/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16138507
>evolution: the atheist creation myth
its fake

>>16138507
Evolution is by far the most likely explanation for diversity of life on earth. The evidence is overwhelming and nothing else approaches being a better explanation.
>>16138555
Evolution doesn't describe the creation of life, it describes the force behind diversity of life. What "created" life is still largely a mystery.

>>16139273
>Evolution is by far the most likely explanation for diversity of life on earth. The evidence is overwhelming and nothing else approaches being a better explanation.
Evolutionary biology is the consequence of a mathematical formulation that presumes living beings to be relatively rigid, deterministic and self-enclosed entities that do not meaningfully or only minimally affect their environment. It is true because you assume the world to be based on and primarily derived from a small number of deterministic and uniform laws that governs biology and biochemistry. This formulation is, given your materialistic philosophy, by definition true. It stops being true as soon as you either introduce non-deterministic factors or altogether abandon materialism.

>>16139380
>self-enclosed entities that do not meaningfully or only minimally affect their environment.
That's a weird strawman considering that beaver dams are a big deal in Dawkins' Extended Phenotype.

https://newatlas.com/biology/life-merger-evolution-symbiosis-organelle
just happened before our eyes

>>16139380
Define environment. Are you talking about biotic or abiotic factors, or both?

>evolution presumes living beings do not affect / minimally affect their environment
huh? Animals certainly do affect their environment. Evolution in many cases is an arms race between species. Animals in many cases obliterate ecosystems and landscapes when uncontrolled. Entire landscapes are transformed into grasslands, forests, or even wastelands because of living beings. Natural selection takes into account that relationship with the environment. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Stop using $10 words to hide your misunderstanding of basic biology.

>>16138507
At least link the video you lazy faggot

>>16139396
>>16139405
>That's a weird strawman considering that beaver dams are a big deal in Dawkins' Extended Phenotype.
>that do not meaningfully or only minimally affect their environment
I feel like that part has been lost there. I argue based on what a single entity is capable of which is where evolutionary mechanisms primarily apply to. Having billions of different animals, plants will establish a number of new mechanisms, selection pressures etc. but fundamentally won't change, in any meaningful way, the underlying mathematical laws. A biological entity, for example, cannot synthesize its own energy, it relies on material flow from the outside to grow, the transmission of genetic material depends on clearly established physical laws, its interaction with its environment is genetic and its overall impact on its environment is going to be minimal compared to the impact of the sun, planetary orbit etc.
>Evolution in many cases is an arms race between species. Animals in many cases obliterate ecosystems and landscapes when uncontrolled.
I see your point. Arguably, given that you have expanded the scope, my way of formulation it arguably has been poorly done. It fails to account for things like Malthusian crises which, in nature, often set in.
> You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
I think, I do.

>>16139399
Eukaryotic nitroplasts are cool AF.
Is anyone working on putting them in crops to make them nitrogen self-sufficient?

>>16139399
>once in a billion years
>I just happened to catch it
>I don't have any pictures bro just trust me

But for real though, how big of a deal are nitroplasts?
Are they gonna take over the world?

>>16139430
>but fundamentally won't change, in any meaningful way, the underlying mathematical laws
NTA, but I'm not seeing how this disproves evolution. All it means is that life is still restrained by the physical universe, despite evolution. Since life is still just matter, why would we expect it to ever transcend the material?

>>16139461
>Since life is still just matter, why would we expect it to ever transcend the material?
Ye, looking back on it. I think we can altogether remove the clause that prohibits animals or plants from influencing their environment. Doesn't matter. It does not touch upon the mathematical laws that govern evolutionary biology. I refer to my comment above:
>Evolutionary biology is, given your materialistic philosophy, by definition true. It stops being true as soon as you either introduce non-deterministic factors or altogether abandon materialism.

I don't argue with people over philosophy. I don't believe in materialism. Ergo, I don't believe in evolution but that's a different thing.

>>16139380
>evolutionary biology is the consequence of a mathe...
>*Random sailor comes up with the whole idea*

>>16139468
>It stops being true as soon as you either introduce non-deterministic factors or altogether abandon materialism.
Do you think that living in Plato's Cave invalidates any model that explains the shadows on the wall if that model does not include the true source of light outside the cave?

>>16139474
Surely, just because something follows from mathematical formulations, you would still look for empirical evidence. Darwin did a wonderful job just doing that.
>>16139482
>Do you think that living in Plato's Cave invalidates any model that explains the shadows on the wall if that model does not include the true source of light outside the cave?
I will think about that point ...but no, I don't think the situation as described by you invalidates a model as long as the model is not concerned with predicting anything other than what can be observed (the shadows).

>>16139490
>as long as the model is not concerned with predicting anything other than what can be observed (the shadows).
You're referring to a supposed explanatory gap between micro- and macro-evolution I presume? In that case you've not made clear why macro-evolution is wrong rather than incomplete and overrated. There might be a missing mechanism and mechanisms are agnostic about materialism/spiritualism unless you reject the notion that even dreams follow rules.

>>16138507
>is it real or fake?
EVOLUTION and the THEORY OF EVOLUTION are two different things.
Evolution is real, it's an observable phenomenon, it's the way organisms change with the passage of generations. The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is the set of ideas, some already proven, some still unproven, that attempts to explain evolution.

I like Tucker, but it's clear he's driven by his own set of biases.

He says that adaptation occurs, but not evolution and there's no proof we emerged from single cell organisms. For one, it's effectively impossible for microorganisms to be fossilized when they have soft membranes. The best preserved fossils are skeletons that are immediately encased in some media like tar or quicksand which becomes hardened into rock. He makes no real argument about the fossil record, and the extraordinary spans of time indicated by geological strata. If god created humans, he apparently left a lot of evidence of earlier hominid forms suggesting a long chain of adaptations.

Moreover, evolution is an extremely profound idea and can be found everywhere from military conflict, business competition, religious expansion, ideological persistence, and so on. Wherever there is iterated variation and selection, you will see evolution. Genetic algorithms which simulate the evolutionary process lead to emergent designs and adaptability. If you simply extrapolate over millions of years it's quite obvious that evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life we see today.

>>16139617
>some already proven,
you have no idea how the scientific method works, you have never studied it

>>16139696
I'm a practicing geologist with a PhD under my name. I'm OK, thanks.

>>16138507
The dust hasn't settled just because you stopped caring about it, anon.

>>16139699
and won't settle because "if you didn't prove it yet then it's God" seems to still work like a dream.

>>16139617
proved is a verb, proven is an adjective

>>16139687
>I like Tucker
Makes sense, since his only redeeming quality is his charisma.

what is it called when you KNOW science AND god are fake?