volution is often spoken of factually, but in fact only changing

What?

>>1194813
>And abiogenesis has never been replicated, which is strange. If RNA can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolution explains the origin of life's diversity - not the origin of life itself. Claiming this as evidence of evolution being false is like saying gravity is false because we don't know how the universe came into existence.

>>1194825
This isn't about evolution, it was just something tangential. You completely ignored the first paragraph, which was the one about evolution.

>>1194828
If you want me to refute your first claim, I can as well.

>Evolution is the theory that this can eventually lead to new species. Yet speciation has never been directly observed, only inferred.

Just because we have never observed the development of a new species doesn't mean anything. We know that the genome of a lineage changes with each generation, and we know that if the genome of two creatures is too different, they cannot breed and produce viable offspring. In this way, it can be logically be shown that eventually, with natural selection helping to urge the process, a new species can be created.

Denying that is like denying continental drift because no one has ever seen two continents smack into each other. That doesn't matter. We know that continents move even today, albeit incredibly slowly, and following that, it can logically be shown that eventually two continents can smack into each other.

> All the examples of it being observed, are based on mating preference, not innate incompatibility; by this standard, Ethiopians and Greeks of ancient times were different species, since they did not mate with each other.

1. What examples are you talking about? Source?
2. Ethiopians and Greeks didn't mate with each other because of the huge distance between their civilizations. If they were right next to each other I can guarantee you they'd be fucking each other like every other culture does.

>>1194840
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

We have indeed seen speciation occur

Evolution takes place on large space and time scales, of course we haven't seen a shift from quadrupeds to bipeds, if we look at the fossil record alone such changes occur over hundreds of thousands of years MINIMUM.

>changing the properties (as opposed to the nature)
What's next, are you going to mention "kinds"? Fuck outta here with this anti-scientific bullshit.

>Yet speciation has never been directly observed, only inferred.
Wrong. The fruit fly is the most common example of this.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Observed_speciation

>And abiogenesis has never been replicated, which is strange.
The big bang was never replicated either, that doesn't call into question the current laws of physics. Abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to the process of evolution, all that matters is that life already exists for it to change.

>If RNA can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?
Likely because we don't have a billion years of experiments over the entire surface of the Earth. The Miller-Urey experiment did prove that amino-acids can "spontaneously" arise under natural conditions. This is evidence that more complex organic compounds can too over longer periods/in other environments/over larger samples.

>>1194840
>Denying that is like denying continental drift because no one has ever seen two continents smack into each other.
No, continental drift is not nearly as practical to replicate in experiment. It's also intellectual dishonest to say evolution is directly observable just because of changes short of speciation, because it's talking about what everyone has already known for thousands of years, breeding. That is not anything new and the idea that it happens is hardly a product of the theory of evolution. Evolution is contingent upon speciation, not just breeding changes. We've created countless breeds of dogs over 10,000 years, but never managed to create a new species.
>1. What examples are you talking about? Source?
Dodd's fruitfly experiment.

>2. Ethiopians and Greeks didn't mate with each other because of the huge distance between their civilizations. If they were right next to each other I can guarantee you they'd be fucking each other like every other culture does.
It wasn't that huge, considering there was a large Ethiopian population in Egypt.

>>1194849
Okay, this is a point for you, but this is also one species coming from two, not two from one. But still, since it is not the process generally used to account for the vast majority of species variation today, and the process of multiple species from one common ancestral species, it's not really part of this controversy.

>>1194854
>Dodd's fruitfly experiment.
Would you at least read the findings of it, you colossal cretin?

The offspring of the two species of fruit fly are STERILE. This is not mere mating preference.

>>1194850
I'm not even talking about spontaneous generation of amino acids or whatever, I'm talking about being able to make RNA--it doesn't even have to be spontaneous, it can be artificial induced.

>>1194864
I've heard this said before, but I can't find it anywhere in his findings.

>>1194869
>I'm talking about being able to make RNA
What do you think RNA is, magic? It's simply a more complex organic compound than amino acids.

Why do you think we even have to replicate it, given the fact of the huge timescales and surface area it was allowed to happen upon? Maybe the probability is low enough that it's never going to be replicated under laboratory conditions.

>it doesn't even have to be spontaneous, it can be artificial induced.
>this guy honestly thinks this isn't coming
Mate, we are already fixing the DNA of potentially retarded fetuses.

Also,
http://www.sciencealert.com/world-first-artificial-enzymes-suggest-life-doesn-t-need-dna-or-rna
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7539/full/nature13982.html

XNA is already a thing.

>>1194886
>Maybe the probability is low enough that it's never going to be replicated under laboratory conditions.
Because if there is a specific process for assembling it, then you don't have to rely on probability

>>1194894
>Because if there is a specific process for assembling it, then you don't have to rely on probability
I was talking about natural conditions. The part after responds to this.

>>1194877
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Just search for the word sterile, and knock yourself out.

My mistake though, these weren't the Dodd's experiments you were referring to.

>>1194906
As far as I can tell, all cases of sterility here are a product of making a one species out of two, as opposed to two out of one and trying to put them back together.

>>1194924
How do you propose it's supposed to be tested, if not by mating similar species that have diverged relatively recently on evolutionary timescales?

>>1194900
This is more hypothetical than theoretical, let alone factual.

>>1194940
Well that's obviously the only way it can be tested, but the split has to be more than inferred, otherwise it's begging the question.

>>1194941
>This is more hypothetical than theoretical, let alone factual.
Stunning analysis, but gene editing is real and there's absolutely zero evidence to suggest our current methods aren't going to improve.

>>1194813
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

>>1194948
What's wrong with inferring splits, exactly? Why does the fact that speciation in complex species [allegedly] takes thousands of years keep going over your head?

Are you proposing a better mechanism that explains all the data, or are you here just to god-of-the-gaps post?

>>1194953
That's a bit different from suggesting genes can spontaneously develop. If you can actually show the process, that would be one thing

>>1194956
Not RNA, dude

>>1194970
Well if you infer a split, then you're presuming evolution to begin with. That's the problem. You could also do the same thing with ligers and use them to prove evolution.

>>>/sci/

stop shitposting you catholic spastic.

sage

>>1195017
>That's a bit different from suggesting genes can spontaneously develop. If you can actually show the process, that would be one thing

You know, this is basically just hiding in the gaps, right? If they made RNA, you'd be demanding that they use it to produce a full complex organism or some such.

>Well if you infer a split, then you're presuming evolution to begin with. That's the problem. You could also do the same thing with ligers and use them to prove evolution.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you couldn't do that with Ligers, since they're not a true-breeding species (they're sterile, like mules).

>>1195020
>You know, this is basically just hiding in the gaps, right? If they made RNA, you'd be demanding that they use it to produce a full complex organism or some such.
Any organism at all would verify abiogenisis as fact

>I'm pretty sure you couldn't do that with Ligers,
I mean, presuming tigers and lions have a common ancestor, you breed them, get a liger, see that it is sterile, and say it proves they are distinct species, and since they had a common ancestor, that prove speciation

>>1195017
>That's a bit different from suggesting genes can spontaneously develop. If you can actually show the process, that would be one thing
Are you purposefully dense or what? We were talking about artificial gene manipulation.

>Well if you infer a split, then you're presuming evolution to begin with.
Evolution is about as true as anything else. Species that existed in the past do not exist now, and species that exist now did not exist in the past, or so the evidence of the fossil record shows. There is no assumption here, only an observation of the facts.

Then there's all sorts of evidence of (don't sperg out, it's evidence and not 100% absolute proof) speciation in plants and animals, and the nail in the coffin of any legitimate dissent - DNA mapping.

We have evidence for the fact of it happening, and the process. Now again, if you have an alternative explanation, I am all ears.

By the way,
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
is a good read that was linked in your other shitpost thread, on /sci/.

>>1195026
Just by the way, there is no scientific consensus on even the concept of speciation, your hangup over it is laughable given how arbitrary the definitions of speciation are.

Protip: they're there for convenience, otherwise we'd have no basis of discriminating between species at all.

>>1194813
Evolution is carp only bible can show you the truth.

File: evolution-poster.jpg (510KB, 920x1380px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 920x1380px

>>1194813
>And abiogenesis has never been replicated, which is strange. If RNA can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?
It's been replicated a thousand different times and in a thousand different ways since the 1950's, the only question remains as to which was viable given the conditions of primordial Earth vs those in the lab. We know it can be done, just not if it could have happened naturally based on those findings.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

>Yet speciation has never been directly observed, only inferred.
It can be reproduced in a lab with fruit flies in a week, as has been done in thousands of labs by thousands of grad students, as a typical experiment.

Further, every other animal has vestigial bits of every other animal. If everything was created from scratch by some omniscient creator, why would they ever have any common characteristics? Would not such an omnipotent being be able to create millions of completely unique flora and fauna, rather than lines that look slightly different until you eventually gotta give a new name? Would not each work it an entirely unique way that did not interfere, much less often wipe out, other species entirely? Or is God really just not that creative nor forward thinking?

Either evolution is a mechanism God created for us to learn from, or God is a retard, take your pick.

It's pretty hard to recreate something from billions of years ago anon, especially if its the now non-existent precursor to RNA, which is already extremely unstable and prone to environmental hazard. To be honest, it's conjecture at this point to postulate what RNA precursor is.

But, it's still more likely to be an extremely small chance to happen in its own than be created by something transcendent of physics, something which we've never observed, ever. We've observed the astronomically unlikely occur, but we haven't ever witnessed anything outside of known physics or chem occur and not be explainable later.