I bet you can't provide a bulletproof argument for evolution. You'll resort to easily understood arguments like fossils...

I bet you can't provide a bulletproof argument for evolution. You'll resort to easily understood arguments like fossils, but nitty gritty shit like creation of new genetic information is something you probably don't understand. Therefore you don't know shit, you just think you do. Prove me wrong bitch

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/LJDgVlv55Uw
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Fossils are all I need faggot

fossils were planted by the Jews in 1932, everyone knows that

youtu.be/LJDgVlv55Uw

No one can step up huh?

because youre a religious cunt and the fact you believe in a weird book makes us all think youre a bit of an idiot, and trying to reason with you is like trying to convince blacks to stop talking in a theater

Nothing implied in religious you fucking leaf

I did biomedical studies, I saw populations of bacteria genetically alter before my own eyes.

Prove that new genetic information was created, not merely damaged or rearranged.

> It's another "OP doesn't understand the material in his science book" thread

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

what if I told you I honestly don't care what you think

don't be a loser

That's literally the definition of "new genetic information", you fucking idiot.
Mutations *are* evolution.

wow so enlightened thanks for sharing

you could have taken a molecular biology class to answer your questions, but instead you decided to signal your ignorance on Sup Forums

>if you can't provide an explanation of evolution which is clearly beyond my level of scientific understanding, it doesn't exist
>also, what are miller-urey experiments

a+ posting, kid

We create a stock population of a bacterium, we grow one out on a plain agar plate as a control group and we grow one out on a plate with an antibiotic x. The control group grows while the agar plate with antibiotic shows no growth.

Now we modify the geneset of the bacteria by adding a plasmid vector that creates resistance towards antibiotic x. We run both the control and antibiotic agar plate again and tadaa. We have modified a population.

This we can double check by cutting out the specific genes from the modified bacterial population and check it with a spectrophotometer or whatever we used to check it with.

genetic information can not only be "damaged" (note: the word 'damage' implies an underlying purpose which doesn't really exist) and rearranged, but entire chunks of genetic code can be replicated and added to the genome, giving you things like variable number tandom repeats (VNTRs) which are analyzed in modern genetic testing

again, why the fuck are you demanding a scientific explanation that is beyond your level of understanding? go to college if you're so interested in the "nitty gritty" of molecbio

Evolution on the unicellular scale is visible within a period of hours. However the evolution at a unicellular cell seems to follow a Lamarckian pattern of evolution rather than Darwinian. Darwinian evolution is bullshit, Lamarckian evolution is the only thing that makes sense. But you can literally watch microbes change their DNA over the course of a few generations to protect themselves from a foreign threat.

However, the speed at which this occurs seems to indicate that the process isn't random. This would imply life evolves adopting only the positive evolutionary benefits. Obviously this rule isn't 100% accurate, nothing in biology is, but at least at a unicellular scale it seems evolution works according a Lamarckian model.

if you have a panel of 10 men to advise you who are all experts in their fields, it is an important life skill to be able to extract knowledge from their counsel

you don't disregard and ignore the advice of your counselor just because you don't understand the nitty-gritty of their field. you hired them because they're the expert.

Provide a bulletproof argument against evolution :^)

I don't need fossils. I have mummies and dna tests on a decent sample of the world.

niggers are less evolved. They are demonstrably inferior, proving mankind has taken strides forward.

>but nitty gritty shit like creation of new genetic information is something you probably don't understand
And you do?

I realize I didn't answer OP's challenge.

Well, genetic information is changed based on habits and the rhythm of your heart, as well as various other factors. These things are brought about by great intellectual pursuit and control, which over the course of your life, will improve your stock, and your children will be stronger as a result.

White people are best at this process. As demonstrated by historical and dna study.

/thread


why is anyone still replying?

It would seem evolution occuring at that fast of a rate would indicate a Lamarckian pattern of evolution rather than Darwinian would it not? Evolution that occurs due to environmental factors is not due to random chance.

Well I provided a human example, at least.

diet, as well. intelligently regulating what goes into your body will make you a better person. The idea is small changes over your life will be refined by your offspring from birth, and they will make their own strides forward.

Of course degeneration is also possible. When I look at arabs, I know this to be true.

except humans have 2 mutated chromosomes from chimps, not one
somebody did that

>Darwinian evolution is bullshit

What makes you say that. There is no intent nor randomness to constitute the premise. Genetic mutation is without intent but it is not random, the environment is the filter/test for this mutation.

>entire chunks of genetic code can be replicated and added to the genome
by intelligent creators sure

Are mitochondria intelligent?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

Creation, let alone intelligent one, implies intent. MRSA was a byproduct, an evolved superbug, that stumbled upon ways to cope with the dangerous hospital environment. MRSA was not created.

>resort to easily understood arguments like fossils
>still can't understand evolution
>Everyone else must be idiots like me
That is called narcissism

Evolution is driven by natural selection, the genetic mutations sometimes happen to be advantageous. 99% these mutations do nothing. Meiosis also assist in genetic diversity.

>implying evolution needs a devine being to allow it to work
Nothing out of the ordinary happens in evolution that would call into question the sciences supporting it

This, mutations just so happen to be advantageous for an organism, but the environment will never stay the same.

Picture of OP

The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for Abiogenisis, interestingly enough, recently a protein necessary for synthesis was found on an asteroid. Further supporting the notion of Abiogenisis.

Then show me one of these intelligent creators.

Well no shit, as entropy happens systems tend to congregate due to the fundamental laws of nature (gravity, etc. i am no physics student so don't bust my balls). These laws cause chemical evolution, which in turn causes biochemical evolution, etc.

What's your standard of proof, OP? There are some pretty good arguments in this thread already. Particularly these + What's it going to take? Cause I have a sneaking suspicion you are suffering from a case of personal incredulity.

I'm referring to the way Abiogenisis happened. By primordial soup or from asteroids. The asteroid method is gaining more support. I see now I forgot to mention that

Oh my bad, that is my own bias. I am involved in this material so it's like a duh moment for me. Thanks for clarifying. If you have infographics please share so OP can stop memeing.

>nitty gritty shit like creation of new genetic information

Nice meme, but duplication and deletion are sufficient. You don't need new base pairs, just different combinations.