-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 17384)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/sci/ - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Join us in IRC!

•This is not /b/ or /halp/. Tech support has its own board.
•If you are not contributing directly to a thread, sage your post.
•Keep the flaming at a minimum.
•Tripcodes⁄Namefags are not only tolerated here, they are encouraged.
•We are here to discuss sci-tech, not pseudoscience. Do not post off-topic.

•♥ Integris


  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 742 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Abiogenesis is a fairy tale for Darwinists Anonymous 21/03/26(Fri)20:48 No. 17384 ID: 7d5109
17384

File 161678810583.gif - (1.16MB , 320x180 , 1615157057787.gif )

A major unresolved issue when dealing with the origin of life is that prebiotic syntheses invariably generate very heterogeneous solutions of organic compounds. This makes it impossible to imagine how ordered linear polymers, amino acids and nucleotides could be assembled. Prebiotic chemistry could produce a wealth of biomolecules from nonliving precursors. But the wealth would become overwhelming in the prebiotic soup and one cannot fathom how organized chemical processes could emerge from such a mess. At the heart of this problem is a dreary and vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? There could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. How a random collection of proteins would assemble themselves into some kind of proto-cell capable of primitive replication is not even remotely answered. Modern cells require hundreds of proteins carrying out specific tasks when assembling a new protein molecule and if only a small portion of them were crudely made it is impossible to manufacture a new cell. The cells translational system is highly dependent on accurately made proteins and a faulty translational system is by default a biochemical paradox in evolutionary terms. A primitive cell is faced with an impossible task: in order to develop a more accurate translational system is has to translate more accurately. Each imperfect cycle introduces further errors and the cyclical nature of self-replication in the cell means that imperfections lead to autodestruction. A complex system like a cell cannot be gradually achieved because of its many complex and perfectly coadapted proteins.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/26(Fri)22:31 No. 17385 ID: 746924

>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)06:21 No. 17386 ID: a1767f
17386

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)11:34 No. 17387 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)15:37 No. 17388 ID: d0fbe5

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)15:59 No. 17389 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)16:21 No. 17390 ID: d0fbe5

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


>>
Anonymous 21/03/29(Mon)16:55 No. 17391 ID: be6f8f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/03/30(Tue)10:42 No. 17393 ID: bb54b1

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/30(Tue)15:00 No. 17394 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/03/30(Tue)15:17 No. 17396 ID: c69c6d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/30(Tue)16:34 No. 17397 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/30(Tue)19:23 No. 17399 ID: 0a320d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/03/31(Wed)15:10 No. 17400 ID: 747485

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


>>
Anonymous 21/03/31(Wed)16:54 No. 17401 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/01(Thu)14:09 No. 17403 ID: ecff09

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/01(Thu)20:17 No. 17405 ID: ce5592

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)04:18 No. 17406 ID: 77e1df

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/02(Fri)15:22 No. 17407 ID: 0a320d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)11:39 No. 17409 ID: 7d5109
17409

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)15:03 No. 17410 ID: 0a320d

>>17409
So what's the alternative theory?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)16:06 No. 17412 ID: 746924

>>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".


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)19:38 No. 17413 ID: 7d5109
17413

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)22:14 No. 17414 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/03(Sat)23:48 No. 17415 ID: 7d5109

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)00:23 No. 17416 ID: 746924

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)09:59 No. 17417 ID: 7d5109

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)10:10 No. 17418 ID: 746924

>>17417
Stop avoiding the question.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)10:47 No. 17419 ID: 7d5109

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)11:52 No. 17420 ID: 0a320d

>>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...


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)13:47 No. 17421 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)15:02 No. 17422 ID: 7d5109

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)15:02 No. 17423 ID: 0a320d

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)15:03 No. 17424 ID: 0a320d

>>17422
So what's the alternative?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)16:07 No. 17425 ID: 746924

>>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).


>>
Anonymous 21/04/04(Sun)16:24 No. 17426 ID: 7d5109

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/05(Mon)14:42 No. 17427 ID: 0a320d

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/05(Mon)16:07 No. 17428 ID: a776db

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/05(Mon)16:48 No. 17429 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/05(Mon)22:11 No. 17430 ID: 7d5109

>>17429
>ID: be6f8f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/06(Tue)03:59 No. 17431 ID: 0a320d

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/06(Tue)06:02 No. 17432 ID: b8f098

>>17430
Probably a schizo.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/06(Tue)06:29 No. 17433 ID: 746924

>>17430
I post from home and from work.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/06(Tue)06:44 No. 17434 ID: b8f098

>>17433
Ok, schizo.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/06(Tue)19:34 No. 17435 ID: 0a320d

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/07(Wed)15:19 No. 17436 ID: 0222a0

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/07(Wed)20:42 No. 17437 ID: 0a320d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/07(Wed)22:24 No. 17438 ID: be6f8f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)02:09 No. 17439 ID: a7c52b

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)06:18 No. 17440 ID: b8f098

>>17438
>schizo gets triggered by a word

Take your meds.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)06:48 No. 17441 ID: 204b09

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)09:30 No. 17442 ID: 0a320d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)09:47 No. 17443 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)10:55 No. 17444 ID: 3b0106

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)14:37 No. 17445 ID: 746924
17445

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/09(Fri)08:43 No. 17446 ID: a5f8ec

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/09(Fri)10:58 No. 17447 ID: c574af

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/09(Fri)14:05 No. 17448 ID: 746924
17448

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/10(Sat)07:54 No. 17449 ID: 0f9b3e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/10(Sat)14:57 No. 17450 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/14(Wed)10:36 No. 17453 ID: 23a8b6

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/14(Wed)15:36 No. 17454 ID: be6f8f

>>17453
And what is that?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/20(Tue)06:13 No. 17457 ID: a1767f
17457

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

>>17447


>>
Anonymous 21/04/20(Tue)17:27 No. 17458 ID: be6f8f

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


>>
sage sage 21/04/20(Tue)22:49 No. 17459 ID: eabc8c

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

Perhaps these trolls have yet to evolve from goblins.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/21(Wed)15:09 No. 17460 ID: e54d89

>>17457
>not suitable as amniote ancestors

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/21(Wed)17:12 No. 17461 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/22(Thu)08:29 No. 17463 ID: 9075a1

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/22(Thu)09:06 No. 17464 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/22(Thu)09:17 No. 17465 ID: 9075a1

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/22(Thu)16:20 No. 17466 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/22(Thu)19:34 No. 17467 ID: eabc8c

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)08:36 No. 17468 ID: a5f8ec

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)10:49 No. 17469 ID: cda5a6

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)12:33 No. 17470 ID: b9455d

>>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*


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)14:27 No. 17471 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)14:57 No. 17472 ID: 00d86f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)15:46 No. 17473 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)15:59 No. 17474 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/23(Fri)16:38 No. 17475 ID: b9455d

>>17472
Lol, cope harder.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/24(Sat)20:12 No. 17476 ID: eabc8c

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/25(Sun)14:28 No. 17477 ID: 7d5109
17477

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/25(Sun)21:53 No. 17478 ID: eabc8c

>>17477

Thank you for proving >>17470 accurate.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/26(Mon)00:04 No. 17479 ID: 746924

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/26(Mon)14:02 No. 17480 ID: d0fbe5

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

The absolute state of Darwin fanboys.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/26(Mon)14:25 No. 17481 ID: 78d00d

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/04/27(Tue)11:08 No. 17482 ID: bb54b1

Youtube  >>17480
lol, this

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/27(Tue)13:59 No. 17483 ID: dc8292

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

I'm waiting.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/27(Tue)16:59 No. 17484 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/28(Wed)09:09 No. 17485 ID: 9c3396

>>17482
>that video

lmao


>>
Anonymous 21/04/28(Wed)12:12 No. 17486 ID: 747485

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


>>
sage sage 21/04/28(Wed)13:41 No. 17487 ID: 78d00d

>>17486
Care to explain the origins of life?

...

Thought not.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/28(Wed)16:31 No. 17488 ID: 134819

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/28(Wed)19:42 No. 17489 ID: dc8292

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/29(Thu)12:01 No. 17492 ID: ca920f

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/29(Thu)14:57 No. 17493 ID: 6ac080

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/29(Thu)16:30 No. 17494 ID: 71d21b

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/29(Thu)17:06 No. 17495 ID: be6f8f

>>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!


>>
sage sage 21/04/29(Thu)20:07 No. 17496 ID: 78d00d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/30(Fri)08:51 No. 17497 ID: 0ca429

>>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.


>>
sage sage 21/04/30(Fri)09:08 No. 17498 ID: 78d00d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/04/30(Fri)11:21 No. 17499 ID: c99815

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


>>
Anonymous 21/04/30(Fri)15:00 No. 17500 ID: a45d00

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/02(Sun)13:25 No. 17501 ID: 7d5109
17501

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/02(Sun)15:50 No. 17502 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/02(Sun)16:10 No. 17503 ID: 0fdb45

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/03(Mon)13:15 No. 17504 ID: 22781d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/03(Mon)14:54 No. 17506 ID: 12a78c

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/05(Wed)08:04 No. 17507 ID: 6fe8da

>>17506
Nice cope, autist.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/05(Wed)09:28 No. 17508 ID: 78d00d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/06(Thu)08:25 No. 17509 ID: 9075a1

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/06(Thu)09:21 No. 17510 ID: 78d00d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/06(Thu)18:30 No. 17511 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/05/06(Thu)20:42 No. 17512 ID: 78d00d

>>17511
Kek.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)03:23 No. 17513 ID: 4788ac

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)08:39 No. 17514 ID: a5f8ec

>>17501
Fedoras btfo!


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)09:30 No. 17515 ID: 78d00d

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)10:50 No. 17516 ID: cda5a6

>>17514
How will they ever recover?


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)14:13 No. 17517 ID: 00d86f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)21:19 No. 17518 ID: 78d00d

>>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?".


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)21:55 No. 17519 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)22:15 No. 17520 ID: 78d00d

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/07(Fri)22:24 No. 17521 ID: 746924
17521

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/10(Mon)09:15 No. 17522 ID: 428a5e

>>17517
And cope.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/10(Mon)12:43 No. 17523 ID: 4dca04

>>17522
Don't forget dilate.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/10(Mon)14:32 No. 17524 ID: 4c24cc

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/10(Mon)17:57 No. 17525 ID: 2b05f7

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/10(Mon)19:54 No. 17526 ID: 746924

>>17525
Well, yes.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/11(Tue)10:29 No. 17527 ID: bb54b1

>>17521
>Rick and Morty

Soy boy: the animated fedora story.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/11(Tue)10:30 No. 17528 ID: bb54b1

>>17525
Projecting.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/11(Tue)16:56 No. 17529 ID: be6f8f

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/12(Wed)00:39 No. 17530 ID: 2b05f7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/12(Wed)13:46 No. 17531 ID: 747485

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/12(Wed)14:59 No. 17532 ID: 568b51

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/12(Wed)15:22 No. 17533 ID: 747485

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/12(Wed)20:37 No. 17534 ID: 2b05f7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/14(Fri)08:42 No. 17535 ID: 0ca429

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/14(Fri)09:37 No. 17536 ID: 2b05f7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/14(Fri)10:09 No. 17537 ID: 0ca429

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/14(Fri)11:59 No. 17538 ID: c99815

>>17537
Good post.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/14(Fri)14:53 No. 17539 ID: f51ac9

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/17(Mon)09:01 No. 17541 ID: 23a8b6

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/17(Mon)15:43 No. 17542 ID: 0e20df

Good thread, OP.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/18(Tue)15:13 No. 17544 ID: 974b17

>>17542
Agreed. Darwins theory is a hoax.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/18(Tue)16:33 No. 17545 ID: 04676f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/19(Wed)14:19 No. 17546 ID: 0222a0

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/19(Wed)19:40 No. 17547 ID: 2b05f7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/19(Wed)20:08 No. 17548 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/05/20(Thu)08:20 No. 17549 ID: 9075a1

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/20(Thu)09:13 No. 17550 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)03:24 No. 17551 ID: 746924

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)08:47 No. 17552 ID: a5f8ec

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)09:18 No. 17553 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)09:51 No. 17554 ID: a5f8ec

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)10:51 No. 17555 ID: cda5a6

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)11:34 No. 17556 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)12:59 No. 17557 ID: cda5a6

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)13:10 No. 17558 ID: 746924

>>17557
I was being ironic, too.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)14:04 No. 17559 ID: 74bf8d

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)14:27 No. 17560 ID: 00d86f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)18:11 No. 17561 ID: 746924

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)21:39 No. 17562 ID: ea6f92

>>17560
>I was being wrong ironically.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/25(Tue)10:55 No. 17564 ID: bb54b1

>>17561
lol, angry aspie.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/26(Wed)13:30 No. 17565 ID: 747485

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/26(Wed)19:12 No. 17566 ID: 56af92

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/27(Thu)09:12 No. 17569 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/27(Thu)10:30 No. 17571 ID: ca920f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/27(Thu)14:35 No. 17572 ID: 56af92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/27(Thu)14:36 No. 17573 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/28(Fri)08:56 No. 17574 ID: 0ca429

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/28(Fri)13:19 No. 17575 ID: ea6f92
17575

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/28(Fri)14:44 No. 17576 ID: c99815

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/28(Fri)14:52 No. 17577 ID: 746924

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/05/29(Sat)22:16 No. 17583 ID: 1578af

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/29(Sat)22:42 No. 17584 ID: ea6f92

>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)00:02 No. 17585 ID: 1578af

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)01:02 No. 17586 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)02:08 No. 17587 ID: 746924

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)05:43 No. 17588 ID: fd1ccc

>>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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)11:01 No. 17589 ID: 1578af

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)13:06 No. 17590 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/30(Sun)21:57 No. 17591 ID: ea6f92

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)08:14 No. 17592 ID: 09cd0f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)11:57 No. 17593 ID: 143b09

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


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)12:41 No. 17594 ID: 1578af

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)12:45 No. 17595 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)12:56 No. 17596 ID: 6ff55c

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)13:25 No. 17597 ID: ea6f92
17597

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)13:26 No. 17598 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)19:00 No. 17599 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/05/31(Mon)19:42 No. 17600 ID: fd1ccc

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)10:17 No. 17601 ID: bb54b1

>>17595
lol, aspie rage.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)12:16 No. 17602 ID: 4724c9

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)13:14 No. 17603 ID: 6a6fc4

>>17602
Calm down, aspie.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)14:15 No. 17604 ID: 4724c9

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)14:17 No. 17605 ID: 6a6fc4

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/01(Tue)16:25 No. 17606 ID: 4724c9

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/02(Wed)10:18 No. 17607 ID: 6d4202

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/02(Wed)14:14 No. 17608 ID: f840aa

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/02(Wed)15:42 No. 17609 ID: 0222a0

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/02(Wed)16:28 No. 17610 ID: be6f8f

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/02(Wed)21:39 No. 17611 ID: ea6f92

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/03(Thu)06:50 No. 17612 ID: c1b3b5
17612

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/03(Thu)10:58 No. 17613 ID: e47728

>>17610
Good post.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/04(Fri)08:40 No. 17616 ID: a5f8ec

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/04(Fri)08:56 No. 17617 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/04(Fri)10:49 No. 17618 ID: cda5a6

>>17616
Aspies btfo!


>>
Anonymous 21/06/04(Fri)14:25 No. 17619 ID: 527f8a

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

NPC_meme.jpg.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/04(Fri)16:31 No. 17620 ID: 46dbd6

>>17619
Sperg harder 'bro.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/04(Fri)21:00 No. 17621 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/05(Sat)22:41 No. 17622 ID: 7d5109
17622

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)00:03 No. 17623 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)00:11 No. 17624 ID: 7d5109
17624

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)02:03 No. 17625 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)07:54 No. 17626 ID: 7d5109
17626

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)15:28 No. 17627 ID: ea6f92

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)15:50 No. 17628 ID: 7d5109
17628

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

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)18:08 No. 17629 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/06(Sun)18:19 No. 17630 ID: 7d5109
17630

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/07(Mon)09:30 No. 17632 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/07(Mon)13:01 No. 17633 ID: e0f53d

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/07(Mon)14:29 No. 17634 ID: 19f325

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/08(Tue)14:10 No. 17635 ID: 6dec57

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/08(Tue)15:06 No. 17636 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/09(Wed)08:51 No. 17639 ID: bac01a

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/09(Wed)10:43 No. 17640 ID: 658ea1

I love this thread. Informative and entertaining.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/09(Wed)14:40 No. 17641 ID: 747485

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

Comedy gold.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/09(Wed)17:54 No. 17642 ID: ea6f92

>>17641
Still waiting on your alternative theory.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/10(Thu)11:09 No. 17643 ID: 5ee94f
17643

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

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/10(Thu)12:12 No. 17644 ID: 7f3c77

>>17643
Still waiting to hear your theory.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/11(Fri)09:21 No. 17646 ID: 0ca429

>>17643
lol


>>
Anonymous 21/06/11(Fri)14:22 No. 17647 ID: 3a6ac1

Top notch thread, OP.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/11(Fri)16:34 No. 17648 ID: a07270

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/14(Mon)08:59 No. 17649 ID: 09cd0f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/14(Mon)15:03 No. 17650 ID: ea6f92

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/06/15(Tue)06:05 No. 17651 ID: 746924

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/15(Tue)10:23 No. 17652 ID: bb54b1

>>17650
>unique ID

He has posted numerous times in this thread, aspie.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/15(Tue)11:30 No. 17653 ID: ea6f92

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/15(Tue)14:05 No. 17654 ID: d98ece

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/15(Tue)17:27 No. 17655 ID: cd3945

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)10:14 No. 17656 ID: 6d4202

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)12:47 No. 17657 ID: 1647fd

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)14:12 No. 17658 ID: 0222a0

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)14:54 No. 17659 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)15:00 No. 17660 ID: 0222a0

>>17659
Plausible means nothing when you lack proof.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)15:22 No. 17661 ID: ea6f92

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)15:27 No. 17662 ID: 0222a0

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)15:28 No. 17663 ID: ea6f92

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/16(Wed)18:08 No. 17664 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/06/17(Thu)10:10 No. 17665 ID: fe9b37

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/17(Thu)13:35 No. 17666 ID: 7a6d5e

>>17665
>Typical Jerry bullshit.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/17(Thu)15:35 No. 17667 ID: ad0436

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/17(Thu)16:08 No. 17668 ID: be6f8f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/17(Thu)16:25 No. 17669 ID: ad0436

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/17(Thu)17:48 No. 17670 ID: f704b4

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

I swear, creationists have better logic than you.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/18(Fri)08:37 No. 17672 ID: a5f8ec

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/18(Fri)12:50 No. 17673 ID: 7a6d5e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/18(Fri)15:18 No. 17674 ID: 527f8a

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/18(Fri)16:55 No. 17675 ID: 7a6d5e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/18(Fri)17:15 No. 17676 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/21(Mon)13:10 No. 17677 ID: da5367

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/21(Mon)13:25 No. 17678 ID: 5e0fc4

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/21(Mon)14:56 No. 17679 ID: d1b633

>>17677
Science is religion for atheists.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/21(Mon)22:46 No. 17680 ID: 7a6d5e

>>17679
Denial is religion for atheists of science.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/22(Tue)10:33 No. 17681 ID: bb54b1

>>17679
Science is the opium of the fedoras.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/22(Tue)17:19 No. 17682 ID: be6f8f

>>17679
See what I mean? >>17610


>>
Anonymous 21/06/22(Tue)20:30 No. 17683 ID: a868dc

>>17681
Denial is the opiate of denihilists.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/23(Wed)01:49 No. 17684 ID: 746924

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/23(Wed)03:54 No. 17685 ID: 7a6d5e

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/24(Thu)10:56 No. 17686 ID: 5e8e1a
17686

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

>>17681
lel


>>
Anonymous 21/06/24(Thu)18:15 No. 17687 ID: 7a6d5e
17687

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

>>17686
lel


>>
Anonymous 21/06/24(Thu)23:36 No. 17688 ID: 746924

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/25(Fri)11:47 No. 17689 ID: 5f5e70

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/28(Mon)08:33 No. 17690 ID: 09cd0f

>>17686
Fedoras BTFO!


>>
Anonymous 21/06/29(Tue)15:41 No. 17691 ID: e380fd

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/29(Tue)18:32 No. 17692 ID: be6f8f

>>17691
I support you in your endeavors.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/29(Tue)20:03 No. 17693 ID: ceffdd

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


>>
Anonymous 21/06/30(Wed)08:07 No. 17694 ID: 6fe8da

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/30(Wed)10:18 No. 17695 ID: 6d4202

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/06/30(Wed)14:06 No. 17697 ID: ceffdd

>>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...


>>
Anonymous 21/06/30(Wed)15:48 No. 17698 ID: 0222a0

>>17695
>Darwinists
>evidence

lul


>>
Anonymous 21/06/30(Wed)16:39 No. 17699 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/01(Thu)14:56 No. 17700 ID: e47728

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/01(Thu)15:38 No. 17701 ID: ceffdd

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/01(Thu)17:14 No. 17702 ID: be6f8f

>>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.)


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)08:50 No. 17703 ID: a5f8ec

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)09:23 No. 17704 ID: a5f8ec

>>17702
>mutations are random
>evolution is not

Wow! You must experience some heavy cognitive dissonance cope.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)11:22 No. 17705 ID: cda5a6

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)14:29 No. 17706 ID: 54428e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)14:59 No. 17707 ID: 9ad360

>>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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)15:02 No. 17708 ID: 9ad360

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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)15:07 No. 17709 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)15:21 No. 17710 ID: 54428e

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

Fedora bro…


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)15:57 No. 17711 ID: be6f8f

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)16:12 No. 17713 ID: 54428e

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)17:00 No. 17714 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/02(Fri)19:44 No. 17715 ID: ceffdd

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)13:17 No. 17716 ID: 7d5109
17716

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)13:59 No. 17717 ID: 13dc08

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)15:44 No. 17718 ID: 7d5109

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)17:07 No. 17719 ID: f76b85

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)17:21 No. 17720 ID: 746924

>>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"?


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)18:01 No. 17721 ID: 7d5109
17721

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/04(Sun)20:40 No. 17722 ID: 746924

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/06(Tue)11:28 No. 17723 ID: 746924

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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/06(Tue)14:30 No. 17724 ID: f40c25

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/07(Wed)16:56 No. 17727 ID: 7d5109
17727

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/07(Wed)20:43 No. 17728 ID: 746924
17728

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/07(Wed)21:50 No. 17730 ID: ceffdd

>>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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/10(Sat)16:37 No. 17731 ID: 7d5109

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/10(Sat)23:18 No. 17732 ID: 746924

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/07/13(Tue)12:49 No. 17733 ID: 3d67c4

>>17731
Good post, OP.


>>
Anonymous 21/07/21(Wed)16:16 No. 17735 ID: f2e776

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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/30(Fri)16:08 No. 17738 ID: b2ca62

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


>>
Anonymous 21/07/30(Fri)16:31 No. 17739 ID: ceffdd

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/01(Sun)02:05 No. 17742 ID: 491c75

>>17735
How will they ever recover?


>>
Anonymous 21/08/05(Thu)16:07 No. 17743 ID: fd4aed

>>17742
Pretty much impossible.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/06(Fri)10:19 No. 17744 ID: 0ca429

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/06(Fri)19:13 No. 17745 ID: 4faefa

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/07(Sat)12:03 No. 17746 ID: 6dc135

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/09(Mon)08:33 No. 17747 ID: 09cd0f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/09(Mon)14:52 No. 17748 ID: 76edb7

Damn...so much soyence fedora cope ITT.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/10(Tue)13:27 No. 17750 ID: 9d7195
17750

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

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/10(Tue)14:09 No. 17752 ID: ceffdd

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/11(Wed)08:53 No. 17753 ID: 6fe8da

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/11(Wed)10:52 No. 17754 ID: 6d4202

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/13(Fri)13:28 No. 17755 ID: 54428e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/18(Wed)14:52 No. 17756 ID: 747485

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/18(Wed)22:41 No. 17757 ID: 93de88

>>17756
Prove that it doesn't.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/20(Fri)09:56 No. 17758 ID: 3a6ac1

>>17757
Nice cope.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/20(Fri)11:33 No. 17759 ID: ceffdd

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/23(Mon)08:42 No. 17760 ID: 09cd0f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/23(Mon)10:38 No. 17761 ID: ceffdd

>>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?


>>
Anonymous 21/08/24(Tue)13:16 No. 17762 ID: 9d7195

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/25(Wed)15:20 No. 17763 ID: ea897f

>>17762
This.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/25(Wed)18:55 No. 17764 ID: 0a44fa

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/27(Fri)15:22 No. 17765 ID: 54428e

>>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'.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/28(Sat)01:26 No. 17766 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/28(Sat)02:22 No. 17767 ID: 0a44fa

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/28(Sat)11:42 No. 17768 ID: 7d5109
17768

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?


>>
Anonymous 21/08/28(Sat)13:02 No. 17769 ID: dc8292

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/28(Sat)22:00 No. 17770 ID: 126958

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)06:26 No. 17771 ID: a1767f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)09:34 No. 17772 ID: 0a44fa

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)10:59 No. 17773 ID: bb54b1

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)15:42 No. 17774 ID: d05ca2

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)16:13 No. 17775 ID: 6b0b89

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)17:11 No. 17776 ID: d05ca2

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


>>
Anonymous 21/08/31(Tue)19:32 No. 17777 ID: 0a44fa

>>17776
You got him now.

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)02:25 No. 17778 ID: 126958

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)08:41 No. 17779 ID: 6fa840

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)08:46 No. 17780 ID: 6fa840

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)09:25 No. 17781 ID: 0a44fa

>>17779
Maximum Cope.

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)09:50 No. 17782 ID: 6fa840

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)18:42 No. 17784 ID: 126958

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)19:45 No. 17785 ID: 620259

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/02(Thu)14:13 No. 17787 ID: 3da412

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/02(Thu)15:15 No. 17788 ID: 0222a0

>>17779
>This thread is pure gold!

Agreed. So much fedora asshurt.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/02(Thu)16:47 No. 17789 ID: 620259

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/14(Tue)11:45 No. 17790 ID: bb54b1

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/15(Wed)20:36 No. 17792 ID: be6f8f
17792

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

>>17790
>[Irony]


>>
Anonymous 21/09/16(Thu)13:59 No. 17793 ID: d185fb

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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/16(Thu)14:38 No. 17794 ID: be6f8f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/16(Thu)16:27 No. 17795 ID: b4dbdd

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/16(Thu)17:39 No. 17796 ID: 25cdad

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/16(Thu)20:07 No. 17797 ID: 98ddba

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/20(Mon)09:36 No. 17803 ID: 09cd0f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/20(Mon)14:27 No. 17805 ID: 64685f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/21(Tue)13:58 No. 17810 ID: 5fc5b7

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/21(Tue)14:09 No. 17811 ID: 64685f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/21(Tue)17:59 No. 17812 ID: be6f8f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/24(Fri)10:34 No. 17815 ID: 5f772b

>>17810
>using Pascal
>to emulate evolution

lel


>>
Anonymous 21/09/28(Tue)14:58 No. 17816 ID: 6b0b89

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/28(Tue)20:17 No. 17817 ID: 98ddba

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/30(Thu)01:18 No. 17820 ID: 98ddba

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


>>
Anonymous 21/09/30(Thu)03:27 No. 17821 ID: 126958

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/09/30(Thu)14:00 No. 17822 ID: d185fb

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/01(Fri)09:20 No. 17825 ID: 0ca429

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/01(Fri)11:06 No. 17826 ID: 3a6ac1

>>17825
This, lol.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/01(Fri)16:03 No. 17827 ID: 9b5236

>>17826
Not this, lol.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/01(Fri)16:04 No. 17828 ID: 9b5236

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/05(Tue)15:17 No. 17829 ID: 6a6fc4

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/05(Tue)21:24 No. 17830 ID: 89abbf

Youtube  >>17829
But have you seen Futurama?


>>
Anonymous 21/10/08(Fri)16:01 No. 17832 ID: b93a10

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/12(Tue)12:14 No. 17838 ID: 74038b

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/12(Tue)13:04 No. 17839 ID: 52790e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/13(Wed)19:26 No. 17843 ID: 89abbf

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

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/14(Thu)13:11 No. 17844 ID: 93cc94

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/14(Thu)15:32 No. 17845 ID: b4dbdd

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/15(Fri)08:25 No. 17846 ID: 0ca429

Fantastic thread.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/15(Fri)09:19 No. 17847 ID: 72c0e7

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

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/15(Fri)09:19 No. 17848 ID: 72c0e7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/15(Fri)10:55 No. 17849 ID: b6a13f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/18(Mon)08:28 No. 17853 ID: 09cd0f

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/18(Mon)13:21 No. 17854 ID: 72c0e7

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/18(Mon)13:21 No. 17855 ID: 72c0e7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/19(Tue)13:08 No. 17857 ID: 5c01c2

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/19(Tue)20:06 No. 17858 ID: 72c0e7

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/22(Fri)10:24 No. 17859 ID: 3c141e

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/22(Fri)15:06 No. 17860 ID: b93a10

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/23(Sat)20:03 No. 17861 ID: 72c0e7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/23(Sat)20:04 No. 17862 ID: 72c0e7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/26(Tue)14:28 No. 17864 ID: a3561f

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/26(Tue)20:34 No. 17865 ID: 72c0e7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/26(Tue)20:34 No. 17866 ID: 72c0e7

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/10/28(Thu)10:56 No. 17867 ID: 5873cc

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/29(Fri)09:54 No. 17868 ID: 0ca429

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


>>
Anonymous 21/10/29(Fri)14:28 No. 17870 ID: 881e10

>>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.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/01(Mon)08:34 No. 17871 ID: 09cd0f

>>17868
He must be extremely obsessed with certain sentences.


>>
sage Anonymous 21/11/01(Mon)14:04 No. 17873 ID: 655792
17873

File 163577184510.gif - (2.65MB , 640x358 , seinfeld-eye-roll.gif )


>>
Anonymous 21/11/01(Mon)14:30 No. 17874 ID: 915276

>>17871
Autists usually have obsession and repetitive behaviour.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/01(Mon)14:47 No. 17875 ID: 47ff1e

>>17874
>Autists usually have obsession and repetitive behaviour.
You called it!

>>17867
>Darwin
>>17864
>Darwin
>>17860
>Darwin
>>17857
>Darwin
>>17844
>Darwin
>>17735
>Darwin
>>17698
>Darwin


>>
Anonymous 21/11/02(Tue)11:50 No. 17877 ID: a46e31

>>17874
I wonder why they obsess over words? The autist in this thread seem to have an almost unhealthy fixation with certain words, as if he suffers from apophenia or patternicity. I guess he has a compulsive habit that can't be corrected.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/02(Tue)15:05 No. 17879 ID: 30269b

>>17877
>I wonder why they obsess over words? The autist in this thread seem to have an almost unhealthy fixation with certain words, as if he suffers from apophenia or patternicity.
It's a coping mechanism, by fixating on the words and ignoring the underlying concepts it allows him to take such things as Darwins bears to whale concept as literal examples in his mission to "disprove" evolution. I would suspect you're right about him having apophenia, it is considered one of the beginning stages of schizophrenia. The schizophrenia we can infer by his disengagement with anyone challenging his world view and the way he responds in agreement to his own postings.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/03(Wed)10:26 No. 17880 ID: 6d4202

>>17877
I think he's just triggered by the word "Darwin". Maybe a guy named Darwin stole his girlfriend. Autists have a hard time interacting with females.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/03(Wed)23:38 No. 17881 ID: 72c0e7

>>17880
>I think he's just triggered by the word "Darwin". Maybe a guy named Darwin stole his girlfriend.
You may be right, it would also explain why he believes Darwin got it wrong. In his delusion Darwin is the archetype of the villain and is incapable of being right.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/04(Thu)10:38 No. 17885 ID: e47728

>>17880
https://www.imt.ie/news/darwin-had-aspergers-syndrome-tcd-professor-18-02-2009/
>The father of the theory of evolution through natural selection, Charles Darwin, most likely had Asperger’s syndrome, a TCD professor has claimed.

Autists worship Darwin as a god. He embodies all their qualities: social awkwardness, gigantic amounts of confirmation bias due to obsession with useless details and following a routine without deviating from a strict pattern. He lacked critical thinking.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/04(Thu)17:55 No. 17886 ID: 309f5f

>>17885
I noticed you only read the headline:
>Psychiatrist Prof Michael Fitzgerald believes the mild form of autism gave Darwin the ability to “hyperfocus, the extra capacity for persistence, the enormous ability to see detail that other people missed, the endless energy for a lifetime dedication to a narrow task, and the independence of mind so critical to original research.”


>>
Anonymous 21/11/04(Thu)19:45 No. 17888 ID: 72c0e7

>>17885
What kind of strawman are you peddling?
Are you trying to say Darwin was wrong because he was autistic or that the people who belive him are wrong because they have autism. Neither argument makes any kind of sense.

Your entire post comes across as a childish ad hominem because you have no counter argument and can't admit you lost the game.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/05(Fri)10:55 No. 17889 ID: 5f772b

>>17885
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16287703/
>Fortysix individuals with Asperger syndrome participated and were found to have relatively high levels of delusional ideation, primarily grandiose or persecutory. Factors associated with delusional belief were anxiety, social anxiety and self-consciousness, but not theory of mind ability or autobiographical memory. The findings indicate that delusional belief is a prominent feature in Asperger syndrome

Darwins idea of evolution is just a delusion that autists have. They can obsess over nothing for months and years without real evidence to support their nonsense.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/05(Fri)20:18 No. 17890 ID: 72c0e7

>>17889
I'm guessing you've only read the abstract:
>The present study investigates the phenomenology of delusional ideation in Asperger syndrome. Fortysix individuals with Asperger syndrome participated and were found to have relatively high levels of delusional ideation, primarily grandiose or persecutory. Factors associated with delusional belief were anxiety, social anxiety and self-consciousness, but not theory of mind ability or autobiographical memory. The findings indicate that delusional belief is a prominent feature in Asperger syndrome, but do not support a mentalization based account.

>The absence of an association between mentalization ability and delusional ideation per se or specific paranoid-type delusions is consistent with previous research (Blackshaw et al., 2001). These findings do not support the direct linkage between mentalization ability and delusional beliefs predicted by Frith and Corcoran’s model of delusion belief.

>As previously noted, the lack of a matched control group in this study limits the strength of conclusions regarding the level and type of delusional belief indicated in this group of people with Asperger syndrome in comparison with other groups.

If you're going to quote text do your homework and read the full article first.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/08(Mon)10:12 No. 17891 ID: 020525

>>17889
Makes sense. Aspies usually have delusions of grandeur. Just look at Elon Musk.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/08(Mon)11:36 No. 17892 ID: 21b057

>>17891
Why do you think autists love cartoons so much? They substitute reality with fiction, just like Darwin and his Disney tier bears that turn into whales. Darwin wrote that the origin of life could have happened as precursor compounds came together in "warm little ponds" and yet we all can see from this thread that the total abscence of evidence rules out that his delusion, that water somehow can create life or reshape animals, has any basis in facts.

If Darwin was alive today he would watch anime and have a neckbeard.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/08(Mon)14:25 No. 17893 ID: 658a3f

>>17892
lel


>>
Anonymous 21/11/09(Tue)01:02 No. 17894 ID: 704020

>>17892
Your concerns have already been adressed, see >>17879


>>
Anonymous 21/11/09(Tue)01:02 No. 17895 ID: 704020

>>17891
>Makes sense. Aspies usually have delusions of grandeur. Just look at Elon Musk.
No no no, you can't make claims that aspies have delusions of grandeur after citing a paper that outlines their delusions are based on anxiety, social anxiety and self-consciousness. Those conditons run counter to your new proposition.

If you're going to go full ad hominem at least try an accusation that hasn't been debunked by your own hand.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/11(Thu)14:39 No. 17897 ID: b4dbdd

>>17895
The paper explicitly states:
>primarily grandiose or persecutory
>grandiose

Your opinion is irrelevant since you cannot read.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/11(Thu)17:08 No. 17898 ID: 72c0e7

>>17897
>Try reading the full article.
>It has already been proposed that grandiose delusions may serve the function of protecting a vulnerable self-esteem. The positive effects of these delusions are likely to be only temporary as the individual experiences cognitive dissonance between their beliefs about themselves as an important, special individual and their negative life experiences. This dissonance leads to more negative thoughts and creates more emotional distress, thus maintaining the need for delusional beliefs.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/12(Fri)08:35 No. 17900 ID: 0ca429

>>17897
He even claimed that anxiety, social anxiety and self-consciousness is what causes these delusions when it clearly says they are symptoms associated with them. Apparently association is synonymous with cause in the aspie dictionary. How shitty reading comprehension do you have when you can't even tell the difference between two totally different words?


>>
Anonymous 21/11/12(Fri)14:35 No. 17901 ID: 3394fc

>>17900
I think he doesn't know what mentalization means. People with Asperger syndrome have a really poor mentalization ability which results in that they cannot understand other humans state of mind, which make others perceive them as cold or sociopathic. Hypermentalizing is what causes social anxiety and self-conscious behaviour since you overthink what other people might feel or experience (which people with Asperger syndrome do not, they can't grasp social cues or implicit meanings naturally and misinterpret a lot of information).

Darwin, as an autist, has probably had a fixation that is rooted in a grandiose delusion, mainly, that he exaggerated the findings he 'discovered' or thought he discovered by attributing a ridiculous importance to certain details, just like autists can sit for hours and hours doing the same thing over and over. without producing any beneficial results.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/14(Sun)19:59 No. 17902 ID: 139e61
17902

File 163691635725.jpg - (113.50KB , 720x728 , gandiose delusions.jpg )

>>17901
>grandiose delusion


>>
Anonymous 21/11/15(Mon)08:48 No. 17903 ID: 8c5684

>>17901
His theory that life originated in water from natural compounds is a delusional ideation. It hasn’t been verified at all and because natural compounds do not automatically gravitate towards each other and create life. Darwin is pretty much a failed science fiction author.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/15(Mon)09:16 No. 17904 ID: 139e61

>>17903
>His theory that life originated in water from natural compounds is a delusional ideation.
So, to clarify, you believe life originated from unnatural compounds.

lul.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/15(Mon)09:40 No. 17905 ID: 8c5684

>>17904
I don't believe delusional ideations that can't be confirmed by real evidence.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/15(Mon)12:01 No. 17906 ID: 2111b0

>>17905
So what do you believe? What is the most plausible explanation in your opinion?


>>
Anonymous 21/11/15(Mon)14:40 No. 17907 ID: 915276

>>17903
>failed science fiction author

Nailed it. His mystic liquid (water) transmigrates compounds to living organisms and bears into whales. A mediocre story but nevertheless a good attempt at writing a riveting book.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/15(Mon)19:56 No. 17909 ID: 139e61

>>17907
>Fails to understand abstract concept.
Maximum 'Tism!


>>
Anonymous 21/11/16(Tue)12:47 No. 17910 ID: f0acaa

10/10 thread! I would also like to point out that Warwick Collins, a biologist in the U.K, doubted the theory of evolution and its premises. Because of this he met opposition from his superiors and was not allowed to publish any new scientific papers.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/16(Tue)14:28 No. 17911 ID: 2083f2

>>17910
>10/10 thread! I would also like to point out that...
... nobody in this thread is capable of proposing an alternative theory.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/16(Tue)14:49 No. 17912 ID: 6a6fc4

>>17910
Darwinists do not like to admit it but they are cultists. Even at universities they adhere only to their own confirmation bias and never accept anything that contradict the words of their holy prophet.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/16(Tue)16:19 No. 17914 ID: 2083f2

>>17912
Nice ad hominem.

Still waiting for you to post an alternative theory...


>>
Anonymous 21/11/17(Wed)10:46 No. 17915 ID: 6d4202

>>17910
>Warwick Collins

I just read about him and it is really interesting. I get the impression that his mentor felt threatened by his ideas and started to oppose them based on either fear of change or maybe jealousy. Academia is more or less full of people with huge egos.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/17(Wed)13:46 No. 17916 ID: 139e61

>>17910
>>17915
>Warwick Collins
Lul, it's like you guys don't read the work you advocate. Collin's 'silent gene' theory is based on the premise of a reservoir of hidden non-coding genes happily mutating and not being deselected by the environment until one day they start coding for proteins.

tl;dr (because I know you won't read the full theory)

Darwinists - Evolution occurs as a result of external environmental factors.
Collinsists - Evolution occurs as a result of internal genetic factors.

Both agree that evolution occurs, it is the mechanism that drives it that is disputed.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/17(Wed)14:05 No. 17917 ID: 0222a0

>>17915
Basically Collins stated that natural selection has no effect whatsoever which in fact disprove evolution. As this thread has already shown it is too rare to get a beneficial mutation that makes the organisms "fitness" increase. Abiogenesis cannot happen no matter if you try to explain it using Darwins theory or Collins theory because the cell is way too complex.

Good ideas but not feasible.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/18(Thu)11:40 No. 17918 ID: e47728

>>17917
Natural selection is completely arbitrary. No objectively optimal survival method can be applied to any organism because you can die in a million ways and from a trillion causes, which makes it impossible to know what makes you become fit for survival.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/18(Thu)13:36 No. 17919 ID: 139e61

>>17918
>Collins stated that natural selection has no effect whatsoever which in fact disprove evolution.
No it doesn't, his theory is that natural selection doesn't drive evolution, on the contrary he very much does believe in evolution, it's the mechanism that drives it that he disputes. If you say a ball is red and someone else says that ball is blue that doesn't mean the ball doesn't exist, that would be crazy, your very argument acknowledges a ball exists.

>Natural selection is completely arbitrary. No objectively optimal survival method can be applied to any organism because you can die in a million ways and from a trillion causes, which makes it impossible to know what makes you become fit for survival.
That was Collins' argument. His theory is interesting but claiming silent genes exist without evidence is going to draw criticism, look at dark matter, there is more evidence to support dark matter than there is to support silent genes and it's still disputed.

>>17917
>Abiogenesis cannot happen no matter if you try to explain it using Darwins theory or Collins theory because the cell is way too complex.
Abiogenesis cannot be explained using Darwins or Collins theory because they do not deal with the mechanisms that created life, they deal with it's subsequent divergence and evolution. You're making leaps in logic that aren't there.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/18(Thu)14:51 No. 17920 ID: 87c11d

>>17918
Darwin did not really think things through before publishing his bear-to-whale transformation manifesto. He actually had no solid theory to begin with, just a vague guess.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/19(Fri)07:59 No. 17921 ID: 3c141e

>>17920
Sloppy Darwin.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/19(Fri)11:00 No. 17922 ID: 5f772b

>>17918
Fedoras BTFO.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/19(Fri)15:40 No. 17923 ID: a45d00

>>17922
I see you failed to read the subsequent response. Allow me to pasta for you.

>>17918
>Collins stated that natural selection has no effect whatsoever which in fact disprove evolution.
No it doesn't, his theory is that natural selection doesn't drive evolution, on the contrary he very much does believe in evolution, it's the mechanism that drives it that he disputes. If you say a ball is red and someone else says that ball is blue that doesn't mean the ball doesn't exist, that would be crazy, your very argument acknowledges a ball exists.

>Natural selection is completely arbitrary. No objectively optimal survival method can be applied to any organism because you can die in a million ways and from a trillion causes, which makes it impossible to know what makes you become fit for survival.
That was Collins' argument. His theory is interesting but claiming silent genes exist without evidence is going to draw criticism, look at dark matter, there is more evidence to support dark matter than there is to support silent genes and it's still disputed.

>>17917
>Abiogenesis cannot happen no matter if you try to explain it using Darwins theory or Collins theory because the cell is way too complex.
Abiogenesis cannot be explained using Darwins or Collins theory because they do not deal with the mechanisms that created life, they deal with it's subsequent divergence and evolution. You're making leaps in logic that aren't there.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/21(Sun)18:09 No. 17924 ID: 7d5109

>>17918
>No objectively optimal survival method can be applied to any organism because you can die in a million ways and from a trillion causes, which makes it impossible to know what makes you become fit for survival

I, myself, cannot understand why it is of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the Sargasso sea, or why Ascaris has to migrate all around the host's body instead of settling in the intestine where it belongs. What was the survival value of a multiple stomach for a cow when a horse, also a vegetarian and of comparable size, does very well with a simple stomach. Why have certain insects got these rainbow mimicries and protective colorations when the common cabbage butterfly is far more abundant with its conspicuous white wings. There are no good selectionist explanations because natural selection as a concept is so weak and farcical.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/22(Mon)09:40 No. 17925 ID: 020525

>>17924
Good post, OP.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/23(Tue)10:40 No. 17926 ID: bb54b1

>>17924
Spot on.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/23(Tue)20:32 No. 17927 ID: 216679
17927

File 163769594935.jpg - (33.65KB , 720x405 , external-content_duckduckgo.jpg )

>>17924
>I, myself, cannot understand why...
Your personal incredulity does not invalidate the theory. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding of how they work before one is able to properly grasp them.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/24(Wed)08:32 No. 17929 ID: f33cc9

>>17927
He just debunked the theory with one post. Cope harder.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/24(Wed)10:35 No. 17930 ID: 747485
17930

File 163774652599.png - (191.35KB , 785x1000 , 1C32D419-F474-4875-89E5-5B0B9B6C4EB2.png )

>>17929
>Your personal incredulity does not invalidate the theory. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding of how they work before one is able to properly grasp them.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/26(Fri)14:13 No. 17931 ID: 3394fc

>>17903
Of course you can't verify it. It's a fantasy scenario and nothing else. Asperger's makes it natural to seek out alternative worlds, whether through anime, fantasy novels, science fiction, worldbuilding, etc. Darwin wrote down his own ideal la-la land where his obsessive thoughts would fit in.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/26(Fri)16:29 No. 17933 ID: 9e24f4

>>17931
>Of course you can't verify it.
How can you verify that I am real? How can you verify that you are real? How can you verify that anything is real.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/29(Mon)09:09 No. 17934 ID: ba0ca2

>>17930
Aspie rage is what makes this thread thrive, lel.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/29(Mon)13:53 No. 17935 ID: 15c902

I see the /phi/ mentally ill postbot decided to infest /sci/ with its complete lack of scientific understanding and farcical attempts to act like multiple people.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/29(Mon)14:33 No. 17936 ID: 915276

>>17933
>How can you verify that I am real? How can you verify that you are real? How can you verify that anything is real.

Are you schizophrenic? Maybe you should take some meds if you can't grasp what is real.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/29(Mon)16:08 No. 17937 ID: 9b5236

>>17934
I found it amusing that he was so incompetant in his rage that only way he could express himself was by quoting the very text that triggered him.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/29(Mon)16:16 No. 17938 ID: 9b5236

>>17936
Nice ad hominem, can't help but notice your lack of rebuttal but I'll entertain it:
>Maybe you should take some meds if you can't grasp what is real.
Abiogenesis and evolution are the most plausible explanations for life as it exists if you can't grasp that then maybe you should take some meds.

There is the possiblity of an alternative theory being more plausible but so far you have proven yourself incapable of providing one that would satisfy your aspie delusions.

Cope harder.


>>
Anonymous 21/11/30(Tue)13:11 No. 17939 ID: f70178

>>17937
>incompetant

You really are incompetent when it comes to spelling. Maybe your medication is wearing off?


>>
Anonymous 21/12/01(Wed)10:44 No. 17941 ID: 6d4202

>>17939
It's his fedora. It's too tight and starts to restrict the blood flow to his head.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/06(Mon)14:42 No. 17945 ID: 2ef301

>>17939
He has no more copeium left.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/07(Tue)03:33 No. 17946 ID: 216679

>>17945
I was giving you the chance to retort, but it seems finding a spelling mistake was your best counter-argument. Let's reiterate:

>>17936
Nice ad hominem, can't help but notice your lack of rebuttal but I'll entertain it:
>Maybe you should take some meds if you can't grasp what is real.
Abiogenesis and evolution are the most plausible explanations for life as it exists if you can't grasp that then maybe you should take some meds.

There is the possiblity of an alternative theory being more plausible but so far you have proven yourself incapable of providing one that would satisfy your aspie delusions.

Cope harder.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/07(Tue)06:56 No. 17947 ID: 9dc2bf

>>17941
That's what happens when you don't get accepted into university and play computer games all day long.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/07(Tue)14:24 No. 17948 ID: a10523

OP, a lot of theories, just like evolution, are just theories because they can't be verified through solid evidence. Abiogenesis is only a suggestion and not a fact.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/07(Tue)14:55 No. 17949 ID: 216679

>>17948
OP is well aware that it is a theory. What he seems to be unable to accept is that, even with all the holes he's tried to pick, abiogenesis and evolution are stil the most plausible explanations for life as it exists today.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/08(Wed)08:51 No. 17951 ID: 21fbc9

>>17948
I think OP’s post makes it perfectly clear that abiogenesis is only a theory because, in practice, it is impossible.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/09(Thu)00:51 No. 17952 ID: 216679

>>17951
>in practice, it is impossible.
I see you failed the reading comprehension test.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/09(Thu)11:33 No. 17954 ID: 22a07d

>>17952
He is right, though. No one has been able to create a self-replicating cell from scratch in a laboratory and abiogenesis has never been observed in nature. The burden of proof has not been satisfied and thus we can safely say that in practice it is impossible. You may not like it, but saying something CAN happen is not evidence that it DOES happen. All the arguments in this thread that try to prove that it can happen are just autistic sophistry.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/09(Thu)14:49 No. 17955 ID: 30587e

>>17954
You can perform a heart transplant on yourself but the circumstances make it impossible.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/09(Thu)20:23 No. 17956 ID: 216679

>>17954
>No one has been able to create a self-replicating cell from scratch in a laboratory and abiogenesis has never been observed in nature.
>The burden of proof has not been satisfied and thus we can safely say that in practice it is impossible.
And yet, life exists, therefore it must have arose through some mechanism and given all available evidence abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation. In order to truly deny abiogenesis one must either believe in a more plausible explanation or hide behind a veil of nihilistic psychosis.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/09(Thu)22:03 No. 17957 ID: 4c32eb

>>17956
This is the bottom line. Either life as we know it arose as a result of spontaneous natural causes, or something more complex than life as we know it arose somehow arose spontaneously and caused life as we know it without leaving any traces of itself. Any alternative to abiogenesis is currently more implausible and less scientifically supportable than abiogenesis. All the sophistry about "burden of proof" ignores that any other alternative faces at least an equal burden.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/10(Fri)08:48 No. 17958 ID: 0ca429

>>17954
https://math.hmc.edu/funfacts/banach-tarski-paradox/
>Did you know that it is possible to cut a solid ball into 5 pieces, and by re-assembling them, using rigid motions only, form TWO solid balls, EACH THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE as the original? This theorem is known as the Banach-Tarski paradox.

Theoretically, it is possible to create two spheres out of one single sphere. Practically, this is impossible. Abiogenesis is like the Banach-Tarski paradox. It is only possible on paper, using mathematical mental gymnastics to justify it. Ironically, the Banach-Tarski paradox shows that using mathematical formulas to ”prove” anything is pretty weak. It you don’t have tangible, physical evidence then your theories are meaningless and can be discarded as false.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/13(Mon)08:45 No. 17959 ID: ba0ca2

>>17958
Good post, anon. Finally something substantial amid all the aspie repetition ad nauseam without anything to support it.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/16(Thu)13:59 No. 17961 ID: 7fc0ec

>>17958
Mathematicians treat numbers like a religion.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/26(Sun)18:39 No. 17964 ID: 309f5f

>>17958
>Ultimately, the Axiom of Choice remains essentiall yaccepted, and the Banach-Tarski Paradox did not result in the same kind of fearthshaking changes to the foundations of set theory that Russell’s Paradox did. However, the Paradox remain simportant as a forceful illustration of the sometimeshighly counter-intuitive nature of sets, and as such, it has greatly strengthened our understanding of mathematics.
Once again your reading comprehension fails.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/27(Mon)09:47 No. 17965 ID: b776cd

>>17964
>yaccepted

Go back to grade school. Your spelling is awful. Also, nice non-rebuttal, copemeister. Unless you have physical proof of abiogenesis then you have nothing. Can you make two spheres out of one sphere IRL?


>>
Anonymous 21/12/27(Mon)12:52 No. 17966 ID: 915276

>>17965
Theoretically, creating two spheres our of one sphere becomes easy because you can assume that matter itself is infinite and thus you don't have to add anything. However, reality is different.
That ties neatly into abiogenesis. Where do you get all the extra matter from if the initial cell, which is imperfect from the start, lacks its own internal energy supply that hasn't been developed yet?

In short: people who believe in abiogenesis have giant hurdles to leap over, practically.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/27(Mon)15:58 No. 17967 ID: cd3945

>>17966
>In people who believe in abiogenesis have giant hurdles to leap over, practically.
Yet ironically, given all known theories, their hurdles are the smallest and they're leading the race.

Abiogenesis is the safest bet and the most likely to be right.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/27(Mon)21:51 No. 17969 ID: 7d5109
17969

File 164063826247.gif - (3.20MB , 480x320 , 1640578959832.gif )

>>17966
>Where do you get all the extra matter from if the initial cell, which is imperfect from the start, lacks its own internal energy supply that hasn't been developed yet?

You don't. Even if some compounds can form in a primordial ocean the most important one cannot. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is an unstable molecule in unbuffered water. This is because, once ATP gets in contact with unbuffered water, it hydrolyses to adenosine diphosphate and phosphate. ATP is responsible for distributing energy to the cells various functions and that includes cell division. It is clear from this whole thread that the aspie has no idea what he is talking about and that trying to appeal to reason doesn't work on autists that can only repeat something over and over again in order to convince themselves that it is true (without any evidence whatsoever).


>>
Anonymous 21/12/27(Mon)21:57 No. 17970 ID: 216679

>>17969
>appeal to reason
It stands to reason that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation for life.

Are you going to refute this?


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)06:44 No. 17971 ID: 9dc2bf

>>17969
He has been steamrolled in this entire thread so he can only repeat the same mantra over and over in order to do damage control.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)09:33 No. 17972 ID: 216679

>>17971
>Steamrolled
So, just to be clear, because you didn't answering the question.

You're not refuting that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation for life.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)11:49 No. 17973 ID: 711ec9

>>17971
Even when OP spoonfeeds him facts he can barely grasp what is written. I guess he is really dumb and that is why he thinks abiogenesis is "plausible".


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)12:24 No. 17974 ID: 57653b

>>17973
You're still not refuting that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation for life and I'm still waiting for you to provide an alternative theory.

Keep coping.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)12:37 No. 17975 ID: 9dc2bf

>>17973
I think he is obsessed with the word 'plausible'. He can disregard anything as long as he throws out that particular word because in his mind his confirmation bias is 'plausible', even though there is no criteria for what determines plausibility.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)14:23 No. 17976 ID: 57653b

>>17975
I can't help but notice you don't respond to my posts. Are you truly incapable of putting forward a theory you support?

I'll take your continued failure to respond directly as an indicator of your inabilty to cope with contention.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)14:53 No. 17978 ID: 2cac95

>>17976
People don't respond to your posts because you can't provide solid arguments. You can only write muh plausible theory, mufugga hurr durr muh plausibility herp derp. The thread is not about which theory you should replace abiogenesis with. You are the only one autistically spamming the same question using different IP's like a schizo and the only reason you do it is because you are butthurt that you can't verify anything you believe.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)16:31 No. 17979 ID: 57653b

>>17978
>People don't respond to your posts because you can't provide solid arguments.
Abiogenesis is 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 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. 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.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)16:55 No. 17980 ID: 9dc2bf

>>17979
>nothing makes it implausible

OP has provided several posts that show why it is implausible. You just choose to ignore it.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)19:15 No. 17981 ID: 216679

>>17980
>OP has provided several posts that show why it is implausible.
You hit the nail on the head, he has shown why it is implausible. Being implausible does not make it impossible, which is the leap in logic you are bandwagoning on.

Even giving credit to his discrediting, abiogenesis is still the most plausible explanation for life.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/28(Tue)23:35 No. 17983 ID: 7d5109
17983

File 164073091516.png - (254.29KB , 2051x1133 , pH.png )

>>17980
In my previous post I pretty much showed why it is implausible (in other words, impossible) for it to happen. Without ATP the cell literally cannot exist. ATP, in vitro, is not very stable because you need buffered water to study it in and you extract it from bacteria that synthesise it. But when there is no bacteria to synthesise it, and you have a primordial ocean where there is no buffered water, you are faced with an impossible assignment. The problem is, even if the compound is created, it will not remain stable in unbuffered water and cannot be incorporated into a cellular mechanism because ATP is extremely hard to store. The slightest change, and when I say slightest I mean tiny, insignificant changes in pH will ruin the ATP molecule. So, no, abiogenesis will not randomly occur.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/29(Wed)03:37 No. 17984 ID: 216679

>>17983
>implausible (in other words, impossible)
Again, leaping logic. In your own post you even admit that it is possible, even if it is statistically unlikely.

Or to put it in another context. You're claiming it is impossible for the exact same lottery numbers to be drawn in six draws consecutively. I'll admit, it may be statistically unlikely but it is still theoretically possible.

>So, no, abiogenesis will not randomly occur.
Are you saying you believe it was a determined outcome...


>>
Anonymous 21/12/29(Wed)05:34 No. 17985 ID: 7d5109

>>17984
>you even admit that it is possible

No, I did not. I said that the ATP molecule will not remain stable after it was created, which means it is impossible for abiogenesis to happen.

>Are you saying you believe it was a determined outcome...

You really are autistic, aren't you? No, I said it won't randomly occur, which means it will not happen at all.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/29(Wed)06:36 No. 17986 ID: 9dc2bf

>>17985
This is why you don't argue with aspies online, OP. They can't even interpret your posts correctly. I suggest you stop replying to this autist before you have to write 400 pages of text in order to explain a simple post that contains 20 sentences.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/29(Wed)09:18 No. 17987 ID: 25b316

>>17983
OP, there is also something called intracellular pH. In order to make abiogenesis a reality you would need a quantity of water that have different pH values simultaneously and as far as I know it is not possible.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/29(Wed)16:08 No. 17988 ID: 216679

>>17986
>Complains about arguing on the internet.
>Keeps making posts with no point in order to have the final word.
I think you'll find that you're the biggest autist here.


>>
Anonymous 21/12/29(Wed)16:12 No. 17989 ID: 216679

>>17985
>No, I did not. I said that the ATP molecule will not remain stable after it was created
So it is possible for ATP to be created naturally...


>>
Anonymous 22/01/02(Sun)12:36 No. 17994 ID: 7d5109

>>17989
No, it is not. I said in my post that even if the ATP is created it will not remain stable (the specific wording "even if" is hypothetical, because practically, as I already explained, it is impossible without the right pH value.) Abiogenesis is not possible practically but if you ignore reality and all the obstacles then you can make anything possible.

>>17986
I know. Even now I have to explain my posts because he is unable to understand what I mean.

>>17987
Exactly. Different molecules are only stable in different pH environments so to assume they all can coexist in one type of liquid with one specific pH value is moronic. Temperature also affects the stability of molecules.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/02(Sun)13:21 No. 17995 ID: 924e71

>>17994
>Abiogenesis is not possible practically but if you ignore reality and all the obstacles then you can make anything possible.
I love how your standing is "the science is wrong because the science is right". It must be nice living a world of selective truth.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/02(Sun)14:27 No. 17996 ID: b16693

>>17995
>He doesn't believe in a-biogenisis

It had to happen at some point, sorry to tell you.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/03(Mon)06:42 No. 17997 ID: 9dc2bf

>>17994
To be fair: you didn't really argue with him. He got BTFO.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/03(Mon)14:30 No. 17998 ID: 49807d

>>17997
You can tell from this thread that the aspie is a basement dwelling mouthbreather with no higher education.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/03(Mon)18:58 No. 17999 ID: 924e71
17999

File 164123272290.jpg - (63.39KB , 616x405 , 5zwg6v.jpg )

>>17994
>>17997
>>17998


>>
Anonymous 22/01/04(Tue)15:31 No. 18000 ID: 4db07b

Interesting thread! In my opinion the arguments that debunk abiogenesis are more convincing than those that try to prove it. It is odd, however, that if you say that abiogenesis is proven by the presence of life then you pretty much have no argument at all.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/04(Tue)18:34 No. 18001 ID: 216679

>>18000
I'm afraid you may have missed the spirit of this thread.

OP is arguing that it is impossible for life to arise through 'natural' means and that it is the result of intelligent design/creationism. His evidence is that he has no evidence so if he can (in theory) overthrow the theory of abiogenesis it would substantiate his claim, at least this is what he believes. Unfortunately for him there continues to be more evidence supporting abiogenesis than any other theory.

Somewhere along the way we picked up a couple of trolls.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)10:33 No. 18002 ID: 747485

>>18000
>more evidence supporting abiogenesis than any other theory.

Which is....? OP has provided detailed arguments while you have none. Repeating ’plausible’ like a 5 year old that has learned a new word is not an argument. You have no physical evidence and only rely on wishful thinking.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)14:00 No. 18003 ID: 216679

>>18002
>Which is....?
If you need someone to provide basic evidence then it's clear you have done no research on the subject matter and are bandwagoning. You won't be satisfied because you are not looking to be satisfied.

Ergo troglodytarum.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)14:04 No. 18004 ID: c01fd9

>>18002
Don't bother, anon. It is clear he has no evidence and that's why he never provides any. Considering how all the physical conditions and requirements cannot be met practically it becomes obvious that he must believe in magic since abiogenesis has never occured on its own in the wild or in a laboratory.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)14:09 No. 18005 ID: 216679

>>18004
>physical conditions and requirements cannot be met practically it becomes obvious that he must believe in magic
I would love to hear your theory that doesn't depend on magic....

This is the part where you disappear from the thread in defeat, cope, seethe and repeat.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)14:21 No. 18007 ID: c01fd9

>>18005
OP's arguments do not consist of magical thinking. He has used a scientific approach to discredit abiogenesis. You are the one that needs magic in order to prove something practically impossible can become possible. I wonder how you would prove it without using your magic P-word?


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)14:57 No. 18008 ID: be6f8f

Holy shit, this is still going.

>>17969
Now you just need to prove that even rudimentary life would be impossible without ATP. Good luck with that.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)15:07 No. 18009 ID: c01fd9

>>18008
You still didn't provide any evidence without using your magic P-word.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)16:11 No. 18011 ID: 216679

>>18007
>OP's arguments do not consist of magical thinking.
I wasn't asking OPs belief. What do you believe?
Surely you must be able to voice a thought of your own...

Cope, seethe and repeat.

>>18009
Nice projection, everyone who disagrees with you must be the same person....


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)17:32 No. 18013 ID: 7d5109

>>18007
>magic P-word

That encapsulates his whole line of reasoning.

>>18009
He only has his magic P-word. I've thoroughly presented contrary proof in multiple posts while he retreats to his safe space aspie repetition.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)18:07 No. 18016 ID: 216679

>>18013
>I've thoroughly presented contrary proof in multiple posts
You haven't thoroughly presented anything. At most you've posted conclusions without proof.

In order to disprove abigenesis you need to
>prove that rudimentary life would be impossible without ATP. Good luck with that.

Cope, seethe and repeat.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)18:25 No. 18018 ID: 7d5109

>>18016
Son, when you want to talk with grown ups, you need more than a magic P-word. You can't disprove anything I have written because you have no evidence. There are numerous posts in this thread that deal with the issues with abiogenesis and they're factual, like it or not. There is no debate here, only autistic screeching from your keyboard.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)21:17 No. 18020 ID: 216679

>>18018
Be honest boy, you didn't come here to talk science with grown ups. You're here here for an internet argument but didn't you expect to wind up on the losing end.

>You can't disprove anything I have written because you have no evidence.
You've posted no evidence to substantiate your claim, only conjecture. We're still waiting for you to prove that rudimentary life would be impossible without ATP yet you insist it cannot without evidence.

>There are numerous posts in this thread that deal with the issues with abiogenesis and they're factual, like it or not.
Factual yes, but evidence enough to substantiate your claim they are not.

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.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)21:25 No. 18021 ID: be6f8f

>>18018
I agree, there are issues with abiogenesis. Only for the sake of argument, I'll pretend that they're serious enough to disprove the premise of abiogenesis. I.e. The existence of those issues positively proves that life did not originate from non-living matter purely by physical mechanisms.
So, now that we know for certain this is true, what's the actual origin of life?


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)21:59 No. 18022 ID: 7d5109
18022

File 164141639253.jpg - (26.72KB , 350x468 , Laughs in PhD.jpg )

>>18020
>Chemical processes happen even in the absence of life.

Chemicals are just chemicals. They don't assemble themselves to complex life forms at random in a laboratory environment where you can control every aspect of their quantity and shape. Your logic is full of holes because your argumentation comes from ignorance and your magic P-word. You can, literally, examine a cell down to its core components and disassemble it, throw all the parts into a vat of water but no life will emerge from it. If that isn't possible then how do you expect some imperfect blob of nucleotides to magically appear out of nothing and suddenly be able to survive without coding sequences?

Let me paraphrase our entire "debate":
>Q: How do you overcome these problems?
>A: P-word
>Q: Care to elaborate?
>A: P-word.
>Q: Is there physical evidence?
>A: P-word.

I would recommend that you don't waste your energy on university studies, buddy.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)22:17 No. 18023 ID: 216679

>>18022
>I would recommend that you don't waste your energy on university studies, buddy.
Given how you "actually studied biology at a university level" I would consider that sound advice boy.

Can't help but notice you glanced over >>18021 perhaps you could address his question... it's like you're on a mission to avoid answering the core question


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)22:26 No. 18024 ID: 7d5109

>>18023
Good to see I was correct in my summary. You can go back and sit at the kiddie table now.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)22:36 No. 18025 ID: be6f8f

>>18022
>You can, literally, examine a cell down to its core components and disassemble it, throw all the parts into a vat of water but no life will emerge from it.
How are you so sure of that? I don't believe anyone has ever performed that experiment.

>If that isn't possible then how do you expect some imperfect blob of nucleotides to magically appear out of nothing and suddenly be able to survive without coding sequences?
Self-replication doesn't require genetic code. See for example the self-replication of the molecular structure in crystals. We have no idea how much time might have passed between the first organic self-replicators and the first nucleotides.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)23:20 No. 18026 ID: 216679

>>18024
Can't help but notice you glanced over >>18021 again, perhaps you could address his question this time...


>>
Anonymous 22/01/05(Wed)23:49 No. 18027 ID: d60c6c
18027

File 164142296425.png - (295.48KB , 1426x1198 , based on faith.png )

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519377900443

First of all, I would just like to say that this thread is absolutely beautiful! I have never seen anything like it. A raging autist frothing at the mouth over his own stupidity. Secondly, the magic P-word is just an illusory mirage and is only taken seriously by people outside of academia.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/06(Thu)00:11 No. 18028 ID: d7fd32
18028

File 164142428277.jpg - (100.33KB , 1080x780 , Screenshot_20220105_230932.jpg )

A little old that one, 1977.

You might want to read his one from 2005 - Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life where he admits he got it wrong.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/06(Thu)02:39 No. 18029 ID: bf7eac

>>18027
I wonder if someone has responded to probability-based counterarguments in this very thread already. Oh, right: >>17587


>>
Anonymous 22/01/07(Fri)09:59 No. 18032 ID: 0ca429

>>18028
>old

Non-argument. The Miller-Urey experiment is from the 1950's and it didn't create life so abiogenesis is still not feasible.

>he admits he got it wrong.

No he didn't. That book shows that Darwins "warm little pond" could not have existed.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/07(Fri)12:42 No. 18033 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18032
>The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids. There is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences

Hubert Yockey in his own words. OP's first post pretty much says the same thing. I wonder if the aspie is going to visit Yockeys grave and stand there for days, autistically shouting at his gravestone: "Do you have another theory?!". Sadly, I think he would.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/07(Fri)13:57 No. 18034 ID: 3394fc

>>18033
People with autism find safety and comfort in repetition, even if there is nothing to gain from it.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/07(Fri)15:02 No. 18035 ID: f547aa

>>18034
Stfu


>>
Anonymous 22/01/07(Fri)20:40 No. 18036 ID: 216679

>>18034
Is that the best you can come up with "lul, autist"? You argue like an 8 year old which is apt given your knowledge of the subject.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/08(Sat)17:42 No. 18037 ID: 7d5109
18037

File 164166014991.jpg - (137.70KB , 650x422 , Welcome to aspie thread.jpg )

>>18027
>A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of "complexity" not "order"

Precisely my main point. A cell has so many intricately woven parts that simply producing some random proteins and amino acids (especially primitive, imperfect proteins and amino acids) isn't really a guarantee for a functioning proto-cell.

>>18033
>There is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences

This is why no one has been able to figure out how amino acids or enzymes just magically appear out of nowhere. There is no logical 1+1=2 scenario where you have a giant ocean full of water and suddenly you have components that just happen to assemble themselves.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/08(Sat)18:54 No. 18038 ID: 3ea36c

>>18037
For someone who claims to be so knowledgable on the subject could please answer >>18021

Deliberately ignoring a valid question because the answer may not agree with your speculations only serves to undermines your fantasy.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/08(Sat)21:02 No. 18039 ID: 7d5109
18039

File 16416721629.jpg - (154.31KB , 650x422 , VPN aspie.jpg )

>>18038
You still haven't presented any evidence to support abiogenesis.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/08(Sat)21:21 No. 18040 ID: d9819e
18040

File 164167331364.gif - (83.63KB , 210x210 , 1639854179277.gif )

>>18039
>Abiogensis hasn't been proven yet


>HURRR DURRR GOD DID IT!

Everything religious fags have ever said was god was proven to, eventually, have been scientific and natural processes that lead to their inception. So, even if we can't prove abiogenesis currently if history is telling of anything then you will all be proven, once again, to be massive retards (again) with time.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)01:01 No. 18041 ID: 216679
18041

File 164168646660.png - (103.26KB , 860x665 , PHD - Potentially Harmful Delusions.png )

>>18039
You still haven't proven it's impossible.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)09:39 No. 18042 ID: 7d5109

>>18041
My sweet little aspie, it has been pointed out that abiogenesis is a paradox. Paradoxes are contradictory and therefore impossible. I pointed it out in my first post and another poster did it as well when he quoted Hubert Yockey (The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids.)

Everything in this thread deems it impossible and you still cling to your magic P-word which proves nothing.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)10:59 No. 18043 ID: bf7eac

>>18042
If abiogenesis is a paradox then why does life exist?


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)11:38 No. 18044 ID: 7d5109

>>18043
If life exist, but abiogenesis is a paradox, does that prove abiogenesis happened?


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)15:15 No. 18045 ID: b648f6

>>18042
>Abiogenesis is a paradox. I pointed it out in my first post.
...
>This makes it impossible to imagine how

The only supposed paradox is: If you cannot imagine, how can it be.

The answer is in this riddle:
If biology is chemistry, and chemistry is physics, what is the use of a biology degree?


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)19:23 No. 18046 ID: 7d5109
18046

File 164175258830.png - (83.76KB , 650x422 , Asperger.png )

>>18045
You do realize you have lost the argument, right? You have not shown any knowledge regarding how molecular biology works or how you should proceed to prove how it would appear out of nothing. You might as well draw a picture of Sonichu and say that he created the first cell because that is all you have left. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/09(Sun)20:38 No. 18047 ID: 216679

>>18046
>You have not shown any knowledge regarding how molecular biology works
At this stage I'm pretty sure you got your "university level" education through an online course run by a Nigerian prince.

romani ite domum quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur


>>
Anonymous 22/01/10(Mon)01:03 No. 18048 ID: bf7eac

>>18044
If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?


>>
Anonymous 22/01/10(Mon)06:43 No. 18049 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18046
>that pic
LMAO

I wonder what level of asshurt you're on when you come to the same thread for months, get absolutely steamrolled with facts and always resort to the same stale damage control cope.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)17:11 No. 18052 ID: 216679
18052

File 164209031671.png - (103.20KB , 860x665 , UniversityLevel.png )


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)18:55 No. 18053 ID: 7d5109
18053

File 164209652491.jpg - (94.68KB , 496x559 , Keyboard autism.jpg )

>>18052
I know it hurts, sweetie. When you have no argument nor evidence then all you can do is silently concede your defeat.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)19:02 No. 18054 ID: 216679

>>18053
It's cute that you think you won.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)19:06 No. 18055 ID: 7d5109

>>18054
It's even cuter that you think you didn't lose.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)19:10 No. 18056 ID: 216679

>>18055
That's adorable. Once again you're making assumptions and coming to the wrong conclusion.

This is an internet argument dear, everybody loses.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)19:13 No. 18057 ID: 7d5109

>>18056
If by 'everybody' you mean you personally then, yeah, of course.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)19:44 No. 18058 ID: 216679

>>18057
Trust me dear, once you've outgrown your juvenile nihilism you'll understand.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)19:49 No. 18059 ID: 7d5109

>>18058
Unfortunately, you can't outgrow Asperger's syndrome so you will draw Sonichus for the rest of your life.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)20:21 No. 18060 ID: 216679

>>18059
Once again, you're making false assumptions and drawing false conclusions, not once in my life have I drawn a sonichu.

This is a reoccurring theme with you. You get a limited set of data and draw a widespread conclusion without evidence or proof. No wonder you've failed to get your "research" published and have had to resort to arguing on the internet. You need to slow down dear and take things step by step without rushing for an answer lest your reach exceeds your grasp.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)20:25 No. 18061 ID: 7d5109

>>18060
I'm sorry, can you repeat that in non-Asperger? All I hear is ad ignorantiam and Sonichu.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)20:35 No. 18063 ID: 216679

>>18061
Don't worry dear, I didn't expect you to understand. If you did you would also understand why your theory on abiogenesis being an impossibility is wrong.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)20:36 No. 18064 ID: 7d5109

>>18062
>you're theory

I am theory? Time for your medication, aspie. Ad ignorantiam is one hell of a fallacy.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/13(Thu)22:51 No. 18066 ID: dd4781
18066

File 164211067670.gif - (1.49MB , 480x538 , gbjkhjk.gif )

>>18065
Bump limit is reached so I say...


>>
Anonymous 22/01/14(Fri)06:30 No. 18067 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18059
>Unfortunately, you can't outgrow Asperger's syndrome so you will draw Sonichus for the rest of your life.
lel

You can tell that your pic struck a nerve because now he even posts edits of it.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/14(Fri)19:22 No. 18069 ID: 216679

>>18067
>You can tell that your pic struck a nerve because now he even posts edits of it.
Nice projection.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/15(Sat)14:01 No. 18070 ID: 7d5109
18070

File 164225166254.jpg - (138.92KB , 650x422 , obsessed.jpg )

>>18069
He's right, though.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/15(Sat)19:59 No. 18071 ID: 216679

>>18070
Now that you mention it, I'm still waiting to hear your theory.

Keep coping cutie.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/15(Sat)20:15 No. 18072 ID: 7d5109

>>18071
Ad ignorantiam and Sonichus, buddy. You lost.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/16(Sun)01:25 No. 18073 ID: 216679

>>18072
Keep coping kiddo.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof abiogenesis is impossible.

This is the point where you put out another ad hominem to mask your lack of evidence.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/16(Sun)09:32 No. 18074 ID: 7d5109

>>18073
Ad ignorantiam, my Sonichu drawing friend.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/16(Sun)10:23 No. 18076 ID: 216679

>>18074
>Ad ignorantiam
Be careful kid, you keep repeating that and you'll end up caught up in your own internet-aspie ad hominem.

I'm still waiting for you to fulfil the burden of proof on your end.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/16(Sun)11:04 No. 18077 ID: 7d5109

>>18076
You know that you lost, right? You appeal to ignorance when confronted with scientific evidence and rebuttals. Ad ignorantiam is not evidence, Sonichu-san.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/16(Sun)21:38 No. 18079 ID: 216679

>>18077
>You know that you lost, right?
It's cute that you keep saying that, unfortunately that doesn't make it true.
>You appeal to ignorance when confronted with scientific evidence and rebuttals.
Not at all, I've admitted that your evidence suggest it may not have happened [in a specific way] but you've taken it to a logical extreme to state that it is outright impossible. You're like a child who can count to 10 and has declared it the highest number because he knows no higher.

I've asked you to provide proof it is outright impossible but the best you've got is "it didn't occur in this specific way under these specific conditions I have declared (specific conditions I have constructed to support my specific example)".

Keep counting kid, one day you may get to 11.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/16(Sun)22:51 No. 18081 ID: 7d5109

>>18079
>I've admitted that your evidence suggest it may not have happened [in a specific way]

That makes me the winner of the argument and you the loser. I have provided evidence while you have not. That which you call logical extreme is empirical and factual evidence and nothing else. You are now obliged to provide proof that it is possible, but since you cannot, you appeal to ignorance which is mental gymnastic sophistry.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/17(Mon)00:57 No. 18082 ID: 216679

>>18081
>I have provided evidence while you have not.
Your evidence suggest, it is not proof of.
>You are now obliged to provide proof that it is possible
I'm still waiting on you to provide proof it is not.

All I've done at this stage is acknowledged that 10 is a pretty big number. Keep counting kid.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/19(Wed)05:57 No. 18083 ID: d60c6c

Don't mind me, just dropping some peer-reviewed evidence to support OP's argument.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2199970/
>A method of targeted random mutagenesis has been used to investigate the informational content of 25 residue positions in two alpha-helical regions of the N-terminal domain of lambda repressor. Examination of the functionally allowed sequences indicates that there is a wide range in tolerance to amino acid substitution at these positions. At positions that are buried in the structure, there are severe limitations on the number and type of residues allowed. At most surface positions, many different residues and residue types are tolerated. However, at several surface positions there is a strong preference for hydrophilic amino acids, and at one surface position proline is absolutely conserved. The results reveal the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold.

This study was conducted at M.I.T where the authors experimented with re-building proteins by taking away amino acids and replacing them with other amino acids. They found that some parts of a protein chain are tolerant to substitutions but other parts are completely intolerant, showing that proteins are not arbitrary collections of component chemicals but rare and unique combinations. This confirmed Yockey's calculations, which I posted earlier, that the probability of a specific folded protein coming into being by undirected evolution is 1 in 10(65). The practically infinite number of other combinations that could form at random are useless protein sequences for living organisms.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/19(Wed)14:48 No. 18084 ID: bf7eac

>>18083
Now do the same, but instead of using a modern protein, do it with a protein that might have existed in protolife.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/21(Fri)08:24 No. 18085 ID: 0ca429

>>18083
>1 in 10(65)

That is like winning the state lottery by finding the winning ticket in the street and then continuing to win the lottery every week for a thousand years, finding the winning ticket in the street each time. In other words impossible. This study pretty much demolishes the argument that some imperfect and flawed protein sequence would appear through natural selection because, as OP pointed out, you need to explain the selective force behind it.


>>
Anonymous 22/01/29(Sat)02:22 No. 18086 ID: 75a2bf

Youtube  This thread in 8 minutes...


>>
Anonymous 22/01/29(Sat)18:10 No. 18087 ID: 7d5109
18087

File 16434762527.jpg - (68.95KB , 650x422 , Abstract Asperger argument.jpg )

>>18083
>NOOOOOOOO! You can't debunk my fallacious argument with science, stooooop! I want to appeal to ignorance and not provide any substantial evidence to support my delusion, nooooooo!


>>
Anonymous 22/02/01(Tue)02:11 No. 18089 ID: 75a2bf

>>18087
I see you've gone full-troll to the extent that you would troll those who agree with you.

Creationists be crazy!


>>
Anonymous 22/02/01(Tue)15:01 No. 18090 ID: c56b4b

>>18087
>that pic

lmao, aspie BTFO.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/01(Tue)17:00 No. 18091 ID: 75a2bf
18091

File 164373122668.jpg - (63.43KB , 650x422 , 16434762527.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 22/02/02(Wed)07:04 No. 18093 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18090
You know that you got steamrolled when your only "defense" (if you can even call it that) against meticulous arguments and peer-reviewed research is to rebrand your ad ignorantiam fallacy into a low IQ number analogy.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/09(Wed)10:36 No. 18097 ID: 6d4202

>>18093
He got called out at the beginning of this thread for not knowing anything about the thread subject and, months later, OP was proven right. The only thing the brainlet can do at this point is to switch subject and pretend he didn't get rekt.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/09(Wed)12:47 No. 18098 ID: dd4781

>>18097
>OP was proven right.
OP has evidence to support a theory, we're still waiting on him to provide proof that abiogenesis is impossible.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/09(Wed)13:49 No. 18099 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18097
That's why he uses a low IQ number analogy. Everything above the number 10 (10 representing OP's arguments and other posters peer-reviewed sources) is his "evidence" that abiogenesis is possible because then he can cop-out on explaining how impossibility is not possible. OP has real evidence, he has none. OP has thoroughly explained his argument, which has been corroborated by scientific, peer-reviewed sources, but the brainlet aspie uses only fallacies without any credibility.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/09(Wed)14:43 No. 18100 ID: dd4781

>>18099
>OP has real evidence
>he has none.
That is because OP uses double standards. There is plenty of evidence to suggest abiogenesis did happen, which is exactly why it is the prevailing theory within the scientific community. OP however refuses to accept evidence that runs contrary to his posistion.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/09(Wed)15:34 No. 18101 ID: 0222a0

>>18099
I've scrolled through this entire thread and I see no sources proving abiogenesis as possible. The Miller-Urey experiment is the closest anyone has ever come to real abiogenesis and it is still light-years away.

>>18100
>plenty of evidence

Nah. I can tell you're scientifically illiterate. There is no empirical evidence for abiogenesis. If you're going to spout nonsense at least keep it on your brainlet level.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/09(Wed)17:11 No. 18102 ID: dd4781

>>18101
>I've scrolled through this entire thread and I see no sources proving abiogenesis as possible.
Your folly is assuming the consensus of the scientifc community is based on the content of this thread. It's a common fallacy to assume something is wrong because one is incapable of arguing the point and, in the case of OP, it is wrong to assume he is right based soley on his argument.

OP's theory is an interesting theory but ultimately it leads to a fruitless answer as it asserts a negative. The denial of truth is not a truth in itself.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/10(Thu)06:38 No. 18103 ID: 9dc2bf
18103

File 164447151636.png - (106.36KB , 555x455 , zZNQXdH.png )

>>18101
He is an ignoramus.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/10(Thu)19:55 No. 18104 ID: be6f8f

>>18101
>I've scrolled through this entire thread and I see no sources proving abiogenesis as possible.
"Abiogenesis" is the origin of living processes from non-living matter by undirected physical and chemical processes. There's no need to prove that abiogenesis as a general idea is possible, because that should be the default assumption. If we start from the assumption that abiogenesis is impossible then we would be assuming either that a) life existed right at the moment of the Big Bang, when no atoms (let alone atoms heavier than hydrogen) existed, or that b) life was created by one or more non-living intelligent agents, such as super-intelligent robots, or some deity.

That a) is possible is even less obvious than the possibility of abiogenesis, and there's no reason whatsoever to think b) happened. By parsimony, we should assume abiogenesis is possible (not that it happened; that it's possible) until we find irrefutable evidence that it's not.

If you go outside your house and the ground everywhere is wet, it's possible that some weirdo on a plane passed by spraying water all over everything, but your default assumption should be that it rained recently, because we know that the physics of clouds permit water to condense at high altitude and fall to the ground, while someone deciding to spray water over a large area in a manner that's indistinguishable from rainfall is insane.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/11(Fri)04:36 No. 18106 ID: 7d5109
18106

File 164455060632.jpg - (168.76KB , 748x584 , 100% Asperger counter-argument.jpg )

>>18103


>>
Anonymous 22/02/11(Fri)06:41 No. 18107 ID: 9dc2bf
18107

File 164455806795.png - (659.95KB , 709x462 , s5E5PLq.png )

>>18106


>>
Anonymous 22/02/11(Fri)09:06 No. 18109 ID: 75a2bf

>>18104
>"Abiogenesis" is the origin of living processes from non-living matter by undirected physical and chemical processes. There's no need to prove that abiogenesis as a general idea is possible, because that should be the default assumption. If we start from the assumption that abiogenesis is impossible then we would be assuming either that a) life existed right at the moment of the Big Bang, when no atoms (let alone atoms heavier than hydrogen) existed, or that b) life was created by one or more non-living intelligent agents, such as super-intelligent robots, or some deity.

>That a) is possible is even less obvious than the possibility of abiogenesis, and there's no reason whatsoever to think b) happened. By parsimony, we should assume abiogenesis is possible (not that it happened; that it's possible) until we find irrefutable evidence that it's not.

>If you go outside your house and the ground everywhere is wet, it's possible that some weirdo on a plane passed by spraying water all over everything, but your default assumption should be that it rained recently, because we know that the physics of clouds permit water to condense at high altitude and fall to the ground, while someone deciding to spray water over a large area in a manner that's indistinguishable from rainfall is insane.

So true.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/11(Fri)09:26 No. 18110 ID: 3c141e

>>18106
I wish I could count that high, lel.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/11(Fri)13:36 No. 18111 ID: 9dc2bf
18111

File 164458296351.jpg - (89.06KB , 400x398 , 23394919.jpg )

>>18110
Do you know how high I can count? For every number I reach, I provide yet another theoretical possibility for why abiogenesis can happen. What? What do you mean by Banach-Tarskis paradox? What do you mean that theoretical possibility does not equal practical implementation? Pffft, you pleb. I don't need to explain myself. Only plebeians need physical evidence. I, clearly, am not irrational and unscientific because I am supported by stacking numbers.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/11(Fri)16:18 No. 18112 ID: c2bb40

>>18111
Holy shit! Teach me your armchair academia ways, Mr. Wikipedia. I need to learn how to use fallacies.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/12(Sat)00:05 No. 18113 ID: 75a2bf

>>18104
>"Abiogenesis" is the origin of living processes from non-living matter by undirected physical and chemical processes. There's no need to prove that abiogenesis as a general idea is possible, because that should be the default assumption. If we start from the assumption that abiogenesis is impossible then we would be assuming either that a) life existed right at the moment of the Big Bang, when no atoms (let alone atoms heavier than hydrogen) existed, or that b) life was created by one or more non-living intelligent agents, such as super-intelligent robots, or some deity.

>That a) is possible is even less obvious than the possibility of abiogenesis, and there's no reason whatsoever to think b) happened. By parsimony, we should assume abiogenesis is possible (not that it happened; that it's possible) until we find irrefutable evidence that it's not.

>If you go outside your house and the ground everywhere is wet, it's possible that some weirdo on a plane passed by spraying water all over everything, but your default assumption should be that it rained recently, because we know that the physics of clouds permit water to condense at high altitude and fall to the ground, while someone deciding to spray water over a large area in a manner that's indistinguishable from rainfall is insane.

Still true.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/12(Sat)01:02 No. 18114 ID: bf7eac

>>18111
>What do you mean that theoretical possibility does not equal practical implementation?
If you can't recognize how a logical argument can function as evidence of a hypothesis, you would not accept empirical evidence in support of that hypothesis, anyway. Empirical evidence has an implicit logical reasoning, which is that there's some causal link between the measurement that is taken and the hypothesis being studied. If you can reject one logical argument on the grounds that it's a logical argument, you can reject another.

"Just because scientists have imaged what they think is a black hole doesn't mean black holes exist. They could be mistakenly imaging something that's entirely unrelated to black holes."
"Just because scientists have shown that aminoacids will spontaneously assemble in sterile conditions, that in no way supports the idea that life could originate spontaneously."

You're like a child who only understands those things it can put its mouth. Anything else is unfathomable.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/14(Mon)06:43 No. 18115 ID: 9dc2bf
18115

File 164481743914.jpg - (28.88KB , 640x480 , iN3DM9u1AWU3nLVZLAPn2nkQohx3qVhvjuS7QJOyAEI.jpg )

>>18112
Trust me. In my imagination I have all the evidence I need. Why would you waste time with peer-reviewed sources and actually substantiating your claims? All you need is just to pretend you can prove your point and thus you win the argument.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/14(Mon)09:05 No. 18116 ID: c20621

>>18115
Smart.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/14(Mon)13:10 No. 18117 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18116
Let me elaborate further. When I sent a job application to a company via e-mail, they replied back and asked me what kind of credentials or education I have. Since I, obviously, through this correspondence have proved that I can read and write, it is probable that I could have an education or the required credentials. I do not really have to send them any proof because only children that solely understands those things they can put in their mouths demand competence from their workers.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/14(Mon)17:29 No. 18118 ID: 75a2bf

>>18115
>Trust me. In my imagination I have all the evidence I need.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present for your humble amusement, the Creationist.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/14(Mon)23:46 No. 18119 ID: bf7eac

>>18117
Way to fail at analogy, dude.

>Since I, obviously, through this correspondence have proved that I can read and write, it is probable that I could have an education or the required credentials.
You have proven that it is possible that you would have those credentials. The interviewer is asking you to prove that you actually have them.
The question of whether abiogenesis in general is possible and whether one specific version of abiogenesis actually happened are separate. That we don't know the exact sequence of events that led to life doesn't mean that abiogenesis is impossible.

>I do not really have to send them any proof
A job interview is not a scientific process. For example, scientists do not assume that the universe is trying to deceive them, while a job applicant has obvious incentives to be deceitful. The universe of facts in an interview is also much smaller. If an applicant claims to have some certification, it is reasonable to assume that the only reason they would not provide evidence for it is that it's a lie. The study of abiogenesis involves researching events that happened so long ago that no evidence is left (that we know of so far), so scientists are working from first principles, trying to piece together what might have happened. Until someone invents a time machine, we're likely never going to know whether one particular abiogenesis theory is the correct one, because there's no evidence left to test against.

3/10. Want to maybe try again?


>>
Anonymous 22/02/15(Tue)11:40 No. 18120 ID: bb54b1

>>18117
Wow, are you some kind of genius?


>>
Anonymous 22/02/15(Tue)11:45 No. 18121 ID: bb54b1

>>18119
His analogy is accurate. No evidence, no argument. No credentials, no job. Cope harder.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/15(Tue)13:11 No. 18122 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18120
Yes. I have a Ph.D in copeology and a master's degree in mental gymnastics.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/15(Tue)14:08 No. 18123 ID: b8a6c8

Youtube  >I CAN'T WORK
>I CAN'T PROVE MY ARGUMENT


>>
Anonymous 22/02/16(Wed)04:08 No. 18124 ID: bf7eac

>>18121
Nuh-uh.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/16(Wed)06:50 No. 18126 ID: 9dc2bf
18126

File 164499062799.png - (396.60KB , 630x440 , 393.png )

>>18123
I find it exasperating and humiliating that society demand peer-reviewed studies when you want to prove an argument. This is pointless because my own fantasy scenarios should be accepted as a source. This is why I am anti-source.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/17(Thu)10:33 No. 18127 ID: 22a07d

>>18126
lol


>>
Anonymous 22/02/17(Thu)14:34 No. 18128 ID: 30587e
18128

File 164510485557.jpg - (103.78KB , 685x767 , CE6F23FF-5371-4AF8-9799-A171D5BA93B9.jpg )

>>18126
Stupid science! I identify as anti-source-kin.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/17(Thu)15:03 No. 18129 ID: 2494da

>>18128
>I identify as anti-source-kin.
Any particular branch? Mormon, Muslim, Mennonite???


>>
Anonymous 22/02/17(Thu)15:23 No. 18130 ID: 30587e
18130

File 164510780827.png - (54.33KB , 792x614 , 5D4A89A6-B80C-47D6-9528-BA5733335164.png )

>>18129
I asked my mom where life comes from. She told me the abiogenesis fairy arrives at night, and if you leave some aminoacids under your pillow, she will take them and when you wake up in the morning, a fully functional, self-replicating cell will be waiting for you.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/17(Thu)20:05 No. 18132 ID: 75a2bf

>>18130
>She told me the abiogenesis fairy arrives at night, and if you leave some aminoacids under your pillow, she will take them and when you wake up in the morning, a fully functional, self-replicating cell will be waiting for you.
So I'm guessing Paganism, since Faeries could be considered akin to one of their deities. I must admit I'm not too familiar with the Pagan religions but having a Faerie being the deity of choice for creating life doesn't seem too far fetched.

Given your queer behaviour would I be right assuming you're one of the Radical Faeries.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/18(Fri)10:42 No. 18133 ID: 9ae43b

>>18130
holy shit LMAO my sides


>>
Anonymous 22/02/18(Fri)13:17 No. 18134 ID: 9dc2bf
18134

File 164518664594.gif - (564.42KB , 800x430 , 3cb.gif )

>>18130


>>
Anonymous 22/02/18(Fri)15:31 No. 18135 ID: 3394fc

>>18106
People with autism find solace in mathematics. It has strict rules and follows their own view of conformity.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/18(Fri)19:02 No. 18136 ID: 814927

>>18135
People with delusions find solace in religion. It's a fabricated truth and follows their own view of conformity.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/18(Fri)22:57 No. 18137 ID: 67cce3

>>17384
>christianity is about playing biologist, geologist and call people "nazi" when they point out that evolution is based on death
No, christianity is about redemption and what should be done here and now.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/21(Mon)07:00 No. 18144 ID: 9dc2bf
18144

File 164542322438.jpg - (23.81KB , 750x350 , timthumb.jpg )

>>18135
https://www.autismparentingmagazine.com/autistic-child-prodigy-jacob-barnett/

I wonder how high he can count?


>>
Anonymous 22/02/21(Mon)08:13 No. 18145 ID: 063207

>>18144
I bet that if someone told him Sonichu isn’t real he would write a mathematical formula that proves, theoretically, that Sonichu is real.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/21(Mon)11:14 No. 18146 ID: 814927

>>18145
>Sonichu is real
I think you'll find that's your own 'tism presenting. Nobody else is talking about it.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/21(Mon)13:09 No. 18147 ID: 9dc2bf
18147

File 164544539424.jpg - (73.25KB , 680x681 , 4fb.jpg )

>>18145


>>
Anonymous 22/02/21(Mon)14:06 No. 18148 ID: 3695d1

>>18145
rofl


>>
Anonymous 22/02/22(Tue)14:10 No. 18149 ID: 6a6fc4

>>18145
Mathematics will make anime waifus real.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/22(Tue)19:00 No. 18150 ID: e6c33f

>>18145
>>18147
>>18148
>>18149
I can't help but feel this is all the same guy, bumping to omit >>18146 from the recent posts.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/23(Wed)06:46 No. 18151 ID: 9dc2bf

Youtube  >>18149
Damn neurotypicals demanding evidence! It is probable, that in some part of the universe, abiogenesis happened and spawned a whole race of anime waifus. I don't have to provide evidence because it is real to me!


>>
Anonymous 22/02/23(Wed)09:38 No. 18152 ID: 5dba0b

>>18151
lel


>>
Anonymous 22/02/23(Wed)14:29 No. 18153 ID: 264d77

>>18151
Where did you find this video of me?


>>
Anonymous 22/02/23(Wed)18:18 No. 18154 ID: be6f8f

>>18150
There's only like at the most three different people here, and at least one of them is pretending to be more than one.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/23(Wed)19:51 No. 18155 ID: e6c33f

>>18154
>There's only like at the most three different people here
I would have guessed 4:
Me, you, OP and troll.

But three raises an interesting question, who's straddling the post? Unfortunately I would have to hazard the guess is you since you/OP are the only one making use of a static IP (7d5109/be6f8f) for the entirety of this thread.

Of course that could be a happenstance and OP is actually troll, posting from his PC with a static IP and a dynamic IP on mobile.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/24(Thu)06:44 No. 18156 ID: 9dc2bf
18156

File 164568147638.gif - (3.03MB , 468x250 , CorruptWellwornAndalusianhorse-size_restricted.gif )

>>18153
Did you know that if you leave a random mixture of Japanese males in a vat of water then suddenly anime will appear? Source: my imagination.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/24(Thu)10:16 No. 18157 ID: 821f52

>>18156
Incredible, Asperger-sama! You are so smart o_O! Can you show us how?


>>
Anonymous 22/02/24(Thu)11:25 No. 18158 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18157
Sure. Hypothetically, you add X amount of Japanese males with Y amount of time and then you get Z amount of anime to appear. There are no prerequisites for anime to appear because, theoretically, anything can happen if you think it will. Spontaneously created anime can be done by anyone in any environment. Now...if you ask me about evidence for this, well...let's just say that I can count really high.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/27(Sun)21:14 No. 18160 ID: e6c33f

>>18158
>X amount of Japanese males with Y amount of time and then you get Z
>X*Y=Z
>There are no prerequisites for Z
Yes there are, you clearly outlined them, X and Y. It is as if you don't even understand your own argument. Which is more than probable.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/28(Mon)06:43 No. 18161 ID: 9dc2bf
18161

File 164602698735.png - (596.54KB , 645x512 , 1598021361028.png )

>>18160
>being this autistic

I thought I was Asperger-sama but clearly I was wrong.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/28(Mon)08:37 No. 18162 ID: 53ae24

>>18161
He does not understand sarcasm.


>>
Anonymous 22/02/28(Mon)21:34 No. 18163 ID: e6c33f

>>18162
Being retarded and being sarcastic are not the same thing.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/01(Tue)06:36 No. 18164 ID: 9dc2bf
18164

File 164611297056.gif - (435.92KB , 600x580 , c84.gif )

>>18162
Obviously. What a sperg.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/01(Tue)10:55 No. 18165 ID: bb54b1

>>18164
Must be tough to be unable to read between the lines.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/01(Tue)22:04 No. 18166 ID: bf7eac

>>18155
>OP is actually troll
I would have to say that's most definitely true, even if there actually are two independent trolls here, which I'm not convinced is the case.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/02(Wed)06:38 No. 18167 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18165
This whole thread shows that the aspie has poor reading comprehension and he has zero evidence for his assertions. Appeal to ignorance is his way of life.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/02(Wed)09:23 No. 18168 ID: e6c33f

>>18167
What? No meme image this time? Did you forget which device you were posting from?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/02(Wed)12:25 No. 18171 ID: 9dc2bf
18171

File 164622033175.png - (353.20KB , 302x299 , Wo1xLNy.png )

>>18168
Oh my gosh! How inconsiderate of me! I forgot how important routines are for aspies like yourself. Here, sweetie. A picture just for you.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/02(Wed)13:54 No. 18173 ID: 2c6a60

>>18171
Thanks


>>
Anonymous 22/03/02(Wed)15:25 No. 18175 ID: d8dd89

>>18027
>based on faith

/thread


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)03:52 No. 18176 ID: e6c33f

>>18175
You forgot your meme again.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)05:37 No. 18177 ID: 7d5109
18177

File 164628227324.jpg - (309.57KB , 610x1024 , Aspie looking for evidence.jpg )

>>18175
This thread has been over for quite some time.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)09:21 No. 18178 ID: c50a13

>>18171
What a nice and sincere post.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)09:26 No. 18179 ID: e6c33f

>>18177
>This thread has been over for quite some time.
It never began, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)10:54 No. 18180 ID: 22a07d

>>18177
lol, I wonder if he still think his imagination counts as evidence. If so, then every schizophrenic rambling about grey aliens from outer space is legitimate evidence for extraterrestrial life.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)13:58 No. 18182 ID: 14b349

>>18180
He argues like a schizo. Huuurrr, if I say it is possible, but science disagrees, it is possible duuuurr.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/03(Thu)21:56 No. 18183 ID: e6c33f

>>18180
>every schizophrenic rambling about grey aliens from outer space is legitimate evidence for extraterrestrial life.
That's what creationism is. You do realize you're debunking your own belief there.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)08:28 No. 18184 ID: cc50ca

>>18183
>grey aliens from outer space
>creationism

Congratulations. You just won first prize for most stupid post in this thread.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)09:28 No. 18185 ID: e6c33f

>>18184
Do you need me to point out the parallels for you?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)09:37 No. 18186 ID: cc50ca

Youtube  >>18185


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)10:51 No. 18187 ID: 9ae43b

>>18186
Makes sense. You have to be mentally unstable to drone on and on like the aspie has done for months in this thread without anything to say except repeat his own autistic phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)13:51 No. 18188 ID: be6f8f

>>18182
Science agrees abiogenesis is possible, so...


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)14:36 No. 18189 ID: 3394fc

>>18186
Another thing about people with autism is that they are literalists. They cannot grasp nuances in social situations and therefore religious concepts and texts are foreign to them. They can only read and comprehend what is explicitly stated. They're more akin to machines than actual humans because their entire existence is composed of binary thinking, 0's and 1's. Even though there is nothing that proves abiogenesis is possible practically, the autist cling to this belief because it is part of his whole mental paradigm. Without 0, their reality breaks down.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/04(Fri)21:51 No. 18190 ID: e6c33f

>>18188
>Science agrees abiogenesis is possible, so...
I don't think he understands how the scientific consensus works. As long as there is at least one article written by someone with an internet degree declaring 'abiogenesis is a fairy tale for darwinists' he will continue to believe it so.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/07(Mon)06:33 No. 18191 ID: 9dc2bf

>>18178
Your autistic reading comprehension is flawless.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/07(Mon)09:10 No. 18192 ID: 80ff3a

>>18083
>>18027
Best poster in this entire thread. Good work, anon.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/13(Sun)11:38 No. 18193 ID: d60c6c
18193

File 164716791910.png - (278.60KB , 1348x1288 , Miracle tier.png )

>>18192
Thank you. Here is some more evidence that proves OP's argument.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283604007624
>Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds

This paper is just a technical way of saying that new enzyme folds are impossible to produce by natural selection. This experiment set out to measure the sensitivity to destabilization of proteins. When proteins are destabilized they lose function and if they lose their function they cannot continue to exist, which means further transformation or conversion into other proteins become impossible. This loss of function gives a measure of the rarity of stable functional folds. You could say that you need a miracle to produce a self-replicating cell out of nothing.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/13(Sun)20:36 No. 18194 ID: fb91ac

>>18193
>Estimating
>This paper is just a technical way of saying that new enzyme folds are impossible to produce by natural selection.
No it's not, at most it's saying it's statistically unlikely. Not impossible.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/14(Mon)13:08 No. 18195 ID: bf7eac

>>18193
I couldn't find the complete text of the paper (which IMO is bullshit for an 18-year-old paper, but whatever), but I did find something interesting.

First, most obviously, is that the methodology is inapplicable to the question of the plausibility of evolution by natural selection. What's being investigated is a particular model of how enzymes might have arisen. The paper is basically saying "if the assumptions we made are valid, it's statistically improbable that enzymes arose by random assemblage of unrelated protein folds".

Second, apparently this paper is circulated around creationist circles. I think this is interesting. Regardless of the probability of enzymes assembling randomly, I wonder about the probability of a naive layman stumbling upon such a technical paper.

Finally there's something else that should be mentioned. It doesn't make or break the validity of the argument, but I think it helps shed some light on the motivation behind the paper.
The (apparently only?) author is Douglas D. Axe. I don't know what the D stands for, which makes his name difficult to Google, but Douglas Axe (without a D) is a molecular biologist and the director of the Discovery Institute. ResearchGate lists Ann Katharine Gauger (also from the institute) as a common co-author of D.D. Axe's, so that's good enough for me to conclude that Douglas D. Axe and Douglas Axe are the same person.

So what's the point? The point is that ol' Dougy here had a point to make. He wanted to connect a very high improbability value with the assemblage of proteins, and he wanted to get that connection published on a peer-reviewed journal any way he could. He knew if he made the paper technical enough 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to understand what it's saying (if they can even get their hands on it), so all he needed to do was find some way to make a reasonably legitimate experiment but fucked just enough to get some stupidly high power of 10, but not so fucked that it wouldn't get past the reviewers. Once it's published all he needs to do is pass it around his creationist buddies to use as propaganda.
I'll admit it's clever, but ultimately it doesn't amount to more than editing Wikipedia to say that you're the president of the United States. It doesn't fool anyone.


Here's what other people had to say on the paper: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/51670/can-estimating-the-likelihood-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-fo


>>
Anonymous 22/03/15(Tue)03:40 No. 18196 ID: 7d5109
18196

File 164731203750.png - (373.46KB , 730x596 , Aspie cope room.png )

>>18193
Another great post. I appreciate it!

Your first source, written by Yockey, is about the likelihood of generating a functional cytochrome c sequence. His results made him conclude that many proteins are not evolvable and even that they could not be generated on a reasonable timescale. Your subsequent two sources confirm his calculations beyond any doubt and I am surprised to see that they're wholly independent. The sheer amount of cope in this thread is remarkable and mostly because there is no solid proof that disprove your peer-reviewed studies or my argument. I still haven't seen any evidence that shows abiogenesis is possible in practice other than brainlet fantasies.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/18(Fri)14:22 No. 18202 ID: 3394fc

>>18196
Your attached picture is really accurate. People with Asperger syndrome tend to isolate themselves from others to a very large extent which fuels their depressive thoughts.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/25(Fri)09:36 No. 18206 ID: 18facd

>>18193
There are many issues with evolution. Abiogenesis is just the first insurmountable hurdle.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/25(Fri)19:29 No. 18207 ID: dde282

>>18195
An absolutely amazing post, that highlights the cognitive bias in creationists, so good in fact I feel it's worth quoting in full.

>>18193
I couldn't find the complete text of the paper (which IMO is bullshit for an 18-year-old paper, but whatever), but I did find something interesting.

First, most obviously, is that the methodology is inapplicable to the question of the plausibility of evolution by natural selection. What's being investigated is a particular model of how enzymes might have arisen. The paper is basically saying "if the assumptions we made are valid, it's statistically improbable that enzymes arose by random assemblage of unrelated protein folds".

Second, apparently this paper is circulated around creationist circles. I think this is interesting. Regardless of the probability of enzymes assembling randomly, I wonder about the probability of a naive layman stumbling upon such a technical paper.

Finally there's something else that should be mentioned. It doesn't make or break the validity of the argument, but I think it helps shed some light on the motivation behind the paper.
The (apparently only?) author is Douglas D. Axe. I don't know what the D stands for, which makes his name difficult to Google, but Douglas Axe (without a D) is a molecular biologist and the director of the Discovery Institute. ResearchGate lists Ann Katharine Gauger (also from the institute) as a common co-author of D.D. Axe's, so that's good enough for me to conclude that Douglas D. Axe and Douglas Axe are the same person.

So what's the point? The point is that ol' Dougy here had a point to make. He wanted to connect a very high improbability value with the assemblage of proteins, and he wanted to get that connection published on a peer-reviewed journal any way he could. He knew if he made the paper technical enough 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to understand what it's saying (if they can even get their hands on it), so all he needed to do was find some way to make a reasonably legitimate experiment but fucked just enough to get some stupidly high power of 10, but not so fucked that it wouldn't get past the reviewers. Once it's published all he needs to do is pass it around his creationist buddies to use as propaganda.
I'll admit it's clever, but ultimately it doesn't amount to more than editing Wikipedia to say that you're the president of the United States. It doesn't fool anyone.


Here's what other people had to say on the paper: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/51670/can-estimating-the-likelihood-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-fo


>>
Anonymous 22/03/26(Sat)13:22 No. 18208 ID: d60c6c
18208

File 164829736556.png - (12.40KB , 531x350 , Extremely high number.png )

>>18196
Glad I can help you out. Here is some more evidence to strengthen your argument.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000096
>Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space
This Japanese study determined that you would need an unfathomable amount of trials (pic related) to acquire the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the Fd bacteriophage. The study concluded that functional protein sequences are ridiculously rare, just like all the previous papers I have posted.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/26(Sat)19:04 No. 18209 ID: bf7eac

>>18208
>The question remains regarding how large a population is required to reach the fitness of the wild-type phage. The relative fitness of the wild-type phage, or rather the native D2 domain, is almost equivalent to the global peak of the fitness landscape. By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness. Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination. Recombination among neutral or surviving entities may suppress negative mutations and thus escape from mutation-selection-drift balance. Although the importance of recombination or DNA shuffling has been suggested [30], we did not include such mechanisms for the sake of simplicity. However, the obtained landscape structure is unaffected by the involvement of recombination mutation although it may affect the speed of search in the sequence space.

Good job quoting a paper that directly contradicts you.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)00:32 No. 18210 ID: 7d5109

>>18209
Nice reading comprehension you got there. Their experiment is in line with the other studies because they relied on base pair substitutions. When they write "also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination" they are making assumptions because that is the only way you can explain anything you cannot substantiate with raw data or actual evidence (just like you, in this entire thread, assume abiogenesis is possible because you cannot explain your belief in it empirically). If you yourself have no peer-reviewed sources that show how abiogenesis can occur in a laboratory environment or in nature you have admitted defeat.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)10:23 No. 18211 ID: dde282

>>18210
>First, the smooth surface of the mountainous structure from the foot to at least a relative fitness of 0.4 means that it is possible for most random or primordial sequences to evolve with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape by adaptive walking with only single substitutions. In fact, in addition to infectivity, we have succeeded in evolving esterase activity from ten arbitrarily chosen initial random sequences.
Congratulations, you played yourself.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)11:00 No. 18214 ID: 7d5109

>>18211
How, exactly? They even wrote in the study that after 7 generations the bacteriophage stagnated. After 20 generations, they saw negligible changes. Beyond 20 generations they needed huge amounts of trials to even come close to the adaptive fitness in the original protein. Going halfway up the fitness landscape does not mean the protein reaches the required fitness level. Also, esterase activity has nothing to do with the g3p minor coat protein. Without the g3p minor coat protein the bacteriophage cannot infect other organisms and as a result dies out. It is fairly obvious you don't understand what their study is saying.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)17:36 No. 18215 ID: bf7eac

>>18210
>When they write "also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination" they are making assumptions because that is the only way you can explain anything you cannot substantiate with raw data or actual evidence
Uh-huh. But the paper is written under the assumption that evolution is a real phenomenon. If you think that assumption is invalid you should treat the entire paper as invalid and not cite any parts of its conclusions. You can't cherry-pick the facts that are convenient for you.

Also, needless, to say, there's plenty of evidence for evolution at the macro level. No need to go looking for more of it at the molecular level.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)18:35 No. 18217 ID: 7d5109

>>18215
Science doesn't work that way, my illiterate friend. They used the most common method, base pair substitution, and got nothing. You do realize what context means, right? Even their entire extrapolation is from an in vitro artificial selection experiment. This means they had to take a defective bacteriophage that could not survive in the wild due to the fact that they removed the most crucial component to its survival and put it inside a bacterial host in order to let it duplicate itself.
Bacteriophages are not able to self-replicate because they are primitive (a human cell contains billions of base pairs while a bacteriophage has tens of thousands) and thus they need external material so they can perpetuate their existence. The experiment eliminates all obstacles such as environmental factors and even host scarcity meaning the defective bacteriophage has optimal chances for survival because they select only those that show the most changes. Despite all this they couldn't reproduce the g3p minor coat protein. In short: in nature a defective bacteriophage do not survive and reproduce and they certainly do not produce proteins through uninterrupted contact with the same host.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)19:45 No. 18218 ID: bf7eac

>>18217
Nothing in your post refutes what I said.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)20:07 No. 18219 ID: 7d5109

>>18218
You didn't even have a point in your post. Zero peer-reviewed sources, zero evidence for abiogenesis and zero knowledge about the subject. That's why you cope and can't provide evidence.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)20:16 No. 18220 ID: bf7eac

>>18219
Abiogenesis is not the current topic of discussion, retard. It's your inability to understand assumptions and implications. You can't cite a paper that assumes evolution happens to prove evolution doesn't happen. Are you unable to understand why that doesn't work?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)20:45 No. 18222 ID: 7d5109

>>18220
No, you don't understand how science works. You can't say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can barely read a scientific paper and grasp its content.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)21:27 No. 18223 ID: bf7eac

>>18222
>You can't say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do you understand at which point absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence? If you're looking for an umbrella that could only be in one of ten closets, and you've already looked in all of them, the only conclusion you must reach is that the umbrella is nowhere.
Is your contention that if abiogenesis happened, we should have found evidence of it by now? Note that "evidence" I mean what you mean, which is the exact chain of chemical reactions that led from non-living organic compounds to life.
Is that your claim? What do you base it on? Do you understand just how complex organic chemistry is? Have you counted all the closets?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)21:45 No. 18225 ID: 7d5109

>>18223
You are the one that claims scientific papers that fail to produce complex, integrated protein sequences somehow prove abiogenesis is possible. The absolute state of your mental gymnastic sophistry is laughable


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)21:55 No. 18226 ID: bf7eac

>>18225
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to put words in my mouth then you can argue with yourself.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)22:07 No. 18228 ID: 7d5109

>>18226
If you in a primitive bacteriophage with less than 100 000 base pairs cannot produce a integrated protein sequence that is necessary for its survival then how do you expect a cell with over billions of base pairs to randomly assemble itself and produce highly integrated protein sequences that makes it self-replicate? I'm still waiting for real evidence and not your weak attempts at pseudo-scientific armchair sophistry.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)22:21 No. 18229 ID: bf7eac

>>18227
>how do you expect a cell with over billions of base pairs to randomly assemble itself
Because the very first cells were likely even simpler than the simplest current viruses, possibly without even a genetic code? They might not even have been able to self-replicate without incorporating into themselves what was already in the environment (i.e. grow then divide). We're talking about structures on the very edge of life.
I mean, what do you think abiogenesis says happened? That the first organism was a modern E. coli bacterium?

>I'm still waiting for real evidence and not your weak attempts at pseudo-scientific armchair sophistry.
"We don't know how it happened" is the best current answer. "And therefore it couldn't have happened" is a non sequitur. If you want to believe that abiogenesis is impossible because we don't know how it happened, go ahead, but it's a faith-based position, and inherently precarious.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)22:38 No. 18230 ID: 7d5109

>>18229
Still waiting for real evidence. You are the one basing your opinion on faith and not real evidence. To even suggest abiogenesis involves a process that lacks a genetic code sounds like sci-fi hippie nonsense which further more is also lacking proof.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)22:49 No. 18231 ID: bf7eac

>>18230
>To even suggest abiogenesis involves a process that lacks a genetic code sounds like sci-fi hippie nonsense which further more is also lacking proof.
I see how it works now. When I say that something might be possible I have to prove that it definitely happened, but you can say that things are completely impossible without a shred of evidence.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)22:59 No. 18232 ID: 7d5109

>>18231
You lacked knowledge on the subject from the start and you are , embarrassingly, like a teenager in your reasoning. Make claims without evidence and say they have some sort of authority. Just keep on repeating your absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mantra.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:02 No. 18233 ID: bf7eac

>>18232
Exactly what is my claim?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:13 No. 18234 ID: 7d5109

>>18233
First I pointed out Yockeys argument:
>The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids.

You then reply, like a teenager:
>If abiogenesis is a paradox then why does life exist?

To which I retort:
>If life exist, but abiogenesis is a paradox, does that prove abiogenesis happened?

Several posts and peer-reviewed sources later you still just repeat your ad ignorantiam fallacy.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:28 No. 18235 ID: bf7eac

>>18234
You didn't really answer my question. What is my claim?

>You then reply, like a teenager:
>>If abiogenesis is a paradox then why does life exist?
>To which I retort:
>>If life exist, but abiogenesis is a paradox, does that prove abiogenesis happened?
I very specifically responded to your retort and you ignored it:

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?

For the sake of argument, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that abiogenesis is impossible, but only if you follow the implications of that assumption to their logical conclusion. If you're not willing to do that then shut the fuck up.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:34 No. 18236 ID: 7d5109

>>18235
You have no evidence for abiogenesis because there is none. You have not the slightest clue how the cell would assemble itself because nothing supports the notion scientifically. You are fanatically irrational and only rely on your own fantasy instead of empirical testing.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:39 No. 18237 ID: bf7eac

>>18236
Thanks for confirming that I don't need to continue to waste my time with you. Goodbye to this shithole of a thread.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:43 No. 18238 ID: dde282

>>18236
Once again you ignored his response.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/27(Sun)23:48 No. 18239 ID: 7d5109
18239

File 164841773768.jpg - (147.81KB , 650x422 , (you).jpg )

>>18237
>>18238
Still waiting for evidence, buddy.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)00:01 No. 18240 ID: dde282

>>18239
I'm still waiting on your alternative theory...


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)00:05 No. 18241 ID: 7d5109
18241

File 164841873092.png - (373.46KB , 730x596 , (you).png )

>>18240


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)00:07 No. 18242 ID: dde282

>>18241
Before you retreat in to your cope cage could you at the very least address the following:

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)00:15 No. 18243 ID: 7d5109
18243

File 164841930437.jpg - (173.64KB , 748x584 , 100% Aspie (you).jpg )

>>18242


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)00:38 No. 18244 ID: dde282

>>18243
Are you incapable or unwilling to respond. I suspect the latter because it would require you to challange Yockeys opinion.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)04:36 No. 18245 ID: 7d5109
18245

File 164843496636.png - (89.03KB , 796x703 , (you).png )

>>18244
>Abiogenesis? Yeah, it is possible.
>Source? Dude, trust me.


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)06:40 No. 18246 ID: 9dc2bf
18246

File 164844244044.jpg - (28.31KB , 324x291 , 717.jpg )

>>18239
>>18241
>>18243
>>18245


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)08:20 No. 18247 ID: dde282

>>18245
You're still not answering the question:

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)09:02 No. 18248 ID: c20621

>>18245
lel


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)22:20 No. 18250 ID: 7d5109
18250

File 164849883787.png - (1.02MB , 778x2086 , Aspie larp.png )

>>18246


>>
Anonymous 22/03/28(Mon)22:49 No. 18251 ID: f3c25a

>>18250
Why do you keep trying to ad homo your way out of answering the question?

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?


>>
Anonymous 22/03/30(Wed)16:15 No. 18254 ID: 25c96c

Is this fucking thread still going lol


>>
Anonymous 22/04/04(Mon)09:05 No. 18256 ID: 2cac95

>>18250
That pic is this thread in a nutshell.


>>
Anonymous 22/04/05(Tue)00:01 No. 18259 ID: bc4b3d

>>18256
It's nice that you think we're the same person. Perhaps you could answer the question?

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?


>>
Anonymous 22/05/22(Sun)21:09 No. 18274 ID: d60c6c
18274

File 165324654223.png - (9.65KB , 410x248 , Experimentally impossible.png )

Once again I will prove OP right by supplying this thread with yet another study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58511/
>Searching sequence space for protein catalysts
>This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number of sequences compatible with a given fold and implicates previously unidentified residues needed to form a functional active site.
>Our estimate of the low frequency of protein catalysts in sequence space indicates that it will not be possible to isolate enzymes from unbiased random libraries in a single step.
>The required library sizes far exceed what is currently accessible by experiment, even with in vitro methods

This study determined that you cannot prove evolution experimentally because the amount of trials you would need is beyond anything that is remotely possible.


>>
Anonymous 22/06/09(Thu)13:36 No. 18278 ID: 462bc8

>>18274
>Misplacement of catalytic residues by even a few tenths of an angstrom can mean the difference between full activity and none at all.

lol, and yet fedoras think abiogenesis is just a regular occurence that can happen no matter the circumstances.


>>
Anonymous 22/07/04(Mon)15:05 No. 18290 ID: 36d056

>>18274
5 x 10^23…lmao. I wonder if Richard Dawkins would have the patience to do this experiment.


>>
Anonymous 22/08/15(Mon)13:38 No. 18315 ID: 7d5109

Youtube  >>18274
Thanks again. I greatly appreciate it.


>>
Anonymous 23/02/14(Tue)22:24 No. 18492 ID: 0af699

>>18274
>>18315
The dedication of this strawberry is bewildering.


>>
Anonymous 23/04/10(Mon)13:12 No. 18506 ID: 7d5109

>>18492
>strawberry

Is this the latest schizo babble meaning delusion?


>>
Anonymous 23/04/11(Tue)08:29 No. 18507 ID: adb842
18507

File 168119456591.png - (90.09KB , 796x703 , larping aspie.png )

>>18506
it's that autist again, lmao



[Return]



Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason