Evolution

>Evolution
>A series of random mutations
>99% of all mutations are negative
>The creature with the 1% positive mutation has to survive in order to pass on its genes
>The chances of survival are low
>Even if the creature does survive long enough to pass on its genes, there's no certainty that the positive mutation will be passed on
>The offspring have to survive as well
>The odds of them surviving are low
>Do this trillions of times and supposedly you make new species

No. This evolution stuff is bullshit. Not even 6 billion years would be a long enough time line for creatures to evolve to where they are today

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/YT1vXXMsYak?t=33m
englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf
google.com/search?q=number of bacteria on earth
google.com/search?q=how often do bacteria reproduce
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Not even 6 billion years would be a long enough time line for creatures to evolve to where they are today

According to what? Can you not grasp how long 6 billion years is?

It's not /even/ 6 billion years. Life didn't start on this planet until billions of years after it was created.

And no, it's still not long enough for all these random "microevolution" mutations to add up. It's highly improbable.

You might be retarded!

>99% of genetic mutations are bad

Heres an interesting thought. Genetic variation lead to mutations. Mutations dont happen all at once. Genetic variation is why white people are white, there wasnt just a white dude born to black parents. If that separation lasted for longer than a few thousand years, we couldve been a different sub species.

I have not posted in a year, but you baited me well enough to post so that I can ask...

Are you retarded? Natural selection is not hard to understand. If I have a collection of flowers or fauna I can cull them to select for certain characteristics. Nature does this on a massive scale using fuzzy logic and game theory.

Natural selection =/= changing entire species and creatures drastically over time.

You're not turning your flowers into a fucking tree even if you spent millions of years trying to breed those features into your flowers.

>Natural selection =/= changing entire species and creatures drastically over time.

Genetic mutations plus natural selection does though. Genetic mutations occur in a population for various reason, natural selection means the best traits fit in niches and the worst traits die with the individual.

Don't just reply with the definition of natural selection.

Small scale "microevolution" genetic mutations aren't going to drastically change creatures over time to what we have today in the short amount of time that life has existed on this planet.

It's extremely improbable.

>there's no certainty that the positive mutation will be passed on
You just fucking said, there's a 99% chance (or 49% chance, since it semi randomly takes half from both parents, then some gets mutated)
>the odds of them surviving are low
You dumbass, evolution works when they have a much higher chance of living. The point is that you have a species, and they vary slightly from eachother, some more cunning, some more quick, and some just defective. Depending on what world the specie is living in, that will determine whether all but the smartest ones die, or all but the fastest, etc.

Also, different species occur when the same specie is split into two, and they grow in different places over long periods. So if the russian bat grows up in a tundra, it will be able to endure cold and dark sunlight better, and eventually, over literal thousands of life cycles, it might look completely different

>Small scale "microevolution" genetic mutations aren't going to drastically change creatures over time to what we have today in the short amount of time that life has existed on this planet.

They will if survival is in dire need of those drastic changes.

Evolution, species, chaos limit, society, physics and phasis changes....all those subjects are covered by new science approach. Read about "complexity" .....it will blow your mind

A minor beneficial mutation has no guarantee of being passed on you dumbass.

One animal may be born with a genetically advantageous trait but randomly died because something ate it, a tree fell on it, lightning struck it, or any other number of random things killing it.

Then that mutation is deadended and you have to wait for another advantageous mutation to be passed on.

There's no way this could've happened repeatedly in the short amount of time that life has been on this planet.

>300 million years

>Short

Are you bad at large numbers or something?

To go from a single-celled organism all the way to a human being with all sorts of random variable out there to stop you.

Just lol at thinking 300 million years is long enough... Billions aren't

>>Admits natural selection works
>>Cant accept that it works in a long time frame even though the universe is fucking never ending

> The chances of survival are low
dude wat

Complexity.....read about stuart kauffmann

Life hasn't been on this planet long enough for dice rolling genetic mutations to go as far as a single celled organism to the complex creatures we have today.

It's extremely improbable.

Well... To be fair, I suppose some people can't visualize what happens in a million years much less 100.

But yeah... 300 million years is a really long time for biological organisms.

It is thought that some proto cells were around 4 billion years ago anyways.

Well how long do you think it would take? Are you an expert on the mechanics of the universe?

We see evolution in action in the real world with organisms that are short lived like fruit flies.

Women are hedonists and their enemy is boredom, effort, risk, danger.
Fortunately, men are desperate enough to feel relevant, so they are pushy enough to try to be noticed by women (because they fail to be relevant beyond women). and sooner or later, they cracks the bf-shield

Women know that chads and other robots are willing to help them, to have an easy life. The natural problem of women is that they get bored sooner or later with whoever choose to try to entertain them.
So women change their partners to avoid the rut and to create drama. men do not like to be changed, since they loved to be relevant for once in their life, they whine and hate women when women find other providers.
Of course, changing partners constantly becomes a bore too, so they want some fixed men in their life to give them emotional and material support, Rarely sex because women know that, no matter how good the lover is, it gets boring sooner or later.
When they are replaced, men become resentful towards women, since they lose the validation of their existence. They pretend that they can live without women and that they even are better than women, smarter, stronger (in forgetting that women do not need to be so, because men want to be so in place of women)

Knowing that they are not able to stop loving to be supported by men, Women love also to think that they need no man and that they live to help others. This is part of the tactic to enhance their pleasures: women think that they are good people in society, only to feel even more raw, more animal, more of a little minx, typically in private, when they are fucked properly by some beta ready to serve them sexually.

Viruses and bacteria have evolved resistances to vaccines and antibiotics in the last few decades... and you think all this couldn't have happened in the last billion years?

You're retarded.

Resistance isn't the same as going from ooze to a fucking tyrannosaurus rex.

You're grasping for straws.

0.000001% of the time

...

to brute force a 4096 encryption key would take thousands of years on the fastest supercomputer

'random mutation' runs on something fast

Other than the percentages makes sense to me, humanity is this shitty for this reason.

>implying you know how long it takes for random mutations to occur or the timescale of natural selection for organisms that don't even exist anymore
shiggity diggity doo

is this a troll or an actual creationist on Veeky Forums? I mean have we really gotten to the point where we have such blatantly pleb bullshit here? When did Veeky Forums turn into voxday?

Some people are confused. Allow me:

>Carbon based life forms started from very simple systems
>In a resource scarce universe these cells, so fragile, so simplistic, compete for survival
>These cells, having survived millions of trials of competition, forms more complex systems via mutation, requiring more resources
>Complex enough to produce more sophisticated survival strategies, but in some sense becomes more fragile as the failure of even one part kills the entire entity
>Competition, as systems branch off and diversify and multiply, becomes fiercer
>Repeat ad nauseum and fast forward several billion years with profound luck like the Earth not being destroyed in the meantime
>You are now here, more sophisticated than ever, having survived miraculously despite war, famine, disease, lack of procreation and God knows how many competing sperm
>Despite this miracle of miracles you chose not to take advantages conferred by virtue of competition that your ancestors have won time and time again, instead you chose to be retarded, thinking this bait is funny, and continue to gorilla post in Chinese cartoon image boards

It's real easy to see how you can't believe in evolution after all this.

>When did Veeky Forums turn into voxday
>implying Veeky Forums was ever not shitty.

it wasn't religious like it now. If someone did some shit like "95% of teens don't believe in God. If you're one of the 5% that do put this in your post"

>What is genetic stability

but how make evolution do thing?

not know how do...

random may no random?

>No. This evolution stuff is bullshit. Not even 6 billion years would be a long enough time line for creatures to evolve to where they are today

You are perpetuating the myth that evolution is like a slot machine. Yes, if you treat it as though genomes are selected by random chance, it's statistically impossible to end up with complex organisms. But partially beneficial mutations, like primordial eyes and sensory organs, are kept over time, meaning that 'wrong answers' are thrown out in the process. It's like a slot machine where you need to pull '777' to win, but every '7' that you get on each roll is held over until you win. That is not a game that is impossible to win.

> he don't fucking realize that most of the mutations in the DNA cause only unnoticeable changes to the organism or may not even express as a trait

ok op what do U propose happened?

this should be good.....

Keep in mind that hundreds of millions of years consisted of very simple life, where the generation time is

>A series of random mutations.
Don't you mean a series of random mutations augmented by natural selection?
>99% of all mutations are harmful.
Who told you this, can you provide a source to justify that kind of claim?

It's quite obvious that you don't even have a laypersons grasp of "this evolution stuff". In addition, the incredulity of a completely uneducated person does not invalidate the fact that Evolution has remained the best theory for explaining the diversity of species since it's inception.

Evolving an eye takes only 250,000 years - and that is a conservative estimate.

Mr. Shirt can explain more
youtu.be/YT1vXXMsYak?t=33m

Maybe you'd, I don't know, fucking die? Hence weeded out if the gene pool and never allowed to reproduce?

If there's one good thing that came from this thread it's knowing that you die alone.

>Life didn't start on this planet until billions of years after it was created.
Actually life started as soon as the conditions on Earth were good enough. Earth is 4,5 billion. Life is at least 3,5 billion.

>not long enough for all these random "microevolution" mutations to add up
Because you say so.

You are
>99%
retarded, and 1% a victim of american education system.

We are bro. Evidence is just held back.

8123020

>Of course, changing partners constantly becomes a bore too, so they want some fixed men in their life to give them emotional and material support, Rarely sex because women know that, no matter how good the lover is, it gets boring sooner or later.
Change this part and it becomes acceptable pasta. Boredom is way too overused at this point.

You don't know how this cesspool works. Go back to your personal echo chamber and leave this place forever m8

>there's no certainty
that is the nature of probability,
either learn to live with it, or else fuck off.

Except they had millions of years instead of a few years.

why does it have to be highly improbable? hard mode: since we're on Veeky Forums, no using
>cuz i feel like it should be! muh intuition!

jeremy england would posit otherwise englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf

% of all mutations are negative
Incorrect.
Majority of mutations are neutral.

>tfw took a college level bio course and still mostly doubt evolution

>This evolution stuff is bullshit

Which is why evolution is a highly incomplete picture. Only fedoras and fundamentalists think evolution is a finished theory.

How can u believe in evolution if its just a theory (a guess)?

>I seen teh X-Men movie!
>I know 'bout mutation!
the fantasy-movie level of retardation
on this board is dismal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Op has a point, the truth is we don't see random positive mutations in real life, even though evolution occurs over extremely long periods of time the fact that it would take many positive mutations before they would add up or really matter means we should at least have seen some in human history. As well as the fact that sex is an abundant trait that should be extremely difficult to evolve, as the species would fair far better atleast retaining the asexual aspect with the sexual one.

Legitimate question, how does speciation usually occur? I understand the whole "let genetic drift" meme but what actually happens that one population can breed with in itself, then split into two non interbreed able populations? Does having too different genetic code inherently lead to eventual difficulties in recombination or whatever once fertilization happens? Also I don't see how evolution, or even natural selection is really a specific theory, it feels more like a broad idea that has many different related theories and ideas.

You kind of can, just look at what we've made with domesticated plants and such. Have you seen the precursor to corn? Also dogs. There's also probably some important variations that could be observed in humans if race denial wasn't so rampant.

The way I see it, either evolution is bull, or the kykes are hiding something from us....

This is one of the big problems I have with a lot of pop sci posted about evolution, any retard university will put out some new "theory" they have and state it as if they have absolute evidence for it, taking advantage of people's ignorance. They tend to be very stubborn, like the aquatic ape "theory", the people who believe seem to go all in, as if humans were basically fish people, and those against seem to want humans to have evolved as 100% Savannah niggers running across Africa, completely denying the idea that we could have evolved helpful water traits aswell that allowed us to expand and replace hominids in other areas.

I tried to do a simple population growth with some simple conditions over 6 billion years.

Excel couldn't handle it. That's how many generations there would be.

It's bigger than 9.999999999E+307.

Furthermore. Natural selection is 'showing the organisms the right 'path' to continue to exist. Meaning they are that much more successful than just random evolution.

The typical example is your a thief picking a lock. inside the lockbox is the secret to reproduce more successfully (XD). At first you 'jitter' the lock. But imagine if it gave you hints if you were hot or close. You would find the right position very very quickly.

That's evolution. It's random in that your jittering the lock at first, but through natural selection it lets you 'hone in' despite your randomness on a solution. In this case that solution was survival and reproduction. Meaning even MORE generations, MORE chances of mutations.

>Natural selection is 'showing the organisms the right 'path' to continue to exist.
taking an is for an ought
being this spooked

% of all mutations are negative
>>The creature with the 1% positive mutation has to survive in order to pass on its genes

Even if only 1% of creatures have a positive mutation, that's still a LOT of fucking creatures, when trillions of them (at least) are being born every single day

People win the lottery every week despite their chances being some 1 in 200 million, and here you are acting like a 1 in 100 chance is something astronomically unlikely, lmao. Even if only 1% of mutations are positive, that still equates to billions of creatures being born every single day, with positive mutations

This "I can't imagine it happening over billions of years, therefore it's impossible" argument doesn't somehow nullify the mountains of evidence for evolution across every domain of biology, fucking retard

A good way to spot an indoctrinated retard is his use of this fabricated word "microevolution". Let me guess, your teacher comes from one of those shed-universities offering phds for a 5 page thesis about the perfect shape of bananas.

>The chances of survival are low

Literally all children are children of parents who survived to breed.

It's not a theory. The theory part refers to how it works, 'natural selection' as in, 'natural selection is the mainstream theory of evolution'.

The fact that genetics exists as a science proves that evolution occurs.

didnt russian blue foxes get floppy ears in just three generations?

>its not intuitive
>it doesnt make sense to me
>its gotta be wrong

Please stop this kind of thinking. "Common sense" responses cannot be answers to incredibly complex questions.

% of all mutations are negative

Stopped reading there. Majority of mutations are completely neutral in effect, and rarely even cause an observable change in phenotype.

Next time, actually read up on things before you go running your mouth

>Does having too different genetic code inherently lead to eventual difficulties in recombination or whatever once fertilization happens?
That too. But more often, the animals just stop recognizing each other as viable partners. Even when genetic recombination is possible.

>lso I don't see how evolution, or even natural selection is really a specific theory, it feels more like a broad idea that has many different related theories and ideas.
That is why "theory" in scientific lingo translates to "field of study".

% of all mutations are negative
Wrong most are neutral. Remove your bad genes please.

>Life hasn't been on this planet long enough for dice rolling genetic mutations to go as far as a single celled organism to the complex creatures we have today.
>It's extremely improbable.

OP you tard...
google.com/search?q=number of bacteria on earth
>The scientists from the University of Georgia estimate the number of bacteria on our planet to be five million trillion trillion - that's a five with 30 zeroes after it.
>There are far more bacteria on earth than there are stars in the universe.

google.com/search?q=how often do bacteria reproduce
>When conditions are favourable such as the right temperature and nutrients are available, some bacteria like Escherichia coli can divide every 20 minutes.

And it STILL took them over 3 billion years to go from abiogenesis to the Cambrian Explosion.

You're an idiot.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out, user. I wish I could be that smart.

>No. This evolution stuff is bullshit. Not even 6 billion years would be a long enough time line for creatures to evolve to where they are today

Do you have any reasoning other than the idea hurts your feelings or something?

If evolution is false then how the hell do you explain the fact that there are different species? How do you explain the emergence of life at all?

women are whores

>99% of all mutations are negative
Actually, it's closer to 99% of mutations are neutral.

>its just a theory (a geuss)
like gravitation

Most evolution is simply caused by genetic drift, not natural selection.

>probably

If we we're on /b/ or /pol/ you might expect something like that (why can't atheists define atheism?) On Veeky Forums your troll thread needs to have a scientific flavour or you'll just be told to gb2 /pol/ or something.

How many genetic mutations occur in each person, typically?

In a viable life form, well I personally don't know, but I'd pull a number out of my ass and say a few million, most of which do not manifest or fail to become significant in development. If you're okay with unliving organic slime, then you can have as many mutations as the genome has genes.

A 'positive' mutation is subjective to the environment the creature in question is living in

Bananas, moron. BANANAS

>You're not turning your flowers into a fucking tree even if you spent millions of years trying to breed those features into your flowers.
sure you could. flowers and trees have the same basic biology, anatomical features, and developmental patterns. the difference is in to what degree those patterns are exercised, and those kinds of features are quite amenable to evolutionary change

>>The creature with the 1% positive mutation has to survive in order to pass on its genes
>>The chances of survival are low

The chances of survival are higher for the creature with the useful mutation, then creatures without. That's the whole point faggot.

I think I read somewhere that typical individual has few hundreds mutations.

you're thinking about natural selection wrong. A mutation is only deemed negative by a human when contrasted with those genes that survive

>Be OP
>Post b8 in hopes that his retardation will get him attention
>Doesn't recognize the irony in that evolution dictates retards don't pass down their genes
>Is lonely fgot for his entire life

You couldn't ever turn flowers into trees, because flowers have an enormous number of traits that aren't present on trees, and the probability of removing all of them is astronomically low. What you could do (given enough time) is select for "tree-like" traits in flowers, eventually producing something new that occupied a similar ecological role to trees.

The distinction is kinda important.

>
>It's highly improbable.

You do realise that even highly improbable events happen all the time, especially in large populations and if seen over a long time?

So yeah, it is improbable. Still not impossible though, like basically all counter hypotheses to the Theory of Evolution.

>implying that evolution still happens primarily via the basal levels of DNA transition & transversion mutations
>implying that life hasn't discovered ways to increase the rate of evolution, such as horizontal gene transfer
>implying that evolutionary arms races aren't a thing
>in the year 13.7by