/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9677735

>>9677735
On a more serious note, is there actually any sort of evidence that contradicts with evolution?

It would be kind of nice to know that we're not actually the byproduct of billions of years of suffering/death through natural selection.

>>9677735
>what are fossil records, embryos, similar but similar species distributed across globe, species changing over time.

>>9677735
>what are fossil records, embryos, species similarity, species changing over time.

>>9677735
>It has basically no evidence to support it

>>9677777
checked

>>9677777
chex'd

>>9677777

>>9677777

Evolution is the most contrived and destructive pseudoscience of all time. With it, you edge God out of your lives and attribute your existence to the belief that something came from nothing. Don’t you morons realize that is just as much a matter of faith as believing in God in the first place? Worse yet are you fools who claim to believe in God yet simultaneously believe in the theory of evolution. You believe in God (the Abrahamic God) so by implication you must believe his word is divine, yet you ignore what the bible says in favor of crackpot scientists.
God is the only way for your salvation and eternal life from Satan and his fallen angels who rule and blind people to the real truth on this planet.

>>9677735
/pol/ has debunked evolution

>>9677777
checked

>>9677777
>>9677777
>>9677777

>>9677749
2nd law of thermodynamics

>>9677777
/thread

>>9677749
As far as I am aware as an evolutionary biologist myself, there is no evidence that does not back up and make the current accepted evolutionary theory stronger. Some theories are not totally accepted, such as the selfish gene theory - needs more debate and is an area where anthropomorphisation of animal behaviours can make the water murkier

>>9677993
see
>>9677966

>>9677749
I really wish we had more evidence of unsuccessful mutations. If a fish suddenly grows lungs and crawls on land, I'm sure it had a failed brother that mutated to only be able to breathe Argon or something.

>>9677966
there is no single worse argument than this

>>9677735
Now that you've realized that you're not going to get "intelligent" responses on /sci/ you can quit coming here.
You'll be much happier.
So will we.

>>9677777
evolution confirmed, creationists literally BTFO

>>9678058
refute this

>>9678502
Sure, it makes the false assumption that all the work goes into advancing evolution when that doesn't make any sense, lots of energy is expended in the form of natural processes that do nothing to influence biological diversity or complexity.

>>9678510
Do you know what the probability of a single cell forming by itself is?

>>9678514
Low, on the timescale of the universe, high. I don't feel like having a creation debate because creation doesn't answer the question it just adds an extra step. Either life formed spontaneously or some being created it but then there's that whole nonsense of who created the creator and it's not worth thinking about. Therefore, we go with whatever we have evidence for. You want to say there's no evidence of a cell forming by itself? That's fine, we can't prove it, but there's that whole primordial soup and the Miller-Urey experiments, so it's still better than nothing.

>>9677749
Yep. We assume the changes we see today from similar thing to thing is gradual if we contemplate evolution . One of the issues to run into is modularity.
Microbiologists should be able to observe organisms radically changing into another kind of being within thousands of generations because if evolution is true then it is not based on time but based on generation to generation genetic change. However even at that level there is a narrow range or variability. Although algae are a kind that is difficult to classify, amoebas do not stop being amoebas regardless of simulated evolutionary pressure. Such an issue is common in software debugging and bikeshops. Try fixing a bike part by part and quickly you will find that you need to replace multiple large features to change one thing at a time, say the wheel or the gear ratio. You either keep a bike very similar forever within a narrow range of variability or you drastically alter it with intention. Now if changes are abrupt and dramatic rather than gradual then we can not successfully apply reductive reasoning like occam's razor or ceteris paribus. How many things can we assume constant outside of narrow laboratory circumstances? How often do assumptions creep in and overwhelm? Although these processes are vital to our understanding, objective reality does not depend on our comprehension. Those relevant ranges of certainty are puny.
One example of catastrophic change that challenges our perception of changes over millions of years is the eruption of Mount Saint Helens. I am currently limited to the content I can provide now but maybe someone here can follow up on my claim: Geology textbooks claim that these sediment layers are formed by erosion over millions of years. Have they taken into account catastrophic change?

>>9678502
Evolution should be quite a bit smaller here

That evolution graph should be about a billionth of its width and even smaller in height

Compared to size the universe, evolution is a very tiny thing that happened

>>9677735
Agreed, evolutionists are brainlets parading as intellectuals

>>9677735
great bait

>>9677993
I'm not an evolutionary biologist... but I do have a masters in cog sci, and have worked in STEM related field for 10 years, and I'm currently getting my PhD... and as far as I know... the "selfish gene theory" is absolutely the general consensus. There is the whole group selection nonsense that like 3 major biologists are proponents of... but other than that... it's a lock.

>>9677735
On a serious note... the actual question is... why did it take so long for evolution to become well understood? Why did it take until Darwin? Humans were involved in animal husbandry for millennia before that. And evolution is patently obvious. All it takes is the realization that offspring look like their parents, and then think about the long term implications of that. Thats literally all there is to it.

10 cows, 9 of them are highly aggressive... one of them is docile. The offspring of the docile one is docile, the offspring of the aggressive ones are aggressive. You therefore only breed the docile ones. You get lots of docile cows. Start thinking about how other traits could be selected for naturally. Thats it. How come someone didn't "discover" evolution centuries before Darwin... that's the real question.

>>9678523
>Miller-Urey
already disproven

>>9678619
Citation required, have not heard this, quick search shows it's still supported

>>9677777
I got seven reasons to believe in evolution right here.

>>9678619
No it hasn't. Actually, it's been replicated several times, with even more stringent metrics.

>>9677966
This. If you believe more complex organisms can arise from simpler preexisting organisms, you are either scientifically illiterate or willfully ignorant. Evolution has no creative power and random mutations are always deleterious to the genetic code. There is not a single example of a mutation that gives an organism any reproductive advantage. New traits that arise in populations are the result of rearrangement of genetic material that already exists, there isn't any new genetic code that is being introduced that gives a species a function it didn't already have. For example, woolier sheep can be selected for, but breeding wooly sheep together over generations will not produce a wooly mammoth.

>>9677735
>It has basically no evidence to support it,
You mean no evidence you are willing to recognize or you simply don't understand.

fuck you

>>9677777
how will the creationists ever recover?

>>9677735
If evolution wasnt true then genetics would not make sense.

>>9678562
Humans are egomaniacs we see anything that isnt us as inferior and to be ruled over so its an insult to humans to say they originated from stupid beast rather than be constructed by the gods to rule the world or universe.

>>9678741
Yea it would, natural selection is a perfectly fine explanation for variability within a species, but it doesn't account for differences between species or the origin of the first life. Belief in Evolution depends on the conflation of microevolution and macroevolution. Micro = real, macro = false.

>>9678760
Macro is microevolution retard its our cells mutating overtime that causes mactoevolution.

>>9678771
Mutations always destroy the genetic code. There is not one single example of a mutation that offers any reproductive advantage, or causes a new functional structure to arise.

>>9678785
>>9678733
I would laugh this off as bait... but there are actually people who believe this. The thing is... you can't argue with people like that, because they simply won't accept evidence. It's silly to get into this conversation at all.

>>9678733
Do you know the experiment involving mice, fur color, and hawks?

>>9677777
C h e c k e d

>>9678901
Nice non argument, kiddo. I used to be a devout Darwinist too until I actually looked into the evidence myself.

>>9677749
The chances that single cell organisms in the primordial soup evolved into what human beings are today are the same as you crashing your car and having it turn into a boeing 747.

>>9677929
God and evolution do not contradict eachother.
It’s the Christian God, not the abrahamic god. Jews and Muslims believe in a completely different God than Christians.

I’m starting to think your troll

>>9677966
Closed system

>>9678502
The sun continues to provide energy to the earth.
Think about a hamburger being reheated

>>9679120
>the universe isnt a closed system

>>9679127
The universe will eventually run out of energy, but the earth is still being bombarded by energy from the sun.

>>9679074
No not really

>>9678785
You are a mutation of half your mom and dad's DNA imbecile.

>>9679032
obvious bait is obvious.

How can creationists explain Ideonella sakaiensis ? It's a bacteria that feeds on PET.

>>9679153
Ok, maybe not exactly the same, but you get the point.

>>9677735

>>9679074
Anon you literally started from a cell cluster.

>>9679354
there is no reason to even engage with them. I think all of them here are fake baiters anyway... and even if there were one real one... don't play along. I mean... if someone came on here and said "the moon is literally made of cheese! don't believe the NASA scumbags!" would you engage with that person and try to convince him that the moon isn't really made of cheese?
Some things are just so ridiculous that they don't need to be addressed.

>>9679356
No, cars are mechanical inanimate objects. They are not biologically mutating organisms.

>>9679354
Nobody denies microevolution. There are a LOT of factors that make macroevolution unlikely though.

1. We've never seen one species become another

2. Every mutation we've seen has resulted in a LOSS of genetic information, not a gain. This is problematic obviously because if we've only seen changes based on the loss of information then we have no explanation for where the information came from in the first place.

3. Genome size is decreasing steadily over time for every single species on Earth. For macroevolution to be true then genome size has to be increasing to hold more information. What we're empirically seeing is that genomes are becoming less complex over time. Again, a massive problem because the theory of evolution hinges on the genome getting bigger and more complex over time but we have sufficient empirical evidence to say that is absolutely not the case.

4. Macroevolution posits that biodiversity increases because speciation was supposed to be trivially easy. Speciation in contrast is so difficult that we've never seen it happen once.

5. The fossil record shows complexity was there from the very beginning of life with even comb jellyfish one of the earliest species on Earth, having a developed brain and nervous system. Complexity was there from the very beginning.

>>9679956
>1. We've never seen one species become another
>4. Macroevolution posits that biodiversity increases because speciation was supposed to be trivially easy. Speciation in contrast is so difficult that we've never seen it happen once.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that we've been aware of evolution for some 150 years but speciation and macroevolution works on a timescale orders of magnitude longer. Also speciation isn't something that "happens once." One species doesn't simply flip a switch and become another. It's a gradual change in gene frequencies across many many generations. I'm not sure who told you it's "trivially easy."

>>9677777
Czechoslovakia