Is evolution a farce?

"Not one change of species into another is on record.... We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another." (Darwin, Charles, My Life and Letters, Vol. 1. Page 2 10).

Huh ok

>Is evolution a farce?
Well, evolution is a phenomenon of belief which, in the latter cases such as macro evolution and ultimately speciation, is believed by many scientists. The issue that is called into question is the following: why is it that these "scientists" purportedly belief in such a phenomena? if these textbooks and opinions are to be maximally believed, then this must mean that evolution is the case and is a fact. however, the case many not be so, precisely. one problem with the opinion is the EVIDENCE... there are usually drawings in books and textbooks that demonstrate the transition from fossil to human. However, how is it possible that a single fossil would be able to give rise to all human creativity? This point is bolstered by the fact taht these drawings are just that: DRAWINGS. There are no actual fossils/animals to go along with the drawings, merely an artist's creativity, which, though applausable in the right circumference, is unfortunately out of place in the realm of scientific inquesitionings. Many scientists are simply victims of sociological manipulation of their superiors who are under the spell of the monolithic science figure of Richard Darwins, therefore they are willing to belive in and work under the stipulation of the "theory" without the correct amounts of fortuitous evidence.

No.

One of the main arguments against the current model. Not even plants, bacteria, or microscopic arthropods have been seen to change from one species to another.

Do you have an alternative explanation for how different species form? Not to imply that you aren't full of shit, lol.

These posts happen oddly often. Evolution is readily observable and proven.

Those who think there is a definitive difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution dont know what they are talking about, plain and simple.

Abiogenesis is more of a grey area but has nothing to do with evolution.

Yup, they have.

listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

I mean if you want to get nit-picky about what a change in species is then consider how dependent on perception a species definition is. Species have absolutely no objective characteristics.

>I haven't witnessed the birth of my mother, therefor she is not real

>However, how is it possible that a single fossil would be able to give rise to all human creativity?

"the biggest flaw in the theory of evolution is the absence of transitional species!"

>nuh uh
>yes huh
>huh uh
>yes huh

how about some evidence for either side?

Let me resume it.

Tasmanian Devils have almost been wiped out by a disease which causes facial tumours to develop, leading to starvation due to eating difficulties. This has been happening since ~1990s

However, some Tasmanian Devils have been shown to express immunity (or at least partial immunity) to the disease, which people hope to use to bring the TD population back up.

Isn't that a strong indicator for Evolution, or at the very least Natural Selection? (which is at least a more palpable display of Evolution)

>evidence

>tfw at the light-mid reading stage and I really want to believe in evolution

What makes one go back to unquestionably believing it once they learn enough about it? Certainly any arguments that make one into a true believer on the subject of evolution must be the strongest ones biologists have to offer.

>middle ground fallacy
I want to skullfuck you to deathにゃぁ :3

That is not true. It has been observed in plants.

We can observe phenotypes
Different combinations of phenotypes result in different fitness in different environments.

example, fish can breathe underwater, dogs cannot.

Phenotype is largely based on an organisms genetic code.
Example, any monogenic heritable disorder

Genetic code can undergo mutations
Example, cancer, antibiotic resistant bacteria, etc

Having the right genotype, for the right phenotype, for a given environment leads to a greater distribution of that genotype.
Essentially the basis for natural selection
example, e-coli long term evolution experiment

If you isolate subpopulations from reproducing, and impose selective pressures on each population, you get different genotype distributions and thus phenotypes in each subpopulation
example, dog breeds

----

If you get enough changes in the genotypes and phenotypes, eventually no reproduction between those subpopulations is possible. This is the process of speciation.
Example, ?none that i know of?

The evidence for this is strong, if you look at how reproduction occurs, the need for complementary cell surface receptors in human eggs and sperm, the "microevolution" of zoonotic infectious pathogens, HIV, and many other viruses. Some studies have looked at inducing speciation in drosophila melanogaster, given their short reproductive time

I know all of this. I also know evolution is 100% real in microorganisms, so the theory is at least partially true. But how does fish -> monkey, even at the span of millions of years, considering the low chances of mutations, the even lower chances of these mutations being beneficial, and then the even lower chance of these mutations being beneficial enough to let the mutants reproduce and pass their genes, and beating out their non-mutant cousins to eventually become the more evolved version of the species? It just seems so absurdly random, chaotic, and unlikely, that I find it hard to believe. Of course there wasn't some God who designed all animals like this, but it feels like there's something we're missing.

>theory of evolution
There's no single "theory of evolution".
Stop cramming all related theories together as one and then proceed to dismiss all of it because one of them does not have sufficient evidence

>We can observe phenotypes
We can also sequence entire genomes.

yes

Look, whether you believe it or not, there are a lot of challenges to evolution. In order for it to be the case that it was in fact true that evolution did happen in the past, then it would be duly nesessary for one or two of several key pointers to be also true as well. However, this can be like trying to explain colors to a blind-man- you're just wasting your time sometimes. Anyway, back to the facts. The point of the matter which is under discussion is the fact that, in order for frogs to have evolved from fish, then it would be required that 1) the fish became able to breathe air 2) the fish became able to walk on land. In order for a fish to evlove into a FROG isn't it necessary that absolutely both 1 and 2 have to occur simultaneously? It is so improbable that both of those "beneficial" mutations would occur at one time that one might be willing to admit confidently that they are less than one in a million. Therefore, you also have to consider the fact that EVEN if both the 1 in a 10^6% chance of both 1 and 2 happening, how would the frogs even know what to do with the legs and the air? If you think about them, these aren't too beneficial in the first place anyways.

Refer to

>Isn't it necessary that absolutely both 1 and 2 have to occur simultaneously.
No. The fish could have developed one ability before the other. Granted, the idea of developing air-breathing capabilities before being able to traverse land is stupid but the idea of growing legs before breathing air is completely believable (for short excursions onto land or for navigating the seabed/rocks.)

>How would the frogs know what to do with the air and the legs.

How did you know to breathe when you were born? If the fish/frog interstate was born with the capabilities, they would know how to use them either automatically (in the case of breathing) or in a process of deduction (limb utility).

You're thinking of the process of evolution happening too quickly. Remember these things developed over an insanely long time. A fish might have grown a bump, which became a nub, which grew and grew until it became vestigial, at which point it could be used.

Hell, you're assuming the fish grew legs, learned to breathe air and fucked off into the jungle. If a fish could breathe, whats to say it didn't flop out of the ocean and find some easy nutrition source to procreate around (since a lack of ground-based predators = no pressure).

>considering the low chances of mutations
Evolution works on the scale of populations. You're not considering a single lineage of one parent -> one child. The relatively low rate of mutation stacks up as the population expands and with each new generation genes are mixed, matched and recombined.

>the even lower chances of these mutations being beneficial
Since you're operating on the scale of populations over generations you have a fairly large testing ground for these mutations. The scale is rather difficult to picture, especially for organisms with short generation times.

>then the even lower chance of these mutations being beneficial enough to let the mutants reproduce and pass their genes
Genetic drift leads to a random distribution of allels every generation (With larger populations having less of it), natural selection just determines who doesn't make the cut based on the selective pressures. A mutation doesn't have to be beneficial at all to get through genetic drift even if higher genetic fitness does lead to a statistical advantage that manifests itself even when it is small.

>and beating out their non-mutant cousins the more evolved version of the species
Everyone they're competing with is also mutated. They just might not possess that particular set of allels. In any case most of the time it can be just blind luck, consider the large scale extinction events.

wtf isn't he married with a hot as fuck wife

>The idea of developing air-breathing capabilities before being able to traverse land is stupid
Not particularly.
Being able to survive longer periods of being on land is a benefit.
And gas exchange in the swim bladder, the intestines or another surface that possesses decent blood flow is a workable way to do this.

Good point user. I was thinking more of being able to breathe oxygen while still requiring water to pass over the gills was redundant. but I suppose that contradicts my earlier point of evolution not happening all at once.

>The relatively low rate of mutation stacks up as the population expands and with each new generation genes are mixed, matched and recombined.
I've heard this said very often, can you point me to some sort of statistical analysis of evolution?
Can you back up what you said with math?

Not that user, but why not read this book? It answers that question and lot of other ones too.

>dawkins
lol he asks for a mathematical analysis and you give him dawkins? The man is a joke.

>statistical analysis
Mate you don't need that to put 2 and 2 together.

Your own claim was that mutations in an individual happen rarely: a very low chance.
Now add the fact that there are a metric shitton of individuals
Now apply basic calculations of chance, the type of shit you get in high school

First, I'm not him.
Second, wtf? You need to calculate the probability of a certain event taking place before you can express an opinion on the event taking place within a large population and large time scales. As far as I know, this has never been done, and everything is explained away with bullshit reasoning like your
>Now apply basic calculations of chance
or
>DUDE MILLIONS OF YEARS LMAO!!!!
"Apply the basic calculations of chance"? Have you ever taken a class on basic probability theory?
At least creationists don't try to justify their ridiculous beliefs with science.

>X can happen to Y
>Increase amount of Y
>chance of X happening to any of these somehow doesn't increase

What's next, you want me to provide statistics for every time 3 * 4 = 12?

I didn't say that. I can define a function which would have a 0.001% chance of taking on a certain value in 10^30 iterations, so just because 10^30 is a really large number, doesn't mean that the function is likely to take on that value.
Can you grasp the concept?

That is correct, it doesn't completely outweigh the low probability.
It does, however, increase the how likely it is, which is what I thought you were disputing. My bad.

There is a running experiment (20+ years) on escherichia coli that proved that

Platonic Forms.

>Evolution
>Farce

This is impossible. Evolution must be real. How else would our primal ancestors have learned to count? We had to evolve and learn from the apes if we were to survive.

Swim bladders evolved from lungs, not the other way around

Have you read the book?

You're taking absolutist views and that is where you fail.

There is no "fish", nor "legs", nor "lungs" evolution is a slow and progresive process(and when leap happens they are not that exagerated).

Its more like a mutation, or variation within a population lets some early vertebrates(although invertebrates are suposed to be the ones who first went into lands), not breath air but stay longer away from water(where at the moment they have nothing to compete with), the longer they are other selective pressures chooses the ones that can reach further into the land or shallow waters.

Now, only the ones that can actually maneuver in this enviroment can extent further away from the coast and be even safer, those are the ones that modify their extremities to be a bit longer everytime son even the fins of the fish start developing subsegments that allos them the flexibility to have some way to move on earth.

With each passing generation the ones that can stay longer and can move further from the water are selected when the rivers become less accesible, seas more dangerous and so on...

So, is not that first we have "legs" and then "lungs" or viceversa, is that both are happening at the same time, all the time but with very small changes that are conservated by selective pressures of the enviroment.

So no, evolution is not exactly challenged, it would be like saying that bacteria never develop resistances, monkeys in Africa are not suffering speciation right now or moths during industrial Britain never changed color due to the pollution in chimneys.

Is like denying gravity when you see that a rock is falling only because the only ones who will see it touching the ground would be your sons, sons,sons,sons sons,sons,sons,sons...

It's still a bacteria

Have you read "Curious George Learns to Count from 1 to 100"? It's a fantastic read to be totally honest. The examples are solid and the imagery is perfectly done.

youtube.com/watch?v=xqYHtKau8do

Forbidden Science:
youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

Are you asking for a change of species or of an entire kingdom?

They want you to show them a change from "kind" to another, even though there is no solid definition of it, so they shift goalposts as much as they need to.

Actually it's quiet easy. A dog can't breed with a cat, can they?

>People are still getting baited by shitposts like this.

dogs will always beget dogs, cats will always beget cats. evolution acknowledges that. there was never a parent whose offspring were a different species. change is gradual. was there ever a day where you fell asleep a kid and woke up an adult? obviously not; every day you wake up just about the same age as you were the day before. it's only when you look back over a large expanse of time that changes become noticeable

yeah, yeah, look. traditionally, scientists use the long well-established tradition of using morphological features to determine whether or not evolution is real, or if two species are related. let's compare the traits of two supposedly "related" creatures, cats and snakes. the sketch below captures whether a feature is present (+) or absent (-) in cats or sneaks respectively.
---
cats | sneakers
fur: + | -
ears: + | -
whiskers: + | -
legs: + | -
fangs: + | +
tails: + | +
eyelids: + | +
poisonous: - | +
---
we can see that cats have all the characters except poisonousness, therefore they must be more evoluved than skates, right? actually not. according to evolution, they both came from the same COMMONe acnestor, not one coming from the other. in order to test the hypothesis, you have to consider how many eyelids the common ancestor had. cats have two eyelids (top and bottom), and snacks have three (top, botton, and side). if that's the case, then the simplest amount of change between the "common" ancestor and its descendants is if the ancestor has 2.5 eyelids. of course, that's nonsensical; eyelids are discrete entities, you can't have 2.5 eyelids. therefore, it is improbably that cats and steaks were distantly related to some common ancestor.

I can't believe that this isn't bait. Is this genuinely how you think evolution works?

>more evoluved
REEEEEEEEEEEE

Ok, that's what you believe I guess. But what's the evidence? What if there was a catastrophe which created all different creatures in an instant from one single creature. And maybe that's why we have different creatures.
Why do you believe specifically in Darwin's theory.
Do you have evidence or is it just make-believe?

Something to think about.

lower file size

Whoever wrote this have never heard about darwinism.

Difference between specie and kind.

Is that guy legitimately retard?
>Why do you believe specifically in Darwin's theory.
Because both experimental and fossiologic evidence point to it being truth.

Why do you think this?

Here is the full article.
humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

>kind
Do you understand taxonomy at all?
You realise we have words for "kind", right?

>Why do you believe specifically in Darwin's theory?
Darwin's theory (And all the additional theories that are added to it to form the modern understanding of evolution) has a known mechanism and can make decent predictions.

>What if there was a catastrophe which created all different creatures in an instant from one single creature.
This is neither supported by the fossil record, nor is it supported by the molecular clock.

The idea that the siblings in a population each represent a new branch is kind of retarded since evolution works on a population scale.

Fossilization is also rare. If a species didn't live for very long (On a large timescale) then there is a decent chance that there will be no fossils of this species present.
And the horse with weak bones that doesn't produce offspring is very unlikely to have been a population that lived long enough to have a good chance of leaving a fossil behind.

I think the problem with lots of discussions surrounding evolution is people talk about it like it's this constant, slow moving force, more akin to erosion and geography shaping forces than to what it actually is, which is a cumulative history prior to anybody's ability to write history.

People talk about evolution like erosion - like it is constant, steady, and slowly manipulating and shaping species. This is true to an extent, but it ignores the fact that evolution always occur on a generational to generational basis, which means the evolution of species is essentially ten billion love stories and tragic death stories wrapped up into one big theory that notates common elements between these. Once you think about it this way, evolution becomes much easier to comprehend: it's the story of a poor bastard who couldn't get enough to eat, who was rejected by women for his poverty, and who died alone and unloved; it's the story of an ugly duckling whose ugliness saved his life when the predators bore down upon his flock, and then was left as king with prima noctis powers over the remaining women, who worshipped him. Evolution is a process that takes millions and billions of years, yes, but evolution is composed of vitally important moments that are comprehensible on a human scale - the failure to find a woman, to die before bearing children, to abandon the family, glorious victory and crushing defeat.

Ok, besides the inferior ones. shouldn't there be much more variations in the fossil record? especially when it is always said, that evolution happens very very slowly. Then there should be so many different states.
Instead they are always looking for that one missing link, while, those missing links should be all over the place in all variations.

This is what I don't get.

And then through a random mutation a new alpha male is born, his mutation is that his dick is very big and he bangs all the women of the world, the ugly once and the pretty once, and suddenly everyone looks like Chad.

Sorry, it still sounds silly.

plenty of fish are facultative (if not obligate) airbreathers, usually from living in hypoxic waters. carp gulp air, for example, because they tend to live in stagnant environments.

>those missing links should be all over the place in all variations.
What part of "fosilation is also rare" did you not get?

It's rare. So what?

If you roll a d100, and you find fosils on result 1-10, isn't it weird to always find a 2, maybe very rarely you find a 3?

When you find 15 fosils, shouldn't they at least "something" evenly scattered between 1 and 10?

like 1,6,8,4,3,2,2,3,8. Especcially when evolution is such a slow process.

What I want to say is, there should be much more differences.

But if you don't think it is enough evidence, why do you think it is enough evidence to support Darwin's very old theory?

they're not always looking for a specific missing link. like you said, evolution predicts that there's a huge amount of variation in life's history. at the same time, evolution doesn't make any predictions about which snapshots of that variation we happen to find. fossilization is a rare occurrence that we could only reasonably expect to find a fragment of all the variation in life's history preserved in the fossil record. that said, even though we only have a small fragment of life's history, that still amounts to millions of fossilized species including tons of so-called missing links.

More like, you're rolling a d100000 30 times and get 769000, 6700, etc.
And then you bitch that there are no rolls in between.

>But if you don't think it is enough evidence
A deduction, especially a shitty one like yours, is not evidence

>Darwin's very old theory
Two things here
1) Something being old doesn't somehow make it untrue. Or should we all stop using shit like Pythagoras?

2) Oh I am laffin. You clearly have no idea what Darwin wrote. He himself believed that species couldn't change into new ones or split off into two new ones. He didn't believe """macro-evolution""".

I might have an easier time following the theory of evolution if life had more time to evolve. The probabilities of the mutations that created the diversity of life we see today are incredibly low. I am not convinced that a billion years would be nearly enough to see various generations of dinosaurs and, eventually, ourselves.

Not really. "Kind" or baramin is just a flimsy term used by creationists when they've been faced with evidence that contradicts their worldview. Just goalpost shifting.

Funny part is, Linnaeus considered his ranking of "genus" to be an anlogue for kinds. He grouped homo and simia as the same genus.

>Not really
>proceeds to say I'm right

M8 what

>More like, you're rolling a d100000 30 times and get 769000, 6700, etc.
Exactly. Two different numbers instead of 769000 and 769000 again.

>1) Something being old doesn't somehow make it untrue.

Darwin based his theory on life on the fact that he didn't know of the complexity of a single cell. That's why he thought the first cell or cells, or basically life was created by a strike of lightning.

Nowadays Darwin would shake his head when he sees all the things you try to make believable.

>He himself believed that species couldn't change into new ones or split off into two new ones. He didn't believe """macro-evolution""".

exactly

Kind has become an increasingly broad term since its conception. It's meant to be an analogue for species, yet an entire order (proboscidea) has been grouped into a singular kind.

Also, you realize what I meant about Homo and Simia, yes?

>Exactly. Two different numbers instead of 769000 and 769000 again.
And exactly how do you know it's not 769000 and 785646?
You keep claiming this bullshit about fossils, but do you have anything to back up how they're absolutely identical?

So you claim he thought life in the form of a single cell was created by lightning, yet these couldn't evolve into different species?

Fuck off lad, you're contradicting yourself.

>he didn't know of the complexity of a single cell.
And Newton didn't know the complexity of modern physics. Are you saying the laws of Newton suddenly aren't credible?

>Also, you realize what I meant about Homo and Simia, yes?

Faggots and Siamese twins?

>It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term "with human form", but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

He believed that everything from man to the tarsier was related by blood.

I was just messing with you, user.

But that's pretty interesting. Thanks

Ok then, you're welcome.

What sorta environment would it take for a dog like creature to evolve to say English Mastiff size and with no eyes?

Almost pitch black environment (like a subterranean cave) and moderately-sized prey.

Creature would most likely use smell and hearing in order to hunt and track.

>capitalized species names

>You keep claiming this bullshit about fossils, but do you have anything to back up how they're absolutely identical?

What I want to say, we should find much more hybrids, when evolution is such a slow and smooth process.

>So you claim he thought life in the form of a single cell was created by lightning, yet these couldn't evolve into different species?

Why do you have the need to believe in evolution when you already believe that cells, and all their complexity just happened.

Can you create a cell in a laboratory from non living things?

Evolution is just filling a void for things humanity can't understand yet. And it's doing a bad job because it superficially sound good, but it contradicts itself in many ways.

It feels more like it's manufactured instead of a scientific approach.

Evolution = People just try to fit everything into what they already believe in, but having no reason to believe in it, in the first place.

There is literally no evidence for evolution how it is taught nowadays.

I will just leave this here.

>Evolution Debunked
newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
trueorigin.org/creatheory.php

>Errors in Evolutionary Thinking
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

>Darwin’s god
darwins-god.blogspot.nl/

>Archeological evidence for the Bible
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

>Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time
youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA
>Refuting Evolution and Bill Nye
youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g

>Kent Hovind destroys Evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

>Evolution is a myth
youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

>Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (chess master) blows Evolutionism out of the water
youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>The Terror of Evolutionism
youtube.com/watch?v=0WE57wllfIc

>The Pagan Roots of Evolutionism (Darwinism is a religious cult)
youtube.com/watch?v=rovovsBCQWQ

>Tracing Genesis Through Ancient Culture
youtube.com/watch?v=gFgohPpu0rE

>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

>Dinosaurs are not „millions“ of years old
genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo

>What I want to say, we should find much more hybrids, when evolution is such a slow and smooth process.
Repeating the same shit doesn't work as an answer to the question I asked

>all that other shit
See above

>Can you create a cell in a laboratory from non living things?

Yes.

If you have any other actual questions about evolution people will answer them, but I'm fairly sure you'll just carry on shitposting.

>Yes.

Explain.