/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11332431]

Yeah, explain how this guy was one day walking around and then said fuck it and started flying.

Protip: u cant. in any way.

[Anonymous No.11332518]

>>11332431
actually, you can. it wasn't an overnight thing. You ingrate.

[Anonymous No.11332527]

>>11332431
Imagine a small raptor walking around like a chicken, it starts getting vestigial feathers on its arms, eventually the feathers get longer and the raptor begins running around trees and hopping around. The ones that can flap better(think chickens) get selected for, the first proto bird emerges.

[Anonymous No.11333051]

>>11332431

That one of them big arm penguins I been hearin bout?

[Anonymous No.11333061]

im pretty sure op is an amerimutt

[Anonymous No.11333073]

>>11333051

Look, I dont even mean to troll. I believe in the god.

I just think it's highly inefficient for god to have to create everything from scratch every time.

Although I totally 360 and walk away from anyone who thought that a valid argument because I believe in the adam and eve creation story.

Dont judge me.

[Anonymous No.11333100]

>>11332527
All fine in theory, but that doesn't really add up to answer OP's problem. We should see fossilized ancestors of animals all over the place at various stages if this was the case but we don't. At least not drastic generational differences of a species with examples of the evolution.

[Anonymous No.11333197]

>>11332431
NPCs can't imagine breaking their own programming. Only Chads fly while the NPCs walk.

[Anonymous No.11333208]

>>11332527
>it starts getting vestigial feathers on its arms
why?
>eventually the feathers get longer
why?
>the raptor begins running around trees and hopping around
what motivated that?
>The ones that can flap better(think chickens) get selected for, the first proto bird emerges.
What evidence is there of this having happened? It sounds entirely speculative.

[Anonymous No.11333233]

>>11333208
And herein lies the problem with the evolutionary theory.
Clearly there is advantage to having wings. But there is no advantage whatsoever to the million evolutionary steps between no wings and wings.
As you say, "why?"
There is no answer (not to mention evidence) of why a few feathers became a few more feathers etc
"Why?" indeed.

[Anonymous No.11333235]

>>11333208
>>it starts getting vestigial feathers on its arms
>why?
insulation from the cold
>>eventually the feathers get longer
>why?
insulation from the cold
>what motivated that?
avoiding predators
>The ones that can flap better(think chickens) get selected for, the first proto bird emerges.
>What evidence is there of this having happened? It sounds entirely speculative.
some fossils show feather sizes so we can literally see their evolution over time

[Anonymous No.11333265]

>>11332431

I won't even bother writing more.

[Anonymous No.11333271]

>>11333233
>But there is no advantage whatsoever to the million evolutionary steps between no wings and wings.
But that's wrong, retard. For example, feathers evolved long before wings, probably in order to aid thermal insulation and/or as a competitive mating display.

[Anonymous No.11333284]

>>11333271
You make a bold claim, based on 'probably', you have no evidence to back up that claim (One shitty fossil is not evidence for the million evolutionary steps previously described), and then you have the audacity to call me retard.
You are clearly as skeptical as everyone else on the matter, so why don't you admit it?
Or if not, perhaps point me to an example of where science has replicated this evolutionary process, say with bacteria or some sort of microbe.

[Anonymous No.11333291]

>>11333284
>You make a bold claim, based on 'probably', you have no evidence to back up that claim
LOL you claimed there is no advantage to intermediate forms and then immediately got BTFO. The only one making bold claims is you.

>Or if not, perhaps point me to an example of where science has replicated this evolutionary process, say with bacteria or some sort of microbe.
Which process?

[Anonymous No.11333306]

>>11333291
My claim stands unrefuted. 'Probably' is evidence of nothing and btfos nothing. Stop grasping at straws.

The evolutionary process, as you well know. The very thing we have been discussing.

Only gammas start a sentence with lol.

[Anonymous No.11333308]

>>11333265
Are you implying that the only reason someone wouldn't believe in evolution is because of one line in a book of kike fairy tales?

[Anonymous No.11333311]

>>11333235
Before those vestigial feathers there were proto-feathers, some kind of little nubs that provided no encounter. Basically some goose bumps that stuck around. But anyway, just because feathers on birds today insulate them from the cold doesn't mean that's why they evolved in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11333320]

>>11333306
Probably refers to whether it is the cause of natural selection towards wings. Regardless, feathers objectively have advantages which can be selected, which you idiotically denied.

>The evolutionary process, as you well know.
So you're asking whether scientists have observed evolution in bacteria? Of course, they observe it every day. Here is an example easy to understand even for a retard like you: https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

[Anonymous No.11333323]

>>11333308

Are you implying that's not the reason behind this thread?

[Anonymous No.11333326]

>>11333323
Is that the ONLY reason someone would doubt evolution or abiogenesis as asserted by mainstream scientists? Are you saying that ONLY jews and christians don't believe in evolution, and only because of a single line from one book?

[Anonymous No.11333343]

>>11333320
I feel like I need to talk in small words to you because you are clearly having trouble understanding things.

You base your theory of how an animal goes from no wings to wings based on probably. But now you say that feathers objectively have advantages, which begs the question why mammals don't have feathers... given their objective advantages.

And then you link a video showing adaptation not evolution. You do know that they are different things, don't you?
Don't you?

And still, you insist on calling me a retard.

[Anonymous No.11333384]

>>11333343
>You base your theory of how an animal goes from no wings to wings based on probably.
Yes, that describes literally all empirical knowledge. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science.

>But now you say that feathers objectively have advantages, which begs the question why mammals don't have feathers... given their objective advantages.
Because they have fur.

>And then you link a video showing adaptation not evolution.
Please explain what you think the difference is.

Retard.

[Anonymous No.11333385]

>>11333343
>why mammals don't have feathers
we have hair and fur, there is no reason why 2 different species would have to evolve the same exact traits

[Anonymous No.11333398]

>>11333326
>Are you saying that ONLY jews and christians don't believe in evolution

Nah, muslims probably aren't too fond of evolution either.

But in a nutshell - yes. If somebody is debating the merit of evolution as a theory at this point, you can be 99% sure that it comes from some sort of religious conditioning.

I also bet that you have a religious background as well.

[Anonymous No.11333524]

>>11333398

>Questioning Science is bad

Yeah sure thing, pal. You are starting to sound like the religious person here.

[Anonymous No.11333633]

>>11333524
>>Questioning Science is bad

No, questinioning science is not bad. What is bad is questioning something you have no solid understanding of.

Ask yourself: How many experts on evolution are questioning evolution?

How many physicists are questioning that the earth is a globe and seriously debate the flat-earth theory?

Fucking not many. And why? Because they actually know their shit - contrary to retards who have watches five clickbait youtube videos and now consider themselves in a perfectly valid position to "question" science.

[Anonymous No.11333646]

>>11333633
>What is bad is questioning something you have no solid understanding of.
Incorrect, questioning is the best way to learn
>Ask yourself: How many experts on evolution are questioning evolution?

Appeal to authority argument, discarded.

>Fucking not many. And why? Because they actually know their shit - contrary to retards who have watches five clickbait youtube videos and now consider themselves in a perfectly valid position to "question" science.

You sound like a cuck-hold, what do scientists say about that?

[Anonymous No.11333668]

>>11333646

... so, what about the religious upbringing?

I hit the nail on the head, hmm?

[Anonymous No.11333771]

>>11333633
>How many experts on evolution are questioning evolution?
I dunno, how many people who's job are dependent on a certain dogma are questioning that dogma? Are you retarded? Do you think the DEA is always questioning whether or not controlled substance law enforcement is effective or necessary? Do IRS employees spend their days hashing out the morality of taxation?

[Anonymous No.11333782]

>>11333633
How many catholic priests are questioning that God is real and that He is the father, the son, and the holy ghost in both a Trinity and a Unity?

Fucking not many. And why? Because they actually know their shit - contrary to retards who have watched five Neil Degrasse Tyson youtube videos and now consider themselves in a perfectly valid position to "question" the church.

[Anonymous No.11333817]

>>11333771
>>11333782
okay, listen here retards

Do you have any idea how famous a biologist would become if could prove that evolution is wrong?

That's the difference to your religious circle jerks. Scientist are actually trying to find evidence against the established theories - because that would mean you found something groundbreaking.

And that's why there is actually some progress in science.

[Anonymous No.11333822]

>>11333668

I am an atheist, if anything I was like the meme was a teenager. Like I said, you are a cuckhold and a brainlet for shutting someone down for asking questions.

[Anonymous No.11333824]

>>11333817
>if could prove that evolution is wrong?
That's not possible because evolution has no criteria by which it could be disproved. It's an unfalsifiable narrative.

>Scientist are actually trying to find evidence against the established theories
LOL I take it you have never actually conducted published scientific research. Science is a giant circlejerk to milk as much research grant money as possible. Going against the status quo is the quickest way to not get published. Got some controversial experimental results? The editor skims your paper, decides he doesn't want it to be published, and sends it to be evaluated for """""""peer review"""""""" to his buddy he knows will shut it down.

[Anonymous No.11333831]

>>11333822

Here is an idea, if you have questions about evolution, how about reading a book or two about evolution?

Creating threads on /sci/ is not a substitute for education.

[Anonymous No.11333836]

>>11333831
hey, wannabe jannie, /sci/ is not your little safe space. it's not up to your faggot whims what gets posted here. retard.

[Anonymous No.11333838]

>>11333824
>LOL I take it you have never actually conducted published scientific research. Science is a giant circlejerk to milk as much research grant money as possible. Going against the status quo is the quickest way to not get published. Got some controversial experimental results? The editor skims your paper, decides he doesn't want it to be published, and sends it to be evaluated for """""""peer review"""""""" to his buddy he knows will shut it down.

Still a better system than repeating the same shit for literally 2000 years.

[Anonymous No.11333841]

>>11333831

Suck a cock you uptight queer, if you don't like the thread fuck off it

[Anonymous No.11333844]

>>11332431
> Yeah, explain how this guy was one day walking around and then said fuck it and started flying.

Birds learn how to fly from their parents.

[Anonymous No.11333850]

>>11333208
>What evidence is there of this having happened?

I dunno, maybe it’s all the species of almost-birds in the fossil record and the fact evolution exists.

[Anonymous No.11333852]

>>11333233
>Clearly there is advantage to having wings. But there is no advantage whatsoever to the million evolutionary steps between no wings and wings.

Wrong. Feathers offer an advantage independent of flight and gliding and controlled falling are beneficial.

[Anonymous No.11333854]

>>11333841
>Suck a cock you uptight queer, if you don't like the thread fuck off it

Did I hurt your religious feelings?

[Anonymous No.11333856]

>>11333326
>Is that the ONLY reason someone would doubt evolution or abiogenesis as asserted by mainstream scientists?

I’m sure there’s some people who are generally just stupid rather than being religiously stupid that deny evolution. Are you one?

[Anonymous No.11333858]

>>11333343
>which begs the question why mammals don't have feathers

Mammals have fur instead. The mutations for feathers only occurred in archosaurs.

[Anonymous No.11334091]

all the people who think this is about evolution is a brainlet. OP is asking who taught the first bird to fly which is a very good question. the only way a bird can learn how to fly is by getting taught by a mother bird who knows how to fly. but there was no mother bird to teach this bird so who taught this bird how to fly? the answer is obviously God.

[Anonymous No.11334732]

>>11333850
>all the species of almost-birds in the fossil record
All speculative. Just because it kinda sorta looks like something doesn't mean it was what you think it was.

>the fact evolution exists.
Not an argument. Even if that were true, it still wouldn't be proof that there were living creatures who could not fly and whose descendants could fly. By evolution's own axioms, some kind of feathered creature which could not fly spawned a feathered creature that could fly.

[Anonymous No.11334786]

>>11333854

I am an atheist, I just think you are a condescending cunthole bringing nothing of value to the thread other than appeal to authority which arguably makes you just as mad as the retarded fundies

[Anonymous No.11334797]

>>11333208
>>11333233
Random mutation. One little raptor grew proto feathers. It helped him to procreate in some way (better able to survive thermoregulate, more attractive display for females, etc). He passed it onto his offspring. The ones who grew better feathers had more reproductive success than the ones with shitty feathers.
On and on for hundreds of thousands of generations.

Somewhere along the line, one was able to get away from a predator by flapping its feather covered arms. The one who didn't, died. This was passed on and the process repeats.

It's quite simple when you think about it.

[Anonymous No.11334867]

>>11334797
>One little raptor grew proto feathers. It helped him to procreate in some way
This doesn't make sense. Are you asserting that a raptor with absolutely no feathers or protofeathers gave birth to a raptor who had protofeathers that were SO HELPFUL that him and his offspring outcompeted every other raptor?

[Anonymous No.11335064]

>>11334797
That is pure speculation. Speculation without evidence.
It's kind of science in a nutshell. An unproven and unprovable theory based purely on the authority of those above.
Don't dare question science. You will be attacked by its proponents with a religious vigour.
Behold the wise men in their white robes and pocket protectors.

[Anonymous No.11335084]

>>11334867
It's a gradual change. It could also have been something as simple as having no benefit, but no disadvantage and then later there were further mutations that made it somewhat advantageous.

>>11335064
Evolution is easily visible when looking at simple organisms. The only issue with larger organisms is the timescale involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

[Anonymous No.11335111]

>>11335084
Y'all keep pulling out the same vid of adaptation.
I want proof of evolution.
Ie, I want to see simple organisms develop into more complex organism. Evolved, if you will. Not just adapting to changes in environment. I want to see these pin feathers appear and become wings, or the simple organisms equivalent thereof.
Given the life span of simple organisms, this is surely possible. If the theory were true. Alas, it clearly is not.

[Anonymous No.11335249]

>>11335084
>It's a gradual change.
No it's not, not in your example. In your example, a raptor with nothing resembling protofeathers bears offspring that has protofeathers. This has never been observed and is pure speculation.

[Anonymous No.11335273]

>>11335111
>Y'all keep pulling out the same vid of adaptation.
>I want proof of evolution.
Adaptation is evolution.

[Anonymous No.11335289]

>>11335273
Evolution is one species becoming irreversibly another species or a species becoming a more complex form of life. Adaption and natural selection are well observed in nature, for example in populations of finches. There is no observation in nature or otherwise of a species changing into another species and replacing the original species. By species I mean an entirely new population which is unable to reproduce with the original population. And yes, I know that it takes a few generations for this to occur, and that each generation is by definition genetically compatible with the generations directly before and after it (although there are exceptions like mules, although mules are generally sterile as far as I know).

[Anonymous No.11335344]

>>11335249
>This has never been observed

Oh wow, shit that took literally hundreds of million years has never been observered by humans who only vaguely bothered to look at this in the last 500 years.

Go read a book. And no, I don't mean the Bible.

[Anonymous No.11335352]

considering life has existed for like what? ~600 million years on earth that's quite a long time for something to evolve to what it is today, shit even 64 million years is a shitload of time. Plenty of time for trial and error.

[Anonymous No.11335361]

>>11332431
Gliding / falling with style at first to safely get down from high places after reaching food. Birds are dinosaurs and started out much more reptile-like. Longer you're able to glide the more likely you are able to evade predators waiting for you to reach the ground. If you're able to glide long enough that you don't even get to the ground and instead reach another tree, even better. Then eventually if you're able to become more aerodynamic with less weight over time and are even able to catch an updraft, even better. If you can start to use your appendages to help take advantage of this updraft with flapping or controlling the direction in which you glide, even better. Small incremental improvements turn your arms into wings and your tail into a rudder, etc.

Feathers have multiple angles of natural selection. But it could be that the most important was insulation, which may have helped during a global ice age after the bigass meteoroid that wiped out most dinosaurs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather#Evolution

[Anonymous No.11335369]

>>11333308
It's the reason that most people do. Otherwise people tend to get turned onto the concept when confronted with any reasonable amount of evidence.

>>11333326
Don't conflate evolution & abiogenisis. Almost as cringe as the people who conflate evolution and the creation of the universe.

>>11333524
I'd say question it as much as you please! Hell, if you can provide evidence that runs contrary to a widely accepted and agreed upon theory like that of evolution then by all means do so!

However, by the same right you must understand that the same standard will be applied to the evidence that you provide. If the evidence is weaker than the evidence that the standing theory are built upon then they're going to be rejected, or at least sidelined until you find something more substantial.

Does that make sense?

[Anonymous No.11335373]

>>11335344
>shit that took literally hundreds of million years
According to your fairy tales. You literally can't provide a single observation of it happening. All of evolution's "support" is speculation.

[Anonymous No.11335374]

>>11335369
>widely accepted and agreed upon theory
Consensus is, be definition, unscientific. Consensus and popularity contests have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method or logical rigor.

[Anonymous No.11335377]

>>11335373
Newb to /sci/ here, is this REALLY the level of intelligence I can expect from this place? Wondering whether it's worth sticking around

[Anonymous No.11335380]

>>11335377
hey bro look at these rocks, it's proof that bacteria turned into birds dude it just took like a bajillion years
source: just trust me dude

[Anonymous No.11335384]

>>11335374
Agreed, that's part of the reason I'm actually encouraging you to disprove theories that you think are not properly supported by the evidence by showing evidence that runs to the contrary of those theories.

Most scientists, both lay and career, try their best to follow the same ethic. Instead of thinking of it in terms of right and wrong and true and untrue, try to think of it in terms of finding the best fit. We're trying to find the best fit for everything, and the only way to do that is to be vigilant and ever critical.

[Anonymous No.11335441]

>>11335384
Your naivety is endearing. Wait until you graduate high school.

[Anonymous No.11335461]

>>11335441
Thanks! You too!

[Anonymous No.11335485]

>>11335289
ring species fag

[Anonymous No.11335541]

>>11335377
Seriously, you should 360 and walk out now.
Logical and well thought out debate are clearly too much for you. May I suggest /lit or /gay or /fuckofffaggotnoonewantsyouhere.

[Anonymous No.11335548]

>>11335289
>Evolution is one species becoming irreversibly another species or a species becoming a more complex form of life.
Why are you here if you don't even know what evolution is? Evolution is just changes in allele frequencies in a population over generations. We have observed that. We have observed evolution.

[Anonymous No.11335556]

>>11333100
99 percent of animal corpses never turn into fossils anon and also we have not scoured all of the Earth for fossils yet

[Anonymous No.11335561]

>>11335548
>Them moving goalposts tho
"...evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection."
>We have observed that
And yet you still have no evidence of such observations

[Anonymous No.11335708]

>>11335377
Yes, because writing some ignorant bullshit takes almost no time compared to providing actual information. Especially when it comes to complex subjects not easily covered in a few sentences.

That's why idiots and religitards are shitting up this place like everything else they touch.

[Anonymous No.11335727]

>>11332527
Why would a raptor that's like a chicken be selected for? One problem with evolution is that a species can't evolve new traits to become adapted to a new environment whilst simultaneously remaining well-adapted to its current environment, and therefore would never get selected for. Good luck explaining your way out of this problem. Also, thanks for this idea, OP.

[Anonymous No.11335747]

>>11332431
There are a number of theories that explain why raptors might have developed feathers.
1. Insulation
2. Aerodynamics and turning at high speed
3. Climbing up trees

[Anonymous No.11335749]

>>11333265
>>11333817
Bringing up religion
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.11335765]

>>11335727
Environments and selective pressures change.

[Anonymous No.11336116]

>>11332431
Humans started committing suicide by jumping off high places.
Humans invented a glider/ parachute
Humans jump off high things slower now.
Humans develop wing suits
Humans master wing suits
Humans add jet packs
Humans now fly.

Same with birds

ie. feathers are a technology. In a different way.

[Anonymous No.11336139]

>>11332431
If you didn't get it from school, or fucking first world living, you are probably too far gone to get it from 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11336146]

>>11334732
>All speculative.

No. There is a clear lineage of therapod dinosaurs becoming more and more bird-like over geological timescales.

> Not an argument.

Yes it is.

> Even if that were true, it still wouldn't be proof that there were living creatures who could not fly and whose descendants could fly.

That is the only possibility barring all flying organisms being magically created.

> By evolution's own axioms, some kind of feathered creature which could not fly spawned a feathered creature that could fly.

Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11336164]

The answer for "Why" is random mutations, the environment allows the beneficial ones to reproduce more, each time reinforcing the original trait. Could be several too.

Evolution is the ultimate retard filter

[Anonymous No.11336179]

>>11335064
>Don't dare question science. You will be attacked by its proponents with a religious vigour.

Correction: You are just wasting everybody's time by questioning things you have no grasp of.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy among peers.
>professor X says that professor Y's results are wrong because the famous professor Z says those results are impossible.
That would be a fallacy.

Just because some retard wrote down his opinion, doesn't mean that it is as valid as the work of generations of scientists who dedicated their whole life to the research of that topic.

When dealing with people who are simply not educated enough, appeal to authority is the only thing that is left. Because what else are you going to do? Copy paste whole textbooks?


Fundamentally it's an ego problem.
>I never studied the field in any serious manner, but hey I have this opinion. And it's probably a better explanation than all the research available.

[Anonymous No.11336353]

>>11335548
>Evolution is just changes in allele frequencies in a population over generations
That's a totally useless definition of evolution. Are you saying that speciation is not part of evolution? Are you saying that a population of organisms changing to become a population of more complex organisms are not implied in evolution? If you want "changes in the allele frequencies in a population over generations" you could just irradiate some rabbits and turn them into mutant freaks until eventually they are spawning such distorted creatures the population dies out. Would that really make sense to include under the umbrella of "evolution"? Saying evolution is just changes - any changes - is a total cop out and goal post moving. Show me a population of organisms changing into a population of more complex organisms. Let's use a practical and interesting definition of evolution, not a useless one.

[Anonymous No.11336357]

>>11336116
Fucking absurd line of reasoning. Developing technology is a conscious endeavor. Humans INTENDED to develop gliders and flying machines. Raptors didn't sit down and think "ayup I think I'll just mutate some feathers real quick". Evolution is absolutely not a technology.

[Anonymous No.11336362]

>>11336146
>No. There is a clear lineage of therapod dinosaurs becoming more and more bird-like over geological timescales.
You have a handful of rocks that we're all supposed to believe are directly related to one another. You're taking it on faith that the scientists aren't lying to you.

>That is the only possibility barring all flying organisms being magically created.
Yes, according to evolution, a non-flying creature mated and its offspring could fly. Or a gliding creature which could not fly on its own power mated and its offspring could fly on its own power.

[Anonymous No.11336366]

>>11336164
Mutations are tiny changes. It's absurd to say that random, tiny mutations (most of which would be deleterious) were significant enough to change entire populations. Where has this ever been observed?

[Anonymous No.11336635]

>>11333265
Some of these skulls were complete fabrications

[Anonymous No.11336644]

>>11335765
Naming a phenomenon isn't an explanation

[Anonymous No.11336662]

>>11335765
How is this even relevant? You've practically just restated the problem, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.11336673]

>>11336146
>That is the only possibility barring all flying organisms being magically created
Incorrect. Another possibility is that all flying organisms were created
>how
>irrelevant
>then it didn't happen
>ok idiot

[Anonymous No.11336680]

>>11336164
>Evolution is the ultimate retard filter
Agreed. Everyone who believes it is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.11337081]

>>11336357
You believe in the (((Evolution Theory)))
I believe in the )))Adaptation Theory(((

[Anonymous No.11337410]

>>11336644
>>11336662
If your point is "why would any creature evolve if it is already suited to its environment" than the answer is "no environment is static, it will always be ever-changing and so organisms will always be forced to adapt."