Tfw you realise evolution is false

Not saying microevolution, with someone t the controls, is false.

So environments do not change in nature and place new selective pressures on a species that favor different traits?

Your right op, I grew up to be a evotard but your post convinced me otherwise

Ok.
Nice arguments you got there

Have we turned a dog into not a dog yet?

Of course, why not?

LUCA, that sums it up

We did create chihuahuas from wolves, so, arguably, yes. Those things are clearly more rat than dog.

>Currently writing a thesis on MCMC simulation
>Can random walk through an entire probability distribution in an arbitrary number of dimensions
>Simple selection criteria are all I need to push the random walk where I want it

So let's say the random variables are your DNA and the selection criteria are your environment.

Given that in 100000 iterations I can optimize a neural network, I think 65 million years of iteration with none of the restrictions I'm working with should be good enough.

I didn't make the kids stupid.

How would you organize your baits? Do you copy them each to their own text file for easy reposting? Or are you saving a bunch of screencaps in a folder? If it's screencaps, how do you format them? Do you resize the window to force the wordwrap into a more palatable form, or do you just take a snip of a long skinny sentence, with the time and date, the whole post basically. How do you name the files, and are they each in their own folder?

>So what's your proposed alternative?

Most genetic mutations is caused by solar radiation. There are many religions that view the sun as a god. Therefor, those religions are accurate when they say god created mankind as it was the sun's constant mutation of DNA which drove evolution of mankind.

You are fucking retarded

>it must be from solar radiation
>even though the radiation that hits our skin doesn't penetrate and its non-ionizing
>there are sun religions so that must mean they're right

>I don't think it is because I don't understand it therefore it couldn't have happened

Oh it's possible. But humans couldn't do it. As OP proves.

low bait
get your creationist/alien shit out of Veeky Forums

Saying the sun helped mankind evolve is a stretch. But it's not a stretch to say it helped early life evolve.

One thing that bugs me tho is that chloroplasts are damaged by the sun as they use it to produce energy. They're in a constant state of being repaired or replaced. Would it be safe to assume that at one point in evolutionary history chloroplast were less efficient at converting sunlight to energy and repairing the damage caused by the sun? Would it be safe to assume that at one point photosynthesis was not a feasible option for life because of this? What changed to make it feasible? Was there a predecessor to the chloroplasts that wasn't damaged by the sun at all? Or were they already adapted to repairing solar damage before they made the jump to photosynthesis?

Wrong timescale,logic so defective it could have been made by Chinese near-slave labor. You must be from /pol/

Theres 3 conclusions in how we came to be

1)We evolved from monkeys
2)A highly advanced extra terrestrial race abandoned us here to watch us grow and monitor our evolution
3)A highly advanced extra terrestrial race gene spliced some monkeys which caused them to mutate into us
Bonus)God

We'll never know for sure so there's really zero point to ponder whether or not evolution exists. But judging how Dragon Ball Super is poorly drawn and animated compared to DBZ, i can firmly believe that the human race as a whole is currently de-evolving

4 billion years actually. You need to check your facts before speaking on a subject, you really do. What use is being full of shit mate?

>Would it be safe to assume that at one point in evolutionary history chloroplast were less efficient at converting sunlight to energy and repairing the damage caused by the sun?
Yes, certainly the last part. I guess it might also be possible that earlier forms were more efficient yet more fragile, but less efficient is much more likely.

>Would it be safe to assume that at one point photosynthesis was not a feasible option for life because of this?
It may have been feasible in single-cellular (or otherwise very small and short-lived) organisms, which could try the strategy of "hope you get enough useful gain out of photosynthesis before the mechanism breaks down, if not, you lost the lottery, sucks to be you". In long-lived multicellular organisms like plants, not so much.

>Or were they already adapted to repairing solar damage before they made the jump to photosynthesis?
This sounds like the likeliest explanation to my completely non-expert ear. A history that makes sense to me goes something like:
(1) there is some mechanism, probably but not necessarily involved with energy metabolism, that is vulnerable to damage by sun.
(2) the organism with that mechanism expands into more sunny environments.
(3) adaptations that protect the system from solar damage show up.
(4) expansion into even sunnier regions.
(5) with solar damage protection built into the system and a lot of sun around, the mechanism can change into using all that sunlight for useful purposes.
(6) eventually, this becomes full-fledged photosynthesis.

This is just a guess though, not based on any actual knowledge. It's a reasonable-sounding history compatible with the constraints known to me, no more.