/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10066345]

Are there any legitimate scientists or philosophers who have arguments against our current model of evolution?

[Anonymous No.10066351]

No

[Anonymous No.10066353]

>>10066345
No, because all legitimate scientists accept evolution.

[Anonymous No.10066359]

>>10066345
I'm a philosopher and have various arguments against that retarded theory.

[Anonymous No.10066360]

>>10066353
>>10066351
Not a single one?

[Anonymous No.10066365]

>>10066359
Let's hear it

[Anonymous No.10066374]

>>10066345

On a larger sense, no.
On a smaller sense, stuff like epigenetics could be considered a break from traditional views when it was first developed, but now it's considered part of the model.

[Anonymous No.10066381]

>>10066365
How many mutations did it take to create the opposable thumb?

[Anonymous No.10066385]

>>10066381
Is such an event measurable with our current information?

[Anonymous No.10066394]

>>10066385
Did it take many mutations over a long period of time, or just one mutation?

[Anonymous No.10066406]

>>10066394
I'm assuming many over a period of time, in order to have a thumb, you need to have a hand, in order to have a hand you need to have an arm etc, etc.

While I'm sure that once a rudimentary hand had become heritable a single mutation could create a thumb, but whether or not that mutation would be advantageous and heritable is another.

[Anonymous No.10066415]

>>10066406
>I'm assuming many over a period of time
Are mutations conscious?

[Anonymous No.10066422]

>>10066415
From a materialist perspective, no.

[Anonymous No.10066425]

>>10066415
Are you trying to Nick Land me?

[Anonymous No.10066446]

>>10066422
So every mutation involved in the development of the opposable thumb was by pure chance, and by thumb we must include the muscles, joints, connective tissue, blood supply, skin, bone etc etc that makes it possible. That's a lot of mutations, that's a lot of room for error.

Not only this, but each successive mutation needed to be advantageous. The opposable thumb from its first mutation, to its second, third, fourth etc had to be advantageous to the hand, even though a hand with a half developed feature would more likely be a hindrance.

[Anonymous No.10066448]

>>10066345
Just regurgitating something an anon on here said but I think it was along the lines of DNA needs a protein to transcribe so DNA can create more proteins. So two structures which cannot be determined to have come from multiple less complex structures which Darwin said would make his theory have a big problem

[Anonymous No.10066455]

>>10066360
I said no legitimate scientist accepts the theory. Meaning if you found one who did, they aren't legitimate.

[Anonymous No.10066459]

>>10066345
There's micro evolution and macro evolution.macro is fake

[Anonymous No.10066465]

>>10066455
>No legitimate scientist believes in a heliocentric model because if they do they aren't legitimate
this is what you sound like and I believe in evolution

[Anonymous No.10066466]

>>10066425
I don't read other philosopher's arguments about evolution, my arguments are my own.

[Anonymous No.10066468]

>>10066446
>So every mutation involved in the development of the opposable thumb was by pure chance
I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, but by my understanding, yes. There have been mutations that were not advantageous and those creatures don't exist anymore.


>Not only this, but each successive mutation needed to be advantageous.

No necessarily. It has to be advantageous to the environment to be passed on, because others without that mutation would probably eventually die off due to inability to compete in nature. Evolution isn't perfect, we have lots of inefficient vestigial parts of our bodies, but we have adapted the world to them.

It's not like evolution is working teleologically towards some ultimate goal. It's just a meandering stream of adaptation and heritability.

[Anonymous No.10066470]

>>10066446
I mean, how many species do you see wondering around with a thumb? It's not many in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.10066474]

>>10066446
You're forgetting that the mutations that aren't advantageous would make whatever creature had them more likely to die than the ones lucky enough to have an advantageous one

[Anonymous No.10066477]

>>10066448
Wouldn't the Miller-Urrey experiment allow for this?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

[Anonymous No.10066481]

I think my biggest roadblock is how small the statistical chance of a specific mutation becoming heritable and advantageous is.

Unless a mutation occurred in mass, wouldn't it be difficult for a single mutation in one organism to successfully be passed on to it's entire lineage? The chances of this and the time frame required would be enormous.

[Anonymous No.10066493]

>>10066345
Evolution is such a bare-bones rough outlining of events that there's nothing to refute. There isn't even a consensus for the model outline, and definitely not for what happened within it. Even Plato talked about eugenics so he understood species' change over time. A subconscious understanding of natural selection is written in our genes, that's why we prefer some partners over others. Neo-Darwinism is just stripping away everything else.

>*tokes* what if it was just like .. natural selection and MUTATIONS and then like.. a span of like billions of years and that's how a worm turned into a lizard and that lizard fucked a rabbit that turned into a monkey, and then like a monkey fucked a bigger monkey and then you had a human-monkey

it's a non-explanation at this point.

[Anonymous No.10066502]

>>10066493
>that image
Couldn't you just state that the single origin of human life is a misnomer? that humanoid evolution may have occured in different regions in different manners

[Anonymous No.10066503]

Other anons have said this but evolution is so vague and abstract that you really can't refute it. However the average persons understanding of it is actually very dull.

[Anonymous No.10066505]

>>10066468
>I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, but by my understanding, yes. There have been mutations that were not advantageous and those creatures don't exist anymore.
Do non-mutations exist?
>It has to be advantageous to the environment to be passed on, because others without that mutation would probably eventually die off due to inability to compete in nature.
The problem with this is that mutations are supposed to be very subtle and take a very long time to cumulate into something like an opposable thumb. The environment can change very quickly, and if an environment change suddenly kills off a load of apes with only those with a certain type of mutation surviving, means that the mutation they had must have been pretty significant, yet it had not spread throughout the entire group when it would have had plenty of time to spread around to all of them.

[Anonymous No.10066507]

>>10066459
>you can walk across the street, but you could never walk to a different city

[Anonymous No.10066510]

>>10066470
It's not just thumbs though, it's every biological feature.

[Anonymous No.10066511]

>>10066345
CHANGES IN ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME

CHANGES IN ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME

CHANGES IN ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME

[Anonymous No.10066512]

>>10066493
>>10066503
Evolution is an empirical fact. The Theory of Natural Selection is a scientific explanation to why we observe genetic change over time.

[Anonymous No.10066514]

>>10066474
Why hasn't this mutation spread across the entire group?

[Anonymous No.10066515]

>>10066505
>Do non-mutations exist?
So like fundamental aspects of a specific creature that do not change? Not sure about that.

>>10066505
>The problem with this is that mutations are supposed to be very subtle and take a very long time to cumulate into something like an opposable thumb. The environment can change very quickly, and if an environment change suddenly kills off a load of apes with only those with a certain type of mutation surviving, means that the mutation they had must have been pretty significant, yet it had not spread throughout the entire group when it would have had plenty of time to spread around to all of them.
That's sort of what I was talking about here
>>10066481
It just seems so improbable that these little changes would be enough to not only stick around for subsequent generations in such a tumultuous environment but for there to be enough offspring from a single mutation, which might not even be an inheritable trait, for that mutation to be studied as species defining.

[Anonymous No.10066517]

>>10066507
What a retarded analogy. For an evolution skeptic there's an ocean between between the cities. Walking on water (macro-evolution) hasn't been observed yet. Try again.

[Anonymous No.10066519]

>>10066459
How did the priest's dick taste?

[Anonymous No.10066526]

>>10066514
It has, tons of mammals have similar structures do they not?

[Anonymous No.10066529]

>>10066477
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Seems that would be so but then why haven't we been able to create new DNA seems like it would be fairly easy if we kept up with this type of experimenting.

[Anonymous No.10066531]

>>10066517
>macro-evolution) hasn't been observed yet
What is the fossil record?

[Anonymous No.10066535]

>>10066512
See this kind of thinking is scientifically limiting.

[Anonymous No.10066536]

>>10066515
>So like fundamental aspects of a specific creature that do not change? Not sure about that.
In evolutionary theory, everything is either a previous mutation being passed on, or a previous mutation mutating into a new mutation which is then passed on. There doesn't seem to be any distinction between a mutation and a non-mutation, it's all mutation. If that's the case, you cannot categorise anything as 'species' because species are defined as a non-mutational thing that has had mutations.

>It just seems so improbable that these little changes would be enough to not only stick around for subsequent generations in such a tumultuous environment but for there to be enough offspring from a single mutation, which might not even be an inheritable trait, for that mutation to be studied as species defining.
Correct, it's an absurd theory when you actually critically analyse it.

[Anonymous No.10066543]

>>10066526
Talking about when the environment changes and those with a certain mutation survive and those without don't. Why don't they all have the mutation considering they have been breeding with each other constantly over thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.10066544]

>>10066517
Micro and macro evolution are literally the same thing. The only difference is the time scale.

[Anonymous No.10066546]

>>10066535
What exactly is your problem with my post?

[Anonymous No.10066549]

>>10066544
Can you procreate with a monkey?

[Anonymous No.10066556]

>>10066536
>There doesn't seem to be any distinction between a mutation and a non-mutation
I see what you're saying. In order for there to be mutation in the first place there would need to be some sort of genetic stasis. Couldn't you explain the fact that for the most part the genome remains more or less the same? Only a small percentage of genes are actually mutated in order for physical, morphological changes to occur.
I guess what would need changing is the model of species as it relates to time. Mutations are just constant I suppose. However, if as the evolutionists posit, it happens so slowly, I imagine that the species nomenclature is just a useful tool to measure the rate of mutation. It's just constant flux I guess. However, I think they would get into hot water when they start to look at physiological aspects of evolution. Evolving a longer jaw bone is one thing, but developing entirely different physiological systems is a whole different beast.

>Correct, it's an absurd theory when you actually critically analyse it.
I definitely hold the theory critically, but I'm just not sure what you could replace it with. I'm not willing to outright discard heritability and genetic change over time. Do you suppose there is some form of genetic vitalism? Definite delineation between organisms?

[Anonymous No.10066568]

>>10066546
Evolution is highly probable but you shouldn't be so rigid and dogmatic with those beliefs that you become religious about it. Paradigm shifts happen and sometimes it might require ditching those beliefs.

Obviously in science, we are working with an empirically backed framework, but be open.

[Anonymous No.10066577]

>>10066477
>dude this is totally what the earth was like before look i made amino acids
Okay that could explain the creation of proteins but what did they transcribe to get DNA?

[Anonymous No.10066592]

>>10066577
RNA

[Anonymous No.10066593]

>>10066345
What's the current model? We can voluntarily change biological evolution nowadays as far as I'm aware(and since forever with breeding and agriculture). Ideas might share the same model tough, so it's not like we can avoid it, just more consciously participate in it.

[Anonymous No.10066597]

>>10066512
In a materialist worldview, evolution is just genetic change over time without any external grand goal. There is no objective measure other than time (=newer is better). We know that the world is not static, time moves and ergo there will be change of some kind. So why do we need an explanation for the "why"? All change is evolution.

[Anonymous No.10066601]

>>10066592
rNA comes from DNA

[Anonymous No.10066605]

>>10066601
ah shit i got em mixed up lol

don't have an answer to that one chief

[Anonymous No.10066615]

>>10066556
>Couldn't you explain the fact that for the most part the genome remains more or less the same? Only a small percentage of genes are actually mutated in order for physical, morphological changes to occur.
This requires that mutations are both static and dynamic, or random and non-random, to the point that they are stable enough to maintain a foundation or blueprint for a species to be defined, yet random and dynamic enough morph biological entities into a different species. Seems odd to call them "mutations" when they appear to possess the opposite properties of what is considered a non-conscious, random mutation.
>I definitely hold the theory critically, but I'm just not sure what you could replace it with. I'm not willing to outright discard heritability and genetic change over time. Do you suppose there is some form of genetic vitalism? Definite delineation between organisms?
It requires a complete change in our conceptual view of the world. Evolution ties in with a deterministic view of time with a chain of cause and effect, genes being passed on from one generation to the next. Determinism, and any theory based on it, is logically fallacious and becomes an infinite regress. Where did evolution begin?

[Anonymous No.10066634]

>>10066359
>"pHilOsOPHeR"

[Anonymous No.10066640]

>>10066544
>Micro and macro evolution are literally the same thing.
Retard. Retard. Retard. Retard. Retard.

[Anonymous No.10066645]

>>10066446
You fucking idiot go read a book a middle schooler understands evolution better than you

[Anonymous No.10066648]

>>10066634
>"sCiEnTiSt"

[Anonymous No.10066649]

>>10066448
Can anyone else address this?

[Anonymous No.10066650]

>>10066455
You're the type that treats science like a religion.
You aren't accepting facts because the data supports them or because you understand the models. You're accepting facts only because authority figures tell you they're correct.
You're believing, not understanding.
You're part of them problem. Sort yourself out.

[Anonymous No.10066655]

>>10066645
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10066663]

>>10066645
Honestly the average persons understanding of evolution is probably "I fucking love science" tier. People like Bill Nye killed any public understanding of how evolution actually works and they understand it as some theory of everything to refute racism.

[Anonymous No.10066676]

>>10066663
>how evolution actually works
The floor is yours.

[Anonymous No.10066687]

>>10066615
>where did evolution begin
The million dollar question and fundamental flaw

[Anonymous No.10066698]

>>10066687
DNA memed itself into existence.

[Anonymous No.10066710]

>>10066615
Really enjoyed the back and forth with you. I would tend to agree with your assessment. I've been finding myself to be more of an idealist these days.

[Anonymous No.10066749]

>>10066710
Back at you. It's about time these theories are challenged seriously, scientists have lost their independence and ability to philosophise about the very theories they work with. I hope this continues to change.

[Anonymous No.10066776]

>>10066448
>>10066649

I came across a good paper on the rise of complexity.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1179.pdf