/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11871475

71KiB, 968x874, beavis and butthead shocked.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 05 Jul 23:46:17 2020 No.11871475 View Reply Original Report

>mfw realizing 99% of "evolutionary explanations" are unfalsifiable just-so stories
Any evolutionist can explain anything by simply saying "it was selected for" and within their own theoretical framework that can't ever be wrong. The problem is that it doesn't actually explain anything. Why do humans have five fingers per hand instead of six fingers or four fingers? Hurrr it was selected for. Okay that's cool but doesn't actually explain why. It's just an assertion that it happened.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO AEA03DE9-2456-4D72-BFDA-A668F4AF (...).jpg, 209KiB, 973x1253

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 00:50:29 No.11871650 Report

Quoted By:

You’re beginning to understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 00:56:32 No.11871663 Report

Quoted By:

If you accept that selection and changes in allele frequencies exist (because there is experimental and observational evidence that supports this), the best you can do is indeed try to make an intelligent guess indeed. People more educated than us can give a better explanation of why hands have so many fingers (by looking at, for instance, homology) or why the pelvis of humans is not like the pelvis of chimpanzees. But there is no way for an experiment to tell if it is because of one selected factor or another, and selection doesn't always favor the absolute best possibility, just something that improves chances of reproduction given what's available.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 00:56:47 No.11871664 Report

Quoted By: >>11871803 >>11871868 >>11873292

>>11871475
Molecular, paleontolical and genetic evidence doesn't disappear because you don't like the conclusions drawn from therein. We know the answer to most of these questions is that conservation of a trait was more fitness promoting or less deleterious than some other mutation that would have altered the phenotype. Some of the answers are contingent upon biomechanical modeling, and some of them are just obvious consequences of biochemistry and thermodynamics. Kill yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 02:18:47 No.11871803 Report

Quoted By: >>11871857 >>11872017

>>11871664
>We know the answer to most of these questions is that conservation of a trait was more fitness promoting or less deleterious than some other mutation that would have altered the phenotype.
That's tautological. "It happened because it was the thing that happened. How do we know that's why it happened? Because that's how it happened." It's not an actual explanation of anything. It has no explanatory power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 02:45:32 No.11871857 Report

Quoted By: >>11871949

>>11871803
do gravity next, I bet that's not real either

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 02:49:20 No.11871868 Report

Quoted By: >>11872017

>>11871664
All you did was reinforce his point, retard.
You just dressed up the language. Do you think that's going to impress any of us? This isn't facebook.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:21:23 No.11871949 Report

Quoted By: >>11871964 >>11878247

>>11871857
Gravity is observable and measurable. You can easily make accurate and precise predictions about how objects in a field of gravity will behave. All evolutionary theories are backward facing. They are rationalizations and stories about things that occurred in the past, but no interesting predictions are made about the future. The only prediction you can make is that a population in the future will be affected by conditions in the past, which doesn't really tell you anything interesting at all. It's not explanatory and the only predictions that can be made are trivial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:22:39 No.11871956 Report

Quoted By: >>11871984 >>11876997

>>11871475
hurr durr Sky Daddy it is then

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:25:16 No.11871964 Report

Quoted By: >>11871984

>>11871949
you have trouble understanding and appreciating randomness

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:26:59 No.11871971 Report

Quoted By: >>11877837

Evolutionary X basically amounts to pulling out of one's ass some explanation for how something evolved in response to some hypothetical environmental condition also pulled out of the same ass and calling it science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:30:08 No.11871984 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871956
Not an argument, nobody talked about religion until you did.

>>11871964
Elaborate.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 873535BA-2649-487F-AF0C-3A01A4DE (...).jpg, 31KiB, 640x350

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:34:10 No.11872007 Report

Quoted By: >>11872033 >>11875201

And this is my problem with Evolutionary biology and Creationist x Evolutionary debates in general, and in practice, a problem with modern Science.

I can make a model that has a lot of explanatory power, but it doesn’t mean that the model is true. It just arbitrarily explains things. That’s modern science now, Evolution through Genetic mutation and natural selection can explain things better than just saying “it just happened”, but it’s reasoning is fallacious. There’s no logical backing to saying that Natural selection is a good system for manifesting characteristics in organisms, Evolution just assumes that.

I can create a model that can explains things just fine. I can create a Flat earth model that rationalizes every single scientific fact away while revitalizing it in my model. And yet, using the same methods the other scientists use, they can call your model “pseudo-science” because it conflicts with their model.

This ties into the whole idea of Cartesian certainty in philosophy. There’s no causal link between evidence and conclusion, it is simply a leap of faith. Even though a model can have a statistical probability of it being true, it doesn’t mean it is true, and anyone can feed something into that model to make it unfalsifiable. Hence, we cannot have Cartesian certainty about anything, and everything can be written off as “unscientific”, or “pseudo-science.”

Modern ‘science’ isn’t science. It’s religion. Let’s just hope the artists and poets don’t fall into the same hole the scientists and philosophers did long ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:37:17 No.11872016 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
The same arguments can be applied to history as well. Which makes sense I suppose as evolutionary biology really is just history of animals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:37:30 No.11872017 Report

Quoted By: >>11872045

>>11871803
>>11871868
If you can harvest resources more efficiently because of some point mutation that alters the function of a digestive enzyme opening a vast front of new resources that grants a superior and more efficient energy budget than another organism in your niche and also if this allele can proliferate throughout the breeding population, barring some form of genetical or environmental intervention or catastrophe, your fitness will be higher, you may very well outcompete them and your ancestors will adapt the trait even further to facilitate the optimal phenotype for the new energy budget. If you are capable of persisting for long enough throughout the many generations that develop along a new evolutionary trajectory then you may very well develop a new niche or totally specialize into a very specific ecological niche, over time superfluous traits that were more useful to the generalist ancestral species will be pruned because the organisms that persistnently express them are less efficient. Its really that simple. The specifics of this are unknown and likely unknowable, we cannot map genotype-phenotype nor predict the exact trajector of every organism across a phenotype landscape. If you are upset about this that's fine, it doesn't change that all available geological, paleontological, and molecular genomic evidence points towards neo-darwinian evolutionary theory being correct. Its not as rigorous as particle physics and that's something we are working to remedy every day, but is a task that will never be completed. Do you find this satisfying?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:43:19 No.11872033 Report

Quoted By: >>11872045 >>11872046

>>11872007
>There’s no logical backing to saying that Natural selection is a good system for manifesting characteristics in organisms, Evolution just assumes that.
It's been directly observed. What more do you want?

>I can create a Flat earth model that rationalizes every single scientific fact away while revitalizing it in my model.
Then do it and publish it.

>There’s no causal link between evidence and conclusion, it is simply a leap of faith.
Continuous empirical testing is not faith.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:48:54 No.11872045 Report

Quoted By: >>11873173 >>11876328 >>11877851

>>11872017
That's all a nice little story and everything but it doesn't matter how detailed you make the story, it's still just an educated guest about the past and is unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make no predictions about what will occur in nature in the future. All it does it see what did happen and use circumstantial evidence and "context clues" and then fit it into a model that is constantly being revised.

Darwin observed the changes that took place in the finch populations but did not formulate new predictions about what WOULD happen to finch populations later, except for saying that if X conditions were met, Y changes in the population would probably happen (as he already observed in the past), all else being the same.

It's well observed that changes in populations occur and it's well observed that certain traits are propagated moreso than others, but the idea of those traits being "selected" is a post hoc rationalization. It might be consistent with a huge number of observations, but it's still post hoc and it's still just a story you think has a good chance of being true.

>>11872033
That is just empirical habit. Read Hume. The faith is in empirical habit. You can flip a quarter a million times, record the results and retrospectively find that there is about a 50% chance of the quarter landing on heads and a 50% chance of it landing on tails, but that doesn't tell you anything about what the next flip will land on (besides the trivial statement that it will land on either heads or tails, but as I said this is obviously trivial and does not inform one about the world).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:49:29 No.11872046 Report

Quoted By: >>11873191

>>11872033
>It's been directly observed. What more do you want?

Completely missing my point, and ties into what I said with a jump of faith. There’s no way you can get from Natural Selection existing to Natural Selection being the main driving force between natural selection. No matter how much evidence you have, you can never have Cartesian certainty. Although the amount of Faith needed decreases, you can never bridge the “Is-Ought” gap between the two.

>Then do it and publish it.

Yeah, let’s see how many respected Journals would publish my Flat earth model. Lmao

>Continuous empirical testing is not faith.

Yet trying to make a conclusion with simple empirical testing is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:53:26 No.11872055 Report

Quoted By: >>11872058 >>11872120

>>11871475
I used to believe in god but now I'm an atheist, because there is no way that god would have created niggers. The only explanation for niggers is that they are some awful hybrid of chimps and actual humans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 03:54:24 No.11872058 Report

Quoted By:

>>11872055
dubs confirm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 04:17:35 No.11872120 Report

Quoted By:

>>11872055
God enjoys hierarchy, and so to create that hierarchy, it purposely created lesser races that the higher races would feel superior to. The funny thing is, that God is sitting around somewhere laughing at the superior races it created and calling those higher races niggers just like the higher races call the lesser races.
Everyone is someone else's nigger, anon.

This material universe is nothing but flaws and misery, and it was orchestrated to be so. The hubris of man is the hubris of God. Like a disease passed down from a mother and father to child, so to are the flaws of God passed onto its creation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 12:10:52 No.11873173 Report

Quoted By:

>>11872045
>That is just empirical habit.
I don't care what you call it.

>You can flip a quarter a million times, record the results and retrospectively find that there is about a 50% chance of the quarter landing on heads and a 50% chance of it landing on tails, but that doesn't tell you anything about what the next flip will land on (besides the trivial statement that it will land on either heads or tails, but as I said this is obviously trivial and does not inform one about the world).
The ratio of heads to tails is information about the world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 12:13:02 No.11873175 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
Except they don't just say "it was selected for".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 12:22:26 No.11873191 Report

Quoted By: >>11876572

>>11872046
>There’s no way you can get from Natural Selection existing to Natural Selection being the main driving force between natural selection.
You mean the main driving force behind evolution? We see organisms adapted to their environment. You're correct that random genetic drift can explain this as much as natural selection. You're incorrect that this is the end of the analysis.

>No matter how much evidence you have, you can never have Cartesian certainty.
Scientists don't claim to have Cartesian certainty. You're arguing against a strawman.

>Yeah, let’s see how many respected Journals would publish my Flat earth model. Lmao
Then post it here. You never will.

>Yet trying to make a conclusion with simple empirical testing is.
Not if you acknowledge uncertainty. Faith is by definition complete certainty. Empirical knowledge isn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 12:23:41 No.11873192 Report

Quoted By: >>11873212

>>11871475
Yeah that's the problem with historical evolution, it's not recreatable, hence not scientific.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cvbbmwwe4rzz.png, 53KiB, 403x448

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 12:39:48 No.11873212 Report

Quoted By: >>11873332

>>11873192
>geology is not recreatable, hence not scientific

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:04:40 No.11873286 Report

Quoted By: >>11873728

Could evolutionary theory predict natural selection of traits in some species that make new generations of offspring very quickly, like rodents or fruit flies or even microorganisms? In general we are restricted to a bunch of post hoc explanations of why species are the way they are today because their development is obviously slower than our lifespan. Even the existence of evolutionary theory itself is pretty short compared to the timescale needed to observe, measure and predict natural selection on most species, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:06:09 No.11873292 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871664
>evidence
Science works by falsifiability, not verifiability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:10:27 No.11873305 Report

Quoted By: >>11873413

people actually do get born with six fingers all the time but it confers no advantage and does not get selected more than other traits

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:16:31 No.11873324 Report

Quoted By: >>11873328

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

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:19:25 No.11873328 Report

Quoted By: >>11873734

>>11873324
In this video, the bacteria HAS to select for antibiotic resistances to survive and thrive in the new environment.
This is how all evolution works, internal mutations tested against the environment.
All the bacteria in the video that died, didn't have the resistance and thus didn't get the chance to reproduce.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:21:23 No.11873332 Report

Quoted By: >>11873339 >>11874217

>>11873212
>applying chemistry to ancient processes with no evidence physical laws were the same back then

It really isn't

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1580370596281.gif, 1MiB, 288x350

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:25:37 No.11873339 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873332
>with no evidence physical laws were the same back then

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:49:43 No.11873389 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475

>OP makes reasonable observations

>Anons go hurr durr sky daddy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 13:57:41 No.11873413 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873305
How are five fingers more advantageous than four?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 14:23:49 No.11873473 Report

Quoted By: >>11873489 >>11873531 >>11873745

>>11871475
>mfw realizing 99% of "creationist explanations" are unfalsifiable just-so stories
Any creationist can explain anything by simply saying "it was created by god" and within their own theoretical framework that can't ever be wrong. The problem is that it doesn't actually explain anything. Why do humans have five fingers per hand instead of six fingers or four fingers? Hurrr it was created by god. Okay that's cool but doesn't actually explain why. It's just an assertion that it happened.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 14:34:21 No.11873489 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873473
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 14:51:06 No.11873531 Report

Quoted By: >>11873603

>>11873473

OP doesn't imply creationism as an alternative. Without pointing to creationism as a worse alternative, what is your response.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 15:29:55 No.11873603 Report

Quoted By: >>11873620 >>11873745 >>11873989

>>11873531
Always the best available theory is the correct scientific stance so I don't actually have to anwser.

>99% of "evolutionary explanations" are unfalsifiable just-so stories
If I murdered you and had your blood literally on my hand should the court drop the case on the basis that they couldn't reproduce in a laboratory setting how that blood got there? But it's hard to argue with an idiot since (likely) op stated he doesn't even belive physical laws were the same in the past.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 15:36:43 No.11873620 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873603
>If I murdered you and had your blood literally on my hand should the court drop the case on the basis that they couldn't reproduce in a laboratory setting how that blood got there?
They can look for evidence AGAINST the murder rather than evidence FOR it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 15:57:27 No.11873672 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
t. brainlet doesn't know shit about evolution

>Why do humans have five fingers per hand instead of six fingers or four fingers? Hurrr it was selected for.

it can be just fucking random anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 16:12:18 No.11873710 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
If you really think the analysis on the frequency of traits stops at 'hurr durr because it was selected for' then you really don't know what you are talking about.

We can see natural selection take place on a small timescale e.g., antibiotic resistance of bacteria. We can predict why it occurs, and support it with evidence which is a lot more than just saying it was selected for... Unless you have a better explanation, all you are doing is injecting a well studied phenomenon with doubt because you don't understand it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 16:21:52 No.11873728 Report

Quoted By: >>11874711

>>11873286
Yeah, actually it can. The problem with this is that mutation has so many variables to attribute to it, and can often be random. If we start from knowing what gene is mutated, then it becomes much easier to predict what that mutation will do to the organism and how it will affect its fitness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 16:24:37 No.11873734 Report

Quoted By: >>11874203

>>11873328
But that's a trivial observation. Only a child who was learning to use reasoning would find such an observation to be novel or interesting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 16:30:18 No.11873745 Report

Quoted By: >>11873823 >>11874887 >>11877887

>>11873473
I'm the OP, I never made a single statement about creationism anywhere in this thread, though of course you have to just trust me since it's impossible to prove that.

>>11873603
>Always the best available theory is the correct scientific stance
This is an appeal to authority. How do you measure what is the "best available theory"? The most encompassing theory? The one that made the most predictions? The boldest predictions? Theory isn't even necessary for predictions. I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the east, and I will (probably) be correct, but I am only utilizing empirical habit. How is the "correct scientific stance" measured? For an example, Newtonian physics were held to be correct at one point, but now general relativity is held to be "more correct". Does that mean that Newtonian physics were never correct, or simply incomplete? How can it be known that GR is complete? What will happen in 100 years when something better than GR is developed, will GR now retroactively have been wrong the entire time?

>since (likely) op stated he doesn't even belive physical laws were the same in the past.
I never said that. It is dishonest to imply things about others you don't have any evidence for. I have never made any statements about geology anywhere in this thread. You, however,

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 16:30:43 No.11873746 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
People get evolution wrong, it's not the elevation of things that are great, new or beautiful that makes it work, it's that everything shit dies. Survival of the fittest is the wrong end, it's the death of the wrong, damaged, and retarded that makes the magic happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 17:05:17 No.11873823 Report

Quoted By: >>11873876

>>11873745
I see what you are getting at, but you are severely underestimating how much evidence we have to support specific evolutionary explanations. There are projects that take decades which try to explain these questions which you seem to trivialize. This is what makes it scientific, and until there is another theoretical framework that makes more sense, has more evidence and can falsify the previous explanation, then this is what is going to be used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 17:07:18 No.11873832 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
evolution is not really an explanatory theory. It is more of a tautology if anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 17:29:06 No.11873876 Report

Quoted By: >>11873968

>>11873823
>until there is another theoretical framework that makes more sense, has more evidence and can falsify the previous explanation, then this is what is going to be used.
I agree with that. I do not have, nor do I intend to develop or suggest, a "better" alternative to evolutionary theory. However, I think that the limits of evolutionary theory (and scientific theories in general) are generally not well understood. The actual nitty gritty experimenters and those putting their nose to the grindstone to actually conduct the research itself largely understand this. Those people are a very small percentage of the population, however, and pop science understanding of evolution has gripped the hoi polloi, so to speak. Their understanding is just repeating a few talking points they heard and having what is essentially a faith in the institutions as they are promoted to the people. That's part of the reason I made this thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 17:53:04 No.11873968 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873876
Okay sure, I mostly agree with everything you said here.

>and pop science understanding of evolution has gripped the hoi polloi, so to speak. Their understanding is just repeating a few talking points they heard and having what is essentially a faith in the institutions as they are promoted to the people.
This is a pointless to care about though. I can replace evolution with anything from 'science' and the public will latch on because they don't understand the scientific method, the inner workings of institutions producing literature, and scientific consensus over a relatively long timescale. These are the people who make buzzfeed videos about how they "Will find the most amazing tasting boipussy using science."

What I will say is that I used to work with some of these people, I have sat through their seminars and have seen them defend theses on topics tangential to your initial statement of "Any evolutionist can explain anything by simply saying 'it was selected for' and within their own theoretical framework that can't ever be wrong." They don't just say this. They have decades of original research to support it. Now maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of evolutionist because I would not apply that term to anyone of the general populace who I talked about in the previous paragraph.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 17:56:16 No.11873989 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873603

Unnecessary analogy.

imo OP is just saying that understand evolution is accepting the pieces haven't be proven.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 18:55:40 No.11874183 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
Evolution explains HOW the changes happen, not WHY.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 18:57:28 No.11874187 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
Fine then OP.
Everything is as it is because God wanted it that way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 19:02:51 No.11874203 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873734
Trivial after Darwin.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 19:07:32 No.11874217 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873332
Nothing we've observed implies they were different. A law is just something which we have observed to be true in all cases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 19:10:31 No.11874227 Report

Quoted By: >>11874245

>>11871475
That perfectly explains why, you rube.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 19:14:23 No.11874245 Report

Quoted By: >>11874492

>>11874227
"It was selected for" doesn't really explain why at all, or if it does, it is an anti-intellectual answer. It is equivalent to simply telling someone to shut up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 20:22:59 No.11874467 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475

> "The unique factorization theorem says that any natural number can be factorized into primes."

> "Ok, so exactly what is the factorization of the function $f(n)=2^{F_n}-F_{F_n}$ where $F_n$ is the nth digit of pi?"

> "I don't know, all I'm saying is that it has a factorization."

> "Oh, so it's not falsifiable?"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 20:35:14 No.11874492 Report

Quoted By: >>11874756

>>11874245
It was selected for as other traits died out. It was selected for as organisms with this trait had a higher fecundity, higher offspring survival, and lived longer. This is what selection fundamentally means. Its explanatory, you're upset that its not a physical force and that we can't solve n-body problems with evolutionary theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 21:52:33 No.11874711 Report

Quoted By: >>11876776

>>11873728
Aha, so it's a complicated problem even on smaller timescales. You're basically saying the best we can do now is instead of predicting which gene will mutate because of selective pressures, we see which genes have mutated and predict the fitness and natural selection parts of evolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 22:06:32 No.11874756 Report

Quoted By: >>11874896 >>11874903 >>11874905 >>11876170

>>11874492
>It was selected for as organisms with this trait had a higher fecundity, higher offspring survival, and lived longer. This is what selection fundamentally means.
That's all tautological. It's not illuminating and doesn't elevate anyone's understanding of the world. It's no different from explaining how a sifter can separate a quantity of flour mixed with pebbles. Yes, the flour is smaller so it passed through the sifter while the pebbles were too big to pass through. It's so obvious that it's not informative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 22:41:22 No.11874887 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873745
>This is an appeal to authority.
No, it's an appeal to evidence and reasoning.

>How do you measure what is the "best available theory"?
The best available theory is the model which loses the least information in representing the process that is generating data. This means the model must fit the data as best as possible and be as simple as possible.

>Theory isn't even necessary for predictions.
Theory is necessary for understanding.

>How is the "correct scientific stance" measured?
It's often necessary to measure it, but information theory describes how.

>Does that mean that Newtonian physics were never correct, or simply incomplete?
Both.

>How can it be known that GR is complete?
No one claims it is.

>What will happen in 100 years when something better than GR is developed, will GR now retroactively have been wrong the entire time?
It's wrong now. Your thinking is very black and white. There are degrees of understanding, degrees of wrong, degrees of certainty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 22:47:36 No.11874896 Report

Quoted By:

>>11874756
>That's all tautological.
I don't care and neither do evolutionary biologists lol.
>It's not illuminating and doesn't elevate anyone's understanding of the world
It does, it explains the origin and direction of most population dynamics and the great diversity of organic life on Earth. It also suggests that diversity may be richer than anticipated, hence the continuous search for new organisms in exotic niches by people like deep sea-marine biologists and wildlife biologists that research cave systems and the like. We also use it to study chemical and protein evolution in lab and the evolution of microbial and viral populations (which can be done in a human lifespan and provides much of the experimental evidence for evolution). Without you cannot account for most organisms emergence. With it you can and with it you can construct population genetics and study family/population congenital disease history, cancer development, and the change of biometric parameters like height and disease resistance over time. We use it literally constantly in epidemiology and virology.
> It's no different from explaining how a sifter can separate a quantity of flour mixed with pebbles
Yes, this is why some Evo Bio researchers call it a selection machine. Its an abstract mathematical construct that describes the change in allele frequency of a population, alleles are real things that can be at least studied using statistical and genomic analysis. the evolutionary process is an amalgamation of many different biological processes, its not a fundamental force, we aren't physicists and don't have the ability to discuss such things.
>t's so obvious that it's not informative.
It isn't obvious that's why Mendel and Fisher had to do the work that they did to come up with mathematical models for the evolution of plant lineages and whole populations. Drift and gene flow are not obvious unless you were a very keen eyed observer and/or knew probability theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 22:50:42 No.11874903 Report

Quoted By:

>>11874756
You're saying that its obvious but if it were obvious then people would have formulated formal models of evolution at the population level for asexual and sexually reproducing organisms. This was not accomplished until the early 20th century by RA Fisher the founder of population genetics and one of the founders of mathematical statistics. You would need a formal theory of probability and dynamical systems to understand these things and they cannot be fully comprehended verbally which is why the actual serious research is done by applied mathematicians and not the typical evolutionary biologists who usually just gives descriptive analyses of evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 22:51:10 No.11874905 Report

Quoted By:

>>11874756
The simplest models are the most informative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jul 2020 23:13:00 No.11874962 Report

Quoted By: >>11875472

>>11871475
>4 fingers
not enough for gripping and the tasks required at that time in human history so people with 5 fingers were more successful in passing genes.

>6 fingers
unnecessary. For a slight increase in gripping capacity you are losing a lot energy and putting the organism in need for even more calories. Calories were hard to come by back in the day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 00:05:45 No.11875148 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
It's no different from a non-constructive proof in math, in that sense. We know it happens, we don't know why it's all this way

Evopsych a shit though I agree

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 00:20:36 No.11875201 Report

Quoted By:

>>11872007
That laughable. If the earth was flat, you could literally observe anything on earth with a big enough telescope from a high tower.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 01:08:04 No.11875369 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
>Directed evolution literally won the Nobel prize
>The entire field of evolutionary theory and population genetics is the most math based in biology

Hurt Durr muh stories.

We can't say why the sun is in this particular location of the universe with any certainty. But we can describe the dynamics of celestial bodies and based on their relations determine a probable hypothesis. Then we can check by observing other bodies.

We can't sweet why a certain gene less to the dominance of a species. We can make a model of the probability of a neutral allele taking over, we can then isolate the gene and examine it's expression patterns. We can then infer based on the change in an emailed active site that amino acid metabolism was made energetically cheaper. This would only matter if said amino acid were more abundant sure to, perhaps, a unique feeding style. Voila a story about how a feeding style was made viable through evolution.

But in reality none of the people in these threads seem to have actually sat down in a class to learn what evolution is and isn't. They just read the "origin of species" cliff notes and act like all the time delving into the field afterwards was an afterthought and evolutionary biology is nonsense.
Read a text describing magnetism from the 1800's and you'd have some problems too

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 01:15:42 No.11875400 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475 (OP) #
>Directed evolution literally won the Nobel prize
>The entire field of evolutionary theory and population genetics is the most math based in biology

Hurt Durr muh stories.

We can't say why the sun is in this particular location of the universe with any certainty. But we can describe the dynamics of celestial bodies and based on their relations determine a probable hypothesis. Then we can check by observing other bodies.

We can't say why a certain gene leads to the dominance of a species. We can make a model of the probability of a neutral allele taking over, we can then isolate the gene and examine it's expression patterns. We can then infer based on the change in an enzyme active site that amino acid metabolism was made energetically cheaper. This would only matter if said amino acid were more abundant due to, perhaps, a unique feeding style. Voila a story about how a feeding style was made viable through evolution.

But in reality none of the people in these threads seem to have actually sat down in a class to learn what evolution is and isn't. They just read the "origin of species" cliff notes and act like all the time delving into the field afterwards was an afterthought and evolutionary biology is nonsense.
Read a text describing magnetism from the 1800's and you'd have some problems too

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 01:36:52 No.11875472 Report

Quoted By: >>11875672

>>11874962
>not enough for gripping and the tasks required at that time in human history so people with 5 fingers were more successful in passing genes.
What evidence is there that there were ever four fingered humans? Or six fingered humans?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 02:39:24 No.11875672 Report

Quoted By: >>11875908 >>11875941

>>11875472
>What evidence is there that there were ever four fingered humans? Or six fingered humans?

lol 6 fingered humans are born all the time, we don't see a lot of them because i am guessing women get freaked out and don't want to reproduce with men with 6 fingers. Just like someone with a burnt face has lower odds of passing genes compared to your average guy.

As for 4 fingers. The ability to grip objects willl make it extremely difficult for the person to reach maturity, thus unable to pass genes. I am talking about a time when calories were scare, and the fittest got to survive.
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/dp08.htm

also learn about Polydactyly

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 03:45:10 No.11875908 Report

Quoted By: >>11876148

>>11875672
>Just like someone with a burnt face has lower odds of passing genes compared to your average guy.
Having a burnt face is a result of some external event. Nobody is born with a burnt face as a result of their DNA being expressed as a burnt face.

>As for 4 fingers. The ability to grip objects willl make it extremely difficult for the person to reach maturity, thus unable to pass genes. I am talking about a time when calories were scare, and the fittest got to survive.
That's not evidence that there was in the past a population of four fingered humanoids which were selected against versus five fingered humanoids and went extinct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 03:56:55 No.11875941 Report

Quoted By:

>>11875672
>soul-guidance
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 05:09:32 No.11876148 Report

Quoted By:

>>11875908
external factors or genetic mutations. You will have a lot less reproductive success with a burnt face or 6 fingers. Most women will run away from your mutation. So the genes for 6 fingers never got widely distributed.

>That's not evidence that there was in the past a population of four fingered humanoids which were selected against versus five fingered humanoids and went extinct.

there was never a race because as i stated before 4 fingers will make every day life a hell especially in Africa 200k years ago. Evolution throws mutations every now and then, and its up to the population of any species to select the ones that give the most survival advantage against the environment. There are still people born with 4 fingers, just google it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO macroevolution.jpg, 159KiB, 875x402

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 05:17:12 No.11876161 Report

Quoted By: >>11876193 >>11876905

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 05:19:36 No.11876170 Report

Quoted By:

>>11874756

>It's no different from explaining how a sifter can separate a quantity of flour mixed with pebbles. Yes, the flour is smaller so it passed through the sifter while the pebbles were too big to pass through. It's so obvious that it's not informative.

How is it not informative? It pretty much explains the observed phenomenon. What more do you want from science?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Darwin's_finches_by_Gould.jpg, 406KiB, 1748x1319

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 05:35:58 No.11876193 Report

Quoted By: >>11876291 >>11877318

>>11871475
Darwin already explained how this works with his comparison of different finch species from the Galapagos. The beak of each finch was perfectly adapted to the availability of food sources on each island, the longer beaks being perfected to eat the pulp from a certain type of cactus that was the most abundant food source on one of the islands.

Just because we don't understand the evolutionary pressures present for EVERY SINGLE evolutionary change on every single species on Earth doesn't mean we don't understand evolution. We know enough about it, and understand enough of these changes to know that evolution exists, without a shadow of a doubt.

You also fail to understand the randomness inherent in evolution. It is not a path with a set destination but a twisting lane that is affected by random factors. Evolution is driven by random mutations and those that prove advantageous remain while those that aren't advantageous tend to disappear. Nature throws everything and sees what sticks.

Why did Humans, a type of ape, evolve intelligence and not a species of fish? Randomness. Our ancestor species happened to be forced to leave the savanna due to natural pressures and mutate higher intelligence in an environment that was advantageous for us to do so.

It's all random. It's also the reason we have vestigial tails (coxis) we don't need anymore. Tails were advantageous for one of our ancestor species at one point until they stopped being so, and nature begun favouring shorter and shorter tails.

>>11876161
Good post.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1 ZSipun3BDq_NjuZ9eMvXIw.png, 512KiB, 675x456

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 06:14:58 No.11876291 Report

Quoted By: >>11876309 >>11877318

>>11876193
I want to add to my post because I got thinking about tails and thought of an even better example of the randomness of evolution.

So, apes descend from animals similar to protosimians like Lemurs. Lemurs have long tails that help them to attain balance in the branches of trees. When a group of lemurs evolved into monkeys, they already had their tails, and they retained them because they were advantageous in mantaining balance in trees. A group of these monkeys returned to the land, and gradually became apes. Because they didn't need their tails to balance themselves on land, they lost their tails over millions of years of evolution.

Then a group of apes returned to the trees, the gibbons. Yet the gibbons, being apes, had lost their tails by then, and they didn't evolve them again. Instead, the gibbons evolved longer limbs, which they use to balance themselves on tree branches just as efficiently as a tail would do.

So, through random mutations, nature came up with a different solution to the same problem. By random, very specific chance, the protogibbons didn't evolve tails (or maybe some mutated gibbons with tails happened to die), yet they mutated longer limbs which proved to be just as advantageous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 06:22:10 No.11876309 Report

Quoted By:

>>11876291
they're so cute bros

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 06:29:07 No.11876328 Report

Quoted By: >>11876347

>>11872045
>Darwin observed the changes that took place in the finch populations but did not formulate new predictions about what WOULD happen to finch populations later, except for saying that if X conditions were met, Y changes in the population would probably happen (as he already observed in the past), all else being the same.
Because mutations are random. That’s the whole basis of the theory. Trying to predict how something will evolve is next to impossible because in nature there are uncountably many ways to reach the same local minimum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 06:39:06 No.11876347 Report

Quoted By:

>>11876328
>trying to predict how something will evolve is impossible because retarded nonsense cargo cult
Just lol at this board and you people read a fucking book you absolute dipshits

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 06:40:35 No.11876349 Report

Quoted By: >>11876352

test

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 06:42:35 No.11876352 Report

Quoted By:

>>11876349
it worked you're going to get banned again

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 08:31:12 No.11876561 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
They are the modern equivalent of phrenology.

There are tools that allow you to search within YouTube captions for a key word - I invite you to do so for evolutionary psychology and wathc many videos, go back 30 seconds or more for context obviously... you'll see the pathology many intellectuals correctly identify can also be identified by you.

I suggest you do that, then actually read the opinion of actual wide knowledge, genuine thinker experts and you'll be shocked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 08:38:35 No.11876572 Report

Quoted By: >>11876872

>>11873191
>You mean the main driving force behind evolution? We see organisms adapted to their environment. You're correct that random genetic drift can explain this as much as natural selection. You're incorrect that this is the end of the analysis.

I never claimed any of this, I’m simply saying that it would be a leap of faith to claim the preliminaries of the idea of natural selection lead to modern evolutionary theory. I see no way around this.

>Scientists don't claim to have Cartesian certainty. You're arguing against a strawman.

I never claimed Scientists had to have Cartesian certainly; ironically, you are the one building a strawman here—while I said that you can never gain Cartesian certainty by making empirically driven data as the only way to expand your knowledge in your epistemology—not that scientists claim to have Cartesian certainty (of course, scientists are always trying to get to Cartesian certainty using these methods, yet it will never work.)

>Then post it here. You never will.

I was using it as an example.

>Not if you acknowledge uncertainty. Faith is by definition complete certainty. Empirical knowledge isn't.

Empirically driven knowledge is Faith given that definition, in that complete certainty in Empirical data being truthful is faith driven. You cannot be sure that Empirically driven information is true empirically, you can only be certain via Faith, and that drives home my point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 10:49:19 No.11876776 Report

Quoted By:

>>11874711
Not entirely. It's actually much easier to predict which genes will mutate on a short timescale. Classic example is again, antimicrobial resistance in something like Staph aureus. A lot of the time it is horizontal gene transfer from resistant members of a population, but it can easily be predicted that the PBP binding site has mutated, not allowing penicillin to do its job. There are a few other common mechanisms, but I think you get my point.

It's more complicated on large timescales, where the problem of attributing stories to a specific mutation arises, e.g., giraffes got longer necks to reach leaves higher on the tree. And so, yeah, what you said makes more sense, and that's usually what research in the area is doing. A biologist or similar field member will trace the homology based on DNA sequencing and then try to fit the organism in the tree of life. It then becomes easier to predict how and why the gene was mutated in that population.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 11:45:21 No.11876848 Report

Quoted By: >>11876902

>Dino jumpy
>random mutations make wings appear (no infinity time hack)

People actually believe this, let that sink in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 11:56:14 No.11876872 Report

Quoted By: >>11877620

>>11876572
>I never claimed any of this, I’m simply saying that it would be a leap of faith to claim the preliminaries of the idea of natural selection lead to modern evolutionary theory.
Because you ignore everything in between. You also fail to understand that faith is certain while science is not.

>I never claimed Scientists had to have Cartesian certainly
Then how is it relevant?

>I was using it as an example.
If it doesn't exist it's not an example of anything.

>Empirically driven knowledge is Faith given that definition, in that complete certainty in Empirical data being truthful is faith driven.
Who has complete certainty in empirical data? All empirical knowledge is falsifiable. First you claimed you never said scientists had certainty and now you claim they do. Which is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:09:30 No.11876902 Report

Quoted By: >>11876950

>>11876848
Did god make your pecker small me lard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:11:17 No.11876905 Report

Quoted By:

>>11876161
micro- & macroevolution:
>1+1=2
ok
>1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=9
wtf this is bullshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:29:38 No.11876950 Report

Quoted By: >>11876989

>>11876902
Yes evolution made anon's pecker small but you see, it's because having a big pecker meant that you get all the dumb bimbos, while a small pecker gave anon access to nerd girls with more intelligence which is a favorable trait. thanks evolutionary biologists for explaining this, couldn't do it without you.
Lol seriously, imagine your job is making up stories and guesses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:33:33 No.11876959 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
Imagine believing that a "prediction" refers to observation of future events and not to a future observation of something that could have happened any time.
You fucking retard.
It is as easy as predicting: "given x hypothesis, it is likely that I will find y", being y something that occured millions of years ago.
Not all evolutionary explanations work like this, but the scientific ones do.
It's not my fault you have four fingers

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:45:10 No.11876989 Report

Quoted By: >>11877008

>>11876950
Better than flipping egg at dennys me lard

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:50:26 No.11876997 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871956
This has nothing to do with religion retard. Goatfuckers living rent free up there

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 12:56:29 No.11877008 Report

Quoted By:

>>11876989
Evolution made me do it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 14:44:38 No.11877318 Report

Quoted By: >>11877767

>>11876193
>>11876291
The only significant observation, which I'm not even sure Darwin made, was that genetic mutations are random. Everything else about evolutionary theory is so painfully trivial once you put a few extremely obvious axioms next to each other:

1. A population of animals has certain traits
2. Members of this population can be born with slightly different traits
3. Those slightly different traits can affect fitness (fitness being defined as the relative ability to reproduce offspring which can successfully reproduce offspring which can successfully reproduce offspring which can...)

That's all you need to know and the framework of the entire field of evolutionary theory is established. Everything else is just tediously filling in some details that are effectively just trivia.

Your story about the gibbons and apes is still a just-so story.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 15:03:51 No.11877388 Report

Quoted By: >>11877399

>>11871475
That's your normal face

Why all the shit posting from godbois?

You shouldn't waste valuable energy trying to justify your beliefs because science is fact and evidence driven and your god does not hold up to scrutiny.

So fuck off stupid cunt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 15:07:39 No.11877399 Report

Quoted By: >>11877452

>>11877388
You are too eager to show off your fedora. God or religion is not the subject of discussion in this thread, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read anything two or three words of the OP before deciding to bump the thread. So thanks for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 15:18:20 No.11877452 Report

Quoted By: >>11877475

>>11877399
Op is an idiot who doesn't understand the theory of evolution and you are a fuck wit who thinks he knows what op is trying to say.

Either way, you are an stupid cunt and should fully fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 15:24:00 No.11877475 Report

Quoted By: >>11877509

>>11877452
Believe me, we are all very impressed by you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 15:34:28 No.11877509 Report

Quoted By:

>>11877475
Believe me that I will gladly take up any religion if that particular religion can prove that their fundamental constructs that they continue preach as faith is at all true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 16:07:03 No.11877620 Report

Quoted By:

>>11876872
>Because you ignore everything in between. You also fail to understand that faith is certain while science is not.
I’m not ‘ignoring’ everything in between. My main gripe is with modern science in general and the result of the sheer amount of entropy coming from the millions of new papers from different universities that contradict each other and come to different conclusions. Too much information, too much entropy. I brought up scientists because while they seek Cartesian certainty, I doubt they would ever admit they actually have it outright; however we all know how much bias the academics possess.
>Then how is it relevant?
It’s relevant because it fits into the whole narrative I was writing about throughout my posts. Read them.
>If it doesn't exist it's not an example of anything.
Ever heard of a “thought experiment”?
>Who has complete certainty in empirical data? All empirical knowledge is falsifiable. First you claimed you never said scientists had certainty and now you claim they do. Which is it?
Who has complete certainty in empirical data? That’s where the entire scientific method is based upon, the infallibility of Empirically driven scientific endeavor. You can’t argue against the results, you can only argue about what they imply. That is faith. That is what I am trying to bring across.

All empirical knowledge is NOT falsifiable. There are certain objective principles that cannot be disproven or proven via empirical data, and any empirical data gained in an attempt to falsify these principles are unfalsifiable.

I claimed that scientists claim to have certainty within their empirical worldview, but that they don’t truly have Cartesian certainty, and only are truly able to attempt to gain that Certainty through empirical methods; not that they have it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 16:55:33 No.11877767 Report

Quoted By: >>11877820

>>11877318
The point was to illustrate that evolution is random mutations driven by a changing set of environmental pressures which are also affected by random factors. (Such as an asteroid impact suddenly changing the Earth's conditions)

Evolution is not a straight route with a set destination but a twisting path that is continually branching off in many directions and dead ends as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 17:17:55 No.11877820 Report

Quoted By: >>11877836

>>11877767
>Evolution is not a straight route with a set destination but a twisting path that is continually branching off in many directions and dead ends as well.
Yes and everything we know about the twisting path is a story rationalized after the fact. There are no predictions made about what will happen in the future except for claims which are scarcely more informative than tautological claims (i.e. "If conditions change, a population may (or may not) change as a result"). It's trivial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 17:27:17 No.11877836 Report

Quoted By:

>>11877820
That's because what you are asking of scientists is that they have a crystal ball that can see millions of years into the future which is impossible.

It's hard to see what's your point here.
Evolution exists, it is proven and we understand how it works. We can make some specific predictions with some reasonable level of confidence (ie. If the asteroid hadn't impacted dinosaur intelligence would have continued its increasing trend as observed among Troodontids) but for the most part the future is impossible to predict because there are too many variables involved.

The appearance of Humans has also thrown everything about the Earth's natural evolution on its head.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 17:27:31 No.11877837 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871971
the environmental conditions are measurable. So is roughly the age and origin of some traits. For example we can conclude biochemically that the first organelles stem from incomplete digestion and accidental symbiosis.

Otherwise, yes. It’s mostly guesswork and we stick with the most sensible explanation. When there is no better way available, that is all we can do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 17:31:53 No.11877851 Report

Quoted By:

>>11872045
>Evolutionary theory can make no predictions about what will occur in nature in the future.
I stopped here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or are arguing in bad faith.
Just take a petri dish, some bacteria and an antibiotic. you can make a prediction based on evolutionary biology and test it yourself at home.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 17:44:31 No.11877887 Report

Quoted By:

>>11873745
> How can it be known that GR is complete?
we know for a fact that GR and/or QM is incomplete. We also know thanks to experiments where the boundaries are. And for now we have nothing better, but you are free to offer any theory that performs better.
What is your problem with that? Are you mad that humanity doesn’t know everything?
If this is the string you want to pull to show that evolution is wrong, you have to offer something better. This is how science works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 19:17:09 No.11878191 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
Ok I get it, what it seeks to explain is in the past, but think about how we see bacteria populations evolve by the same rules when exposed to antibiotics. It is not a definite proof, but it supports the theory. There are many others.
I also think theories are useful if they make accurate predictions and succeed in excluding incoherent outcomes, so I would focus on what insights it could give about now and the near future of biotech.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 19:22:08 No.11878205 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871475
Do you have a better explanation other than "God did it!"?
Weve seen evolution happen within our lifetimes. Viruses, bacteria, insects. Anything that has a shorter lifespan than us and more offspring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2020 19:33:38 No.11878247 Report

Quoted By:

>>11871949
Throw antibiotics into a plate of bacteria and select for the ones that survived. Boom, artificial selection. If it is such a leap in logic to understand that such events that "select" for traits happened naturally throughout the history of Earth then you are just an idiot.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches