>mfw I have read so many pseudoscientific articles that I

>>8540167
You're just a living proof of what happens if someone becomes an ignorant

Be proud

File: richardsonvhaeckel.img_assist_custom.jpg (18KB, 360x215px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 360x215px

>>8540192
>be proud
Of what, that I'm a curious individual turned clueless idiot just bumbling around the internet?

>>8540167
didn't read all of it
what I saw amounted to
>they say the shell evolved for protection, but it also could be [something else]
and to that I say
>yeah, maybe

>>8540210
Well if you want to feel better about yourself then just pretend it's just an hypothesis instead of truly believing ithem

File: 7914201.jpg (59KB, 318x471px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 318x471px

>>8540224
That's the problem. I want to reject them as much as possible, but they pop up everywhere. There's too much bullshit to wade through to understand where the claims they make come from.

It's okay op. I feel the same way when reading these meme articles about evolution. As long as you realize you're not an expert and neither are they it's all good. It's equivalent to a drunken bar conversation between two people calling world leaders stupid. You don't know what you don't know.

>>8540239

Then consider the source. Christians are all liars, this is simple to verify. If a christian told me the sky was blue, I'd seriously consider than maybe it's actually green.

>>8540167
Soft shells could have "devolved" from hard shells to allow easier movement for species that are bottom feeders. Apparently they can move faster on land than hardshelled species.

That said, sometimes there isn't a clear reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis

Remember not all traits are beneficial, the vast majority that persist are neutral.

Why is it wrong?

>>8540239

Why can't you say the same about academic journals and conferences? I'm sure you don't spend your days trying to wade through their sources to find a reason to doubt them.

Or do you mean to say that a person needs only to claim "allegiance to science" in order for you to take the person at their word? If so, that's not very different from a Christian whose only requirement be that an opinion come from a Christian.

File: NSC_020411_301.jpg (1MB, 1500x1973px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1973px

>>8540263
I have certain limits. One of those is PopSci, another is "AltSci"

>>8540239
It's not that hard to find the evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Is pretty fantastic evidence. They induced E coli to evolve a whole mechanism that was previously not present. Depending on your definition of species, this is a new species, and therefore macroevolution.

They've currently isolated the cit+ variants to see if they can induce complete speciation.

It's been going on for 28 years.

>>8540244
>*tips fedora*

>>8540167
If you were convinced by this article, just give up, you're a brainlet anyway

>>8540239
There's only one thing you can do.

STOP the stream of information garbage that Google/facebook/4chan/whatever is trying to force down your throat.

Select some good, useful information channels and stick to them.

>>8540167
turtle shells are a necessity because turtles don't have spines and they need something to hold their body together

>>8541083
the spine they had evolved into a shell you BRAINLET

>>8540167
Here's a start:
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3107