DNA Replication Has Been Filmed For The First Time, And It's

>>8988033
Can you post the video where the bacteria evolves?

File: lead_960.jpg (103KB, 960x641px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 960x641px

>>8988038
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

What is not expected here?
It looks exactly what I thought it would look like.

>>8988045
>The real-time footage has revealed that this fundamental part of life incorporates an unexpected amount of 'randomness', and it could force a major rethink into how genetic replication occurs without mutations.

>>8988039
Maybe because you say evolution takes millions of years to progress and then you say bacteria evolves just like that on this petri dish. Also why are all the DNA in the first video appear horizontal, whats going on there ?

>>8988051
>whats going on there ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication#Replication_fork

Shit wasn't supposed to work floating free like that but I guess it does.

>>8988048
What is a mutation?

>>8988063
>What is a mutation?
American education

>>8988033
dafuq am i looking at here? the lines getting longer, whats not how its supposed to be?

>>8988089
For fucks sake.
I left /sci/ because it was full of retards. Came back and nothing has changed...

>>8988039
Judging by how it easy it seems to evolve antibiotic resistance, can we conclude that about every competant military on earth has strand of the plague resistant to all known antibiotic on earth?
Why hasn't it been used by some crazy religious people yet? it does seem easier to create than sarin .

>>8988101
>Why hasn't it been used by some crazy religious people yet?
Crazy religious people can't into science. That's why.

>>8988106
>Crazy religious people can't into science. That's why.
But they can synthetize sarin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

Well that's pretty damn cool.

>>8988045
When they say "not what they expected" they mean some of the basic assumed facts about polymerase movement on the replication fork, not anything major about fundamental mechanisms of replication.

This is big stuff for scientists but doesn't fundamentally change any biological understanding.

>>8988091
Over 50% of /sci/ is composed of underage presumptuous highschool outcasts. Only a small percentage of its userbase has some higher level education, many are still in their undergraduate course.

>>8988033
So what are we looking at here? Those lines are entire strands?

>>8988051
bacteria have very low accuracy when replicating their DNA, magnitudes lower than eukaryotes. This allows for more mutations frequencies, and therefor a higher chance a mutation will be beneficial, especially in the direct presence of an antibiotic, which is acting as major selective pressure.

Yeah I personally don't really understand what's going on. I can tell you all about the structure of double-stranded DNA, the semiconservative DNA replication model, Okazaki fragments, helicase, etc., but I have no idea how to map that knowledge onto what is being described right now.

Are the original DNA templates simply hidden, and are they using fluorescent nucleotides to highlight the replicated DNA v. the original DNA? I have no idea. I hope somebody who is less of a brainlet than me can point me in the right direction, because as complicated as biochemistry can be, it's super interesting.

>>8988101
> can we conclude that about every competant military on earth has strand of the plague resistant to all known antibiotic on earth?
no. it would have to be genetically engineered to contain every antibiotic resistance gene we know about. it's likely it's genome is not even large enough to contain all of them, there is a size limit to genome.

Plus, even if you could, soon it would lose it's resistance through subsequent generations because bacteria tend to discard genes not being actively used, especially genes like that which are usually on plasmids

>>8988127
>Each glowing strand is a piece of double helix growing by replication at the left-hand end. They move at different speeds and stop and start. Dark gaps in the line are single-stranded DNA where one polymerase failed to attach (the fluorescent dye only binds double-stranded DNA).

>Some surprises come out of being able to observe replication directly. For example, the two polymerases involved in replication (one for each strand) aren't coordinated. They stop and start at random, but overall they move at the same average speed, so everything works out. This stochastic model is quite different from a smooth-running, coordinated machine usually imagined.

>>8988131
more evidence the universe isn't deterministic

>>8988131
Doesn't semi-conservative replication involve growth in different directions as the old template unwinds? Or is this some sort of artificial, altered environment with only one DNA segment? Also where are the dark gaps that you mention?

>>8988145
Don't derail the thread with this shit fuck off

>>8988127
The authors demonstrated that leading strand synthesis is independent of lagging strand synthesis by showing that lagging strand synthesis is dependent on primase presence but leading strand synthesis is not. Then, by analyzing kymographs of only leading strand synthesis (by omitting primase but providing everything else), they show that leading strand synthesis proceeds in random bursts rather than a steady progression. They then explain some observed changes in helicase activity by saying that the leading strand polymerase might stochastically pause, somehow triggering a mechanism to pause helicase unwinding, until everything catches up and restarts.

The conclusion that the two strand synthesis events are independent isn't directly proven in the paper but it's a fairly straightforward conclusion from the data. They're kind of fluffing their data up to be a little more important than it truly is, but hey, that's every paper. The dead man's switch idea is interesting but is invoking a mechanism that's plausible but not necessarily implied by their data in my opinion, although I haven't read the paper too thoroughly.

>>8988101
no, you don't use weapons that are just as likely to kill your own people as your enemies. it's far too crude to be of any use, even unguided nuclear warheads are more controllable and safer than such a weapon. modern militaries are typically about attack precision and information warfare.

The Fuck?

How does each DNA strand act completely independently? There has to be a major component we're missing.

It's like you have a field of 10,000 snakes and two random ones who happen to be a perfect match instinctively find each other and mate.

>>8988063
When you alter base pairs

>>8988091
>/sci/ - Geneticists only

>>8988289
>There has to be a major component we're missing.
I don't think the video shows RNA.

>>8988334
It's biology 101...

>>8988118
I think most of /sci/ is composed by NEET wannabe scientists

>>8988033
muslims don't believe in evolution.

>>8988123
>bacteria have very low accuracy when replicating their DNA, magnitudes lower than eukaryotes
Not to be the bear of bad news but this is actually false

Though there is some difference in mutation rate, the 'rate' at which a species evolves is dependent on generation time and size

>>8989258
Wrong. Please resit BIO101.

>>8988089
its a dye that adheres and floresces only to double helix DNA, thus any replicating strain (leading or lagging) is not strained

results of the video show that, at least when replicating DNA fragments fixed to a slide, replication is proceeds in a staggered fashion rather than a nice progressive unzipping

>>8989261
I don't mean to be that guy but you could compare the mutation rate of e.coli and human?

Then, if you still believe that difference is magnitude enough to account for evolutionary potential, explain how small mammals with rapid doubling times are notorious for rapid adaption to selective pressures (e.g rats and rat poisons). [spoiler]and no, that adaption in rats has been shown to be the product of mutation and not epigenetic[/spoiler]

>>8988101

You don't need the germ to be resistant, you just need to make something that kills/disables fast and infect a shitload of people all at the same time. Think spraying thousands of gallons of water loaded with smallpox or anthrax onto urban areas. If you want to play the long game use something like zika and try to stealthily infect as much of the enemy population as possible, they'll immediately have a crisis on their hands when all the babies are being born with deflated heads.

>>8989261
Fuck it, ill explain myself

Evolution is fueled by random mutation, albeit it point mutations or transposons mutagensis, that we can agree. Without that, no evolution. But how a species evolves is not the sole product of how many mutations it can accure, but how many of those different mutants it can place on the stage for natural selection to choose from.

Lets say I have organism Abe and organism Brah. Abe and Brah both accure the same number of mutations at the same rate. At the end of the week, both Abe and Brah's bodies are littered with same number of random mutations. Abe in that time brought only one progeny to turn by the end of the week, which (for sake of simplisticity) is a snapshot of all the mutations Abe has accured in that week. Brah, on the other hand, had 7 children throught the week. Each of those 7 children are a snapshot of Brah's mutations at different times, a thus each carry their own slightly unique mutations that differentiate them from each other.
While Abe's one child is forced to carry all the mutations of its mother, ableit them good or bad, Brah's has distributed his mutations among numerous progeny, which can now each individually be subjected to natural selection.

are you following yet?

>>8988145
This is a bit like looking at a 10000 piece puzzle and only having the edge pieces.

Go circlejerk about ethics if you want to have a good modern day philosophical discussion. Determinism is an obviously existent phenomenon.

>>8988145
DNA molecules aren't nearly small enough to be affected by quantum randomness. Stop using this new discovery to justify your arguments before we even have an explanation and start looking for the underlying cause so we might one day understand what the fuck we're looking at.

File: photo-rel_architect.jpg (107KB, 350x150px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 350x150px

>>8988033
After much consideration I have had an epiphany on the subject of evolution deniers, and since im in a cheerful mood I will elucidate the matter for you all.

Some people just do not possess the intellectual capacity to comprehend macro-evolutionary timescales. The intellectual capacity for abstract thought is not inherently uniformly gifted to all humans. It has arisen in humans as an advantageous capacity that facilitates increased reproductive likelihood and survival generally. This capacity for extreme abstractive comprehension, when absent or deficient, leads to an insistence on the readily and directly perceivable being the likeliest resolution to any query.

to paraphrase in terms more readily comprehensible to the likely reader. Some people are just too stupid to be able to understand abstractions beyond certain complexity thresholds.

I drafted this language in another thread but with a few minor modifications it became readily applicable and pertinent to the subject at hand.

>>8989833
DAD?

>>8989833
>tfw no intellectual capacity to comprehend the absence of empirical data to support a single case of speciation

>>8991669
Here you go
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/284831
>b-but how does a horse turn into a whale?
Same concept over millions of years

>>8991703

The paper talks about the formalism of speciation. My point being speciation itself has never been observed. If random musing on ecoli or flies qualify as speciation, then have those that claim so apply the same delimitative standards on all mainstream cladograms. Refusing to do so is conceding that what they have observed, or claim to have observed, is not speciation.

>>8991703
>Same concept over millions of years

Never happened.
Never been observed.
Has been disproven.

But you still believe it, on faith.
>>8991753
Even if it were, the fruit flies mutated by gamma rays remain flies; the bacteria adapted to be drug resistant is still bacteria; and the finches with longer narrower beaks are still finches.

>>8988089
>dafuq am i looking at here?

An Atari 2600 video game

>>8988039
Wow! It's fucking nothing!
Show me something that mutates into another *species*.

determinists btfi

>>8991764
explain vestigial features
explain transition species
explain anything at all

>>8993225
EVOLUTION
ISN'T
REAL!!!!!!!

>>8993225
>get told that speciation has never been observed
>but what things hinging on speciation HUH?

>>8988033
>how do I convince rednecks
First, make a statement of why you wish to convince rednecks of anything.
After that, we can all have a nice discussion.

>>8993246
back to /b/

>>8993439
DDDRRRUUUUMMMPPPFFFFFFFFTTTTTAAAAAARRRRRRDDDDDDDD!!!!!!

>>8993378
what do you mean? why do whales have leg bones? why are there fish that breath air?

File: 1493490884645.png (177KB, 580x323px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 580x323px

>>8991764
>>8992284

>if I refuse to learn the basics of science, I don't have to believe any evidence offered in its favor

File: niga wat the fuk.jpg (13KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x168px

>>8993448
Are you only only on /sci/ because you know that there are less active people to cuck you here than on /pol/? And why would it matter?

Most people on here aren't here because they want to think about politics save for griping about the myriad ways it can get in the way of useful research.

File: checkmateHEH.jpg (37KB, 634x591px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 634x591px

>>8993450

Fancying transgenerational changes based on aesthetic considerations is even more feeble than Numerology. Why does this caterpillar looks like a snake? Are snakes a neotenous offshoot of hemeroplanes triptolemus? Has hemeroplanes triptolemus evolved from a snake ancestor? This is you. Shameful.

As to you second question, I would imagine those that breath water don't live very long.

>>8993451
>not a single observation of a single case of speciation
>entire model based on the one thing all of its makers cannot prove
>the basics of science

You said it!

>>8993484
why don't you see caterpillars that look like snakes in places where there are no snakes? because this caterpillar coevolved with snakes

>>8993484
we've never observed speciation (besides in bacteria) because it takes too long
if you knew anything about evolution you'd know it's a very slow process
all the evidence still points to speciation being a real thing, the hard part is that a species isn't well-defined to begin with but species clearly are distinct from one another

>>8993497
not tree snakes
that caterpillar is found in the rainforest right?

>>8993484
>basics of science

>until you arrive at better evidence or a better theory, the consensus stands
>this differs from religion, where a consensus or argument from authority stands regardless

>>8993489
>we've never observed speciation (besides in bacteria
As far as I know, the longest running experiment on bacterial evolution hasn't observed speciation.

>>8993533
it's hard to tell speciation in bacteria because defining a species of bacteria can get pretty arbitrary

>>8993535
If the biologists say speciation hasn't occurred, I'm going to accept their conclusion. More than 60,000 generations and still almost the exact same bacteria.

File: memes.jpg (95KB, 700x582px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 700x582px

>>8993488

The last comment got messed up. Deleted.

I pointed out the caterpillar and snake example in response to the question of whales' leg bones. Deducing that whales came to be by gradual morphic changes across a transgenerational process stemming from a land-dwelling ancestor simply because there is some aesthetic consonance between whales' leg bones and the leg bones of some land-dwelling life forms is like deducing any such relation between that moth and the snake its larva resembles.

>>8993498

I don't understand this question. It's palindromic across all parameters. Snakes and moths cover the whole Earth. If a few moth larvae resemble snakes they share their environment with, what does this mean for all the other moth larvae that don't resemble snakes? What is the utility of this trait? How does it contribute to that moth's survival? Is there any data to suggest snake-like larvae are more likely to survive and mature than regular-looking ones? If not then what is the quality of the selective pressure which molded snake-like larvae? "Relaxed selection" is no selection at all.

Note that neither of the potential answers apply across the board in what passes for an integrated model of Evolution. The alleged reasons aesthetic consonance can be found across such vast taxonomic, geographic, and temporal gulfs - all according to Scientism - can even be mutually refuting. Such as the wolf-thylacine case, which is ascribed to "convergent evolution", which does God only knows what to the theory behind "mimicry". Not to mention that it's an aspect of Orthogenesis, something mainstream Scientists abhor.

The only transgenerational process at work is two centuries of people working their backwards from random whims into Ontological corners

>>8993521

Better evidence? Better than what?

>>8993541
Curious that you use the word "almost" as if you are acknowledging that the population of bacteria has, in fact, changed at all over the last few decades (as it has). Assuming that we manage to continue the experiment indefinitely, what mechanism do you propose would stop the bacteria from continuing to change over the next few millennia to the point where we no longer consider them the same species? It gets more problematic when we consider that the most helpful marker for speciation in bacteria is sequence homology.

File: whale-vestigial-structure.jpg (40KB, 450x301px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x301px

>>8993555
ok one thing at a time

about the whale leg bones see pic related, I don't even know how you can refute this

and caterpillars that look like (tree) snakes are less likely to be eaten by birds because snakes eat birds, caterpillars hang out in trees but usually snakes do not except in the rainforest

you're saying so many words and making no sense

>>8993541
but they say the opposite

>>8989833
So Republicans and Muslims (but not Christian Arabs) are just genetically stupid? Makes perfect sense!
You should tell your high-school teachers about your astonishing theory.

File: 1c007f1b377e223ac5bb19eedb978656-450x338.jpg (36KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 450x338px

>>8993588

Refute what? Does this fish have hominid ancestors? Why not vestigial teeth? Do cephalopods have parrot ancestors?

Is there any data to suggest that snake-like caterpillars have betters chances of survival than the regular caterpillars in the same environment?

>>8993616
of the same species i would imagine yes, but modern biology has not been around long enough to compare the early caterpillar to his more modern counterpart so we rely on the theory of evolution

the simplest interpretation according to the theory of evolution is that the caterpillar was in the same environment as a tree snakes -> birds ate the caterpillars that did not look like tree snakes -> only tree snake-like caterpillars remained

like i said it takes fking forever for speciation to happen

>>8993616
no those teeth are probably a good adaptation for whatever that fish eats
they look like grinding teeth so I'm guessing that fish eats plants or algae

>>8993624

I am well aware of the legends, but...there are more caterpillars that DON'T look like snakes in the same environment as the ones that do look like snakes. Both by the number of alleged taxons and probably by the number of individual caterpillars.

Come on guys.

>>8993630
it's just one potential adaptation a caterpillar can use to thwart predators

>>8993627

Exactly. And that whale's leg bones are probably a good adaptation for processing echolocational data.

>>8993634
fuck off with that bullshit, all whales have vestigial pelvic bones but most whales don't echolocate
at the same time those bones are literally useless for anything, they're not even attached to the rest of the skeleton

sperm whales have a sac full of spermaceti in their heads which helps them with echolocation, bones near the tail wouldn't help at all

File: crystalclearexampleofparrotancestry.jpg (43KB, 650x512px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 650x512px

>>8993636

Most people disagree with baleen whale echolocation simply because it doesn't sound like toothed whale echolocation. But more to the point, the bones wouldn't have to be connected to anything in order to receive sound. I think innervation is enough?

How do you know it wouldn't help at all? How do sperm whales having a sound-producing organ in their heads affect the potential function of sound-receiving organs somewhere else in the body?

>>8993662
cause their ears are not by their tails
even if it was useful for something that doesn't rule out those bones as the remnants of hind legs, which is what they seem like and are most probably

>>8993667

Sound, vibration, can be received by organs other than the ear. Life forms with no ears respond to sound just as well.

I must confess, these all read like replies from a p-zombie/reddit bot.

>>8993674
omgggggg kill yourself
whales are not anything like spiders or whatever other organism

take your self-taught knowledge and shove it up your ass i gtg

File: remnantsoftheproudsabertoothcats.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>8993676

I take it you think ears preclude other organs from receiving sound. They don't.

File: Ainsley.png (765KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1001x1001px

>>8993484
>fish that breathe water don't live very long
Creationists: Literally Retarded

File: card.jpg (77KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 512x512px

>>8993484
>not a single observation of a single case of speciation
Rhagoletis pomonella, niBBa. Speciation happening before our very eyes, driven by the appearance of a new food source.

File: smug replicant face.jpg (60KB, 782x788px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 782x788px

>>8993634
>that whale's leg bones are probably a good adaptation for processing echolocational data.
>>8993662
>But more to the point, the bones wouldn't have to be connected to anything in order to receive sound. I think innervation is enough?
Except that whales' hip and leg bones aren't connected to the auditory cortex. You're inventing out of thin air this idea that there are auditory organs in whale hips, a claim directly contradicted by anatomical study of whale cadavers and unsupported by any principle of acoustics.

This is what creationists do; when evidence shows up that they can't explain, they simply lie about it.

>>8993728
>>8993732
>>8993744
>moles breath soil - STEMlords 2017

What would fly cladograms look like if they were made using the standards of speciation described in your example? Also:

>However, the source of selection that differentiates apple and haw flies is unresolved

Can't make this up.

As to your final point, perception of and reaction to sound requires neither an auditory cortex nor ears. Nor does a life form having ears connected to an auditory cortex preclude it from processing sound by other pathways. Nor does studying cadavers tell you everything about a life form. I'm sure an exhaustive study of yours will fail to ascertain your idiocy. But do tell me more. What are the principles of acoustics in general and how do they apply under water?

File: image.png (39KB, 2246x1634px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 2246x1634px

>>8988108
Sarin is easy to make

>>8993843
so you literally believe evolution is impossible because of some pedantic bullshit
man you read some shit online and now you think you're an expert

your entire argument right now is "ooga booga you can't know nuttin"

>>8993913

At no point in my judging of this idea and my arrival at the conclusion that it's almost absurd did I take into account information outside of mainstream Materialist Literature, or lack thereof. Though, yes, it could easily qualify as "some shit online". You could post Darwin's own papers on reddit and they'd laugh it off if they didn't know who wrote them.

My entire argument being that species, speciation, selection, and inheritance and fan theories based on visual intuition. I trust this isn't the extent of your Epistemology.

>>8993924
>and fan theories
>and

ARE

>>8993924
ever heard of Occam's razor?
also by "outside of mainstream" I'm just going to assume you mean creationist propaganda

yeah I don't know everything, I took some uni bio courses two years ago but that caterpillar thing is obvious and I can't think of a simpler explanation for vestigial pelvic bones in whales than their having land dwelling ancestors (which is supported by the fossil record)

I don't mean I'm exactly right, it could've been more complicated. The point is that speciation is real and possible.

File: plato-cats.jpg (23KB, 600x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x276px

>>8993933

Occam's razor would favor something like Platonic Forms.

This thread is grim.

>>8993953
this isn't philosophy 101 man
what are you on about?

>>8993959

You brought Occam's razor up, guy.

File: Solo.jpg (72KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 323x323px

>>8993843
>>fish that breathe water don't live very long
>>Creationists: Literally Retarded
>moles breath soil - STEMlords 2017
okay you don't need to get quite THIS autistic to distract from how you forgot that FISH can breathe WATER.

>What would fly cladograms look like if they were made using the standards of speciation described in your example?
the same as they look now. do you really think that cladograms stop at the level of "species"?
and reproductive isolation is a widely used species concept in sexually reproducing taxa. this is nothing new.

>However, the source of selection that differentiates apple and haw flies is unresolved
all that means is they don't know how the apple flies and hawthorn flies tell the difference. there's presumably some anatomical or behavioral cue, or possibly just gametic incompatibility. we KNOW they don't interbreed anymore; what remains unknown is HOW they avoid interbreeding.

>perception of and reaction to sound requires neither an auditory cortex nor ears. Nor does a life form having ears connected to an auditory cortex preclude it from processing sound by other pathways. Nor does studying cadavers tell you everything about a life form.
So even though there's no anatomical evidence for whales using their hips for hearing...and even though there's no behavioral evidence for it either...and even though there aren't any major nerves running into the hindlimbs...and even though it's well-established that whales can hear using a modified version of the same auditory system that all mammals share...
even in the face of all of that, you still insist that whales magically hear through their hips. and your evidence for that consists entirely of "well, you can't know that they DON'T!" which is not only a laughable standard of proof but also, in fact, false; we CAN and DO know that whales don't hear through their hips.

>>8993983
I meant that about whole visual intuition thing

yeah it might be wrong to assume based on visual cues sometimes but you can safely assume a caterpillar is mimicking a snake if it looks like one etc

File: 38f[1].jpg (39KB, 397x348px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 397x348px

>>8993843
>What are the principles of acoustics in general and how do they apply under water?
Underwater has little to do with it in this case. The key principle involved is that sound is a pressure wave, and that relatively homogeneous media tend to transmit sound well, while media with many sharp changes in density tend to transmit sound poorly and with much scattering at the interfaces.
This is why the ears, in most mammals, are directly connected to the air, allowing sound to propagate through the air and directly into the resonating bones of the ear without passing through muscle tissue. (In whales, strands of less-dense fatty tissue in the jaw connect the ears to the outside, forming a pathway to convey sound to the middle ear.) The pelvic girdle and associated hindlimb bones, in whales, are securely wrapped in muscle and connective tissue (often serving as anchors for the muscles of the genitals in males) which effectively muffle sound due to the higher density (compared to seawater or fat tissue) and fibrous texture.
the fact that muscle tissue is a poor carrier of sound can be ascertained by sticking your fingers in your ears (a subject at which, judging from your responses here, you certainly excel).

File: eb9[1].jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

>>8993924
>At no point in my judging of this idea and my arrival at the conclusion that it's almost absurd did I take into account information outside of mainstream Materialist Literature, or lack thereof.
Dude, you're claiming that whales hear through their ears. Can you cite any literature in support of that?

>>8993992
>>8994005

Your mention of cladograms not stopping at "species" is a concession that the differences observed in the particular flies your brought up are files do not qualify as speciation. Tell me more about the use of reproductive isolation in species "concept" and what it means for people. Also, how do we know they don't breed? Especially you, how do YOU know?

Someone else brought up whale leg bones and claimed they were "vestigial". I said they could just as easily be something else. The vestigial claim, as the claim that Evolution is a thing, is an ever bigger flight of fancy than whales leg bones acting as sound receptors. My point being that your argument is by far the biggest Ontological "you can't know that they DON'T". Whale leg bones as sound receptors is comparatively tame. It's testable, it's falsifiable, it's intragenerational, etc. Evolution is not.

Though, regardless, you still fail to understand that one sensory pathway does not preclude another sensory pathway from taking in the same quality of stimuli. Again this is a basic and basal concept that escapes you completely, regardless of whales and Evolution.

I'm convinced you and the other guy are p-zombies. Simply memorizing and repeating word clusters you previously received positive Social attention for. Notice how you second comment contains so much information of no relevance to the argument. To me it's a mystery if you even understand that this is not a Social spectacle you phone a performance in.

>>8994008

I showcased a qualitatively smaller example of the awful judgement Evolution is based on.

>>8994069
>>8994075

>It's testable, it's falsifiable, it's intragenerational, etc. Evolution is not.
Evolution is a THEORY. Not a hypothesis, that's why it's not directly testable. Evolution accounts for the vast majority of the data much like any other theory.

The whale thing is pretty much a moot point in my opinion. There is no plausible explanation for them being there besides evolution. You just keep on ignoring everything you don't like as if it's just going to go away.

>>8994081

I'm not ignoring anything, in fact. Occam's razor was brought up earlier. Plato's theory of Forms is wonderful for biodiversity. Not to mention that it's much cleaner than Evolution and 100% Rational, unlike Evolution. Why not go with that instead?

File: 0 out of 10.jpg (52KB, 600x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x509px

>>8994069
>Your mention of cladograms not stopping at "species" is a concession that the differences observed in the particular flies your brought up are files do not qualify as speciation.
No, it is not. All I said is that a cladogram will have the same appearance regardless of whether some fork is classified as species or subspecies in level.
>reproductive isolation in species "concept"
in sexually reproducing taxa, the biological species concept holds that populations are part of the same species iff they can interbreed to produce viable (and fertile) offspring. this has some trouble with ring species, and with things like lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (P. tigris) which can be made to interbreed but do not under natural conditions.
>Also, how do we know they don't breed?
Because in the wild, they emerge at different times and have fairly short adult lifespans, you twit. (Not to mention, the genetic differences between them suggest that little to no interbreeding is taking place.)
see: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62806/336061a0.pdf
>Especially you, how do YOU know?
Because I, unlike you, am capable of reading and understanding technical literature.

>>8994096
because I don't know what that is and it's W R O N G

Aristotle thought everything was made up of earth, wind, fire and water but he was sorta kinda right about the atom.
>philosophers are just shit scientists

>>8992284
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZJNyScv8to

>>8988091
>Can't explain it himself
>Cue autistic outburst

File: Federico-Bencovich-xx-A-hermit.jpg (83KB, 639x759px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 639x759px

>>8994098

The definitions of all the forks in a cladogram are what a cladogram is. Not the illustrations, but the properties people ascribe to the individual forks, namely if it defines two species or not. If you can claim that the fork following a certain life form does not define two species, than you can claim that the one preceding said form doesn't define it and the form(s) in the other prong(s) as species. If you can to this all the way down, then you can do it all the up. No reason to claim otherwise besides pointless tautology. Now you've conceded that cladograms are also Subjective.

People emerge at different times all the time, what of it? Lots of groups of people also have larger reproductive barriers than, say, lions and tigers, are they different species? Class, geography, politics - all bigger reproductive divides than those between your flies. Native American peoples and native Australian peoples have never bred up until very recently. Were they different species before and did they cease being so?

>Because I, unlike you, am capable of reading and understanding technical literature.

You read it in a book so it must be true. I rest my case.

File: counterattack.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>8994069
>Someone else brought up whale leg bones and claimed they were "vestigial". I said they could just as easily be something else.
Not all possibilities are created equal!

Many independent lines of evidence converge on the simple fact that whales' hindlimbs are indeed the reduced (and in some cases, repurposed) remnants of the hindlimbs of their terrestrial ancestors.
Embryological studies show that cetacean embryos do develop hind-limb buds similar to those of other mammals, but that the bud fails to develop. Further genetic investigation of this finds that this is caused by a knockout mutation in a gene called Hand2, causing Sonic hedgehog (yes, they named it that) to not be expressed in the hindlimb bud. Note that these genes are present in other mammals, serving the same functions, which is as strong an argument for common descent as one can imagine!
>http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8414
And then there's the fossil record, which is where MY field of expertise (paleontology) comes into play. We have a nice sequence (improved lately thanks to better relations with Pakistan) of fossil whales, showing gradual adaptation to pelagic existence (reshaping of forelimbs, reduction/loss of hindlimbs, migration of the nostril, reshaping of the tail) over the course of tens of millions of years. Anatomical indicators show that these ARE indeed whales, and that they started out as hooved terrestrial mammals before adopting a more otter/gator-like existence and gradually becoming what we today recognize as mysticeti and odontoceti.

So to recap, there are lines of embryological, physiological, genetic, and paleontological evidence all suggesting that whales' hindlimbs are vestigial remnants of terrestrial exhibits.
And your claim, which you maintain is just as valid? There is no evidence whatsoever to support it, and it is in fact directly contradicted by anatomy and acoustics. If you can't tell the difference between the two, that's your own problem.

File: 1495677900279.jpg (30KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 316x202px

>>8994168
just look it up man seriously, there are ways of defining species but there are issues because it's a bit subjective (on account of the transitional nature of species)

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

>>8993451
Let me reiterate:
Show me something that mutates into another *species*.

This is evidence in favor of "science" as you call it.

File: DNA.png (1MB, 1075x1066px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1075x1066px

This is so bizarre. I think I get it though, I will try to explain it.

What we are seeing in this video, is the first ever observation of a dimension we have yet to detect.

I submit to you gentlemen,

That what we are seeing in detail that is the reaction between a dimension we can observe ( the extension, retracting and separation of DNA strands.),
and the a dimension I am going to associate with "Data", because I am too high to comphrend a new dimension..maybe not.

This dimension is the process where our experiences, mental conditions,and physical conditions are spread throughout the body. I believe that what
we see as the white lines expanding to the right, is in actuality "Data" being turned into our dimensional code (DNA strands).

If you look you can see them retract. I think this is an error that is being corrected. I am fucking betting cancer is caused when something like a radiation
interferes with the "Data" coding process so the little white balls we see, which are kind of like particle typewriters.

Holy shit. do you realize if I am right, which I am probably not, This Particle, This....Duct Particle! (haha) can react to a new dimension we couldn't observe before?

The interruption in the DNA are evidence of how cancer starts in our body. Outside forces of "Data" are sensitive to things like radiation, toxins, the food we eat, etc.

Too high for this shit. Even got a pic for you guys.

File: Having a drink.jpg (19KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 413x395px

>>8994168
>The definitions of all the forks in a cladogram are what a cladogram is. Not the illustrations, but the properties people ascribe to the individual forks, namely if it defines two species or not. If you can claim that the fork following a certain life form does not define two species, than you can claim that the one preceding said form doesn't define it and the form(s) in the other prong(s) as species. If you can to this all the way down, then you can do it all the up. No reason to claim otherwise besides pointless tautology. Now you've conceded that cladograms are also Subjective.
>I don't know what the fuck a cladogram is: the post
all taxonomic groupings besides that of "species" are subjective. this is something every evolutionary biologist knows. and yet we use them anyway, because they are useful. and yes, we argue incessantly about the virtues of lumping versus splitting.

>People emerge at different times all the time, what of it?
people don't fucking emerge, you moron. we don't have separate larval stages, and we in fact have extraordinarily long adult lifespans (in contrast to fruit flies, which spend most of their time as larvae or pupae).
>Lots of groups of people also have larger reproductive barriers than, say, lions and tigers
actually false
>Class, geography, politics - all bigger reproductive divides than those between your flies
also false
>Native American peoples and native Australian peoples have never bred up until very recently. Were they different species before and did they cease being so?
no, because their reproductive isolation was comparatively brief. humans have long generation times and low mutation rates, and remained similar enough (physiologically and behaviorally) to easily and frequently interbreed with their Old World counterparts upon being reintroduced. the fruit flies, meanwhile, despite STILL being present in the same environment, do not interbreed in the wild, indicating that sufficient differences have accumulated.

File: cool thought.png (75KB, 243x342px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 243x342px

>>8994168
>You read it in a book so it must be true. I rest my case.
Have you personally seen, with your own eyes, the hind limb bones of a whale? Have you personally seen, with your own eyes, a living whale in its natural environment? Have you personally seen, with your own eyes, an apple maggot or a hawthorn maggot?
No? And yet, you accept that they exist, which means that you too are reliant on and trusting of published literature.
Your ideological flailing, dismissing all truth as fundamentally unknowable, is unbecoming.

>>8994199

As I said in the last comment, I rest my case. But one last thing:

Everything I said here is strictly within the confines of Materialist-Evolutionary fence posts. Even though, NO, I do not accept that they exist - whales, maggots, caterpillars - all my contention with Evolution treats them as if they do and is based on the information its proponents provide and nothing more. What is supremely ironic is that all counterarguments provided here do not. Everything boiling down to a perfect caricature of "desert death cults" parroting their shaman.

RIP

>>8994069
>I'm convinced you and the other guy are p-zombies. Simply memorizing and repeating word clusters you previously received positive Social attention for
Essentially, we're all p-zombies, some of us just have different inherent motivations, such as discovering how reality is rather than interpreting reality through a social/religious framework (although such frame works are essentially impossible to escape).
In the end, the facts generated by natural science are superior because they and the technology derived from are reproducible (mostly) and generate useful knowledge in technological and medical terms.

>>8994225
get me in touch with your dealer bro
you're tripping heavy balls
>whales don't exist

File: do it faggot.png (877KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 540x960px

>>8994225
>NO, I do not accept that they exist - whales, maggots, caterpillars
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum, faggot.

>all my contention with Evolution treats them as if they do and is based on the information its proponents provide and nothing more. What is supremely ironic is that all counterarguments provided here do not.
Yes, we """"Materialist-Evolutionists"""" actually bring in evidence to support our claims.
I don't know what kind of whackadoodle purity test you subscribe to, but it is not generally considered a good thing to construct arguments solely out of blind conjecture, unsupported assertion, and fundamental misunderstanding of information (really? you don't know what a cladogram is? really? you think humans emerge from a larval stage?) supplied by others. Your inability to back up your claims with any sort of evidence and your wholesale rejection of ANY sort of evidence are failings, not virtues.

And here you are, arguing with someone who (by your imbecilic standard of evidence) doesn't exist. After all, you've never personally met me, so you must be conversing with a figment of your own conceited imagination.
Since you reject the very existence of anything you have not personally experienced, and deny the reliability of any and all written documents, I tell you that all accounts of people dying from consuming bleach (aqueous sodium hypochlorite) are imaginary, and that all warning labels exhorting you not to drink it are a clever lie intended to fool you. Clearly, the only way for you to know if bleach is poisonous is for you to drink it yourself; I suggest you investigate this swiftly. Pic related.

File: dolphin.jpg (26KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 250x250px

>>8994225
>whales don't exist

>>8994257
>Clearly, the only way for you to know if bleach is poisonous is for you to drink it yourself; I suggest you investigate this swiftly. Pic related.
Lol'd. Great to see not everybody on this board is a millenial idiot in 2017.

File: 1200px-Welsh_Dragon_(Y_Ddraig_Goch).svg[1].png (343KB, 1200x932px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1200x932px

>>8994225
>wales don't exist

>>8991753
>My point being speciation itself has never been observed.

this is still correct

the goalpost will be moved but scientism wil offer as thousand theoretical explanations that aren't a single observable case of speciation.

File: evolution.gif (79KB, 711x664px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 711x664px

>>8993744
>when evidence shows up that they can't explain, they simply lie about it.

File: WYD13a[1].jpg (29KB, 500x260px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x260px

>>8995050
>unironically posting a panel from a Chick tract
commit kakuro

File: WYD13b[1].jpg (24KB, 500x258px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x258px

>>8995070

>>8995049
>speciation itself has never been observed
scroll up fagerino >>8993732
every time scientists observe speciation, Creationists everywhere wet their pants and scream that it's not really speciation because they said so, that's why!

>>8995071
>http://foo.ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/whos-your-daddy/
btw in case you were wondering

>>8995049
that's not how science works, you should stick to preaching

>>8993484
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

>>8994081
Lel but evolution makes falsifiable predictions about everything, particularly regarding the statistics of phylogenetics.

>>8988033
>how do I convince rednecks that macro Evolution exists
Fossil record? Remind them that this "microevolution" - that they accept - is then extrapolated to immense timescales.

>>8989833
Ignoring the masturbatory nature of this post I must say it is a dangerous way of thinking. It can lead one into believing that they must be correct because they are "superior" while someone else must be incorrect due to them being deemed "inferior".

>>8995305
>the basic idea that speciation is a construct of the human mind was explained through and through
>still linking this shit
>even said shit all but agrees that speciation is indeed a construct of the human mind but cops out with a tragicomical invocation of "the gaps" as its functionally god-given immovable locus

Abomination.

>>8995330
>is a construct of the human mind
much like air

>>8995330
Every scientific concept is a construct of the human mind. So now every species concept can't be used because you say so?
>cops out with a tragicomical invocation of "the gaps"
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Please explain.
>Abomination
This is a religious/hyperemotional term. If you were interested at all in discussion, you would state problems and caveats with the source I linked, which you didn't address.

More evidence for intelligent design it looks like

>>8993588
>"whale legs"
Used as support for their massive reproductive organs.
https://news.usc.edu/68144/whale-reproduction-its-all-in-the-hips/

File: BM-BD-HalfTruth.jpg (102KB, 1016x466px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1016x466px

ITT: Evolutionists BTFO

>>8993667
>cus their ears are not by their tails
Low frequency sounds can travel much farther than high freq. An array of bones fuckin' anywhere on the giant fleshy mass that is a whale will pick up low frequency tones and will be able to help the fleshy mass feel/perceive said tones. While we should be arguing WHY WHALES HAVE A DISCONNECTED PELVIS, you're only arguing why bones in a whale ass dont function for anything, which can be disproven.

I place a subwoofer on your toe. This sub is small and only functions at a frequency the ear can feel, but not hear. We crank this hypothetical sub up to 11, and do you feel the 14hz signal? Do you not perceive the soundwave because it isnt in your ear, but your toe bone?
You are >this< stupid.

>>8995901
>this comic
>BTFOing anything
kek good one

File: Buttery goodness.jpg (65KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 512x512px

>>8995901
>i posted it again lol

Antibiotic resistance does not arise through the LOSS of the antibiotic's target. Think about it for maybe five seconds; if the action of the antibiotic interfering with the enzyme is enough to kill the bacterium, how would losing the essential enzyme entirely allow the bacterium to survive?
When resistance arises, it's generally through one of two mechanisms: either the target is modified in such a way that it retains its function but no longer interacts with the drug, or a DIFFERENT enzyme is repurposed to break down the drug.
This is observed over and over and over again; you are fundamentally ignorant of how resistance works.

>>8994178
>Thinks that this is possible ever within our lifetimes

Give his great great great ancestors about a million years give or take to gather enough video evidence to prove him right or wrong. Until then have fossils.

>>8989288
>polymerases all have the same mutation rate
>TrumpWrooooooong.jif