/sci/ - Science & Math

>There's no recorded evidence of one species changing into another.
What about wolves -> dogs? Bacterial resistance to antibiotics?

>>9985817
>>9985801
Also, keep in mind that there's a strong chance he was specifically trained in his church, possibly sunday school, with various specious arguments and false information against evolution. Churchs will often claim literally completely false information about evolution theory, like claiming the theory is that frogs will magically transform into rats randomly

Tell him to Google rapid evolution speciation. Some animals have evolved into new species in as little as a decade.

>There's no recorded evidence of one species changing into another.
Rhagoletis pomonella, nibba

>>9985818
this desu

my advice: explain to him that understanding that evolution is real doesn't preclude religious faith, and only brainlets subscribe to a literal interpretation of all of scripture.

>>9985801
>My religious friend
You mean your strawman. Nobody here has friends.

>>9985817
Housecats are more genetically related to tigers and lions than the closest appearing apes are to humans.
there is zero functional evidence that a same kind species can break away from itself.

Tons of animals can also biologically (innately) change their gender, or change the shape of their skin, or change the color of their skin, while there also exist a multitude of insects that look identical to the plants they hang around.

bones underground do not indicate a species changed into a seperate species, and darwin's finches were not sexually dimorphic. Those finches remained the same kind of creature, just as all housecats are the same kind, and all dogs are the same kind.

Otherwise, it should be expected impossible for interracial breeding among humans. but that isn't true either.
Still the same kind.

>>9986302
what about vestigial traits? What about the fossil record showing higher levels of organization as time passes?

so i'm not the religious memer but

are there any actual alternative theories to evolution? i know that sounds stupid but there has to be something

>>9986307
Vestigial organs simply means that a lot of animals have the same basic blueprint. you could just as easily argue any similarity, such as between a person and a bobcat. the "structural makeup" of the bodies are different, but we both have the same kinds of bones leading to the same kinds of appendages. Other animals have completely different basic blueprints though, like cephalopods or insects.

Why do I have an apparently vestigial knowledge of willful flight? Why, if i lucidly dream, is the willful power of arbitrary levitation and flight a constant and known feeling regardless of how different one dream is fron the next, but serves me no purpose when I wake up?

>>9985801
Sounds like he's smarter than you are desu.

>>9986302
>kinds
isn't that the word Kent Hovind and friends use because "species" is too evolutionist?

>>9986312
Fallen angels had sex with everything and their offspring were monsters and giants, which has been religious record for a long time. Then the biblical flood killed most everything and buried them under mudslides, laying their bones underground.

>>9986320
"Kinds" Is the word in the bible to refer to what science calls species.

>>9986326
that doesn't sound very scientific

>>9985801
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

>>9986333
>that doesn't sound very autistic
ftfy

>>9986338
it sounds plenty au/tg/istic

>>9985801
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>9986302
>Housecats are more genetically related to tigers and lions than the closest appearing apes are to humans
literally a lie
>there is zero functional evidence that a same kind species can break away from itself
see >>9986258
>Tons of animals can also biologically (innately) change their gender
so? changing sex is entirely different from changing species. that's why we're generally cool with transsexuals but don't take otherkin seriously.
>bones underground do not indicate a species changed into a seperate species
only if you're a brainlet
>darwin's finches were not sexually dimorphic
so fucking what?

>>9986326
>Then the biblical flood killed most everything and buried them under mudslides, laying their bones underground.
funny how mudslide deposits all have a particular type of size sorting as a result of the mechanics of how sediment flow works and almost none of the deposits preserving terrestrial macrofauna show any of that.
>Fallen angels had sex with everything and their offspring were monsters and giants
is that seriously anyone's explanation for what a trilobite is?

>>9986359
Trilobites are still alive you fucking mongoloid. Ever heard of a horseshoe crab?

fuck your stupid know-nothing post.

>>9986312
no other theory can account for the massive plethora of different animals, plants, etc without invoking something unfalsifiable

>>9986371
That bait is a bit too obvious

>>9986378
>implying the theory of evolution does not rely on the unfalsifiable nature of being irreproducible for basically requiring timeframes on the order of millions of years

>>9986387
the mechanism of evolution is perfectly falsifiable

>>9985801
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>9986371

>>9985801
>My religious friend doesn't believe in evolution

Why is he your friend ?

>Is he a lost cause?

Yes, changing his mind is a waste of time.

>>9986275
this is true, i sat in an abandoned house the other night and pretended to have conversations with persistent hallucinations ive cultivated since birth about the new BF beta.