>tfw you realise evolution is false lets face it, /sci/,

Let me rephrase your post

>i don't know how to put large numbers into perspective therefore everyone but me is wrong waah waah im a baby mom let me suck on your tits

There you go, no need to thank me.

>>8885299
very mature. But my point still stands, 65 million years in not enough time for algae to turn into a fish let alone a man

>>8885272
this bait is well crafted

>denying evolution
>argument via ignorance
>implying life began 65 million years ago

I like it. Saved.

>>8885331
No one is talking about religion here. If you don't have anything to add to the thread please don't comment.

>>8885272
So what's your proposed alternative?

Does it involve magic? :^)

File: article-2029844-0D9031A500000578-732_634x414.jpg (52KB, 634x414px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 634x414px

>>8885272
>>8885305
So... Did you somehow get it into your creationist head that ALL life was wiped out 65 million years ago during the KT event? Or is this just shit bait?

Pic related is a critter we share common ancestry with, about 160 million years ago.

Life's been doing the evolutionary boogie for about 4 billion years. There's been several large global extinction events, but it's never had to start over from scratch.

>>8885349
lmao do you actually believe man could evolve from rodent in just 160 million years?

>>8885272
Observe the domestic dog. This happened because we selectively bred dogs to increase likelihood of desired traits. We did this over a long period of time resulting in hundreds of breeds of small, docile wolf. Whether the selective pressures put on reproduction choices are imposed artificially by us, or environmentally by nature, evolution is always happening. Kindly castrate yourself before you accidentally create any more worthless trolls.

>>8885356
Not saying microevolution, with someone t the controls, is false.

>>8885361
So environments do not change in nature and place new selective pressures on a species that favor different traits?

>>8885272
Your right op, I grew up to be a evotard but your post convinced me otherwise

>>8885305
Ok.
Nice arguments you got there

>>8885356

Have we turned a dog into not a dog yet?

>>8885352
Of course, why not?

>>8885272
LUCA, that sums it up

>>8885532
>>8885532
We did create chihuahuas from wolves, so, arguably, yes. Those things are clearly more rat than dog.

>>8885272
>Currently writing a thesis on MCMC simulation
>Can random walk through an entire probability distribution in an arbitrary number of dimensions
>Simple selection criteria are all I need to push the random walk where I want it

So let's say the random variables are your DNA and the selection criteria are your environment.

Given that in 100000 iterations I can optimize a neural network, I think 65 million years of iteration with none of the restrictions I'm working with should be good enough.

>>8885272
I didn't make the kids stupid.

>>8885323
How would you organize your baits? Do you copy them each to their own text file for easy reposting? Or are you saving a bunch of screencaps in a folder? If it's screencaps, how do you format them? Do you resize the window to force the wordwrap into a more palatable form, or do you just take a snip of a long skinny sentence, with the time and date, the whole post basically. How do you name the files, and are they each in their own folder?

>>8885339
>So what's your proposed alternative?

Most genetic mutations is caused by solar radiation. There are many religions that view the sun as a god. Therefor, those religions are accurate when they say god created mankind as it was the sun's constant mutation of DNA which drove evolution of mankind.

>>8885658
You are fucking retarded

>it must be from solar radiation
>even though the radiation that hits our skin doesn't penetrate and its non-ionizing
>there are sun religions so that must mean they're right

>>8885305
>I don't think it is because I don't understand it therefore it couldn't have happened

>>8885272
Oh it's possible. But humans couldn't do it. As OP proves.

>>8885272
low bait
get your creationist/alien shit out of /sci/

>>8885669
Saying the sun helped mankind evolve is a stretch. But it's not a stretch to say it helped early life evolve.


One thing that bugs me tho is that chloroplasts are damaged by the sun as they use it to produce energy. They're in a constant state of being repaired or replaced. Would it be safe to assume that at one point in evolutionary history chloroplast were less efficient at converting sunlight to energy and repairing the damage caused by the sun? Would it be safe to assume that at one point photosynthesis was not a feasible option for life because of this? What changed to make it feasible? Was there a predecessor to the chloroplasts that wasn't damaged by the sun at all? Or were they already adapted to repairing solar damage before they made the jump to photosynthesis?

Wrong timescale,logic so defective it could have been made by Chinese near-slave labor. You must be from /pol/

Theres 3 conclusions in how we came to be

1)We evolved from monkeys
2)A highly advanced extra terrestrial race abandoned us here to watch us grow and monitor our evolution
3)A highly advanced extra terrestrial race gene spliced some monkeys which caused them to mutate into us
Bonus)God

We'll never know for sure so there's really zero point to ponder whether or not evolution exists. But judging how Dragon Ball Super is poorly drawn and animated compared to DBZ, i can firmly believe that the human race as a whole is currently de-evolving

>>8885272

4 billion years actually. You need to check your facts before speaking on a subject, you really do. What use is being full of shit mate?

>>8885733
>Would it be safe to assume that at one point in evolutionary history chloroplast were less efficient at converting sunlight to energy and repairing the damage caused by the sun?
Yes, certainly the last part. I guess it might also be possible that earlier forms were more efficient yet more fragile, but less efficient is much more likely.

>Would it be safe to assume that at one point photosynthesis was not a feasible option for life because of this?
It may have been feasible in single-cellular (or otherwise very small and short-lived) organisms, which could try the strategy of "hope you get enough useful gain out of photosynthesis before the mechanism breaks down, if not, you lost the lottery, sucks to be you". In long-lived multicellular organisms like plants, not so much.

>Or were they already adapted to repairing solar damage before they made the jump to photosynthesis?
This sounds like the likeliest explanation to my completely non-expert ear. A history that makes sense to me goes something like:
(1) there is some mechanism, probably but not necessarily involved with energy metabolism, that is vulnerable to damage by sun.
(2) the organism with that mechanism expands into more sunny environments.
(3) adaptations that protect the system from solar damage show up.
(4) expansion into even sunnier regions.
(5) with solar damage protection built into the system and a lot of sun around, the mechanism can change into using all that sunlight for useful purposes.
(6) eventually, this becomes full-fledged photosynthesis.

This is just a guess though, not based on any actual knowledge. It's a reasonable-sounding history compatible with the constraints known to me, no more.