Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution come under more scientific scrutiny?

Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution come under more scientific scrutiny?

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=recent speciation events
youtube.com/watch?v=76qOMLhjZRk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Why do you never get tired of baiting?

It is
Today evolution is completely different from what it is taught in schools or documentaries

Care to explain further?

Convergent evolution is barely discussed (when two species come together to make a single species) because it throws away literally decades of research into evolution. In other words, it is completely against what evolutionists believe in.

It literally is a shot in the foot for evolutionists

Is this like what happens when people race mix?

Biologists were acknowledging that Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection could be imperfect since pretty much the beginning. To quote Thomas Henry Huxley in his review of the Origin of Species:

>What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of "The Origin of Species" an immense debt of gratitude.... And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer's "Researches on Development," thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated.

Well one example is the concept of inclusive fitness, which is the idea that an organism can still enhance the passing on of its genes even if it doesn't reproduce, by for example babysitting it's sibling's children which contain 1/4 of its DNA.

>evolutionists
stopped reading right there

>Convergent evolution is barely discussed (when two species come together to make a single species)
That's not what convergent evolution means user. It's when the same trait evolves multiple times in completly different species. Like how both insects, birds and mammals (bats) evolved wings.

If anything it strengthens evolutions case.

>Well one example is the concept of inclusive fitness, which is the idea that an organism can still enhance the passing on of its genes even if it doesn't reproduce, by for example babysitting it's sibling's children which contain 1/4 of its DNA

Now THIS sounds like the height of conjecture and is an ultimately pseudoscientific hypothesis

>not babysitting your wife's son
come on now user

Siblings aren't generally married Cletus.

By the way, ya'll niggers roasting in a bait thread, dont forget the sage

Maybe his wife married his brother, who then died so he inherited her.

>asking questions is bait

Found the engineer

Posting the same 'guaranteed replies' retardation from /b/ circa 2005, slightly reworded so as to not get instantly deleted is textbook bait. Kys.

Oh dear, it looks like I dared to question the evolution industry/establishment and the powers that be....

>oh no, looks like I dared to question the 'sky is blue' industry/establishment and the powers that be....

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

>Oh dear, it looks like I dared to question the evolution industry/establishment and the powers that be....
Yeah, no. It looks like you don't know how evolution works. You probably also believe it is a random process.

Go ahead and enlighten us hoplites then Mr Big Brain

this has nothing to do with big brains, it's biology 101. Nothing I didn't learn in highschool.

>hoplites

Well, this is it buddy, you either prove evolution here or never, it's your call. Unless, of course, you don't want to explain it because of the holes throughout the >theory

I don't need to prove anything, other people much smarter then me have already proven it. It's been observed. And even then, how could i possibly prove evolution over an image board?

Evolution has not been observed, we haven't seen new species emerge from older species, and animals that "evolve" just happen to adapt to the environment, that's not evolution.

Evolution is just a theory, it's at best a good estimate of things. Nobody has proven it. Really, the only alternative available seems to be doing good at explaining the complexity of life, such as the organization of the extracellular matrix and the Golden Ratio in nature.

Fucking hell /pol/, can you go one day without embarrassing yourself?

That image shows you know nothing about evolution. All of these retarded creationist gotcha questions are answered in the 101 of evolutionary biology.

Are you retarded. It well survived the scientific scrutiny.
>I have nothing better to do than go on science forums and post my bullshit all day

Define species

>Evolution has not been observed
Yes it has
>animals that "evolve" just happen to adapt to the environment, that's not evolution
Yes it is?

Evolution does not create new species over night. It is exactly this slow adaptation to the enviroment over several generations that eventually leads to a new species.

It has been observed and it's being observed right now, for example in the growing resistence of bacteria to anti-biotics.

But this bait is getting stale, going to bed now, bye

You're a fucking idiot, how stupid can you be. "Just a theory". You think Gravity is just a theory as well? Get the fuck out. You seem to think the word theory means hypothesis. A theory arises when evidence is undeniably in support. The fossil record, geologic record, biological study, the perfect patterns in DNA sequences between organisms. The only way you would say it wasn't proved is if you didn't look at the ducking proof. It's more understood than gravity at this point.

>liberal media and liberal professors who are anti-christian and anti-God

Anti Christian = anti-unfounded beliefs

Name one theory that comes under more scrutiny.

>we haven't seen new species emerge from older species

lmgtfy.com/?q=recent speciation events

>and the Golden Ratio in nature.

Let's take it again from kindergarten, this time with feeling

>evolution establishment
holy shit kid I'm an enginigger working in instrumentation design

Just the fact that you use a retarded meme work like "evolutionists" reveals that you're
1) not open for discussion on the topic
2) likely long brainwashed by watchtower-tier "arguments"
3) you're fully prepared to widen every gap in *my knowledge* to the size of the galaxy in importance to your "arguments"
4) implicitly or explicitly hold the position that because I accept the theory of evolution as true that I am committed to defending it against all comers or else the theory is magically rendered false

We've all been here before. If you have a question, ask it without shit-tier 80s memes.

Species: animals that have unique phenotypic and genotypic traits in them

It's OK, you didn't explain evolutionary THEORY to be true, so I guess you'll sleep on your fallacies, huh?

Gravity is a law because it can be observed, while evolution is an untestable theory. I'm sorry if being wrong made you have a heart attack

imgtfy is not a scientific source, sorry

Your opinion is invalid if you have no expertise in the field, sorry my child

>Your opinion is invalid if you have no expertise in the field, sorry my child
no one who uses the word "evolutionist" has any expertise, either, so what's the difference?

>imgtfy

Come back when you're old enough to post here

Unlike you, I am a Master's student in Biomedical Sciences (one of the top schools in Virginia), so I can explain biology to the layman.

An evolutionist is a person who believes evolutionary theory to be correct. Simple as that.

>he said it again

So why haven't you said anything accurate about evolution in this whole thread?

You don't understand evolution by natural selection if you say it hasn't been observed. We've observed species of salamanders seperate regionally and after time allowed for genetic diversity, the species diverged into 2, signified by the inability to breed between eachother and genetic variance. Laws are not as high as theories in scientific terms. You have questions you don't understand about evolution? Anyone here can easily answer them. Instead of pointing out bullshit like "not observed hurrrr". You just didn't look at the evidence of you think that. In bacteria, we've seen insane changes. It's slower on a macro scale, but we're all made up of the same stuff.

which university, if i may ask

natural selection is common sense

Yeah, I'm sorry if you are too close-minded and way too unnecessarily offended over a title. Shouldn't you be in bed, this is an adult discussion.

I haven't said anything wrong, evolution says that you are supposed to get different species, while convergent evolution gives you the opposite, showing holes in the theory. I didn't throw it away without my reasoning, I simply point out the flaws in a simple theory.

We haven't observed evolution, the species don't emerge out of simple adaptions, you'd need centuries, possibly millennia to develop an new species in a lab environment

Liberty University

>imgtfy is not a scientific source
This has to be some kind of elaborate troll

Define "species". What kind of changes are you expecting? I've given the evidence of a single species of salamanders separated regionally. They can't breed with eachother and are seperate genetic populations. This is speciation weather you like it or not. What are you saying needs to be observed then?

...

>evolutionists
stopped reading right there

Well firstly no, we have observed evolution and if you'd gone to the link gave you ('L'mgtfy, by the way, standing for 'let me google that for you') you'd now have some examples of exactly that.

Secondly, convergent evolution doesn't mean they actually evolve into the same species. That wouldn't even make sense. It means they evolve similar characteristics in response to similar selection pressures.

You fucking faggot, that's not how it works, we didn't came from apes, we came from an in common ancestral, apes AND we evolved, you fucking faggot.
>>Tip: search a bit more about what you criticise to don't play retarded when you criticise it in front of someone that REALLY knows about it.

>evolution says that you are supposed to get different species
>convergent evolution gives you the opposite

There is no contradiction here, convergence and divergence are both legitimate outcomes depending on the fitness landscape. This is just you showing that you have never attempted to learn about evolution from any source other than fundamentalist blogs.

>creation magazine
AT LAST, AN UNBIASED SOURCE

...

[Also what others said, convergence does not literally give you the same species, just similar traits]

...

What is this? Could I ask what you think is an appropriate explanation of not evolution. It doesn't matter what specifics are leading up to us, because we found the fossil proof. There's still tons and tons of DNA evidence. The DNA sequences being made up of sections that share sequences is evidence of natural selection.

...

If not evolution*

Wow, I can see why liberals are struggling to hold onto the youth demographic

There's no evidence for the theory that you're a human that grew up, clearly you've always existed in your current form.

That photo album is obviously fake, just because it's in chronological order and depicts a being that looks almost like you but slightly different each time doesn't make it proof. There are sections missing and you seem to suddenly change - just look at this, one of a fifth birthday and one of a tenth birthday. See the huge jump between one and the other? These are obviously photos of a person that looks sort of like you could have done when you were five, and a completely different person that looks sort of like you could have done when you were ten, and the fact they're dated at such a time that you would have been roughly those ages is a complete coincidence.

And all these other photo albums of other people with similar coincidences also aren't proof at all. You didn't grow up and neither did anyone else!

>>"adapt to the environment, that's not evolution"
Try searching "evolution" on the dictionary.
>> Here, I did it for you:
verb (used without object)
2.
to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.:
LOL 85 IQ confirmed LOL

>creationist comics
>liberals
?

It's an ironic statement you autist.
younger people are more liberal, seeing how shitty "creationist" arguments are

Ah, I was just confused as I didn't associate liberalism as being the natural antithesis to creationism

Either way, carry on

It's okay user

>come under more scientific scrutiny?

Centuries of scientific scrutiny is what earned it the title of theory in the first place?

What do you think science is? One big circle jerk?

More of a sphere, but close enough.

>Ha ha, I can disregard centuries of literature if I have a snappy picture!

>Golden ratio
You're one of those people that have the special seat in taco bell

...

>if I ignore all the painstakingly recorded and peer reviewed observations, the truth can be whatever I want

...

Not that you guys haven't been proven wrong dozens of times here, let alone on the sci board

because its the only useful theory we have. every single alternative has zero practical application and is just philosophical masturbation.

Your evidence relies on preconceived notions and fanciful armchair-talk.

also, this is irrefutable by creationists. not a single creationist theory is used in industry.

...

lol, you haven't refuted anything with your comic. creationist theory still has zero application in industry. evolution actually does. just because some guy who believes in creationism invented something doesn't mean that creationism itself as useful as a model. i can pull resources out of the ground with evolution.

creationism. does. nothing.

Nothing but show you what you know in your heart to be true, but you worship your brain instead.

>believing in gravity
youtube.com/watch?v=76qOMLhjZRk

which is philosophical absolute truth type bullshit and not science.

evolution is the status quo because it is useful. whether its "true" or not is irrelevant. we still use the hard shell model of the atom for certain applications because it does something tangible for us. this is the way science has always been yet you somehow think you can change that with the bible.

Even scientists think its bullshit.

Only universities, large media, and the people that read their works peddle that 70's tier meta crap in 2016. I'm sure there's a wiki article on criticism of it even since it's proposal.

The thing about evolution is that it asks you to believe that it makes sense because it "happens over millions of years," albeit everyone will forever go without seeing it actually happen and having ascertainable proof, much like believing in a religious deity. Catholicism "fits" with historic events. Aztec Polytheism "fits" with historic events. But it isn't proof, it's filling in a gap with what you think happened, based on a form of reasoning. A genetic mutation is a more likely real evolution but you will never see anything on the scale of what Darwin supposed, in fact, most mutations will end up being harmful to species because they are caused by humans. A more sharper analogy is that it is in essence, and this will likely hurt those that believe it, a religion without worship or deity.

>Even scientists think its bullshit.

At most they have criticisms of certain theories within evolution. It's a big topic.

Ants
Bees

>Even scientists think its bullshit.
irrelevant. there is not a better alternative. its the most useful model we have and will continue to be used until something more useful comes along. you still keep assuming that science is in charge of philosophy.

The only way to pass on your unique DNA is by getting a woman pregnant

Or having a doctor fertilize an egg in a Petri dish or however they do it

Point being your sperm+female's egg = your genes passed on (assuming the baby doesn't miscarry or die shortly after birth but you get the point)

Your theory can't explain worker ants but inclusive fitness can. That's why some people believe in inclusive fitness or similar group selection mechanisms instead of your theory.

>conjecture
>pseudoscientific
>hypothesis

I don't think you know what any of those words mean, user.

It's literally been under scrutiny since day one.

Fuck off.

Though I will admit people adhere to every bit of it like it's a religion and REEEE when anyone criticizes it for any reason.

Just because your theory can explain it does not make it true especially when other explanations can be observed

That's the thing I'm just asking questions

And that is the very basis of science afterall

I suspect most of the people who freak out when conventional beliefs are challenged do so because they are unable to articulate why they believe the way they do

For centuries Newtonian mechanics was believed to be "it" and when people proposed other models that more accurately modeled the natural world they were met with the same sort of shouting down

The problem is that even for scientists things tend to become dogma if they are accepted as fact for any period of time

You'll still find string theorists stubbornly clinging to their beliefs even though they've been BTFO

This.
>Well one example is the concept of inclusive fitness, which is the idea that an organism can still enhance the passing on of its genes even if it doesn't reproduce, by for example babysitting it's sibling's children which contain 1/4 of its DNA.
Glad to see we are pulling shit out of our ass to further (and vaguely) attempt to support an unprovable hypothesis. I guess the neat thing about it is you can say that anything we do, think or didn't do came from evolution, because it is and always has been the gap filler for "I don't know" in the scientific community when people can't think for themselves.

lol you copied my paragraph

weeeeeeew

OK, sit down and learn.
Evolution HAS been observed.
Scientists have observed how, by natural selection, bacteria species change over time.
Same has been proven for protozoos and other small eukaryotic organisms. Now, humans and other macroscopic animals are made of eukaryotic cells.
We also have fossils and other forms of geological evidence, traces in both DNA and RNA, ...
All of which support evolution.


But, if you still want to not see it, it is your problem.

>Glad to see we are pulling shit out of our ass to further
What are you talking about? It is easily demonstrable that enhancing the reproductive fitness of your close relatives can be a viable evolutionary strategy. It is,for example, the strategy almost universally employed by eusocial insects

My issue is not with inclusive fitness, but with it's basis in evolution and being used to support it further.

Evolution doesnt need to be supported further, its proven

>asks for discussion about theory of evolution
>posts bs image that indicates he knows nothing

if you are trolling then you are an idiot
if you actually think this image depicts human evolution in any way then you are an idiot

you can't start a discussion by falsifying facts. that is how you start a fight