evol-ution

>>8537798
Charles Darwins argues that "if evolution were improbable then it would fall to it's knees."

But the problem is that the history of evolution is riddled with improbabilties, or coincidences of chance.

We see complex novel orders arising one time, then never again even given a similar time-frame in similar gene pools.

We see it takes mitochondria and chloroplasts 1.4 billion years to evolve. We can use this is a measure of how long it takes for complex structures to arise.

Then it takes a mere 20 million years or less for neurons and the immune system to develop simultaneously, which are much more complex.
The nervous system never again evolves in placoans or sponges.

Then there is the mystery of limb regeneration, a very complicated genetic network which suddenly arises once and never again.

Then most telling there is the rapid evolution of the intelligence of man, which is unprecedented. A venerable miracle of evolution.

I believe God both used evolution as a method for producing his intended designs, and also had to intervene when evolution is an inefficient process. It might take 20 billion years for evolution to produce a nervous system from eukaryotic cells.

>>8537814
Oops I meant Richard Dawkins not Charles Darwin. I'm tired.

>ITT
>ignorance
>arrogance
>hopelessness
Bye

>>8537822
argument from authority most likely.

File: 1475966855454.gif (2MB, 400x232px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x232px

>>8537798
>I am here to argue viciously against evolution

Then why are you blathering about abiogenesis, you stupid moron? Separate issue.

>>8537798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&list=FLaFyod23gYiopg0E3tgCbEQ&index=10


once you watch this you will not be so stupid on the subject.

>>8537854
Abiogenesis is still a topic of debate.
There isn't a consensus as to how it started.
Either RNA-First or Metabolism-First and they both have their flaws. There is also the problem of chirality.

BTW in the video he says it only takes one strand to begin life. Although more realistic scientists are looking at a process that would create billions of RNA.

/pol/ threads belong on /pol/

please do not post them on /sci/

File: 67e96bb3500309081ea31dfb44776362.jpg (75KB, 638x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 638x800px

>>8537863
>Abiogenesis is still a topic of debate.There isn't a consensus as to how it started.Either RNA-First or Metabolism-First and they both have their flaws. There is also the problem of chirality.BTW in the video he says it only takes one strand to begin life. Although more realistic scientists are looking at a process that would create billions of RNA.

so...what you're trying to tell me is that you're retarded.

Seriously though it really doesn't matter what you believe because you will never contribute anything to the field anyways.

That's my new go to response to this kind of science denialism... Just pointing out that it really doesn't matter what the idiots think because they aren't important and they benefit from the advances in science even while they deny them.

So be as dumb as you like because its a big spherical world and there is room for all kinds of stupid.

>>8537873
>there is room for all kinds of stupid
I have increasing doubts about this myself, anon. The status quo is getting shaken to bits and I don't think it'll reassert itself before we have another global war.

>>8537873
Eh?
I'm just reporting the facts about the scientific community. Don't be so butthurt about it.

Check out http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/ if you want to read all about abiogenesis theory. This particular guy believes in metabolism first but they have yet to release a plausible model.

File: pm_Meme_29.jpg (67KB, 678x562px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 678x562px

>>8537894
>the facts about the scientific community
>implying you're qualified to do that.

>>8537898
It's not difficult to keep up to date with research papers and commentary.

>>8537923
>It's not difficult to keep up to date with research papers and commentary.
>>8537873

we can go round and round all day but there is really no point. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you think.

>>8537928
If you are the anon that posted the video then apparently I am more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

RNA-first world first needs a method for producing nucleotides. The strongest hypothesis for this is that organic chemicals in a water pond are heated, evaporated and condensed. The problem is that all these steps have only taken place as exacted experimental steps and have yet to be reproduced outside of such an artificial setting. Even after al that they were only able to produce two nucleotides. Secondly, it needs a catalyst which is hypothesized to be a rare clay which we have no reason to believe existed on an early earth.

The metabolism first hypothesis has similar issues. Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface?

>>8537798
Is this satire?

>>8537944
why are you bitching about abiogenesis

literally no one cares about abiogenesis

here's what happened with biogenesis: God did it. And then evolution happened. Fight me.

Or go back to /pol/ where you belong.

File: 1452542007689.jpg (93KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x720px

>>8537798
>if evolution were true, the entire food industry would collapse under the weight of contamination of new life

W-was that the argument you were talking about?

>>8537798
I can't remember where I originally heard this but it's pretty old.

Good job triggering people OP.

>>8538038
if this was satire, then why are bananas so perfectly made to fit human hands?

>>8537798
>nothing happened
wat

>>8537798
>my duty to spread knowledge and information
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Thank me later

>>8537814
>>8537814
>God uses evolution
Yeah because an all good god would discriminate individuals based on their appearance.
Also, evolution is still going on, do you want your love life to be tempered with, because the next generation has to be "in Gods intended design"? This would take away the free will of every individual up to this point and beyond

>>8537798
>nothing happened then we're here
Evolution is far from nothing happening. Natural selection, speciation, and genetic mutations are the reasons for us being here in a general sense.

>something doesn't come from nothing
Not even what Evolution claims, the origins of life is covered by Abiogenisis.

>>8537814
Phenomenon not repeating itself is irrelevant. Why organisms that spore lack a central nervous system could be covered by if it is even possible for them.

>>8537864
So you're the faggots that keep sending creationist to /pol/. Fuck off we have enough problems

>>8538379
Creationism isn't science either, just look at Carl Baugh

>>8538093
In case THIS isn't satire, the answer is hundreds to thousands of years of selective breeding turning the small, round green protobanana into the long yellow banana of today - the goal presumably being edibility, with the change in appearance just a side effect.

>>8538515
>hundreds to thousands of years of selective breeding
Make that 10,000 years.

>>8538379
1. Go back to /pol/
2. Stop sending us your climate denialists
3. I don't see what's wrong with sending brainwashed evangelicals to hang out with their peers and allies. They certainly don't belong here.

>>8537798
abiogenesis =/= evolution
/thread

>>8537829
>hurr durr argument from authority
>independently research and discover all of science's works before you are allowed to argue
kys

>>8537798
Do you have ammonia gas in a jar of spaghetti? Do you have lighting bolts of any source of energy to catalyse the reaction of aminoacid formation? How the hell did your grandfather expected cells or life to come from pasta like it happend in Earths atmosphere? Your grandfather was shitting through his mouth, its ok, thats what old ppl do, but theres no excuse for you, annon. 5 min google research and you can find the differences between pasta and the old atmosphere.
1st -read
Then- open your mouth

>>8537798
Why do you post this nonsense? Why did you start yet another evolution THEORY thread?

Why can't you do a simple google search on the topic instead of starting a thread on this board? Why do you fish for insults?

You fucking moron, everyone knows that the glorius flying spagethii monster created everything from dough. If the fsm did not exist than why is dna shaped like a pasta

arguing against evolution as a religious person is so telling. i have literally never heard of anyone non religious who doesn't believe in evolution. their faith doesn't skew their thought that way.

OP, if you don't believe it then you probably either don't understand it or are attempting to poke holes in it.

think of it like this (and the big bang theory to boot): you walk past the kitchen door in your house. you can smell chicken. you can hear some clattering around in there. you see your mum's coat and bag hung up on the clothes peg. you can reasonably assert a theory that your mum came home without you noticing and is now cooking chicken in the kitcheb. its glaringly obvious, yet you have no proof. evolution is a better scenario than even that, because there's literal tons of proof, but the big bang issue is similar; we don't actually know it, but its a theory which makes as much sense as the chicken thing.

>>8538521
>implying the earth is that old

File: demiurge.jpg (125KB, 418x627px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 418x627px

There are plenty of non-Darwinian models of Evolution that otherwise fit into Materialist parameters and Darwinists become hysterical whenever you mention them. Interestingly, the more empowering the model is for Humanity in general and for collective considerations in particular, the more hysterical they become.

>>8537798
>spread knowledge and information to the pridefully ignorant

But YOU'RE the ignoramus who is so completely arrogant as to presuppose that you have anything of interest to share. Please, for the love of the Baby Jesus, kys.

>>8538996
>empowering

Oh man are we going to talk about sacred geometry and the power of crystals now? That shit's super empowering.

>>8538996
I think Rupert Sheldrake has some good ideas, although the majority of his hypothesizes are antiquated.

>>8539016

Empowering as in opening the door to ending the state of affairs where most people relate to one through competition alone, where our lives can be more than a pointless treadmill of object acquisition, where rights are positive liberties instead of negative ones, where no one would have to tolerate abomination.

>>8539034
>God made you special so therefore you don't need to compete with anyone
I'm not seeing it

>>8537814
You should understand that the original sensory systems were extremely primitive, and it took far far longer for them to develop to what they are in modern mammals

>>8539034
This is either philosophy or politics. Either way, get off of /sci/.

>>8539068
Hey thrrr friend
Mismos
I'm a good cod>>8539068
>>8539064
>>8539056

>>8539056
>I'm not seeing it

I know.

>>8539134
do you care to elaborate?
because I don't even see the connection between evolution and the
>pointless treadmill of object acquisition
or any of the rest of the shit from your post

>>8538677
I thought we were told that catastrophic climate change was coming in ten years, ten years ago.
I'm not saying the climate is static or that human activities don't affect the climate but come on man! Climate scaremongering is a political triangle horse answer climate scientists are too politically naive to see theyou are being manipulated.

>>8539853
yeah, it was true
now it's basically too late and our species is fucked

Atoms form molecules, molecules form bigger molecules, eventually they randomly formed what we now call "organic" molecules. These things bumped into each other for millions of years until larger structures formed. Most of these were completely useless, but a tiny fraction of them did something. Examples: a primitive membrane, something that reacts to light, something that emits light, something that uses energy to move.

Here's the thing. You don't have to get hung up on "life" here. These are just "things" or "structures" made up of complex molecules. The useless ones end up as debris at the bottom of a mud pit. The useful ones combine randomly until you get something that can move around and do basic things that kind of look like "life."

You can argue that the odds are staggeringly against this happening, but you have to consider that this process has been happening for billions of years on something like 1000000000000000000000000 planets, all with different chemical compositions, temperatures, gravities, and so on. It was bound to happen on at least one of them.

>>8538502
>>8538677
creationism isn't politics, you guys are a science board. Creationism is at least pseudo-science, so it's better here than /pol/.

>>8537798
You had me until spaghetti.

>>8538379

Then stop making up problems where in reality there are none. You'll be much happier.

>>8538933
>implying the Earth isn't

>>8540182

Pseudoscience belongs on >>>/x/

Sage this retarded shit.

>>8538677
/pol/ BTFO how will they ever recover???

>>8537798
>We evolved from monkeys
>Monkeys still exist
libcucks can never explain this. Whenever you bring this up its always "You don't understand evolution". Just point out a flaw in their "science" and it all comes crumbling down. Supposedly uranium lead dating exists but why haven't there been any rocks older than 6k years that have been identified? And yet the earth is 6 billion years old? Another theory that falls when logic is applied

>>8542047
>You don't understand evolution

>>8542047
Low quality troll post

Kys

Well, what you're saying is true to some extent.
But we weren't just here as homo sapiens, we had to evolve from different species of hominids breeding together (preferably with traits that are better suited for survival.)

Don't forget that the world is constantly changing, even now the continent formation isn't permanent. Sometimes the world cools, sometimes it heats up, some times it dries and other times it gets turned into a lush rain forest.

Each and every region of the world is different, with differing biomes and food.

We would have to be able to adapt to a changing world.

Onto what your other point was. The earth had the right conditions at the time for life to start out as multi-cellular organisms at the bottom of the sea.

The chemical components were just right for chemical structures like RNA to form to start the very backbone of life itself.

>>8540016
Organic molecules follow the laws of chemistry. Certain molecules only form under certain conditions.

Also, the assumption is that there is a process that can create many strands of RNA... as just one probably wouldn't self-replicate. Unless you just want to believe in more luck.

>>8537798
God created everything around 10,000 years ago, geographically weathered mountains and streams, radioisotope ratios, dinosaur bones all the false history evidently present behind todays world,

You cannot refute evolution, geography, radioisotope dating, planet formation, universe expansion, it just exists, it is there, you have to put a barrier between faith and the physical world, I know God exists because I feel his presence and guidance, (could be explained by evolution of the ability of tribe expansion through a commonly held fictional alpha male) the physical world and the solid study of it is in most cases irrefutable, you cannot fault it and it makes sense,

People like you denying truth are the reason there is a divide between science and religion, you can dig the earth for its riches but you will never find wisdom, fear of God is the only true wisdom

>>8539853
Yeah, and catastrophic climate change is here, now. There are already unprecedented droughts, glacial reduction, arctic sea ice reduction, coral reef bleaching... it's begun.

>>8542311
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

>While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Stan Palasek suggested based on a theoretical model that self-assembly of ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents.[105] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[106] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules

>The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the Universe may be common rather than rare.

>[They] demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms

Just three quotes, from a very well referenced article, showing that we -the living- are not special. At all.
You are not God's work. Deal with it.

>>8537798
>if evolution were true, the entire food industry would collapse under the weight of contamination of new life

>>8537798
giraffe: your a big azdarchid
hatzegopteryx: for you