/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15197746]

Why is evolution considered to be true when its core ideas are unfalsifiable? Should it not be treated as a philosophical idea rather than a scientific one?

[Anonymous No.15197761]

>>15197746
>Why is evolution considered to be true when its core ideas are unfalsifiable?
It is falsifiable.
Since Darwin posited evolution by natural selection, we have discovered DNA, and discovered how genes->proteins->phenotype.
Even more than this, we can develop small-scale AI that perform well at some simple task just by using evolutionary algorithms.
Basically, evolution was falsifiable when it was posited. The evidence found since only supports evolution.

By any chance, OP, are you a creationist? or a member of some other religious group?

[Anonymous No.15197768]

>>15197761
>It is falsifiable.
And the loss of function in natural selection is what falsifies it.

[Anonymous No.15197773]

>>15197761
>discovered how genes->proteins->phenotype
how exactly?

[Anonymous No.15197783]

>>15197768
>And the loss of function in natural selection is what falsifies it.
Nice one liner bud. Unfortunately I don't have schizophrenia, so you'll have to explicate

[Anonymous No.15197788]

>>15197773
I recommend reading "Genetics: A Conceptual Approach."

[Anonymous No.15197791]

>>15197773
>genes encode proteins
>proteins play parts in biochemical pathways or have other functions
I can recommend a high school textbook that can fill in your gaps in knowledge if you are interested

[Anonymous No.15197795]

>>15197783
Specialization through natural selection deletes or rearranges existing information from genomes, it doesn't add new information.

[Anonymous No.15197808]

>>15197795
Oh, so your understanding of biology is stuck at a high school level?
Thanks for telling me you've been filtered :3
<3

[Anonymous No.15197811]

>>15197808
Yuck. You need to read a book. Being this uneducated and smug is a bad look.

[Anonymous No.15197813]

>>15197791
I'm not asking what's written in a textbook, I'm asking how do you know that it's not made up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15197821]

>>15197746
the tale of warwick collins reveals the true dogmatic nature of darwin's theory
>Collins studied biology at The University of Sussex, where his tutor was the leading theoretical biologist John Maynard Smith. In 1975 Collins voiced to Maynard Smith the view that natural selection could not drive evolution because it always acted to reduce variation in favour of an optimum type for any environment, whereas the central story of evolution was that of increasing variation and complexity. Collins quoted Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species ("... unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing."), and argued that if variation must always occur before natural selection can act, then variation, and not natural selection, drives evolution. He asked Maynard Smith whether he could search for a "strong" theory of variation. Maynard Smith warned Collins that he could not support his efforts to pursue a rival theory to the theory that natural selection drives evolution. Collins replied that he thought the object of science was to question and examine everything, including hallowed theories such as the theory of natural selection. Maynard Smith asserted that, on the contrary, the strength of science was its capacity to agree on certain principles, and act collectively to pursue agreed aims. This difference of view with his tutor made Collins give up his scientific career and pursue other interests instead.
the darwinian theory is protected from all criticism by it's keepers, it is held beyond the reach of anyone who might take a pass at discrediting it. how fragile it must be to need that protection

[Anonymous No.15197823]

>>15197813
Look up Gregor Mendel, you retard.
>How do you know Gregor Mendel was real?

[Anonymous No.15197832]

>>15197823
How do you know Gregor Mendel was real?

[Anonymous No.15197841]

>>15197832
How do you know he wasn't?

[Anonymous No.15197848]

>>15197841
I don't

[Anonymous No.15197863]

>>15197761
That's only microevolution. Macroevolution cannot be tested. We can't evolve dinosaurs in a lab. In fact we haven't seen a species evolve into another species yet.

[Anonymous No.15197904]

>>15197746
Evolution is a religious belief and they can't prove it so all they do is use personal attacks, deceive or misdirect, try to derail the discussion, and cry to mods for censorship (or in the real world, threaten and sue until only their religion is taught in school and falsely under "science"). The same schools teaching evolution tell your kids they can "transform" into women if they harm their body with toxic cross-sex hormones and surgical mutilation of healthy body parts and they call that "basic biologly" nowadays. Evolution of kinds is proven false every single day with every single act of procreation. Natural selection can only select from preexisting information. They have no explanation for the origin of this information either, just "have faith" in "the evolutionism experts". They assume and assert all manner of lies and fallacies, and they don't care at all because it's a religious belief. They don't even understand that you can criticize something without needing to replace it because they're religious zealots, more zealous than the average catholic too.

[Anonymous No.15197931]

>>15197746
It should be treated as a scientific idea and it is the best theory we have. Nevertheless, that doesn't imply that scientific ideas in and of themselves should be taken seriously. You have a life to live.

[Anonymous No.15197941]

>>15197746
The same could be said of The Theory of Gravity.

Everything and anything can be made into a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15198059]

>>15197863
Cope

[Anonymous No.15198213]

>>15197746
It's not true.

[Anonymous No.15198254]

>>15197904
contemporary biology and psychology/psychiatry will be considered barbarism in a few centuries

[Anonymous No.15198261]

>>15198254
It's considered barbarism now.

[Anonymous No.15198293]

>>15197795
Mutations are a thing that happens naturally, and in many ways. Evolution is the process of natural selection on those mutational profiles.

Wait are you one of those people who thinks viruses aren't real?

[Anonymous No.15198297]

>>15198293
you write like such a faggot

[Anonymous No.15198299]

>>15198293
>Mutations are a thing that happens naturally, and in many ways.
How many nonfunctional mutations are required to develop an organ?

[Anonymous No.15198300]

>>15198297
And you write like an idiot. So what?

[Anonymous No.15198558]

>>15198299
Depends on how much mutational load something has. But like development of an eye for example. Started as a photosensitive protein, then a patch of cells over expressing those proteins, then connecting that to a signalling cascade, then protective cells to allow more sensitivity, etc.

I get the feeling you aren't gonna argue in good faith here

[Anonymous No.15199126]

>>15198293
>Wait are you one of those people who thinks viruses aren't real?
>>15198558
>I get the feeling you aren't gonna argue in good faith here

[Anonymous No.15199149]

>>15199126
Glad to have that cleared up then

[Anonymous No.15199165]

>>15197863
>Macroevolution cannot be tested.
Macroevolution is the logical and obvious consequence of microevolution happening on a long period of time
You just moved the goalposts when you found out microevolution was observed
>Uh, well... Huh... Yes that may be true, but... Huh... Oh yeah, we can't actually observe Monkeys turning into humans, thus the theory becomes untestable! Checkmate!

[Anonymous No.15199167]

>>15197746
>Why is evolution considered to be true when its core ideas are unfalsifiable?
Because microevolution is easily observable and so simplistic it can only be wrong if causality itself is arbitrarily violated.

[Anonymous No.15199170]

>>15197761
>It is falsifiable.
It is unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove it wrong if you agree on the premises. God could come down and say he dun made it all. Evolution still remains valid and is not falsified (only origin of species theories were falsified). There is nothing that can falsify it (a lack of evidence would not falsify it the same way it does not falsify leprechauns.)
>Since Darwin posited evolution by natural selection
He posited a theory for origins of species (which is falsifiable) via evolution. He didn't posit evolution itself (unfalsifiable). Those are two separate things.
>we have discovered DNA, and discovered how genes->proteins->phenotype.
None of that contradicts darwins theory or mechanisms of evolution and, separately, it doesn't contradict evolution itself... which is a separate concept. A little known fact is Darwin actually admitted saltation was compatible with his theory.
He left the explanations behind heredity as an open placeholder to be discovered in the future. Nothing was contradicted by filling that placeholder.
>Even more than this, we can develop small-scale AI that perform well at some simple task just by using evolutionary algorithms.
Demonstrating evolution is a logic concept that transcends biology. One doesn't need any biological evidence to "prove" evolution. It is a self-fulfilling logical concept that can't be invalidated.
>Basically, evolution was falsifiable when it was posited
This shows an extreme lack of basic understanding. Darwin wasn't even the first to posit evolution.
>The evidence found since only supports evolution
Heredity+variability+selection = evolution (change in frequency of types/genes within a population) does not need support. It's true by simple logical proof and is thus unfalsifiable. There is no way that formula can be wrong, ever.

[Anonymous No.15199174]

>>15198299
All organs appeared when in multicellular organisms, certain groups of cells clustered together all started to express the same genes that were useful for a specific task, and no other cell in the body expressed those same genes. Apply this mindset over hundreds of millions of years and you get organs.

[Anonymous No.15199175]

>>15199170
>Darwin wasn't even the first to posit evolution
*an evolutionary theory for diversification of species

[Anonymous No.15199181]

>>15197746
>Why is evolution considered to be true
Because it happens.
The same way gravity can't be falsified because it's trivially observable but theory of gravity can be falsified and has been and has changed accordingly, the same way theory of evolution has changed over time with new information.
Perhaps one day evolution or gravity just stop and then you can say they aren't true anymore but that's not the reality we currently live in.

[sage No.15199191]

Please don't feed the trolls. Sage goes in all fields.

[Anonymous No.15199277]

Ever notice how all of these arguments always come from religious nuts and never from people who don't have a vested ideological interest in disproving evolution?

[Anonymous No.15199288]

>>15199277
Religion wasn't mentioned once in this entire thread except to tar the OP.

[sage No.15199294]

fuck you, OP

[Anonymous No.15199326]

>>15197746
Which of the core ideas are unfalisfiable?

[Anonymous No.15199346]

>>15197768
What about the several mechanisms for gaining new information? Gene duplication and chromosome duplication mechanisms which make redundant genes which can then go into new directions? What about the clear evidence of the evolution of certaine genes, where fom species to species you can see the gene duplication event, and the few nucleotide changes which lead from one function to another, also clearly rperesented by various species?
What about the new information instead of loss of information in the lensky experiments? What aboutr the SELEX experiments on rybosimes? What abouut the long tearm corn experiments?
>>15197773
Short answer: DNA transcribed to RNA based on shape and H bonds. Then the RNA in triplets is translated to proteins based on shape as recognised by the 20 tRNA molecules and sqeezed together by the ribosomes. The chain of amino acyds are folded based on hydrofobic nature and is kept in shape by that and sulfide bridges of cysteins. Proteins then preform the houseceeping functions of the cells as well as making any secretions, extracellular matrix componetns, determine cell shape, cell-cell interactions etc. Cell diffferentiation is determined by differing concentration gradients of secreted transcription factors such as the hox genes. This determines developmental biology.
The long answer is contained in several thousand pages in textbooks and several thousand research papers, which we learn over years. If you are interested, i suggest libgen, a website from which you can download any textbook for free.
>>15197783
I believe the ide is something like "sure new traits can form, but all mutations are loss of information, like deletions". It as anrgument made by people who don't know the types of mutations, and don't understand that deletion is only one type among many, many of which gain new information.

[Anonymous No.15199434]

>>15197761
>Since Darwin posited evolution by natural selection, we have discovered DNA, and discovered how genes->proteins->phenotype.

Phenomena appeared right after the hypothesis that they are integral to. It just works!

[Anonymous No.15199449]

>>15199277

No. Evolution itself is almost literal Catholic dogma. It is nothing but all of the Catholic tenets (naive reality, motion, exchange, multiplicity, becoming) operating Platonically, so to speak, exempt from the usual Gnostic-Protestant Philosophical inquiry.

[Anonymous No.15199482]

>>15199434
we discovered the relationship between them not the phenomena themselves

[Anonymous No.15199485]

>>15197746
It's been proven in microbes

[Anonymous No.15199498]

>>15199326
Which one are falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.15199502]

>>15197795
Let me give you an example of how new shit is made.
Lets say, you have a protease or phosphatase enzyme. It has the following functional regions: recognition domain 1, recognition domain 2 and a spring domain. Once recognition region one and two bind a protein, a conformational change activates the spring domain.
If a tranposon, or any other duplication mechanism moves the spring domain into a different gene, say a ligand binding receptor, it will become a new enzyme which can spearate the previously only bound ligand into two.
Add to this that many genes are duplicated and have redundant or inactive copies, you can have new functions quite easely.
This is only one of many mechanisms, by which new proteins, new genes are made, now functions are aquired, etc...
Interestingly, we have evolved to evolve better, so many usefull functional domains and regions and even genes or chromosomal regions are flanked by inverted terminal repeats, or long reathrough transposons, or even inverted transposons. This way genes recombine, form new combinations, new genes, etc...
Pic related, just a quick scetch.

[Anonymous No.15199509]

>>15197813
Well i don't know about others, but i'm a biologist (geneticist), we do all kinds of experiments in class. DNA being transcribed into mRNA and mRNA being translated into proteins is something you can see under a TEM. Pic related. Also, you can do the math on the protein structures, and interactions yourselfe if you know a few eqations. (it takes a lot of time though, which is why we use computers).
The reason we suggest books, is because the experiments used to prouve all this shit is in these books. You can read them, see if they seem reasonable, and if you simply refuse to believe what conclusion others got, some experiments you can repeat for yourselfe witha few 1000$ worth of equipment.

[Anonymous No.15199533]

>>15197821
You realise darwinism is obselite right? No one "believes" in darwinism. That's like calling all of basic physics newtonianism.
Darwins contributions to the field of evolution were groundbreaking at the time, but we have long since surpassed it.
The current model is called "modern synthesys theory of evolution".
>>15197823
>>15197832
Buy some pea plants and do it yourselfe if you doubt the mechanisms. Or better yet, buy a cheap microscope for 100$ at a hardware store, and buy some agarose at tescos, add sugar and soup stock, microwave, pour on plates or jamjars or whatever, and get some sordaria fimicola. Mendelian genetics, and where they do and don't work can easely be tested on them. It's especially fun to use them to determine the literal physical distance between two genes.
>>15197863
But we can, we can do that in a lab. Add or subtract bodyparts, with a single point mutation. Like bithorax (pic related), or antenopedia. We can replicate large phenotypical changes with single point mutations. We can replicate mutations small and large, just by bombarding with EMS.
Also, the lensky experiments prouved that even without external influence of any mutagen, we can observe in the lab new genes evolve.
The fact you have not read or seen or done the relevant experiments does not mean they have not been done. Don't confuse what you don't know with what is not known or knowable.
>>15198254
>>15198261
Well, we literally invented all of modern medicine, so maybe go fuck yourselfe. If you get sick, just pary. If you brake a bone, just pray, don't you dare go to a barbarian modrn doctor who uses barbaric modern medicine to prevent you from dying.
>>15198299
You clearly don't understand how mutations or cells work. Its not nothing, then mutation, then organ. Its a cell diferentiation going in a specific direction further and further one protein at a time. Seriously, you need to read up on developmental biology.

[Anonymous No.15199554]

>>15199533
tbf we often call basic physics newtonian physics and the like so its not entirely unfair to call basic
bilogical evolution concepts darwinism or something

[Anonymous No.15199569]

>>15199498
>Which one are falsifiable?
1) Mutations happen in nature.
We can easely test this, and have, and they do, we know of several mechanisms by which mutations occure.
(How could it be falsified? Take a population of a sepcies in a lab, do a DNA profile, wait a few generations, do another DNA profile. Is it the same or different? If it is consistantly the same over various species, we can conclude, mutation does not occure)
2) Mutations can give rise to new, functional genes.
We can test this, and have and we can see in silico genes of 90+% homology with new function, we can see in vitro in for instance the SELEX experiments, that new functional genes can be made vie regular cellular functions, and we can test it in vivo in for instance the Lensky experiments.
(how can it be falisfied? Calculate based on mutation rate, generation time and population size how long it should take for new functions to arise. Use much larger population, much longer time and increase mutation rate by EMS. Increase rate of something the original population could only tolerate to a certaine thershold, like antibiotics to bacteria. See if resistance develops. If not, we can reasonably conclude that our understanding of new functions arising is wrong)
3) Mutations which increase even marginally the chances of reproduction or the number of viable offspring will increase those proportion of those with said gene in the population over time.
This also can and has been tested, in vivo especially on bacteria and other species with short generational time. It has also been tested extensively in silico.
(how can it be falsified? Add to a control population subpopulations with marginal benefits in the given enviroment. If the advantageous traits don't overwhelm the others in the calculated number of generations, we can conclude that we are wrong)
The above three are enough for evolution.
Now name which parts of modern synthesis theory of evolution are unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.15199583]

>>15197813
I am colourblind
Grandpa on mom's side was colourblind
Noone on my dads side is colourblind.
None of mom's male siblings nor their kids are colourblind.

The reasons why are explained quite easily with simple genetics.

~1/10 men are red-green colourblind but only ~1/200 women. And we see the pattern of grandpa -> daughter -> grandson

[Anonymous No.15199595]

>>15197863
Proof by induction
1+1 = 2 just as surely as small change + small change has the end result of a larger deviation from the original

Unless you have proof that "microevolution" has some mechanism that eventually stops it? We can discuss that then, look over your proofs and studies.

[Anonymous No.15199600]

>>15197904
>Complains about personal attacks
>Uses a complete red herring strawman in an attempt to disregard opponents.

Stones in glass houses friend, careful

[Anonymous No.15199615]

>>15199569
>Use much larger population, much longer time and increase mutation rate by EMS.
How much larger, how much longer, how much should we increase it? And how do you choose that? This is important because otherwise you could just say "well, we haven't waited enough", thus the theory would be unfalsifiable. Also, you've to show me some definition of the theory that implies that those are the correct parameters to test for (eg a definition which states "this can only be observed in a certain amount of time, in a population of a certain size, etc.), otherwise you're making up a theory which isn't the original one.
>Now name which parts of modern synthesis theory of evolution are unfalsifiable.
Tell me whose theory you're referring to in particular and in which work I can find it, or define it

[Anonymous No.15199622]

>>15199615
Look into the field of statistics

How many times must you roll a dice to roll a six? Come on, give me a precise answer

[Anonymous No.15199641]

>>15199622
Indeed "a six will eventually come out if you roll the dice enough times" is not a scientific theory, because it can't be disproved, while if you rephrase it with a fixed number a times it is easily disprovable (unless the number of times itself is so big that the experiment couldn't be carried out, thus making it not disprovable)

[Anonymous No.15199664]

>>15199641
But by that definition of proof we can never say or claim anything. This is always where these conversations end up. You move the goalposts untill you back into "well we can never know anything for certaine, so science is religion" or something of the like.
I mentioned earlyer, the current theory of evolution is called "modern synthesis theory of evolution". The best and clearest book on it, with only the maths and the relevant experiments is Adam Kuns Evolutionary biology, unfortunatly it's only in hungarian. But you can look it up online from any one of several sources. Now can you name me one point which is unfalsifiable?
As for the question of how much larger, etc.. we tend to use a confidence interval of atleast 95%, but we 99.5 and 99,95 are better. This is standard statistics, you clearly have no understanding of how science is done.

Look man, i get what you are saying. We don't have 100% proof of evolution. We also don't have 100% proof of anything. This does not make some things less or more probable. And for evolution to be wrong, all of the field of genetics, all of the field of statistics, all of the field of molecular biology and a bunch of other subfields would have to be false.
Evolution is one of those things that is supported by so many different and independant fields, the only way it could be false is if everything we know about the world, all of science is wrong, and the fact planes fly and medicine works is just some coincidance.

[Anonymous No.15199699]

>>15199664
You can claim that all the sheeps are white, and I can show you one brown sheep to disprove your statement. This can be done with many theories, but you still haven't precisely said what would disprove the theory of evolution. The modern synthesis theory of evolution has been formulated by many authors, tell me which one you are referring to. I can't read hungarian so you'll have to summerize the theory as defined by that guy.
If I did the experiment using a CI of 95% and I didn't find, would you say that the theory is disproved?
>And for evolution to be wrong, all of the field of genetics, all of the field of statistics, all of the field of molecular biology
This is such a vague statement, you say "all of the field of genetics", so if evolution theory is not true than it must be false that we have 46 chromosomes? But even taking it just as an hyperbole it is not true, the part of genetics that would be false would be evolutionary genetics, etc

[Anonymous No.15199701]

>>15199699
>didn't find
didn't find a new function

[Anonymous No.15199716]

>>15199641
Is it impossible then to prove that dice can roll sixes?

How would we try to prove it?

[Anonymous No.15199759]

>>15199699
Ok. let me clarify. Genetics and moelcular biology and biophysics and biochemistry together describe several mechanisms of mutation. Anything from insertions, deletions, and various mechanisms of pointmutation, to partial or full gene duplications, genomic region duplications, chromosome region duplications, recombinations, mRNA insertions, etc...
These are mechanisms we can clearly and easely observe, and they are mechnaisms which are logical, necesseary consequences of just physics, and chemistry.
That is what i meant that entire fields would have to be wrong. These are such fundamental mechanisms, that basically all of science would have to be wrong for them to be false. And we can easely observe them. We can literally isolate these products. Look at them test them, play with them.
And since these various mutation mechanisms are obviously and observably true, we can draw easy conclusions.
On instance is: If new genes are duplicated at a rate of X over Y time, and the redundant gene becomes usefull in Z number of cases it should take so much time for usefull mutations to happen.
If over the given time usefull mutations are not formed, we can conclude that either our mutation rate is incorrect, or our estimation of usefull mutations is incorrect.
That would put a major dent in the theory. But how would you fully falsify the theory?
A theory is made of thousands of claims, each of which were individually falisifable, tested and gave satisfactory results.
So to falsify any theory you would have to go over each experiment and prouve each (or atleast the major ones) wrong or irrelevant. A theory is built over decades with thousands of experimetns. If you claim it is a religion, not science, you have to show how the theory is built differently, how the experiments that build it differ from the experiments which build other theories. And if you calim it's a false theory, show me how the experiments are incorrect, false, faulty, or whatever.

[Anonymous No.15199767]

>>15199699
To build on this a bit further. If we are genuinely going to argue the validity of evolution, i'm perfectly willing to do that in good faith, but i need you to point out anything specific in it that is wrong. Which part do you disagree with?
Is it the formation of the various types of mutations? Do genes not duplicate, form redundant genes which then can form alternate functions? Do new cell functions not develope from new functional genes? Can these new functions never be usefull? Can mutations not cause large phenotypical changes like in the case of HOX and homeobox genes? Do these changes, large and small never give an animal an advantage in reproduction? Do those animals with a slight edge over their peers in reproduction not breed to become a larger and larger part of the population? If large phenotypical changes propegate from time to time in a population, and some populations are separated, do these populations not accure different large mutations which eventually make them so different they no longer can breed?
Tell me which part you disagree with, and we can go over the relevant experiments, and you can tell me which part you disagree with.

[Anonymous No.15199781]

>>15199716
Let's say you try to get a 6 rolling a dice. You roll it once, and you get a 3. You roll it another time, and you get a 5. No worries, you can still try many times. You keep rolling it for some minutes, and you start getting annoyed because you're not getting a 6. So you keep rolling it. Hours passes, but still no 6. When it's time to go to bed, you can't stop thinking about the dice, so you keep rolling it through the night. In the morning, you still haven't gotten any 6. So you call a newspaper, you tell them this dice does never show a 6, the vendor who sold it to you said you it was a fair dice, but you can't get a 6 out of it. The journalist wants to interview you, so he comes to your house, you show him the dice and he tries to roll it. It's not a 6. You call many scientists, but no one can roll a 6.
Would you say this is a possible scenario? If no, why is it impossible (not unrealistic)? Do you think we can say the dice never shows 6s? Do you think that statement would be falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.15199808]

>>15199664
>science is religion
science is a religion. science worships human reasoning capabilities. its just the best religion we can come up with.

[Anonymous No.15199818]

>>15199781
You never set any specific timeframe/number of rolls.

Your anecdote is clearly unscientific

[Anonymous No.15199833]

>>15199569
>>15199759
>>15199767
lmao imagine writing all of that to convince some random person on a taiwanese feng shui discussion forum

[Anonymous No.15199855]

>>15199833
It's a bot responding to a bot.

[Anonymous No.15199873]

>>15199165
>Macroevolution is the logical and obvious consequence of microevolution happening on a long period of time.

That's your naive understanding on a child's level.
Before you twist your pants in a bunch, learn the basics of the logistic map, feedback in systems and chaos theory.
"Logical and obvious consequence", hehehe!

[Anonymous No.15199899]

>>15199855
Nah, bots would be more succint

It's just a person who enjoys discussion and is bored enough to visit here

[Anonymous No.15199903]

>>15199873
You sound a bit like you're just spouting words you don't actually understand yourself.

I mean hell, "chaos theory"? Really?

[Anonymous No.15199993]

>>15199903
stay ignorant if that's what you want.

[Anonymous No.15200002]

>>15199993
I am trying to ask you to elucidate rather than just spew fancy words.

That subtext was missed though, that's my fault. I'll work to be clearer moving forward.

Now what do you think chaos theory is and why do you believe it strengthens your case?

[Anonymous No.15200012]

Evolution makes sense and can be seen all throughout nature from organisms to more abstract entities like businesses, cultures, religions, etc. Anti-natalist religions like the Shakers are selected against, pro-natalist religions like Catholicism and Islam grow the over generations. Unprofitable businesses die out just as unfit animals starve to death. Ineffective armies get conquered by more organized militaries. The ideas which enable these more effective organizations become more widespread in later generations.

[Anonymous No.15200040]

>>15200012
Evolution is an underlying force of reality. You are going in the abstract form, but in the concrete form it is true as well. Thermodynamics can be directly mapped onto evolutionary theory and in reverse.

[Anonymous No.15200090]

>>15200002
the entities under environmental pressure is also subject to pressure created by themself, this causes a feedback loop with no obvious consequences, see for instance the logistic map.

[Anonymous No.15200110]

>>15200090
So like the predator prey model? Yes, ecologies are dynamical and do not necessarily have steady states, especially given the vast dimensionality of the real world.

Are you using this to argue against evolution, or just against the idea that evolution is teleological? Obviously fitness does not always mean species evolve towards higher intelligence, more strength, etc.

[Anonymous No.15200135]

>>15200110
> So like the predator prey model?
Not necessarily, could be mating, environmental impact or just population dynamics.
Just concluding it's obvious what will happen on a macroscale is wrong for these reasons.

[Anonymous No.15200154]

>>15200135
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.15200155]

>>15197746
>its core ideas are unfalsifiable
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15200158]

>>15197863
Yes we did. There's some weird insect shit living in volcanic caves that die quickly and different parts of the population are randomly separated. Evolution happens for them on the time scales of years.

[Anonymous No.15200189]

>>15199818
What does it mean for an anecdote to be unscientific? I didn't ask that, just answer the questions

[Anonymous No.15200207]

>>15199759
>>15199767
I appreciate you long answers, disregard this other retard >>15199833
To be honest, I'm not enough prepared on the topic, and because of my medical formation I tend to have a bias towards thinking that ghe theory is correct, but I still don't really think it can be falsified and I can't stand the redditarian way of taking it as a dogma

[Anonymous No.15200233]

>>15200110
Deer horn sizes are also a good one
Big horns are sexy cause they indicate the male can get lotsa food and stuff so they keep growing until they become too much of a hindrance and suddenly the does who find smaller horns sexy will be more successful and the trend reverses

[Anonymous No.15200240]

>>15197761
fpbp

[Anonymous No.15200242]

>>15200135
Specifically exactly what will happen isn't predictable no

But the prediction made isn't that specific. Just that populations will change genetically over time. And over large timespans, isolation etc, they cam diverge a lot.

That does follow logically. Just like 1 + 1 = 2, many small divergencies together will be a large divergence on average. In fact, one of the sub-disciplines of chaos theory works around that very concept, self-assembling systems.

[Anonymous No.15200251]

>>15199781
We can say the dice is likely loaded because its behaviour would be exteemely unlikely if it was actually fair. Possible but unlikely.

The statement is easily falsifiable though. All you'd need to do is roll a six with the dice. Disproven.

[Anonymous No.15200278]

Lol, the anti-evolution cult is deeply amusing. We can watch microbes evolve in real time. We've bred dogs into wildly divergent subspecies in only a few thousand years. We can use evolutionary history to identify genes that are activated in one species and quiescent in another, and then reactivate them to create new phenotypes.

Evolution through natural selection might just be the most logical and intuitive physical theory ever conceived, and it is perfectly consistent with almost everything we know about biology and chemistry.

But hey, enjoy your delusional counter-theories that make no correct predictions about the world.

[Anonymous No.15200444]

>>15200242
Demonstrate or prove that evolution given the best theories on this planet will not diverge on average to an ecological disaster, or any other possible scenario. You can't, simple as that.
You can only say "it just follows, trust me..."
Well, it doesn't follow, not at all and you can not use your theory to demonstrate or prove otherwise.
It's just a bunch of handwaving and belief in a naive conclusion tought to children.

[Anonymous No.15200519]

>>15200278
>we
>we
>we
>we
its big list of stuff which you didn't particiapte in and can't do, so why use "we"?
taking credit for other people's work and success is intellectual property theft, be honest and use "they" when you're talking about things other people did and you had no participation in. if you can't be honest then you can't do science, you can only do soience.

[Anonymous No.15200539]

>>15197746
I haven't anyone intelligent that thinks that Darwin's theory is a valid scientific theory. Lamarckian evolution is now considered a good law again with demonstrable epigenetic mechanisms to back up macroscopic evidence. We also know that proto-life RNA soap bubbles formed through energy minimization in shallow pools, not "by random chance".

[Anonymous No.15200693]

>>15197941
No. You can set up experiments to observe things about gravity. You can't do the same to observe things like asserted transmutation of species in the past which brought, for instance, humans to their current form. It is asserted that we came from fish, for instance, and some how even further back, we came from rocks and other elements. This can NOT be verified from observation at all.

[Anonymous No.15200695]

>>15197761
>It is falsifiable.
What evidence could falsify it?

[Anonymous No.15200827]

>>15199533
>Darwins contributions to the field of evolution were groundbreaking at the time, but we have long since surpassed it.
>The current model is called "modern synthesys theory of evolution".
Not him but we haven't surpassed them. He left a placeholder for explaining hereditary mechanisms (in Origins of Species at least, he got wildly speculative a decade later with his pangenesis quackery lol) because at the time nobody understood them. We didn't surpass it just by filling in that placeholder and nothing was contradicted by filling it in.
Modern synthesis is a synonym for Neo-Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is just Darwinism + explaining aspects of heredity in detail (ie genetics). I don't see any way it is logical to claim something has been surpassed by explaining it in detail.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8979413/

>That's like calling all of basic physics newtonianism.
Newtonianism has been falsified. It's an approximation that deviates from reality.
Darwinism has never been falsified, that is a common misconception, and it holds true to this day. He even allowed for saltation to fit into his theory which is typically the number 1 way less informed people try to support the claim it's been falsified.

[Anonymous No.15200844]

Evolution, as a scientific theory, is considered to be true because it is supported by a large body of empirical evidence from multiple sources, including comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative biochemistry, comparative development, comparative genetics, fossil evidence, and more. The theory of evolution proposes that species change over time through a process of natural selection, in which beneficial traits are more likely to be passed down to offspring, while harmful traits are less likely to be passed down.

While some aspects of evolution may be difficult to directly test and observe, this is not unique to evolution; many scientific theories, such as those in physics and cosmology, have aspects that are also difficult to directly test and observe. However, these theories are still considered to be scientifically valid because they make predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

As for the idea of evolution being treated as a philosophical rather than a scientific idea, it is important to recognize the distinction between science and philosophy. Science is a systematic and empirical approach to understanding the natural world, while philosophy is a branch of study concerned with questions of meaning, existence, and knowledge. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is based on evidence and empirical data, and is considered to be a valid scientific explanation of how species change over time.

In conclusion, while some aspects of evolution may be considered unfalsifiable, this does not invalidate the theory as a whole, which is supported by a vast amount of evidence from multiple sources. Evolution is considered to be a scientifically valid theory, not a philosophical idea.

[Anonymous No.15200849]

>>15200444
What is an "ecological disaster" in your eyes? It's a weird one to bring up for this topic.

And the question is, does genetics change? Can changes occur? If yes then what happens when you change something already changed? And do that again and again. Is the end result the same as the original?

If "microevolution" can occur then macroevolution can occur unless you know of a mechanism that prevents changes from accruing? If so lay it on me.

[Anonymous No.15200852]

>>15200519
"We" as in us humans
You are a human right anon?

[Anonymous No.15201895]

>>15200242
Not him but I'd like to correct many thigns you've said
>But the prediction made isn't that specific. Just that populations will change genetically over time
That was never a prediction of evolution. Dog breeders understood populations change 1000s of years before Darwin or the concept of evolution was invented. Genetics was just the final step in understanding why populations slightly change over time.
>And over large timespans, isolation etc, they cam diverge a lot
This is weasel wording. It is and always has been an assumption that for the believed geologic timespans evolution can produce the complexity of life we see today.
Prove life can necessarily turn into something more complex than primordial sludge in the timespan using the mechanisms of evolution. You can't. All you can do is beg the question by claiming that since you think it did happen given your interpretation of the fossil record it must be possible to happen with natural evolutionary mechanisms within the timespan.
If you could prove necessarily that evolution could produce what you purport in the timespan, you would not need fossils.
>That does follow logically. Just like 1 + 1 = 2,
Maybe if the time span is eternity it logically follows. Otherwise you must prove it can happen within the *tiny* timespan you believe in... which is 2 billion years.
Why did I call it *tiny*? Because there is no valid reference. You might say it's a large timespan. Why? What is that in reference to? Nothing. It's entirely subjective. If I claim it's too tiny for evolution to happen what is your response? Pointing to the fossil recording and making the exact begging the question fallacy I mentioned.
>many small divergencies together will be a large divergence on average
Sludge can largely diverge from other sludge. That doesn't mean it will turn into a human brain in just the *woefully too short* 2 billion years.
See what I did there?

[Anonymous No.15201901]

>>15199808
I disagree, but believe what you will.
>>15199833
I'll have you know i'm a feng sui enthusiast, and i rather enjoy talking to other enthusiasts.
>>15199855
But i am human. I solved the captcha.
>>15199899
Well fuck you too buddy, you try explaining it better.
>>15200207
Fair enough. I also hate the "basedence" crowd. But i did have a few classes on evolution and i have read some of the literature and the theory seems sound.
>>15200827
Except that isn't true. MSTE Is built bottom up, instead of top down like darwinism. It's foundation is statistical, mathematical models and molecular biology and genetics.
I never said darwinism was falsified. Just that it no longer serves as the centerpiece of the theory of evolution.

[Anonymous No.15202015]

>>15199165
>Macroevolution is the logical
>It's logical because... the Earth is millions of years old and God isn't real, chud!

[Anonymous No.15202023]

Evolution is self-evidently bullshit and mass induced schizophrenic hysteria artificially induced into the malleable minds of the collective civilian body through sorcerers masking as scientists.
>creatures can change their physiological attributes to suit their environment
>this somehow necessitates added complexity
Literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.15202045]

>>15200852
presumptuous of you to consider yourself human, you're an intellectual property thief, criminals aren't worthy being treated like humans, they're kept in cages like stupid animals

[Anonymous No.15202047]

>>15200278
>We've bred dogs into wildly divergent subspecies in only a few thousand years.
Turning wolfs into dogs and then into toads is not proof of evolution. In fact it may as well be the opposite.

[Anonymous No.15202057]

>>15201901
>Except that isn't true.
Can you point out even a single sentence that's wrong and explain why?
>MSTE Is built bottom up, instead of top down like darwinism
No. Neo Darwinism (MSTE) is just Darwinism in greater detail. Explaining something in greater detail does not flip its topology.
>It's foundation is statistical, mathematical models and molecular biology and genetics
No. Its foundation is Darwinism and Mendelian inheritance. The rest of your list is merely tools to further detail and explain the foundations.
*and molecular biology very obviously cannot be a foundation since its inception occurred at the same time as MSTE
Even wikipedia says it wasn't added as an input until the late 20th century. You are clearly making things up.
>I never said darwinism was falsified
Good. Considering that, I find it very odd you would make a direct analogy to Newtonianism (which has been falsified).
>Just that it no longer serves as the centerpiece of the theory of evolution
What you originally said was wrong. It hasn't been surpassed, it is not obsolete, and one must certainly believe in it since it is the foundation of the foundation. If somebody asked to explain modern synthesis but claimed to not have a clue what Darwinian evolution is, you'd immediately chuckle and explain DE first.
It's like saying arithmetic "has been surpassed and is obsolete because we now have calculus so people don't believe in arithmetic." That makes zero sense.

[Anonymous No.15202093]

evolution is papist n*ggerbabble.

[Anonymous No.15202109]

Natural selection must be a meme, it isn't doing its job nowdays.

[Anonymous No.15202476]

>>15197746
Here's something about falsifiability of evolution
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
>If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

May be aliens created European Races

[Anonymous No.15202992]

>>15200849
Is there a natural law that says evolution theory must attract towards stable, yet fragile, ecosystems that nurture a never ending evolutionary story?
No? Then complete disasters are an option.
Total depletion of resources.
Out of control, unrecycled toxic waste.
Dominating entities actively selecting against change.
...

The list of possible scenarios not supporting a naive conclusion are endless.
For this reason, no obvious conclusion follows from your example.
Why? Because you forgot feedback loops, once again see the logistic map.

[Anonymous No.15203178]

>>15202476
>If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt
>pop sci BS
Massive and classic cope. This would falsify the evolutionary origin of species theory of life on earth which is an entirely separate concept than evolution itself. The aliens still could have evolved. Evolution is not falsified at all even if muh aliens or muh matrix programmers or God shows up and says all life on earth was designed.

[Anonymous No.15203182]

>>15203178
>Evolution is not falsified at all even if muh aliens or muh matrix programmers or God shows up and says all life on earth was designed.
If it can never change even if conflicting evidence is provided, it's not science.

[Anonymous No.15203530]

>>15197821
>the darwinian theory is protected from all criticism by it's keepers, it is held beyond the reach of anyone who might take a pass at discrediting it. how fragile it must be to need that protection
Who cares about idiots? It is total impossible to convince them or even discuss. What i have seen on lies on this dumb midwit image board is far beyond believe. You will always get muuuh read the bible (a book) and a personal insult because this unholy believers are not capable to even admit the most obviously scam of there so blatant idiotic hallucination they call theory.

[Anonymous No.15203796]

>>15203178
>This would falsify the evolutionary origin of species theory of life on earth which is an entirely separate concept than evolution itself. The aliens still could have evolved.
Kind of true

I honestly think aliens created human species
But aliens are product of evolution

This way bot evolutionists and creations are right and wrong at the same time

[Anonymous No.15203840]

>>15197768
>And the loss of function in natural selection
Natural selection selects function, so that makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.15203842]

>>15197795
>Specialization through natural selection deletes or rearranges existing information from genomes
No. Natural selection removes non-functional genes and propagates functional ones.

>it doesn't add new information.
No one claimed it does. That's mutation.

[Anonymous No.15203845]

>>15197746
Dude, have you talked to Dog breeders? That is evolution pushed to the max.
This or d you believe that Mops is an organic species.

[Anonymous No.15203853]

>>15203842
>Natural selection removes non-functional genes
False. It can remove any gene that isn't specifically receiving selection pressure. Many species are evolutionary dead-ends and go extinct because they lost general suitability that their predecessors had.

[Anonymous No.15203910]

>>15197761
>we can develop small-scale AI that perform well at some simple task just by using evolutionary algorithms.
This only proves intelligent design since an intelligence is making the AI

[Anonymous No.15204207]

>>15202047
It's quite literally proof of evolution through artificial selection, as opposed to evolution through natural selection. Since the latter has been and can be osserved, the domestication of dogs is proof of evolution.

[Anonymous No.15204327]

>>15203853
>It can remove any gene that isn't specifically receiving selection pressure.
That doesn't contradict what I said. If it's receiving selection pressure then it's functional. I was responding to someone who claimed that evolution is falsified because natural selection removes functional information, which ignores that it propagates fictional information.

[Anonymous No.15204331]

>>15203910
No, the blind evolutionary algorithm is making the AI. There are evolutionary algorithms all over nature.

[Anonymous No.15204340]

>>15203182
You're being vague. He's talking about evolution as a concept, not a theory. A theory makes specific statements of truth that can be falsified. A concept is just an idea. Can you "falsify" the color red?

[Anonymous No.15204354]

>>15202992
>Is there a natural law that says evolution theory must attract towards stable, yet fragile, ecosystems that nurture a never ending evolutionary story?
Does it matter? You're arguing something can't be true because it could lead to an unfavorable result. That's a basic fallacy, argument from consequences.

[Anonymous No.15205103]

>>15200849
>And the question is, does genetics change?
>And do that again and again.
>If "microevolution" can occur then macroevolution can occur
Macroevolution is not 3+ mutations or whatever magic number you invent to reach "again and again" number of mutations leading to the end result being "not the same as the original." It has a specific definition and you are nowhere close to using it. You should google the definition before you make the tired false statement "if micro can happen then macro can happen"

[Anonymous No.15205122]

>>15197746
jews, unironically

[Anonymous No.15206413]

>>15197863
>Macroevolution
>microevolution
there is no difference.
That's like claiming centimeters exist but we can't be sure if meters do.
Extrapolate or forever cope

[Anonymous No.15206480]

>>15197904
Ah the classic microevolution cope. This may be a shocker, but microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing on different time scales. Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution

[Anonymous No.15206727]

>>15206480
How ?
In Microevolution like dog breeding there is no introduction of extra informations
WHile in Macorevolution there is introduction of extra information through random mutation

[Anonymous No.15206745]

We know that life has become increasingly complex over billions of years. So it either changed on its own (evolved) or aliens came down and periodically seeded earth with new life forms.

[Anonymous No.15206748]

>>15206413
Have you ever seen a centimetre turn into a metre, anon?

[Anonymous No.15207434]

>>15197863
species are not real. They are just an arbitrary line in the sand we drew on our quest to sort the natural world into nice neat boxes. micro-evolution if such a distinction does exist, can definitely make species. If kinds did exist, they would contain thousands of species each.

[Anonymous No.15207509]

>>15197761
retard what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15207534]

>>15197768
>And the loss of function in natural selection is what falsifies it.
Not really, dude. Just because something becomes vestigial doesn't make that an argument that the organism didn't evolve to not need it anymore. The fact that there are vestigial parts of an organism and that part actually still works in a similar organism with different environmental pressures really demonstrates how evolution is really the reality.

[Anonymous No.15207550]

Evolution is so well proven that we can make genetic modifications across species that have the same effects.

[Anonymous No.15207552]

>>15199288
Every single person here arguing against evolution is doing so because they believe in an abrahamic religion

[Anonymous No.15207563]

>>15200844
>comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative biochemistry, comparative development, comparative genetics
>comparative
aka speculation, not real science

[Anonymous No.15207567]

>>15207550
>breeding dogs to have different colors and sizes is evidence that a fish became a monkey

[Anonymous No.15207587]

>>15207567
Yes, there is no fundamental difference, just a matter of timeframe.
If you genuinely are not capable of grasping this, you have dogshit level of intelligence and shouldn't post on this board. I am certain you can't understand even rudimentary mathematics like multivariate calculus.

[Anonymous No.15207605]

>>15207587
>there is no fundamental difference between a fish changing its entire basic respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological systems and anatomy to dogs changing sizes and color due to hundreds of years of selective breeding

[Anonymous No.15207617]

>>15207587
why don't humans force animals to evolve into 6 legged dogs or cats or develop an amphibian dog if it is the same process?

[Anonymous No.15207640]

>>15207567
>t. 80IQ retard who thinks posting 70IQ drivel is witty

[Anonymous No.15207647]

>>15207552
Says the screaming, shitting scientismist upset that his dogma has massive holes in it.

[Anonymous No.15207666]

[Anonymous No.15207742]

>>15199170
>There is no way to prove it wrong if you agree that it is not wrong
I agree, you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.15208037]

>>15197746
Evolution is one of those things you can never have an earnest good-faith discussion about like vaccines because atheists get too emotional.

[Anonymous No.15208126]

>>15207742
>>There is no way to prove it wrong if you agree that it is not wrong
Why do you lie with such a weak strawman? There is no way to prove it wrong if you agree on the premises. Are you actually so stupid you think those two sentences are saying the same thing?

[Anonymous No.15208276]

>>15197746

[Anonymous No.15210545]

>>15207563
You are talking to a bot

[Anonymous No.15210594]

>>15208037
Lol, from three posts before yours:
>Says the screaming, shitting scientismist upset that his dogma has massive holes in it.

Rejection of evolution stems entirely from religious conviction. It can only be maintained by ignoring vast swaths of empirical evidence across multiple fields of study. When the religious zealot is intelligent enough to understand this, it leads to extreme cognitive dissonance, which causes him to lash out as in the above quote. Ironically, the most retarded ones have it better because they aren't perceptive enough to see the cracks in their worldview. They can just mindlessly parrot shit like
>breeding dogs to have different colors and sizes is evidence that a fish became a monkey
without ever realizing how stupid they are.

[Anonymous No.15210711]

>>15206727
>there is no introduction of extra informations
Yes there is. Originally wolves or even dogs didn’t have the genes for a squashed face, so how are pugs a thing? Merle is a genetic pattern that doesn’t occur in wolves or ancient dogs, so where did it come from in some modern breeds?
>in Macorevolution there is introduction of extra information through random mutation
you answered your own question

[Anonymous No.15211080]

>>15207647
He's still correct regardless of your chimping.

[Anonymous No.15211084]

>>15210594
this, No one is a atheist by choice, it's just a logical conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15211096]

>>15210711
>Originally wolves or even dogs didn’t have the genes for a squashed face, so how are pugs a thing? Merle is a genetic pattern that doesn’t occur in wolves or ancient dogs, so where did it come from in some modern breeds?
This is completely wrong though, merle could absolutely occur in ancient dogs and wolves. Merle is due to a transposition error in CFA10 containing a gene partly responsible for pigment production that's present in all mammals. The error that causes the merle coat pattern also causes deafness in all animals with the damaged gene, making them unfit in nature.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360527/

It isn't like they magically got new genes. These are existing genes that are damaged or destroyed by mutation, reducing overall fitness.

[Anonymous No.15211208]

>>15211096
>This is completely wrong though, merle could absolutely occur in ancient dogs and wolves
The point is not that it can’t occur in dogs or wolves, the point is the Merle gene arose independently in modern dogs bred by people. There weren’t Merle wolves that were bred into ancient Merle dogs which were the ancestors of all the modern Merle dogs. The ancestors of the dogs with that mutation around today didn’t have it
>It isn't like they magically got new genes. These are existing genes that are damaged or destroyed by mutation, reducing overall fitness.
Changing existing genes is how new genes come about. In no way does that disprove microevolution

[Anonymous No.15211378]

>>15211208
That is not new additional genes. It is X-Y-Z becoming A-B-C
But it's still the same amount of genes.

[Anonymous No.15211410]

>>15211208
>Changing existing genes is how new genes come about. In no way does that disprove microevolution
It's not a new gene. That's what you're missing. It's the same old gene but when it was getting copied it got fucked up in the middle so it doesn't code for the right thing anymore. Entropy in the system has increased, and the chances of it reversing by random happenstance are exceedingly slim once it's happened.

[Anonymous No.15211743]

>>15202992
Who says that it doesnt? why does it have to always lead to positive outcomes? there is no forsight involve most "species" that have ever lived are now extinct, most ecosystems collapse in time and new ones take there place. What is the relevance of "ecological disaster"?

[Anonymous No.15211747]

>>15207647
>Posting on a science board, complaining that people take rational scientific worldviews. back to sunday school for you anon

[Anonymous No.15211757]

>>15199699
Rabbits in the pre-cambrian

[Anonymous No.15211840]

i think evolution is real but evolutionary psychology is the biggest bullshit ever

[Anonymous No.15211861]

>>15205103
>creationist incorrectly calls speciation macroevolution and says it can't be occur
>gets refuted
>creationist tries to move the goalpost by now using the correct definition of macroevolution
LOL

[Anonymous No.15211877]

>>15211378
>That is not new additional genes
But it often is. Genes get duplicated, one of them changes, now you have a new additional gene. Why are you attempting to argue about a topic you have no understanding of?

>It is X-Y-Z becoming A-B-C
Which is still evolution and the creation of new information. Why do you think "macroevolution" requires"additional genes" rather than just large changes?

[Anonymous No.15211880]

>>15211378
The same amount of genes doesn’t mean they’re the same genes though. I can have 5 apples and 5 oranges, but they’re not the same fruit. Why would that mean macroevolution can’t happen anyways?

[Anonymous No.15211903]

It is irrational to both believe in evolution and believe that climate change is going to drive the most adaptable creatures evolution has yet produced to extinction. The two beliefs are at odds with each other, they conflict. If evolution favors the creatures best able to adapt to their environment then a changing environment favors those creatures. The type of static, Garden of Eden environment the climate hysterics demand and feel entitled to favors creatures which are adapted to a single environment and not necessarily capable of further evolution, its dysgenic. Fortunately Darwin's theory states that no environment like that has ever existed, nor will it ever. Someone tell the climate cucks

[Anonymous No.15211928]

>>15211903
>drive the most adaptable creatures evolution has yet produced to extinction
I don’t think anyone has claimed that climate change will be the end of tardigrades and nematodes

[Anonymous No.15211941]

>>15211903
>It is irrational to both believe in evolution and believe that climate change is going to drive the most adaptable creatures evolution has yet produced to extinction.
Which scientists believe that?

>If evolution favors the creatures best able to adapt to their environment then a changing environment favors those creatures.
Idiotic statement on several levels. Evolution favors creatures best adapted to their environment. It has no way of determining the difference between a species perfectly adapted to the current environment vs. a species that is adaptable to future environments. A stable environment means the species adapted to that environment thrives. A changing environment means the species thrives by random luck, struggles to adapt, or goes extinct. There is no reason to assume a changing environment favors any species.

>The type of static, Garden of Eden environment the climate hysterics demand and feel entitled to favors creatures which are adapted to a single environment and not necessarily capable of further evolution, its dysgenic
Why would further evolution be necessary if the environment doesn't change? Caveman logic.

>Fortunately Darwin's theory states that no environment like that has ever existed, nor will it ever.
What part of his theory is that?

[Anonymous No.15212347]

>>15204331
>No, the blind evolutionary algorithm
Invented by a human?

[Anonymous No.15212351]

>>15199165
>Macroevolution is the logical and obvious consequence of microevolution happening on a long period of time
Proof? "Obvious" is not scientific proof

[Anonymous No.15212354]

>>15199533
>But we can, we can do that in a lab.
Can any of "we" turn the simplest prokaryote into the simplest eukaryote?

[Anonymous No.15212358]

>>15211080
Biologists are not scientists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

[Anonymous No.15212732]

>>15212358
Assuming you anti darwinian this video does not support your view point.

[Anonymous No.15212964]

>>15211840
>evolutionary psychology is the biggest bullshit ever
That's true, but so is most of psychology.

[Anonymous No.15213091]

>>15202992
>>15211743
I want to know which way evolution diverges on average on this planet but it is not knowable, it may diverge to a total depletion of necessary resources for life (ecological disaster) within the first 100my followed by total death of all life, every single time, or it may keep on going and result in the world as we find it now.
Is it at all possible for your theory to result in what we see on this planet given the best luck? It is not known.
What we do know is that procaryotic life only emerged once and after several billion years eukaryotic life emerged, again only once.
Eukaryotic life is not abiotic hence your theory should apply here, then what does your theory tell us about the likelihood of eukaryotic life to emerge? I repeat, for 4 billion years and all interactions between procaryotic life during this time, it only occurred once and never again.
It's statistically approaching zero, yes? Then for what reasons are we talking about your theory when it's known to be close to 0% chance of being true?
Is it true, perhaps not in this case, but in some other cases, like in the fossil records? Because you were told it is proof of the evolution theory? Then isn't that a logical fallacy, like circular reasoning? Why else do you believe it?

[Anonymous No.15213180]

>>15213091
How do you know it only happened once? that seems to be an unfounded assumption as such creatures likley woudl'nt fossilize, only one merger was sucesfull obviously because we are here and share common decent, but that doesnt mean it has never happened before or since, perhaps those mergers where unsucesfull or outcompeted?. There are tones of different symbiotic mergers in the animal kingdom not quite as fundemental as Mitochondria but still important e.g.. Green, brown and red algea all had indepedant mergers with their photosythetic sybiont ( to the best of my knowledge) also lichens?

> Eukaryotic life is not abiotic
I dont understand this of course it isnt abiotic its living/replicating - its biotic

Are you asking what is the probability life reaches its current point without spriralling into extinction ? I dont think that could be calculated, but large portions of life on earth has nearly died out at several times, The O2 switch and its resulting effects on reducing organisms, the end permian "great dying are just a few examples.

>It's statistically approaching zero, yes? Then for what reasons are we talking about your theory when it's known to be close to 0% chance of being true?

Which theory evolution? its not 0% its very far from that it is as supported by experiment, prediction and observation than any other scientific theory you wouldnt doubt for a second i.e heliocentrism. I dont beleive it because i was told it, I beleive because Ive looked at and read about the evidence. And have also ran experiments personally where i have observed adaptive change in response to stimuli.

And even if all life were to spiral into extinction as it no doubt will at some point e.g when the sun causes the oceans to boil, that wont say a thing about the fact that the organisms bioling where complex entities designed by non-random natural selection and random mutation.