Stupid kids on this site believe it simply because they believe people smarter than they know what they're talking about, ignoring potential bias from wanting God not to exist. They turn on their TV and believe whatever they see, then look at their magical hand-held computing picture box, grab their dick, and sneer to themselves "Hmmpf, we don't need God; what a ridiculous notion." They go on Sup Forums only to believe whatever's convenient or puts them above other people. They don't hold ideals based on their truth value, but on their convenience, all the while hating anything suggesting they're accountable for their actions. It's not necessary for these sub-humans even to exist; a bot could be written that acts the same way.
>tautology("Your " + strawman(phrase defined as non-existent) + " doesn't exist.")
It's pathetic.
Evolution isn't even necessarily not real, but believing in natural evolution without valid evidence is retarded.
>hurr but there is valid evidence. The smart people say so and I believe them.
No there isn't. Anything called "evidence" for evolution is circumstantial and reductive, such as assuming similarities between species are homologous rather than analogous, or assuming missing or non-understood direct evidence exists.
>hurr but there's no evidence for God.
Irrelevant, however, meaning is evidence for God; it takes a special kind of stubbornness to say there isn't any such thing as meaning, or that meaning somehow exists intrinsically in the material world.
If you don't find that self-evident, close out your pro-atheism and anti-Christian tabs, and read something unbiased, like Christian testimonials about why they came to Christ, rather than just assuming they're stupid. You can also look up logical arguments for God's existence, but then you'd probably just search for "[argument] refuted" and believe whatever you read, so you should probably take a logic class first, so you can actually understand what you read and start thinking for yourself.
Why do people believe in evolution when there is no evidence for it?
Other urls found in this thread:
news.virginia.edu
youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
news.nationalgeographic.com
jmtour.com
twitter.com
>You need to go to school and get a basic understanding of science if you want to have discussions about scientific matters.
Implying I'm ignorant isn't a valid argument. Your provided wikipedia links also provide no evidence evolution is real.
I believe due to universal DNA
news.virginia.edu
The existence of similarities in DNA, no matter the type, doesn't imply all DNA is a product of common ancestor DNA. It literally implies nothing and in no way consitutes evidence. This is what I mean by assumptions of homologous similarities rather than analogous.
And Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
>It literally implies nothing and in no way consitutes evidence
$5 says you have no biology education and you're just a fucking idiot trying to spew shit on Sup Forums
>$5 says you have no biology education and you're just a fucking idiot trying to spew shit on Sup Forums
I do, and this is irrelevant.
I also have an education in logic, and understand that similarities between things isn't implicative of consequence.
...
nylonase
Is the entire field of genetics a sham?
Sorry, I don't know what that is and I don't have internet access.
>implicative of consequence
and implicative of causation might be less confusing.
Just because macroevolution may be assumed in some fields of genetics doesn't mean it's real. And genes don't provide valid evidence for macroevolution.
Do animals reproduce?
Do animal reproduce with variation in their offspring? Or are they identical clones?
If they reproduce with variation, will the on better adapted for the environment survive over the one less adapted?
Evolution .
We see that things reproduce, thus a linage exists. Since they reproduce AND change it is only fair to assume similarities are not analogies. Especially since spontaneous genenis has not been observed.
Fucks sake. I thought we could have a proper discussion and then you are just an idiot on purpose.
If you concede that traits are inherited and random mutations happen then natural selection is proven as a corollary.
>If they reproduce with variation, will the on better adapted for the environment survive over the one less adapted?
You're describing selection of genes which isn't enough for evolution to be real. You would need to show that new genes come into existence via addition of information and that such additions are sufficient for the macroevolution of life.
>Since they reproduce AND change it is only fair to assume similarities are not analogies
I believe this is a non sequitur. Please explain how you jumped from selection to validation of assumptions of homologous similarities.
>Especially since spontaneous genenis has not been observed.
I believe this only serves to show there is no evidence for evolution, nor is there any evidence for such a thing as abiogenesis.
This thread should be fun to watch, but I gotta sleep. Night night Sup Forums
Drumpf supporters really are dumb
Evolution predicts that there would be similarity in DNA so I dont see why you are upset when this is used as evidence for evolution. Nice b8 though
Well wtf is nylonase suppose to mean? That the contested existence of an enzyme for digesting nylon is somehow proof of evolution?
If you concede that traits are inherited and random mutations happen then natural selection is proven as a corollary.
I agree that natural selection exists, and that mutations happen, however there isn't any evidence that positive mutations happen, that is, spontaneous genesis of new information in a genome, which would be necessary for macroevolution to be real.
How do you define information? In the evolutionary sense.
Evolution is an observable phenomenon.
Macro-evolution is a theory based on the application of this observable phenomenon over an unobservable period of time, using fossil records as a point of reference.
Try not to look like a retard next time.
>Evolution predicts that there would be similarity in DNA
This prediction can easily be made without presupposing evolution, and thus doesn't serve as evidence for evolution.
And even more important what would it take for you to say "information" has increased?
>How do you define information?
A meaningful set of code that contributes to the function and structure of cells and organisms.
no
wrong
stop misrepresenting evolution.
evolution is descent with modification.
no new information can be added.
base pairs can only change their sequence and pairings.
please shitpost about something else.
youtube.com
watch this video made for kids in middle school since it is the only thing you can understand because change in a species overtime due to pressures on the environment is a simple concept
For new information to appear that improves the physiology of a species such that it is advantageous for the specie's survival, or new information that creates more advanced and advantageous structures in a specie.
Sure. There may be other hypotheses out there that would lead to that same prediction. It would serve as evidence for all of them. Evolution though has plenty of more predictions that have been verifed. Also, I'm curious what you think of this: en.m.wikipedia.org
>however there isn't any evidence that positive mutations happen, that is, spontaneous genesis of new information in a genome, which would be necessary for macroevolution to be real.
What's the difference between "spontaneous genesis of new information" and a mutation? DNA is just a string of data and sometimes more, or less, or the wrong bits are copied. That's what a mutation is. "Spontaneous genesis of new information" is just a particularly unlikely number of mistakes being made.
>Macro-evolution is a theory based on the application of this observable phenomenon over an unobservable period of time, using fossil records as a point of reference.
You can't infer macroevolution from microevolution, and the fossil record does not serve as evidence for the latter, but may even serve as evidence for the negative.
Post what you think of the fossil record.
I'm not capable of debating evolution so I will just post two meme pics of how this discussion will go.
...
no
wrong
Macroevolution necessitates new information, faggot who believes he evolved from bacteria.
So what you seek is a simple change in base pairs or repetition or deletion so as to modify the gene expression?
It's not even a debate. It's just a bunch of people who don't actually understand what evolution is.
>change in a species overtime
Irrelevant.
Take a logic class.
>It would serve as evidence for all of them
No, this is a converse fallacy. a -> b does not imply b -> a
>What's the difference between "spontaneous genesis of new information" and a mutation?
All observable mutations cause a loss of information.
>more, or less, or the wrong bits are copied.
And when this happens, information can be lost, not gained.
>"Spontaneous genesis of new information" is just a particularly unlikely number of mistakes being made.
Mistakes don't create information. They modify pre-existing information. The majority of the time information is randomly modified, it becomes corrupted and is no longer information, thus constitutes a loss of information.
That is not what he is saying though .
>So what you seek is a simple change in base pairs or repetition or deletion so as to modify the gene expression?
This would always lead to a negative mutation or a loss of information.
And no, an addition of genes.
Then there is absolutely no evidence for any theory, since every bit of evidence can be made into evidence for an alternative hypothesis. Example: My hypothesis is that everything that atomic theory predicts is true except that subatomic space demons live inside the nucleus of the atom. Therefore, any evidence presented for atomic theory is also evidence for this new hypothesis. Using your logic, this must mean that the evidence wasnt actually evidence at all. Thus atomic theory is just a religious concept perpetuated by atheistic scientists to promote the anti god agenda. OR perhaps your logic isn't valid and you should learn how science actually works. Man I fell into this b8 way too hard. Its interesting though because I used to be a young earth creationist.
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
oh look you dont even know what you're talking about
again.
>You expect valid evidence for macroevolution therefore you don't understand what it is.
>All observable mutations cause a loss of information.
I feel I should clarify that they can also be neutral.
The better question is why do you insist on making this thread over and over when you know good and well you're wrong.
I mean this isn't trolling - we're far beyond that. You actively want to not believe in evolution.
He's saying that if evolution predicts something, that is evidence of evolution, which is indeed a converse fallacy.
creationists really are some of the biggest idiots
eventually we will be genetically engineering every form of life under the sun and evolution will become obsolete as all selection becomes artificial
You expect it, which is great. You are then given the evidence but you make excuses why it is not evidence. Typically these excuses are founded on a poor understanding of biology or the scientific method which you have demonstrated both unsurprisingly.
Can you answer why the creatures alive millions of years ago such as dinosaurs left behind their fossils but creatures alive today didn't. Why are their different animals at different time periods if "macroevolution" doesn't occur.
Inception of a subset isn't a converse fallacy, it's a straw man fallacy, m8.
That isn't in contrast with the fact that macroevolution, as an event, not a study, necessitates new information. This is evidenced by the fact that we have more information in our DNA than our supposed single-celled ancestors.
This also. It went right over his head.
Lol lump us all together and then try to appeal to our logic with asinine arguments.
>sage
>This would always lead to a negative mutation or a loss of information.
I feel I should clarify mutations can also be neutral.
Of course that wasn't a converse fallacy. You have failed to point out any so far.
Just because the "evidence" isn't evidence doesn't mean I'm making excuses.
>Typically these excuses are founded on a poor understanding of biology or the scientific method
This is irrelevant to the faulty inference that is made and purported as "evidence" that genetic similarity implies evolution. This isn't an argument.
>the scientific method which you have demonstrated both unsurprisingly.
Where and how?
>Can you answer why the creatures alive millions of years ago such as dinosaurs left behind their fossils but creatures alive today didn't. Why are their different animals at different time periods if "macroevolution" doesn't occur.
A question isn't an argument.
Are you saying that the ability of a theory to correctly predict reality does not give merit to the theory?
>This also. It went right over his head.
It is a converse fallacy, you idiot. Your non-understanding of that doesn't mean anything went over my head.
It isn't an argument.
So you can not answer it. All you can do is claim fallacies and non arguments.
p implies q therefore q implies p is more likely.
It is a converse fallacy. You should feel stupid.
Every correct prediction a hypothesis makes is evidence for the hypothesis. You don't seem to understand this and it is pretty vital if you are going to attempt to speak about science. Evolution predicts similarities to varying degrees in the DNA of organisms, which has been verified. It's evidence.
Define "merit." I'm saying it doesn't serve as evidence that the theory is true. There is epistemically an infinite number of possible antecedents that could still allow for the same consequences of any prediction.
Because, unlike, say the Marxist economic theory the theory of evolution has no practical application whatsoever. It is almost completely detached from anything influencing our own lives.
There are no millions of corpses, decades of wars, and large portions of the world impowerished as the result of its application.
Therefore the same people who pushed Marxism (and still do, but now have to be quiet about it due to the above), can freely push the theory of evolution with no significant pushback.
In addition, most people who are both biologically literate enough to see the holes and have sufficient mastery of words to explain them, are working within the system (sorry, but most creationist propagandists are indeed ignorant dipshits). Mostly they are not not too eager to withstand lynch mobbing in the press and imperil their careers. So even if they make discoveries that confirm the current views on evolution and geological history to be a physical impossibility, like Mary Schweitzer, they engage in self-editing and attempt to speak as quietly as possible. Those who step forward and fight, like Behe, are too few in numbers and thus easy to mob, discredit (without addressing their actual arguments) or no-platform.
The purpose of this thread was to ask for an argument, not to disprove evolution.
I had the privilege of hearing this man talk. He's a synthetic organic chemist. This is his view on Evolution. He can't come to any scientific understanding if how it could be possible.
The fossil record supports the theory of evolution. Is that close enough to an argument for you or do i have to say proves? All you have done so far is talk about "information", call out fallacies, and debate semantics.
...
You seem to have a very fluid definition of information. Let's take a almost hypothetical example. A group of white butteflies fly into a wooden area of black trees. They keep getting eaten. In their genome their is a lot of genes for color, however the white dominates. In one butterfly the gene for black doubles or triples, making the butterfly darker and giving it an advantage, eventually this spreads to alle butterflies and the population darkens. If a gene is modified and thus changes expression or is doubled and thus codes for more protein. Is this not a change in information? If this does not qualify. Then how can no change in information produce change in phenotype? If the blueprint remains the same (i.e. no change in information) should it not follow that the product remains the same?
Or am I making some gross fallacy?
Or are... just mayby.. retarded.
I really hope you are kidding now, cuz if you aren't, you should def be euthanized. If hypotheses can't be tested by using their predictive power, then how the fuck do we test the hypothesis? Should we just throw darts in the dark? Also, you might want to stop 'believing' in quantum mechanics, atomic theory, general and special relativity, germ theory, cell theory, and all other sciences because their evidence comes from successful predictions.
>Every correct prediction a hypothesis makes is evidence for the hypothesis.
see In this way, science serves as a pragmatic tool, but this reasoning alone doesn't serve to discover what is actually true.
>Evolution predicts similarities to varying degrees in the DNA of organisms, which has been verified. It's evidence.
No it isn't, unless you mean "evidence" to mean "what is useful for right now but not necessarily proof of what is true."
see
this
Perhaps we enjoy the hook?
>Mary Schweitzer
Any other names you can drop?
If anything, the fossil record discredits evolution. Darwin himself said that if evolution were real, there should be a much more robust fossil record with a plethora of transitional forms, which there is not. Obviously there are excuses for this, but they are dissatisfactory.
>Every correct prediction a hypothesis makes is evidence for the hypothesis.
Well, then, ain't it gtant that the hypothesis of evolution utterly sucks at making correct predictions?
According to the modern synthetic theory of evolution (still based on the random mutations + natural selection mechanism), evolution should happen gradually. But even the modern geological history shows that major branching of the taxonomical trees and mass appearances of new species happen explosively (starting with the Cambrian explosion, where every type of living beings has appeared practically simultaneously), within geologically short periods of time, followed by long periods of minimal speciation. Ad hoc explanations of "biological equilibrum" and whatever bullshit they are saying now had to be made up.
According to the modern synthetic theory of evolution, natural selection should filter away traits that do not help creatures survive. As roughly half the natural world flies in the face of that, ad hoc explanations like "sexual selection" (which is not actually proven to exist, much less actually work) had to be made up.
According to the modern synthetic theory of evolution, natural selection should be able to fix traits that increase likelyhood of survival by factions of a percent (and, correspondingly, filter away traits that decrease it by the same value). Because a single random mutation can only achieve only a very slight improvement. Needless to say, the existence of spotted hyena alone busts the whole idea. Ad hoc explanations about how creatures have to be only "fit enough" for their habitat had to be made up. But these leave the evolution without the actual mechanism of, you know, evolution.
Etc, etc.
This example shows expression of pre-existing genes, not the addition of new genes.
You really, really don't understand science. Nowhere have I said that verified predictions are PROOF of the hypothesis. This is just a retarded strawman. What I have said is that it is evidence for the hypothesis. And no, you evidently don't understand the converse fallacy. It is so unrelated I can't even explain how wrong you are.
Scientific theories are never "true" they are well founded by evidence.But something tells me you know that. And a single predictions does not "prove" a theory. However the more predictions a theory get right, the more merit it has. Fx. Evolution predicts that animals that taxonomy puts close, should share more genetic material. This seems to be the case. It tells us that animals further down the linage, should be found in older strata in the earth, this also seems to be the case. It tells us that traits we artificially select for should increase in the population, this is also true and so forth. Many bricks build the house, no one claims a single brick is the house.
KILL YOURSELF
>there should be a much more robust fossil record with a plethora of transitional forms, which there is not.
That is only from your point of view. Does the fossil record of transitional forms need to be absolute that you can see every step? What has been found is supportive of evolution showing organisms becoming similar to their descendants alive today. Organisms that exist in the present are not found to exist many millions of years ago also suggesting evolution.
>Read title
>Surely is a burger
>In fact is a burger
Nuff said nigga.
There are so many things wrong with this that it would take hours to point it all out. All I'm going to is recommend that you take a class on evolutionary biology.
Punctuated equilibrium
No the ability to carry on genes is what is selected for (Survival is only a part of that, mating is equally important). That is why so many animals dies after spawing.
What is a single mutation? A mutation can remove or add an entire chromosome. This is not a "slight change". A change in basepair can turn off or active an entire gene, this is not a "slight change".
Get your information from other places than blogs mate
>Also, you might want to stop 'believing' in quantum mechanics, atomic theory, general and special relativity, germ theory, cell theory, and all other sciences because their evidence comes from successful predictions.
These are theories for the same reason. The problem with asserting predictions made by evolution as evidence of evolution is that any infinite number of antecdents could make the same predictions. With other scientific theories, there isn't the case.
>You really, really don't understand science.
What I've been trying to explain to you is logic, you idiot. How inferences are made in science can't always yield truth, especially about which for there is no direct evidence, such as macroevolution.
>Nowhere have I said that verified predictions are PROOF of the hypothesis. This is just a retarded strawman.
I didn't say nor did I even imply you said that. This is just a retarded strawman.
>What I have said is that it is evidence for the hypothesis.
Define "evidence" because you seem to believe correlation constitutes evidence.
>And no, you evidently don't understand the converse fallacy. It is so unrelated I can't even explain how wrong you are.
I've shown you twice how that's exactly what it is. If anyone doesn't understand what a converse fallacy is, it's you.
>b-but science says... You must not understand science
But change in information yes?
If not then tell me how expression change if no new information is present? If I tell you to add 2 extra tyres to a car is this not a new car? If not
can you give an example of new information in the world, outside evolution, that is simply not build on a preexisting template (concepts)? Is your definition of " new information" even useful in our world?
>Evolution predicts that animals that taxonomy puts close, should share more genetic material. This seems to be the case.
The converse could also be the case - animals that are taxonomically similar could be so because they are genetically similar. The predictions evolution makes shouldn't be validated if there are other possible causes.
>It tells us that animals further down the linage, should be found in older strata in the earth, this also seems to be the case.
This begs the question because it presupposes evolution in the first place.
>It tells us that traits we artificially select for should increase in the population, this is also true and so forth.
This is irrelevant to macroevolution.
>Many bricks build the house, no one claims a single brick is the house.
I don't believe the bricks exist.
>Convert yourself, infidel, I cannot be bothered with arguing!
Fuck off.
>Punctuated equilibrium
Ad hoc explanation after the predictions ended up wrong.
>No the ability to carry on genes is what is selected for (Survival is only a part of that, mating is equally important).
Ad hoc explanation for the fact that shit only (supposedly) useful for mating, like peacock's tail routinely have no use for survival. According to the theory this just shouldn't happen.
>What is a single mutation? A mutation can remove or add an entire chromosome
Needless to say, organisms cannot fucking survive after mutations of such calibre. Indeed, the fact that the countless examples of harmful mutations are easily found, but for examples of beneficial mutations we have to go to the world of bacteria and kill more of them than there ever were humans on Earth with aggressive conditions before a strain resistant to whatever factor we're killing them with appears, is another problem with the theory.
>What has been found is supportive of evolution showing organisms becoming similar to their descendants alive today.
What?
>Organisms that exist in the present are not found to exist many millions of years ago also suggesting evolution.
This is no different than inferring that the existence of life itself implies evolution, which is a non sequitur.
Yeah I'm really glad I'm not a retarded creationist anymore. You took a class on introductory level philosophy and felt like you had the power to disprove over a century of research done by various biologists who spent their fucking lives learning everything they could about evolution. Not only that, you fail to even apply your remedial understanding of philosophy correctly. Go look up what the converse theory is. Report back when you sterilize yourself with pic evidence.
So when a theory comes short you see an improvement of theory thus predictability as a weakness.
I'm sorry to break it to you. All theories in sceince work like this. Not just evolution. We go where evidence takes us.
>there is no evidence for god
irrelevant
>there is no evidence for evolution
the basis of my entire argument
>ignoring potential bias from wanting God not to exist
Evolution exists ≠ God does not exist
And we can examine the basic process behind evolution all the time in a varity of microorganism. Since our model works there, and there exists no reason to believe that it dosn`t work with larger organism and circumstantial evidence points to it, the only non-retarded thing to do is to support it.
>If not then tell me how expression change if no new information is present?
By "new" informtion, I mean addition of information, not modification of information to express information that was already there.
>If I tell you to add 2 extra tyres to a car is this not a new car?
Where did the tires come from?
>If notcan you give an example of new information in the world, outside evolution, that is simply not build on a preexisting template (concepts)?
I think this is a question evolutionists should answer.
>So when a theory comes short you see an improvement of theory
When a theory comes up short you discard it and seek another theory that better explains the results of observation. That is, of course, if we're doing science and not construct confirmations for our ideology.
Indeed, the divide between a scientific theory and ideologically-driven bullshit is falsifiability. That is, unless you cannot posit conditions under which your scientific theory can be outright disproven, it is not a scientific theory. Theory of evolution, just like Marxism (not accidentally at all), responds to every fact invonvenient to it with ad hoc explanations of the reasons why in this particular case its rules do not apply or its predictions are wrong.
Not trying to disprove evolution or anything here, just haven't heard an answer to this yet.
If there are apes/monkeys and there are humans why aren't there anything inbetween? And don't give me the
>abos
meme, pls
Please:
"The predictions evolution makes shouldn't be validated if there are other possible causes."
Yes it should. Along with all the other causes as well. However other explanations seem to have much less predictable ability in other areas of the world compared to evolution.
"This begs the question because it presupposes evolution in the first place."
No it does not. It says, IF evolution is true, this is what we expect to find.
"This is irrelevant to macroevolution"
Macro/micro evoultion is a creations distinction. No evolutionary biologist uses this and it serves no purpose. It is like saying a agree that a man can take a 1000 small steps, but not walk a mile.