you call demons are aliens

>>8564724
>man/chimps is still vast
It really isn't.

>>8564749
Nebuchadnezzar was thought to have been fictional by atheist historians, but they were promptly proven wrong, but they still deny its authroity.

>>8564756
Sorry but the simultaneous beauty and brilliance of man is far too coincidental for me.
Use your noggin.

>>8564748
Dolphins have language and an apparent theory of mind. The differences between our kinds is more human conceit than otherwise.

>>8564767
Who built civilizations? Who wrote their history down? Who created art, math, science, etc. Not the dolphin, not the dog, not the chimp.

>>8564724

Well, that's just the thing, you have to take into account a starting point, which is difficult, if not impossible to do because of extinction. We might say chimps are the closest living relative, but inbetween, a hell of a lot of intermediate populations went extinct. 10m years ago, there could have been a much more similar species than chimps, that went extinct.

A lot of species just have the benefit of the 'closest living relative' being a lot closer, time-wise. Larger, condensed populations have this to their advantage. If you take an 80% chunk out of a population of 1000 of a species, 200 can still bounce back. 80% out of a population of 10 means likely extinction for the group.

That, combined with genetic drift acting on smaller groups, means that animals with a larger range change more rapidly, and go extinct more rapidly, leading to a more pronounced genetic difference between the present species and its closest living relative.

Not to mention 'closest living relative' gets... really tricky. Something can be very close in terms of number of genes it has in common, yet the morphology can be completely different. Some allele that controls for a certain growth hormone level can mean that a single mutation, which is nothing but a fraction of a fraction of a small difference in terms of genetic makeup/code can be expressed as looking completely different.

Fossils, of course, aren't perfect. But they suggest very heavily intermediates between chimps and humans, and given that they aren't around today, and carbon dating and geological dating coincides with what is known about the phylogeny of apes, and the order of population evolution, there's a very strong reason to believe it happened according to the same natural laws that govern other species.

Like the other anon said, intelligence is another matter. But the physiology of humans is certainly nothing special.

>>8564739
Ellen DeGeneres has done more good than you.

>>8564746
>people eating magic god fruit make retards happen
>aliens are demons
>people used to be hundreds of years old
We've entered full biblical evidence level folks. How do creationists deal with the total lack of evidence for a global flood? Or do they have cute made up explainations for that like how tyranosaur teeth are perfect for a diet of leaves.

>>8564767
I was being facetious, I agree with you entirely.

>>8564764
Can you define coincidentallity with unambiguous terms?

>>8564774
The majority of human history (the part you claim didn't happen) was spent without these inventions.

>>8564778
>blond dyke did more then a Bible-believing upstanding man

>>8564780
Ad hominem.
Also, what do youe see here?

>>8564797
You mean the 6,000 years since creation? No, we always had civilization.

>>8564780

>>8564750
>save the people of Earth
>from what god will do to them if they don't

>>8564789
sorry m8, good old Poe's law

>>8564811
Punishment for their actions. Would you call a father who spanks his kid for doing something bad a psychopath?

>>8564807
You mean like from the toilet?

>>8564818
Peaceful parenting is the only path to social vitality and personal fulfillment.

>>8564775
True, 10 million years ago there may have been apes more similar to man, but in my opinion just not that much, seeing as the limit would be our direct ancestor (ape).

Can you provide some examples of similar vast difference between 10 million years? All mammals I can think of still look more similar to one another than ape to man. (elephant, rhino, bear, lion, etc)

Don't you ever stare at the beauty of a woman? Do you think you would have the same response if you were given a cow's body? How would a self-conscious cow view a human?

>>8563111
Smells like /pol/ in here

>>8564791
I should say "I can't believe that it is just a coincidence."
-> It is too brilliantly ordered to be sheer luck or accident.

>>8564824
>>8563152

>>8564818
Aren't unbaptized babies in hell?
Aren't virtuous pagans in hell?
Spanking a child is a lesson, hell is permanent, unimaginable suffering. God created the morning star with the knowledge that he would fall, ergo god condemns, and he condemns arbitrarily.

>>8564821
And people wonder why this generation is failing horribly.

>>8564822
>but in my opinion just not that much

Here's the root of the problem. Genome sequencing, proteome sequencing, comparative morphology etc. are quantitative measures with implications for evolutionary relatedness. You opinion isn't.

>>8564822
Well, I guess the closest example I can think of is a gorilla to a chimpanzee. It was about a 3 million year gap between them, and to me, if you take away the features that depend on relatively few mutations, like the hair itself, they are astoundingly different in build, and even nuance.

Though I totally get what you mean, with the beauty of humans. Though, now that we've talked a bit more, I think you might be actually talking about something a bit separate.

I've already talked about the speed of mutation of a population, but I was really just referring to up until homo sapiens as they're defined. What we're probably actually talking about, with the beauty of humanity, is the insane rapidity of population evolution that came after intelligence.

With intelligence, humans changed, and genes became expressed and carried on that no other species had ever expressed, simply because it was either detrimental or had no change in fitness. Because of how humans have changed the environment, the kinds of environments humans can survive in, and the new things we're capable of, human populations, in many ways evolved so rapidly that you'd be right to say it's miraculous compared to other species.

I just don't think it was in the time bracket from the Chimps' and Humans' common ancestor to the birth of humans as a species, but rather, from the birth of intelligence to now that captures that miracle.

>>8564200
Holy shit, that comic is the most retarded thing I've seen all night if it thinks poodles came from "natural" selection.

>>8564832
>unbaptized babies
Under the age of accountability. Safe
>virtuous pagans
Hell, but the missionaries that could've saved them will be judged more harshly.
>lesson vs punishment
What happens when someone commits a major felony? Either jail for life, or death.
God is a just God, man is the fallen one. Marred by sin, he curses at His creator and fabricates tales of worms turning into men, just as you do now.

>>8564838
Genome sequencing - > Difference between Chimps and Humans DNA is 2%, but 5% if you count copies of sequences inserted to differrent places in the genome. These genes can be regulatory accounting for vast physiological differences. You can still use your eyes to see the physical difference despite what you've been told.

>>8564845
So suddenly man isn't a part of nature? Flip-flopping much?

>>8564839
>and to me, if you take away the features that depend on relatively few mutations, like the hair itself, they are astoundingly different in build, and even nuance
That's because there's a large part of your brain dedicated to the recognition of and discernment between different humans.

>>8564826
So non-human species aren't "brilliantly ordered?" Where's the cutoff for brilliantness?

>>8564822
>Don't you ever stare at the beauty of a woman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoHGTzqJTM0

>>8564852
Yes, which is why there's a bias when talking about how different humans are from other animals. We might at a glance look at the face of a gorilla and a chimp (face, not head), and then when asked which faces are which species, we might not be able to answer, even though they are very different in reality

It's harder to see differences that we aren't used to observing in other humans. If it's all hairy, and it has some similar traits, it might as well be the same damn thing to our brains at a glance.

>>8564847
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

>>8564864
logic decides truth vs dogma decides truth

>>8564839
I was worried you were going to make that argument, because it gives the evolution of man a reason for being different than most... and I have a hard time challenging it.

Ultimately it is difficult to test, but I would say that the evolution of man is rapid, and still depends on the variable of random mutation. It seems a little too lucky that the human face is the most expressive for the soul.

For example, people often claim that adaptive traits are a ubiquitous feature of natural evolution, but if you look at the phenomena of regeneration, you find quite the opposite. Some species have the ability were it is not required, and some do not have it where it would help, although they all have the same potential. A lot of evolution is still based on random mutation.

>>8564850
>agrees regulatory genes account for large differences
>doesn't believe in macroevolution

I think we all know what kind of cruise this is.

>>8564851
No. dog breeds are the result of artificial selection (done by humans)

>>8564864
Unlike christianity, geology was actually built on a rock.

It's bait you fucking retards

I know, but I'm bored.

>>8564890
It's bait but people actually believe this shit. Spending the holiday in jesusland has me all riled up.

>>8564867
>Sagan quote
Pic related.

>>8564870
>inwards thinking vs upward thinking.

>>8564883
Man's a part of nature, man controlled the way dogs changed, ergo nature made dog breeds

>>8564888
Rocks created by a worldwide flood.

>>8564872
I largely agree with you on these points, but I still think that it's more likely expressed post-intelligence, rather than something that was behind the wheel before man came about physiologically.

There is still a lot of randomness, like you claim. Plus, there are lots of genes that become dormant because they aren't needed- the gene for expressing something changes, so a trait no longer arises, but it might be as simple as another mutation that changes the chemical balance a little that brings the trait back.

This is broaching into speculation, and talking about it makes me very interested in the potential of testing genetic expression in this sense, but facial features are sort of compounded. It's not just a handfull of genes that can change the shape, color, consistency, etc. of the face, but hundreds of genes. However, with none of them being selected for, you'll end up with an average mesh.

Take height of a plant. There are many genetic factors, but if there's not any reason for it to grow any higher, because of no competition, then it will all average out. The next generation, even if the genes are 'randomized', will be roughly the same. It could be that way with facial structure too, largely.

Which would mean that humans, with intelligence and the necessity to discern faces, would have then a driving factor towards selecting for certain facial features. Over many generations, this compounds and creates many different diverse, refined looks.

It's the exact same mechanism for as to why other changes would happen- a small population, for whatever intelligent reason gains a certain trait that leads to more breeding- facial structure. Which trait is selected for might be random, which would be why it branches off in the first place.

>>8564906
>souls exist

>>8564906
Satan created Carl Sagan?
If man controlled the way dogs changed, why is it so unbelievable that nature controlled the way humans changed?
If you were raised in China, would you believe in Buddhism?
From my perspective, creationism is inward-thinking and impartial scientific inquiry is upward-thinking.

>>8564910
>>8564917
>>8564919

>>8564932
>Satan created Sagan?
No, he just influenced him, just as we all are.
>humans changing
We are divine creations of God, there is no need for change. Evolutionists think we came from monkeys, which came from rats, which came from lizards, which came from newts, which came rom fish, which came from worms, which came from goo. Just don't ask where the goo came from.
>China=Buddhism
Most likely, but they have secret churches there, so I'd be fine.
>knowledge tainted by sin is better an the purity of the Lord most high
Pic related. Glasses kid is you.

>>8564906
>Man's a part of nature, man controlled the way dogs changed, ergo nature made dog breeds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

>>8564951

>>8564960
Not an argument.

>>8564949
I think it's suspicious that sinful knowledge and divine truth are separated by your book and your book only.
I think it's suspicious that, among the countless belief systems piously practiced by the people of Earth, that you just-so-happened to be born into the only correct one.

>>8564908
Interesting speculation.
But I think the fact that superfluousness traits usually form an average in regards to plant height, is difficult to relate to human facial expression because the amount of genes required for the change vary vastly, as you've claimed.

Also, this broaches into the psychology of the early human ancestors. How did they mate or breed? How similar were their minds to our own?
The selection you posit implies that there first was an intelligent ape, and that he was able to differentiate between ape faces. I see evolution as more gradual and subtle. They wouldn't be able to recognize the differences immediately and therefore most of the apes would be able to mate, spreading their "average" face.

>>8564906
How does a flood "create" a rock?

>>8564960

>>8564949
>Evolutionists think we came from monkeys, which came from rats, which came from lizards, which came from newts, which came rom fish, which came from worms, which came from goo. Just don't ask where the goo came from.
Okay, you convinced me. Evolution isn't true. I mean, humans coming from goo... wow, I never thought of it that way. It's absurd, just absurd.

But this creationism stuff... it seems pretty suspect to me. I just got bamboozled by the "scientific consensus" into thinking humans were made of monkey goo, so I've gotta be more discriminating in my beliefs going forward. You got any proof of design? Like, if God designed us, what were we designed to do? How were we made? Why? Why were the current designs chosen over other designs? Why can't I breath underwater or see microwaves? Why can't I feel the magnetic orientation of the Earth? Why only two eyes? There's gotta be a reason, a rationale, for it, if we were in fact designed.

And how do I know this design stuff isn't just another consensus trying to sell me stuff? I've gotta stress here, I'm not going to take some appeal to authority like "I read it in a book" because that's just as bad as the scientific consensus bullshit. Fool me once, I'm not gonna be made a fool of again.