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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 480x360, 6969420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9669154 No.9669154 [Reply] [Original]

Let's have a mature discussion on the theory of evolution. My entire life I've just assumed this was true because it makes sense and nothing else can explain how life is what it is today. Now that I have recently become interested in the subject I am starting to doubt that evolution is possible on a macro scale.

It seems very possible within small scale changes such as different species evolving from the same genus but for large changes such as single celled organisms evolving into fish I'm not sure such a leap is possible without some sort of unnatural assistance.

So I want to hear your ideas and keep in mind that evolution is just a theory so there is no proof that it definitively exists or doesn't exist.

>> No.9669165
File: 146 KB, 671x519, 1494801786191.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9669165

Science ranks theories on the basis of their predictive validity.

To disprove evolution, you would need to articulate a theory which has greater predictive validity.

Can you provide such a theory?

>> No.9669188

>>9669154
You don't understand the REALLY long time it took to go from single cells to fish. In comparison, we're separated from Tyrannosaurs by an eye-blink.

Most of the time life has existed on Earth, single cells were all there were.

Also, as >>9669165 noted, scientists use "theory" in a different way than laymen do. Evolution is as solidly established as gravity or electromagnetism.
"Unnatural assistance" always turns out to be either;
1) Religion, trying to fob off its baseless fantasies as "creation science" -- something it's not, or
2) Alien intervention. But then you have to explain how the aliens went from single-cells to star-travelers. It just pushes the problem back a step.

>> No.9669207

>>9669154
How are you defining "evolution"?

>> No.9669213

Bumping

>> No.9669220

>>9669154
It's not about one species changing to another, the real problem is the dynamics of a system of entities following descent with modification over long period of times.
You must statistically show that it is likely for such chaotic system to diverge to what is observed on this earth, if you can't then you do not have a *theory* and this is what all scientists who believe in the theory of evolution fails to understand or address.
I've done my own simulations on this topic and observed everything but.

>> No.9669223

>>9669220
>I've done my own simulations on this topic and observed everything but
Oh yeah? Please provide the peer-reviewed literature that has resulted from your work.

>> No.9669227

>>9669154
https://www.lesserwrong.com/sequences/MH2b8NfWv22dBtrs8

>> No.9669230

>>9669154
What is your question? What don't you understand? Study population genetics and biochemistry, ta da there are the basics that probably explain your problems.

>> No.9669231

You have to keep in mind that the rate of functional evolution is slow as fuck in most animals, and infinitely slower in human populations. That is not to say that you cannot observe evolution at all. In single-celled organisms and viruses the time scales are much, much shorter.

>> No.9669236

>>9669223
it was twenty years ago and not the results I expected, sure I'll redo the experiments but in the meantime you can provide peer-reviewed papers that shows why I'm wrong, it will spare me the effort.

>> No.9669240

One of the key problems in evolution and to a larger extent the whole field of biology is to get a rough sketch of LUCA at different complexity scales: genome architecture, key enzymes, metabolism, effective population size, so on and so forth. From that point you can start thinking about macroevolution.

>> No.9669242

So much wrong in this thread.
Most people have a faulty understanding of the human designation of a species, which is in nature marginally different. Species arise from clinal population differences over areas of distribution (red vs yellow or blue stripe garter snakes) and are reproductively isolated by geography, behavior, genetic changes ( that render hybrids sterile), or anatomy from similar species. Most fossil species are approximations - a future paleontolgist looking at Great Dane and Chihuahua would classify them as different but related species. Natural selection means natural forces and species behaviors and mate selections determine how the species changes over time - as opposed to human selection and breeding in the case of dogs, cattle and other domestic species. Speciation has been observed in just a few generations and in many types of organisms. (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058 and https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

>> No.9669258

>>9669154
You don't understand evolution, hence "belief" in evolution rather than understanding and confidence and likely have not actually had evolutionary biology classes. The evidence is deep and wide. Predictive value, comparative anatomy, developmental biology ( ontogeny recapitiulates embryonic phylogeny), genetics, fossils and a huge variety of supporting evidence from geology, physics and biochemistry. Changes and mutation are traceable to and from ancestral forms.

>> No.9669274

>>9669223
I'm waiting...please provide the papers. If you have a theory then I would like to know what it predicts, don't you?

>> No.9669289

>>9669274
Wow. Demands that his own simulations, which have never been published, be refuted. Get off of /sci/ brainlet.

>> No.9669294

>>9669231
The evidence is accumulating that suggests that the Punctuated Equalibrium hypothesis is an accurate idea. Many, if not most evolution is small and species are stable for prolonged periods, but sudden rapid evolution and speciation occurs when there are major changes in the environment ( also an occasion of mass extinctions) or opportunities for a species to exploit.

>> No.9669297

>>9669220
>>9669236
>>9669274
It's almost as though these posts were cries for attention...Look at me! I can supposedly do things that demonstrate XXX and YYY, but they were 20 years ago and never published. Believe me!!!!!

>> No.9669299

>>9669289
So, you do not have any papers? That's not science and you should be happy I'm letting you know.

>> No.9669301

>>9669299
I think the onus of proof lies on you, friendo, considering you're the one who brought all this up.

>> No.9669304

>>9669154
>mature discussion on the theory of evolution.
The Truth About Evolution
http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>> No.9669305

>>9669301
Especially because I was initially only asking for you to point me in the direction of work that corroborates your conclusion here: >>9669220

Instead, you take off like a toddler on its first ride without training wheels and instantly lash out. So, how about you provide some evidence that does support your initial claims in the post previously referenced? Don't worry, I'll exercise more patience than you've demonstrated.

>> No.9669306

>>9669297
I claim to have demonstrated that 99.9999% of all possible things happened except 0.0001% and you demand a paper!
Haha you guys are so predictably dumb.

>> No.9669308

>>9669306
If you demonstrated it, it should be publishable, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.

>> No.9669314

>>9669306
B-b-buhlieve me! It's OK anon, no one will ever recognize or understand your "genius".

>> No.9669321

>>9669306
A model on this topic, with the ability to correctly predict with that small degree of error, should be in a paper, anon. Other anons bringing up the legitimacy of your claims are right to do so.

>> No.9669326

>>9669308
yeah yeah, you have a mechanism but no theory to show for it, all you got is crying out in disbelief like always.

>> No.9669327

>>9669326
See >>9669308 again, then tell us again about your work, then see >>9669308 again. Repeat ad nauseum, preferably to your own.

>> No.9669341

>>9669299
Hold on. What are you asking anon to provide papers on?

>> No.9669356

>>9669327
To show what exactly? What is your theory predicting that I claim to refute?
If you cannot detail an answer, then what is your interest in this?
I know that you cannot give an answer, which is why this is funny.
At least we can agree on a mechanism but I will take a morally higher stance knowing that I claim to have simulated evolution with no "good" results (which is done on a daily basis and expected) while you pretend to have a wildly unlikely answer which cannot be backed up, haha.

>> No.9669360

>>9669356
>I claim to have simulated evolution with no "good" results
>Didn't publish
>Doesn't matter
>But whhhhyyyyy don't they understand my genius, mommy?

>> No.9669363

>>9669356
Is this how it always is in science? Someone claims to have done something, can't provide proof of their claims when asked, and then immediately turns on the other person and demands they have evidence that proves otherwise when they haven't even solidified their own argument. Whew, lad.

>> No.9669364

>>9669341
a statistical analysis of evolution in systems with parameters corresponding to those on earth over 3 billion years.
Of course I would like to see the paper finish with "And as you can see, it's likely these systems converge to pretty much what we can see on this earth, confirming the hunch we had about natural selection."

>> No.9669367

>>9669364
OK, so to continue and make sure we stay on the same page, you're claiming that you've demonstrated the opposite? If my understanding is incorrectly, would you please explicitly state what your simulations have demonstrated?

>> No.9669368

>>9669363
Mathematically it boils down to randomly pick a number between 1 and a million. Mommy I didn't get my lucky number, I need to publish this because science. Good one.

>> No.9669369

>>9669368
So unwanted results aren't publishable results now?

>> No.9669372

>>9669367
In all cases overall stagnation in genetic variance.

>> No.9669373 [DELETED] 

>>9669154
test

>> No.9669374

>>9669372
How were you parameterizing factors that can reduce (e.g., bottleneck events) or increase (e.g., random mutations) genetic variation?

>> No.9669382

>>9669374
through parameters of course, lots of them, as you know, the goal is to get it to work, alas it can't be done.

>> No.9669385

>>9669382
Indubitably...

>> No.9669394

>>9669220
>You must statistically show that it is likely for such chaotic system to diverge to what is observed on this earth, if you can't then you do not have a *theory* and this is what all scientists who believe in the theory of evolution fails to understand or address.
Winning the lottery by chance is extremely unlikely. So are you going to argue that lottery winners are cheaters avid did not win by random chance? You have no idea what you're talking about.

>I've done my own simulations on this topic and observed everything but.
You don't even understand what you're supposed to be looking for, so of course you didn't find it.

>> No.9669397

>>9669394
Thank you. Someone else that can smell BS from a mile away.

>> No.9669402

>>9669305
Welp, my patience has run out. Put up or shut up, anon (>>9669220)

>> No.9669420

Good bait, OP. 43 replies and counting.

>> No.9669435

>>9669154
Evolution at a macro scale has been observed repeatedly. Search youtube for a video by Trey the explainer calle something like rapid evolution.

>> No.9669521

>>9669435
This video seems to imply exactly what op was saying. All of the rapid evolutions presented in this video are just small changes that don't fundamentally change the species in question such as a bird evolving to have a larger beak or a lizard evolving to have a different skin color. These are small changes that over time don't result in macro changes such as birds evolving to have arms or lizards evolving to grow gills and swim in water. The examples presented are continuous evolutions that don't result in large divergences. For example could a bird evolve to have little stumps that over time evolve to grow into arms or could lizards evolve their skin color until their skin completely changes from scales to mammalian skin? I think the macro changes that op means are complete changes to some of the most fundamental properties of a species that seem like they could only logically happen instantly like flipping a switch rather than like gradually turning a wheel until the change happens.

>> No.9669525

>>9669374
>>9669382
>how were you parameterizating?
>with parameters
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.9670082
File: 6 KB, 211x239, 1523418622234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9670082

>>9669154
>ingle celled organisms evolving into fish
You do realise that between single cells and fish there's millions of years and millions of species.

>> No.9670430

>>9669521
>These are small changes that over time don't result in macro changes such as birds evolving to have arms or lizards evolving to grow gills and swim in water.
How would small changes over time not accumulate into big changes?

>For example could a bird evolve to have little stumps that over time evolve to grow into arms
You seem to be forgetting that changes in the body are determined by genes, not cells accumulating into stumps. Birds already have arms, they are called wings. Given the right environmental pressures and time, these wings could revert back to the arms they evolved from. This would require flying ability to confer less chance of survival than wings being slightly more arm-like, which is unlikely but theoretically possible. Or a mutation could cause a bird to develop a second set of wings which then change into arms. Your example only illustrates your lack of understanding of evolution, not a flaw in evolution.

>I think the macro changes that op means are complete changes to some of the most fundamental properties of a species that seem like they could only logically happen instantly like flipping a switch rather than like gradually turning a wheel until the change happens.
That's because you are confusing logic with your naive intuition and gradual genetic change with gradual phenotypic change. So which actually evolutionary developments could not have happened gradually according to "logic"?