what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution? Implications on worldview are entirely nihilistic. every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out. Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.
Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.
Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.
in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:
1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"
2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"
same with homosexuality: 1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival 2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth
>cause and effect is the same as circular logic >doesnt predict anything Also wisdom teeth come in to replace regular adult teeth when you lose them over the course of your life like human would have over the millions years of EVOLUTION they've experienced.
>Also wisdom teeth come in to replace regular adult teeth when you lose them over the course of your life
so they have a purpouse and are not vestigial relic?
Leo Cox
If you can't understand it, it's o.k. You're just a fucking useless, brainwashed idiot sheep faggot. Fucking croatia, like wtf are you even? Garbage piece of shit country filled with retarded manlet soy boy cucked faggots.
Cooper Hughes
>Fucking croatia, like wtf are you even? Garbage piece of shit country filled with retarded manlet soy boy cucked faggots.
Yep. Just because you don't know everything doesn't mean those things don't have explanations. Do you think humans just know everything there is to know? Of course not, science never stops learning.
But why bother, keep denying evolution while eating food and taking medicine entirely derived from biological research. What difference does it make.
Matthew Price
>Of course not, science never stops learning.
I agree, that is why I reject a closed system like evolution. Science, unironically, should be open minded and anti-grand theories (or at least not to believe in them dogmatically) in order to accept new discoveries.
Christopher Long
>I agree, that is why I reject a closed system like evolution. Yet you accept that penicillin kills Staphylococcus, and that we can make transgenic mice that glow green from a jellyfish gene, and that we can use surgery to put part of a pig heart in a person. But nah, evolution, which is fundamental to the basics of molecular and cellular biology and genetics, is all wrong because it's a "closed system", whatever that even means in this context.
Bentley Torres
>Yet you accept that penicillin kills Staphylococcus, and that we can make transgenic mice that glow green from a jellyfish gene, and that we can use surgery to put part of a pig heart in a person. But nah, evolution, which is fundamental to the basics of molecular and cellular biology and genetics
what does accepting legit dry scientific and empirical discovery have to do with the need to accept evolution? genetics can fit in other paradigms, weather earth is 6000yo or 5 billion doesnt change the quality of the findings you mentioned (unless you make logical jumps)
Nathaniel Hall
>Appendix >2k18 >ppl still think appendix is useless
>fundamental to the basics of molecular and cellular biology and genetics
also, genetics predates evolution. how on earth did you made the other conclussion?
Luis Watson
>genetics can fit in other paradigms, weather earth is 6000yo or 5 billion doesnt change the quality of the findings you mentioned (unless you make logical jumps) Why does every single living organism have ribosomal RNA? Why do we all use DNA to store info? Why do all cells, on average, look relatively similar? Why is there a record of slow, gradual changes in every single housekeeping gene that is present in all organisms? Why do organisms share any characteristics at all? How do the offspring of an organism look different than the parents of the organism? Why can we purposefully and artificially influence selection to generate different traits? Why are organisms living in an environment almost always well suited to that environment, but if you change the environment the composition of organisms in the new environment changes and then the new composition is suited for that new environment? Where did oxygen in the atmosphere come from? Why is ATP synthase so similar to a flagellar rotor?
Jose Price
Genetics is the study of the relationships between genotypes (genes) and phenotypes (traits). It is intimately related to both molecular biology (the study of genes and genetic-level interactions) and evolution (the study of changes of organisms over time). Just because humans didn't discover the concept of genetics at the same time that they discovered the concept of molecular biology, doesn't mean that the two aren't related. Why the hell would it mean that??
Ryder Jenkins
everything you said can be explained by:
God created the Earth 6000 yo + natural selection (which is empirically demostratable)
I need some harder facts, like human skull like vestigial organs because you cant proce without a catch 22 rationale that an organ on living humans is vestigial.
>Just because humans didn't discover the concept of genetics at the same time that they discovered the concept of molecular biology, doesn't mean that the two aren't related.
they are related but genetics isnt ENOUGH proof for evolution. Pre-mendel genetics was here for a millenia at least
Xavier Adams
evolution is just the result of a large variety of processes of which we have varying degrees of understanding there are ways to predict things like bacterial adaptation rates
When you say "God did it" you just plaster that explanation on top of all of my explanations. "God did it" doesn't explain a single thing. If I ask "What is proton motive force?" and you say "God did it", you haven't said anything at all. If you say "It's when you pack protons on one side of a membrane to store potential energy. God did it", then the "God did it" part STILL doesn't explain anything.
>I need some harder facts If you looked into half the questions I just asked, you'd find more hard facts that you can learn in a year.
>genetics isnt ENOUGH proof for evolution It's honestly the BEST proof. Why the hell are the genetics of every living organism so similar if not because they came from common ancestors? Go here: blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&LINK_LOC=blasthome and type in any gene you want, or any sequence, or fucking poke around at all on that site, and you'll see just how related everything is.
How can you accept that organisms reproduce and make offspring that look different from themselves but at the same time deny that they don't do they over millions of years.
Jose Nguyen
Alright, without using the modern theory of evolution explain how wolfs were bred by humans to become the diverse species of "Dogs" we have today.
Joshua Price
>When you say "God did it" you just plaster that explanation on top of all of my explanations. "God did it" doesn't explain a single thing. If I ask "What is proton motive force?" and you say "God did it", you haven't said anything at all. If you say "It's when you pack protons on one side of a membrane to store potential energy. God did it", then the "God did it" part STILL doesn't explain anything.
Exactly. "God did it" is an unscientific and infalsifiable explanation as is "its evolutionary adaptation".
>without using the modern theory of evolution explain how wolfs were bred by humans to become the diverse species of "Dogs" we have today.
natural selection + mutation + selective breeding. no need to jump billion of years.
Angel Thompson
honestly its retarded religious fags still argue against evolution. its been proven hundreds of times and these autist want more
If all creatures lived in the same time once humanity would have got fucked by dinosaurs and the five mass extinctions its illogical and stupid
>Exactly. "God did it" is an unscientific and infalsifiable explanation as is "its evolutionary adaptation". No. If I ask you to elaborate on "God did it", you'll say "God did it" over and over. If you ask me to elaborate on "evolutionary adaptation", we can talk about reproduction, and mutation, and mutation rates of enzymes, and ecology, and interactions between organisms and ecology, and an near infinite number of other topics that we actually do have hard facts for. And then we can get even deeper into ANY of those topics, because so many are active areas of biology research. All you can is, at best, say "Oh well god has mysterious ways you know?"
You failed at understanding every word you use. Nothing you write makes even a shred of sense. You ask a question with a self evident answer, then make a moral argument.
Your first example is beyond fallacious.
Your second example is ridiculous, the appendix being useless wasn't concluded from the theory of evolution, thus it being wrong is utterly irrelevant. Indeed it is another fallacy.
Evolution is falsifiable and it is obvious how.
Please mods delete this threads, they have nothing to do with politics and are nothing but extremely low effort shit posting.
Nolan Morris
My professor of nephrology just talked to me about this last week, the unfalsifiability (if that word exists) of the theory. Nice lad, very intelligent. Please give me something to read on this
So you believe in evolution, but you're stuck on the 6,000 years old thing. Look up relative dating in geology. We have known the world is much older that 6,000 years for a long time.
Gabriel Gutierrez
best thing to BTFO evolutionaryfags is the ocular system. it always point all the flaws in their theory. Try it it's hilarious.
>a roach rapebaby denies evolution What a suprise.
Jason Smith
What is the point of these pastas? Nobody is actually buying the shit you're peddling. Nobody believes you're serious (because you're not). Are you this desperate for (you)s?
>its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself >almost
Charles Anderson
Some gay retards here
Easton Cruz
>You failed at understanding every word you use. >Nothing you write makes even a shred of sense. >You ask a question with a self evident answer, then make a moral argument.
you talk like a pretentius faggot who liked mohameds cock and doesnt actually have intellectual balls to engage directly.
>Your first example is beyond fallacious.
plenty of WN aregue in exact the same way
>Your second example is ridiculous, the appendix being useless wasn't concluded from the theory of evolution, thus it being wrong is utterly irrelevant. Indeed it is another fallacy.
How do you explain pocket dogs, rideable horses, hornless cows and hairless pigs without evolution? If humans could change animals like that in thousands of years, is it that impossible that it could happen naturally over millions of years?
Asher Johnson
garant smrdiš po lošoj travi i švercaš se buson
Sebastian Gutierrez
Don't be retarded.
Jeremiah Lewis
>what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution? That DNA doesn't affect phenotypes. That traits aren't encoded into the animal and passed down. That's the criteria for falsification. Without DNA, evolution is in the dumpster.
>the unfalsifiability (if that word exists) of the theory.
for a theory to be scientifical, it has to be falsifiable.
why? because all scientifical knowledge comes from empirical observation and induction and since all empirical observations is inheretly flawed, unlike deductive reasoning, good theory isnt perfect. if its perfect its not empirical. Pic rel. Those insights come from Popper.
>How do you explain pocket dogs, rideable horses, hornless cows and hairless pigs without evolution?
you dont need evolution to explain it, just natural selection.
>If humans could change animals like that in thousands of years, is it that impossible that it could happen naturally over millions of years?
>That DNA doesn't affect phenotypes. That traits aren't encoded into the animal and passed down.
but you talked about genetics. Disproving what you said would disprove genetics and with it evolution, but genetics can exists without evolution as it did for a few thousand of years.
Evolution is just the implied outcome of the inheritability of genes. Thus, the only way to disprove it is to disprove inheritability.
Genetics can exist without evolution, but evolution cannot exist without genetics.
Jackson Powell
inteletukac
Julian Ramirez
>explain me then sweetie, i'm curious
its pretty clear what I meant. you can claim "eyes are an evolutionary adaptation to see". The same way you can claim "God made it that way", both are intellectual nuclear bombs and BOTH are pseudoscientific reasoning.
Mind you, I, the OP am against that kind of pseudoscientific reasoning since its infalsifiable and memish.
>Genetics can exist without evolution, but evolution cannot exist without genetics.
true, that is why your claim of genetic heritability isnt a good enough argument for evolution since it fits 1) evolution and 2) Young Earth Creationists.
So then we all descended from stars, except for niggers. That's cool. WE'RE SAIYANS N SHIT
Benjamin Nguyen
only Croats are saiyans, that would explain Vegeta
Angel Gonzalez
In what way would genetics fit into a creationist theory that wouldn't also imply evolution?
Hunter Jenkins
your whole argument is circular
first you say that scientific theory is useless, ergo scientific reasoning
then you claim authority over scientific reasoning, ergo you are a fucking idiot
Lucas Rogers
natural selection + mutation + human breeding, but you close the time frame to 6000 instead of 5 billion.
Carson Gomez
Stop responding to shills ffs. sage
Parker Bailey
>natural selection + mutation But that's how evolution is defined. You're just describing evolution over a shorter period of time.
Logan Rivera
Maximizing small time observation to big time gap is how evolution theory was created. One could argue that being less intelligent is an evolutionary adaptation.
The creationists are desperate to claim the mantle of science - an acknowledgement of the power of the method - but since they don't understand it apart from a few key terms, their attempts to disconnect evolution are basically just exercises in semantics.
Even eyes - actual focusing eyes - have arisen independently through selection in protists. See: ocelloids.
>Even eyes - actual focusing eyes - have arisen independently through selection in protists. See: ocelloids.
eyes, infact any complex body part, cant disprove evolution. evolutionary theory is perfect...and infallible.
Adrian Hughes
>exercises in semantics
that is how you call pre-req for scientific theory? brilliant.
Ethan Lee
>Maximizing small time observation to big time gap is how evolution theory was created. So then it's experimentally validated. What's the problem then?
>One could argue that being less intelligent is an evolutionary adaptation. Well sure. Brains are expensive energy wise. If you don't need them to survive and reproduce, they're just dead weight.
Kayden Wilson
>So then it's experimentally validated.
yes and no. If you could jump to a less time frame and provide more fossil proof I wouldnt have a problem with it. But not having ONE human fossil with vestigial parts brings questions.
Asher Phillips
"what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution?" Find multi-cellular creatures emerge spontaneously. Find irreducibly complex organisms. Prove that mutations don't happen. All those things would disprove evolution.
Isaac Lewis
Why do you need evidence for the specific case when the general case has already been demonstrated?
Luis Gomez
>how is that different than saying "(mutations+natural selection)x time" over and over Because we can point to the mutations and figure out what the effect on the protein and the phenotype does and say "yup that does this". What does God do?
Daniel Myers
extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.
>Because we can point to the mutations
show me human fossils with vestigial organs.
Benjamin Gray
Fossils are garbage. Genetic information shows this very, very, VERY clearly.
Easton Rogers
>Genetic information shows this very, very, VERY clearly.
Fossils to me feel like harder evidence, but Im not informed to what genetic info are you reffering and how it proves evolution. pls explain.
Dylan Moore
>extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence. How about the diversity of dogs through selective breeding
What you're asking for is unreasonable given the difficult nature of finding fossils.
Gavin Robinson
Information for building cellular machinery is stored in DNA. Every cell has DNA, so even a tiny bit of fossil that you have no idea where it belongs should have lots of usable DNA.
We have sequenced the DNA of a great number of organisms, including from fossils. That means we know the exact sequence of letters (As, Ts, Cs, and Gs) that each organism has. We can compare the sequences of letters from one organism to the next. More than that, with model organisms that we can control like mice and flies, we can FORCE a letter to change and see what the effect is.
If one organism has AAATTTGGGCCC in one area of their DNA, and another organism has AAATTTGGGCCA, the last C and A are the only difference between those sequences, so we know those organisms are very closely related. A more distantly related organism might have AAATTTGGACTT, but there will always be some level of similarity.
There are genes that exist in every single organism. We can compare the sequences of those genes and order organisms in terms of relatedness using how similar or different those sequences of letters are.
Nathan White
I suspect Lysenkoism may indeed exist, just at a substance level.
I don't see why some stress-feedback DNA modding bio-mechanism couldn't exist and it sure would speed up shit.
>We can compare the sequences of those genes and order organisms in terms of relatedness using how similar or different those sequences of letters are.
so you are reffering to comparison of fossil DNA and human and their similarity or similarity of animal and human DNA? the percentage of same genes of chimps and humans.
I know about that, but that isnt good enought proof for 5 billion years gap, if we are talking about history, we need at least a bit of historical proof. Is there some DNA or celular trait that gives a genetical history of an organism.
Nathan Gutierrez
DNA itself leaves signatures as to the history of an organism.
Jason Murphy
>signatures as to the history of an organism.
percentages shared or smth else?
Nathan Morales
1) more adapted != superior You can solve triple integrals in 0,00005 seconds but if you refuse to stick your penis inside a vagina your species will not survive
2) not an argument
Carter Edwards
Radio carbon dating is your friend. Also astronomy and physics has proven that the universe is billions of years old. (Using the constant speed of light and light from billions of light years away) Why would the earth not be?
Parker Moore
Go back to /x/
Jaxon Sanchez
>Also astronomy and physics has proven that the universe is billions of years old.
we are talking about science in this thread go back to /x/
Come up with a better theory for how life came to be without saying >god majicked it into reality, just like that, he waved his wand and *poof* there was humanity and all other forms of life created in an instant
Xavier Baker
It would completely depend on what you are looking for. DNA evolves at different rates as do genes.
Jeremiah Brown
>>god majicked it into reality, just like that, he waved his wand and *poof* there was humanity and all other forms of life created in an instant
as scientific as evolution
>It would completely depend on what you are looking for.
but is there are genetical proof pointing to shared anscestor that isnt about shared DNA sequences? smth that proves fathers or mothers line?
Carson Turner
Mitochondrial and Y-DNA is used for Therian Mammals to calculate divergences in the gene pool AKA evolutionary splits.
Levi Gray
We may not be able o perfectly explain how the first form of life on this planet came to be, but obviously, suggesting that every single species that exists on this planet magically popped into existence in their complete forms is demonstrably false. The theory of evolution is far more scientific than your explanation because it actually tries to explain things while you are just going with "lmao idk how it works god did it i think"
