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.