Evolution theory is a dead end

>The chance that there existed a mutated pair of animals which can still have sex and give birth to a newborn is so low that it's not even funny.
> literally every animal has a tiny bit of mutation that is different from one another.
lmao.

>Cut off the length of the DNA thanks to mutation
>Still able to have sex with the normal one
lmao

> the only mutation is an extra chromosome
Even the eyes having different colors is a type of mutation and there are tons of mutations going on on an average animal you fucking retard. Fucks sake this is highschool biology 101, why are you on a science board if you didn't get highschool education ?

Obvious troll is obvious.

I know that minimal mutations still occur. However, this does not explain the split of the species, that's what I'm trying to say here.
If you are saying that a lot of stacked small mutations make a specie became a different specie with different chromosome then you are clearly wrong.
Read the paper here

Your paper doesn't say what you say it says.

Species splits almost always happen as follows: There is a single population of animals (or other kind of life) of a single "species". It then undergoes some sort of physical separation, usually by geographic features. The two halves then continue to reproduce with no interbreeding. Mutations continue to accumulate in both populations, but different mutations in both populations. Eventually, the two populations acquire a sufficient amount and kind of different mutations that the two populations are different species.

So, the fact that parrots in New Zealand have diversified into a species (Kakapo) that is flightless and eats grasses, etc, like a ground-living 'herbivore' - e.g. a rabbit - means that God or another external agency decided "Wow - islands without rabbits: better create a parrot-rabbit analogue to fill that ecological niche!". Using Occam's Razor, which explanation would you choose? This or evolution?

>Also, new finding in DNAs work against the notion that mutation leads to evolution.
That's a paper about DNA the repair mechanism -.-
Says nothing whatsoever in that direction.
DNA repair allows you not dying from cancer the instance you get some kind of gengetical damage due to environmental exposure to radiation, chemical damage, faulty transcription etc...
It works well enough to keep you alive, but not well enough to avoid every single mutation.
Some of these mutations will simply lead to a dead cell, some will induce cancerous cells, some will encode new traits that can be inherited, if the mutated cell is a gamete that leads to a fertilized embryo.

>Cut off the length of the DNA thanks to mutation
What? What kind of mutation is "Cutting the length" supposed to be?

It is obvious that you have no idea whatsoever about genetics.
Do yourself a favour and read a textbook or two about the topic before you try to talk to someone about it.

I can think of very few theories that have less evidence supporting it's validity than evolution.

please be bait

>forever a theory without any real proof
Here's your first problem.
In layman's terms a theory is a vague, half-assed notion that's supported by one person's emotional need to believe something.

In science, "theory" means an explanation for observed data that is backed by the scientific community in general because it's been thoroughly tested, and fits well with other scientific knowledge.

tl;dr: it wouldn't be a scientific theory if there was no evidence

>this fucking thread
Is this board still Veeky Forums or /pol/ already?

>tfw the Morgoth of Lamarckianism is coming back through its vessel Sauron, aka epigenetics, as Darwin really intended from the start
>tfw neo-""""Darwinianism"""" will die an inglorious death, opening the way for epistemological anarchy in biology
>tfw neo-mechanicism is on the way out, and vitalism will soon return
>tfw the first death knell of scientism will be cry out from the squishy field of biology

>The chance that there existed a mutated pair of animals which can still have sex and give birth to a newborn is so low that it's not even funny.

If you understand the theory of evolution, you would understand that two mutated animals can find each other because all animals are mutants in some way and the enviroment chooses the right mutation from a set, thats why bad mutations can transmit between generations if they only affect the individual after their reproductive age or don't affect it at all.
> But you are gonna say that it happened for more than millions species on this planet?

Yes, we can even find racemixing between animals.

>That's just crazy and if you believe that you might as well be religious now.

I wonder, if we have created natural biomolecules in laboratories, mutated bacteria intentionally and unintentionally and find a shit load of fossils that are clearly related between each other then, how can this still be denied? Its not even against religious beliefs unless you need to put god on every single place of your life and history.

>nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/popular-chemistryprize2015.pdf

Let me tell you something for next time, don't give us the link. Quote, explaiin and take some effort. Linking documents only looks good but its not usefull and falls under the "information bombardment" fallacy where something is true because a lot of documents that "apparently" say the same, is true.

Because as far as I read, this is not about disproving evolution, nor asking if the theory is flawed in some way. So save me my lifetime in reading this shit and tell me in what interpretation of DNA repair systems shows that the evolution theory should be discarded.

Talkorigins.org
/thread

Genetic algorithms work

>Even Richard Dawkins had trouble answering this question.

n o n s e n s e

If people would think about evolution critically for two seconds they would realize that it's just a bunch of nonsense made up by Richard Darwins. It can be easily disproved by the names of animals. If evolution were true, the older animals' names would start with the first letters of the alphabet, working their way through the alphabet as you get closer to the present day. Obviously though, aardvarks are not older than dinosaurs according to evolution, so the theory is disproved.

>debating with a retard
>can't prove a theory
>Evolution theory is dead
two retards "debating" does not kill a theory

You think dawkins is a retard ? wew lad

Science is not proving something, it is finding the most likely, supported conclusion without contradictions, then changing based off of evidence/contradictions that say other wise. You are the only one here getting his panties in a bunch because evolution is heavily supported, and contradiction free, but is not proved.

>it is finding the most likely, supported conclusion without contradictions, then changing based off of evidence/contradictions that say other wise

No, that's just the definition of an investigation.

>evolution is heavily supported, and contradiction free, but is not proved

The problem with evolution is it's filled with many gaps and holes and is woefully incomplete (much like geocentrism). Basic idea is ok but very crude and needs much refining in the centuries to come.

It has though

Dawkins is a fag

>2016
>questioning a proven theory
wew lad your friend might not be a religious person but he sure has the intelligence of one

>proven theory
nice oxymoron

Gravity is also a proven theory

youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

No need to thank me. I do it for God.

gravy-ty

Which holes are there, do you need to see the full whole progression of each and every species? Im genuinly asking, what kind of gaps are there

>Like geocentism in the middle ages
It was proved wrong , now prove evolution theory is wrong...

It's been disproved. Space is curved man.

Exactly

>no concrete proof
>what are antibiotic resistant bacteria
>getting caught up in semantics

I don't even understand how anyone could argue against this. It's like gee here's a selective pressure that didn't exist until the mid 1900's. Now, after about 50 years of using the stuff, we have a whole bunch of bacteria that are now aren't effected by it.

The problem is documenting changes in larger organisms that take decades to millennia to occur and be noticeable. There is also the problem of breaking the "silver bullet" mindset where people are looking for a single cause = single effect for everything, even when dealing with something as complex as molecular biology.
Changes can be caused by many things: random mutation becoming dominant trait, changes in local habitat, migration to different environment/habitat, isolation from other breeding group of same species resulting in genetic drift. Combine these and any number of other theoretical scenarios over millions of years.
There is also the problem of the "single origin" mode of thought with regard to evolution. To believe that all life started from a single cell that formed in one place when the conditions may have existed for life to form in many places on earth? Whats to say that there are multiple evolutionary trees?
All of this makes it harder to truly prove Darwinian evolution.

>In layman's terms a theory
>is a vague, half-assed notion
... as are all their notions, ainnit?

no, I think you are a retard, lad

Isn't the issue that there are some things we can't really have conclusive "proof" for? I mean there is no 'proof' for the theory of gravitation, it's just a model based on observations and seems to have some high degree of consistency at prediction, right? Same with a bunch of other laws and theories.

Evolution at the very least is a very good model for a naturalistic explanation for how we came to be so complex. The only reason there's a 'debate' is because some people want to interpret the Bible literally - but how seriously can you take people who would believe in a literal talking snake?

>but how seriously can you take people who would believe in a literal talking snake?

not seriously at all, which is why there's no debate amongst people who know basic science, except for the death knell of Christian loyalists and fanatics that refuse to accept the truth.

And then there's those that don't interpret the Bible literally and try to coexist with modified theories of evolution that are unscientific. Embarrassing, really.

...

what about antibiotic bacteria, weed-killer resistant weed, Darwin's finches, the difference between africans and europeans?

the fact is natural selection takes care of undesirable traits such as light skinned people getting cancer or sunburns more easily than darker people, and weed that can't resist weed-killer dying while the one that resists it doesn't die. This is the reason why evolution is a widely accepted theory. If you have any better ideas than put them fourth or nobody will listen to you.

Evolution on a micro scale, not a macro one.

give me evidence

woohoo another hilarious fake document for bashing ThE oThErS

I think we can only prove things that we can predict. For instance we can perfectly (pretty much) predict what will happen to a sphere if we drop it in air. Evolution and ecology is so complex that we can't make predictive statements about what will happen, so we don't have "proof" of it. The very broad, and general principles, like natural selection, are the only ones we can reconcile with what we observe. That's why I don't think there's any "proof" the way a scientist would want.

>Embarrassing, really

What's embarrassing is that people still echo the conflict thesis decades after it was refuted.

>coexist with modified theories of evolution that are unscientific

Way to speak out of your ass. The only "modification" is not so much a modification but an acknowledgement that you can suppose that the odds were skewed in favor of certain changes over others (they don't commit one way or another). By the very nature of randomness, this is indistinguishable from it happening purely by random chance.

The least you can do is get the argument right and not straw-man.

Obviously neither him or you know what the term theory means.

Butthurt Christkid/SJW detected

I only saved it and posted it because the come back "were you there" is funny.

why don't you stay with your own people on reddit