Learning evolution

Stop bumping a thread where the OP says "redpill". holy fuck Veeky Forums we're supposed to be the smartest board. stop making the rest of us look bad you dumb fucks.

>Having a variety of kinds is not the same as having different kinds.
Variety and Different are synonyms.

>How many styles of round coins before you need to change the shape to square, in order to distinguish them?
>A: infinite.
That's not any English I am familiar with.
It looks like disconnected thought.

>Hardly. There are billions of people alive right now.
>The vast majority of them completely different from the rest.
You're confusing the generations with permutations.
You can have billions of permutations in 1 generation.
Generation * Permutations = Evolution

>How many styles of round coins before you need to change the shape to square, in order to distinguish them?
>A: infinite.

Genetic code doesn't stay a round coin.
That's actually the exact opposite of how genetics work.
They're exceptionally mutative, which is why the world mutation is a word associate with genetics.
Chromosomes can also split and fuse.
n fact, humanities 1 and 2 chrome fused about 10 million years ago.

>Variety and Different are synonyms.
Allow me to rephrase it for you.
Having diversity amongst one kind(i.e. several breeds of dog) is not the same as having different kinds(dogs,cats,birds).
My point was that you can have vaiation without speciation.
As a matter of fact that's all that has ever been observed.
i.e.
No one has ever seen a cat give birth to a non cat.
It's the same with any creature. They only ever bring forth after their kind.

>That's not any English I am familiar with.
>It looks like disconnected thought.
It was an analogy to your statement. I was trying to show the absurdity of your implication.

>You're confusing the generations with permutations.
>You can have billions of permutations in 1 generation.
>Generation * Permutations = Evolution

My point is still valid.
There can be billions( that much is observable) of differences (variety), and still the same species.
You were trying to argue that changing something will lead to it becoming a totally different species, when in fact things change all the time, yet still remain the same species.

>Genetic code doesn't stay a round coin.
Oh so now you get the analogy.
Anyways your wrong. Creatures always remain the same kind.

You might want to rewatch ↓

youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
Dogs stay dogs, and bugs stay bugs.

> to not look bad, you must get triggered at words like a retard and flood the thread with your butthurt
poor little SJWtard :(

>only breeds differences can exist not species
>dogs are allowed to evolve into cat sized critters but not into anything that isn't a dog
>btw I didn't even define dog
>They only ever bring forth after their kind.
That's because you can only vary so much between one generation. You don't even understand basic color analogies.
>It was an analogy to your statement. I was trying to show the absurdity of your implication.
Your analogy was completely wrong. "Need" exists only in intelligent design. You should rather ask yourself how many sides you can add to a square before it's safer to assume that it's a circle.
>There can be billions( that much is observable) of differences (variety), and still the same species.
Then what's the meaning of species? Why could a dog be huge as mountains and small as bugs but could never become a cat?
>Anyways your wrong. Creatures always remain the same kind.
You should go back to your pseudo intellectual boards if all you can do is throw statements and say that it must be like that because my small brain doesn't comprehend the other way.

Just compare some conserved sequences between species in ncbi.

ITT:
Grammar issues so terrible everything appears as wordsalad and loaded conjecture.

If you're not a geneticist, stop with the presumptions please.
Stop.
Those of us that research beyond wikipedia or circular logic don't appreciate the "this is true because this is what I believe" crap.
That's not science.
In fact, that's never science.
Post proof and reason or fuck off.
Go back to /pol/ and /x/ where conjecture belongs.
We're a PROOF and REASON board only.

Can you prove anything you just said ?

I didn't make any claims.
I stated self-referencing contained facts.
1 = 1 doesn't require proof.
Science and logic are defined by testing, not untested conjecture.

You've never heard of genetic testing and genetic research ?

I have, but that has zero to do with me questioning people.
Most of the posts here are about conjecture and make zero mention of testing and research, and instead use "but if then" conjecture.
100% of the "but if" is correct, and the "then" statements are also incorrect.
Conjecture isn't proof and it isn't testing nor research.
Testing is the scientific method.

*100% of the "but if" is incorrect, and the "then" statements are also incorrect.

> Microevolution is not Macroevolution

>If we use made up words, we can pretend this shit can't be shown in ten seconds with google!

blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Google genetic algorithms

Great point! Actually reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

...

Evolution plainly stated is the competition between at least two individuals that result in a greater individual.

Wrong. It's the extremely long-winded competition between massive groups of individuals that results in a more adapted group to their environment. There is no "greater" or "superior" species, only species more adapted to their habitat.

Nice tricky hook

>microevolution
>kinds
Stop

>microevolution is real but macroevolution isn't
>you can walk across the street but not across town

It's time to stop.

Anyone able to explain, how the gap between chemicals substances and simplest cells (but able to replicate) has been bridged?

Evolution is (at least for me) a natural consequence of non-ideal replication, but what the hell was before? Atoms had randomly aligned and formed first cell?

Wikipedia just gives some crap about high-energy molecules.

Evolution violates known laws of science.
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that things tend towards disorder.
i.e. shit gets worse with time.
Evolution is the notion that things get better with time.

The law of biogenesis tells us that life only comes from life, and that life does not spontaniously generate.

But many evolutionists believe that just such an event took place.
Dispite the fact that we know scientifically that this does not happen, moreover its mathmatically absurd.
dyeager.org/2008/04/probability-evolution.html
see also↓
youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

> Evolution violates known laws of science.
> The second law of thermodynamics tells us that things tend towards disorder.
This is completely irrelevant.
Creationism or evolution, the 2nd law
is violated by this argument. So either the second law is incorrect, or this argument is
incorrect. Either way it has nothing to do with the basis for evolutionary science.

We rely on science here, not pills, to inform us. Carry on.

closed system

and evolution makes no statement in the origin of life. However, the law of biogenesis was established refuting that life was always spontaneously generated. It doesn't mean that abiogenesis is impossible

>The second law of thermodynamics tells us that things tend towards disorder.
>i.e. shit gets worse with time.
>Evolution is the notion that things get better with time.

That's because evolution is the chemical path of converting everything non-organic into a biomass. The protein program is organized and selective. It filters the chaos and evolutionary downsides, it's a closed circle, where the only way is forward.

Every biological thing is dependent on another to survive, that's why there's such a perfect order in nature. We are all slaves to our biology.

>but what the hell was before? Atoms had randomly aligned and formed first cell?
This is just a theory though, it's not some definitive, "yes, this is absolutely what happened," type of deal because it's likely impossible to prove what precisely happened. There's also the possibility that organic compounds from dust in our solar system accumulated on the planet, our atmosphere was way, way different back then. Plus certain organic compounds can be self-synthesized, RNA molecules form in hydrothermal vents all by themselves. (RNA is critical for the coding and decoding of genes) Proteins occur naturally all over the place too, and finally a young, chaotic Earth had plenty of available energy to drive a potential abiogenesis.

>Evolution violates known laws of science.
No.
>The second law of thermodynamics tells us that things tend towards disorder.
>i.e. shit gets worse with time.
lmao I didn't even get past the first "paragraph" in your post before I laughed. One point that stands out:
>The law of biogenesis tells us that life only comes from life
>But many evolutionists believe that just such an event took place.
See above, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that life simply cannot spring from nothingness. This leads to two possible reasons for life on this planet: a rock from some far off place brought it or metaphysical shenanigans, i.e. divine intervention. (which is what you're really getting at)

Neither event disproves the evidence available in every single living creature we've ever encountered, evolution itself is the process of life adapting to it's environment and doesn't include commentary about the origin. The Haynes book for my car doesn't describe the day my car was built, that's stupid, and so life's Haynes book isn't going to presume how it all stated. That aside, the actual process itself is pretty fucking simple and has been explained several times in the above posts.

"More adapted to their habitat" is a comparative statement - otherwise, the less "city" do not belong anywhere and neither do the "more city" since they moved their in the first place or at all.

>The second law of thermodynamics tells us that things tend towards disorder.

In a closed system. The surface of Earth is not one of those, we have the sun feeding us energy continuously.

>i.e. shit gets worse with time.
"No"
>Evolution is the notion that things get better with time.
"Double No"

> Great point! Actually reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution:
> The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist,
> and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee.
Correct enough except more species than just chimpanzees.

> They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human."
Right. A "common ancestor".

> So that means it would have to have features of both.
Most likely yes. But with enough long term divergence this might not always be obvious.

> The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both.
You defined "both" as the set of a modern day chimpanzee and a human.
So why are you assuming there are no common features between chimpanzees and humans today ?

> If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
You haven't given any actual reasons for that "IF".

The following is all nonsense derived from your presumptive IF:

> That means either humans evolved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans.
You are already rejecting "features of both" so why would they have anything to do with each other then ?

> Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps.
Not obvious at all, since species can diverge into lesser advanced paths.

> However, if chimps evolved into humans, then how are there still chimps?
That is theoretically possible, it just forms a branch in the evolutionary tree, where one branch stays more stagnant than the other branch.

> According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left.
>If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
This what happens with illogical reasoning. You can prove anything.

>Microevolution is not Macroevolution.
been saving this pic for a while now

Interesting. in addition, one might wish to contemplate the possibility that evolution might "in 'partitional' fact" demonstrate a truth value corresponding to the characteristic value of the set of true items, nevertheless, one might also discover at such an inquisition the fact that such a truth value has such a value as to be negated by the simplest of all facts known to such a species as mankind. Once more, I must state expositionalistically that the truth of the matter, simply stated, is quiet simply thus: no summation of factual innacurracies which, themselves a product of the manipulation of a number of realistic mathematical statistical cacluations, have over time accumulated to the point of reaching a critical mass in the social consciousness of scientests the world over, and therefore it is for this reason that in determinate fact those scientists who dissent from such an endeavor find themselves in quiet an unfavorable condition as far as public and private funding for original research is concerned. I find this to be one of several important issues facing the state of science in this world today, and, unless such a scenario is assuaged by an elucidation of the relevant kind, the progress achieved by science since, for example, the 19th century, shall be dissolved into the dusts of past dust granules.

>berlinski

how is /pol/ right every single time

youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg?t=3m

the jokes on you, monkeys can't read

>They only ever bring forth after their kind.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>red is the same as blue therefore microevolution is the same as macroevolution

This is literally your argument.

I fucking love ring species.

>They only ever bring forth after their kind.
No.
They give birth to something only 99.99% their kind, and so on.
It's gradual. That's what macro evolution is.
Small changes end up becoming big changes... when compared from earlier to later.
How the fuck don't you get this?
Alleles don't cycle back.
Genetic material changes every generation.

>red pilled on evolution?
You mean the Red Queen theory? Best theory going, life is pointless, evolution only happens when its triggered or a random cancerous mutation.

If you know how DNA works then evolution should make sense to you because every trait in your body and cells must have a common ancestor.

This micro/macro evolution needs to die already.

>Evolution
The process of accumulating change. Among other forms of change, the evolution of transportation has involved modification, diversification, convergence, divergence, hybridization, differentiation, and naturally, selection. A progression of change, often branching and diversifying in the process.

When two humans mate and produce an offspring, they are diversifying, if they fail to thrive and live they do not diversify, if a species as a whole fails to thrive and reproduce, they go extinct, those lines die and the species does not diversify. Whether it's a small change or a huge change over time, it's evolution when offspring make more offspring that lead to other offspring.
Whether you look like your parents or not, you have traits from both of them (both positive and negative traits), you're diversified. If positive traits > negative traits and you survive long enough to produce an offspring, they are diversified, down the line for generations if your line doesn't end, that is diversification. Extend this to the entire human species as a whole over a huge amount of time, that is evolution as a whole.

This whole micro/macro is bullshit because it's all the same thing.

no. every word in the picture is the same color as the one before it and the one after it, but when you zoom out you can see that the first line is red and the last line is blue. tiny changes accumulate over time and look like big changes by the end.

How long do you have to keep changing colors until you get a new language?

When people accept macro evolution, then we will have to explain macro macro evolution.

How long do you have to keep changing goalposts until you get a good argument?

>if humans evolved from monkeys and monkeys evolved from fish, why are there still reptiles?

Changing the color of the text is a very minor change.
Similar to changing the woolliness of a sheep.
Changing the language is a major change.
Similar to a sheep becoming a horse, or what ever the fuck.

I'm not changing the goalposts, I'm just reminding you where they are.

You do realize that Old English is literally unreadable to speakers of modern English?

kek

lol You're retarded; what the fuck are dialects? You mong go milk yourself

>I'm not changing the goalposts, I'm just reminding you where they are.
Mm, no, that's not what you're doing. I realize it's hard to wrap your head around this since you're (likely) a creationist and science in general is just pagan witchcraft to you, but obfuscating the analogy is not going to make you correct.

At no point was the analogy about the words, it was about the colors, and only a complete fucking idiot would think the visible light spectrum comes in different spoken languages. Well, an idiot or somebody deliberately trying to keep their stupid argument alive by giving it life support in the form of, "well when will red become Spanish????"

As many anons have pointed out, Dawkins it's an easy, accessible starting point.

mcb.ucdavis.edu/faculty-labs/scholey/journal papers/ricardo-szostak-sa2009.pdf

We can't never know how it really went down, but we can make assumptions and prove possible ways. This is a good article about the matter, it presents a possible way where RNA formed first, and then gave rise to DNA which worked as a sort of 'back up' information for more RNA, and slowly recruited more molecules which created a 'safer enviroment' for DNA/RNA.

languages change in the exact same way. latin very slowly went through minor changes in different geographical regions over dozens of generations until eventually we have to call the latin spoken in those regions distinct languages, spanish, french, italian, romanian, etc. At every step along the way, a given generation spoke the same language as the generation before it and the generation after it, but the small changes accumulated until you eventually have totally different languages.