/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4846399]

Sup infidels, lets discuss this "theory" of evolution you have.

So evolution implies things change slowly over the course of millions of years, into new organisms. It operates through the idea of natural selection. It relies upon experiments for abiogenesis to prove the original, and fossil records "prove" it correct.

But how accurate is evolution?

According to time magazines resident biologist, "Evolution is one big fraud, and it has everone duped"
>http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/06/the-reality-of-faith-based-scince-from-an-insider-evolution/
#001-145772220

According to the biologist, and many new age biologists, evolution "is a theory without facts" and lacks the ability to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

"The idea of natural selection is proven wrong every day, why does cancer exist? Should that be 'selected' away?" - Dawkins pg 34

Many scientists are coming out with the facts that evolution may not be entirely true, and many argue that ID is a more realistic and scientifically accurate theory to explain life on earth.

The fossil record has not been spared this intellectual crusade either, as many new labs and studies find that these fossils aren't fossils, and those that are are just hundreds, not millions, of years old.

>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-record-of-evolution-under-increasing-scr
utiny


How can you still doubt god?

[Anonymous No.4846402]

Sure is trollish on /sci/ today

[Anonymous No.4846405]

>>4846399
>as many new labs and studies find that these fossils aren't fossils

[Anonymous No.4846404]

But OP, what about the laboratory experiments?

[Anonymous No.4846407]

>PHD in quotemines
>Any church I want
>1/10 starting

[Anonymous No.4846409]

>>4846404
Excellent point, however as i pointed out with the fossils aren't fossils findings, many of these so called "experiments" didn't even happen, but simply made up results and published them.

[Anonymous No.4846413]

>>4846409
like the bible then

[Anonymous No.4846414]

>>4846409
That's a pretty damming causation you're casually throwing out there.

[Anonymous No.4846416]

[Anonymous No.4846422]

>>4846399
GTFO

[Anonymous No.4846420]

>>4846405
Yes, it is true. Many of these so called fossils are simply chicken bones, wrongly assumed to be fossils because of the inaccuracy of Radiocarbon dating.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/hovind-and-dawkins-have-discovered-conspiracy-to-hijac
k-science.html?_r=1&ref=science


>>4846414
truth does not fear investigation.

[Anonymous No.4846424]

>According to time magazines resident biologist, "Evolution is one big fraud, and it has everone duped"

I am sorry your link does not seem to work,
also on 06 June 2012 only two stories involving the word 'evolution' were published in the Time magazine. And this is not one of them.

[Anonymous No.4846427]

>>4846420
>made up links

reported for trolling and sci vs religion rule violation

[Anonymous No.4846431]

>>4846420
>truth does not fear investigation
Usually it does

[Anonymous No.4846430]

>>4846420
>Many of these so called fossils are simply chicken bones

Jesus creationists are you even trying?

[Anonymous No.4846434]

Degenerative diseases that occur later in life, like cancer wouldn't be "evolved" out of the genepool because people typically breed earlier in life, much earlier as people were and are capable of reproduction under their 20's. if you can breed it doesn't matter what kills you later in life.

Evolution is not a force towards perfection. It is a force towards 'good enough'.

[Anonymous No.4846437]

COMEDY GOLD

OP DOES IT AGAIN

[Anonymous No.4846441]

>science
>prove

OP needs to figure out what science is before trying to troll /sci/

[Anonymous No.4846440]

>>4846434
Dawkins addressed this argument, stating that because cancer is genetic, it should be selected out early, even at birth, the fact it isn't is proof that natural selection is false.

[Carl No.4846455]

lel

[Anonymous No.4846453]

lel

[Anonymous No.4846460]

MY SIDES

OP DOES IT AGAIN

[Anonymous No.4846465]

>>4846420
>truth does not fear investigation.
Well investigate then. And stop claiming those experiments were invented without any proof

[Anonymous No.4846468]

>4846467

[Anonymous No.4846469]

>>4846440
because we all know babies who inherit a tendency towards cancer later in life do not survive past the gestation period

mostly old people get cancer, and old people aren't reproducing, menopause evolved so women who are ugly and old can still contribute to raising grandchildren, cause ain't nobody fucking them

[Anonymous No.4846466]

>>4846465
study done by the British house of interior and Cern show less than 20% of all experiments happened.

[Anonymous No.4846476]

>>4846466
sure. have a link ?

[Anonymous No.4846471]

>>4846434
>Evolution is not a force towards perfection. It is a force towards 'good enough'.
Actually, it is a force toward "better". People think it is toward perfection because better and better and better becomes the best.

[Anonymous No.4846478]

>>4846469
nearly 40% of all cancer victims are ages 5-18, younger than the average age of having a baby.

>>4846476
hold on

[Anonymous No.4846484]

>>4846478
>nearly 40% of all cancer victims are ages 5-18, younger than the average age of having a baby.

lel

[Anonymous No.4846486]

>>4846466
>British house of interior
lel

[Anonymous No.4846489]

>>4846478
and they all are dead, hence this is why people don't have babies and the population is decreasing

i just had a tumor from my neck removed, had 90% remission rate anyway (typical for someone having cancer at young age), so 36% of all juveniles that have cancer survive

cancer isn't an organism, its a biomechanical accident that exhibits very little selection pressure on a population

[Anonymous No.4846495]

>>4846476

http://www.infowars.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-not-melting-at-all-new-field-data-show/

It mentions it roughly half way down.

>>4846489
So you admit that cancer rates should be dropping, but yet they are on the rise!
How can we trust something like that?

[Anonymous No.4846499]

>>4846495
think of all the shit were pumping into our bodies.


i actually have no problem with the theory that we were designed by aliens.

[Anonymous No.4846502]

>>4846495
nowhere did i admit cancer rates should be dropping

its obvious they should be on the rise due to the mutagens in technology, cigarettes, and artificial sweeteners

in 10,000 years we will know whether or not there was an allele shift in the gene pool relating to cancer resistant cells, if there wasn't, the mutation never occurred or cancer wasn't that significant of an epidemic

[Anonymous No.4846505]

>>4846499
>we were designed by aliens
That is just bad science, as the fossil record, the real one, indicates, a divine being must have done it. All the real fossils turn up at one point, and later, but never earlier.


>>4846502
It said it right there! You are just lying! you hate science, that's the only reason you talk!

[Anonymous No.4846511]

>>4846495
>So you admit that cancer rates should be dropping, but yet they are on the rise!
You are looking at two completely different time scales. Evolution happens over centuries and millenia , this augmentation of cancer rates is over not more than 50 years, and is mainly due to the drastic modification of our environment (cigarettes, aerosols, etc.)

[Anonymous No.4846514]

>>4846511
Biologist here.

He is right, evolution for cancer should be happening at a rate much like he is proposing, but it isn't. The only other argument is that cancer isn't effected by evolution, but that is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4846517]

>>4846514
or that cancer isn't only genetic, you know... the truth

[Anonymous No.4846518]

>>4846514
Super biologist here, disregard this.

[Anonymous No.4846522]

>>4846517
But it is, we can check for it before birth.

[Anonymous No.4846527]

>>4846526
>cancer
>trait
kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.4846526]

>>4846517
everything is genetic, every trait of any organism ever is genetic

[Anonymous No.4846531]

>>4846514
you are not a biologist, that i can assure you

[Anonymous No.4846529]

Cancer is not "selected away" because it's a) not genetically determined and b) the people who actually die of cancer are mostly already sexually mature, meaning that they can already have offspring before dying. Hence even if there were a 100% heritability for cancer, it wouldn't cease to exist within the species...
you people really are spectacularly stupid

[Anonymous No.4846532]

>>4846522
>cancer is only determined by genes
>>4846526
>cancer is a trait of the organism
HAHAHA OH WOW !

[Anonymous No.4846537]

>>4846531
lol okay i have a bachelors in biology, what do you have? an engineering degree? Fuck you guys.

[Anonymous No.4846545]

There is no relationship of cancer (a process of cells) with evolution (a process of species). All species undergoing evolution would be expected to have some individuals die of cancer. But you also include mutation, which of course is related to both cancer and evolution. Here are the relationships between the three:
faulty mutation = cancer (or nothing harmful)
adaptive mutation = evolution
Your concept of faulty evolution is called extinction.

[Anonymous No.4846540]

>>4846529
>40% of all cancer patients are ages 5-18
>below the average age of parental activity
What is wrong with you guys?

[Anonymous No.4846548]

>>4846545
>evolution isn't just the changing of cells
Did any of you fucks even go to college?

[Anonymous No.4846552]

>>4846537
We have common sense and a wide general scientific knowledge

[Anonymous No.4846549]

>>4846532
explain to me how it isn't

person A has nucleotide sequence X, gets cancer because he smoked

person B has nucleotide sequence Y, doesn't get cancer and smoked the exact same amount

or:

person A has nucleotide sequence X, gets cancer randomly due to faulty biomechanical processes and dies

person B has nucleotide sequence Y, gets cancer randomly due to faulty biomechanical processes and survives

would it not be due to the subtleties of molecular interaction? i.e. person B had thymine at locus Z rather than adenine?

that's how life works faggots, every thing is genetic, every trait, yes cancer is a trait no matter how random, has a genetic basic

[Anonymous No.4846558]

>>4846552
Common sense doesn't beat a degree. You fucks know as much as pop scientists, fuck off OP is a genius.

[Anonymous No.4846566]

>>4846537
what school taught you there is some inherent property of a molecule that can assess the value of a resource

that's the only explanation for one to expect some selection equilibrium after two generations of an increase in cancer, like some mass mutation caused by the intercommunication of nucleotides

you sir went to 4 years of school and learned absolutely nothing

[Anonymous No.4846568]

>>4846540

and 60% aren't... aside from that, people start producing offspring way below the age of 18 nowadays...

evolution is real. get over it.

[Anonymous No.4846573]

>>4846568
40% over the generations would mean a massive drop of cancer patients, there isn't. Evolution failed.

[Anonymous No.4846582]

>>4846573

>Implying evolution has a goal.

GO AWAY.

[Anonymous No.4846581]

>>4846573

implying that cancer is hereditary and not caused by mutations stemming from mutagenic substanced throughout the lifetime

Keep on trollin'

[Anonymous No.4846588]

>>4846581
Cancer is hereditary.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/GeneticsandCancer/heredity-and-cancer

>>4846582
If it worked cancer wouldn't be nearly as prevalent, given tens of thousands of years, it is still very prevalent, evolutionary mechanisms didn't work here, and they don't work anywhere.

[Anonymous No.4846594]

>>4846549
Except that not everyone smokes. If person A has a predisposition to cancer, it doesn't mean that he will get cancer.
If person B doesn't have a predisposition to cancer, it doesn't mean that we won't get cancer.

Those "40%" of people who got cancer before 18, did not all have a predisposition to cancer.

[Anonymous No.4846597]

Biochemist here.

Cancer, which actually represents hundreds of different diseases, rarely possesses an inherited genetic origin in most cases.

Those instances of cancer which have been caused via mutation in oncogenes tend to be recessive in nature and are significantly less common than their functional counterpart, this suggests that they aren't usually selected for.

>>4846549

The factors are usually significantly more complex than single polymorphisms. The site of mutation, age of the patient, lifestyle and general health is extremely significant.

The body does quite an extraordinary job of preventing cancer from ocurring via complex mechanisms which monitor the cell cycle. It's only when these checks and balances themselves become corrupted that we see emergent disease.

Not absolute proof of evolution, but a massive hint for you OP.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

[Anonymous No.4846601]

>>4846588
Do you even know how cancer works
Cancer should be more prevalent if anything (and it is)

[Anonymous No.4846607]

>/sci/ once again proves it's the most easily trolled board

Never change

[Anonymous No.4846612]

>>4846597
was an intentionally crude example, but because everybody has a different sequence of nucleotides, there will be variation in resistance to cancer, regardless of the circumstances, thus cancer, as does everything else, have a genetic basis

[Anonymous No.4846621]

>>4846594
>Those "40%" of people who got cancer before 18, did not all have a predisposition to cancer.

well done, you just proved evolution

any variation in a predisposition to anything, and evolution occurs, and since this is true of every single feature of an organism dating back to the first darwinian molecule, evolution happens

[Anonymous No.4846628]

>>4846621
>well done, you just proved evolution
I know, I was on your side...

[Anonymous No.4846634]

>>4846628

[Anonymous No.4846666]

>>4846597

/thread

[Anonymous No.4846672]

>>4846612

You are suggesting that cancer has a genetic element because all of the affected proteins are coded by genes?

I'd agree from that perspective.

However, this is not really a useful approach when it comes to identifying the cause of the disease in an individual as most people possess functionally identical genes.

If you want to define the cause of the disease, you'd need to investigate both the gene in question and the source of the event which caused your oncogene/tumour supressor etc to become irepparably damaged.

[Anonymous No.4846679]

>>4846597

That article is complete proof of evolution, not sure if that's what you were refering to.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4846696]

>>4846399
Let me share my new favorite proof of an old universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#Interaction_with_circumstellar_material

It's a Supernova in 1987. It was in the Large Magellanic Cloud, aka right next door. Before the supernova, there was already a shroud, or "sphere" if you will, of gas surrounding the pre-supernova.

So, supernova goes, light reached us 1987. By "conventional" science, it is 168,000 light-years. For (some) young Earthers, this is a problem. How can light reach us from that star when it takes 168,000 years to reach us, and the universe is only 6,000 years old? Well, they have several answers.

My perennial favorite is "God / the devil made the universe to look exactly as if it was 13 something billion years old". To which I say "I'm glad we're in agreement".

The other popular option is c-decay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies#c_decay
Basically, they argue that if we tweak the speed of light so that it was faster in the past, then the light could have reached us from this faraway object because it took less time for the light to reach us.

To be continued next post.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4846702]

That's right. By increasing the speed of light in the past, and using basic trig, you get a distance to the star which is /longer/ than conventional science. The bigger the speed of light in the past, the further away this simple calculation puts that supernova, and consequently you need /more/ time for the light to reach us under their bullshit "theories".

tl;dr we actually /can/ measure the speed of light in the past, by observing the time difference as seen on Earth between the supernova and when the light from the supernova reflected off the nearby pre-supernova shell of gas. Take that you bullshit distinction between "historical" sciences and "operational" sciences.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4846698]

However, SN 1987A has a hilarious disproof of this idea. We saw the supernova explode. Several months later, we see the existing gas shells light up. So, let's suppose the speed of light was faster in the past. Let's take something like 2x faster when the supernova exploded. (The number is irrelevant, as we'll see in a moment.) So, when it exploded, the speed of light was 2x today's value, let's call that c.

So, the distance from the shell to the supernova is about:
v = d/t
vt = d
(2c) (8 months)
= (2) (light-year / year) (8 months) (year / 12 month)
= 4/3 light-years
That's the length of the top line of the attached pic.

Well, we know the angle of shell-earth-supernova. We can see it. It's the apparent angle from Earth. It's the bottom angle of the attached pic. It's 0.808 arcseconds.

Well, the angle of earth-supernova-shell is about 90 degrees. That's the top-right angle in the attached pic.

So, basic trig:
tan(shell-earth-supernova) = (distance of shell to supernova) / (distance of Earth to supernova)
tan(0.808 arcseconds) = ((4/3) light years) / (distance of Earth to supernova)
(distance of Earth to supernova) = ((4/3) light years) / tan(0.808 / 206264.806)
(distance of Earth to supernova) = ((4/3) light years) / tan(0.808 / 206264.806) = about 340,371 light years.

To be continued next post.

[Anonymous No.4846712]

>>4846696
>to which i say "i'm glad were in agreement"
Jesus you sound like an arrogant cunt

[Anonymous No.4846727]

>>4846702
No you don't. That is why it goes FASTER, because it goes FASTER.

fucking retard.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4846732]

>>4846517
>>4846514
Protip: Evolution does not always wittle away traits you deem "bad". Evolution is about making the best replicator, not the best organism. If you can get a better replicator by making a shittier organism, evolution will favor it every time.

Example: Suppose there was a mutation which made bones super strong by adding additional calcium. However, suppose the same mutation also slowly built up calcium in the bloodstream, and caused you to die by age 60. Evolution would probably totally favor that - super strong bones allowing better early survival makes a much better replicator than someone dying at 60.

Now, see how cancer may be the same thing.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4846736]

>>4846727
You need to actually stop a second, and apply some of that math you learned in high school. The problem is that making the speed of light faster causes the supernova to be closer, but because we can measure the perpendicular distance of the supernova to the gas shell, making the speed of light faster also puts the supernova farther away ala basic trig.

[Anonymous No.4846738]

>people still replying

itkeepshappening.tiff

[Anonymous No.4846781]

>>4846738
says the faggot who replied