i don't even believe in god but so much of evolution seems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s

mutations happen all the time and have been observed, what's the problem? sometimes they are bad, sometimes good, sometimes you can't even notice

>>8975033
The benefit doesnt have to be enormous when the timescale is.

>>8975033
>"epigenetic changes that manifest in certain environments are not passed down at all" parts
I don't get this either. Obviously certain epigenetic changes will make an organism more fit to reproduce so why wouldn't it be passed down in some way?

>>8975035
This guy is?

I love how he dismissed the idea of doing his excellent quantitative calculations with genes and instead uses a list of changes he made up himself.

Really made me laugh.

I wonder what he thinks is happening if he doesn't believe God is the answer.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mathematics-of-evolution-q-a-with-biologist-marcus-feldman/

>>8975077
Epigenetic markers are far less stable than DNA, and are designed for adaptation to temporary (on an evolutionary timescale) conditions.

I work as a post-doc researcher at Duke. Ill be here answering questions if you have any others.

>>8975084

>The first paper we wrote on that was really about genetics. The idea was to use the standard idea of sex determined by sex chromosomes — XX for female and XY for males — and to ask what would happen if culture affected the different numbers of each being produced. One of my colleagues in China saw this stuff. He said, “Let’s talk about son preference in the sex ratio.” So we started to make models for a cultural preference for sons, a preference that could be learned and hence transmitted. We made models where a given couple would decide they would prefer to have sons, and they would pass on that preference to their children.

>What we were able to do was to make a projection of what would happen in China if they continued on this path. We really were able to get a lot of stuff published, some things that might have influenced government policy. The government finally woke up and saw that not only was it having a bad effect on females, but it was going to affect the economy because the number of marriages was going down. You have these 30, 40 million men who can’t find wives and the long-term outlook for the labor market and social security was not promising.

File: 1490799680293.jpg (109KB, 736x521px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 736x521px

>>8975033

If your first attempt to refute 'science' is by finding a message board called /science/, you sir are a retard.

I can understand this if you just woke up from a coma and have to be fed through a tube. Otherwise, you should apply for employment insurance considering youre this disabled

>>8975033

Mutations are aused by radiation, even the sun has radiation.

>>8975077
It does though, whenever there's been a food shortage, thegeneration born in that food shortage has a higher chance of diabetes (no source).
A better example would be pregnant women who have witnessed 9/11 when they had a baby, those children have now a higher perception of stress (https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2011/sep/09/pregnant-911-survivors-transmitted-trauma & http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/11-how-did-9-11-affect-pregnant-mothers-children/)

>>8975152
>A better example would be pregnant women who have witnessed 9/11 when they had a baby, those children have now a higher perception of stress
Also the Holocaust

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/21/study-of-holocaust-survivors-finds-trauma-passed-on-to-childrens-genes

>>8975154
Epigenetics is wild. Kind of adds a facet of psychology/soft science to genetics. Like adding hidden variables like kids drinking HF corn syrup from early age, eating McDonalds daily, continually breathing pollution etc.

>>8975033
"random mutations that came out of nowhere and benefitted the organism enormously causing them to reproduce more successfully"

Mutations don't just happen when there's an issue. Due to the fact that evolution happens to populations, the diversity of hereditary traits becomes large (ie. a lot of mutants running around)

Then, an issue happens (such as food shortage, new predator, environment change) and the diversity is culled. Then a few of the traits become widespread and the less beneficial ones are either wiped out or become rare.

Because of the complexity of an organism, a single mutation can have several effects. (ie. Higher testosterone can make you become bigger and fight better, but it can also lead to more common bouts of anger). (Also, you could have a mutation for how testosterone affects the body for example), then you've had two genetic changes become prevalent in a very short time.

tl;dr it's complicated. One could literally go on for hours explaining all the possibilities and you'd still miss stuff

>>8975035
>Cow example

This is just stupid.

Out of all the land animals that have ever existed. Only one strain ended up back in the water like whales (excluding otters and the like).

It's not like every third fucking animal that walked on land was just jumping in the water. Obviously, the traits that allowed water excellence were still floating around the little mammalian bastard and just became prevalent.

It's not like mammals popped out of thin air, they came from shit that came from fish (whom are water knobs)

>>8975035
>Cow example

If you are going to use cows as an example, look no further than cowspecies which haven't been domesticated. You can see the 'evolution' mankind has done to domesticated animals. For our Cow example; bigger udders for more milk and bigger bodies for more meat.

>>8975033
"Random" is a strong word, but natural selection should be pretty straightforward. Traits that suck are less likely to get passed on since its harder to reproduce prior to death if you suck at not dying.

I also don't think a belief in evolution requires outright denying all epigenetic change entierly. I mean obviously you'd look like an ass if you just shouted "Lamark was right!" out of the blue, but they aren't muturally exclusive ideas, its just that one is typically considered the stronger cause.

>>8975172
The difference is that genetics works on simpler models and can be manipulated in a controlled way therein. Other soft sciences lack that kind of environment