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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 64 KB, 492x492, madosmirk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3244899 No.3244899 [Reply] [Original]

Macroevolutionists:

-Explain lack of transitional fossils (between H.sapiens and "ancestors"

-Explain level of "science" involved in deducing ancestral link between H. sapiens and other ancestral hominids based on evidence as ridiculous as a single tooth/skull cap.

-Explain numerous proven scientific hoaxes regarding human transitional fossils eg: Pitcairn man.

-Explain how information in a genome can be increased without being deleterious. >inb4 chomosome block mutation. No (deleterious)

-Explain how I'm clearly less ignorant than you and yet don't believe in macroevolution.

You mad? I thought so.

>> No.3244905

no but you were clearly mad enough to write a 9 line post with your OPINIONS

>> No.3244907

Fossils are hard to find and most dead animals do not become fossils, but I have heard that there are some examples of transitional fossils for Homo Sapiens.

Sometimes a gene can duplicate and you have 2 of the same gene. I do not fully understand it but apparently these genes can then diverge and go on to serve different functions. In this way you can get additional information in the genome.

>> No.3244909

>>3244905
Not opinions. They're questions that macroevolutionists can't answer.

>> No.3244910

>>3244905
It was not opinions. They were asking for explanations of these things.

>> No.3244913

>>3244909

Did Jesus tell you it was ok to end questions with a period?

>> No.3244921

>there are tons of transitional fossils, whenever a new one is discovered people are just all "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT BETWEEN THAT ONE AND THAT ONE"

>DNA evidence, bone structure, etc. count as evidence. They don't stand on their own, but there is a lot of it, making for a solid case.

>Explain the crop circles. Hoaxes exist, doesn't disprove anything. What about the Rapture that was supposed to happen a few weeks ago? There are religious hoaxes, too.

>Duplications, viruses introduce new DNA to the genome(which is not always bad), lucky point mutations

>You're not, so believing in macroevolution makes sense for you.

>> No.3244922

Every fossil is a transitional form.
Look into the research.
They were hoaxes that weren't entertained for long and have since been completely ignored by the scientific community.
idk
coztanza.jpg

>> No.3244923

>>3244913
Stop nitpicking and answer the questions.
Oh wait, you can't

>> No.3244926

>>3244913
What does Jesus have to do with this?

>> No.3244927
File: 30 KB, 640x480, ea5bab_630362.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3244927

-Fossils are hard to find. Not everything get fossilized.
-Information is selected by the environment. Random goes in, then the environment happens to pick the best DNA sequences since it kills all others. These surviving sequences thus get the information from the world around them.

>> No.3244928

>>3244923

I answered every question you asked.

>> No.3244932

>>3244928
But after he posted that. So he did not know at that time.

>> No.3244945

>>3244932

Add it to the list of shit this dude doesn't know, but won't shut up about.

>> No.3244949

>-Explain level of "science" involved in deducing ancestral link between H. sapiens and other ancestral hominids based on evidence as ridiculous as a single tooth/skull cap.

its not really done this way. this is an old inaccurate type of phylogeny
amino acids sequences in haemoglobin are compared between species. number of matches determine how closely related the two species are.

im sorry but if you dont accept evolution you are an fucking 19th century idiot. or more likely trolololol

>> No.3244952

>>3244945
There is no reason to be angry. If they are unaware of the evidence you should just help them and explain it clearly.

>> No.3244959

I believe in the Darwianian theory and I still don't think (rather know for a fact) that there not enough transitional fossils or surviving ancestor species between Us and whatever lead to us. YET.

>> No.3244961

>>3244952

Whoa, what did I ever do to deserve that?

>> No.3244964

>>3244959

I believe in the timecube theory, and you are all educated stupid.

>> No.3244965

>>3244913
Doesnt understand how commands work.
What are you, new to grammar.

>> No.3244971

>>3244921
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9hG91uOoU
Watch this OP
And don't use Madoka for trolling purposes, you scum.

>> No.3244974

Don't believe in intelligent design or any of that shit but one thing about evolution has always seemed weird to me. There appears to be species that are highly specialized in tasks that present no obviously evolutionary pathway to them.

Like birds for example. Species don't just suddenly sprout wings and begin to fly. I could see the chicken -> flying bird path but why would something start to develop wings before that? What evolutionary advantage is there to developing the predecessor to wings?

>> No.3244978

YOU'RE ALL WRONG!

http://www.aquaticape.org/

>> No.3244980
File: 10 KB, 251x171, trollface2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3244980

>Pitcairn man

>> No.3244983

>Explain lack of transitional fossils (between H.sapiens and "ancestors"
every single fossil is a transitional fossil. populations are constantly evolving. its just every time fossil B is found to link fossil A and C, you claim fossil B isnt a transitional and ask for fossils between A and B and between B and C. again, not realizing that every fossil is a transitional fossil

>Explain level of "science" involved in deducing ancestral link between H. sapiens and other ancestral hominids based on evidence as ridiculous as a single tooth/skull cap.
Last I checked there arent levels of science. anyway, when a a single tooth or skull cap is found, the shape of it is first compared to other fossils/living creatures. then they say "ok, this is most likely similar to clades W, X, Y and Z." then DNA is extracted from the bone and compared to other fossils and whatnot. at the same time, a number of isotopes are used to date the item. this allow placement of the fossil in a large timeline. the DNA evidence and the area it was found in help match it to other fossils

>Explain numerous proven scientific hoaxes regarding human transitional fossils eg: Pitcairn man.
they were proven to be hoaxes. what more is there to say? this is why evidence for such things is constantly being reexamined. that way we can really be sure of what we know

>Explain how information in a genome can be increased without being deleterious. >inb4 chomosome block mutation. No (deleterious)
adding information to a genome is usually harmful. this is how evolution goes. lets say you have a mutation that increases the information in the genome of individual X. if it is harmful, they die/dont reproduce. if it isnt harmful and allows individual X to reproduce more, it will be passed on and slowly make its way through a population.

>Explain how I'm clearly less ignorant than you and yet don't believe in macroevolution.
you cant answer these yourself, therefore you are more ignorant than me

>> No.3244988

I appreciate your courage, but this troll is too strong for you. Let the sages handle him until you are ready.