/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8125896]

What do biological /sci/entists think of this guy? David Berlinski is a critic of evolution. Thoughts? Are his criticisms legit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

[Anonymous No.8125898]

>>8125896
Saw him used in creationist propaganda films, so my view is permanently tainted by that bias.

[Anonymous No.8125926]

>>8125896
not watching over 30 mins of creationist bull crap m8

Just give us the high lights so we can start making fun of him.

[Anonymous No.8125927]

>>8125896
Either greentext arguments or gtfo. I doubt anyone here is willing to waste their time watching a 40 minute video.

[Anonymous No.8125936]

>>8125896
5:30
Biology BTFO

[Anonymous No.8125951]

>>8125927
1st point: Fossil record is mysterious!

2nd point: We can't make a prediction with evolution and test it.

3rd point: We can't 'simulate' evolution on a computer.

4rth: No change of form. Dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bacteria. We just see small variations.


I don't know I watched about 9 minutes and he seems wrong about everything he says. I think maybe it's a parody.

I mean off the top of my head, of course we can test evolution by natural selection. Things like fruit flies/bacteria adapt pretty quickly, and specifically to things we introduce to them.

2nd: We can't make a prediction and test it. I think we can in terms of the lab experiments above.

3rd point: We can't simulate evolution on a computer. I'm not sure about this one. I mean of course there are heaps of instances of those gene games, or even things like optimising robot walking gait via a genetic algorithm.. But I think he might be trying to make a deeper point, although I'm not sure what it is. It's probably wrong though.

4th point: We've only really known about evolution for the last few hundred years. It's too short for evidence to show. Besides, it makes no sense for there to be some sort of 'mechanism' that drags genetic drift back to the 'median' level and thus restores the species. The mechanism itself would have to be extremely complex.

I mean taller girraffes eat more leaves at the tops of trees and thus reproduce so the next generation are filtered out of shorter giraffes and thus over time have more chance of being taller than shorter...

That's a logical reason, but to say that the necks of giraffes MUST shrink back to the median 'giraffe' neck size... requires a equally logical reason. But there isn't one.

In short I think this guy is confused or maybe it's a parody and they forgot the laugh track.

[Anonymous No.8125999]

Fuck creationist threads on /sci/. They are such a huge waste of thread space.

>>8125951
>4. point: [...] It's too short for evidence to show.
ufuckingw0t

There's a shitload of transitional species and fossils of them, like that bear-whale.

[Anonymous No.8126005]

>>8125951
Pretty gud analysis. Here's my take:

>1st point: Fossil record is mysterious!
No it's not. Laughable point tbqh.

>2nd point: We can't make a prediction with evolution and test it.
Yes we can. We introduce populations of a same species in different niches and observe as they evolve reproductive isolation and speciate.

>3rd point: We can't 'simulate' evolution on a computer.
Not sure what this means. We obviously need to have mapped and computerised every gene in a certain organism to even think about simulating possible gene duplications and mutations that would differentiate it from the original and then simulate the genetic drift and fixation of the new gene (we can simulate the latter, but I'm guessing he also includes molecular evolution in his "simulation", which is a lot more complex.). I think his point refers to being able to simulate evolution (the whole package, genetic mechanism and niche adaptation) in a real-life specific species and testing it. Which means we just need more data, not any breakthroughs. Although as you said, he may be making a different point than I interpreted.

>4rth: No change of form. Dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bacteria. We just see small variations.
This is ludicrous. It implies that we can observe long-term morphological evolution by what, constantly replicating a species in a lab? Evolution takes place over hundreds of millions of years, human civilisation, as we have recorded it, takes place in less than 6000 years! The genes that define the morphology of the organism (developmental genes) are still there, and we have observed cause and effect between certain genes and the resulting morphology change. There's nothing magical or unexplainable about morphological speciation and evolution. The fact that we do not have the data to answer a certain question =/= evolution is wrong or impossible.

Thanks for taking the time to write about the part of the video that you watched.

[Anonymous No.8126184]

>>8126005
>We introduce populations of a same species in different niches and observe as they evolve reproductive isolation and speciate.
but can you predict the outcome?
That's what a science is. Otherwise it's psychology tier.

[Anonymous No.8126443]

Why don't we teach the controversey?

[Anonymous No.8126463]

>>8126184
>but can you predict the outcome?
Of course you can. There's a whole field of applied biology referred to as evolutionary engineering. For example, you can introduce microbes to unusual niches to direct their evolution towards a certain outcome. After a few generations (could be a few days for some species) they have evolved biochemical mechanisms that adapt them to better survive in the new niche.

[Anonymous No.8126758]

>>8126443
Because there is none.

[Anonymous No.8126768]

>>8126758
Oh really?

[Anonymous No.8126775]

>>8126463
but that's microevolution once again, and you can't really predict the outcome as much as force it (by denying survavibility of unwanted traits).
But can you predict the outcome when you don't remove every possibility but one?

[Anonymous No.8126780]

IF EVOLUTION IS REAL AND HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APES

WHY

ARE

THERE

STILL

APES?

[Anonymous No.8126784]

>>8126768
>tfw school district was too cheap to buy 3 talking monkeys for each student

[Anonymous No.8126795]

>>8126780

>mfw no matter how hard masons and sun worshippers try to pedal this meme most of the population of earth will never beleive it

feels good man

[Anonymous No.8126809]

>>8126795
Beats worshipping a moon god.

[Anonymous No.8126812]

>>8126768
Christians get mad if we don't teach creation.
However, their creation story is just as relevant as every other religion's story.

Should we teach that the world is flat and laid out on the back of a turtle?

How about the sun is being pulled through the sky by a chariot?

How are these obviously comically wrong creation stories any different from the non-scientific Christian creation story.
"The moon is a light"
"Days existed before the sun did"
"We are all the offspring of two people" (genetically impossible)

Should we teach The Flood too? Tell kids that it's entirely possible for every single species of every animal to fit into an ark, survive for months, and disperse in peace? Not to mention, Noah never collected any seed or grain to plant, and after a worldwide flood, there would be no vegetation left save algae.

There are so many things scientifically wrong with the creation story, it's a wonder it's still in the bible. Even most christians understand that it's only metaphoric.

[Anonymous No.8126814]

>it's just microevolution guys!

[Anonymous No.8126817]

>>8126775
>People who think there's really that much of a difference between microevolution and macroevolution need to go back to school.

[Anonymous No.8126820]

>>8126775
>but that's microevolution once again
Yes... and?

Predicting the outcome of evolution in the wild, if that's what you mean, is a matter of data. If you have the data, you can predict it. Not to mention, there exist many ecological models that predict, depending on the circumstances of a population, whether they will evolve in a niche, whether certain alleles will be fixed or eliminated and so on.

The point of the microbe experiments is that we don't just throw them in a vat and hope that something happens, we can predict how they will evolve based on the surrounding factors that affect them. The reason I went with microbes is the simplicity of the example.

[Anonymous No.8126823]

>>8126812
Don't forget dinosaurs and man living together and a flat earth.

[Anonymous No.8126825]

>>8126780
IF COOKING IS REAL AND CAKES ARE MADE FROM FLOUR

WHY

IS

THERE

STILL

FLOUR?

[Anonymous No.8126826]

>>8126823
Look at those beautiful vegetarian teeth!

[Anonymous No.8126833]

>>8126825
That's not even a good comparison.

The reason apes still exist is because the first assumption is wrong. People didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with them. Those common ancestors don't exist anymore because they evolved into humans and apes.

[Anonymous No.8126835]

>>8126826
It's all about interpretation.

[Anonymous No.8126838]

>>8126823
>couldn't even get the number of fingers right

[Anonymous No.8126843]

>>8126838
Would you prefer this?

[Anonymous No.8126854]

>>8126835
Then it would really bother you to know that I don't need to read origin of the species to get my results, as they are backed up by numerous scientific discovery and observation. Why do you put a bible in the creationist's head? It's just as valid as a Koran, an old native american story, or the พระพุทธเจ้า. You have no evidence that your story is right, yet you lift it above the others. However, evolution is backed by outside observation. It isn't just blind faith from a book. We can predict where we should find links in the fossil record, and actually end up finding them. We can map out the evolution of many species, but a christian creationist would have you believe that they all existed together for some reason, and their bones all got scattered around during some impossible global phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.8126872]

>>8126854
What is this then?

[Anonymous No.8126892]

>>8126872
>one example of scientific imprudence disproves the entire theory

Give me ONE example of evidence for creationism. I'll only accept it as credible if it doesn't come from a Christian/creationist source. Anything else would have an obvious bias.

[Anonymous No.8126895]

>>8126892
Forgot the picture: What is this then?

[Anonymous No.8126896]

>>8126872
alien skull

[Anonymous No.8126924]

>>8126892
Hisperopithecus, as well as your idol Lucy.

[Anonymous No.8126927]

>>8126924
Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.8126932]

>>8126817
show me a case of asexual reprocing species turning into a sexual reproducing species

[Anonymous No.8126953]

10 minutes in and this guy hasn't given one example on the arguments he'a making. He sounds like a "everything i say is a fact" guy.

[Anonymous No.8126956]

>>8126953
Almost like a prophet, huh?

[Anonymous No.8126962]

>>8126932
I will do better!
I will show you the trunk of an Elephant transforming before your very eyes into the beak of a beautiful .. gofer?? Yes!
Gather round, children, for, you, too, can do this experiment at home.
All you need is an Elephant, some mentos, a blow dryer, two dozen condoms and an enlish translation of the quoran.

Now, before we engage in the execution of this activity, I feel compelled to facilitate a warning at this juncture, so as to ensure everyone can reap the full harvest of the experience without being unduly subjected to grave personal danger.

1.) Do not leave the blow dryer and the elephant alone in your living room.

This may seem overly paranoid, but it is vital both for your personal safety as well as for the succesful propagation of experimental results to proper fruition to observe this law, as one may delineate it

[Anonymous No.8126963]

>>8126820
You can't predict mutation retard.

[Anonymous No.8126966]

>>8126963
More like "similar problem, similar solution."

[Anonymous No.8126975]

>>8126966
I like the dolphin(mammal), shark(fish), ichtyosaurus(reptile) convergent evolution example

[Anonymous No.8126982]

>>8126975
Here ya go.

[Anonymous No.8126990]

>>8126963
Is this what you got from the post? I hope you're baiting tbqh.

[Anonymous No.8127002]

>>8126812
>Christians get mad if we don't teach creation.

No they don't. Christians aren't all American Protestants dumb ass.

>"Days existed before the sun did"

It's poetry. Check your autism.

>>8126892
>Anything else would have an obvious bias

So what? Everything is biased. That's no excuse to dismiss everything and only consider an echo chamber of people that agree you. You should be able argue against their shitty points and if you can't, that's your problem.

[Anonymous No.8127005]

>>8126927
Saying that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution is like saying it's impossible for trees to grow from seeds.

>>8126932
>inb4 mitochondria

>>8126924
"the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops serum."
But I'm glad your PhD in archaeology has got this one figured out.

and Lucy is not a proof of creationism. I want physical proof outside of the bible. I know you can't provide it.

[Anonymous No.8127006]

>>8127002
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.8127009]

>>8125896
I am a biologist and I think his opinions are wrong. Evolution is the single most tested theory in all of science and has yet to be proven wrong.

People who deny evolution usually have ulterior motives, most commonly that it conflicts with their tradition of belief which is not based in science and cannot be trusted.

Of course, evolution has expanded far beyond what Darwin knew. His basic idea still holds, but he didn't even know about DNA, so it has certainly been improved over the years. That doesn't mean he was initially wrong.

[Anonymous No.8127011]

>>8127002
>No they don't
"dumb ass"
>It's poetry. Chex your autism
I'm not the one trying to implement creationism into the public school system.

>Everything is biased
>Except my great big book of Jebus

[Anonymous No.8127013]

>>8127005
There is no evidence because all of it was fit into an evolutionary worldview. If you were to take off the red-tinted glasses, you'd what I see.
I thought of a good one: how do birds fly?
By the will of Allah, that's how.

[Anonymous No.8127016]

>>8127006
>"likely fully human, but with pathological features"
>"fully ape"
>Pertinent quote: "We seriously doubt the...bones were among the descendants of Adam and Eve"

Just stop, seriously, your incompetence is painful.

[Anonymous No.8127018]

>>8127016
Fine, you dirty monkey-worshipper.

[Anonymous No.8127019]

>>8127013
>"There is no evidence"
Are we done here?

(I know it's a troll)

[Anonymous No.8127020]

>>8126843
Fuck yes. Is this a serious question?

[Anonymous No.8127022]

>>8127018
This just proves my point. What are you even doing?

[Anonymous No.8127025]

>>8127016
It's true, I'm really a troll. Moat of the arguements I've used come from the Chrisrian school I attended for several years.
When I asked the teacher what he though Homo Naledi was, he immediately said: "let's what Ken Ham has to say."
I weep for my people

[Anonymous No.8127027]

>>8127025
*most
*"Let's see what
Godammit!

[Anonymous No.8127053]

>>8127011
0/10

[Anonymous No.8127067]

>>8126768
No because creatards still haven't raised up their conjecture to even a hypothesis, much less put it through the rigor which could graduate it to a theory which could explain things about the diversity of species that evolution doesn't or can't.

Schools also don't teach astrology, alchemy, or geocentrism but I hear next to nobody complaining about that. Your conjecture isn't any better proven than those others, why do you want schools to lower their standards for creationism?

[Anonymous No.8127074]

>>8127025
Oh god.

I too came from a Christian school, I understand what it's like.

My school actually had a debate. The two sides (the only two sides) were young-earth and old-earth creationism (old-earth being a bit more scientific).

[Anonymous No.8127092]

>>8127074
Can relate. The only one who wasn't (blatantly) young-earth was my Bible teacher. He was an old-earther. I'm more of a BioLogos guy myself.

[Anonymous No.8127312]

>>8127005
>inb4 mitochondria
what about mitochondria?
can you adress my concern about asexual/sexual or are you going to ignore it

[Anonymous No.8127331]

>>8127002
Not all American Protestants are creationists either, fuckwad.

[Anonymous No.8127343]

>>8127331
Some regard anything else as comprimsing to their faith. Even old-earth. My old creationist biology textbook made this clear.

[Anonymous No.8127350]

>>8127002
>the parts that are indefensible are poetry

Let's say all of the bible is poetry and teach non of it as scientific facts, okay?

[Anonymous No.8127358]

Sage and report this thread people, please.

[Anonymous No.8127360]

>>8126833
Way to compound the stupidity with popsci nonsense.

1. Humans are apes
2. The common ancestor between humans and other apes was an ape
3. Humans evolved from apes

[Anonymous No.8127372]

>>8127358
Never.
>>8127360
And since apes and monkeys have a common ancestor, and that would be a monkey, humans are still monkeys then, yes?

[Anonymous No.8127377]

>>8127372
No, monkeys are a paraphyletic group that explicitly exclude hominoid apes, such as humans. Humans evolved from a monkey but are not monkeys.

[Anonymous No.8127387]

>>8127377
Fair enough. Where does Sahelanthropus sit in our family tree? With us, the chimps, the gorillas, or an offshoot?

[Anonymous No.8127389]

>>8127387
We're not certain exactly where it sits. It could be a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees or, as your graph depicts, a human but not chimpanzee ancestor.

[Anonymous No.8127395]

>>8127372
This entire discussion you guys are having is utterly moot, these terms are just definitions created by scientists for the sake of categorization.

Some guy defined what a monkey is and some guy defined what an ape is. You could create your own categorizations if have too much free time. These terms just exist so people know what other people are talking about.

You should discuss genetical ancestry rather than play around with words.

[Anonymous No.8127399]

>>8127389
Or a proto-gorilla, right? I've only seen the proto-gorilla arguement once, and that was on wikipedia (not the most reliable source).

[Anonymous No.8127403]

>>8127399
Yes, there are several other possibilities. It might not be an ancestor of either. More data is needed.

[Anonymous No.8127404]

If evolution is a thing, why some species (like crocodiles) won't change over thousands years.

[Anonymous No.8127406]

>>8127403
I'm personally fine with anything. It's bipedal (as far as we know), which may mean that chimps, and maybe even gorillas, had bipedal ancestors. Creationists can finally stop using the "we came from chimps" assumption.

[Anonymous No.8127407]

>>8127404
Because the environment hasn't changed enough to force crocodiles out of their evolutionary local maximum.

[Anonymous No.8127410]

>>8127399
It might also be a evolutionary dead end and not the ancestors of any currently alive species.

[Anonymous No.8127413]

>>8127404
>crocodiles
>haven't changed that much
You should've seen them in their glory days.

[Anonymous No.8127417]

>>8127410
But say it shares a similar position to proconsul or dryopithecus, albeit closer to the chimp-human split. That could mean that it was an existing feature: a defining trait of both our lineages.

[Anonymous No.8127426]

If evolution is real, then it's possible to create a computer simulation started with simple cells and ended with artificial intelligence. Where is that simulation?

[Anonymous No.8127433]

>>8127426
In production.
http://revolutionarygamesstudio.com/

[Anonymous No.8127436]

Watched 9 minutes. He keeps saying their aren't explanations to this and that, but literally their is. This video is a waste of time. Fuck that guy

[Anonymous No.8127437]

Don't forget to mention: that everything originated form (fill in the blank) <-- cause we don't know. According to people with letters after their name, first nothing (despite we have no clear definition of, and have never observed nothing-ness) then (BAM)! a big magical POOF, Puff -- (the magic dragon), then quabam. All the perfect amounts and ratios of elements that magically, I mean spontaneously <-- (cause that's different than magically) came into existence ( just the right amounts) to not only form planets, oceans, rain, but to somehow create (from nothing) complex cellular life..... The size of the balls you would need to assert something as ironic and hypocritical as that, whilst simultaneously saying that creationism is made up, is just incredible

[Anonymous No.8127439]

>>8127426
I don't think we have enough juice to simulate the number of cells required over the period of time required to get from single cells to human level intelligence in a reasonable amount of time.

It's also worth noting that human level intelligence isn't some end goal of evolution, it's just a quirk of humanities adaption. It'd be possible to run a trillion years of evolutionary simulation and not get anything 'smart' as a result.

[Anonymous No.8127443]

>>8127437
Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. You can argue about the origin of life all day. Evolution just describes what happens to the life once it starts reproducing.

[Anonymous No.8127444]

>>8127436
Remember, the guy is listed as a philosopher and educator. To me, his opinion holds as much ground as a neurologist telling me what a fossil is.

[Anonymous No.8127457]

1.) We have no clear definition of nothingness,
2.) We don't really even know much about GRAVITY, we know how gravity affects things on this planet (generally speaking) but short of observing, we can't harness it, and still don't know much about it at all. Hence the movie Interstellar wherein an hour on one planet is 7 years on this planet.
3.) Science says: give us the biggest most monumental magical *Miracle* of all known existence (The Big Bang) and we'll take it from there.
I could keep going and going, but it's astounding how little we know, but how much we pretend to know. We don't know shit. Ever heard of the word Omnipresence? Well so have I. Turns out there is this stuff called Dark Matter, that is ironically and oddly similar to an all omnipresent force keeping things together.

[Anonymous No.8127469]

I have to disagree. In order to better define what people believe to be EVOLUTION, we ought first try and understand where it all began. I mean that is after all the brunt of evolution, something changing from species and DNA, into a completely different species with vastly different DNA. All we have been able to do thus far, is observe MINOR, MINUSCULE adaptation. And morons or idiots like to point at the adaptations as proof of evolution.

[Anonymous No.8127475]

>hurr durr you can't turn a cow into a whale
>hurr durr mutations don't cause life to fail

good shit bro

[Anonymous No.8127477]

Think of it this way. Think of a skinny, weak, pale white boy moving to Hawaii to work on the boat docks or in a sugar cane farm. He works hard for months. When you see him again, he is significantly darker (from tanning) or melanin changes, his bone density has increased form the rigorous work, his muscle mass and muslcle density has vastly increased from the strenuous work he preformed. I would appear he has undergone a form of evolution, when in all reality, all that happened was he underwent MINOR adaptations as do many species. He is still a man, with man DNA.

[Anonymous No.8127486]

>>8127477
I can't tell if you're just talking about the development of a person or lamriackian evolution, so I'm gonna put this.

[Anonymous No.8127487]

>>8127477
What's your point? Evolution doesn't exist because humans are flexible enough as an organism to adapt to different environments? By what process do you think this trait developed?

[Anonymous No.8127489]

>>8127437
>that everything originated form (fill in the blank) <-- cause we don't know.
Textbook god of the gaps fallacy

>According to people with letters after their name, first nothing
Strawman. No one except creationists assume the universe started with nothing or that nothing is somehow the "default state" of the universe.

>All the perfect amounts and ratios of elements
This argument rests on the faulty assumption that there is a selection process for fundamental physical properties.

>to not only form planets, oceans, rain, but to somehow create (from nothing) [sic] complex cellular life
Physics and biology explains how these things happened pretty well. It's only "magic" if you are being willfully ignorant. Which you are.

[Anonymous No.8127491]

>>8127486
*Lamarckian

[Anonymous No.8127502]

>>8127486
I'm not talking about evolution in really any facet. I'm pointing out that all most scientist have ever been able to observe, is the equivalent of what I mentioned. Nothing more than nature undergoing minor adaptations to adapt to the environment. And the idea of saying if you believe in one, then you HAVE TO by default believe in the other is pretty autistic. Of all the breeds of dogs, they are still dogs. Not cats. And as it stands, a dog can still even after hundreds of years only breed with other dogs.

[Anonymous No.8127508]

>>8127489
Um.... something from nothing is fucking magic. Am I missing something? Nice try, but EPIC FAIL

[Anonymous No.8127509]

>>8127502
Except we have fossil evidence for many transitional species. Through phylogenetics we can track the history of species and see when they deviated as species from a common ancestor. Given enough time the dogs won't be dogs anymore, they'll be something else.

[Anonymous No.8127519]

>>8127508
>Um.... something from nothing is fucking magic.
No one is positing something from "nothing" except creationists, you hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.8127520]

>>8127502
But considering all the changes and modifocations it would go through, would we still conaider it a dog?
Also, have you heard of that e-coli experiment they did. They got a strand of e-coli that could use a certain substance that none of the other memebers of its species could. It never had that gene to begin with. It became something new.

[Anonymous No.8127522]

Here ya go, here is your evolution: http://globalnews.ca/news/901518/prehistoric-mosquito-with-belly-full-of-blood-found-in-montana-sorry-no-real-life-jurassic-park/ oh look, it's a 40 million year old mosquito. That is unless carbon dating is suddenly inaccurate. Oh look, it looks the exact same as it does now? hmm. Oh wow, after only 46 million years, it still lives for only 7 days. Interesting, 46 MILLION years of supposed evolution, and it still dies in 7 days, still only eats blood, and has not undergone any visible changes or adapted any new metabolic capabilities. Wow. evolution sure does evolve shitty things into much better things LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Anonymous No.8127523]

>>8127502
you're comparing apples and oranges dude. a pasty white dude putting on some muscle and getting a tan doesn't mean his children are going to be muscled and tanned. physical adaptions to his environment within his life time aren't something he passes on to the next generation. however the variation we've bred into cats or dogs is heritable, and if we kept artificially selecting for certain traits overtime and preventing breeds of dogs from interbreeding they will become two distinct species.

[Anonymous No.8127525]

>>8127520
*consider

[Anonymous No.8127527]

>>8127522
>evolution sure does evolve shitty things into much better thing
You fundamentally misunderstand what evolution is and how it works.

[Anonymous No.8127533]

>>8127523
I love it. You give any hint that maybe there is a shit ton missing from evolution as a whole, and you by default don't understand it. If you link an article of a 46 Million year old insect that after all that time is exactly the same as it is now (metabolically, life span wise, etc), then you talking apples and oranges LOLOLOLOL. I love it. No. I'm not talking apples an oranges. I'm talking about a 46 million year old mosquito perfectly preserved and visible, that has not changed form the mosquitos of today in the SLIGHTEST... By your evolution logic, it should have evolved, adapted, gotten better. but NOPE. Still dies quickly, still eats blood, still looks the same, and metabolically still is the same. Evolution FAIL

[Anonymous No.8127544]

>>8127533
I think you need to check which post the post you've quoted is quoting.

You don't understand evolution. Mosquitoes haven't evolved (I'm positive there has been some degree of speciation given that the planets continents have shifted in that time) because they haven't had any evolutionary pressure to do so. Similar to Crocodiles not changing much (they've gotten smaller) over time. Evolution isn't 'trying to make a species better', evolution is just species being better adapted to their environment. Evolution doesn't want to make a species stronger or live longer or whatever unless those things happen to make the species more reproductively successful.

Again: you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.

[Anonymous No.8127547]

>>8127502
Compare these skulls. By your logic, they're all still Miacids no matter how you slice it.

[Anonymous No.8127550]

>>8125951
>4th point
evolution predicts that dogs will stay dogs, giraffes stay giraffes, etc. every time an organism has an offspring, it will always be of the same species as its parents. if a dog has a child, it will be a dog. if an archaeopteryx has an offspring, it will be another archaeopteryx. but there might be small changes every time, and over time, those slight changes accumulate until after a while you have to say that the (for example) 100th generation later, it's no longer the same species.

[Anonymous No.8127571]

>>8127457
>We have no clear definition of nothingness
Pure unadulterated autism

>We don't really even know much about GRAVITY
Actually, you don't know much about it.
In Interstellar, the planet described is that way because we know how gravity can effect time. We use it every day when we sync up GPS satellites.
>Dark Matter is omnipresent
It isn't. It holds galaxies together. It's more of a theoretical concept anyway, the result of Newtonian mechanics not holding up in certain galaxies. If you really want to go there, Dark Energy, a magical force that expands the universe, would be a better approach. But since you will just twist this to your luddical worldview, I'll leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.8127574]

>>8127533
>Evolution says things have to evolve constantly all the time into better things
Found your problem.

[Miniature spacecraft No.8127589]

>>8125896
David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author.

He has nothing to do with biology. It's BS.

[Anonymous No.8127614]

Epigenetics is the key to understand the evolution.

[Anonymous No.8127629]

>>8127614
>Epigenetics
>E______ics
>Eugenics

[Anonymous No.8127655]

The main issue with fossils is, a lot has to go right for something to fossilize and then a lot has to go right for us to find the fossil.

I find it rather impressive we have such a good image of previous species, with everything working against us. But its difficult to know when a species appears or goes extinct with fossil evidence, we can only say we haven't found a fossil of said species in this time frame.

Even with these limitations, our understanding of previous species is only getting better, its awesome.

[Anonymous No.8127657]

>>8127655
But we can still see what rock strata a fossil appears in, and knowing how mass extinctions work, we can narrow down what species survived ice ages, meteors, etc.

[Anonymous No.8127678]

>>8127657
I tend to personally agree with that, but I would stick with the wording of, no fossils have been found from this species after this point.

This is just my perspective. My favorite professor from undergrad always stressed that we must be careful how we word things and we are always limited by the amount of data we currently have.

[Anonymous No.8127845]

How you explain complex instincts that insects have. Random mutations? This is practically impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG-QZOTc5_Q

[Anonymous No.8127855]

>>8127845
It seems rather easy if you ask me. Considering that several species of insects, mammals, and tunicates have done it. I'm sure there are even some birds or fish that do something similar to this.

[Anonymous No.8127947]

Could I have some help with this?

[Anonymous No.8127965]

>>8127947
You shouldn't need help with that much stupid. My favorite part was the suggestion that all extremophiles perish in non-extreme conditions.

Second favorite part is "DNA has more failsafes" than software "to ensure that the whole thing doesn't crash".

[Anonymous No.8127966]

>>8127350
>>the parts that are indefensible are poetry
>t. someone who has never read the bible.

This argument is as dumb as saying

>How can you assume a spherical cow in a vacuum if cows aren't spherical
>Checkmate Physicists!

[Anonymous No.8127975]

>>8127965
I'm a layman arguing with someone straying towards YEC, I need something solid to show them.

[Anonymous No.8127978]

>>8127975
Also, I did do this though. I feel like I didn't explain enough. What do you think?

[Anonymous No.8127981]

>>8127978
*I did do this though I feel like

[Anonymous No.8127982]

>>8127975
When you wrap a Christian and a skeptic in one package, you have an unstoppable force of stupid. My advice: accept that you have lost a friend and move on.

[Anonymous No.8127991]

>>8127982
But I can't, that's not my way. I'm a "let me tell you why that's bullshit" kind of guy.

[Anonymous No.8128003]

>>8127855
>It seems rather easy if you ask me
How is that easy? Millions of changes in the brain needs to be done for such complex tasks.

[Anonymous No.8128010]

>>8126443
I suppose we could teach the controversy. But it IS a science class and therefore the controversy would be subject to the scientific method.

eg. Now class we're going to learn about how the scientific method works via a case study on creationism.

Hypothesis: The world was created by a single creator in a specific order 6000 years ago.

Observation: We've found rocks that are more than 6000 years old. Far older.

We've found evidence of people that were around long before 6000 years ago.

The hypothesis states that Light on earth was created. Then plants. Then finally the sun. Where did the light come from at first I wonder? How did the plants conduct photosynthesis.

So Billy, what the evidences not only doesn't support the hypothesis, but makes it seem that the hypothesis is utterly incoherent with our basic understanding of reality, cause and effect.


This is how science separates truth from Non-truth. This is how we teach the controversy.

[Anonymous No.8128013]

>>8128003
Tunicates are able to work as entire beings with very little in terms of brains. Also, look at what we did in just a few hundred thousand years, we went from hunter gatherers to hominid ants.

[Anonymous No.8128014]

hey thanks for the discussion guise now i have enough points to write my biology paper :v)

[Anonymous No.8128017]

>>8128010
They'll just knock the pieces over and say "you came up with the idea that they're over 6000 years old based on an evolutionary assumption."

[Anonymous No.8128028]

>>8127533
Imagine a landscape with lots of hills and mountains. The landscape is the nature of reality. Our laws of physics, our environment. Everything.

All life started at the same point. Let's say a point above this valley.
Let's say you drop a marble onto the landscape to represent a creature. It rolls around and eventually settles in one of the valleys. That's the creator, say a mosquito, finding an evolutionary niche and settling there.

It has some random mutations that cause the mosquito to move in it's valley. If the valley is deep enough (The mosquito is specialised enough) Then small variations will always not present a big enough advantage to escape the valley and move into another valley.

This is how Evolution by natural selection works. It is a 'problem solving' algorithm. It takes nature, and reality as it's parameters, and it solves the problem of perpetual existence. It finds 'local' solutions (small troughs) which animals are in. Each in their own valley. Because we are all related in truth we are ALL (all life on earth) in a giant valley (With little valleys inside it).

Is this the ultimate solution to the problem? Perhaps not? Perhaps far away there is a different valley that goes far deeper. (Better solution to the problem), but we can not easily 'evolve' our way there there as the random mutations are never significant enough for us to escape our local minima.

[Anonymous No.8128041]

>>8128017
Ah. There's plenty of examples though.

Luckily creationism is such a bad hypothesis, scientifically speaking that it has more holes than actual substance.

[Anonymous No.8128053]

>>8128028
Luckily deep enough in our own local minima we found something that allowed us to reason and think.

That could lead us to genetic engineer which would allow us to leap and bound around this landscape.

We could analyze the entire landscape, and problem (The problem being perpetual existence), and realise that reproduction is only a 'local' solution.

We could then genetically engineer ourselves to be immortal, (leaping into the global minima), and solving the problem life set out to solve billions of years ago.

Then what's next. I don't know. Maybe the credits will play.

[Anonymous No.8128060]

>>8128041
>holes
Funny that you mention that.

[Anonymous No.8128066]

Also, I'm gonna be helping out at my old elementary school with (academic) summer camp. What do I do if when they go over evolution and one of the overtly Christian/Muslim kids says that we're wrong because their parents/prophet says so? Do I set them straight, or do I just ignore them? I don't want parents to be complaining/wanting my head because of it.

[Anonymous No.8128074]

>>8125896
It is often useful to criticize the work of a single scientist, and sometimes it is also useful to criticize the collaboration of several scientists.

It is never useful to criticize a scientific concept in abstract. The only thing to do is correct other people's usage of a term.

The topic behooves me to note that creationism is derived from mistranslating the old testament.

[Anonymous No.8128169]

>>8126443
Benford's law

[Anonymous No.8128180]

>>8128013
>Also, look at what we did in just a few hundred thousand years, we went from hunter gatherers to hominid ants.
But we learn all that from other species. Evolution did not magically insert memory in our brains

[Anonymous No.8128185]

>>8128066
You gotta tell him he's right and then make it blatently obvious he's wrong.

Oh yes, ofcourse god created the sun after he created the light.

Ofcourse there were talking snakes!
I saw one this morning, didn't everyone? I also saw a talking horse, and a talking monkey, and even a dragon!

Try to link in his mind religious ideas, and ideas like harry potter and fantasy together so that he can see how disbelief in one could easily relate to disbelief in the other.

[Anonymous No.8128200]

>>8128185
What about for a Muslim kid? That'll work for a Christian, sure, but I don't want to be responsible for them being punished/maimed for questioning what their parents believe.

[Anonymous No.8128228]

EVOLUTION: we're not sure about anything, but it's the best we can come up with so you better not be skeptical or we'll publicly shame your ass.

[Anonymous No.8128243]

>>8128228
>EVOLUTION: we're not sure about anything, and we don’t claim to be but it's the best we can come up with given the evidence that is available so you better be skeptical or we'll never advance as a science.
FTFY

[Anonymous No.8128248]

>>8128228
More like: based on the evidence presented, this is the most logical conclusion that we can come to at this point. Skepticism is welcome, but when it's borne from misinformation/ignorance on the questioner's part, we'll public ally call you out.

[Anonymous No.8128262]

>>8128200
Same thing man.

The beauty here is you're just planting the seeds of curiosity.

In his deep subconscious mind hel'l develop a link between things like harry potter and religion. The stories are the same sort of thing.


He might believe both at this stage, Infact if you encourage him to believe both... then it just makes this a whole lot more stealthy.

Eventually hel'l grow out of one of them.. and that will automatically make him grow out or question the other.

This could happen years after you left the scene. So it's not like you're going to get blamed for anything. Just that you laid the foundation for that particular thought earlier on.

[Anonymous No.8128265]

>>8128200
Besides, i don't believe most muslim parents are going to do physical harm onto their child for leaving the religion.

Some might, but most won't.

[Anonymous No.8128270]

>>8128262
I always wanted to teach the new generation about how the world works. Well, wish me luck anon.
>>8128265
Alright then. I've just heard a lot of stories.

[Anonymous No.8128273]

>>8128248
>this is the most logical conclusion that we can come to at this point
that YOU can come up with.
no wonder biofags are retards.

[Anonymous No.8128276]

>>8128273
Not just one person, but a group, no, a community. A community of men and women working in various fields of science, whose very foundations are formed with the Darwinian theory of evolution.
So no, not what I can come up with.

[Anonymous No.8128290]

Quick question.
Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. We can`t interbreed, because we have different chromosome number.
1)How many chomosomes our common ancestor had?
2)With whom procreated the first ape who had different number of chomosomes compared to immediate ancestors?

[Anonymous No.8128291]

Anyone seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ65yIih5Zk

[Anonymous No.8128299]

>>8128290
Considering every other great ape besides us has 48 chromosomes, we seem to be the odd man out. It can then be inferred that the HCLCA had 48 chromosomes.
What do you mean by "whom?" We can't give an exact ancestor like with family trees, only the time in which it occurred.

[Anonymous No.8128302]

>>8128299
Also this.

[Anonymous No.8128305]

>>8128299
he means how could an individual have 46 chromosomes and still pass them while they couldn't breed with an individual with 48 chormosomes? And still giving an individual with 46 chromosomes?
evolution btfo

every time I (or anyone really) mention different chromosome numbers evolutionfags start shaking and moving goalposts.

[Anonymous No.8128309]

>>8128305
http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/15727/examples-of-animals-with-different-number-of-chromosomes-that-can-interbreed

[Anonymous No.8128310]

>>8128305
Perhaps there was a transitionary phase, one in which genetic viability was still possible. There's also the possibility of the DNA being close if enough that it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.8128317]

>>8128309
>>8128299
Thanks, this perfectly answers my questions.

[Anonymous No.8128324]

>>8128317
You're welcome.

I think most agree that even now the difference wouldn't be the limiting factor in producing a modern Homo-Pan hybrid. Something we don't yet know if it's possible simply because nobody wants to seriously try it.

[Anonymous No.8128325]

>>8128317
Not that anon, but does anyone know how close we are to chimps? I've heard 98% from some and 96% from others. Which is it, or is it that black and white?

[Anonymous No.8128327]

>>8128324
Well, there was Stalin.

[Anonymous No.8128332]

>>8128325
not sure, but I do know that after the human lineage split off from chimps, our ancestors went back and mated with chimps again.

repeatedly.
over a period of millions of years.

So we actually have more chimp DNA than should be expected because not only are we descendants of chimps, but we're also chimp hybrids.

[Anonymous No.8128334]

>>8128327
yeah.
inconclusive unfortunately.

I sometimes wonder if there's something hidden in the Nazi research.

[Anonymous No.8128337]

>>8128332
You mean like this chart?
>>8127387

[Anonymous No.8128340]

>>8128337
looks like it.

[Anonymous No.8128341]

>>8128332
Well our ancestors fucked with the ancestors of chimps, it's inaccurate to say they fucked with chimps because chimps didn't exist yet in their current form.

[Anonymous No.8128342]

>>8128340
Also there are rumors of something called a Koolakamba, a chimp-gorilla hybrid I believe.

[Anonymous No.8128346]

>>8128341
they didn't fuck modern chimps, but the MRCA would be classified as a chimp, as would our own ancestors after the split.

I believe the proposed name is "Pan prior."

[Anonymous No.8128349]

>>8128342
that's pretty cool, I'll have to google that when I get time later.

[Anonymous No.8128352]

>>8128346
I think this'll help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

[Anonymous No.8128357]

>>8128349
Then there's the Bili Ape, sometimes known as the Great Lion-Eating Chimp.

[Anonymous No.8128358]

>>8128352
I've read it many times.
you?

that whole "we didn't technically descend from chimps" thing is just something we used to say to keep the creationists from balking.

it doesn't matter anymore, creationists are no longer relevant to anything. We know humans descended from chimps, it's fine.

[Anonymous No.8128362]

>>8128358
But what about Sahelanthropus? It was a biped, right?

[Anonymous No.8128373]

>>8128362
Could it be Pan Prior?

[Anonymous No.8128404]

>>8125896
He just a math autist who uses muh feels type arguments because he cant deal with anything that cant be fully expressed mathematically

[Anonymous No.8128420]

So, why of all animals, pigs are most compatible to humans (in a way of tissues, transplantology and so on), while evolution claims that they are quite distant from humans?

[Anonymous No.8128424]

>>8128420
I think its mostly because everything is roughly the same size and shape

[Anonymous No.8128425]

>>8128420
The distance in common ancestry decreases the risks of transmitting cross-species diseases. Humans are immune to quite a lot of pig diseases and vice-versa.

Also pigs are cheap, readily available and their organs are comparable in size to human organs. We already have huge pig farms, we don't have huge baboon farms.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8128430]

>>8125896
>Critic of evolution
>Is he legit?
No.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8128434]

>>8125951
>4rth: No change of form. Dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bacteria. We just see small variations.
There's more truth to this than many "pro-evolution" people know. It's because they don't actually understand evolution. Taken at face value, what he wrote is true. According to the rules of modern cladistics, descendents of dogs will always be dogs, in exactly the same sense that descendents of mammals will always be mammals. Ex: That's why whales are still mammals. Evolution is just variation within a "kind". That's what a family tree is.

The problem is when talking to a creationist, who believes that there are a finite set of non-overlapping but all-covering "kinds" where descendents of one kind cannot become another kind. That's just wrong.

However, it is true that the descendents of fruit flies will always be classified as fruit flies, and their ancestry will be traceable to its fly parentage.

See Aronra's Broward Darwin Day lecture on youtube for a good instruction.

[Anonymous No.8128460]

>>8128434
>The problem is when talking to a creationist
moving goalposts

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8128464]

>>8128460
??

[Anonymous No.8128902]

Bump

[Anonymous No.8128910]

>>8128430
He is heretic!

[Anonymous No.8128926]

>>8128464
why even mention creationists? This is about science, so let's not go into religious beliefs pls

[Anonymous No.8129007]

>>8127413
Anything with feet under body and not out to the side is a Saurian, not a crocodile.

[Anonymous No.8129013]

>>8129007
I beg to differ.

[Anonymous No.8129215]

>>8128373
Well? Could it?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8129221]

>>8128926
Because the OP is probably a creationist, based on the minimal information that I have access to.

[Anonymous No.8129436]

Bump

[Anonymous No.8129600]

So, biologists claim that coelacant-like fish used their developing limbs to travel on land.
While real-life coelacants live in ocean depths. Isn`t it suspicious?

[Anonymous No.8129621]

>>8126780
Because apes still fit there environment well enough to survive, the apes that descended into the savanna did not, and had to change or they would have died. They did not die, so here we are.

[Anonymous No.8129625]

>>8129221
You're a moron, based on the extensive information I have about you

[Anonymous No.8129636]

>>8125896
creationists aren't worth debating. They think dinosaurs are still alive and tend to believe in shit like the vaccine autism hoax

[Anonymous No.8129644]

>>8129600
This is more or less how it went. The dates may be up for debate, but the process is beautifully layed out.

[Anonymous No.8129673]

>>8129600
By the time fish like creatures were meekly flopping about on land with their pseudo limbs, they were genetically far removed from coelacants.

[Anonymous No.8130468]

>>8129215
Anyone at all?

[Anonymous No.8130851]

A guy who believes in intelligent design designed the bed I'm sitting on right now.
I think he did it as some sort of contrived political statement, but it's a pretty comfy bed anyways.

[Anonymous No.8130857]

>>8125896
> critic of evolution

[Anonymous No.8130862]

>>8130851
>I think he did it as some sort of contrived political statement, but it's a pretty comfy bed anyways.
You obviously need to use a GA to evolve a more comfortable bed, as an even more contrived political statement.

[Anonymous No.8131440]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.8131449]

>>8131440
I like how you're trying to make a point but the tiny snippet from the "good" guy at the top may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Evolution can't even account for science itself". It sounds like someone of slightly below average intelligence trying to sound like a genius on a TV show.

[Anonymous No.8131455]

>>8131449
Believe me, it gets worse from here. I think this "comic" is against naturalism (methodological and philosophical)

[Anonymous No.8131468]

>>8131455
>is against naturalism

Yeah, that's the entire point. Things like climate change may be motivated (at least partially) by a desire to minimize costs in whatever industry someone works in, but when it comes to moronic horseshit like evolution it has nothing to do with religion or the arguments presented, some people are just so small that they can't stand people listening to some weirdo in a wheelchair instead of them. I am convinced of this.

[Anonymous No.8131493]

>>8131468
I think they also have aweird tactic that tend to use in debates. They try to make themselves look like the underdog, the all-American man who's going up against the "Big Bad" Academia.

[Anonymous No.8131504]

>>8125896
I think I'm getting tired of people trying to debate things before fully reading the literature surrounding the topic.

[Anonymous No.8131707]

>>8126443
Because you don't "grass roots" science. Whatever the currently accepted models are they are decided by experts in their fields and then taught to the non-experts. To the extent that there is a controversy it is a matter to be decided by expert scientists NOT school children.