Evolution is a fact.
It's amazing to me that in this day and age there are still people who dispute it.
Although this usually stems from a lack of understanding of the facts or the evidence.
If anyone has questions regarding the theory of evolution i would be happy to answer them
Other urls found in this thread:
talkorigins.org
twitter.com
indoctrinated religious degenerates are a disgustingly large portion of the United States and an embarrassment to the country im with you OP
It is kind of embarrassing to be honest. Especially the number of elected officials who believe that kind of shit
I have yet to meet a single person who disbelieves in evolution.
I don't live in the USA, simple as that.
Lucky you.
It's an amazing experience
Darwin wrote "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
Some bacteria have just such an organ. They swim with a rotating flagellum, connected to a rotary engine, which has motor mounts...irreducible complexity.
did you just hold up the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex?
Where have you been ?
Why is there no proof that one species can evolve into another species? Macro-evolution is an unproven theory.
I think you mean "micro-evolution" is a fact.
> Macro-evolution is an unproven theory
Would you care to debate that assertion?
take away the motir, take away the mounts, and it wont work....at all
It won't work as it does now. Take away several parts and its still a wonderful protein injector.
See, that is where irreducible complexity falls down.
It supposes that how a structure functions now was someone the end point to which all the various factors were working.
The simple fact of the matter is that structures which are useful in one way can be modified to be useful in another way
and the point is "can be modified"...somhow a motor and motor mounts just showed up by chance
Not chance. selective pressure.
But you seem interested in a debate. Right now you're asking questions and supposing that if i don't have an answer then this is evidence against evolution.
Are you up to the challenge of debating the evidence that evolution has occurred?
>I understand it, I guess my only question is how to explain evolution to other people in a way they can understand
sorry for the green text
I've got a few examples that the layman can easily follow. I am after all a layman myself
well its not a fact, its a theory that is true but not a fact cuz some gayfag said so
It's a theory. But it's also a fact
Care to Share?
oh it most definite has occurred.
Human engineers use genetic algorithms to design things.
Science is awesome
ye just like gravity?
Theory has a different meaning in the real world versus the scientific world, in the scientific world it just means the idea hasnt been dis-proven and is accepted as fact
yes.
There is the fact that things are pulled towards the earth and there is the theory which explains why this happens.
There is the fact that life changes over time and the theory which explains how this occurs
Evolution is definitely real. We're advanced monkeys with advanced communication skills. I am not religious in any type of way but i do think a lot more than I probably should about why we're all here, kinda of depressing honestly lol.
One of my favourites is the example of endogenous retro viruses.
It shows the link between closely related species like chimps and humans and really makes a creation model hard to defend.
I can post my brief spiel on he subject if you want
We're not here for any reason. Just enjoy your life for what it is
>we exploded from dust an sheitttt
No
its a theory for a reason....
Sure we did
>its a theory for a reason....
Correct. The reason being that it comprehensively, accurately, consistently and predicatively explains the evidence we see.
A theory in a scientific context is much different than the way it is used commonly.
A theory is not lower on the hierarchy of certainty than a law. They are just different things
Thats a great example, I just meant I was looking for a way to simplify evolution
Oh i don't know about that. I just know of examples of evidence which are simple to follow and hard to deny
I agree, and i do honestly, i just kinda of wish i would have never messed with psychedelics. I enjoyed being a person that wasn't constantly thinking about life and death.
sounds rough dude
Evolution = fixation of beneficial mutation.
They get fixated by natural selection. No natural selection = no evolution.
Aaaaand i dont feel like going all into irreducible complexity. I state the above because a lot of evolutionists are retards that dont even get how its supposed to work. Im not saying thats you op but ive argued with so many that werent able to comprehend natural selection is the main mechanism to evolution and its only the beneficial mutations getting fixated which leads to the creation of new traits.
There are obviously dead ends where certain things will have no function thus no evolution (optic nerve, the heart, etc.).
Evolutionists like saying " oh kt used to be x, y, and z".
Long story short. I dont have the energy right now to get all into it.
Nah it's cool dude, in another aspect psych's taught me also that we're here to have fun and not to take life/ourselves so seriously.
You know as well as I do that Evidence doesnt always work on people that wont accept facts.
Often doesn't work, i'd say lol
But at least you can expose the flaws in their belief to them and to anyone observing the interaction
How could it be falsified?
Thats all we really can do, I just wish there was a better way to help educate the "non-believers" haha
Not op. Anyways, Irreducible complexity.
Basically proving there is a point where something will have no function thus natural selection won't fixate it thus no evolution.
...
...
I don't believe that could ever be proven. As demonstrated in this thread, any apparent irreducible complexity can be explained away, and routinely is.
Seems to me that, that is a hypothetical argument
Irreducible complexity could be proven.
None biological example of irreducible complexity = car engine.
A car engine will not function if it's just an inch of metal and it could not have some "other" function either. There is a point where something simply will have 0 purpose.
^again, none biological function.
Well whatever. My point is that irreducible complexity is a real thing (such as the car engine example). Haven't really read up on much in terms of biology but every machinery has a minimal amount of parts in order to function so i wouldn't be surprised if such legitimate examples (such as the car engine one) can be found within our bodys.
A flawed analogy. A car engine is made from start to finish with the final product in mind.
The same cannot be said for biological structures.
What is a biological example of irreducible complexity?
>My point is that irreducible complexity is a real thing
Yes, when it comes to things we have constructed. How do you know it's a real thing in the natural world?
Also, its not enough for something to be "functional". It would have to ALSO be significant enough to be acted upon by natural selection.
I know that which is why I specifically said "other".
Also, I was specifically saying that was a non biological example. I know evolutionists like to say "it used to be 'x' then 'y' then 'z').
Yes. I know you specifically used a non-biological example.
I assume this is because you could not present a biological example.
So why should we assume that irreducible complexity is a real thing in nature?
Like i said i havent looked at this in a while but i refer to biological machinery withing our cells like the atp synthase motor, flagellar motor , etc.
No i couldnt bevause i havent read uo on this stuff really.
>So why should we assume that irreducible complexity is a real thing in nature?
It could be. It only makes sense to think there is a point where a particular machinery would have no function even before its "final product".
For example, what function would the optic nerve in our eye have BEFORE it was fully formed as it is today?
I say optic nerve because all it is is just a bunch of conductors connecting the retina to the visual cortex. What ELSE would it have done? WHAT were its "other" functions before it was the optic nerve as we know it today?
Again, all it is in this point in time is like a cord to a lamp. Hard to think of other "previous" functions for something so specific.
"It could be" is not a good reason to suppose that it is.
I don't know about the optic nerve specifically, but there are several stages in the development of our eye which would still give adaptive advantage while being virtually unrecognizable when compared to a modern eye
I know there are some pretty good ideas as to how the bacterial flagellum could have been useful at various stages before it was in fact a bacterial flagellum
>could have
Hmm... anyways that sounds hypothetical. Are there actual lab examples that somewhat show the motor working at a minimal stage?
For example, if evolutionists say "well it can function without so and so" are there actual lab experiments done like literally take away parts of the motor that are supposedly "not needed"?
To see if it would still work?
Natural selection is a fact. Evolution is still a theory.
Check it out. It's not exactly random guesses lol
talkorigins.org
But i'm no biologist.
>Evolution is still a theory.
Evolution will always be a theory. It's never going to graduate to a law or something.
It's a fact because we can see that life changes over time. This is known as evolution.
The theory of evolution describes how this happens
Theories = good
Example: theory of gravity
I see evolution more like a hypothesis.
Then again i havent read up in a while. Wouldn't be fair to say this.
It certainly wouldn't be fair to call it a hypothesis.
Mr google says
" In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."
so my euphoric friend, what do you believe evolution is going to develop towards in the future?
some hairless monkeys fapping it to traps can't be all millions of years of evolution can be good for
Explain chicken milk then faggot.
No idea. Might be that life gets more intelligent and complex.
Might be the opposite. All that matters is that things keep reproducing.
you mean eggnog?
Can u explain it a bit more in steps because it looks like a rebuttle without an actual experiment and im also not familiar with the jargon.
Just something simple in steps will do. Like can u explain in list form?
I'm not sure there is an experiment. Does that make it invalid?
Oh never mind, i guess there are some
>The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential
so you're saying that the concept of evolution itself offers no further insight into the nature of existence other than "shit reproduces and then there is natural selection"
Well not to me at any rate.
First you call it a fact, then you conclude by calling it a theory? The fuck are you talking about? Not saying it’s a bad theory, but show me a scientific publication that talks about the Fact of Evolution. Get your shit straight.
Evolution is a fact. We can observe that life changes over time.
The theory of evolution describes how this occurs.
Okay i guess what im asking is what was the VERY simplest form of the motor?
We're going to have to work backwards here.
"only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum"
What was it before the 33 proteins? Or how exactly was it first formed?
Not sure. But we've already seen that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
Frankly neither you nor i are competent to investigate that any further.
Thing is i just want to know in baby steps how these things supposedly functioned. It just isn't sufficient for me until every "step"makes sense. It doesn't have to be "millions of steps" but this just isnt quite there for me to show the motor isnt irreducibly complex.
The fact that it NEEDS 33 proteins already makes it irreducibly complex. Like im having a hard time going backwards from here. Feel he didnt go far back enough.
How the actual fuck do you think cells first formed? Macro, micro, it's all the same shit to evolution. You start with a bunch of primordial goop full of nucleic acids and shit. Something gets thrown in the mix, say boron, which causes the acids to form into RNA and other self replicating strands. That turns into bacteria, bacteria to single cells, etc. etc. until you get more and more complex organism over time through a process of adaptive evolution. Darwin wasn't saying suddenly one day fish grew legs and walked upright as men. Evolution takes millions of years. Jesus fucking christ read a book.
33 proteins to make a working flagellum.
All that you can take from that is that it was not necessarily a flagellum before that. It could have performed another function.
I mean you can keep asking "what came before" but that doesn't get us any closer to proving that irreducible complexity exists.
So given that uncertainty, it's a pretty poor disproof for evolution, yes?
>All that you can take from that is that it was not necessarily a flagellum before that. It could have performed another function.
I'm basically asking WHAT the other functions were
>I mean you can keep asking "what came before" but that doesn't get us any closer to proving that irreducible complexity exists.
It does though bevause there's a point where "you can't go further" since it's not like this was an infinite process. It's a finite process. It had a start and it had an "end" (aka present time).
And to answer that we have to go back to the first self-replicating molecule and at that point it's no longer complex.
But that's not the meaning of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that several component parts are necessary for a specific structure to function.
Ya and i would have to see in baby steps all the way to the beginning to see if there truly was no irreducible complexity and for every "it probably was" i would like to see an expirement to verify it can legitimately work the way it was hypothesized (such as the abive example you cited).
Less jargon = better since im just looking for *somewhat* big picture logic
Well they did mention an experiment in that link that showed that a bacterial flagellum still works minus a few parts.
After a certain point this just becomes an argument from ignorance. If we can't show every single step along the way therefore irreducible complexity is real.
The fact is that i'm not going to be able to show you categorically that irreducibly complexity doesn't exist just as you cannot show me that it does.
So why don't we move on from hypothetical disproof of evolution to evidence which proves that it has occurred.
>Well they did mention an experiment in that link that showed that a bacterial flagellum still works minus a few parts.
Yes with the 33 protiens
>If we can't show every single step along the way therefore irreducible complexity is real.
Where does this particular example get stuck at? Because I doubt its at the "33 proteins" part.
>The fact is that i'm not going to be able to show you categorically that irreducibly complexity doesn't exist just as you cannot show me that it does.
For the motor but this is a case by case bases. Theres still the heart, lungs, etc.
Unfortunately this is really extensive but seeing how irreducible complexity does in fact exist in the real world, it wouldn't surprise me if it also existed in nature.
And really, its freaking extensive because it would take a while to work backwards for every single component in our bodies.
This is why i think its better to just find the BEST example of irreducible complexity (subjective i suppose) and try to disprove that one. Idk what the very best example is.
>
So why don't we move on from hypothetical disproof of evolution to evidence which proves that it has occurred.
Evidence =/= adaptation. Evidence would be:
1) the existance of beneficial mutations (can i have a list of a few observed? I guess just one "GOOD" example is sufficient)
2) the RATE in which beneficial mutations occur within a given species
3) the beneficial mutation would not only have to be functional but it would ALSO have to be significant enough to have natural selection fixate it (i.e. a mutation that makes your pink an inch longer is not significant enough to be acted upon by natural selection since it doesnt provide any sort of survival aid)
Maybe theres a few more but those are the only 3 i can think of atm
Long story short.. what's the best example you can think of when it comes to a beneficial mutation?
>Idk what the very best example is.
First it was the eye. Then science explained how that came to be.
Deniers were pretty excited about the bacterial flagellum. Now we know it's not irreducibly complex.
In fact the only know examples of irreducible complexity don't occur in nature.
Another example that evolution has occurred is the presence of endogenous retro viruses .
To be clear, what is your worldview? Do you think god created the animals or do you just not accept evolution?
meme is racist, nignogs only represented in first 3 figures
I believe we were created but i am not religious.
I am skeptical of evolution because i genuinely dont think irreducibly complexity is some "creationist" argument. Its one i actually believe is probably real based on what i see in the non biological world.
I feel there are in fact certain stages which will have no function thus no natural selection thus no evolution. I cant say whether or not that is true because I just dont know enough about biology to say.
>only known examples of irreducible complexity
Im pretty sure there are arguments for basically every functional part. Hypotheticals dont do it for me from either side.
I just want to see lab experiments of parts being simplified to their most basic state. I want to know all the "previous" functions a given thing had. I also want little jargon since im a layman.
Only experiments can convince me. The one you cited was getting there but then it stopped by saying "33 proteins are needed" but didnt explain what the previous functions were before they made up the motor.
>Another example that evolution has occurred is the presence of endogenous retro viruses .
How so?
>i actually believe is probably real based on what i see in the non biological world.
I think that might be your mistake.
We know there are irreducibly complex machines that are man made because we make them. We make each part for a purpose and the purpose only exists as part of the whole.
This is only useful for application to the natural world by assuming that nature was designed.
As for the ERV evidence...
Retroviruses are viruses that reproduce by inserting their genetic information into host cells which then replicate.
When these viruses infect reproductive cells, their genetic information is passed on to the progeny of the host. This results in the presence of retroviral rna in our human genetic code. Junk dna from a foreign organism.
The interesting thing is that we’ve been able to map the genome of other animals. For instance, the chimpanzee. When we look at the chimp’s dna we find, to an astonishing degree, the same retroviral genetics in the same places that we find them in human dna.
So why is there useless, inactive junk genetic information in our genome that corresponds so well to that of chimps? Evolution tells us that it is because of common decent. That humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor that also had that retroviral rna in those places.
If you espouse a creation model, you must then explain why a creator might include useless, garbage genetic information in the same places in different species.
Which model offer a more coherent answer?
But your favourite magic, invisible, floating faggot in the sky IS allowed to just show up by chance.
*religioderp "reasoning"*
I've done my research and I'm pretty sure I can disprove evolution.
I would honestly have to look more into what you said about the erv to give an honest opinion.
I'll copy and paste it to my notes.
As for the irreducible complexity, you are making it seem like you FACTUALLY know it isn't real when really, you would have to look at every function of an organism to say for certain.
You shouldn't state things like "irreducible complexity isn't real in nature" as a fact.
Personally,I am just going to try to find the best argument for both sides and then make an honest opinion. "Best argument" is subjective so maybe I'll just look for the top 10 for both along with counter arguments and see if experiments were done if applicable.
For the record, I have one strong reason as to why i believe in a creator other than biological reasons. It adds to why i dont believe in evolution too.
kek. Your nobel prize awaits.
>You shouldn't state things like "irreducible complexity isn't real in nature" as a fact.
You're right. What i should say is that you have no evidence that irreducible complexity exists in nature.
It's not a fact, it's a theory you actual autist
Wrong.
It is both.
Evolution is a fact. We can observe that life changes over time.
The theory of evolution describes how this occurs.
I have no problem with evolution, it doeas a really good job of explaining natural phenomenal based on the data we do know empirically (namely natural selection), and it has an incredibly good predictive quality.
However, that does not make it a fact, no scientific discovery is a fact as all scientific hypotheses are in a constant state of being retested. Just like how we don't consider gravity a "fact" even thought there is plenty of evidence that it does exist.
Also, i don't like how fedoras try and use evolution as a bargaining chip against theologians. Its like a christian walking up to an atheist and saying "gravity is a fact, things fall, therefore god exists". Its retarded, don't try and use shit that has nothing to do with a discussion to try and win a discussion furthermore one could easily interpret evolution as a guided mechanism rather than a wholly autonomous one, so that argument in and of istelf is faulty and prone to failure.
now please leave fedora, your kind aren't welcome here.