/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9214807

>2017
>questioning evolution

dude science has proven we're descended from monkeys. are your parents related or something? the science is settled. evolution is very real.

>>9214813
>resorting to the consensus fallacy
Did you even read the OP?

If evolution is "real" why haven't evolutionary algorithms produced a perfect AI yet?
checkmate atheists

What exactly do you want? Why don't you read the thousands of research papers on the topic? Even Wikipedia will do. Evolutionary theory is not like religion, it cannot be proven by simply quoting a passage from a book.

>>9214807
fang teeth
ear muscles

>>9214822
>evolution - dynamic
>perfect - static

>>9214823
Do what the troll >>9214822 and illiterate >>9214813 were unable to do.

"Prove" that evolution is real. As I said in the OP, I think it's real but it's mostly due to the consensus fallacy and that being "the truth" I was always taught.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good way, for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

>>9214832
Probably too long term. "God/Allah/whoever intelligently designed them that way!"

>Proving anything outside of a formal system

>>9214832
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laryngeal_nerve

>>9214840
Well to a creationist who can't be convinced by scientific evidence, you could extrapolate from common sense. Everyone knows that children take some characteristics from their parents. And no one will disagree that certain characteristics are more desirable when finding a mate. And then your children will also share characteristics of both parents but less so of their grandparents. Just repeat that over and over for millions of years and you have evolution.

Evolution is change in the allele frequency of a population over time/generations.

It's trivial to show evolution is true.

So maybe you are not talking about evolution but common ancestry? Like how can we prove that most (or all of) life has a universal common ancestor, or perhaps that humans and chimps share one?

I'd say genetics but I'm too lazy to write a long responce. Maybe read the huge article at talk.origins about evidences for macroevolution.

>>9214807
It's experimentally observed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>Over the course of the experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of phenotypic and genotypic changes in the evolving populations...The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate

>>9214807
>consensus fallacy
wat

>>9214807
>>9214813
>arguing against a strawman
>can't even win

fedoras everyone.

>>9214860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1507275415163.webm

If you had to prove the obvious you'd be trapped in an infinite cycle.

>>9214888
This is literally what it's like to be The Fairy Queen:
>I'm not doing any illusion/dream magic/manipulative Fae bullshit, this is the real world! I can prove it!

>>9214878
I don't see anything wrong with this. Most people aren't going to spend hours meticulously studying chemtrails, the timecube, flat earth, aliums and such but it is safe to assume they are bullshit.

I will never understand every angle of carbon 14 dating unless I specialize in it and study it for years. As with many things you rely on those who have specialized in it. Who should I trust? Good wholesome citizens from many countries and walks of life who did study it from every angle and disagree with reasonable arguments like this.

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

>Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?

>Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.

Or a few people with a religious motivation to disagree with it?

>>9214807
Do your own homework, lad. Start by googling genetics

>>9214903
Interesting, although I would have two responses to that:

1) As I'm not an expert in carbon dating, I am hesitant to speak on it with any significant degree of certainty.

2) To the layman, pseudoscience can sound extremely similar to that.

>>9214807
You can't prove Evolution because it's a theory, but it's the best theory we currently have.

>>9214823
*quotes Dawkins

>>9214840
>immunity heredity is proof you can evolve a fish into a human
>>>/x/

This is not even debatable, like the only reason we have this thread is because christianity is so deeply rooted in our society that everyone doubts anything that would argue with the allmighty god. Why dont we prove wothout ad populum why general relativity is real.

>>9214807
>"Prove" evolution is real without resorting to the consensus fallacy.

Still no fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

>>9214807
>prove evolution
nah, prove creation.

>>9214981
Absense of proof is not proof of absense, you dumb fucking stupid 2-digit IQ ISFJ underachieving basement-dwelling NEET weeb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCxT8765KSY

>>9214807
If hereditary exists via copying information;
And the copying mechanism has <100% fidelity;
Then evolution is the logical conclusion.

CIRCULARITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT:

1. Evolution is the survival of the fittest.
2. Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
I.e. evolution is the survival of those who survive.
It's a meaningless statement!

>>9215095
EVERYBODY STAND BACK HE'S GO.....some YouTube videos.

Assume evolution isn't real, then god exists, a contradiction

>>9214807
>"Prove" evolution is real without resorting to the consensus fallacy.
That which endures, endures.
That which does not does not.

>>9215098
the conclusion is only that there is some sort of evolution, but it doesn't say anything about the extent of it

>>9214929
Christianity can fully agree with evolution theory, only idiots would say otherwise. Christian theologists of the Middle ages have stated the 'damnatio curiositatis', though. They didn't do science because they were too dumb, but because they didn't see any benefit from looking too deep into creation. They were just positive that there certainly is some mechanic in the world that makes the whole thing work. This is also true for evolution, sincere theologists wouldn't ever deny it

>>9215133
>the conclusion is only that there is some sort of evolution
QED

>>9214929
Christianity and Evolution do not contradict each other. Only American Protestants think so.

>>9215157
it doesn't mean that this evolution is responsible for the differences between the species and I think that's what most creationists criticize about Darwinism

>>9215095
>Cow to a whale disproves evolution!
No, it just proves you don't understand evolution.

>>9214807
We can look at recent history as observable proof that natural selection is real. The heikegani is a type of crab that looks like a samurai mask. As japanese fishermen threw them back out of respect, that crab was adhering to a trait of fitness. The more samurai-like it appeared, the more fit to avoid human predation, thus more of the pronounced samurai-featured crabs bred, refining their appearance. There are more groups of evidence like this, dog breeding, plant breeding, etc.

>>9215169
I think we need to illustrate the extreme time-scale that evolution occurs in.

>>9214807
>find a creature with a short reproductive lifespan.
>Cause a mutation.
>Roll in creationist tears.

>>9214807
1) Look at homology between organisms. Arms mostly look at arms. Okay, so what.

2) In the 19th century, people were playing with embryology to see what cells in the Blastula (cleavage stage embryo, right after fertilization), mostly in simpler organisms. Out of say 8 cells, removing 2 of them might grow an organism missing its muscle cells. Higher organisms actually work differently than this (if you split at the 2-cell stage, you get twins, and you're not missing parts), but nevertheless it shows can fuck with what animals have based on expression patterns.

3) We've since learned DNA is necessary for growing your parts. Networks of genes are necessary to perform functions. Those genes are also regulated at the RNA and Protein levels. All cells have the same DNA, but only some of those cells express particular DNA. This is why the embryo was missing its muscle; it wasn't expressing muscle DNA because it was missing proper "muscle" cues in all cells, except for in those which we removed. So, no muscle.

4) There is a variety of DNA between species, and also within a species. Sometimes the DNA changes don't mean anything. Sometimes they create advantages. Sometimes they create disadvantages. In those that have an advantage, they can compete out the weak, reproduce more, and their populations become dominant. During times of crisis (ie let's say an organism's forest gets obliterated, and they're really meant to live in forests), a mutant that is best adapted to change - and not necessarily best adapted to pre-crisis environment - could take the dominant seat. Alternatively, weak variants might just roam and be dominant in a different niche.

Now look at phylogeny. It's pretty reasonable that over the millions of years where life has existed that mutations gave rise to new functions and allowed organisms to occupy new niches. Consider environments, fossils, etc all that shit.

That's all I have time for but I think it covers the broad ideas that support it.

>>9214807
Do you even know what is evolution? Is not only "we're descendee from monkeys" (btw not the current monkeys). The main idea is that the different species originate naturally.

>>9215165
>it doesn't mean that this evolution is responsible for the differences between the species
How could it not?

>>9214807
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read particularly the sections called:
>Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
>Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data."

Evolution is quite possibly the most well-established theory in all of science. In quantitative terms, there is a greater agreement between prediction and observation, than for the most well-confirmed theory in all of physics. The standard phylogenetic tree of life has been verified to an accuracy of at least 38 decimal places.

>>9215094

>salty retard who failed both biology and math detected

Still no mice or robins, either, kek. In fact, no major, theory challenging surprises, ever.

Where's your proof of alternative theory, btw? Up your ass with your uncle's penis, I'm guessing.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/london-underground-has-its-own-mosquito-subspecies-180958566/


we've seen it happen dipshit, adaptation to a point of two prior individual species where then unable to reproduce effectively.

there is a pdf on it by the national cent for science and education but i cant send the link on my phone.


also,

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/06/03/why-crickets-on-hawaiian-islands-stopped-singing-20-years-ago-and-never-chirped-again/

http://www.ansp.org/explore/online-exhibits/stories/crickets-of-hawaii/
now fuck off evolution diptard, the only argument that used to be valid is "bu we habbent seen it habben" now you cant say that anymore.


there are some more examples but fuck off

evolution is just a theory (a geuss)

>drugs

>>>9215762
get out

>>9214807
>Life replicates itself
>It is, by the imperfect nature of chemicals and shit, bound to make mistakes
>Mistakes either improve or lower the chances of survival
>if a mistake improves chances, the thing reproduces more
>if it reproduces more, it grows faster than the other life
>boom, evolution

>>9214807
Any truth can be questioned, only power is evident, go back to cave.

>>9215094
>being this mad
the point is that everything we find in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory.

>>9215102
>Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
back2gradeskool 4 (You)

>>9215183
this has been done, and they proceeded to freak the fuck out and claim it was all a fake.
>https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

>>9215762
electromagnetism is just a theory (a gauss)

>>9214807
>consensus fallacy
Do you even know what a scientific consensus is? It's not a popularity contest, it's the consensus of published research, aka evidence.

>>9215102
>1. Evolution is the survival of the fittest.
No, that's natural selection.

>2. Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
Wrong, fitness is a quantitative measure of the success of reproduction.

>>9215829
>Mistakes either improve or lower the chances of survival

This is commonly taught, and somewhat confusing and inaccurate. Example:

>giraffes developed increasingly longer necks to eat leaves on branches other animals couldn't
>the shorter necked giraffes died of starvation

Except they didn't, or probably didn't...they just evolved into some other type of animal. This is the answer to the Creationist bleat, "why are there still monkeys in Africa?!"

A better way of phrasing that step:

>mistakes either improve or lower the chances of filling an ecological niche

Sometimes the niche collapses and extinction results...dinosaurs are a good example, with birds filling a niche that was easier to survive in after the asteroid impact.

>>9214807
>The utter disagreement in this table as to whether fossils are "ape" or "human" is moot testimony to the fact that there is no clear delineation -- all are related in a family tree. As biologist Kenneth Miller observes, "Ironically, validation of our common ancestry with other primates comes directly from those [creationists] who are most critical of the idea." [Miller2008, pg. 95].

in short, it's because it's not a pure field and it takes less intelligence

>>9215249
there could be changes that are so tiny that they are not observable, but we make the wrong deduction that the evident differences come from the mechanism you concluded

>>9214878
it's an informal fallacy, and barely so.

consensus is, in fact, a form of evidence; it's not ~proof~, but almost nothing in science has been ~proven~ except by consensus desu.

>>9215866
It's spelled Gauß

>>9214822
>why haven't evolutionary algorithms produced a perfect AI yet?

WTF are you talking about? we got TONS of AI perfectly adapted to a single specific task. If you want a perfect general AI that's adapted to all tasks that simply can't exist. Not possible.

If you want an AI that rivals human intelligence then you'll have to wait for the hardware to catch up. Moderns computers have less processing power than a fruit fly. Can you imagine trying to give a fucking fruit fly human intelligence??

>>9215897
>Except they didn't, or probably didn't...they just evolved into some other type of animal.
>he doesn't know about allopatric speciation
>he doesn't understand how selective pressure works

>mistakes either improve or lower the chances of filling an ecological niche
>he doesn't understand niches
>confusing individual selection with population selection
>2017

I'm a paleofag and holy shit you don't understand evolution.

Do you expect us to run an experiment here on /sci/? You understand that there is no rational proof in science, but a consensus reached after meticulous analysis of empirical evidence.

>>9216731
fuck you science needs evidence cuck fuck.

>>9215760
heres a small bit of the evidence for you camel humping inbred half-chimpanzee
fuck you

>>9216911
fku2

>>9216107
ßrainlet

>>9216721
>allopatric speciation
>selective pressure
>individual selection
>population selection

Factors into filling a niche...so fucking what? Did your autism make you think I wasn't including those elements because I didn't explicitly call them out?

>I'm a paleofag

The fag part is correct, yes.

>>9217181
>Factors into filling a niche
the fact that you think those go into niche partitioning shows how little you know. of the four, only population selection does (and even that's kinda fuzzy).

>>9214807
Prove that God did not design Evolution. Prove that he cannot decide on a whim how long of a timespan a day actually covers. Prove that he did not design a riddle for us to untangle.

>>9214813
>we're descended from monkeys
We did not descend from monkeys (implicit: that are alive today). We ARE monkeys (cladistically).

>>9215866
First purple word: Purple

First Blue word: We

Inception: Faggot

>>9217190

>so autistic he thinks a broad term like "niche" has a highly specific universal interpretation he blundered into from a flawed exposure to evolutionary concepts

I hope your parents kept the receipt on your university tuition.

>>9214813
>>9215240
>>9217209
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

>>9217638
cont.
On the topic of the OP, 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.

>>9217667
cont.
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).

>>9217638
>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both.

>chimps don't have a scalp, eyes, nose, mouth, lips, capability of making expressions, teeth, brain capable of reasoning and decisions (albeit at a much more limited level), etc, etc, still on the head, won't go on

Evolution occurs at a varying rate for different species. Protozoa are relatively unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago, and like chimps, they're our cousins.

>However, if chimps evolved into humans, then how are there still chimps?

How are there still protozoa? Just about any animal you can name is more advanced than a protozoa. How are there still bikes when we invented cars a century ago? How are there cars if we have airplanes? How are there planes if we have rockets?

It all has to do with filling an opportunity in the ecosystem.

>On the topic of the OP, this has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution?

You have the aforementioned misunderstanding of evolutionary processes, and then you have the nerve to express your bewilderment at those who comprehend its mechanisms.

>Richard Darwin

Your understanding is so fuzzy, you just conflated the two separate people in pic related, separated by more than a century.

Not sure if troll, pretty sure is copypasta. I'm deep in the heart of Poe's Law country here, but I write this for the sake of witnesses. /sci/ needs to sticky a thread with evolutionary theory links and be done with it.

>>9217702
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.

>>9217702
Dude it's copypasta

>>9215542
>persisting in logical fallacy
>appeal to ignorance

>>9215866
>everything we find in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory
*discovers ancient human fossils in Greece*

>>9217744
it's interesting that you would suggest that, but unfortunately, even though you may have seen similar argumentation before, that doesn't make it "copypasta" as you seem to think. the thing is, if you have consistent reasoning, you can present almost the exact same argument multiple times in order to get the same point across. for example base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it. Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 millions times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)

>>9214807
http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci
mods sure are sleepy today.

>>9214807
>hurr lets just look at DNA and base of evolution from that
>all humans are half banana if you follow this logic
embarassing

>>9214813
>we're descended from monkeys

>>9217612
>I'm gonna post a bunch of nonsense about a technical term and then bitch and moan when someone calls me on it
>maybe if I pretend that "niche" doesn't actually have a specific meaning nobody will notice.

you talk pretty big for a guy who thinks that less-advantageous traits don't become extinct, that the individuals bearing them just evolve into other stuff. (which shows that you don't understand that evolution happens at the population level, not the individual level.)

>>9217745
>ancient human fossils in Greece
I assume you're referring to Graecopithecus (even though it's not actually a human by any definition)
please explain how Graecopithecus is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

also:
>hey, this organism must have been a hominin rather than a chimp, based on this feature of its teeth
>I know this because that feature is universally present in humans, but is present rarely in modern chimps.
back2probabilityclass

>>9214807
You can see "proofs" of evolution everywhere.
Vestigial organs in your own body and in animals in general.
Artificial Selection/Human-Induced Evolution being a thing.
Multiple drug resistance in microorganisms.
Drastic changes in the same species depending of their environment.
DNA Sequencing.
Embryology.

Some of them are easier to criticize than other but there's a reason we can see some evidence for evolution everywhere we look but we don't see any evidence for the alternative views of the world.
One is a scientific theory, the others are just beliefs based on absolutely nothing but people wanting the real world to be like the fairer, more comfortable version of it they have in their minds.

>>9217638
>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?
I know this is bait, but still

here's a genuine question.

If God created humans directly out of soil like it is stated in religious books, and he also created all other living beings, what would he have done to give humans of the future a sign that all these living beings have one creator yet they were created differently?

He would create them all according to one system, one huge system.

But anon, what about all these species that were similar to humans but not exactly..?

I would say those were indeed a result of continuous evolving, however it never reached a point of intelligence and high self awareness as humans.

Only then, God had allowed Man to be created on earth, because by that time, animals that were very similar to us had already been living on earth.

Which means God only allowed humans to exist when earth had the right conditions and atmosphere and ecological diversity for humans to co-exist and reproduce.

>>9215133
>>9215138
>>9215157
>>9215174
>>9215183
>>9215249
>>9215542
>>9215829
>>9215863
>>9215887
>>9215897
>>9215973
>>9215991
>>9216087
>>9216488
>>9216488
>>9216721
>>9216912
>>9217174
>>9217181
>>9217190
>>9217204
>>9217209
>>9217612
>>9217638
>>9217687
>>9217702
>>9217726
>>9217744
>>9217757
>>9217966
>>9218062
>>9217991
>>9218302
>>9218311
>>9218450
>>9218488
>>9218515
>>9215760

>>9215133
>>9215138
>>9215157
>>9215174
>>9215183
>>9215249
>>9215542
>>9215829
>>9215863
>>9215887
>>9215897
>>9215973
>>9215991
>>9216087
>>9216488
>>9216488
>>9216721
>>9216912
>>9217174
>>9217181
>>9217190
>>9217204
>>9217209
>>9217612
>>9217638
>>9217687
>>9217702
>>9217726
>>9217744
>>9217757
>>9217966
>>9218062
>>9217991
>>9218302
>>9218311
>>9218450
>>9218488
>>9218515

see
>>9215760

>>9217612
>broad
>niche
ironc

>>9217757
It's copypasta when you literally copy and paste an argument from a previous post.

>>9218968
Lol, those posts are almost the exact same as >>9217638
>>9217667

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2017/10/five-principles.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

>>9215170
You do know that's a disproven hypothesis, right?

>>9218302
>maybe if I pretend that "niche" doesn't actually have a specific meaning nobody will notice

>In ecology, a niche is the fit of a species living under specific environmental conditions. The ecological niche describes how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors (for example, by growing when resources are abundant, and when predators, parasites and pathogens are scarce) and how it in turn alters those same factors (for example, limiting access to resources by other organisms, acting as a food source for predators and a consumer of prey). "The type and number of variables comprising the dimensions of an environmental niche vary from one species to another [and] the relative importance of particular environmental variables for a species may vary according to the geographic and biotic contexts".
>REPEAT: "The type and number of variables comprising the dimensions of an environmental niche vary from one species to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche

>contradicts nothing I wrote
>so, go correct the Wikipedia article, Einstein
>I double dare you, kek

I dont get how new animals are made.

Say we had a common ancestor, how did that split to form a chimp and a human?

How do you get cats and dogs? They both have noses, tails, tongues.

Where does it split that a mamall becomes to different thjngs?

In 3 million years, will we have new humanoids for example? (assuming we are around).

No troll, just curious. I understand natural selection well, but the concept of common ancestors confuses me.

someone disprove genetic entropy for me pls

>>9219664
>allopatric speciation
>selective pressure
>individual selection
>population selection
>Factors into filling a niche
>>9217181

allopatric speciation is the divergence of subpopulations that have been separated by some barrier, to the point that they become incapable of interbreeding. this has nothing to do with niches; whether the subpopulations occupy similar or dissimilar niches, speciation occurs if migration rates are low enough for long enough.
selective pressure is a differential probability of survival (or expected number of progeny) based on variation in some character(s).
individual selection is when selective pressure changes an individual's probability of survival based on their character state.
population selection is the aggregate result of individual selection, in which character state frequencies are modulated by some selective pressure. now this DOES relate to niche filling, sort of, because it usually results in the population's fundamental niche staying in concordance with its environment.

talking about the niche of a single individual is futile, as there's not enough to generalize from. in ecology, we deal with population niches.
>b-b-but it's on Wikipedia so it must be true!
okay dude

honestly, all anyone really needs to know about your knowledge in the area is that you unironically believe that short-necked proto-giraffes didn't die off, they just evolved into something else. what do you think they evolved into, exactly?

The Truth About Evolution
http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>9220193
>let's represent evolution through natural selection using a simplistic model that assumes mutation consists only of single nucleotide transformations and additions, and let's pretend that the rate at which mutations become fixed is the same as the rate at which mutations occur, and let's furthermore assume that all evolution is teleological
>hey wait, under those assumptions and that model, evolution doesn't make sense!
>could my model be so out of touch?
>no, it's evolution that is wrong!

GIGO.

>>9219731
>Say we had a common ancestor, how did that split to form a chimp and a human?
one proto-chimp's lineage evolves by the process of natural selection into humans, another proto-chimp's lineage evolves by the process of natural selection into modern chimps. Some monkeys survived by being monkeys; other monkeys survived by learning how to make tools.

>How do you get cats and dogs? They both have noses, tails, tongues.
they have similar features because they have a common ancestor. Noses tails and tongues all evolved from earlier organs, noses and tongues, for example, going all the way back to simple chemical sensors possessed by bacteria.

>Where does it split that a mamall becomes to different thjngs?
The confusing part is that there is no definite point at which a non-mammal becomes a mammal. It's an arbitrary definition because evolution happens so slowly, and likely at the time at which the differentiation between the two was beginning to happen, the relevant specie(s) were still able to interbreed until some genetic mutation or physical separation caused them to diverge into two different paths.

>In 3 million years, will we have new humanoids for example?
Probably not, and here's why: humans are continuously interbreeding and the whole world's population is pretty much in flux with itself. The only way a new humanoid species would come about is if a group got isolated from the rest and was able to evolve independently. Maybe if some humans get blasted off into deep space, if they ever meet up again with "earth humans," they might be distinct enough to be called different species, incapable of interbreeding.

>>9214807
There is no way
Evolution isn't real
it is a theory
It could be wrong, or really different from which we expected.
Welcome to Science

evolution cannot be proven.

all we can do is gradually get closer to 100% certainty, but never reach it. right now we're at 99.9999% certain

Evolution is a direct logical consequence of the central limit theorem and the gene/death mechanisms

>>9221090
*meant law of large numbers; CLT has nothing to do with evolution

>>9220020

>demonstrate that the term "niche" in ecological parlance is a generalized term that varies based on circumstances
>still thinks that this generalized definition somehow rules out the more specific process of (as an example) allopatric speciation as a method of filling a "niche"
>no citation to back up this claim

>b-b-but it's on Wikipedia so it must be true

Go fix it, kek. So long as you can defend your position against fellow Wikipedia posters with citations, the change will stand.

>you unironically believe that short-necked proto-giraffes didn't die off, they just evolved into something else. what do you think they evolved into, exactly?

Pic related. Meet the okapi.

Genetic mutation happens and can be passed on to descendants. That is literally all you need to know to prove that evolution happens.

>>9221199
>allopatric speciation as a method of filling a "niche"
except that allopatric speciation is not a method of filling a niche. it's when you say shit like this that people realize how ignorant you are.
and are you really going all proofster on me? you want me to show you a citation to prove something that follows directly from the definitions of the terms we're using?

nice pic by the way, but you forgot about one thing.
>not pictured: the innumerable mllions of individuals between Samotherium and modern Giraffa that, due to their shorter necks, were at a foraging disadvantage in dry open savanna habitats and died without offspring, causing that trait to gradually go to extinction in the population.
you know, the ones that you seem to think turned into other things rather than dying out.

>>9214807
Prove evolution relative to what?

Any answer you could give to this is impossible to evaluate. Last thursdayism, or whatever it was dubbed (despite simply being an angle of solipsism), intelligent design, creationism of various sorts, whatever. For some it can't be done yet, for others it cannot be done at all.

There is also considerable muddling of the actual conversation. Certain species being engineered doesn't contradict evolution. A planet being seeded is both intelligent design and evolution. Whether evolution happens has no bearing on the notion of a creator of the universe.

Again, relative to what? This is generally a hazy, nebulous, "not evolution" implicit signal that these discussions are based on. A better discussion is about the discussion itself.

>>9214813
APES! APES YOU FUCKFACE!

>>9220334
>Evolution isn't real
>it is a theory
>It could be wrong
...but so far, it's not.

>>9214807
Watch it real-time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

>>9217726
Just to continue off of this idea, 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

>>9223439
>he thinks locomotion evolved once
Ayy lmao just like eyes am I right?

> I can't prove shit
>I'll throw the ball in their court.

>>9220324
thanks for the reply.

>>9214813
>are your parents related or something?

this is some layered fucking irony if I've ever seen it

>>9223439
>evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor

so close

>that shares both the features of a spider and a human.

>The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5.

>I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree.

pic related

You're assuming that current adaptations have anything to do with ancestry. Humans and spiders have a common ancestor as does everything within the animal kingdom. Spiders are Arthropoda and humans are Chordata so their common ancestor would probably be whatever came after rotifers that developed a true coelum.

This has nothing to do with legs and all to do with more conserved features like body plan or development.

>>9225072
forgot pic

Yearly flu shots
>Conspiracy!
Dog breeding and artificial selection in general
Common sense, given that a parent's traits obviously affect those of it's children and greatly affect their survival.

>S1: Assume evolution is true
>S2: All creatures are descended from other creatures
>S3: All creatures compete
>C1: Hah! You already assumed evolution was true in step one! No take backs!

>>9221482
Demanding response(s).

>>9214921
look at dogs. we have made them from big ass dogs and wolves into chihuahua and pug things. thats just a few hundred generations.

programming that iterates over millions of generations employ pseudo natural selection, this helps to understand how evolutionary dynamics work.

>>9214807
look at what a 'car' looks like in 1920

look at bugatti veyron supersport 2017

look at communism

now look at capitalism

LOOK AT BLACK PEOPLE TODAY ROFL
compared to black scholars in the 1950s

>>9225072
Does evolution predict everything has a common ancestor?

What if there were multiple instances of life that came into existence around the same time?
If the conditions for life to emerge were present on this planet at some time, could it be possible that multiple genetically unrelated instances emerged from those suitable conditions?

>>9214807
>tfw accept organic evolution and believe in an intelligent creator

>>9214807
OP - So here's a great example : Cuckoo birds
They lay eggs based on the nest they are trying to invade upon. Their goal is to lay eggs that are similar in size, color, and design as the eggs it is trying to mimic. The amazing part is how specialized different cuckoo birds even within close proximity, can vary their egg styles.

Birds that are successful will have more and more successful patterns, bad eggs get kicked out of the nest, and the degree at which they have been able to mimic is on an evolutionary scale.

There are so many different types of eggs to mimic.. how is it that they are able to produce the right egg for so many different birds.

The answer is that the females learn the eggs of the nest that they grew up in. The female is the actual XY of the bird species, so that means that the Y chromosome has the unique experience that enables females to be specialists in one kind of host. The nest of whatever host bird is the gene females will share.

As it turns out, cuckoos suck dog shit as mimicking robin eggs, but have become exceedingly good at mimicking meadow pip eggs. Why?

It's called evolution.

>>9225536
>Does evolution predict everything has a common ancestor?

Yes, in fact every living organism on Earth can trace its ancestry to a last universal common ancestor due to shared genome sequences. However there is nothing to suggest that this was the first or indeed the last independent instance of abiogenesis, just that it is the only organism whose descendents are still around.

To all Dartards ITT
>Epigenetics explains 80% structural changes of adaptations to the environment.
<Epigenetics also prove that animals don't 'evolve' into different families no matter how long there's environmental pressures, since the genetic 'output' can become rearranged without external material, but still limit to their own data
>Darwinists are still trying to wank off over mutations for an unrealistic, atheistic narrative for the origins of the species
This is why the YECs and IDs laugh at you.

>>9225634
>epigenetics explain 80% of structural changes of adaptations to environments.
No it fucking doesn't. I want a source on that statistic that isn't Conservapedia. Change in function is far more affected by change in 1° structure of a protein rather than expression levels of said protein.

>>9225634
>epigenetics
>actually changing the function of a protein, instead of just up- or downregulating its expression
pick one

it's the difference between a dimmer switch and a 32-bit color palette

>>9214845
the only true answer