How come DarTards still think creationism is nonsense when we are currently creating new life forms in our own labs?

>scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

Yea this is how it happens alright. I'd actually found that before as it's something that pops up in google when you do basic research on this topic. The article is riddled with the words "probably" and "normally" and all such other assumptions that are not proven by any means.

There haven't been enough humans alive ever to allow for these mutations to possibly take hold in this fashion imo. You are looking at events that are so improbable as to be unlikely to occur once, let alone the many many times necessary.

The theory holds fine I suppose (as a possibility) if we are talking about amoebas of which there are hundreds and thousands of trillions of them reproducing over and over for billions of years.

The math is not favorable when talking about estimated human populations and their time in existence.

I will admit possible.

When we come across something like the pyramids, don't we usually assume someone built it? When the odds of it happening by chance become so staggering?

This really is akin to saying the pyramids just formed that way by random geological fluctuations. Possible, but very fucking unlikely.

>creationsim
>god
What do these NECESSARILY have to do with each other?

I'm more an advanced life form lab project type guy, if you want to call him "god," okay. But I didn't.

Actually, I'm more a "I have no actual idea" guy.

Fossil record is pretty encouraging, along with a number of common ancestral relations between species.

> I have no actual idea
> so let's bring up hypothetical beings that would be creating life on earth

Sure chromosome number change is unlikely, but still much more likely than that. Also evolution takes place in a very long time stretch, stuff happens.

>sees obvious design
>wonders who did it
DNA is basically binary, 4 base pairs that ALWAYS correspond to each other. May as well be a double layer binary code.

When I see design I know it. I see the pyramids and I don't think, "look at the way those rocks randomly got piled up." I intuitively understand that something built it.

Yes, fossil record implies a progression. So does looking at the design of Ford automobiles over the past century.

Literally projection

God saw how evolution works and then tried to emulate it.

Projection?? As in psychological? If we were "created in the image of" then my projection would make total sense.

Also, I can project my perception of design onto ants as well. When I see ants building, I know they are building, I'm not "projecting." I'm seeing and describing what I see. If that's projection then nothing seen through our human minds can ever be anything but...

Very possible. Humans are not far from that it appears.

nothing seen through our human minds can ever be anything but...

> what's the purpose of fucking science
> yeah it's exactly that, getting rid of projections and intuition in our understanding of the world

All experiments are guided and started using our perceptions and human intuition.

Therefore science can be nothing but an intuition and a projection of our mind. And it's results will always be subject to that same intuition.

When I see the results of an experiment, my mind interprets that result. There is no other way.

That argument and the watchmaker argument are baseless because you and I already know what a pyramid and a watch is. We know they have creators because they're objects we already recognize.
We don't have prior knowledge about life as a whole, and to go with the "popped into existence because somebody willed it" stance is absolutely retarded because it goes against every shred of evidence we have.

Your leap to "popped into existence..." doesn't logically follow from anything I said.

I never said that. It doesn't logically follow at all that I assume that.

However, I must say that when I have built something, it was because IT WAS MY WILL. That doesn't imply anything other than intention. It doesn't imply magic, it doesn't imply super powers, etc.

We are capable of IMAGINING things that don't exist. And in many cases we are capable of then creating these things.

The evidence we have is only evidence of a system with rules. It doesn't say anything more than that.

Assuming everyone who has questions or has a bone to pick with the current theory is a fundamentalist christian of some sort is the antithesis of "scientific." Odd for someone that apparently fancies himself that way.

>be advanced monkeys living in dirt
>figure everything out in a few hundred years
This is unlikely. We have more to learn, more to grow.

>>be advanced monkeys living in dirt
>>figure everything out in a few hundred years
Mate, don't be disingenuous. It was MUCH longer than that.

Like time periods that we can't properly comprehend because they're so long.

Several hundred years ago the world was flat.

Now we all know without a doubt the big bang created everything and life sprung from that? This is my point.

You are being disingenuous to miss the point.

Also, check my digits m9.

What about when consciousness didn't exist? Who created life forms back then?

Big assumption.

Not a single sentence in this post supports creationism except your last "we don't know shit" argument, which is irrelevant. I no longer know what you're trying to argue.

First of all, no, even ancient Greeks pre-Christ knew the earth was round.
Second, reducing anything down to intentionally simple phrases is easy.
>Moby Dick is just some guy with a boner for whales
>The Creation of Adam is just some stupid picture of two dudes
>We knew nothing and now scientists are already claiming they know some stuff, isn't that stupid?
You ignore that those "hundreds" (actually thousands) of years were filled with the painstaking research of hundreds of thousands of people all bringing us to the body of knowledge we have today. Yes, it is incomplete, but your same argument dismisses all scientific progress because at one point we didn't know as much as we know now.
This is colossally retarded. You are also colossally retarded.

>Now we all know without a doubt the big bang created everything
We're pretty sure that the universe was really small at one point and is expanding from that. We don't know how that happened though, I don't think we will either.

>and life sprung from that?
I mean there is a fUCKING LONG period of time between the big bang and the appearance of life on earth so don't forget about that. But yeah, we think that it's not too far fetched that self replicating structures could have formed at some point on earth and then eventually (again after a V LONG time) developed into what we call life. I'm no biologist or chemist so this is a pretty simplified take on it but I think it's the right idea.

>This is my point.
What is?

>Like time periods that we can't properly comprehend because they're so long.

They were artificially said to be stupendously long in order to defy your comprehension.

You've been lied to your entire life.

> What about when consciousness didn't exist? Who created life forms back then?

wtf ? It's the best fucking argument so far.

maybe it used to be flat before we started looking around for clues of it being spherical

Could be...the world trade centers used to have been knocked down by muslims with box cutters before I started looking for reasons it wasn't.

Perception is reality. We as a whole have a hard time understanding that.

>This is colossally retarded. You are also colossally retarded.

Well he just wants to believe in something
> We have more to learn, more to grow.

Now there's a difference between scientific explanations and watching conspiracy videos on youtube

If you believe something hard enough, then that thing is true, regardless of the facts
Maybe not to everyone, but it's true nonetheless

Actually I just want to know the truth and I think getting strung into a theory and summarily rejecting anything that opposes it is a horrible way to get there.

I don't expect to find truth. But I basically "believe" nothing.

My mind inhabits several universes and jumps between them depending on which discussion I'm having.

I think there's another word for that

magic and/or psychosis
same thing really

Yes. And the scientific method involves research usually. If you still think it was muslims with box cutters (5 still alive to this day) then you aren't very good at science I will bet.

It's not a new idea, it's a thoroughly debunked one.

>Actually I just want to know the truth and I think getting strung into a theory and summarily rejecting anything that opposes it is a horrible way to get there.
Good, this is a good mentality to have. But this is not at all what you've done in this thread. There are mountains of evidence favoring evolution and a very detailed theory of exactly how scientists believe it works that they constructed from this evidence. You came in here with criticisms that would be answered in a biology 1001 class, so clearly you haven't actually done your part and learned about this before rejecting it.

>I don't expect to find truth. But I basically "believe" nothing.
This is demonstrably untrue. If you believed nothing you would not be able to function as a human being.
But what you mean with this statement is that nobody can discuss anything with you because you will make no assertions of your own and disparage those made by everyone else. This is pointless and juvenile.

>My mind inhabits several universes and jumps between them depending on which discussion I'm having.
No, it doesn't. Now you're just making me think you're retarded again.

> I think getting strung into a theory and summarily rejecting anything that opposes it is a horrible way to get there.
right

> Actually I just want to know the truth
> I don't expect to find truth.

There's your problem.
Science isn't really about the truth. It's about findings models of reality that take in account what we can observe and allow us to make predictions.

Of course life might have been created, there might be a god, or we might be living in the matrix or whatever. But based on our current knowledge, these hypothesis can't be checked, and don't help us create a relevant model of reality. They are just fairies.

1. But I haven't called evolution into question. I've pointed out where it is lacking and I have derided people for closing their minds after getting an obviously incomplete or implausible explanation. I will admit I was baiting, but nowhere did I say evolution is not a real thing. This is a good example at how people lose their minds if you even call parts of it into question.

2. Again, not true. I act on a probability function. When I see a pool and decide I'll dive in, I am acting on what I judge to be an overwhelming likelihood that this is indeed a pool and I can jump into it. It's possible it's not and I'l break my neck. Same as betting on aces in hold'em except I consider the odds to be astronomically in my favor.

3. Yes. It does.

The sign of an educated mind is that it is able to entertain certain ideas while not necessarily accepting them. - attributed to someone who was supposedly "Aristotle."

So you're saying man is god?
I agree, man is the only god there is.

>Science isn't really about the truth. It's about findings models of reality that take in account what we can observe and allow us to make predictions.
I agree wholeheartedly. But I see science as part of and driven by our desire to know the "truth." Whatever that may be...

Watching conspiracy videos on youtube doesn't count as research

I don't know what I'm saying. Mainly just stirring up discussion.

Finding the news reports from overseas where they interview the people listed as the hijackers by the US gov does.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

And widely reported in all the MSM you probably gobble down like cock.

topinfopost.com/2013/05/06/911-fbis-blunder-the-hijackers-were-alive-and-well

All sourced and linked to original articles. I bet you are awesome at "science" given you ability to discern total bullshit fro...oh wait.

chromosome number isn't as fixed as you think it is, look at the genus Brassica: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_U

>mutation that accounts for chromosome loss or addition and subsequent reproduction
what did he mean by this?

All evidence points to the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes since the last common ancestor of chimps and man.

You're equating the loss or gain of a whole chromosome, and the associated genetic information, with an alteration to the physical number of chromosomes in each cell. A false dichotomy.

You not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

Honestly, you miss out on so much by sticking your head in the sand and crying "you're all wrong, we were created in the image of a loving God!"

The facts of evolution are really quite a wonderful thing, and being able to look at new research into ancient forms of life and see where it fits into the history of modern life is truly rewarding.

An understanding of how things came to be gives one a more profound appreciation of their present beauty. The muscles in a cheetah's legs are more beautiful than the internal mechanisms of a watch precisely because they were not designed.

Straw man. I don't believe in god. Who knows where you got all that.

sagan please go, this is a science board, not some bullshit science promoting bad litteracy.

Eh. Not really what I'm doing. I mean you need two humans to produce another.

The odds of these mutations are in the billions, and the odds of these mutations happening multiple times are in the trillions, and the odds of them then reproducing into a population that consistently shows these mutations are in the gazillions.

There haven't been enough apes or humans ever existing to make this even reasonably probable.

Yet, possible I know.

>more beautiful
although I respect your passion, you are a faggot
beauty isn't quantifiable, it's an absolute quality

>respect passion
>faggot
If only we all had the passion of the faggots.

>Mutation odds are low
Yes
>Odds of the mutation happening multiple times are even lower
Yes, but if the mutation enhances an individuals ability to survive and reproduce at which point the mutation is passed down
>Odds of spreading into a population are even lower
The odds are improved if the population is not large and the mutation gives a significant advantage in survival, surely over the span of a hundred of generations it could spread to an entire population
>There haven't been enough humans or apes for this to happen
Given the life expectancy of humans just a few thousand years ago, you would've had to mate pretty fast and for apes the time to mature and reproduce may be even lower so generations change fairly often
Surely monkeys lived on this rock more than a few thousand years

>this fucking thread

I never thought that it'd be so simple but
I found a way, I found a way
I always thought that it'd be too crazy but
I found a way, I found a way

If you open up your mind
See what's inside
ITS GUNNA TAKE SUM TIME TO REALIGN BUT IF U LOOK INSIDE IM SURE ULL FIND
OVER UR SHOULDER YA KNOW HAHABLAH
i''ll LALWAYS BE PICKING U UP WHEN UR DOWN
So just turn around

Now that I know that anything's possible
I found a way, I found a way
No one can break what is so unbreakable
I found a way, I found a way

If you open up your mind
See what's inside
It's gonna take some time, to realign
But if you look inside, I'm sure you'll find
Over your shoulder you know that, I told you
I'll always be pickin' you up when you're down
So just turn around

No one cares
What you give
You know you gotta live like you wanna live
When it's time
To be free
You know you gotta be what you wanna be

If you open up your mind
See what's inside
It's gonna take some time, to realign
But if you look inside, I'm sure you'll find
Over your shoulder you know that, I told you
I'll always be pickin' you up when you're down
So just turn around

>DarTards still think creationism is nonsense
...bcoz it is nonsense, CreaTard.

evidentcreation.com
Refute this or admit defeat. It's your choice, Darwinists.