Evolution correct?

[Anonymous No.4156033]

The simplest type of protein molecule is comprised of at least 400 linked amino acids, and each amino acid is made up of a special arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements. Each chemical element is made up of a unique combination of neutrons, protons and electrons. What are the odds of this happening? Something like 1 in 10 to the 250th power. The probability for forming DNA proteins is gigantic: 1 in 10 to the 167,625th power. MATHEMATICS PROVES THAT THE PROBABILITY OF EVOLUTION BY MUTATIONAND NATURAL SELECTION IS IMPOSSIBLE. Mathematicians usually consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power as having a zero probability, which means it is impossible.

Sun Disproves Evolution:
Scientists have been able to measure the diameter of our sun, and it is burning up and shrinking at the rate of about 5 feet per hour. If the sun really was there billions of years ago, it would have been GIGANTIC. The earth would have been fried to a crisp. Once again true science proves that evolution is a lie.

The second law of thermodynamics is known as the Law Of Energy Decay. The law states the fact that "the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating state of decreasing organization." DOWNWARD NOT UPWARD. Yet evolution would make us believe that on millions of occasions, over billions of years, tiny organisms successfully grunted themselves into higher, extremely complex life forms. What total foolishness!

Check the facts—When Pre-Historic living animals existed, THEY WERE FULLY DEVELOPED ANIMALS. The fossil record shows no half-developed trilobites or half-formed T-rexes. Every fossilized animal ever found was a fully functional animal, which shows and proves that all of these Pre-Historic animals appeared FULLY FORMED. They did not evolve over millions of years.

[Anonymous No.4156037]

you sir are a butt

[Anonymous No.4156043]

>lots of capital letters

[Anonymous No.4156047]

The Evolutionist's View:

They say the earth is billions of years old (Who cares if the sun would have been so big that it would have vaporized all life off the planet.) For the Evolutionists, time is the magic factor that turns frogs into princes. Just take one frog and add 3 ½ billion years, and presto! a prince.

[Anonymous No.4156053]

troll thread
I'm a creationist

[Anonymous No.4156054]

>>4156043

I prefer capital letters over evolution theory anytime

[Anonymous No.4156057]

>>4156054
that's a shame

[Anonymous No.4156059]

>>4156057

shame is when you can't back up the theory of evolution with facts.

[Anonymous No.4156060]

There should be a name for your falacy OP. You are extrapolating when there is no reason to believe that you can extrapolate.

[Anonymous No.4156064]

>>4156059
no the shame is when this is posted here every week and argued against successfully and yet you people keep coming back

by the way evolution doesn't claim that there are "half evolved" animals.

[Anonymous No.4156068]

>>4156060
I wonder how many fallacies one can find in the Origin of Species..

[Anonymous No.4156067]

>>4156033
>Check the facts—When Pre-Historic living animals existed, THEY WERE FULLY DEVELOPED ANIMALS.

2/10 thats the best I can do

[Anonymous No.4156075]

>>4156068
I don't know why don't you tell me.

Also,
Myth: Sun is Shrinking

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html

[Anonymous No.4156078]

>>4156033
There are 2 possibilities:
1) TROLOLOLOLLL!!! GTFO and go fuck yourself.
2) Complete full-on retard. GTFO and go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.4156096]

>>4156067
Explain how it would have been possible for animals to exist if the sun would be too big for life on earth to survive millions of years ago?

[Anonymous No.4156105]

But the sun isn't shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour
All organisms at all times at every state in their evolution were fully formed
And the probability of those events occurring, if we hold them to be accurate (which they aren't) is perfectly in line with the amount of the materials and the size of the universe. DNA forming wasn't a chance happening, it was itself a product of evolutionary development after the-

Oh wait you're trolling. Well you got me going. 6/10. At least it's better than "HEY ATHEISTS IF GOD ISN'T REAL WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?"

[Anonymous No.4156110]

0/10

[Anonymous No.4156122]

>DNA forming wasn't a chance happening, it was itself a product of evolutionary development after the-

How can DNA be a product of evolutionary development, if prior to the existence of DNA there was no evolutionary development?

So which came first, DNA or evolutionary development?
Chicken or the egg?

[Anonymous No.4156154]

>>4156122
RNA came before DNA

[Anonymous No.4156160]

>>4156154
argument still stand though.
which came first, RNA or evolutionary development?

[Anonymous No.4156161]

I've seen most of this text (somewhere other than /sci/... don't know) and know it's all just a troll, but this part always gets to me:

>Mathematicians usually consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power as having a zero probability, which means it is impossible.

Mathematicians do not say any such thing!! A statistician might. A mathematician in general does not give a fuck about approximations (except perhaps in numerical analysis). A tiny number is just that: a tiny number. Hell, even probabilities that actually are 0 are sometimes not called impossible (see the concept of almost never).

[Anonymuos No.4156196]

>>4156033
troll harder

[Anonymous No.4156208]

>>4156161
Hell, even probabilities that actually are 0 are sometimes not called impossible

If it is probable that life came into being by luck and it is almost impossible, but not impossible. Then why can't we replicate life and create life out of dead matter? You claim it is possible and not impossible, so prove it by replicating the conditions and create life. If science can't, then the origin of life could by definition not be by luck.

[Anonymous No.4156222]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)

[Anonymous No.4156247]

op being a faggot has a probability of 100%

[Anonymous No.4156253]

damn, I guess the creationists were right after all

[Anonymous No.4156273]

>>4156247
Name-calling directs attention to the OP, rather than the OP’s ideas about an issue.

[Anonymous No.4156277]

>>4156273
>implying op has ideas

[Anonymous No.4156280]

>>4156253
so long the evolution hasn't had support of real facts and evidence, then yes the creation proposal is right.

[Anonymous No.4156315]

>Scientists have been able to measure the diameter of our sun, and it is burning up and shrinking at the rate of about 5 feet per hour.

It's actually expanding slowly and becoming more luminous. We have less than a billion years left before it makes Earth inhospitable. And this is before it hits the red giant stage and swells rapidly.

[Anonymous No.4156316]

People tend to forget that the evolution theory was put forward as an alternative to God. Evolution was meant to reject the creation week of the Bible. It was formulated to create another belief system in the minds of people in order to make them doubt the teachings of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.4156318]

>>4156208
I said absolutely nothing about the physical world, only refuted shit said about mathematicians.

Also, everything you just said is gibberish.

[Anonymous No.4156334]

>>4156315
Your argument doesn't stand in court.
If the sun is expanding, then it means that millions of years ago the sun was smaller.
If it was smaller, then it would have been much colder on earth, so the earth would not sustain life.
So again, how do you explain the earth being million or billions of years old if the sun was smaller thus colder back then.
You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous No.4156347]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of31CzzBj3c

[Anonymous No.4156349]

>>4156318
Prove that life can develop from dead matter to life organisms as evolution claims it can. I say it is statistically impossible. You say it can through evolutionary process. Show me that it can be done by recreating.
Science demands that a process must be made repeatable to prove a certain theory about it. If we can't repeat life out dead matter, then we can't prove evolution as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4156363]

>>4156349
Again, I said absolutely jack shit about any of that, just what math is. However, I'll bite: should we believe astronomers? We can't make stars. Should we believe geologists? We can't make mountains.

[Anonymous No.4156374]

> The probability for forming DNA proteins is gigantic: 1 in 10 to the 167,625th power.
If they were assembled randomly, yes. Fortunately, we have evolution. You have just presented a convincing argument in favour of evolution.

> second law of thermodynamics
If only there were some entropy sink... some sort of giant flaming ball, maybe hanging way up in the sky....

[Anonymous No.4156380]

>>4156363
>should we believe astronomers? We can't make stars.

We see stars and so there is no reason to doubt stars and astronomers.

>Should we believe geologists? We can't make mountains.

We see mountains and so there is no reason to doubt mountains and geologists.

And we see life in nature, so we have no reason to doubt life.

But what we should doubt is the theories proposed at explaining certain phenomena, like life and species.
Because if the theory doesn't fit the fact, then there is something wrong with the theory.

[Anonymous No.4156406]

>>4156374
>If they were assembled randomly, yes. Fortunately, we have evolution. You have just presented a convincing argument in favour of evolution.

What developed first: Evolution or DNA/RNA?

> second law of thermodynamics
If onl> there were some entropy sink... some sort of giant flaming ball, maybe hanging way up in the sky....

The sun actually has a destructive force on the living organisms on earth, not a constructive force. Except for plants that use photosyntesis, all forms of life decay in the long run to exposure to UV sunlight. That's why the need to reproduce, because the previous organism dies off eventually and passes his genes to the next generation before it happens. The sun has no creative power to create new species.

[Anonymous No.4156431]

>>4156406
evolution isn't something that developed. it's just a statistical pathway. survival of the fittest doesn't just apply to life - it also applies to chemicals and atoms. throw ions into a solution and the most reactive ones are going to pair up in order to maintain chemical equilibrium.

Also: considering that all life on the planet is based on photosynthetic organisms, I would say that the sun is pretty important part of earthly life. You are claiming that the sun has a detrimental effect on life, which might be the stupidest claim anyone has ever made on /sci/. and that's saying something.

[Anonymous No.4156433]

Odds of winning lottery if you buy one ticket.
> 1:7 Billion.

Odds of winning lottery if you buy 7 Billion tickets.
1:1

Odds of protien folding in any given instance.
Nearly zero.

Odds of protien folding over billions and billions of years...
Now nearly 1:1

See how that works?

[Anonymous No.4156454]

>>4156433
>billions and billions
>trying to make it sound more than 4.5

[Anonymous No.4156455]

>>4156433
Let me explain your logical error:

The lottery analogy:
The winning lottery was 1 among the 7 billion. So the winning lottery already existed on printed paper. It is a question of buying all of them to win (but then your loss is your gain, so you win nothing).

But...

Life didn't already exist. So you can't compare it to winning lottery. Life was not there in the first place, and millions of years passing by couldn't possibly make it appear out of nowhere. That would be magic, not science.

[Anonymous No.4156458]

>>4156033

[Anonymous No.4156462]

To: >>4156454 From: >>4156433

Hey, you know what? You're absolutely right! Let me revise...

Odds that DNA will suddenly replicate itself from nowhere?
> Infinitesimal (but still not zero).

The number of chances DNA had to replicate itself out of a world that's just fucking abundandant with the resources to do such a thing, including excess energy radiating from the sun, over 4.5 billions years?
> Yeah, waaaaaaaay better. (Nearly 1:1, but not quite).

[Anonymous No.4156466]

>>4156455

> So the winning lottery already existed on printed paper
No it didn't. The winning numbers don't exist until they are drawn. If every ticket was bought for every combination possible, then the odds are 1:1.

HOWEVER

Consider this:

4.5 billion years and protein has all the time it needs to fold (a staggering number of times).

Consider that only one type of combination of elements will produce DNA, and it has be busily producing different combinations (allow yourself to imagine a world with science, you will appreciate it), some working, some rudimentary, some getting more and more complex...

[Anonymous No.4156478]

This thread is dildos.

OP, if you have a better mechanism that can explain where life came from (and, indeed, you must agree that it came about by SOME mechanism), then please share it. Otherwise, stop bitching. The theory of selection is pretty well-supported.

[Anonymous No.4156479]

>>4156431
>evolution isn't something that developed. it's just a statistical pathway. survival of the fittest doesn't just apply to life - it also applies to chemicals and atoms. throw ions into a solution and the most reactive ones are going to pair up in order to maintain chemical equilibrium.

If you mean chemical evolution, then you can see the problem with biological evolution. Elements don't evolve from other elements. They are formed through fusion and reactions. One atom doesn't evolve into another atom to create a new atom. So this analogy destroys your evolution system.

>Also: considering that all life on the planet is based on photosynthetic organisms, I would say that the sun is pretty important part of earthly life. You are claiming that the sun has a detrimental effect on life, which might be the stupidest claim anyone has ever made on /sci/. and that's saying something.

The sun supplies energy and warmth and is important. But it is not breaking the second law of thermodynamics and magically causing species to evolve into other species (increasing organisation). That is a faulthy assumption. The detrimental effect on life is limited, but significant.

[Anonymous No.4156488]

[Anonymous No.4156499]

>>4156479
wow

[Anonymous No.4156503]

>Consider that only one type of combination of elements will produce DNA, and it has be busily producing different combinations (allow yourself to imagine a world with science, you will appreciate it), some working, some rudimentary, some getting more and more complex...

Let us imagine a world with science:
Your claim above must be supported with evidence and must be tested and replicated in order to prove the theory of evolution. We simply cannot replicate the creation of life the way you have demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.4156508]

>>4156479
OP has discovered that you can't refute a nonsense argument.

Okay, OP. You win, evolution is a lie. So where do you think we came from?

[Anonymous No.4156523]

>>4156503
ribonucleotides
nanobacteria
protobionts

that will get you started. go do some reading.

[Anonymous No.4156524]

didn't read nigger

[Anonymous No.4156538]

>conflating evolution and abiogenesis

Different theories, dumbass.

>rolling out the 2nd law of thermodynamics tripe

The earth is not a closed system. Entropy =/= disorder. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation and selection, which happen all the damn time despite your peabrained claim that the 2nd LoT should prohibit them.

[Anonymous No.4156558]

>>4156508

Fair enough. I think there are some things in the evolution theory that we can observe in nature and those are repeatable and provable. But other parts of the theory has no evidence in nature backing it up.

For instance, that one life form (specie) can through time mutate into a whole different specie. So that a primate can evolve into a human being or a land animal into a dolphin. That is not a genuine scientific observation.

We see a program (life, animals, plants etc.) and we say to ourselves that the program came into being out of nothing and evolved over time into different things (theory of evolution).

Or we propose that this program (life, animals, plants etc.) exists because of a programmer that shaped the program and created it. So just like your operating system on your pc (windows, linux, mac etc.) needs a programmer (microsoft, apple, etc.).

Any design needs a designer. We see this all over the world. Why not in nature also? What makes nature the exception to this rule that any program must have a programmer?

[Anonymous No.4156565]

>>4156033
>retard troll misusing laws of thermodynamics and equilibrium
yes the odds of DNA forming are unlikely if it was purely random, but the reason elements combine into larger molecules is because these elements can also form ions and radicals when given energy by things such as the sun, and then they are much more stable in compounds such as amino acids, and very likely to combine together.
If you compare the small amount of entropy lost due to the formation of molecules and larger, more complex organisms, to the entropy and energy produced through the thousands of process required to sustain all of these organisms, such as the digestion of food, you'd see that complex organisms actually contribute more to universal entropy than they take away.

[Anonymous No.4156578]

>>4156565
But where in the process is the complex structure of molecules turned into a living entity?

Where is the transition from large, complex molecules to a thing that has life and wants to survive and reproduce?
We not only have no prove of such a thing to be possible, but is cannot be duplicated also. This makes your claim to be not accurate.

[Anonymous No.4156584]

You know why this shit pisses me off? Not because I believe for a second that OP is anything but a troll, but because I know that somewhere, in my own country no less, there are people who actually employ this kind of intellectual dishonesty to justify their own failings. There are actual people who cannot cope with a life harsher than a fairy tail, and so construct arguments based solely on ignorance on their own part and on the part of the listener, going just far enough to make what they say sound vaguely scientific to someone with only limited knowledge of the world around them while making use of the same rhetoric you see from all propagandists, and then bitching up a storm about the conspiracy by all educated individuals everywhere to completely disregard their gibberish.

I'm talking about the kind of scum who make honest Christians and Muslims everywhere look like raving fundamentalists. I'm talking about the kind of bigoted assholes who find out that it's not OK to abuse people because they are different, and so have to invent a Church of Evolution so they can go back to labeling the acceptable targets, the people that it's OK to hate because fuck tolerance. I'm talking about the people so in love with themselves, so utterly dependent on the drug of denial that they have addicted themselves to that they will actually claim that the noble search for where we came from was really just a concentrated effort to undermine their religion, as if there are not literally dozens of older/more logical/less rape and pillagy religions to act as viable alternatives.

In short OP, fuck you. Not because you've managed to convince anybody here that you are not just some 14 year old lowlife trying to feel bigger than you are for just a brief moment, but because you have successfully reminded me of the true face of the lowest form of human life in existence. Home grown, of course, right here in the US of A.

[Anonymous No.4156596]

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/14/14-4/14-4-pp203-220_JETS.pdf

[Anonymous No.4156597]

>>4156558
Nobody said that there was or wasn't programmer. All science is worried about is the mechanism of selection rather than the teleology of that mechanism.

Say that a man develops a mutation in his DNA that prevents him from procreating with normal human females. however, there just so happens to be a few other human females with matching mutations, and he can procreate with them. their children will never be able to procreate with the "normal" humans, but they can reproduce just fine with other people with their matching mutation. Over the years, the reproductive mutants develop more mutations that change their physical appearance; because the mutants cannot pass these mutations on to the "normal" humans, they begin to look and function increasingly differently. Would you call these reproductive mutants a new species? The problem with your problem with "macroevolution" (as it is sometimes called) is that its entire weight rests on the existence of biologically defined species. "Species" do not exist in real life apart from reproductive independence. I

[Anonymous No.4156601]

>>4156584

If you don't mind, would you be able answer this little question?

If we got rid of both evolution theory and creation theory, then how would you try to explain the diversity of life on earth?
Remember, you can't use evolution or creation.

[Anonymous No.4156619]

Anyone with an ounce of imagination can, given any set of data whatsoever, construct a cosmology compatible with that data which also includes God. (Or one which doesn't.) IMHO, anyone who finds themself having to invent ever more baroque explanations solely in order to retain either axiom might benefit from stopping and asking themselves if there's any conceivable reason -- other than divine encouragement -- why they might feel compelled to do this, and whether the most honest response to discovering that the answer is "yes" is to dream up an even more complicated universe in which all such reasons can be safely ignored.

[Anonymous No.4156635]

>>4156601
I'm afraid that I do not understand your question. Why would I endeavor to explain the diversity of life on earth without evolution, when the theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have, as evidenced by the fact that it is arguably the most hated theory in humanities history and yet still persists despite the constant efforts of people around the world?

I guess what I'm asking is, why do present me with such a bizarre hypothetical question?

[Anonymous No.4156656]

>>4156597
>Over the years, the reproductive mutants develop more mutations that change their physical appearance

You are counter argumenting yourself.
If the reproductive mutants develop more mutations, then they would not be able to reproduce within themselves, because the mutation in the new DNA would prevent the man from procreating with the mutant human females. It is an endless regression.

So the new mutation would not mix with the old mutation, because you always would need a female that garantees a matching gene for reproduction. This is not highly possible.

Fact is, that mutation to just a degree as not being able to reproduce, causes an extinction of the new mutant organism. And there is thus no possibility for him to pass on his genes, if the mutation is too far off as to not being able to mate. If you can't mate because of a mutation, then you can't mate and there you get extinct.

And even if you find a female to mate, then your children would dy off, because there would be no mates for them to pass on their genes. Except themselves, but that would make matters worse, because of incest and unwanted traits in your gene pool.

[Anonymous No.4156660]

>>4156635
he's mentally ill. you really should stop replying

[Anonymous No.4156676]

>>4156635

You are using a logical fallacy: circular reasoning.

"I won't deny evolution because it explains life, and because it explains life I won't deny evolution."

I hope you see through this.

[Anonymous No.4156677]

>>4156656
Please go take a genetics class.

Mutations in genes that code for, say, eye color do not affect reproduction. Not all mutations affect the production of a viable zygote. What I'm saying is actually highly possible - it happens all the time. It's called speciation, and while my summary of it wasn't incredibly good, that's basically where stuff comes from. We've initiated speciation in lab environments.

Often, a mutation in the zygote-forming genes DOES kill the organism. Or, at least it sterilizes it. But not always. Also, incest is not evolutionarily bad. You need to interbreed for several generations before anything bad would happen. Our society just likes to pretend that it'll give you retarded babies because we think it's kind of gross.

[Anonymous No.4156684]

this is so obviously a troll thread or an extremely uneducated moron. In either case, ignore. The first paragraph wasn't too bad, but the shit after is just nonsensical shit.

[Anonymous No.4156685]

>>4156676
He won't deny it because it makes sense and we don't have a better mechanism to explain where shit came from right now. YOU are not offering an alternative mechanism, you're only griping about the present one because you don't understand it and you think it violates your teleology.

[Anonymous No.4156687]

>>4156033
><argument from improbability>
Bullshit, but will take a little to explain. In short, try to calculate the odds of the exact hands that were dealt in Vegas for its entire history. Improbable right? But it still happened. Naive arguments of this form are simply invalid.

><entropy>
pic related

><Sun size changing>
Got some sources on this? I hear this before, but assumed it was part of the solar cycle.

>Check the facts—When Pre-Historic living animals existed, THEY WERE FULLY DEVELOPED ANIMALS. The fossil record shows no half-developed trilobites or half-formed T-rexes. Every fossilized animal ever found was a fully functional animal, which shows and proves that all of these Pre-Historic animals appeared FULLY FORMED. They did not evolve over millions of years.
Lol. Non sequitir.

[Anonymous No.4156692]

>>4156677
An organism that undergoes a mutation that unables him to mate with others, simply dies off.
It doesn't go wonder in a jungle looking for that special female to pass his genes on. The chances are zero that they will ever meet eachother, let alone mate. Even if they mate, the children would dy off, because they are in a minority and no one to mate with. Survival of the fittest sets in and kills them off.

[Anonymous No.4156694]

>>4156406
>What developed first: Evolution or DNA/RNA?
Evolution doesn't develop. It's a process.

Before there was the first replicator, there was no evolution. Evolution is a process that "acts on" replicators.

[Anonymous No.4156695]

>>4156676
I will not deny evolution because you cannot present me with a more viable alternative. I know this because if you could you would be fabulously wealthy and have better things to do than talk to me, what with your book tour and all.

Also, you still did not answer my question. Why am I expected to come up with some original origin story on your terms? Either I'm missing something here or you have made a, frankly, ridiculous demand of me completely at random.

[Anonymous No.4156698]

>>4156503
do some research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18927386
also look into the original miller experiment, where using only a simple model of early earth conditions, amino acids were created out of nothing more than the environment.
>>4156578
cells are formed from basic compounds called lipids, which allow other compounds and reactions to be contained within these cells.
small autotrophic organisms that do nothing more than break down other compounds simply because of thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium driven reactions can become trapped in these cells, and form a symbiotic relationship, where energy provided by these smaller organisms is provided to the cell and allows it to develop more complex, which essentially only serve the same function, but can contribute to entropy at a larger scale. It's a very long process with still a lot that needs to be understood, but you're not asking about evolution of species

[Anonymous No.4156699]

>>4156578, to continue
You're essentially asking how life complex organisms with brains and emotions evolved out of single celled microorganisms which did nothing more than create entropy out of sunlight and small chemical compounds surrounding them. To answer your question, you should first decide how you define "life". Your problem here is that you've limited your definition of life to something like a plant or animal, but what makes these things "alive" is shared with even modern bacteria, and controversially even viruses, which do not have anything more than basic DNA and a protein coat. Viruses don't have a nucleus, or any form of even creating energy to sustain themselves, yet i don't think it would be wrong to say that they try to survive and reproduce. In fact, that's all they do. Life isn't anything special, you just think it is because after billions of years of evolution, a lifeform as complex as yourself has developed the ability to question things such as life itself, but life began with the first celled organism with the ABILITY to survive and reproduce.

[Anonymous No.4156700]

How has this not been posted yet?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal's_paradox

[Anonymous No.4156703]

>>4156692
No sir. Chances are nonzero. When you've got an isolated lake with 5000 fish of one species in it who spend all their time fucking and the mutation in question is a polyploidy on a genetic hotspot, chances are damn high that two mutant fish will find each other. As I said - please go take a genetics class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Speciation_via_polyploidization

[Anonymous No.4156714]

The problem with this sort of post is that it is impossible to determine whether this is the work of a creationist science crank or a brilliant troll.

[Anonymous No.4156715]

>>4156700
>implying that proteins fold in isolated environments without chaperonins

[Anonymous No.4156716]

>>4156699
>You're essentially asking how life complex organisms with brains and emotions evolved out of single celled microorganisms which did nothing more than create entropy out of sunlight and small chemical compounds surrounding them.

No, that is not my question.
My question was How did life originate from non living complex molecules towards living entities that survive and replicate?

So it's not a question of simple organisms towards complex organisms, but rather from non-living molecules towards living organisms.

[Anonymous No.4156719]

>>4156714
it's generally safe to assume that 4chan is 100% troll.

[Anonymous No.4156721]

>>4156716
I cannot stress this enough:
there is no chemical difference between life and nonlife. You are projecting your teleology onto the process of selection and thus you invalidate your argument.

Thank you and have good day.

[Anonymous No.4156722]

>>4156684
Well, be that as it may, it`s still a nice thread for less educated people to come to and learn a little more about evolution, so that through this retard`s trolling, we can avoid future ignorance of the less scientifically inclined. OP does pose some questions that would sound believable to anyone who didn`t know much about science.

[Anonymous No.4156723]

>>4156687
see
>>4156075

The sun is a nuclear reactor. It's producing energy, therefore it must be losing mass. 600 million tons per second, according to that link. Which sounds like a lot, until you compare it with the total mass of the sun. Long story short, yes the sun is shrinking, but not at 5 feet per hour.

[Anonymous No.4156729]

>>4156703
It depends what kind of mutation.
You propose a certain mutation that would make the fish totally unable to mate with other fish, highly unlikely that in that 5000 fish another one has this same mutation making her unable to reproduce with the other 4998 fishes.

What about the fact that these two mutated fishes could not mate with the other 4998 , and they couldn't mate with each other also?
Big problem, because it could be that the mutation has taken place in different gene sequences, thus making it impossible for these 2 poor fishes to mate.

[Anonymous No.4156739]

>>4156721
What you are saying, is that life has no higher value than non-life.
This sounds to me like a dangerous ideology.
It might cause people to abuse the theory of evolution to bring about unwanted changes in society, because life has by this definition no big value at all. It's just a statistical chance.

[Anonymous No.4156742]

>>4156729
Yes, that is a problem. But you can't tell me that it wouldn't happen, because chances are nonzero. And if you sample thousands of populations in thousands of lakes over thousands of years, the chance of speciation approaches 1. That's how speciation works - 1000000 missed hits and then 1 lucky one.

[Anonymous No.4156744]

>>4156722
You are mixing science with the theory of evolution.

Logical fallacy: associaton

[Anonymous No.4156745]

>>4156721
understands
>>4156716
still retarded

protip: read ALL of the links posted, they are meant to help you.

>>4156716
please be more specific. your generalizations are killing science. What do you mean by "complex non-living organisms"? Are you reffering to some sort of thermo-setting resins, because no one ever said they evolve into living organisms.
Read my posts again
>>4156698
>>4156699
complexity =/= life, and viruses are less complex than basic cells, yet they still exhibit signs of life; survive and replicate, and they are comprised of protein shells and DNA, which evolved as shown through the miller experiment in the link provided. I refute my initial claim. You're main problem is that you are a stubborn shit stain that rephrases the same questions that have been already answered countless times by EVERYONE.

[Anonymous No.4156750]

>>4156742
But the lake was isolated? :s

[Anonymous No.4156751]

>>4156739
The fact that you are not chemically different from slime is not an ideology, no matter how much you want it to be.

If you are going to troll, at least put some effort into it.

[Anonymous No.4156752]

83 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.4156756]

>>4156739
You are correct. Objectively, nonlife and life are no different. You are projecting value onto life. Value does not objectively exist. Welcome to existentialism 101.

Whether or not you want to assign value yourself is up to you. I personally do, but I'm not going to explain my philosophy here because this is /sci/ and not /phi/.

[Anonymous No.4156759]

>>4156750
someone doesn't understand random sampling

[Anonymous No.4156763]

>>4156750
Yes. each lake is isolated. We're measuring total chance of speciation, not the chance of one particular species.

[Anonymous No.4156765]

>>4156751
I do put effort into it and back it up with facts. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. were strong believers in evolution and applied it to their ideology. Result was the killing of millions of people, because they thought they were the superior ones.

Origin of species is also called:
The Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life.

The so called 'favoured races' can be misused by dictators.

[Anonymous No.4156766]

>>4156033

I'll ignore that op's post is a troll probably posted out of some church group forward email.

But the odds are as close to 1:1 as they can possibly be,

The universe is pretty much fucking infinite, meaning there are more than a few opportunities for life to occur on an earth-like planet.

The argument that it's so rare it couldn't have happened to us is invalid because only when it did happen, can anyone be around to speculate the odds of it happening.

For every earth with protein folding there is borderline if not infinite occurrences of the same set up (habitable planet, source of energy) and not happening.

I don't know how to put it in an analogy, it's like if every ant on the planet was entered into a lottery without knowing about it, and only the winner would know of the existence of the lottery.

The ant wins the lottery but claims it couldn't have been a lottery for every ant, because the odds of that very ant winning would be 1 in (something like) 70000000000000000.

My english is bad and I'm high on way too much cold medicine, I don't know if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.4156774]

>>4156722

Science and evolution are distinct.
You are using logical fallacy associaton.

[Anonymous No.4156777]

>>4156765
Time for some evolutionary sociology!

Since the goal (note that I did not say purpose) of a species is to propagate, any particular group that decides to go killing viable members of the species is probably not helping propagation. Thus, it is in the species' best interest to get rid of those rogues. Which is what we did.

Just because I don't think that I'm any different doesn't mean that I want to kill myself and everyone else. Saying that evolution is bad because it can be misused is like saying that hands are bad because they can be used to strangle people.

[Anonymous No.4156779]

>>4156766
I don't question the fact that it did happen.
I simply question the theory we use that explains how it happened.
Big difference.

[Anonymous No.4156781]

>>4156765
just because I don't think I hold any objective value doesn't mean that I can't assign subjective value to myself. I just keep in mind that it's subjective.

Also, saying evolution is bad because it can be used to kill people is like saying that hands are bad because they can be used to strangle people or that words are bad because they can make little girls cry.

[Anonymous No.4156782]

>>4156037
Please sir can i have a source? :3

[Anonymous No.4156783]

>>4156779
you are questioning the current hypothesis needlessly. Why question it if you don't have an alternative?

[Anonymous No.4156784]

>>4156765

Who cares? The application of a theory has nothing to do with how valid that theory is. That's not what science is about. It's about finding facts. What you do with those facts is up to you.

Also, evolution was used as a justification. It wasn't the cause. These people were just trying to rationalize their behavior. In other words "If I do X, it supports premise Y. Therefore, I will claim to do X because of Y, when in reality I'm just a dick."

[Anonymous No.4156790]

>>4156781
If you don't have an objective value to life, then a future dictator might give one to you by force.

And I didn't say evolution was bad, but that it can be "misused" by dictators.

[Anonymous No.4156795]

>>4156790
penises can be misused. we should cut off our penises.
For that matter, religion can be misused! we should get rid of all religions.

There is no objective value to life. I'm not trying to be emo or depressing, because I enjoy my life, but seriously man. You assign facts value; they do not assign you value. Hydrogen does not give a fuck about you. If a dictator comes along and wants me to agree with him, then he had better give some good proof.

[Anonymous No.4156796]

>>4156783
You forget that the evolution theory IS the alternative to creation theory and not vice versa.
It was formed to oppose the creation idea.
The creation theory is not the alternative, but the orginal theory.
Evolution theory became poplular as an alternative later on.

[Anonymous No.4156801]

>>4156796
CREATION IS NOT A THEORY. It offers NO physical mechanism that explains why things are the way they are and it makes no provable or falsifiable claims. Creation is a mythos and a teleology. Evolution is a logical mechanism. The two can coexist but they can NEVER take one another's place.

[Anonymous No.4156802]

this thread needs more monkeys

[Anonymous No.4156809]

>>4156795
a dictator doesn't give you prove or logic, but he comes with force and tyranny. Know your history.

And hydrogen is not living. You and I are, so let's not lower the value of our life by saying it has no difference compared to non living things. Because that is a sign of tyranny.

[Anonymous No.4156813]

>>4156809
I have already stated that hydrogen and I are the same. we're both collections of subatomic particles.
Dictators may change what I do but not what I think, and they certainly don't change reality. a quark is a quark.

[Anonymous No.4156814]

[Anonymous No.4156815]

>>4156814
I like you.

[Anonymous No.4156818]

>>4156796
>It was formed to oppose the creation idea.

Considering Darwin was originally supportive of a "creationist"-esque idea, I very much doubt this.

[Anonymous No.4156819]

>>4156765
Rule #1 of trolling: never admit that you are a troll. I would think that obvious.

Also, some bad people made excuses to do bad things, and they aren't always taken directly from holy texts! What a shock! You should take this revelation to the press, the world must know! Hurry!

[Anonymous No.4156820]

>>4156801
Why things are the way things are can be researched within the fields of science.
The problem is that the evolution theory is not part of science and must be dealt with as simply a theory that is unproven for the past 2 centuries.

[Anonymous No.4156823]

[Anonymous No.4156824]

>107 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

[Anonymous No.4156827]

>>4156818
His earlier support for creation theory doesn't matter.
He nevertheless came up with the alternative.

[Anonymous No.4156830]

>>4156827
>creation theory

lulz

[Anonymous No.4156831]

>>4156820
Creation explains extranatural origins and purpose.
Evolution explains natural mechanisms.
Purpose is not inherent in nature.
Evolution has shittons of proof and if you don't believe me then that's cool. But don't tell MRSA because he'll just laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.4156832]

[Anonymous No.4156833]

>>4156813
>Dictators may change what I do but not what I think

Look up on google for: propaganda, brainwash, ideological subversion mind control, commercial.

Then ask yourself: Can my thoughts be controlled by a dictator or an evil regime in the future?

[Anonymous No.4156834]

>>4156833
are you trying to prove that I'm currently wrong because of a hypothetical event that might happen in the future? facts don't change. G=9.8m/s^2.

[Anonymous No.4156836]

>>4156827
This is why no one respects you. I don't mean in this thread, I mean everywhere. Trying to argue the validity of a scientific theory without understanding what a theory is is like trying to do calculus without the concept of a number. Yet here you are, making an ass of yourself.

Creation is not a theory. I know you want it to be. I know that you want the word theory to apply to your little world view because it lowers the rest of the world to your level. I want to hold the title of "Captain of a Starcruiser", but I'm not running around demanding that people refer to me as such. Because then I would look like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4156840]

>>4156831
>Evolution explains natural mechanisms.

False, why can't we replicate life so we can prove evolution? Because we can't create the conditions for life to appear out of nothing.

[Anonymous No.4156841]

>OP stops replying to valid arguments that leave no room for debate
>OP's arguments devolve into shitty non-sequitors of evolution= tyranny
looks like its time for a monkey thread

[Anonymous No.4156844]

[Anonymous No.4156845]

>>4156834
I am not talking about facts, but your beliefs, morals and values. You say a tyran can't change these, which are your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4156846]

>>4156840
evolution and biogenesis are different mechanisms, you dolt. jesus christ. before long, you're going to start telling us that solipsism is a legitimate philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4156848]

[Anonymous No.4156849]

>>4156845
my values do not matter. I am chemicals and so are you. The universe does not care about our values.

[Anonymous No.4156851]

[Anonymous No.4156850]

>>4156845
jedi mind tricks only work on the weak-minded...
likewise brainwashing mostly works on the dull and the religious.

scientists don't like other people enough to be effectively brainwashed. they are meat-puppets, human calculators without regard for society. As such they remain independent, and difficult to influence.

they don't like you enough to conform to your expectations.

[Anonymous No.4156852]

>>4156849
Welcome to Big Brother.
This is precisely what Brave New World warned us about.

[Anonymous No.4156853]

>>4156840
Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between the theory of evolution and from when life originated.

"But but Genesis tells me that where life comded from and why it is the way it is, and Father O'Malley says evilution is just the bad guy Genesis."

If you cannot understand the world as anything beyond "us vs them", where them is just like you only eeeevil, then you cannot function as a human being.

And that, boys and girls, is the story of how this thread came to be.

[Anonymous No.4156855]

>>4156853
we're still a bit amazed you actually thing you have an honest-to-gawd creationist to talk to here.

successful troll etc.

[Anonymous No.4156857]

>>4156852
clearly you have not read Brave New World.

[Anonymous No.4156860]

[Anonymous No.4156861]

>>4156853
Evolution came up with 'us versus them'.
Charles Darwin said that evolution is going to be the new religious belief system of the future.
And 200 years later, it is thought on school with no counter force as the only explanation in the field of biology as how we came into existence and arrived at this stage.

[Anonymous No.4156862]

>>4156852
>>4156857
(not to mention that Big Brother was from 1984)

[Anonymous No.4156868]

>>4156855
No no, you misunderstand. I'm >>4156584

I'm just pissy because OP managed to remind me that I come from the same country that people who act like this come from.

You must understand how bad it feels to want to nuke this country into ash after having spent 8 years of my life breathing recycled farts on the bottom of the ocean in the US Navy.

[Anonymous No.4156869]

[Anonymous No.4156872]

>>4156861
Creation is not an explanation. Nowhere in the bible is there a description of bacteria or how they came to be. So logically they shouldn't exist, right?

also: No one is claiming that evolution is a religion.

[Anonymous No.4156873]

>>4156862
It's from 1949 and warns against totalitarism and obeydience to authority aka they can change your thoughts, values etc.

[Anonymous No.4156879]

>>4156861
No, dumbass. Evolution came up us "us".

We are the dominant species on this planet due to our social skills. Hating other humans, humans that can help you survive, because they wont feed you comforting lies is what evolution should have eliminated long ago.

Also, Hurp dUrp teach the controversy oposing viewpoints!!!1

[Anonymous No.4156881]

>>4156868
I did 4 years in the Marines myself, and have never felt any particular rage towards retards.

hell, I married a creationist and we're raising creationist babbies together. I don't think it'll stick though, my kids probably won't be stupid.

apologies if I misunderstood your intentions.
I think if you try to convert creationists you're doing it wrong. they just repeat what they're told.
have to convince their priests and pastors, which isn't going to happen if there's more money to be made in fundamentalism.

[Anonymous No.4156884]

>>4156873
oh my god
this might be the stupidest post ever

The book "1984". It was written in 1949 by George Orwell after he read a book called "We" by a Russian named Yevgeny Zamaytin.

[Anonymous No.4156886]

>>4156872
No, logically they should exist. Because if you have read the Bible (which I doubt) it is written that He created ALL the creatures that inhabit the earth.

[Anonymous No.4156888]

>>4156873
this whole thread

[Anonymous No.4156889]

[Anonymous No.4156891]

>>4156881
I have no particular hostility towards their beliefs. But when they try to project their beliefs as fact, and when they try to impede scientific discovery by interposing their beliefs - that's what I hate.

[Anonymous No.4156896]

>>4156884
Making one mistake doesn't make something "the stupidest post ever".

[Anonymous No.4156898]

>>4156886
I have read the entire NT and a lot of the OT, including the Pentateuch. Yes, I fucking drudged through NUMBERS.

Obviously, if God DID make all the creatures, then he must have done it through a physical mechanism. So what was that mechanism? The bible doesn't answer this. but evolution does.

[Anonymous No.4156899]

>>4156881
Well then as a jarhead you understand that civilians do not see us, they see the uniform. So if one marine embarrasses himself, you all feel the shame, just like when I had to listen to the COB rant on and on about Safe Ride Home because some dumb shit got a DUI. I have been indoctrinated to feel shame whenever one of my shipmates acts a fool, and like it or not raving fundies are how the rest of the world sees us.

I just can't stand to see a reflection of myself fail so badly.

[Anonymous No.4156900]

[Anonymous No.4156901]

>>4156891
have they ever actually interfered with biology in any way other than voting for politicians unfriendly to science?

I went to school in a place that tought creation and evolution side by side, I had no problem discerning and ignoring the bullshit.

I studied some biology, I've done some biology, never have I had a creationist actually try to get in my way.

they're a dying breed anyways. Right now there's about as many atheists, agnostics and deists in our country as there are creationists. Creationism will be nothing but a muslim idea in another century if we live that long.

[Anonymous No.4156903]

>>4156896
You didn't recognize the name of a book whose content your argument is based. That's about as dumb as you can get without ceasing to breathe.

[Anonymous No.4156911]

[Anonymous No.4156921]

[Anonymous No.4156932]

[Anonymous No.4156949]

I think your hovercraft is full of eels.

If evolution didn't exist, how come rational humans have evolved from creationists?

[Anonymous No.4156951]

>>4156898
>Obviously, if God DID make all the creatures, then he must have done it through a physical mechanism. So what was that mechanism? The bible doesn't answer this. but evolution does.

Why would God do it through a physical mechanism and why should He use evolution?

There is no reason whatsoever that God needs evolution to create life. He can create life without it. God creates life with reason and purpose.
Evolution is opposite to God, it creates life through trial and error and the life that comes out of evolution is meaningless and purposeless.

God is meaning and purpose, evolution is meaningless and purposeless.

[Anonymous No.4157177]

>>4156033
>What are the odds of this happening?
it happened, probability = 1, get over it

[La Trippefâgue !!w5CHYddUvhS No.4157179]

@ everyone who has ever attempted to use information theory or entropy to try and refute evolutionary theory.

Look. Yes, the universal trend is a decreasing state of organization. However, you can, locally, have increasing states of organization, over limited timespans. So, for example, when a star ignites, it has a lifespan of several million to several trillion years (depending, in part, on its spectral class). During that lifespan, its energy input is sufficient to create local pockets of increasing states of organization (on planets, for example). When that star burns out, that planet will return to a state of decreasing organization, as all life dies out and returns to the dust.

[Anonymous No.4157180]

>>4156949
If evolution is true, why are there still creationists?

[La Trippefâgue !!w5CHYddUvhS No.4157182]

>>4156951
>God is meaning and purpose, evolution is meaningless and purposeless.

In other words, god doesn't exist, and evolution is real. You've just defeated yourself.