/sci/ - Science & Math

What's your alternative narrative? Do you have a better scientific theory or are you gonna appeal to the Torah?

>>15605432
Because you're retarded.

>>15605432
/sci/ unironically believes that we won the lottery millions of times in a row for life to appear on earth

> An organism is encoded by its DNA
> Offspring's DNA is like parents' with minor variations
> If a minor variation is beneficial in some context then it is more likely to be passed on to other offspring in that context
> Further minor variations can compound in this manner
> Over some number of generations these compounding variations can cause populations of organisms in different contexts to diverge as different variations will be amplified
> Over longer times, these differences may become greater, to the point where organisms that may have started off as the same species may no longer be genetically compatible many generations later

>>15605432
You’ve made these threads several times and every time all you do is display that you know fuck all and are incapable of understanding the ideas presented in evolutionary theory. How long till this one gets deleted for violating the religious debate rule

>OP is STILL afraid of whales with legs

>>15605432
you need an iq higher than 70 to post here.

>>15605553
>DNA can spontaneously generate

>>15605767
Those are necessary for a lot of movements, muscles attach to them.

You're still a sub-60 IQ retard who doesn't even know what he's talking about.

>>15605440
>you must provide an alternative otherwise I need tax-funding and indoctrination for my SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE creation myth
Hey, sub-50 IQ retard, I can criticize anything I want without providing alternatives.

You are just a brainwashed cultist with the dumbest creation myth in the world, you believe your ancestors were magic transforming fish. You believe all life shares a common ancestor and you can't prove it, but you lie and claim it's a fact and brainwash kids to believe your religion.

>>15605762
Evolution is a religion. And your religion dies without tax funding and censorship, as you've just proven. You can't even argue your case, you just lie and demand censorship because you're a cowardly faggot with a sub-40 IQ.

>>15606129
>>15606138
>>15606143
>my preferred activity on a Sunday is to act like a total retard on a forum for social outcasts

>>15606171
Enough about you. Why can't you defend your faith? You have no arguments. You're just a brainwashed cultist.

You literally think your ancestors were magic fish and and you have a mental breakdown when your belief is challenged and you think I'm the retard, lol.

>>15606190
Lol go talk to chatgpt dumbshit spammer

>>15606195
You're such a pathetic loser. Why are you even still replying? To show to everyone that you can't prove your retarded beliefs and your faith that your ancestors were magic transforming fish?

Take your own advice, those midwit chatbots (trained on human data, so it's abundant in mediocrity) seem great for an idiot like you.

you are right evolution is on very shaky if not crumbling foundations. scientists typically don't like to leave old ways of thinking until new ones emerge, evolutionary theory was more of a fuck you to the church as an institution rather than a real progression towards understanding.

in many ways what happened in the past is not a scientific question and has little to no bearing on what is happening now or in the future. science can't even agree on what the past is, let alone speciation, adaptation, mutation etc.

of course no scientist would ever admit any of this to you because they like how mad you get when they say darwin disproved god. it's petty, but it's ingrained in them because they used to be killed for mixing powders together.

>>15606211
So tell me how we can watch dinosaurs slowly become birds in the fossil record.

>>15606211
They don't admit to it because they'll be ostracized and outcast and their career will suffer. Darwin lost faith in his own theory at the end of his life btw.

>>15606220
imagine a scientist calling their discovery today

>fossil internet

and realize how ridiculous what you just said was. better yet talk to a geophysicist or geologist about earth crust displacement, mountains, valleys, rivers and ask them how they feel about the information earth stratum can give us if we dig down. truthfully the reason so much of the fossil record comes from countries in africa is because it's a lot easier to forge discoveries in corrupt backwards countries where you can get bodies with deformities on the cheap, there aren't any questions that won't go away with a bribe, chemicals that age bone are abundant due to extensive local mining from foreign companies, everything falls of the back of some truck.

>>15605432
Evolution require 3 simple step
>the progeny inherit carachteristic from the parents
> these carachteristic aren't perfectly inherited
>there is a selection of some kind
Example of the effect of this simple theory are:
>dog breeding
>any human cultivated plant (lettuce,cereal,most fruit etc...)
>cow variance (some which can be milked for over 100L each day)
Even if you are religious you cannot really deny evolution or you have to assume evry dog breed,seedless banana and a cow that produce 100L of milk each day already existed in nature

>>15606240
You didn't answer my question, you just want to dance around it and imply every fossil is fake.

>>15605432
What is a finch?

>>15606240
I think his point was you can't prove it; it's not observable, testable, or repeatable; it's not science. You can't prove one single fossil had any offspring that lived either. Not that there are any transitions from dino to bird in the fossils. When a form appears, it remains unchanged through the layers, and then it disappears.

> truthfully the reason so much of the fossil record comes from countries in africa is because it's a lot easier to forge discoveries in corrupt backwards countries
>there aren't any questions that won't go away with a bribe
>it's easier to make "discoveries" in corrupt places
Maybe that's because there's no real proof for this evolution fantasy creation myth. Most of those discoveries have been deliberate frauds and quietly removed from textbooks, but they never write about all the frauds in the next edition of the textbook because they have to keep their anti-science religion of evolution and naturalism alive.

>>15606280
Centuries of dog breeding has only ever made dogs. That's not evolution.

Some variation within cows doesn't prove they came from fish. They're still cows, that's not evolution. Same for plants and agriculture.

They've been trying to breed the largest pigs for centuries, they're still pigs as well. You just call *literally everything* evolution then tell people to "have faith" that everything comes from a common ancestor.

It's not science, it's the creation myth of the naturalist religion.

>>15605432
>evolution over thousands or millions of years
>Camera exists for 200 years
>Wtf why haven't we seen entire species evolve during this time.

Creationism is debunked here:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>15606294
Why can polar bear and grizzy bear(hors and donkey and zebra,tiger and lion) breed whit each other
And isnt it weird how many carachteristic they share in common whit each other
It almost look like they were variance of a species .
I agree to some extent that a lot of paleontology isn't exactly hard science.
But you dont even need to use paleontology to see the common thread that exist between all of the living being on earth

>>15606296
Dog and wolfs are different species
And if we interbreed orange and mandarine we get a sterile plant

>>15605762
It won't get deleted because these posts are actually promoted by 4chans jannies and mods because they have nothing better to do with their lives than this, and they do it FOR FREE

>>15606283
i just don't think comparing fossils is science. the simplest way to expose this would be a deliberate fraud, someone with enough knowledge of how fossils are pieced together, discovered and interpreted would have to take bones from dogs and cats and create a sort of morphological map from one to the other mixing and matching partial skeletons, intuitively i feel it can be done.

then you could interpret dogs becoming cats or cats becoming dogs using the same methodology currently used.

i look out at the world and see an incredible variety in animals, a lot of different ways of doing the same thing (flying, swimming, pollinating), and it would only be proper for me to assume that at X years ago on the planet you have different animals using different ways of doing the same thing.

why do you need dionsaurs to become birds? is it because birds typically have hollow bones and fossilize harder? maybe what you call dinosaurs were just different types of reptiles, and what you call birds always existed and you just don't have great fossil evidence for them. why did dragonflies and other insects survive all of these catastrophes on the planet? aren't insects being at the bottom of the food chain much more prone to instability, isn't that the common argument used today for climate change - we are losing insect biomass it's a great extinction event - why didn't we lose insect biomass during the transition periods in the fossil record? it looks like dragonflies just shrunk when oxygen levels changed in the atmosphere. what happened to the megafauna? it looks like it just shrunk. what happened to the dinosaurs? with a few minor examples, reptiles are pretty small. what about feathered dinosaurs which flew!!!!! do you mean birds? they also got smaller. what about all the giant human bones that were found? oh we hid those from you, because you might detect a trend...

>>15606358
>then you could interpret dogs becoming cats or cats becoming dogs using the same methodology currently used.
Fox exist
>why did dragonflies and other insects survive all of these catastrophes on the planet? aren't insects being at the bottom of the food chain much more prone to instability,
Insect compose most of the biomass on earth and are the most succesfull animals on earth
>isn't that the common argument used today for climate change
I find it unlikely that whit an increas of energy input there would be a decrease in biomass
Is just retarded climate doomerism

>>15606389
*on earth
I meant between animals

>>15606389
foxes are canidae, my question to you was more pointed why didn't dragonflies evolve? they have looked the same for 300 million years (according to your dating and fossil schema). if some stuff arbitrarily evolves and some stuff doesn't seems you need to explain the higher order mechanism that controls of coding evolution on and off.

>>15606358
You experiment would prove that you committed fraud, not that every bone you find in the ground is fraudulent.

>why do you need dionsaurs to become birds? is it because birds typically have hollow bones and fossilize harder? maybe what you call dinosaurs were just different types of reptiles, and what you call birds always existed and you just don't have great fossil evidence for them
We have fossils of dinosaurs with hollow bones, why not birds?

>aren't insects being at the bottom of the food chain much more prone to instability
I forgot about some mealworms in my car for several months, spring summer and fall, and when I checked them they were fine. Insects being small and so numerous gives them a lot of leeway and potential for survival in random nooks that aren't so bad, it also means billions of them could die without them going completely extinct.

>why didn't we lose insect biomass during the transition periods in the fossil record?
Probably did.

>what happened to the megafauna
A lot of them are gone.

I stopped copy pasting when I realized you were arguing for the existence of shrink based evolution.

>>15606296

>>15606394
>why didn't dragonflies evolve?
They did.

>why didn't they radically change their morphology?
Not enough pressure to, the base dragonfly setup is very effective.

>if some stuff arbitrarily evolves and some stuff doesn't seems you need to explain the higher order mechanism that controls of coding evolution on and off
Nope. Not everything is going to radically change at the same rate, obviously.

>>15606394

Speciation isn't arbitrary, nor does it happen to all members of a species. They don't "turn into something else".

Dragonflies excel in their niche so they continue to occupy it.

>>15606394
If the selection pressure reamain the same nothing will change.
Dragonflies need to be fast and maneavrable
This didn't really change for 300 milion years
And another species tryng to steal that niche will just be outcompeted since the dragonfly is a particulare good design.
And becoming smaller due to lack of oxygen is evolution

>>15606404
the opponents of evolution don't oppose things changing thats obviously observable look at OP, they oppose extrapolating this into a common origin type argument which holds no weight under observation. species are present in the fossil record, the process of speciation or one species becoming another one is not. so the bear argument or the hooved animal argument is pretty odd. you can have similar looking animals who also adapt to their environment so they become dissimilar. this is not evolution it's natural selection.

it's dangerous intellectually to strawman your opponent because it let's you confidently say things like this:

>shrink based evolution
by which you mean
>adaptation due to atmospheric pressure

which you imply if not outright state are identical statements. you are conflating observable reality with a scientific world view for which you have no evidence for, the transition of all living forms from one original form. on the face of it, the claim is so outrageous that only a religious thinking person could even apprehend it. in fact it is a religious claim, you just replaced god with nature and state the same causal chain

>>15606394
There are thousands of different species of dragonfly

>>15606434
We can observe species change over time, like birds nesting near cars having shorter wings. We can also identify specific species branching into different adaptations, like Darwin's finches descending from one species into eighteen.
We can also track these things happening in the past through the fossil record.

Knowing these things, how does it require religious thinking to come to the conclusion that species can change and adapt over time?

>>15606434
this would be like a physicist saying that beneath fundamental particles are invisible strings you can't measure or test for but trust me bro. oh i guess we're done, pack it up boys, it's strings. wait how is knowing this useful for us? oh it gives string theorists jobs. got it.

the only difference is physicists case about experiments so string theory and most theories are laughed out of the room while real science is performed. in anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, sociology you really can't do a lot of experimentation, so you have more of an interpretive language game going on than any useful science. you act as a historian, adding fragments together with the current popular interpretation to arrive at an approved conclusion that keeps you employed. these are intellectually dishonest pursuits for stupid and lazy people. they act as myth-making grand narratives, usually self-serving the fashionable moods, and prone to gross overestimation.


think of the soft sciences as moralistic dogma, providing cover and encouraging pushing ethical boundaries. physics is about making war with materials. chemistry is about modifying living things to be more easily controlled. science itself is a type of new religious dogma that has a spiritual side and a practical side, with the goal of using the technological process to trap humans into a dependency for which all of their future societies cannot escape. religion did this with first using mathematics for astronomical predictions to promote agriculturalism, then later with literacy and developing the vocabulary and language of mind control to promote industrialism, now again it appears using technique to promote transmutationism.

>>15606475
hope this makes it clear

>>15606502
It doesn't make it clear, you are unironically storytelling in order to ignore the real evidence we have in support of evolution. >>15606475

>>15606521
>specific species branching into different adaptations
>track these things happening in the past through the fossil record.

i get that you believe this, but you have no evidence for this belief. an adaptation inside a species occurs due to
>inheritance, natural selection

you have not shown common descent, does anyone even defend gradualism anymore? and the fossil record inherently cannot show speciation because it requires an arbitrary amount of time- your proof of speciation is specious claims of circularity, there are different types of animals because they speciated, how did that happen? see they share common traits - okay but unrelated animals can adapt in covergent ways without being related, bats and birds fly they got there through different means - right that's evolution, no it isn't it's adaptation which we call natural selection which isn't what you were asked to prove.

show
>common descent LULULULDNA LULLULU
>gradualism - incoherent, things adapt slowly and quickly according to the "dragonflies are perfect just the way they are" guy
>species become other species because different species exist and animals look similar to each other

obviously the real goal here is to encourage science to create chimera monsters of mixed creatures, then you can say - see we did it, it doesn't matter if it ever happened because we caused it to happen now, while the gelatinous blob moans kill me you smile and hit it with a stick so it shuts up.

i dunno the anons ITT are acting like intelligent design is some whacky nonsense position when it is completely parsimonious with the observable data.

>>15606562
>you have no evidence for this belief. an adaptation inside a species occurs due to
>you have no evidence for this
>this happens due to
Stopped reading. Take a writing class.

>>15605432
go back to pol and neck yourself

>>15606572
are you esl?
speciation is adaptation from one species to another - across a boundary
natural selection is adaptation inside a species due to pressure on it - inside a boundary

to prove common descent you must prove speciation. you created the species word, it replaced the word kind, kind was understood as an obvious truth about the world, things are begotten from their own kind - it's an acceptance of inheritance and sexual selection.

i swear to god, biologists must be the lowest brain retard tier of science, you don't even understand your own discipline.

imagine if i wrote in full paragraphs, this guy can't follow a basic two step logical inference.

People already understood basic evolution by breeding small horse + small horse = pony.
Darwin explained enviromental evolution. Dumb retard

>>15606562
Intelligent design is not parsimonious. You have to invent an unobserved species, while evolution doesn't require that. Evolution only requires that accumulating small changes (which creationists call microevolution) lead to big changes (which creationists call macroevolution), which is almost mathematically true. Anyway with the current state of genetics the evidence for evolution is so enormous you have to reject biology as a whole if you want to reject evolution. Otherwise your position is incoherent.

>>15606312
Holy shit time for creationists to kill themselves

>>15606129
>Those are necessary for a lot of movements, muscles attach to them.
And what movements are those exactly?
>You're still a sub-60 IQ retard who doesn't even know what he's talking about
Kek. You’ve got no idea what you’re saying. In modern whales those hindlimbs are internal and consist of one bone, in Basilosaurus the legs are complete with toes, femurs, tibias and a hip. Tell me how being used as an internal muscle attachment necessitates have external limbs too small to be used for propulsion with toes on the end?

>>15606296
>evolution requires a fish to become a cow
You’re retarded. You’re the type of person to say something like “those spiders didn’t evolve, they’re still both spiders” even if they were less closely related to than a walrus is from a bear. You constantly conflate relatively specific groups like “pig” and “cow” with broad ones like “fish”. You don’t even know the basics of phylogeny

>>15606358
>why do you need dionsaurs to become birds? is it because birds typically have hollow bones and fossilize harder?
Birds are dinosaurs
>maybe what you call dinosaurs were just different types of reptiles, and what you call birds always existed and you just don't have great fossil evidence for them.
There’s plenty of bird fossils. A dinosaur skeleton is more similar to a bird or crocodile morphologically than it is to a lizard. Birds are genetically closer to crocodiles than crocodiles are to lizards
>why did dragonflies and other insects survive all of these catastrophes on the planet? aren't insects being at the bottom of the food chain much more prone to instability
Insects and other arthropods are the most abundant and diverse animals on the planet. You’ve got it backwards, the larger species are way more prone to extinction.
>why didn't we lose insect biomass during the transition periods in the fossil record?
We did
>it looks like dragonflies just shrunk when oxygen levels changed in the atmosphere
They didn’t. The dragonflies today are not the same as the ones from back then. Also the giant dragonflies like Meganeura you’re thinking of aren’t dragonflies, they’re griffinflies which no longer exist
>what happened to the megafauna? it looks like it just shrunk
Part of it is we happened. It didn’t shrink either, they are extinct. A dire wolf did not become a grey wolf and a mammoth did not become an elephant, they were all alive at the same time
>what about all the giant human bones that were found?
None were found, you can’t just blow up a human to that size and function normally
>oh we hid those from you, because you might detect a trend...
Lol

>Makes zero effort to actually understand the theory and process
>Makes a post that reads like it was written by some 8 year old whose mom told him a little about biology

Why are retards like this on /sci/ and not on reddit?

This just in, OP continues to be scared of whales with legs

>"Darwin proves finches make finches"

False, his main discovery was that the finches of each island had unique adaptations based on the environment of each respective island. (Bigger beaks to accommodate larger food sources, etc).

>"this somehow proves life evolved millions of times for millions of years then magically stopped once cameras were invented"

Literally who tf said it stopped? This isn't pokemon, you can't *see* evolution.

>"this somehow proves all life shares a common ancestors and fish bring forth monkeys which bring forth man, just 'have faith'"

The finches have nothing to do with this. The cladistics you're referring to were pieced together over many years based on fossil and living evidence of shared derived traits.

Darwin mainly commented on his observations of organism adaptations, which varied based on niche and necessity, and his observations of organism generational behavior, in which they always overpopulated and were subsequently curbed by limiting factors such as predation, with the survivors passing on their unique traits. This was partially inspired by Malthus' observations of human limiting factors such as war and famine.

>>15608130
I doubt OP cares about what Darwin actually said, he’s just gonna keep repeating the same wildly incorrect shit and making accusations or assumptions that are totally inaccurate

OP hasn’t replied in a while, I think he was scared off by the whales with legs

>of course I accept that small particles in space can be attracted to eachother and form into tiny clumps, but they're all still tiny dustballs
>I just don't believe in this "macro-accretion" nonsense that you think created the planets and asteroids, there's no proof of it

>>15605432
I will just leave this here

>>15605432
>just "have faith" they say, "trust the experts"
its absurd that 200 year old scientific are held in such esteem. science is about ruining preexisting theory in order to refine it, but darwin is treated like god given gospel, doubting it is considered heresy and provokes strong emotional reactions from the science fundamentalists who serve as the religious conservatives of the atheists. the whole attitude is antithetical to the actual scientific method

>>15605553
The mechanism is in an unfathomable complex feedback loop and even simplified feedback loops displays chaotic behavior.
Your understanding of evolution theory is simply that of an idiot.
You do not understand it.