>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.

>>17130
Oh, so we're just making assertions now? Well, then I say that bacteria can indeed consume it all.

>>17131
Sweetie, you started it. You claimed it is food and thus assuming all amino acids disappear as snacks for microbial life. But I see no source for this claim. Neither do I see a source that shows how abiogenesis is impossible today in the wild. Clearly it is possible since you assume it happened before.

>>17132
>You claimed it is food and thus assuming all amino acids disappear as snacks for microbial life. But I see no source for this claim. Neither do I see a source that shows how abiogenesis is impossible today in the wild.
This just means neither argument is sufficient to prove or disprove abiogenesis. So presumably now you'll stop parroting that line.

>Clearly it is possible since you assume it happened before.
"The Earth formed once, therefore new Earths should be springing up all the time. We don't see this, therefore the Earth never formed."
See how stupid it sounds? It's entirely possible for the conditions required for a process to occur to not exist at a later point in time.

>>17133
Conflating abiogenesis with the formation of an entire planet is comparing apples and oranges. It is like comparing brain surgery with a crayon drawing. Abiogenesis does not involve billions and trillions of atoms and components. A primitive unicellular organism appearing at random is not the same as a celestial body. Not even close.

>>17134
An analogy doesn't have to be perfect to convey a point. Since you chose to address the analogy rather than the underlying point I'm guessing either you didn't understand the point or you're not capable of addressing it.

>>17134
You make a good point. The requirements for abiogenesis to occur are far more complex than those required for the formation of a planet.

>>17136
That's not the point. The point is a process can alter the environment in such a way that it becomes impossible for a duplicate of that same process to start again. That abiogenesis has not happened again tells you nothing about whether it happened once, since the Earth now is totally different from how it was ~4 BYA. Life has radically changed the chemical composition of the environment.

Wherever there's a tiny niche where energy can be extracted it will be filled by existing life, which is already adapted in all manner of ways to do so. For life to arise anew the form of energy would have to be completely different from anything that occurs naturally, such that there would be no competition. The first thing that comes to mind is some self-replicating process arising spontaneously on the Internet from the side-effects of broken code.

>>17130
>Abiogenesis should occur regularly
It is. All the time. Everywhere all over the world, millions of times per second. You can't prove this isn't happening because every square millimeter of the Earth is not under constant microscopic monitoring.

You're an idiot. You understand NOTHING about how the real world actually works. Did you know that your own body, right now, has cancerous cells in it? You have cancer right as we speak. So does everyone else, and every other complex animal life. Mutated cancerous cells pop up all the time. But the body's natural defense systems in almost all cases detect this and destroy the malformed cells before they can multiply and form a serious macroscopic problem like a tumor.

You ASSUME because you can't SEE the cancer that it's not there. But it is. Same with abiogenesis and literally everything else at discussion here. You ASSUME that just something doesn't appear right in front of your very eyes, that it doesn't exist. Who the fuck do you think you are, God?

You're a vapid narcissistic CHILD. Things happen without your knowledge or influence. Stop thinking whatever inane bullshit you think, or what you see or not, has any affect on the world. They happened before you were born, they will happen when you are dead. YOU DON'T MATTER!

>>17138
You just lost to a troll-bot. This is /Sci/ not /RnB/.

>>17136
Abiogenesis would involve less than 20 amino acids. How you could create actual life, that is self-sustaining microbial organisms, is on a level of complexity that goes beyond anything ever done in molecular genetics. Building a human brain from scratch would be easier.

>>17140
So creating a single cell with a dozen or so organelles is more complex than putting together an organ consisting of billions of cells and trillions of synapses?

>>17141
I think he means that abiogenesis is more complex because the amount of components is so limited. There exists only twenty amino acids and if you want to create a primitive precursor to a real cell then you can't use all twenty amino acids because then you jump from start to finish. The problem with abiogenesis is that you have to first create a primitive organism which in turn could self-replicate to such a degree that it later would spawn multiple copies of itself who later on could spontaneously generate new amino acids from already existing ones (and by new amino acids I mean completely unknown amino acids that didn't exist from the start in the prebiotic ocean). Creating a human brain is way easier since you already have all the twenty amino acids known today.

>>17142
>The problem with abiogenesis is that you have to first create a primitive organism which in turn could self-replicate to such a degree that it later would spawn multiple copies of itself who later on could spontaneously generate new amino acids from already existing ones (and by new amino acids I mean completely unknown amino acids that didn't exist from the start in the prebiotic ocean).
Humans create completely novel chemical compounds all the time. Clearly, there exist some processes that can generate never before seen molecules from existing ones.

>Creating a human brain is way easier since you already have all the twenty amino acids known today.
Yeah, and just mashing them together won't get you a structure as complex as a human brain in a trillion years. A human brain is not a random assemblage of proteins. Even if you start from actual complete cells you won't get there.

>>17143
The tricky part is that you have to prove that this primitive organism can duplicate all of the existing proteins. Synthetic compounds created by humans are not amino acids, my friend. You can't compare them at all.

>>17144
>The tricky part is that you have to prove that this primitive organism can duplicate all of the existing proteins.
That's absurd. Where's this requirement coming from? Who's to say proto-life didn't just subsist on whatever proteins assembled themselves fortuitously?

>Synthetic compounds created by humans are not amino acids, my friend. You can't compare them at all.
All compounds are synthetic and synthesized by purely chemical means. Whether the synthesis occurs as a result of conscious effort, some process in a cell, or spuriously in a fluid medium, is largely irrelevant. The point is that synthesis of novel compounds can be bootstrapped on existing (usually simpler) compounds, as long as there's energy and enough of the required elements.

>>17142
>you have to first create a primitive organism which in turn could self-replicate to such a degree that it later would spawn multiple copies of itself
Prions can do that. Viruses can do that. In a non-biological sense, mineral salts that crystalize are a type of self-organization that looks very much like reproduction.

Oh, by the way, this entire argument is nonsense because abiogenesis HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN POSSIBLE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Even though his initial conditions were different from what early Earth is now believed to have been like, more recent experiments saw similar results. It turns out that, yes, if you take some basic chemicals, shake them up, and apply some energy, it forms precursors to life.


The problem that every religious nutter has is that they think life is magic. They believe in souls and God and some kind of unknowable, invisible magic that separates life (and especially humans) from non-life. But that is not the case at all. There is a smooth gradient in complexity from non-life to life, as demonstrated by things I mentioned earlier, like crystals and prions and viruses. These are not classified as life, but demonstrate similar processes that also underlie the processes in what is classified as life.

You are not special. You're made of dirt and salt and charcoal; you are crammed together from these ingredients, wiggle about and vibrate and absorb/excrete a variety of fluids for a short number of years, and then stop doing so. That's IT! No soul, no spark, no nothing. This established as objective reality, you can see how the step between "non-life" and "life" is so small as to be inconsequential, so of course it's simple and easy to happen.

>>17146
Viruses and prions aren't actually capable of self-replication. They need a living organism to replicate, otherwise they're basically inert particles.

>>17147
And if I put you on the Moon without an opposite-sex human, you couldn't reproduce, either. Turns out that all life forms require something exterior to themselves in order to exist and reproduce. What a concept.

>>17151
>And if I put you on the Moon without an opposite-sex human, you couldn't reproduce, either.
Self-replication occurs at the cellular level. My cells are able to replicate for a while even if I stop eating. A virus is completely inert on its own.

>Turns out that all life forms require something exterior to themselves in order to exist and reproduce.
Viruses are arguably not alive, since they possess no metabolism, and although they have a genome they don't have any mechanism to copy it. Prions are definitely not alive; they're just misfolded proteins.

File 16085265475.jpg - (133.96KB , 913x999 , lyl.jpg )

>>17146
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
>HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN POSSIBLE

You do realize those are just amino acids in a vat of water, right? Not actual life, lol. Also, they simulated the creation of amino acids in a laboratory experiment, not the real environment of the early Earth. The only thing this proves is that you can create amino acids only through directed, intentional actions and not at random in the wild. You have a severe case of mental gymnastics, buddy.

>>17155
>I used a meme image therefore I win
About as compelling an argument as anything else you retards can come up with.

>>17147
Is it possible to modify cells to be capable of reproduction via infiltration of cells

>>17157
His argument is solid, though. The experiment did not prove abiogenesis can occur in nature. It is just amino acids in a glass container and they're not even conjoined in any way. Even the assumption that they replicated the environment of the early Earth is unsubstantiated. You get butthurt over an image because you have no retort.

>>17160
Your fixation on misrepresenting scientific evidence amuses me.

Please, continue.

>>17161
It's true. How do you know how the pressure was, the amount of electricity, the basic minerals, the amount of water, the salinity etc. You can't. Their experiment shows us that it can't happen because the conditions do not favour abiogenesis, only amino acids.

>>17162
Thank you for continuing to amuse me. I yern for your continuation.

>>17162
Interesting reasoning. So it's not that the experiment does not show that it can happen, it shows that it can't happen.

What the experiment shows is that, given specific conditions that are possible in nature, amino acids can form spontaneously. This is not enough to "prove" that abiogenesis happened (no experiment in a lab would be enough for that), but it does show that the basic compounds required for life as we know can be thought of as naturally occurring.

>>17164
I can't count past 10, therefore no number exists that is higher than 10...

>>17164
Compounds necessary for life =/= life. Just as mineral ore in a mountain does not equal a pressure cooker or a freight train.

>>17167
>>Compounds necessary for life =/= life. Just as mineral ore in a mountain does not equal a pressure cooker or a freight train.
Circular dislogic.

The alphabet goes A, B, C.
You're asking for proof of C before we've got through A and B, and I'm sure if we got proof of C before A and B you'd argue that we're skipping steps.

>>17167
>Compounds necessary for life =/= life.
And? Who ever said otherwise?

>>17160
>The experiment did not prove abiogenesis can occur in nature
Amazing. Your position as of this point is just flat denial or reality. That is literally what the experiment DID prove, the only contention being your continued nit-picking over the "definition" of life.

Your entire argument boils down to, because full humans didn't just pop out of the primordial soup like goddamned Adam and Eve, it's all bunk. We've already proven that precursor chemicals could form spontaneously, and that amino-acids could form from those. All of evolution from simple "life" to complex is an argument you've conceded so... what are we missing? One little step in an entire system. It's the same bullshit as when early theists denied evolution entirely because archaeologists hadn't yet found the "missing link" between apes and man.

We've drawn you a cat. The eyes, the whiskers, the ears, the nose, the body, the paws, the tail... but because merely the neck is missing you continue to scream that there isn't any cat at all. It's idiotic.

>>17171
The experiment did not prove abiogenesis can occur because they did not observe any abiogenesis, you dunce. It is just components in a container of water, lmao.

>>17173
Actually, yes. It did prove it can occur. Abiogenesis requires an environment with amino acids, which are complex compounds that would not necessarily be present in a planet at a given time. The Miller-Urey experiment proved that a chemical and physical environment that was possible in the early Earth would generate amino acids spontaneously. Thus, it proved that abiogenesis could occur in the early Earth, in the sense that the basic required components would not have been absent.

What it did not prove was it did occur. Even if they had generated new life in a vial, that would not have proven that abiogenesis actually happened in the early Earth.

>>17173
<The experiment made pieces of Lego
>Lmao it didn't assemble those pieces of Lego into a Lego house therefore my Magical Sky Fairy must be responsible for all Lego houses

You're such a moron.

are the redditfags here?

>>17174
>could

>experiment proved that abiogenesis cannot occur under those conditions
>fedoras cope by saying ”what if it occured”

This is the same as saying that if you see eggs, milk, salt and pepper on a table then an omelette must be made sooner or later.

>>17187
If you see the ingredients for an omelette on a table then you have enough evidence to conclude that an omelette could be made at some point in the future. It's not enough to prove than an omelette will be made in the future, but it's certainly enough to disprove that making an omelette is out of the question.

Now, if besides knowing that at one point in time the ingredients for an omelette existed on a table, you also know that at a later point in time an omelette existed on that table, it's not unreasonable to assume, until more information presents itself, that the omelette has in fact been made out of those ingredients. Strictly speaking, yes, the omelette might have to being on that table by one of any number of other reasons, but by parsimony the best explanation for its presence is "the omelette was cooked in my house using those ingredients".

What's hilarious is that while you're sitting there complaining that M-U didn't create life in a glass flask, if they had actually done that you'd be complaining that that doesn't prove that abiogenesis happened in nature. I'm sure the only evidence you'll accept is if someone takes you with a time machine to the exact moment life originated so you can see it happening while wearing the Ant Man suit. Anything short of that, you'd have some way to rationalize yourself out of changing your worldview.

File 160999834490.jpg - (49.34KB , 407x405 , opinion.jpg )

>>17188
As far as the experiment goes it disproves everything you claim so it won't be necessary to use a time machine because it never happened. Your wishful thinking is not really scientific evidence.

ITT: mental gymnastics deluxe

>Guys, did you know that rocks can transform into candy.
>How?
>Well, all the ingredients are here so just give it some time.
>But how does the transformation occur?
>Just give it time and it will happen. Time solves everything.

>>17189
You're going to have to explain how that level of stupid works in more detail, I can't follow what you're saying as is.

>>17190
>He thinks the chemical composition of rocks is the same as that of candy

See, this is why you religious retards are unqualified to argue in this capacity. You literally lack the basic scientific knowledge to know what is being discussed.

>>17193
All you fedoras rely on is "time did it". If you cannot provide actual evidence you just say muh trillions and billions of years mufuggah.

>>17194
That is their only option. They have nothing substantial so they have to invent theoretical scenarios over vast periods of time in order to have any semblance of answer.

>>17195
As opposed to theists who have literally nothing, whose only answer is "A wizard did it".

Knowledge and practice of science has bent the natural world to the whim of man. What has talking to an Invisible Sky Fairy ever accomplished?

>>17196
>What has talking to an Invisible Sky Fairy ever accomplished?
War, racism, slavery...

>>17196
You do realize all biology, mathematics, anthropology and science in general stem from religious people, right? Fedoraism can't take credit for what nearly all civilizations have practiced to some extent.

>>17200
>X was invented/discovered by a religious person.
>Therefore X was invented/discovered because of religion.
Nice deductive skills, there.

File 161042897493.png - (1.09MB , 1000x972 , ape fossil.png )

>>17201
>Science was practiced by religious people
>Therefore science disproves religion

Nice cope. Gregor Mendel is considered the founder of modern genetics and he was religious. Also, did you know that all the contemporary anthropologists during Darwins time rejected his theory because it was so devoid of evidence? They all saw man and ape as separate creatures with distinctive features and the only answer Darwin had was that eventually they would discover fossils that could prove his claim. Since evolution is supposed to be an all-pervasive law of nature then you would find several fishes with incipient legs or snakes with retracting limbs because these changes should be a rule rather than a curious anomaly. But you don't find them. They're literally non-existant. Nothing. Zero. Nada.

https://phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.html
>Taung Child's skull and brain not human-like in expansion

Even today you have no real proof for it. All the fossils are just dead apes.

>>17202
>>Science was practiced by religious people
>>Therefore science disproves religion
>
>Nice cope.
What the fuck are you talking about? Science has nothing to say on the matter of religion, who ever said otherwise?

>Gregor Mendel is considered the founder of modern genetics and he was religious.
Did you know Isaac Newton is considered the father of physics and he believed in all sorts of nonsense such as occultism and alchemy?
What can anyone infer from either of these bits of trivia? Maybe that a scientist's contribution can be measured in isolation, irrespective of the person who produced it. We certainly can't conclude anything about other, irrelevant beliefs a particular scientist held.

>Also, did you know that all the contemporary anthropologists during Darwins time rejected his theory because it was so devoid of evidence? They all saw man and ape as separate creatures with distinctive features and the only answer Darwin had was that eventually they would discover fossils that could prove his claim.
Yeah, and we've since found those fossils. And since you bring up Mendel in this context I assume you consider genetics a legitimate field of research (unlike, presumably, evolutionary theory). Well, genetics is also a source of evidence for evolutionary theory, to the point that we can estimate how long ago two individuals diverged by looking at their genetic code, as well as construct phylogenetic trees. If you think phylogenetic trees are invalid because they start from the invalid assumption that genetic similarity implies degree of relatedness then you must also think other genealogical applications of genetics are invalid, such as paternity and ethnicity tests.

>fishes with incipient legs
What do you think amphibians such as axolotls are?

>snakes with retracting limbs
Starting from "modern snakes are descendants of reptiles with legs", it does not follow that at any point there existed proto-snakes with retractable limbs. That's ridiculous. That's like saying that since modern bicycles evolved from the penny-farthing, there must have existed at some point a bicycle with wheels of variable size.
Just google "snake evolution" to find pictures of fossils of elongated reptiles with increasingly tiny, vestigial limbs. E.g. Tetrapodophis.

>https://phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.html
>>Taung Child's skull and brain not human-like in expansion
Yes, and? I don't see a point.

>All the fossils are just dead apes.
Setting aside that humans are apes, what would you expect to find? A hominid individual can either be human (in the sense of belonging to Homo) or non-human. This is not because of anything intrinsic to the genetics of the individual, but because the labels "Homo" and "Hominini" are arbitrary and whoever finds the fossil will have to choose to classify it as either one or the other. Even if we found the exact individual with whom the transition took place (which doesn't exist anyway, but just for the sake of argument), it would still have to be classified as either Homo or non-Homo.

So, again, I honestly don't know what you think we should find if evolution was true.

>>17147
>Viruses and Prions don't self replicate
Exactly.
Mister No Higher Power made a clumsy mistake saying viruses can self replicate.

>>16984
><blah blah... > ad-hom attacks
>everyone that doesn't see things exactly as I do is stoopid
Have problems with free thinking much?

>>16992
>responds to solid facts with name calling, "troll bot"
>offers no rational counter arguments
Here, this is a good example of how the scientific community works in real life.
>>16995
>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
Case in point, "Architects and Engineers questioning 9/11." They mention that burning jet fuel can't melt steel, and people ridicule them, or worse.

>>17206
>They mention that burning jet fuel can't melt steel, and people ridicule them, or worse.
Nice blamebait, but next time try to make it a little less obvious. 4/10

>>17200
No, it wasn't. There were times during the Dark Ages and Medieval period where some religious groups (monks and sects, NOT the "big three") were curators of existing science, and sometimes practitioners of new science. But this was happening at the same time as the Pope was purging science as heresy. So at the very most, it's a wash; sometimes religious people oppressed science, sometimes they supported it.

But saying that religion created or caused science is absurd. As a matter of plain fact, "science" (as in a system of understanding the actual laws of the natural world) predates organized religions by thousands of years.

And still, after all this time, none of you have yet offered a single SHRED of a theory to counter evolution. Even if it is flawed, it's still the best theory humans have developed to explain things.

You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING.

Youtube  %

>>17209
Where did you find this video of me?

>>17209
That video gave me euphoria.

>>17209
He's not wrong, though.

Although, a better argument would be: how can you type a message when computers and the internet and electricity were built by science? Gregor Mendel didn't build satellites in between fucking around with pea plants, now did he?

File 161120589089.png - (691.49KB , 720x720 , in this moment.png )

>>17217
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
>the first analogue computer
>used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendar and astrological purposes decades in advance
>constructed by Greek scientists

Computers were invented by polytheists. Maybe you should watch some more episodes of Rick and Morty, wubalubadubdub.

>>17218
Hey, those scientists were also in favor of slavery. Why would you attribute the accomplishment to polytheism rather than to slavery?
They were also all men and white (or light-skinned at least). Are you sure it's not masculinity and/or whiteness that's responsible?

>>17219
>The Metonic Dial is the main upper dial on the rear of the mechanism. The Metonic cycle, defined in several physical units, is 235 synodic months, which is very close (to within less than 13 one-millionths) to 19 tropical years. It is therefore a convenient interval over which to convert between lunar and solar calendars. The Metonic dial covers 235 months in five rotations of the dial, following a spiral track with a follower on the pointer that keeps track of the layer of the spiral. The pointer points to the synodic month, counted from new moon to new moon, and the cell contains the Corinthian month names.
>ΜΑΧΑΝΕΥΣ (Machaneus, "mechanic", referring to Zeus the inventor)

I would say it is fairly obvious why you would associate polytheism with science when you honour Zeus, the king of the Greek gods.

>>17220
Well, would you mind explaining it to me?

>>17221
Can't you read?

>>ΜΑΧΑΝΕΥΣ (Machaneus, "mechanic", referring to Zeus the inventor)
>Zeus
>the inventor

Zeus is the mechanic, the creator, duh.

>>17222
Are you saying you believe that, or are you saying they did? In the latter case, so what?

>>17218
>All Greeks were devoutly religious so that glorified sundial was definitely built by someone who believed in God, therefore God exists and made the Earth or... something...
That's funny. You're a funny guy.

>>17224
Cope harder, fedora tipper.

>>17227
Ya know, I'm tempted to stop replying, if this is the best you morons can muster. It just isn't fun anymore.

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040903-01
>To verify that Bmp4 was directing beak shape, they used gene therapy and protein delivery techniques to overexpress Bmp4 and its antagonist, noggin, in developing chicks. Increased levels of Bmp4 produced beaks with increased length, width, and depth; treatment with noggin reduced beak dimensions.

Bmp4 is only found in birds. It is responsible for the shape of the different bird beaks throughout the world. Look at the sword-billed hummingbird. It has a long, thin beak that is almost as long as its entire body. What is funny about the theory of evolution is that it cannot explain how, why or when the sword-billed hummingbird suddenly adapted to elongate its beak to such freakish proportions. It feeds on highly specific flowers with this long beak, using its tongue which is also extremely long. But the Bmp4 gene is not responsible for the length or shape of its tongue. If the beak is too short, the tongue gets exposed to air and heat and will dry up, get infected and kill the bird. If it is too long the tongue cannot reach outside of the beak and the bird starves to death. How does random, blind trial-and-error mutations produce an extremely long tongue and beak when there is no need for this adaptation? South America has an abundance of insects and fruits that are far easier to live off and in such huge supply that having a absurdly long beak and tongue that one uses to survive is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest.

What is even more funny is how evolution lacks gradualistic, empirical proof. How you get this long beak through incremental steps is never explained.

>>17230
>How does random, blind trial-and-error mutations produce an extremely long tongue and beak
Mutations are random. Natural selection is not.

>when there is no need for this adaptation?
Traits don't arise based on needs. They are selected or not based on whether they improve the individual's chances of surviving to reproduce. And this improvement isn't on a global scale, but on a local one. Its entirely possible for a trait to be overall relatively disadvantageous to a family branch compared to its closest branch that doesn't have the trait. This would happen because the trait was initially advantageous or neutral, but when it exacerbated it reached an inflection point such that it became more advantageous to continue exacerbating it than to return to what it was originally, even though overall the trait is a disadvantage.
This is a known weakness of evolutionary optimization algorithms. It's called "converging towards local maxima".

>>17230
The chances of mutations occuring simultaneously in both the gene that control the growth of the tongue and the gene that controls the growth of the beak, making them match up exactly in length, width and curvature, not distorting or deforming either of them is 0.00000000000000000000000000000001%. It's not even reasonably plausible that this happens at all since mutations are damaging more than useful.

>>17230
Look, bro. God didn't make animals the way they are. It just absurd to even imagine.

Some animals (like rabbits) have such a garbage bootstrapped digestive system that they cannot extract enough nutrients through their food to survive. So they have to eat their own poop and re-digest it. Do you REALLY think an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator would have knowingly and deliberately made animals that have to eat their own shit to survive?

Of course, if you assume that the system merely evolved based upon earlier systems, to a point that works but doesn't really make sense, then you have an actual solution to the problem. Not a solution that relies on logically-inconsistent fairy tales.

>>17234
>Some animals (like rabbits) have such a garbage bootstrapped digestive system that they cannot extract enough nutrients through their food to survive. So they have to eat their own poop and re-digest it.
I would hardly call that an inefficient system:

Digestion->Extraction->Excretion is basic method of turning food into energy and waste. The more time you spend digesting the more nutrients you can extract. By extending digestion throughout the extraction and excretion phases and re-consuming you spend relatively lest time digesting than if you held the food the first time round until it was fully digested. Rabbits are small animals with a high metabolism, if they had to wait to digest everything each cycle there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to take in enough to survive.

Most animals (including) have the luxury to sit around and digest their food. There's where rabbits got shafted, they have a much higher metabolism so they can't laze around and digest, of course that high metabolism also allows them to out-breed most things that would normally wipe them out as a species.

>>17233
That number is a PIDOOMA. You have no idea what the chances of that happening are.

If a mutation causes the beak and the tongue to diverge too much in size or shape the animal will have a harder time eating, and the mutation will get selected out. It's basically inevitable that structures that perform related functions will evolve in unison, even if their development is controlled by unrelated genes. Hell, separate species that exist in mutualistic symbiosis will evolve together to better fit with each other.

>>17236
Not at all the point, but okay.

>>17237
It's true, though. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare so in order to believe that both the tongue and the beak would become elongated at the same time is to believe the impossible. Natural selection does nothing in the long run because "natural selection" isn't a mechanism. It's just a paraphrase of the word "death". Even animals with beneficial survival traits can die out without passing them on to coming generations. Mutations are the main factor why anything changes.

So in order to believe evolution you have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics.

File 161235604433.png - (3.30MB , 1280x1421 , stadiums.png )

>>17239
>So in order to believe evolution you have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics.
I think I understand why you don't understand. It's the maths, that's not a slight, it's very difficult for humans to put large numbers into context.

Numbers like 1; 2; 5; 10; 50 are all quantities we encounter relatively frequently and can picture in our minds. You've see 2 dogs together, 5 bannanas in a bunch, 50 fish in a pound (you might struggle with the last, general rule is above 20 you have to tap into specific knowledge to conceptualise).

How many people is 10,000? How did you conceptualise it? A sports stadium full of people? That's all well and good. Here's two...

Then we get to the big numbers 1 million? There's 7.8 billion people on the planet at the moment, try and picture that as a quantity. At this point we're dealing with the notion of big numbers because we can't rationalise the quantities. Then we get to the stars and all minds are blown.


There's also something else I believe you're misunderstanding, evolution is neither a constant process or one of sudden change but rather a mixture of the two, it's closer to radioactive decay, random, and while you may be able to predict the overall decay with a half-life it's impossible to tell when any particular atom will decay. Or in this case when (and by how much) any particular trait will evolve.


So if somebody tells you the chance of two related beneficial mutations happening are 1/10,000,000 it's very easy for our brains to shrug it off, but that's roughly the same odds as a plane crashing*. You've got a 1/50,000,000 dying from a snake bite in North America yet there's a handful of cases every year.


*using the plane crash analogy you could use the size of the plane crash to conceptualise small changes (microlites**) with large changes (super max). And of course, there's many more accidents that go under the radar, so to speak.

>>17242
Cope: the post.

>>17239
>Beneficial mutations are extremely rare so in order to believe that both the tongue and the beak would become elongated at the same time is to believe the impossible.
What exactly do you mean by "extremely rare"? How many mutations do you think happen from a parent to a child? Hint: it's more than zero.
I mean, yeah, compared to cancer such mutations are rare, but cancerous mutations happen literally constantly over the lifetime of an animal.

>Natural selection does nothing in the long run because "natural selection" isn't a mechanism.
Natural selection isn't a mechanism, but rather an effect. If a new predator is introduced into an ecosystem and its prey is consistently unable to outrun it, the mechanism is that the predator chases and kills the prey, but the effect is that the prey gets naturally selected out because it's no longer fit to survive in its environment.

>Even animals with beneficial survival traits can die out without passing them on to coming generations.
Are beneficial mutations equally likely to die out as harmful mutations? Is a mutation that, say, makes you a little bit smarter equally likely to get passed on as sickle cell disease?
If different traits have different probabilities of getting passed on then that's natural selection. How is it true that "natural selection does nothing in the long run"?

>Mutations are the main factor why anything changes.
Yes, and those changes get passed on or not depending on whether they can withstand selective pressures.

fedoras getting btfo in this thread

>>16978
>>Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have
>>tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.

Is THAT research "reproducible"?

>>17245
How they can accept a theory that is so bad is beyond me. Darwin himself didn't really think it through when he wrote it.

>>17246
Very meta, I like it.

>>17247
Define "bad". What other theory better fits in with the observed evidence (current biodiversity, the fossil record, genetics) without falling into contradictions?

>>17239
Evolution as an idea is contradictory. When you look at centipedes, they, according to evolutionists, have remained the same for millions of years. They never change whatsoever, and yet they have a poison claw, a feature that they alone possess and which no other insects have and makes them unique. Even when you look at genetics, all organisms on Earth have proof reading proteins in their DNA which prevent mutations (errors) from spreading. Evolution as a concept should mean that there is a constant changing of DNA and thus a perpetual speciation, producing new organisms all the time, but you do not see that, now do you? There is a mysterious invariance and stability in nature.

>>17250
Got a "better" theory?

>>17250
I think that all geneticists and biologists have to invent unlikely and improbable events in order to justify their beliefs. If science does not actually show them evolution then they have to imagine what evolution would be like. Adults engaging in make-believe.

>>17252
Got a "better" theory?

>>17250
>When you look at centipedes, they, according to evolutionists, have remained the same for millions of years. They never change whatsoever, and yet they have a poison claw, a feature that they alone possess and which no other insects have and makes them unique.
How is that contradictory?
Also, centipedes are not insects.

>all organisms on Earth have proof reading proteins in their DNA which prevent mutations (errors) from spreading.
DNA error checking occurs during DNA replication, which occurs, for example, during cellular mitosis. It doesn't occur during sexual reproduction, since there's no original genetic sequence to compare to. The entire point of sexual reproduction is that the new individual is not identical to either of its parents.

>Evolution as a concept should mean that there is a constant changing of DNA and thus a perpetual speciation, producing new organisms all the time, but you do not see that, now do you?
What are dog breeds? Can you mate a chihuahua and a great dane? The only way it could be done would be via artificial insemination. What do you think will happen to those populations given sufficient generations? Answer: they will continue to diverge until the point where they become genetically incapable of breeding.

>There is a mysterious invariance and stability in nature.
I actually LOL'd at this. Biology is inherently unstable. Life is literally the opposite of stillness, to the point that it cannot exist in a highly entropic environment.

>>17252
>If science does not actually show them evolution then they have to imagine what evolution would be like.
Maybe, but it's good that evidence does appear to align with evolution, though.

>>17254
>dog breeds

All dogs can mate and produce offspring. They're not different species. Speciation has never been proven to happen. Even Darwins finches can mate with each other which means there is no evidence of speciation in nature.

>>17256
I think you forget that fedoras are intellectually dishonest. They move the goal post by saying that changes in phenotype is the same thing as speciation. That way they do not have to worry about engaging in further mental gymnastics.

File 161287201321.png - (220.36KB , 1024x686 , Ring_Species_(gene_flow_around_a_barrier).png )

>>17256
>All dogs can mate and produce offspring. They're not different species.
60dfea asked for different organisms, not different species. modern dogs are organisms that are different from wolves. For one, modern dogs come in a larger variety of sizes and shapes than their ancestors from thousands of years ago. That's evolution, plain and simple.

But, I ask again: what do you think will happen to chihuahuas and great danes, which are currently mechanically incapable of interbreeding without assistance? Do you think they will continuously drift apart, driven by unrelated selective pressures (which are inevitable for organisms of such different sizes) or do you think there's an arbitrary point where they won't drift any further apart? Where is that point? What do maximum-distance chihuahuas and great danes look like? I.e. the descendants of chihuahuas and great danes that are as unlike each other as possible while still both being interbreedable.

>Speciation has never been proven to happen.
What about ring species? Population A can mate with population B, population B can mate with population C, but population C can't mate with population A. That's perfect evidence of speciation.

File 161287204254.png - (336.43KB , 909x1024 , 909px-Ring_species_seagull_svg.png )

>>17258
>>17259
And this does not even get into the fact that the concept of "species" is an arbitrary human invention to attempt to discretize an inherently continuous phenomenon such as is the behavior of population genetics. In other words, "new species have never been proven to arise" is basically a meaningless statement since it's perfectly for different people to disagree on whether two populations are separate species or not.

Still waiting on that "better" theory...

Just saying.

File 161293513598.jpg - (292.31KB , 1200x1200 , beefalo.jpg )

>>17258
>ring species

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_06
>in Southern California where the muted western form (eschscholtzii) and the blotchy eastern form (klauberi) live together and actually do interbreed, producing blurrily blotched hybrids
>they do sometimes interbreed

Two separate ends of the same ring can still interbreed and produce offspring.

>>17260
>arbitrary human invention

So is the theory of evolution and it isn't proven at all. Pic related, a hybrid between a bison and a domestic cattle. Two different species that are not supposed to produce offspring actually do produce offspring.

>>17262
Do they produce fertile offspring? Horses and donkeys, and tigers and lions can also breed, but those hybrids are never fertile.
Also, what does it prove that in some rings the terminal populations can hybridize? The interesting thing about ring species is that the norm is that the terminal forms can't interbreed. Good job, you found a counterexample. Can you do the exact same thing for every ring species?

>>17262
>So is the theory of evolution and it isn't proven at all.
Got a better theory?

>>17264
Beefalos are fertile hybrids. Also, tigers and lions can produce fertile offspring. Cope harder.

>>17266
Horses and donkeys can produce fertile offspring too.

>>17266
I ask again: can you do this with every ring species, or are there some ring species where the terminal populations cannot possibly interbreed?

>>17268
All the examples you mentioned are capable of mating and producing fertile offspring. You’re really desperate, huh?

>>17266
>>17267
Honestly, I'm confused by the argument you're trying to put forward now. Do you actually think that hybridization is incompatible with evolution?

>>17269
I think you're the one who's desperate, buddy.

>>17271
If tigers and lions are different species, just like donkeys and horses, then they should not be able to mate. You claimed they couldn’t.

>>17272
I just learned a few minutes ago that mules are occasionally fertile. Are you just trying to catch me in any error you possibly can?

But okay, fine. Just for the sake of argument let's say that lions and tigers are the same species, and that horses and donkeys are the same species. How is this evidence against evolution, or how does this show that ring species where the terminal populations can't interbreed aren't evidence of evolution? I'm frankly curious about what you're going to say next.

>>17273
Why did you use them as an example? Your own examples disprove your own argument.

>>17274
My argument is "ring species are evidence of evolution". How does "some non-ring species are interbreedable" disprove it?
I can't fail to notice you're doing everything in your power to steer the conversation away from ring species. Don't think for a second I'm going to let you.

>>17274
Dude, he's desperate. He has no argument. It's the usual fedora cope.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/7/2087
>An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007.

>be fedora
>find bacteria that hasn't evolved for billions of years
>bacteria BTFO environmental pressure and random mutations as causal factors for change in its genotype and phenotype
>fedoras start coping

It's circular logic. Evolution is true even if there is no evidence for it. It's a priori mental gymnastics.

>>17276
Tell me a theory that better explains both the fact you cite and all the other existing evidence, than evolution.

>>17276
How can such a tiny organism make evolutionists seethe so hard?

>>17281
Why don't evolution "debunkers" have a better theory?

>>17281
Maybe because evolution is false and even bacteria are laughing at Darwin and his delusions.

>17287
You got a better theory?

Thought not.

Youtube  >evolution

>>17289
Still waiting on that theory you got...

Youtube  >>17290

>>17291
Still waiting on that theory...

>>17291
lol

>>17291
Rick and Morty for kids. The Mexican girl that is enlightened by her intelligence.

God, none of you fuckers GET IT AT ALL.

Science is not a system for ANSWERING QUESTIONS. That's what religion and philosophy is for.

The purpose of science is to develop models which describe the natural world to a point that allows humans to exploit it. That's all! Is the theory of evolution completely and exactly correct? Well, it actually does not matter. What matters is the model works well enough for the purposes it exists for.

Evolutionary theory has led to selective breeding and genetic engineering to produce livestock and crops that are better adapted for human consumption. It also led to gene theory and the discovery of DNA, which has allowed for medical breakthroughs and elimination of many diseases. Study of the fossil record combined with genetic drift has led to a greater understanding of geology and ecology. Applying the theories of evolutionary selection in the realm of computer science has even led to several different types of learning AI.

So if we replace the theory of evolution with "the magical sky fairy made everything", you lose all that. You have an answer to your question that is completely correct (albeit only through faith as it cannot be tested), but it's completely fucking useless. Compare that to the theory of evolution. Is it correct? IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE IT WORKS.

>>17276
Evolving past the bacterial stage makes no sense. There are only benefits to your survival if you're a bacterium. No need for mates because bacterial binary fission is easier and ensures a steady growth rate. Sexual reproduction is counterproductive and only makes you dependent on someone else. Evolution is retarded, in other words.

>>16990
The geocentric model is used when calculating and mantaining satellite orbits.

>>17297
There's plenty of survival advantages in not being a bacterium:
* Having a multicellular body enables you to develop a complex body with a multitude of specialized organs with different functions, which enable you novel ways to procure food and protect yourself.
* Sexual reproduction is an effective reproductive strategy to ensure a diverse genetic pool. A pool that's not diverse enough can be wiped out by a pathogen that targets a specific genetic configuration.

It's simple to check the survival advantage of non-bacteriality: put a human being and a bacterium in a random environment and see which one lasts the longest. Next do the same with 10,000 humans and 10,000 bacteria.

>>17297
Isn't it odd how bacteria, although they mutate more frequently than any other type of organism, never change into something more complex? Same thing applies to fruit flies. They can generate millions of generations during a human life time and yet remain the same. Hard to take microevolution seriously when one bacterium stays invariant for billions of years.

>>17304
>Isn't it odd how bacteria, although they mutate more frequently than any other type of organism, never change into something more complex?
Who says it hasn't happened? You do know bacteria outnumber humans by a large factor, right? What makes you so confident that we would definitely know if a species of bacteria had mutated into something like, say, a protist?

>Hard to take microevolution seriously
LOL. If you're going to use shitty arguments the least you can do is get your terminology right.
"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are terms invented by creationists to describe, respectively, variation within the same species (such as dog breeds) and variation that causes speciation. It's mental gymnastics in the form of a meaningless distinction to allow someone to accept utterly undeniable examples of evolution without having to accept the less-well-documented examples. No one but the most ignorant people disputes microevolution happens.

>>17304
>Isn't it odd how bacteria, although they mutate more Hard to take microevolution seriously when one bacterium stays invariant for billions of years.
See: Antibiotic resistant bacteria.
See also: Pesticide resistant fruit fly.

>>17307
>antibiotic resistance meme

Moving the goalposts. The bacterium has not changed into something else. Same thing with flowers. If a mutation changes the colour of a flower does that mean that it is not a flower anymore? The answer is no. Stop grasping at straws.

>>17308
>Moving the goalposts. The bacterium has not changed into something else. Same thing with flowers. If a mutation changes the colour of a flower does that mean that it is not a flower anymore? The answer is no. Stop grasping at straws.
I'm not seeing goalposts. At what point does something become "something else" in your books?

And I'm still waiting on that better theory you've got...

>>17309
Took the words right out of my mouth. What makes bacteria bacteria and eukaryotes eukaryotes is an arbitrary distinction humans have invented to aid classification. If a species of bacteria were to evolve again into something "more complex", that something wouldn't necessarily resemble eukaryotes (and phylogenetically it would be unrelated to eukaryotes so it would be incorrect to call them that anyway), so someone would need to establish a new arbitrary point to place the distinction.

>>17308
This.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810104954429
>Genetic homeostasis
>The tendency of a population to equilibrate its genetic composition and to resist sudden changes.

There are internal limits to how much an organism can change. Sugar beets, for example, when cross bred to yield a higher sugar content reverts back to their original state when a certain threshold has been reached. That's why you can't transform organisms as you please through selective breeding.

>>17311
Let me get this straight. Because there are physical limits on the structure and function of an organism, common descent is therefore impossible. So, for example, if I can't breed a dog as large or as small as I please (say, the size of an ant or the size of a planetoid), this implies that mammals didn't evolve from reptiles, even though both reptile and mammalian body plans are physically possible, and so are the supposed body plans between them.

>>17312
>So, for example, if I can't breed a dog as large or as small as I please
Incorrect. Genetic homeostasis is about sudden (large) changes.

To simplify things:

If you cross breed two small dogs you may end up with a slightly smaller (or bigger) dog.
If you cross-breed a large dog and a small dog you end up with a medium size dog.

Selective breeding (and gene editing) can be used to enhance specific traits, however those traits will rapidly diminish when reintroduced to the core population.

>>17313
>however those traits will rapidly diminish when reintroduced to the core population.
Sure, but there's no reason those two populations must intermingle again. In fact, that's generally what happens; some physical barrier such as a body of water, a mountain range, or simply distance, prevents the two populations from cross-breeding and they eventually drift apart. E.g. marsupials and placentals.

>>17314
>Sure, but there's no reason those two populations must intermingle again. In fact, that's generally what happens; some physical barrier such as a body of water, a mountain range, or simply distance, prevents the two populations from cross-breeding and they eventually drift apart. E.g. marsupials and placentals.
Exactly true and how this is how we end up with ring-species.

Genetic homeostasis is the resistance to change in genetics of a population.
Selective breeding is culling the population of undesirable traits to enhance desirable ones.

>>17315
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20298702/
>Evolution and instability in ring species complexes
>Ring species are a biological complex that theoretically forms when an ancestral population extends its range around a geographic barrier and, despite low-level gene flow, differentiates until reproductive isolation exists when terminal populations come into secondary contact. Due to their rarity in nature, little is known about the biological factors that promote the formation of ring species.

>theoretically
>rarity in nature
>instability in ring species

Ring species are not real. See my previous post (>>17262)

>>17316
Using an article that starts by taking the existence of ring species as a fact to disprove ring species. Nice.

>>theoretically
What's theoretical is that specific mechanism by which ring species form. Ring species themselves are not hypothetical, they've been observed.
When trying to construct a counter-argument it helps to at least understand what the other person is saying.

>>rarity in nature
Rare things are obviously not non-existent.

>>instability in ring species
Only things that exist can be unstable.

>Ring species are not real.
You're writing this statement as if it was a conclusion that follows from the content of your post, when it really isn't.

>See my previous post (>>17262)
I've responded to it already and you've yet to answer some of my objections, which I assume means you can't. I don't know why you'd bring up something you can't defend.

>>17316
>rarity in nature
It occurs infrequently

>Ring species are not real.
How can something that happens not happen...

>>17317
>>17318
This is some next level cope. You got utterly blown the fuck out and you have no argument left. Ring species are theoretical and not factual. If they were real then the salamanders in California wouldn’t be able to crossbreed. You can only resort to semantic mental gymnastics.

>>17319
>You got utterly blown the fuck out and you have no argument left.
You appear to be projecting.

>Ring species are theoretical and not factual.
You keep saying that and failing to provide any reason to think so. You do know that an assertion and an argument are not the same thing, right?

>>17319
Still waiting on your theory.

Keep coping.

File 16147077015.png - (109.50KB , 507x816 , wp_ss_20210302_0005.png )

Articles and media paint a completely false picture about science by being liars.

>>17296
Anyone going to address this? Theists still cannot offer anything of use or value to this argument, and that will never change.

>>17316
How will fedoras ever recover?

>>17325
Sorry, but who's the fedora in this situation?

The one making the false claim using evidence that proves him wrong or the one who believes said false claim?

>>17325
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0001751.pub4
>A ring species is a monophyletic group whose range has expanded around a geographic barrier producing a ring‐shaped distribution. Populations that make up the ring should be contiguous and without barriers to gene flow except at one location where two reproductively isolated populations co‐occur. Ring species that meet this definition provide an opportunity for studying how speciation occurs through the gradual accrual of differences leading to reproductive isolation. However, few if any of the species that have a ring‐shaped distribution meet these requirements. The most studied species, greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides and Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders, fail to exhibit all of the characteristics of a strict ring species.

>few, if any of the species that have a ring‐shaped distribution meet these requirements
>fail to exhibit all of the characteristics

They can't recover because their models are theoretical and not empirical. Ring species are not real.

Youtube  >>17360
Fedora cope commencing in 3...2...1...

>>17360
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225305399_The_Caribbean_slipper_spurge_Euphorbia_tithymaloides_The_first_example_of_a_ring_species_in_plants

>been documented convincingly in animals
>we present phylogenetic analyses of two nuclear gene regions from the Caribbean slipper spurge (Euphorbia tithymaloides) species complex that provide evidence that this group forms a ring species.

>>17360
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0001751.pub4
However, the study of species with ring distributions has provided information about the processes that cause population divergence through time, and the use of new genomics and modelling tools could provide valuable insights into how geographic speciation, with or without adaptive divergence, could occur.

>the study of species with ring distributions has provided information about the processes that cause population divergence through time
>population divergence through time
>evolution

>>17363
You do realize they simulate the divergence, right? It is not real life evidence because it is called in silico. It's all computer generated so there is no proof for it in nature.

>>17364
You're grasping at straws. Even if there really are no ring species (which there are), that gets you no closer to disproving evolution. Since you love quote-mining scientific papers like this, why don't you go find one that says evolution isn't a real phenomenon?

File 161535349688.png - (46.29KB , 512x241 , Not different species.png )

>>17362
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225305399_The_Caribbean_slipper_spurge_Euphorbia_tithymaloides_The_first_example_of_a_ring_species_in_plants
>There are only two biological systems for which compelling data support the phenomenon and its two core criteria (a historical chain of populations whose two termini meet and remain distinct): the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii species complex in the mountains surrounding the Central Valley of California [7–9], and the greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) around the Tibetan Plateau

Your souce only confirms what my sources have already said. Both Ensatina eschscholtzii and Phylloscopus trochiloides are the only "convincing" lineages and even they fail to exhibit all of the characteristics as ring species because, for example, the salamanders can interbreed and this disprove the claim that they are different species. Thus there still exists no actual evidence for ring species.

>>17364
In silico studies are not really reliable since all the parameters that you use in the computer simulation are all determined by the person who runs the program. It would be like saying that ragdoll physics is a real life occurence because you saw it happen in Garry's Mod.

>>17366
>the salamanders can interbreed and this disprove the claim that they are different species.
Then it seems the problem is not that there are no ring species, but that you don't understand what the word "species" refers to. You think that two populations being distinct species is something that can be proven, as if species existed objectively rather than being ideas in people's minds.
Just so you know, it's people that name animals. There aren't barcodes on their backs that uniquely identify what species they belong to. Maybe you thought it worked like this, and that's what was confusing you.

>>17367
Just wait till he gets to lions and tigers...

Youtube  He keeps fucking his dog and no dogmen come out its anus. Alternately, she keeps letting her dog fuck her and no dogmen come out. No dogmen, no evolution.

This is clearly the same person who samefagged their way around /phi/ with identical arguments until everyone stopped going there, so now they've moved on to /sci/.

BTW, mentally ill postbot, God is dead and no one cares.

>>17366
Fedoras destroyed once again. So much cope it hurts.

>>17370
Still waiting on your theory.

>>17366
Evolution is more like a mantra biologist repeat in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

>>17372
So what's your theory?

>>17372
More like cope.

>>17311
I've never heard of genetic homeostasis. Kind of ironic that there is a genetic process that prevents speciation.

>>17378
Genetics in general disprove evolution. The only way to ”prove” it is by making up scenarios in a computer or to insert billions of improbable mutation events wherever you cannot close the gaps.

>>17378
>I've never heard of genetic homeostasis. Kind of ironic that there is a genetic process that prevents speciation.
Think of it in terms of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

We simplify it so that people think that if something evolves a benefical trait then it will proliferate across the species and if it evolves an undesirable one it won't. The reality is many desirable traits die out before they can establish themselves in a species, and contrary to popular belief, many undesirables ones don't and do become established. The hallmark of evolution is that more desirable traits propergate than undesirable ones and this is in large part due to Darwin's theory, 'survival of the fittest', you are less likely to survive to adulthood (and reproduce) if you have undesirable traits compared to a specimen that has desirable ones.

To put it in human terms; just because you're stronger/smarter than someone else doesn't mean you're guaranteed to reproduce more than them (assuming you do at all).


>>17380
Still waiting on your theory.

File 162335204530.jpg - (83.33KB , 600x600 , Rab78d25602c96313a9264185a1b5ccdd.jpg )

>>16978
>>16981
>science is a religion for atheists
I for one am not an atheist, oh fool who has been brainwashed and indoctrinated for most, if not all of his life, by kosher filth. I'm an Agnostic.
>YOU GOTTA BELIEVE
Faith is by no means a bad thing, but its what you believe and have faith in that matters, NOT just believing in something. Also, The Bible never says where exactly heaven is. Facts don't change and numbers by their own dont' lie. Just because someone misinterprets some pieces of data doesn't automatically invalidate it.You by your faith in the worthless Jesus of Nazareth (as with Muslims having faith in and their praying 5 times a day to ""ALLAH"") are giving energy to human hating entities that don't really care about you in ernest; you have been manipulated and lied to by the Jews/Hebes and their Reptilian masters.