Darwin

>>8427585
He was a sinful man full of hate of God and should be deleted from books altogether.

File: 1453317878849.jpg (491KB, 1200x868px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1200x868px

He was important, but not in a good way. Many biologists still believe in his theory of evolution even though there is ever-growing amount of evidence that debunks it. I'm not saying that everyone should believe in creation like I do but science can't progress if scientists keep clinging onto old failed theories instead of being critical.

>>8427585
>darwin
>>>/pol/

shits raciss yo

I f*cking love science but I seriously think that biology in particular has a huge race and gender problem, and the whole Cult of Darwin is emblematic of it.

>>8427596
get the fuck out of sci creo scum

>>8427585
You can compare it to marketing for companys

With him Biology as an unified science was born. Before him we only had a disorganized pile of knowledge from naturalists. Evolution, natural selection, and inheritance became the fundamentals which Biology revolves around. Not saying he did everything, or that he had completely original ideas, Im talking about his figure and legacy

>>8427602
>>8427596
Is this satire?
It's literally the simplest concept, if you can't survive you die. If you die, your genes die with you and cannot progress further.
So, the fittest survive and the weak perish.

>>8428590
Yeah you make the human brain evolving out of a non living pile of molecules or something as "simple" as a bacteria seem so easy! There's no flaw in this simple explanations explanatory power!

>>8427596
>>8428815
Reminds me of something I've discovered recently relating to evoltion... In order for it to be the case that it was in fact true that evoltuion did happen in the past, then it would be duly nesessary for one or two of several key pointers to be also true as well. However, this can be like trying to explain colors to a blind-man- you're just wasting your time sometimes. Anyway, back to the facts. The point of the matter which is under discussion is the fact that, in order for frogs to have evolved from fish, then it would be required that 1) the fish became able to breathe air 2) the fish became able to walk on land. In order for a fish to evlove into a FORG isn't it necessary that absolutely both 1 and 2 have to occur simultaneously? It is so improbable that both of those "beneficial" mutations would occur at one time that one might be willing to admit confidently that they are less than one in a million. Therefore, you also have to consider the fact that EVEN if both the 1 in a 10^6% chance of both 1 and 2 happening, how would the frogs even know what to do with the legs and the air? If you think about them, these aren't too beneficial in the first place anyways.

>>8427585
He is now very outdated.

File: 61946384.jpg (9KB, 148x87px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 148x87px

>>8427596
>Many biologists still believe in his theory of evolution even though there is ever-growing amount of evidence that debunks it

Bullshit.

SHIT THREAD
ABANDON

File: dna-structure-cz.jpg (942KB, 1867x1219px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 1867x1219px

>>8428815
Why do you bother lurking /sci/? is a greater question than this. If you're dismissive of evolutionary theory than i doubt you are a student, or even share an interest in STEM.

This was discussed in the Mendelian genetics section of a cellular and molecular biology paper I was taking this semester, the professor said basically it's bunk due to phylogeny a systematic nomenclature that bases significance of organisms evolution on the genetic similarities of 16s rRNA base pairing.


DNA is universal this is a pretty basic thing that's not really touched on that much on in high-school level stuff but the conceptual ideas of it are e.g the base pairs law T always pairs with A, C always pairs with G. This rule alone confirms genetic basis of evolution you don't even need to go into the deeper stuff like population genetics and speciation from this.

TL;DR
Prokaryotic - bacteria, Eukaryota and Archean evolution used to be a blurry thing that biologists didn't know how to rectify with evolutionary theory but phylogeny fixes this problem.

"Then everything changed when the phylogeny attacked."

Bare in mind Darwin knew nothing about bacteria, heck no one in those times knew shit about microorganism how the hell could you with the technology they were limited too. From what I know his focused leaned towards the evolution of populations, and largely speciation obviously as the "origin of species" title would suggest.

>and IK I took the bait but i'm bored lets see where this takes us.

>>8428911
Atrocious fucking grammar, I blame no one but androids spell correct plugin.

>>8428851
what are tadpoles

File: 1446521622086.png (48KB, 565x550px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 565x550px

>this thread
I leave /sci/ for a few years and come back and the first thing I see is this? christ, /b/ would probably have a more educated and legitimate discussion on this topic.

File: 1458175448860.jpg (133KB, 950x627px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 950x627px

>>8427585

he is a wannabe strato only not as historically important, but idiots only know darwin because he is literally the largest blip on retard radar

and people who admire darwin are some of the most spiritually bankrupt degenerate scum on earth.
darwin seems more in tune with that communist social agenda shit that came out of the frankfurt academy, than he is with any real science

>>8428815
I would like to add that Darwin's theory was about natural selection, it certainly made no claims about the origin of life from nonliving components.

File: amoebaproteus450.jpg (49KB, 450x305px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 450x305px

>>8429345
Whoa man, you need to clalm down there. This is a thread that's is exploring the limits of sciencific understandment. I mean, take a look at the theory of evoltion in any case. So its the idea that all speces can "so call-ed evoluve" from another organist... thats not a proveable idea. just consider this: if one specie can evolve into another, then we'd expect to find alot more speces every day... for example, why did chimps evolve into humans 4 million year ago, but they aren't evolting into humans today? if they really did evlove into humankind at that time, then why arent they exhibiting humanlike symptoms at this time as well? what stopped their evoltion as soon as humons are about?

the second point is this. pretty much every new mutation, like evolving eyes for example, requires many different components to evlluve at the same time, instantaineiously. think about when amiibos first invented eyes. first of all, the chances of the different components of the eyes all evolving in one amiiba at once is imporbable, but secondly. even if an eye evolved, THE AMIIBA WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. how would amiibos even know what to do with the eyes if they got them? it wouldn't vbenefit them at all because they didn't understand what they eye was for in the first place!

>>8427585

its really just applied physics so pretty useless

File: 8.jpg (20KB, 315x310px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 315x310px

>>8429350
>spiritually bankrupt

Very important.

/thread

>>8429928
>"Very imporant"<
maybe to certain branches that still deal with his theory.

>>8428815
Its a lot less ridiculous when you consider that nearly every person on earth goes from two cells to a fully grown human in a matter of about 20 years, and this happened over billions.

>implying mapping the genetic code of humans wasn't one of the single greatest achievements in the history of life on this planet

>>8429915
>chimps evolved into humans
You actually triggered me, fucking bait. Here is your (you)

>>8427585
Pretty much this >>8428579

>>8430045
well they didn't evoluve from amiibos.

>>8427585
>Evolution meme
Back to your containment board >>>/pol/

>>8429915
>clalm
>understandment
>evoltion
>speces
>evoluve
>organist
>specie
>alot
>evolting
>evlove
>humons
>instantaineiously
>amiibos
>amiiba
>imporbable

File: Gregor_Mendel_oval.jpg (654KB, 1152x1458px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1152x1458px

He's very important but it kind of puzzles me that while Darwin's theory was (deservedly) recognized as revolutionary by his peers, Mendel's equally groundbreaking discovery was met with indifference. Mendel even sent his paper to several prominent scientists, including Darwin, and nobody seemed to give a shit. Were they just brainlets? I don't know, but it's quite puzzling especially since Mendel's theory complements Darwin's theory so well.

>>8430196
Darwin's theory would be impossible if Mendel's theory were not true (if a bit inaccurate) as well since a particulate means of passing on traits was required and supposed by his theory.
To say that it compliments it is an understatement.

>>8430196
>Mendel even sent his paper to several prominent scientists, including Darwin
[citation needed]

Darwin was like the computers of the '80's vs those of today: he started the path, but the current ideas are much more refined, precise, and make his somewhat obsolete and incorrect to an extent.