2 (Two) centuries later there are still people who don't get how evolution by natural selection works; there are people right now, living among us, some of them scientists, who actually think the DNA was "intelligently programmed" and somehow imbued with "information". These people cannot fathom that DNA is itself a product of evolution.
How do I deal with this, because it really triggers me to no end. Should I just stop talking to people who defend that?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
vixra.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Brainlets will be brainlets, there's not much that can change that
>ITT: Alan Fedora thinks evolution is a relevant science and gets triggered at people who propose a very rational interpretation of evolution with a picture of a dumb irrelevant scientist who knew nothing about even the composition of cells
Let me guess. Gender is a spectrum too?
I mean, when you really consider the complexity of life on Earth, it does make sense for someone who didn't know better to assume. I also have a lot more respect for people who understand biology and are just overwhelmed by probability than chemlets. I will never forget a grown-ass woman struggling with protons in cell bio.
Besides OP, this universe is a simulation : ^)
It's pretty good for spotting brainlets.
And no, gender is not a spectrum.
Also no, it's not rational at all, retard.
>It's pretty good for spotting brainlets.
Glad we came to an agreement.
conservatives aka anti-intellectuals
brainlets lol
...
I guess Richard Dawkins is the perfect source for you
Go watch some of his debates on youtube
DELET THIS
You are probably being ironic but Richard Dawkins does actually know what he is talking about in the subject.
Read the selfish gene. I have, and it explains it perfectly. And while Darwin didn't know anything about biology (which he didn't need to know, since the theory of evolution is based in philosophy), Dawkins did.
Why are people so dumb? Seriously, I was under the impression that the whole world was, on average, really fucking smart, but that perception is quickly taking a nose dive.
Here's the thing: cows didn't evolve into whales. nobody is saying that something "developed" (like a cow) evolved into some other radically different entity (like a whale); we clearly know about kingdoms, and phyla, and so on, to characterize and name the path of a species, and that clearly shows how evolution works: through gradual change. Have these people never looked at those cool dinosaur charts I used to love when I was a wee lad, which depict the evolution of different species throughout the generations?
Even when I was a kid this was clear to me; was I smarter than (from what I'm starting to see) more than 50% of the world when I was a kid? Because kids are pretty fucking dumb, and I'm sure I was too.
The cow didn't evolve into the whale; the early replicators evolved into both cow and whale.
THIS IS NOT HARD
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>cows didn't evolve into whales therefore monocellular species evolved spontaneously into human beings
>reddit spacing
>intellectual superiority acquired through the careful observation of 1990s evolutionary progression diagram posters monetarily exchanged at the Disneyland theme park for the inauguration of the Bill Nye the Science Guy television show on Disney Channel
Will Dawkins shills stop before it's too late?
>Reddit spacing
What?
>cows didn't evolve into whales therefore monocellular species evolved spontaneously into human beings
Ok, I guess I'm done, I'm with
now.
But I like how 2/3 of your post is composed of ad hominem; classy, if nothing else.
You will absolutely love this amazing explanation of Abiogenesis. Creationists when never come back when they learn the truth.
youtu.be
This is going to go on until we get rid of the right wingers and enforce secularism.
No way around it.
>Do we have one definition of the word "species" independent from human consensus?
>We don't know.
>Do we use a standard cladogram that could potentially abide by such a definition in mainstream Evolutionist Dialectic?
>We don't know.
>Is there anything bridging the gap between aesthetic similarities between life forms and the idea that such similarities came to be via transgenerational metamorphoses other than a leap of faith?
>We don't know.
>Has a single trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and assumed to have been perpetuated by natural selection ever been observed to actually have reproductive relevance for a single life form?
>We don't know.
>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait having reproductive relevance relative to a neighboring all but identical life form without said trait?
>We don't know.
>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait becoming extinct?
>We don't know.
>How is "relaxed" or "lateral" selection compatible with environmental sustenance being fractally finite through multiple layers of functional enclosure?
>We don't know.
>What would the difference between non-eliminative selection and no selection at all be?
>We don't know.
>Why should anyone trust Modern Synthesis if its Etiology is part of a great continuum of constant change and thus will be superseded in the near future just like it has now superseded Darwinism?
>We don't know.
It's Divinely ironic that the archetypal missing link is perfectly manifested in the Evolutionist. He is Mentally somewhere between Animal and Man, and his lack of self-reflection prevents him from finding himself.
Holy shit, get this "pseudo-intellectual" brainlet out of here.
why don't you just admit you're not smart/educated enough to understand the biology/chemistry of evolution/abiogenesis?
clinging to magical explanations that you can/do understand is childish.
What explanations am I clinging to?
The Grand STEMquisitor is here.
>natural selection
NS doesn't say anything about the appearance of new genes though. Evolution is about new genes, not genes the selection of genes that already exist.
>The Truth About Evolution
>vixra.org
>replace their religion by my religion and all will be well
says the religious guy
>science is a religion
is this what the unwashed/uneducated masses are being told to believe these days?
Natural selection is not the means by which something evolves; the only thing natural selection does is keep evolution "on track", because what isn't fit for existing won't exist, and what is, does. Evolution is carried out by a series of compounding changes to replicators, nothing more, nothing else, there is nothing to be "debunked" in that statement, it's objectively true that things that change... change.
This is the one thing people claiming that the "chance of humans stemming from a series of accidental changes is too low" fail to consider, for some reason. Natural Selection doesn't say anything about the appearance of anything, it merely tells us why some things exist while others do not.
I think I'm going to write a small article about this shit to post it whenever people like you come along.
> This is adaptation via the reorganization of genes which were already part of the
bacterial genome.
I'll keep reading, but the "scientist" fails to realize - much like most "gene oriented scientists" seem to - that genes are themselves subject to mutation through imperfect copying.
Now, brainlets shouldn't really be writing scientific papers, user.
awe that's cute, he dressed up his bullshit in the formatting of an actual scientific publication to trick stupid people.
It really is hopeless for the idiots, they aren't smart enough to tell what's real and what's fantasy. And it doesn't help that they've been brainwashed since childhood to believe in imaginary things without evidence.
I finished reading it, and you don't actually think those are good arguments, do you? Nice joke man :D I was going to make a list of absurdities, but I know it's a joke, so what's the point.
>grr everyone besides me is a brainlet cause they don't dinosauws >:(
>you are brrrrrrainlet
>sheeit somebody criticizes my reasoning
>quick, I must find a 100% intellectual rebuttal
>he also happens to point out the fact I'm an arrogant pretentious fart-smelling 90s kid
>WAAAAAAH AD HOMINEM WAAAAAAH
You're enlightened user
this is such a top down approach it's hilarious.
>disprove something by proving it's statistically impossible to arrive at a human genome through inducing mutations
hilarious
Christianity is a degenerate disease that infects the brain and creates the stupidity of creationism. It has destroyed Veeky Forums
Most people can't even really understand Newtonian Mechanics. That's why these fields requires specialization.
Butthurt Christcucka can't make real arguments and pretend that everyone that isn't a brainlet is a fedora
I know the middle ground fallacy can come into play here but I unironically believe the answer is in the middle and that both are true. Evolution exists (obviously) but so does a creator.
In the Sumerian dialect "God" means "from the cosmos" and different historical cultures from around the globe have pictures and languages depicting beings coming down from the sky, despite having no contact with one another.
Cryptography comes into play here, deciphering various ancient languages and their stories, talking about beings such as the Anunnaki who taught them, enslaved them, claimed to create them in their image, etc. Even having moral dilemmas over creating new life as it would be too much like playing God.
I think we were "created" at some point or more likely merged with an existing being like our evolutionary ancestors because we have foreign DNA in the human genome not from our evolutionary ancestors (" the whole missing link thing comes to mind, where our brains tripled in growth over a short period of time"). This would also be an acceptable loophole through the moral dilemma of playing God by not creating a new species completely but by merging it with an existing one.
Our creators probably weren't too much different from people of today, although this would have been somewhere in 3-5 thousand BCE when all the early written civilizations existed and documenting their experiences on this matter.
A LOT of people found this theory (Ancient Astronaut Theory) out when Ancient Aliens came out and grabbed every straw they could so it become a meme unable to be discussed seriously most of the time. Sucks because the root concepts that I described very well could be the truth where a lot of Ancient Aliens is wild conjecture to try and produce more content even if it's highly improbable.
Tl;Dr: The above wall of text is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader
Mutation creates new genes. Take a bioclass
>calls everyone a brainlet
>strawmans the shit out of people's rebuttals
>has had literally no argument besides "hurr durr it's progreurrsiv"
>projects all his butthurt on others, calling them cucks
Get help, Danny.
That was my first post and I was just mentioning that those strawmen aren't arguments
>"where is consciousness specifically located in the brain?"
>"we don't know"
>"REE THEN CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T EXIST FUCKING BRAINLETS"
All religious people are people that have been conditioned to having low or limited self esteem.
They can't imagine them or anyone else is responcible for their own survival in any part.
The best way to de-convert someone is to prove to them they are part of an apex species and have talents for survival.
Religion is simply a crutch for pessimists.
Example: Jordan Peterson
His entire argument "against atheism" is as follows:
1. Atheists don't have 10 commandments, therefore no positive behaviors exist among them [which disrehards Game Theory and Consequentialism... and all other non-Christian societies]
2. People can do mean things therefore it's in their nature to be as worse and as irrational as possible [This goes against history in general]
Consciousness located in many centers all running together
Consciousness is not located in the brain. It's not located anywhere. Consciousness is Noumenal.
Evolutionism and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Also, if you're gonna go full 2006, at least "read the Bible" and know that free will is a tenet of Christianity and Islam.
>i know dozens of mathematicians
lmao
>there are still people who don't get
>how evolution by natural selection works
Sheet, there are still people who
don't get how arithmetics works.
They are called "the Majority".
This comment is the apex predator of this thread. God only knows how many millions of years it will roam unopposed.
no. it's mostly quack.
There is a distinction in science between a forward and an inverse problem.
Evolution is basically a solution to an inverse problem. And it is a pretty limited solution, because biology is nowhere near to observe even the simplest forms of self-organised matter, or monitor any self-organisation or selfreplication under laboratory conditions.
What evolutionist fail to understand is the fact that there is another realm besides the material.
Uran does not evolve into iron or lead.
Now GTFO to your antisemite, racist pseudoscience.
Creationism is shunned by anyone with an IQ above 80
Is this bait or are you retarded? When did this influx of Christcucks invade?
How does that refute what I said?
If I leave a rock on a volcanic world for long enough, will it turn into DNA??
At least they're honest when it comes to abiogenesis and concede that they've never observed it.
If you believe in creationism you are too dumb to understand evolution
The point still stands.
opinions on genetic entropy?
>we are able to observe speciation within our actual lifetimes
>b-but I'm sure human evolution must work totally differently, right?
>Do we have one definition of the word "species" independent from human consensus?
Why would we need a taxonomy independent from human consensus? Taxonomy is an artificially constructed tool which is useful for biology, nothing more, nothing less. And what does this have to do with the merits of evolution anyway? Evolution does not depend on what definition of species you use. Species are simply a way of classifying the already existing results of evolution.
>Do we use a standard cladogram that could potentially abide by such a definition in mainstream Evolutionist Dialectic?
No, since such a definition is a red herring.
>Is there anything bridging the gap between aesthetic similarities between life forms and the idea that such similarities came to be via transgenerational metamorphoses other than a leap of faith?
Yes, it's called genetics.
>Has a single trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and assumed to have been perpetuated by natural selection ever been observed to actually have reproductive relevance for a single life form?
All traits in the wild are due to random mutation, and if they are being perpetuated by natural selection, by definition they have reproductive relevance. Is your argument that no trait has reproductive relevance?
>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait having reproductive relevance relative to a neighboring all but identical life form without said trait?
So again, no traits have reproductive relevance?
>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait becoming extinct?
Extinction is not necessary for natural selection, just a decrease in reproductive ability. Another red herring.
>How is "relaxed" or "lateral" selection compatible with environmental sustenance being fractally finite through multiple layers of functional enclosure?
Buzzword salad.
>What would the difference between non-eliminative selection and no selection at all be?
Well first of all you are going to have to explain what "non-eliminative selection" means.
>Why should anyone trust Modern Synthesis if its Etiology is part of a great continuum of constant change and thus will be superseded in the near future just like it has now superseded Darwinism?
You're absolutely right, why listen to scientists if they are always improving their theories? I won't accept the best answer possible if it's not perfect!
Everything you said is backward reasoning from the premise that Evolution is actually happening plus asking me my own questions for no reason and flaunting your illiteracy as a counterargument. Again, eerily mirroring the Etiology of Evolution itself mirroring its opponents' contention about informational entropy. Nothing new added.
And terrible backward reasoning at that. Classifying means distinction of one thing in relation to another. There is nothing, not ONE Empirical criterion, that separates one "result of Evolution" from another. We'll probably observe abiogenesis before you can understand the implications on this.
Not the worst reply in these threads though, sadly.
lolol you are so ignorant we are all created by ALLAH the most merciful. You really think you came from apes? lololol thats because u r an ape lololol
Non-eliminative selection is what Evolutionists claim is actually happening when faced with the facts that no traits have been observed to have reproductive relevance and that no traits have been observed to become extinct. Something that I explained in the comment you are replying to.
As to your second point, Modern Synthesis is flimsier than original Darwinism was, the gaps in knowledge are bigger than ever before and virtually all meaningful evidence is claimed to be immutable hidden inside of them.
>unwashed/uneducated masses
no they are told to blieve in science and moral relativism and abandon all forms of christian morality.
>Everything you said is backward reasoning from the premise that Evolution is actually happening
Where exactly did I do that? As far as I can see, the only part where I came close to what you are describing is when YOU started with a certain trait assumed to be due to random selection and perpetuated by natural selection. I then pointed out that all traits in the wild would fall into that description.
>plus asking me my own questions for no reason
The reason is evident in my reply. Why demand observations of a trait having reproductive significance if you agree that traits have reproductive significance? It seems that this demand serves no intellectual purpose except as an artificial goalpost which you have set up in order to claim victory since I have not put the ball through it. But my question is, why do I need to put the ball through it in the first place?
>Again, eerily mirroring the Etiology of Evolution itself mirroring its opponents' contention about informational entropy.
More word salad.
>Classifying means distinction of one thing in relation to another. There is nothing, not ONE Empirical criterion, that separates one "result of Evolution" from another.
Other than genotype, phenotype, ability to reproduce, geographic location, etc. You know... all the things biologists empirically study. This comment has to be on of the stupidest things I've read on Veeky Forums.
Evolution is proven and can be seen though
>Non-eliminative selection is what Evolutionists claim is actually happening when faced with the facts that no traits have been observed to have reproductive relevance and that no traits have been observed to become extinct.
So antibiotic resistance has never been observed to have reproductive relevance? Wow, just wow.
And you still haven't explained what exactly non-eliminative selection, a term it seems you have made up out of thin air, means.
>As to your second point, Modern Synthesis is flimsier than original Darwinism was, the gaps in knowledge are bigger than ever before and virtually all meaningful evidence is claimed to be immutable hidden inside of them.
If our gaps in knowledge are "bigger" it's only because we are asking questions we never even knew to ask before. This does not reflect at all on the merits of current evolutionary theory which is more accurate than past theories. But I look forward to you presenting a better one. Until then, complaining about gaps is just hypocritical as fuck. Without evolution, there are no gaps, just the big gaping hole of your willful ignorance.
These
What do you mean no trait had reproductive relevance? Nearly all traits do
>no traits have been observed to have reproductive relevance
wow you don't even need to know science to call bullshit on this one
>no traits have been observed to become extinct.
are you larping right now?
real talk question time:
where is the source of the propaganda trying to convince people evolution is fake? Is it being pushed in churches? Is it exclusively online, and if so why and who?
I don't think churches are that relevant in this... I think it's mostly just lazy people who want to be smart but don't want to take the time to actually learn things, so they just deny it as an excuse.
This is hopeless. No I DON'T assume that ANY traits came to be by random mutation and are or were ever perpetuated by selection of any kind. This is what YOU assume, and I asked why is it that you assume this, given that there has never been a single data point of any kind to support it. All perfectly written in the original comment: Note you utter lack of meaningful engagement with my original material, and your strictly degenerative replies which in turn force me to subject said material to degeneration myself.
The fact that Language itself seems to be almost foreign to you is frightening enough. But these threads always end up going down the Informational entropy toilet, so to speak, and the resonance with the subject at hand is so great it's almost on the nose.
Dawkins directly invokes God in the opening of The Selfish Gene when he says "the gene thinks" or something like that.
Dawkins doesn't in any sense believe that a gene thinks.
>This is hopeless. No I DON'T assume that ANY traits came to be by random mutation and are or were ever perpetuated by selection of any kind.
Idiot, you asked about traits that are assumed to have come into being by random mutation:
>Has a single trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and assumed to have been perpetuated by natural selection ever been observed to actually have reproductive relevance for a single life form?
To which I replied, all traits in the wild are assumed to be due to random mutation, so how exactly would no traits have reproductive relevance?
I'm still waiting for a reply.
>This is what YOU assume, and I asked why is it that you assume this, given that there has never been a single data point of any kind to support it.
So there is no data to support traits having reproductive relevance? That's a baldfaced lie.
>Note you utter lack of meaningful engagement with my original material
I note your utter lack of engagement with my replies to your baseless lies and red herrings. Let's review the substantive questions you need to reply to to engage with my response:
1. Why would we need a taxonomy independent from human consensus?
2. Why do you ignore genetics?
3. How can no traits have reproductive relevance?
4. Why do you confuse elimination with selection?
5. How does science improving itself allow you to reject it?
6. Why do you ignore the empirical criterion evolution produces?
>2 (Two) centuries later there are still people who don't get how evolution by natural selection works
I blame science fiction and it's frequent use of "evolution rays" and the like instilling this misconception from childhood that evolution is some predetermined path of advancement.
Your baffling choice of quoting part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote aside, and, AGAIN, you asking me my own questions for no reason, can YOU provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait?
Notice how you've also prepared your own extinction from this thread. Since neither did I reply to those questions (because their answers are fully expressed in the original material) nor can you post a single data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait because it doesn't exist.
>completely rational explanation
>sky fairy dun did it
k
Nigger are you saying there is no proof that mutations cause change in an organism? How are you so dumb?
I am, though this is not part of the discussion.
>I am, though this is not part of the discussion.
you may as well be claiming the sky is never blue and grass is never green. You're making yourself look like a moron.
>chemical evolution just evolved itself randomly lol
Cancer, autism and many other genetic disorders are known to come from mutations
I appreciate one random argumentative deviation even if it does nothing to mitigate the dreariness of this thread.
"Mutations cause change" is backward reasoning. Most mutations cause no observable change. Most DNA is Ontologically inert, by Evolutionists' own words. In fact, the entire idea of genetics was only touted to "support" abstract thought experiments like mutation and inheritance.
which come from unknown randum chaos-agents called pesticides, vaccines, gene splicing, industrial pollution
>vaccines
Kek, no. We know for a fact that genes determine traits. You being an antivaxxor on top of not knowing basic biology is sad
What genes determine your traits of being unable to read movie subtitles and being transfixed by Ikea furniture?
>antivaxxor
this shilly insult is on the same level as 'fuckin truthers'
>Your baffling choice of quoting part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote aside
OK, so you admit that traits have reproductive relevance? Thanks for playing, you lose.
And you just ignored every other point I made, hypocrite.
>can YOU provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait?
Leave.
No wait, now that I read what you quoted, how does me calling to attention that you quoted part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote result in me admitting that traits have reproductive relevance?
Beyond the fact that you cannot provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait, because it doesn't exist...how DID you arrive at the above "conclusion"? Again, it's as if there is no continuation at all between any of your replies, the fact that there isn't any between yours and mine was established from your first one, and it's almost as if you lack even primitive game-like use Language. You sound like a bot.
What is information? Please qualify the manner in which DNA does not contain information.
Anyone who thinks vaccines cause autism is an idiot
Combination of certain genes and environment.
I can think of many. Skin color, neck length, etc all contribute to reproductive success
I can think of many too. However, I don't have any data to support any of them. Do you?