/sci/ - Science & Math

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

in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:

1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"

2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"

same with homosexuality:
1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival
2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth

Im not even memeing, this shit is discussed
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/

its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself

says you

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

often, you heard arguments about children born with tail as proofs that species we evolved from once had them.
that kind of reasoning is incorrect since the same logic should apply to annencelophaly and people borned with oversized heads, more than 5 fingers etc. yet selectivly it only applies to tailbones/tails

>>9639912
Evolution is one of the oldest and most tested, most criticized idea in science. In over a century nobody has been able to disprove it. You're welcome to try though, enjoy wasting your time.

Your post reads like autism, and makes no logical sense.

didn't you already make this thread

>>9639923
>oldest and most tested,

never tested and never observed, but you are a bigot if you think otherwise.

>In over a century nobody has been able to disprove it.

that is because its infalsifiable. If I told you that you belive in evolution because of demonic influence you woulndt be able to disprove it empirically.

>>9639912
What the actual fuck are you talking about.
Are you One of those retards Who take the word "theory" in scientific theory literally or are you Just a brainlet?
A scientific theory is something which has been proven to be true, at least foundamentally.
Scientists still have a lot to work on it, but no actualt scientist believe and ever will say evolution does not exist. Sure, its process still needs to be studied and analysed, we obviously did not get everything about evolution right, but its basic concept is accepted by everyone in the scientific community.
Theory in science means basically Law

And Yes, Evolution has been observed at molecular level

>>9639999
quads checked

>>9639999
our theory, based on consensus, is that you are a fucking retard

>using .com, wikipedia and YouTube videos as citations

kek!

>>9640131
Waiting for an actual argument here, retard

>>9639912
dont worry anon. you can keep believing your sky daddy personally created you and cares about your existence. No one will really care you reject truths that make you feel less valuable. And if thinking the earth is flat makes you feel more comfortable and powerful then by all means do that. No one really gives a shit how retarded you want to be.

I suggest you to read a book about evolution for dummies cuz It seems you really missed many points on how It works and what proofs granted It the rank of theory.
Retard.

>>9639912
>if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior).
Never seen that phraseology anywhere but in your cancerous post, OP. Show me which biologist defines natural selection in that way.

>>9639912
Not an explanation, an evitability

>>9639912
>Implications on worldview are entirely nihilistic.

>>9640183
Also
>evolutionary biology
>Using terms like "superior-inferior"
Fucking kys op

>>9639999
He is not arguing the definition of theory. He is simply stating that evolution is not a scientific theory, and he is correct. Science relies on observation and evolution has never been observed. Nor is there any evidence that points to evolution. It is a hypothesis

>>9640161
>ITS PROOOOOVEN BY SCIENCE I FCK LOOOOOVE SCIENCE AND HATE THE SKYDADDY

>>9640183
>>9640210
>>Using terms like "superior-inferior"

its descriptive, some people argue that way about race.

>>9639999
>>9640212
>Science relies on observation and evolution has never been observed.

OP here, science doesnt rely on observation, IQ has never been observed but its a proven and falsifiable construct.
Evolution isnt observable, but it definetly isnt falsifiable.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme." (Popper, he later cucked due to peer pressure on that logical conclussion)

Are you the guy who post those creationist's videos on /his/?

>>9639912
Are you completely and utterly FUCKING retarded?

The appendix servers a purpose in your body RIGHT NOW.

Your wisdom teeth are troublesome because your western fucking lifestyle has caused maldevelopment of the mandible.

End yourself you fucking nigger retard.

FUCK

>>9640278
not the one.

>>9640287
>Are you completely and utterly FUCKING retarded?

OP here, why are you reffering to me? I defended the appendix and wisdom teeth, yet it was common practice in SCIENCE to remove healthy non inflamed appendix and pull healthy wisdom teeth since its vestigial acording to evolution.
That issue is what this thead is about.

>>9640295
I was angery about something and didn't bother reading it completely.

Medical science has major flaws, treating the available data as the only possible explanation is idiotic in complex organic systems.

The entire medical system suffers from this.

Evolution is also not a theory, it's a fact. We have literally witnessed it in our incredibly short period of actual civilization.

>>9640212
>>9640235
you are expecting /sci/tards to know anything about Popper?

>>9640324
Since when science cared what a philosopher thought about a modern scientific theory?

Anyway It is evident that OP is some kind of a philosophy faggot and his attempts to discuss the validity of a scientific theory through mere philosophy is fucking pathetic and hilarious.

Within the field of drug discovery, evolution provides excellent models as to where you can expect mutations in your targeted protein (spoilers they're in the region being targeted). Nothing in pharmacodynamics makes sense except through evolution. You are trolling or have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

>>9640212
>has never been observed

it literally has

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

>>9640212
>>>9639999
>He is not arguing the definition of theory. He is simply stating that evolution is not a scientific theory, and he is correct. Science relies on observation and evolution has never been observed. Nor is there any evidence that points to evolution. It is a hypothesis

>He is stating the entire scientific community is dumb basically
>As i have already said It has been seen at molecular level, and obv you can't easily SEE something that occurs in geological times you fuckwits
>I won't even argue with the no evidence part, Just open any fucking biology book or your eyes, look around you wtf is this a bait, try explaining comparative anatomy without Evolution or any other biologo field.
>It is labelled as THEORY it's not a fucking hypotesis stop this nosense
Stop talking about smth you guys clearly do not understand or even know shit about

>>9640324
>you are expecting /sci/tards to know anything about Popper?

biology grads are brainlets and mostly women

>>9640364
>and his attempts to discuss the validity of a scientific theory through mere philosophy is fucking pathetic and hilarious

and trought what would you discuss the nature of scientific theory, where does the science cut off? is history or math a science?

>>9640385
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

bs. and what species evolved?

>>9640370
>models as to where you can expect mutations in your targeted protein

mutations prove 5 billion years of evolution?

Vistegeal organs do prove evolution.
Your attempt is waste

>>9640411
>Vistegeal organs do prove evolution.

they prove nothing - evolutionists only differ between random mutations and vestigiality retroactivly which is mythological thinking not scientifical.
Are 6 fingers vestigial or random mutation?

>>9639912
You failed.

>>9640421
i dont have 6 fingers

>>9640434
would you call the phenommenon of people being with more than 5 fingers vestigial? how about people born without hands, is that vestigial?

>>9640446
It is said that the giants who roamed the earth had six fingers. It is even mentioned in the Bible. It seems that this characteristic was passed on to humans.

>>9640407
You are trying to say a scientific fact which has uncountable proofs backing It's bullshit, well then you have to show scientific proofs to confirm It is bullshit, you can't Just say "muh popper, Logic and lack of basic biology eheh".
You can't formulate an opinion on something you know shit about, It looses credibility.
You can't have an opinion on something you have not a firm grasp on Can you fucking understand this OP.
And Yes MUTATIONS EXPLAIN 5 BILLION( actually 4/4,5 u swine) YEAR EVOLUTIN if you are baiting i Will find you

>>9640475
>you can't Just say "muh popper, Logic and lack of basic biology eheh".

cant I?
lets play a game - my findings say that you believe in the false theory of evolutiuon because you have an antiscientific demon in you. I can confirm by EMPIRICAL findings and your posts here that I am correct. Will you admit that you possed an antiscientific demon?

>>9640446
Having more than five fingers would be a mutation, as would being born with no hands. Learn the difference between an atavism, a vestige, and a random mutation

>>9640489
>Having more than five fingers would be a mutation, as would being born with no hands

based on what? what is the criteria to differ mutations from vestigiality?

>>9640488
Show me the proofs then brainlet

>>9640475
>And Yes MUTATIONS EXPLAIN 5 BILLION( actually 4/4,5 u swine)

my Q was, do they PROVE? you can explain thing in many different ways, God, aliens etc. Mutations can be explained with Young Earth creationism, do you realize that?

>>9640501
>Show me the proofs then brainlet

that is exactly what a person with an antiscientific demon would say.

Do you accept Popper and this falsification gospel as your saviour from the evils of the antiscientific demon brainletism?

>>9640219
>some people
not scientists, dumbfag

>>9640313
>Evolution is also not a theory, it's a fact.

you tell em that when they start amputation your toes after they prove by SCIENCE its vestigial

>>9640324
>popper
>relevant
non-scientists shouldn't bother with philosophy of science

>>9640517
???

>>9640507
Do you accept the fact you horribly shitted out your point by not explaining It and not saying It is deeper than what It seems? You Just sounded like any creationist the whole time, if you want to say science could not be as true and reliable as we think or some shit then go ahead and try to be clearer ffs this whole thing seemed like an illogical negation to Evolution. Plus i Guess it's kinda the wrong section then

>>9640525
>non-scientists shouldn't bother with philosophy of science

what a dogmatic and antiscientific thing to say.

>>9640538
>You Just sounded like any creationist the whole time

that is exactly what a person with an antiscientific demon would say.

Do you accept Popper and his falsification gospel as your saviour?

>>9640495
Vestiges are present in every member of a population (all humans have an appendix, for example). Again, learn the difference between a vestige and a mutation. This is entry level.

>>9640598
>learn the difference between a vestige and a mutation

again, what is the basic for that differentiation?
appendix isnt a vestige, but a fully functional organ, same with wisdom teeth.
seems to me all vestige are fully functional organs and tails on humans are just mutations like having more than 5 finger. you just invent things retroactivly to fish for proofs.

>>9640551
Why dont you Just copy paste his Wikipedia, you clearly can't explain shit by yourself

>>9640613
>Why dont you Just copy paste his Wikipedia, you clearly can't explain shit by yourself

what interests you about Popper and his falsification gospel? Im here to help and free you from the antiscientific demon of evolution. Ask.

>>9640615
Just quote a summary of his falsification thing ffs, you wasted our time by not saying you wanted to discuss things in a deeper, philosophical prospective

>>9640610
We have created these terms to describe different phenomena. Are you actually asking me why the scientific community has done this? I'm sure a great mind such as yourself can come up with a hypothesis.

The human appendix has lost nearly all of its function over time. I would hardly call it a "fully functional organ". However, we still have appendixes because it hasn't been selected against. You seem to be under the impression that evolution creates perfect organisms (protip: it doesn't).

No retroactive fishing here, you are literally talking about different things, and I grow more convinced that you don't even know what a vestige is.

>>9640619
>Just quote a summary of his falsification thing ffs

for theory to be scientific, there has to be a chance for its disproval.

what is there not to understand, its quite a simple concept.

>>9639912
When a doctor says a body part in a relic or useless get up and walk away. 25 years ago a doctor would just remove an entire meniscus if it was torn claiming it was an old relic of muscle. People got severe arthritis in no time fast.

>>9640635
>25 years ago a doctor would just remove an entire meniscus if it was torn claiming it was an old relic of muscle.

ARARAGAAHAGAHAGAAAH

Remember Ignaz Semmelweis?

>>9640629
You can theoretically disprove evolution tho. A lack of speciation would disprove evolution. Can you tell the difference between a dog and a tuna fish?

>>9640657
>A lack of speciation would disprove evolution.

how?

>Can you tell the difference between a dog and a tuna fish?

yes

>>9640629
I already told you, theory in science means law, something you can't disprove (Its general mechanism)without seeming mentally retarded, what is the problem

>>9640676
>theory in science means law, something you can't disprove

what on earth are you babbling about? Is demon possesion scientific?

>>9640664
>how?
Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. If this never occurred, every organism on earth would be exactly the same. However, random mutations have given rise to different alleles over time, which in turn have given rise to different species. You have indicated that you are capable of recognizing different species, so I don't know where we disagree. Perhaps you could elaborate?

>>9640696
>If this never occurred, every organism on earth would be exactly the same.

that would mean that evolution is about to start.

you could claim that the same way you can claim that Jesus is coming back.

>>9640664
>>Can you tell the difference between a dog and a tuna fish?
>yes

Evolution proved, checkmate.

>>9640714
I'm not sure I understand your critique. Evolution has occurred throughout history and continues today, which is why we see speciation. How exactly is this similar to saying that Jesus is returning?

>>9640696
>>9640725
>hypothetical world consisting only of amebas. Their religion is "Evolution to more complex organs is about to start"
>Jesus will come back
>you just say that because you posses a demon who doesnt operate in empirical world

all unfalsifiable and cant be disproven because those are not empirical claim, just like evolution in a non hypothetical world, you are making Popper sad.

>>9640733
Species exist and are empirical. You have conceded this already. I have already laid out a condition that would disprove evolution (the "amoeba world" as you put it would disprove the theory of evolution). However, we see that there are more than just amoebas in this world. That doesn't make the claim unfalsifiable. It just makes you wrong.

>>9640766
>the "amoeba world" as you put it would disprove the theory of evolution

it wouldnt, the same way Jesus not being here wouldnt disprove the claim "Jesus is coming back".

>>9640733
explain the existence of different species without evolution. we'll all be very excited to read your well though out and lucid hypothesis

>>9640778
>explain the existence of different species without evolution.

created by God.

>>9640779
unfalsifiable claim, i'm glad that everyone can see who we're dealing with now lol

>>9640783
>unfalsifiable claim

correct, but you havent request a SCIENTIFIC explanaton.

>>9640774
>A world populated only by organisms which are completely devoid of any genotypic differences wouldn't disprove evolution

Go back and read the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency. Then set your alarm early for Wednesday morning, I wouldn't want you to miss your bio 101 lecture again :)

>>9640779
You Can prove Evolution is true using common sense and critical thinking, you can't prove god created everything via the same criteria and methods

>>9640791
>A world populated only by organisms which are completely devoid of any genotypic differences wouldn't disprove evolution

correct. world of amoebas could believe in evolution as their worldview and there existing no gen differences there wouldnt disrpove the theroretical possibility of it might happening in the future.

and if you cant get that basic logic you are an absolute unfalsifiable catched by 22 brainlet that should go watch a TED talk.

>>9640793
>You Can prove Evolution is true using common sense and critical thinking

I FCK LOOOOOVE SCIENCE!

>>9640802
>but but this world COULD exist! evofags btfo!

Amoeba world COULD exist, but it doesn't. Again, this doesn't make the claim unfalsifiable. Did you set your alarm like I told you? You aren't as smart as you think you are

>>9640802
Everyone is saying you are talking nosense and you still here thinking you are right. I bet you are even feeling smart even if no One gets wtf you are saying and everyone thinks you are mentally Challenged

>>9639928
>never tested and never observed
uhhhhhh

Upon being presented with a hypothetical observation that could falsify evolution, OP states that it is in principle possible to invent an excuse that renders the observation inconclusive.

At this point he is no longer talking about evolution as a theory, but instead about how hypothetical (strawman) believers could deny any evidence that disproves their theory.

The argument he makes could be applied to any scientific theory in existence. A silly excuse can always be invented, no matter how damning the evidence, but rational people do not do this.

>popper
Keep reading my friend, he did a few things right but his demarcation criteria are still far from reflecting what goes on in researching, though I can understand the appeal of playing devil's advocate if that's your game.

>>9640783
You got tricked into doung a high schooler's homework. How do you feel about that?

>>9640884
>Amoeba world COULD exist, but it doesn't. Again, this doesn't make the claim unfalsifiable.

its called a thought experiment, you unibrow.

>>9640898
nah, you are just to bigoted to understand a clear point presented outside the box.

>>9641068
>Upon being presented with a hypothetical observation that could falsify evolution, OP states that it is in principle possible to invent an excuse that renders the observation inconclusive.
>At this point he is no longer talking about evolution as a theory, but instead about how hypothetical (strawman) believers could deny any evidence that disproves their theory.
>The argument he makes could be applied to any scientific theory in existence.

you are on drugs and talking to yourself.

>>9642436
If I imagine a world without gravity where people believed in the concept of gravity. It wouldn't disprove the theory of gravity you fucking retard. I'm not being hyperbolic I genuinely think you're mentally retarded.

>>9642785
>If I imagine a world without gravity where people believed in the concept of gravity. It wouldn't disprove the theory of gravity you fucking retard.

it would disprove gravity, gravity is now and here or it isnt now and here so you can test it, unlike with evolution, you ABSOLUTE FUCKING CRETIN.

>>9639999
>proven
hehe no

>>9642802
Gravity doesn't exist.

>>9643133
Nor does space but leave all the nerds here dream of going there someday. I will make sure to be around atleast until the end of this century just to taste their sweet tears.

>>9639912
>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.
9/10 bait

>>9639912
An ancient laboratory with a bunch of CRISPr tools and a fucktasticle ton of burrying or teleportation equipment to get the dinosaur bones into thw ground.

>>9639912
Lrn2theory fgt pls

>>9639918
>Falsifiability
babby's new werd

>>9639912
>this retarded

>>9640647
I still don't wash my hands. Fuck him.

oh look
it's THIS thread again

don't bother, he's too stupid to understand when he's been proven wrong.

>>9642882

>>9643207
>>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.

discovery of DNA and hereditability by Mendel inspired many other discoveries in medicine and other fields. (Hereditary mechs were known for a millenia but Mendel systematized it.)
What discoveries were inspired by evolution and what did it correctly predict?

>>9643221
>babby's new werd

not an argument unless you argue faggot

>>9645009
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>9645009
Evolution predicted the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. More so it can be observed directly in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

Since I can already sense you are going to go "but it's not a new species" species are a flawed concept that we as humans put together to try and classify things. We are getting better at it but species is not a meaningful classification in this discussion as it cannot be defined in a rigorous way for all cases.

>>9640676
Theory does not mean law, it means proven hypothesis. Proven in a particular context.

For example Newton came up with the universal law of gravitation. It was first an observation, then he invented calculus to solve the problem, and then it was a theory. However we now call it a law because in the context which Newton described ie an inertial reference frame all his equations of motion are rock solid.

But Einstein came around and expanded our understanding in accelerating frames, speeds close to the speed of light, and relative motion. Even though the law of gravitation was a law, it was amended to include Einstein's addition.

I believe the same could be done for evolution Darwin is not the end of evolutionary biology he is the beginning.

>>9645050
>Evolution predicted the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

by your own logic, natural selection for lactose tolerance in scandinavian humans is evolution.

>Since I can already sense you are going to go "but it's not a new species" species are a flawed concept that we as humans put together to try and classify things. We are getting better at it but species is not a meaningful classification in this discussion as it cannot be defined in a rigorous way for all cases.

how dishonest, now you run into semantics when it suits it, evolution is an exercise in historical semantics in the end.

>>9645050
>species are a flawed concept that we as humans put together to try and classify things.

peak intellectual dishonesty. can you argue how since burdeon of proof is on you now?
because a creationist hick like myself can argue otherwise - group of organisms that can create fertily offspring. that can be a working definition.

>>9639912
>Implications on worldview are entirely nihilistic
>i dont like it, make it go away.

>>9642882
>the fact that people don't think the theory of evolution is scientific means they believe in intelligent design
/sci/ - Binary Thought

Unironically watch this video; and try to disprove the claims.
If you don't come to Jesus after that; at least you won't be a (((marco-evolution)))) cuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

Reminder that Evolution is just the inference of transgenerational metamorphosis based on aesthetics. All of its alleged empirical traces and causal agents being constructed after the fact. It's not only particularly palindromic - anything and everything can fit into its definition of advantageous just as well as it can into its definition of disadvantageous - but fundamentally abstract relative to its object of enquiry - species, speciation, inheritance, DNA, etc. are all thought experiments rather than fundamental aspects of life forms. For example, the ONLY thing that can be said about the idea of "species" is that no one can say anything about it.

The fact that it's unfalsifiable is redundant to it being absurd in and of itself.

>>9645065
Yes, lactose tolerance in Scandinavian humans was a evolutionary event that was selected for because one of the only major sources of nutrients at the time was milk. The same for selecting for immunity to the black plague in eastern Europe or the myriad of high altitude adaptations that have been observed in humans.

You ignored the visible evidence of bacterial evolution in a video observed over a very simple time scale.

>>9645082
That is the biological species concept, except you can breed lions and tiger together that are genetically distinct enough to be considered species under the phylogenetic species concept and get fertile offspring. There are also species that can properly hybridize such as the blue and red footed booby but have a behavioral barrier making them genetically distinct. That's not even getting into the shit show that is bacterial and protazoan reproduction. Evolution isn't the creation of a new species, this is why it is not important for this discussion. Evolution is a series of mechanisms that result in change in a populations allelic frequency.

>>9647367
What? Are you calling the existence of DNA a thought experiment? We literally have videos of DNA and DNA replication, we sequence genomes regularly. Evolution is falsifiable, that's what happened with the Lamarckism. An observation that could have proved evolution false would be the inability for humans to artificially select for traits in agriculture.
More so most theories are created "after the fact" as you describe it. It's like saying all of chemistry is a lie because it was derived from alchemy.

>>9645356
""""""""""DOCTOR""""""""""
KENT
FUCKING
HOVIND

his dissertation is absolute comedy gold by the way.
>https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
>https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

>doesn't even address its purported topic
>no committee, just an advisor
>bonus: advisor shares first and last names with the guy who played Nedry in Jurassic Park and Newman in Seinfeld
>no bibliography, no footnotes, no references
>one figure, plagiarized from a textbook
>admits in introduction that thesis contains no new original work
>includes fake quotes
>blames evolution for Shintoism
>"Bring back a Mars rock or a Jupiter rock, I'll eat it or lick it. Life doesn't evolve."

>>9639912
>(ergo superior),

This is just a bad and unfortunately popular interpretation of evolution.

Evolution is real, how we interpret it and how it affects us socially is a consequence of human politics.

Science is a tool, it can't be wrong, just used improperly

if a house falls down, do you blame the hammer or the carpenter?

>>9639912
Evolution is the idea that the thing with the best heritable traits passes on those heritable traits and the species persists. Maybe you'd falsify it by attacking the heritability part.

Evolution can predict stuff. For example, drug-resistant bacteria.

If you're this interested in evolution I recommend you go take some classes. There's a lot of shit to study and it's helpful to have professors to listen to and discuss with about areas where you're confused.

>>9639928
>never tested and never observed
Read more books dumb niggerfaggot.