/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14950058]

I came here recently trying to figure out how our current understanding of evolution can be true if we don't really have evidence of creatures say having half a tail. There is no artificial benefit to half of a new phenotype like a tale, or feet, or webbed toes or whatever. Yet the common depiction of evolution happening over millions of years means that there should be tons of fossils with half of a developed phenotype rather than completed ones.
Someone on here contended that evolution isn't gradual and actually happens in massive bursts...which completely contradicts the entire understanding of evolution being gradual over millions of years.
So I started trying to prove our current understanding of evolution is correct myself only to hit roadblock after roadblock of unanswered questions and lack of evidence and even evidence to the contrary. This video from the Hoover Institution at Stanford gets across a lot of my questions in a decent way.
>Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
I'd link it but it called my post spam with links.

And here is a study that addresses the question of how evolution can happen in quick bursts instead of how it's normally taught, gradual changes over millions of years. The study comes up quite short on proving much of anything and seems to raise more questions about whether we understand the basics of evolution at all.
>Speciation and Bursts of Evolution by Chris Venditti & Mark Page
I linked it but it called my post spam so I've removed the link.


Can someone prove Darwin's theory to me? This just doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. Is there any complete fossil records showing one species changing into another? I can't find any googling online.

[Anonymous No.14950111]

>>14950058
Is there no one who can answer this??

[Anonymous No.14950162]

>>14950058
>I came here recently trying to figure out how our current understanding of evolution can be true if we don't really have evidence of creatures say having half a tail.
What is "half a tail?" A shorter tail is still a tail.

>There is no artificial benefit to half of a new phenotype like a tale, or feet, or webbed toes or whatever.
Again, "half" is meaningless here. Evolution doesn't have goals that it gets halfway to and then completes. That's a teleological fallacy. Its a random walk. Each step of that walk can be selected for by nature or just propagate by chance. And the selection does not have to be for the same function across the entire timeline.

>Yet the common depiction of evolution happening over millions of years means that there should be tons of fossils with half of a developed phenotype rather than completed ones.
No, there should be tons of fossils showing intermediate forms, and there are. Each intermediate form had some success in their ecological niche, otherwise they would quickly die out and the probability of producing a fossil would be miniscule.

>Someone on here contended that evolution isn't gradual and actually happens in massive bursts...which completely contradicts the entire understanding of evolution being gradual over millions of years.
Sometimes it is gradual and sometimes it isn't.

>So I started trying to prove our current understanding of evolution is correct myself
You apparently didn't try very hard since you have basic misconceptions that you can easily correct just by reading sources for laymen.

>Can someone prove Darwin's theory to me?
What is Darwin's theory and why is it relevant? Modern biology has much more data and understanding than Darwin. I don't believe you actually care about proving evolution since you're stuck on silly creationist talking points and strawmen.

But here's an easy way to prove humans share a common ancestor with fish and every other vertebrate: https://youtu.be/TUxLR9hdorI

[Anonymous No.14950189]

>>14950162
Ok I watched the whole video but viruses being found at the same places in DNA and proving that the DNA comes from the same place doesn't really prove it happened the way we think it did at all.

Idk why're you're calling me a creationist, I literally just started looking into the evidence of evolution and found a bunch of experts talking about how we have many unanswered questions which make it clear we don't really understand the fundamentals of it.
Such as the literal experts I cited above. The video from the Hoover Institution takes much of its info from books from experts trying to prove evolution themselves and coming up short. Darwin himself said that evolution must happen gradually and incrementally over large periods of time. We seem to have proven that wrong to some extent and it can indeed happen in bursts. But we don't seem to have a clue how evolution can happen in quick bursts.

If you can show me anything on how evolution occurs in quick bursts and or a fossil record showing at least a few examples of intermediate forms between one species and another I would greatly appreciate it. I tried searching a bit but couldn't answer these questions with google and trying to is actually how I found that video about Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's theory of Evolution.

[Anonymous No.14950198]

>>14950162
imagine if you have a program which is highly specialized for creating a "mammalian adapted for Earth". It would make sense if 98% of the code was the same with only minor changes for what are phenotypical aspects. We breathe oxygen the same way apes do. I'm pretty sure they don't see or smell or hear much differently than humans.
If this is what creationists ask then maybe I am one lol. It just makes sense to me since the theory that it happened naturally with no intervening event doesn't seem to have concrete evidence proving it true.

[Anonymous No.14950231]

>>14950189
>Ok I watched the whole video but viruses being found at the same places in DNA and proving that the DNA comes from the same place doesn't really prove it happened the way we think it did at all.
Not only does it prove evolution, it proves evolution at the highest scales. You and fish share a common ancestor.

>Idk why're you're calling me a creationist
I didn't, I said you're stuck on silly creationist talking points and strawmen.

>found a bunch of experts talking about how we have many unanswered questions which make it clear we don't really understand the fundamentals of it.
The video you mentioned doesn't have any experts in evolution or genetics, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Did you look for critiques of the video? It's just interesting to me that you stopped researching and came here once you found creationist propaganda.

>Darwin himself said that evolution must happen gradually and incrementally over large periods of time.
And? Biology has moved beyond Darwin. Why do you keep referring to him?

>But we don't seem to have a clue how evolution can happen in quick bursts.
But that's wrong. Why do you make these claims when you haven't even looked for answers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy#Allopolyploidy

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

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

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

>a fossil record showing at least a few examples of intermediate forms between one species and another I would greatly appreciate it.
I don't believe you actually looked. This is trivial.

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

[Anonymous No.14950255]

>>14950198
>It would make sense if 98% of the code was the same with only minor changes for what are phenotypical aspects.
This is stupid on several levels. On the first level, we're not even talking about the codes being 98% similar. We're talking about specific sections of code created by a virus. On the second level, why would you copy a code full of viruses of you can manipulate DNA at will and understand how to create phenotypic variation? On the third level, the code isn't copied except for phenotypic changes, because the more similar the organisms are, the more retrovirus codes they have in common. This is because retroviral DNA is being added throughout the timeline, not just at the oldest common ancestor. So more recently diverged species will have retroviral insertions that other species don't have. So you're saying the designers didn't make a bunch of species copied from one template all at the same time. No, they made a copy and then waited maybe thousands or millions of years for a new retrovirus, and then made more copies and waited for more millions of years, etc., and repeated this over and over following the exact same path that natural evolution would take for no reason. LOL. It's not simpler than natural evolution, it's more complex and pointless!

>It just makes sense to me since the theory that it happened naturally with no intervening event doesn't seem to have concrete evidence proving it true.
You were already given the concrete evidence that it happened naturally. You don't care. Evolution is directly observable, with no intervention. But you can't observe it over millions of years, you can only look at fossil and genetic evidence that indicates what happened. If that's not enough for you then too bad. Enjoy your creationist grift.

[Anonymous No.14950508]

>>14950231
Thank you very much for the links to transitional fossils. Not knowing that term seemed to have lead me astray. The only reason I ever came here to ask questions is because while independently trying to answer my questions about how evolution works I found multiple sources claiming we weren't sure how it works. I will be studying these fossils to confirm that they show a clear transition between one species and another.
I just don't get why an animal in transition between one species and another would ever have advantageous evolutionary traits. I don't why every time I ask about having a fraction of a tail people act so confused by the concept. There are things that monkeys benefit from by having a tail that they wouldn't get if it was a short stub. And if you look it up we actually don't know at all why great apes lost their tails. It's still a complete unknown
I googled "how did apes lose their tails" and this is a quote from the first article.
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/2291130-how-our-ape-ancestors-suddenly-lost-their-tails-25-million-years-ago
>What the finding cannot tell us is why our ancestors lost their tails; that is, why this mutation was selected for by evolution. Most proposed explanations involve tails being a disadvantage when early apes started moving in a different way, such as walking upright on branches. But fossils suggest the first tail-less apes still walked on all fours

I still feel like someone should be able to answer the question of how half of a developed evolutionary trait manages to become whole over millions of years while it's not actually useful. If you grow a short stub it's not providing the advantages of a tail for a million years before it gets long enough to grasp a tree branch effectively. So why was it ever selected for? Surely someone can understand what I'm asking. I've asked it like 3 times in several different forums and only ever gotten confused replies. It's not that crazy a question.

[Anonymous No.14950542]

>>14950231
like those fossils showing snakes with little stub legs. showing speciation into lizards. What was the rate of development between no leg/feet structures to having structures. The way it's taught you would expect at least a few thousand years of nothing but 1cm long stubs protruding from a random point. And where are all the vestigial phenotypes? Sure we can find a lot of useless code in genes but I don't know of any animals with obvious phenotypes that are remnants of past species. What is the average time a species spends in transition between two clear species compared to not being in clear transition?
And along that same train of thought, are there anything species today which are in clear transition? Like really in transition with half a stubby appendage that doesn't really seem fully developed at the moment.

the more I try to figure out how evolution works the more unanswered questions arise. But I will be studying all the concepts which you linked as examples of how evolution can happen in quick bursts. It seems like most of my skepticism comes from a lack of clear examples of current speciation happening on earth today. But like I said I will be looking into these transitional fossils. Although even if evolution is completely true for all the animals we have transitional fossils we can never truly be sure how humans evolved because ape fossils are near impossible to find. The ape fossil record is basically non-existent since they live in forests.

thank you again for the links, I look forward to studying them

[Anonymous No.14950656]

>>14950542
Why did apes lose their tails? Probably because it wasn't advantageous when they started walking on branches upright like many apes do. Honestly I'm pretty convinced by that, but I don't see the issue regardless though, just because we don't have a precise reason, doesn't mean it didn't happen, evolution isn't perfect obviously, and sometimes there is minimal justification for the development of traits. We know it happened, and we understand how it happened, the why, while interesting, doesn't need to be present in order to prove evolution exists, as there are a plethora of other why's that are answered that one can consult when wanting to witness evolution in action.

[Anonymous No.14950658]

>>14950656
Ah piss I meant to respond to
>>14950508

[Anonymous No.14951088]

>>14950508
>The only reason I ever came here to ask questions is because while independently trying to answer my questions about how evolution works I found multiple sources claiming we weren't sure how it works.
Just be a little more skeptical of sources, since there are a lot of creationist sites that use SEO so that they can get the first results on Google.

>I just don't get why an animal in transition between one species and another would ever have advantageous evolutionary traits.
Because each part is advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, not necessarily having the range function as what it develops into. Again, evolution is not progressing to a specific design, it is randonly walking from niche to niche.

>I don't why every time I ask about having a fraction of a tail people act so confused by the concept.
Because that's not how evolution works. Do you think there's a new gene for each inch of tail???

>There are things that monkeys benefit from by having a tail that they wouldn't get if it was a short stub.
So? Monkeys had tails from the beginning, which they inherited from fish.

>And if you look it up we actually don't know at all why great apes lost their tails.
But we know it happened.

>I still feel like someone should be able to answer the question of how half of a developed evolutionary trait
There's no such thing.

>manages to become whole over millions of years while it's not actually useful. If you grow a short stub it's not providing the advantages of a tail for a million years before it gets long enough to grasp a tree branch effectively.
That never happened.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1

[Anonymous No.14951093]

>>14951088
>That never happened.
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
It didn't happen because... It just didn't okay?!?!

[Anonymous No.14951122]

>>14951093
forgive me if I'm wrong but is this study questioning key components of our understanding of human evolution? It seems to be that there are studies detailing gaps in our understanding which raise doubts about just how much we understand about evolution but I haven't seen anyone speak to these studies so I'm not sure how meaningful they are.

[Anonymous No.14951148]

>>14951122
His study doesn't provide any compelling genetic or observational evidence that complex macro structures could evolve by random mutation, so he got taunted about making false claims.

[Anonymous No.14951162]

>>14950058
>No benefit to half a phenotype.
Not to sound like a dick, but if you want to understand evolution you really have to read up on your developmental biology. A single mutation in a single gene can cause major pheontypical changes. You need to read up on hox genes, homeobox genes, and the general mechanisms of developmental biology. I suggest starting with genes like wingless, or decapentaplegic.
You also should read up on the types of mutations, like gene duplication and duplication of entire chromosomal sections.
The thing is, a single gene can sause a major phenotypical change, the millions of years for evolution referes to these relatively large phenotypical changes accumulating.
Fun fact: The genome of neanderthals was sequenced. One of the genes that play a part in brain development has a single mutation difference between us and them. Neural organoids grown from human induiced pluripotent stemcells with this mutation are vastly different in structure and composition.
A single mutation can be the diffrence between a leg and a basic wing in insects. The number of legs can be changed just as easely.
We do these experiments at university, placeing hox genes on beeds into chicken embryos to grow them extra wings and the like.
If you actually want to learn evolution, i wish you the best, but your statement "I started trying to prove our current understanding of evolution is correct" does not inspire confidence. It seems like you are starting out from a weird place.

[Anonymous No.14951336]

>>14951162
I've added all of these terms to my list of topics to look up and read about. thank you.
Reading your comment raises a different question for me. With such big differences in traits coming from single mutations it begs the question of where are all the failed mutations? Shouldn't we see tons of animals in transitional stages/evolving new traits that aren't really useful? Shouldn't it be sheer random chance that you manage to mutate something cohesive and useful like a "leg" appendage. Like your example of a single mutation making a wing into a leg. Wouldn't it be vastly more likely that the mutation changes into some useless deformed lump instead of a useful leg or wing for that matter. The chances of evolving a useful appendage instead of just a random useless lump of flesh should be astronomical right?
The more I try to learn about evolution the more advanced the terminology I get told to look up is. That makes sense though.

[Anonymous No.14951357]

>>14951093
Because tails were inherited from fish. They were always useful or at least not disadvantageous during their development. No monkey tail developed from "half a tail," you retard. How is this hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.14951360]

>>14951357
>Because tails were inherited from fish.
Fish tails became mammalian tails because... The just did, okay?!?!

[Anonymous No.14951370]

>>14951148
>His study doesn't provide any compelling genetic or observational evidence that complex macro structures could evolve by random mutation
No one said it did. The evidence that complex structures could evolve by random mutation is that the difference between organisms with those structures and without is just differences in genes,
aka mutations. And I already gave incontrovertible evidence that we evolved from fish.

[Anonymous No.14951372]

>>14951370
Posting more tautological claims doesn't validate your earlier tautological claims posted with no evidentiary basis.

[Anonymous No.14951382]

>>14951336
>With such big differences in traits coming from single mutations it begs the question of where are all the failed mutations?
They are in dead organisms that did not propagate those mutations.

>Shouldn't we see tons of animals in transitional stages/evolving new traits that aren't really useful?
No, we would see tons of animals in transitional stages that are useful, because those are the organisms that reproduced. And that's exactly what we see. When you go to a junkyard do you see all the cars from car companies that failed, or do you see all the cars that sold the most?

>Wouldn't it be vastly more likely that the mutation changes into some useless deformed lump instead of a useful leg or wing for that matter.
Yes, but fossils don't show the most common mutations, they show the rare ones that propagated the most.

[Anonymous No.14951385]

>>14951382
>Yes, but fossils don't show the most common mutations, they show the rare ones that propagated the most.
So the intermediate mutations were both sexually fit enough to propagate their useless deformed lumps but not successful enough to show up in the fossil record.

[Anonymous No.14951387]

>>14951360
Because fish and all other vertebrates share a common ancestor.

https://youtu.be/TUxLR9hdorI

[Anonymous No.14951389]

>>14951372
>Posting more tautological claims
So the thing you claimed there was no evidence for is now a tautology? Then why do you need evidence for it? LOL

[Anonymous No.14951392]

>>14951385
>So the intermediate mutations were both sexually fit enough to propagate their useless deformed lumps
No, the fit mutations are not useless deformed lumps. Those are the common, unfit mutations. You can't even follow your own argument.

[Anonymous No.14951394]

>>14951389
>he doesn't even know what a tautology is

[Anonymous No.14951398]

>>14951394
A tautology is correct by definition. So why are you demanding evidence for it?

[Anonymous No.14951399]

>>14951392
So you're saying that macro-structures evolve completely whole with no intermediate steps. They just show up one day? Because evolutionists say that small mutations add up into those structures over millions of years.

[Anonymous No.14951401]

>>14951398
A tautology is circular logic, vacuous of actual information. "It's true because... It's true ok?" is your tautological argument. Obviously there's no proof or it would be a real argument with legitimate scientific value.

[Anonymous No.14951402]

>>14951399
>So you're saying that macro-structures evolve completely whole with no intermediate steps.
No, where did I say anything like that? I said that the intermediate steps are useful or at least not disadvantageous. ESL?

[Anonymous No.14951404]

>>14951402
And they're not in the fossil record because...?

[Anonymous No.14951409]

>>14951401
>A tautology is circular logic
No, circular logic is an argument in which the conclusion is contained in the premise. A tautology is a proposition, not an argument, that is true by definition. You claimed I didn't understand what a tautology is when you don't understand it? LOL.

>"It's true because... It's true ok?" is your tautological argument.
Too bad I never said that. It's true by definition that random mutations can be the genetic basis for a complex structure. Why are you asking for evidence of this if it's true by definition?

[Anonymous No.14951410]

>>14951404
They are, liar.

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

[Anonymous No.14951424]

>>14951409
>It's true by definition that random mutations can be the genetic basis for a complex structure. Why are you asking for evidence of this if it's true by definition?
"It's true because..." again. No, it's only true if you can provide empirical evidence of this occurring somewhere in nature. We have observed in nature that micro-evolution, aka natural selection, devolves genomes from a high variety of phenotypes to a low variety. Function is always lost in favor of specialization of what already exists.

[Anonymous No.14951491]

>>14951424
>"It's true because..." again.
Is true by definition. You admitted it.

>No, it's only true if you can provide empirical evidence of this occurring somewhere in nature.
I already did, but it's not necessary since it's true by definition. Not my fault you made a dumb request.

>We have observed in nature that micro-evolution, aka natural selection
LOL, no. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution in general.

>devolves genomes from a high variety of phenotypes to a low variety.
How is that devolution?

>Function is always lost in favor of specialization of what already exists.
Pure nonsense. Function is what is selected and propagated.

[Anonymous No.14951494]

>>14951491
>Is true by definition. You admitted it.
Look I broke the NPC. "It's true because I said it's true!!!" is not an argument, it's the last gasp of a failed paradigm. Circular logic.

[Anonymous No.14951513]

>>14951494
>"It's true because I said it's true!!!"
Not what I said, illiterate retard. I said it's true by definition. And you admitted it.

[Anonymous No.14951520]

>>14951513
Your programming is stuck. Which part of me calling you a retard and saying that's not an argument affirms your point that truth comes from circular logic?

[Anonymous No.14951561]

>>14950058
There's plenty of animals out there with shorter or vestigial tails (rats v. hamsters) and plenty of birds with feet webbed to various degrees. Human embryos have tails and webbed feat at certain stages of development (which on rare occasions survive to be seen on the baby).

Evolution is often stair-stepped as when something comes along that provides a major advantage, those expressing that gene tend to out breed those that don't within a handful of generations, but it's just as often a more subtle effect.

In any case, even the most cursory thought on the issue would have brought you to this conclusion. In the end, your problem isn't with evolution, it's with society. Stop proclaiming yourself ignorant simply because you hate the system. It's counter-productive to actually doing anything about it.

[Anonymous No.14951581]

>>14950058
>normally taugh
The only place where you can learn evolution is in the biology school because they will mention the mistakes of Darwin and Lamarck

[Anonymous No.14951641]

>>14950058
God created everything as it is.

[Anonymous No.14951642]

>>14950542
>And where are all the vestigial phenotypes? Sure we can find a lot of useless code in genes but I don't know of any animals with obvious phenotypes that are remnants of past species
Lots of nearly legless lizards fit that bill

[Anonymous No.14951647]

>>14951424
>We have observed in nature that micro-evolution
Ah there’s the mention of micro evolution. What process stops the small changes seen in micro evolution from adding up over time?

[Anonymous No.14951660]

>>14951647
>What process stops the small changes seen in micro evolution from adding up over time?
The deleterious nature of those small changes, on average. Michael Behe wrote a fantastic book on the topic if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.14951671]

>>14950058
>Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
These are the books cited in the OP video as challenging "Darwin's theory". Anyone know of any succinct debunks of these books main claims?
> The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays
>The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design By Stephen C. Meyer

[Anonymous No.14951679]

>>14951357
You haven't been talking to OP for a while. There are several other people questioning as well.

[Anonymous No.14951686]

>>14951561
>In any case, even the most cursory thought on the issue would have brought you to this conclusion. In the end, your problem isn't with evolution, it's with society. Stop proclaiming yourself ignorant simply because you hate the system. It's counter-productive to actually doing anything about it.

It's really weird how hostile people get when you ask the exact same questions about evolution as the scientists who got us to our understanding of it today especially when by definition the only way to understand the answers to these question is tons of studying. The questions OP and others ask are IDENTICAL to what Darwin himself was asking yet when they start asking they get attacked for it. What gives?

[Anonymous No.14951710]

>>14951686
Darwin was a naturalist who was quite aware there are animals with tails of various lengths and birds with various degrees of webbing in their feat. He never would have asked this question, nor should anyone beyond the third grade who knows the difference between a rat and a hamster.

The only person who would "ask" this is someone who wanted to shoot down the knowledge he was given in order to spite those that gave it to them.

[Anonymous No.14951723]

>>14951710
why do "experts" always act so schizo? Every single one of these questions is something I shared with my friends and they thought they were good questions they wanted to hear the answers too as well. The fact that you think random creationists are coming to the /sci/ board of all places just to ask questions they don't care about to make you mad is pretty deranged.

[Anonymous No.14951777]

>>14950058
>if we don't really have evidence of creatures say having half a tail
Having a tail is simply the "default" for animals since some of the most primitive ones were basically worms, and that bodyplan was the base most following branches evolved from

[Anonymous No.14951788]

>>14950058
There are cats with a "no tail" gene. It isn't THAT gradual.

[Anonymous No.14951844]

>>14951336
>The chances of evolving a useful appendage instead of just a random useless lump of flesh should be astronomical right?
Actually, no. It is small, but not nearly as small as you think. The thing is, the way devekomental biology works (way way oversymplified) is based on interacting concentration gradients of master regulators. I'll try to make a mockup of in paint or whatever. The thing is, to understand developmental biology and why that is posible, you need to understand the basics of enzymology and protein interactions.
This is why evolutionary biology is something you specialise in after a 3 year BSc in biology. You need to learn the basics. That is not to say you can't do it outside of the uni system, you seem dedicated and i really genuinely wish you the best in this endevour.
First here i'll post the regarding
>With such big differences in traits coming from single mutations it begs the question of where are all the failed mutations?
We see them all the time. Most of the time large scale phenotipical changes are useless. some times they are not. This is why evolution takes a long time.

[Anonymous No.14951879]

>>14951336
Here is the mockup i made. This is how the number of limbs is determained in insects. As for the shape, there is also a set of genes for that. A single gene becomes overexpressed, underexpressed, duplicated, and the leangth, the number of segments, etc.. can change just as easely.

[Anonymous No.14951917]

>>14951723
>The fact that you think random creationists are coming to the /sci/ board of all places just to ask questions they don't care about to make you mad is pretty deranged.
It happens every day, and the fact that you keep repeating creationist talking points without using common sense, and then calling people schizo doesn't help.

[Anonymous No.14951920]

>>14951679
Where did I say anything about OP? I responded directly to the post.

[Anonymous No.14951940]

>>14951660
Hi. I'm not the anon you have been talking to, and i'm too lazy to reread your entire conversation, so sorry if this has already been discussed.
Tiny changes can and often are caused not by deletions, but by gene duplications and similar mutations.
If i have time later, i'll mock up how these effect protein strucutre, and how these effect developmental biology.
Also there are chromosomal partial and full duplications, antransposon readthrougs, alternative splicing, poliA insertion by ORF2, etc... many ways new pieces of genes, orentire new genes are bourn.

[Anonymous No.14951967]

>>14951671
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-08-07/

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/doubting-darwins-doubt

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html

https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1244515

https://2think.org/letters.shtml

[Anonymous No.14951969]

>>14951660
>The deleterious nature of those small changes
If mutations are deleterious then they are selected against. So what average are you talking about? The average mutation that occurs or the average mutation that is propagated? Only the latter gets built upon.

[Anonymous No.14951972]

>>14951520
>Which part of me calling you a retard and saying that's not an argument affirms your point that truth comes from circular logic?
Again, not what I said. You really have a reading comprehension problem. You admitted that complex macro structures being able evolve by random mutation is tautological.

[Anonymous No.14952268]

>>14951967
>>14951940
>>14951879
>>14951844
thank you for all the information I have a document with all these diagrams links and terms in it to study up on. Looks like I've got more than enough to read for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.14953093]

>>14951660
But that only applies to those that are deleterious, and not those that are beneficial

[Anonymous No.14953102]

>>14950058
look up some of Ernst Mayr's essays. He answers a lot of the questions you're asking -- I'll come back to thread later to see if you have any questions. Have to feed the kids in my neighborhood candy for now tho : (

[Anonymous No.14953110]

>>14951969
The average mutation that gets propagated is a deletion of genetic information from the genome of an animal which reduces its genomic diversity but specializes it for the situation it currently lives in.

[Anonymous No.14953114]

>>14951972
>You admitted that complex macro structures being able evolve by random mutation is tautological.
I told you that your argument is fallacious because it's tautological, it's a "Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy." (the definition of a tautology). Instead of giving evidence, you just restated your claim. "My claim is true because my claim is true" was your argument.

[Anonymous No.14953202]

>>14953110
>The average mutation that gets propagated is a deletion of genetic information from the genome of an animal
Why are you just making shit up? That would mean that genomes are getting shorter. They are not.

>which reduces its genomic diversity but specializes it for the situation it currently lives in.
You seem to be incredibly confused. You conflate deleterious mutation with deletion mutation, and you conflate mutation with selection. Selection, not mutation, reduces genetic diversity by killing off deleterious mutations and propagating advantageous ones. Why do you even think this is problematic?

[frenanon No.14953514]

>>14950058
I think evolution is like a continuous feedback loop.
>Plants in Europe start causing animals to make certain enzymes,
>and these enzymes are then used by fungi/plants which causes them to produce slightly different chemicals,
>which cause the animals to produce different enzymes...
So after a lot of time between all the different life and biomes interacting with each other, this leads to genetic distinctions.

[frenanon No.14953522]

>>14950189
>Ok I watched the whole video but viruses being found at the same places in DNA and proving that the DNA comes from the same place doesn't really prove it happened the way we think it did at all.
Because any field that can be used to promote a "Political Agenda", is mired with all sorts of disingenuous fraud.

[Anonymous No.14953817]

>>14953114
>I told you that your argument is fallacious because it's tautological
More nonsense. A tautology is neither fallacious nor an argument. It's a proposition that is correct by definition.

>it's a "Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy."
That's the grammatical definition. Are you critiquing my grammar or my logic? And that doesn't explain how it's fallacious or why you demanded evidence of a redundant statement. LOL

>Instead of giving evidence, you just restated your claim.
Evidence of what??? That mutation means a genetic change? Clarify what you want.

>"My claim is true because my claim is true" was your argument.
No it wasn't. You're just making shit up because you have nothing. Try quoting what I actually said and responding to it.

[Anonymous No.14954172]

>>14953110
>The average mutation that gets propagated is a deletion of genetic information
Different anon to whom you were talking to, so sorry if i'm missing context.
But this is factually incorrect. Point mutations are the most common types of mutation, of which there are three types. In descending order of occurance probability, base substitutions, deletions and inssertions. And this is only one set of mutation type, there is also the case of gene duplication, which also has several subtypes, then there are chromosomal reorganisations, chromosomal fusion, duplication, recombination, the list goes on.
>>14953202
This anon is correct in saying, your proposal would suggest genoms are generally getting shorter. They are infact getting way way longer. This is in part due to transposon proliferation, but also because of gene duplication.
Anyone who doesn't understand how evolution can make new proteins relatively easely, needs to look up gene duplication. There are several mechanisms for it, and either entire genes, or parts of genes can be duplicated, reused, reorganised, combined with other parts. There is a constant shuffleing of existing protein motifs into new complete proteins, via gene duplication, and there is a constant birth of new protien motifs by small mutations of existing motifs.

[Anonymous No.14954427]

>>14954172
The issue is that they don't know what they don't understand, and they don't want to know. They want to believe they are smarter than scientists without doing the work.

[Anonymous No.14954449]

I still don't understand the eye. I get that it started out as just a light sensing organ and gradually became more complex, but for a light sensory organ to be useful and passed on it would need to be connected to the brain and the animal would need the behavior to make use of it.

[Anonymous No.14954480]

>>14954449
>it would need to be connected to the brain and the animal would need the behavior to make use of it
Nope. The earliest forms of the eye were used in phototaxis. That can be entirely mechanical. Just look at Euglena viridis, it is a single celled organism, which has an eye spot with which it does phototaxis.
>>14954427
I tend to agree, but i honetsly think asking questions even if from a place of incredulity is better than not asking questions, and any question deserves an answer.

[Anonymous No.14954482]

>>14954449
>but for a light sensory organ to be useful and passed on it would need to be connected to the brain
Incorrect. Box jellyfish have fully developed eyes but no brain.

>the animal would need the behavior to make use of it.
Chemical reaction to light is a behavior and the basis of eye evolution.

[Anonymous No.14954484]

Still shit at this drawing thing, but i put a few extra things on here, that may help understand what's going on.
The point is, proteins are little machines that work based on shape, and any charged sidechain. Changeing small parts can keep the function intact but change the target, or change the function but keep the target intact.
Amino acids are interesting molecules, because they naturally form chains, and chains of them naturally organise into springs and plates and can easely make functions.

[Anonymous No.14954826]

>>14950058
>Can someone prove Darwin's theory to me?
Darwin's "theory" is true by definition and is unfalsifiable.
"change + heritability + selection = Change in frequency of phenotypes" cannot be wrong, and that is how he understood evolution. Causality must be arbitrarily violated for this to be wrong. He observed this in the natural case of finches and the non-natural case of dog breeding etc.
Darwin didn't know what genes were when he wrote his book, but adding genes to this equation is the only difference between his Darwinism and Neo Darwinism, which is "mutation + heritability + natural selection = change in frequency of alleles of a population over time (one of several textbook definitions of evolution, likely the most prevalent I'd say)".. not all 3 of those are necessary at the same time for evolution to occur, but they are the mechanisms that make up evolution.

Your question actually seems to be "Does Neo Darwinism explain the origin of species on earth" which is a falsifiable proposition because of the premises of time and resource constraints. On an infinite timeline with infinite resources it is unfalsifiable that current species *could* evolve into their current forms. You can't prove they can't in that scenario. But once you add in the constraints of time and resources it becomes a reasonably falsifiable theory if we agree on a few axioms and premises, such as the unimaginably low odds of your offspring having so many concurrent novel mutations that your offspring could be classified into a novel genus, family, order or clade etc. I.E. you can't give birth to a monkey or dog and expect that to be a reasonable occurrence within the Neo Darwinian evolutionary origins of species theory.

[Anonymous No.14954872]

>>14954826
modern evolutionary biology has many more facets than the neodarwinism at the turn of the century or modern synthesis of the 40s, such as genetic drift, neutral theory, gene-level selection and modern cytogenetics and developmental biology.
But yes, basic darwinian theory can be trivially proven starting from heritable phenotype differences under natural selection. We can even see it happen in bacteria on a timescale of weeks in the lab, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

[Anonymous No.14954961]

>>14950189
>watched a video, now i know everything

[Anonymous No.14955042]

>>14954826
>Darwin's "theory" is true by definition and is unfalsifiable.
Completely wrong. Darwin's theory was falsified long ago and is no longer the dominant theory of evolution. This is mainly because there are other processes of evolution besides selection.

[Anonymous No.14955201]

>>14954961
I'm genuinely shocked at how retarded people here get when someone just asks specifics about how evolution works. Like this reply here where they didn't even manage to read the comment they're replying to trying to claim others are stupid. If I didn't know better I'd think this thread had several creationists trying to make evolutionists look stupid.

[Anonymous No.14955207]

>>14955201
Sadly they do that all by themselves. Nobody needs to pretend to be an evolutionist to discredit them.

[Anonymous No.14955219]

>>14955201
welp, i hate it when creationists JAQ off on my /sci/.

[Anonymous No.14955286]

>>14950058
Brazil

[Anonymous No.14955301]

>>14955219
You only become enraged when people ask questions because you can't answer them. It's ok to admit you don't know something, or even to concede that some things don't make much sense.

[Anonymous No.14955342]

>>14952268
>Looks like I've got more than enough to read for the foreseeable future.
You can leave out the new yorker article. Only bait without a single argument. Neither pro or contra to whatever you believe. If the rest of the links is of same quality ... welcome to the current thing in evolution.

[Anonymous No.14955345]

>>14954872
>We can even see it happen in bacteria
That's selection, repeatable because this species has the ability to do so. If nature was dumb as /sci, no species ever survived.

[Anonymous No.14955398]

>>14954872
>modern evolutionary biology has many more facets than the neodarwinism at the turn of the century or modern synthesis of the 40s,
Neo Darwinism and modern synthesis are interchangeable and modern synthesis is the term used today, but that's being pedantic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8979413/
>such as genetic drift
a facet of heritability
>neutral theory
a facet of the combination of mutation+heritability
>gene-level selection
a facet of selection
>cytogenetics
a facet of heritability
>developmental biology
a facet of all 3 I suppose, "developmental biology" is quite generic
>But yes, basic darwinian theory can be trivially proven
Being proven does not eliminate the status of being unfalsifiable. Everything you listed is merely refinement of the 3 mechanisms I mentioned.
>>14955042
>Completely wrong
no, it's right
>Darwin's theory was falsified long ago and is no longer the dominant theory of evolution
Neo Darwinism is dominant, yes. Darwinism was never falsified. Being refined to give it more explanatory power does not mean it was falsified.
>This is mainly because there are other processes of evolution besides selection
And his theory left these other processes open to inclusion. He even mentioned something "tantalizingly similar" to the concept of genetic drift and he had to leave it this way because, obviously, he did not have the tools to explain genetic drift. His theory is only falsified if he said or implied it cannot occur. He did not. If you can provide a statement he said X that has been falsified please let me know, otherwise your claim is unfounded because refinement is not falsification.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genetic-drift/

[Anonymous No.14955411]

>>14955345
>That's selection
It's evolution. The frequency of alleles is changing within that population over time.
I question his claim of "develop new mutations" though. This is only verifiable if the original populations on the perimeter were all clones.

[Anonymous No.14955615]

>>14950058
do you believe in microevolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyW9eYRmazM

[Anonymous No.14955695]

>>14955201
>>14955301
You’re not fooling anyone, creationist anon. Just because you got bullied in the alligator thread and the whale thread doesn’t mean you need to make a new one

[Anonymous No.14955720]

>>14950058
Ayys created cavemen to mine gold. Yes, they did splice a lot of our DNA from monkeys or maybe monkeys were spliced from us but yeah, that's why were alike our DNA is alike but humans didn't used to be monkeys. Humans have always existed on other planets. They'e upgraded us and upgrade us all the time. We were brought here by them and upgraded along the way.

[Anonymous No.14955724]

>>14955695
>You’re not fooling anyone, creationist anon. Just because you got bullied in the alligator thread
I'm not that anon in either of those replies but I think I was the most "contrarian" anon in the recent alligator thread as far as I can tell. Try and guess which posts above are mine. I'm quite curious...
>and the whale thread
I missed out on that one

[Anonymous No.14956013]

>>14951710
This isn't Zeno's Paradox we're talking about here so why are you guys so incapable of understanding that getting halfway to something doesn't mean you're all the way there. What is so hard to grasp about the FACT that most evolved appendages had to start out as a useless lump of flesh before becoming useful. You don't flip a gene on or off and get a fully functional prehensile tail or fingers you can grasp with. For a very long time those appendages would have had to exist and be passed on to offspring as pretty much useless lumps of flesh.
This is literally just the basics of evolution but many here are acting like it's dumb to ask why evolution seems to claim that nothing but fully formed apparatuses appear through mutations.

[Anonymous No.14956132]

>>14955398
>His theory is only falsified if he said or implied it cannot occur.
He said evolution must be slow. Horizontal gene transfer falsifies this. He gave several ways that his theory could be falsified, so your claim is wrong.

>If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants.

[Anonymous No.14956172]

>>14955201
>evolutionist
LOL, only creationists call people evolutionists.

[Anonymous No.14956173]

>>14955301
>You only become enraged when people ask questions because you can't answer them.
Which questions haven't been answered?

[Anonymous No.14956192]

>>14955342
>Only bait without a single argument.
Why are you lying? He refutes Meyer's claims that the Cambrian explosion was rapid and that rapid change is not possible in evolution, shows Meyer misrepresents modern evolutionary theory and the tree of life, and points out that Meyer's argument is a God of the gaps fallacy.

[Anonymous No.14956333]

>>14956013
>This isn't Zeno's Paradox we're talking about here so why are you guys so incapable of understanding that getting halfway to something doesn't mean you're all the way there.
Where did anyone claim this? All you do is make up idiotic strawmen to argue against.

>What is so hard to grasp about the FACT that most evolved appendages had to start out as a useless lump of flesh before becoming useful.
Because it's false. What is so hard to grasp about an organ not needing to have the same function across its entire development?

>You don't flip a gene on or off and get a fully functional prehensile tail or fingers you can grasp with.
That's not necessary for the evolution of organs. And it's wrong too!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728992/

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00003-9

>This is literally just the basics of evolution
No.

>but many here are acting like it's dumb to ask why evolution seems to claim that nothing but fully formed apparatuses appear through mutations.
Because it doesn't claim that and you're dumb.

[Anonymous No.14958182]

>>14950542
Leglessness isnt what distinguishes snakes from other squamata. Its the skull.

[Anonymous No.14959016]

>>14956132
>He said evolution must be slow
That is a wildly out of context and cherry picked quote and he did not say evolution is slow, he said the development of a "group of forms" must be slow, ie changes in phenotype at the group level (he probably meant population level). Past your cherry picked quote he does say divergent forms can arise quickly once a specific adaptation arises, ie going from flight from non flight would take very long, but divergence of wings would happen in a comparatively short time afterwards.
You could almost argue he's saying macroevolution is slow, but microevolution can occur in a comparatively short time.
http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-origin-of-species-328.html

>Horizontal gene transfer falsifies this
It absolutely does not. Your quote specifically refers to species creation and the development of "group of forms", HGT does not quickly create new species or new forms. "HGT" genes would not modify the actual phenotype until eons later. I don't think there's any actual example where HGT affected an actual change of form.

>He gave several ways that his theory could be falsified
No he did not give a single one. He gave several means for rejecting it as an explanation of life on earth, not falsification of the theory itself, that is a very key difference. If aliens, the "simulation programmers" or God came down and said "hey we actually made life on earth and modified it, Darwinian evolution is not the explanation for the origin of species" that does not falsifiy Darwinism. It merely rejects it as an explanation of species on earth. Darwinism is still true because it cannot be falsified. Maybe the aliens evolved via darwinism for a direct example: them creating life on earth does not disprove they evovled via darwinism.

>so your claim is wrong
You took that quote from a creationist website didn't you?

[Anonymous No.14959032]

>>14958182
elaborate

[Anonymous No.14959039]

>>14956132
>He said evolution must be slow
That is a wildly out of context and cherry picked quote and he did not say evolution is slow, he said the development of a "group of forms" must be slow, ie changes in phenotype at the group level (he probably meant population level). Past your cherry picked quote he does say divergent forms can arise quickly once a specific adaptation arises, ie going from flight from non flight would take very long, but divergence of wings would happen in a comparatively short time afterwards.
You could almost argue he's saying macroevolution is slow, but microevolution can occur in a comparatively short time.
http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-origin-of-species-328.html

>Horizontal gene transfer falsifies this
It absolutely does not. Your quote specifically refers to species creation and the development of "group of forms", HGT does not quickly create new species or new forms. "HGT" genes would not modify the actual phenotype until eons later. I don't think there's any actual example where HGT effected an actual change of form.

>He gave several ways that his theory could be falsified
No he did not give a single one. He gave several means for rejecting it as an explanation of life on earth, not falsification of the theory itself, that is a very key difference. If aliens, the "simulation programmers" or God came down and said "hey we actually made life on earth and modified it, Darwinian evolution is not the explanation for the origin of species" that does not falsifiy Darwinism. It merely rejects it as an explanation of species on earth. Darwinism is still true because it cannot be falsified. Maybe the aliens evolved via darwinism for a direct example: them creating life on earth does not disprove they evovled via darwinism.

>so your claim is wrong
You took that quote from a creationist website didn't you?

[Anonymous No.14959449]

>>14950542
>The way it's taught you would expect at least a few thousand years of nothing but 1cm long stubs protruding from a random point. And where are all the vestigial phenotypes?
Picrel
>>14959032
Snakes are just one group of lizards that lack legs, there are plenty of other lizards without legs. They can be distinguished by differences in their quadrate bones

[Anonymous No.14959490]

>>14959039
>That is a wildly out of context and cherry picked quote and he did not say evolution is slow, he said the development of a "group of forms" must be slow, ie changes in phenotype at the group level
Group of forms simply refers to a diversity arising from a single ancestor. He described his own theory as descent with slow modification through natural selection. It's uncontroversial that the original conception of evolution was non-saltational. And again Darwin described this as a way to falsify his theory. So your claim that his theory is unfalsifiable is directly refuted.

>HGT does not quickly create new species or new forms.
It creates new adaptions, which Darwin believed would take a long time to develop. He thought it would be impossible to observe evolution in real time.

>He gave several means for rejecting it as an explanation of life on earth
That is what it was. Do you think he was just talking in the abstract? Was he talking about theoretical penguins?

>You took that quote from a creationist website didn't you?
No, the same site you linked to.

[Anonymous No.14959562]

>>14959039
Here's another:
>If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

[Anonymous No.14959580]

>>14950231
>wikipedia
the absolute state of materialism.

[Anonymous No.14959588]

>>14959580
wikipedia is pretty reliable if its a main topic

[Anonymous No.14959827]

>>14959580
Not an argument, try again.

[Anonymous No.14961311]

>>14959490
>He described his own theory as descent with slow modification
He verbatim said "comparatively short" times for modification in some circumstances. I gave the link. Read it
*I see you don't mention earth here
>It's uncontroversial that the original conception of evolution was non-saltational
Saltation doesn't violate Darwinism at all. Darwin made an ostensibly affirmative mention of saltation in Origins. He says "Some variations useful to him have probably arisen suddenly, or by one step" regarding domesticated plants. You think he wrote his book admitting it's already falsified? (In later books he mentions the same thing in nature, so he would not have thought domestication made a difference)
http://www.macroevolution.net/darwin.html
>So your claim that his theory is unfalsifiable is directly refuted
Not whatsoever. Youre cherry picking the facts and pigeonholing the context
>It creates new adaptions, which Darwin believed would take a long time to develop
Like what? They certainly do not create instantaneous or fast large change in form the way Darwin referred to change of form so this point is irrelevant anyway, and again you are falsely implying long development time for adaption is required in all circumstances, this is verbatim not true.
>He thought it would be impossible to observe evolution in real time
No he didn't. Dog breeding easily produces noticeable change in form within a human lifetime and he knew this. Plus the example above.
>That is what it was. Do you think he was just talking in the abstract?
It was both abstract, (Darwinism, unfalsifiable), and an applied hypothesis (origin of species, falsifiable), and I made that clear

Circling back, you never mentioned his theory (or what he was talking about) was confined to earth. I'll take one of my previous points you ignored and put it in a direct question: is Darwinism falsified if aliens said they created all species on earth, but the aliens themselves were a result of Darwinism?

[Anonymous No.14961833]

>>14959562
This would falsify the hypothesis that Darwinism explains life (in this case, an organ) on earth, not Darwinism itself. The amalgamation of descent with slow modification via natural selection, modification in "comparatively short" times, and the rare useful but sudden/one step adaptations/modifications, which collectively constitute Darwinism, is not falsified. Darwinism still would/does happen even in light of this magic organ.

He gave an impossible criteria for "falsification" anyway. Proving an organ can't exist by small modifications is like proving a leprechaun can't exist by small modifications. You can't create a hypothetical organ that meets this criteria. He isn't even explaining "irreducible complexity" properly since that relies on each step providing slightly greater advantage: your quote makes no mention of advantages at each step.

[Anonymous No.14963001]

>>14961311
>>14961833
>This would falsify the hypothesis that Darwinism explains life (in this case, an organ) on earth, not Darwinism itself.
Again, Darwinism is an explanation of life, not an abstract concept. Darwin always described it as such. It says all species developed via natural selection. If you are talking about natural selection instead of Darwinism, then say natural selection. Darwin described several ways it could be falsified, and it was falsified. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.14963131]

>>14951641
This. Fuck all of this other autistic nonsense. Humans came from fish. Just fuck off. If there's one thing you should have realised over the last two years is that "experts" sometimes lie to maintain an agenda. Guess who invented the General Education Board? The fucking Rothschilds. Says it all.

[Anonymous No.14963635]

>>14963001
>Again, Darwinism is an explanation of life
An explanation of life can be applied to other planets if they have life.
Answer my question instead of running away.
>not an abstract concept
??????????? Of course it's an abstract concept. "Species development" is not a physical object that one can touch, see, feel, or taste therefore by definition it is an abstract concept. We don't spend 150 years refining our understanding of concrete concepts like a "ball" or "table" huh?
https://philpapers.org/rec/LHRWAA
>It says all species developed via natural selection
Again, you are cherry picking the facts and pigeonholing the context. He also pointed out single step adaptations. Those aren't gradually shaped by natural selection.
>Darwin described several ways it could be falsified
And that (unfulfilled) falsification applied to the hypothesis that Darwinism is the origin of species on earth, not Darwinism itself. In the exact same way one cannot falsify the abstract concept of panspermia, but one can falsify the hypothesis that panspermia is the origin of life on earth.
>and it was falsified.
It was not.
Answer my question instead of running away from it, it's very simple so you should not need to run away from it
>Get over it.
Not a good take for someone who abandoned every point he made after they were obliterated .