there is no evidence for evolutionary universal common descent of all living organism

[Anonymous No.15689761]

No one has ever actually given good evidence for believing all life evolved from one single celled organism. It is simply assumed on principle.

>muh DNA sequences
when you account for the actual probabilities that actual scientists give, the chance of matter arranging itself from any known organism to a vastly different organism is on the order almost zero percent, even when you give it trillions of years, even if you reroll for every known mutation at every available point in time. the only way to save this argument is to claim that there are unknown mutations and organisms vastly different then what we observe. This is nigh metaphysical.


>muh body plans
this is only valid for similar species, simply pointing out the fact that two organism's look alike and "anything can happen given enough time" is an unscientific argument applied here, a tree has as much in common with a fish as it does with a basket ball, and a sea sponge has more in common with a basket ball than a tree.

>muh embryogenesis
this at best proves similar groups of organisms have the same coded instructions for making a body at the beginning of the life creation process. Even ignoring the fact that the organisms become different very quickly in the womb, this argument still doesn't even apply to most life lifeforms.

[Anonymous No.15689789]

>>15689761
What is this even attacking? I'd say it's a strawman, but there probably are some people who think there's a LCA cell.

Regard the possibility that some organelles existed before as 'pre-cellular life' in this bigger picture in time and you see a vast soup of not cells but parts. These were 'parts' that maybe could become cells on their own, anywhere at once, independently. They would have been spread out and spreading, and expansion is a great generator of biodiversity.

The whole "billion years of just cellular life" thing isn't insignificant either, a billion years of pure randomness and cells all fucking and breaking and mixing and raping (Sex pilus) and sucking and glucking and eventually becoming multi-cellular organisms, there's no way to find one cellular LCA.

So what's the big deal if some people falsely assume things today what will be repainted more accurately tomorrow? I'm not a scholar on this shit... but you can see how this "disinformation" is just a few logical steps away in the average mind from being dispelled.

[Anonymous No.15689971]

>>15689761
I share 50% of my DNA with a banana. Every single living thing shares DNA, the same 24 or so amino acids for proteins, the same dextrorotatory aldo sugars.

Either there's only one way to create life, or it all came from the same attempt

[Anonymous No.15689981]

>>15689761
>handwaves three enormous bodies of evidence
Not sure what else I expected

[Anonymous No.15689985]

WHALES

[Anonymous No.15689987]

WITH

[Anonymous No.15689988]

FUCKING

[Anonymous No.15689991]

LEGS

[Anonymous No.15690019]

the chirality of many biologically essential materials. apparently this implies that it only happened once as there's no real reason it couldn't have gone they other way but you don't really see those

[Anonymous No.15690020]

That being said, not sure why it couldn't have happened at least a few times while the conditions were right.

[Anonymous No.15690032]

>>15690020
If I had to guess it would be hard to develop new life without being outcompeted by the already existing life

[Anonymous No.15690077]

>>15689761
>muh body plans
Darwinists will say that and then turn right back around and start talking about convergent evolution the next minute without experiencing and conscious cognitive dissonance. Thats how you know they're brainwashed and their belief in Darwinism is a superstition and not a rational belief.

[Anonymous No.15690089]

[Anonymous No.15690264]

>>15690077
>can’t tell the difference between homologous and analogous traits
Average creationist

[Anonymous No.15690320]

>>15689761
I don’t understand, what point are you trying to prove regarding the beginning of all life? Are you saying that all life on earth began by a creator?

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690694]

>>15690320
The point being proven is that there is no evidence for evolutionary universal common descent
Please read the subject of the thread

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690710]

>>15689985
>>15689987
>>15689988
>>15689991
not legs
also not evidence for universal common origin
Even if they did have legs, your logic would have to be
>God wouldn't make them that way, therefore evolution is true!
It's not an argument

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690711]

>>15689971
Or they were all designed by a creator

[Anonymous No.15690712]

>>15690694
>>15690320

>>15690469

check this other thread, kinda same subject

what is weird is, genetics dont support common ancestry very much

I mean, sure, there must have been one common animal ancestor a billion years ago but after that there could be separate paths for animals that have been going on for 750 million years

the "ancient looking animals" we see today, may simply be degenerate forms of more complex animals

but mitochondrial genes do tell something about common ancestry and perhaps humans have one of the most well preserved original mitochondrions

why? because a human being lives for decades before reproducing

human ancestors were apes who lived at least 10 years before reproducing

an insect lives about 1 year as a larval form, then morphes into adult and reproduces, new generation, new mutations, every year, if this was going on for 750 million years, a insect mitochondrion is not very similar anymore when compared to human

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690723]

>>15690712
>human ancestors were apes who lived at least 10 years before reproducing

It amazes me that people still believe this

[Anonymous No.15690727]

>>15690710
>not legs
They’re legs. Picrel
>Even if they did have legs, your logic would have to be
>God wouldn't make them that way, therefore evolution is true!
Actually my logic would be they demonstrate a clear path from functional legs in semi aquatic species to non functional in aquatic species and eventually internal vestigial legs in modern species

[Anonymous No.15690730]

>retarded namefag who spent hundreds of replies in the last thread about this showing he has 0 fucking clue what he is talking about comes back to do the same thing once again

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690731]

>>15690727
>They’re legs. Picrel
Nope, they are not
>Actually my logic would be they demonstrate a clear path from functional legs in semi aquatic species to non functional in aquatic species and eventually internal vestigial legs in modern species
Based on what? Your speculation over buried bones? Sure thing buddy
Universal Common Origin is an extraordinary claim
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Digging up a bunch of bones and postulating about their meanings does not prove evolution nor does it prove universal common origin
>>15690730
>MUH POKEMAN EVOLUTION
kek retard, you make yourself so obvious

[Anonymous No.15690735]

>>15690731
>Nope, they are not
Source: your ass. For somebody who really seems to love pressing for evidence you really seem to hate it when you get the evidence, to the point where you try to straight up disregard something complete with hips, toes, etc as legs.
>Digging up a bunch of bones and postulating about their meanings does not prove evolution nor does it prove universal common origin
>NOOOO YOU NEED TO IGNORE THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH MY RELIGIOUS IDEAS!! STOP DIGGING UP FOSSILS WITH TRANSITIONAL TRAITS!!!!
It’s even funnier when you find out how well represented archaeocetes are in the fossil record

[Anonymous No.15690737]

>>15690731
>kek retard, you make yourself so obvious
Try again, you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690744]

>>15690735
The only evidence I am asking for is evidence of a shift from one species to a different species in order to prove macro-evolution.
Speculating over buried bones is not evidence for a shift in species.
>something complete with hips, toes, etc as legs
It's totally irrelevant whether it has legs or not because again, your speculation over whether that means evolution is real requires you to claim that God wouldn't make it that way, therefore your idea about creation must be true

[Anonymous No.15690747]

>>15690744
>The only evidence I am asking for is evidence of a shift from one species to a different species in order to prove macro-evolution
You got this with how we domesticated cattle into not one but two new species over the last Millenia. But you’ll handwave that and say they’re the same species anyway because you have some criteria you can’t define which no example of modern speciation will fit because you’ll adjust it as necessary to discount any example your provided
>It’s speculation because it’s such strong proof of the progression of cetaceans from land to sea and that would hurt my world view
The cope is strong
>requires you to claim that God wouldn't make it that way
It doesn’t require this at all? All it demonstrates is whales descend from terrestrial animals, and that ruins your head. You’ve clearly made up your mind, at this point it’s just seeing what ridiculous shit you come up with next. What exactly are whale legs if not legs namefag?

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690767]

>>15690747
>You got this with how we domesticated cattle into not one but two new species over the last Millenia.
Nope, because they can still breed.
>b-but some species can cross-breed
isn't an argument
>It’s speculation because it’s such strong proof of the progression of cetaceans from land to sea and that would hurt my world view
>he still believes in radiometric and carbon dating
kek
>It doesn’t require this at all? All it demonstrates is whales descend from terrestrial animals
Nope, It demonstrates that there was whales in the past that you claim had legs. Everything beyond the direct observation of bones is complete speculation, as you weren't there at the time.
The linkage of one species to a younger species is completely arbitrary. You have no direct evidence that they were actually related in any way. You just assume your explanation for why they are similar is the best explanation, when other explanations exist (such as God creating them that way)
You have to disregard every single other explanation to claim your explanation for dug up bones is the correct one. It's based on faith and postulation, not on direct observation at the time that these creatures were actually alive (where you could actually test their DNA, look at their muscle and nerve structures, etc. etc.)
We don't even know the complete ancestry of every single Human being on earth today, yet somehow looking at bones proves to you that we were all ancestors to a single cell? It's all just postulating.

[Anonymous No.15690785]

>>15690767
>Nope, because they can still breed
>b-but some species can cross-breed
>isn't an argument
Yes it is. As stated many times hybrids can be fertile outside the genus, and with cattle specifically even bison x cow hybrids have been observed to be fertile so auroch x cow hybrids would almost certainly be fertile despite being different species. Nobody uses that definition of species anymore because it’s so fucking wrong, you can literally buy hybrid snakes that are fertile cross-genus hybrids
>he still believes in radiometric and carbon dating
Thanks for telling everyone you failed high school science. You don’t even need radiocarbon dating to see the progression between them, older archaeocetes tend to have more developed legs and fewer aquatic adaptations so you could probably tell without even using radiometric dating
>Everything beyond the direct observation of bones is complete speculation, as you weren't there at the time.
It’s a good thing the bones tell us so much then
>You have no direct evidence that they were actually related in any way
Aside from all the anatomical indicators linking them together as cetaceans right
>where you could actually test their DNA, look at their muscle and nerve structures, etc. etc.
These aren’t the only ways to see how closely related something is. And while DNA can’t link modern cetaceans to archaeocetes, it does link them the other modern ungulates. The fact that whales are ungulates and everything we know about them from the living species confirms this should be pretty fucking indicative that they come from more typical ungulate origins, archaeocetes are the piece that pulls the two together

[Anonymous No.15690792]

Family reunion

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690815]

>>15690785
>many times hybrids can be fertile outside the genus
Still is not relevant.
>Nobody uses that definition of species anymore because it's so fucking wrong
It's the main definition scientists use today. But you are right, scientists cant seem to agree on a single definition. However this is the definition that macro-evolution and Universal Common Origin originates from.
Considering that there are 26 different concepts for postulating what species an animal is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept))
The most relevant one should be used, not the one that makes your theory sound good.

Shifting definitions because you cannot prove a shift from one species to a different species by the original definition isn't a good look.

[Anonymous No.15690846]

>>15690815
>Still is not relevant
Yes it is, because if you are defining your emerging species based on wether or not it can interbreed with the original stock then there’s a good chance you won’t be able to tell speciation has occurred since even if it has they will likely still be able to breed
>It's the main definition scientists use today
No it’s not lol
>But you are right, scientists cant seem to agree on a single definition
>Considering that there are 26 different concepts for postulating what species an animal is
And this is the case because most scientists recognise that the term species is just a way we like to organise life into classifiable blocks despite the fact it doesn’t work on closer inspection as a direct result of evolution
>The most relevant one should be used, not the one that makes your theory sound good
The irony of you of all people saying this is fucking amazing
>Shifting definitions isn't a good look
So is not coming up with a solid criteria for speciation so you don’t need to acknowledge any examples that contradict your views

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15690859]

>>15690846
>Yes it is, because if you are defining your emerging species based on wether or not it can interbreed with the original stock then there’s a good chance you won’t be able to tell speciation has occurred since even if it has they will likely still be able to breed
That's a problem for (You) to figure out when you're trying to explain to people that an emerging species has occurred
Until then, you've given zero evidence for any emerging species, and therefore zero evidence for macro-evolution.

>And this is the case because most scientists recognise (recognize is the correct spelling) that the term species is just a way we like to organise (organize is the correct spelling) life into classifiable blocks despite the fact it doesn’t work on closer inspection as a direct result of evolution
Again, that's (You)r problem to figure out.
If you can't give a coherent definition for macro-evolution, then I will simply use the most common and applicable definition.
Because this is mostly concerning animals who can reproduce sexually, it is the most relevant definition.
If we're talking about bacteria, you would simply have to show bacteria having characteristics outside of what is already possible within that species. This has also never been shown.
Even if we use the latter definition for sexually reproducing species, there is still not a single example of any species gaining a characteristic that is otherwise not within the range possibilities for that species.

[Anonymous No.15690860]

>Basilosaurus with back feet?
>Tutcetus with toes?
>Archaeocetes with astragalus?
>Saghacetus with shins?
>Protocetids with patella?
>Carolinacetus with cuboids?
>Perucetus with pubic symphysis?
>Himalayacetus with hips?
>Kutchicetus with knees?
And a partridge in a pear tree?

[Anonymous No.15690864]

>>15690859
>That's a problem for (You) to figure out
It’s been figured out, you have just elected to shut your eyes and close your ears. Species designations aren’t based on interbreeding alone
>outside of what is already possible within that species
That’s not how it works. Whether or not a different strain develops the same trait independently is irrelevant, as it has no bearing on how the tested strain develops a new trait
>there is still not a single example of any species gaining a characteristic that is otherwise not within the range possibilities for that species
You never seemed to be able to define what you meant by new trait and not just a modified old trait in the last thread when asked

[Anonymous No.15690877]

>high pitched squealing and the furious wet slaps of primitive whale feet on your floor draw ever closer. Renounce whatever god or prophet you believe in for now there is only Perucetus, and his hunger will not be so merciful

[Anonymous No.15690884]

>>15690089

Feathered dinosaur fossils are fabricated in China.

[Anonymous No.15690885]

>>15690884
What about the ones in America and Europe

[Anonymous No.15690889]

>>15689985
>>15689987
>>15689988
>>15689991

And? Does this mean that life forms with legs produced those without legs or vice versa? If you have three frames in a film reel, the first showing a land animal, the third a sea animal, and the second something in between, does this mean that the first animal transforms into the second and the second into the third? Obviously not.

[Anonymous No.15690893]

>>15690885

What about them?

[Anonymous No.15690900]

>>15690889
Except the steps with whales are incredibly well preserved, and show very clearly a transition from semiaquatic to fully aquatic. In fact it’s so well represented in the fossil record that we can tell where certain early archaeocetes belong on a spectrum of semiaquatic-ness. They didn’t transform into the next step in one go, nobody said that was the case. They do demonstrate a gradual change

[Anonymous No.15690905]

>>15690900

You have not answered my question.

[Anonymous No.15690911]

>>15690905
Pretty sure I did, that the partly terrestrial species led to the later fully aquatic ones without hindlimbs. I just added to it saying that it’s hardly “three frames in a film reel” but rather one of the most comprehensive fossil records of any group

[Anonymous No.15690919]

>>15690911

Suppose you had a number of frames of your choice, would that mean that any one animal within those frames produced any other animal?

[Anonymous No.15690929]

>>15690919
Evolution is not when one animal randomly gives birth to a new species. Nobody has ever said that

[Anonymous No.15690933]

>>15690929

Is "random mutation" not the foundation of the hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.15690934]

>>15690933
That’s not what random mutation means

[Anonymous No.15690935]

Whales, legs. Nuff said

[Anonymous No.15690937]

>>15690934

How so?

[Anonymous No.15690941]

>>15690864
>It’s been figured out, you have just elected to shut your eyes and close your ears. Species designations aren’t based on interbreeding alone.
26 different concepts doesn't sound figured out.
>That’s not how it works. Whether or not a different strain develops the same trait independently is irrelevant, as it has no bearing on how the tested strain develops a new trait
It's important because if a bateria or other species are only capable of adapting within a range of different combinations, then it will never go onto become something different, because it will always be in that spectrum.

[Anonymous No.15690955]

>>15690937
A random mutation is a random change in an organism’s genetics, not a new species being birthed all at once. It doesn’t mean cartoon mutation
>>15690941
>It's important because if a bateria or other species are only capable of adapting within a range of different combinations
This has never been demonstrated, and there is no reason to believe this is the case since bacteria can adapt to incredibly extreme living conditions given enough time

[Anonymous No.15690976]

>>15690955
>bacteria can adapt to incredibly extreme living conditions given enough time

Yes, yet we have never seen any of these bacteria gain novel characteristics that aren't known to that bacteria, such as E Coli gaining cyanobacteria formology, or becoming a multi-celled organism

[Anonymous No.15690992]

>>15690976
Which the gaining of completely novel characteristics is required for macro-evolution ro actually occur. If it's all the same mutations, then it doesn't matter, even if it's genetics vary by 90%.

[Anonymous No.15691044]

>>15690992
>then it doesn't matter, even if it's genetics vary by 90%
According to who? You just made this up

[Anonymous No.15691069]

>>15691044
In order for a species to evolve into a distinct species, it must have gained at least 1 characteristic that is novel to the species.

[Anonymous No.15691083]

>>15690955
>A random mutation is a random change in an organism’s genetics, not a new species being birthed all at once. It doesn’t mean cartoon mutation

Of course. But what difference does the kind of change make to my initial question (>>15690889). Whether said animals in said frames are distinct in this way or in that way and/or whether they are distinct by this much or by that much, none of it matters. No animal in any one frame can be said to produce any other animal.

[Anonymous No.15691101]

>>15689761
You are applying probability incorrectly. The probability that we evolved, given that we evolved is 100%, its conditional, since if we did not evolve we would not be here to observe those cases.

[Anonymous No.15691112]

>>15691083
I think you mean that the one animal that was pieced together has not been proven to actually be the ancestor of the other animal, correct?
It's this leap of logic that they seem to think is fact. There's no evidence that each are related except by having similar bone structure.
Like i've said earlier, we've barely scratched the surface on human lineage, yet evolutionists will have you believe that we've figured out the lineage of all life because of a few different animal skeletons they dug up and claimed were related

[Anonymous No.15691116]

>>15691101
>circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.15691126]

>>15691112
>I think you mean that the one animal that was pieced together has not been proven to actually be the ancestor of the other animal, correct?

Yes.

[Anonymous No.15691183]

The evidence and the model for evolution have become so robust that it's simply extreme cope to deny them at this point. None of the arguments against evolution in this thread have any logical substance.
Stop getting angry at reality. Protein-coding genes code for proteins (we're ignoring transcription here just for simplicity), and those three-dimensional structures stack together; the quaternary structure of protein organization is just the phenotype of the larger-scale organs and structures of a lifeform. Small mutations in the underlying genome code for different proteins, which, if they make new structures that are more adapted, will pass on those genes and structures. Over time, this leads to extremely different structures and lifeforms. This is not limited to so-called "micro" evolution. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing.
There is nothing about this that is unintuitive. There is nothing about this that is illogical or contradictory. All evidence supports this. We know how it works, and we can measure it.

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15691190]

>>15691183
It's your burden of proof to prove evolution is real.
We are simply pointing out that the very basis of evolution remains unproven. No matter how many interpretations about bones or genes and structures you make to fit your theory, the theory hinges on the idea that a species can go onto become another species with novel characteristics. It has never been shown by scientists that an organism can evolve to have novel characteristics to the species.

[Anonymous No.15691200]

>>15691190
piggers?

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15691206]

>>15691200

Niggers are human beings.

[Anonymous No.15691211]

>>15691190
>It's your burden of proof to prove evolution is real.
This has already been done.
>No matter how many interpretations about bones or genes and structures you make to fit your theory
Except they aren't "made to fit" the theory, they ACTUALLY DO fit the theory.
>It has never been shown by scientists that an organism can evolve to have novel characteristics to the species.
This has already been done thousands of times. You just don't like it so you pretend it hasn't been done.

[Anonymous No.15691237]

>>15691211
You're arguing against a tripfag. They're narcissistic enough to name themselves on an anonymous Malaysian spice trading forum because their posts are so golden that they need to receive credit for it. If they're that far gone, they'll dig their heels into any opinion they have because they just have to be right.

[Anonymous No.15691275]

>>15689761
Yes, life could have started multiple different times on earth, even in different places of the globe, not just once.

[Anonymous No.15691284]

>>15691237
Not a tripfag, just using it for it's intended purpose. Literally is irrelevant to this thread and board. It's only used for documenting my usage of the /cdf/ protocol
>>>/x/cdf
You can verify this by looking at logs
Alternatively, you could stop using ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.15691294]

>>15691211
>Except they aren't "made to fit" the theory, they ACTUALLY DO fit the theory.
So explain to me how bones from two different fossils without any possible way of proving it's genetic lineage somehow proves evolution?
You must make this conclusion without presuming that evolution is real, and only looking at the characteristics between each set of bones.
Similarities between the bones are not evidence of lineage, in the same way that digging up two random human skeletons means that they're of the same lineage.

The reality is, you cannot come to the conclusion of evolution without assuming evolution is true, therefore making this circular logic.

[Anonymous No.15691296]

>>15691294
>So explain to me how bones from two different fossils without any possible way of proving it's genetic lineage somehow proves evolution?
Look up the Homeobox

[Anonymous No.15691298]

>>15691211
>It has never been shown by scientists that an organism can evolve to have novel characteristics to the species.
>This has already been done thousands of times. You just don't like it so you pretend it hasn't been done.

Show a single example of a species gaining a characteristic that is completely unknown to the entirety of the species.

[Anonymous No.15691321]

>>15691296
Which is relevant to observing evolution how?
It still does not prove that they are related, even if they have similar genes (genes which we don't have access to)

[Anonymous No.15691344]

>>15691321
Yes, it completely blows you the fuck out. The homeobox and phylogenetic analysis completely and irrefutably prove common descent. You screaming and crying and denying this does not mean anything.

[Anonymous No.15691348]

>>15691344
Explain

[Anonymous No.15692345]

>>15691190
What constitutes a separate species is somewhat arbitrary and the difference between species can often be quite minor. So regardless of whether evolution is true or not, natural selection can most definitely create new species. The word you want is "kind". Multiple species can belong to the same kind. Not sure what kinds would be exactly, probably something similar to genus or family.

[Anonymous No.15692355]

Why does /sci/ allow anti science retarded mutts

[Anonymous No.15692361]

>>15691321
your dna is 60% identical to a fruit fly dipshit. what theory do your propose to account for this besides a common ancestor? fuck face

[Anonymous No.15692425]

>>15691101
unfalsifiable language games. In the realm of science, metaphysical transcendental arguments are not permissible.

The fact of the matter is, humans actually exist, and we have actual evidence that gives us an actual ide of what the probability of them evolving is in a vacuum. To assume otherwise is a topic in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15692427]

>>15692361
>a human and a bug are pretty similar therefore everything descends from one organism
huh

[Anonymous No.15692459]

>>15692361
>what theory do your propose to account for this besides a common ancestor?
I can tell that you're emotional and upset by this issue due to your use of profanity, however convergent evolution can explain DNA similarities just as easily as evolution from common ancestors can. If you could calm down a little then you'd be better able to approach the topic on a rational rather than on an emotional basis

[Anonymous No.15692483]

>>15689761
>muh body plans
Where do you draw the line on this? Do you think this argument could be used on, say, all insects? What about all arthropods (so including spiders, scorpions, shrimp, lobsters, etc)? What about all animals?

>a tree has as much in common with a fish as it does with a basket ball,
Not really, trees have cells with a nucleus containing DNA. Not even all life has that, much less a basketball. But a fish has those things as well.

[Anonymous No.15692484]

>>15689761
Fuck off glowie moron.

[Anonymous No.15692520]

>>15692459
>however convergent evolution can explain DNA similarities just as easily as evolution from common ancestors can
>evolution easily disproves evolution, thus proving that evolution is not real
amazing, your intellect is just dizzying. retard. dumb fuck.
>>15692427
it's the only logical deduction, and the only theory that is supported by evidence. every other theory is total dog shit, but please tell me your alternative.

[Anonymous No.15692609]

>>15690976
>yet we have never seen any of these bacteria gain novel characteristics that aren't known to that bacteria
Sounds like a sweeping assumption you made up and hope nobody will post anything that discredits it because nobody here is a microbiologist
>such as E Coli gaining cyanobacteria formology, or becoming a multi-celled organism
Define cynabacterial formology, also E. coli already form aggregates
Also
>formology
Lol
>>15691069
Define novel characteristic. ALL “new” characteristics are just modifications of old ones. Jaws in fish are just a modification of gill rakes in jawless fish for example
>There's no evidence that each are related except by having similar bone structure.
>no evidence except the entire fucking skeleton, a major part of what we use to classify animals

[Anonymous No.15692615]

>>15691190
>It has never been shown by scientists that an organism can evolve to have novel characteristics to the species.
You still haven’t even defined what a novel characteristic is after being asked several time

[Anonymous No.15693483]

>>15692520
>its the only logical deduction
No, that's called a leap in logic.
You can make any number of explanations for why every creature has some of the same DNA. Only one is true.
Simulation theory, Creationism, Aliens made us, or Evolution (the idea that we can create something from nothing), etc.

[Anonymous No.15693489]

>>15692609
If you dig up two random graves and observe their skeletons, there is a 0% chance you will know if they are from the same genetic lineage or not.
Any inferences you make on their ancestry is complete speculation.

[Anonymous No.15693491]

>>15689761
God created man; Male and female created he them. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.15693513]

>>15692609
>nobody will post anything that discredits it
Because even the longest studies on bacteria have failed to produce any novel changes in their genome. The longest study claimed to have evolved E Coli to use citrate, however this ability was already encoded in their genome, it just needed to be activated. They also claim this represents somewhere over 1 million years of human evolution.
If it takes that long just to activate a single, already existing piece of genetic information, how long until we see a new piece of genetic information that is wholly unknown to the species?

>Define cynabacterial formology, also E. coli already form aggregates
>Also
>formology
>Lol
I meant morphology, but lets fight over words I suppose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacterial_morphology

>Define novel characteristics
The definition is in the term. A characteristic that is completely new to the organism, rather than a loss of information.

[Anonymous No.15693850]

>>15692459
reminder this tripfag goofed by admitting >evolution explains dna similarities
however convergent evolution can explain DNA similarities just as easily as evolution
disingenuous christ-cuck larping faggot retard KEK

[Anonymous No.15693854]

>>15692459
reminder this tripfag goofed by admitting

>evolution explains dna similarities
however convergent evolution can explain DNA similarities just as easily as evolution

disingenuous christ-cuck larping faggot retard KEK

[Anonymous No.15693855]

>>15689971
>with a banana
bananas do not contain dna

[Anonymous No.15693881]

>>15693854
You're mistaking evolution for common descent. And convergent evolution cannot account for shared endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes.

[Anonymous No.15693950]

>first truecel kek

[Anonymous No.15693959]

>>15693881
they're the words you fucking wrote dipshit. you can't disprove evolution by citing evolution is a credible alternative theory to evolution you larping fuck.

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15694020]

>>15693854
Wasn't me retard

[Anonymous No.15695576]

>>15693513
>Because even the longest studies on bacteria have failed to produce any novel changes in their genome
Bullshit, you will look at a genetic change and ignore it because it doesn’t meet some criteria you won’t actually define
>but lets fight over words I suppose
You love doing this
>A characteristic that is completely new to the organism, rather than a loss of information
You would call the development of a jaw from a jawless ancestor a novel characteristic, but a jaw is just a modified gill rake. You’d call the development of inner ear bones a novel characteristic, but they’re just modified jaw bones and therefore even more highly modified gill rakes. There are no truly new additions, this definition of a novel characteristic is horse shit

[Anonymous No.15697120]

>>15690885
Made in China

[Anonymous No.15697205]

>>15690884
coping hard

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15697281]

>>15695576
let me know how you develop a jaw, gill, or ear bones from a single celled organism that doesn't have this information encoded in the genome and hasn't been proven to have the ability to gain any information

[Anonymous No.15697326]

>>15697281
Stop calling yourself Gene if you don't understand anything about genes

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15697335]

>>15697326
Kill yourself retard

[Anonymous No.15697363]

>>15697335
You are an idiot.

[Gene !!Arcg6NbEtGB No.15697371]

>>15697363
please see >>15697335
for the best course of action

[Anonymous No.15697373]

>>15697371
You are not intelligent

[Anonymous No.15698314]

why are soigoys so insistent that their 200 year old academic dogma is irrefutably correct?
how is that different from people who think that their 2000 year old religious dogma is irrefutably correct?

[Anonymous No.15698327]

>>15697281
>hasn't been proven to have the ability to gain any information
That is retarded
>>15698314
It’s almost like one is supported by every field of biology

[Anonymous No.15699953]

>>15693881
>convergent evolution cannot account for shared endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes.
why not

[Anonymous No.15700739]

>>15698314
they have a lack of rigour, so when people expect them to have it, they get agitated.

[Anonymous No.15700816]

>>15689761
there is. its called mitochondria

[Anonymous No.15700851]

>>15699953
Convergent evolution cannot account for shared junk DNA. Junk DNA does not code for proteins and has no function in the cell, meaning it does not exert much selective pressure on the organism, as such it is not subject to evolutionary pressures, and so it's conservation across cell lineages implies the DNA has a common origin

[Anonymous No.15700903]

>>15693855
Is this true?

[Anonymous No.15701649]

>>15689761
sounds like you should write a paper...

[Anonymous No.15701669]

>>15700851
What if DNA is more like the brain of the cell, and we only look at the hard drive?

[Anonymous No.15701707]

People like this Gene character; troll or genuinely walking around with these ideas in his head? I desperately want it to be the former because otherwise it is too depressing.

[Anonymous No.15702145]

>>15700851
>Junk DNA
why wouldn't it form the same way in every circumstance? its just random chemical crystal formation, it follows the same physical laws wherever it forms.

[Anonymous No.15702278]

>>15701669
This post doesn't make any sense, but epigenetic marks also effect gene expression if that's what you mean.

>>15702145
You would have to explain there would be large regions of conserved junk DNA across cell lineages, why there would be such great similarities despite the fact that junk DNA could be completely random as it doesn't code for anything. Under the assumption that DNA is completely random people can easily offer an explanation for why coding regions are conserved, if they aren't then you tend to die , but there is no similar functional explanation for why non coding DNA is often conserved. The explanation as to where this lack of randomness comes from is that it is inherited from common ancestors. In order to disagree with this you have to find some particular reason based only on the physics or chemistry of DNA that causes such similarities and stops the expected informational randomness.

[Anonymous No.15703126]

>>15702278
>junk DNA could be completely random
so is ice crystal formation, yet it happens the same way everywhere. how does south pole ice know to form the same way as north pole ice?

[Anonymous No.15703353]

>>15703126
>ice crystals are the same as DNA
its all so tiresome, this doesn't even work the way you want as a comparison since all ice crystals are unique

[Anonymous No.15703362]

>>15702278
It does make sense. What if the DNA is the brain of the cell, but you're only looking at the hard drive (the coding regions), but not the other parts, like those "ultraconserved" regions. Maybe those are only used when the organism faces an unknown stressor, such as a new disease, and the cell has to "figure out" how to fight it.

[Anonymous No.15703369]

>>15702278
It does make sense. What if the DNA is the brain of the cell, but you're only looking at the hard drive (the coding regions), but not the other parts, like those "ultraconserved" regions. Maybe those are only used when the organism faces an unknown stressor, and the cell has to "figure out" how to deal with it, such as when the immune system figures out an antibody against a new disease.

[Anonymous No.15703390]

>>15703126
Ice crystals are on a microscopic scale random, making them all essentially unique. If we were in some strange parallel world where Ice crystals were all identical they would only be ide tidal because there is some physical process that turns what should be a random process into an ordered one, so you would need an explanation as to how DNA is conserved so well despite the fact that non coding regions could theoretically be random. The much simpler option is just to say that these regions were inherited from ancestors where they did code for things

[Anonymous No.15703397]

>>15703369
Non coding regions are typically locked behind epigenetic markers that prevent transcription factors from reaching them. Because they don't code for anything they are not accompanied by special proteins that can strip these blocks from the DNA, so they stay blocked until the cell undergoes mitosis and all blocks are stripped

[Anonymous No.15703421]

>>15703397
Did you even read my post?

[Anonymous No.15703436]

>>15703421
Did you? Because cells only react to things by protein production and in order to produce different proteins you need to code for the proteins. Don't get into fights about cellular machinery when you don't know shit about cells.

[bodhi No.15703442]

>>15689991
here is a carrot with legs. Is this what the whale evolved from?

[Anonymous No.15703444]

>>15703421
>Because cells only react to things by protein production
What makes you think so?

[bodhi No.15703449]

>>15689991
male AND female here, the holy grail eureka!

[Anonymous No.15703453]

>>15703442
>>15703449
whales with legs evolved from turnips with legs retard, not carrots with legs. carrots with legs became horses

[bodhi No.15703455]

>>15703453
that is just speculation

[Anonymous No.15703459]

>>15703455
proven by genetic analysis

[Anonymous No.15703461]

>>15703444
Because cells are literally just protein production machines, what makes cells do different shit is the type and amount of proteins that they produce. A cheek cell is a cheek cells because it produces certain proteins in certain amounts, a heart cell is a heart cell because it produces certain proteins in certain amounts . It's literally cells 101. If you can understand that then this then you simply don't have any of the prerequisite knowledge to be arguing about cell mechanics. I suggest you read even a middle school textbook on cells and genetics.

[Anonymous No.15703463]

>>15703461
but he's got a diploma in /sci/ biology and contrarianism, surely that makes him qualified to argue about evolution and whether or not every fucking field of biology supports it or not

[Anonymous No.15703466]

>>15703461
But how do you know that, when you have pretty clear evodence for regions that do something else? I can give you an analogy that you won't like: Most parasitic organisms lose most of the "extraneous" DNA, similar to how jews lost their intelligence and only keep rote learned knowledge by parasitizing on human society.

[Anonymous No.15703485]

>>15703466
There is no clear evidence otherwise. Parasitic organisms do not lose DNA. Wtf are you smoking.

[Anonymous No.15704657]

>>15703463
>its true because the people who caused the replication crisis say it is
derp

[Anonymous No.15705587]

>>15703466
>jews lost their intelligence
jews are 94 IQ
lol

[Anonymous No.15705827]

>>15703485
There is a tendency for obligate parasites to have reduced genomes. It's wasteful to maintain the necessary machinery to synthesise anything you can more efficiently steal from your host, and they can do without a lot of the crap a free-living organism needs. I'm not sure what relevance that other anon thinks this has.

[Anonymous No.15705886]

>>15705827
That depends on what you mean by "reduced genomes". The other anon thinks it means you literally lose DNA, like the base pairs itself just get dropped, even though if this was true this doesnt actually refute the idea of cells as protein factories. But I dont think it is in general true. Sure if an organism is an obligate parasite its more likely that a mutation that turns off a particular piece of unnecessary machinery will have either a benefit or no adverse effect therefore allowing mutations to turn off machinery to be passed on, but I don't think parasites literally chop base pairs out of their sequence, they just remain as junk dna as they are no longer needed.

[Anonymous No.15705963]

>>15705886
No, parasites do have smaller genomes. I'm sure there are exceptions, there always are in biology, but it's s very well-established generalisation that parasites (and other obligate symbionts) have smaller genomes than free living relatives. It's one of the reasons that exclusively parasitic lineages were often widely misplaced on early molecular phylogenirs.

[Anonymous No.15706244]

>>15689971
That's because someone created you both.
Just like most computer code shares vast similarity.

It's called genetic CODE even by people that say it was random. kek
They literally admit it in their language.
A code is WRITTEN.

[Anonymous No.15706828]

>>15689971
>what is convergent evolution

[Anonymous No.15706870]

Is this thread still going...the ion gradient-driven phosphorylation is exactly the same in both bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. That's irrefutable evidence of a common ancestor.

[Anonymous No.15707237]

>>15705886
Most of the time purely symbiotic parasites/bacteria will have smaller genomes than organisms that can survive outside, they can scavenge more and over time mutations turn off genes and rearrangements result in large loss of DNA that isn't needed. Smaller genomes replicate quicker and require less energy to maintain, so those strains will be fitter.

>>15689761
What probabilities?

[Anonymous No.15707298]

>>15689761
Just came to say that either your god doesn't exist, or he's one really incompetent bastard.

[Anonymous No.15707399]

>>15706244
>this is the level of argument they can think of
It’s sad really