*debunks theory of evolution*

lmao. Amazing.

>human genome could not be randomly generated in time
>therefore the iterative process of evolution by natural selection isn't real
I like Bisquit but seriously

>be Bisqwit
>suck jew dick

no thanks

Attached: 1568128253993.jpg (646x687, 69K)

the math behind the theory of evolution is the most far-fetched aspect of it. mathematicians are the most vocal opponents of the theory after creationists.

you can just watch evolution happen with simple experiments involving bacteria.

who dis

I mean they are all dirty subhuman abrahamics so it makes sense.

>Listen to black metal
Source? I didn't think he'd listen to heathen music.

How can you trust microscopes? How do you know they aren't altering what you're seeing? It is still a theory until you can observe it without tools or estimations.

>how can you trust microscopes
>how do you know they aren't altering what youre seeing

Imagine being a christfag. Imagine. Imagine thinking that the fairytale tripe written in the bible is true while saying things like this.

Just IMAGINE.

bisqwit. he's an awesome finnish programmer who makes cool youtube videos and has a cool personal website.
>bisqwit.iki.fi/

i was just listing random things off of his page of articles he's written. the black metal page is in finnish so i don't actually know what he says about it.
>bisqwit.iki.fi/jutut/hevi.html

>How can you trust microscopes? How do you know they aren't altering what you're seeing?

Attached: a-foil-hat-actually-amplifies-some-radio-frequencies.jpg (1300x649, 58K)

ofc they are they cant accept true random generation because they cant compute with it

just like they dont accept quark gluon soup regardless of the fact that you know lhc literally saw it... they cant accept that the universe at some point was super symetrical

he has reviewed and classified 112 anime titles.
>bisqwit.iki.fi/jutut/animelist.html
be sure to click the little arrows that say "Details" at the bottom of the page to expand it fully.

great falseflag friend

He looks like a middle aged dyke.

Very unsurprising as their disagreements aren't all that major and they all draw from basically the same abrahamic origin.

>ofc they are they cant accept true random generation because they cant compute with it
That is false.

>they cant accept that the universe at some point was super symetrical
It seems super symmetry would be quite attractive for mathematicians.

My eyes are open

Attached: 1499307473094.png (480x360, 23K)

If islam become more lax with bacon and alcohol, they will unironically just become Catholic 2.0.

Evolution isn't trying out all random combinations, it's directed search.

Isn't he right though?
Aren't you already interfering with the experience simply by watching, like quantum computing and shiet?

I do not think so, the way religions are practiced depends far too much on the culture of their followers.

"Reviewed" is a generous word. He seems like a pretty surface level thinker, but I guess if it keeps him happy, I don't have a problem with it.

His not about episodes of Inuyasha being hard to find is a little tip off that he's a pleb, though. How can you not have AB access in 2019?

And i tip my fedora to you

you don't need a microscope for the experiment. Just put a nutritional substrate on a petri dish, and then divide in to sections with increasing concentrations of some kind of poison. Then put bacteria on the side that has none, watch them spread through it, hit the first poison patch and stop, then after a long time they'll suddenly break through, hit the next barrier, and repeat until you have a colony of 100% poison resistant bacteria that colonizes the whole plate.

Evolution is literally used in programming and engineering.

I love his password cracking videos, they're really in depth, about a fun and interesting topic and he seems to love the subject a lot too
based man even makes his own simple langauge for a project (the rom translation one)
Are there are other youtubers like this? I don't expect to find anyone else with that kind of charm

What's your point retard? Of course they are closer to each other than to someone who doesn't believe in anything, than someone who has no morals.

And?
Just because I can simulate something doesn't mean it is how reality occurs.

That Newtonian physics is used in games doesn't suddenly make Newtonian physics valid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_display

I fail to see how this relates in ANY way to your argument that just because a certain thing is used in engineering and programming it has to be how reality works.

Javidx9 might come close.

>passive optical microscopes cause bacteria to become immune to antibiotics
>passive optical microscopes cause speciation events
Is this bait?

Not an argument retard. Tip the holy prepuce you disgusting abrahamic.

I don't mean literally. But just look at LATAM and pinoys and compare them with muslim countries.

Because it works in nature and we just hijacked the mechanism for our needs. That's what you tards don't get. There's no questions left about evolution, the only question left is how the life appeared in the first place.

>Because it works in nature and we just hijacked the mechanism for our needs.
Again. Is Newtonian physics true because we can simulate it?

>There's no questions left about evolution
Then it is by definition unscientific.

i love him

Newtonian physics is true in certain conditions. New theories don't suddenly make old theories completely wrong.
>Then it is by definition unscientific.
Evolution is not a theory. It's a general mechanism that we happen to observe in nature.

Imagine unironically thinking that sexual reproduction creates an organism that is 100% identical to both of its parents.

Attached: kek.gif (540x304, 1.52M)

Newtonian physics is mostly true because it doesn't get in to causation, it just provides equations for calculating motion, and in most cases those equations work fine.

>Newtonian physics is true in certain conditions.
And?
It still is false in almost all situations in which we simulate it in.

>It's a general mechanism that we happen to observe in nature.
So again, it isn't scientific, but this is also irrelevant to the argument.

Proving any theory on the basis that it can be simulated is retarded.

Are you one of the weird people who denies Relativity theory?
No, Newtons laws are also always false.
Basically, if something moves, Newton's laws do not apply.

Reminder

Attached: 1521416788268.jpg (550x309, 34K)

i only started watching this guy quite recently for his video game password cracking series and at one point in his Metroid video he casually denies evolution, barely related to what he's talking about, and i can't lie it just made me crack the fuck up

That is obviously not what any denier of evolution believes.

Sorry, didn't know we use general relativity to make cars.

>also
almost

Engineering isn't physics.
The models that engineers use are almost always false, because they contain simplifications to make calculation possible.

>Basically, if something moves, Newton's laws do not apply.
funny how we used them for hundreds of years and it didn't show any problems until we started having to launch space probes to specific locations billions of kilometres away, and still use them to this day for most everyday applications, and even in spaceflight for quick and dirty predictions done in somebody's head or with nothing but a calculator.

>if something moves, Newton's laws do not apply
Glad to know that it's 100% safe to crash into a concrete wall at 150 km/h since Newton's laws don't apply to something that moves.
How can one reconcile believing that species cannot change while simultaneously believing that genes can change?

Evolution is a simplification as well. Underlying physics is QED.

Just because something is false doesn't mean that it is a bad approximation.
2+2=4.00000000000000000000000000001 is certainly false too, just a good approximation.

>Glad to know that it's 100% safe to crash into a concrete wall at 150 km/h since Newton's laws don't apply to something that moves.
That is a total non-sequitur.
Only the most out there people believe Netwons laws are correct.
In most cases they provide a somewhat decent approximation.

>How can one reconcile believing that species cannot change while simultaneously believing that genes can change?
I see no relationship between this things, and even if small scale evolution took place that isn't even evidence for large scale evolution, in which new species come to exist.

>In most cases they provide a somewhat decent approximation.
Literally how every fucking physics theory works.

Speciation has been observed in isolated islands.

Please explain to me Evolution in terms of the interactions if atoms...

Also if anything, evolution is completely independent of physics, the way our genes work is the mechanism for evolution, but that mechanism can not be reduced from physical laws.

big if true

>Literally how every fucking physics theory works.
Nope, physics searches for a true representation of the universe.
If under any circumstances a theory gives consistently different results then experiments, it is discarded, see eg. Newtonian mechanics.

How is that even related to what I said?

>Please explain to me Evolution in terms of the interactions if atoms...
Self-replicating atom assemblies.
>Also if anything, evolution is completely independent of physics
True, but in "the real world" that's the underlying mechanism. In some other system it could be newtonian physics or whatever.

>drives a bus
he is pretty awesome

>Self-replicating atom assemblies.
That is in no way an explanation.
You haven't even explained what life is...

>but in "the real world" that's the underlying mechanism.
Which doesn't mean one can be derived from the other.
It is physically possible for a species to exist to which evolution doesn't apply.

it was christians who proposed evolution in an intuitive sense. Darwin was also a Christian.

And?
How does it relate to my argument that you can not derive the truth value of something by being able to simulate it?

Now that Evolution is DEBUNKED, what's the mathematically valid replacing theory?

It's easy to rip shit apart but you need to subsitute it with something.

Because you can simulate getting order from disorder, which /is/ getting order from disorder, which evolution deniers claim to be impossible.

sorry i think i replied to the wrong post

>hurr explain it at the most base level

You people are literally just like regards denying human racial differences and asking to always "find the genes!"

Predictive validity? Observable occurrences? Nothing like that matters!

I thought you were replying to someone else. my b.

>Nope, physics searches for a true representation of the universe.
And it haven't been found. For every measurement there's a deviation.
>If under any circumstances a theory gives consistently different results then experiments, it is discarded
It is given bounds and still used where those bounds apply. You don't use general relativity to solve navier-stokes.
>You haven't even explained what life is...
Self-replicating atom assemblies.
>It is physically possible for a species to exist to which evolution doesn't apply.
If it lives evolution applies to it. Dying is a valid evolutionary outcome.

>the way our genes work is the mechanism for evolution, but that mechanism can not be reduced from physical laws.
The fuck are you saying? That our genes defy laws of physics?

yea, but jews are actually quite based

You are retarded. I asked because the claim was made that evolution could be explained in terms of physics, which is obviously ridiculous.

>That our genes defy laws of physics?
No, that our genes could work differently without breaking the laws of physics.

you are a fucking moron. pretty music newtonian physics works for everything important on earth. we only take into account quantum and relativity theories in a minority of situations.

Kill yourself child abusing schizophrenic freak.

but god is always watching, user. therefore evolution is real. thank you based god

>And it haven't been found. For every measurement there's a deviation.
If it had been found physics would be over.

>You don't use general relativity to solve navier-stokes.
Navier Stokes is derived thought Newtonian laws, so obviously.

>Self-replicating atom assemblies.
Is fire alive?

>If it lives evolution applies to it.
So you believe that it is physically impossible for a species to reproduce in a way that doesn't lead to evolution?

>pretty music newtonian physics works for everything important on earth.
Yes?
It is still false.

What is your argument?
False theories can give good approximations, so?

user. brother. where does the anger come from?

>mutilate little kids and push it on other countries
>subvert nations
>what's the problem goyim?

Cries out as it strikes you. Suffer.

skimmed through that metal site and it's about how apparently people who listen to such music are apathetic and depressed, it's music for people who are screaming for help :D

Evolution is no different from any other emergent effect.
>Is fire alive?
In a sense, see below.
>So you believe that it is physically impossible for a species to reproduce in a way that doesn't lead to evolution?
Only for a limited time. It could be very long for a hypothetical self-repairing perfect replicator but its extinction is inevitable, which is a valid evolutionary outcome.

Imagine falling for obvious b8. God should've made you smarter.

Okay, so I think I have made my point and I do not think we disagree too much.

Easy answer
Islam borrowed alot of things from Christians and threw out everything inconvenient for them.

Evolution is just too general to be proven wrong. There should be falsifiable derivatives, like, given X conditions and Y time Z should be the outcome. Maybe there's something like that in population genetics, I'm not a specialist.

>inconvenient
You mean all the polytheistic parts.

based, alhamdulillah

There are no 100% exact conditions given but
>given sufficient isolation and time, a population of a species will evolve to the point where it can no longer mate with populations of the original species (i.e. it will be a new species)
Which has been observed in nature.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5