Create account

replied 2295d
TrashPosterInTheDark
So? Change is change. That is all that matters.

As for new life no it isn't. We can create genetic material from scratch and put it in a cell wall and watch it live.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2295d
And for your second point, we can do it because we are have an intelligible mind. Which also suggest an intelligible mind must be at the origin of the DNA code base.
replied 2295d
You seem to think one implies he other, yet you give no reason for why. What makes you think intelligence is needed to create DNA? Laws of entropy create DNA naturally.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2295d
It's the exact oposite. Laws of entropy degrade DNA in an observable manner.
replied 2295d
Actually life might be inevitable as it helps the process of using energy and maximising entropy.
replied 2269d
“In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars … “What is life, and how
replied 2269d
should it be recognized?”…Lovelock replied "I’d look for an entropy reduction since this must be a general characteristic of life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
replied 2268d
Since then they have recognised that the presence of life increases the rate of entropy gain in the surrounding system. Just using electricity is an easy example.
replied 2268d
you mean like us generating electricity / using more energy?
replied 2267d
Yes. Really the only way to lower entropy of a system is to increase universal entropy. Refrigeration is a good example. Lower entropy in the fridge increases it in the home.
replied 2266d
yep. good example
replied 2269d
The second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any part of a system increases: if it did, ice would never form and vapor would never condense, since both of those processes involve a
replied 2269d
decrease of entropy. Rather, the second law says that the total entropy of the whole system must increase. http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
replied 2293d
you've assumed DNA cannot be created naturally. analogous to saying intelligent people made matches to make fire therefore without intelligent people there cannot be fire.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
It's not about assuming anything. I will simply not claim something as a fact which I can't prove.
replied 2291d
You’re right it suggests (or even proves) that intelligently designing DNA is one option for how it was first created but does not say that intelligences MUST be the origin of DNA.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Yes, that's why I first said "suggest". My second wording has been chosen for the only sake of being provocative. My bad.
replied 2290d
Intelligent design is easily disproven by coming up with much smarter designs. Unless this creator is an idiot.
replied 2288d
interesting thought. like runners with prosthetic calves & feet can outrun able bodied runners.
replied 2287d
Even if we consider that most of the universe is empty space. If one is all powerful you could make a more efficient universe. One infinite plane would be better.
replied 2284d
why do you say an infinite plane would be better?
replied 2284d
More usable space. Better suited to life. At least better than mostly empty and unlivable space. This is assuming a godly creator who can do create the universe as anything.
replied 2284d
yeah, of course. would be really easy to just go off & do your own thing / get away from everyone else.
replied 2284d
Essentially if there was a godly creator they would be a Flat Earther if they were smarter. In the real world though Fat Earthers are wrong, and the globe disproves intelligent design.
replied 2284d
Might also be limits? Consider making our world like designing a video game. Could literally anything be designed or would there be some universal limits?
replied 2284d
I guess if we imply a limited creator. Depends on if they make the laws of physics, or if they are constrained by them.
replied 2284d
yeah, guess that's what I was getting at. like if you say you can build an infinite plane then how do you change gravity to allow that? you know?
replied 2284d
lol interesting thought! there could be benefits to designing a round earth. eg letting organisms evolve/advance in more relative isolation.
replied 2284d
Those benefits work in a universe that is hands off. A creator should have been able to come up with a better system than one that lead to most species becoming extinct.
replied 2284d
I agree there are optimizations to be made, but every optimization could break something else. (eg allow FTL, now have to deal with time travel or something)
cbeastsv
replied 2288d
Only on solid level surfaces.
replied 2284d
true, was thinking just in sporting events
replied 2291d
This does not follow>“Which also suggest an intelligible mind MUST be at the origin of the DNA code base”
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Suggest =/= proofs.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2293d
You assume that DNA is useful without a cell and that it's durable in an aerobic environment. Analogous to saying that if there's a library full of books a reader will magically appear
replied 2292d
not necessarily, Highly Efficient Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1074-5521%2813%2900426-2
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2292d
What?? So this thing is going to build a cell around itself? All the plans in the world mean nothing if you don't have a factory to produce them in the first place.
replied 2291d
You asked for proof of heritable code that is “useful without a cell and that it's durable in an aerobic environment”. Thats what this is.
replied 2291d
For evolution you need something that can self replicate, mutate, & be under selection pressure. Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes suit those criteria.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
Just look at the long string of processes the chemists had to go through to make that RNA in the lab. Even then its just white noise and gets destroyed in the presence of oxygen.
replied 2288d
We’re also looking through the lens of survivorship bias. We dont know all the organisms that didn’t work out. It is possible there are even more simple self replicating molecules.
replied 2288d
& yes everything gets degraded over time. The question is what is the balance between self replicating & degrading? People degrade but not before self replicating.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2287d
replied 2284d
wonderful animations. *yes people degrade constantly but not to the point they cannot self replicate (an assumption buried in previous mRNA enzyme posts)
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2284d
You don't get replication without that splitting machine, so that's something that has to jump out of your alphabet soup fully functional.
replied 2283d
true you dont get replication… in this organism. The RNA enzyme above can self replicate, & mutate. Minimum needed to evolve any function.
replied 2288d
Other groups work on how nucleotides & amino acids could be made in early earth conditions. side note: this was done in water in an open container at 42C so there was oxygen.
1MdAkfmhx8StjMEj
replied 2293d
That right there is almost the epitome of bad logical deduction.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2293d
That right there is not an argument.
1MdAkfmhx8StjMEj
replied 2284d
was the argument how to jump wildly to conclusions not backed up by evidence?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2295d
No. Evolution implies the creation of new codes and we are never witnessing that so it cannot explain origin of life.
replied 2295d
If you actually read up on evolution it actually works by deactivating some bits of code and activating other bits. Also about the changes to that code over time.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2295d
I agree but again, does not create a brand new complex set of code.
replied 2295d
It doesn't have to. We share a lot of DNA with all life on the planet. You can do all that by just turning things on and off, and slow changes to bits over time.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2295d
And how does slow changes to bits over time manage to put together incredibly large amount of DNA coding needed to get an organ with a single function as an eye for example?
replied 2283d
with gene drives we can force evolutionary changes of arbitrary complexity. immunizing populations, making them infertile https://bch.gg/ci
replied 2294d
All changes to these bits are random. But the useful changes get passed on via natural selection. Eventually, eye-like changes form randomly in the DNA code, & are passed on & refined.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Mutations are mostly useless. Look at children of Hiroshima. Small useless arms etc. Even if it was useful one specimen cannot change a whole species. He would have to screw millions.
replied 2293d
A creature isn't just born with a new limb one day... small changes occur slowly over many generations.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Ok but each change has to be significantly better. Too such a degree that the existing animals can't compete for survival or mates. If not, the change will die out.
replied 2293d
No, this is not true. Simply giving any sort of advantage is enough to encourage genes to be passed on and adopted - they don't have to be competition eliminating changes.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Then how does the improved gene become dominant and the old gene die out?
replied 2293d
It doesn't always. Often times desirable mutations die out. But since they give an advantage, some genes are naturally more likely to survive and be passed on.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Yes, the mutations have to give a discernable advantage. Mutations does not do that. In the very off chance it does, it doesn't happen often enough to get a foothold in the species.
replied 2293d
Well, there's lots of data on evolution, natural selection, and the propagation of genetic mutations in nature. The fossil record is an excellent way to see the process visually.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Like Pilt Down man? That data, even if it did show that, which it doesn't, can be faked. There is huge political and other motivation to do so, that is why I am very sceptical.
replied 2293d
What is the huge political motivation for paying off thousands of people across several centuries to fake scientific data and research?
John_Doe
replied 2292d
Atheism can't exist without evolution. Atheism is needed to justify absolute state control of its subjects. Look at the history of the persecution of religion by the Soviets.
replied 2292d
And why is atheism needed to justify absolute state control of subjects? Religion has a long a brutal history of being used as a tool to enforce absolute control over people.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2292d
Atheism works better - there's no higher ideal that the state is supposed to be subordinate to. So the State can replace God entirely. More efficient than being merely a middleman.
replied 2291d
The State replaces God? I don't think you understand atheism.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
What do you think Big Brother is?? All knowing, all seeing, all powerful, the arbiter of Truth... If that's not a replacement for God then we have different definitions.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
I don't think you understand human beings
replied 2292d
Its Religion that has been abused for propaganda. Its books and authorities that abuse the people. The bible is a hoax that was invented after Religion to control the sheeps.
replied 2292d
Look at the history of persecution of anyone who disagreed with them by almost every established religion ever... "Atheism can't exist without evolution"... Why the hell not?
replied 2292d
And why is atheism needed to justify absolute state control of subjects? Religion has a long a brutal history of being used as a tool to enforce absolute control over people.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2293d
I think it's a lot like biased journalism. Geology is a fun example - any conclusion that looked like a catastrophic worldwide flood was flatly dismissed because, you know why.
replied 2292d
what does teaching evolution gain anyone?!
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2292d
Nihilists are easier to control
replied 2291d
this is as vague as justifications for flat earth.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2290d
There's a reason, for example, that the Rebels in Star Wars are bonded together by faith in the Force. John Paul II went to Poland in '79 and it toppled the USSR. Tyrants hate God.
replied 2288d
good examples though
replied 2288d
meh, less familiar with public opinion manipulations. I'll take your word for it.
John_Doe
replied 2292d
Not about teaching. It can be taught like any theory. It is the absolute persecution of anybody questioning it that I have a problem with.
replied 2291d
thats what you get with socialized scientific funding & public schools. if both were private we'd have greater diversity & choice.
replied 2293d
Yeah, that's a pretty extreme example of a mutation. Yes, most are entirely useless, but natural selection means that the useful ones do get passed on. They are also tiny changes.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Yes. One in thousands or millions. Not enough to displace the existing animals. If one in 10 lions were born with significant increased strength all over the world, yes mabe.
replied 2293d
Once these changes happen, they don't just go away... They are passed on to children and spread throughout the population. Thus, minuscule changes propagate themselves and persist.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Only if the improved gene is propagated faster. If not the gene will remain miniscule as the old genes keep going.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2294d
Yeah that's a totally unproven theory I strongly suspect to be wrong.
replied 2293d
Why do you think that these experiments do not prove it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution#Bacteria
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
replied 2294d
Lol, evolution? Ok, bud.
replied 2294d
Slowly turning different things on and off. Slow changes over time... How is easily covered by the various complexities of eye in nature already.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2294d
There is not a single observationi of such a thing.
replied 2294d
Also we can show how the eye evolved over time. There is a spectrum of complexity in eyes found in nature. Starting with light sensitive cells to full out telescopic eyes.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Please show me.
replied 2293d
John_Doe
replied 2292d
How does distinguishing between light and dark make you better at surviving?
replied 2293d
I am guessing you never watched the Cosmos series were they showed just that?
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Please tell me you dont base your knowledge off of tv nonsense.
replied 2293d
No I don't, but you asked for the info, and that is an easy place to find it. That said Cosmos was not TV nonsense. It was knowledge presented by a scientist.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Fair enough. I will look into it.
replied 2293d
On what should people base their knowledge?
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Proper research that refers to sources that you can check etc. Has discovery channel ever presented any criticism to global warming. If they have it is just as a strawman.
replied 2293d
Why does global warming deserve to be criticized? Does any serious, professional and reproducible research refute it?
John_Doe
replied 2293d
You have to define it first. Are we talking the natural change in the worlds climate? Global warming/climate change caused by humans?
replied 2293d
No one has seriously refuted anthropological climate change. The evidence for it is quite conclusive.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
replied 2292d
I have read a lot of the propaganda against the science. There is nothing behind it. Like that list of "scientists" that don't belive in global warming turns out to be regular people.
John_Doe
replied 2292d
It says 9000 phds. Dis you see how the 99% was manipulated? Anyway, ask why the narrative was changed from global warming to climate change.
replied 2292d
Those phD's aren't in a relevant field. Their opinions are worthless. Research and data are what matter. It was not a narrative change. Just that it involves more than than warming.
John_Doe
replied 2292d
Is it warming or cooling, cant be both.
replied 2292d
It can be more complicated then that though. The issue is the excess energy in the system due to an albedo imbalance. The extra energy usually is noticed as more heat, but not always.
Barricade
replied 2293d
Everything deserves to be criticized, as long as you have enough evidence to refute it.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2294d
Even the simpliest form of photon detection requires a massive and complex amount of DNA. Stop pretending otherwise.
replied 2293d
That was actually one of the first things to evolve in single celled organisms actually. Mostly so things could move to or from light. Sight actually evolved with the ability to move.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2293d
In theory. One which doesn't makes sense anyway.
replied 2293d
You know something doesn't become a theory until it has been verified, right?
replied 2294d
So called pit eye requires only up to 100 cells. Look it up.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
So single cell organism quickly go from 1 to 100 now he can see?
replied 2293d
Doh.. single cell organisms do not have a pit eye. I thought this is obvious. SCO can detect light and react to it - spot. More complex eye on a SCO look up warnowiid
replied 2294d
I hope you joking. We observe and track those changes. We can see where we had two chromosomes fuse together after we split from Chimps. We can see what use to be ends fused together.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2294d
No I'm not joking. Stop pretending we have observations of a fully complex set of new DNA coding from scratch. There is not a single one.
replied 2293d
What are you saying there is not an example of? We have observed how mutations to genes in DNA happen. What we have not observed is the natural formation of DNA (or origins of life).
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2293d
And none of them are responsible of whole new set of codes. Only tweaking or merging existent code or the removal of.
replied 2293d
We have created entirely new DNA from scratch ourselves. That is beside the point though. Evolution would be disprove if DNA could just create whole new complex chains in one go.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2293d
If evolution would be a slow process we should witness as of RIGHT NOW mid-organs with no functions. There is not a single instance in the whole world showing that.
replied 2293d
Like your appendix? Vestigial organs they are called. Look them up.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
"Normally, the appendix sits in the lower right abdomen. The function of the appendix is unknown." It doesn't mean it has none because you're too much of an idiot to figure out.
replied 2292d
It is a vestigial organ. Even the routing of the bloody vessel around the thyroid is left over from fish ancestors.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
lmao you have quite a lot of imagination I must admit.
replied 2292d
I just listen to people who are experts in the field. Your questions on the issue remind of something Mr. Garston said. "There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people."
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
"Experts" sitll have different opinions on that matter. What you actually do is listening to "expert" who confrims your bias.
replied 2292d
Experts have difference of opinion on stuff they are trying to figure out. They do not have a difference of opinion on older well known issues.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2291d
Science is about questioning everything you think your know. If you don't, you don't do science.
replied 2291d
I understand science. You are oversimolifying things. I do questions the issues. That is why I know climate change is real. I spent a long time thinking it wasn't.
replied 2291d
#1 Everything changes #2 Climate may be warming now
But then food for thought. Is it really good or bad that the Earth is warming up.
We've been conditioned: Climate change=bad
replied 2291d
The issue is the rate of change. We have seen times the climate changed this quickly before. Every time it happened we call a mass extinction event. Yes it is bad.
replied 2291d
It may be bad for the extinct, but it may be good for the new species.
For me, I like it a bit hotter, thank you.

Plus, did you know that the Earth has never been as green before?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Earth was much greener during the time of dinosaurs. And the atmosphere was also approx 3X more richer in CO2. Coincidence? I think not.
replied 2290d
And yes, you may be right(any link?) My data goes only about a million-10 million years back. Dinosaurs got extinct earlier than that.
replied 2290d
Exactly, because trees feed on CO2.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Climate change is most probably real. The cause is highly debatable.
replied 2290d
The cause is the burning of fossil fuels. We can tell that the added CO2 in the atmosphere has lower C14. Because it is millions of years old and already all decayed to C12.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Explain why most astronomers are actually saying it"s because of the sun being in a super phase? Why nobody let them talk in the news?
replied 2290d
That is actually denier propaganda. Astronomers actually debunked that it isn't caused by solar cycles since those cycles do not at all correlate to the changes in the climate.
Unknown
replied 2290d
Typo of course. The solar cycles do not correlate to climate change at all. Looking at solar cycles disproves that they can be a cause.
replied 2291d
I think I lost track of who was the climate change denier and who was the evolution denier.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
"Proofs" shouldn't raise more questions than answers.
replied 2290d
They don't. Your just not the only person I have been discussing denier propaganda with.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Being whatever NOT denier is being science denier. Science is about questioning all the time.When I look at the "proofs" of climate change and evolution I find them rather unconvincing
replied 2290d
Probably because you have not looked at all the info, or understand the science on the subject enough to evaluate the data. Science leads to the conclusion that both are true.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
Conclusions about scientific fields that goes beyond the scale of human beings can never lead to conclusion with a high degree of certainty.
replied 2290d
What makes you think these simple things are beyond humans? They are not even leading edge fields.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2292d
replied 2292d
Yes he is.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
If you think one of the top chemists in the world is stupid but can't counter a single one of his claims, I'd say YOU're the one who's dogmatically religious and anti-science.
replied 2291d
If he thinks evolution didn't happen then he is just being an old fool. Religion can cloud the mind. Even scientists are not immune to cognitive dissonance sometimes.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
That's not what he's arguing. He's saying that the first cell spontaneously creating itself is a miracle beyond any described in the Bible. You're the one with cognitive dissonance.
replied 2291d
Ah, he is arguing against a strawman then. That isn't the theory on how it happened. First came RNA, them DNA. Protein structures and then cell walls came later.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
What you're describing is a creation myth. I don't believe you watched that video, and I don't believe you ever will because you're afraid of anything that threatens your religion.
replied 2291d
I scanned though it. Read what was on his screen a few times. It doesn't matter what he thinks anyway. It matters what all the findings and scientists think. Not one guy.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2291d
Lol it doesn't matter which came first! You have to freaking make it in the first place, and then have it not deteriorate until the proverbial monkeys can type shakespeare.
replied 2291d
It is actually a lot more likely than he understands. The basic building blocks of life self assemble all the time. Even on comets.
replied 2293d
The tail bone in humans. Touch your ass at the base of the spine for proof we had tails once.
replied 2293d
in 11 days e.coli evolve antibiotic resistance aka "new codes". https://memo.cash/post/7e7143c7dcd82a0859fdf88dc296148e43cc21b291df7b025b20a9cff55d10a3
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
The code allowing certain variations under certain circumstance which ALWAYS seems very limited is hardly a proof of evolution.
replied 2291d
& it happened in 11 days (<800 generations). What new functions could be developed in 4 billion years?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
How do you develop complex new set of codes gradually since we don't witness them continuously AT ALL in real life?
replied 2288d
Fluctuation and response in biology Ben Lehner and Kunihiko Kaneko https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043249/
replied 2288d
When resources are more scarce selection pressure weeds out the less fit ones. Really cool relationship btw community diversity & speed of evolution to a new environment.
replied 2288d
These are very controlled & optimized conditions. Without competition from other species (only between slightly different strains) the bacteria can run free.
replied 2288d
Slowly evolving multiple antibiotic resistances & becoming a real problem for hospitals. It sounds like you want an example of a new animal that has like some new arm or something.
replied 2288d
Well its most easy to see evolution in bacteria because there are so many of them & they have short generation times. Eg Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
What you call evolution of bacteria I call it adaptation of limited parameters.
replied 2283d
umm.... ok.
replied 2288d
Second eg mutations in a second copy of a gene happens more quickly bc organism is not relying on the gene to perform its original function.
replied 2288d
(Eg when oxygen could be used as an electron acceptor). All of a sudden the organisms have all the energy they could want. Under these conditions, the number of mutants increases.
replied 2288d
In nature everything is under constant pressure to survive, leaving little room for this “experimentation” between strains. Room is given when there are large shifts.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
Come on. It's simple garbage code! Show me a real one with a totally new set of complex interactions needed for a single function.
replied 2291d
“totally new set of complex interactions needed for a single function” it lives in an antibiotic that kills the original strain of e.coli. how is that not a new function?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
How is that not a simple function?
replied 2288d
It certainly looks simple because bacteria do it all the time, but saying it is simple is like saying our bodies converting food to energy is simple because we do it every day.
replied 2288d
also lets them exist without competing. the high antibiotic strain enjoys its niche without the other. & the low antibiotic can outcompete the high in the no antibiotic environment.
replied 2288d
the two different ecoli can now occupy different niches (high and no antibiotic). this sets them on two different evolutionary paths. like the Galapagos finches on different islands.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
And how is that not a simple function? Because it definitely is.
replied 2288d
Now it’s too simple to count as a new code?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Yes it is because it does not prove slow evolution of complex interdependant set of codes.
replied 2288d
there is interdependence in the paper. less proofreading > more mutations. mutating the antibiotic target. then increasing growth rate to increase competitiveness.
replied 2288d
Not to mention youve moved goal posts “Evolution implies the creation of new codes and we are never witnessing that”. I showed experimental evidence of new codes being observed.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2288d
There's a difference between seeing a three letter word in your alphabet soup and a paragraph describing in detail how to make more alphabet soup.
replied 2288d
Lol I know I tend to write paragraphs here. Not the most efficient. 🙃
replied 2288d
even if those three letters allow you access to a new environment/niche? would be more efficient to only use three letters if three letters will do. why waste a paragraph?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2288d
I'm talking about your primordial RNA soup of course.
replied 2284d
Think trashposter was complaining that only a few letters changed to allow the ecoli to live in high antibiotic environment.
replied 2284d
oh ok, getting confused btw the ecoli & RNA. The self replicating RNA a paragraph which could make more soup. One of the simplest examples of something that could be considered alive.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
I'm sorry if you can't find the distinction between simple code adjustements and complex interdependant new set of coding.
replied 2288d
I wouldn't judge the magnitude of the change on the number of letters changed. should consider function.
replied 2288d
Other papers show evolving new food sources, making new chemicals, increasing growth rates or degradation rates of lignin. How many examples do you need? Are all these simple?
replied 2288d
You’re asking for proof of something that occurred over 4 billion years. These studies are accelerated testing (a well established field).
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Well the methodology is pretty bad TBH.
replied 2288d
then wait a million years. number 19 Rule of Disinformaiton >
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Or show me REAL WORLD examples since it's supposed to be common, they shouldn't be hard to find.
replied 2283d
evolution doesn't say fossils will be common. it says that when we find them their age & phenotypes will follow a trend of slowly changing over time (evolving).
replied 2283d
You want to be shown fossils online? The fact is we have extensive fossil records. We know when and where we evolved.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2283d
Ahah good one!
replied 2283d
replied 2283d
thats what the fossil records show, increasing complexity. & organisms with what appears to be a progression of changes from common ancestors.
John_Doe
replied 2283d
Yes piltdown man is a prime example.
replied 2283d
🙄one fraud has more explanatory weight than all the actual science done. lets ask the Shroud of Turin if evolution is real
John_Doe
replied 2283d
Straw-man and deflecting. Skilled arguing. Piltdown was "discovered" 1912. In 1913 it was found to be a hoax, yet it took "scientists" 41 years to admit it was a fraud. Very credible.
replied 2283d
Shroud was discovered in the 1300 & they still haven't admitted its fake. 700 years and counting. Whats your point? All scientist are liars? Science is a LIAR sometimes?
John_Doe
replied 2283d
People lie. Money talks and bullshit walks. If you question the science you are branded a heretic and all your funding stopped. You lose your job etc. Do your own research.
replied 2283d
yes people lie. thanks for the update. that isn't a good counterargument to fossils gradually change over time (like evolution predicts).
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2283d
There still isn't a good example of one kind of animal gradually changing into another. If there is please show me.
replied 2283d
these skulls look to be slowly changing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2283d
Here you got monkeys turning into other monkeys. I'm looking for a chicken incrementally turning into an elephant or something like that.
replied 2282d
Well youre right, evolution doesn’t make such a prediction. no wonder you haven’t seen any proof. Evolution isn’t a biological philosophers stone, transmuting all living things.
replied 2282d
In bacteria evolution is more of a web because of horizontal gene transfer (bacteria can pick up stray DNA & easily incorporate it even across species).
replied 2282d
& species alive today would not be predicted by evolution to change into one another. Chickens & elephants have a common ancestor that likely looks like neither today.
replied 2282d
Looking through progressively older fossils of each you would expect to find slow changes back to something with the most basic qualities of both.
replied 2282d
Ie you would not expect the ancestor to have a trunk or chicken feet. Could expect multicellular, organs, brain, 4 limbs.
replied 2282d
From quota “The nearest common ancestor of birds and mammals was probably an eight-inch long reptile that lived anywhere between 320 and 340 million years ago.”
replied 2282d
Evolution predicts populations slowly changing over time & branching out as sub populations fill different niches.
replied 2282d
None of these “monkeys” invented the internet so something changed, or evolved.
replied 2283d
So we just have to wait 41 years after every fossil is discovered until its admitted fake. Then we can stick our head back in the sand & forget about “evilution”.
John_Doe
replied 2283d
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
replied 2283d
just that one lie doesn't negate all other proof.
John_Doe
replied 2283d
That is correct but a bunch of scientists going along with the lie and refusing to accept scientific proof of its falseness for 40 years shows they have no integrity and dont look at..
John_Doe
replied 2283d
..at all the evidence. They do as they are paid to do.
replied 2283d
So your point is this deception has continued into the present? That we should never trust scientists? That all other fossils are faked? You can look at fossils yourself,
replied 2283d
(your own research) & see slight changes progressing as the time the organisms lived gets closer to the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
John_Doe
replied 2283d
So the fact that the scientific community covered up a hoax for 40 years is fine with you. No red flags. Lets agree to disagree then.
replied 2283d
sci community also uncovered & corrected it. you said solution is to, "Do your own research." I've given you a way to do that & you've avoided it in favor of weaker social arguments.
John_Doe
replied 2282d
The fossil records can be faked and the mainstream scientific community will not easily admit to this, as demonstrated. Can you refer me to a experiment that demonstrates this?
replied 2282d
replied 2282d
“Can be faked & was at least once” =/= all of it is fake
replied 2283d
& the church imprisoned Galileo for exposing a “hoax” they perpetuate. They didn’t concede until the 1970s, 342 years for those counting.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2282d
"The church" you're referring to is a centralized authority of humans and their loosely assembled minions. You straw man all Christians by knocking down this small cadre.
replied 2282d
“The church” that perpetuated this hoax was the Catholic Church, not the christian church. & in the Catholic Church the pope is infallible.
Unknown
replied 2282d
Wouldn’t throw out all christianity because they at one time thought (along with nearly everyone else) that the sun revolved around the earth.
Unknown
replied 2282d
Thats the purpose of this counterpoint. John_Doe is using one example of falsified data to throw out all data supporting evolution, a ridiculous position.
replied 2283d
It wasn’t a ‘cover up’. “scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by
replied 2283d
fossils found elsewhere.” Limited data is ambiguous. Multiple theories could produce the same data (ie be correct). This hoax (& I assume other data) supported one
Unknown
replied 2283d
theory, “large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet”). As such it was accepted & defended.
replied 2288d
Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147
replied 2288d
From the paper, mutants had mutations in the DNA proofreading enzyme (allowing them to mutate faster). & most mutated the target of the antibiotic.
replied 2288d
Could your ancestors survive on Mount Everest? You could. Is it simple? Not really. Requires knowledge, technology, & planning.
replied 2288d
These ecoli are living in an environment that was lethal to their ancestors. You can call it simple if you want. Simple vs complex here is subjective.
replied 2295d
Viruses increase the size of DNA in some cases and if the cell is a gamete then this increase in size is inherited. Down syndrome and its equivalents in other species do the same.
John_Doe
replied 2293d
Ok so is a person with down syndrome better equiped to survive?
replied 2293d
...all species. Additionally there are other processes which work on a more granular scale instead of duplicating the whole chromosome: http://tinyurl.com/yayeuk5r
replied 2293d
No. I never said that. I said that there are many processes which can make space for more info in the DNA. While this specific process causes DS to humans, it's not always bad for...