>Why do people treat the scientific method as some kind of universal solution to everything when in fact it is flawed?
The scientific method isn't a solution. It is a method which can be used to prove a conclusion is accurate.

The problem is repeatability and peer reviewing is being tossed out the window in the name of money and political correctness:

>Hey our drug "works" lets push it out to market without a second trial.
>My study says the patriarchy is irredeemably evil, if you disagree you're sexist and I'll have you fired.

File 159872828447.jpg - (32.10KB , 480x360 , panda.jpg )

>>16978
>Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.
misuse and abuse of statistical tools is the main problem here. p-hacking (various techniques where you bias the data until you're able to claim statistical significance), is a major problem in popular fields such as biology and psychology. the people doing research in these fields generally aren't going to be good at statistics and the studies they're conducting usually have a small sample size. on the other hand, if they scaled their sample sizes up, then data collection is going to take up a lot more time.

p-hacking is less of a problem in fields such as statistics, computer science, chemistry, and physics, as people in these fields generally have higher standards for data collection and a better grasp on statistics.

File 159879140010.png - (523.04KB , 681x630 , Science lol.png )

Science is a crutch. Humans tend to put too much faith in something that is inherently devoid of objective truth. Data can be misinterpreted, methods are unreliable or scientists in general lack real understanding of what they're looking for. Take gravity, for example. There is no real evidence that prove there is a force that is responsible for keeping the moon in orbit. You can't measure this force, detect it or even see it. In this case all you rely on is a piece of paper with mathematical scribbles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/13/how-do-we-prove-a-well-established-theory-like-gravity/
>There is no way to absolutely rule out the idea that gravity is caused by invisible, insubstantial pixies that have an obsession with everything having to be as close together as possible.

In other words, science is religion for atheists.

>>16981
This.

>>16981
>>16983
Holy fucking shit, just fuck off back to /phi/ you mentally ill post bot

You've literally been This-ing your own schizophrenic theistic ramble for fucking YEARS. You've already killed /phi/, fucking stay there.

Youtube  >>16984
Who are you talking to?

>>16978
The reproducibility crisis says nothing about the ability of the scientific method to allow us to learn about reality. It's caused by factors external to scientific practice; specifically, the publish-or-perish industry, which encourages churning out low effort papers and especially discourages publishing negative results (where a new hypothesis was tested and disproven) and reproductions of earlier experiments.

>>16981
>There is no real evidence that prove there is a force that is responsible for keeping the moon in orbit. You can't measure this force, detect it or even see it. In this case all you rely on is a piece of paper with mathematical scribbles.
If that's the attitude you're going to take then you're resigning yourself to absolute solipsism. Not only is there no way to prove that gravity is holding the Moon in orbit, there's no way to prove the Moon or the Earth exist, or that the ground you're standing on exists as you perceive it.

The goal of science is to improve the lives of people. On that front I'd say it has been largely successful so far. Comparatively, the mentality "we can't definitely prove anything, so we may as well not try" has never achieved anything.

File 159973595081.gif - (316.01KB , 500x290 , 156873382560.gif )

>>16989
He's right, though. Gravity is merely a mathematical construct. Just like heliocentrism. There is no objective universal reference point and thus any point in the universe can be stationary and everything else is moving in reference to it. The heliocentric model means that you don't have to do as many equations as with the geocentric model. Science is more about dogma then actual pursuit of truth.

>>16990
You gonna provide the source this time or do you want me to do it again?

>>16981
>>16990
Troll-bot reposting same shit rebranded because he keeps getting debunked:

>Gravity is not proven. Anonymous 20/07/19(Sun)09:52 No. 16953 ID: 7d5109
>File 159514513160.gif - (316.01KB , 500x290 , 156873382560-1.gif )

>https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/13/how-do-we-prove-a-well-established-theory-like-gravity/
>There is no way to absolutely rule out the idea that gravity is caused by invisible, insubstantial pixies that have an obsession with everything having to be as close together as possible.

>Why do people claim that gravity is real when you can't measure it or even detect it? It's not considered a real tangible force and is pretty much a mathematical construct that tries to explain why objects fall to the ground.

>Also, there is no real evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun. Given the lack of a universal reference point, it's not exactly true that anything goes around anything else when talking about our solar system. You can plot out the universe as though any point in it were stationary and everything else was moving in reference to it. But when you adopt the heliocentric model, the number of equations you have to do in order to make sense of things drops by an enormous amount, to the point where it's hard to imagine why anyone wouldn't want to default to this model.

I remember optimising and posting that gif a few years ago! I also remember copy and pasting that exact same quote, only I didn't try and pass it off as my own and went on to talk about the inverted model of the universe but I'm guessing that one went over your head which is why you omitted it.

Source: >>https://boingboing.net/2016/01/10/elegance-illustrated-helioce.html

I'll give you credit troll-bot, you split it over multiple posts this time. Still the same formula though: Post outrageous claim then follow it up with a scientifically accurate observation as if it some how lends credit to the first. Might want to start using a different article and gif though.

Serious question troll-bot; you gonna delete all your posts and re-post again like you have the last dozen times I called you out?

>>16990
>Science is more about dogma then actual pursuit of truth.
Science isn't about the pursuit of truth. Truth is inherently unattainable, except as tautologies in axiomatic systems. Science is about constructing models that let us make (hopefully useful) predictions. Since what we care about is the predictions, if two models make equally accurate predictions but one is simpler than the other, then why do we need the more complex one? This isn't dogma, it's pure pragmatism. Choosing to use the simpler model does not assume it's more correct, in the sense of more closely matching the source code of the universe, so to speak.

File 159982201749.gif - (322.17KB , 266x233 , Nice maymay.gif )

>>16994
> This isn't dogma, it's pure pragmatism. Choosing to use the simpler model does not assume it's more correct, in the sense of more closely matching the source code of the universe, so to speak.

If you knew anything about the scientific community you wouldn't write that. If a scientist doesn't adhere to the scientific consensus he gets banned from publishing his findigs in academic journals and gets ridiculed and scoffed at.

>>16995
You're doing it again. You're conflating science with the circumstances that surround it. That scientists are normal humans with the same flaws as everyone else tells you nothing about science itself. It tells you nothing about the effectiveness of the scientific method to learn about the world.

But, for the sake of argument let's suppose that humans doing science is indeed a problem for scientific practice. What would be the alternative? Whatever you say, it's going to be performed by humans. We don't know any alien superbeings to ask them to do our work for us. If it's a problem for science that scientists are human, it's going to be a problem for whatever you replace it with.

>>16996
The scientific method is man made and thus it is inherently flawed.

>>16997
Yes. So, again, what would be the alternative? Since the reasoning seems to be "if X is man-made, it's flawed", if you want to replace science with a flawless system of inquiry, such a system would have to be invented at least by some non-human, and possibly by some "perfect" non-human, or least one that lacks the flaws humans have. Do you know of any flawless non-humans capable of doing that, and do you know how to communicate with them?

>>16997
>The scientific method is man made and thus it is inherently flawed.
THIS! The patriarchy is an inherently flawed system requiring aggression and violence to push its principles, the matriarchy by comparison has always been fair and just and resulted in compassionate reasoning.

wow

>>16998
That's not the point. Science isn't infallible but whenever someone invokes stale, old buzzwords like "scientific progress" or "peer reviewed studies" they always seem to forget that you only teach what is acceptable and approved by the scientific community and therefore scientists are driven by dogmatic reasoning, hence affecting the scientific method.

>>17003
Well, I don't understand what your point is. Are people around you treating scientific papers like they were gospel? Maybe you should try meeting less stupid people.

>therefore scientists are driven by dogmatic reasoning, hence affecting the scientific method
Only in the short term. People are obstinate, but thankfully they're also mortal. It's generally the case that what it takes to get a very revolutionary theory approved by the scientific community as a whole is to get a new generation of scientists. I very much doubt it has ever happened that a theory that was more accurate than another didn't eventually win out in the end.

Science is a meme. Pure autism.

inb4 "This. Atheism blah blah blah. [some Youtube link] Fedoras blah blah blah."

>>17008
>being this euphoric

Do you put bananas in your ass?

>>17009
yes, i uphold the traditions of my monkey ancestors.

File 16004373375.jpg - (23.96KB , 480x360 , banana in ass.jpg )

>>17010
>he doesn't get the reference

Autistic zoomer, please go back to TikTok.

Science is based primarily on confirmation bias. You can distort data to mean whatever you want it to be.

File 160086457686.png - (88.71KB , 964x450 , postbot_leak.png )

I'm glad that unlike his favourite atheist YouTuber, the mentally ill postbot leads a life full of joy and fulfilment.

>>17013
https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/stories/sciences-under-discussed-problem-with-confirmation-bias/
> Research scientists are under pressure to get published in the most prominent journals possible, and their chances increase considerably if they find positive (thus “impactful”) results. For journals, the appeal is clear, writes Philip Ball for Nautilus: they’ll make a bigger splash if they discover some new truth, rather than if they simply refuted old findings. The reality is that science rarely produces data so appealing.
> The quest for publication has led some scientists to manipulate data, analysis, and even their original hypotheses. In 2014, John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor conducting researching on research (or ‘meta-research’), found that across the scientific field, “many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated.” Ioannidis, who estimates that 85 percent of research resources are wasted, claims that the frequency of positive results well exceeds how often one should expect to find them

>>17016
>>16989

>>17016
This pretty much confirms that science is just advanced memes for university autists that trick gullible people into accepting whatever narrative they want to spew for profit.

>>17019
Not sure if you lack the reading comprehension or a troll-bot. Re-read the article.

What it's saying is scientists are changing their hypothesis to match the model. Not that the model is incorrect. It's a matter of funding and perceived competence.

Immagine you're going to paint a wall red,
Only you used blue paint by accident,
If someone asks you what colour you intended to paint the wall are you going to say red or blue.

The walls still painted in either case.

>>17020
>Distinguished, peer-reviewed science is not immune to human influence

That's the bottom line. Peer-reviewed means jack shit. It's a meme.

>>17021
Any human action or action derived from human action is prone to human influence.

By extension of your own logic your own opinion means jack shit.

>>17020
It's a trollbot. Don't bother.

>>17021
This shit again. What is the alternative? If anyone has a method to learn about the world that's more effective than science, I'd love to hear it.

>>17016
Science is a touchy subject. People who don't trust it get treated like heretics by the establishment. It's kind of like a reverse inquisition. The rationalistic mind can only grasp everything in terms of numbers, equations and data.

>>17026
>Science is a touchy subject.
Religion is far more touchy.

>People who don't trust it get treated like heretics by the establishment.
If you had said people with radically differing viewpoints to the status quo, you may have had something troll-bot. There are two types who don't "trust" science:

Those who often demonstrate an inability to understand it, see your typical anti-vaxxer.
And those who understand and fear it's implications, these ones are rarely seen or heard as they typically retreat to hermitism.

Neither is shunned by the community except for when the first repeatedly brings a flawed paper before the community declaring it gospel.

>>17027
Creationists, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, etc. are not shunned, as such, but they are certainly mocked. But it's not because they're challenging the current paradigm, but because they're not applying critical thinking properly. It's not like those people are engaged in serious research and reach controversial but sound and justified conclusions. They consistently cherry-pick that evidence that fits their pre-conceived notions and then complain when people don't take them seriously. They want their positions to be called scientific without doing the work of applying scientific rigor, and they can't do that because if they did then they would no longer be able to hold those positions sincerely.

>>17022
Yeah, so? Science is flawed from the start and you cannot rely on it.

>>17029
>He says posting on the internet.

>>17029
What can you rely on?

OP, science is not a monolith. It is an umbrella term. The varying fields have different problems and burden of proof. For instance, in physics when you break it all down to the subatomic level then nothing makes sense and the ”laws” of physics don’t apply anymore. Another example is the speed of light. You have no objective evidence for how fast light travels because so far no one has measured it exactly and you can only estimate the velocity with calculations which in and of themselves are pure speculation. Calling science an authority on right or wrong is just cope.

>>17032
>For instance, in physics when you break it all down to the subatomic level then nothing makes sense and the ”laws” of physics don’t apply anymore.
This is wrong. What happens is that, at subatomic lengths, quantum effects become so significant that classical mechanics by itself no longer provides an accurate predictive model of the behavior of objects with accuracy relevant at the scales involved, but subatomic and elementary particles are still subject to macroscopic forces such as gravity.
In other words, if you could see an individual free electron in a vacuum as if it was an ordinary object, you could see it fall to the ground at 9.8 m/s^2. It's only when you tried to get really close to it that its trajectory would seem erratic and seemingly unpredictable, according to normal intuition about how macroscopic objects should behave.

>You have no objective evidence for how fast light travels because so far no one has measured it exactly
The speed is exactly 299792458 m/s. The meter is defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum, and the second is exactly 9192631770 cycles of transition between ground states of cesium-133 at 0 K.
So the speed of light is known exactly. You really should STFU if you don't know what you're talking about.

>>17033
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
>adopted value

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
>Definitions are adopted according to the most accurately known measurement techniques of the day, and are constantly revised

Not objective. Sorry, m8.

>>17034
What? Sorry, but I don't understand what your point is.

>>17034
>Not objective.
>>17035
>I don't understand what your point is.

Ignore him, he's equating objective and subjective with absolute and comparative.

I can't even understand the rational in his head that leads to that thought process, but then again, troll-bot has never been good with the nuance of the human language.

>>17030
Can the Internet show me how a unicellular organism turns into a bird or a fish in real time? Can the Internet show me the instant when the so called "Big Bang" occured? Can the Internet prove there is anti-matter?

The answer is no. Science is more about speculation than actual evidence.

>>17038
The Internet is proof that science produces practical results.

Idiot.

Science is trial and error. If one method doesn't confirm your bias then you move on to the next one that suits your fancy. That's how all research works. If you can't skew the data then skew the way you conduct investigation.

>>17038
>Evolution is one species suddenly becoming a totally different one
I love how complete fucking retards always try to disprove evolution by using an example of what it's NOT. Like saying that cars are nonsense by pointing to a pile of dirt.

>>17042
Did you know that there is zero evidence for abiogenesis being real? No one has been able to produce a self-replicating unicellular organism through laboratory experiments or even a self-replicating enzyme. In order for evolution to be real you have to be able to show how a random collection of proteins would assemble themselves into some kind of proto-cell capable of primitive replication. But there is a huge problem here. Modern cells require hundreds of proteins carrying out specific tasks when assembling a new protein molecule and if only a small portion of them were crudely made it is impossible to manufacture a new cell. The cells translational system is highly dependent on accurately made proteins and a faulty translational system is by default a biochemical paradox in evolutionary terms. A primitive cell is faced with an impossible task: in order to develop a more accurate translational system is has to translate more accurately. Each imperfect cycle introduces further errors and the cyclical nature of self-replication in the cell means that imperfections lead to autodestruction. A complex system like a cell cannot be gradually achieved because of its many complex and perfectly coadapted proteins. Darwinists have no real case for evolution other than a hypothesis.

>>17043
>Did you know that there is zero evidence for abiogenesis being real?
If I understand what you are proposing is life has always existed. From the big bang, or in your case since time immemorial. It also precludes the exclusion of god, after all "No one has been able to produce a self-replicating unicellular organism through laboratory experiments or even a self-replicating enzyme". I am interested in to where you are believe life comes from or is life itself a fabricated construct and through what method of construction is it perceived.

>Each imperfect cycle introduces further errors and the cyclical nature of self-replication in the cell means that imperfections lead to autodestruction.

You de realise that is one of the fundamentals of evolution. In 99.99% of cases random mutations result in none viable offspring, self-termination or strawberries. It's that .01% that move the species forwards from an evolutionary standpoint.

>>17043
>He thinks the initial genesis of life is the same as changes of life forms over time
Ah, look at that, you've done it again. Good job making my points for me. Here's a thought: there's nothing stating that God and evolution are antithetical. There can be a God who Created life, which then evolved over billions of years. Plenty of deists (in modernity, the vast majority) are not Young Earth Creationists.

As for the rest, the argument is always one over purely mathematical chance. That is, something happening without "intelligent design" is impossible because the number of coincidences that must happen concurrently requires absurd odds. A tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working airplane, and all that. However, this ignores the simple fact that all of physics is largely self-organizing. Elementary particles combine into atoms by themselves. Atoms combine into molecules by themselves. Molecules that form proteins fold themselves. You state that there are billions of cellular processes happening inside your body right now, yet forget that it's all happening without your conscious thought. It's automatic, and completely as a result of simple physical laws (osmosis, ionic attraction, electromagnetism) without a lick of intelligence. Just look at a flock of birds in motion; moving as a giant mass of hundreds of individuals, none of them colliding. Yet each bird has a brain the size of a pea and there is no bird acting as a leader. Flocking isn't directed; it's emergent. Same with every other strata of life, from the basic chemistry on up.

File 160551151649.jpg - (73.90KB , 640x533 , unzips fedora.jpg )

>>17043
Fedoras BTFO! How will they ever recover?

File 160552956768.jpg - (51.36KB , 324x419 , 1591298094320.jpg )

>>17043
Isn't it ironic when science disproves evolution then all of a sudden all they soy boys start to cope? No evidence, no rational empirical studies. Only Rick and Morty and coping.

>>17047
Darwinian evolution is an a priori truth. You don't need evidence. Just say it is true and it becomes true.

>>17043
Christ, did I fall into a time vortex back to the mid '00s? These lame arguments have been refuted countless times already and you can find the refutations online, as long as you don't get your information solely from creationist sources.

I recommend starting here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Don't be like those comedians who write one set and then milk it for years. Get some new material.

>>17049
>talkorigins
>no real sources and cope responses

Weak.

>>17050
Not as weak as unsubstantiated dismissal.

>>17043
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html

>>17051
The website is really bad. Kindergarten tier.

>>17060
Should be right up your alley, then.

>>17043
Evolution is poorly explained and far from thorough. If you ask evolutionists how the avian lung developed they have no answer. If you ask them what genes made the lung attach itself to the inner wall of the ribs, how many steps it took for the lung to become unidirectional and how it maintains a constant volume of air unlike mammals, all you get is silence.

>>17063
What's your point? Are you saying that if we don't know absolutely everything that happened from the origins of life until now that evolution is incomplete and therefore... I don't know. Unproven?

Species evolve. At this point this is an indisputable fact. The reason why, or the particular mechanism by which, specific features arose is interesting, but largely irrelevant to the question of the validity of the theory as an explanation for all the evidence we have observed. It's as if we found an English text with some of the words written out of order and some mispelled but otherwise coherent, and someone argued that since it's not perfect English it might actually be from 2000 BCE, well before the Latin alphabet.

The fact is, the vast majority of history has been lost forever. Even if evolution is eventually proven wrong, there will always be some questions about life as it currently exists that we'll never know the answer to.

>>17063
Nirvana fallacy

>>17066
>>17065
Cope harder.

>>17072
Try harder.

>>17060
why don't you leave then

>>17074
I think he means talkorigins.org, you retard.

>>17063
Great post.

>>17079
Not really, the entire post is a fallacy.

>>17080
Dude, this whole thread is a samefag so obvious it's embarrasing.

>>17080
How is it a fallacy? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

>>17082
If you can't understand how it is a fallacy I'm not going to be able to explain why it is a fallacy.

There are many counter-arguments for evolution but what he posted was not one of them.

>>17083
Cope.

>>17084
A well constructed and well thought out counter-argument...

>>17085
He is right, though. Evolution is not nearly as deeply explained as it should be. Darwinists cannot explain this transformation on a molecular level.

>>17086
I'm not sure using "cope" as argument is valid enough to make him "right".

The problem with explaining things on a molecular level is understanding evolution is not instantanious. The expectation from anti-darwinists is a chicken lays an egg and out hatches a dinosaur. When in reality it is far more granular and subtle.

>>17086
What are you talking about? Mutation is routinely observed. What do you think cancer is? It's a form of mutation. The DNA molecule is altered by chemical reactions, high energy radiation, and mechanical stresses. That last one is how asbestos causes cancer, by the way. Nanocrystals lodge themselves in the molecule and when it's copied, the nanocrystal interferes with the copy procedure and an error is inserted into the new DNA strand.
Before you say "but cancer is genetic damage", cancer is just one specific form of mutation, and it occurs as a result of a very heavy stressor. The most likely cause of non-pathologic mutation is cosmic rays, which are very high energy, but also very narrow. You could get hit by one and have your DNA altered without realizing it. In such an event that mutation would get passed on to your offspring. Eventually the mutations pile up and some new feature emerges.

Sorry, but you're in denial. Evolution by natural selection of random mutations is the best explanation for speciation (how the current species arose), the fossil record (why fossils are laid out the way they are), and genetic evidence (why certain species are more genetically similar than others). Low-effort responses such as "that's coping" do nothing to change this fact.

>>17088
Not an argument. If you can't even show how random strings of DNA can produce a primitive unicellular organism you have no case.

>>17089
It doesn't matter. What you're arguing against there is the idea of abiogenesis, not evolution. If you want to say that a magical sky man zapped the first life form into existence out of fairy dust and wishes then at this stage science doesn't have enough evidence to prove you wrong.
Regardless of how the first life forms originated, life as we know it today evolved from it. You can still choose to not believe this, but that just makes you wrong, nothing else.

>>17090
>can't prove abiogenesis happened
>simply assumes evolution has occured even though no evidence for this exists
>a priori speculation ad nasaeum

Abiogenesis is the only Darwinian explanation. Darwin himself thought there must have been a natural, gradual emergence of life from basic components. If you can't prove abiogenesis happened then you forfeit your argument. Literally mental gymnastics.

>>17091
>Abiogenesis is the only Darwinian explanation. If you can't prove abiogenesis happened then you forfeit your argument.
Abiogenesis is real, there's proof in the Bible, you should read your Bible sir, there's all types of weird shit in there. Like, did you know Jesus was a Jew?

>>17091
The irony of the evolution theory is that it is so weak. Blood clotting, for example, can be observed as it happens and molecular biologists can see what proteins are used and thus prove how certain parts are derived from others. Evolution on a molecular level, on the other hand, is not explained at all. If you ask any graduate from Harvard, Yale or Princeton about how certain proteins could transform the lungs of a fish into the lungs of a bird, you get nothing. Whenever evolutionists claim they have proof of evolution on a molecular level they are full of shit and make stuff up as they go along. It's all speculation at this point.

>>17094
>Evolution on a molecular level, on the other hand, is not explained at all. If you ask any graduate from Harvard, Yale or Princeton about how certain proteins could transform the lungs of a fish into the lungs of a bird, you get nothing.
The reason you don't get a response is because you're asking for them to breakdown a series of events taking millions of years over millions of stages into a single instance.
There's no adequate response for that level of stupid.

>>17091
LOL, that's pathetic. You're trying to make evolution and abiogenesis one and the same so that someone can either accept both or reject both, because abiogenesis is a much weaker theory with much less evidence to support it.
Naw, man. You don't have to believe abiogenesis happened to believe evolution happens. Don't be retarded.

It doesn't matter what Darwin thought. Darwin could have believed orcs evolved from elves and it wouldn't mean a thing. Evolution is a theory seeking to explain how biodiversity arises. Abiogenesis is a theory seeking to explain how living processes can arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals under the right circumstances, through purely physical and chemical phenomena.

I assume you didn't come up with this shit on your own. Anyone who tells you you have to accept abiogenesis to accept evolution is lying to you, or being lied to themselves.

>>17094
>how certain proteins could transform the lungs of a fish into the lungs of a bird
What the fuck are you talking about? Who ever said the gills of a fish can transform into the lungs of a bird? Do you understand what evolution says happened? That birds are descendants of fish doesn't imply that a fish metamorphosized into a bird. One individual had the genetic code to develop gills and it reproduced. Eventually one of its descendants was a bird and had the genetic code to develop lungs.
I mean, this is pretty basic stuff. If a dark-skinned person has a light-skinned child there's no need to look for a mechanism in the human body that could allow the skin to radically change pigmentation.

Holy fuck.

>>17095
Nice cope, Mister Strawman. They can't explain all the different stages. They have zero genetic formulas showing how gene X plus gene Z becomes gene Q and thus produces successive steps towards a new organism or organ. You don't need millions of years to do that if you know the exact way in which proteins behave and how they transform. Your fallacy depends on millions of years of non-guided changes. If those changes have occured during millions of years you could reproduce them synthetically in a shorter time span. But no one has succeeded in doing so.

>>17096
>gills
https://www.britannica.com/animal/lungfish
Lungfish are considered intermediates between land animals and fishes but no one can show how they would crawl up on land and start breathing air or how they could change into a four legged lizard through multiple genetic changes. Maybe you should go to college before you post on the Internet.

>>17097
>They have zero genetic formulas showing how gene X plus gene Z becomes gene Q
Do you understand what a gene is? A gene is a human-created abstraction. At the molecular level genes don't exist. All you have is a very long molecule consisting of a chain of base pairs. A base pair is one of two possible nucleotides, each of which may be in one of two orientations. A nucleotide is a submolecule made of either adenine and thymine, or guanine and cytosine. This is why a genome is represented as a string of ATGC. For example, the string "TTGAACT" is looking at one side of the double helix. Just as a side-node, if you were to look at the other side you'd see "AACTTGA", so they're equivalent strings.
The reason I'm explaining this is that, again, genes don't exist. If you want to think of a genome like a book filled with (seemingly) nonsensical characters, a gene is like finding a meaningful word in the middle. A mutation is not about taking two genes and smashing them together to get a new gene. A mutation is an alteration to the information stored in the genetic sequence. It happens at the molecular level. I could take the example from before and flip one of the links between the base pairs so that "TTGAACT" becomes "TTGTTGA". This is a mutation. Did the original string mean anything? Does the new one? We don't know, and it doesn't matter. What matters is that if the genetic information can change and the changes can accumulate, then the genetics of a population can drift arbitrarily far from its original form. If I do enough modifications to the string from before, I can eventually get the string "GATTACA", even though it doesn't exist in the original string. In the same way, mutations can pile up on a populations genome until novel features arise, or old features are discarded.

>Lungfish
I assumed you were referring to gills because the argument doesn't make much sense otherwise. The lungs of a lungfish are not wildly different from the lungs of a bird. What, you can accept that a coastline-dwelling amphibian can have flying feathered descendants who live mostly on trees, but a lung changing in structure slightly along generations is a bridge too far?

>>17097
>If those changes have occured during millions of years you could reproduce them synthetically in a shorter time span. But no one has succeeded in doing so.
You do realize that if you optimize by a thousand times a process that takes, say, two million years, the process will still take two thousand years. Right?

>>17097
>If someone can't explain every single minutia of a process, the entire thing is bunk.

This is like saying that because I can't explain advanced calculus, all of math is wrong and one plus one does not equal two. You're picking nits and conveniently ignoring the posts that prove you wrong (like >>17045). Give it up.

ITT: angry fedoras getting destroyed and throwing temper tantrums

This is literally how the Earth's greatest fears of a foreign invading species were deterred. I gave them the fluid components of a better fuel, and told them how to mix it wrong. It's the case basis of being a moron. Always check the math.

>>17122
The moose
Tied a noose
But the goose
Said: "It's loose!".

>>17121
Religious nutters holding their ancient propaganda books and chanting meaningless drivel up to an uncaring sky wear fedoras now?

News to me.

>>17124
I can't see any spontaneous occuring abiogenesis. Can you? Guess you're out of arguments, my fedora wearing friend.

>>17125
Old argument. That's because the compounds required for abiogenesis are food for already existing life. Abiogenesis can only occur in a sterile environment, such as the primordial Earth.

>>17125
I'm indoors so can't see the sky.

I GUESS THAT MEANS IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>>17127
I can't see you, that must mean you don't exist!

Science is a philosophical construct, i.e you don't actually verify science with science itself. Though it indeed has the greatest track record of any such system to make predictions about and manipulate the natural world, it is rather limited and is actually founded upon rejecting the concept of "truth" to a great extent. People do not really understand it as a concept but as an institution. This institution(peer-reviews) is actually an arbitrary social construct.

>>17126
Abiogenesis should occur regularly. All you need is amino acids that assemble themselves into stable compounds. There is an abundance of amino acids in the wild and bacteria cannot consume it all.

>>17127
Cope.

>>17128
More cope.