>>
>>17594
>Nah, you need to provide evidince that they had such properites
Once again I find myself needing to explain the concept of burder of proof.
You posted a link to an article giving a counter-argument to abiogenesis that relies on the improbability of the random assemblage of certain proteins. My own counter-argument to that argument is that the author is making several assumptions and arbitrarily assigning them truth values. For example "the universe is finite", "life, even in its simplest forms, is outright impossible without these proteins", "the only way for these proteins to come about is either by conscious design or by entirely random chance". To refute the argument I don't need to prove that the universe is finite nor that any particular narrative of abiogenesis happened or even is possible. I just need to show that the author failed to provide the necessary evidence and thus the argument is vacuous. Obviously that does not prove anything about abiogenesis or its plausibility.
>If a protolife molecular machine occured thanks to this random coactions, this would fuck the probability of having an actual living being by reproduction.
I'd say it's quite probable the very first protocells were not capable of entirely assembling offspring without the aid of randomly assembled molecules in the environment. Imagine a precursor to DNA enclosed in a protective membrane that contains just enough information to encode its own duplication but cannot encode how to build the molecule that assembles its clone. In a way, this is how viruses work.
>Let's draw this fossil however we want since we think it is part of this lineage, oh fuck, it doesn't have tails! Anyways, let's say that it has, or let's say this one had legs because it must have evolved from XXXX. We hab so much evidence, believe us wojak.
Don't pretend that evolution being valid hinges on the genealogical placement of fossilized toes, and nothing else.
>And only fossils are not enough to make the theory valid.
Who ever said it was? How about where the fossil was found (both geographically on which stratum), its age, the geographical distribution of current species, geology (particularly plate tectonics), and genetics?
>It's even more cancerous when people say that evolution theory is the grand truth of how life originated.
Only people who don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis say that.
>These did not occur becuase they needed this to survive.
You don't think amphibious fish moving into land provided a survival advantage? Any time there's an untapped ecological niche, it's going to be advantageous for any species that can move into it, because it's going to encounter little competition for resources.
That aside, selective pressures aren't the only drivers of evolution. If an environment is such that a mutation neither decreases nor increases a species' ability to survive then it may remain.
>And most of the case specific species of ants can't do anything when they are attacked by another species of ants. This has been going for ages now, but we don't see them evolving even though they can't live, save their eggs, can't secure their food...
Evolution isn't magic, dude. The existence of guns doesn't imply future people are going to develop bullet-proof skin. If something is an existential threat to a species, the species is either able or unable to adapt. If it's unable it will either become extinct or disappear from the niche where the threat exists. If it's able to adapt then it will.
>The nature can give octopuses the ability to change pigment of their skin perfectly to hide from predators but nearly the same kind of species doesn't get it. Oh wow, they surely didn't need it, we can get something as complex as ability to fully change my pigment but other species that live in the same nature as me, has the same habits as me can't do.
What part of "random mutation" is difficult to understand? You say "nature can give" as if evolutionary theory stated there's a magical fairy named Evolution that after careful consideration decides to give an animal a trait that will help it survive.
That's not how it works. Imagine for example that chimpanzees developed the ability to see X-rays. Should humans expect to also expect to develop that ability?
>Or we don't have any observable evidince regarding a life form turning into a different one.
Well, what about penicillin-resistant bacteria? Yeah, go ahead, say it. Say "but they're still bacteria!" "But they're still dogs!"
>I wasn't even talking about that classification
Let me state it more explicitly, then: foxes did not become horses. Miacis, a sort of weasely cat-dog, lived about 50 million years ago and is not an ancestor of horses.
>now what, the nature behave differently on different clades? Damn, natural selection and mechanisms of evolution must have stopped for some clades. That doesn't make any sense
Tip: if you care about a discussion and you think the other person has said something nonsensical, try and see if there's some interpretation from which what they said make sense. If you can't find one, ask them to clarify it. Don't assume the other person is just stupid and their brain works improperly.
>People literally believed that matters burns because of flogiston for a really long time, these were top tiers scientist of their times.
Setting aside that this is an inductive reasoning, you can be saying one of two things:
* People believe wrong ideas that are later replaced by equally wrong ideas that are wrong in different ways.
* People believe wrong ideas that are later replaced by less-wrong ideas, always approching but never reaching complete truth.
The first interpretation implies science is pointless because truth is completely unapprochable even in principle. Even if evolution was replaced, its replacement would be equally wrong. I don't think this is what you're saying.
The second interpretation does not necessarily imply evolution will definitely be replaced. It could be that the reason evolution best fits with the available data is because species actually did evolve more or less the way the way we think they did, with perhaps minor corrections here and there. Fossils can be misidentified, the order of closely-living specimens can be inverted, etc.
If this is what you're saying then your answer is insufficient. You're not saying you evolution might or could be replaced in the future (which I would agree with), you're saying it will be replaced. So I ask again: why do you think so?
>Darwin [...]
Darwin isn't Moses and On the Origin of Species isn't the bible. I'm not concerned with what Darwin wrote.
>People has already given enough reasons to be skeptical about evolution theory on this thread already.
I don't think I've let a single objection go unanswered, and nearly every time I've done so the other party has gone silent.
>Gatekeeping won't let you out of this situation.
Who's gatekeeping? I was asking out of curiosity. I might want to hear the arguments directly from the source.
>No, I don't.
Yeah, you do. Everything you've said here is more than enough reason to think so.
]
[
civ /
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
weed /
wp /
x
]
[
ai /
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sh /
ss /
unf
]