I still don't understand evolution and I don't think

>>9144714
I agree.
It seems to me that ut would require billions of generations to accomplish this.

Perhaps life was actually planted here by aliens? Or perhaps we do live in a computer simulation?

>>9144714

Who gives a shit what some dope on the internet thinks? Don't believe in evolution then, retard, just don't be surprised when people recognize you as the idiot you are.

Why are evolutionary algorithms so slow compared to natural evolution in terms of generations?
Consider that mammals where just shitty rodents 65 million years ago, and that mammal generations are long (months to years).

Maybe if you learned some basic biology you would understand.

Genetic Variation = Independent Assortment, Crossing Over, Mutation

Certain genes were beneficial in certain environments; therefore, they could reproduce more than others. More reproduction = more of those genes. More of those genes = even more of those genes.

>>9144726
You should at least question the idea, don't be dogmatic.

File: 1503869091653.jpg (8KB, 250x211px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x211px

>>9144726
>observe the brainlet's knee jerk reaction when people merely ask questions and do not operate on blind faith like he does

>>9144714
>Do you really expect me to believe this owl just so happened to descend from an ancestor that just so happened to have a random mutation that managed to camouflage itself perfectly with the tree and thus the ancestor managed to propagate its genes at that much more of a massive rate?
No. It happened step by step by step by step, hundreds of tiny improvements that each slightly improve camouflage, over tens of thousands of generations. That's why evolution is so slow.

ill try explain:
while the genes dont affect sucess, they may or may not be in the animal. there might be a white owl that looks very pretty.
enter a predator:
now only the brown owls can reproduce before they are eaten.
slowly only brown owls around.

now the predator dies out:
mostly brown owls around. some carry the white owl genetics and create light brown owls.
slowly light brown owls breed together, creating some white owls.
white owls do well because they have pretty feathers.
now back to white owls and brown owls.

File: 430012[1].jpg (22KB, 200x294px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 200x294px

>>9144714
Here's a book that may interest you. It was once suppressed by the FDA. Also looks for "Magnetism and it's effects on the living system" by the same author.

If macroevolution is real, why doesn't bacteria and vira kill all complex organisms? Their generations are incredible short so they can quickly iterate many mutations in order to exploit the flaws of larger animals, who can't cant respond to the threat in decades.

>>9144714
>This thread is obvious bait but i will bite.
Yes, that owl did have an ancestor with a random genetic mutation that camouflaged itself perfectly with that tree, and gave it a better chance of survival until reproductive age. What you dont see in that picture is the hundreds of thousands of other owls with random genetic mutations that did everything else, ranging from nothing all the way to turning the fucker bright red and removing its ability to fly. Obviously you dont see many red flightless owls because it would be a pretty shit trait for survival, and those that have such traits dont live long enough to pass them on.

Its not like evolution is some elegant tinkering of genetics to adapt species to their habitat, it's literally trial and error thousands of times over. There are far more genetic errors than successes but they get erased from existence if they arent good mutations.

If this still doesnt make sense to you, youre a brainlet of the highest caliber.

File: Peppered+Moths-+Natural+Selection+in+Action.jpg (147KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 960x720px

This is just one piece of the evolution puzzle child.

File: hqdefault (18).jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>9144773
Seems like post hoc bullshit. Obviously there is a much more complex mechanism to evolution other than dude random genetic errors lmao.

>>9144764
Because of immune systems and competition between different microorganisms.

>>9144764

If creationism is real and we came from dirt, why is there still dirt?

Evolution is imposible, because how can you explain the creation of the first comon ancester (LUCA). I studying health, and you know its impossible to create a new cell without a mom cell . so the only solution for creation of life Is God.

>>9144728
could say the same for neural networjs and the brain

>>9144784
Can the immune system generate and deploy mutations within a single host?

>>9144795
Nobody said anything about creationism, stop being so defensive faggot.

>>9144714
You got it backwards, over generations trees have slowly adapted to look like owls, to keep mice and squirrels away.

>>9144811
>Nobody said anything about creationism

"Macroevolution" is a nonsense term invented by creationists, faggot. So yes, I will accuse you of being a retard, aka a creationists, because you obviously are one, faggot.

>>9144736
Underatabing an idea is not synonymous with not questioning it.

>>9144756
The FDA has zero say in what books get published.

>>9144811
>Can the immune system generate and deploy mutations within a single host?
What are you asking? Your immune system can handle a wide range of pathogens. Even if they change slightly.

>>9144764
A bactierium that kills off its host rapidly may tend to evolve into one that does not -- the bacteria needs the host to survive and thrive and tote it around and feed it and spread it to more hosts.

File: CIYvAwHWIAAqLZH.png (248KB, 418x457px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 418x457px

Unironically how does speciation work? How did humans make the jump from 48 chromosomes to 46? Why do people keep insisting epigenetic changes have no real change on the genotype? Why is mitosis and embryology so poorly understood and hand waved away? Why is chemistry beyond the hydrogen atom pure extrapolation?

>>9144783
The idea of "errors" is way over-stressed. There are all sorts of minor variations in populations just within the normal genotype. More favorable variants tend to get preserved, less favorable tend to get weeded out.

File: evolution.jpg (34KB, 571x285px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 571x285px

>evolution isn't rea-

>>9144834
WTF?

>Understanding

File: 1461033193326s.jpg (7KB, 250x231px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x231px

>>9144827

>>9144748
shut up

It sounds like you would want to know how it achieves that much genetical variety so fast, not how it happens. I can't say I am an expert, but maybe the following thoughts help:
1. The Obvious, Genetic Mutation because of random changes in DNA. = How the first bacteria was created, etc. This can happen through various effects, mostly chemical or radiation I guess.
2. Through genetical heritage, either through copying DNA/RNA to clones or through building children and therefore mixing 2 different DNA strings to a single DNA string.
3. The Problem: Darwins Survival of the Fittest, which means creatures based on specific DNA strings survive better than other creatures, because of different environments and the DNA adaption to it. So this means Earths Environment might favour certain genetic developments, because of their survival abilities.

So this means we have X random Mutations for every DNA of a single creature of a species, that can reproduce itself. Also we have - per Generation - Y possible Mixtures leading to new arrangements of DNA. And then on top of it Evolution put a sieve and say only those reproduce, who have a favourable environment/ ability enabling better survival. My Kombinatorik-Skills are not that fresh, but that should give a ridiculously high number.

So the Problem is telling people, that we have only that few -specialised- creatures on Earth, because of Evolution.

>>9144714
Yeah it makes sense to me.

Humans are weirder than any stupid bird colored the same as tree bark. Fact we are typing this idiot conversion into boxes across the world points to evolutionary theory being lacking more than the fucking color of a bird, imho to be quite honestm

It's because the universe is conscious and is coding its constituent components in such a way to experience itself from trillions of different subjective viewpoints. You are the universe and the universe is you.

>>9144714
A mere 10% increase in fitness is enough for the mutated genotype to become dominant in only a few generations. Google peppered moth evolution.

ok second go.

there isnt one generation and suddenly the owl looks like a tree. there are a hundred generations of owls that look only a bit like the tree first.

File: genius.png (117KB, 680x788px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 680x788px

if evolution is real then why do we still have monkeys? checkmate atheists

>>9144714
i have never read a explanation, all i get is it way to complex to explain. in other words it is BS propaganda

>>9144748
thats the dumbest fucking thing i have ever read. now i know aliens created us.

>>9144838
Oh I'm sorry I meant. "influenced by the FDA and suppressed by US Government"

Doesn't matter what three letter agency I list, the fish rots from head first.

>b-but under the Constitution of the US Government can't ban freedom of speech!

does anyone in this thread write code or know
the history of photoshopped?

>>9145174
I write code. Sup?

>>9144714
>Do you really expect me to believe this owl just so happened to descend from an ancestor that just so happened to have a random mutation that managed to camouflage itself perfectly with the tree
no, its liekly owls ancestors already had camo that worked well in fauna, and the ancestors closer to owl further iterated camo's that allowed them to survive

>I'm not it just seems that there is a lot missing to evolution as a theory.
You are absolutely right and nobody iq >90 debates this.

Owls are an example of our lack of informatiuon even

>>9145130
If evolution is not true, why do we not still have tails? Why are we not still mokeys?

>>9145163
I than I will need a source that the US Government blocked the publication of that book.

File: 1458484655136.jpg (3MB, 3840x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2400px

>>9144714
You seem to miss the point; the mutations are random. The mutations change the genotype. The phenotype is encoded in the genotype. Now, nature will naturally select the best phenotype - better camouflage in your example. They will have more children. They will pass on their genes. This step is *NOT* random

>>9144714
>I still don't understand evolution and I don't think any one really does either.

I forgot for a moment how obnoxious the current generation really is.

>>9144714
Are you an actual moron, or are you being paid to shill for religion?

>>9145699
4chan is literally full with people who have a random mutation actually leading to a WORSE phenotype that most certainly will never be passed on to anyone

>>9144783
Yes, there are also genetic recombination and transposition events. The genetic machinery is designed to rearrange itself in order to increase the amount of variation in offspring.

>>9144714
>Do you really expect me to believe this owl just so happened to descend from an ancestor that just so happened to have a random mutation that managed to camouflage itself perfectly with the tree and thus the ancestor managed to propagate its genes at that much more of a massive rate?
When you build a castle with cube, you don't put every cube at once, you do it bit by bit.

File: d30a0f48ac444f549f5fc94dc30288da--rainbow-zebra-rainbow-art.jpg (78KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x367px

because what you're not seeing is the hundreds of millions of owls that were born looking way different to the tree and got fucking eaten

imagine you opened mspaint, ad threw a dart at the rainbow colour chart, and where your dart landed it produced a prey animal of that colour. You throw hundreds of darts at the colour chart, producing a whole mess of rainbow faggot animals, and release them into a green environment. The bright faggot ones are quickly eaten, while the blue and the green and the darker ones survive.

Now for the next generation the colour chart does not contain all the colour but rather only the colour of those animals that survived. So you have a colour chart of dark, blue and green.

you throw the darts again, produce your animals, and release them into the environment.

BUT WAIT

some other guy is also throwing darts at his chart, but his darts produce prey animals that are getting progressively better at distinguishing the prey animals at the environment. it's a competition between you two dart throwers, yet either of you have actually seen the environemet your devilspawns are born into. you have no choice but to randomly throw your dart and hope it hits a colour the prey animal finds hard to spot

this retarded analogy continues, both of you retards throwing darts at a computer programme, (neither of you actually getting better at aiming either...) until what was once a rainbow colour chart gets whittled down to very narrow variations upon the specific motley crew of camo that can best avoid the now highly specialized prey animal, with eyes fine tuned to distinguish manatee grey from porpoise grey

a dumb fuckin human named op stumbles upon the spawn world of predator and prey, and is quicky eaten because he was carrying a rainbow flag proudly, as he lays there, indulging his vore fetish he thinks to himself, wow the natural world is nothing more than a big selection bias meme, I'm a real fuckin fag retard for seeing purposeful design by GOD

>>9144798
We're talking about evolution, not abiogenesis you brainlet.

File: 1474905835892.jpg (486KB, 1060x1600px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1060x1600px

>>9145699

>cute owl

On a side note, animals are getting cuter as a survival strategy when interacting with man.

Pic related is what the Great White Shark now looks like, when fully adult. Gone are the days when a shark's dorsal fin caused panic and fear in beach tourists; they are now a source of adoration and inspire cuddling and play.

Source: Richard DAWWWWkins, 2014

>>9145807
>In a more or less near future, due to evolution, the planet earth will be full of creature consider as "cute" by humans.
>Animals will all be tiny, with big, round eyes, colorful fur, feathers, scales and their cries will be cute babbling sound.
>Plants will all have pastel colored heart or star shaped leaf, rainbow flower who smell like sugar, full of nectar, and all the fruits will looks like cakes or candies.
>Mono cellular beings will be shaped like heart, star of smiling face.

>>9145738
>posting as prime example
Nice meta

>>9144714

It seems completely improbable, but think of the survivor bias.
Only those species that successfully managed to camouflage perfectly (or any other "perfect" adaption) survived.

>>9144764

99% of bacteria live in symbiosis with their hosts.

For God's sake, cows can only live because they eat grass, their gut bacteria digest the grass and the cow's guts then digest the bacteria.

It's almost like stuff like this has been tested in other animals and found that they did indeed adapt to new surroundings rather rapidly.

See experiments with guppies for one example.
http://theguppyproject.weebly.com/

>>9145782
>because what you're not seeing is the hundreds of millions of owls that were born looking way different to the tree and got fucking eaten

What the fuck eats owls?

File: Uhu_im_Flug.jpg (48KB, 711x533px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 711x533px

>>9146056
Crows mob an owl, if they spot it during the day. And larger diurn birds of prey may start hunting it if it easily spotted.

>>9144714
Mutations and heretability automatically mean evolution is a certainty.

Organisms will have mutations, their offspring will inherit them, and over thousands of generations these mutations will add up. Until eventually the organism no longer looks anything like the original.

>>9146473
Crows do that with our current evolved hidden owls (tm) so the camouflage seems to be failing.

On a related note, the best thing I ever saw was a pair of hummingbirds repeatedly dive-bombing an owl, who just sat there with this air of "like I give a fuck" about him for a good five minutes.

>>9146486
Mutations (or just normal variation) plus heritability PLUS some screening process -- that last being what Darwin was on about.

Mutation is a meme spread by brainlet darwinists, those with the phenotype know epigenetic evolution is where it's at.

>>9144850
I'm with this guy, I understand an organism can mutate to change its chromosome count, but then who do they fuck?

File: 5E98E8B5-C4AA-442E-BA6C-E468641ABE3A-4954-000005724A0C2343.jpg (73KB, 634x357px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 634x357px

>>9145807
>>9145830
It doesn't work

>>9145807
That's a baby salmon shark

>>9147717
Source: Anon's ass.

File: Figure-2-Normal-meiosis-and-maternal-meiotic-errors-a-The-schematic-shows-the-normal.png (219KB, 850x429px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 850x429px

>>9147718
Polyploidy is how organisms change chromosome numbers. Errors in meiosis (nondisjunction) that survive into the offspring by two polyploid gametes fusing. It's more common in plants.
This might not be the only mechanism.

Literally hoo?

>>9147726
AKA Porbeagle, a very close cousin of he Great White.

>>9147718
Yer mom

>>9145830
>We are turning the world into Pokemon

Dear God

Life really does imitate art

>>9144783
It's called evolutionary biology, not evolutionary mathematics. The driving force behind evolution is, in fact, random. The multitude of genetic variations and mutations which occur during meosis of sexual gametes produce a diverse gene pool. It logically follows that, due to this diversity, some genes will be better suited for their environment than other genes, and will thus propagate throughout the gene pool

>>9144764
Meosis results in exponentially more genetically varied offspring than mitosis

>>9144714
Random mutations filtered by nature you fucking retard. Evolution has no goal beyond DNA replication.

>>9144764
The answer to your question is "Why would they?" Your statement is based upon the flawed assumption that any single organism would benefit from another species' extinction. Genes, unlike humans, do not wage genocide. Simply because a bacteria or virus can kill off all of its living hosts, doesn't mean killing off hosts would be an evolutionarily beneficial decision. Remember that bacteria need warm, wet environments to thrive. Causing a mass extinction of warm, wet bodies would in turn eliminate a future for your genes.

The existence of bacterial pathogens would lead one to falsely believe that bacteria and viruses are "out to get us". That because we suffer from their activities, they must in some way benefit. This notion is completely incorrect. Bacteria and viruses have one goal: survive. The toxins they excrete are not an evolutionary adaptation, but rather a symptom of natural chemical processes within the cell. They have no "desire" to affect us one way or another.

>>9146056
It's more like
>the hundreds of millions of owls who were born way different from the tree and starved to death because they can't catch any food because any dumb ass half blind mouse can see the owl from a mile away and go hide under a rock.

>>9144714
Yes, owls are in competition with each other as well as the natural world. A blue owl might be able to survive however it won't jizz all over the place.

>>9148518
he does have a point. epigenetic evolution plays a huge role, and can evolve a lot faster than genetic changes.

for example, methylation patterns and chromatin modifications can often be hereditary and passed down from a mother or father who experienced changes in the environment.

but, random mutations also do play a big role on long-scale timeframe

>>9144764
What you call a disease is a bacterium or virus living in your body. Kill all multicellfags and most infectious agents cease to exist. Infectious agents also need warm places to live in thats why most vertebrates barely ever get ill but mammals and birds are screwed.

>>9145213
I'd give it to you, but the US Government blocked the publication of the book where my citation comes form :^)

>>9149740
>some genes will be better suited for their
And THERE'S your driving force, the "selection" part of "natural selection." It is not the random part, therandom variations, which are a necessary but not sufficient precondition. It is the non-random impact on an organism when its suite of variations collides with the environment full of predators, food sources, potential mates, etc. that is the driving force.

File: alien.jpg (29KB, 156x143px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 156x143px

>>9151335

Well, just say it was aliums then and we can all move on.

>>9144747
This. Evolution doesn't happen in "jumps," and the biggest mistake biology educators make is emphasizing the big-picture of evolution (i.e. ape to human) over the small scale.

>camoflagued itself perfectly
You can quite clearly still see the owl. It takes millions of years so changes such as these to occur but despite them this phenomenon of "survival of the fittest" has been observed. Research the checkered moths. It's not just that camoflagued brings an advantage, but the owls that had the mutation were the most successful at bringing descendents that would then go on to have offspring of their own

>as a theory
So the highest credibility a scientific concept can go?

More importantly why are you trying to create the narrative that this doesn't occur on its own? Mutations within DNA is fully understood, and no anomalies within this topic occur that would suggest someone needs to be influencing these mutations.