Evolution is not a scientific theory - problem of falsifiability

>Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable

Cats found in the Precambrian era.

/thread.

Attached: 1521526713072.jpg (320x297, 15K)

***BIG BRAIN NIBBAS ONLY***

What on Earth is falsifiability?
What makes science a science?

science=application of scientific method
scientific method=empirical hypothesis testing

notice the last part - testing. in order to test it, hypothesis has to be testable. So where does falsifiability come in play here? Notice that the conclussion comes from empirical observation, so we actually make a logical fallacy in ALL legit scientific conclussions because we jump from inductive to deductive reasoning.

So, possibility of falsification in a way proves that therory comes from empirical observation (remember that in science we jump from induction to deduction which we dont do in logic), its POTENTIAL faultiness is a proof for its validity.

theory of evolution DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FAULTINESS.

>it could theoretically be shown to be false innumerable ways

give me one.

>Show us that biological organism do not undergo genetic change.

but they do, its called mutations NOT cross speciec evolution. Natural selecton fits into creationism also.

>Prove that genes are not inherited from the parents.
>Prove that useful genes are not favored over detrimental genes.
>Prove that over time two separated populations will not show genetic drift.

congrats you just disproved genetics and natural selection. both demonstrable and falsifiable unlike CROSS SPECIES evolution.

Attached: science_hypothesis.gif (450x696, 6K)

This. Evolution is essentially a description of a completely reasonable phenomena caused by genetics. Disproving it requires disproving various understandings of genetics, since if those understandings are true, evolution WILL happen.

)
>>Show us that biological organism do not undergo genetic change.
>but they do, its called mutations NOT cross speciec evolution.

There is no such thing as cross specific.

EVERY LIVING THING IS SIMPLY DNA ARRANGED IN DIFFERENT FORMS.

THERE IS NO CROSS SPECIES (non-dna based life form).

Basically everything is the same species. Modern biological species is a way to categorize dna based life forms. Thats it.

>Natural selecton fits into creationism also.

Good. Science doesn't mind.

>natural selection is not evolution
Please kill yourself ASAP

>CROSS SPECIES evolution
Entirely falsifiable. Prove that separate populations can't drift away to the point that they aren't compatible any more.

you described natural selection and jumped to conclussion

natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution

e.g. "John is a bachelor", it is necessary that it be also true that he is
1) unmarried,
2 )male,
3) adult

if you have all 3 you have SUFFICIENT proof. but it doenst go the other way ie. if you know an unmmarried person, that doesnt mean he is a bachleor (he might be divorced or a kid)

e.g. II "Evolution exists" it is necessary that it be also true that
1) natural selection/microevolution -100% proof
2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill
3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution - NEVER DEMONSTRATED

so just porving microevolution isnt SUFFICIENT proof.

>Cats found in the Precambrian era.

how does finding ONE fossil of cat prove they made the majority of population or that they were the outliers?

Attached: evolutionSCIENCE!!!.png (754x396, 256K)

>what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution?
The lack of genetic change in a population over multiple generations. But guess what? You can't find that because it doesn't exist.

>the exact same post, word for word
please go to and annoy them with your retardation

Natural selection is a type of evolution. There are multiple known ways for species differentiation to occur.

>what is sophism

my god you slav need too study

THIS MEME LIST IS ALL THE CURRENT PROOF OF HUMAN EVOLUTION WE HAVE AFTER 100 YEARS OF HIGHEST LEVEL OF RESEARCH...I SHIT YOU NOT

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

>Basically everything is the same species.

so you are running into semantics like leftist when they try to prove that sex doesnt exist.
Give me one example of a NEW SPECIES being created. Esch colli exp even afte 60k gen didnt demonstrated that.

>>natural selection is not evolution
>Please kill yourself ASAP

you are a subhuman simpleton brainlet go like a IFLS fb page.

>The lack of genetic change in a population over multiple generations.

that is genetics/natural selection, not evolution...hereyou can observe genetics change WITHIN species not BETWEEN. BETWEEN gen drift has never ever been observed or demonstrated. facts.

>Natural selection is a type of evolution.

well you can call it that way, but nat sel doesnt prove you can pass the species barrier. youll never breed a GSD by mixing rabbits.

hey Mr. Snark sperm in ass, can you make an argument or is your AIDS already full blown?

Attached: EVOLUTION723575.jpg (785x594, 102K)

>theory of evolution DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FAULTINESS.

in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:

1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"

2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"

same with homosexuality:
1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival
2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth

Im not even memeing, this shit is discussed
richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/

its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself

Attached: swan.jpg (800x600, 122K)

>that is genetics/natural selection, not evolution
Ah, you fucking retard. You should at least have a basic understanding of what you're trying to argue about. Get an education before you try this topic.

>but nat sel doesnt prove you can pass the species barrier.
One of the ways secures differentiation can occur is by the reproductive organs becoming incompatible, so trees natural selection very much can cause speciation.

Fucking Swype.

>e.g. II "Evolution exists" it is necessary that it be also true that
>1) natural selection/microevolution -100% proof
windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_8.html

Peppered moths motherfucker, have you ever heard of them? Or how about animals that we tamed? We created positive traits (by rewarding their presence) and thus selected for them. Then there are Darwin's finches and the Galapagos turtles.

>2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill
Don't need to prove that as a constant rate of evolution isn't something we'd expect. Fact is Mutagenic substances (things that encourage the alteration of genetics) exist and they'd change the rate. Also uranium isn't the only radioactive substance on earth, referring to the source I am citing below you will notice that a large portion of our radioactive exposure is from Radon.

bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_gateway/radiation/radioisotopesrev1.shtml

>3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution - NEVER DEMONSTRATED
examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

Also, I'd point you to the existence of bacteria. It is a well known fact that they are capable of exchanging DNA between themselves enabling same-generation adaption as well as salvaging dead bacteria's DNA. It's why them developing immunities to anti-biotics is so dangerous.

You could easily disprove evolution with both fossil finds and genetics. Evolution suggests that all life on earth can be traced back to a single common ancestor, so genetically everything should be related to some degree. You could also cross reference this against the fossil record to get an idea of when certain things diverged, and thus have an idea of exactly how genetically different things should be.

>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.
That is false, paleontologists have used evolution to place where in the fossil record theorized but undiscovered transitional species should be, and based on those predictions these species have been discovered by selectively hunting within those rock layers.

Evolution is fact.
We all die.
Life is meaningless.
There is no God.
No afterlife.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

>in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:
>1) "evolutionary adaptation"
Aye because evolution doesn't claim that those body parts weren't or aren't useful, biologists do when they can't figure out what the fuck it does. Then we find out what it does and we continue on because we've found it's purpose.

> or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"
We don't find "a certain fossil" we find a link. That link could be anywhere in the chain between the two points and it would still be evidence of a connection.

Let me reword what you are saying for a moment show how ridiculous it is, "The Standard Model of particle physics is a catch 22 of science, if some particle exists then you just claim it's proof or if you can't find a certain fossil you claim we haven't found it yet but based on the model it is there".

What you are saying is finding evidence (the fossil / purpose of a organ) or a lack of evidence (literally a lack of data) is in someway a negative to the feasibility of the theory of evolution. Do you not know the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

my reply didn't go thru... yeah you make some good points OP. Evolution isn't entirely materialistic, it's an example of nothing but rationalization efforts to pigeonhole an incomplete theory as new facts keep coming in.

>a child is growing in puberty so it will grow for the rest of its life

>so trees natural selection very much can cause speciation.

as you can breed a Doberman or a GSD using other breeds of dogs but youll never breed a deer using species of dogs. speciation is not cross species evolution.

>You could easily disprove evolution with both fossil finds and genetics. Evolution suggests that all life on earth can be traced back to a single common ancestor, so genetically everything should be related to some degree.

can you be more specific about the hypothesis, Im not baiting you on this one.

also, fossil record is a total meme

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Im not going to click faggy links especiall not meme nuscience domain links you posted, argue your point and Ill respond, use your words Ill use mine.

Ill respond to this where you made a point
>It's why them developing immunities to anti-biotics is so dangerous.

as did Nordics "developed" tolerance to lactose, but they didnt "develop" it they selected for it.

>Aye because evolution doesn't claim that those body parts weren't or aren't useful, biologists do when they can't figure out what the fuck it does.

OH, but they do, they didnt even updated the article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

evolution does imply vestigialiarity which implies human have relic body parts, what are they?

>That link could be anywhere in the chain between the two points and it would still be evidence of a connection.

but you have to have enough evidence to claim connection in the first place, this is dry scientific "evidence" for billion years of cross species to human evolution. total meme.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

>as new facts keep coming in.

Hi leaf, I actually disagree, new facts will never disprove evolution, its catch 22 so you can retroactivly fit anything

Attached: theory.jpg (1372x1067, 113K)

Ding ding ding
The fossil records prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt

>The fossil records prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt

so called human fossil proof is a joke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

and dont let me started how faulty they interpred carbon dating of the fossils

Fine fine could say evolution is false, dandy and all.
But can you creationism fag provide any theory which sounds remotely reasonable enough and backed by evidences and proofs?

Evolution is 100%, easily falsifiable: Prove that animal exists that is not the descendant of another animal.

Boom. Problem solved.

>Won't ever be falsified because it's true
Is not the same thing as:
>Can't be proved false

This is Jow Forums faggot, fuck off to /sci/

>But can you creationism fag provide any theory which sounds remotely reasonable enough and backed by evidences and proofs?

and if I cant, would you conclude that we should stick with theory that is proven to be, by my arguments, pesudoscientific.

Science works by negation.

>Prove that animal exists that is not the descendant of another animal.

you first have to prove that even those animals have descended fossils and youll have to date them WITHOUT carbon dating since carbon dating is not reliable +100years (unless you control other factors).

you dont think that Dawkins and crew didnt inspired nihilism?

>perfect design involves humans being completely dependent on having a huge portion of their body mass made up of foreign microbes that can be literally deadly if they make it from the lower GI to upper GI, nice intelligent design, be a shame if we could function without being full of dangerous microbes
Virtually every eukaryotic cell except some Protista have prokaryotes (bacteria) IN them due to Endosymbiosis theory- chloroplasts and mitochondria are said to have been prokaryotes that early single-called eukaryotes engulfed and used as organelles to produce energy.
Most organisms that aren’t prokaryotes contain or are surrounded by comensal bacterial colonies. Microbes are EVERYWHERE on the planet.
Also how would you even define a “perfect design” human? Humans have always contained bacteria from the instant we arrived on the planet, however people think that was.

BUMP
4
SCIENCE

I FCK LOOOOOVE SCIENCE

Attached: dawkins.png (1000x618, 492K)

Carl Popper was an insane satanic freak like all the leftists
>holding systems accountable for equitable outcomes

they dont believe in truth, everything is subject to talmuddic bullshitting

You can suck a dick and not be gay because you were just testing if you were gay, falsification doesnt equal refutation
black is white up is down more equal than others,
dogs and cats living together, Mass Hysteria

Attached: 1524167747293.png (799x385, 43K)

alright, first of all
>carbon dating since carbon dating is not reliable +100years
Where did you even get this shit from?
And
>Science works by negation.
Then creationism and anything related to it are disproved by default

>Im not going to click faggy links especiall not meme nuscience domain links you posted, argue your point and Ill respond, use your words Ill use mine.
Peppered moths are a species which historically came in two colouration: almost entirely black as well as white with spots of black / grey. When humans began industrialising and soot coated large regions of forest they resided in, the colour of their bark changed and the black moths found it far easier to survive (change in environment -> trait selected for) and their commonness in the population rose greatly as predators struggled spot them against the blackened trees.

This applies to all the species I mentioned, their environments shifted and new traits benefited.

>as did Nordics "developed" tolerance to lactose, but they didnt "develop" it they selected for it.
I have no idea what you mean with your broken god damn English.

>evolution does imply vestigialiarity which implies human have relic body parts, what are they?
Evolution implies that vestigial organs are possible but not that they are always present. Fact is we've not seen any in our ancestral species nor our closest relatives genetically. I'd point you to the fact that snakes have vestigial legs as proof that it can occur however.

amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs/

One vestigial organ I can think of however would be our tail bone. A structurally superflouous part given our loss of the tail.

>>carbon dating since carbon dating is not reliable +100years
>Where did you even get this shit from?

from unironic science.

>Then creationism and anything related to it are disproved by default

doesnt follow. Earth can be 100 billion yo insted of current 4.5 that still doesnt prove evolution since you can claim (not by the Bible) that God created species then.

>Carl Popper was an insane satanic freak like all the leftists

his meme idiotics politics were, his philosophy of science and concept of falsifiability is god-tier.

Attached: science1523177642267.jpg (720x627, 101K)

>but you have to have enough evidence to claim connection in the first place, this is dry scientific "evidence" for billion years of cross species to human evolution.
It's sufficient evidence. Given we can follow the genetic progression and see the differences. Especially given that evidence isn't for billions of years of evolution as you claim, it's for a period of 7.25 million years old at the oldest listed fossil which means you premise is inaccurate.

Also the phrase "As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare, this overview is not complete, but does show some of the most important finds." appears on that page, I'd point out your entire premise is kinda false from the start. Also what the hell do you mean by "cross species to human evolution"?

>you can observe genetics change WITHIN species not BETWEEN. BETWEEN gen drift has never ever been observed or demonstrated.
Because we define what a species is.
We have to see significant difference in genetic identity (like a Multiple Sequence Alignment) or significant morphological/reproductive differences to qualify organisms as different species.
So you can have Lizard Colony A and then an earthquake makes a chasm, and Lizard Colony B develops on the other side because it’s rockier with different bugs or something.
When they’re discovered generations later, a scientist would have to look at A and B and decide if they differed enough to be classified as subspecies or different species in their genus.

>as you can breed a Doberman or a GSD using other breeds of dogs but youll never breed a deer using species of dogs.
No, because evolution doesn't work that way. You could, however, get something LIKE a deer, given enough time (millions of years, probably). Also, what did GSD mean?

>speciation is not cross species evolution.
Speciation is when populations drift so far apart genetically that they become separate species. I assumed this is what you ment by cross-species evolution (after googling the term). If by cross-species evolution you actually ment something like one species evolving into another, already existing species, then you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody believes evolution works that way.

>When humans began industrialising and soot coated large regions of forest they resided in, the colour of their bark changed and the black moths found it far easier to survive (change in environment -> trait selected for) and their commonness in the population rose greatly as predators struggled spot them against the blackened trees.
>This applies to all the species I mentioned, their environments shifted and new traits benefited.

I agree, natural selection is empirical, demonstratable, observable and falsifiable ergo its science (my example about lactose tolerance in Nordics where plants werent as present).
youll still have to demonstrate cross-species drift>natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof

>Evolution implies that vestigial organs are possible but not that they are always present. Fact is we've not seen any in our ancestral species nor our closest relatives genetically.

how convinient.

>tailbone

so tailbone is vestigial because you have babies born with tails, what makes you so sure that tailbone doenst control hip muscles? how about humans with 6 fingers? how is that not vestigial but considered a genetical defect.

see what Im aiming at, you are thinking retroactivly.

Attached: tailbone_child.jpg (640x360, 70K)

>formal, prepared, thought out
Unlike their philosophy which seems to just be a list of demands.

I remember an example of what you are talking about being made.

Scientists transferred some lizards from one Mediterranean island (one of the tiny uninhabited ones) to another (similar but different) island. When a research team returned they were found to have adapted and began displaying traits not even found in any of the original population.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

I think this is talking about what I remember.

>youll never breed a deer using species of dogs. speciation is not cross species evolution.
Duh. That’s not how DNA works.
But you can create similar species by mutating and adapting isolated populations until they have significant genetic and morphological differences to where they can be agreed in a consensus of taxonomists to be classified as different species within their genus.

>Because we define what a species is.

no we dont, we decied what is a subspecies like you said about lizard A and B or is Obama white or black.

species=can create fertile offspring.

>You could, however, get something LIKE a deer, given enough time (millions of years, probably). Also, what did GSD mean?

GSD=german shepard dog

they did 60k gen exp with esch coli bacteria, they just observed WITHIN SPECIES natural selection like with dogs, no new species.

>Speciation is when populations drift so far apart genetically that they become separate species.

and that happened NEVER. you can see different subspecies but one species never becomes new by simple mechanism of differentiation.

At least provide a reliable source about your carbon meme before claiming it to be some hardcore fact
>God created species
Ok so to sum it up at one point in history a deity create all existing and extincted (for some reason) species including human?

Jebo te bog

>they did 60k gen exp with esch coli bacteria, they just observed WITHIN SPECIES natural selection like with dogs, no new species
Bacteria reproduce asexually you mong.

>and that has NEVER happened
Yes it has. It might not have happened since we've been looking for it (though I could be wrong on that) but we've only know about evolution for a few hundred years, and this is something that occurs on a far larger timescale.

>species=can create fertile offspring.
Yeah you can isolate and mutate 2 populations long enough that they become incapable of creating fertile offspring. Of course they couldn’t do it with E. coli, bacteria undergo lateral gene transfer by conjugation- they pass plasmids back and forth so they are always able to continue reproducing asexually and exchanging genetic information

You guys should realize by now that this dude is leading people to the conclusion of all living things magically appeared at the same time as different species.
Because that's only option you have after you dismiss the evolution theory

I agree, natural selection is empirical, demonstrable, observable and falsifiable ergo its science

> (my example about lactose tolerance in Nordics where plants werent as present).
The hell did you mean there? Your statements regarding lactose tolerance are incomprehensible.

>youll still have to demonstrate cross-species drift
The fuck do you mean by that?

>how convinient.
Not convenient. It's just a fact. I ain't a fucking primate studying biologist so I can't list any and I ain't gonna try beyond that tail bone point but I DID give you the snake example. An example of REAL. KNOWN. VESTIGIAL organs which you didn't even comment on!

>so tailbone is vestigial because you have babies born with tails,

>what makes you so sure that tailbone doenst control hip muscles?
A complete lack of any ligaments attached to it or other such evidence to suggest that it is even anatomically possible for it to effect our hip muscles.

>how about humans with 6 fingers? how is that not vestigial but considered a genetic defect.
Because it's primarily caused by sudden random genetic mutation brought on by radiation, chemical exposure (drugs as well as other such things) or by malfunctioning gene sequences.

We know they are malfunctioning because we know what the functional version looks like. For example: sickle cell anaemia is caused by malfunctioning genes and we know this because we know it is a mutated form of normal functional blood generating genetics that brings about a disadvantage.

>see what Im aiming at, you are thinking retroactivly.
Yes, because for something to be vestigial, it had to be of use in the PAST. Meaning that you must thing retroactively as to it's nature. It's the same as calling anything outdated, it's a retroactive designation saying that it no longer fulfils it's purpose because it is either not needed or has been replaced by something better.

Oh I'm entirely aware I'm just bored as shit and enjoy watching this guy perform mental gymnastics.

>Scientists transferred some lizards from one Mediterranean island (one of the tiny uninhabited ones) to another (similar but different) island. When a research team returned they were found to have adapted and began displaying traits not even found in any of the original population.

same happens withing humans, croatian population that lives on isolated islands has rarer genes. still not a proof of evolution but of genetics.

>At least provide a reliable source about your carbon meme before claiming it to be some hardcore fact

they date the fossils under the presumption that conditions that affect carbon emission are constant, even archeologists dont do that when dating 200yo objects.

klošar jedan tornjaj

>Yes it has. It might not have happened since we've been looking for it (though I could be wrong on that) but we've only know about evolution for a few hundred years, and this is something that occurs on a far larger timescale.

so you can back that catch22 empirically cant you?
Popper was right, yet he cucked out in the end.

Attached: popper_karl.jpg (640x360, 40K)

>species never becomes new by simple mechanism of differentiation.
Yes it an in isolation. If it cannot reach/mate with other groups of its same organism, it can become adapted in ways that make it incompatible with the original species- a branching effect.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696433/

>lactose

all humans...all mamals have genes for tolerating lactose. do the math.

>Because it's primarily caused by sudden random genetic mutation brought on by radiation, chemical exposure (drugs as well as other such things) or by malfunctioning gene sequences.

and humans with tails what causes that?

>We know they are malfunctioning because we know what the functional version looks like.

NO YOU DONT YOU TOTAL MONG.
RATIONAL SCEPTICS LIKE YOURSELF REMOVED PERFECTLY HEALTHY TEETH AND BODY PARTS.

>Yes, because for something to be vestigial, it had to be of use in the PAST. Meaning that you must thing retroactively as to it's nature.,

science is about PREDICTING, you predict based on historical and current empirical facts. historiosophy is what you described.
Evolution didnt have ONE correct prediction.

You clearly have no idea how the theory of evolution works OP

Evolution is a decent enough theory until something better comes along.

Seeing as it hasn't, then we're stuck with evolution for now. The other explanations are too fucking retarded and inapplicable to any realistic situations that anyone would ever use them unless they're mentally ill.

Traits that would require several generational mutations, but present no evolutionary advantage at the intermediate stages.

You know, like the human immune system?

>Traits that would require several generational mutations, but present no evolutionary advantage at the intermediate stages.

that would be a mutation in the wrong unadaptible direction, which evolution predicts are the majority of mutations. so not a disproval.

>as did Nordics "developed" tolerance to lactose, but they didnt "develop" it they selected for it.
nigga what? Explain this part

>same happens withing humans, Croatian population that lives on isolated islands has rarer genes. still not a proof of evolution but of genetics.
The genes weren't rarer. They were entirely unfound in the original population. Ergo they had evolved them after arrival. What you are talking about is called the founder effect and isn't relevant.

>all humans...all mamals have genes for tolerating lactose. do the math.
Yeah and? I'm sorry but between your English and my tiredness I can't follow this line of argument.

>and humans with tails what causes that?
Dunno but I'd guess given the nature of the development of the fetus it'd be caused by a gene not deactivating or a similar such problem.

>RATIONAL SCEPTICS LIKE YOURSELF REMOVED PERFECTLY HEALTHY TEETH AND BODY PARTS.
Sickle blood cells are not functional. They cause serious medical problems for all carriers.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7993409

By healthy teeth I presume you mean wisdom teeth? They are commonly removed because of the pain they cause people as well as the fact that some people's jaws are genuinely too small for all their teeth. Meaning they need to be removed for their own good.

As to body parts: I live in the UK, unless you are rich (can go private) or have something wrong with you (NHS), ain't no doctor taking a knife anywhere fucking near you. This means we ain't removing anything "healthy".

>science is about PREDICTING, you predict based on historical and current empirical facts. historiosophy is what you described.
Aye and science predicts it is now vestigial based off two facts:

1) To be vestigial a thing must've once had a use.

2) The use of this thing has been super ceded by a replacement organ or the thing has been rendered unimportant.

>Evolution didnt have ONE correct prediction.
You mean besides predicting the ability for natural selection to occur as well as the ability for new traits to develop over time?

Mrs govno jedno mama ti klosar kladim se da se bocas heroinom ispred granapa

niggers and whites are proof of evolution

Evolution predicted that bacteria will resist antibiotics. Evolution predicted that living things will change over time, through generations, over populations.

archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/evolution/country/HR/type/op/

OP gets blown the fuck out on the regular, he doesn't really engage with responses. You meet some interesting people in the replies though.

Attached: Functional significance of genes with higher levels of population differentiation.jpg (1200x1827, 367K)

Evolution is the effect. Natural selection is the cause, and this cause is mathematical in nature. It does not disprove God or intelligent design. Natural selection is obviously a component of the implementation of God's creation of man. Without his implementation, more than just man would not exist. Reality as we know it would not exist. God encompasses all of mathematics.

Alright listen faggot. Evolution describes the change in populations over time. It’s a description of a cascade of events involving millions of genomes. Where mutations occur constantly to the genotype, causing differences in phenotype. These differences are detrimental most of the time, but sometimes they assist the organism in to successfully replicating more than others from its population. Over time the descendants will take over the population. (Think Muslims being introduced in to Europe)
Disprove evolution by finding an organism that doesn’t using Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, Thymine, and Uracil. If you can’t you’re a faggot

>>as did Nordics "developed" tolerance to lactose, but they didnt "develop" it they selected for it.

all humans, infact all mamals can tolerate lactose.
difference is in QUANTITY of the tolerance, thing with Nordics is that due to harsh climate if you didnt tolerate lactose you had nothing else to eat unlike in Mediteranian or Africa so you died out.

Lactose tolerance didnt "evolved" you just selected it by environmental pressures.
hope that helps.

>The genes weren't rarer. They were entirely unfound in the original population. Ergo they had evolved them after arrival.

yes mutations happen, that is how natural selection works. and?

>Sickle blood cells are not functional.

are they a part of the body most humans have like appendix and wisdom teeth?

>They are commonly removed because of the pain they cause people as well as the fact that some people's jaws are genuinely too small for all their teeth.

which makes you conclude that:
1)they are vestigial
2)certain population have jaw malfunctions so they cant support them

>You mean besides predicting the ability for natural selection to occur as well as the ability for new traits to develop over time?

yes, genetics was empirically demonstrated by Mendel unlike cross species evolution.

>Evolution predicted that bacteria will resist antibiotics. Evolution predicted that living things will change over time, through generations, over populations.

that is natural selection>natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution

>bacteria survives nuclear war, clearly it is the superior form of life
anyone who uses the word superior as a word to describe organisms deserves a bullet you're either a brainlet, a provocateur, or a cuck

I will say this much.

>Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

This is definitely correct. You must understand for this evolution to occur it takes about 2 thousand years. Usually the rule is for any animal ~90 generations usually is enough for a population in a new environment to show evolved traits. Seeing that Americans have only been in the US for 300 years, evolution has not had enough time to wipe out bad genes.

The more diversity in the population, the quicker evolution can pick the best traits (compared to having to mutate advantageous traits, diversity allows the most advantageous genes to bubble to the top)

Mesolithic Britons had blue eyes, dark to black skin, black curly hair. When agricultural was invented human settlers who originated from Anatolia/Middle East quickly usurped the gene pool of the Mesolithic Britons. See the prevalence of R1b y chromosome in modern day Britons. Farming people of the middle east almost completely replaced all Mesolithic people of Europe. They did intermix, but regardless the people of modern day Briton look nothing like their Mesolithic predecessors.

Same thing will happen in modern Earth. Races will intermix, but in the end only the best genetics will preserve. Whites propensity to build and achieve, the creativity, the community, the pack survival. Whites genetics will continue regardless of how many uncivilized races enter into their domain. Remember Mesolithic britons lived the same lifestyle as modern day niggers. Niggers never farmed. In 2 thousand years there will be no such things as a nigger, their genes will be completely wiped out by farming and civilized genetics. For example, most AA are 20% white while most whites are 0% african.

Attached: _Death_Grips_-_Roundhouse_London_29_10_16___Photo_by_Jamie_Cameron-12.jpg (825x550, 95K)

Who said lactose tolerance evolved? Organisms doesn’t evolve you dumb sack of shit.

>Evolution is the effect. Natural selection is the cause

a child is growing in puberty so it will grow for the rest of its life

>anyone who uses the word superior as a word to describe organisms deserves a bullet you're either a brainlet, a provocateur, or a cuck

I agree, its not scientific language, I just demonstrated the wrong line of reasoning.

>Who said lactose tolerance evolved? Organisms doesn’t evolve you dumb sack of shit.

who are you responding to?

Think about it. It is literally called the appendix, and it turns out.. its an appendix for good bacteria.
>wisdom teeth...
hmmm
>foreskin
>

Do you even know how species are defined in biology? You keep getting hung up on 'speciation' without an apparent deep understanding of how the concept is constructed.

A solid understand of molecular evolutionary biology and how speciation is known to occur might help you out a bit.

Attached: Population differentiation last two thousand years.jpg (441x915, 53K)

You, you dumb sack of shit. Organisms don’t evolve. Organisms adapt. Populations evolve. Do you not have basic scientific knowledge of this?

No, a better analogy is, evolution is the child growing while natural selection is the way it grows. Although still a bad analogy because a child has a instruction manual while evolution does not. Try again

as a christian, what dont you understand that the genisis IS A METAPHORE... god as more to do than creating two pieces of shit to say to them dont eat from the tree
>GOD IS OMNIPOTENT...
plus it doesnt make sense how did the species evolve if there was only caim(writing in my own language) and abel...incest ?? he fucked his dad until one turned a women??
Dude if you're going to prove god by pieces of our body why not the religious part of our brain it doesnt exist in any other animal it just "useless" in the survival world

No, the definition is "can create fertile offspring naturally" with "separation via natural boundary" being sufficient enough to meet the criteria "does not produce fertile offspring naturally" The question of it being biologically feasible never enters the question "these two organisms dont mate because they developed conspecific aggression due to group separation".

It's pilpul.

>yes mutations happen, that is how natural selection works. and?
The statement you made in reaction to my example was entirely inaccurate. I was merely correcting it but I'd point out to you that the population is arguably an entirely new species given the genetic differences.

In fact the original article I saw this in stated a comment from one of the scientists that the only reason this isn't a new species is the scientific community as a whole is apprehensive to make such a bold claim.

>are they a part of the body most humans have like appendix and wisdom teeth?
No. They are a trait that occurred primarily in a parts of Africa where having it as a carrier (Only one of the two genes for it present) would benefit you by making you immune to malaria, at the cost of killing 25% of your offspring (assuming that your partner was also a carrier as it would produce a double expression 25% of the time) and shortening your own life span. As the link I posted shows as it discuses the side-effects of this genetic sequence.

>1)they are vestigial
Never said they were, you are the one who brought up teeth in all caps, I merely attempted to respond to your random outburst of unrelated information after I said "we know they are malfunctioning because we know what the functional version looks like".

>2)certain population have jaw malfunctions so they cant support them
lakecountryoralsurgery.com/wisdom-teeth.html

This is a dental surgery literally telling you why you get them removed.

>yes, genetics was empirically demonstrated by Mendel unlike cross species evolution.
Again, there's that term I've yet to get a definition for from you. What is cross species evolution?

God comes down and said no.

>what is cross species evolution
I think he means 'speciation' but if he knew what speciation was, he wouldn't make these utterly retarded threads.

>Although still a bad analogy because a child has a instruction manual while evolution does not

Yes evolution does. That's why I said natural selection is just a component. The laws of physics and timeless mathematical patterns of truth are the instruction manual for evolution to give us man.

Non DNA based lifeform you say?

Attached: rupertsheldrake.jpg (166x250, 16K)

genetics change is indeed far faster that people think, ancient Athenians used to look like Nordics.

But lets be semantically precise, its natural selection, not evolution.

>Organisms don’t evolve. Organisms adapt. Populations evolve.

mind=bl03n

NIIICE DBS

next on the line are your balls, theyll claim that people who have low T are naturally adapted and they try to castrate little kids.

this is not a place for theological arguments, my objections to evolution are secular and methodological. I hope youll find them interesting and learn from them. God bless!

>No, the definition is "can create fertile offspring naturally" with "separation via natural boundary"

I agree. what is your point?

Attached: fayerabend2.jpg (700x500, 102K)

Probably. God knows I've argued it well enough that most people would understand.

Doesn't help that there is probably a bit of a language barrier, him being from Croatia and all.

Again, no evolution does not have a manual. We are coincidentally the way we are.

Evolution is nigger tier. But genes and dna carries a ton of information and can change a vast amount in a single generation within species.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

so, what is falsifiability?
Its one of the req for a theory to be scientific - Popper, the smart kike, brought attention it.

examples of unfalsifiable claims:
>Jesus will come back
>"Im not a racist. Racist confrmed, only a racist would deny that he is racist"
>Catch 22 - too crazy to fly therefore ideal for a pilot

so you see, there are far more visible examples of lack of falsifiability in IRL world, bigger problem are less visible examples like theory of evolution.

Attached: sheep.jpg (1440x900, 158K)

Thanks for the (You), right back atcha.

You know anyone can go through the archive and see you get methodically blown the fuck out and fail to adapt your understanding of evolution to new data, right?

archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/evolution/country/HR/type/op/

>falsifiability
If a theory can't be proven by evidence, it can't be falsified either. Verificationism and induction ftw

Attached: carnap.jpg (320x499, 29K)

>You know anyone can go through the archive and see you get methodically blown the fuck out and fail to adapt your understanding of evolution to new data, right?

offcourse I know that. did you noticed how illeterate le redpolled pollacks are on concepts in science?

>Verificationism and induction ftw

what did he mean by this?
req a quick rundown on Carnap!