Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:40:49 UTC No. 16578816

scientists never found "trash" in the dna sequence they just didn't understand a big pile of letters
evolution is obvious and can be seen very easily in the world, unrelated to this discussion

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:42:48 UTC No. 16578819

>>16578811
>so no matter what result, evolution is correct, that doesn't seem scientific to me
Exacly, that's how you spot a pseudoscientific theory.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:44:25 UTC No. 16578821

>>16578816
>scientists never found "trash" in the dna sequence they just didn't understand a big pile of letters
they called it trash and said it was useless and that this was expected in evolution.
No matter what result, a posteriori it was always expected by evolution, unfalsifiable.
It's a religion

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:47:03 UTC No. 16578826

>>16578821
>It's a religion
and which disgusting religion is that?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:50:39 UTC No. 16578833

>>16578821
you just read some dogshit article
it's not a scientific consensus

you can see irrefutable evidence of evolution in a couple of hours in a petri dish

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:55:33 UTC No. 16578839

>>16578833
didn't address OP's argument award

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:58:19 UTC No. 16578843

>>16578839
I said the first line of his post is bullshit
how is that not addressing his "argument"

Cult of Passion at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:01:19 UTC No. 16578846

>>16578833
>dogshit article
Richard Dawkins, lauded as one of the greats of Evolutionary Biology;
"the persistence of junk DNA that [Dawkins believed at that time] provides no benefit to its host can be explained on the basis that it is not subject to selection."

>you can see irrefutable evidence of evolution in a couple of hours in a petri dish
Subject to selection? Where's the junk?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:06:51 UTC No. 16578856

>>16578811
Most of our DNA is non coding. Some of it definitely does something and some of it is probably trash. We would expect a fair amount of it to be trash it would be quite interesting and unexpected if all of it was functional

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:22:09 UTC No. 16578876

>>16578811
most of it is still junk dna. you are clueless

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:33:42 UTC No. 16578899

>>16578833
>you can see irrefutable evidence of evolution in a couple of hours in a petri dish
you are deluding yourself if you believe that an observation in a petri dish is an *irrefutable evidence* that all species evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:37:23 UTC No. 16578910

>>16578899
what you see in a petri dish is the process we call evolution so that process at least is very much proven
saying there was a single ancestor is something else, sure, it's just the most likely guess

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:45:01 UTC No. 16578921

>>16578910
common ancestry is a guess just as likely as a common designer

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:46:08 UTC No. 16578923

>>16578921
"design" doesn't make any remote sense with the evolution that we just agreed is happening in plain sight

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:53:04 UTC No. 16578932

>>16578923
Macro evolution doesn't make any remote sense whatsoever. Design is the logical answer. You can keep your small random mutations if you'd like. Actually we've just agreed that micro evolution doesn't imply macro evolution.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:54:44 UTC No. 16578934

>>16578932
"micro" evolution very obviously implies "macro" evolution because those are the exact same process on a different length of time
all we agreed is that maybe there were two or three ancestors

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:58:13 UTC No. 16578938

>>16578934
microevolution is just changes in structures that already exist, that doesn't prove a fish became a bird lmao

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:00:18 UTC No. 16578943

>>16578938
>changes in structures that already exist
this is a totally meaningless phrase in a totally meaningless post

ultimately I'm very bored of the idea of discussing evolution with an american
the educated world has moved on from this braindead debate

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:01:48 UTC No. 16578944

>>16578943
>i'm bored
that's EXACTLY how streamers react when they get upset because they're losing
>aaaagh.. anyway I'm bored of this game whatever, whatever maaan, fucking boring

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:03:38 UTC No. 16578947

>>16578944
yes man you win, evolution is not real, and it's just like fortnite on twitch or whatever

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:05:20 UTC No. 16578950

>>16578934
You should explain why you think it's inevitable that random small scale changes would accumulate into systematic large scale changes that lead to more complex organisms.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:06:14 UTC No. 16578951

>>16578947
why are you so upset
>doesn't address op's argument
>can't provide any argument
>aaagh you're stupid
>yeah I'm still here to call you stupid
evolution has become a religion

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:06:39 UTC No. 16578952

>>16578950
>explain why many small things add up to one big thing

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:08:14 UTC No. 16578954

>>16578952
You understand my question perfectly. Can you answer it?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:10:46 UTC No. 16578960

>>16578954
well 1+1=2
and 1+1+1=3
but eventually 1+1+1+...+1=100

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:14:37 UTC No. 16578967

>>16578960
Natural selection isn't math, minor changes in a structure doesn't mean an entirely different structure will be built.
That's not even a scientific answer

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:17:15 UTC No. 16578970

>>16578967
>minor changes in a structure
>an entirely different structure
you change the structure versus you change the structure
the only reason you think there's any difference is that some church propagandist visited your high school

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:17:17 UTC No. 16578971

>>16578960
How does this analogy work? What is the "1" supposed to stand for?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:18:15 UTC No. 16578973

>>16578971
the small thing

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:19:16 UTC No. 16578977

>>16578971
and also in case you can't figure it out 100 is the big thing

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:20:31 UTC No. 16578979

>>16578973
So a small scale mutation? Okay, aren't these mutations supposed to be random?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:21:20 UTC No. 16578981

>>16578979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:22:26 UTC No. 16578983

>>16578981
Well, yes or no?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:23:39 UTC No. 16578984

>>16578983
random small things add up to a random big thing so what's the difference

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:29:41 UTC No. 16578988

The only trash here is your understanding

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:39:18 UTC No. 16578995

>>16578811
modern evolution is filled with contradictions

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:40:58 UTC No. 16578998

>>16578984
Why do you think that random errors in something that worked in the first place would even lead to anything beneficial, let alone a completely different and more complex species? According to Darwinism, evolution improves things over time. But the only way to achieve the improvement is by random errors. That alone makes it extremely improbable.
To see how laughable this idea actually is, think of a Harry Potter book gradually becoming a Lord of the Rings book by being copied over and over again. It's absurd.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:35:51 UTC No. 16579062

>>16578811
>>scientists find "trash" in the DNA sequence
Much of our DNA really is trash in a sense. Only a small portion is protein-coding DNA. Most of our genome consists of non-coding and spacer segments that actually do very little. They serve a structural purpose, but the exact sequence does not really matter, so you could change the bases without doing any damage.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:39:24 UTC No. 16579067

>>16578998
the worst part is when they say it's lead by natural selection, as if all these changes will coincidentally lead a completely new structure. Literally never ever proven lol

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:39:25 UTC No. 16579068

>>16578998
>To see how laughable this idea actually is, think of a Harry Potter book gradually becoming a Lord of the Rings book by being copied over and over again. It's absurd.
Did you ever play the broken phone game as a kid? Harry Potter becoming a Lord of the Rings does not sound absurd at all to me.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:42:29 UTC No. 16579072

>>16579062
>they regulates gene expression, but it's trash
gramps you're not in high school anymore

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:44:20 UTC No. 16579073

>>16579072
Yes. When the exact sequence does not matter and you can pretty much substitute it almost however you wish, it sounds kind of like trash to me.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:46:09 UTC No. 16579075

he doesn't know

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 07:35:30 UTC No. 16579244

>>16578938
>microevolution is just changes in structures that already exist
Until a new gene pops up
>that doesn't prove a fish became a bird lmao
That is also changing structures that already exist

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 07:58:49 UTC No. 16579258

>>16578811
The tards who said is trash were wrong, simple as.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 10:20:15 UTC No. 16579298

>>16579068
Can you walk me through the process how did a fish develop wings one step at a time? And let me remind you that nothing in the organism is *trying* to make the wings, every step leading towards wings is an accident. For every mutation that leads to wings there's a thousand mutations that lead to something else. Where are all the organisms with half finished wings and other unfinished things? Why do we see 100% finished wings and 0% unfinished everything else? That outcome directly contradicts how things should be looking according to Darwinists.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:08:59 UTC No. 16579318

>>16579298
>Where are all the organisms with half finished wings and other unfinished things?
They died. Only the viable ones survived.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:11:28 UTC No. 16579320

Fun Fact: A significant portion of our DNA (about 48%) is just shit viruses inserted...as completely expected by the evolutionist model.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:13:21 UTC No. 16579321

>>16579318
Why did they all die? That makes zero sense.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:14:22 UTC No. 16579323

>>16579320
That's provably false as viruses aren't real.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:15:06 UTC No. 16579325

>>16578811
>so no matter what result, evolution is correct
Well, no. If the frequency of genes didn't change over time, then evolution would be incorrect.

But we literally see that happen so it's not really up for debate.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:16:32 UTC No. 16579327

>>16579321
Everything dies.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:19:41 UTC No. 16579330

>>16579327
Well, the fish with 100% wings didn't.
And neither did the fish with 0% wings.
But fish with 43% wings did, just as fish with 44% wings did, just as fish with 43% wings and 20% arms di etc. etc. That doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:26:23 UTC No. 16579333

Darwinists be like
>Jesus raising from the dead? That's bullshit
>Dead matter becoming alive on its own by accident? Cool!

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:49:46 UTC No. 16579346

>>16579330
Here's the 50 %.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 11:57:02 UTC No. 16579350

>>16578811
Why don't we just machine learning the DNA trash and it will AI output what it is that it does?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:01:56 UTC No. 16579354

>>16579346
Cool, where is 49% and 51%? They should be here as well.
A fish with 51% wing doesn't have any advantage over fish with 50% wing. Zero. So why did natural selection "select" the one with more wing? Darwinists can't explain that.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:11:14 UTC No. 16579361

>>16579354
you can't explain anything to someone who doesn't want to understand

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:13:01 UTC No. 16579363

Even the evolution of feathers is totally inexplicable by means of mutations and selection. Feel free to explain how this evolved accidentally step by step and how each of those steps made the creature produce more offspring. Nobody has so far, so you can be first.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:19:11 UTC No. 16579364

>>16579363
Look into the evolution of the human eye if you want a concrete example of complex selective evolution

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:19:35 UTC No. 16579365

>>16579361
There is explanation, sure
>a fish with 1% more wing can fall from 1cm higher without dying
Brilliant

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:25:37 UTC No. 16579367

>>16579330
>But fish with 43% wings did, just as fish with 44% wings did, just as fish with 43% wings and 20% arms di etc. etc. That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of shit with gliding membranes or just fluffy shit, be it gills or arms on the way to being wings.

Also, we see various stages of shit losing wings from tinamous to kiwis.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 12:30:13 UTC No. 16579370

>>16579354
>They should be here as well
Why? At any given time most shit is extinct and it's virtually impossible that every possible midstep between body plans is equally competitive.

That's like saying since kickers and receivers both exist on a football team, then every possible set of skills between them should be represented as well.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:08:05 UTC No. 16579380

>>16579363
almost like genitalia could be male or female. Someones fur is another ones wings. I fucking really love how diversable reality really is.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:10:46 UTC No. 16579382

>>16579370
>That's like saying since kickers and receivers both exist on a football team, then every possible set of skills between them should be represented as well.
Darwinism says exactly that. There is no evolutionary battle between elephants with a trunk and elephants with no trunk, according to Darwinism there's a battle between elephants with 76.8% of a trunk and elephants with 76.9% of a trunk. The latter does not have any evolutionary advantage over the former. But somehow natural selection (which doesn't actually do anything) can tell apart between these two and make sure that the one with 76.8% of a trunk cannot reproduce.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:19:07 UTC No. 16579387

>>16578821
>Its hot winter
>Climate change warms the planet
>Its cold winter
>Clinate change makes extreme temperatures

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:46:52 UTC No. 16579405

Quick rundown on various problems of Darwinism
>origin of life inexplicable by evolution
>sophisticated, function, complex code cannot arise accidentally
>random processes are not creative
>most mutations have little to no impact on survival but degrade the code
>natural selection is powerless in most cases to eliminate non-mutants
>complexity can't be built by point mutations and selection
>creating new proteins randomly is mathematically impossible, but evolution requires millions of them
>infinitely small steps are impossible due to the need for new genes, i.e. big steps
>deleterious mutations overpower beneficial ones thousands to one
>the fossil record doesn't support the Darwinist model at all
>observations and experiments have shown only very simple adaptation and broken genes
>mutations induced by radiations don't result in any improvement, just damage
>similarity of structure is not evidence for evolution
>much "evidence" for evolution is known to be fake yet keeps being shown
>the idea that given enough time, anything is possible, is a fallacy
>there is exactly zero evidence that one kind of animal/plant has ever evolved into another, let alone from a single common ancestor

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:53:49 UTC No. 16579406

>>16578981
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
Oh so you're not using a mobile device, ay?
Since the foregoing URL doesn't feature "en.m.wikipedia".
So then you must be using a stationary device, like a desktop.

The monkey in the OP's image is using a bedtop.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:59:54 UTC No. 16579407

>>16579382
what does 76.8% trunk means ? are you saying all elephants have the exact same indistinguishable trunk ?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:20:12 UTC No. 16579419

>>16579407
>76.8%

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:20:57 UTC No. 16579420

>>16579407
76.8% of all mutations it took to go from a given ancestor to the given species.
Personally, I think that "76.8% of a trunk" is a nonsense. I mean how woud that even work? But I am not the one saying such a thing should exist, that's a claim made by Darwinists. I am simply going along with it.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 15:28:30 UTC No. 16579457

>>16579420
could you point to a specific piece of text where such claim is made because I don't get what you mean at all.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 15:46:22 UTC No. 16579463

>>16579405
>sophisticated, function, complex code cannot arise accidentally

Did someone make a mistake? Where is the accident?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:36:48 UTC No. 16579495

>>16579457
Richard Dawkins himself talking about "51% of a wing".

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:51:03 UTC No. 16579503

>>16579382
>can tell apart between these two and make sure that the one with 76.8% of a trunk cannot reproduce.
If an elephant survives and reproduces, its trunk was clearly good enough. You too can tell those two apart then. Clearly it does not take much intelligence to make that call.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 16:57:54 UTC No. 16579508

>>16579503
Nope, that's the thing. Natural selection cannot select an elephant with 76.9% over an elephant with 76.8% trunk.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 17:23:02 UTC No. 16579527

>>16579508
So both of the elephants survive, and they live happily ever after, then?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 17:45:04 UTC No. 16579544

>>16579495
ok now I get it, what he means is 51% of the wing function. It's vulgarized to mean that even if the wng doesn't allow you to fly but simply glide, it can still provide an evolutionary advantage and be selected favorably. So to get back to elephant trunks, they have a pretty wide variety of function in elephants so it would be very difficult to give it a percentage. For sure, if it's longer than just a little bump on its face, it becomes more practical to use for drinking, communicating, manipulating. But then there's a length that it probably gets unpractical, dragging on the ground, etc. Same with the width and so on. Still, I think it's not hard to imagine that different individual elephants might have slightly different variations in the genes coding for the trunks, and even if on the surface they seem the same, they probably have small variations from individual to individual, and from elephant subspecies to another elephant subspecies.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 18:18:19 UTC No. 16579579

>>16579527
That's the logical conclusion, because 76.8% trunk elephant doesn't have any reason to reproduce less than 76.9% trunk elephant.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 18:28:18 UTC No. 16579585

>>16579579
Indeed. Both of the elephants live happily ever after, reproduce and have wholesome elephant families. And now the elephant population has genes programming for 76.8 % and 76.9 % trunks, and it's easy for mutations and random chance to produce 76.7 % and 77.0 % trunks to try out next.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:38:14 UTC No. 16579628

>>16579508
No but it can select an elephant whose trunk is 0.01% more effective than its cousin

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:44:40 UTC No. 16579630

>>16579363
Feathers are an easy one because its obvious how each incremental step between simple scale and complex feather offers an advantage over the previous step

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 20:01:05 UTC No. 16579637

>>16579628
But it's not more "effective", that's the thing. It literally doesn't have any advantage.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 21:35:02 UTC No. 16579747

>>16578811
if you love creationism so much, why don't you marry it?
seriously, why bother contaminating the board with your oversimplified conspiratorial schizo mindset?
go search for sauropods in cameroon or whatever creationists do these days

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:13:32 UTC No. 16579767

>>16579747
>darwinism
>creatonism
false dichotomy

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:19:16 UTC No. 16579772

>>16579767
debating darwinism in 2025 is about as intelligent as debating the flat earth

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:36:53 UTC No. 16579821

>>16579772
Exactly. Darwinism is stuck in the 1st half of the 20th century. Genetics has shown it to be utterly impossible.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:50:41 UTC No. 16579828

>>16579821
why do you keep calling it darwinism, it's the theory of evolution. It has served scientists a lot in understanding and guiding their research about medicine, genetics, microbiology, anthropology,etc...
what's your better model and what problems does it fix in the theory of evolution ? what new fields does it open up ?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:57:11 UTC No. 16579829

>>16579828
"theory of evolution" wrongly suggests that we're dealing with a scientific theory, while "darwinism" correctly suggests that we're dealing with an ideology

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 00:14:40 UTC No. 16579838

>>16579829
but by far most scientists generally accept the theory of evolution, meanwhile the ones calling it dwarwinism are specifically creationists, which isn't a group of scientists, it's a group of religious people among which a small proportion of scientists. So according to you it's non-scientists that understand the best what a scientific theory is. How interesting.
You also dodged the important question because you'd rather argue about petty details. Just know that you're background noise in the history of humanity. Scientific progress doesn't go backwards no matter how much you would like it to. The theory of evolution is already a significant stepping stone in the history of science that has, as I've already stated, led to a lot of scientific progress. Nothing you can do about it no matter how often you keep polluting internet discussions

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 01:08:09 UTC No. 16579870

>>16579637
So then why are you using it as an example? Evolution doesn't produce a fraction of a working feature, every step in the process is fully functional

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 02:28:25 UTC No. 16579920

>>16579382
>The latter does not have any evolutionary advantage over the former.
But it does? Or if it doesn't then the 76.8% and 76.9% trunks will coexist until the 76.9% gives birth to a 77%. And then that will. Or if it doesn't it will coexist until 77.1% and so on until somebody has a fucking advantage and coexistence ceases because the shitters get outcompeted.

Unless you're arguing 0% trunk through 100% trunk are all equally viable, we're just negotiating ranges here. And guess what, not all elephants have the same fucking size and shape trunk. So ranges do god damn exist, which means all your dumbass is claiming is the range should be bigger. And your evidence for that is your asshole says so.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:03:08 UTC No. 16580435

>>16578846
I thought you said you have a PhD in genetics and evolutionary psychology.
You can not be this retarded

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:07:28 UTC No. 16580441

>>16579920
>But it does?
What's the advantage?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:56:01 UTC No. 16580526

>>16580441
There isnt one because your example is silly. Organisms dont evolve a fraction of a feature. Half a wing or 3/4 of a trunk has never existed

The competition is between elephants with more or less effective fully funcional trunks or between lizards with more or less effective wing like arms

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 19:25:39 UTC No. 16580545

>>16578811
Your example is just one of many in the same old debate going on for decades now even before publication of The Selfish Gene in the 70's. What progress in the debate about self-confirmation bias has been made since then?

All threads like OP remind me of this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJXALBX3KM

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 19:34:02 UTC No. 16580551

>>16580526
>Organisms dont evolve a fraction of a feature
According to evolution they do. That's precisely what evolution says.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:28:05 UTC No. 16580591

>>16579363
>what is exapation

>dino filaments (insulation)
>dino branched feathers (better insulation, camouflage, mating, intimidation)
>asymmetric feathers (gliding, wing-assisted incline running)
>bird flight feathers (flight)

>Nobody has so far
Read a book sometime

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:32:23 UTC No. 16580595

>>16579323
but I lost my sense of smell (and NOT taste) for 3 days without a stuffy/runny nose in December 2020, and then it came back to normal. EXPLAIN THAT!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:34:20 UTC No. 16580600

>>16580551
No it doesnt, your retarded strawman version of it does. Wvolution requires every incremental step to be either a selective advantage or at worst selectively neutral.

A useless fraction of a feature would inevitably be selected against.

Every step on the ladder from scale to feather, from light sensitive spot to complex eye, from chemical receptor to elephant trunk was fully functional at something and provided a selective advantage to organisms with that trait

Gaia at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:34:33 UTC No. 16580601

>>16578811

🗑️ Gaia at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:37:37 UTC No. 16580604

>>16580601
Me based, you gay - chudler

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:40:00 UTC No. 16580610

>>16580595
You didn't live according to the rules of alternative medicine so you've turned your body into a bad terrain which gives rise to all sorts of ills. It's kind of like you need to properly honor the Gods but packaged into an anti Big Pharma movement lead by skeptics who play victims of the status quo by using scientific words they've learned from Big Pharma to impress a audience into donating to the alternative medical research cause like buying a new house to do alternative research and buy a new studio to communicate alternative research and start a new supplement line to sell the results of alternative research at a discount of course because you donated already.

So that's why you can lose your sense of smell without the existence of a virus.

🗑️ Gaia at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:40:04 UTC No. 16580611

>>16580604
“I’m still seeing silly archon tricks, keep fighting vril zombies” - Hitler

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:43:04 UTC No. 16580615

>>16580610
>You didn't live according to the rules of alternative medicine
nope, false. once my sense of smell disappeared, I ate about half a pound of oysters erry day for three days until it came back.
>try looking up their zinc and copper content, and what it does to these "fake-ass" sickness proteins

🗑️ Gaia at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:43:29 UTC No. 16580616

>>16580611
I’m watching the paradoxes come in we’re so cooked - Jewbot Anne Clank

🗑️ Gaia at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:44:34 UTC No. 16580617

>>16580615
Ultra based copper Chuddy spotted

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:49:18 UTC No. 16580619

>>16580600
So what was the first mutation from scale to feather and what selective advantage did it provide?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:49:58 UTC No. 16580620

>>16580615
There's always something you must be doing wrong otherwise you would falsify my beliefs and I won't allow my beliefs to be falsified or else I need to reconsider my worldview and actions and that leads to cognitive dissonance that needs be resolved by me being always right about everything somehow.

Cult of Passion at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:29:12 UTC No. 16580657

>>16580435
https://youtu.be/OmCL8l8JOcw
https://youtu.be/MoMX9Z8hM0Q

You didnt understand the point I was making, you should stick to your own field(s) of research.

>genetics
Environmental Genetics/Meta Genetics, more of a dynamic Systems Biology approach from a Physicist's perspective, not a Chemist's.
>evolutionary psychology
No, Evolutionary Cognition and Developmental Psychology.

That guy has a Molecular based perspective of Biology, which translates to a Chemistry based approach to life, and Medicine was based on that as well...hence why getting a vax (Molecule) or Rx (Molecule) or having the "right" genes (Molecule) is no longer accepted science and is eing challenged on all fronts.

Cult of Passion at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 21:38:32 UTC No. 16580666

>>16580435
https://youtu.be/6gmQeAGhbVw

[taps sign]

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:09:31 UTC No. 16580687

>>16580619
A very slightly longer or pointer scale that improved heat regulation or offered better defense or was maybe slightly more energy efficient

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:14:52 UTC No. 16580691

>>16580687
Now test that hypothesis.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:18:43 UTC No. 16580695

>>16580657
You are exceptionally stupid

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:24:20 UTC No. 16580699

>>16580687
Okay, so what managed to prevent the non-mutants from reproduction that didn't also do the same to the mutants? And what was the second mutation?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:47:09 UTC No. 16580719

>>16580600
>Wvolution requires every incremental step to be either a selective advantage or at worst selectively neutral.
>A useless fraction of a feature would inevitably be selected against.
>Every step on the ladder from scale to feather, from light sensitive spot to complex eye, from chemical receptor to elephant trunk was fully functional at something and provided a selective advantage to organisms with that trait
This kind of reasoning actually disproves macro evolution. The idea that a complex system can turn into a much different complex system by small steps where each step is a random improvement is silly. Think of a Rubik's cube. There's no way of solving Rubik's cube by improving one square at a time. You have to break up the already solved parts to advance, and you have to do that often. It requires coordination and planning. This can't happen with natural selection where there is no coordination and no planning, just random errors one at a time.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:15:16 UTC No. 16580734

>>16580719
>just random errors one at a time.
NTA but in a previous thread "we" came to the understanding that countless mutations happen all the time and the most beneficial are selected each generation. So we arrived at the metaphor that nature is like brute forcing paswords with the passwords being bottlenecks to survival.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:16:03 UTC No. 16580735

>>16580699
Both varieties reproduced, the one with the mutation just produced slightly more viable offspring than the one without. The second mutation was again a slightly longer or pointier scale

>>16580691
This is a hypothetical there is nothing to test. We can never know the exact series of steps that led from historical scales to modern feathers

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:20:12 UTC No. 16580738

>>16580719
I dont care that you personally find the idea hard to believe. The process actually does work in real life as has been demonstrates many times in different contexts from theoretical simulations to actual practical applications like LLMs.

Random errors plus selection actually does produce complexity in reality

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:20:22 UTC No. 16580740

>>16580735
>We can never know the exact series of steps that led from historical scales to modern feathers
How is your hypothesis different from a God of the gaps kind of argument?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:22:20 UTC No. 16580744

>>16580740
I guess your answer = >>16580738
That's still a dangerous leap though: it happens like this here and then so we must assume it happened in a similar fashion there and then.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:28:26 UTC No. 16580751

>>16578934
"micro evolution" is just selecting preexisting traits. it is literally fucking nothing. you can get some weird shit down the lineages with careful human-guided selection but a chihuahua and a saint bernard both remain dogs.
"macro evolution" is suggesting some completely random mutation will occur for one zygote, and that random mutation yields some earth shattering reproductive or survivability advantage, and that these random one in an octillion beneficial random mutations somehow occurred trillions of times in earths history. its fucking absurd and i don't even believe in god or any of that religious shit.

Cult of Passion at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:38:32 UTC No. 16580797

>>16580695
lol...just take fucking L you anti-science jackass.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:59:46 UTC No. 16580814

>>16580738
Ok, I get what you're saying but then the question is: do you find evolution mathematically feasible?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:11:43 UTC No. 16580830

>>16580441
>What's the advantage?
Of having a trunk? Being able to pick shit up. Greater directional smell. Greater resistance to shit getting in your sinuses. Being able to feel around with it. Being able to throw solids and liquids. Probably some other shit you'd have to ask a manatee about.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:19:48 UTC No. 16580843

>>16580830
>Of having a trunk?
Of obtaining the one random mutation of thousands that has pushed the organism one step further from having a functioning nose to having a functioning trunk.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:21:48 UTC No. 16580847

>>16580719
>There's no way of solving Rubik's cube by improving one square at a time
There is though?
>just random errors one at a time.
The random errors are put through a filter for beneficial ones.

It's like training AI. As long as there's a reward structure that makes survival more likely for incremental changes that are more helpful than harmless and harmless than harmful, you'll gradually make substantive improvements over generations.

Honestly evolution in AI completely fucking destroys your argument. As long as there is death, as long as death is more or less likely depending on what traits a thing has, as long as things reproduce at a point after which death could occur, and as long as mutations in the traits a thing has can occur across reproductions, you will observe evolution.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:24:46 UTC No. 16580852

>>16580843
>Of obtaining the one random mutation of thousands that has pushed the organism one step further from having a functioning nose to having a functioning trunk.
That can happen by random. And if it's not actively deleterious to a degree where it impacts fitness, it can stay around until the next random mutation.

If you hadn't noticed, species can become pretty varied just through random mutation. It's not like every human on earth looks like a clone of you.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:32:12 UTC No. 16580857

>>16580847
how many offspring does each random error produce? how often does it reproduce? what is the assumed population size? how does one random mutation suddenly propagate through the entire population?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:37:09 UTC No. 16580858

>>16580857
>how many offspring does each random error produce
The average amount assuming it's not actively detrimental. Else potentially more.
>how often does it reproduce?
The average amount assuming it's not actively detrimental. Else potentially more.
>what is the assumed population size?
The average amount.
>how does one random mutation suddenly propagate through the entire population?
It likely wouldn't unless it's actively beneficial. If it is actively beneficial, then because it was that much more competitive. Again, variation exists all throughout nature. Not everyone is a clone of you.

This was fun. You're fun.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:39:47 UTC No. 16580860

>>16580857
There are no answers to any of these questions. Probability is an unsolved problem. Just another assumption that life is life and therefor evolution + all implicit assumptions are true. It really helps when people are brainwashed in government indoctrination centers, malabeled as education - an education that doesn't teach logic, memory, ethics, or astronomy - basically an education divorced of any historical information - taught by incompetent teachers who never accomplished anything, and if that wasn't bad enough, also have no strong community ties - truly a ministry of truth here.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:40:54 UTC No. 16580861

>>16580858
What is the average amount? Cite your sources.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 01:47:46 UTC No. 16580867

>>16580861
>What is the average amount?
How should I know. You haven't described an organism.

Describe an organism that reproduces and then the average amount will be the average amount for that organism. If you want a specific simulation, plenty exist. If you want a specific real world example, grab one.

You're asking me to come up with hard values for some bullshit argument in your head. How bout this, find or construct a model or example that reproduces and dies off while including genetic variance across generations and differences in reproductive viability and which does not produce evolution. A single fucking counterexample is all you need to greatly weaken the argument for evolution.

That or show genetic differences can't ever produce differences in likelihood to reproduce. Although I imagine that would be slightly harder given that...you know...they observably can.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 02:19:32 UTC No. 16580888

>>16580857
how often do random genetic mutations happen?
of these, how often are these mutations expressed in some observable way?
of these, how often are these expressions not harmful?
of these how many provide some advantage?
of these how many provide such an advantage that the entire non-mutation lineage is killed off?
evolution is starting to look a bit faith-y to me.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 02:31:43 UTC No. 16580899

>>16580888
>how often do random genetic mutations happen?
The average amount
>of these, how often are these mutations expressed in some observable way?
literally irrelevant, but the average amount
>of these, how often are these expressions not harmful?
the average amount
of these how many provide some advantage?
the average amount
>of these how many provide such an advantage that the entire non-mutation lineage is killed off?
Original lineages are generally outcompeted, not killed off. That or they persist and just continue to evolve separately. If you hadn't noticed, there is more than 1 species in existence. That said, this doesn't necessarily never happen, and once again the answer is the average amount.
>evolution is starting to look a bit faith-y to me.
I dunno, you haven't really put forward a counter-argument or shown a counterexample and evolution holds up to modeling and observation. Seems like you just have faith in something other than evolution.

JAQing isn't really a good argumentative strategy, btw. It's basically just sophistry.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 02:32:55 UTC No. 16580902

>>16580888
>how often do random genetic mutations happen?
The average amount
>of these, how often are these mutations expressed in some observable way?
literally irrelevant, but the average amount
>of these, how often are these expressions not harmful?
the average amount
>of these how many provide some advantage?
the average amount
>of these how many provide such an advantage that the entire non-mutation lineage is killed off?
Original lineages are generally outcompeted, not killed off. That or they persist and just continue to evolve separately. If you hadn't noticed, there is more than 1 species in existence. That said, this doesn't necessarily never happen, and once again the answer is the average amount.
>evolution is starting to look a bit faith-y to me.
I dunno, you haven't really put forward a counter-argument or shown a counterexample and evolution holds up to modeling and observation. Seems like you just have faith in something other than evolution.

JAQing off isn't really a good argumentative strategy, btw. It's basically just sophistry.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:00:19 UTC No. 16580922

>>16580902
>average amount
Just a pointer to a value, must like how evolution of the gaps is just a pointer to an argument without being an instance of any argumentation.
An average comes from measurements, which you can't concretely provide.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:32:58 UTC No. 16580946

>>16580922
>An average comes from measurements, which you can't concretely provide.
I don't need to provide measurements because I'm arguing for a model, not a specific instance of evolution happening, and measurements would not address your argument that the model is wrong. Putting forward a measurement would just prove evolution isn't violated in that instance and you'd just bitch about it not being demonstrated for every other instance.

I don't need to play your dumbass game and get led into perpetual goalpost motion land. I'd waste my time and you'd never be held to a single point. You want to argue the model is wrong, prove it has a structural problem or find a counterexample. You are hardly the first disingenuous ass-hat I've ever encountered and you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:35:54 UTC No. 16580948

>>16580922
>>16580946
Or to borrow a turn of phrase. Science doesn't prove shit true. It just fails to disprove it. Acting like I'm the side that needs measurements here is laughable. Ball's in your fucking court.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 05:59:21 UTC No. 16581009

>>16580814
Of course, its only unintuitive until you rum the math and then its inevitable

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:01:12 UTC No. 16581011

>>16580888
Well for humans the real life rate is about 1 heritable neutral or positive mutation per individual so its extremely high

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:24:37 UTC No. 16581042

>>16581011
>the real life rate is about 1 heritable neutral or positive mutation per individual

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:56:08 UTC No. 16581076

>>16578816
they called it trash you cant correct the record

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:04:28 UTC No. 16581084

>>16581042
>person arguing in bad faith accuses others of lying
Pottery

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:27:50 UTC No. 16581096

>>16581084
>why yes i did make that up but y-your arguing in bad faith
evolution fags always find a way to retreat to ad homs when challenged.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:40:26 UTC No. 16581102

>>16581084
To be fair to him i actually did make it up apparently. At least i misremembered. The estimates im finding range from 30 to 200

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:48:07 UTC No. 16581106

>>16581096
Accusing you of arguing in bad faith isn't ad hominem. It's a direct claim your argument is neither based in belief nor fact. I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm calling you a bald-faced liar with no facts to offer attempting to attack other people's arguments from hills you refuse to die on. That you are also a hypocrite is completely immaterial.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:49:46 UTC No. 16581108

>>16578811
Evolution and abiogenesis are not science.
Their proponents just say "well at scales approaching infinity, anything is possible, therefore, evolution. Therefore, abiogenesis."
It's literally just "God did it" but without naming God so they can feel like no one is judging them for the evil shit they do.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:29:40 UTC No. 16581145

>>16581108
>Evolution and abiogenesis are not science.
that's not up to you to decide lmao

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:31:50 UTC No. 16581213

>>16580751
>big numbers are fake

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:44:58 UTC No. 16581275

>>16580751
>"micro evolution" is just selecting preexisting traits
Motherfucker, a dog evolved into a single celled organism.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:22:47 UTC No. 16581302

>>16581275
Cancer is biological capitalism disrespecting biological communism.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:45:28 UTC No. 16581322

>>16580751
Every other generation plants halve/double their genome and the offspring have wildly different body plans and reproductive strategies.

The idea that organisms only give birth to highly similar shit is laughable. Doubly so if your standard for similar is sharing 50% of their DNA. Fucking fruit flies and humans share more DNA than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_of_generations.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:02:11 UTC No. 16581335

>>16578811
>so no matter what result, evolution is correct
It's a classic motte and bailey tactic. They will come up with ridiculous theories, use fallacious arguments to defend them, then when empirical evidence proves them wrong, they retreat to a much weaker claim "well, life STILL appears to follow some process of gradual development, therefore evolution is true!", until they come up with some new and equally simple-minded take on how this "evolution" works, invoking the exact same fallacious arguments to defend it again and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Where we stand at this point, empirically, is that mutation appears to be intelligent rather than random. Now they are using the same fallacious "given infinity years, our current theory will produce any desirable result" defense to insist that the intelligence behind mutations is exactly limited to the current scientific understanding.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:05:24 UTC No. 16581337

>>16578811
>you
>see "science" that "you dont like"
>spend 5 years chimping out
>monkey.jpg they didnt do the same (i will be proven right one day)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:06:18 UTC No. 16581340

>>16581337
Notice how he made a perfectly valid argument meanwhile you chimp out like an 80 IQ normie.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:08:59 UTC No. 16581346

>>16579062
sure hope you could do so without causing much damage
sure hope so!

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:12:26 UTC No. 16581351

>>16581340
>no u

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:13:07 UTC No. 16581353

>>16579062
>Much of our DNA really is trash in a sense. Only a small portion is protein-coding DNA.
I like how this utter retard literally demonstrates the obsolete 60s misunderstanding OP is ridiculing.

Yevgeniy Pillman at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:13:54 UTC No. 16581355

>>16580797
>lol...just take fucking L

But cult...
You lost to him

>you anti-science jackass.

Oh irony has never failed you, has it, cult?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:20:21 UTC No. 16581360

>>16581335
>It's a classic motte and bailey tactic.
That's true but your argument is not entirely honest either because the nature of what is happening is paradoxical so any explanation will always look self-contradictory at a surface level and will always need to resolve the illusion of contradiction on a deeper level. Like life is dying all the time and life is always changing yet staying the same and life is simultaneously egoic and altruistic and what looks liike self-destruction can actually be self-renewal and on and on it goes with all the illusory contradictions. Pointing out contradictions between theory and observation is therefore a very weak and dishonest argument in the realm of biology.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:20:49 UTC No. 16581361

>>16581335
>Where we stand at this point, empirically, is that mutation appears to be intelligent rather than random
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Can you explain what's intelligent about some e coli strains developing reduced ribosomal efficiency, which made them produce proteins at a slower rate, causing slower growth rate, which eventually lead them to getting outcompeted and dying?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:26:58 UTC No. 16581371

>>16581361
Pretty funny how your first irresistible impulse is to prove me right.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:28:12 UTC No. 16581373

>>16581360
>Pointing out contradictions between theory and observation is therefore a very weak and dishonest argument in the realm of biology
if there are contradictions between theory and observations then the theory is wrong, what the fuck are you talking about

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:32:16 UTC No. 16581377

>>16581360
Schizo word salad. My argument is entirely honest and correct: they don't get to proclaim that this week's evolutionist explanation is "settled science" unless they can make falsifiable predictions from the first principles of their theory (as opposed to statistical estimations from the fossil record) of how long it should take for some nontrivial morphological change to occur. The appeal to geological time argument is not only logically fallacious, but its fallaciousness is conclusively demonstrated by the fact that it was used to defend incorrect theories repeatedly.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:50:29 UTC No. 16581414

>>16581377
>Schizo word salad.
No argument against the falsifiable observation that biological mechanisms that make life possible are contradictory.
>falsifiable predictions
Can only happen when the exact same circumstances are on repeat like the Earth circling the Sun. It's ignorant to hold biology to the same standard as physics and it's dishonest because controlled circumstances in a laboratory can produce falsifiable predictions.
>>16581377
>how long it should take for some nontrivial morphological change to occur.
This requires complete determinism and complete knowledge of all the variables and complete knowledge of how all the variables to interact. Basically you are criticizing scientists for not being like God.

These threads always boil down to the same motte and bailey strategy that critics of evolution themselves practice: all humans can do is tell stories about what's happening and some stories are better than other stories because they are ever so slightly more valid, reliable and accurate than any other story. So present a better story than evolution or shut up. But no you are going to retreat in your castle on the hill saying "all I'm saying that something is not right with current evolution theory".

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:52:30 UTC No. 16581418

>>16581414
>Can only happen when the exact same circumstances are on repeat like the Earth circling the Sun
Then they shouldn't pretend their theory provides a scientific answer to the question of how life came to be this way.

>It's ignorant to hold biology to the same standard as physics
I'm holding it to the most basic standard of scientific thinking.

>all humans can do is tell stories
Ok. Telling stories is not "settled science", or any kind of science. Move on.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:01:22 UTC No. 16581426

Plenty of it is just junk though. You can even turn on some of the old virus DNA and produce neolithic viruses again.
>well obviously it's necessary to have the DNA of a random infectious disease and it was put there 6000 years ago
ERVs are literally irrefutable proof of common ancestry among arbitrarily large swaths of homonids to apes to mammals as a whole. And yes, they are non-coding DNA, as in they don't do anything prior to being reactivated to produce viruses.
Hell, even some actually used coding DNA doesn't do anything and can be disabled at will in lab rats for no visible changes.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:04:38 UTC No. 16581428

>>16581418
>scientific thinking.
You don't see the irony of railing against the idea that there's such thing as The Science while simultaneously pretending that all science must follow the exact same standard. Supplies mothertrucker: there's no such thing as "science" in particular. Science is an umbrella for varying approaches to varying phenomena that share commonalities just like there is no Human but a variety of individuals with a human form.

>"settled science"
When there is no better alternative to a way of thinking that is shared by a lot of people for a long time then that way of thinking solidifies and becomes that much harder to break.

>Then they shouldn't pretend their theory provides a scientific answer to the question of how life came to be this way.
To be more precise there are mechanisms and there is how mechanisms produce a result. The former is more scientific than the latter.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:05:29 UTC No. 16581429

>>16581426
>it is just junk
>You can even turn on some of [it]
Pick one and only one.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:10:34 UTC No. 16581436

>>16581429
>if you change the DNA araend some segment it gets a function
>it has no function in the human body when not on
>when on, it kills the human body deliberately
Sounds pretty trashy to me. It's like having a needle of poison in your house that you could step on and calling that a "purpose." No, when you inherited HIV from your parents at birth, the HIV genome isnt not junk.
I know you're a disingenuous retard who was raised in a backwards hick religion so I forgive you for the deliberate misunderstanding, but could you do it where other people can see? It's rude to show off mental deficiency in public.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:10:42 UTC No. 16581437

>>16581428
>ummm sweaty, let's not be dogmatic here! we use different standards in science; for example, my "science" is faith-based and it's heckin' cute and valid
I wouldn't care even about this so much if it wasn't for the fact that your cult SPECIFICALLY relies on the connotations of rigor carried by the term 'science' to market a theory that contains none of it.

>When there is no better alternative to a way of thinking that is shared by a lot of people for a long time then that way of thinking solidifies and becomes that much harder to break.
Then Christianity is settled science. Fuck off, science denier.

>there are mechanisms and there is how mechanisms produce a result
Your cult never attempts to show that the mechanisms in question "produce the result" they claim it does. They always rely on a fallacious Appeal to Geological Time argument.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:12:28 UTC No. 16581438

>>16581436
You sound like a broken bot.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:14:13 UTC No. 16581440

>>16581438
So you have some explanation for non-coding virus DNA that's found in the exact same spot in the genome of humans and all other modern open but not ether mammals?
Or humans and other mammals but not other reptiles?
I could just keep going back clades, but you avoid the point on purpose. Explain ERVs.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:16:06 UTC No. 16581445

>>16581440
Literally a broken bot...

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:17:24 UTC No. 16581448

>>16581414
>So present a better story than evolution or shut up
any sort of intelligent design is a million times more logical and probable explanation than evolution. and no, intelligent design does not equal creationism. creationism is dogmatic bullshit pushed by fanatics that care more about ideology than the truth, but so is evolution.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:18:32 UTC No. 16581449

>>16581448
>intelligent design
god fucking damn it this is religion masked as science.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:19:00 UTC No. 16581450

>>16581445
So you have no explanation for a very banal fact that is direct evidence of common decent evolution.
>>16581448
ID was a grift created by a creationist to get creation in schools. A southern christian judge determined that ID was religious and therefore stuck it from public school curriculum.
In the end, your creationist mindset can't even explain ERVs.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:22:22 UTC No. 16581452

>>16581450
All I did was to point out the fact that since "junk DNA" can in principle become active and get repurposed for something useful, it isn't really "junk" but raw material. This caused you to play out your preprogrammed dialogue tree in a random sequence. Kekt hard. Soience believers are always explicitly nonsentient and unthinking.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:23:26 UTC No. 16581454

>>16581418
>Then they shouldn't pretend their theory provides a scientific answer to the question of how life came to be this way.
What the fuck do you think a scientific answer is?

>I'm holding it to the most basic standard of scientific thinking.
Your position is anything that has happened in the past can't have a scientific explanation. No "scientific thinker" would claim that ludicrous bullshit.

If a model fits the evidence we've got for what happened in the past, the model is your "scientific answer". Quit whining like a bitch.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:23:31 UTC No. 16581455

>>16581449
What's religious about it? What's unscientific about it?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:26:34 UTC No. 16581460

>>16581455
>my god did it, but with some science sprinkled on top. it's legit
always going for what science didn't yet explain and place your god there. you always did this, you always get btfo'd, for thousands and thousands of years, the same old shit games, you get better and better at trying to shove your god into anything, and science proves you wrong each and every single fucking time. and people still give you attention. humans are fucking insane, as a whole.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:26:47 UTC No. 16581461

>>16581437
>Your cult never attempts to show that the mechanisms in question "produce the result" they claim it does.
Setting aside that evolution is observed in lab settings and in nature, it's constantly being demonstrated in simulations as well.

The mechanisms in question do produce the claimed result. Selection pressures produce changes in distributions of heritable characteristics including the development of completely novel traits.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:26:57 UTC No. 16581462

>>16581452
Since you have no argument, I'll simply explain it to you.
All DNA is made of the same proteins. If you change them, they can do different things.
Now, imagine this. What if, over time, many small changes in the same area led to a larger perceived change? Now that's very difficult for you to think of for you, I know, so let me simplify.
Imagine you had a big room. One end was red. You kept adding small specs of blue as you walked from one side to the other into the paint. Eventually, on the other side, the paint was entirely blue.
Wow! Now you're learning evolution just like the big boys in 4th grade!

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:29:05 UTC No. 16581464

>>16581460
Straw man. Noone's talking about God besides you.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:30:05 UTC No. 16581467

>>16581464
ID was quite literally created to shoehorn god into the classroom. That's it's purpose.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:30:14 UTC No. 16581468

>>16581455
>What's unscientific about it?
Assumes an intelligent designer without evidence. Assumes a mechanism for design without evidence. Contradicts the fossil record without explanation. Disregards simpler explanations that don't contradict physical evidence. Fails to explain ongoing observed evolution. Cannot be reproduced or even simulated.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:32:13 UTC No. 16581473

>>16581464
you fell for the ID meme without even knowing why it exists? lmao

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:34:04 UTC No. 16581474

>>16581437
>Your cult never attempts to show that the mechanisms in question "produce the result" they claim it does.
Again: like a toxic boss you're defining impossible standards and then complain that your standards aren't met. Experiments individually and collectively will always result in a bell curve distribution of outcomes. We only have one ongoing universe and no other universes to restart and compare results with. What attempt do you propose?

>Then Christianity is settled science. Fuck off, science denier.
Your dishonesty shines through once again because some parts of christianity have indeed proven to be unfalsifiable so far and other parts of christianity that have been falsified are less believed in than better stories.

>connotations of rigor carried by the term 'science'
Straw man because no academic considers biology to be a rigorous field of study except for the most mathematical parts.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:38:11 UTC No. 16581478

>>16581448
Intelligent design does not contribute to understanding how the intelligent designer does it.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:38:19 UTC No. 16581479

>>16581467
>Assumes an intelligent designer without evidence
The evidence is our observation that complex things need to be designed. A designer is an inevitable conclusion.
>Assumes a mechanism for design without evidence
See above
>Contradicts the fossil record without explanation
It doesn't
> Disregards simpler explanations that don't contradict physical evidence
It IS the simplest explanation and it doesn't contradict physical evidence
>Fails to explain ongoing observed evolution
It doesn't
>Cannot be reproduced or even simulated
It can

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:39:54 UTC No. 16581480

>>16581479
>The evidence is our observation that complex things need to be designed.
So an intelligent designer needs to be designed?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:41:24 UTC No. 16581484

>>16581479
>>16581480
And then would not an intelligent designer designer need to be designed?

And so on? And so forth? I feel like you run into an issue what with the whole Big Bang being a thing.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:41:41 UTC No. 16581485

>>16581479
>A designer is an inevitable conclusion.
for brainlets, not debating that.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:41:49 UTC No. 16581486

>>16581454
>What the fuck do you think a scientific answer is?
There is no scientific answer, but there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this: "there's no way to provide a scientifically rigorous answer, but life appears to be the result of an organic and gradual development; here are some science-flavored but ultimately unverifiable speculations, based on current scientific understanding of some aspects of a loosely defined process of evolution, but take them with a big grain of salt". This is the only valid answer. They will never give it, though, because it undermines Scientism. The grey blankfaces don't want any competition in the realm of science-flavored speculation.


>If a model fits the evidence we've got for what happened in the past, the model is your "scientific answer".
"God did it" fits the empirical evidence.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:42:20 UTC No. 16581488

>>16581480
I'd say so, unless someone gives a better explanation

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:43:05 UTC No. 16581491

>>16581474
>you're defining impossible standard
Yes. I am defining impossible standards. It shouldn't be possible for your cult to pretend to have knowledge that does not and cannot exist. Case closed. See >>16581486

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:43:54 UTC No. 16581492

>>16581462
All I did was to point out the fact that since "junk DNA" can in principle become active and get repurposed for something useful, it isn't really "junk" but raw material. This caused you to play out your preprogrammed dialogue tree in a random sequence. Kekt hard. Soience believers are always explicitly nonsentient and unthinking.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:44:06 UTC No. 16581493

>>16581486
>God did it
what god? you're imagining it. why do you even call it god? what if it's some low social status programmer geek that got paid like a playstation's worth to design this shit for whoever is running the simulation? that dude would be no fucking god. lol.
>well no, it's god because I say so

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:44:26 UTC No. 16581494

>>16581493
>What the fuck do you think a scientific answer is?
There is no scientific answer, but there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this: "there's no way to provide a scientifically rigorous answer, but life appears to be the result of an organic and gradual development; here are some science-flavored but ultimately unverifiable speculations, based on current scientific understanding of some aspects of a loosely defined process of evolution, but take them with a big grain of salt". This is the only valid answer. They will never give it, though, because it undermines Scientism. The grey blankfaces don't want any competition in the realm of science-flavored speculation.


>If a model fits the evidence we've got for what happened in the past, the model is your "scientific answer".
"God did it" fits the empirical evidence.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:45:20 UTC No. 16581495

>>16581484
I don't see any issue

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:45:48 UTC No. 16581496

>>16581479
You replied to the wrong guy.
Anyway all your claims are presented without evidence, so you're obviously just clinging to faith without reason.
>>16581492
So your argument in OP was wrong, then? Could you say those words?
I see you repeated the same thing again at the bottom, seems like a classic religious coping mechanism. You can see it in public, go talk to those Jehovah's Witnesses on a street corner about the flaws with the church and they go glassy eyed and unthinking.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:45:57 UTC No. 16581498

>>16581494
broken bot is broken

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:46:33 UTC No. 16581499

>>16581371
You didn't answer the question.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:47:13 UTC No. 16581501

>>16581496
>So your argument in OP was wrong, then?
I'm not OP. OP's argument is completely undisputed. You never even touched on it. I'm just taking your irrelevant claim in its own right and showing it to be retarded.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:48:00 UTC No. 16581502

>>16581486
>There is no scientific answer
That's certainly a position to take. How bout you fuck off? The gall to demand something while refusing to accept its existence. You know jack shit about science and need to quit trying to dictate your bullshit be taken as any sort of standard.

>"God did it" fits the empirical evidence.
Which is why science doesn't claim God doesn't exist. So what is your point?

Now science certainly does claim if God did it then they either did it through evolution or through the creation of a universe such that if time were run in reverse then evolution would be observed though.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:48:14 UTC No. 16581503

>>16581496
Which claims require evidence?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:49:03 UTC No. 16581504

>>16581499
There's no need to. I'm arguing on a higher level than your moronic attempt of "rebuttal", and in fact your very response proves my point.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:49:09 UTC No. 16581505

>>16581495
>I don't see any issue
Well you are blind. And stupid. So that makes sense. I accept your concession.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:49:35 UTC No. 16581506

>>16581502
There is no scientific answer, but there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this: "there's no way to provide a scientifically rigorous answer, but life appears to be the result of an organic and gradual development; here are some science-flavored but ultimately unverifiable speculations, based on current scientific understanding of some aspects of a loosely defined process of evolution, but take them with a big grain of salt". This is the only valid answer. They will never give it, though, because it undermines Scientism. The grey blankfaces don't want any competition in the realm of science-flavored speculation.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:49:57 UTC No. 16581507

>>16581505
Well, what is the issue?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:50:17 UTC No. 16581508

>>16581501
Good to know you're not op, so you disagree with his argument but think its right anyway? Very interesting cope there.
Since you accept the ERVs, can you explain how they don't prove evolution? I'm specifically asking about the common placement across related species, such as chimps and humans.
You don't seem to understand the importance of genetic sequences so I'll let you stew in your own retard juice for now.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:50:36 UTC No. 16581509

>>16581504
Very scientific, keep winning champ.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:50:56 UTC No. 16581510

>>16581506
>There is no scientific answer
There is, in fact, a scientific answer. You refusing to acknowledge a concept doesn't make it go away.

>>16581507
>Well, what is the issue?
How do you fit an infinite amount of intelligent designers into a finite amount of time?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:51:57 UTC No. 16581512

>>16581508
>you disagree with his argument
Notice how your impotent rage is causing you to have an overt psychotic episode. I agree with OP completely but we're not discussing OP. Your reply never actually touches on OP's point and neither does my refutation of your drivel.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:51:59 UTC No. 16581513

>>16581426
>ERVs are literally irrefutable proof of common ancestry among arbitrarily large swaths of homonids to apes to mammals as a whole
Very easily refuted by the fact that no virus has ever been scientifically proved to exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:52:16 UTC No. 16581514

>>16581506
there is no competition between science and anything else. you're literally imagining it. you never have models with predictive qualities, you just make retarded unfounded statements about some very particular guy, for some fucking reason. you know more about who done it than the thing you're arguing he did. it's shameless at this point

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:52:25 UTC No. 16581515

>>16581503
How do you simulate an creator god in the field of biological evolution? How does it not fail to explain what we see happening naturally without any creator god?
We've observed both in the field and in the lab speciation, adaptation, and totally novel gene creation without any guiding force outside of selection pressure.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:53:05 UTC No. 16581516

>>16581510
>There is, in fact, a scientific answer.
It's a classic motte and bailey tactic. They will come up with ridiculous theories, use fallacious arguments to defend them, then when empirical evidence proves them wrong, they retreat to a much weaker claim "well, life STILL appears to follow some process of gradual development, therefore evolution is true!", until they come up with some new and equally simple-minded take on how this "evolution" works, invoking the exact same fallacious arguments to defend it again and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Where we stand at this point, empirically, is that mutation appears to be intelligent rather than random. Now they are using the same fallacious "given infinity years, our current theory will produce any desirable result" defense to insist that the intelligence behind mutations is exactly limited to the current scientific understanding.

There is no scientific answer, but there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this: "there's no way to provide a scientifically rigorous answer, but life appears to be the result of an organic and gradual development; here are some science-flavored but ultimately unverifiable speculations, based on current scientific understanding of some aspects of a loosely defined process of evolution, but take them with a big grain of salt". This is the only valid answer. They will never give it, though, because it undermines Scientism. The grey blankfaces don't want any competition in the realm of science-flavored speculation.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:53:35 UTC No. 16581518

>>16581486
>there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this
I agree with this viewpoint but without context your viewpoint can exacerbate a dangerous kind of relativism: we're already living in a zeitgeist where everything is considered a "cool story bro" except for a bunch of elitists boomers. If all you're doing is deconstructing everything without providing a better alternative than you're just inviting chaos for even bigger evils to takeover than the evil you think you're fighting against.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:53:36 UTC No. 16581519

>>16581514
There is no scientific answer, but there is an intellectually honest answer and it looks something like this: "there's no way to provide a scientifically rigorous answer, but life appears to be the result of an organic and gradual development; here are some science-flavored but ultimately unverifiable speculations, based on current scientific understanding of some aspects of a loosely defined process of evolution, but take them with a big grain of salt". This is the only valid answer. They will never give it, though, because it undermines Scientism. The grey blankfaces don't want any competition in the realm of science-flavored speculation.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:53:38 UTC No. 16581520

>>16581512
No argument.
>>16581513
I'll even grant you that for the sake of argument, how do you explain the common gene placement of non-coding junk DNA across species

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:53:52 UTC No. 16581521

>>16581516
>There is no scientific answer
Your script broke

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:54:33 UTC No. 16581522

>>16581519
listen you idiot, you're spamming the thread at this point and you aren't making any, sadly

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:54:34 UTC No. 16581523

>>16581518
>we're already living in a zeitgeist where everything is considered a "cool story bro"
Why is this bad?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:55:14 UTC No. 16581524

>>16581521
>>16581522
Concession accepted. No more (You)s after this since it WAS a direct and final concession of all my points. :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:55:25 UTC No. 16581525

Ladies, ladies, chill, chill. We live in a simulation. You're both right.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:56:12 UTC No. 16581526

>>16581524
>I repeat some retarded shit
>I win (somehow)
the power of IDtards

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:57:24 UTC No. 16581528

>>16581526
You never made an attempt to refute anything I said because it's the scientifically rigorous position on the matter that actual scientists subscribe to.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:58:59 UTC No. 16581530

>>16581528
I literally asked how you know it's god and not some geek programmer that got paid shit to come up with your (equally shit) DNA? why do you say a god did it? you're not even hiding it anymore. you don't even understand what I'm saying innit?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:59:34 UTC No. 16581531

>>16581528
>the best model is natural evolution, as it explains the most and makes the most predictions that turned out correct
That's the 99.9% standard modern scientific position. So you accept natural evolution then?
Or are you just failing to make an argument from authority?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:59:48 UTC No. 16581532

>>16581530
>I literally asked how you know it's god
I never said it's God. You are a mindless automaton trying to shoe-horn my point into some preprogrammed template that your dialogue tree operates on.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:00:30 UTC No. 16581534

>>16581523
Total chaos, degeneracy, magical thinking, darwinism, hedonism, collapse of western civilization and such.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:00:41 UTC No. 16581535

>>16581531
Whom are you quoting? No more (You)'s since you appear to overtly psychotic.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:01:20 UTC No. 16581538

>>16581526
They aren't even an IDtard. They're a young earth creationist rping as an IDtard. IDtards at least pretend science exists if only to not come across as complete lunatics.

This dipshit's taking the position that science cannot explain any past event.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:01:37 UTC No. 16581539

>>16581534
>Total chaos, degeneracy, magical thinking, darwinism, hedonism, collapse of western civilization and such.
Explain how people making up their own bullshit stories about the emergence of life, instead of listening to grey blankface stories, makes all of that happen.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:02:14 UTC No. 16581541

>>16581532
Were you the guy that copy pasted the same post 10 times? I think you might be projecting.
>>16581535
That's ok, you don't have to defend your arguments unless you want to convince people

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:02:14 UTC No. 16581542

>>16581515
Genetic engineering is literally a thing.
Modify an existing organism, put it on an empty planet, let natural selection do its thing.
There is no inconsistency or failure to explain anything.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:03:15 UTC No. 16581543

>>16581541
>Were you the guy that copy pasted the same post 10 times?
Of course. I think I'll just keep doing that until one of you manages to pump out a post that actually engages with the argument instead of shitting out an irrelevant, preprogrammed talking point.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:03:35 UTC No. 16581544

>>16581532
>I never said it's God.
you lying bitch
>>16581486
>"God did it" fits the empirical evidence.
you spammed the thread with the top part.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:04:30 UTC No. 16581545

>>16581544
So where's the lie? Quote it. lol. I dunno why it's so funny to probe deficient and broken minds like yours.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:05:09 UTC No. 16581547

>>16581542
OK. And this proves that it happened at the beginning of time 6000 years ago because..?
Remember, you are claiming there is direct evidence in support of a creator god, and as far as all evidence goes nothing points to a beginning of time creation of all genetics all at once it predefined species. In fact, it points away from that.
So can you actually make an argument in favor of your position?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:05:15 UTC No. 16581548

>>16581545
have you no fucking spine you boneless dimwit?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:06:17 UTC No. 16581550

>>16581545
>quote it
He did, you just lost the plot my friend.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:06:39 UTC No. 16581551

>>16581548
Quote anything ITT that implies I'm a creationist or whoever it is you're programmed to be perpetually ass-blasted over. You literally can't.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:06:47 UTC No. 16581552

>>16581542
>let natural selection
Natural selection is a purely destructive process, dipshit. Ie no new information. Species can't radiate out through that shit.

Also, genetic engineering requires a genetic engineer who under your theory would require an infinite series of higher genetic engineers which we know can't exist because the past is observably finite.

And yes, the past is fucking observable thanks to good old light not traveling instantaneously. Unless you're claiming the speed of light is fake too.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:07:12 UTC No. 16581553

>>16581547
Straw man
>this proves that it happened at the beginning of time 6000 years ago
Never made that claim
>you are claiming there is direct evidence in support of a creator god
Never made that claim

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:07:44 UTC No. 16581555

>>16581550
Notice how you are also unable to provide any relevant quotes to prove your point. It's almost like your opinion is just a mental condition with specific symptoms, as opposed to an intellectual conclusion.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:09:12 UTC No. 16581558

veritasisters new kino just dropped:
https://youtu.be/P_fHJIYENdI

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:09:23 UTC No. 16581559

>>16581553
>Never made that claim
So you don't claim to have faith in God? Shame.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:09:29 UTC No. 16581560

>>16581539
When people lose the ability to discern between better and worse stories they will make up their own story and that story will be tailor made to their own fears and desires resulting in acts that benefit the self at the cost of others such that a symbiotic society deteriorates into a predator-prey society.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:10:23 UTC No. 16581563

>>16581553
>uuh anything complex needs a creator
No, this is an unscientific presupposition. It's also the claim you made I'm responding to, and pointed out you asserted without evidence.
You also asserted the following without evidence either:
>a creator god fits as an explanation for new genes arising naturally without intervention
>a creator god can be reproduced and/or simulated

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:10:28 UTC No. 16581564

>>16581559
>doesn't believe in evolution
>therefore believes in god
brainwashed

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:10:43 UTC No. 16581565

>>16581560
>When people lose the ability to discern between better and worse stories they will make up their own story and that story will be tailor made to their own fears and desires resulting in acts that benefit the self at the cost of others such that a symbiotic society deteriorates into a predator-prey society.
Ok, that's a very good argument for why no one should trust socience fairytales. But why shouldn't people make up their own stories instead? They need to believe in something. :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:10:45 UTC No. 16581566

>>16581551
>Quote anything ITT that implies I'm a creationist
You refusing to deny being a creationist implies you are a creationist.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:11:13 UTC No. 16581567

>>16581560
In other words: the decline of a shared understanding of reality = rise of narcissism and psychopathy.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:11:38 UTC No. 16581568

>>16581566
Quote where exactly I refused to deny it.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:11:46 UTC No. 16581569

>>16581564
I never made that claim.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:12:43 UTC No. 16581570

>>16581567
>the decline of a shared understanding of reality = rise of narcissism and psychopathy
That's not "in other words", that's a different argument that once again doesn't give grey blankface creation stories any precedence over the alternatives.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:13:06 UTC No. 16581571

>>16581568
So you do deny it? You deny God exists and created the universe?

Here's where you say you never made that claim, so I'll just quote that denial back to you. Thanks for taking the bait.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:13:50 UTC No. 16581574

>>16581571
I'm not a creationist. I don't know if any god exists or how the universe came to be. You sound like you are losing your mind.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:13:59 UTC No. 16581575

>>16581106
you're hallucinating. all I've done is ask about the rate at which mutations occur and are selected for versus the non-mutated population. this upsets you greatly because you are unable to address this in any meaningful way so you decide to pretend I'm arguing in bad faith and therefore none of the points have to be dealt with. it's actually very pathetic of you to do this as it just demonstrates your complete ineptitude at explaining. but then to dig in your heels and pretend your ad hom is not an ad hom, lol that just makes you look retarded. no point engaging further with a retard who can only emotionally simp for soience.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:16:43 UTC No. 16581581

>>16581574
>I don't know if any god exists or how the universe came to be
Here's where you refuse to deny God exists and created the universe.

>>16581568
See above.

Got your ass. Nice try with the phrasing, but you did refuse to deny it. Knowing something and believing something are two different things.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:17:44 UTC No. 16581584

>>16581575
Fuck off, loon.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:17:51 UTC No. 16581585

>>16581581
>you refuse to deny God exists and created the universe.
So what? You said I refused to deny I'm a creationist, but I actually did just deny it. I'm not a creationist. Notice how your psychotic illness doesn't allow you to get over your mistake and forces you to try to steer the conversation back to your preprogrammed anti-creationism template. :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:18:37 UTC No. 16581586

>>16581584
He BTFO you, pop-evo chimp.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:24:08 UTC No. 16581589

>>16581581
Learn to fucking read holy shit

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:31:29 UTC No. 16581594

>>16581585
I wish people would use the filters and just ignore the christcucks, arguing with them like 2010s reddit users just fuels them and reduces people to the same level of retarded lack of thought.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:33:20 UTC No. 16581599

>>16581594
>t. redditor who doesn't understand how filters work
What filter would you use to hide my posts proving your religion wrong? :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:34:25 UTC No. 16581601

>>16581599
I am an atheist

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:36:34 UTC No. 16581605

>>16581601
Yeah, I know what your religion is. See >>16581599

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:40:52 UTC No. 16581609

>>16581605
Ah, I see we are doing the retard "atheism is a religion too" thing.
I really thought that gay meme died.

I won't be giving you any assistance in dodging my filters, but obviously filtering namefags and "God" or "Jesus" is a place to start when improving your experience

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:43:06 UTC No. 16581612

>>16581609
>>16581605
>>16581601
>>16581599
>>16581594
What the fuck are you two retards bumping this thread for. Use the options field for gay interpersonal drama
/sci/ is fucking dead

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:43:51 UTC No. 16581613

>>16581612
It's a bot retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:43:53 UTC No. 16581614

>>16581609
There's nothing you can do to dodge me because I'm not whatever your psychotic religious delusions make you think I am. Seethe about it.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:47:28 UTC No. 16581620

>>16581614
Quite a lot of projection and anger here.
Why are you so mad lol.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:48:24 UTC No. 16581621

>>16581620
You sound pretty mad. Any luck dodging me with your filters yet, reddit?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:49:57 UTC No. 16581622

>>16581621
I am not upset at all, you seem very upset by the idea people would filter religous preaching though.
Why is that?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:52:09 UTC No. 16581625

>>16581612
I have been, however they are not, or it no longer works.

>>16581613
Is he a bot? I think he's just some guy trying to proselytize on here and getting made nobody pays attention to him

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:52:45 UTC No. 16581626

>>16581570
>a different argument that once again doesn't give grey blankface creation stories any precedence over the alternatives.
It does. The hierarchy of stories needs to be determined on the basis of validity, accuracy and reliability. No matter how much the current science is lacking in validity, accuracy and reliability there is no better story because introducing intelligent design does not increase how valid, accurate and reliable predictions are.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:55:17 UTC No. 16581628

I don't believe in any god, but I would never call myself an atheist. People who identify with that label always make appeal to the dictionary arguments claiming that atheism is "just a lack of belief in deities", but empirically speaking, it's obvious bullshit. If you argue with an atheist's talking points, sooner or later he will revert to accusing you of being some religious boogeyman, even if you never express any theistic beliefs. Atheists readily determine that you are NOT one of them, even if your actual position falls under their bogus "definition" of atheism, simply because criticize the philosophy/belief system that they espouse, even while they claim it doesn't characterize atheism.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:56:50 UTC No. 16581631

>>16581626
>The hierarchy of stories needs to be determined on the basis of validity, accuracy and reliability.
Why? You've provided zero arguments for this. Also you have already conceded that grey blankface unfalsifiable speculations don't conform to any of these criteria.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:58:32 UTC No. 16581637

>>16581622
>, you seem very upset by the idea people would filter religous preaching though.
You can filter religious boogeymen all you like but you'll keep seeing my posts because see >>16581628. Seethe about it more.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:02:03 UTC No. 16581644

>>16581628
I think that might be a reasonable way of looking at it, I call myself atheist because it accurately describes me, I think, in a short way.
I am sure many people would say I am not an atheist, because my real view is, "Though christianity is wrong, I don't really know or care if a god exists."
Maybe I am agnostic atheist or some other term, I just find abrahamic religions annoying and don't care enough to look into any other religions

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:04:59 UTC No. 16581649

>>16581637
Is this super low effort trolling or what?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:06:30 UTC No. 16581650

>>16581644
>Maybe I am agnostic atheist or some other term
>The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley said that he originally coined the word agnostic in 1869 "to denote people who, like [himself], confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters [including the matter of God's existence], about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence."

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:11:48 UTC No. 16581654

>>16581650
If God exists and wants to play hide and seek, he should be proud in the success he achieved
I sadly have no interest in finding him, that time is a long time past

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:13:43 UTC No. 16581655

>>16581654
Wow. No one cares.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:15:58 UTC No. 16581657

>>16581655
Obviously you are very upset

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:18:00 UTC No. 16581665

>>16581657
I'm am extremely concerned about your arbitrary subjective opinions. Good thing we have a thread to discuss normalground #48299329192932's variations on grey blankface dogma.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:19:18 UTC No. 16581670

>>16581665
This argument is very dumb.
I honestly have nothing against you, I hope you have a good rest of your day.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:20:14 UTC No. 16581671

>>16581670
Mhm. G'day, anon.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:46:02 UTC No. 16581699

>>16581631
>Why? You've provided zero arguments for this.
I will give you one last chance to prove that you are not trolling or genuinely retarded. The statement "When it rains I walk with a black umbrella" is true when it corresponds with observation (validity), when it's accurate (no other color, no running) and when it's reliable (every time it rains the statement is verified to be valid and accurate by observation). So when every time it rains you see me running with a pink umbrella the statement that I run with a pink umbrella becomes more true than the statement that I walk with a black umbrella because it's more valid, accurate and reliable. That's basic logic and reason. If you genuinely don't understand that this is how truth is determined then may the intelligent designer save you from your ignorance.

>Also you have already conceded that grey blankface unfalsifiable speculations don't conform to any of these criteria.
Discerning better stories from worse stories is not binary but a matter of degree. Now if you're going to argue that truth is binary then we circle back to you not presenting a better alternative.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:50:35 UTC No. 16581702

>>16581699
The statement: "scientists understand how life came to be" has demonstrably been not valid, not accurate and not reliable.

>Discerning better stories from worse stories is not binary but a matter of degree
There is no degree to which the demonstrably false belief that scientists understand how life came to be is "better" than the possibly false belief that religious people do.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:56:13 UTC No. 16581706

>>16581702
>"scientists understand how life came to be"
Is not even a falsifiable statement because the meaning of understanding is whatever suits your argument.

>"better" than the possibly false belief that religious people do.
Yes because "intelligent design" is not even a falsifiable statement.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:57:41 UTC No. 16581707

>>16581706
>Is not even a falsifiable statement
It's falsifiable and has been falsified numerous times when they insisted that their theory explains life only to later concede that there is actually more to it.

>Yes because "intelligent design" is not even a falsifiable statement.
Not my problem. I was going strictly by your "argument".

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:21:15 UTC No. 16581736

>>16579330
You completely misunderstand evolution. The genes that better allow for a creature to pass on its genes will outperform other genes. This doesn't always mean that species that evolved earlier die off, only if they can no longer compete in their ecological niche at all. We still see creatures that are thought to have evolved like 300 million years ago.
There was never a "fish with wings". At some point something like a lungfish developed to deal with inland droughts, and then slowly adapted better to living on land. Boney fins became limbs, semipermeable skin that fish have became rough and scaly, scales eventually became long and thin to provide better insulation, then became branched. Something like a gliding squirrel developed, then over the generations became better at it.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:24:37 UTC No. 16581738

>>16581736
You didn't address his question at all. Pop-evo tards literally have no thoughts...

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:29:24 UTC No. 16581743

>>16581707
Understanding is aways open ended. "God does it like this" is less open ended and more falsifiable than "God does it". By virtue of being more falsifiable the "God does it like this" story will improve over time while the "God does it" story will forever remain stagnant and lacking in detail.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:33:12 UTC No. 16581749

>>16581738
There was never scientific consensus on that, and how would you go about proving intelligent design lol.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:37:31 UTC No. 16581754

>>16579330
>But fish with 43% wings did, just as fish with 44% wings did, just as fish with 43% wings and 20% arms di etc. etc. That doesn't make any sense.
You're talking as if the population splits every time a useful variation of a trait occurs in some individuals. That's not what happens. It just gradually spreads across the population. In order for an earlier stage to be preserved it would have to be separated into its own distinct population.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:39:45 UTC No. 16581758

>>16581743
Cool (and rather incoherent) story but the point still stands that you are unable to show why believing in unfalsifiable and unjustified pop-evo fairytales is better than believing in God or whatever else.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:43:11 UTC No. 16581764

>>16581758
Did God create rocks that look like skeletons for the fun of it? Did he also change the ratio of isotopes to look like they're very old just for a laugh?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:44:48 UTC No. 16581767

>>16581749
I don't know what you're on about. He was asking why, if the supposed intermediate stages of a creature's evolution were viable, they don't stick around. This is a valid question which you don't know the answer to despite proselytizing your pop-evo "knowledge".

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:45:51 UTC No. 16581769

>>16581764
Absolutely deranged reply that has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you responded to.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:46:39 UTC No. 16581770

>>16581758
You've clearly revealed by now that you are not willing to have a constructive discussion. Goodbye.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:48:01 UTC No. 16581771

>>16581770
There is no "constructive discussion" to be had with you, since you just keep irrationally insisting that believing in science-flavored falsehoods is better despite all empirical evidence showing it to be extremely psychologically damaging, to the point of possibly destroying the species.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:48:55 UTC No. 16581772

>>16581767
I answered it in my original post LMAO. Try reading a book other than the bible for once (although I doubt you actually read that one either). I said that they don't stick around because they get outcompeted in their ecological niche.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:51:03 UTC No. 16581778

>>16581772
>I answered it in my original post
No, you didn't, Captain Dunning-Kruger.

>they don't stick around because they get outcompeted in their ecological niche.
This is wrong.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:53:20 UTC No. 16581780

>>16581778
I had the exact same answer in that post, but it seems you're incapable of reading.
>this is wrong
non-argument

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:54:23 UTC No. 16581783

>>16581770
To recap: you first insisted that embracing science-flavored (but not actually scientific) unfalsifiable speculations is necessary, because rejecting them undermines the intellectual hegemony of Scientism, which (you claim, nonsensically) would lead to societal collapse. Then when asked you why this intellectual hegemony you desire has to be that of Scientism, you reverted to some pathetic apologia about how it's better to embrace false claims that have a grain of scientific truth to them than ordinary false claims -- a purely subjective preference you are unable to justify.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:55:38 UTC No. 16581784

>>16581783
ordinary unfalsifiable claims*

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:57:12 UTC No. 16581786

>>16581780
>the species is out-competed by itself
Kek.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:59:21 UTC No. 16581789

>>16581786
Yeah that's how it works. Do you think every member of a species magically passes down their genes equally?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:01:38 UTC No. 16581794

>>16581789
Explain how a handful of individuals having some mutation "out-compete" their entire species in the ecological niche. :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:02:14 UTC No. 16581795

How is this thread still going
You people really will just argue about nothing forever

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:02:59 UTC No. 16581796

>>16581795
>evolutionism being a pseudoscience is "nothing"

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:05:08 UTC No. 16581798

>>16581796
indeed the discussion is nothing
all intelligent people moved on from talking about this

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:08:48 UTC No. 16581804

>>16581798
>intelligent people troost the scoience and never talk about how it's demonstrably wrong time and time again

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:09:34 UTC No. 16581806

>>16581794
They just have to be like 1% more likely to pass on their genes, and given many generations that gene will completely take over. Same thing with bad mutations, eventually there will be no individuals left with that gene.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:14:36 UTC No. 16581811

>>16581804

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:19:29 UTC No. 16581817

>>16581806
Completely retarded take. Most complex traits are polygenic and exhibit natural variability. Talking about the species "out-competing" itself in its own niche because the population average on some trait gradually shifts over many generations is retarded but I guess this is part for the course for pop-evo soience fans.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 20:41:40 UTC No. 16581830

>>16581817
Looks like you understand how a species doesn't always sit at some intermediate step, nice to see progress.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:57:04 UTC No. 16581905

>>16581796
Explain how evolution is pseudoscience when you literally witness it in high school lab.
Homeschooled moron

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:01:38 UTC No. 16581907

>>16581830
I assume we will soon see the "Micro Evolution is real, Macro Evolution is a myth" argument
Glad to see Kent Hovind retards still enshitify every argument by refusing to understand anything

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:06:18 UTC No. 16582004

>>16581905
>Explain how evolution is pseudoscience
Read the thread, public-schooled moron. Imagine thinking you can talk to back to me when you're a sub-140 IQs with no STEM degree.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 07:47:44 UTC No. 16582252

>>16582004
>read the thread
>it's a circular cope about the difference between micro and macro

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:28:25 UTC No. 16582362

>>16582252
You didn't read the thread. You're a bot and your context window is too small, so you defaulted to statistics. kek

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:36:10 UTC No. 16582722

>>16581377
>word salad
a delicious word salad

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:38:21 UTC No. 16582728

>>16581449
>religion masked as science
ay?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:43:17 UTC No. 16582733

>>16581522
>spamming the thread
my @ss!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:47:29 UTC No. 16582741

>>16581560
>a predator-prey society
jredator-grey

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:49:45 UTC No. 16582746

>>16581584
>loon
looney tunes

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:56:12 UTC No. 16582754

>>16581811
who is he?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:59:21 UTC No. 16582759

>>16582004
>you're a sub-140 IQs with no STEM degree
i'm a super-140 IQs with a STEM degree