[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 2.86 MB, 3110x2219, Charles_Darwin_crop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11407394 No.11407394 [Reply] [Original]

Nobody can disprove Behe's nail in the coffin of the bizarre evolutionary paradigm, irrededucible complex organs are proven in a ad hoc way by neo-darwinians after they have already assented to the axiom that evolution is factual

>> No.11407400

Nobody can disprove a unfalsifiable theorem*

>> No.11407409

>>11407394
Evolution is directly observed, so I'm not sure what you're babbling about. Even if you proved an organ was irreducibly complex (which no one has, and there burden of proof is on you), evolution would still be a fact.

>> No.11407417

Evolution requires three things:
1. Traits that have an effect on fitness in a given environment
2. Inheritance of traits
3. A chance for change of traits over time

Evolution is a general concept that can apply to many different areas, so it needs no proof (provability literally not applicable). The only thing that needs to be proven is that something fulfils the requirements for evolution. All requirements have been observed in life, thus life is evolving.

>> No.11407421

>>11407417
That's natural selection, all that evolution requires is random mutations.

>> No.11407440

>>11407421
Talk evolution-creationism

dcord.gg /BEgBWKR

>> No.11407441

>>11407421
nah bro. to evolve means to improve.

>> No.11407594

>>11407441
Nah brooooooooo, to evolve means to change genetically. Don't post if you have no clue what you're talking about.

>> No.11407596

>>11407440
No thanks.

>> No.11407749

>>11407441
>t.sci fi tv show writer

>> No.11409415

>>11407394
"I'm too stupid and lazy to look up and understand refutations of Behe's ad hoc replacement for creationism" is NOT a synonym for "Nobody can disprove Behe's nail in the coffin of the bizarre evolutionary paradigm".

>> No.11409421

>>11407441
No it doesn't. You need to understand something before you can effectively criticize it.

>> No.11409425

weird coincidence how everybody who finds fault in the concept of human evolution is also a member of a cult with a mystical creation myth which they take literally. I wonder if there's some kind of correlation there.

Surely if evolution as a concept was inherently flawed, secular people would be finding fault with it too.

>> No.11410166

>>11409425

The life begetting a life: mystical?

Not life begetting all life: it just works?

>> No.11412212

>>11410166
Scientists are honest by admitting that they don't know how life started.
Creationists lie by claiming they know what created life.

>> No.11413276

>>11412212

They only "admit" that they don't know when called out on the absurdity of abiogenesis, which is the only possible hypothesis if one is truly Materialist in general and Darwinist in particular.

>> No.11413277

>>11407394
Prove irreducibly complex organs exist.

>> No.11413281

>>11413276
Prove abiogenesis is “absurd”. Don’t think that’s a very scientific term. Sounds like you’re working off of “feelings” here.

>> No.11413290

>>11413276
If you really want to play the game of who's being disingenuous, at least scientists can admit they don't know at all. This is opposed to religionists who claim that they know the right action in every situation and not only the workings of this world, its past, and its future, but also the working of supposed mystical/spiritual worlds which we can't measure at all, then never really admit their lack of knowledge when pressed by details and dodge using apologetics.

>> No.11414759

>>11413276
Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It could've been an "accident" or God could've created the first few cells. It doesn't matter because AFTER life exists, it evolves.

>> No.11414777

>>11409425
By your logic, atheists would be the odd ones out, unless of course they also subscribe to a infallible creation myth. Wait a second...

Really you should be thanking them for actually hardening your truths. Without religious fundies pointing out flaws in your creation story, (and vice versa), the truth would be a lot further away for everyone.
>>11412212
This statement is straight up false.

>> No.11416379

>>11414777
>This statement is straight up false.
How is it false? Are scientists not doing experiments to hypothesize about how life started because they don't know how it did? Are creationists not claiming that "gOd DiD iT"?