>yfw you realized the theory of evolution can't

>>8728182
What made you realise that anon?

File: Mind_and_Cosmos_cover.jpg (12KB, 220x324px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x324px

>>8728186
I read Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel. He points out that the complexity of life cannot be explained by natural selection. I've long been troubled by the idea that the most complex biological machine can be the result of a completely random chaotic process where random genes in a DNA strand millions of sequences long can spontaneously change and create the perfect mutation needed for that species to adapt.

>>8728182
Oh please tell us, what grand insight have you have? Oh I hope it's creationism inspired, that's always fun.

>>8728186
Not OP, but here's something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
;)

>>8728191
Not creationist inspired at all. Just rational thought about how random changes in nucleotide sequences can give rise to more and more complex organisms, keeping in mind that natural selection itself is a random process. What happens when a species finally gets a mutation that gives it a competitive advantage in nature then the offspring with the mutation gets sick and dies? Or gets predated upon. It seems very counter intuitive that in an environment like this species can keep getting more and more complex.

>>8728190
>spontaneously change and create the perfect mutation needed for that species to adapt.
You seem to be confused. It doesn't do anything perfectly, it throws a bunch of random shit and whatever works is held onto. The intermediate steps for complicated things may be hard to imagine coming about with the "end goal" in mind, but when you look closely they really do work out.

Also, you are vastly underappreciating what millions of years of random mutations can accomplish.

>>8728182
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

>>8728199
If it gets a competitive advantage, then it and it's progeny are more likely to survive. Maybe the first time it comes up it won't succeed, but it can easily come up again. And if it doesn't, many paths end up not going anywhere.

>>8728190
>I read Mind and Cosmos by [not a biologist]
>it's an "I'm sure I understand this subject better than everyone else despite barely studying it at all" book

>>8728202
See the problem here is that it says that the clock with the beneficial mutation necessarily goes on to create numerous offspring. Nature itself is random. Having a minor adaptation that makes a species more fit than another is no guarantee the individual with that mutation will succeed. I think the problem with this is it presents evolution in a pristine theoretical state where the complexities of genetic mutations and the luck of getting that mutation onto the next generation are ignored. It's a simplified textbook version, but when you start looking at the steps in detail it falls apart.

>>8728217
>It's a simplified textbook version, but when you start looking at the steps in detail it falls apart.
Wow, you're right. Why didn't anyone ever look at evolution in detail before? At last I truly see.

>>8728192
Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and their genes altered in different ways over thousands of years due to natural selection
>chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both
Uh, actually they do; we both have hands which have four fingers and an opposable thumb, we are omnivorous and holozoic feeders, and we have body proportions similar to them. If you go even deeper and use the DNA separation technique of finding relatedness, we only have a few base differences

>>8728182
just leave

>>8728220
If you're implying they've plugged the gaps in the theory, they haven't, they just swept them under the carpet.

>>8728217
But anon, there's nothing saying an individual can't gain a beneficial potentially heritable mutation, and still not pass it down. Happens all the time. Evolution is just made up of the ones that do get passed down, so the focus is always on those. I don't quite get your argument, or why that means evolution is false.

>>8728220
>Why didn't anyone ever look at evolution in detail before?
It's easy to see why there are so many evolution deniers when people like this aren't eliminated by natural selection like they should be

>>8728231
It just makes no sense. Random processes can't create greater complexity. You can't shatter glass a billion times and end up with a beautiful statue. Chaos does not create order. You can't create the human mind no matter how many random mutations occur, because they're random, without order or purpose

>>8728238
That's why it's not random- if it were completely random, you'd be right. But the selection part of 'natural selection' is that there are pressures that make it non-random.

There's no 'purpose', but there is 'order'. That which reproduces ends up being the key to follow, by nature of it reproducing and lasting longer.

One commonly accepted theory as to the beginning of life are primordial lipid sacks that contained chemicals that could self-catalyze. Think about that for a moment- a chemical that, given the raw materials in contact with it, can build a copy of itself. That too, will then build a copy of itself, and so the chemical makeup of whatever body it's in will eventually become mostly made up of this self-replicating thing, simply by its nature.

Then what if there were a random mutation, like a phosphorous group added on to this chemical, that made it a lot easier to bind, require less energy, and more quickly create copies of itself given the raw materials? Then there would be a shift in the composition of the body, to be more heavily towards that one. Then what if it randomly gains a mutation that allows it to recycle one of the others some of the time by cleaving it and being able to catalyze the creation of a new molecule that could then work in tandem with others to catalyze the creation of itself?

There's no goal, no purpose, it only follows that there are pressures that allow it to have a higher concentration (and therefore, replicate itself more), that are entirely natural.

>>8728250
Hm. This makes more sense, thank you

>>8728238
Natural selection isn't random. The random process of mutation, when guided by the principle of natural selection can increase complexity.

You can literally observe this we have experiments on Drosophila or computer simulations or whatever else.

You're just too much of a brainlet to understand

Idiots like OP make me daily question why I bothered to become an evolutionary biologist.

>>8728217
Think of it like a random walk of a particle. It makes much more sense to thing of the entire genepool of the species rather than individuals. Over long enough timescales, if there is some evolutionary pressure and mutations are possible to follow that pressure then you'll have a random walk of the genepool over in that direction. A trend that overcomes the noise you're talking about

There seriously can't be this many retards on /sci/

You could just read the goddamn wikipedia article for evolution and have all of these dumb ass questions answered. Which for some reason you didn't get answered in school already.

>>8728190
You are not very sharp are you.

These stupid ass gotcha questions piss me off the most. Like we haven't thought of these basic shit questions before and haven't answered them a hundred years ago. No, you are just too lazy to read the damn biology 101 textbook.

>>8728257
>why I bothered to become an evolutionary biologist
Why did you bother? Useless field desu.

OP is an idiot tho, we can agree on that.

>>8728229
What gaps?

>>8728271
>Which for some reason you didn't get answered in school already.
You underestimate the uselessness of American public education.

>>8728190
>Thomas Nagel (philosopher)

Into the trash it goes.

File: Thomas_Nagel_teaching_Ethics.jpg (40KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 576x432px

>>8728325
I can't believe this is actually his Wikipedia article's cover photo.

>>8728309
Because I'm paid to research a topic that interests me greatly.

Question for evolution supporters: how do the intermediate step for new functions? Lets say evolving from fish to land creature, wouldnt you have thousands of years of inefficient limbs to walk with? Wouldnt you get eaten easily? I fail to see species in an intermediate status that work right now

>>8728190
>a completely random chaotic process
triggered

>>8728182
Then what is the alternative?

It is year 2017. You MUST, I repeat, MUST, I repeat, MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST, have an ANSWER for EVERY single question you can ask.

Science can't afford to say "we don't know" anymore. You must have answer for every question. You absolutely must be able to produce an answer in the fast moving world, or you will be, I repeat, WILL be, replaced by an organization/individual that produces that answer.

I repeat. If you say "We don't know what evolution truly is" literally zero, I repeat, ZERO PERCENT OF HUMANS GIVE A FUCK. If you say "Evolution is this and that. I am scientist. I am intelligent. I have studied this for decades." humans WILL listen to you, no matter what you say.

>>8728277
The book is really very good>>8728288

>>8728199

>"it seems very counter intuitive"
> hence it must be false

lol. gtfo.

File: Periophthalmus_modestus[1].jpg (741KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 1000x750px

>>8728355
>Wouldnt you get eaten easily?
By what, another fish with garbage legs?

>>8728355
Shallow water environments where an intermediate limb/paddle is a benefit.

>>8728363
This. Evolution is not a very good theory, it has tons of problems but it's the only real explanation. It's really just a stopgap til we find something better, until then scientists need to fight tooth and nail to defend it because it's the first line of defense against the theists

>>8728355
>wouldnt you have thousands of years of inefficient limbs to walk with?
Just needs to be efficient enough to get an advantage from visiting the land. Like eating land plants. And there are sea creatures with legs right now who live on the sea floor. So that is kind of a short sighted question.

>Wouldnt you get eaten easily?
By what? If you are the first animal to visit land then there are no natural enemies. One species of land animals could start an entire tree of land animal species.

Even if we talk about recurrent evolution, then the existent land animals would need to be carnivores (unlikely if there are no other land animals) to be dangerous to the newcomers. And then they would need to be so dangerous that the dangers of visiting land outweighs the benefits. Which obviously isn't necessarily the case, as seen in sea turtles who lay eggs on land because even with land animals eating some of the eggs, the strategy is still advantageous.

>>8728355
Don't ask questions like that. You just reveal to us, embarrasingly, how little you have made background research. There is countless of studies detailing intensively how those structures developed. SO far there hasn't been any organ or limb whose gradual development isn't supported. Please do not embarass yourself any further, it hurts to watch see a fellow /sci/ being such a disgusting brainlet.

>>8728383
There is literally no proof evolution is real

>>8728371
There won't be anything "better", that implies that the premise might somehow be wrong. There will be incremental advances in understanding it as the course of evolution is better understood and more deep complex mechanisms are discovered. That's how well founded and thoroughly tested theories work.

>>8728199
>"then the offspring with the mutation gets sick and dies? Or gets predated upon"
then the strain dies off...?
Evolution isn't one monumental change at a time,, species don't get created within a single generation ya dingus

>>8728387
You can literally observe evolution on the microbiological level in a lab right now if you feel like it.

So either rephrase your claim and throw in some 'marco evolution' bullshit or even other creationists would make fun of you for your ignorance.

>>8728389
>There won't be anything "better", that implies that the premise might somehow be wrong
But it is wrong, clearly. There are many, many faults with the theory and it has no predictive power at all. The only reason we scientists still cling to it is because we need something to keep the theists at bay. One day we will find the REAL reason for the diversity of life but it is certain that reason will not be evolution. The idea that people unquestioningly accept such a ridiculous theory is actually an in joke among biologists.

>>8728387
Don't be fool and think "proof" refers to something absolute and pure. We live in capitalism democracy. For us

proof = enough influential organisations and individuals formally agree on the arguments and results formulated by agreed authorities and modeled to fit our culture and norm system and advance our economy and society

SO yeah, proof of evolution stands because it is very beneficial to us and very close to truth.
Of course no one should mistake it for BEING the truth. Evolution obviously CANNOT be the correct answer in the future. The concept that life arose "randomly from a pool of water" is preposterously stupid. No. There is some underlying force that CAUSES life to form everywhere certain conditions are met. But until those conditions are met, evolution is what YOU WILL believe if you ever want to live in our society.

>>8728405
>The concept that life arose "randomly from a pool of water" is preposterously stupid.
Setting aside that it isn't, evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis in the first place.

>>8728405
ok

>>8728407
Synthesizing a few amino acids in the most perfect conditions we can create for that to happen makes you think that it's possible for entire biological proteins to be created? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?

>>8728407
Yes it does. Abiogenesis means "chemical evolution." The word evolution is right there. Just like when your oneitis Sarah marries Chad McThundercock and now you claim Sarah has nothing to do with Chad, expect that Sarah is now known as Sarah McThundercock.

When we pour gasoline on the floor of our house and set it on fire, the flames will spread and engulf our pitiful home, dreams, and whore wife and her underperforming kids. The smoke will suffocate the disgusting life out of her as I laugh outside.

Retard would say that the house spontaneously caught fire from the thermodynamical motion of a glass of water on the bedroom table (actually this is quantum mechanically possible; the probability for any momentum for water molecule is never zero). Anyone can see that the problem is "how the fire got started" and not "how it spreads around the house and tortures your filthy children".

Real scientist realizes that there was a cause for the fire. Something sparked it, in this case, the deranged husband.

>>8728190
and you're assuming human make up for example is completely dictated by DNA, you do realize that our adaptation to bacteria and viruses also contribute to biological evolution if not more than DNA.
i'll throw this in.
https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2012-06-04-infectious-disease-shaped-human-origins.aspx

>>8728411
Abiogenesis isn't part of the evolutionary theory. For all I care god, aliens or elves could have started it off, it's not relevant for the theory to be valid or invalid.

>Synthesizing a few amino acids in the most perfect conditions we can create for that to happen makes you think that it's possible for entire biological proteins to be created? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?

Again it is off-topic. But there are various theories (that have indeed holes) that can explain Abiogenesis to some degree. Watch the following videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1xnYFCZ9Yg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8

>>8728417
>Abiogenesis means "chemical evolution."
It means "creation from that which isn't alive." Tell me, is cosmic evolution part of this framework you're proposing?

>>8728417
We still aren't completely sure how gravity is created. Still most of our physics is based on our descriptions of gravity. You don't need to know how something started to observe and describe how it works. We used and understood electricity way before we could explain where it comes from.

>Abiogenesis means "chemical evolution."
No it doesn't. Chemical evolution is a possible explanation for abiogenesis. As are other theories.

>>8728430
Yeah so you disagree with on definitions. Worst kind of disagreement.

Cosmic evolution was 'sparked' by Big Bang.
When a pen falls to the floor, it was 'sparked' by force of gravity.
When pool of water self-arranges to life, it was 'sparked' by ????
When I cum inside your gf, the birth of your cuck-baby was 'sparked' by my sperm penetrating your gf's egg.

None of these reasons occur "because randomly". Every event happened because there was a reason. Maybe the way it will happen is not entirely deterministic, but the room for indeterminicy is never enough for these kind of cases to occur
>Broken shards assembling into a glass --> too random, will never occur without a catalyst (=some bitch who makes glasses)
>Pigments and fibers assembling into a Mona Lisa painting --> too random, will never occur without a catalyst (=Painter)
>Pen rising against a gravity --> too random, will never occur without a catalyst (=some fag rising the pen up)
>Pool of water assembling into a living molecule --> ??

>>8728437
>>8728425
Watch the videos mate

>>8728434
>We still aren't completely sure how gravity is created

We are actually. Energy is mass, and energy causes spacetime to curve. Some guy named Einstein figured it out. You should read more about him.

>>8728443
Nah. Reading is superior. Video is attention whoring.

>>8728444
Technically I think Maxwell figured out the former and just didn't want to believe it.

>>8728444
> Energy is mass, and energy causes spacetime to curve.
Why does it curve spacetime?

>Nah. Reading is superior. Video is attention whoring
You obviously haven't done the reading so I supposed a video would be easier for you.

>>8728355
>wouldnt you have thousands of years of inefficient limbs to walk with? Wouldnt you get eaten easily?
Think of the avian fauna of New Zealand. Because there weren't any mammals apart from bats, the birds evolved to fill the empty niches, like grazing or apex predation (Moas, Haast's eagles etc.). And they were shit at it. But it didn't matter, because the global competition had no way of getting to them - until humans figured out boats.

>>8728448
>Why
Sorry but we are discussing science, not philosophy. Scientists ask how, what, when, which, etc. The only why you will ever need are "human happiness" "human suffering" "human growth reproduction survival"
Asking "why" something IS is futile and just serves to disorient and get defeated. Just like banging your head against the wall you will never break.

>>8728448
Videos are made by """"scientists"""" who got the reject letter from the publisher :DDD
Just refer to established, most impactful and influential, science publishers for accurate, correct, superior data and conclusions.

>>8728454
Now who is nitpicking about language? This why in this context was obviously meant as a 'how' and a 'what causes X'.

>Videos are made by """"scientists"""" who got the reject letter from the publisher :DDD
I am not going to write a 2000 word paper about the various possible explanations for abiogenesis with footnotes and sources for you if that is what you want.

The videos have extended source sections in the video descriptions, just read those. I can quote them here if you are too lazy to click on two links.

>>8728464
There is no "various possible explanations"

There is enormous pile of rubbish,
then there is one functional theory

Rubbish never gets elected as theory just because the real theory is absent

>>8728437
>When pool of water self-arranges to life, it was 'sparked' by ????
chemistry
>Pool of water assembling into a living molecule --> ??
chemistry

>>8728182
>Muh Philosophy
>Anime girl

Kill yourself

>>8728478
>then there is one functional theory
And which theory is that for abiogensis?

>Rubbish never gets elected as theory just because the real theory is absent
Theories compete all the time about open scientific questions. In the end only one can be true, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't entertain more than one theory.

I didn't say any of the presented theories in the videos are necessarily the accurate answer for what happened, or that they represent the whole picture. Non of the abiogenesis theories are on the same level as evolution (yet). But they are not disproven and they have evidence to support themselves. You can call them hypotheses if that makes you more comfortable, though I would argue the presented ones are beyond that initial level of a completely untested working thesis.

>>8728479

>When pool of water self-arranges to life, it was 'sparked' by ????
>God
>Pool of water assembling into a living molecule --> ??
>God

Your answer in a nutshell.

>>8728490
Evolution by natural selection by Charles Darwin

>>8728491
Not really. It's a complex problem, so the answer is likewise general. But chemistry provides all the necessary tools to establish an explanatory model.

>>8728494
That theory does not concern itself with abiogenesis.

Also our current theory of evolution goes way beyond what Darwin has proposed. But I guess that is nitpicking on my part.

>>8728498
Yes it does

Inorganic molecules competed against each others on who could survive the most

Eventually an inorganic molecules formed that competed against each others on who could survive the most and grow the most

Even later those inorganic molecules formed that competed against each other that could grow, survive, and reproduce the most

Then 3,5 billion years later a molecule became so conscious that he had the ability to to call himself "organic, living" and other molecules "inorganic"

>>8728495
>Not really

>A: God made the World
>B: Can you describe that somehow?
>A: Not really. It's a complex problem, you see. But the bottom line is that God made the world. Now moving on. Next question?

>>8728517
The definition of evolution is: Change in the gene pool (!sic) of a population (!sic) from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Similar processes to those that explain evolution might be able to explain abiogenesis, but that doesn't make it same theory.

>>8728182
Sigh...
It is true.
Except humanity may actually have some peoples DNA that lived longer than other peoples DNA.

>>8728190
>He points out that the complexity of life cannot be explained by natural selection.
Why is every "argument" against the theory of evolution complexity, complexity, too much complexity, look at this complexity it cannot form this much complexity? Do they even understand the theory?

>>8728625
No they don't

In fact this thread has already progressed past "mutations can't cause this much complexity " to "chemistry couldn't have been the cause of life " without any admission that he's wrong

>>8728199
>species get mutation what gives it advantage
>it dies off
So much of advantage

>>8728199
The information from the environment is being fed slowly to the creatures genes which will help it adapt. If the environment is too harsh, which in our case it wasn't, then no; nothing will survive.
This is what we call evolution anon.

File: IDiot Bingo.png (72KB, 720x780px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x780px

>>8728192
>chimpanzees don't have features of both
yes they do
>and humans don't have features of both
yes they do

>According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left.
ACKSHUALLY birds are by definition dinosaurs. But the real issue is that you're conflating two separate things. The reason there are no longer any non-avian dinosaurs isn't because they all turned into birds. (In fact, only a small group of them turned into birds.) The reason they're all dead, as any schoolboy can tell you, is because a cosmic impactor smacked into Mexico ~65 Mya (putting severe stress on a biosphere already stressed by the eruption of the Deccan Traps).
You seem to have this view of evolution as solely anagenesis (one thing turning into another) because you think that speciation (one thing giving rise to multiple things) is impossible...why?

>>8728199
ah, argument from incredulity
>I can't understand it
>therefore it's false
>because I'm capable of understanding everything in this universe

>>8728217
>Having a minor adaptation that makes a species more fit than another is no guarantee the individual with that mutation will succeed.
yes, but it gives them slightly improved odds. over evolutionary timescales, even this slight edge can cause a beneficial trait to go to fixation. don't believe me? check out Biston betularia, the peppered moth. in less than a century, a previously unknown melanistic phenotype came to dominate the population due to a sudden change in environment.

>>8728238
>Random processes can't create greater complexity
if you really believe this, hang a paper clip in a glass, pour in a saturated borax solution, and wait a week. you'll be shocked by what happens next!

File: oops.png (169KB, 242x426px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 242x426px

>>8728335

>>8728518
Please kys

File: Dr.Banjo.png (294KB, 800x451px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 800x451px

>>8728182
>>yfw you realized the theory of evolution can't possibly be true

>>8728190
>He points out that the complexity of life cannot be explained by natural selection. I've long been troubled by the idea that the most complex biological machine can be the result of a completely random chaotic process where random genes in a DNA strand millions of sequences long can spontaneously change and create the perfect mutation needed for that species to adapt.

The underlying error here is, I think, assuming that evolution was driving towards a specific end product, using random mutations along the way.

If you started with the first single-cell thingy swimming around in the primordial sea, and calculated the odds that it would evolve into bipedal naked apes sitting in basements typing on 4chan, the odds would be astronomically long.

But the odds of SOMETHING(S) emerging were close to 100%. We happen to be something that emerged, it could have easily been something else. In fact, it was a huge number of other things as well, from okapis to dinoflagellates to pitcher plants.

File: This this this and this.jpg (62KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x849px

>>8728913

I feel so fucking happy that I'm not a brainlet. Thanks evolution.

>yfw you realize that or aliens is the only explanation for humans and people

>yfw modern theory of evolution is hot african sex and phallic asteroids

>>8728952
O_O

Hell even Gaia theory is better than that.

>>8728383
>tfw I read it all and wasn't embarrassed

Please argue with objective facts rather than your subjective pathos

File: tmp_24294-14859200351221897354763.png (220KB, 568x648px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 568x648px

>>8728417
>Chads
>getting married

File: 1486536872659.jpg (346KB, 1104x1104px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1104x1104px

>>8728182
Good post, fellow Anon.

>>8728383
im just asking questions on a topic i dont know much about little cunt, smd

>>8729084
>that N with a line added in MS Paint to make it an M
I think whoever made this was smiling.

>>8728182

They never end. Every day its another creationist in here with exactly the same story.

seems clear the anti-science propaganda is effective.

>>8729084
>>8729135
>that U with a line added in MS Paint to make it an O
I think whoever made this was high as balls.

>>8728757
"Where are all the missing links" especially rankles me, as if lungfish and amphibians and flying squirrels didn't exist.

>>8728757
>if you really believe this, hang a paper clip in a glass, pour in a saturated borax solution, and wait a week. you'll be shocked by what happens next!
This isn't an example of complexity. In animate objects are inanimate objects, it doesn't matter how fancy a rock looks it's just a rock, matter that clumped together for no purpose. You can't compare it to biological systems which interact with other biological systems to achieve a purpose

>>8728757
>hang a paper clip in a glass, pour in a saturated borax solution, and wait a week
This doesn't create mustard gas, does it?

I see no reason why Evolution is true and a whole lot of grasping for straws. Nagel is right, he's one of the most intelligent people on the planet so of course he sees the innate flaws in evolution.

File: goalposts.jpg (160KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x400px

>>8729930
>crystals aren't complex
they're highly ordered and have a lot more complexity than the solution they form from. you're doing pic related.
>biological systems
>purpose
o i am laffin

>>8730654
this one actually creates a pretty crystal
mustard gas is actually p. hard to make without a proper chem lab.

File: think.jpg (184KB, 1300x424px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1300x424px

really makes you think huh op?

>>8730756
>Artificially breeding species together in a way that results in the traits you want is the same as the human brain, most complex object in the universe, arising from an indirect process
Yeah it makes me think. It makes me think you're a retard

>>8730758
>i dont understand something so it must be complex

hurrrdurr

>>8730749
>mustard gas is actually p. hard to make without a proper chem lab.
Ah, there was a similar picture going around on /v/ about making crystal by dropping a penny in a bottle full of bleach and ammonia and keeping it sealed for like a week. I think people died.

Reminder that not even bacteria has ever been observed to cross a single taxonomically relevant threshold by anyone's standards.

>>8730758
>selective breeding results in noticeable differences if and only if a person directs it

bitch please

>>8730888
There is no 'selective breeding' in the natural world, things just fuck, they don't give a shit if their mate has a slightly curved beak that allows it to get at food more easily

>>8730891
>what is natural selection

>>8730893
A thing that doesn't exist

>>8730893

A construct of the human mind.

File: 1484360476384.jpg (1MB, 2480x2458px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2480x2458px

>>8728182
Yes, but because a theory can't be true, it can only be falsified, and as far as I know, evolution has not been falsified.

>>8730891
Ignoring that animals which are better at getting food would be more fit and therefor more attractive, you do know that sexual selection and courtship rituals play an enormous part in the lives of most chordates, right?

>>8730872
Go to fedora wiki and look up the Lenski Affair.

>>8730894
>>8730896
Natural selection is a concept that directly follows from the premises of heritability, mutability and fitness. None of these can be denied, having been observed countless times, so neither can natural selection.

And it's not even the only mechanism at play that explains variation. The theory of evolution stands on a thousand pillars.

>>8730903
>concept
>premise

Also known as constructs of the human mind.

>>8730909
Ah, we have a real philosopher here. Alas, this board is so far beneath your cutting wit and keen observation that it is in your best interests to seek intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

In other words, pls go.

>>8730909
The human mind is also a construct of the human mind so it evens out.

>>8730903
>The theory of evolution stands on a thousand pillars.
Doesn't mean much when each pillar is made of jelly

>>8730902

Has Richard Lenski claimed that any of the changes he observed in Escherichia coli are taxonomically relevant enough to qualify as the first ever empirical proof of Evolution?

Wikipedia says:

>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citrate as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.

If he has then people who can use peanuts as a source of protein and people who are allergic and die if they eat them should be classified as different species or whatever delimitation you prefer. If he has not claimed that then his experiment is irrelevant.

>>8730924
Allergies aren't a lack of a metabolic pathway.

Also, while postmodern sociologists will recoil at the notion, a distinction can be made between defective functions compared to the norm vs. novel functions compared to the norm, "the norm" being a species.

>>8730932
Are black people and white people the same species?

>>8730924

Regardless, someone should make a "Lenskian Taxonomy" parody blog.

>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of Carcharodon carcharias that was able to use Homo Sapiens as a food source in a coastal environment.
>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of Canis Lupus Familiaris that was able to use my homework as a fiber source in a domestic environment.

>>8730932

Their metabolic pathways get definitely blocked when they suffocate and die.

>>8730934
Are you deliberately trying to poison the well?

>>8730934
Lactose tolerance or intolerance comes from gut flora, no one's DNA codes for it.

>>8730943
Wrong.

>>8730939
Just asking questions

>>8730934
>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of Homo Sapiens that was able to use their bones as a buoyancy source in an aquatic environment.

High pasta potential.

>>8728309
The very fact that we STILL have people like OP who remain ignorant out of poor education or wilfulness validates the existence of the field. Furthermore, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the origins and evolution of life, one of them being abiogenesis (how did life spring out of inorganic stuff in the beginning anyway?).

>>8730953
>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of Homo Sapiens that was able to use colonial literature as a validation source in an ontological environment.

>>8730954
Sorry you got suckered into an imaginary field of science

>>8730950
You're right, I wonder where I got that from.

From Black Bible Page 85:
Before the beginning of time and manifestation[and then creation later] there was already The Gods, The Gods are those of us that are real Perceptions capable of real sight and sensation, we defaultly have appearances, traits, character, personality(factors of self), and become asserting our factors of self onto our vessels[Humans making bodies into perfect Humans for our usage] as upload into convergence[space].

http://docdro.id/aw0yE8x

>>8730957
There's lots of false trivia floating around.

>>8730961
Yeah, but I automatically discount everything I read here and on FaceBook without verifying it.
I probably got it from an Uncle John's Reader.

>>8730958
>tfw stemlords can be converted to gnostic idealism through meme fiction

>>8728192
Birds didn't evolve from dinosaus, birds ARE dinosaurs.

File: Cookie head.jpg (50KB, 580x724px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 580x724px

>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of Homo Sapiens that was able to use memes as a shitposting source in a Kyrgyz embroidering environment.

>>8730761
that would produce chlorine gas
which is v. bad for you but not as bad as mustard gas.

>>8730938
>I don't know what a metabolic pathway is: The Post

>>8730934
>>8730939
that's a /pol/ kind of question, of course he's trying to (((poison the well)))

Can singles evolve into doubles?

>>8730894
>No, there are absolutely no variables in nature that can EVER effect the odds of survivability of an individual, that is a lie! Animals just fuck! Can't imagine why there are subspecies though? Fuckin' mysterious if you ask me!

You're making this easy.

>>8728238
>Random processes can't create greater complexity
you can't get five 6 with five dices!

>>8728395
Care to point them out if they're so obvious?

>>8730891
You just outed yourself there. This thread pretty good bait until this post though

Anabolic reactions in biological systems locally reduce entropy but still follow the second law of thermodynamics on a larger scale.

>>8732899
That analogy is not even close

File: Ḿ҉̧̛̗͇̟̠̖̰̯̪̟E̗̫̳͉͕̜̺̻̳̞̟̳̞͈͠ ̷̵̤̺̰̕V̸҉̣͇̤̰̤͝͡I͈̙̠̱̲̮̗̪͇͎̻̰̮̦̬̟̕O̳̮͓̞̻̗̥̼͕̺̬͢͞L̨̛͉̥̠̤̬̯̙̲À̤͈̹̣̮͉̣͘͝T̷̞̮̯̙̞͜Ę̮͙͉̱̤̪̦̥̲͙̲́̀̕ ̶̨̝͕̜́͢.png (567KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 500x500px

>>8728768

>>8732864
>>8733022

What are some of these variables? If, say, X is your bottom line of "fitness", the synthesis of all "desirable" or "adaptive" traits, and you study a herd of buffalo and they all fall somewhere from, say, 1 to 100 on the spectrum of X; how long would it take to see the "bottom" 1% of buffalo disappearing due to being "bred out"?

I've noticed this new generation of super - (special snowflake) contrarians lately. They don't buy into evolution. They believe the earth is flat. They deny climate change. They believe that vaccines cause autism.

>>8733385
Question everything is a basic tenet of science. Just because a lot of people think something is right doesn't mean you can't continue to question it, history is littered with ideas people thought were correct and the one person who disagreed being vindicated many years later. Why do you believe certain things? Because other people said so? People with authority? Never take someone at their word, start from scratch and make your own conclusions because humans are sheep and will naturally flock together to avoid looking stupid by questioning things everyone "knows".

>>8733424
>Question everything is a basic tenet of science
There's a difference between "I've come up with a testable hypothesis concerning evolution" and "evolution cannot be true because [sophistry]."

>>8733441
You don't need an alternative to say that a theory is bullshit.

>>8733441
The difference boils down to "I haven't designed any experiments yet"

>>8728190
That's because the random combinations that don't work tend to die

>>8728190
Intermeidate mutations don't have to serve the same purpose as the "end result".

Imagine a moustetrap, a complicated piece of equipment that if missing one part wouldn't work. But it can serve other purposes besides mouse catching (although probably poorly) with a few missing parts, such as a comical tie clip or a door stopper.

In the same way, complex adaptations could have been reached in organisms through intermediate forms which served entirely different purposes.

>>8733317

Wew, ousted myself so hard there!

File: thaty fucking death thing from the draw thread.jpg (105KB, 565x600px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 565x600px

>>8730654
>This doesn't create mustard gas, does it?

Everything creates mustard gas. Your only chance at survival is to do nothing, ever.

>>8730756
Amusingly, your "common ancestor" example is also a fine example of intelligent design.

>>8730891
>There is no 'selective breeding' in the natural world,

Much of the selection occurs before the breeding happens -- if you die before breeding, you are selected out.

But sexual selection happens -- that's why, eg, you are forever alone.

>>8730935
>Canis Lupus Familiaris

Mind your capitalization.

File: troodon_formosus.gif (169KB, 339x761px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 339x761px

>>8731016
Intentionally quoting there, or just a happy coincidence?

>>8733385
They are visitors from one of our sister boards. Feeding them makes them stay around longer.

>>8734036
E X A P T A T I O N

>>8733444
You kinda do.

>>8734104
If from my theory follows that x is true and you empiricly prove that x is not true, the theory was wrong to begin with

>>8734111
And yet, if it is the most accurate model explaining a phenomenon, it will likely continue to be used as the primary model for that phenomenon until a more accurate replacement is produced.

File: 1458184859547.jpg (67KB, 500x314px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x314px

Mfw I switched from engineering to mathematics major because engineers are brainless LMAOOOOO

>>8728190
Every cell in your body has a few random mutations unique to that cell only. Most of these do nothing. But there's nothing random about the success of the mutations.

Why does /sci/ always get these unscientific people? I always come here to learn but often leave feeling dumber!

>>8733444
Yes, you do.

>>8733444
Do you do science?

>>8728182
>tfw you are so old that you've witnessed evolution in animals through many papers

File: Nothing But Trash.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>8728190
>it is too complex for my tiny mind to comprehend
>therefore it must be god

File: Robert Downey Jr Buys New Car.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>8734132
>I always come here to learn but often leave feeling dumber!

Don't open stupid troll threads.

>>8734206
This looks like a how it's made for trash

File: st.png (17KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1024x1024px

>>8728238
>Random processes can't create greater complexity.
yes it can, you can create pic related by a random process

Christcucks check mate'd by gnostics once again.

not op but the precambrain explosion that occurred seems very odd that complex life happened so fast and proliferated that quickly makes me feel as tho our dating is innaccurate at the very least

>>8729930
Biology doesn't have a purpose though. Literally nothing in this universe has a reason or purpose for happening. People, usually highschoolers, walk out of science class thinking natural selection is this thing that chooses the best genes and traits with an "end goal" in mind or to "make the species better". This isn't the case, evolution isn't some active force that's trying to better a species, it's a word we came up with to call a very meaningless and abstract series of events that seem to happen naturally. Basically, if a cell somehow mutates to grow an extra mouth, and it gets to eat more than another cell, and it survives, so be it, now theres a bunch of cells with extra mouths because all the ones with one mouth died off. But not all mutations are useful or even beneficial. Take our appendix for example. We literally haven't found any use for it, and from time to time it will explode and we need to fix it. It's not a useful mutation, but since humans survived with it and it didn't kill us off we still have it. Evolution isn't trying to go towards an end goal of quality, just looking at the mess of problems and seemingly useless functions (like sneezing when exposed to bright light) humans have evolved with just goes to show that there is no carefully crafted work that goes into evolving a species.

>>8728238
You're thinking on a really tiny scale here.
You also give the example "you can't shatter glass a billion times and end up with a statue"
Doing That an infinite amount of times can result in something but that's a different story.
The point is, evolution isn't like "breaking glass a billion times" in hopes to create a statue. Evolution is based off of mutations. You have one thing, and something can change about it. If that mutation either
>helps it stay alive better
>doesn't do anything positive or negative but the species survives with that mutation
Or
>it's a mutation that doesn't necessarily beneficial to its survival but the species lives on despite having it
Then you have a new species. It's a very small change but trillions of small changes to billions of different organisms at a time is sure to create something. It's not so much as breaking a bunch of glass rather than it is breaking the glass in different, small ways over an incomprehensible amount of time.

>>8728217
I mean, there's probably been multiple beneficial mutations that have happened to the human species as it went along but they weren't passed down. You're still thinking of evolution as this thing that "only passes down the best traits" when that's not actually what evolution is. Evolution is literally just a species surviving with a trait long enough that it gets passed down to future generations. The only reason positive traits are mentioned is because it's an easy example of survival of a species.
"If A species can hunt better than B species then A species will live on"
It's an easy example, but it's super simplified. It is possible for A species to die and leave the worse B species to live on and pass on its slower traits. Remember, there is no end goal or preference for traits, beneficial or not.

>>8736354
wasn't it proven mathematicly some time ago that it's absolutely possible?

File: 26a[1].jpg (81KB, 771x681px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 771x681px

>>8736354
part of the Cambrian Explosion seems to be a preservational bias. Most of the groups that appeared then probably emerged a little more gradually but just weren't preserved (as they were, at first, entirely soft-bodied)

>>8736422
>Take our appendix for example. We literally haven't found any use for it
there's a decent body of evidence that it harbors gut flora, helping to repopulate the intestines if something happens to the normal gut microbiome.
>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/your-appendix-could-save-your-life/
your larger point is correct, though.

>>8734104
You do not.

>>8728182
Sage

>>8737388
Does nothing on slow boards.

>>8728182
Fuck evolution, hope you burn in hell fuckers.

>>8736607
>Opabimia

I still have some Opabimia porn from an old Rule34 Challenge thread.

>NO EXCEPTIONS

>>8728190
1. you don't understand evolution
2. nothing is "completely random chaotic process", saying "random" is just a placeholder to explaining the complicated way something arises. Nothing is "random", even if we don't understand it, it is not random.
3. retarded ideological book, not rational or scientific
4. natural selection as you perceive it doesn't exist, the idea has been continuously publicly simplified just as it has gotten more complex with more study
5. "perfect mutation needed for that species to adapt" this is simply false, again you don't understand evolution

File: screen-shot-2012-06-21-at-19-05-10[1].png (256KB, 600x336px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 600x336px

>>8737956
lobopods = best pods

>>8737963
Mutations in DNA are entirely random doofus. There is no guiding hand deciding which nucleotides get mismatched.

File: close.jpg (17KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x320px

>>8728182
>yfw you realized OP is a fag and won't be able to pass on his genes

File: 1439265556404.jpg (23KB, 369x368px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 369x368px

>>8728419
>How Infectious Disease May Have Shaped Human Origins
>May
>Have

>>8740158

Yes, but natural selection dictates which mutations are passed on to the population.

Remember kids, evolution is the non-random selection of a random process.

File: 1434374427505.jpg (134KB, 850x567px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 850x567px

>tfw got cornered by creationist because i actually dont know anything about evolution

actually thats a life it didnt happened, but it can very well be the case some day.
i also would want to know more about the matter, just dont dont know where to start.

could you guys tell me where to fucking begin?

>>8740734

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

>>8740643
>Remember kids, evolution is the non-random selection of a random process.
Tfw you think the universe is non-determinist and non-random things exist

>>8740734
That's a cute pupper you've got there.

>>8740743

What feel is that, again?

Evolution is observable in the fossil record.

>>8740643
>Creature hits the jackpot and develops a highly beneficial mutation
>It gets predated before it can breed and the adaptation never gets passed on
"Non-random", riiiiiiight

>>8728325
>Philosopher
Don't make me laugh.

>>8728182
>>8728190
To get intuition about complexity arising from evolution search for results of genetic algorithms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_8tNGKm87U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS18h-_h6IM

Then realize that these things took months to evolve while creatures on earth had like millions of years. It's not proof but it shows that it is not something unrealistic.

>>8742639
that's amazing, I especially like the choice of background music in the second video

>>8734115

have fun spending your neetbucks desu xPP

>>8728896

i refuse to believe anyone is that retarded, but somehow smart enough to browse the internet

its bait desu

File: 1487984437167.jpg (114KB, 384x512px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 384x512px

>>8728190
>I've long been troubled by the idea

You've been long troubled by not comprehending how evolution actually works, as opposed to this HURR DURR RANDOM CHAOTIC nonsense, and now you're compounding it by subscribing to an author in exactly the same predicament.

Read a real book on the theory, or just stick with bible studies and stop wasting space here.

>>8741488
if it was predated then the mutation wasn't that useful you stupid fucking idiot

File: 1483602595711.jpg (25KB, 327x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 327x324px

>>8742639

Along the same lines, but this time, the shape of the creature was assigned beforehand, and the system evolves "muscles" and walking techniques to perfect its gait.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgaEE27nsQw

>unintentionally hilarious
>mfw he starts throwing boxes at them for lulz
>mfw "fat guy" creature gets hammered by a box at 3:24

>>8730956
>No source.

>>8743065
Explain to me how a slightly more curved beak that allows a bird to reach grubs more easily stops it from being predated you fucking moron.

>>8743322
More calories to run the fuck away.
This is a process which happens over a large population over thousands or millions of years.

>>8743322
selection isn't just predation

if a species of bird has an easier time eating then it will out-compete the other species for resources.

>>8743355
Not if the individual which has the beneficial mutation dies before it can pass on it's genes. Again, natural selection is another random process. There is no guarantee that beneficial genes get passed on, a creature with a detrimental adaptation can hit the jackpot and luck out and pass on it's genes, a creature with a beneficial mutation can die before it can pass them on. It's a complete fallacy to say that there is any actual 'selection' going on, again, it's random.

>>8743364
It is much less random than the the genetic mutations themselves.

>>8736422
I don't agree. Evolution is a process that achieves perfection.

Also, the appendix does have a purpose as per new research.

>>8744515
t. Revised Texas "alternative" American science textbooks.

>>8737963

t. determinist cuck

>>8728182
Random process that picks what ever works at the current time. Given over the course of several million years, plus assuming that the earth background radiation gets higher the further you go into the past which could cause more mutations. Its makes sense that natural selection is the cause of biological diversity.

>>8728190
Go back to some philosophy or pseudo science place where that idiot will be tolerated.

>>8728190
>the complexity of life cannot be explained by natural selection
>Life
>Complex
The human genome can hold on a 1.6GB disk.