/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13773646

2MiB, 3756x4669, youcantspelldarwinwithoutwin.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 20 Oct 23:24:39 2021 No.13773646 View Reply Original Report

i'm retarded when it comes to science, so i'm looking for people who know what they're talking about.

how firm or sound is the darwinian theory of evolution? are there gaps, miracles, or anomalies in the evolutionary record? my dad is saying darwinian evolution requires faith and a materialist worldview, and that there are mysteries that it cannot explain (like the evolution of the eye).

thanks in advance

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Oct 2021 23:35:27 No.13773728 Report

Quoted By: >>13778599

You're dad is a moran and so are you.
That's all the proof you need.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Oct 2021 23:58:04 No.13773871 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
origin of life

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:04:54 No.13773903 Report

Quoted By: >>13778066

>>13773646
The example of the eye is already evoked in the origin of species and the topic has been dig since then. There is even a wikipedia article to briefly explain you that there is no special mystery there.

As for the gaps, miracle, anomalies: no. The only anomalies would beif you were to try to do the same as Darwin in the more or less distant future and without record of us introducing new species in a new environment here and there. AS for the rest, the natural selection is one of the firmest theory of the moment, but like any theory, even though the global/general viewpoint is understood and works very well, some details (that will not question the validity of the whole theory) can still be discussed.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot 2021-10-21 at 02-05-0 (...).png, 2MiB, 1196x673

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:05:33 No.13773907 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
Humanity has known three true geniuses who have each of them to the fundamental questions of existence and have fundamentally changed our vision of the universe and life:
-Darwin who explained what we are
-Einstein who explained where and when we are
-Freud who explained who we are

(We could also add, but we're getting out of science, Marx who explained how we are from a political and social point of view)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1620031280935.jpg, 38KiB, 750x600

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:16:15 No.13773985 Report

Quoted By: >>13774067

>>13773646
scientific theories all have the aspect of disprovability, darwin's theory does not have that aspect, so its not a scientific theory

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 8eace97396bdcbed2597ca08289e6efb.jpg, 75KiB, 750x545

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:30:49 No.13774064 Report

Quoted By: >>13774107 >>13774180

>>13773646
It sounds like you and the old man are trying to retain some vapors of faith.

You can have all the faith you want, but if you don't include darwinian evolution in your scheme it will be woefully incomplete. Some form of this is of course fact and you have to live with that.

Not saying you can't have a god, but he has to have had something to do with this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:31:27 No.13774067 Report

Quoted By: >>13774203

>>13773985
What is "Darwin's theory" exactly?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5acbb38f4e887e791a1327c572faa80a.jpg, 73KiB, 426x640

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:31:56 No.13774070 Report

Quoted By: >>13794168

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO comparison-primate-hands.jpg, 34KiB, 611x266

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:32:56 No.13774073 Report

Quoted By: >>13774261

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:38:53 No.13774107 Report

Quoted By: >>13774119 >>13774133

>>13774064
>vapors of faith

dad maybe, but i don't think about religion or spirituality at all, i'm genuinely trying to get input to pwn him (respectfully, of course)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:40:55 No.13774119 Report

Quoted By: >>13795283

>>13774107
Make him watch this:
https://youtu.be/TUxLR9hdorI

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:43:09 No.13774133 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774107
Hmm, okay.

Well tell dad that yes there is fact in evolution but no one knows how much because its a growing field of study.
The larger points are as factual as the night sky. There really isn't much room for informed skepticism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:51:21 No.13774180 Report

Quoted By: >>13774188

>>13774064
>we just got 5 million Royal flushes in a row I don’t have to explain anything! C-Christian! I-intelligent design!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:53:05 No.13774188 Report

Quoted By: >>13774229

>>13774180
You don't know me or my faith, but everyone is sure you're a fucking retard.
No offense, but its how you're coming across.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:55:12 No.13774203 Report

Quoted By: >>13774923

>>13774067
I remember someone who seemed to know saying that darwin's actual theory was wrong but the theory developed from it was right

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 00:58:09 No.13774229 Report

Quoted By: >>13774257 >>13774923

>>13774188
explain to me how Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory. Seriously I’m waiting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:06:00 No.13774257 Report

Quoted By: >>13774271

>>13774229
just get a time machine and some immortality pills and go back a million years and you can watch monkeys turn into people first hand

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1530630063472.png, 40KiB, 825x635

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:06:54 No.13774261 Report

Quoted By: >>13774330 >>13774766 >>13774923 >>13778790 >>13779591 >>13788230 >>13791897 >>13792466

>>13773646
>how firm or sound is the darwinian theory of evolution?
You need to be more specific regarding evolution. Microevolution is common and readily observed, macroevolution is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no evidence to support it. Most people here deny there is a distinction between macro and micro, and that is because they are denialist morons who treat science like religion instead of thinking for themselves. The other 5% are actually "smart" enough to accept there is a valid scientific distinction between the observation and the hypothesis versions of evolution, but then default back to being morons because they baselessly assume macroevolution is microevolution + time. Again, without evidence. They just assume the alleged gradualism in the fossil record and molecular phylogenics (shared DNA among species both from diverging heritage and "retroviral insertions" they assume are insertions in the first place) count as evidence for macroevolution, when in reality it's exactly what you'd expect from intelligent design. It's like a courtroom lawyer assuming that since there is a fingerprint on a murder weapon it counts as evidence a particular person is guilty, yet not linking that fingerprint to that individual person in any way and only assuming it must be theirs and support the conclusion they're guilty.... Complete thumbs in ears nonsense logic but that's the level they think.

These are the starting points you need to be aware of when asking bout "Darwinian Evolution" that most on this board will fail to tell you or acknowledge.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

>>13774073
This post is an example of someone thinking common design exclusively means common ancestry, just like the unknown fingerprint on the murder weapon exclusively means a particular person is guilty for some reason like I mentioned above....

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:11:24 No.13774271 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774257
>you need immortality pills to do science
Not even sure if you’re understanding what I’m saying

Even so, how would watching for millions of years prove there isn’t design or teleological unless I was aware of every single particular interaction at all times? Seems like I can’t even confirm it under this fantasy scenario.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:26:17 No.13774330 Report

Quoted By: >>13774392 >>13774451

>>13774261
what do you mean by macroevolution. how is it different from microevolution?
do you think a lot of microevolution(s) over time add up to macroevolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:36:35 No.13774392 Report

Quoted By: >>13774395 >>13774540 >>13775283 >>13795962

>>13774330
It’s been shown time and time again that Ithe probability that things like bacterial flagellum appear randomly vastly outnumbered the length of the universe and so very likely represent a probability filter. All of the evidence points to the fact that design is just an inherent part of reality anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:37:28 No.13774395 Report

Quoted By: >>13774442

>>13774392
that has nothing to do with micro/macro evolution

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:39:01 No.13774401 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:47:57 No.13774442 Report

Quoted By: >>13774928

>>13774395
I gave you an example of a very simple biological system that exhausts the probabilistic resources of almost the entire universe… that is prime evidence against macro evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:49:36 No.13774451 Report

Quoted By: >>13774472 >>13774987

>>13774330
>what do you mean by macroevolution. how is it different from microevolution?
Micro - change in gene frequency of a population, may or may not be beneficial, may or may not involve mutations.
Macro - a genetic change at the species level that results in greater complexity that serves a beneficial and novel function (novel is pretty key, most evolutionists' fake examples of macroevolution involve honing of a pre-existing function to make it better or work in a novel situation but neither are actually novel functions), more less.

There is no evidence the

>do you think a lot of microevolution(s) over time add up to macroevolution?
Are you kidding? I verbatim said people are morons for thinking microevolution + time is macroevolution...why would you ask this question?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 01:54:34 No.13774472 Report

Quoted By: >>13774520 >>13774590

>>13774451
>Are you kidding? I verbatim said people are morons for thinking microevolution + time is macroevolution...why would you ask this question?
desu i didnt read your post, was just reading the link you posted
ok first things first, you seem to agree mutations happen, wouldn't that be enough to concede that some form of macroevolution could be possible, as the result of slow (or fast) selection of different mutations driven by some enviomental factor?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:02:57 No.13774520 Report

Quoted By: >>13774993 >>13776468

>>13774472
>mutations happen therefore all species are the result of random material interactions
anon…

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20200718_091203_0000[1].png, 148KiB, 1005x591

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:05:00 No.13774540 Report

Quoted By: >>13774554 >>13774678 >>13776468 >>13795294

>>13774392
>It’s been shown time and time again that Ithe probability that things like bacterial flagellum appear randomly
I'm an intelligent design proponent and you are not properly explaining how macroevolutionists think evolution works. They don't think flagellum-like structures appeared randomly they think it was a piecemeal process of slow incremental change from lesser developed structures. Of course these lesser structures have no evidence for ever existing but that doesn't disprove anything, it's just a current "gap" they ignore..... It's a crap theory sure but you are not actually debating it properly and they will call you retarded for that.

Interestingly, prokaryote and eukaryote flagellum are completely, fundamentally different. If mammals share a "common ancestor" with today's bacteria that means our flagellum "must have evolved" eons after multicellular organisms popped into existence and then eons later when sexual reproduction suddenly popped into existence. It's insane that our simple DNA transport vessels we call sperm somehow grew motor protein tails from lesser structures that don't exist anywhere in life today and would serve no purpose whatsoever until they were developed enough to actually cause sperm motility. It's such a ridiculous myth to think this could be a product of evolution...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:07:13 No.13774554 Report

Quoted By: >>13774597 >>13774607

>>13774540
>thing complex therefore impossible without sky daddy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:13:22 No.13774590 Report

Quoted By: >>13774626

>>13774472
>mutations happen wouldn't that be enough to concede that some form of macroevolution could be possible
This is like conceding that you can through a deck of cards to the wind and have them arranged in order and suit. It's meaningless to ask if something laughably unrealistic beyond comprehension is technically possible. Asking to concede is just proof of an abysmally failed hypothesis you are trying to force for personal and unscientific reasons. I think you are playing devil's advocate or something and just looking to justify the hypothesis of Darwinian macroeovlution that you will default to believing in no matter what I say. You made this thread bc you hope others will justify your beliefs for you because you are too mentally lazy to do it yourself.

>desu i didnt read your post
Yep, too mentally lazy. Not replying to you anymore if you're not reading my posts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:14:36 No.13774597 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774554
>only thing that exists random particle therefore everything random particle

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1603753739023.jpg, 486KiB, 750x938

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:18:17 No.13774607 Report

Quoted By: >>13774631 >>13774661

>>13774554
>intelligent design requires intelligent designer
>duuur no iz tooz stupidz to agreez
You haven't offered a valid mechanism for the complexity so yeah, an intelligent designer is the logical conclusion given the current evidence and understanding.

>sky daddy
Atheists also believe in intelligent design you mouth breather. This site is pro ID but anti creationism and the contributors are a mix of atheists agnostics and theists:
https://evolutionnews.org/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:23:49 No.13774626 Report

Quoted By: >>13774718

>>13774590
i mean the deck of cards analogy is pretty dumb. randomness can lead to order in some situations, mixing two solutions can lead to the precipitation of a crystal, which is an extremely ordered lattice of particles, sugar crystallizes from cane juicies
so i don't see why microevolution could not lead to macroevolution with enough time and an environmental driving factor, considering how chaotic natural history was (something that can be seen in the geological record)
again why is microevolution+time not at least a decent hypothesis for macroevolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:26:14 No.13774631 Report

Quoted By: >>13774672 >>13774718

>>13774607
an intelligent designer is just a cop out answer and obviously an unfalsiable claim
i dont believe in le simulation either so you can stick that wojack up your ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:34:28 No.13774661 Report

Quoted By: >>13774718

>>13774607

Most primitive tribes, miles apart, are also religious. Belief in God is in our biology... maybe even natural phenomena

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:40:53 No.13774672 Report

Quoted By: >>13774680

>>13774631
How is it unfalsifiable? Have you read the 100+ ID papers? What about the method is unfalsifiable. That is a meme perpetuated by low iq redditers.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Archaeopteryx_lithographica_(Ber (...).jpg, 3MiB, 1888x2552

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:42:24 No.13774678 Report

Quoted By: >>13774829

>>13774540
>It's insane that our simple DNA transport vessels we call sperm somehow grew motor protein tails from lesser structures that don't exist anywhere in life today and would serve no purpose whatsoever until they were developed enough to actually cause sperm motility.
DING DING DING! Irreducible complexity fallacy brought up once again

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:43:33 No.13774680 Report

Quoted By: >>13774702

>>13774672
explain an experiment to disprove the existence of an ID

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:51:35 No.13774702 Report

Quoted By: >>13774716 >>13774738 >>13775003

>>13774680
If a biological system has a reasonable chance of forming before the sun dies and our solar system dies we can infer it can feasibly appear randomly. If it does not we can reasonably infer that teleology is a part of reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:57:26 No.13774716 Report

Quoted By: >>13774720

>>13774702
cool now we just need to recreate the conditions on which life formed and wait for millions of years
sounds pretty practical an experiment

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault[1].jpg, 148KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:58:47 No.13774718 Report

Quoted By: >>13775029

>>13774631
>an intelligent designer
>an unfalsiable claim
Macroevolution is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Can you honestly not wrap your little head around that simple fact?

>cop out
Reality doesn't default to what you feel like sweety. You have not given a valid mechanism hence macrovolution is a cop out answer. In no way whatsoever does the evidence suggest macroevolution over intelligent design. The evidence fits both but for ID the evidence doesn't point to insanely unplausible odds like with macroevolution, odds which normally would cause a hypothesis to be rejected with laughter.

>i dont believe in le simulation either so you can stick that wojack up your ass
But it has just as much evidence as macroevolution. It's the exact kind of nonsense macroevolution believing idiots like you believe in all the time. It's actually really common. Theists certainly don't think God put us in a simulation ROFL.

>>13774626
Not reading your posts. You've demonstrated you are a waste of time.

>>13774661
>Belief in God is in our biology
Because God put it there, or at least he put the inkling towards a higher power there. Monotheism is quite rare btw.

>maybe even natural phenomena
Nah it's God.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 02:59:07 No.13774720 Report

Quoted By: >>13775007

>>13774716
If that was the case then geology wouldn’t be a science. They key to the past is the present. In other words we can learn about the past by studying the present. That includes all materialistic probability distributions that exist now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 03:03:52 No.13774738 Report

Quoted By: >>13774743

>>13774702
Not him but the anthropic principle kind of circumvents this to be fair. You'd have to observe multiple biological systems coming into existence and whether or not intelligent life also frequently develops with it to be certain...someone else also pointed out an ID could be guiding life to a certain genetic path that would never evolve naturally and we could not test for it. An ID is pretty much unfalsifiable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 03:05:19 No.13774743 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774738
*reasonably certain

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 03:21:42 No.13774766 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774261
is that john oliver crossed with bert from seseme street?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 10815_2016_652_Fig3_HTML[1].png, 50KiB, 394x345

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 03:56:44 No.13774829 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774678
>DING DING DING! Irreducible complexity fallacy brought up once again
It's not a fallacy because you stomp your feet and cry it's a fallacy in order to promptly ignore it because you have/never had an argument against it. Your faith-based belief these structures can form naturally from make believe *lesser structures that had utility and function* has no place in science and it's hilariously pathetic you think it does. Your fee fees dictating this must be how it happened with zero evidence to support it is no different than saying God did it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 04:00:26 No.13774836 Report

Quoted By: >>13774845 >>13774971

>>13773646
It's really simple.
> ressources are limited (energy conservation, matter conservation)
> species have an exponential population growth if food and no predator (2 cats -> 4 kittens, 1 cell -> 2 cells)
> eventually the population will reach the point where not enough food for everyone
> fittest individuals survive, reproduce, transmit their genes
> since genes encode the blueprint of your body, you have a new generation with a bigger proportion of fit individuals

basically, evolution is the ineluctability of :
> reproduction (the characteristic of life)
> thermodynamics (limited ressources)
> game theory (zero sum game, the competition part)
> genetics (the first cell of a dolphin or a human are almost the same, yet we grow differently because of the information encoded in our genes that make for different embryological developpement)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sadPepe_digital_art_x4_8ae327af- (...).png, 944KiB, 2048x2048

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 04:05:48 No.13774845 Report

Quoted By: >>13774852 >>13774867 >>13792202 >>13795349

>>13774836

Tfw you realize "intelligent" life is a literal cancer on this planet :/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 04:08:37 No.13774852 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774845
Yes, and the ugy part is that even cancer cells are under pressure of natural selection

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 04:16:56 No.13774867 Report

Quoted By: >>13792524

>>13774845
The problem is that intelligence worked to well for us.
First it allowed us to suvive, then it made us prosper, and now we have prospered at the point of being bloated.

Now we are like bacteria in a Petri dish. We will inevitably reach the point where not enough food for everyone. So no more reproduction. Or at least some reproduce, some don't but in the end the population stays constant at best

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 04:42:06 No.13774923 Report

Quoted By: >>13775041 >>13775103

>>13774203
If it's wrong then it's falsifiable. Which is it?

>>13774229
First explain what you think "Darwinian evolution" is.

>>13774261
>Microevolution is common and readily observed, macroevolution is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no evidence to support it.
What is do you "macroevolution" is?

>the observation and the hypothesis versions of evolution
Which are?

>They just assume the alleged gradualism in the fossil record and molecular phylogenics
This is observed, not assumed.

>"retroviral insertions" they assume are insertions in the first place
Please explain what they are then. And make sure your explanation is falsifiable. Thanks.

>it's exactly what you'd expect from intelligent design
How are retroviral insertions designed? Also, please explain how all of these flaws are expected from intelligent design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design#Examples

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 04:43:07 No.13774928 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774442
>I gave you an example of a very simple biological system that exhausts the probabilistic resources of almost the entire universe
Proof?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO image_2019-10-10%2008_52_24[1].6 (...).png, 180KiB, 720x792

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:06:31 No.13774971 Report

Quoted By: >>13791076

>>13774836
>the first cell of a dolphin or a human are almost the same
What is the basis for this claim? A zygote is just the fusion of the ovum and sperm. You can tell the difference between mammal sperm by looking at it. Is that not the same case with the ovum, consequently making the zygotes easily differentiable? I'm pretty sure sperm from different species (even among mammals) usually cannot penetrate an ovum of a different species, thus the first cells would be substantially different.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:12:17 No.13774987 Report

Quoted By: >>13775103

>>13774451
>Macro - a genetic change at the species level
This contradicts your own source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

>Macroevolution refers (most of the time, in practice) to evolutionary patterns and processes above the species level

>that results in greater complexity
How are you measuring complexity?

>that serves a beneficial and novel function
Why are you adding all these qualifiers? Is it because you know macroevolution obviously occurs so you need to play semantic games in order to continuously move the goalposts?

Fine, here's an example of observed "macroevolution:" https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/aem.67.8.3645-3649.2001

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:13:54 No.13774993 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774520
>>mutations happen therefore all species are the result of random material interactions
You keep changing your definition of "macroevolution." Aren't Christians supposed to argue in good faith?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:17:13 No.13775003 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774702
You didn't answer the question. How do you falsify ID?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:18:40 No.13775007 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774720
Accusing to your logic geology isn't falsifiable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:32:44 No.13775029 Report

Quoted By: >>13775103

>>13774718
>Macroevolution is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
It isn't and you're deflecting.

>You have not given a valid mechanism hence macrovolution is a cop out answer.
Macroevolution operates by a very simple mechanism: different species have different rates of survival and reproduction due to their interaction with the environment. What is the mechanism for ID?

>In no way whatsoever does the evidence suggest macroevolution over intelligent design.
ID is not a scientific theory in the first place, so this comparison is pointless. It's unfalsifiable and doesn't explain poor design.

>but for ID the evidence doesn't point to insanely unplausible odds like with macroevolution
Such as?

>But it has just as much evidence as macroevolution.
I don't think you even know what microevolution is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 05:37:21 No.13775041 Report

Quoted By: >>13775116 >>13775139 >>13792039

>>13774923
>What is do you "macroevolution" is?
>Which are?
haha please spare me from your inevitable semantics rabbit hole non arguments that you must invent because you have nothing else, especially when English is clearly not your first language evidenced by this grotesque sentence structure.

>This is observed, not assumed.
You quoted half the sentence I have no idea what you tried and failed to say here. It's an assumption that the alleged gradualism is proof of macro-evo. An assumption itself is not an observation so it makes no grammatical sense to say anything here was "observed". You're saying "they [observed] that [...] and [...] count as evidence" which makes no sense. Learn English.

>Please explain what they are then. And make sure your explanation is falsifiable. Thanks.
Macrovolution is not falsifiable you hypocrite

>How are retroviral insertions designed?
Why do you mindlessly assume without evidence that the DNA was inserted by a virus?

But anyway here ya go sweaty, this shared DNA with viruses assists with immunity, a very clever design.
>Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections
https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JVI.02299-20

>Also, please explain how all of these flaws are expected from intelligent design
>mindlessly links wiki he thinks I haven't read already
ID does not require perfect design, that is a religious interpretation
ID from superior intelligence does not have to fully match our understanding of ID, that is a strawman
ID may have a design we just don't understand yet, an "evolution of gaps" fallacy
ID does not start with the ignorant premise that a trait is "flawed" like you mindlessly/arrogantly dictate without evidence, or definitive argument that some other design is superior. The recurrent larygneal nerve might need to take that route due to being superior for safe embryonic development for instance.

Please at least try to educate yourself before making such infantile posts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:03:21 No.13775103 Report

Quoted By: >>13775198 >>13775200 >>13775218

>>13774987
>>13775029
>>13774923
>This contradicts your own source
I literally repeated it without saying it was evolution that caused it. I simply replaced "evolutionary change" with "genetic change" and you desperately ignored the part that says "most of the time in practice" which allows for me to personally include AT the species level, not exclusively ABOVE it. If a new organ showed up in a species, like the 2nd voicebox in birds called the syrinx you think magically showed up one day in the species, I would call that macroevolution. It's undeniable you would say I'm moving goal posts if I failed to call that macroevolution, but that is not above the species level.

You made such a pathetic attempt at semantics here.

>Why are you adding all these qualifiers? Is it because you know macroevolution obviously occurs so you need to play semantic games in order to continuously move the goalposts?
I can do this neat trick called thinking for myself. It comes in pretty handy. You should try it.
Also it's insane you are crying semantics here after what you just pulled.

>Fine, here's an example of observed "macroevolution
Too easy. Would not spread to the species level little child, hence it's not macroevolution. If they could reproduce this series of mutations in a lab it means it happens every few milliseconds seconds in nature but the mutations get selected out of existence because they are making the species worse off. No goal posts moved, I directly stated this as part of my definition. You honestly think you can spend 20 seconds googling something you don't understand and use is as proof? HA! how pathetic and childish.

You are clearly the same sperg 1 sentence 1/2 understanding shotgun poster. I'm not going to bother with your infantile low effort posts anymore where 80% is just mindlessly claiming "no" without adding an argument or context and frantically googling topics that go way over your head based on keywords I used that you don't understand...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:06:41 No.13775116 Report

Quoted By: >>13775147

>>13775041
>haha please spare me from your inevitable semantics
So you refuse to define what you're arguing about. That's predictable since you've implied at least three conflicting definitions of "macroevolution" in this thread.

>It's an assumption that the alleged gradualism is proof of macro-evo.
I don't even know what you mean by macro-evo. It appears you're talking about speciation but the actual definition of macro-evo has little to do with speciation. So no, no one assumes gradualism is proof of macro-evo. It is merely one piece of evidence for speciation. ERVs are much stronger evidence for speciation that you have competent failed to argue against.

>Macrovolution is not falsifiable you hypocrite
It definitely is falsifiable since it's based on observation. If we didn't observe selection above the species level then it would be falsified. And you're again deflecting. Please explain what ERVs are of not retroviral insertions, and make sure your explanation is falsifiable.

>Why do you mindlessly assume without evidence that the DNA was inserted by a virus?
I don't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617120/

>But anyway here ya go sweaty, this shared DNA with viruses assists with immunity, a very clever design.
Your own source says the viral insertion was coopted, not designed. Massive fail. You were not asked to explain whether they have a function but how you can design a retroviral insertion.

>ID does not require perfect design
I didn't say it required perfect design. It requires an intelligent design (the hint is in the name). Many aspects of the human body are clearly the result of a brutish and blind genetic algorithm, the opposite of intelligent. Please explain why an intelligent designer would wire the human eye backwards, creating a bond spot, but design plenty of other species' eyes correctly. Go ahead. Since it's intelligent but not perfect it should be even easier for you to explain such a dumb mistake.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:14:07 No.13775139 Report

Quoted By:

>>13775041
>ID from superior intelligence does not have to fully match our understanding of ID
Wow that's very convenient that your explanation suddenly doesn't have to make sense when it fails to explain something. Neat trick.

>ID may have a design we just don't understand yet
Thank you for admitting that not all the same evidence for evolution supports your theory. It's inferior to evolution until you figure it out. Good luck.

>ID does not start with the ignorant premise that a trait is "flawed"
So we should not actually look at the design to determine if it's intelligent. We should just assume it is. Got it.

>The recurrent larygneal nerve might need to take that route due to being superior for safe embryonic development for instance.
Then why don't all species have it? You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 840f61_4717456.jpg, 25KiB, 344x269

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:16:41 No.13775147 Report

Quoted By: >>13775818

>>13775116
>So you refuse to define what you're arguing about
You literally quoted me saying my definition was
"contradicting" and now have switched to saying I refuse to define it.....wow. I mean, I even listed the word and put a dash mark after it to define it.

You are impossibly retarded. Didn't read the rest of your garbage. I hope you waste a lot of time shotgunning another wasted post I won't read before you see this one haha.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:36:52 No.13775194 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
>my dad is saying darwinian evolution requires faith and a materialist worldview,
This is for the most part true. Because we don't have technology that allows us to actively witness millions of years worth of development, we are forced to piecemeal or way through explaining the long term mechanics of evolution.

>and that there are mysteries that it cannot explain (like the evolution of the eye).
The evolution of the eye itself isn't hard to explain. Now whether or not it evolved independently multiple times is the real question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:38:20 No.13775198 Report

Quoted By: >>13775263 >>13788362

>>13775103
>I literally repeated it without saying it was evolution that caused it.
You said it's at the species level and your source says it's above the species level. You clearly are confusing macroevolution with speciation. Speciation is microevolution.

>you desperately ignored the part that says "most of the time in practice"
Yeah, I guess some of the time a creationist will just make up their own terminology. Basically macroevolution is whatever a creationist wants to argue against at any moment. Happy?

>If a new organ showed up in a species, like the 2nd voicebox in birds called the syrinx you think magically showed up one day in the species, I would call that macroevolution.
There are many such novel adaptions among species that we know share a common ancestor due to matching ERVs. So we know evolution can produce very different species.

>It's undeniable you would say I'm moving goal posts if I failed to call that macroevolution, but that is not above the species level.
In a different post you seem to think macroevolution means "all species are the result of random material interactions," so can you please stick to one definition?

>I can do this neat trick called thinking for myself.
Can you though? Because all you've done throughout this thread is parrot long-debunked creationist talking points.

>Also it's insane you are crying semantics here after what you just pulled.
The only one posting semantics is you since you keep changing the definition to suit your needs.

>If they could reproduce this series of mutations in a lab it means it happens every few milliseconds seconds in nature
Nope. Did you even read the paper?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:39:21 No.13775200 Report

Quoted By: >>13788362

>>13775103
>No goal posts moved, I directly stated this as part of my definition.
Your definition is irrelevant and was arbitrarily worded in order to move the goalposts of the debate from speciation or macroevolution to "whatever is impractical to be oserved in the lab." This is no different from the old creationist gem that we need a control Earth in order for evolution to be falsifiable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 06:48:17 No.13775218 Report

Quoted By:

>>13775103
>Shilling intelligence design in 2021
Just go back to /pol/, retard. This board isn't for people with smoothbrains and room temperature IQ.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1576436128173.jpg, 11KiB, 238x212

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 07:05:22 No.13775263 Report

Quoted By: >>13775828

>>13775198
>In a different post you seem to think macroevolution means "all species are the result of random material interactions," so can you please stick to one definition?
>doesn't realize those are clearly two different anons
Protip to noobs: try to pay attention to time stamps on boards that don't have post IDs, also writing style is almost always a dead giveaway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 07:12:24 No.13775270 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
Your dad is a retarded christfag. You should do him a favor and kill him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 07:18:48 No.13775283 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774392
>appear randomly
Evolution explains how they appear NON-randomly

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 12:17:35 No.13775818 Report

Quoted By:

>>13775147
>You literally quoted me saying my definition was "contradicting" and now have switched to saying I refuse to define it
You refuse to choose a single consistent definition, yes. What is so hard to understand?

>Didn't read the rest of your garbage.
Because you have no response. Thanks for admitting ID is bullshit and evolution is scientific.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 12:22:03 No.13775828 Report

Quoted By: >>13776358

>>13775263
>time stamps
Shows nothing

>writing style
Nothing to go on.

Weird how there's only one response to a post replying to you but you claim it's not you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 16:47:54 No.13776358 Report

Quoted By: >>13776402

>>13775828
I posted a huge near word limit post responding to 3 people just 7 minutes after the other person posted something (impossibly fast for anybody) and the other person consistently doesn't capitalize words or use periods. I even directly tell the other ID proponent in this thread he's not correct about something; admitting I'm an ID proponent but he's not properly arguing AGAINST an evolution concept. It's 100% obvious and undeniable there are 2 ID advocates in this thread you absolutely retarded child and you quoted the wrong one thinking it was me.

You're too much of a dumb tourist to keep track of people if there's no post ID so you're proven you're not intelligent enough to post here. Go back to wherever you came from.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 17:08:46 No.13776402 Report

Quoted By: >>13776468

>>13776358
Sure buddy, it was the other retarded IDer on the science board. Thanks for abandoning your arguments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Oct 2021 17:43:35 No.13776468 Report

Quoted By: >>13777932

>>13776402
>Sure buddy, it was the other IDer on the science board
It's undeniable you quoted the wrong person. You quoted >>13774520
yet I posted this large post with pic I had to look for on a search engine >>13774540 2 minutes later.
Live in your safe space fantasy world all you want little macroevolutionst child it's the only way you can salvage your pathetic childish myths.

>Thanks for abandoning your arguments
Imagine being this pathetic. You said I was wrong due to "inconsistency" because you are a retard who quoted the wrong person and won't admit it. You demonstrated you are a waste of time because there is no point in arguing with a dishonest rat such as yourself who can't admit he made such an obvious and trivial mistake. It's not even a big deal to accidentally reference the wrong person on this board since there's no post IDs. It happens all the time.

Hence I abandoned dropping waaaay down to your level of stupidity and disingenuous nonsense and bad faith deflections, I didn't abandon my arguments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 03:34:57 No.13777932 Report

Quoted By: >>13778084 >>13779478 >>13782018 >>13782734 >>13789051

>>13776468
>It's undeniable you quoted the wrong person.
Just like evolution is undeniable.

>You said I was wrong due to "inconsistency" because you are a retard who quoted the wrong person and won't admit it.
You're still inconsistent. You claim macroevolution is at the species level while posting a source saying it's above the species level. You just use "macroevolution" to mean whatever part of evolution you're arguing against at any specific moment. Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab. In reality, macroevolution refers to none of these. And I didn't even say you're wrong because of these semantic games. They're just irrelevant. You're wrong because you falsely claim empirical science is unfalsifiable and deny the existence of evidence which clearly exists, while failing to recognize that your own conclusion is unfalsifiable and unsupported by evidence.

But apparently I'm such a waste of time that you continue to post whiny rants about nothing. Yes, you've abandoned the argument. Stop whining and get back to the content.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 04:57:57 No.13778066 Report

Quoted By: >>13795583

>>13773903
>There is even a wikipedia article to briefly explain
Is there something serious too? I mean outside the ClimaCovidEvolutionBigBang church?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 05:10:50 No.13778084 Report

Quoted By: >>13778768 >>13782790

>>13777932
>Just like evolution is undeniable.
Why, because somebody says?

How can evolution explain the Caterpillar->Larva(Cocoon)>-Butterfly->Egg->Caterpillar metamorphosis? In a reasonable time? And where are the myriads of failed mutations only on this case? It must be filled the whole oceans, just by probability in that one case alone.

Trox mf

Trox mf Fri 22 Oct 2021 10:35:19 No.13778599 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773728
Damn that hits different !! Lmfao

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 11:45:24 No.13778744 Report

Quoted By:

Cambrian explosion. Look into that. Very interesting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 11:57:12 No.13778768 Report

Quoted By: >>13778821

>>13778084
>Why, because somebody says?
Because of the evidence you keep ignoring.

>How can evolution explain the Caterpillar->Larva(Cocoon)>-Butterfly->Egg->Caterpillar metamorphosis?
A little over 300 million years ago, hemimetaboly evolved because it prevented immature and adult insects of the same species from competing with each other in the same ecological niche. Holometaboly evolved 280 million years ago as a further development of this process in which each stage is more specialized towards its niche instead of a straight morphological progression from juvenile to adult. The hormonal aspects of this evolution are much simpler than the dramatic changes of holometaboly would suggest.

>And where are the myriads of failed mutations only on this case?
What do you mean? Failed mutations died.

>It must be filled the whole oceans, just by probability in that one case alone.
Please show your probability calculation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 12:04:08 No.13778790 Report

Quoted By: >>13779524

>>13774261
>treat science like a religion

So you are insinuating that religion is a bad thing? It always cracks me up when religitards try to make this point because it completely lacks self-awareness, which I would come to expect from people who believe in bronze-age superstition in the 21st century (or even 19th century).

It's all so tiresome, these morons...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 12:20:26 No.13778821 Report

Quoted By: >>13779232

>>13778768
>>Why, because somebody says?
>Because of the evidence you keep ignoring.
Says the believer, there is no evidence

>>How can evolution explain the Caterpillar->Larva(Cocoon)>-Butterfly->Egg->Caterpillar metamorphosis?
>A little over 300 million years ago, hemimetaboly evolved because it prevented immature and adult insects of the same species from competing with each other in the same ecological niche. Holometaboly evolved 280 million years ago as a further development of this process in which each stage is more specialized towards its niche instead of a straight morphological progression from juvenile to adult. The hormonal aspects of this evolution are much simpler than the dramatic changes of holometaboly would suggest.
Sound like the presentation of new car models. For me the question is how, not that .

>>And where are the myriads of failed mutations only on this case?
>What do you mean? Failed mutations died.
That's the point

>>It must be filled the whole oceans, just by probability in that one case alone.
>Please show your probability calculation.
Not up to me, evolutionists have to prove that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 15:17:11 No.13779232 Report

Quoted By: >>13779420

>>13778821
>there is no evidence
You have no credibility when you deny over a hundred years of compiled scientific evidence.

>Sound like the presentation of new car models.
Not an argument.

>For me the question is how, not that .
You're being vague. What exactly do you want explained?

>That's the point
Your point is that failed mutations died and successful mutations propagate? OK, Darwinist

>Not up to me
So you just made up your claim? LOL.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 16:23:03 No.13779420 Report

Quoted By: >>13779565

>>13779232
>You have no credibility when you deny over a hundred years of compiled scientific evidence.
Don't care, there is no evidence outside your believe system. Mine is in no Way better, so it is a good idea to interchange.

>>Sound like the presentation of new car models.
>Not an argument.

Shure it is because your answer only states the obvious.

>>For me the question is how, not that .
>You're being vague. What exactly do you want explained?

The exact Mechanismus, all of them. Not a dumb survival the fittest which must ends in One superbacteria.

>>That's the point
>Your point is that failed mutations died and successful mutations propagate? OK, Darwinist
Don't care about that fuckup, just curious.

But there must be more biomass then water if an planless Mutation/Selection idea works.
>>Not up to me
>So you just made up your claim? LOL.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 16:39:54 No.13779475 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
you can immediately spot a creationist the second they mention the word darwin. notice how they never mention weismann or figures of modern synthesis because they never bother to look deeper than what their preacher says
darwin was a lamarckist and therefore wrong. he got a lot of things very wrong and the modern theory of evolution only uses some of the concepts he introduced like natural selection. tbqh he is overrated.
the current theory of evolution is a much bigger and much more complicated beast. there is just so much to it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 16:40:39 No.13779478 Report

Quoted By: >>13779596

>>13777932
>You're still inconsistent. You claim macroevolution is at the species level while posting a source saying it's above the species level
Thats not being inconsistent. I consistently say at the species level and never said anything lower than that counts and justified why I used "at" vs "above" because the source blatantly allows it. You are pathetic and just cant let it go that you are wrong which is why I haven't engaged your other terrible points I would destroy. No since educating a zealot like you who refuses to admit he's wrong under any circumstances to an intelligent design advocate. I would be arguing with a brick wall.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 16:57:12 No.13779521 Report

Quoted By: >>13779578

I have a different question
How does life recover from huge extinction events, and becomes diverse again?

I feel like there should be massive inbreeding problems after extinction events

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 16:58:46 No.13779524 Report

Quoted By: >>13779599

>>13778790
>So you are insinuating that religion is a bad thing?
No not at all. Treating science as a religion is a bad thing, just like treating the government as a religious institution is a bad thing, but that does not mean religion or religious institutions are bad things. It's pretty universal that if you treat something as something else it can be a bad thing. Like how society thinks we should treat mentally ill men as women for instance. That does not mean women are a bad thing.

>lacks self-awareness
Nice projection

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:14:51 No.13779565 Report

Quoted By: >>13780625

>>13779420
>Don't care, there is no evidence outside your believe system.
Delusional.

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

>Mine is in no Way better, so it is a good idea to interchange.
Your hypothesis is not even scientific, so they are not even comparable.

>Shure it is because your answer only states the obvious.
So it's obvious that holometaboly evolved? Thanks.

>The exact Mechanismus, all of them.
What does that mean in this context? Do you want every mutation and environmental interaction in insects over tens of millions of years? Too bad. If your only remaining tactic is to demand ridiculous standards of evidence then you've lost this debate.

>But there must be more biomass then water if an planless Mutation/Selection idea works.
Why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:17:44 No.13779577 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
yes it requires faith but arguably much less faith than religion. there are no mysteries that cannot be explained by massive time spans and luck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:18:48 No.13779578 Report

Quoted By:

>>13779521
same way it beacme diverse it the first place

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:23:47 No.13779587 Report

Quoted By:

There is not really proof they just rework the definition of what counts as proof and extrapolate conclusions from it. What would it take for YOU to believe it? Wouldn't you need to witness for yourself a species transforming into another? This has never truly happened and even then it purely explains that instance it does not and will never give you a window into the origin of man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:25:57 No.13779591 Report

Quoted By: >>13780861

>>13774261
Your picture was made by a moron. You are not entitled to my belief in you. You do not own me faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:27:13 No.13779595 Report

Quoted By:

They NEED you to believe in evolution so they practically force you to. I don't need you to believe in what I believe. That is because I am not the dishonest one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:27:14 No.13779596 Report

Quoted By: >>13779638 >>13779676

>>13779478
>Thats not being inconsistent.
It is. You're talking about how nobody knows what they're talking about when they say macroevolution is scientific and then you posted a source showing you have no idea what you're talking about.

>the source blatantly allows it
The source has a caveat for retards like you who use the term incorrectly. You're confusing description with endorsement.

>You are pathetic and just cant let it go that you are wrong which is why I haven't engaged your other terrible points I would destroy.
Ha, sure. That's why you keep responding. You lost, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:28:24 No.13779599 Report

Quoted By: >>13779636

>>13779524
>Treating science as a religion is a bad thing
Why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:30:00 No.13779604 Report

Quoted By:

The education system is a religious organization.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:31:01 No.13779606 Report

Quoted By:

They teach you how to read and write then they act like they own your mind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:46:31 No.13779636 Report

Quoted By: >>13779924

>>13779599
Orthodoxy inhibits free thinking and controversial theories.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 17:47:32 No.13779638 Report

Quoted By: >>13780241

>>13779596
>It is
It's not, little child

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 18:01:23 No.13779676 Report

Quoted By: >>13780365

>>13779596
>Ha, sure. That's why you keep responding. You lost, retard
BTW I keep responding because you are an angry sperglord who can't resist having the last word and feeling like he's right, which bumps the thread and makes more people read what I wrote, which is why I post here in the first place. When they see how you're a laughably retared evolutiontard who still desperately can't admit even the most trivial mistakes it hopefully gives them a new perspective on the pure mental stonewalling of evolutiontards.

If you could somehow send me a PM argument it would go strait to the trash because I seriously don't care at all what some ignorant child like you thinks. Go ahead and respond.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 19:25:36 No.13779924 Report

Quoted By: >>13779970 >>13780308

>>13779636
So religion is bad.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO atheism-statism-comic.png, 35KiB, 600x800

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 19:49:09 No.13779970 Report

Quoted By: >>13780372

>>13779924

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 21:31:11 No.13780241 Report

Quoted By: >>13780308

>>13779638
Not an argument, try again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 21:51:47 No.13780308 Report

Quoted By: >>13780504 >>13782018

>>13779924
No, religion does not require orthodoxy.

>>13780241
You didn't give an argument, you just felt like saying I "didnt' know" what I was talking about rofl. So you didn't get an argument in return. Are you that stupid that you can't realize that?

When are you going to actually admit you quoted the wrong person as the primary basis for saying I was inconsistent btw? You literally said I had 3 different definitions so I'm inconsistent, now you moved the goalpost to just say my one definition is itself inconsistent for some made up reason.

Can you genuinely not admit you were wrong about anything? Is it impossible for your slow little child brain to accept it so it short circuits to a different topic as a coping mechanism?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 22:01:35 No.13780329 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
Darwin is racist! You people need to be hung.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 22:17:10 No.13780365 Report

Quoted By: >>13780861

>>13779676
>BTW I keep responding because you are an angry
Not angry, just disappointed. You can do better than this.

>which bumps the thread and makes more people read what I wrote
Considering the quality of your "arguments," you should want LESS people to read what you wrote. So far the only thing approaching a substantive claim is your bullshit that there's "no evidence." Anyone on the science board knows you're lying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 22:18:20 No.13780372 Report

Quoted By:

>>13779970
And your point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 23:02:00 No.13780504 Report

Quoted By: >>13780861

>>13780308
>No, religion does not require orthodoxy
Then why are you talking about orthodoxy?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20211023-002621.png, 598KiB, 720x971

Anonymous Fri 22 Oct 2021 23:33:54 No.13780571 Report

Quoted By:

Essential things are conserved for example energy production while others...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 00:01:40 No.13780625 Report

Quoted By: >>13782042

>>13779565
>>Don't care, there is no evidence outside your believe system.
>Delusional.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Undisputable in the science frame. you are breaking down open doors. Evolution meets all requirements in the scientific frame.

>>Mine is in no Way better, so it is a good idea to interchange.
>Your hypothesis is not even scientific, so they are not even comparable.

Science is the harnessing of natural phenomena. That is what scientists are paid for. I am Ok with that, way better as e.g. to spend all the money for weapons for example.
But there are limitations. You can tell the functions, in a fascinating all ever growing detailed way, but never ever meaning. How not Why.

>>Shure it is because your answer only states the obvious.
>So it's obvious that holometaboly evolved? Thanks.

Yes, its obvious.

>>The exact Mechanismus, all of them.
>What does that mean in this context? Do you want every mutation and environmental interaction in insects over tens of millions of years? Too bad. If your only remaining tactic is to demand ridiculous standards of evidence then you've lost this debate.

Don't understand that, i can't win anything against a human.

>>But there must be more biomass then water if an planless Mutation/Selection idea works.
>Why?
Probability. Take a computer and try to extract only the first few words of the title of darwins best known work by try. Even if you know the words to filter it out. "On the Origin of Species".

Even in that very limited frame of 26 chars it needs decades.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 01:53:21 No.13780861 Report

Quoted By: >>13782052 >>13782062

>>13780365
>Not angry, just disappointed. You can do better than this.
haha cope harder, you are angry and your lame attempts at egging me on here are infantile and are as pathetic as all your nonsensical invalid arguments you've made. Like I said, I'm not going to drop waaay down to your level. You're right though I can do better, but you are just such a joke I don't need to. Someone with your lesser mental faculties, education, and knowledge only needs about 10% of my effort. You even quoted a research paper you randomly googled for the first time that I've already read on the topic (coincidentally just last month). That is how far ahead of you I am.
>Considering the quality of your "arguments,
Thanks, they are quite the quality arguments. Meanwhile, you literally cannot admit you were wrong over something so incredibly obvious and directly proven in this thread, and still have not. You are perfectly demonstrating the ubiquitous mental stonewalling trait shared by all macro-evolutionists retards. You genuinely can't admit you are wrong, it's impossible.I want all the world to see it so they know what they're dealing with when they accidentally engage retarded macro-evolutionist mindless drooling zealot ilk such as yourself

>>13780504
>Then why are you talking about orthodoxy?
Because orthodoxy happens as a result of mixing religion and government, or religion and science, or mixing religion and any system where one group wants to control information. Religion does not require orthodoxy, ergo religion is not bad by itself.

>>13779591
>You do not own me
yes I do

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 14:02:04 No.13782018 Report

Quoted By: >>13782734

>>13780308
>You didn't give an argument, you just felt like saying I "didnt' know" what I was talking about rofl.
Nice misrepresentation. Your own source shows you don't know what you're talking about as I've already explained and you've failed to counter.

>now you moved the goalpost to just say my one definition is itself inconsistent for some made up reason.
Another misrepresentation. See >>13777932

If all you have is misrepresentation and impotent whining then you lost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 14:15:06 No.13782042 Report

Quoted By: >>13782212

>>13780625
>Undisputable in the science frame.
Wow, thanks for finally admitting evolution is scientific and indisputable. Is there some other frame of evidence regarding physical reality? Your fee fees are not evidence.

>You can tell the functions, in a fascinating all ever growing detailed way, but never ever meaning. How not Why.
Neither can you, LOL. You are under the delusion that making up meaning is the same thing as determining it.

>Yes, its obvious.
Then what are you are even arguing against? Stop posting.

>Don't understand that, i can't win anything against a human
Take your meds.

>Take a computer and try to extract only the first few words of the title of darwins best known work by try. Even if you know the words to filter it out.
Trivial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

>Even in that very limited frame of 26 chars it needs decades.
Wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 14:19:24 No.13782052 Report

Quoted By: >>13782734

>>13780861
>you are angry
You're projecting. Why would I be angry when every post you make confirms that I'm right?

>your lame attempts at egging me on
Says the guy who refuses to post anything of substance and instead lamely tries and fails to psychoanalyze and insult me. LOL. Keep ranting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 14:22:31 No.13782062 Report

Quoted By: >>13782762

>>13780861
>Because orthodoxy happens as a result of mixing religion and government, or religion and science, or mixing religion and any system where one group wants to control information.
It sure sounds like you want to control information when you insist hundreds of years of scientific evidence doesn't exist and that your fairy tale is a serious theory. The only one mixing religion and (pseudo)science here is you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 15:02:28 No.13782212 Report

Quoted By: >>13782631

>>13782042
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
From the talk section of the same page:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/dawkins-weasel-revisited/

Have a nice day and bye

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 17:28:45 No.13782631 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782212
How does this article respond to anything I said? You're the one who demanded the experiment and then when it didn't give the result you wanted you are suddenly against it. Aren't Christians supposed to argue in good faith?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 17:58:56 No.13782734 Report

Quoted By: >>13782959

>>13782052
>>13782018
>Nice misrepresentation
I basically quoted you retard

>Your own source shows you don't know what you're talking about as I've already explained and you've failed to counter
Not an argument. I fully justified your non argument nitpick over "at" vs "above" and once again you are moving the goalpost. Not quoting 1 word and justifiably changing it for a myriad of objective reasons does not mean I'm being inconsistent. Nobody ever says it's being "inconsistent" to not agree with a definition they source. I've seen people do it many many times. They just say it's wrong. You desperately must cling to not admitting you are wrong and still cling to this delusion I'm "inconsistent" because of your mental stonewalling. It's just that simple.

>You're projecting
>no u!
classic

>Another misrepresentation. See >>13777932
Don't quote your stupidity when it was wrong the first time. It's not inconsistent whatsoever as I just laid out again.

>If all you have is misrepresentation and impotent whining then you lost.
You haven't demonstrated a single misrepresentation.Not one. The source even says the customary way of distinction between macro micro is not perfect. "at the species level" does not categorically fit into either "above the species level" or "at the population level"... it is directly between both. But since above species level can happen IFF (if you don't know what that acronym means please go to college) the trait passes through at the species level first it's logical to include macro occurring at the species level for our argument. It even makes it easier for you to create "examples" btw. I'm being generous to include "at" vs "above"

>Why would I be angry when every post you make confirms that I'm right
Because your entire mental existence is constant denial, which subconsciously builds up to anger without you realizing it. .

>Says the guy who refuses to post anything of substance and instead lamely tries
More denial

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:09:43 No.13782762 Report

Quoted By: >>13782978

>>13782062
>It sure sounds like you want to control information when you insist hundreds of years of scientific evidence doesn't exist and that your fairy tale is a serious theory.
You were asking so many good questions and then decided to go full retard.

It's not controlling information in the slightest. I acknowledge the "evidence" exists, I just say it's invalid. It's perfectly acceptable to say "no evidence exists" if you can demonstrate what other people say is evidence fails to prove something.

>The only one mixing religion and (pseudo)science here is you.
Intelligent design and creationism are two separate things. Don't be an ignorant fool. Plenty of atheists believe in ID. ID doesn't rely on pseudoscience at all. It only demonstrates the objective scientific conclusion is to reject naturalism as an explanation for the complexity of life because it's obvious life would require intelligent forethought. Irreducible complexity isn't pseudoscience for instance. Charles Darwin actually came up with the idea. It's a valid concept, you and the atheist/evolutiontard mainstream are just in denial that it's proven so you call it pseudoscience as part of your orthodoxy and control of information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:17:34 No.13782782 Report

Quoted By: >>13782879 >>13782979

>>13773646
>how firm or sound is the darwinian theory of evolution?
darwin's non disprovable conjectures are not a scientific theory because of their non disprovable nature, darwin was not a real scientist. he might have been ok as a field observer, but apparently he was philosophically braindead since he published non disprovable conjectures as if they were a legitimate scientific theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:20:05 No.13782790 Report

Quoted By:

>>13778084
>How can evolution explain the Caterpillar->Larva(Cocoon)>-Butterfly->Egg->Caterpillar metamorphosis?
Even if I don't know how that would happen, I still think that things of that difficulty could happen through evolution. Even if I have no idea how 99.9% of things that exist could have evolved specifically, I still think it would have been possible for those things to have evolved on this planet in the past.

I might say: Just the fact that I know things even a little surprising could've evolved, suggests I can inductively infer that things even more difficult-seeming could have evolved. After all, even the tiny amount of evidence (that some slightly surprising things I would've previously seen no way for them to evolve, do have explanations) puts the "hypothesis" even more "difficult-seeming" things could have evolved.. ahead of any other "hypothesis" "as to how they got here".

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO finches.gif, 9KiB, 228x445

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:38:58 No.13782865 Report

Quoted By: >>13782909

>>13773646
the issue with "proving" older theories is you need to go back into the history books and look at why they though a certain way or not. its actually really cool to do so. I know mostly about the history of astronomy as its what i am interested in but my understanding is he traveled around examining animals and how their features changed according to the environment. one of these things were the beaks of finches and how their beaks seemed to show an adaption to the food resources on the island. It was already a well known phenomena that children adapted traits of their parents. so just take it to the extreme of a couple 100,000s years and you can see well the birds that had better beaks from their parents survived better and the shitty breaks did not until slowly over time the beaks slowly improved and shitty beaks were removed from the gene pool.

after he made that hypothesis he probably went around and looked for other observations that either supported or did not support his hypothesis. now we have the fossil record and genes and we can see a lot can kind of map them and how they changed. not very fluidly as fossils are rare but in a few species you can find a couple species in-between. go look it up.

https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Evolution_of_Dolphins

this is real science so it gets kind of complicated.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO famous science quote.jpg, 50KiB, 850x400

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:44:00 No.13782879 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782782
he should've known better than to make that mistake and he would've, if he were a real scientist

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:52:24 No.13782909 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782865
>so just take it to the extreme of a couple 100,000s years and you can see well the birds that had better beaks from their parents survived better and the shitty breaks did not until slowly over time the beaks slowly improved and shitty beaks were removed from the gene pool
No, modern evidence is showing the finches rapid beak change happens fast enough to be a response to human interference, just a few hundred or thousands of years (I've seen sources saying it can happen fast enough to respond to drought), and it appears to be the result of epigenetics, not culling of bad genes or creation of new ones. Hence it really isn't evolution in the strict sense (a change in frequency of genes in a population). The genes are almost entirely still in the population and will be re-expressed in phenotypes if a new ecosystem pressure requires it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:10:06 No.13782959 Report

Quoted By: >>13783134

>>13782734
>I basically quoted you retard
No, you basically misrepresented what I said.

>Not an argument.
Wrong.

>I fully justified your non argument nitpick over "at" vs "above" and once again you are moving the goalpost.
How is a contradiction a nitpick? How did I move the goalpost?

>Nobody ever says it's being "inconsistent" to not agree with a definition they source.
I just did. And that's not the only one example of your inconsistency. You just use "macroevolution" to mean whatever part of evolution you're arguing against at any specific moment. Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab. In reality, macroevolution refers to none of these.

And I didn't even say you're wrong because of these semantic games. They're just irrelevant. You're wrong because you falsely claim empirical science is unfalsifiable and deny the existence of evidence which clearly exists, while failing to recognize that your own conclusion is unfalsifiable and unsupported by evidence.

>You haven't demonstrated a single misrepresentation.
You misrepresented why I said you didn't know what you're talking about and you misrepresented what I said about your inconsistency. You don't use one consistent definition, you just use "macroevolution" to mean whatever part of evolution you're arguing against at any specific moment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:19:20 No.13782978 Report

Quoted By: >>13783134

>>13782762
>I acknowledge the "evidence" exists
You literally said the opposite.

>if you can demonstrate what other people say is evidence fails to prove something.
But you can't.

>Intelligent design and creationism are two separate things.
This lie has never fooled anyone.

>Plenty of atheists believe in ID.
Wrong.

>ID doesn't rely on pseudoscience at all.
It IS pseudoscience.

>It only demonstrates the objective scientific conclusion is to reject naturalism as an explanation for the complexity of life because it's obvious life would require intelligent forethought.
How?

>Irreducible complexity isn't pseudoscience for instance
It is.

>Charles Darwin actually came up with the idea.
This is like saying magic isn't pseudoscience because a physicist said if magic existed it would falsify his theory.

>It's a valid concept, you and the atheist/evolutiontard mainstream are just in denial that it's proven
Please explain how it's proven then.

I'm still waiting for a substantive argument. This constant whining is boring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:20:22 No.13782979 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782782
>darwin's non disprovable conjectures
Such as?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:33:49 No.13783008 Report

Quoted By: >>13783017 >>13783179

Darwin's theory is statistical inevitability.
Only thing you need to know is that DNA exists and that variations and mutations are possible.
Darwin's theory emerges from that fact alone, it's inevitable

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:37:40 No.13783017 Report

Quoted By: >>13783081

>>13783008
>Darwin's theory emerges from that fact alone, it's inevitable
They seem to think the possibility of God outweighs the fact we know for a fact evolution is possible EVENTUALLY. This is despite the fact they have 0 proof whatsoever other than appealing to how wondrous they think it is that that "eventually" is 10^34839312843189 years and not millions/billions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:57:11 No.13783081 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783017
I think any kind of debate or reasoning which involves God and
>probability of God
>why would God do this and not that
etc is fundamentally pointless and can't lead anywhere.

El Arcón

El Arcón Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:04:45 No.13783105 Report

Quoted By:

I don't think it holds up well under scrutiny though it is superficially reasonable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:17:33 No.13783134 Report

Quoted By: >>13783147 >>13783410 >>13783416 >>13788230

>>13782959
>No, you basically misrepresented what I said
No
>Wrong
right
>How is a contradiction a nitpick? How did I move the goalpost
It's not a contradiction because the sources objectively allows it as I've proven, evidenced by how you conveniently ignored/dodged that I just said "at species level" fits in between "above species level" and "at population level"... How truly pathetic. You claim you want me to make arguments then just blissfully ignore them when I do

You moved the goalpost as I previously laid out 3x

>>Nobody ever says
>I just did
Not the first time you're wrong

>You just use "macroevolution" to mean whatever part of evolution you're arguing against at any specific moment
Your terrible e coli example you lied about and claimed was a "new species" was debunked as being macro without me needing to change my consistent definition and still would not be macro if I were exclusively using "above the species level". YOu are completely making this projection up bc you have to

>Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab
You literally claimed the e coli lab experiment observed a novel trait and also a "new species" you brain dead moron. I never once mentioned speciation in this thread.

>In reality, macroevolution refers to none of these.
You verbatim said the ecoli experiment was macro. And you have the audacity to say I'm inconsistent. Unbelievably pathetic.

>You're wrong because you falsely claim empirical science is unfalsifiable
Popper, the science philosopher who invented the idea of unfalsifiability you need to google, said evolution is unfalsifiable, not me. If you were not so ignorant you would have known I was just borrowing his argument. Seriously, go to college little child you are too far beneath me.

>>>13782978
Not debunking this shotgun posting idiocy bc it was a discussion with another anon you had to invade because you are driven by anger. You bumped the thread which is all I care about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:20:29 No.13783147 Report

Quoted By: >>13783233

>>13783134
>Popper, the science philosopher who invented the idea of unfalsifiability you need to google, said evolution is unfalsifiable, not me.
Who cares what memeper said?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:30:58 No.13783179 Report

Quoted By: >>13783225 >>13783349 >>13783426

>>13783008
>Darwin's theory is statistical inevitability.
Something that is possible (ie an outcome in a non infinite set) is only a statistical inevitability if there are infinite trials. Darwin's theory does not have infinite trials to actualize, ergo it's not a statistical inevitability, it's merely a statistical possibility.

>Darwin's theory emerges from that fact alone, it's inevitable
If there were infinite trials does that make it unfalsifiable?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO balloon-pink_1398x.jpg, 79KiB, 1398x1447

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:46:21 No.13783225 Report

Quoted By: >>13783327 >>13783360 >>13783484

>>13783179
If there's a kids balloon full of air, and i puncture it with a needle - it is theoretically possible all the air will stay inside. But I would argue (and that's what I refered to as "statistical inevitability") that it is vastly more probable that the air molecules will leave through the hole, so much so that any other scenario isn't worth considering.

If you don't like "statistical inevitability", you're free to use whatever term you like for what I'm describing. Same goes for evolution - that random mutations will result in what's described by Darwin's theory is statistically extremely likely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:48:03 No.13783233 Report

Quoted By: >>13783349

>>13783147
>Who cares what memeper said?
It's intellectually lazy to not acknowledge who came up with a logical argument. It's how higher level discourse works. Specifically in this case the idiot I'm dealing with clearly has no clue what falsifiability is and thinks it's just a concept invented as an internet meme or something. Pointing the idiot in the right direction to the person who actually developed the idea and showing the idiot how Poppar directly stated the opposite of the idiot's claims is a way to guide the idiot in the right direction. He can read the many arguments Popper made and their counter refutations and counter-counter refutations so I don't have to repeat them back to him on his level, which he will just mindlessly deny outright and form a mental stonewall against because he thinks I'm making the arguments and it's impossible for him to admit I'm right about anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:20:46 No.13783327 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783225
>If there's a kids balloon full of air, and i puncture it with a needle - it is theoretically possible all the air will stay inside
There's a way to make it not pop but I get what you're saying lol

>If you don't like "statistical inevitability", you're free to use whatever term you like for what I'm describing. Same goes for evolution - that random mutations will result in what's described by Darwin's theory is statistically extremely likely.
Statistical inevitability and extreme likelihood are quite different.

Since evolution is a broad term that simply means "a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations" saying Darwinism is extremely likely is not based in statistics. It's simply built into the definition of Dawrinism that the basic outcome "variation+heredity+natural selection = evolution" will happen no matter what. It's impossible for that equation not to be true, which is why Darwinism is unfalsifiable.

That equation (Darwinism itself) leading to complex structures in life is not guaranteed, or extremely likely, or inevitable whatsoever though. That is just an assumption to explain the evidence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:25:58 No.13783349 Report

Quoted By: >>13783518

>>13783233
I don't get what unfalsifiability is about. Isn't every claim falsifiable? If you can't prove a claim to be false then that means you can't prove its negation to be true, so what's special about the arbitrary label of "false"? I'm not completely sure I get the point here.

>>13783179
It's an inevitability that it is possible to happen. If you say evolution is possible, what's your argument, why reject the theory that it's the cause?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:31:07 No.13783360 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783225
Well, you're not talking about the "Bayesian prior" probability chance of life evolving to human level, you're talking about the chance that evolution happened on the planet, given the fact humans do exist on it. It might be extremely rare for that to happen, but it's even lower of a chance that it was anything else, I would say..

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:36:25 No.13783383 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
Darwin's theories were incomplete. He had no idea of how inheritance truly worked for example. But he wasn't wrong. Darwinian evolution was superseded by the Modern Synthesis which incorporated Mendelian genetics. That in its turn has been superseded by Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:39:26 No.13783388 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
>i'm retarded when it comes to science
Basically the average /sci/ user.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:46:09 No.13783410 Report

Quoted By: >>13783658

>>13783134
>No
Wrong. Your own source shows you don't know what you're talking about.

>right
Thanks for admitting that.

>It's not a contradiction because the sources objectively allows it as I've proven
The source has a caveat for retards like you who use the term incorrectly. You're confusing description with endorsement.

>I just said "at species level" fits in between "above species level" and "at population level"
You just contradicted yourself, yes. It's pretty funny how you still don't understand what macroevolution is after all this time. I suppose it's because the only people who deny evolution are those who don't understand it.

>You moved the goalpost as I previously laid out 3x
Where?

>Your terrible e coli example you lied about and claimed was a "new species"
You're truly delusional. Where did I say that? Take your meds.

>was debunked as being macro
Where?

>You literally claimed the e coli lab experiment observed a novel trait and also a "new species" you brain dead moron.
I did not say anything about it being a "new species." You're mentally ill or lying. You also don't seem to understand how commas work since you don't seem to understand that "Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab" is a list and not a description of speciation and novel traits. LOL.

> I never once mentioned speciation in this thread.
Then why are you talking about gradualism in the context of macro-evolution? What exactly are you trying to refute?

>You verbatim said the ecoli experiment was macro
No, I said it was an example of "macroevolution," not an example of actual macroevolution. It's hilarious that you're projected your failed understanding onto me, when the example I gave you is exactly what you wanted based on your flawed understanding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:50:33 No.13783416 Report

Quoted By: >>13783681

>>13783134
>Popper, the science philosopher who invented the idea of unfalsifiability you need to google, said evolution is unfalsifiable, not me.
No he didn't, he said Darwinian natural selection is unfalsifiable. He layer said he was incorrect. You should try it.

>I was just borrowing his argument.
And when you borrow something you don't understand or know how to use, it can actually hurt you.

>Not debunking this shotgun posting idiocy bc it was a discussion with another anon you had to invade because you are driven by anger.
LOL, you're the only one here driven by anger. You're incredibly angry that you're incapable of grasping the argument or refuting basic facts and logic. So you post these little excuses. Your lost, get over it. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:54:33 No.13783426 Report

Quoted By: >>13783484

>>13783179
>Something that is possible (ie an outcome in a non infinite set) is only a statistical inevitability if there are infinite trials.
Not true. Entropy in a system will inevitably increase.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 22:19:38 No.13783484 Report

Quoted By: >>13783526

>>13783426
In practice yes, in theory no. My kids balloon
>>13783225
is an entropy increase example - it is extremely likely that entropy increases, but it is theoretically possible for entropy to decrease. It's just so stupidly unlikely that it's not worth considering, except for when considering ideas like Boltzmann brain

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 22:35:06 No.13783518 Report

Quoted By: >>13783618 >>13783915 >>13784817

>>13783349
>I don't get what unfalsifiability is about. Isn't every claim falsifiable?
No, prove the claim "leprechauns exist" is false for instance. You can't, their lack of evidence could be explained away by saying Leprechauns are sneaky and leave no evidence. You could claim leprechauns have an low probability of existing based on our understanding though.

>If you can't prove a claim to be false then that means you can't prove its negation to be true
This is ambiguously worded but I think what you're saying is that things can be unfalsifiable due to the fact one can't prove a negative, which is a logically correct idea.

>so what's special about the arbitrary label of "false"? I'm not completely sure I get the point here
You could say it's impossible to negate or "unegatable" if you wanted if that is what you are getting at.

>>13783349
>It's an inevitability that it is possible to happen
"Possible" is just binary yes or no. "Inevitability" is not a good word to use with probability, it's redundant unless you mean something is currently not possible but inevitably will be

> If you say evolution is possible, what's your argument, why reject the theory that it's the cause?
Low probability. I see no reason the idea that unguided "mutation+natural selection" can create such complex results in such short time (4 billion years). And on top of that I don't believe there is adequate gradualism in the fossil record to suggest macro evolution. Mainstream evolutionists (ie non creationists sources) even admit this is the case and invented the idea of punctuated equilibrium to sidestep this issue by saying evolution "just went real real fast for some reason" and conveniently left no transitional fossils. Tons of other reasons too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 22:40:52 No.13783526 Report

Quoted By: >>13783539

>>13783484
>In practice yes, in theory no
LOL, it's a law of physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 22:48:04 No.13783539 Report

Quoted By: >>13783936

>>13783526
A statistical law. Entropy is always extremely likely to increase, so likely that we just say
>entropy always increases

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:25:08 No.13783618 Report

Quoted By: >>13783733

>>13783518
>You could claim leprechauns have an low probability of existing based on our understanding though.
Yes. An extremely low, negligible chance I would say.
>one can't prove a negative,
By a negative you mean the lack of the presence of a thing? I can be pretty sure the sun didn't blow up yesterday, a positive lack of the destruction of the sun. If you can have positive evidence of something based on something else being true, then that conversely must mean that thing being false is negative (Bayesian) evidence. So anything that can be proved can be disproved just as well?

I think the appeal of unfalsifiability may have something to do with the fact that if you did it that way, most facts/hypothesis would have a negligible prior probability, and that has something to do with the asymmetry between how falsifiable a new idea is or how provable it is..?

>in such short time (4 billion years).
You must have some kind of reason to believe it takes some amount of time that's longer? What's the reason other than, why, does it seem too wondrous? I think evolution could do unintuitively fast things

Also, it might not be that it always happens that fast. It could in principle be that evolution only rarely accomplishes getting to the point of (higher intelligent) life, but if it hadn't on this planet, then we wouldn't be here to see this (Anthropic principle), and perhaps on a planet where it did they would say the same thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:43:11 No.13783658 Report

Quoted By: >>13786293

>>13783410
>The source has a caveat
It literally says the distinction is hard to draw. It's not a caveat whatsoever. You are projecting what you want it to say to make you feel like you are correct, nothing more.

>You just contradicted yourself, yes. It's pretty funny how
Not an argument and not a contradiction made up by your fee fees. Hilarious projection though

>Where?
>Where?
Not an argument

>>Your terrible e coli example you lied about and claimed was a "new species"
>Where did I say that? Take your meds.
Ok my mistake I referenced the wrong one of you retards who said the e coli experiment had novel traits/new species. It must have been in a another thread unless someone here deleted it. See it's not hard to admit.

>Then why are you talking about gradualism in the context of macro-evolution? What exactly are you trying to refute?
You claim speciation is micro for some random reason and now ask if I'm not talking about speciation then why am I talking about macro? You are getting dumber.

>"Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab" is a list and not a description of speciation and novel traits.
More of your ignorant projection of course it's a list.

The study you linked has in its very title "rapid evolution of novel traits" observed in a lab but you claim it's not feasible to observe novel traits in lab so explain your contradiction

>No, I said it was an example of "macroevolution," not an example of actual macroevolution.
> the example I gave you is exactly what you wanted based on your flawed understanding.
There is nothing in your source that is happening at the species level, it is happening to a population in a lab, so why do you claim it matches my "flawed" understanding? It doesn't fulfill my consistent definition at all as I stated prior and you never responded to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:55:25 No.13783681 Report

Quoted By: >>13786324 >>13788230

>>13783416
>he said Darwinian natural selection is unfalsifiable
Thanks for agreeing with me

>He layer said he was incorrect
He did not

>You should try it.
hey what do ya know I coincidentally just did admit I made a trivial mistake and referenced the wrong anon. It's still hilarious you are so pathetic you can't evendo this. Try and read the civil conversations I'm having with other evolutionists in this thread and maybe learn something.

>And when you borrow something you don't understand or know how to use, it can actually hurt you.
It worked out pretty well since you just admitted I was right so it looks like I must have understood it.

>LOL, you're the only one here driven by anger. You're incredibly angry that you're incapable of grasping the argument or refuting basic facts and logic. So you post these little excuses. Your lost, get over it. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Such continual projection.
Nobody gives these long pointless shotgun posts towards every post someone else makes in a thread unless they are angry. I'm already consistently just ignoring half your posts now because I don't even think about them aside from how hilarious they are to read. And already other people are asking me questions because you are bumping the thread so much. So keep it up. Don't quit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:09:23 No.13783717 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
You're being bombarded by retards such as myself OP, I didn't even bother to look at the other replies. it just boggles my mind that people like you exist.

It boils down to really simple mechanics, completely indisputable and very easily measured. If you can't accept that mutations occur, environmental selection happens and that genetic material propagates from parents to their offspring, then you can't be helped. Evolution is nothing beyond those extremely simple axioms, it doesn't require an ounce of faith and if you adapt the materialist worldview, you are capable of doing actual science and engineering, but those who don't will forever be a useless burden, stumbling blindly in the dark and getting in the way of progress.

Please actually read the fundamentals of the theory, it should take you 3 minutes max and you can probably find a childrens youtuber to read it for you with pretty pictures. You will feel retarded for making this thread, but that's just because you are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:13:51 No.13783733 Report

Quoted By: >>13783777 >>13783780

>>13783618
>Yes. An extremely low, negligible chance I would say.
Yes, based on our understanding is key though so I hope you caught on to that. It's not simply negligible odds due to lack of evidence.

>>one can't prove a negative,
>By a negative you mean the lack of the presence of a thing?
Not being able to prove a negative is a pretty ubiquitous introductory concept in logic so I think you'd be better off just looking up articles on it instead of me explaining it. Sorry.

>You must have some kind of reason to believe it takes some amount of time that's longer?
Tons. A quick one is just a comparison to what a mainstraim evolutionist claimed is the low odds of abiogenesis happening based on current understanding. He thinks, based on current understanding, it would take many many universes before abiogenesis would be feasible. He doesn't state this directly though, you have to understand the comparisons he's making.
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

I think neo-darwinism producing complex life is an equally difficult feat as abiogenesis, so if abiogenesis is insanely unlikely then by default so is complex life via natural means without intelligent guidance.

>I think evolution could do unintuitively fast things
You probably think that bc society has tried to brainwash you into believing it since childhood, no offense.

>Also, it might not be that it always happens that fast. It could in principle be that evolution only rarely accomplishes getting to the point of (higher intelligent) life, but if it hadn't on this planet, then we wouldn't be here to see this (Anthropic principle), and perhaps on a planet where it did they would say the same thing.
I think countless eons would not be enough time. LIke if every star in the universe had a Goldilocks zone planet we'd still get shit for the lifetime of the universe. The anthropic principle is quite moot at that point unless you believe in multiverse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:32:48 No.13783777 Report

Quoted By: >>13784117

>>13783733
>Not being able to prove a negative is a pretty ubiquitous introductory concept in logic
I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a system of logic that you can't prove so-called "negative" facts it is not a good model for use in the real world. Unless you think I can't have "proof" there was a negative blowing up of the sun yesterday. That is based on things we know, evidence.

It seems whether evolution would usually get to human-level that fast may not be actually the most important point of contention. I think Nick Bostrom has a paper that mentions an attempt at estimating something about how long it might usually take with anthropic reasoning.

I was also appealing to the fact that even if anthropic reasoning can be relied on to explain humans managing to exist in our observation, there are also unintuitively complex developments in other branches of evolution not needed that exist. Actually that doesn't imply it is because it evolved because that is even less likely to happen, but I still think the fact there are at least some things that have explanations that seem unclear at first means the possibility of non-evolution explanations are outweighed already.

>LIke if every star in the universe had a Goldilocks zone planet we'd still get shit for the lifetime of the universe.
I'm not completely sure how all of this works, but I don't think that part is true with respect to evolution after groups of animals have evolved, since if it's making a big demand on how rare of a scenario it is for humans to evolve past that point, there wouldn't be other relatively compared to it complex evolutions in unrelated branches of animals. Maybe the problem is getting to an earlier point, that of abiogenesis?

The paper I was thinking of is "Dissolving the Fermi Paradox" by Sandberg and others

>The anthropic principle is quite moot at that point unless you believe in multiverse.
Well, yeah. It's just taking the anthropic reasoning even further.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:35:08 No.13783780 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783733
Actually it may have been
>Must Early Life Be Easy? The Rhythm of Major Evolutionary Transitions, Hanson
mentioned in
>How Hard is Artificial Intelligence? Evolutionary Arguments and Selection Effects, Bostrom

I realize I'm bringing up papers that I don't know exactly what they say.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO P11101481.jpg, 343KiB, 1600x1069

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:46:18 No.13783807 Report

Quoted By: >>13783850

>>13773646
>(like the evolution of the eye).
Already explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0&ab_channel=DebatesOnline
Evolution has no weak points

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:11:57 No.13783850 Report

Quoted By: >>13784905

>>13783807
>Already explained
Will not click that but i bet if you come out of the Vid /why a vid? to to steal my time?) you will find that it's explains nothing.

That's how the evo church handles critics. Have mad the process several time and if you debunk their BS they immediately switch to the next one.

You can't discuss with them. Take a look at this shitty weasel prog above. The software is in god mode, otherwise there is no possibility to achieve the claims.

A serious man, who seeks knowledge and truth would separate the random generation and data management from the result testing.

They put it in one source to mislead you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO evolution of the eye.jpg, 39KiB, 800x335

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:45:03 No.13783892 Report

Quoted By: >>13783900

>>13773646
>and that there are mysteries that it cannot explain (like the evolution of the eye).
Ah, the old "irreducible complexity" argument. No, that argument is garbage and relies on false premises. They'll say "oh, but a cornea by itself is useless, so there's no way a cornea could evolve." This ignores that we know of plenty of species with eyes at every complexity level shown. At the simplest, some bugs having extra "eyes" (simple light receptors) on the top of their head, to more quickly recognize when something flies overhead. Go look on the top of a praying mantis's head, and you'll see.
If there are any gaps, miracles, or anomalies, we haven't found them.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO praying mantis head.jpg, 75KiB, 640x517

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:50:23 No.13783900 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783892
I'll be real and admit I don't actually know what level of complexity a mantis's extra eyes are. Three of them, behind the antenna.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 02:00:06 No.13783915 Report

Quoted By: >>13784155

>>13783518
>Low probability
Based on what calculation?

> I see no reason the idea that unguided "mutation+natural selection" can create such complex results in such short time
It's consistent with all evidence compiled so far and there is no need to add some extra "guidance." I see no reason why it cannot.

>And on top of that I don't believe there is adequate gradualism in the fossil record to suggest macro evolution.
Why would macroevolution require gradualism?

>Mainstream evolutionists (ie non creationists sources) even admit this is the case
Name one.

>invented the idea of punctuated equilibrium to sidestep this issue by saying evolution "just went real real fast for some reason" and conveniently left no transitional fossils.
There are so many transitional fossils and plenty of evidence for PE. You're spouting bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 02:08:00 No.13783936 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783539
>A statistical law.
This is a common misconception. A high entropy and low entropy state are equally probable due to CPT invariance. Only the arrow of time forces entropy to increase, not statistics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 03:50:49 No.13784117 Report

Quoted By: >>13785804

>>13783777
>I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a system of logic that you can't prove so-called "negative" facts it is not a good model for use in the real world.
How would you prove leprechauns don't exist?

Some negatives can be proven though, I didn't say you could never prove a negative but I wasn't really clear and should have been more clear. I think the distinction is that you cannot prove a negative with empirical evidence, you can only prove a negative when dealing with logical claims.

>Unless you think I can't have "proof" there was a negative blowing up of the sun yesterday
Sort of, actually, yes. Today's sun today may just be a copy of the real sun that blew up yesterday and other such endless negative proof criteria that could void verification the sun did NOT blow up yesterday. So in asking "prove the sun did NOT blow up yesterday" there's an infinite burden of proof you must fulfill which is impossible. You must prove today's sun is NOT a fake sun.Prove the evidence you use to establish the NOT fake sun is itself NOT fake etc. However proving the sun did blow up yesterday could easily be done with some finite amount of empirical evidence before you reach the ontological limit of what satisfies the criteria of being evidence that establishes proof.

>there are also unintuitively complex developments in other branches of evolution not needed that exist
yes that is also a problem. Life is more complex than it needs to be to fulfill the AP. Maybe an intelligent designer just got carried away bc he enjoyed it...

>The paper I was thinking of is "Dissolving the Fermi Paradox" by Sandberg and others
Yes I've read the paper a while ago. It is sometimes a reference I use.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1601537229400.jpg, 98KiB, 830x770

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 04:08:07 No.13784155 Report

Quoted By: >>13785190 >>13786351

>>13783915
>>Mainstream evolutionists (ie non creationists sources) even admit this is the case
>Name one.
hahahahaha I directly quoted one in the very post you are responding to.

Thanks again angry retard for bumping the thread and continually demonstrating to the world you are a mental stonewalling impossibly stupid macro-evolutionist child. Keep it up.
Sigh, go ahead and get the anger out of your system and say I "didn't name one." You are sooo moronically predictable at this point I know that is exactly what you have decided is true in your little head.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 07:14:13 No.13784456 Report

Quoted By: >>13784458 >>13784812

Evolution is a nice theory but if you really dig into it with mathematics it falls apart completely. About as solid as all that gender crap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 07:15:50 No.13784458 Report

Quoted By:

>>13784456
>with mathematics it falls apart
No it doesn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 07:22:17 No.13784468 Report

Quoted By: >>13784509 >>13788390

>>13773646
>there are mysteries that it cannot explain
Cars need gas. Gas stations need cars. One is useless without the other. How can cars exist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 07:51:01 No.13784509 Report

Quoted By:

>>13784468
gas stations existed before cars did, there was already a preexisting market for flammable liquids, so when the first benz started driving around germany, the first gas station was already waiting there for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Benz_Memorial_Route

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 11:44:37 No.13784806 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646

The evolution of the eye isnt an "evolutionary mystery". If you weren't a retard, you'd know that there's something called convergent evolution; aka different organisms evolve similar traits seperately from each other. (Thats what I assume the "mystery" is?) If so, then the explanation is incredibly simple: the detection of light and your surroundings is imperative to survival. Doesnt get easier than that

If the problem is the actual structure of the eye, its once again retardedly simple. It basically evolved like this:

1. Photosynthetic cells. Cells can detect light.
2. Photosynthetic cells concave. You have depth perception
3. The entire thing gets a lens. You can now focus.
4. Photosynthetic cells specialize into new cells that aid with vision. You can now see much clearly, detect colour.

Where's the mystery?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 11:46:57 No.13784812 Report

Quoted By:

>>13784456
lmfao it falls apart if you take darwin's theory from the fucking early 19th century and take it at face value. If you actually take into consideration that he didn't know what we know, AND everything gregor mendel did with genetics it all makes perfect sense and explains all the "mysteries" you retards cling onto so hard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 11:49:40 No.13784817 Report

Quoted By: >>13785735

>>13783518
>no fossil record for transitional evolution

have you ever heard of a microorganism anon? Actually, fuck it, ANY other animal than a mammal?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 12:30:15 No.13784905 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783850
>Will not click that but i bet if you come out of the Vid /why a vid? to to steal my time?) you will find that it's explains nothing.
Not an argument. Why are creationists so afraid to actually offer substantive responses? Do you even believe your own bullshit?

>The software is in god mode, otherwise there is no possibility to achieve the claims.
What do you mean? How exactly do you think natural selection should be simulated?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 15:16:23 No.13785190 Report

Quoted By: >>13785735

>>13784155
>I directly quoted one in the very post you are responding to.
Where?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO jenny orangutan.png, 463KiB, 407x557

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 15:27:20 No.13785208 Report

Quoted By: >>13785765 >>13785790 >>13786307

Darwin, on meeting a young orangutan in the London Zoo:
>The keeper showed her an apple, but would not give it her, whereupon she threw herself on her back, kicked & cried, precisely like a naughty child.
>She then looked very sulky & after two or three fits of pashion, the keeper said,
>> "Jenny if you will stop bawling & be a good girl, I will give you the apple."
>She certainly understood every word of this, &, though like a child, she had great work to stop whining, she at last succeeded, & then got the apple, with which she jumped into an arm chair & began eating it, with the most contented countenance imaginable.

You can't look at this shit and not see a distant relative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLQufDBb-Es

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 18:38:51 No.13785735 Report

Quoted By: >>13786359

>>13785190
>Where?
Predictable child says I didn't post a quote because he'd rather be a little mental stonewalling turd just like I said he would haha. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>13784817
>have you ever heard of a microorganism anon? Actually, fuck it, ANY other animal than a mammal?
No I've never heard of these please elaborate.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1534140256527.gif, 540KiB, 400x300

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 18:46:35 No.13785765 Report

Quoted By:

>>13785208
>looks at retarded monkey
>that reminds me of me!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 18:52:24 No.13785790 Report

Quoted By:

>>13785208
>with the most contented countenance imaginable.
Darwin was too midwit to understand his own psychological projection. I bet he thought dolphins were all happy and friendly because of their cute smiles, whatta cringetard lmao, i can't believe the soicucks unironically worship such cringery, they must be equally midwitted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 18:55:27 No.13785804 Report

Quoted By: >>13786352

>>13784117
>I think the distinction is that you cannot prove a negative with empirical evidence,
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>prove
I didn't mean 100% prove, I meant be virtually/realistically certain of it. Realistically you would agree we are pretty sure the sun didn't blow up yesterday (I can't say I can explain exactly why).

If we know on enough planets (human-level) life can happen, then we know it will happen if there are enough planets. So, why believe we are not just one of those planets out of countless that it did happen on? Is the percentage of planets out of all of them that exist that was intelligently designed higher than the amount that evolved or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 21:48:59 No.13786293 Report

Quoted By: >>13788362

>>13783658
>It literally says the distinction is hard to draw.
Because of populations within species. Not really relevant to your misunderstanding.

>Not an argument and not a contradiction
Wrong. Above species is above species, not at species.

>Not an argument
Yeah, they're questions, which you apparently can't answer. OK, thanks for yet again abandoning your claims.

>It must have been in a another thread
Our native you just have no clue what you're taking about. There was a paper about e. Coli posted in this thread but no one said its a new species.

>You claim speciation is micro for some random reason
Because it is? Can't you just read your own sources anyway? They explain macro and micro pretty well.

>The study you linked has in its very title "rapid evolution of novel traits" observed in a lab but you claim it's not feasible to observe novel traits in lab
Where? If I listed novel traits and whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab as separate items in a list then why would you think I'm saying they're the same thing? You really are illiterate and don't understand how commas work. LOL.

>There is nothing in your source that is happening at the species level
Because it's in a lab. So again we see the same retarded creationist tactic in which direct observation is demanded but the goalposts are selectively chosen to invalidate any direct observation.
So tiresome.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 21:53:50 No.13786307 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:01:50 No.13786324 Report

Quoted By: >>13786427

>>13783681
>Thanks for agreeing with me
I didn't agree, are you illiterate? You claimed Popper said evolution is unfalsifiable, not natural selection. So you not understand the difference? So not only are you referencing a claim that the source later rejected, you're also misrepresenting the source. Typical creationist retard.

>He did not
Why are you lying?

>I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. -Popper, 1978

>hey what do ya know I coincidentally just did admit I made a trivial mistake
No one cares, try apologizing for your non-trivial mistakes.

>It worked out pretty well since you just admitted I was right
You can't read basic English or understand the difference between evolution and natural selection, you're far from right.

>I'm already consistently just ignoring half your posts now
Because you know you're wrong. Thanks for showing everyone here that you can't even deal with the basics of this topic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:11:57 No.13786351 Report

Quoted By: >>13786427

>>13784155
Notice how this creationist retard fails to respond to every single argument. What are they afraid of?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:12:06 No.13786352 Report

Quoted By: >>13786366 >>13786649

>>13785804
>Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Not it's not, and it's certainly not empirical evidence.
There is absolutely zero evidence of life outside our solar system but that isn't evidence they don't exist.
you didn't explain how to prove leprechauns(or we could go with aliens) don't exist. If I ask you to prove aliens don't exist it would be nonsense to say "I don't have any evidence therefore that is evidence"

>Realistically you would agree we are pretty sure the sun
Being pretty sure isn't proving something and it's dependent on mutual agreement.

>If we know on enough planets (human-level) life can happen, then we know it will happen if there are enough planets
We don't know if this can reasonably happen even once in the lifetime of the universe without intelligent guidance. It's nothing but an assumption.

>So, why believe we are not just one of those planets out of countless that it did happen on?
There is no evidence it has happened on countless planets

>Is the percentage of planets out of all of them that exist that was intelligently designed higher than the amount that evolved or something?
Not sure why you're mixing ideas here. There is no reason to assume any planet in the universe could have life without it being the product of intelligent guidance. I think you're implying aliens evolved naturally somewhere else and designed life on earth, but that is not a requirement for designed life on earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:13:11 No.13786359 Report

Quoted By: >>13786474

>>13785735
>Predictable child says I didn't post a quote
I'm asking you a question, not saying you didn't. If you refuse to answer then I can only conclude you didn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:16:49 No.13786366 Report

Quoted By: >>13786483 >>13788254

>>13786352
>Not it's not, and it's certainly not empirical evidence.
Incorrect. As long as there is a nonzero probability of finding evidence, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>There is absolutely zero evidence of life outside our solar system but that isn't evidence they don't exist.
It is though. Just like the lack of evidence for WMDs in Iraq is evidence of their absence.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1626367077512.png, 231KiB, 643x537

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:37:50 No.13786427 Report

Quoted By: >>13788230 >>13788362

>>13786324
>I didn't agree, are you illiterate? You claimed Popper said evolution is unfalsifiable, not natural selection
Yes of course you did, you said "Darwinian natural selection" which is just another way of saying darwinism which is synonymous with evolution. I even gave another anon an equation explaining it:

"variation+heredity+natural selection = evolution"

The left side is darwinism, which equals evolution. So you admitted I'm right. Thanks for playing.

>Why are you lying?
I know truth is meaningless in your head but to the rest of us you are the one who is lying.
>out of context cherry picked wiki quote
Since your very last post you blissfully ignored a quote I gave I will do the same until you acknowledge the quote I gave first. How pathetically hypocritical of you to expect me to acknowledge your quotes when you blissfully ignore my quotes. Truly pathetic as always.

>No one cares, try apologizing for your non-trivial mistakes.
Where?

>You can't read basic English or understand the difference
Where?

>Thanks for showing everyone here that you can't even deal with the basics of this topic.
Where?

>>13786351
>Notice how this [intelligent design advocate] to respond to every single argument. What are they afraid of?
You've yet to respond to one of my very first fundamental arguments to you on how a small bacteria population "developing a new trait" in the lab, which is somehow unfeasible to observe according to you despite you thinking they did it observe it, is somehow an event happening at the species level which is required from my definition and the one I quoted. It's not maroevolution at all and you still have not addressed this argument I made, only mindlessly deflected ever since. Strange.

Stay mad retard and keep it up. You're doing great!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:49:54 No.13786474 Report

Quoted By:

>>13786359
>I'm asking you a question, not saying you didn't.
Nope, you're saying I didn't. By denying I did post the very obvious quote in that post (by pretending you cannot find it) you are saying it does not count as a quote by a mainstream evolutionist who state the fossil record is missing transitional forms. Ergo you are saying the quote I'm referencing does not exist.

You're really stupid when it comes to biology/evolution theory but surprisingly you are even worse when it comes to trolling. The quote is in that post, I'm not going to point it out for you to play your childish troll game because you will just continue to mentally stonewall like I already said you would, and you did.

The quote is undeniably in that post and there is only one quote. If you can't ID it you are genuinely a braindead moron

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 22:53:28 No.13786483 Report

Quoted By:

>>13786366
>Incorrect
It's correct

>It is though
it is not though

It's obvious how angry you are, you truly to have to attack every post I make with other anons. You just can't let anything go when you get into your angry shotgun posting full retard mode.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 23:47:15 No.13786649 Report

Quoted By:

>>13786352
>If I ask you to prove aliens don't exist it would be nonsense to say "I don't have any evidence therefore that is evidence"
If I looked everywhere through a room for a piece of cheese, unless it wasn't ordinary cheese, that suggests there is no cheese. It's negative evidence

>Being pretty sure isn't proving something
Why do I have to prove it for certain?

>We don't know if this can reasonably happen even once in the lifetime of the universe without intelligent guidance. It's nothing but an assumption.
If you agree it's not impossible, then we do know. Can you prove the negative against there being 10^57489257849032758495436543654365436543654365436543632 planets, guranteeing at least one of them will evolve life even if it's that rare? Or however many planets you would need for the chance for each planet.
>There is no evidence it has happened on countless planets
But if it happened on one, us being that one planet would perfectly explain with no need for intelligent design.

>There is no reason to assume any planet in the universe could have life without it being the product of intelligent guidance.
I thought you said there was a nonzero chance of evolution for each planet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 12:44:10 No.13788230 Report

Quoted By: >>13788993

>>13786427
>Darwinian natural selection" which is just another way of saying darwinism which is synonymous with evolution
To retarded creationists like you. To Popper it refers to natural selection. Are you done misrepresenting an incorrect quote?

>"variation+heredity+natural selection = evolution"
That's one kind of evolution

>So you admitted I'm right.
You're desperate.

>I know truth is meaningless in your head
Says the guy misrepresenting a rejected claim. LOL.

>>out of context cherry picked wiki quote
Nice projection.

>Since your very last post you blissfully ignored a quote I gave
What relevant quote did I ignore?

> I will do the same
Fine with me. Yet another argument you lost.

>Where?
See >>13774261

>Where?
See >>13783134

>Where?
See >>13783681

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 12:47:19 No.13788240 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
Protein folding introduces a certain statistical issue but I forget the specifics, not something I read up on a lot. Maybe someone here knows what I'm referring to and can point to the name/issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 12:52:38 No.13788254 Report

Quoted By:

>>13786366
>the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
No it's not, it just doesn't enter the realm of scientific inquiry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 13:36:05 No.13788362 Report

Quoted By: >>13789051

>>13786427
>You've yet to respond to one of my very first fundamental arguments to you on how a small bacteria population "developing a new trait" in the lab
Wrong. I responded several times:
>>13775198
>>13775200
>>13786293

>which is somehow unfeasible to observe according to you
Why are you lying?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 13:56:55 No.13788390 Report

Quoted By: >>13788497

>>13784468
you can't just silence criticism circularly like that, you often call religious people dumb for arguing god's existence in that same way

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:35:56 No.13788497 Report

Quoted By: >>13788516

>>13788390
>call religious people dumb for arguing god's existence in that same way
That was the point. By way of giving an equally retarded example.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1620031280935.jpg, 38KiB, 750x600

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:39:50 No.13788508 Report

Quoted By: >>13788522

>>13773646
scientific theories all have the aspect of disprovability, darwin's theory does not have that aspect, so its not a scientific theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:41:16 No.13788516 Report

Quoted By:

>>13788497
gas stations existed before cars did, there was already a preexisting market for flammable liquids, so when the first benz started driving around germany, the first gas station was already waiting there for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Benz_Memorial_Route

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:42:30 No.13788522 Report

Quoted By: >>13788526

>>13788508
How can ANY theory have disprovability, then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:43:40 No.13788526 Report

Quoted By: >>13788542 >>13788554

>>13788522
Discover evidence that contradicts it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:46:48 No.13788542 Report

Quoted By: >>13788577

>>13788526
Can you give me an example of a legitimate scientific theory, that has disprovability? What could have evidence that could be discovered that would contradict it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:49:42 No.13788554 Report

Quoted By: >>13789078

>>13788526
A 67 million year old fossil of human would disprobe it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 14:57:09 No.13788577 Report

Quoted By: >>13788600 >>13788603 >>13788616

>>13788542
newton's theory of gravitation was disproved observationally
how uneducated are you if you haven't heard of that? are you on this board to be a political evangelist or a troll? you certainly don't seem to have any interest in science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 15:04:11 No.13788600 Report

Quoted By:

>>13788577
>newton's theory of gravitation was disproved observationally
I'm not sure exactly what you mean.. can you clarify?

For the theory of evolution, finding some kind of physical law of the universe that makes it physically impossible would disprove it, would it not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 15:05:16 No.13788603 Report

Quoted By:

>>13788577
For example, what exactly is "Newton's theory of gravitation"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 15:08:23 No.13788616 Report

Quoted By:

>>13788577
>newton's theory of gravitation was disproved observationally
>how uneducated are you?
The absolute state of this board

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 16:58:24 No.13788993 Report

Quoted By:

>>13788230
>To Popper it refers to natural selection
no it clearly doesn't. He would have just called it natural selection like he literally always does. You even quoted him sayign natural selection, not "darwinian natural selection" haha
Again, you admitted I'm right. Just let it go.

>That's one kind of evolution
It's Darwinian natural selection, yes, again you admit I'm right.

>You're desperate.
>Says the guy misrepresenting a rejected claim. LOL.
>Nice projection.
Not an argument

>What relevant quote did I ignore?
The one where mainstream evolutionists said there are huge gaps in the fossil record

>Where?
>See
>Where?
>See
>Where?
>See
I'm seeing correct arguments by me. You will have to be more specific or we'll have to assume you are just making things up again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 17:13:20 No.13789051 Report

Quoted By:

>>13788362
>Wrong. I responded several times:
Responding to the post does not mean you responded to a specific argument within that post dumb dumb.

Quote a sentence, from you, where you explained how something occuring to a population in a lab counts as occuring at the species level. You can't because you never did. You will not give this quote, proving you never responded like I said.

>>which is somehow unfeasible to observe according to you
>Why are you lying?
haha I can directly quote you saying this dumb dumb right here>>13777932
>Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab

See? You link a paper you think is observing new traits in lab but you inconsistenetly say it's not feasible to observe them in lab. At this point you've had so many contradicting posts in this thread you cannot make any further claims without instantly admitting I'm right via your very own statements.

Keep it up and lets see how many more contradictions you make! I want this thread to get to the bump limit so everyone on /sci/ sees you. We're half way there (but you're definitely not living on a prayer hahaha)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 17:20:15 No.13789078 Report

Quoted By: >>13789260

>>13788554
>A 67 million year old fossil of human would disprobe it
No it wouldn't. There have been T rex bones sticking out of the ground in Northwest US. The skeletons of living species today in the same strata are just blissfully ignored.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 18:06:27 No.13789260 Report

Quoted By: >>13789432

>>13789078
>There have been T rex bones sticking out of the ground in Northwest US
But dating shows they are over 65M years old.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 18:25:26 No.13789323 Report

Quoted By:

The funny thing is I can't tell who is arguing in favor of what. Will you autists settle down. Is the theory of evolution valuable, why or why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 19:08:57 No.13789432 Report

Quoted By: >>13789584 >>13790007 >>13790864

>>13789260
>But dating shows they are over 65M years old.
they don't date them anymore. The assume it lived within their established timespan T-rex lived, which is only 3 million years, which was based off other assumptions. There is no scientifically novel reason to "date" and decide exactly where between 65 to 68 "million" years ago it lived, so they don't bother.
It's in the same strata as living species if it's sticking out of the ground. They could have found deer bones right next to it. But it would be ignored.

They found modern (redundant word since all life is modern but I'm using your terminology) baboon teeth 2 feet deeper in the dirt at the "homo naledi" remains site and it was decided the baboon teeth were something like 50k years old and homo naledi was 500k because that is what was the narrative needs to be. You have to read the original paper for that but this is more interesting:
https://gizmodo.com/the-controversy-over-homo-naledi-is-actually-a-good-thi-1738572110

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 19:50:11 No.13789540 Report

Quoted By:

No one talks about the lizard monkey hybrid

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 20:06:20 No.13789584 Report

Quoted By: >>13792078

>>13789432
>It's in the same strata as living species if it's sticking out of the ground.
How do you know that..?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Oct 2021 22:00:12 No.13790007 Report

Quoted By: >>13792078

>>13789432
>It's in the same strata as living species if it's sticking out of the ground.
that's relative datation

there is also absolute datation, like with carbon-14. And that is not as easily dismissed

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 04:37:45 No.13790864 Report

Quoted By: >>13792078

>>13789432
>they don't date them anymore.
Now you're just making shit up

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 05:26:18 No.13790938 Report

Quoted By:

This thread has given a rather disturbing answer as I thought Darwin’s work was taken as fact. I’m guessing from this thread no one’s willing to compromise on a consensus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 06:46:10 No.13791076 Report

Quoted By: >>13792078

>>13774971
>pretty sure sperm from different species (even among mammals) usually cannot penetrate an ovum of a different species
correct but that's no my point

I am saying they are almost the same from a genetics and molecular biology standpoint. The inner workings of an mammals is what is almost the same. 2 mammals don't differ by the way their cells works but in the way they interact and communicate (ie developpement)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 14:10:30 No.13791746 Report

Quoted By: >>13791836

How consciousness evolved is very mysterious. As subjective feeling (qualia) is either present or not, there must have been one entity who first evolved it spontaneously. It's binary, not gradual like say evolving wings. An entity is either conscious or not, but to varying degrees of complexity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 14:44:38 No.13791836 Report

Quoted By: >>13791886

>>13791746
>not gradual
It is gradual

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 15:11:38 No.13791886 Report

Quoted By: >>13791894

>>13791836
Yes, they're gradual in the sense that sensory organs develop over time.

But what I mean is that qualia are binary in their existence. At some point in evolutionary history, a creature went from being an automaton to possessing qualia, however simple. It's synonymous with waking from a coma and slowly regaining your senses. What's most mysterious is why this original automaton 'woke up' to begin with, not how it and future creatures developed more complex sensory organs.

You can't partially experience the colour red.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 15:14:01 No.13791894 Report

Quoted By:

>>13791886
Qualia are bs.
There's a continuum from simple sensory responses to playing a game of chess

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1633228108801.jpg, 6KiB, 250x187

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 15:15:49 No.13791897 Report

Quoted By: >>13792089 >>13792096

>>13774261
>with no evidence to support it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 16:12:43 No.13792039 Report

Quoted By: >>13792089 >>13792096

>>13775041
>ID does not require perfect design, that is a religious interpretation
>ID from superior intelligence does not have to fully match our understanding of ID, that is a strawman
>ID may have a design we just don't understand yet, an "evolution of gaps" fallacy
>ID does not start with the ignorant premise that a trait is "flawed" like you mindlessly/arrogantly dictate without evidence, or definitive argument that some other design is superior. The recurrent larygneal nerve might need to take that route due to being superior for safe embryonic development for instance.
Behold, cope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 16:27:07 No.13792078 Report

Quoted By: >>13792460 >>13794648

>>13789584
>How do you know that..?
What possible reason would it not be?

>>13790864
>Now you're just making shit up
Show me a paper where a species we've already have found many prior examples of (that is the topic so that is the criteria) that bothers to perform radiometric dating then. The papers just give vauge "we have dated it to be" statements that mean they just assume it's that old because of the region or whatever other excuse.

>>13790007
>there is also absolute datation, like with carbon-14. And that is not as easily dismissed
It's very easily dismissed since it's not calibrated to anything except cherry picked data. They seriously reject dozens of tree ring data sets until they find one that matches their expectations and use that to calibrate them. Its insane.
But dino bones can't be C14 dated anyway. Did you not know that? Did you not read the link I gave explaining how the entire field of paleontology is not repeatable and almost all "researchers" hide their data so it can never be verified and the one guy in years who released his data had his dating methods torn to shreds? Paleontology is a joke. It's less of a science than psychology.

>>13791076
>I am saying they are almost the same from a genetics and molecular biology standpoint
Protein coding genes in mammals and humans have anywhere from 80% to 96% genetic similarity. Randomly-chosen segments of non protein coding DNA are waaay less similar. Why not just say that? If your paycheck was supposed to be $1000 but boss gives you $800 you would not say it's almost the same.

>2 mammals don't differ by the way their cells works
You just acknowledged one species sperm cannot penetrate another species ovum cell. That is a way the cell workings differ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 16:31:41 No.13792089 Report

Quoted By:

>>13791897
Other anon has desperately tried to produce some and has offered none after 20 posts. >>13792039
Behold, the no argument reddit tourist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 16:34:16 No.13792096 Report

Quoted By: >>13792323

>>13791897
Other anon has desperately tried to produce some and has offered no valid evidence after at least 20 posts.
>>13792039
Behold, the no argument reddit tourist.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1625669782075.jpg, 167KiB, 1242x1529

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 16:53:54 No.13792139 Report

Quoted By: >>13792207

What drives people to argue about theories that have been proven for over a century now on 4chan? Do you have nothing better to do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 17:22:02 No.13792202 Report

Quoted By: >>13792230

>>13774845
It's more like life itself is a cancer, ever since pain evolved. Intelligence is a step towards escaping the hellish cycle of birth and death.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1529964352983.gif, 436KiB, 600x580

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 17:22:57 No.13792207 Report

Quoted By: >>13792313

>>13792139
>theories that have been proven for over a century

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1497892047157.gif, 2MiB, 344x250

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 17:29:33 No.13792230 Report

Quoted By:

>>13792202
pain is just the "watch out, don't do that again you moron" warning. you're too stupid and lazy to avoid injury on an intellectual basis, without pain you'd have died young doing something stupid and people would've laughed at you, hopefully there would've been a meme grade gif of your death

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 17:56:53 No.13792313 Report

Quoted By: >>13794098

>>13792207
then publish a paper on it or shut the fuck up retard

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1635259697770.jpg, 133KiB, 619x608

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 18:03:59 No.13792323 Report

Quoted By: >>13794683

>>13792096
The sooner 4chan dies, the better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 18:10:12 No.13792339 Report

Quoted By: >>13793388

>>13773646
Evolution theory does require faith. Faith in the billions/millions of years it takes for non living matter to turn into life. A planet full of rocks into the first cell. It's a theory that is unfalsifiable, just as creation, and so neither enters into the discussion of science and thus requires faith.

Retards who compare evolution theory to gravity theory, are missing the fact that gravity can be falsified, it can be tested now and does not require millions/billions of years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 18:54:27 No.13792460 Report

Quoted By: >>13794098

>>13792078
>The papers just give vauge "we have dated it to be" statements
Again: post proof or source, or admit you just spout this shit without actyally having ANY knowledge about this subject

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 18:57:42 No.13792466 Report

Quoted By: >>13795286 >>13795903

>>13774261
There is support for human evolution. Not animals evoling into humans, this is bullshit and intelligent design is needed to explain, but different races evolved to have different patterns of intelligence and criminality

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 19:19:47 No.13792524 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774867
>You WILL eat zee bugs.
>You WILL drink zee sewage

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO kitty katty.jpg, 93KiB, 995x1200

Anonymous Tue 26 Oct 2021 19:29:32 No.13792549 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
FFS. Darwin was mostly true, and your dad is a tard for not acknowledging Darwin as one of the smartest people in history.
What about the eye?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO wrong.gif, 2MiB, 498x448

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 00:34:02 No.13793388 Report

Quoted By: >>13794103

>>13792339
>evolution = abiogenesis
You're wrong from the very start, without going into your perversions of "faith" and "unfalsifiable." Sad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 05:10:54 No.13794098 Report

Quoted By: >>13795517

>>13792460
>Again: post proof or source, or
proving the negative is not my burden of proof. You simply need to provide one paper showing that they radiometrically date a well-established species. You can't because they don't exist. You expect me to provide a source where someone randomly decides to state the common sense idea "hey our field no longer bothers to go through the very time consuming process to radiometrically date something that we feel is already well established" which is nothing more than an absurd deflection and vastly unrealistic burden of proof because you know nobody would ever do that.

>admit you just spout this shit without actyally having ANY knowledge about this subject
I read paleontology papers all the time. They don't do this type of "dating" unless it's a less established species they're still trying to figure out.

Go ahead and so "ooooh so you can't" like some idiot who got lost on his way to reddit.

>>13792313
Imagine being dumb enough to think this is how SCIENCE! works in your head

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 05:14:26 No.13794103 Report

Quoted By: >>13795197

>>13793388
Chemical evolution is the excuse for abiogenesis though so he's right. You are strawmanning that he called abiogenesis biological evolution because you need to find something wrong with what he said but could not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 05:15:48 No.13794108 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
You forgot to say "scientifically speaking"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 05:59:26 No.13794168 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774070
Would

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1622968263195.jpg, 52KiB, 474x474

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 06:01:01 No.13794169 Report

Quoted By: >>13795460 >>13795473

>>13773646
Made up garbage just like most of science.
Do not trust the science, make your own opinion and break free from your brainwashing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 10:54:33 No.13794648 Report

Quoted By: >>13794652 >>13794814

>>13792078
> Randomly-chosen segments of non protein coding DNA are waaay less similar
who cares they are not coding

>2 mammals don't differ by the way their cells works
You just acknowledged one species sperm cannot penetrate another species ovum cell. That is a way the cell workings differ.

I meant things like gene expression, protein secretion, absorbtion, mitochondires, lyzosomes, peroxysomes, cytoskeleton, the membranes, inttracellular transduction.

brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 10:55:39 No.13794652 Report

Quoted By:

>>13794648
intracellular signal transduction

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 11:11:16 No.13794683 Report

Quoted By:

>>13792323
The shit that emerges from this site is amazing. The anonymity and constant trolling brings out some angry reactions that reveal the true thoughts of people. It's incredibly useful for grasping a deep understanding of the people around you. Things they would never say to your face or in public.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 11:15:11 No.13794688 Report

Quoted By:

>>13773646
>scientifically
> can you measure it and observe it?

were you there? can you "see" the evolution were chimps became a humans etc? that's were the extrem take on science starts to kick in here, you can see "traces" of it. But again, you don't know 100% if this is true, just that it's most likely true, so that's why we "believe" in it, since it's the most logical thing so far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 11:26:24 No.13794726 Report

Quoted By: >>13794814 >>13795425

>>13773646
The evidence is undeniable: life on Earth has evolved. We have mapped the tree of life to the nth degree, and every time we find a new species it fits right into a gap in the tree. http://tolweb.org/tree/

We have genetic markers that prove our ancestry from the apes, we see evolution occur in the lab, and of course kids look like their parents.

The religious case for life, though, is that this is all HOW God created life on Earth. Think about all the little things that happened throughout natural history: clouds made an area a little darker, the moon wasn't lighting an area, a cry is echoed in a canyon, a spec of dust catches the eye of a dinosaur.... So many little things add up to profound result that could have meant life or death throughout the span of life on Earth, thus influencing the course of evolution. Like the butterfly effect.

Determinism (the idea that if we had an infinitely powerful computer and all the locations of all the atoms in the universe, we could predict the future because it's all just predictable reactions) was proven false by the double slit experiment. This revealed that if there is not an observer for a particle, that it will take a random path in a set range. This is where the faith comes in: is there truly a thing such as random? OR IS IT THE INVISIBLE HAND OF GOD GUIDING ALL OF LIFE ON EARTH?

Another curious thing about humans is our ability to imagine the perfect. Like circles and geometry. Such perfection cannot exist in the real world, but in our minds it's so easy to conceptualize. It is my understanding that no other animal has this ability, this glimpse into the perfect. This allows us to make guns and stuff and become the alpha predator of the world. Why did no other animal get that? How did WE get that? An atheist might say that some creature had to have been the first one, and deists say it proves our divinity, but nobody knows.

Man shall have dominion over the animals, written in the bible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 11:28:45 No.13794733 Report

Quoted By: >>13794814 >>13795454

Here's a tip for atheists trying to explain science to religious types:

Just say that science can show us all the things that God did in the past. That all of these things are what God needed to do to make this moment happen now.

Now you can talk about evolution, tectonic plates, fucking mosquitoes, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 12:12:05 No.13794814 Report

Quoted By:

>>13794648
>who cares they are not coding
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/basics/noncodingdna/
>Only about 1 percent of DNA is made up of protein-coding genes; the other 99 percent is noncoding.
Don't call me a brainlet when you obviously don't know shit about biology.

>I meant things like gene expression, protein secretion, absorbtion, mitochondires, lyzosomes, peroxysomes, cytoskeleton, the membranes, inttracellular transduction
So they have similar workings as long as you cherry pick parts that are similar. Great.
Gene expression is about the dumbest thing you could come up with too in terms of all mammals having similar cell workings or whatever you mean. We have highly significant differences in gene expression with other mammals.

>>13794726
where did you get that terrible pasta

>>13794733
>Just say that science can show us all the things that God did in the past
Atheists are not smart enough to hold up a simple facade like that. Within 2 or 3 sentences they'd make it plainly obvious they do not think God did it and blissfully think it's not necessary for God to intervene to make those things happen. You're projecting your stupidity onto others in order for you to think your idea would work..

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO tree of life.pdf, 814KiB, 1x1

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 16:11:27 No.13795197 Report

Quoted By: >>13797680

>>13794103
He didn't say "biological" evolution, faggot. He said evolution, which usually refers to biological evolution exclusively. Even if it were impossible for life to emerge through chemical processes, that wouldn't have anything to do with biological evolution.
The rest of his argument is even worse by making claims about unfalsifiability. Regarding evolution (not abiogensis), if we found a lifeform whose DNA contained a coded message, if we found fossils that are clearly "out of place," if we found genes in a species that don't appear to match its nearest relatives and could not otherwise be explained.
Evolution is just the explanation for why modern life looks like it shares ancestry with the life around it, so to falsify it would require finding examples that can't be explained through it (or demonstrating that some adaptation really could not evolve naturally, ala "irreducible complexity," though every example commonly given like the eye just ignores the many transitional forms of the eye that still exist in other animals today). Normally, if the model is found to be wrong, then the model is corrected, and this happens all of the time as DNA tests or fossils change opinion on what animals are branched where.
Regarding abiogensis, he's kind of right in that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis for how life could have formed, without any in-depth models beyond "it appears early Earth was awash in organic chemicals, and then life popped out." Amino acids are found in comets and also have been created in the lab while recreating estimated early Earth conditions. Falsifying it would be a lot harder, but then it it's also presented as the most likely explanation, not the only explanation. We could have been seeded (and/or our evolution guided) by aliens or higher beings, sure. If they did, though, they didn't leave any obvious signs. Our existence is hardly a sign given that if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to discuss our fortune.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Primate-Family-Tree-DFP-Borths1.jpg, 851KiB, 2000x918

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 16:25:38 No.13795225 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 16:49:24 No.13795283 Report

Quoted By: >>13795489

>>13774119
debunked, filthy luddite
https://www.newlifepublishing.co.uk/articles/proof-that-we-came-from-apes-debunked/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 16:52:11 No.13795286 Report

Quoted By: >>13795330

>>13792466
>i only believe in evolution to the extent it enables my racism
kek based anon

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO choanoflagellate.jpg, 321KiB, 515x1208

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 16:57:07 No.13795294 Report

Quoted By: >>13797631

>>13774540
>Interestingly, prokaryote and eukaryote flagellum are completely, fundamentally different. If mammals share a "common ancestor" with today's bacteria that means our flagellum "must have evolved" eons after multicellular organisms popped into existence
What are you jabbering about anon? Eukaryotic flagella evolved in single-celled eukaryotes. They're not unique to sperm - the little cilia moving crap out of your windpipe are the same structure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 17:13:53 No.13795330 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795286
do you think there is a darwinian correlation between the stated evolved criminality and evolved athletic abilities, particularly running?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 17:24:04 No.13795349 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774845
Don't be so down! It is actually a good thing. One day this planet will no longer exist, without any interference all the creatures of our planet will die out. With us there is a hope that we could save them and allow them to survive on a new planet perhaps. In the grand scheme of things we may be the planet's saviour or at least the saviour of it's fruits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 17:55:50 No.13795425 Report

Quoted By: >>13795889

>>13794726
>We have genetic markers that prove our ancestry from the apes, we see evolution occur in the lab, and of course kids look like their parents.
You can do this kind of discussion with any car, ship and plane too. They use the same principles, tech and parts. There are models and a clear undeniable evolution. Even the construction processes are similar.

So there build themselves just because of that? Think you can't argue in any direction this way how things are made , But evo fans do exactly that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:07:07 No.13795454 Report

Quoted By:

>>13794733
>Here's a tip for atheists trying to explain science to religious types:

>Just say that science can show us all the things that God did in the past.

Atheists don't believe in God, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:09:50 No.13795460 Report

Quoted By:

>>13794169
The earth tilts at 23.4 degrees retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:12:17 No.13795469 Report

Quoted By: >>13796059

Nondisprovable conjecture is one of science's most profitable tricks. Most of the field of forecasting future evolution is wide open to anyone creative enough to think up exciting new creatures to predict. I'm a marine owl specialist myself, I'm predicting that in the future there will be enormous marine owls that prowl the open ocean at night looking for things to eat. I also have a line of terrestrial conchs that I'm working on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:14:20 No.13795473 Report

Quoted By: >>13795516

>>13794169
>miles
Science doesn't use antiquated Murican meme units

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:20:56 No.13795489 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795283
>Humans share many genes with apes – but that’s not proof we evolved from them. After all, human beings also share 50 per cent of our genes with bananas, and 79 per cent with ducks – but no one believes we are descended from duck-billed bananas.
A false dichotomy and a strawman in the first paragraph. No need to read any further.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:30:05 No.13795516 Report

Quoted By: >>13795568

>>13795473
>i find simple unit conversions difficult and inconvenient unless the unit conversion is done in arbitrary base ten units
why does the metric crowd seem to pride themselves on being lazy and avoiding arithmetic? bad at math?
the metric system is for girls. people who fear unit conversions cling to the metric system as a coping mechanism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:30:27 No.13795517 Report

Quoted By: >>13797680

>>13794098
You first posted the claim that fossils are not dated if it's a well known species. So provide a link to a (1) scientific (as in: peer reviewed) that does the vague "we dated" thing that you claimed.
You can't and you won't

>I read paleontology papers all the time.
Your creationist papers don't count

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:51:27 No.13795568 Report

Quoted By: >>13795597 >>13795650

>>13795516
The metric system is logical and coherent. The imperical system is an amalgamation of royal body parts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 18:57:39 No.13795583 Report

Quoted By:

>>13778066
I think Dawkins wrote about the eye in one of his books. I'm paraphrasing but he said how you can see the logical stages of how the eye evolved in different organisms today . Single celled organisms with light sensitive spots, small animals with lensless eyes. lensed eyes without muscles. Our eyes.

Found this youtube video with dawkins talking to children about it: https://youtu.be/2X1iwLqM2t0

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO T_T.jpg, 58KiB, 468x527

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 19:03:49 No.13795597 Report

Quoted By: >>13795938

>>13795568
>reeeeee muh metric system is logical and coherent becuase i say so, multiplying by twelve makes my head hurt.
>cancel the patriarchy!!!
eurocringe

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1386126876915.gif, 2MiB, 320x240

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 19:23:13 No.13795650 Report

Quoted By: >>13795860

>>13795568
>logical
Yes
>coherent
Not really. Imperial is based on "human" units, because we're human. Arguably true with metric, too, given that we only use base 10 because we have ten fingers. In imperial, an acre is the amount of field that can be ploughed with one plough+oxen. Normal temperatures go from 0 to 100 degrees. Feet are divided into 12 inches because 12 has a lot more divisors than 10. It's a system for peasants, not for hard science. Besides, only using factors of ten makes it obnoxious as fuck when presented with different scales. If I tell you the distance between NY and Miami is 170,000,000cm, you can't say that's very convenient to convert to kilometers, which you're going to do because you don't think of long distances in terms of centimeters or meters. You guys don't just use "the meter," you use a slew of -meters with similarly arbitrary scopes as imperial.

Gif unrelated

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 20:42:14 No.13795860 Report

Quoted By: >>13796665 >>13796689

>>13795650
>If I tell you the distance between NY and Miami is 170,000,000cm, you can't say that's very convenient to convert
Move decimal point 5 positions to get 1700 kilometers. Done.
How about converting 67,985,648 inches to miles?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO giqnhwevirunq.jpg, 11KiB, 275x183

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 20:54:00 No.13795889 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795425
this board is flooded with so many retards it's unbelievable

!!qiD/WlTipD3

!!qiD/WlTipD3 Wed 27 Oct 2021 20:59:17 No.13795903 Report

Quoted By:

>>13792466
Incredible reasoning

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 21:18:09 No.13795938 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795597
>multiplying by twelve
Or 3. Or 3/8. Or 8. Or 5/16. Or 1760. Or any of the 34 other conversion rates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 21:33:01 No.13795962 Report

Quoted By:

>>13774392
You have not understood the most important part of natural selection its NON-random selection of those individuals which best survive in a given environ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Oct 2021 22:05:37 No.13796059 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795469
>Most of the field of forecasting future evolution
There's no such thing as field of forecasting future evolution because there's no way to forecast future evolution

>open to anyone creative enough to think up exciting new creatures to predict.
well yeah. It's like predicting
>what would happen if Balrog killed Frodo
there's no correct answer and anyone creative enough can predict whatever they like.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gcn blacked.gif, 1MiB, 640x480

Anonymous Thu 28 Oct 2021 01:42:13 No.13796665 Report

Quoted By: >>13797081

>>13795860
You missed my point, though I guess I didn't explain it much. Moving between centimeters, meters, and kilometers (or more extreme) requires not accidentally adding an extra zero or placing the decimal point incorrectly. With inches/feet/miles, every conversion yields a different set of numerals entirely, avoiding that particular problem.
Trying to remember whether a unit uses milligrams or grams or kilograms, then trying to divide it by another unit that uses a different -gram and thus needs to be converted, yada yada. The chances for errors go up when you're just sliding a dot around mindlessly, especially with something like centimeters that doesn't fit neatly like the other common prefixes.
For fuck's sake, metric uses both kilogram/meter^3 and gram/cm^3 for density, water being 1000 kg/m^3 and 1 g/cm^3. You really think all that converting isn't kind of silly?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO women hate math.jpg, 72KiB, 640x420

Anonymous Thu 28 Oct 2021 01:55:02 No.13796689 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795860
why do you find dividing by 12 and then 5280 so challenging and frustrating that the difficulty drives you to complain incessantly about it? if that kind of arithmetic flusters you then you are probably not cut out for the sciences.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Oct 2021 05:59:22 No.13797081 Report

Quoted By:

>>13796665
>not accidentally adding an extra zero or placing the decimal point incorrectly. With inches/feet/miles, every conversion yields a different set of numerals entirely
So,.... difficult conversions are better because you're less likely to perform them by accident?
> kilogram/meter^3 and gram/cm^3 for density, water being 1000 kg/m^3 and 1 g/cm^3. You really think all that converting isn't kind of silly?
It's again only moving the decimal point. It's much harder to do using cubic footpounds per gallon, or whatever the hell imperial uses.
Metric has the easiest and the least amount of conversions.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 470-f1-MolecularMotors-12[1].png, 160KiB, 845x728

Anonymous Thu 28 Oct 2021 13:01:04 No.13797631 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795294
>What are you jabbering about anon?
Something over your head apparently
>Eukaryotic flagella evolved in single-celled eukaryotes
I don't share your religious belief
>They're not unique to sperm - the little cilia moving crap out of your windpipe are the same structure
Cilia and flagella are not the same thing, structure similarities are irrelevant. Cilia in the lungs use kenesin motor proteins and sperm flagella use dynein. They are incredibly different. There is no possible way the two diverged from a common form despite both having comparatively simply structural tube 9+2 symmetry.

The grand evolutionary origin myth dictates sex "evolved" after multicellularity... duh. There is no reason to think motile flagella in single eukaryote "ancestors" remained in multicellular human ancestors the entire time and then one day turned into sperm or something something for reproduction. If the myths were even remotely feasible it would be more likely for "our ancestor's" sperm to convergently evolve flagellum at the point it became necessary vs keep it around for "reasons" milllions of years until the sperm needed to escape the body. Kinda pointless for any cell in your body to have motor proteins used to escape except sperm eh? and it's also a better fit for the different motor proteins.

As always, when evolution must to resort to the mindless excuse of "convergent evolution" it makes it even more hilarious to deny it's just a reused/common design aspect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Oct 2021 13:31:59 No.13797680 Report

Quoted By:

>>13795197
>He didn't say "biological" evolution
So he wasn't wrong

>wall of text
He wasn't wrong

but this part caught my eye lol
>though every example commonly given like the eye just ignores the many transitional
I'm currently in this thread educating someone about the eye's irreducible complexity (no transitional forms of the pulley system exist) . Maybe read it, don't chime in though because u would pretend I said something wrong like above

>>13795517
>You first posted the claim that fossils are not dated if it's a well known species. So provide a link to a (1) scientific (as in: peer reviewed) that does the vague "we dated" thing that you claimed.
>You can't and you won't
Are you kidding me? Easy. Below suffices your childish request. I read it a while ago since it's about biological material impossibly staying intact for "millions of years" defying the laws of physics and can only be explained via young earth theory.

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/4/815/5762999
>The most parsimonious explanation for these results is that epitopes of collagen II are preserved in this 75 million year-old dinosaur. Collagen II is not produced by microbes; positing a microbial source is not parsimonious or congruent with the data.
Not even the slightest explanation or citation of how they "dated" the Hypacrosaurus fossil anywhere in the paper. Just one sentence saying its X years old, probably because they guessed, which is especially hilarious since the premise of the paper itself is about something that cannot last X millions of years long.

>Your creationist papers don't count
What is a creationist paper?
Anyway, your smuggness cannot go without tacking you down notch and putting you in your place.
Show me a paper that actually explains the dating process the authors used to determine the "millions" of years old individual fossil that the paper focuses on. You don't even have to use a well established species because that is impossible. You can't and you won't.

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