Yfw you realized the theory of evolution can't possibly be true

>I read Mind and Cosmos by [not a biologist]
>it's an "I'm sure I understand this subject better than everyone else despite barely studying it at all" book

See the problem here is that it says that the clock with the beneficial mutation necessarily goes on to create numerous offspring. Nature itself is random. Having a minor adaptation that makes a species more fit than another is no guarantee the individual with that mutation will succeed. I think the problem with this is it presents evolution in a pristine theoretical state where the complexities of genetic mutations and the luck of getting that mutation onto the next generation are ignored. It's a simplified textbook version, but when you start looking at the steps in detail it falls apart.

>It's a simplified textbook version, but when you start looking at the steps in detail it falls apart.
Wow, you're right. Why didn't anyone ever look at evolution in detail before? At last I truly see.

Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and their genes altered in different ways over thousands of years due to natural selection
>chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both
Uh, actually they do; we both have hands which have four fingers and an opposable thumb, we are omnivorous and holozoic feeders, and we have body proportions similar to them. If you go even deeper and use the DNA separation technique of finding relatedness, we only have a few base differences

just leave

If you're implying they've plugged the gaps in the theory, they haven't, they just swept them under the carpet.

But user, there's nothing saying an individual can't gain a beneficial potentially heritable mutation, and still not pass it down. Happens all the time. Evolution is just made up of the ones that do get passed down, so the focus is always on those. I don't quite get your argument, or why that means evolution is false.

>Why didn't anyone ever look at evolution in detail before?
It's easy to see why there are so many evolution deniers when people like this aren't eliminated by natural selection like they should be

It just makes no sense. Random processes can't create greater complexity. You can't shatter glass a billion times and end up with a beautiful statue. Chaos does not create order. You can't create the human mind no matter how many random mutations occur, because they're random, without order or purpose

That's why it's not random- if it were completely random, you'd be right. But the selection part of 'natural selection' is that there are pressures that make it non-random.

There's no 'purpose', but there is 'order'. That which reproduces ends up being the key to follow, by nature of it reproducing and lasting longer.

One commonly accepted theory as to the beginning of life are primordial lipid sacks that contained chemicals that could self-catalyze. Think about that for a moment- a chemical that, given the raw materials in contact with it, can build a copy of itself. That too, will then build a copy of itself, and so the chemical makeup of whatever body it's in will eventually become mostly made up of this self-replicating thing, simply by its nature.

Then what if there were a random mutation, like a phosphorous group added on to this chemical, that made it a lot easier to bind, require less energy, and more quickly create copies of itself given the raw materials? Then there would be a shift in the composition of the body, to be more heavily towards that one. Then what if it randomly gains a mutation that allows it to recycle one of the others some of the time by cleaving it and being able to catalyze the creation of a new molecule that could then work in tandem with others to catalyze the creation of itself?

There's no goal, no purpose, it only follows that there are pressures that allow it to have a higher concentration (and therefore, replicate itself more), that are entirely natural.

Hm. This makes more sense, thank you

Natural selection isn't random. The random process of mutation, when guided by the principle of natural selection can increase complexity.

You can literally observe this we have experiments on Drosophila or computer simulations or whatever else.

You're just too much of a brainlet to understand

Idiots like OP make me daily question why I bothered to become an evolutionary biologist.

Think of it like a random walk of a particle. It makes much more sense to thing of the entire genepool of the species rather than individuals. Over long enough timescales, if there is some evolutionary pressure and mutations are possible to follow that pressure then you'll have a random walk of the genepool over in that direction. A trend that overcomes the noise you're talking about

There seriously can't be this many retards on Veeky Forums

You could just read the goddamn wikipedia article for evolution and have all of these dumb ass questions answered. Which for some reason you didn't get answered in school already.

You are not very sharp are you.

These stupid ass gotcha questions piss me off the most. Like we haven't thought of these basic shit questions before and haven't answered them a hundred years ago. No, you are just too lazy to read the damn biology 101 textbook.

>why I bothered to become an evolutionary biologist
Why did you bother? Useless field desu.

OP is an idiot tho, we can agree on that.

What gaps?

>Which for some reason you didn't get answered in school already.
You underestimate the uselessness of American public education.

>Thomas Nagel (philosopher)

Into the trash it goes.

I can't believe this is actually his Wikipedia article's cover photo.

Because I'm paid to research a topic that interests me greatly.

Question for evolution supporters: how do the intermediate step for new functions? Lets say evolving from fish to land creature, wouldnt you have thousands of years of inefficient limbs to walk with? Wouldnt you get eaten easily? I fail to see species in an intermediate status that work right now

>a completely random chaotic process
triggered

Then what is the alternative?

It is year 2017. You MUST, I repeat, MUST, I repeat, MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST, have an ANSWER for EVERY single question you can ask.

Science can't afford to say "we don't know" anymore. You must have answer for every question. You absolutely must be able to produce an answer in the fast moving world, or you will be, I repeat, WILL be, replaced by an organization/individual that produces that answer.

I repeat. If you say "We don't know what evolution truly is" literally zero, I repeat, ZERO PERCENT OF HUMANS GIVE A FUCK. If you say "Evolution is this and that. I am scientist. I am intelligent. I have studied this for decades." humans WILL listen to you, no matter what you say.

The book is really very good

>"it seems very counter intuitive"
> hence it must be false

lol. gtfo.

>Wouldnt you get eaten easily?
By what, another fish with garbage legs?

Shallow water environments where an intermediate limb/paddle is a benefit.

This. Evolution is not a very good theory, it has tons of problems but it's the only real explanation. It's really just a stopgap til we find something better, until then scientists need to fight tooth and nail to defend it because it's the first line of defense against the theists

>wouldnt you have thousands of years of inefficient limbs to walk with?
Just needs to be efficient enough to get an advantage from visiting the land. Like eating land plants. And there are sea creatures with legs right now who live on the sea floor. So that is kind of a short sighted question.

>Wouldnt you get eaten easily?
By what? If you are the first animal to visit land then there are no natural enemies. One species of land animals could start an entire tree of land animal species.

Even if we talk about recurrent evolution, then the existent land animals would need to be carnivores (unlikely if there are no other land animals) to be dangerous to the newcomers. And then they would need to be so dangerous that the dangers of visiting land outweighs the benefits. Which obviously isn't necessarily the case, as seen in sea turtles who lay eggs on land because even with land animals eating some of the eggs, the strategy is still advantageous.

Don't ask questions like that. You just reveal to us, embarrasingly, how little you have made background research. There is countless of studies detailing intensively how those structures developed. SO far there hasn't been any organ or limb whose gradual development isn't supported. Please do not embarass yourself any further, it hurts to watch see a fellow Veeky Forums being such a disgusting brainlet.

There is literally no proof evolution is real

There won't be anything "better", that implies that the premise might somehow be wrong. There will be incremental advances in understanding it as the course of evolution is better understood and more deep complex mechanisms are discovered. That's how well founded and thoroughly tested theories work.

>"then the offspring with the mutation gets sick and dies? Or gets predated upon"
then the strain dies off...?
Evolution isn't one monumental change at a time,, species don't get created within a single generation ya dingus

You can literally observe evolution on the microbiological level in a lab right now if you feel like it.

So either rephrase your claim and throw in some 'marco evolution' bullshit or even other creationists would make fun of you for your ignorance.

>There won't be anything "better", that implies that the premise might somehow be wrong
But it is wrong, clearly. There are many, many faults with the theory and it has no predictive power at all. The only reason we scientists still cling to it is because we need something to keep the theists at bay. One day we will find the REAL reason for the diversity of life but it is certain that reason will not be evolution. The idea that people unquestioningly accept such a ridiculous theory is actually an in joke among biologists.

Don't be fool and think "proof" refers to something absolute and pure. We live in capitalism democracy. For us

proof = enough influential organisations and individuals formally agree on the arguments and results formulated by agreed authorities and modeled to fit our culture and norm system and advance our economy and society

SO yeah, proof of evolution stands because it is very beneficial to us and very close to truth.
Of course no one should mistake it for BEING the truth. Evolution obviously CANNOT be the correct answer in the future. The concept that life arose "randomly from a pool of water" is preposterously stupid. No. There is some underlying force that CAUSES life to form everywhere certain conditions are met. But until those conditions are met, evolution is what YOU WILL believe if you ever want to live in our society.

>The concept that life arose "randomly from a pool of water" is preposterously stupid.
Setting aside that it isn't, evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis in the first place.

ok

Synthesizing a few amino acids in the most perfect conditions we can create for that to happen makes you think that it's possible for entire biological proteins to be created? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?

Yes it does. Abiogenesis means "chemical evolution." The word evolution is right there. Just like when your oneitis Sarah marries Chad McThundercock and now you claim Sarah has nothing to do with Chad, expect that Sarah is now known as Sarah McThundercock.

When we pour gasoline on the floor of our house and set it on fire, the flames will spread and engulf our pitiful home, dreams, and whore wife and her underperforming kids. The smoke will suffocate the disgusting life out of her as I laugh outside.

Retard would say that the house spontaneously caught fire from the thermodynamical motion of a glass of water on the bedroom table (actually this is quantum mechanically possible; the probability for any momentum for water molecule is never zero). Anyone can see that the problem is "how the fire got started" and not "how it spreads around the house and tortures your filthy children".

Real scientist realizes that there was a cause for the fire. Something sparked it, in this case, the deranged husband.

and you're assuming human make up for example is completely dictated by DNA, you do realize that our adaptation to bacteria and viruses also contribute to biological evolution if not more than DNA.
i'll throw this in.
health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2012-06-04-infectious-disease-shaped-human-origins.aspx

Abiogenesis isn't part of the evolutionary theory. For all I care god, aliens or elves could have started it off, it's not relevant for the theory to be valid or invalid.

>Synthesizing a few amino acids in the most perfect conditions we can create for that to happen makes you think that it's possible for entire biological proteins to be created? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?

Again it is off-topic. But there are various theories (that have indeed holes) that can explain Abiogenesis to some degree. Watch the following videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=K1xnYFCZ9Yg
youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8

>Abiogenesis means "chemical evolution."
It means "creation from that which isn't alive." Tell me, is cosmic evolution part of this framework you're proposing?

We still aren't completely sure how gravity is created. Still most of our physics is based on our descriptions of gravity. You don't need to know how something started to observe and describe how it works. We used and understood electricity way before we could explain where it comes from.

>Abiogenesis means "chemical evolution."
No it doesn't. Chemical evolution is a possible explanation for abiogenesis. As are other theories.

Yeah so you disagree with on definitions. Worst kind of disagreement.

Cosmic evolution was 'sparked' by Big Bang.
When a pen falls to the floor, it was 'sparked' by force of gravity.
When pool of water self-arranges to life, it was 'sparked' by ????
When I cum inside your gf, the birth of your cuck-baby was 'sparked' by my sperm penetrating your gf's egg.

None of these reasons occur "because randomly". Every event happened because there was a reason. Maybe the way it will happen is not entirely deterministic, but the room for indeterminicy is never enough for these kind of cases to occur
>Broken shards assembling into a glass --> too random, will never occur without a catalyst (=some bitch who makes glasses)
>Pigments and fibers assembling into a Mona Lisa painting --> too random, will never occur without a catalyst (=Painter)
>Pen rising against a gravity --> too random, will never occur without a catalyst (=some fag rising the pen up)
>Pool of water assembling into a living molecule --> ??

Watch the videos mate

>We still aren't completely sure how gravity is created

We are actually. Energy is mass, and energy causes spacetime to curve. Some guy named Einstein figured it out. You should read more about him.

Nah. Reading is superior. Video is attention whoring.

Technically I think Maxwell figured out the former and just didn't want to believe it.

> Energy is mass, and energy causes spacetime to curve.
Why does it curve spacetime?

>Nah. Reading is superior. Video is attention whoring
You obviously haven't done the reading so I supposed a video would be easier for you.

>wouldnt you have thousands of years of inefficient limbs to walk with? Wouldnt you get eaten easily?
Think of the avian fauna of New Zealand. Because there weren't any mammals apart from bats, the birds evolved to fill the empty niches, like grazing or apex predation (Moas, Haast's eagles etc.). And they were shit at it. But it didn't matter, because the global competition had no way of getting to them - until humans figured out boats.

>Why
Sorry but we are discussing science, not philosophy. Scientists ask how, what, when, which, etc. The only why you will ever need are "human happiness" "human suffering" "human growth reproduction survival"
Asking "why" something IS is futile and just serves to disorient and get defeated. Just like banging your head against the wall you will never break.

Videos are made by """"scientists"""" who got the reject letter from the publisher :DDD
Just refer to established, most impactful and influential, science publishers for accurate, correct, superior data and conclusions.

Now who is nitpicking about language? This why in this context was obviously meant as a 'how' and a 'what causes X'.

>Videos are made by """"scientists"""" who got the reject letter from the publisher :DDD
I am not going to write a 2000 word paper about the various possible explanations for abiogenesis with footnotes and sources for you if that is what you want.

The videos have extended source sections in the video descriptions, just read those. I can quote them here if you are too lazy to click on two links.

There is no "various possible explanations"

There is enormous pile of rubbish,
then there is one functional theory

Rubbish never gets elected as theory just because the real theory is absent

>When pool of water self-arranges to life, it was 'sparked' by ????
chemistry
>Pool of water assembling into a living molecule --> ??
chemistry

>Muh Philosophy
>Anime girl

Kill yourself

>then there is one functional theory
And which theory is that for abiogensis?

>Rubbish never gets elected as theory just because the real theory is absent
Theories compete all the time about open scientific questions. In the end only one can be true, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't entertain more than one theory.

I didn't say any of the presented theories in the videos are necessarily the accurate answer for what happened, or that they represent the whole picture. Non of the abiogenesis theories are on the same level as evolution (yet). But they are not disproven and they have evidence to support themselves. You can call them hypotheses if that makes you more comfortable, though I would argue the presented ones are beyond that initial level of a completely untested working thesis.

>When pool of water self-arranges to life, it was 'sparked' by ????
>God
>Pool of water assembling into a living molecule --> ??
>God

Your answer in a nutshell.

Evolution by natural selection by Charles Darwin

Not really. It's a complex problem, so the answer is likewise general. But chemistry provides all the necessary tools to establish an explanatory model.

That theory does not concern itself with abiogenesis.

Also our current theory of evolution goes way beyond what Darwin has proposed. But I guess that is nitpicking on my part.

Yes it does

Inorganic molecules competed against each others on who could survive the most

Eventually an inorganic molecules formed that competed against each others on who could survive the most and grow the most

Even later those inorganic molecules formed that competed against each other that could grow, survive, and reproduce the most

Then 3,5 billion years later a molecule became so conscious that he had the ability to to call himself "organic, living" and other molecules "inorganic"

>Not really

>A: God made the World
>B: Can you describe that somehow?
>A: Not really. It's a complex problem, you see. But the bottom line is that God made the world. Now moving on. Next question?

The definition of evolution is: Change in the gene pool (!sic) of a population (!sic) from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Similar processes to those that explain evolution might be able to explain abiogenesis, but that doesn't make it same theory.

Sigh...
It is true.
Except humanity may actually have some peoples DNA that lived longer than other peoples DNA.

>He points out that the complexity of life cannot be explained by natural selection.
Why is every "argument" against the theory of evolution complexity, complexity, too much complexity, look at this complexity it cannot form this much complexity? Do they even understand the theory?

No they don't

In fact this thread has already progressed past "mutations can't cause this much complexity " to "chemistry couldn't have been the cause of life " without any admission that he's wrong

>species get mutation what gives it advantage
>it dies off
So much of advantage

The information from the environment is being fed slowly to the creatures genes which will help it adapt. If the environment is too harsh, which in our case it wasn't, then no; nothing will survive.
This is what we call evolution user.

>chimpanzees don't have features of both
yes they do
>and humans don't have features of both
yes they do

>According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left.
ACKSHUALLY birds are by definition dinosaurs. But the real issue is that you're conflating two separate things. The reason there are no longer any non-avian dinosaurs isn't because they all turned into birds. (In fact, only a small group of them turned into birds.) The reason they're all dead, as any schoolboy can tell you, is because a cosmic impactor smacked into Mexico ~65 Mya (putting severe stress on a biosphere already stressed by the eruption of the Deccan Traps).
You seem to have this view of evolution as solely anagenesis (one thing turning into another) because you think that speciation (one thing giving rise to multiple things) is impossible...why?

ah, argument from incredulity
>I can't understand it
>therefore it's false
>because I'm capable of understanding everything in this universe

>Having a minor adaptation that makes a species more fit than another is no guarantee the individual with that mutation will succeed.
yes, but it gives them slightly improved odds. over evolutionary timescales, even this slight edge can cause a beneficial trait to go to fixation. don't believe me? check out Biston betularia, the peppered moth. in less than a century, a previously unknown melanistic phenotype came to dominate the population due to a sudden change in environment.

>Random processes can't create greater complexity
if you really believe this, hang a paper clip in a glass, pour in a saturated borax solution, and wait a week. you'll be shocked by what happens next!

...

Please kys

>>yfw you realized the theory of evolution can't possibly be true

>He points out that the complexity of life cannot be explained by natural selection. I've long been troubled by the idea that the most complex biological machine can be the result of a completely random chaotic process where random genes in a DNA strand millions of sequences long can spontaneously change and create the perfect mutation needed for that species to adapt.

The underlying error here is, I think, assuming that evolution was driving towards a specific end product, using random mutations along the way.

If you started with the first single-cell thingy swimming around in the primordial sea, and calculated the odds that it would evolve into bipedal naked apes sitting in basements typing on Veeky Forums, the odds would be astronomically long.

But the odds of SOMETHING(S) emerging were close to 100%. We happen to be something that emerged, it could have easily been something else. In fact, it was a huge number of other things as well, from okapis to dinoflagellates to pitcher plants.

...

I feel so fucking happy that I'm not a brainlet. Thanks evolution.

>yfw you realize that or aliens is the only explanation for humans and people

>yfw modern theory of evolution is hot african sex and phallic asteroids

O_O

Hell even Gaia theory is better than that.

>tfw I read it all and wasn't embarrassed

Please argue with objective facts rather than your subjective pathos

>Chads
>getting married

Good post, fellow user.

im just asking questions on a topic i dont know much about little cunt, smd

>that N with a line added in MS Paint to make it an M
I think whoever made this was smiling.

...

They never end. Every day its another creationist in here with exactly the same story.

seems clear the anti-science propaganda is effective.

>that U with a line added in MS Paint to make it an O
I think whoever made this was high as balls.

"Where are all the missing links" especially rankles me, as if lungfish and amphibians and flying squirrels didn't exist.