>This makes it impossible to imagine how ordered linear polymers, amino acids and nucleotides could be assembled.
That's because you're a moron, not because it can't happen.

Have you noticed how all the planets in the inner Solar System are rocky and how those in the outer Solar System are gaseous? Or how the Earth's core is iron-nickel while the surface is mostly silicates, and the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen? Why is it like this? Is it "impossible to imagine" a purely physical mechanism that could have caused such a highly ordered state?

File 161699169658.png - (38.88KB , 712x378 , No common ancestor.png )

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269633/
>These studies suggested that the tympanic ear appears to have emerged independently at least five times, i.e. in the lines leading to amphibians, turtles, lepidosaurs (lizards and snakes), archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) and mammals.
>The consequence is that the auditory papillae and nuclei in the central auditory pathway of tetrapods, especially those nuclei involved in the processing of tympanic (i.e. high-frequency) sound, are not necessarily homologous

Evolution is a giant paradox. Even studies have shown that traits are developed independently and not inherited from a common ancestor. Tympanic hearing is not homologous which in effect disproves the claim that all organisms have a common ancestor which they inherited their traits from. Evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it too.

>>17386
Having a tympanic ear is not a defining trait of all vertebrates, let alone of all life. Why don't you try searching how many times spinal chords arose independently? Or how many times animals lost their cell walls? Or how many times ATP synthesis arose independently?

>traits are developed independently and not inherited from a common ancestor.
Oh, so you don't even believe genetic inheritance is a real phenomenon? For example, tall people aren't more likely to have tall children, black people aren't more likely to have black children, children of people who get cancer aren't more likely to get cancer themselves, and a couple of one species can give birth to an arbitrarily different species. That's how you think it works, is it? Well, no wonder you say this stupid shit, then! Your life must be a confusing hell where nothing makes any sense.

>>17386
It’s funny how they try to convince people that evolution is real when they can’t even prove that all traits are hereditary.

>>17387
Nice cope.

>>17388
Just because you don't understand heritability, evolution, or convergent evolution, doesn't mean that any of those phenomena haven't been demonstrated enough or that they contradict one other in any way. Sorry, but the truth of a proposition is independent of your inability to understand it.

>>17389
Wow, so mister Wikipedia is going to give me a lecture on biology? Cope harder.

>>17390
>give me a lecture on biology
Pearls before swine.

>>17385
What a good ad hominem post, anon. I really like your in depth explanation about how abiogenesis occurs and how the cell is assembled, lol.

>>17393
An ad hominem would be "what you said is false because you're a moron". Me calling you moron and then explaining why you're wrong is not an ad hominem. It's an insult followed by a counterargument.

>in depth explanation about how abiogenesis occurs and how the cell is assembled
I don't need to do that to argue against you. Your contention is that abiogenesis couldn't have happened. Excuse me, that it's "impossible to imagine" how it could have happened. All I need to show is how what you've said does not make abiogenesis implausible. I absolutely do not need to show how abiogenesis definitely happened to argue against it being implausible.

Maybe try learning how to debate first?

>>17394
I hope you are aware that there is more than one poster on the Internet. You are not replying to OP, just so you know. Also, you do not even have an argument. The fact that you refuse to explain how abiogenesis would take place means you admit defeat because your claim is unfounded and without any scientific evidence.

>>17396
>your claim is unfounded and without any scientific evidence
I don't have a claim. OP does, which is "abiogenesis is implausible". As I've said, I don't need to prove that abiogenesis actually happened to prove OP wrong, I just need to show that OP's conclusion doesn't follow from their premise.

>>17396
>The fact that you refuse to explain how abiogenesis would take place means you admit defeat because your claim is unfounded and without any scientific evidence.
Then surely you must have a better theory with regards to the origins of life?

Come on, let's hear it.

>>17393
He uses deus ex machina cope without elaborating on why it would be feasible. Comic book tier post.

>>17400
It's plausible because there's nothing that makes it implausible. We know life is made of chemical compounds that could have appeared spontaneously in the primordial Earth. Until someone finds a reason why any of this would be implausible, abiogenesis is the best explanation for why life exists.

Even more importantly, though, we know life is not an inherent property of the universe, unlike for example gravity. Even if life didn't originate in the early Earth, there was a point in time where no life existed anywhere in the universe. Since life exists now, necessarily it must have arisen at some somewhere through purely physical mechanisms.
Until someone can demonstrate a non-physical mechanism through which life could have appeared (i.e. magic), abiogenesis is not just the best, but the only explanation for life.

Any other questions?

>>17384
I just want to remind everybody here that the official origin story of evolution according to science is that several strikes of lightning caused a chain reaction which lead to the complex arrangement of countless particles that caused DNA to begin self replicating.

>>17403
I just want to remind everyone here that nobody here has been able to provide a better theory regarding the origins of life.

If they have one I'm willing to hear it.

>>17403
And the official origin story of religion is that some magical superior being waved His mighty hand or whatever, and life appeared out of nowhere.

Which, considering that any sort of god is already a lifeform, means this is just a homunculus paradox. Life was created by life, so how was THAT life created? By another form of life...? It's endless.

>>17406
>Homunculus paradox
I'd be careful about providing alternate theories on their behalf. They'll simply respond with a "lol, well that's wrong to" without putting forth the theories they believe to be true.

File 161744278661.jpg - (271.52KB , 500x694 , Fedora holiday.jpg )

>>17400
It was a really lousy post, yeah. I agree with you. No details or thorough step by step construction of a proto-cell by this mysterious physical mechanism.

In order to have a real counterargument, he would first have to prove how ribose, phosphate, purines and pyrimidines formed. These in turn would produce nucleotides in a very low yield, complicated further by the presence of a much larger amount of various nucleotide analogues. Then he would have to show how the nucleotides and their analogues in turn would fuse into polymers (2'5'-, 3'5'- and 5'5'-phosphodiester linkages, variable numbers of phosphates between the sugars, D- and L- stereoisomers of the sugars, α- and β-monomers of the glycosidic bond and assorted modifications of the sugars, phosphates and bases). After that he would have to show how an impartial self-replication mechanism would arise out of this mess that disregards the compositional differences in all of these components. DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These parallel codes include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Basically, it's an impossible task.

>>17409
So what's the alternative theory?

>>17409
>In order to have a real counterargument, he would first have to [load of bullshit]
Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

>Basically, it's an impossible task.
It certainly must be a comfortable feeling to think that you can dictate what is and isn't a valid counterargument, and to then specify that the only valid counterarguments would be impossible to construct, but I'm wondering whether you realize what you've done by doing that.
What you've said here is that your position that abiogenesis couldn't have happened is impossible to disprove. That's perfect! That means it's both unscientific and irrelevant. By your own words, "abiogenesis couldn't have happened" is on the same level as "the universe really started last Thursday in its then-current state, and all evidence of earlier events is fabricated".

File 161747150214.jpg - (486.11KB , 1280x720 , Confirmed idiot.jpg )

>>17412
>load of bullshit

See pic related. You have no knowledge about molecular biology and you have still not provided any evidence for your miraculous physical mechanism creating functional cells out of nothing. It obviously is an impossible task since you have the education of a preschooler.

>>17413
Please explain why I would need to provide any evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis happened to argue that it might have happened. More properly, that it's not impossible for it to have happened. That's what's in discussion here, remember? You started the thread arguing that it was "impossible to imagine" how abiogenesis could have occurred.
If all we're talking about is what is possible then I have no reason to give any evidence of what actually happened, all I need to do is show that what you say doesn't make abiogenesis impossible.

>>17414
Go back to preschool, you toddler. You don't even have the slightest idea how cellular translation works and yet you try to spout your comic book nonsense like a true sophist.

>>17415
My education is not under discussion here.
Why would I need to prove abiogenesis true to argue against abiogenesis being implausible? Why is that the only valid counterargument to anything you've said here? Are you unable to answer even such a simple question, or is it that you don't like the answer you would need to give?

>>17416
Fantasy arguments like yours are not valid. You lack basic understanding of what you're trying to discuss, kiddo.

>>17417
Stop avoiding the question.

>>17418
All you do is spout nonsense without evidence. An argument does no rely on your ability to make stuff up. Anyone can do that, son.

>>17418
>Stop avoiding the question.
I can't help but notice you've avoided providing an alternative theory every time you've been asked for one...

>>17419
Exactly what did I say that would need to be backed by evidence? That some planets in the Solar System are rocky while other are gaseous and what the approximate constitution of the Earth is? Is that what you're disputing?
Stop avoiding the question. I'm pasting it here just so you don't forget:
>Why would I need to prove abiogenesis true to argue against abiogenesis being implausible?

>>17420
Dude, what are you talking about? Did you lose track of the conversation? I'm arguing that abiogenesis is plausible. This fuckhead >>17419 wants to argue that it's implausible and thinks he can sneak by us a requirement that the only way to refute him is to definitely prove abiogenesis. Like we're so stupid we have no fucking clue how to counterargue.

>>17421
Your argument is nonsense. You state that there are planets of different appearance and this somehow proves abiogenesis has happened and this is "proved" by alluding to some incomprehensible physical mechanism. Zero evidence, all talk.

>>17421
>Dude, what are you talking about? Did you lose track of the conversation?
Yep. My bad.

>>17422
So what's the alternative?

>>17423
No worries.

>>17422
>You state that there are planets of different appearance and this somehow proves abiogenesis has happened
Ah, I see the problem. You didn't understand my point at all. You really should have started with that.

Your original contention was that abiogenesis couldn't have happened because after a few rounds of reaction the primordial soup would have been left in a state where all the different compounds would be randomly distributed throughout the solution, and it would be "impossible to imagine" how organized processes could arise from such disorder. I set aside that this is an argument from incredulity and that you have not provided any reasons why the randomness of the solution would be an impediment to further reactions necessary for abiogenesis, and counterargued with this:

The Solar nebula was originally a disorganized gas cloud composed of all the elements that now exist on Earth. From that disorder the Solar System was formed. A highly organized system where (for starters) its main bodies and their structures are determined by the relative densities of their compositional elements. The "incomprehensible physical mechanism" that allows this is obviously gravity.
So, since evidently order can arise spontaneously from disorder via purely physical means (obviously the formation of the Solar System increased the total entropy of the universe, but that's neither here nor there), that the primordial soup was in a state of disorder at some point prior to the origin of life should have no bearing on whether abiogenesis could be possible. If you can accept that the extremely organized system that is the Earth and everything in it originated from a chaotic gaseous solution of hydrogen, helium, and trace elements, accepting that very complex molecules arose from an aqueous solution of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphor, etc. should not be a larger leap of faith.

Although, reading your posts I'm starting to get the feeling that yours is not a problem of accepting or rejecting evidence or ideas, but of... I guess disillusionment with science? You expect science to be able to answer all the questions you might think of, and the moment the answer that comes back is "we don't know [yet]" you immediately want to write off an entire discipline. Sorry, but that's not how science works. If we were forced to reject any conclusions that were derived from incomplete understanding of a natural system we would have to stop doing science altogether.
That we don't know the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis happened down to the very last reaction is not enough to conclude that it didn't happen. Our current knowledge is also not enough to conclude that it definitely 100% happened. I challenge you to find a single biologist who says that. What we do know, however, is that we currently don't have any better explanation for why life exists. Panspermia just moves the problem to a different planet. Other explanations fail to be parsimonious by requiring us to assume the existence of entities we've never seen (aliens, God, whatever).

>>17425
So you admit that you conflate two totally different events, determined by different processes? Good. That just shows how little you know about the subject. A planet or a star is not a cell and physics is not molecular biology. You extrapolate "evidence" from a separate field and apply it to another. It is like saying that because you can knit a sweater then you can build a car engine.

>>17426
So you admit that you cannot offer a better explanation.

Youtube  >>17425
Uumm, sweetie, I have some bad news for you.

>>17426
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main objection seems to be that you find it unbelievable that a very organized system such as a protocell could have emerged spontaneously in a disorganized environment such as the primordial soup. I gave an example of an organized system (the Solar System) that emerged in a disorganized environment (the Solar Nebula). My point is not that a planet is like a cell; it's that local disorder is not by itself sufficient to conclude that local order could arise spontaneously at a later point in time.

>It is like saying that because you can knit a sweater then you can build a car engine.
You seem really sure that cells are more complex than planets. What metric are you using to measure complexity?

>You extrapolate "evidence" from a separate field and apply it to another.
Why is the word "evidence" in quotes? Do you also deny the current theory of the origin of the Earth?

>>17429
>ID: be6f8f

I thought I was talking to ID: 746924. Why do you switch IP? Are you paranoid?

>>17430
I still see you failing to offer an alternative explanation, are you incapable of providing an answer?

>>17430
Probably a schizo.

>>17430
I post from home and from work.

>>17433
Ok, schizo.

>>17434
>Gets proven wrong,
>Can't google a counter-argument,
>Goes full ad hominem.
Still waiting on your alternative theory.

>>17386
That's really interesting! No wonder Darwinism makes no sense.

>>17436
>No wonder Darwinism makes no sense.
In what way does it "make no sense", you seem to be under the impression that an evolutionary novelty disproves an entire theory when acknowledging it as a novelty within the scope is by extension an acknowledgement of the theory.

Perhaps you could offer an alternative explanation with regards to the origins of the species. Something that does "make sense" as you put it.

>>17437
I don't think there's much point in arguing with anyone who refers to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

On the subject of it being mathematically impossible for life to self-create on Earth even in billions of years, because of the huge probabilities against:

You're forgetting the anthropic bias which is a type of survivorship bias. Earth isn't the only planet that has the conditions to harbor life. There a millions of stars in billions of galaxies over trillions of years of time. So that probability can be solved simply by dividing out all the possible planets that COULD have spontaneously developed life, but didn't for some reason or another. It just so happens that the one that did also developed creatures capable of wondering about. The other planets don't have sapient beings to think about how they don't have life on them.

>>17438
>schizo gets triggered by a word

Take your meds.

>>17436
It is kind of ridiculous that people seriously can believe in evolution when a trait isn't homologous. That's the core thesis. Without it, it all breaks down. Tympanic hearing appearing in several species independently means that natural selection does nothing.

>>17441
It's also ridiculous how people can act like evolution isn't real without offering an alternative explanation for the origins of life when pressed.

>>17441
If your grandfather wins the lottery and your father inherits his fortune, and when he dies you and your siblings inherit his fortune, and so on down the line, that's homology.

If your second cousin (e.g. the grandson of your grandfather's brother) wins the lottery, you get nothing. If you win the lottery, he gets nothing. It can even be the case that you, him, and a different second cousin of yours (e.g. the grandson of your grandfather's sister) all independently win different lotteries and neither of you share your riches with each other and only share it with your descendants.
None of this contradicts homology because homology is the passing down of traits down direct descendant lines.

Homology would only be contradicted if at some point someone's child didn't inherit any money, even though the parents still had several millions when they died.

>>17443
Oh boy...just stop posting your mental gymnastics. If traits are developed independently it means you cannot prove common descent. Non-homologous means that they are not from the same ancestor. Homology, by definition, is about descent from a single ancestor, not several.

File 161788547120.png - (36.61KB , 1429x868 , eardrums.png )

>>17444
You're the one doing mental gymnastics.

>These studies suggested that the tympanic ear appears to have emerged independently at least five times, i.e. in the lines leading to amphibians, turtles, lepidosaurs (lizards and snakes), archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) and mammals.

The statement is pretty clear. The tympanic ear evolved independently in separate lineages. In other words, the earliest ancestor of turtles who had eardrums and the earliest ancestor of humans who had eardrums are not the same, and they each lived after synapsids split off from reptiles.
This is not the same as saying, for example, that five unrelated ancestors of humans developed eardrums and their lines somehow merged, despite presumably being entirely different creatures.

Again, the statement is pretty clear. Now, if you're too stupid to understand it, that's a different story.

>>17445
Nice cope. The study says they’re not homologous. Only the middle ear bone is homologous and that’s true only for the tetrapods. Maybe you should take some time to actually read the study.

>>17446
That does not even apply to all tetrapods according to the study. Anuran ancestors had a tympanic ear while amniotes did not. Therefore there is no descent with modification.

File 161796990826.jpg - (366.50KB , 2400x2400 , 81PTVANdp9L.jpg )

>>17446
>Only the middle ear bone is homologous and that’s true only for the tetrapods.
Are you retarded? You're admitting yourself that some traits are homologous?

Yes, the middle ear bone of all tetrapods is homologous. In other words, there's an common ancestor to all tetrapods from which the middle ear bones originate and from which they were passed down to subsequent generations, which proves evolution happens.

I must admit, refuting your own thesis is a strange rhetorical move.

>Maybe you should take some time to actually read the study.
I would say the same, but in your case I don't think it would make much of a difference. Maybe something like the picture would be more up to your level.

>>17444
What, exactly, are you arguing here? That evolution happens on small scales in individual taxonomic clades but not across them? Are you stupid??

>>17449
When did I say it doesn't happen on a larger scale? For the time being, I'm arguing that it definitely happens on some scale. Do you agree with that or not?

If you agree then I turn the question back on you: exactly what premise of evolutionary theory is it that you dispute?

If you don't agree then you're a moron for not realizing that any homology whatsoever disproves your position. You use words that you don't know the meaning of and you make arguments against your own position without realizing.

>>17447
I noticed that too. There is an inconsistency in the fossil record.

>>17453
And what is that?

File 161889201068.png - (67.72KB , 577x465 , No common ancestor.png )

>>17447

>>17457
Just keep repeating the same point. Maybe if you insist enough reality will change and it will matter in the least.

I have noticed that nobody has been able to provide an alternative theory.

Perhaps these trolls have yet to evolve from goblins.

>>17457
>not suitable as amniote ancestors

In other words: amphibians are not our ancestors and thus evolution is not proven. Good to know!

>>17460
Who the fuck ever said amphibians were ancestors of humans? If humans were descendants of amphibians that would imply humans are themselves amphibians. Humans are amniotes, and amniotes and amphibians have a common tetrapod ancestor, that was neither amniote nor amphibian. How is this so difficult?

>>17460
Kind of ironic that the fossil record lacks proof for the claim that we all have the same ancestor. The labyrinthodonts, according to the study, cannot be traced in any mammals living today because in order to show common descent there has to be ancestral traits present in the organisms alive nowadays. In conclusion the fossils do not support what Darwinists claim is true.

>>17463
So, since a single extinct species that's not an ancestor of mammals apparently disproves common descent, it follows that you think that according to common descent mammals should be descendants of all extinct species. Am I getting this right? So common descent says that mammals are descendants of both Tyrannosaurus rex and Archaefructus.

Yeah, if common descent said something as outlandish as that, it would certainly be disproven with such a finding. It's unfortunate for you that it doesn't say that.

>>17464
Wow, cope much? Labyrinthodonts are supposedly the first vertebrates to walk on land and therefore all tetrapods should have traits that resemble this ancient amphibian. But since they don’t it follows that amphibians are not related to mammals. Unless you have a fossil that show us the opposite then you are just coping.

>>17465
>Labyrinthodonts are supposedly the first vertebrates to walk on land and therefore all tetrapods should have traits that resemble this ancient amphibian.
Ah, almost got me. Naughty, naughty.
Whether it was the first vertebrate to walk on land and whether it's an ancestor of all tetrapods are separate issues. If the first such vertebrate was strictly amphibian rather than a tetrapod ancestor, all it would mean is a) that the amphibian-amniote split occurred when both families were strictly sea-dwelling, and b) that amphibians and amniotes colonized land independently.
If that sounds too convenient, consider that necessarily arthropods also colonized land independently from tetrapods, and so did plants and fungi. It's not like land-dwelling is such a unique trait that it could only happen once in the entire history of life.

But that aside, are you really saying Labyrinthodonts were completely different from any extant tetrapods? At the very least it had a tetrapod body plan with a spinal column and an osseous endoskeleton. How much more alike would it need to be?

>all tetrapods should have traits that resemble this ancient amphibian. But since they don.t it follows that amphibians are not related to mammals.
No, it does not follow. "If two species don't resemble each other more than some unspecified threshold then they're unrelated"? That's nonsense. Plants and animals aren't completely unrelated just because they're almost completely different.

>>17465
>Unless you have a fossil that show us the opposite then you are just coping.
All life is carbon-based and thus related, unless you have a fossil of a none-carbon-based lifeform then you are just coping.

>>17463
Let me summarize:

Darwinist: Look at all these fossils! They all prove that we share a common ancestry. Science wins again!
Non-believer: Actually science says certain traits are not shared and cannot be found today.
Darwinist: Hahahaha, silly! What if I told you that, right now, in this moment, I just IMAGINED several HYPOTHETICAL events that COULD have happened? This proves it all makes sense. I bet you feel pretty stupid right now!? Hahahahaha, science is great.

>>17468
I guess you could say that for evolutionists the abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Circular logic.

>>17468
Allow me to provide a more accurate summation:


Darwinist: Look at all these fossils! They all prove that we share a common ancestry. Science wins again!

Non-believer: Well actually, science says certain traits are not shared and cannot be found today.

Darwinist: Allow me to expanded on that and explain why your posistion is incorrect.

Non-believer: Cope

Darwinist: I see you refuse to understand, perhaps if you are certain in your beliefs you could posit your theory regarding the origins of life.

Non-believer: ... *furiously googles a different argument*

>>17463
>>17468
>>17469
I'm starting to notice the pattern that every time you idiot(s) are left with no way to reply to the last point made you just start circlejerking each other. Just wanted to let you know all it does is make you look like fools and make your position appear indefensible.
You may continue with your wrist exercises.

>>17470
Nice Reddit spacing, you autist. Must feel bad that even labyrinthodont fossils disprove your fedora fairy tale. Why not tell us more about all your hypothetical and imaginary scenarios that explain the lack of physical evidence? Would love to hear more make-believe.

>>17472
>labyrinthodont fossils disprove your fedora fairy tale
I know you think if you just say it enough it will come true, but it really won't.

>>17472
Also, the level of hypocrisy is pretty impressive. "Lack of physical evidence", yet you retards keep citing scientific papers. I guess the only physical evidence worth counting is that which you can mangle and misinterpret into keeping your cognitive dissonance in check.

By all means, keep doing it. I assure you it's plainly obvious what you're doing.

>>17472
Lol, cope harder.

>>17472
>Why not tell us more about all your hypothetical and imaginary scenarios that explain the lack of physical evidence? Would love to hear more make-believe.
Why not tell us all about your verified and real scenario that explains the origins of life? I would love to hear your palpable explanation.

File 161935371768.jpg - (253.65KB , 829x1067 , Soy and fedora.jpg )

>>17468
When the bombardier beetle is threatened by another bug the beetle has a special method of defending itself and that is to squirt a boiling-hot solution at the enemy out of an aperture in its hind section. The heated liquid scalds its target. Specialized structures called secretory lobes make a very concentrated mixture of two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. The mixture is sent into a storage chamber called the collecting vesicle. The collecting vesicle is connected to a second compartment called the explosion chamber. The two compartments are kept separate from one another by a duct with a sphincter muscle. Attached to the explosion chamber are a number of small knobs called ectodermal glands. These secrete enzyme catalysts into the explosion chamber. When the beetle feels threatened it squeezes muscles surrounding the storage chamber while simultaneously relaxing the sphincter muscle. This forces the solution of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone to enter the explosion chamber where it mixes with the enzyme catalysts. The hydrogen peroxide rapidly decomposes into ordinary water and oxygen. The oxygen reacts with the hydroquinone to yield more water and a highly irritating chemical called quinone. These reactions release a large quantity of heat. The temperature of the solution rises to the boiling point and a portion vaporizes into steam. The steam and oxygen gas exert a great deal of pressure inside the explosion chamber. With the sphincter muscle closed, a channel leading outward from the beetle's body provides the only exit for the boiling mixture. Muscles surrounding the channel allow the steam jet to be directed at the source of danger.

How could such a complex biochemical system be gradually produced through Darwinian trial and error? There is no answer to this question at this point because chemically the bombardier beetle would have to study advanced molecular biology in order to get the precise mixture of chemicals without hurting itself.

>>17477

Thank you for proving >>17470 accurate.

>>17477
>We don't know how it happened, therefore it didn't happen.
Very convincing.

>There is no answer to this question at this point because chemically the bombardier beetle would have to study advanced molecular biology
What on earth are you even saying?

>>17479
>we don't know how it happened and therefore it did happen

The absolute state of Darwin fanboys.

>>17480
See: >>17470
This is the point where I ask you to provide an alternative theory and you go away for a few days to google a different argument.

...

Care to state you explanation with regards to the origins of life?

Youtube  >>17480
lol, this

>when you have no evidence and forgot to take your meds

>>17482
I can't help but notice you didn't provide an alternative explanation.

I'm waiting.

>>17480
I know you think if you find a single example of a species with traits that scientists have not yet figured out how they arose it'll somehow disprove all the other evidence they have found of how the traits of other species arose, but it really won't. Even if tomorrow an alien species were to land on the planet with the exact blueprints of how they engineered the bombardier beetle to be the way it is, it would not change what we know about the evolution of other species one iota.

Or maybe all you care about specifically is the origins of the bombardier beetle and nothing else. I don't know. I asked one of you morons point-blank was it is he disputes about evolutionary theory and he never answered the question.

>>17482
>that video

lmao

>>17485
When fedoras throw a temper tantrum because the fossil record doesn’t support their delusions. Labyrinthodont skeletons make them engage in whataboutism.

>>17486
Care to explain the origins of life?

...

Thought not.

>>17486
They can't stand critique, especially how many flaws their theory contains and that the evidence for it being true is extremely meager.

>>17488
I'm still waiting for one of you to offer an alternative theory but it seems you're fumbling in your pants and finding nothing.

So far in this thread no one has answered OP's assertion. What is remarkable is that he gave a thorough walkthrough of how complex protein synthesis is and yet none of the evolutionists have brought forth any good explanations or detailed answers. I would say that the debate is settled.

>>17492
>So far in this thread no one has answered OP's assertion.
His assertion was challenged in the very first post but he could offer no rebuttal and instead decided to change his argument. Something that has occured frequently throughout this thread.

It is hard to claim the debate has been settled when no debate has occured, the deniers are refusing to debate and are instead changing their argument every time they are challanged.

Furthermore not a single denier has been able to posit an alternative theory regarding the origins of life despite repeatedly being asked to provide.

>>17492
They have no arguments, that's why. They can't prove it because they have high school education.

>>17492
>>17493
It's completely irrelevant anyway. Abiogenesis has never been claimed to answer every possible question someone might have about the origin of life.

Abiogenesis: Given that we now know that life is, basically, a chemical process, it must have originally arisen spontaneously via purely physical and chemical means in a fluid environment, from basic chemical compounds that were not part of any living thing.
Some retard: Well, what about compound X right here?
Abiogenesis: I don't know. I'm still fairly new so I don't have a detailed description of the chemical paths that could give way to every known organic compound. Additionally, these are processes that happened billions of years ago at the molecular level and left little or no evidence, so I can only work from first principles and speculation of what the environment might have been like.
Some retard: You don't know, huh? Well, I can't believe something as complex as compound X could arise spontaneously. I think you're wrong.
Abiogenesis: That's an appeal to incredulity. Just because you personally find something unbelievable doesn't mean I'm wrong; if you want to prove me wrong then show me something I've said that doesn't match up with reality. If compound X didn't arise spontaneously then where did it come from?
Some retard: (Not listening anymore) I'm gonna go on the Internet to tell everyone how I disproved abiogenesis, durp-de-durp!

>>17494
Notice, again, how this denier skips over the response to re-enforce the proposition because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17494
This. All they can muster is 'just because'-arguments. It's like going back to kindergarten where you argue who has the strongest father without providing anything concrete to the discussion. If the opponent has an actual argument with a factual approach, like OP wrote here >>17409, they can always respond "because I said so". Childish mental gymnastics devoid of scientific merit.

>>17497
Notice, again, how this denier skips over the response to re-enforce the proposition because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17496
>>17498
lol, calm down, you sperg. go and watch some national geographic.

>>17499

Notice how this denier skips over the response and goes full ad hominem because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

File 161995474188.jpg - (236.48KB , 828x1066 , Fedora and soy.jpg )

>>17480
That's all there is to say according to Darwinists. They adhere to a rigidly "scientific" and gradualistic methodology but when you point out how complex nature is and that it defies the evolutionary theory they stand flabbergasted, repeating ad nauseam their conviction as true without having to provide evidence because it is true no matter what. As with abiogenesis, the chemical composition of the bombardier beetles defense mechanism is very intricate and all the components needed for it to work are impossible to produce step by step. I haven't seen any hard facts in this thread so far from all these defenders of Darwin.

>>17497
Yep, you got that right. I don't mind, though. All they can do is engage in sophistry and act smug because they have no real idea what they're talking about.

>>17501
>all the components needed for it to work are impossible to produce step by step
I'll provide evidence for the evolution of the bombardier beetle after you provide evidence for the quoted statement. Apparently you care very much about evidence, so I assume you must have lots of it to make such strong claims.

>>17501
Notice, again, how this denier skips over the response, blindly agrees with his cohort and proceeds to change the argument to avoid responding to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17501
Don’t worry, man. All they do is cope in this thread. Your reasoning is good while all the armchair biologists never provide a shred of evidence. Especially that proxy autist repeating the same post over and over agan.

>>17504
>Especially that proxy autist repeating the same post over and over agan.
You're more than welcome, and have in fact been encouraged, to respond to the rebuttals and provide an alternative theory but once again you choose to skip over the responses and go ad hominem because you have no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17506
Nice cope, autist.

>>17507
Notice how this denier skips over the response and goes full ad hominem because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17501
I agree with what you’re saying. The same happen to me whenever I try to argue with evolutionists IRL. It’s funny how they can only repeat NPC-tier buzzwords and are oblivious to any factual argument. It’s like they read a 5th grade biology book and believe they know everything.

>>17509
Notice, again, how this denier skips over the response to re-enforce the proposition because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17509
>It’s like they read a 5th grade biology book and believe they know everything.
So what you're saying is that you haven't even taken 5th-grade-level biology?

>>17511
Kek.

>>17511
He had to drop out of the 5th grade to keep his momma's mushroom farm from going under.

>>17501
Fedoras btfo!

Are these deniers the ones who also believe the world is flat or the ones who believe the world is hollow and filled with lizard-men?

I don't tend to hang out with crazy so I'm not sure which subset they belong to.

>>17514
How will they ever recover?

>>17516
They can’t. They can only seethe.

>>17516
>How will they ever recover?
>>17517
>They can’t. They can only seethe.

It's not about recovering or seething. It's more like they they cover their ears to anyone who corrects them and instead retreat into a circle-jerk with their fellow deniers who reinforce their mistaken beliefs and refuse to engage with anyone who attempts to correct them.

It's more a question of "are these people worth educating or should we just amuse ourselves at their expense by coaxing out their random musings they believe to be true?".

>>17517
>>17516
>>17514
>>17504
>>17501
>>17497
>>17494
>>17492
>>17488
>>17486
>>17485
>>17482
>>17469
>>17468
>>17463
>>17460
>>17453
>>17441
>>17436
>>17400
>>17388
All these guys preferred to jerk each other off in lieu of contributing anything to the discussion.

>>17519
It's hard to contribute something meaningful when you don't understand the subject.

File 162041908520.jpg - (124.71KB , 1105x561 , jerry.jpg )

>>17520
Expressing a stupid opinion would at least be sincere, rather than purely (I really don't have a better word to describe it) masturbatory.

>>17517
And cope.

>>17522
Don't forget dilate.

>>17523
Also, they consume copious amounts of soy.

>>17522
>>17523
>>17524
MY jerryinstincts are telling me this is the same guy IP hoping to pat himself on the back...

>>17525
Well, yes.

>>17521
>Rick and Morty

Soy boy: the animated fedora story.

>>17525
Projecting.

The discourse has been at this puerile level for about two weeks now. I don't know about the other guy, but I'm not particularly interested in arguing with children. I'm just going to stop checking this thread.

>>17529
>The discourse has been at this puerile level for about two weeks now.
Check the thread, there hasn't been any discourse:
>The deniers make a claim,
>The believers refute the claim,
>The deniers attempt to change the subject or hurl ad hominem insults.
You can't have a discussion when one party refuses to discuss the point they raise and avoids (or is unable to provide) a rebuttal when challenged.

>>17530
>refute

lel. No arguments whatsoever. OP has pretty solid arguments while you offer nothing. You think evolution is true because it fits your a priori narrative. Cope harder.

>>17531
Then perhaps you could refute the rebuttal rather than going ad hominem like the last guy (and you just) did?

>>17532
You haven’t even proven OP’s original post wrong. You just say muh mystical, unsubstantiated force created life. That’s not a refutation.

>>17533
>You just say muh mystical, unsubstantiated force created life.
Nice strawman you got there. But I'll entertain your ventriloquism:
If a mystical, unsubstantiated force didn't create life then how did it come about?

This is the point where you attempt to change the subject or hurl ad hominem insults.

>>17534
He's right, though. You have lost the argument. OP's point still stands. You claim there is a neblous force that assembled the first proto-cell and refuse to prove it. You insert a claim without any scientific value and expect your opponent to prove your fantasy wrong when in reality you're the one who needs to provide evidence. If that's how you think a debate works then you clearly live in your own isolated bubble.

Also, in order to prove Darwinism right you need to explain how this proto-cell started replicating itself through gradual steps, like how one protein makes another and so forth, because that's the only Darwinian framework. Your argument is basically abracadabra without further explanation. So either you're the worst troll ever or you admitted defeat long ago and try to divert from your lack of substance.

>>17535
>He's right, though. You have lost the argument. OP's point still stands. You claim there is a neblous force that assembled the first proto-cell and refuse to prove it.
Not at all, OP's claim was that it's "impossible to imagine how ordered linear polymers, amino acids and nucleotides could be assembled. A complex system like a cell cannot be gradually achieved because of its many complex and perfectly coadapted proteins." He's basically saying he cannot conceive how order can emerge from chaos and that the cell must have either been deliberately designed and constructed or spontaneously emerged into existence fully developed.

The first point was responded to and disproved in the first post at which point the argument was changed and so far no alternative theory has been offered to explain the second point.

If you could provide a compelling argument to explain the second point you would have grounds to disprove the first point and by extension the entire argument for evolution but so far no body has been able or willing to posit an alternative theory regarding the origins of life.

>>17536
>disproved in the first post

No, not at all. You claim there is a force behind the development of the cell but have no evidence for it. You haven't proven anything let alone disproved anything. The impossibility of the emergence of the proto-cell lies in the fact that no one, ever, has proven how gradual steps produced it. There is, literally, no evidence that can prove abiogenesis feasible. Your "argument" is abracadabra. First of all not realistic, because you have no evidence for it and second of all, it's a cope argument because you grasp at straws since you have no evidence in the first place. Why should your opponent prove you wrong when you didn't put forth anything at all?

If abiogenesis happened then you should be able to show us how without resorting to abracadabra.

>>17537
Good post.

>>17537
>Why should your opponent prove you wrong when you didn't put forth anything at all?
I think you've confused our positions. OP opened with the claim it is impossible for cells to develop under natural circumstances.

In general, the person or party making an argument has the burden of proof to justify it (whether they argue that something is true or false). This applies, in particular, to situations where someone challenges a prevailing status quo or a well-established idea. The opposing side doesn’t have a burden of proof until evidence has been provided for the original argument. However, once the evidence has been provided, it’s up to the opposing side to show if the evidence is insufficient.

So until evidence has been provided that life has occured through other circumstances the burden on proof is on you. Only once that evidence has been provided is it on us to put forth anything at all.

>>17538
Shut up Jerry.

>>17539
I think you should go and visit a therapist because you suffer from chronic psycopeathy.

Good thread, OP.

>>17542
Agreed. Darwins theory is a hoax.

>>17541
>>17542
>>17544
Notice, again, one ad hominem and two full-blown Jerries who are incapable of answering the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17545
Calm down, schizo. Take your meds and cope.

>>17546
More ad hominems, why don't you try answering the rebuttal instead.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17537
>There is, literally, no evidence that can prove abiogenesis feasible.
Premise: All life is made of chemicals.
Premise: Chemical processes happen even in the absence of life.
Premise: There was a time when life didn't exist and life currently exists.
Conclusion: It is plausible that life began to exist by purely chemical processes.

If you want to show that the conclusion is not necessarily true all you need to do is show that any of the premises is false or that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. If you can't do that then it is necessarily true that abiogenesis is plausible, and thus if anyone wants to argue that it didn't happen or that it couldn't have happened, the burden of proof is on them.

>If abiogenesis happened then you should be able to show us how
Whether abiogenesis happened is independent of our ability to know how it happened. Do you honestly believe everything that happens in the universe always leaves a record that it happened?

>>17548
>plausible

So what you really mean is that you got no evidence and rely on faith alone? Good to see you are honest about it.

>>17549
Notice, again, how it has been made abundantly clear the denier has the burden of proof yet he fails to provide any.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17549
Uh-huh. Why are you quoting the word "plausible" as if to mock my usage of it? You were the one who said that "there's no evidence that can prove abiogenesis feasible". My response points out how what we know from other fields implies that it is, in fact, feasible.

I guess you dislike that the only claim scientists make is that abiogenesis is plausible, and not that it definitely happened. It's so annoying how people don't have to make the claims that are easiest for you to refute, huh?

>>17549
I think you forget that evolutionists don’t have to provide evidence because their ”rational and scientific” beliefs can be supported by mere faith. If they say their conviction is true, without any strong, conclusive evidence found in nature, then it is perfectly justified and needs no further explanation. A ”scientific” belief is clearly self-evident.

>>17552
I think you forget that you're the one making the claim that evolution is false and the burden of proof is on your to provide evidence life developed/was created under alternative circumstances. So far you have been unable to provide any.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17553
OP already explained his position and why abiogenesis is impossible, you autist. Keep spewing your repetitive mantra and seethe.

>>17552
To be fair: evolution is just a theory. You can't disprove something that isn't proven to begin with.

>>17554
And I've explained to OP why he was wrong and he has yet to offer a rebuttal, so...

>>17555
>You can't disprove something that isn't proven to begin with.
Well, then you just don't know what "disprove" means. When you disprove something you're proving its logical negation. If something is proven it can't also be disproven, since it would mean it's been proven to be both true and false. In fact, you can only disprove unproven statements.

Secondly, there's no such thing as "proven" in science. Only scientifically illiterate think there is. A scientific theory is either disproven, or not yet disproven. Proving things is the job of mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and philosophers.
The best that can be said about a theory is that it has passed more or less testing without being shown to be false. Evolution is right up there with relativity and thermodynamics on the number of times it's failed to be refuted over a number of diverse fields.

>>17556
You really are an aspie, aren’t you? Can’t detect irony, obviously.

>>17557
I was being ironic, too.

>>17557
Once again, the denier goes go full ad hominem because he has no answer to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17557
This whole thread reeks of Aspergers. Rick and Morty references, fanatical adherence to science, unable to grasp irony etc. What’s even funnier is that he admits that science doesn’t prove anything. His cognitive dissonance must be massive, I imagine. It’s like you enter a void of autism where you’re so depressed that the only thing you can do in the morning is watch cartoons and Christopher Hitchens speeches on YouTube.

>>17560
Whine some more. It's not going to make you any less wrong.

>>17560
>I was being wrong ironically.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence.

>>17561
lol, angry aspie.

Evolution is a great story. Not believable, but a great story.

>>747485
>Evolution is a great story. Not believable, but a great story.
There are better stories. But none are as belivable.

>>17565
>>17566
Believability is a matter of opinion. That a person can't believe a statement says absolutely nothing about the truth of the statement itself.

>>17569
Nice brainlet cope.

https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/stories/sciences-under-discussed-problem-with-confirmation-bias/
>Research scientists are under pressure to get published in the most prominent journals possible, and their chances increase considerably if they find positive (thus “impactful”) results. For journals, the appeal is clear, writes Philip Ball for Nautilus: they’ll make a bigger splash if they discover some new truth, rather than if they simply refuted old findings. The reality is that science rarely produces data so appealing.
>The quest for publication has led some scientists to manipulate data, analysis, and even their original hypotheses. In 2014, John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor conducting researching on research (or ‘meta-research’), found that across the scientific field, “many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated.” Ioannidis, who estimates that 85 percent of research resources are wasted, claims that the frequency of positive results well exceeds how often one should expect to find them

Evolutionary theory is no exception. 99% of all the findings confirming it is biased.

>>17571
>Evolutionary theory is no exception. 99% of all the findings confirming it is biased.
Might want to re-read that article, it applies to "new" discoveries that generate headlines as opposed to discoveries that refute existing theories. There's two flaws there:
1 - Evolution is not a new discovery
2 - If someone had evidence that disproved evolution it would be pretty monumental and no doubt generate headlines.

There's also the paradox that the article is saying 85% of research is falsified and if that's the case whats to say the article itself isn't falsified and 85% of research isn't falsified.

Not that I expect you to address any of this after all:

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17571
First, I agree, the current ecosystem in which science is done is fucked. But, it's basically an inevitable outcome in a world where it's necessary to allocate finite resources and therefore to measure researcher productivity, unless one is willing to accept that such measurement is impossible (which it is).
Do you have a proposal for a fact-finding system that would not be subject to the same problems as the current one?

Second, you posted that as if it was as contradiction to my statement, but I don't see how it is. Would you mind explaining the logical relationship between "believability and truth are unrelated" and "the current research system encourages corrupt and unrigorous behavior and thus reduces the reliability of the results thus obtained"?

>99% of all the findings confirming [evolutionary theory] is biased.
Third, what's the source on that figure?

Fourth, I'm surprised. You're implying that the remaining 1% is unbiased and therefore trustworthy, and that therefore you reject those findings for unscientific reasons?

Fifth, which 1% is that, and how do those findings stack up against findings supporting alternative theories explaining the origin of species? More to the point, is the research putting forward those theories held to a higher standard of rigor than the research being conducted at universities etc.? I suspect not, but I could be wrong. Maybe there's a magnate out there with infinite resources paying their own staff of researchers to find out the truth and report it, no matter what it is.

>>17539
>well-established idea
>idea

Exactly. An idea is not a fact and therefore it becomes a strong opinion and not an irrefutable truth. Get back to me when you've actually seen a cell randomly assemble itself without any assistance from humans.

File 162220079095.jpg - (310.29KB , 1600x900 , external-content_duckduckgo_com.jpg )

>>17574
>Get back to me when you've actually seen a cell randomly assemble itself without any assistance from humans.
Did you read the full post? I mean, you quoted it. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence life arose via some other mechanism. Only once that evidence, provided it is sufficient, are we in a position to retort or provide stronger evidence for our position.


I'll try simplify how this works:

Imagine we each have a race car;
My car has a top speed of 180mph.
Your car has a top speed of 120mph.

My car is faster. You may be be able to point out flaws in my car, but until you have a car that can keep go as fast as mine there is no burden to correct those flaws or improve my car in any way, the burden is on you to make a car that can go faster if you want to challenge mine.

Evidence and Reason = speed, the faster car is the one that is right.

>>17574
You're talking to neckbeard aspies, man. Give it a rest. They believe anything, even without proof, as long as you talk about le epic Reddit tier science.

>>17574
>irrefutable truth
There's no such thing as an irrefutable truth in empirical science. Perhaps you're confusing science with philosophy.

>Get back to me when you've actually seen a cell randomly assemble itself without any assistance from humans.
Nah. It's cool, you can believe what you want and have whatever absurd standards of evidence you like. Just know that making ridiculous demands is insufficient to disprove a hypothesis.

That aside...
>a cell randomly assemble itself
Define "randomly".
Are you referring to the movement? Abiogenesis relies on the Brownian motion of molecules in a fluid medium. That's not more random than what happens inside a living cell. It's not like a cell can guide a molecule from the place it's synthesized to the place where it needs to react to continue whatever process it's part of.
Are you referring to the chemical reactions involved? Again, those are not random. Abiogenesis doesn't require, say, two stable molecules to react with each other to form a third molecule that contains an element not found in either original molecule.

Perhaps you "spontaneously" rather than "randomly"? So you're applying the teleological argument from intelligent design to abiogenesis? "Complex things in everyday experience are purposefully designed and manufactured, and will not ever assemble themselves spontaneously. A cell is much more complex than these things. Therefore it is impossible for a cell to assemble itself spontaneously."
Am I getting this right?

http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php

cope harder naturalists. My amoeba will travel universe 1000 times before you can even get a usable molecule. Let's say that your multi-computing system of universe has intelligently came together to create a system resembling fold@home where they succesfully perform a protein fold. Now, for creating the simplest living organism you will need 300 of those. Okay, okay. Someone just magically got all of them into earth and also provided you the enviorement needed for this. You are lucky because if this intelligent system to provide you all these didn't exist my amoeba would have transported the entire galaxy from the start and the end point of the universe one atom by one. Okay, but proteins are only part of the story when you consider any actual cell. Remember, you are going to have carbonhydrates, complex sugars, nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, lipids and a whole variety of different chemicals which jointly constitute a living cell. All these bits of pieces have to be brought into the same micro environment at the same moment of time. They must me assembled and organised into the network of molecular machines.

>cope harder naturalists.
I don't know what you're smoking but it's certainly not natural.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17584
Mathematically an amoeba transporting the whole universe an atom at a time if it had a bridge that goes from the start of the galaxy to the end is more realistic than proteins randomly folding, DNA's randomly happening through mutations, RNA randomly happining, all these chemicals coming together to create molecular machines.

Also, it is more logical than thinking random mutations and nature deciding what would be the best step for me to take, inheriting my praxis biologically to my children, after inheriting those praxis using it to form a better body, all the intermediate forms disapperaing with most of the time no fossil records, and thinking that it doesn't happen anymore because animals are just perfect as they are now.

Historically speaking, the evolution theory doesn't also answers why while some animals remained still for a really long time, the other kinds has changed from a fox to horse. Or a bird to completely different kinds. Just randomly putting lines between dots and then believing is because some people told you to believe that this is the whole picture is idiocy. I can't give you an exact alternative for the theory, the story of life and humans is not something you can rush into. Unlike you, I consider the case logically to decide whether if it's bullshit or not. If you don't believe in pure maths, and also uncapable of looking at the history of so called evoluted animals, can't even use your logic to think why the other species were not effected by this great power of adaptations, then you are just circle jerking dude. If people don't insist on circle jerking like you do, I believe that in the future they will conclude that the Evolution theory was indeed wrong, or incomplete.

>>17585
>I believe that in the future they will conclude that the Evolution theory was indeed wrong

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17583
What the fuck is this? I'm not going to buy a book to check references and calculations.

1. We have no idea how large the universe is or even if it's finite, nor how common life is in it. If the universe is infinite, it could very well be the case that single instances of life are separated by distances many times larger than our observable universe.
2.
>After carefully measuring the tolerance to change in particular enzymes, Axe estimated that only one in 1074 chains of 150 amino acids would fold and be functional. This implies that you would have to search through 1074 chains of that length to find a single useful protein.
This assumes that a search cannot be made incrementally. If you need to find a 300-digit number and all your feedback function tells you is whether your guess is correct or not, that will indeed take you somewhere on the order of 10^300 guesses. If instead your feedback function tells you how many digits of your guess are correct, there's an algorithm capable of finding the answer in about 3000 guesses.
I'm not a chemist, but I'm not sure this is a valid assumption, and I don't see any justification for it. Is a partially folding protein or something along those lines truly completely useless? Right now there are viable self-replicating misfolded proteins known as prions. Is it unthinkable that life could have started as something like that?

>>17585
>all the intermediate forms disapperaing with most of the time no fossil records
Do you mean "all the intermediate forms", or do you mean that we don't have a fossil for every single individual that has ever existed? Because we certainly do have fossils of intermediate forms for all known lineages (that's how we know them).
A reminder: all species, including current ones, are intermediate forms.

>the evolution theory doesn't also answers why while some animals remained still for a really long time, the other kinds has changed from a fox to horse
Yes, it does. See punctuated equilibrium.

>If you don't believe in pure maths
You're going to find fewer stronger advocates for mathematics and formal methods than me, but you can't learn about the real world by studying mathematics. The origin of species is not deducible from any axiomatic system.

>If people don't insist on circle jerking like you do, I believe that in the future they will conclude that the Evolution theory was indeed wrong, or incomplete.
Let's imagine that the truth of the origin of species is North, yes? You have one pointing in one direction yelling "North is that way!", another guy yells "no, it's that way!" and points the opposite way, another guy points in a third unrelated direction, and yet another guy is pointing up. Now, evolutionary theory comes up to you and says "based on all the available facts, we've concluded that North is actually that way". Which way do you think current evolutionary theory is pointing?
* Exact North.
* North-northwest.
* West.
* West-southwest.
* South.
Personally, I would be extremely surprised to learn that it's pointing West or worse. At the very least I would expect Northwest, and in my opinion it's likely pointing North-northwest or better. To me evolutionary theory makes perfect sense as an abstract idea and is well-supported by evidence. I think its major problems are relatively minor, such as finding evolutionary explanations for current features of a species. Such explanations are usually unfalsifiable.

What do you think?

>>17585
Proteins do not fold at random, they fold hydrophobically

If living fossils are evidence against evolution (They're not, but I'll play along) then non-living fossils and extant organisms are evidence for evolution

>>17586
Go ahead and believe that materials burn because of the flogiston wojak.

>>17587
>If instead your feedback function tells you how many digits of your guess are correct
Wow, I didn't know that basic chemical chains of amino acids came default with an error correction function that would tell them how to come together to fold better. That's why I call it coping, let's be real. When the probability of it happening is impossible, naturalists comes with an algorithm they designed and say, look this is how the universe computed the error occuring and fixed it. The same applies for DNA, they again pull up that algorithm that has no natural trait on it. Even if we assume the universe indeed had that much of a great algorithm to reduce errors happening there are still tons of other things to gether around and put them in the right place at the exact time.

>there are viable self-replicating misfolded proteins known as prions
Thinking that, is even more dangerous than thinking that the protein chain randomly happened. Prions could break the body systems. If the chain got hit by a prion it would carry the danger of transmitting neurodegenerative diseases once the living being shapes. And again, you would need at least 300 foldable proteins to create a single living cell. Prions would just cancel those 300 foldable proteins and cause them trying to create a correct chain again.

>Because we certainly do have fossils of intermediate forms
Yes, such as Ancient Whale Jawbone.With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.
Or Pakicetus that evolved into Right Whale that is 9000 times bigger than him. But in the meanwhile we do not see great runner Pakicetus anywhere, i guess they must have got into water and none decided to lurk around on land. Let's assume so.
What about Ambulocetus? Putting it in lineages without having any basis for the claim that it swam in water or lived like an amphibian. It does not have the traits the other whales had such as all incisors of whales are parallel with the tooth row, medial lambdoidal crest of whales is semicircular, nasnals of whales are retracted - the rostum.
Phil Gingerich has stated in one of his interviews that he thought Rodhocetus had a tail, but now he thinks otherwise. But this was put in the lineages anyways.
Also we have human skull fossils dating back to 2.8 million years. They resemble our skulls pretty much. There were fossils dating back to 1.5 million years which they were supposed to be our ancestors. With this discovery, we have indeed seen that some of our lineages were wrong and new fossil findings can change our understanding of lineages.
As I said, there are dots, you find the dots that suits you well and try connect them without thinking much about the biological mechanisms and complexity of living beings.

>A reminder: all species, including current ones, are intermediate forms
But some of the animal forms are so perfect that they don't need to change. They are the final forms, that's why they didn't evolved lately. Even though they go through hell everyday such as ants. They are having fricking world wars everyday but they still have the same body, they did not produce anything useful despite having that much of a life. Or they couldn't create better tactics to outperform enemy. Or during all these times bats couldn't evolve into something more useful, foxes became horses but hunting dogs or other animals that has to run more than horses are still the same. Is it because of their skeletons? No, becuase the ancestor of horses resembles current animals pretty much.

>punctuated equilibrium
Oh yes, the species becomes whole kind of different life forms after millions of year evolution leaving no fossils behind, doing a hard jump. I want to know based on what people think that this is true.

>To me evolutionary theory makes perfect sense as an abstract idea and is well-supported by evidence
I've already stated my ideas. Of course it has some evidence fitting itself. But I think it a huge confirmation bias, becuase we don't have an alternative theory yet, it might be accepted as an idea rather than the ground truth. People will understand that our understanding regarding species was wrong in the future. Darwin was wrong and had little understanding regarding the environment due to limitations he had, now we have a better understanding of so called "the fight to live" and what "natural selection" is. The nature isn't as ruthless as Darwin predicted. The only reason he was able to publish his ideas was thanks to Alfred Russel, people worked on classifying fossils even before those two. And Darwin relied on Russel and published his ideas. His ideas were bought well, and covered the change in some fossils logically. But as I said there are major contradictions when you look at the theory as a whole.

>>17588

Yes, the hard task is to put together a foldable chain.
>then non-living fossils and extant organisms are evidence for evolution
This makes absolutely no sense. Look at the history of extinct animals, there are so many that if someone wanted to believe evolution theory hundred years on from now, and we had not documented them he would put those in his lineage and try find an explanation to them disappearing.

>>17589
>I didn't know that basic chemical chains of amino acids came default with an error correction function that would tell them how to come together to fold better.
Matter tends to converge towards lower energy and more stable configurations. It's entirely possible (or at least I've not seen the demonstration that it's impossible) that primitive versions of current proteins existed that were for one reason or another in less-folded configurations than modern ones. If you want to argue that they'd be useless then you need to provide evidence for that.

>Thinking that, is even more dangerous than thinking that the protein chain randomly happened. Prions could break the body systems. If the chain got hit by a prion it would carry the danger of transmitting neurodegenerative diseases once the living being shapes.
What the fuck are you talking about? Neurodegenerative disease in a protolife molecular machine? Between the origin of life and the development of nervous systems there's something like 3 billion years.

>Yes, such as Ancient Whale Jawbone.With this new fossil [...]
Honestly, I'm confused about what your point is.

>As I said, there are dots, you find the dots that suits you well and try connect them without thinking much about the biological mechanisms and complexity of living beings.
I don't think paleontologists are able to decide which species they'll find fossils for. I would assume they find whatever they can and the try to piece together the puzzle based on morphology and location. Is your complaint that we don't have time machines to go observe the specimen while it lived?

>Even though they go through hell everyday such as ants. They are having fricking world wars everyday but they still have the same body, they did not produce anything useful despite having that much of a life. Or they couldn't create better tactics to outperform enemy. Or during all these times bats couldn't evolve into something more useful,
"Gravity is bullshit! Look, I let go of this balloon and it falls up! What's the deal, Einstein?!"
Do you understand how natural selection works? Species don't develop traits that might make their lives easier, they develop traits that will increase their ability to survive to reproductive age and spread their genes. Period. If you're going to deny evolution, it would help if you at least understood its claims.

>foxes became horses but hunting dogs or other animals that has to run more than horses are still the same.
Yeah, sure, just invent whatever taxonomy you want. "Humans developed compound eyes and the ability to sense light polarization when they became mantis shrimp, but worms can't figure out how to grow legs??"
Again, if you want to deny evolution you should first study evolution. You have quite a bit to learn if you think ungulates and carnivorans are overlapping clades.

>People will understand that our understanding regarding species was wrong in the future.
I'm wondering what you base this on, when you yourself admit there's no alternative theory.
(Actually there are a few. It's just that they don't line up with the evidence whatsoever.)

>Darwin was wrong and had little understanding regarding the environment due to limitations he had, now we have a better understanding of so called "the fight to live" and what "natural selection" is. The nature isn't as ruthless as Darwin predicted. The only reason he was able to publish his ideas was thanks to Alfred Russel, people worked on classifying fossils even before those two. And Darwin relied on Russel and published his ideas. His ideas were bought well, and covered the change in some fossils logically.
Dude, you do understand that research on evolution didn't stop when Darwin died, right? There's been nearly 150 years of research since then. At this point what Darwin wrote or didn't write or why is basically irrelevant. His writings were the inception of an idea. Behind him came a legion of researchers that worked continuously to correct and refine it.

The obsession evolution deniers have with Darwin is fascinating to me. Is there a public figure producing this bullshit rhetoric? I know creationist sources do it, but I wouldn't want to indirectly call you retarded, so I'm assuming you heard it someplace else.

>But as I said there are major contradictions when you look at the theory as a whole.
You've mentioned a few contentions you have with the placement of specific fossils in specific lineages. Hardly anything that would shatter the theory as a whole, even if you're right and those fossils belong in different lineages.

>>17589
Maximum cope [Expanded Edition], minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17576
This. Talking to armchair scientists that browse Wikipedia is pointless.

>>17592
I love aspies. They're all talk and have no evidence. It's like listening to a parrot repeat whatever Richard Dawkins say.

>>17590
>If you want to argue that they'd be useless then you need to provide evidence for that.
Nah, you need to provide evidince that they had such properites, you are the one who believes they magically knew that.
>Neurodegenerative disease in a protolife molecular machine?
If a protolife molecular machine occured thanks to this random coactions, this would fuck the probability of having an actual living being by reproduction. As I said in my previous post it would also break the chains that were done correctly. This is shooting at your own foot man, don't do that.
>Honestly, I'm confused about what your point is.
Let's draw this fossil however we want since we think it is part of this lineage, oh fuck, it doesn't have tails! Anyways, let's say that it has, or let's say this one had legs because it must have evolved from XXXX. We hab so much evidence, believe us wojak.
> Is your complaint that we don't have time machines to go observe the specimen while it lived?
No, my problem is that there is a huge confirmation bias. Why the hell are you emposing a small part of my post and make yourself believe that I meant it? And only fossils are not enough to make the theory valid. It's even more cancerous when people say that evolution theory is the grand truth of how life originated.
>Species don't develop traits that might make their lives easier, they develop traits that will increase their ability to survive to reproductive age and spread their genes.
Shut the fuck up, fishes evolved because they changed their environment, humans evolved from its primate roots because they got out of the forest etc... These did not occur becuase they needed this to survive. And most of the case specific species of ants can't do anything when they are attacked by another species of ants. This has been going for ages now, but we don't see them evolving even though they can't live, save their eggs, can't secure their food... The nature can give octopuses the ability to change pigment of their skin perfectly to hide from predators but nearly the same kind of species doesn't get it. Oh wow, they surely didn't need it, we can get something as complex as ability to fully change my pigment but other species that live in the same nature as me, has the same habits as me can't do. Or we don't have any observable evidince regarding a life form turning into a different one.
>You have quite a bit to learn if you think ungulates and carnivorans are overlapping clades.
I wasn't even talking about that classification, now what, the nature behave differently on different clades? Damn, natural selection and mechanisms of evolution must have stopped for some clades. That doesn't make any sense, I don't discuss how naturalists try to put their nonsense ideas together and justify their theory, I am discussing the main logic behind.
>I'm wondering what you base this on, when you yourself admit there's no alternative theory.
People literally believed that matters burns because of flogiston for a really long time, these were top tiers scientist of their times. The real science is not based on le reddit circlejerk.
>The obsession evolution deniers have with Darwin is fascinating to me. Is there a public figure producing this bullshit rhetoric?
Darwin was wrong, becuase he had limited knowledge regarding nature and was able to publish his ideas because of the support he had from other people who did their best trying to understand how the life originated. Before Darwin, there were years of research made on that topic as well, some people even took the concept further and talked about how minerals evolved. Darwin imagined things and tried to explain his ideas by again imagining how the nature works. That was years ago. But today we understand the natural selection doesn't work the way darwin predicted, also the limited fossil history darwin had was wrong. He wasn't circle jerking, you are. Such as saying that different clades works differently because I imagine them to be so. Or the fossils evolves into something different by doing a hard jump, and after that they won't evolve much. These can't be explained logically either. You just imagine them being so, the one who should come up with evidince is you, not me. People has already given enough reasons to be skeptical about evolution theory on this thread already. Gatekeeping won't let you out of this situation.

Science doesn't work you want it to, anyone with common logic could understand what kind of bullshit most of these classifications are. Oh,
>you need to study eeewooolution to deny it

No, I don't.

>>17592
>>17593
Notice, again, how these Jerries skips over the response and circle-jerk each other because they are incapable of responding to the rebuttal in an intelligent manner.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17595
What's the matter with you soy? Just go and post I fucking love schience on reddit. Maybe Dawkin would join your circle as well.

File 162246033948.jpg - (30.82KB , 474x678 , external-content_duckduckgo_com.jpg )

>>17594
I understand your position, even if I disagree, it's one based on the merits of science when lacking hard evidence. Proof is provided by hard evidence and through deductive reasoning where hard evidence is lacking. No matter how you cut the mustard the vast majority of evidence and reason supports evolution. And even if you are claiming the evidence/reasoning is wrong across a wide spectrum of contributors and we take your statements at face value there is still overwhelming evidence to support evolution being the correct theory.

200 years ago creationism was the prevailing theory, I'm sure there were doubters before-hand but it wasn't until Darwin proposed a theory supported by evidence and reason that people began to take it seriously.

You may be right, evolution may be a lie, but so far you have offered no theory, evidence or reason to support a new paradigm.

>>17596
Notice how this denier skips over the response and goes full ad hominem because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17594
>Nah, you need to provide evidince that they had such properites
Once again I find myself needing to explain the concept of burder of proof.
You posted a link to an article giving a counter-argument to abiogenesis that relies on the improbability of the random assemblage of certain proteins. My own counter-argument to that argument is that the author is making several assumptions and arbitrarily assigning them truth values. For example "the universe is finite", "life, even in its simplest forms, is outright impossible without these proteins", "the only way for these proteins to come about is either by conscious design or by entirely random chance". To refute the argument I don't need to prove that the universe is finite nor that any particular narrative of abiogenesis happened or even is possible. I just need to show that the author failed to provide the necessary evidence and thus the argument is vacuous. Obviously that does not prove anything about abiogenesis or its plausibility.

>If a protolife molecular machine occured thanks to this random coactions, this would fuck the probability of having an actual living being by reproduction.
I'd say it's quite probable the very first protocells were not capable of entirely assembling offspring without the aid of randomly assembled molecules in the environment. Imagine a precursor to DNA enclosed in a protective membrane that contains just enough information to encode its own duplication but cannot encode how to build the molecule that assembles its clone. In a way, this is how viruses work.

>Let's draw this fossil however we want since we think it is part of this lineage, oh fuck, it doesn't have tails! Anyways, let's say that it has, or let's say this one had legs because it must have evolved from XXXX. We hab so much evidence, believe us wojak.
Don't pretend that evolution being valid hinges on the genealogical placement of fossilized toes, and nothing else.

>And only fossils are not enough to make the theory valid.
Who ever said it was? How about where the fossil was found (both geographically on which stratum), its age, the geographical distribution of current species, geology (particularly plate tectonics), and genetics?

>It's even more cancerous when people say that evolution theory is the grand truth of how life originated.
Only people who don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis say that.

>These did not occur becuase they needed this to survive.
You don't think amphibious fish moving into land provided a survival advantage? Any time there's an untapped ecological niche, it's going to be advantageous for any species that can move into it, because it's going to encounter little competition for resources.
That aside, selective pressures aren't the only drivers of evolution. If an environment is such that a mutation neither decreases nor increases a species' ability to survive then it may remain.

>And most of the case specific species of ants can't do anything when they are attacked by another species of ants. This has been going for ages now, but we don't see them evolving even though they can't live, save their eggs, can't secure their food...
Evolution isn't magic, dude. The existence of guns doesn't imply future people are going to develop bullet-proof skin. If something is an existential threat to a species, the species is either able or unable to adapt. If it's unable it will either become extinct or disappear from the niche where the threat exists. If it's able to adapt then it will.

>The nature can give octopuses the ability to change pigment of their skin perfectly to hide from predators but nearly the same kind of species doesn't get it. Oh wow, they surely didn't need it, we can get something as complex as ability to fully change my pigment but other species that live in the same nature as me, has the same habits as me can't do.
What part of "random mutation" is difficult to understand? You say "nature can give" as if evolutionary theory stated there's a magical fairy named Evolution that after careful consideration decides to give an animal a trait that will help it survive.
That's not how it works. Imagine for example that chimpanzees developed the ability to see X-rays. Should humans expect to also expect to develop that ability?

>Or we don't have any observable evidince regarding a life form turning into a different one.
Well, what about penicillin-resistant bacteria? Yeah, go ahead, say it. Say "but they're still bacteria!" "But they're still dogs!"

>I wasn't even talking about that classification
Let me state it more explicitly, then: foxes did not become horses. Miacis, a sort of weasely cat-dog, lived about 50 million years ago and is not an ancestor of horses.

>now what, the nature behave differently on different clades? Damn, natural selection and mechanisms of evolution must have stopped for some clades. That doesn't make any sense
Tip: if you care about a discussion and you think the other person has said something nonsensical, try and see if there's some interpretation from which what they said make sense. If you can't find one, ask them to clarify it. Don't assume the other person is just stupid and their brain works improperly.

>People literally believed that matters burns because of flogiston for a really long time, these were top tiers scientist of their times.
Setting aside that this is an inductive reasoning, you can be saying one of two things:
* People believe wrong ideas that are later replaced by equally wrong ideas that are wrong in different ways.
* People believe wrong ideas that are later replaced by less-wrong ideas, always approching but never reaching complete truth.

The first interpretation implies science is pointless because truth is completely unapprochable even in principle. Even if evolution was replaced, its replacement would be equally wrong. I don't think this is what you're saying.

The second interpretation does not necessarily imply evolution will definitely be replaced. It could be that the reason evolution best fits with the available data is because species actually did evolve more or less the way the way we think they did, with perhaps minor corrections here and there. Fossils can be misidentified, the order of closely-living specimens can be inverted, etc.
If this is what you're saying then your answer is insufficient. You're not saying you evolution might or could be replaced in the future (which I would agree with), you're saying it will be replaced. So I ask again: why do you think so?

>Darwin [...]
Darwin isn't Moses and On the Origin of Species isn't the bible. I'm not concerned with what Darwin wrote.

>People has already given enough reasons to be skeptical about evolution theory on this thread already.
I don't think I've let a single objection go unanswered, and nearly every time I've done so the other party has gone silent.

>Gatekeeping won't let you out of this situation.
Who's gatekeeping? I was asking out of curiosity. I might want to hear the arguments directly from the source.

>No, I don't.
Yeah, you do. Everything you've said here is more than enough reason to think so.

>>17589
It means you can't have it one way and not the other. Fossils are not just haphazardly thrown into categories arbitrarily

>>17595
lol, aspie rage.

>>17601
Notice how this denier goes full ad hominem because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17602
Calm down, aspie.

>>17603
You should try responding with intelligence instead of ad hominems and maximum cope some time...

>>17604
Maybe you should provide evidence for abiogenesis happening in nature instead of your aspie mantra in every post, lmao.

>>17605
We've been through this already, the burden of proof is on you. You need to provide an alternative theory supported by evidence and deductive reasoning if you mean to challenge the prevailing.

>>17606
Without evidence you have nothing, you aspie. If you can't show us how abiogenesis works then it's just an opinion. Cry more.

>>17607
I don't think you understand how science works. You may think you do but I'm pretty sure you don't.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17608
Neither do you, obviously. Abiogenesis isn't proven, it's an idea. An idea without evidence is just empty words. Refuting something that isn't backed up by proof is laughable.

This:

>>17607
>>17609

is a frequent tactic employed by science deniers such as Kent Hovind and his ilk. They know they have no case for their own hypothesis, so all they can do is try to equate science with any random idea clanking around some jack-off's brain. The usual way to do this is to disregard the evidence they can't refute and to point out any institutional faults they can find in the research community which are intrinsic to any human enterprise, as well as invent their own and try to pass them off as factual. They use this constructed false equivalency to justify to themselves ignoring the facts that make them uncomfortable.

In this case, this denier doesn't even have the balls to tell us what he actually believes, as if we're so stupid we don't know already. He thinks he's pulling a fast one by dodging questions and ignoring arguments, when in fact what he's doing is completely transparent.

I've said this at least twice and now three times: abiogenesis is not considered a theory by scientists. It's a hypothesis relating to molecular-scale events that happened in the very early Earth, as as such it's likely that we'll never have enough evidence to know what actually happened. Pointing out that there's not enough evidence to conclude anything make anyone who understands what abiogenesis is go "duh! We know there's not enough, that's why research continues."

However, even in this embryonic stage abiogenesis is a much better explanation for why life exists than any other hypothesis, given everything else we know about the world. "Better" meaning that it explains as much of observable reality while making the fewest additional assumptions. This is an inescapable fact that anyone who tries to deny it needs to contend with.

I hypothesise the next post will contain a lot of cope, little intelligence and no alternative theory regarding the origins of life.

File 162269582312.jpg - (337.94KB , 3120x4160 , IMG_20210212_150736.jpg )

Kek built life as a memeplex just like he gave the world laser rifles to blind people with

>>17610
Good post.

>>17610
Your wall of text cannot hide the fact that you’re asshurt over how you have zero evidence for your belief in abiogenesis. It is a figment of your imagination and as real as all those episodes of Rick and Morty that you watch.

>>17616
If you consider that a wall of text then it's clear you've never read a scientific article aimed at someone over the age of 12. It's pretty clear you failed to comprehend what he wrote.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17616
Aspies btfo!

>>17617
>lots of words good
>demand for IRL evidence bad

NPC_meme.jpg.

>>17619
Sperg harder 'bro.

>>17616
LOL. Go back to Twitter, retard.

>>17619
>>demand for IRL evidence bad
Covering your ears when the evidence is brought up doesn't make it go away.
That aside, I'm wondering whether you have the same standard of evidence for everything you believe. Somehow I suspect not. I don't know, just a feeling I get.

File 162292567441.jpg - (53.03KB , 680x591 , 558.jpg )

>>17619
Judging by all the answers so far in this thread it is easy to conclude that all the evolutionists are literal soyboys. They believe what they want to believe, even if it means that they accept statements at face value without real observable proof.

>>17622
Hey look, another jerry who prefers to cower within a circle-jerk of his cohorts and lacks the courage to engage with the opposition in a battle of of logic and intellect.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

File 162293107499.png - (118.26KB , 800x789 , aa0.png )

>>17623
>Hey look, another jerry who prefers to cower within a circle-jerk of his cohorts and lacks the courage to engage with the opposition in a battle of of logic and intellect.

>Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17624
The do see the irony in your post further highlighting your own shortcomings. At least I hope you do.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

File 162295886613.png - (474.85KB , 680x593 , 154.png )

>>17625
>The do see the irony in your post further highlighting your own shortcomings. At least I hope you do.

>Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17626
I think we may be seeing new levels of cope.

File 162298740899.jpg - (55.49KB , 828x358 , 1599364114798.jpg )

>>17627
>I think we may be seeing new levels of cope.

>>17628
I'm sorry, I don't speak meme, what is it you are trying to covey? All I'm comprehending is a lot of cope.

File 162299636245.jpg - (75.07KB , 900x785 , c74_jpeg.jpg )

>>17629
>I'm sorry, I don't speak meme, what is it you are trying to covey? All I'm comprehending is a lot of cope.

>>17630
I'm curious, did you have a folder of these images prepared for when you lost or are you assembling them in lieu of an compelling argument.

>>17622
>>17624
>>17628
>>17630
How can one meme make a proxy aspie seethe so hard? He even forgot to repeat his autistic mantra.

>>17633
I was trying to be considerate of the possibility he resorted to pointless memeing because he was upset in finding himself wrong and my mantra was going to make him baww harder.

Not sure where you got the impression I'm a seething proxy-asp from though? I live on dynamic IP's and by signing off my posts with my mantra you can keep track of who I am. Looks at your own ID, it's unique, you're as much a seething proxy-asp as me. Plausibly more so given you've offered no way to follow your posts. For all we know you could be the seething memelord you're trying to pretend upset me which make a certain kind of sense since it would serve as self validation. And as you would guess would be an approprite display of...

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17633
Because it's true, that's why he seethes.

>>17635
Hey look another Jerry. It's nice to see your circle-jerk of cope continues.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17633
He started to post it again, lawl. Ass status: annihilated.

I love this thread. Informative and entertaining.

>>17640
>that one aspie raging because he has no evidence

Comedy gold.

>>17641
Still waiting on your alternative theory.

File 162331614385.gif - (363.94KB , 480x270 , autism.gif )

>>17639
>Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17643
Still waiting to hear your theory.

>>17643
lol

Top notch thread, OP.

>>17647
Indeed, it's been a good read and laugh. Still can't figure if he posted it as bait or through blind moronisism.

>>17647
I agree. That raging proxy aspie that dwells behind his computer screen 24/7 is proof that when you have no evidence for your belief, all you need is autistic repetition of phrases and self-deception.

>>17649
>raging proxy aspie
>Has a unique ID.

Hello my friend, I've been waiting for you to come back. Have you managed to get over your cope and finally prepared to offer an alternative theory?

>>17649
>>17650
Just get a room, you two.

>>17650
>unique ID

He has posted numerous times in this thread, aspie.

>>17652
Have you any evidence that he made that other post?

>>17652
Obviously he can’t see that there are several ID's reoccuring. Every post is from a new ID, apparently,in the mind of the aspie.

>>17654
But where is the proof it's only one person? IPs can be shared by multiple people in the same location or used as a proxy for multiple posters remotely.

You need to provide evidence.

>>17654
Let him live in his aspie fantasy. Schizophrenic delusions are more entertaining than real life.

>>17656
I see you have no proof. Cope harder.

Incredible thread, so far. We've established that the League of Internet Fedoras cannot provide proof for the existence of abiogenesis and thus lose all credibility. OP has solid points that remain unscathed.

>>17658
We've actually established two things:
1 - Abiogenesis is the most plausible theory for the origins of life.
2 - Even the most cope'd of deniers is incapable of putting forward an alternative theory.
3 - The majority of deniers refuse to engage in discussion because deep down they know they will never be a real women are wrong.
4 - Having double-standards is acceptable when trying to overturn the status quo.

>>17659
Plausible means nothing when you lack proof.

>>17660
>Plausible means nothing when you lack proof.
Plausibility is the most important thing when absolute proof is lacking.

Given the available evidence and current understandings the most plausible theory is the one that is most likely to be true. To declare abiogenesis "not true" you would have to offer a more plausible theory.

>>17661
To declare abiogenesis true you need proof and not a buzzword. "Plausible" has no meaning.

>>17662
If you want to argue the philosophy of what constitutes "truth" we need a new thread, this one is too tainted.

>>17662
>"Plausible" has no meaning.
plausible (adj.): Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; conceivably true or likely.

Sorry, but it seems the word "plausible" does mean something. Wanna maybe try again?

>>17658
You've got to admit that it is a cute belief. Like when small children create imaginary friends and you ask them about evidence for this imaginary friend. They know it is true so they are not obligated to provide proof.

>>17665
>Typical Jerry bullshit.

>>17665
You can tell they have a really poor justification for their belief. It's literally made out of nothing. A self-perpetuating lie they tell themselves so they won't question anything.

>>17665
>>17667
>[Irony]
LOL. Good one.

>>17668
You know deep down it's true. Your "scientific" foundation is shaky and not convincing, to say the least.

>>17669
>Your scientific method is flawed.
I'm still waiting to hear your superior method .

I swear, creationists have better logic than you.

>>17669
As long as abiogenesis is real in his imagination then all is well.

>>17672
>I have no opinion of my own and must cope.

>>17672
True. Who needs evidence when you can make shit up, right?

>>17674
I think the irony of that statement may go over his head...

>>17669
"Convincing" is a fairly useless measure. Some people can be convinced of just about anything, others have much more strict requirements to believe something.
Some people apply one standard of evidence to some things and a different, stricter one to everything else, especially when contradictions would otherwise arise.

>>17674
Science worshippers don't have to provide evidence. They just follow their dogma.

>>17677
As predicted, the rammifications of that statement went entirely over your head. The irony is the irony was forewarned.

>>17677
Science is religion for atheists.

>>17679
Denial is religion for atheists of science.

>>17679
Science is the opium of the fedoras.

>>17679
See what I mean? >>17610

>>17681
Denial is the opiate of denihilists.

>>17683
>denihilists
LOL. Awesome word. I'd guess it means "someone who deconstructs nihilism".

>>17684
>I'd guess it means "someone who deconstructs nihilism".

If you follow the latin it could have a couple of meanings.
- Someone who has descended into deeper nihilism.
- Someone who provides evidence of the widely believed.

In the context of "Denial is the opiate of denihilists" the first would be accurate as it describes someone who has descended beyond nihilism and become addicted to denying "truth". Someone who cannot cope and insists that everything is a falsehood unless it serves to fuel their disbelief of a wider held belief.

File 162452498479.jpg - (96.70KB , 828x1156 , 1624429783081.jpg )

>>17681
lel

File 16245513261.png - (128.77KB , 603x769 , Screenshot from 2021-06-24 17:11:04.png )

>>17686
lel

>>17686
>>17687
Let's play "Poe or Not Poe".

Fun Fact:
There's a denier in this thread whose so uncomfortable with being challenged in his (mis-)belief that he refuses to engage in the discussion. You may have noticed that he's so desperate to cope that he keeps attempting to derail the discourse by circle-jerking his buddies to prevent the offending posts appearing in the bottom three.

TMYK

>>17686
Fedoras BTFO!

>>17690
Hey guys! Let's jump off a cliff and hope that wings will evolve, lmao.

>>17691
I support you in your endeavors.

>>17691
I don't think you understand how evolution works.

>>17691
In order to achieve wings you would need a lot of beneficial mutations that just happen to increase flight capability at just the right moment. I think Bronze Age Pervert does a good job explaining how ridiculous evolutionary theory is.

>>17694
If you ask evolutionists how the avian lung developed they give you nothing of value. If you ask them what genes made the lung attach itself to the inner wall of the ribs, how many steps it took for the lung to become unidirectional and how it maintains a constant volume of air unlike mammals, they cannot explain it whatsoever.

Being able to fly is more complicated than walking and yet Darwinists assume everything happen at random and by chance.

>>17694
>I think Bronze Age Pervert does a good job explaining how ridiculous evolutionary theory is.
He also believes humans originated in the middle east and spread elsewhere as a result of being chased out by Bigfoot (>>17687). Which raises two questions:
1 - Where is this evidence for bigfoot doing so?
2 - If human life developed in the middle east where do asians and white-folk come from? Surely you're not suggesting they developed different characteristics over time...

>>17695
>Darwinists
>evidence

lul

>>17695
>Science doesn't yet have an answer for every question I could possibly come up with, therefore science bad.
So, basically, you're a child.

>how it maintains a constant volume of air unlike mammals
That information is out there if you really care to learn it. In short, the mammalian lung needs to change size because it doubles as the gas exchange and as the pump for the respiratory system. The avian respiratory system separates those two functions into a system of air sacs that do change in size and into the fixed size "lung" (which is really more like a blood-infused filter).
So, while it's true that what's called the lung in birds doesn't change volume, the entire respiratory system does. It has to, to be able to generate the pressure difference to facilitate gas exchange.

>>17695
Kind of interesting that wings AND a higher oxygen uptake just happened to appear simultaneously in birds. Very convenient, considering that everything is random in the world of evolution.

>>17700
>Kind of interesting that wings AND a higher oxygen uptake just happened to appear simultaneously in birds. Very convenient, considering that everything is random in the world of evolution.
What makes you think they evolved simultaneously? There is strong evidence that theropod dinosaurs, that predated the emergence of birds, had pulmonary systems like modern bird breathing systems. This means that the flow-through lung is not unique to birds, but was present in theropod dinosaurs before the evolution and emergence of birds.

>>17700
>simultaneously
You don't get to make up claims and then doubt them. To my knowledge, it's not known exactly when the avian respiratory system evolved.

>everything is random in the world of evolution
Where did you learn that? In the book "Half-True Facts for Idiots"? Mutation is random, but evolution as a whole isn't. That's mistake one. Mistake two is thinking an animal is simply a collection of organs and functions that you can swap out no problem. Like the only reason literal Pegasus-style flying horses don't exist is because they just happened to not grow wings. Traits don't evolve, the entire organism does.
(In fact, arguably it's ecosystems that evolve.)

>>17701
>dinosaurs

I hope you are aware that dinosaurs are only known because of their skeletons. There is zero genetic material that can verify they are related to birds or had similar organs.

>>17702
>mutations are random
>evolution is not

Wow! You must experience some heavy cognitive dissonance cope.

>>17704
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040903-01
>To verify that Bmp4 was directing beak shape, they used gene therapy and protein delivery techniques to overexpress Bmp4 and its antagonist, noggin, in developing chicks. Increased levels of Bmp4 produced beaks with increased length, width, and depth; treatment with noggin reduced beak dimensions.

Bmp4 is responsible for the shape of the different bird beaks throughout the world. Look at the sword-billed hummingbird. It has a long, thin beak that is almost as long as its entire body. What is funny about the theory of evolution is that it cannot explain how, why or when the sword-billed hummingbird suddenly adapted to elongate its beak to such freakish proportions. It feeds on highly specific flowers with this long beak, using its tongue which is also extremely long. But the Bmp4 gene is not responsible for the length or shape of its tongue. If the beak is too short, the tongue gets exposed to air and heat and will dry up, get infected and kill the bird. If it is too long the tongue cannot reach outside of the beak and the bird starves to death. How does random, blind trial-and-error mutations produce an extremely long tongue and beak when there is no need for this adaptation? South America has an abundance of insects and fruits that are far easier to live off and in such huge supply that having absurdly long beaks and tongues that they use to survive is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest.

To say that the whole organism has to evolve in order for changes to happen is beyond ignorant. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare so in order to believe that both the tongue and the beak would become elongated at the same time is to believe the impossible. Natural selection does nothing in the long run because "natural selection" isn't a mechanism. It's just a paraphrase of the word "death". Even animals with beneficial survival traits can die out without passing them on to coming generations. Mutations are the main factor why anything changes.

>>17705
Fedora bros…I think we got too cocky. How will we ever recover?!

>>17704
Evolution is not random, though mutations are, because unsuccessfull mutations end dying out.

For example, if you have a mutation that makes your offspring have no legs, it's very improbable that your offspring will continue their lineage, given also that we don't have modern medicine and ethics.

With this, evolution cuts out unfit individuals with unsuccessfull mutations, most of the time, even if the mutations are successfull.

A good visualization is carykh's evolution simulator, which spawns 1000 random creatures and the most successfull ones have a higher chance of reproduction, with random mutations. You'll also see the you probably got a triangle, because given the enviroment they were in, that the most efficient simple organism that can exist. There are creatures way more efficient, but because of their complexity they are very unlikely to evolve. To date, it's still the best evolution simulator i have ever seen.

https://openprocessing.org/sketch/205807

>>17707
Even if the mutations are random*
I got the words mixed up lol

>>17705
Are you kidding? I already replied to this in the previous thread: >>17231

How about you reply to that first, before copy-pasting the same canned response again?

>>17709
>mutations are random
>natural selection is not

Fedora bro…

>>17710
Yeah, just don't bother responding to anything difficult and keep posting the same bullshit over and over again. Why don't you do the ring species bit next?

>>17711
Fedora bro, there is no objective criteria for survival. Defining fitness of survival doesn’t work in the wild. Even weak and genetically defective organisms can breed and survive.

Many African animals with genetic defects, including Albinism and Melanism, still exist even though ”natural selection” should weed out the weak. The African bush is a harsh and unforgiving place and yet there still are animals with obvious traits that shouldn’t be able to multiply.

>>17713
>there is no objective criteria for survival.
Huh. I would have thought the criterion for survival is "the animal frequently gets to reproduce before dying".

>Even weak and genetically defective organisms can breed and survive.
Oh, I see. There's no objective criteria for survival, but there's an objective definition of "weak" and of "defective".

>Many African animals with genetic defects, including Albinism and Melanism, still exist even though ”natural selection” should weed out the weak. The African bush is a harsh and unforgiving place and yet there still are animals with obvious traits that shouldn’t be able to multiply.
So, to be clear, you think that natural selection doesn't exist because a trait that you personally think is a weakness continues to exist, and it doesn't even cross your mind that you may simply be mistaken on whether the animal as a whole is "weak". It's literally the same quality of argument as that of a child who sees a balloon float upwards and concludes that gravity doesn't exist, rather than that there are things he doesn't know.

>>17713
>Defining fitness of survival doesn’t work in the wild. Even weak and genetically defective organisms can breed and survive.
It does work but it can be a bit confusing, allow me to demonstrate, you'll need a coin and a dice:

Heads = a beneficial change
Tails = a detrimental change
The dice represents the survivability of the specimen

Flip the coin, roll the dice.

If you flip a head and the result is 3-6 note down the result
If you flip a tails and the result is 4-6 note down the result
Disregard all other results (the specimen died before it could reproduce)


Statistically you're going to end up with more heads than tails but, with a large enough sample, you're still going to see runs of detrimental changes passing on.

File 162539743797.jpg - (37.20KB , 720x404 , 1598685687611.jpg )

>>17703
>There is zero genetic material that can verify they are related to birds or had similar organs.


https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-long-does-dna-last/
>A  study of DNA extracted from the leg bones of extinct moa birds in New Zealand found that the half-life of DNA is 521 years. So every 1,000 years, 75 per cent of the genetic information is lost. After 6.8 million years, every single base pair is gone. Bacterial RNA is much tougher and sequences have been recovered from ice crystals that are 419 million years old. These are only short fragments of 55 base pairs though.

One thing that is funny about people who believe in evolution is the amount of giant leaps of faith they do. They try to peddle genetic analysis as some kind of irrefutable proof for evolution being true when the material available is so shitty and meager. You find bacterial RNA that contains 55 base pairs and try to "compare" this with the human genome that contains 3 000 000 000 base pairs. This is why the theory of evolution (emphasis on the word 'theory') is 100% theoretical and not factual. You just make shit up as you go along and claim these assumed "evolutionary" events took place without a shred of evidence.

>>17716
>This is why the theory of evolution (emphasis on the word 'theory') is 100% theoretical and not factual. You just make shit up as you go along and claim these assumed "evolutionary" events took place without a shred of evidence.

Micro-evolution is well documented and proven, look to the peppered moth as an example of this.

But you are right, Macro-evolution hasn't been proven true. That said, given what has proven to be true, macro-evolution makes the fewest additonal assumptions as an explanation compared to any alternative theory.

>>17717
Simply put, first there were a few dark moths and a lot of light ones. The light ones lost their camouflage and the dark ones gained it. All the light moths were eaten, leaving only the dark ones. Far fom being an example of evolution or even of natural selection, the peppered moth is an example of a shift in population. The same thing would happen in human terms if some disease were to kill off the white race but lef the black race unharmed. Similar shifts in balance continually occur among animal and plant populations, where one variety flourishes at the expense of another. But this process cannot be used to explain the central proposition of Darwinism and that is how one species can change into a completely diff­erent species, so unfortunately you still have no evidence.

>>17718
So you agree that micro-evolution (gradual changes within a species) occours.

And as I said, macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) has not been proven but, and I reiterate this because you avoid responding to it;
>given what has proven to be true, macro-evolution makes the fewest additonal assumptions as an explanation compared to any alternative theory.
I am more than ready to listen to any alternative theory you may present.

>>17716
Huh. So what you're saying is that if there was genetic material of ancient dinosaurs to compare to that of modern birds, and that comparison concluded that modern birds are in fact related to dinosaurs, you would accept that? Well, that's great, because as it happens we do happen to have genetic samples of extant species, and genomic comparisons lead us to the conclusion that birds are most related to crocodiles, then to turtles, then to lizards, then to mammals (including humans), then to amphibians, etc. which is consistent with common descent and evolution.

Are you sure you don't prefer to say that actually the fact we don't have dinosaur DNA is irrelevant and return to complaining about "missing intermediate forms"?

File 16254145126.png - (12.52KB , 1144x225 , 1554745524442.png )

>>17719
Micro-evolution is a meaningless term. Another poster (>>17713) already pointed out that in Africa, there are animals that either get mutations that result in albinism or melanism. The white ones, the albinos, are easier targets and rarely survive but there are still lineages that produce albinos. Same thing applies to the peppered moth, but instead the black ones aren't the favoured prey. There is no significant change besides shift in population.

>>17720
The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating insertions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well? The problem is that we cannot tell which DNA sequence alignment is right, and the one we choose will contain implicit information about what evolutionary events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally. How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequences in the other species? The answer is that no one knows. Since you don't have genetic remains that have been preserved for millions of years, as with all the empty hominid skeletons in Africa, you have no case. It's guesswork and not solid proof.

The structure of DNA is built up of four subunits. Our reproductive cells has a length of DNA encompassing approximately 3.2 billion of these subunits, but there are still only four of them. This creates a statistical oddity. In other words, two stretches of DNA generated completely at random, completely independently of one another, would not be zero percent similar, but rather, would be 25 percent similar. Comparative genetics doesn't really help you in this regard.

>>17721
Ah, I see that now that it's inconvenient for genetic similarity to be a reliable proxy of relatedness, the idea is thrown out the window. I wish I could say I was surprised.

>How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequences in the other species? The answer is that no one knows.
As far as comparative genomics is concerned, the exact count of base pairs that two genomes differ by isn't terribly important. If function f tells you genomes A and B are off by 10 base pairs and A and C by 100, you can confidently say that A is more closely related to B than to C. It's not inconceivable that two different comparison algorithms could invert the relative relatedness between three different genomes (i.e. f(A, B) < f(A, C) but g(A, B) > g(A, C)). In that case, the particular values of the differences would almost certainly be very low and the three genomes could be considered variations within the same species.

>Since you don't have genetic remains that have been preserved for millions of years
Even if we did have such remains, to establish lines of descent we'd have to compare them to current samples using the same algorithm we use to compare modern samples. Comparing parents and children is no different from comparing cousins. The objection you're giving now would be equally applicable (not at all).

>two stretches of DNA generated completely at random, completely independently of one another, would not be zero percent similar, but rather, would be 25 percent similar. Comparative genetics doesn't really help you in this regard.
Does not follow. If by some arbitrary metric two statistically independent strings A1 and A2 are 25% similar and by the same metric two other B1 and B2 are 70% similar, how is that not enough to conclude that B1 and B2 are probably not fully statistically independent? I mean, that's how any prediction model is tested; it has to be significantly better than random chance. The same is true here. You could feed B1 into an algorithm and predict the next base pair of B2 with a 70% success rate.

>>17722
And color me surprised one more time, when they get a difficult objection to respond to, the deniers scurry away to their dens.

>>17723
And color me surprised one more time, when they get a difficult objection to respond to, the deniers scurry away to their dens.
You get used to it, honestly I'm surprised they haven't abandoned thread like last time (>>16978).

Pretty sure it's one guy trolling. He likes to poke holes as if doing so invalidates the entire premise. Unfortunately his trolling is amateur as he has no alternative with which to retort so he comes across as someone ignorant to what matters he speaks.

If he was posing a controversial alternative or able to respond directly to the counter arguments instead of avoiding them we'd be firmly in the land of 'baited' but instead he just comes across as an idiot.

File 162566977775.jpg - (100.92KB , 644x218 , genome.jpg )

>>17722
Humans have 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA in their genomes, whereas the bacterium E. coli has only 4.6 million base pairs, the nematode worm has 103 million, and the fruit fly has 170 million. However, compared with other organisms that appear to be far less complex, humans are rather low on the scale of total amount of DNA.The trumpet lily has about 90 billion base pairs and the lowly Amoeba dubia has 670 billion base pairs, more than 200 times the total DNA found in humans. According to your reasoning, the amoeba should be the most evolved since it has a huge genome and obviously has undergone many mutations over millions of years.

Your algorithms don't really matter when you consider that cellular life do not follow the pattern of a computer program.

File 162568341463.jpg - (45.10KB , 680x832 , clown.jpg )

>>17727
>According to your reasoning, the amoeba should be the most evolved since it has a huge genome and obviously has undergone many mutations over millions of years.
Uh-huh. Sorry, I must be missing something. Would you mind pointing out anything I said that would imply that genome length corresponds to organism complexity, or even mutation count?

>Your algorithms don't really matter when you consider that cellular life do not follow the pattern of a computer program.
Oh, so now genomic comparisons don't even matter, huh? First it was that we didn't have dinosaur DNA to compare to that of modern birds. Then that oh, err... actually genetic similarity doesn't correspond with relatedness. And now this.
Question: are you this big of a hypocrite in your daily life? I'd be too ashamed to show my face if I flip-flopped this hard.

>>17727
>According to your reasoning, the amoeba should be the most evolved since it has a huge genome and obviously has undergone many mutations over millions of years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-54029521

"Survival of the fittest. Often the simplest organism is the strongest."
- Dr. Allison Reed, CDC

>>17728
>genomic comparisons don't even matter

As I already explained: you don't (and can't) know the exact sequence that corresponds between the organisms because, since the genomes have different size and don't behave like a determined set of computer algorithms, it becomes a game of guessing. I don't understand why you cope so hard over simple facts.

>>17731
And as I also already explained, it doesn't matter that you can't know the exact delta between two genetic sequences. The particular number you obtain is arbitrary. What matters is not the number itself, but how that number compares to other numbers you've obtained using the same method.

Do you understand how approximation works? If you have something that's difficult to measure you measure something else that should be correlated to the thing you're measuring, but which is easier to measure. Since what you measured is only correlated to the thing you actually wanted to measure, your measurement will have a confidence interval; e.g. +/-5%. Numerically different measurements that lie within each other's confidence intervals cannot confidently be said to be different, but those that lie outside can be. It's still possible to make wrong judgement calls like this, but you'll be correct much more often.

Rejecting comparative genomics because it can't give a mathematically exact delta value for two genomes is the kind of retarded objection someone who doesn't understand empiricism would give. Do you also want to argue that gravity might not be universal because it hasn't been directly tested anywhere outside the Solar System?

>>17731
Good post, OP.

>>17727
>>17721
>>17716
Darwinists BTFO!

Suprisingly good thread. I never knew there is so much evidence that refutes evolution.

>>17738
>Surprisingly good thread. I never knew there is so much evidence that refutes evolution.
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something in this thread. Please could you provide some examples of evidence that clearly refutes evolution that has not in turn been refuted debunked.

Also, could please elaborate on why you believe this thread is good? It offers nothing constructive, I dare say a flat earth thread would offer better discussion. At the very least a flat earthier can offer alternative theories and purported evidence to back up their claim which challenge the prevailing theory but in this thread we have see no such examples.

>>17735
How will they ever recover?

>>17742
Pretty much impossible.

>>17743
Picture this: you believe in something you cannot verify empirically, but only through assumptions, theories and fanaticism...and yet you think it is true.

>>17744
Picture this: You disbelieve a credible theory but have no evidence that disproves it or supports an alternative theory. The amount of cope is incredible.

>>17745
When subject feelings colide with objective data the only solution is to ignore it and retreat into a cohort of like-minded deniers in order to insulate oneself from the truth.

I'll be honest, I was enjoying this thread until the deniers ceased engaging with the opposistion and retreated into a group delusion.

>>17744
They suffer from confirmation bias. What do you expect?

Damn...so much soyence fedora cope ITT.

File 162859485525.jpg - (31.54KB , 480x360 , banana.jpg )

>>17748
I bet they are all faggots that put bananas in their asses.

>>17747
>They suffer from confirmation bias. What do you expect?
Obviously there's conformation bias, if you're going to "disprove" evolution you're going to need all the bias you can get.

>>17750
>I bet they are all faggots that put bananas in their asses.
Pretty sure that's part of the initiation, if you're dumb enough to put a banana in your ass, you're dumb enough to believe them when they tell you evolution isn't real and won't question them for an alternative theory.

>>17750
The Amazing Atheist is one of the most hypocritical fedoras to ever show his face on the Internet.

>>17753
He is the embodiment of lazy nihilism. He worships science and always appeals to authority because that's the only thing fedoras can do.

>>17754
The irony is that science is just a flimsy construct.

>>17755
Ask fedoras to prove that dark matter exists. It is hilarious.

>>17756
Prove that it doesn't.

>>17757
Nice cope.

>>17758
Picture this: You disbelieve a credible theory but have no evidence that disproves it or gives support to an alternative theory. The amount of cope is incredible.

>>17758
Dark matter is just like evolution: a hypothetical crutch constructed to confirm a scenario that cannot be proven IRL.

>>17760
>a hypothetical crutch constructed to confirm a scenario that cannot be proven IRL.
So what you're saying is there is no way to prove how life originated unless we go back in time and witness the or create new life inside of a lab. And in the latter case that doesn't definitively prove anything as there may be multiple mechanisms under which life may arise.

I understand that logic. But it does leave us in the awkward position of what to say when someone does ask the question. Do we shrug our shoulders and say "nobody knows" or do make an educated guess based upon what we do know to be true about the universe?

>>17761
How is it awkward? You say ’educated guess’ and that is being honest, at least. Claiming something is true based upon made up evidence is self-aggrandizing mental gymnastics.

>>17762
This.

>>17762
>Claiming something is true based upon made up evidence is self-aggrandizing mental gymnastics.
If by "made up" you mean falsified evidence, of course. But in the case that supporting evidence is theorised, but not proven, we're dealing with Occam's razor.

To put it another way:
Are you talking to a human? Am I? Is there any proof? Unless you can provide evidence you are conversing with a human you must admit the possibility that you are talking to a fish flapping on a keyboard.

>>17764
>Occams razor

The neckbeards favourite cop-out. When people call you out on your bullshit and explain how the evidence is either not reliable or more complex you just state 'hurr, everything is simple, durr'.

>>17762
>>17765
You have no argument. Period. "Abiogenesis may have happened." That's the only claim that's been made in this thread, and not a single one of you retards has come up with a reason why it could not have possibly happened. You don't like Occam's Razor? Provide a counter-argument. Anything. Literally any reason whatsoever why life couldn't have originated through purely natural physical processes.

If your only answer to "abiogenesis may have happened" is "I'm not convinced it happened" then shut the fuck up. Your personal opinion of the evidence is completely irrelevant.

>>17765
>The neckbeards favourite cop-out.
>'hurr, everything is simple, durr'.
I could understand why you might think it's a cop-out when you don't understand the principle. I suggest reading up on it before you misquote it again.

File 163014375114.png - (104.88KB , 1226x881 , Lazy.png )

>>17767
He's right, though. I have provided solid explanations why abiogenesis isn't possible due to the complex nature of cellular mechanisms being dependent on highly specific processes that require flawless components. (>>17409).Your "argument" consists of nothing. You can only state that 'it can happen' without providing any biomolecular rationale as to why it could happen. I have actually studied biology at a university level and I'm not surprised that armchair scientists like yourself just spout nonsense and try to avoid the core question: where is the proof?

>>17768
>I have provided solid explanations why abiogenesis isn't possible
No you haven't, you've provided arguments towards the implausability of abiogenesis. Arguing that something is statistically unlikely doesn't make it theoretically impossible.

>>17768
>You can only state that 'it can happen' without providing any biomolecular rationale as to why it could happen.
It always comes back to this, huh? I know this is hard for you to understand, so I'll try to put it in the simplest terms possible: we don't have time machines. There are many things that have definitely happened that we'll never know exactly how they happened. Arguably almost all things are like that. If you want to reject abiogenesis because it doesn't (and can't) answer every possible question you might come up with about the chemical chain starting from simple compounds and ending with life, then you should reject all science.

Bottom line is this: from what we know of the universe, we know that
* Life is not abundant in the universe. It requires specific conditions to exist. At the very least it needs water and carbon, neither of which were present in the very early universe. From this we can conclude that life is a process that began at some point.
* Life is a chemical process.
* Chemical reactions can occur spontaneously, without anyone's conscious intervention, as long as the chemicals involved are present.
From this, we can safely conclude that "life began as the result of fortuituous chemical interactions" is a reasonable explanation from why there's life on Earth. If want to refute this explanation, all you need to do is demonstrate either that life existed all along in the universe, that it is not a chemical process, or that chemical reactions only occur under supervision. If you can't do any of those things, then you haven't proven abiogenesis is impossible.

>>17768
Just let it go. I did the same thing. I posted a study that shows how the fossil remains of the labyrinthodonts disprove that they are ancestors of mammals and yet the fedoras continue with their autistic screeching. It's like talking to a muslim fundamentalist.

>>17771
No you didn't, you posted a study that advocates for evolution and makes no mention of labyrinthodonts. Then claimed that it disproves evolution because of labyrinthodonts.

Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong study. In which case could you correct me and provide a link to the study you mentioned.

>>17772
Yes, he did. See >>17457.

>>17773
Read it again.
>We conclude that the alternative view is the preferable hypothesis
>This conclusion implies the following:
Nowhere does it state that the hypotheisis is confirmed. Which is the same case with evolution.

It basically states "based upon what we know for sure, we believe the following to be true", which is the exact kind of argument you are trying to debunk.

I'm not sure if you're displaying double-standards, conformation-bias or raw cope here.

>>17774
So you agree that evolution cannot be confirmed? That's good to hear.

>>17775
And you agree that out of all the possible explanations for life, abiogenesis/evolution is the most plausible.

>>17776
You got him now.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17771
Please remind me what the implications of labyrinthodonts not being ancestors of mammals are.

>>17775
This thread is pure gold! Just think how much the fedoras have to backpedal when confronted with contrary evidence.

>>17776
That's, like, your opinion ,man.

>>17779
Maximum Cope.

>>17780
So, like, in your opinion, man, what's the best explanation for the origins of life.

>>17781
You should ask this poster (>>17776). He said that out of all explanations, evolution is the most plausible. So obviously he knows all the other ones, too, in order to make such a claim.

>>17782
It's really not difficult, considering there's only a handful of alternatives.

>>17782
>You should ask this poster
I was asking for, like, your opinion, man.
Surely you must, like, have an opinion, man.

>>17785
What's the point of asking for other peoples opinions when you already have a poster that knows about ALL of the other alternatives? That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

>>17779
>This thread is pure gold!

Agreed. So much fedora asshurt.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17787
They just like to hear themselves talk. Inflated ego and self-importance makes you impervious against counter arguments and you can safely dismiss anything that goes against your own point of view because your mind is already made up.

File 163173096534.png - (121.75KB , 1280x960 , 58582c39f034562c58220601.png )

>>17790
>[Irony]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188
>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity. However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances. In order to establish this dating method in this application an attempt has been made to trace the sources of the anomalies.

One of the authors of this paper, Funkhouser, tried to use the potassium-argon method on volcanic rocks in Hawaii in order to determine their age. He got the estimated age of 3 000 000 000 years when it was known that the rocks had formed during an eruption in 1801. What is problematic with the theory of evolution is that no one actually knows how old the Earth actually is. People who believe in evolution automatically assume that if you combine tiny, insignificant biological changes with millions of years you get new organisms out of nothing. But, the funny part is, you have no objective evidence for the claim that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.

>>17793
It's a well-known limitation of radiometric dating that you can't blindly measure the concentration of an isotope in a material and expect to get a date that has anything to do with the age of that material. Geologists know this and know to look for corroboration between different dating methods in the rocks surrounding the sample to date. The paper explains that when dating rock in volcanic regions using the K-Ar method one should look for signs of lava flows etc. to avoid making gross errors in measurement.

But no, you're right, geologists are just clueless. The Earth is less than 10,000 years old and they have no fucking idea what they're doing.

>>17793
Fedoras must cope so massively, knowing that science cannot give you any real answers, only guesses and hunches. Just roflmao.

>>17795
>science cannot give you any real answers, only guesses and hunches
You speak as if you know a better way to explain the mysteries of the universe than deductive reasoning. Please, share with us your enlightenment and the truth of such matters.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17795
>be fedora
>use dating method
>dating method is flawed
>proceed to engage in mental gymnastics to tell yourself that everything is fine and you can still worship Dawkins and his computer simulations that confirm you own bias that evolution has occured

Dawkins and his computer simulations is a good example of why science isn't really aware of its own circular logic.

>>17803
How is anything you said of any relevance to the post you quoted?

>>17803
Dawkins is autism incarnate. His biomorphs written in Pascal is the epitome of confirmation bias.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17810
Your face is the epitome of confirmation bias.

>>17810
>using Pascal
>to emulate evolution

lel

>>17815
It's like saying that you can travel through a tube because you saw Super Mario do it.

>>17816
>It's impossible for people to travel through tubes because Super Mario isn't real.
Your logic.

>>17816
>It's impossible to fly a plane because Microsoft Flight Simulator isn't real.
How a denier thinks.

>>17817
>>17820
Just to play devil's advocate, a simulation is not enough to say that the thing being simulated is true, nor that it is false. At best, all you can say is that the model being simulated doesn't fall into a logical contradiction.

6b0b89 is a retard, though.

>>17816
Computer simulations are pure cope. They have no real life scientific evidence so they, literally, generate a fantasy world and determine all the conditions and requirements. They're on the same level as a toddler with crayons.

>>17822
Dude, trust me. I have played all Halo games and even Starcraft. I know for a fact that extraterrestrial life exists.

>>17825
This, lol.

>>17826
Not this, lol.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17825
I have seen every episode of X-files, bro. I totally agree.

Youtube  >>17829
But have you seen Futurama?

>>17829
I got my tinfoil hat ready, man. The truth is out there!

Theoretically evolution seems real but in reality it is kind of retarded.

>>17838
>Theoretically evolution seems real but in reality it is kind of retarded.
Could you provide an example of a less retarded explanation.

>>17839
>Could you provide an example...
They never do.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17838
Darwinian fanatics are autistic. They ignore all the flaws and holes in the theory.

>>17844
Me the autist who spends all his time in front of a computer screen, imagining how evolution is true by doing mental gymnastics with software.

Fantastic thread.

>>17839
>Could you provide an example...
They never do.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence and incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17846
I love how every fedora ITT spergs out over their own cognitive dissonance.

>>17849
Have you seen the kind of soyentists that work on evolutionary theory? All of them are spergs.

>>17853
Have you seen the ones that deny it. They display maximum cope, minimum intelligence and are incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17853
Darwin himself claimed that bears could turn into whales simply by being in water. As if water has some mystic properties that can mold organisms at will.

>>17857
I'll take "What is Ambulocetus natans? for $1994 Bob.

>>17857
Pretty stupid, since he had no real life evidence for that claim.

>>17857
Darwin was a mediocre scientist and he had no real academic credentials except for breeding pidgeons. He had not the slightest clue about what shapes animals. He even used pidgeon breeding as an analogy for what happens in the wild but failed to recognize that he himself, the breeder, determines which pidgeon gets to pass their desirable traits to the next generation. By this reasoning, Darwin tries to larp as the omnipotent creator in his own little universe.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17859
>>17860
>Darwin was a mediocre scientist and he had no real academic credentials except for breeding pidgeons.
Which is why it's so astounding that he managed to get the fundamentals right. You would think that if there better explanations out there someone would have put one forth in the past 200 years.

People who dwell on him getting the specifics wrong are displaying an incredible amount of cope and have so far been incapable of putting forth an alternative theory inspite of their self-proclaimed knowledge on the matter.

>>17860
What is even more retarded about his pidgeon breeding analogy is that despite being able to accentuate certain traits through selective breeding he never managed to turn the pidgeons into something else. Darwin made a stupid statement and could never back it up with evidence.

>>17864
>Darwin made a stupid statement and could never back it up with evidence.
Which is why it's so astounding that he managed to get the fundamentals right. You would think that if there better explanations out there someone would have put one forth in the past 200 years.

People who dwell on him getting the specifics wrong are displaying an incredible amount of cope and have so far been incapable of putting forth an alternative theory inspite of their self-proclaimed knowledge on the matter.

>>17787
>That's like asking for advice about plumbing from your dog when the plumber is standing right next to you.

Taking from your example there's three outcomes:
You believe abiogenesis/evoultion is the most plausible explanation because someone you consider more knowledgeable on the subject says so.
You're a dog with no knowledge/opinion on the matter.
You're dodging the question.

Please could you clarify.

>>17864
Poor Darwin didn't really think things through before making an ass out of himself.

This thread is awesome! Especially that autist schizo repeating the same phrases over and over again.

>>17868
> This thread is awesome! Especially that autist schizo repeating the same phrases over and over again.
Agreed! It's hilarious how the schizo copes by ignoring responses that challenge his opinion by skipping back and agreeing with himself.

I know it's offensive to belittle the intelligence of the mentally handicapped but the amount of cope he's displaying is extrordinary. I can't wait for him to display maximum cope by pretending that cycling his IP/ID is evidence he is multiple people.