/sci/ - Science & Math

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

so, what is falsifiability?
Its one of the req for a theory to be scientific - Popper, the smart kike, brought attention it.

examples of unfalsifiable claims:
>Jesus will come back
>"Im not a racist. Racist confrmed, only a racist would deny that he is racist"
>Catch 22 - too crazy to fly therefore ideal for a pilot

so you see, there are far more visible examples of lack of falsifiability in IRL world, bigger problem are less visible examples like theory of evolution.

>>9687314
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."

Karl Popper

And who is this Falsifiability hacker and why do I keep talking about hims?

science=application of scientific method
scientific method=empirical hypothesis testing

notice the last part - testing. in order to test it, hypothesis has to be testable. duh!
So where does falsifiability come in play here? Notice that the conclussion comes from empirical observation, so we actually make a logical fallacy in ALL legit scientific conclussions because we jump from inductive to deductive reasoning.

So, possibility of falsification in a way proves that therory comes from empirical observation (remember that in science we jump from induction to deduction which we dont do in logic), its POTENTIAL faultiness is a proof for its validity.

theory of evolution DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FAULTINESS.

inb4-natural selection ergo billions of years
inb4-esch coli exp

natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution

e.g. "John is a bachelor", it is necessary that it be also true that he is
1) unmarried,
2 )male,
3) adult

if you have all 3 you have SUFFICIENT proof. but it doenst go the other way ie. if you know an unmmarried person, that doesnt mean he is a bachleor (he might be divorced or a kid)

e.g. II "Evolution exists" it is necessary that it be also true that
1) natural selection/microevolution -100% proof
2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill
3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution - NEVER DEMONSTRATED

so just proving microevolution (what a semantically manipulative term that is btw) isnt SUFFICIENT proof.

how many times are you going to make this fucking thread, come on

this is what, the third time? are you going to remember anything from last time?

>>9687328
>how many times are you going to make this fucking thread, come on

but its an important and interesting topic

hey OP in the last thread was it you I was chatting with about philosophy of science or was it some other anon. i really enjoyed that discussion and I wanted to thank you but the thread died before i had a chance.

i just wanted to say i actually agree with you that the scientific method is valuable, it was purely how you were tying that position to fereyabend that i disagreed with. i don't actually think feyerabend was correct, but i at least wanted to properly represent his positions

>>9687341
>hey OP in the last thread was it you I was chatting with about philosophy of science or was it some other anon. i really enjoyed that discussion and I wanted to thank you but the thread died before i had a chance.

It was me my nigga, I also enjoyed the discussion.

"Jesus is coming back soon"

this theory already predicted
>globalization of culture
>advent of wordlwide political organizationS
>spread of christianity to the biggest religion in the world

but is it a scientific theory?

JESUS
E
S
U
S

>>9687313
Find animal species today that cannot be placed on a taxonomic diagram, such as a mammal with feathers. The first and best proof of evolution was the brute fact that animal species could be placed on a cladistic diagram, aka a family tree. It didn't have to be this way. For example, you could not do the same with cars - too much horizontal gene transfer, which is a hallmark of designed things, the reuse of parts and designs. That doesn't happen in animal species.

Also, find a fossil our of place in the geologic record. For example, a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian.

>>9687313
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
Evolution can't be falsified because it has already been verified by experimentation and thorough study. We know it's effects, we know the mechanism by which it functions and we know the building blocks required for it's existence. Asking why we can't disprove it is like asking why we can't disprove that water is hydrogen and oxygen. Any other questions fall to the people who dig up bones and the ones who desire to change our genes for the future.

>>9687707
first, sure. best? nah.

>>9687713
>Evolution can't be falsified because it has already been verified by experimentation and thorough study.
nope that's not how science works.

>>9687728
If I flip a coin and it comes up heads is that falsifiable?

>>9687713
drunks can build resistance too
LOL
If you think that's proof of evolution you are truly retarded

>>9687731
if you flip it again and it comes up tails

>>9687736
That doesn't invalidate the previous result moron.

>>9687734
>>>/out/

>>9687313
>if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace

What? It has always been known that a population's utilitarian good may not be consistent with fitness in the survival sense. That has nothing to do with it. It's not even a prediction.

The main evidence for common descent between organisms is consistency along different lines of inquiry of a phylogenetic tree for animals.

>>9687740
it invalidates the proposal that all coin flips produce heads

Imagine a planet that is being hit by radiation constantly and life somehow develops on it, the microbes with random mutations that allow them to gain power from the radiation will outlast the ones who dont, this is evolution anon nature filtering random mutations creating the illusion of a path.

>>9687744
>It invalidates a proposal never made.
OK

>>9687750
evolution cannot be proven to ever exist. it can only be assumed until it is disproven.

the analogous example of a coin flip producing heads only applies if you assume the coin producing heads must have occurred. however, a single counterexample of a tails flip would falsify it

>>9687740
a single point on a cell that a poison can't attach to, out of thousands of possibilities... it's still the same organism you idiot
It didn't grow legs and walk out of the dish dumbass
You people are so ignorant and so easily duped

>>9687756
>>>/hc/

>>9687748
imagine it's still the same organism, a few were tougher than the rest...
it's still just a god damned single celled bug, stuck in the muck, getting UV rays crammed up it
Nothing has changed, it was alive as it was before, and is now LOL
How god damned stupid are you ?

>>9687713
>Evolution can't be falsified because it has already been verified by experimentation and thorough study.
Almost every hypothesis proposed has actually been proven false by empirical results. Evolution has never actually been shown to produce greater complexity. Ever. Yet despite that people still cling to it as an explanation that biodiversity increased with greater levels of complexity, why?

Evolution is more of a logic statement about gene inheritance. You can prove that certain traits are passed down in a certain fashion eg the recessive/dominant nature of eye color. Beneficial traits get passed down and mutation continues spurring progress.

>>9687775
Anon do you know about evolutionary algorithms? Have you written one before in C and played around with them?

Explain how the same does not apply to biological programs.

I don't know why I even said this because if you were smart enough to understand you'd already know, but you don't. You listen to talking points without doing any verification yourself.

>>9687321
>muh married bachelor

This is the most annoying thing ever spoken. Its not even especially paradoxical.

>>9687775
>A bunch of scientist were wrong about a bunch of things therefore we should just do away with science entirely.
(you)

saying evolution can't be falsified is like saying the theory of gravity can't be falsified.

if you want to disprove evolution all you would have to do is find an example of a creature that has no ancestors and cannot be put into any evolutionary tree.

>>9687313
What is your definition of Evolution?

I am strongly inclined to believe your definition doesn't match mine or that of anyone in the Bio field

>>9687760
>being so retarded he thinks bacteria has the same genetic differences as us
A new bacteria species is born every half an hour anon.

>>9687713
>Evolution can't be falsified because it has already been verified by experimentation and thorough study.

why do you point building up generations resistanse trough natural selection proves anything about cross species evolution?
Even after 60k of gen of esch coli, nothing impressive happened, I inb4ed that logical jump at the start >>9687321

>>9687731
>If I flip a coin and it comes up heads is that falsifiable?

Offcourse it is, unlike evolution.

If I do a test on you I can falsify the claim "you are possesed by an evolutionist demon"

>>9687707
>Find animal species today that cannot be placed on a taxonomic diagram

If I found 1 fossil of rabbit in precambrian that wouldnt say anything about him being the outlier of distribution or the mean, that doesnt stop them for doing that logical fallacy when it suits them - like all the time with extrapolation of one fossil to mean of population of the time.

>>9687914
>What is your definition of Evolution?

not semantics again...

>>9687786
>Anon do you know about evolutionary algorithms? Have you written one before in C and played around with them?
>Explain how the same does not apply to biological programs.

child grows in puberty so it will grow for the rest of his life...

>>9687313
Evolution is a direct implication of causality.

>>9687316
This. Dawkins also tried (successfully) to apply evolution to the culture references, and it works pretty well.

>>9688042
Not him.
>not semantics again...
For fucks sake explain the words you are using, this makes you look like an absolute lunatic.

>>9688042
>not semantics again...
Look, I'm someone with a Bio background and if I'm going to start discussing shit with you I need to know what you mean. On it's face, it genuinely looks like you've said a load of nothing so far. The kneejerk reaction is to call you retarded, and then you feel more righteous and nobody gets anywhere. But, I'm willing to consider everything you believe is internally consistent if I can determine where your starting point is. I don't need a textbook definition, just like sum up in a sentence (or more if you like) what you believe Evolution means.

>>9687313
>what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution?
Ducks in the Paleozoic, for one.

>>9688537
>Ducks in the Paleozoic, for one.

no, nor would rabbits in precambrion prove it.
If I found 1 fossil of rabbit in precambrian that wouldnt say anything about him being the outlier of distribution or the mean, that doesnt stop them for doing that logical fallacy when it suits them - like all the time with extrapolation of one fossil to mean of population of the time.

>>9688526
>>9688119
>what is evolution

Okay, Ill go there...for whatever reason.
I mean the most basic thing you learn in elementary school - human didnt always look like he looks today but has a common nonhuman anscestor. So species today did change the boundaries of the species.

>>9688825
>I mean the most basic thing you learn in elementary school - human didnt always look like he looks today but has a common nonhuman anscestor. So species today did change the boundaries of the species.

Okay, so let's think about how an organism from a proto-organism. Basically, all life, including humans, other animals, plants, fungi, whatever, relies on DNA. We can observe that DNA encodes RNA, and RNA can be transcribed into Protein (lots of more complex stuff also happens, but this is a pipeline of events that occurs). Proteins determine cellular properties, which define tissue properties, which define organ properties, and that starts to help us classify between organisms.

Chromosomes are where you find your DNA. If you change DNA, you can change Proteins, or how those proteins are expressed. A lot of difference between a mouse and a human isn't so much which proteins are floating around, but how they're regulated. Things like development of the spinal cord, cell migrations that form the nervous system, muscles, other stuff depend on regulated expression patterns that if altered will change how an organism develops.

HOX genes regulate anterior to posterior development, and they are lined up in a chromosome to define specific portions of a body. If I have HOX genes A-B-C-D-E in a line and one gets deleted (let's say D), I'm missing something vital that dictates a region of my body plan. But, humans actually have multiple sets of these genes, and the redundancy makes us resilient to that sort of thing.

Other organisms can't really endure that so well. If you take a bug with 6 legs and 1 set of wings, and knock out a HOX gene, you might eliminate a segment and end up with 4 legs. If you duplicate a segment, you can get 2 pairs of wings. You can rearrange the order of the genes and have legs coming out of the head.

to be continued

>>9689140
Chromosome rearrangements and translocations happen; Philadelphia Chromosome is something that causes cancer. DNA duplication happens; CAG repeats are part of Huntington's Disease. DNA duplication can occur over small regions of a gene through replication slippage, sometimes entire genes can be duplicated if chromosomes don't align properly when they go through something called Genetic Recombination, which happens across Eukaryotes (which is Animals, Plants and Fungi). Gene duplication basically gives you a redundant gene, and you don't die if random mutations occur there (unless it causes cancer or something) because you still have the working one; or at least, you live long enough to reproduce and it doesn't matter. It means you can have two genes that start identical, one gets mutated, you pass both along, and the mutant operates largely in the same way until it takes on a new function. Sometimes, like in the case of ion channels (which are important for lots of functions), you can get some specific to one kind of ion, or another kind of ion; our neurons rely on all sorts of different ion channels to function.

Basically all this shit I'm saying is to describe how DNA changes result in real differences in how bodies work. DNA changes as we produce sex cells. Because they're in sex cells, it means it happens in the next generation. Those changes can result in new things happening. Those things can get selected upon on the population scale and result in organisms who went down one path surviving, and those down another path dying.

So where is any of this falsifiable? Show DNA is not the cause of traits (delete or duplicate shit and see if the organism is different). Show DNA changes are not heritable (fuck with the germ line and observe no changes in offspring). Select organisms of a specific phenotype and reveal their proteome has no differences with another phenotype. Those are some ideas but there are probably more tests you can do.

>>9689183
Now, if you are fixed specifically upon Humans, and not broad organisms, no I can't point to a thing, name it, and say "That was us." But humans change over time. Lactase Persistence is the capacity to process dairy into adulthood (we call the opposite of that Lactose Intolerance in everyday life). There are genes that decide that. If tomorrow we killed everyone with Lactose Intolerance, we'd be selecting for a trait and bringing about evolution, because the future of the species (barring regulatory errors) would be brought about by people with Lactase Persistence.

I should hope by now there is little question of mechanism of evolution, but rather, what you hear other people assert about evolution and our history. I don't know all the arguments you encounter about abiogenesis and what made modern humans; and no scientist is going to assert anything without having something to back up their idea. If you're listening to non-scientists argue about evolution, you're probably not going to get a very good argument. My advice is that you don't listen to ideological arguments supported by "I Fucking Love Science" facebook groups, but what scientists argue about mechanism and evidence.

>>9689183
>So where is any of this falsifiable?

Genetics is falsifiable, testable, observable, its as scientific as you can get.
Genetics not being psudoscience proves Evolution as much as it proves young Earth Creationism since BOTH allow for genetical phenommenons (but evolution requires MORE gen phenoms like literal creation of a new species which was NEVER observed, not you have sufficient fossile proof)

Genetics is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution, I already agreed with all of that >>9687321

>>9689205
>But humans change over time. Lactase Persistence

did Lactose tolerance in Nordic humans evolved out of nowhere or was it selected by environmental pressures of Scandinavian climate?
All human races have lactose tolerance, difference is quantity.

>I should hope by now there is little question of mechanism of evolution

and here I have to stop you. you demonstrated mechanism of genetics and natural selection not the grandioze claim that humans evolved from primates or whatever, again refer to my post here >>9687321since you made a logical jump to conclusion e.g. "human grows in puberty therefore it will grow in height his whole life"

>>9689573
This is gonna take some digesting because I don't think I actually understand what you're saying.

>(but evolution requires MORE gen phenoms like literal creation of a new species which was NEVER observed, not you have sufficient fossile proof)

What do you mean creation of a new species? The idea behind speciation is that you have an organism, it changes, and those changes become to hallmark of something which ends up classified differently.

pic related can outline the general idea.

>did Lactose tolerance in Nordic humans evolved out of nowhere or was it selected by environmental pressures of Scandinavian climate?
>All human races have lactose tolerance, difference is quantity.

What do you mean "evolved out of nowhere"? The mutation occurred. Then, selection kept it going. No mutation occurs with the intent to keep an organism alive; a bunch of messy shit happens and natural selection sorts it out.

>and here I have to stop you. you demonstrated mechanism of genetics and natural selection not the grandioze claim that humans evolved from primates or whatever, again refer to my post here >>9687321since you made a logical jump to conclusion e.g. "human grows in puberty therefore it will grow in height his whole life"

Okay, you're blurring the line between my explanation of a mechanism which we understand through experimentation, and the claim that humans evolved from Whatever Species X. The claim of a recent common ancestor for humans isn't synonymous with "Evolution".

I happen to believe we're descendant from a primate because of genetic similarity. You've probably heard apes and humans are 99% similar. Apes have an additional chromosome, but if you look at that extra chromosome, it looks like it actually shows up again in humans, where it fused to another one. But, I never made that claim. You are attaching baggage to what I'm saying, and then claiming I failed to make a good argument because I didn't explain your baggage.

anyone can make up a weasel argument. for example the flat earthers and 9.11 truthers have loads. doesn't mean they are right.

saying something cant be true if it doesnt fit your definition of what makes it true, is a logical fallacy

>>9690119
>for example the flat earthers and 9.11 truthers have loads.

but there is a significant difference. You can take a plain trip and EMPIRICALLY TEST weather the Earth is flat or round.
Smth not being empirically falsifiable makes a big difference.

>>9689674
>The idea behind speciation is that you have an organism, it changes, and those changes become to hallmark of something which ends up classified differently.

But I never denined the fact that species do differentiate over time, Darwins observation about those birds and their differentiation was spot on, you can see same mechanisms in dog breeding but youll never be able to breed a cow out of dogs with weird cowlike traits..

>What do you mean "evolved out of nowhere"? The mutation occurred.

Regarding lactose tolerances, mutations only acured in more or less lactose tolerance and the environmental pressures/natural selection took care of the rest.
Scandinavians are not the only humans having lactose tolerance, the just have especially high lactose tolerance.
If you isolate an African population in Congo and allow them to only survive on dairy, you would see the same results.

>I happen to believe we're descendant from a primate because of genetic similarity. You've probably heard apes and humans are 99% similar.

that is correct, but that isnt sufficient proof to conclude that we are evolutionary connected.
One could argue from the same evidence of genetical similarity that God made us genetically similar just because he wanted it that way or smth.
Sufficient proof for evolution is proving that new species with reproductive abilities can be created.

>>9689674
>>9691001
>Regarding lactose tolerances, mutations only acured in more or less lactose tolerance and the environmental pressures/natural selection took care of the rest.

to expand, youl never see lactose tolerance mutation developing in frogs (or whatever animal doesnt already have it in the first place)

"It has not been falsified" is not the same as "is not falsifiable."

Evolution as a theory would have bee falsified easily,for example if the fossil record had produced evidence that species have not change over geological time after all. If the fossils showed that older strata always have the same range of species, back as far as we can find fossils, then evolution would have been demonstrated not to have happened. It turns out that is not what the record shows.

Also, can we stop confusing "evolution," the theory that species change over time and new species emerge from older ones, and "Natural Selection," Darwin's theory explaining the mechanism making evolution happen? They are not the same thing. The evidence for evolution having occurred is pretty overwhelming at this point. It is still barely possible that there is new evidence out there that will force anew theory to replace Darwin's, or a radical new addition required as new evidence come in. I don't see t happening, beyond arguing over "punctuated equilibrium" or something, which is not that severe a modification. But it could, I guess.

In that unlikely scenario, Darwin's theory of HOW evolution happens might be updated or replace, but evolution would stand.

>>9691139
>If the fossils showed that older strata always have the same range of species, back as far as we can find fossils, then evolution would have been demonstrated not to have happened.

The fossil record and temporal placing of those fossils to the mean species of the time is bad methodology in the first place.
You find ONE fossil, use carbon dating in the most sloppies way (another unmentioned issue), and them extrapolate to the conclussion that that fossil was the MEAN of that time period.

Therefore finding rabbit in precambrion or whatever wouldnt prove or disaprove nothing since one fossil of rabbit in precambrian wouldnt say anything about him being the outlier of distribution or the mean.

Therefore it isnt falsified because it is to slippery to be falsifiable.

>Also, can we stop confusing "evolution," the theory that species change over time and new species emerge from older ones, and "Natural Selection,"

yes please! I dont know why does team evolution here use that argument. Natural selection is by no means sufficient proof for evolution.

>>9691188
I do have to say, I love the
>A rabbit fossil in the Cambrian is merely a statistical outlier. Thus such a find couldn't be used to falsify Evolution anyways.
argument. It's truly ingenious.

>>9691139
what would disprove evolution is finding a dominant POPULATION of rabbits in Precambrian. which means smth like 10-100 of them at the same time...and future findings should discover more of them to falsify...scratch that, to revision the theory.

Similar methology should have been used in the first place.

>>9691301
>A rabbit fossil in the Cambrian is merely a statistical outlier.

you have to be a total homosexual weasel to strawmen me like that. Not that I expected intellectual honesty from a Dawkinsianite.

>>9691339
>which means smth like 10-100 of them at the same time...and future findings should discover more of them to falsify...scratch that, to revision the theory.

oh! I forgot, its hard to find fossils, despite the fact that we should have already be knees deep in them, so lets just keep beliving it until in we find more in another billion years. But start believing now!

>>9691001
>But I never denined the fact that species do differentiate over time,

That's Evolution. If you don't disagree, don't say Evolution isn't scientific theory. It's backed up and tested. So, stop making these shit threads entitled "Evolution is not a scientific theory" and say what you really mean: "I don't think we're primates". Those are different things. If you can't separate that then you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.


>Regarding lactose tolerances, mutations only acured in more or less lactose tolerance and the environmental pressures/natural selection took care of the rest.
Scandinavians are not the only humans having lactose tolerance, the just have especially high lactose tolerance.
If you isolate an African population in Congo and allow them to only survive on dairy, you would see the same results.


>to expand, youl never see lactose tolerance mutation developing in frogs (or whatever animal doesnt already have it in the first place)

Duh? Why did you want to expand on what I said? Did you want to go somewhere with it? I was using it as a genetics-based argument to support heritable changes over generations. If you have no problem with it, we don't need to talk about it. If you have something else to say about how you think it disproves you're a primate, say it.

>that is correct, but that isnt sufficient proof to conclude that we are evolutionary connected.
One could argue from the same evidence of genetical similarity that God made us genetically similar just because he wanted it that way or smth.
Sufficient proof for evolution is proving that new species with reproductive abilities can be created.

Is that sufficient for you? Because I don't think I know what you're arguing, and I'm not convinced you do either. What defines a species to you?

>>9691188
>Therefore finding rabbit in precambrion or whatever wouldnt prove or disaprove nothing since one fossil of rabbit in precambrian wouldnt say anything about him being the outlier of distribution or the mean.

So, like I said, you'd have to find that there was not just A rabbit, your have to find that strata contained the same species no matter how old. That you saw no sequencwe poof thingslike "wait, this layer has reptiles, this younger layer has different reptiles that have few bird-like features, this even younger layer has very birdlike animals, and this youngest layer of the four has birds.

Evolution would predict that you will find these sorts of progressions over time, all over the place, and guess what?

>>9691638
>That you saw no sequencwe poof thingslike

That you would see no sequences of things like...

>>9691632
>That's Evolution.

nope. species differentiating by natural selection isnt evolution. its basic natural selection.

jumping from natural selection to evolution is like concluding human height will rise until his death based on selective observation in puberty. I already adressed that, why are you repeating yourself?

so back to you, can frogs develop lactose tolerance by natural selection?

>What defines a species to you?

standard generic definition of species what else? so run into semantics like an activist for equality, its your only hope.

>>9687313
It's very possible to prove evolution isn't real.
Hypothesis: Evolution isn't real
Experiment: apply antibiotics to bacteria experiment group, apply water to bacteria control group
Outcome: bacteria develops antibiotics resistance in some offsprings of experiment group, does not develop antibiotics resistance in any offspring in control group. This contradicts any hypothesis that says evolution isn't real.

Why do you look like a monkey?

>>9691675
That seems to be more a test of Natural Selection of a species adapting to a new environment. You could get a null outcome, with no change at all in either group -- that would not disprove evolution, it might hint that Natural Selection is not working like we thought.

>>9691675
>bacteria develops antibiotics resistance in some offsprings of experiment group, does not develop antibiotics resistance in any offspring in control group.

YAY! you managed to prove a falsifiable theory of natural selection/genetics/hereditary mechs (which was already proven 1000s of times).

now turn those bacterias into plants after 60k gens and you proved darwinian evolution. It failed the last time with esch coli exp but we still called it PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

I
FCK
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE
SCIENCE

If evolution isn't real then why do I fucking love pounding prime 18 year old pussy every weekend at the bar and trying to get as many dumb thots pregnant as possible?

>>9691685
ok
>>9691694
>60kgens of bacteria
so what, 2 days? Motherfucker I can't even grow a tree that fast.

>>9691659
>nope. species differentiating by natural selection isnt evolution. its basic natural selection.

Do you disagree with pic related? If so, why, and for what reasons?

>jumping from natural selection to evolution is like concluding human height will rise until his death based on selective observation in puberty. I already adressed that, why are you repeating yourself?

Why are you saying nothing at all?

>so back to you, can frogs develop lactose tolerance by natural selection?

Sure? Possibly? I don't fucking know anything about frogs, certainly haven't looked at their genome, but it's not impossible because every last living thing on the planet uses DNA and lactase an an enzyme encoded by...DNA

>standard generic definition of species what else? so run into semantics like an activist for equality, its your only hope.

I need your definitions because if we use real definitions you're about as coherent as a toddler yelling APPLES IS MY SHIT ASS. If I can't decode what the fuck you're saying I can't argue with it. Maybe if you spent some fucking time actually learning biology you could get the discussion you WANT but you're not at that fucking level yet you twit. Go read up on the problems of defining biological species and come back when you've pretended to read the first chapter of literally any book on the subject

>>9691694
>It failed the last time with esch coli exp but we still called it PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

you know what I fck like more than SCIENCE!!???

Semantic manipulation, isnt it brilliant?
Whenever we observe natural selection well just call it microevolution. Because if natural selection is correct, so is evolution? Right? Offcourse, God dont real so evolution is reeaaal! Also, fck you dad,

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

>>9691723
>microevolution
zero biological scientists use this term

>>9691659
>nope. species differentiating by natural selection isnt evolution. its basic natural selection.
Evolution = change in the heritable characteristics of a population. Natural selection is change in the heritable characteristics of a population caused by those characteristics conferring a higher or lower chance of survival. Natural selection is by definition evolution.

>jumping from natural selection to evolution is like concluding human height will rise until his death based on selective observation in puberty.
No, it's more like concluding that humans change because we observe humans' height changing.

>so back to you, can frogs develop lactose tolerance by natural selection?
Under the right conditions, certainly. But those conditions are highly unlikely to occur naturally.

>>9687313
https://www.lesserwrong.com/sequences/MH2b8NfWv22dBtrs8

>>9691704
>If evolution isn't real then why do I fucking love pounding prime 18 year old pussy every weekend at the bar and trying to get as many dumb thots pregnant as possible?

that has more to do with you being a drugged up degenerate.

>>9691712
>Do you disagree with pic related? If so, why, and for what reasons?

I reject all semantic manipulation as full blown intellectual dishonesty and popular science faggotry.

>Sure? Possibly? I don't fucking know anything about frogs, certainly haven't looked at their genome

well, based on superior rational and skeptical science of biology, what do you expect and what can you prove about frogs developing lactose tolerance?

>>9691728
>zero biological scientists use this term

but they still use natural selection and evolution interchangably, so dont be surprised that you get imbeciles like this in the thread>>9691739
>Natural selection is by definition evolution.

>>9691739
>Under the right conditions, certainly. But those conditions are highly unlikely to occur naturally.

how convinient.
Do you belive that Jesus will come back soon?

This is the new Flat Earth troll, isn;t it? I feel dirtied and ashamed for replying.

>>9691739
>Natural selection is by definition evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_BBjPUudN0

>>9691752
>This is the new Flat Earth troll, isn;t it?

dont you dare putting a FALSIFIABLE theory together in the thread about exposing mythology.

>>9691748
you have to gather up a good fraction of all the frogs in the world and feed them nothing but milk for thousands of years.
Mind you it's very possible that they just all die - something something 99% of all species are now extinct.
This is why people work with bacteria/fruitflies. Although if we're being honest, it's very possible to do it with larger animals, you just have approach it like you're monsanto.

>>9691768
>you have to gather up a good fraction of all the frogs in the world and feed them nothing but milk for thousands of years.

and if it fails after 1000 years, what is stopping you for claiming that we need 100 000 of years. Insert and repeat. Brilliant.

>>9691748
>I reject all semantic manipulation as full blown intellectual dishonesty and popular science faggotry.

Except that definition isn't popsci, that's the definition I've gotten from every last professor who has ever lectured to me on the topic, that's the definition in all of my textbooks, that's the definition in all articles I've read.

So, what the fuck are you talking about? What's next, are you going to share with me the hidden knowledge that Amino Acids aren't composed of an Amino Group and Acid Group and a side chain? It was all just a vast conspiracy of popsci?

>well, based on superior rational and skeptical science of biology, what do you expect and what can you prove about frogs developing lactose tolerance?

What can I prove about it? What are you even asking? If an animal suddenly has a widely different function that is normal for what we expect, I'd say it's a safe bet to start comparing DNA sequences. DNA doesn't just magically make proteins across the animal kingdom, DNA gives rise to new sequences by mechanisms of mutation, which alters or duplicates or deletes what was in the previous generation. You don't just spontaneously generate a 1000 KDa protein from nothing.

>>9691790
>that's the definition I've gotten from every last professor who has ever lectured to me on the topic, that's the definition in all of my textbooks, that's the definition in all articles I've read.

we have a real free thinker in this thread, watch our christards, this guy is gonna blow you away with his ted talk and shatter all your middle age primitive beliefs.

>>9687313
>look. mom, I posted it again
Stop feeding this fucking retard, you faggots. Do you think he'll ever stop making this exact thread as things are currently going?

>>9691786
>what is stopping you for claiming that we need 100 000 of years.
For starters if the experiment has gone on for 1000 years then some frogs must've survived (mind you you'll have to keep the frogs separate outside of mating since they'll probably sooner develop cannibalism if you don't). If the survival rate doesn't increase amongst the survivors over hundreds of generations, at all, then sure, you disproved it.
It's important to remember though that nature tends to take the laziest way out (like cannibalism).

>>9691800
Why use English definitions for any word, then, you fucking nitwit

>>9691802
No, and that's the point. If we can contain all the biology shit in this exact same thread over and over again I'll take it.

>>9691850
holy shit we just got next-leveled.

OP doesn't use definitions deliberately because using known terms and meanings is too brainlet. gotta make shit up and then call everyone else dumb for not already knowing what you're talking about

>>9691851
Yes, just like how flat earth got """"contained"""" in a dozen threads each week. These types of retards flock to one another and spam everything to shit.
He's not even pretending to "argue" anymore >>9691800 >>9691862

>>9687340
No it isnt, evolution is directly observable over human lifespans in multiple vectors across multiple observers. Produce a theory that is superior to evolution in both predictive power and consistency or shut the fuck up because these topics attract the worst retards and their presence precludes the possibility of a salient conversation.

>>9687734
No they cant, you are retarded.

>>9688119
fuck you nigger

>>9688042
>>9688825
>find Precambrian rabbit
>"it's just an outlier, guys!"

it's officially technobabble at this point. you're tossing out words without having any idea what they mean and then wondering why people think you're mentally defective.

>>9689573
>All human races have lactose tolerance, difference is quantity.
but that's wrong you fucking retard
all humans express lactase as infants. the ancestral state is to stop expressing it during mid-childhood. in SOME populations, mutations in the lactase promoter sequence arose, causing it to be expressed permanently. in places with dairy livestock, this mutation went to fixation because it allowed bearers to exploit a new food source.