Is evolution completely correct, completely wrong, or severely miscalculated by the modern scientific community?
Consider the following: >We can selectively breed plants and animals but they inevitably remain the same "type" of plant or animal (wolves and dogs, buffalo and cows, sheep and goats etc) >The amount of time required for the amount of beneficial random mutations for species to evolve from is far too long and impractical to fit inside the timespan of the earth's known existence >Certain organs and physical aspects of life are too ridiculously advanced to be developed by impractical piece-by-piece selection (like eyes or protein folds) >Even under perfect conditions, scientists in a laboratory could not create rudimentary life in primordial soup beyond amino acids
Adaption aka micro evolution is true. Macro evolution (single cell organism to fish to man) is so wrong it’s laughable. No single transition fossil ever found, ever. Not only this, but (((scientists))) think we are dumb enough to believe lightning struck mud and created life from non-life. Fairytales. They should actually do some real science which they seem to have forgotten about.
Cooper Lee
>Certain organs and physical aspects of life are too ridiculously advanced to be developed by impractical piece-by-piece selection (like eyes or protein folds)
Since all lifeforms are jivatma, and the Atman is transcendent, that means every form or body that the Atman is endowed with is related so of course macroevolution is real
Luke Carter
Just stop talking on the internet please, flat-earther-equivalent
Julian James
The bodies that lifeforms have are mere transitional forms. The lifeforms themselves are Atman. Individual lifeforms are what we call jivatma.
Evolution is pushed by (((them))). Of course it's related to politics. In his 1986 book, "The Blind Watchmaker," the famous [MEME] evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote about the eye, "Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas." "This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion".
The design of eyes doesn't make sense to be created by selection.
>The amount of time required for the amount of beneficial random mutations for species to evolve from is far too long and impractical
Wrong. There are several ways that the rate of genetic diversity can be increased.
-Crossing over -Random fertilization -Independent assortment of chromosomes during mitosis
Keep in mind we live in a world where multiple 'evolutionary arms races' occurred. Life has gotten very good at evolving. It's not like the rate of evolution has remained completely stagnant over 3 billion years. Evolution can happen fast, all it needs is diversity in a population to enact selection on.
>Certain organs and physical aspects of life are too ridiculously advanced to be developed by impractical piece-by-piece selection (like eyes or protein folds)
Again, all that is required is diversity, selection and time. The underlying logic governing things like chemistry and physics was already complex, so it's no surprise that complex organs can form over billions of years.
>Even under perfect conditions, scientists in a laboratory could not create rudimentary life in primordial soup beyond amino acids
Wrong, RNA and DNA have been created in experiments that attempt to mimic early Earth conditions, and those experiments aren't perfect. Certain types of lipids naturally form cell-like structures spontaneously due to their chemical structure, providing a compartment with a selectively permeable membrane (i.e. a cell membrane) where life can start to take form.
Hybridization making new species is only true under a certain definition of "species". Consider the following: A) Wolves and dogs are considered different species. Yet they can interbreed just fine...as can coyotes, etc. B) Species are defined where they cannot successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring, as when horses and donkey interbreed to produce mules, which are sterile (generally). So which definition of "species" are we talking about?
Ayden Wilson
>believes modern biology Let’s teach kids that macro evolution is just micro evolution over a long period of time without any supporting evidence whatsoever ever.
Austin Myers
Fucking shill, unintentionally bumping a good thread. Good stuff OP.
Justin Williams
The only difference between your two pics is time scale. That's like saying is possible to cross the street, but impossible to walk across a continent.
Dylan Sanchez
>are you dense the genetic sequence confirms it to be a new species in two generations, redo your calculations and you could have macroevolution within the earth existence time, also I'm not a bio major I really cannot help you more than that
Nicholas Sanders
It is related to politics in muttland, 42% of them believe in creationism.
Imagine actually believing (((science)))'s 'out of Africa' theory. Imagine not knowing anything about Atlantis, root races etc.
Noah Butler
I'm not a creationist but I think what they have is at least to some degree incorrect. >Evolution can happen fast, all it needs is diversity in a population to enact selection on.
We simulated a classic pre-human hominin population of at least 10,000 individuals, with a generation time of 20 years, using the numerical simulation program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel version 2.4.2, now being released as 2.5)."
"Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameter settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive."
Liam Morris
Aurochs v cows. Your point: shattered.
William Jenkins
/thread
Jonathan White
lol
Ayden Nelson
>Certain organs and physical aspects of life are too ridiculously advanced to be developed by impractical piece-by-piece selection (like eyes or protein folds) Argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also for the eye example, our retinas are backwards. >Even under perfect conditions, scientists in a laboratory could not create rudimentary life in primordial soup beyond amino acids Google the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter. Just because an event has an extremely low chance of happening as a given place and time, that doesn't mean it won't happen with enough chances.
Jayden Sullivan
Nice counter argument. To be excepted from fake scientists.
Kayden Rogers
Are you a flat-earther? Just wondering.
Sebastian Nguyen
Do any of you evolutionists SERIOUSLY believe that this is one of your ancestors?
Why are you so afraid of the truth of evolution? Is it because it implies everyone you have respected and trusted are actually morons? Get over yourself, you a schmuck, we are all schmucks, just try to do your best, accept you don't understand and some people are smarter.
Joshua Reed
fuck off pajeet
Ryder Howard
>,hurf durf something millons of years ago must look the same as now Man, o am ashamed we live in the same country
Adrian Rivera
No, the earth is obviously a sphere as proven by real science. Do you believe it? (I hope not)
Luke Bailey
looks like my dick, so maybe
Nolan Long
Finally, fucking hope for this shitshow of a thread
Brandon Harris
>Just because you don't know how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you looked at it that way evolution would seem correct, but again, there's the discrepancy that the mutations required to create these types of advanced organs take far longer than these species' supposed existence.
>Just because an event has an extremely low chance of happening as a given place and time, that doesn't mean it won't happen with enough chances.
But that also doesn't prove that it did happen. If a theory of life's origin is paradoxical then maybe it' not a very well-developed theory.
>Are you a flat-earther? Just wondering.
Why must you keep pulling strawmen rather than answering the concerns?
>Why are you so afraid of the truth of evolution? I'm not afraid of the truth, I just don't think the way it's been told (if it's true) makes a lot of sense.
John James
But you've never been to space! How could you know! It could be a Jew trick to increase govt spending! Only believe what you see with your own eyes, goy.
Shitty slide thread; you're making the rural and suburban retard meme true.
Kayden Carter
>The design of eyes doesn't make sense to be created by selection.
No, you mean design. The design of eyes doesn't make any sense to be created by design.
Isaiah Watson
Look up Trichoplax. An 'animal' composed of just a flat double layer of cells. Eats by crawling over food particles and then secreting digestive enzymes from its underside, creating an 'external stomach'. That little fucker got all the baseline genes that we habe too, somply uses them in a different context. Btw the baseline structure for our neurons, how synapses connect and communicate, is simply a 'perversion' of an ancient amoeboid food scavenging and eating mechanism. Kind of funny...
Carson Murphy
>Why must you keep pulling strawmen?
Because anyone who thinks they were made by a concious almighty cosmic entity has the brainpower of a compressed sphere of hay.
Joshua Sanders
Sorry to break it to you user, the earth is a sphere as proven by even amateur dad rockets let alone conditions on earths surface that necessitate it being a sphere.
Luke Cox
Read my other posts, fag.
Justin Turner
>take far longer than these species' supposed existence
Oh right so you're the only person whoever calculated that then? Biologists just haven't bothered? Or maybe they came up with different numbers?
Adam Wilson
Really, if you go deep enough into molecular biology you realize that we are simply a bunch of very advanced amoeba sticking together in a rather complocated way in order to assure mutual survival and successful reproduction. Cancer in that case is mostly some of these amoeba 'forgetting' that they shoikd act in the onterest of everyone else in the 'colony' that is our body, instead reverting to selfish survival mechanisms.
Jason Sanchez
Things don't need to make sense in nature, they just need to work
Owen Morgan
Are you considered average when it comes to murrican intelligence or it just so happens that the home for special needs children got Internet access? Mutation is mutation. Sometimes it affects small regions of DNA like the small genes regulating characteristics like eye or skin color, which is why you can breed even with the niggest and sometimes it affects regions of the DNA that make strands incompatible with each other as in "this section right here from the mother no longer fits with that corresponding section over there from the father ". Usually this happens incrementally so while you would still be able to breed with a neanderthal you probably wouldn't be able to breed with Lucy. Well, you personally might be able since you're closer to her in intelligence, but homo sapiens couldn't.
Jonathan Adams
Nobody reads posts by memeflags you faggot
Henry Anderson
>Macro >Micro >"types" Creationtards need to stop making shit up about evolution to criticize it.
I didn't calculate it, biologists sourced in the first link are the one's who found the discrepancy (Sanford, John, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith and John Baumgardner. September 17, 2015. The waiting time problem in a model hominin population. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 12, No. 1.)
Of note on the scientists who created amino acids, they did it in an environment unlike is hypothesized on early earth by omitting oxygen (to prevent oxidation). So yeah, we still don’t even have a working theory for amino acid synthesis, much less the, randomly arranging themselves into a pattern that is able to read and write itself while replicating for no reason.
Adam Morales
>From my cold dead hands
Owen Sanchez
Look if you want to challenge the scientific understanding of evolution in favor of "micro evolution only reee" then all you have to do is come up with some prediction, something that would be true if your theory of evolution was true, and false if your theory was false. And then test that prediction.
Until you have a competing theoretical structure that is capable of grappling with genetic research you're merely expressing distrust for scientists, not really debating them
It's good to be skeptical of anything described as "scientists now say", and there's no doubt that a substantial portion of what scientists have claimed regarding evolution, and an even bigger portion of what the media has falsely reported scientists have claimed, is false
But maybe give them a chance to explain to you why they think macroevolution is true
Carson James
>they did it in an environment unlike is hypothesized on early earth But what about pic related?
The problem is you run into an inverse god-of-the-gaps problem. You have to keep pushing back the time to make it seem plausable. Now the many universes bullshit is being pushed for just this reason. It is casuistry. "Sure, it may be highly improbable the universe is so fine tuned, but what if there are an infinite number of universes!"
Scientists are desperate to prove that the phenomenal universe is eternal, just like the ancient Greeks thought. That or come up with a retarded imminent universe notion with the same baggage like Hawking
>then all you have to do is come up with some prediction You don't have to know a solution when you identify a problem. I'm not saying evolution is wrong and I'm not saying creationism is right, I'm suggesting what we're (exactly) told has noticeable issues in terms of math, evidence, and lab tests. Sure I think macroevolution makes sense but unless radioactive dating or mutation predictions turn out to be severely wrong I'm not going to support what's being said.
Chase Murphy
>"types" I use "types" because the taxonomy of species is based on Darwinian theory. What am I gonna say? Genus? Phylum?
>Direct constraints on the oxidation state of terrestrial magmas before 3,850Myr before present (that is, the Hadean eon) are tenuous because the rock record is sparse or absent. Samples from this earliest period of Earth's history are limited to igneous detrital zircons that pre-date the known rock record, with ages approaching ~4,400Myr (refs 5-8). Here we report a redox-sensitive calibration to determine the oxidation state of Hadean magmatic melts that is based on the incorporation of cerium into zircon crystals. We find that the melts have average oxygen fugacities that are consistent with an oxidation state defined by the fayalite-magnetite-quartz buffer, similar to present-day conditions.
Interesting. So early earth may likely have had oxygen. And also good point you made about amino acids arranging themselves. Turning a cell off and on is another lengthy part of the debate.
Owen Fisher
Well both are arbitrary, taxonomy is effectively a catalog with an inconsistent rule set meant for organization. You've just drawn lines in the sand around animals you think are distinct and claiming there is no relation through a shared common ancestry.
Joshua Torres
Apoptosis is a fun story. Theory is mostly unverifiable but almost all apoptosis pathways do involve the mitochondria. Seems that our little cellular powerplants were not always those nice symbiots. They are related to intracellular parasitic bacteria. When they first merged with our amoeboid ancestors they seemed to have retained the potential to kill their host in case thst it did not fair well ... rats leaving the sinking ship. In order to prevent outbreaks of proto-mitochondria acting up like niggers the amoeba evolved a self-destruct mechanism to stop the spread of those little fucks before they could infect the whole colony.
Gabriel Miller
>what is RNA world
David Phillips
Issue with current science is that they are mostly still in denial about the fact that modern genetics conclusively show that their are distinct himan races and that they differ in their abilities, sometimes rather drastically. Nurture is dead, nature determines everything, you can even predict parameters like religiosity and political leanings from a few snigle nucleotide polymorphisms. I think it is time for a global culling...
Aaron Cox
Seriously for religiosity and political leanings ? If you have any studies on that matter I would eagerly read them.
PS : thank you for your insightful posts.
Jaxson Phillips
Fascinating idea. I remember hearing the notion that mitochondria somehow migrated into host cells and formed symbiotic relationships. The knowledge that mitochondria have their own unique genetics lends itself to what you are saying. Still call bullshit on some of the ideas of modern science. Not that that means much, as I am pretty damn ignorant in all educational fields.
Andrew Carter
>claiming there is no relation through a shared common ancestry I didn't claim that, I'm suggesting that what we know about at-length evolution (humans coming from fish in x amount of years, etc) is questionable based on observable evidence, mathematical discrepancies, design discrepancies, and yet-to-be proven origins.
And I'm NOT a creationist for the 30th time ITT.
Alexander Young
So do you tie certain gene groups with whatever group you are thinking of thru surveys of points of view or something? Somehow I get the idea that you are making some sweeping generalizations
Forgot the name of the article about religion, will post link if I can find it again...
Leo King
Thank you sir.
Easton Clark
The modern theory of evolution is entirely like Marxism. It can easily provide explanation for everything, within its sphere, even mutually contradictory facts. But every single prediction it has ever made turned out to be so wrong that no amount of creative evidence interpretation could help it.
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought."
Cornelius Hunter, PhD biochemistry, 'Darwin's God'.
Connor Adams
That experiment utterly disproved the model of abiogenesis which it tried to prove. As it happened to even produce the simplest, most elementary building blocks of life according to their model they had to apply radically different, mutually excluding conditions at the different stages of the process. And of course the leap from these blocks to something we, with all our intelligence and deliberate intent, have yet to create, a fully autonomous self-replicator, beggars belief. Why do you think Miller went full creationist later in life.
Cooper Cox
>then all you have to do is come up with some prediction, something that would be true if your theory of evolution was true, and false if your theory was false. And then test that prediction.
That's what evolutionists have to do. They even tried. Every time their predictions were false.
- They predicted genome size would increase over time, and that was wrong. - They then predicted that gene number would increase over time, and that was wrong. - They predicted that complex body parts would develop after simpler body parts, and that was wrong. - They have now found that the oldest living ancestor of animals, comb jellies, already had brain, nervous system, and muscles, and that sponges later lost those genes. Complexity was there at the start. - They have also found, through experiment, that most mutations cause a loss of complexity. - They predicted that evolution, as recorded by fossils, would be a gradual process, and that was wrong. - They predicted that evolution would proceed at comparable speeds in different species, and that was wrong. - They predicted that evolution would weed out useless or self-harming traits, even if degree of harm impacts survivability by miniscule percentages, and that was laughably fucking wrong. - They predicted that biodiversity would naturally increase, indeed, Darwin's birds example with which the whole thing started presupposed immense easyness of speciation. That was wrong.
Did they adjust their theory? No more than Marxists adjusted theirs despite it having a 100% failure rate. It's just that the evolutionary science is largely navel-gazing, it does not produce millions of corpses when it gets things wrong, so it is not brought to task as often.
Carter White
>The modern theory of evolution is entirely like Marxism. It can easily provide explanation for everything >it does not produce millions of corpses when it gets things wrong, so it is not brought to task as often
The thing is that these 'tools' only work statistically yet. We know certain gene variants correlate with eg. certain behavioural parameters and this can be tied to differential prevalence of said variants in certain ethnicities. Then again, we would habe to MECHANISTICALLY understand those gene variants, WHY and HOW they influence thomgs like brain chemistry on a molecular level ... bit that requires years of research to conclusively prove and understand. So yes youwill overgeneralize with this unless you understand how exactly it works. But it is still a useful tool although only on a population level ... it may not do justoce to the individual. Bit considering human history the individual has never counted thst mich. I do not say what I predict is 'right' or 'moral'. I simply predict that it will happen and it will most likely steamroll all of us. Like atomic weapons and the concomitant MAD doctrine it will change humanity irrevocably.
Jeremiah Ward
isn't macroevolution just microevolution after a very long time?
Ryder Edwards
It is interesting that you bring theory of evolution and Marxism together as unfalsifiable systems because Marxist leaders were contemporaries of the theory of evolution and explicitly saw their dialectical materialism as a translation of the theory of evolution applied to socio-economic process. Even though I think we have to differentiate Darwin, who always saw his theory as a "sketch", and recognized the contradictory facts as "constitutive difficulties", and Marx who never, at any time, acted other than a gnostic doing an exercise in German idealism before sticking to the facts.
I tend to recognize the general good faith of evolutionists on the limits of their theory, especially in contrast of marxist nuts.
Ryan Parker
I think you're right, indeed.
Hudson Bailey
Maybe, but what we know of "very long time" does not make sense given how young the earth and fossil record are relative to the amount of time required for needed mutations to probably occur and certain designs that are impossible to explain coming from what we consider natural selection.
Understood. Yeah it would be very useful like all of these new insights in leveraging control over populations in a really effective way. Lately anything related to technology or current events makes my stomach get upset, the same way as when something scary is happening, or when I get a strong feeling of foreboding. The future looks bleak. I do not see any real way out. You verbody says globalism, technology, and the homogenizing of races and cultures is "inevitable". It is disturbing because everybody says this in such a glib fashion. Something is only inevitable if you have lost control of it.
Aaron Ross
Oh the flagellum may habe once been an 'injection system' for toxins used by bacteria as a weapon against competitors. A simple channel for pumping something into another cell. However, some cells did learn the trick to excrete some self assembling protein instead (or the original toxin WAS something that could self organize for some reason, eg spearing enemy cells from inside). Rotating that thing for locomotion was just the last step in that story, maybe the original was simply a tether for attachment to surfaces and the initial movement part evolved as a means to detach from the substrate. Mind you, I am making this up right now from my mind, coukd be correct, could be wrong ... but similarity of flagellum 'pore' to type IV (think it was 4) secretion systems is there. Damnit, some bacteria use a similar machinery as literal molecular harpoons!! Amoeba as the white whale...
