I do believe, because I don't know of any alternative theory, and this one makes a whole lot of sense. Looking at the natural world and considering all these varied forms of life slowly changed by adaptation the their environment taking on increasingly varied shapes and lifestyles seems plausible enough to me. I see living matter can change and adapt and is in a continuous struggle to persist, I see small differences between species, and larger differences between families, and yet bigger differeces in phyla but yet many similarities in their basic setup, that I can accept that many millions of years ago their ancestors were more similar to each other. They also have largely the same biochemical pathways, or otherwise respiration likely wouldn't be compatible with photosynthetic production, so it would seem they have a common origin.
It only makes sense, and if there are details that could be improved or which we don't yet understand, the basic framework seems to be correct.
You could take all the same evidence and say "design this well-fitting and well organised must be the work of an intelligent creator".
i don't believe in single origin evolution, black people are from the jungle and monkeys, but eurasians are based and made by god from the clay of the steppes
The general gist of it seems to be the most logical explanation at the moment
It's simple, children are obviously similar to parents. Combine this with natural selection. Boom, evolution.
i dont like the word evolution but yes, organisms change over time. the changes can be from parents, environmental stress and stuff, mutations. i cant remember mych. but did you not take biology in school when you were younger
I believe in alien intervention, they genetically modified monkeys
It is very improbable humanity formed by itself especially european races
You can see the skeletal casts in a museum dumb ass
I don't believe in evolution. I believe in evidence.
There's evidence for evolution.
Clearly explain how skeletal casts in museums prove evolution, and how did you determine this to be true?
>>206947> There's evidence for evolution.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24005-y
Rapid evolution of bacterial mutualism in the plant rhizospherehttps://phys.org/news/2023-05-bacteria-evolve-resistance-antibiotics.html
How bacteria evolve resistance to antibioticshttps://news.arizona.edu/story/bacteria-take-short-cuts-evolve-fast-track
Bacteria Take Short Cuts To Evolve on a Fast Trackhttps://phys.org/news/2015-09-environment-rapid-evolution.html
Change in environment can lead to rapid evolution, researchers say
Found those all quickly by Ducking bacteria rapid evolution
i'm a mage, knowledge just flows into my mind, so don't ask silly questions
You're doing exactly what OP is worried about though. You reading what other folks wrote and taking it as fact. How have you personally verified the theory of evolution to yourself? Or are you taking it on faith that the scientists are correct?
Your opinion will only change if the opinions of scientists change. You are at their whim, with no means to independently verify the theory. So how are you different from a religious zealot who holds his bible as his source of knowledge?
When it all comes down to it, much of what we "know" is taken on faith, because we learned it from many others. One person can't realistically be expected to be an expert on everything, and so at some point we have to trust others (such as specialists in any particular scientific field). The alternative is to believe (in) nothing: nihilism.
Some people trust religious sorts. Other people trust scientists. Etc. At least with scientists you can try to verify that they followed the scientific method. It's also good to look for reproducibility, other scientists making the same or similar findings over time, etc.
So far as observations of bacteria rapidly evolving are concerned, that's a pretty common one that should be easy for entry-level scientists to study. Bacteria are everywhere, and their life spans are very short and fast compared to us, meaning it's quite easy to set up different test cases and observe generational changes very quickly. If anyone wants to independently verify that evolution happens, studying bacteria seems a great place to start.
I will play devil's advocate here, because it's fun.
How do you know that the results in those experiments conducted on bacteria actually account for evolution, ie a change in the makeup of species, rather than just the activation of dormant genes to weather changing conditions?
As mentioned in another thread, the evidence for a Last Universal Common Ancestor is based on the assumption of evolution: that as species change, they keep the same fundamental machinery in their RNA. How about we take a different road, that all species were somehow created using the same biochemical makeup in more or less their present form? Let's say by an intelligent being running a computer simulation with computing power beyond our capacity to conceive (to avoid religious nonsense).
It is not obvious how DNA can control the ultimate appareance of a life form just by regulating how much of such and such protein gets produced on individual cells with near to no knowledge of the whole. Even with emergent complexity it is hard to imagine how a tail or a wing results instead of just a lump. In this scenario DNA shuffling merely serves to pass biochemical (and not morphological) adaptations that do not fundamentally alter the organism but just provide with resistance to changing conditions like disease or climate change.
Bacteria remain bacteria, and this "once in a billion years" sort of symbiosis between an archaeon and a photosintesyzing bacterium never needed to happen, let alone be the single ancestor of all multicellular life on the planet.
You are simply arguing from a position of ignorance. For much longer than evolution has existed as an idea people have studied how single cells gametes produce large multicellular things. From chicken eggs to human embryos. And since all creatures are at some point a very small amount of starting cells that are guided by DNA, and the products of DNA, it’s a reasonable assumption that altering it can produce changes in the organism as a whole. We can treat it completely like a black box and it makes no difference.
That is assuming that materiality is the only reality, that only that which we can perceive with instruments is real, without external influence.
If the world runs in a simulation, or is created by a divine being, then the logic that drives processes (such as the laws of physics) resides outside of matter itself, in the actual machinery of this computer, or in the spiritual realm.
The shape of an organism is like a "mould" to which the growing organism strives to fit. Put another way, it's a Form in Plato's reality that living organisms use to guide their development.
As Above so Below
Atheism leads to nihilism
A “mould” does not seem plausible. Birth defects happen, even if a lizard was born into a lizard mould, then why does it sometimes produce a wrong lizard? Was the mould incorrect? Did our simulation/god make a mistake?
We have experimentally messed with DNA and it seems to explain much of what we see. This inclusion of “hidden variables” is of no use to anyone. If they are truly hidden then they are beyond our grasp and will continue on despite our ignorance. If they are not truly hidden then we simply haven’t found the proper method of detection, and so are actually knowable.
read serphainmin rosë
100% of course atheists would strive to deny it, but remember Donnie, nihilists don't matter.
Everyone believes that life evolved from prior conditions. Creationism is not a religious position and never was until the dishonesty cranked into overdrive during the eugenics coup. The story of Biblical creation was very obviously not a literal natural history or intended to be interpreted as such, and even stating that it was missed entirely the purpose of the story. The contention with Christians was not that they believed in literal creation, which is heretical on so many levels, but that the eugenicists championed Darwin to justify Social Darwinism, war against the poor, and direct attacks against the church for all the reasons you would expect. The creationists were a straw man put up so that eugenicists could claim a "win" and push Christians into accepting Galton's interpretation of eugenics. Christians generally could get along with eugenics, and this engineered fake drama was about making sure Christians played ball with eugenics and did not stray from the plan Galton and his cronies wanted. You see here the beginning of the end for Christianity, and for the most part the Christians allowed this because they loved eugenics more than the people or God.
The proof of evolution in natural history is very simple - have you ever seen a life-form or anything else appear ex nihilo? If there is no evolution, then nothing new is possible except rearrangements of the same genetic material cycling endlessly, and that would not have any starting state. It would further preclude that people would fundamentally change. Creationism isn't so much a refutation of the process of evolution, but a recapitulation of its most reactionary interpretation - that because nothing new is possible, the only thing that allows new life to rise is the struggle for survival of the fittest, and there are no other factors and no potential for cooperation. Creationism is among the many precursors to Hitlerism, Positive Christianity, and eventually the rise of full blown Satanic eugenism. That's why the slimiest church leaders promote it so much - because they've nudging their flock to convert to Satanism when the time comes, and that time is coming now.
I say this as an atheist, so I don't have any concern about Christianity dying. It's about damn time. What I abhor more is eugenics, which is the worst thing in human history so far and killing billions of people for its holy war against the weak. That shit is Satanic, and I have the receipts. These people brag about what they really believe if they can drop the mask or think they're among friends. Many such cases.
As for believing in "evolution", that is the narrow politicized belief and imperial natural history, no one except ideologues believes that now. The original Darwinian theory was attacked immediately by actual scientists on many grounds, including some of the eugenicists. It was only made "official" during World War 2, and this was done to solidify the imperial religion around eugenics and rule out the race-centered eugenics of the Nazis which was similar but different. As hard as it may be to believe, the Nazis were less eugenicist than the victorious British/American faction, and qualified their eugenics slightly. The difference is that the Nazis went full bore with their project, while the Americans had to let the eugenicists and ex-Nazis infest the country for decades. The leaders of America were hardline eugenicists who supported the worst Nazi atrocities, but the people of America and anyone worthwhile absolutely despised eugenics and would never accept it in the way it is accepted now. It took decades of boiling the frog to reach this point, and the Nazis have now been fully rehabilitated and absorbed into this new eugenics. It's worse now than ever, and that's why there is a revival of Creationism and every other Satanic meme. Now, the Satanists just come out and march, because they've won and they're killing off the failures. Welcome to depopulation. I tried to warn you niggers.
If you ask people who actually investigate this and the history, there is actually considerable doubt that we can trust any of the natural history we have been taught, and so most of that stuff about dinosaurs and very specific projections about the past based on fossil records is probably bullshit. There have been genuine advances in the theory of natural history and what life even is, which allow the question to be asked with better theories, but all of those theories suggest that the story we are given is wrong. It is also highly likely that the Darwinian theory of man's ascent from apes isn't defensible as it stands, and there are numerous suggestions that a number of proto-human claims are hoaxes. This is where a lot of Nazi race-theorists try to claim they were right all along. The big hit will come when genetics as a discipline can no longer stand, and that's one of the things they're circling around - defense of the DNA/RNA genetic theory which doesn't stand up to anyone who actually fucking remembers biology and reads the original sources. Basically, biology as a science has been politicized so much that it is basically unusable without heavy de-bullshitting, and that throws so much of what we're told to believe in doubt. There have been people all along keeping honesty and genuine understanding alive, but they are finding it very difficult to continue working in this environment. The Academy will never give up eugenics. That is the state religion at this point, and they're going to go to war for eugenics. They've already killed so many people since 2020. The shittification and destruction of science is one consequence of the eugenics coup of the late 19th century.
The key in my opinion would be to return to viewing life as organismic, with the additional knowledge of systems thought accumulated over the past century and proper corrections to it to remove the pseudoscience from the idea of "systems". I'm guessing someone has already done this with systems thought, because that is where computer science paradigms are best developed and we have plenty of CS nerds. Applying it to biology and thus natural history would be the next step, but that requires overriding the eugenists or just ignoring their stupid theory, and reassembling our own understanding since the institutions will never abandon eugenics. It is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever.
All I say now is that life changes and operates on its own power. I leave biology and natural history to people with a knack for it. I'm a computers guy who dabbles in bad philosophy and reads random ass shit. Frankly the question of biology does not possess this political relevance for me that it does for most people. Humans are human not because of some ancestral DNA but because humanity is a spiritual conception. If you made transhumans they would still be spiritually "human", or at least they would be what humanity has become since humanism in the original sense was destroyed by eugenics and this Satanic horseshit. You can't invent your way out of humanity and say you're totally different, and that was never the question humanism posed in the first place. Humanism pertained to knowledge and civilization rather than a particular race. It supposed people became human through civilization, rather than any inborn trait that "made" them human. It was required that someone be from mankind, but it didn't regard some special essence from genetics that made anyone human. Judging someone as a man was done in the past by form or by a sense that someone born to a man and a succubus was part of mankind, rather than detecting the strand of DNA that tells you that this entity is technologically "human" by The Science. Humanism in other words was an imperial strategy to suggest how alien cultures would be assimilated. That's how the Romans understood it, and they didn't apply this assimilation strategy to everyone they conquered. The Romans did not assimilate conquered nations into a "Roman" racial identity or national identity, but made them submit to Roman law and do things in a way the Romans accepted. In the East, the Romans left nations they considered civilized basically as they were, except they paid taxes to Rome and accepted Roman governors and legions, and the Romans liked it this way because the East had the money and culture wars are fucking retarded German shit. It is much the same with how the British and Americans do it. The Romans were not above slavery and genocide of nations they conquered and keeping the provincials down, but part of the Roman imperial system is that they eventually depreciated the special status of Italy, and they had no problem with provincial elites rising to the highest offices so long as they got in with the Roman aristocracy and the right families. It helped to have some Italian family link, but by the late Principate, it was perfectly acceptable for a Punic-speaking Emperor from North Africa to be a thing, or a Syrian, or an Arab, or some piss poor peasants from Illyria who took over the army to rule the thing. This worked because the Roman imperial system wasn't fucking retarded and understood they ruled over a very large part of the world, which didn't have this political buy-in with race. The Romans had analogues to racial ideas and had plenty of bigotries, but it wasn't politicized as it would be in modernity, and ultimately they didn't care that much about it. After all, the money was in the East which was certainly not racially Roman and never considered such.
>>207205>have you ever seen a life-form or anything else appear ex nihilo?
the same could be asked to evolutionists
why is there something rather than nothing?
Because something obviously exists and we can note it change over generations that we record historically.
doesnt explain the why
>>207205>The story of Biblical creation was very obviously not a literal natural history or intended to be interpreted as such
Yeah I'm going to have to disagree strongly with this. From my understanding, the only non-literal aspect of creationism concerns the definition of words such as "day", which may refer to 24 hours or some alternative definition of God's day.
Regardless, the belief that God, specifically a being named Yahweh, created the universe, Earth, and all living things is 100% meant to be taken literally, as well as the order of creation which is entirely at odds with all scientific theories. there is nothing metaphoric about it. Christians fundamentally believe that an intelligent being created the cosmos.
There is nothing metaphoric about God creating the sun the day after creating plants. It is a statement of what order things were created in and it is entirely scientifically non-sensical.
Endogenic retroviruses imply beyond reasonable doubt that we're related to apes. In short:
Retroviruses are viruses that insert their genome inside the genome of a host cell. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses that inserted their genome inside an egg or sperm cell and became present within the genome of every single cell of the host's progeny. So if a retrovirus infects your dad's sperm, it will be a part of your genome, your children's genomes etc.
The place in the genome that the ERV inserts itself into is pretty much random. The human genome contains over a hundred thousand ERVs, and we share almost all of those with chimps. Not just the ERV type - they're in the same location too. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, the distribution of ERVs across species and the way different species share specific mutation in specific ERVs follows the tree of life pattern that we expect from evolutionary theory.
So either those ERVs infected a common ancestor who passed them onto both us and chimps or God is fucking with us.
Really, science doesn't and shouldn't explain. It measures, hints, proves and disproves. The distinctions are often obscure and rife for misinterpretation. Evolution itself doesn't exactly explain in its unbastardised form, it shows correlation. >>207235
is about the best example I've seen for a short post describing how scientific study couples with maths to pose a model that is a "proof". Mathematically so However not that I care particularly to 'defend' eugenics, but the process is similarly "mathematically" beneficial to the overall health of some group. That group may be a group of wasps or a nation of people. You are promoting positive traits at a rate exponentially faster than the natural evolutionary process performs. Indeed, it isn't a nice thing for, what should be if they stick to their rules properly, almost everybody. The idea that a group and just mark a line in the sand for what is acceptable and what isn't within a eugenic system is wholly unscientific and only (pseudo-)religious in form. 'True' eugenics would wipe out 98% of the planet.
I said "literal NATURAL HISTORY", as in, you wouldn't describe the god as if it were operating by forces of nature, or that the story is even referencing the sole understanding of creation, as if Adam were actually made out of dirt and you have the proofs. That version of creationism didn't exist until the 19th century, and it was specifically seeded by retards.
The usual thinking on creation is that it was a story to explain the Fall of Man, and that the events in Genesis are to be understood as a parable explaining why humans suck so much (real interpretation is, bitches be evil, telling what humanity really was to anyone with enough sense). If the substances and forces at work were not dirt, it would not change the story. If you are to speak of the supernatural deity, it would not be approached as if you could find a materialistic proof of that God, which by its nature would not be a thing you find in the universe like any other animal. That's pretty important to the entire cosmology, and literal creationism is missing the entire point of the story. Not only that, but interpretation of it in this physicalist sense destroys any of the intent of the story, and this is precisely why the creationist stupidity was advanced - to undermine the spiritual claims Christianity made about Man and its origin. By playing with the definition of "day" you're already moving the goalposts in order to defend a positivist bastardization of the story, while claiming you're not doing that. This is the stock and trade of dishonest eugenists.
Of course, Christianity at heart is a lie and self-conscious of it, like all religions. Part of the religion is getting the joke, and in the New Testament the writers really lay it on. It's pretty clear from reading the Bible it is a reductio ad absurdum to attack Judaism, and they tell you outright that the OT doesn't really count if you get into Christianity. And of course, Judaism itself is based on lying and they've always interpreted the stories as metaphors, which the student is intended to interpret to pick apart the obvious errors. It's like believing in Santa Claus (speaking of another myth designed to test who is a fool and insult their intelligence).
The standard idealist version of "creation" is that such a process would be outside the normal procession of cause and event, yet a part of all causes and events - that in effect, all that exists and could exist is God, and the world we know is only one aspect of it. That's how this concept works in every religious tradition and in idealisms generally. To really understand why this works requires at least some grounding in philosophy, which is deliberately not taught to people today. When you do have that grounding, it becomes clear that every religion is a flagrant lie, including the eugenic "religion of science" which is the most flagrant lie of all.>>207248
Science is meaningless if it explains nothing. What is meant by "science" is played with by philosophers, but for normal people, science is a method for understanding the world, and it is always conducted by people. There are no predefined boundaries for what we can and cannot answer with science, but every scientific approach is a materialistic one necessarily, and science does not have the ability to make assertions without evidence. We can conduct bad science that does not align with the actual world we live in, but the only thing regulating science is our own adjudication of scientific facts. We can choose to practice some form of intellectual integrity, but what that even means it itself disputed and played with.
Long story short - we use science not because the idea has intrinsic authority, but because such a method is demonstrated to work and allows independent verification. That is the only cause we have to suggest that science as a method has any spiritual authority or claim to truth beyond some other source of authority to tell us truth. Anyone can construct a theory, however elaborate, and no matter what rules you establish, it can still be wrong or not match what we know. Nowhere in the universe is there a machine running "the science" that we created in a model. Things in the world, whatever they may be, do what they're going to do regardless of our models about them. That of course includes ourselves, since we are by all reasonable accounts part of the world. That has been one of the great spiritual problems and really at the heart of the biology debate - not whether any of it is true or false, but the spiritual significance of humanity being just another animal and thus sorted in a natural hierarchy. This is of course a stupid idea if you consider the purpose of political equality or social classes, but certain people latched onto it as a way to naturalize the class struggle of a particular epoch in history and make it eternal.
Also, eugenics pretty much states that they want an open-ended genocide, so they think wiping out 98% of humanity is a great thing and should be actively imposed. But that's not scientific, and nothing about eugenics is scientific.
Yes, but that doesn't make atheism wrong. If the truth leads to nihilism, then let us become nihilists.
>>207299> It's pretty clear from reading the Bible it is a reductio ad absurdum to attack Judaism, and they tell you outright that the OT doesn't really count if you get into Christianity
Don't be silly, all well informed people know that christianity started out as a jewish psy-op spreading pacifism and nihilism to weaken the roman empire, which they were at war with at the time. That it's still around 2000 years later is a testament to quality meme workmanship.
evolution is not real, it's not a thing for the following reason: how come there are billions of species of creatures inhabiting earth and many of them have unique traits that only they exclusively or a handful of other species possess and there's also generic traits that almost all creatures possess, but in this abundance of traits, characteristics and features ONLY HUMANS ACCIDENTALLY DEVELOPED A LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECT SO HIGH? literally not a single species of those billions existing ones out there possesses abstract thinking or makes things for Future generations or creates culture or complex civilizations or societies. they can't make tools that last, they never ever transfer the newly acquired knowledge with others or future generations. even the smartest animal in the world is still way closer to the dumbest and simplest animal out there than it is to a human being.
so you're telling me that evolution is real and it's just a coincidence that were the only species out there to 'develop' (magically) intelligence this advanced? one in a billion chance? (depending on how many species there are out there overall)
yeah, not a chance
yeah all of those are just previous versions of us, human beings. change is real, it's just that everything has been created by the Christian God, the only real God
Nope. That's not how it works anon. All members of a species share a common ancestor but not all members of a species are steps of a single evolutionary chain resulting in a particular member. This of course applies to homos. It's more like several branches coming from the same trunk.>it's just that everything has been created by the Christian God, the only real God
Huh, fine. God created the physical constants so macro molecules could appear and get more or less complex according to environmental circumstances. Whatever makes you happy as long as the science behind is sound.>>207715
Every single one.
wow, so since we all come from primates and monkeys, surely the apes you see in zoos today will evolve into human beings at some point, right?
>Though humans vary in many traits (such as genetic predispositions and physical features), any two humans are at least 99% genetically similar
what does this mean when 98.5 percent of human dna was for the longest time considered junk and useless
so why does no other animal develop intelligence like us
as for the Christianity part: huh, fine, science explains everything and evolution is totally real and not fake, as long as you keep in mind the Christian God created everything
We didn't come from primates anon, we are primates, we share a common ancestor with all primates. Monkeys are primates but they belong to another order, simians, they're not apes like us.
Other primates cannot evolve into humans just because they're primates, that's not how it works, but they certainly can evolve into something else given enough time for enough genetic mutations to occur. That's what I tried to explain in >>207717
It means we all share mostly the same useless junk.>>207720
Several animals on Earth have developed unique traits. Unique characteristics is not itself unique. Why are you not wondering why the Turritopsis dohrnii jellyfish is the only creature on Earth capable of achieving immortality? Or why lobsters can alter their own DNA after reaching maturity? They're the only ones capable of doing that.
>evolution is totally real and not fake, as long as you keep in mind
What I think has literally no bearing whatsoever on the observable evidence and the reproducibility of evidence favoring the theory of evolution.
well yeah, humans also have differentiating unique somatic traits like the ones you mentioned. I never said us being intelligent is the only instance of a species having unique traits. I said there are tons of species with one-of-a-kind characteristics, yet somehow only human beings have developed this level of intelligence to the point it changed the world.
and other species had time to become intelligent like us, but they somehow didn't. somehow were the only ones fam ;) im sure you understand compadre
Intelligence is undefinable. Our specific style of intelligence has yet to prove any survival value. We seem to be destroying our own environment.
*long term survival value
I mean, fungi have been around for over a billion years supposedly. Trees very long. They dont destroy the environment. Humans havent been 'intelligent' for very long. Who is to say it is superior to fungi and plants from an evolutionary point of view?
>>207710>evolution is not real, it's not a thing for the following reason: how come there are billions of species of creatures inhabiting earth and many of them have unique traits that only they exclusively or a handful of other species possess and there's also generic traits that almost all creatures possess, but in this abundance of traits, characteristics and features ONLY HUMANS ACCIDENTALLY DEVELOPED A LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECT SO HIGH?
You answered yourself here fam. Humans are not a sole species with unique trait(intelligence for example). There's a species of medusa that reborns itself so it's immortal in a way. There are Tasmanian dogs or something that are immune to cancer. I am sure there are more animals with unique traits.
Intelligence is a byproduct of physical evolution. So what that dolphins and penguins are intelligent and cunning when it comes to sexual activities and mating. They do not have opposite thumbs which would allow them to make advanced tools and structures.
Just because you are smart in one way, it doesn't mean you are better at a given test than a monke https://youtu.be/zsXP8qeFF6A
People are too proud of themself to admit that they're not so different from any other animal. They fear this thought. Them being a wrinkly brained monke.
well I never mentioned survival per se, I was only talking about intelligence and uniqueness. no other animal creates culture, no other animal is capable of planning for future out of free will, not because it's hardwired into its DNA. same goes for thinking back to past events. there's no variation in any animals minds - they just blindly follow a script in their DNA and never ponder on anything unlike us.
what we have achieved and come to is no coincidence, otherwise you'd have tons of animals having art, tools, passing down information for future generations or having free will
I don't think you can be so sure of that unless you can read their minds. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that humans are intelligent or capable planners. Civilization has only existed for half a blink in the grand scheme and it's rapidly morphed into the next extinction event. Humans used to be a tiny minority of the animal population not even 200 years ago. Now, everything besides humans and livestock is the minority.
The world is full of examples of evolution. Not just species. Just looking at how things come together, make something new, that changes due to factors over time, etc. That's the very fabric of reality. Quarks and leptons to atoms to molecules to plastic to a cup. All of engineering is putting parts together, just using a natural process to make things. There's nothing to disagree with. You can dislike some tiny details in things or say "but you dont know the exact change from x to y", the process of evolution is still obviously real.
You really don't get much weaker than the Crisis of the Third Century, and the original cults of Rome were dead long before that. Paganism was always an aristocratic religion and had little to do with anything the people of the Empire actually believed, and so when mystery cults arrived, people took to them because Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern fetish cults had nothing whatsoever to offer them. It is typical of fags to double down on faggotry. I don't think you're capable of getting out of the faggot box, or the role of the Jews in Rome. They were pretty well beaten down time and time again. Christianity immediately attacked the Jews and was recognized as an entire different thing long before Constantine, and many times the Jews were among those who encouraged the persecutions of Christians (they don't tell you this), simply because it took heat off of them.
When you look at what Christianity was, it became an attempt to introduce Greek philosophical ideas. What is the Kingdom of Heaven, except a divine version of Plato's ideal city-state? Christianity would go on to unite much of Europe and basically continue the Roman Empire, and then conquered the world. That's way more than this Germanic pagan cope you fags always push, which always lost and was designed to lose. I don't know why you faggots always insist on losing and never learn who your betters are, which is basically every other race on Earth. African tribes think you're a bunch of fags and laugh at that Germanic horseshit. It's funny because the German idealist philosophy is basically what you would do to create a slave race. So, you are yourself embodying the "pacifism and nihilism" degeneracy that you project onto every other religion and race that has been better than that. Anyone who goes along with it is a fucking idiot, but suckers are born every minute.
Historically, the Jews are pretty much hated by everyone, and had little influence except in the roles they could occupy. They became the hatchetmen, pimps, drug dealers, and so on of Europe, and that's what motivated the pogroms more than political battles over usury. Usury was basically tolerated and condoned by the aristocracy to fleece the peasants, and the way this was paid off was to devour the lives of the smallfolk. The Jews were facilitators of that, in addition to their role in finance which grew over time. The Jews didn't have a monopoly on usury or finance either. Italians got in on the action, and Protestants basically had no problem with usury. It had often be quasi-legal with the right workarounds, and Islam did the same thing. The idea that you didn't do this was really weird, a story told to children to tell them the Bad Man did this to them, but the aristocrats didn't give a fuck about that. They laughed as poor people died, as did their functionaries. So continued a long standing relationship between aristocrats and thugs who make the little people suffer. Anyhoo…
You're going wayyyy off topic.
What is the purpose of this post? Why are you bringing paganism up?
Mostly because these creationist and Rightoid takes come from people who need to believe in a fictitious history, and the whole topic of natural history is infested with ideologues making their political bugbears seem eternal. It's dumb and doesn't answer the question we wanted in the first place.
Evolution of life in principle is very simple to prove - you would have to prove that something comes out of nothing for each act of creation, which would mean every conception of life. If you can accept that life can be conceived and change traits from reproduction, then evolution is natural and only requires some catalyst where basic components became recognizably "life" in some way. That has always been the open question, abiogenesis, when it comes to natural history. Once life begins, nearly every form of naturalism defaulted to an evolutionary view, seeing correctly that there was no essential nature to living things and that life had to be organisms actively functional rather than "genes as information" in the sense that is advanced today.
Hilariously, the vulgar interpretations of Darwin are not theories of evolution at all. Darwin's original theory was not a "genetic" theory, nor suggested that natural selection was a uniform mechanism. The argument made is that if you could import Malthus' model of population to the natural kingdom, you could say some things about life in the past that are general trends. This is not a trivial thing to do, nor was it as simple as an export of something that was eternal. The question Darwin answered was why transitional forms disappeared, as an answer to that question, Darwin's answer isn't really sound. If that is the case, then Darwin's theory isn't worth much except as an imperial just-so story.
The only way to defend the cruder versions of Darwinism is to make a fake opponent of creationism, which no one ever believed seriously until the 19th century. In the middle ages, debates about creationism were really thought exercises for scholars rather than a serious belief about natural history, like the "angels on the point of a needle" story, which by the way was never actually asked by Aquinas.
There have been actually worthwhile approaches to the question of why transitional forms disappear in evolution (simply put, minor divergences would split into two offshoots in a given population, and gradually merge with each other rather than interbreed, and this usually entails some adaptation that is competitively significant rather than the withering away of disused organs). The story of "genetic mutation" is silly, an attempt to rescue a bastard theory that shouldn't have been allowed to go on the way it did. There is a firmer part of biological constitution than that which is malleable, because life develops largely to retain its intent and lifecycle, so that the functions of life carry on. That's what life does. It doesn't require some magical "genetic information" to do this. The material that becomes "genetic" for new offspring is largely that which resists change. For evolution to be possible, it suggests that genetic material is mutable in some way, otherwise nothing can ever start. So much of this stupidity is averted if politicized genetics is ignored, and an actual study of heredity were finally possible. Because eugenics was an absolute of the institutions today, such an investigation will never be allowed.
In regards to your last thought, I don't see why you think mutable genetics is so laughable. Dogs have been ushered toward certain purposes, other animals too, but animals are generally highly attuned toward environmental balance. That's why foreign introduction ravages "virgin" environments.
Well yeah, I think there are a lot of issues with how evolution is portrayed nowadays, but I think the purpose of such a broad interpretation is to allow refinement. That's largely what science is now.
Why do we share so much genetic code with even flowering plants? I see such things as honest genetics as the farthest postulate from fiction. I don't resent being related to other lifeforms. I don't see why I should resent such an idea.
There it is again, "genetic code", like this is a computer program you could work out in a virtual realm. That is not what life does at all.
The point is that speaking of genetics has a limited purview to describe hereditary traits, rather than a "master key" to lock someone into an assigned social role. The whole thing is intended to comply with management rather than science or anything real, and that's why they jump up and down like retards to defend their pet theory. These people make it a point to destroy children, specifically because our success means their institutions have failed and they lose. They can't stand the thought of us being anything more than what they want us to be, and what they want us to be is nothing at all. They want us to suffer and die, living only as a monument to their victory. That's the sickness of eugenics.
This is why they invent these stupid talking points - they need to make their managerial pseudoscience into the only permissible concept of heredity, lineage, and thus all of history. None of this has to do with any trait that would pass by heredity, and increasingly the pseudoscience has to invent shit that makes epicycles appear like a reasonable scientific theory. It's insane, and yet we have been made to die for this pseudoscience. What they do is what they accuse the Marxists of doing, pure projection to defend a failed system for a failed race. They conflate anything that goes against their pseudoscience with the whackadoodle fake positions that somehow resemble the very claims eugenics must make to be useful for them. You're never allowed to tell these retards, and they are retarded, that they're just… wrong. Always have been. This is what actual scientists were saying all the up to the 1940s. Geneticists who took their work seriously were trying to say that you couldn't make the grandiose predictions these maniacs like Mengele were saying, and all of the eugenicists were far worse than Mengele. After the Nazis were defeated, the eugenists doubled down to protect the project they invested in.
Interestingly enough the Nazis' own theory about this suggested the British imperialists were insane sadists, which is one way they justified the shit they did… at the behest of imperial funding. They're both working for the same foul interest. You have to be really fucked up to be worse than the Nazis, but that's what Galton's eugenics was, just pure screaming insanity that should have been snuffed out and put down like a rabid dog. Stalin was the only one with the sense to do exactly that, and it was that alone which saved the USSR. Unfortunately, us Americans had to put up with something much worse than Nazis in our midst, and when the Nazis came here they infested this country and joined their fellow travelers. There's no point in granting the theories of these dishonest assholes equal treatment or any of our time. We should have abandoned them a long time ago, and when they need to produce actual science, they ignore the horseshit entirely. It's all occulted in the institutions, specifically to keep out anyone who would dare ask questions or stop this beast. But, eugenics is so laughable and evil that it is necessary to ignore it just to be able to get through life, and that's why they resort to ever-escalating violence to defend their stupid cult.
And that's why we can't "believe in evolution" - because frankly, the current state of knowledge doesn't know much about what actually happened. In principle, though, evolution of life-forms has always been the accepted position, and miraculous acts of creation were understood to be parables describing something altogether different. There wouldn't be any reason to even discount evolution while maintaining a divine intervention created animals, man, or the Earth itself, but this wasn't really the point of describing the stories in creation myths. They weren't written as natural histories in the first place, and naturalists immediately discounted such myths as irrelevant since Antiquity, if not before. A lot of it derives from a highly politicized version of religion from Judaism on, because for most spiritual thought, the idea of "creationism" was an absurdity, and even in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic arc of religions, it was never a literal interpretation of life to be taken seriously. So much of the Abrahamic line was about saying intentionally contradictory stuff as an intelligence test to see if people would actually follow that, and if you were actually brought into the religions, they tell you that none of that shit is to be read literally. The introduction of creationism in Christian churches is understood as wildly opposed to their religion by those who actually take it seriously.
I used to be a Deist, but then I saw that no good god would create this world so I became a Darwinist, but then I saw this world was evil beyond random chance and had been precisely designed by a Demiurge craftsman to be perfectly evil so I became a Gnostic
christian concept of god is far less compelling than evolution but OK.
are you sure you've got your deism right
if you fault evolution for being conceived by men, then you should fault christianity for that same reason and even more so because it's so much more obviously just some bullshit someone came up with a long time ago. zero (0) proof that it is "da wurd uh gawd" past some asshole in the desert claiming it was 2,000 years ago. pretty long time to fail substantiation, especially if we are to be so skeptical of a comparatively fledgling explanation such as evolution.
except.. I never said I blame evolution for being conceived by humans? lole :DD Christianity is truth though :)
so you cannot substantiate that claim and you forgot the original topic of the thread, OK.
nope, I kinda did substantiate it whereas you can't seem to do that and you forgot the topic of the thread ;) ;)
when? i dont see a convincing argument for the christian god's existence anywhere in this thread. or did you think some old writings by sand monkeys was actually compelling evidence? lmao!
Contemporary writings by computer monkeys are better?
Present your strongest proof for evolution. Don't point to someone else's theory. Present evidence that you yourself can reasonably independently verify. If you can't, then you have just as much faith as a religious person.
yeah I agree with you guys>>207882
some old writings by sand monkeys is what the evolutionary theory is? true lmao xD I don't see any compelling argument supporting evolution anywhere in this thread, meanwhile the Christian God created everything and is real ;) ;)
How else would living beings be so well adjusted to their environment
so still no proofs after 2000 years is what you kids are saying, OK.
there's still no proofs to muh evolutionary theory after centuries of lying? true kid lmao ok kid xD>>207888
cuz the Christian God (the only real God) made them so
it's funny how you keep deflecting in this manner because, if evolution apparently being incapable of satisfying your rigorous
(double) standards in two centuries is such a deal-breaker for you kids, then it should follow suit that another proposed model that has also been incapable of proving its claims and has been given ten times the amount of time to prove them should be discarded or at least treated with even harsher skepticism than the former.
feel free to reason consistently about this at any moment, guys.
I believe we were created by extraterrestrial beings as an experiment.
your right, it is absolutely hilarious how you keep deflecting, kid, given the fact that the evolutionary theory has already disproved itself because it's horribly inadequate and irrational. meanwhile Christianity has time and time again proven itself to be true and real because the Christian God is the only real God :)
because if they weren't they wouldn't exist and you wouldn't be asking the question.
Mate, most life dies before it even makes it out the womb. The universe is unbearably hostile toward life and only a small percentage of all potential life actually manages to survive for what is a blink of an eye in cosmic time. Life is exceptionally rare and it exists in spite of harsh environments. To say that life is well-adjusted is ridiculous. Stars are well adjusted, nebulae are well adjusted. Life is fragile and fleeting, so rare that it might as well be non-existent.
>>207894>>207895>>207896>highly critical when it comes to heredity or anything else>expects you to believe just going by circular logic and a 2000 year game of telephone
>>207897>highly critical when it comes to preaching about muh evolutionary theory>fails time and time again to prove that muh evolutionary theory is real and forces you to follow circular logic
clown shoes xDD
I remember some atheist in a forum telling me Deism makes even less sense than the traditional Christian God
what did i get wrong about it?
this parroting is very blatant trolling. you are getting butthurt and arent actually saying anything in response. the entire point is not that evolution is right, but that christianity is clearly much more wrong. get this through your empty head or prolapsed asshole: if you are going to be this dismissive of evolution when it actually makes an attempt at an explanation, it only makes sense that you should be able to provide solid proofs for why you believe the far older and unproven model. the fact that you and nobody else can make an argument past circular logic (me real so yahweh real, yahweh real so me real), some guy said some other guy said god talked to him 2000 years ago and deliriously whinging about evolution is very telling. you need to give something far more compelling to convince anyone of your view if your bar for dismissing evidence of evolution is so lofty to the point you expect people to raise thousands of generations of separated fruit fly populations until they are incapable of procreation once reintroduced to each other.
feel free to continue parroting because you're either a troll or dogmatic moron. that would be par for the course so i don't expect any deviation from that.
Hello from Russia. I hate Orthodox Christianity and creationists.
One's gotta learn not to waste time with these people. Sure, at first one may think there is some worth in exposing an idea or belief to criticism, but one soon realizes that there are places where it is not possible to have a meaningful debate on nearly any issue whatsoever. I've noticed that imageboards are certainly one of those places where arguments lead nowhere. It's just too full of people ignorant and untrained in critical thinking, even those who make an honest attempt at it lack the same abilities. We here all share many things in common. It's not just virginity, it's most often also abusive families, social anxiety, and lack of education. I have noticed there isn't very many actually educated people in these sites. At best you get some people struggling to get through college, self learners like me who lack the discipline of thinking needed for serious critical thinking, and some college graduates working in retail.
Very many users who start these things either resort to name calling quite quickly, or, as is the case of this user, perform this act where they demand proof or convincing arguments while acting the exact same fallacies they like to point out in others. Case in point, anon here is expecting you to "not just believe" in what amounts to the combined efforts of very many creative minds over centuries, but provides as alternative merely another instance of just believing what somebody else said without actually bothering to question it's validity or consistency. It's escapism, it's worldbuilding over actual questioning, which they then thinly disguise as doing actual critical thinking. And most of the internet is like this, reddit is even worse in many ways, but that doesn't make imageboards a vehicle for actual conversation, put another way, it lies beyond the scope of what is possible to talk in these places.
I don't because the "evidence" is laughable. A major unresolved issue when dealing with the origin of life is that prebiotic syntheses invariably generate very heterogeneous solutions of organic compounds. This makes it impossible to imagine how ordered linear polymers, amino acids and nucleotides could be assembled. Prebiotic chemistry could produce a wealth of biomolecules from nonliving precursors. But the wealth would become overwhelming in the prebiotic soup and one cannot fathom how organized chemical processes could emerge from such a mess. At the heart of this problem is a dreary and vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? There could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. How a random collection of proteins would assemble themselves into some kind of proto-cell capable of primitive replication is not even remotely answered. Modern cells require hundreds of proteins carrying out specific tasks when assembling a new protein molecule and if only a small portion of them were crudely made it is impossible to manufacture a new cell. The cells translational system is highly dependent on accurately made proteins and a faulty translational system is by default a biochemical paradox in evolutionary terms. A primitive cell is faced with an impossible task: in order to develop a more accurate translational system is has to translate more accurately. Each imperfect cycle introduces further errors and the cyclical nature of self-replication in the cell means that imperfections lead to autodestruction. A complex system like a cell cannot be gradually achieved because of its many complex and perfectly coadapted proteins.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519377900443>too short>based on faithhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2199970/>A method of targeted random mutagenesis has been used to investigate the informational content of 25 residue positions in two alpha-helical regions of the N-terminal domain of lambda repressor. Examination of the functionally allowed sequences indicates that there is a wide range in tolerance to amino acid substitution at these positions. At positions that are buried in the structure, there are severe limitations on the number and type of residues allowed. At most surface positions, many different residues and residue types are tolerated. However, at several surface positions there is a strong preference for hydrophilic amino acids, and at one surface position proline is absolutely conserved. The results reveal the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold.
This study was conducted at M.I.T where the authors experimented with re-building proteins by taking away amino acids and replacing them with other amino acids. They found that some parts of a protein chain are tolerant to substitutions but other parts are completely intolerant, showing that proteins are not arbitrary collections of component chemicals but rare and unique combinations. This confirm the conclusion of my first source that the probability of a specific folded protein coming into being by undirected evolution is 1 in 10(65). The practically infinite number of other combinations that could form at random are useless protein sequences for living organisms.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01620-3>The long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has become a cornerstone in evolutionary biology that researchers continue to mine for insights. During their 75,000 generations of growth, the bacteria have made huge gains in their fitness — how fast they grow relative to other bacteria — and evolved some surprising traits.https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15>The LTEE isolation of Cit+ mutants has become a textbook example of the power of long-term evolution to generate new species. But, based on our results, E. coli arrives at the same solution to access citrate in days versus years, as originally shown by Hall. In either case, genes involved in the process maintain their same function but show expanded expression by deregulation. Because of this, we argue that this is not speciation any more than is the case with any other regulatory mutant of E. coli.
Even the "best" example of speciation/evolution has been debunked.
>>207919>Case in point, anon here is expecting you to "not just believe" in what amounts to the combined efforts of very many creative minds over centuries, but provides as alternative merely another instance of just believing what somebody else said without actually bothering to question it's validity or consistency.
If this is a direct response to me, I don't see how you conclude that. Contrary to how I keep being misrepresented by the parrot troll's strawman of me, I have left it open-ended as to whether evolution is true or not. However, I am saying that the way evolution is supported sounds infinitely more reasoned than the way christianity is in this very thread and in general, and that is with christianity having around 1800 years of a head-start to sufficiently prove itself over evolutionary theory.
This sub-discussion started with the post >>207856
, where the parrot asserts that evolution isn't real and specifically the christian god is the real god. Clearly, I lean toward disbelief in any
god, but I strongly doubt any human conception of potential divinity (and yes, all these religions are inventions of men just like evolutionary theory is until they are substantiated with concrete evidence to the contrary) has a sufficient or even ballpark estimation at how the genesis of life and the universe occurred. Anyway, it's always seemed empty-headed how these debates are made into christianity vs. evolution instead of belief 1 vs. belief 2 vs. belief 3 vs. belief 4, etc. as that's the actual state of discourse concerning these topics. I am asking for proof because the parrot was so self-assured that his specific conception of god is the one and only real god and that evolution is bogus with continued refusal to elaborate further as he can't be bothered to locate the posts from the person he was previously arguing with (yet he still has the time to troll and shitpost days onward?).
This thread is obviously about whether or not evolutionary theory can truly be proven, but if it can't then it still doesn't follow that I should automatically believe in yahweh. This is the point I have been trying to illustrate and I haven't asserted that evolution is 100% proven a single time in this thread despite perpetual mischaracterization as having said so. All other religions also claim that the world proves themselves to be self-evident, so I may as well subscribe to any one of them and not only christianity.
If what you said wasn't directed at me, I apologize for the additional rant. I'm really sick of pulling teeth. When someone claims to know the truth of a matter, I want to hear why so that I might hear something convincing. I'm not getting anything good here. I'm just having words shoved in my mouth and being mocked for failing to see the truth in this guy's dogma.
>>207924>If this is a direct response to me
relax, I'm just characterizing OP or whoever it is that "questions" evolution but doesn't question their own belief that was handed over by someone else, demanding proof on evolution but not demanding the same of whatever their alternative (which tends to be a bit of a fairy tale). This person thinks in terms of dogma, too. Where either alternative must be true and the other must be false and he thinks in terms of belief and absolute compliance. These people wave the flag of critical thinking but are incapable of doing so thsmselves.
this parroting is very blatant trolling you are getting butthurt and arent actually saying anything in response xDD the entire point is that Christianity is right and that muh evolutionary theory is clearly much more wrong :D get this through your empty head or prolapsed asshole: if you are going to be this dismissive of Christianity when it actually makes an attempt at an explanation, it only makes sense that you should be able to provide solid proofs for why you believe the far less rational and unproven model. the fact that you and nobody else can make an argument past circular logic (muh evolutionary theory so real), some guy said some other guy said darwin made up this bullshit 200 years ago and deliriously whinging about Christianity is very telling. you need to give something far more compelling to convince anyone of your view if your bar for dismissing evidence of Christianity is so lofty to the point you expect people to believe muh evolutionary theory .
feel free to continue reddit spacing, parroting because you're either a troll or dogmatic moron. that would be par for the course so i don't expect any deviation from that xDD
Earth is flat
>paragraph breaks are reddit spacing
trying way too hard to fit in and cant defend what it asserts, sputters "no u" out endlessly, likely underage from 4chan
human evolution? yeah.
i think the buddhist/hindu religions are correct for the most part.
my theory is that we did 'evolve' to the potential for mysticism as an accident. With no real predestination. I think there are 3 classes of beings, at least the main 3 them being animals, who are too dumb to be human, humans who can learn language, culture and have attachments with a potential that makes them special. right now they are just sophisticated animals but i will classify them as being higher, as being human. The potential they have is to spiritually advance, they have the foundation, they have the intellect, the sophistication to begin to work to become a higher being, to evolve. I see human as a spectrum with some being barely smarter than a chimp to some being almost holy. There are certainly better people. But to transform into a higher being is to become a divine being which is the 3rd class. Nobody you meet is really there, its too magical, its too whimsical for anyone to believe. but the 3rd class are either invisible on a different dimension or extremely rare.
Unironically the only thing, i emphasize the only thing holding back humanity from advancing is human ignorance itself. either humans just being dumb or them being corrupt and mean, holding eachother back in ignorance. right now humanity is pretty fucked honestly, there no way that its going to spiritually get turned around. its destined for more catastrophic suffering due to the societal machine, overpopulation and just general greed.
Saying "evolution is complicated, therefore God" is lazy thinking that a Christian would embrace to defend their system of mental cheating. But then, "evolutionary theory" was promoted as a religion rather than anything real, because everyone is a life cultist which chose biopolitics and the dictatorship it inevitably leads to.
"Evolution" as an inexorable trend dominating reality is Whig History shit at best, and usually it's just the standard Satanism of the ruling aristocracy. So is the claim of the "perfect system", which was always an ideological conceit and a symptom of Germanic thinking that has plagued modern science.
The far more likely version of events is that "evolutionary theory" breaks down when speaking of abiogenesis, and the precursors of life wouldn't have been recognized as "living". Once the precursors of life can perpetuate themselves, there is nothing stopping them from consuming anything that allows the process to continue, and much to suggest that this process would stabilize into recurrent life-forms that regulate the interactions. The proteins in question wouldn't be "random" as eugenics must believe, but would have been built out of compounds which gradually favored replication and then stabilization. Primitive life would not have been "individualist" in cells, but would have developed with a tendency to build microbial "colonies", which the cells were part of. A larger colony would sustain itself, too large a colony exhausts resources since this primitive life doesn't travel far.
The reasons you won't see this is because any genuine accounting of natural history would violate the eugenic creeed, and it would indicate that science and the fossil record don't explain much at all - so there's no way to verify things that happened hundreds of millions of years ago, or the course of 3 billion years where life would have risen, died, and risen again with no apparent purpose of direction. 3 billion years is a long time, after all…
Any multi-celled organism is really understood as a "colony" comprise of billions of cells and parts, if we are to speak of what life would have to be. The integration of the parts into what we see as a plant and an animal suggests such complex life is something other than the crude chemical and heat process that eugenics superimposed, and that biology isn't really a "science" in the way chemistry is. Biology is the bastard science which was overtaken by the humanities to allow them to naturalize their conceits.
I think you are confusing evolution with darwinism. Darwin wasn't the first to propose the notion of evolution, far from it. He suggested the "survival of the fittest", but that is a half truth. He was influenced by malthusian thinking of his time, and so he proposed evolution as a fierce individualist struggle between organisms trying to outcompete each other, which is probably why it gained so much traction, as it was well aligned with the thinking of the time, and of course, with the interests of the elites.
The notion of survival of the fittest is kind of right in the sense that organisms that are better adapted have a better chance at continuing their lineage, but the wording is entierly misleading, and it does suggest individualism and competition.
actually that was Herbert Spencer, so darwin didnt do that either.
>spamming nonsensical muh evolutionary theory blabberings
yeah I'm thinking underage redditor nigger xD
tbh worse than Darwin himself is EvoPsych, which is heavily influence by Darwin, but changed a lot, he didn't have any concept of genes for example.
the popularized versions of EP became the Red and Black Pills. And it really is destructive to the human spirit and reason to live.
Like whats the big deal if humans come from dumb stupid hairy apes?
but the black pill implications, are a big fucking deal.
so in that sense Darwin destroying the meaning of life and any reason to live was true, it just took 150 years for it to coalesce into its final form The Black Pill.
to be fair the 20th century genoicdes Darwinism inspired was worse than crabs realizing that ugliness wont get them laid
Sure, the historical evidence does point towards evolution, but I do think it was guided by a higher power, at least on this planet anyway.
But it's not like it matters for 99.999% of humans anyway, including me. Like knowledge of the solar system or life on the ocean floor, it's not like knowing one way or another is going to affect our everyday lives.
>>208584https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity. However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances.
Funkhouser and Naughton at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Klauea and got ages of up to 3 000 000 000 years when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957Natur.179..213C/abstract>Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?
If the earth is billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to its atmosphere. Current diffusion models all Indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young.https://phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.html>By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans.
All the fossils discovered in Africa that supposedly prove we descended from apes are really just dead apes. Their cranial structure, in reality, have no value in terms of evidence. They're so far removed from us physically that only wishful thinking will prove anything.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1979.tb00027.x>the tympanic membranes and the tympanic processes of the stapes in recent mammals, reptiles + birds. and frogs. are not homologous;>the evolution of “special periotic systems” in the ancestors of amphibians and amniotes were independent events>the amphibian tympanic membrane. probably including that of labyrinthodonts. is not ancestral to that of amniotes. and that labyiinthodonts with an otic notch are not suitable as amniote ancestors
Just a friendly reminder that there is no proof that vertebrates evolved from amphibians and that the fossil record does not support the scenario of some random fish-lizard crawling up on land and suddenly evolve lungs out of nowhere.
I just really don't understand how people can end up being so damn wrong. Clearly this person is trying his best to think but is just fucking it up completely. IDK how you end up like this but I am glad I managed to avoid it.
uh yeah evolution is fake. Christianity is real
im not praising the sun wizard
Dragons do not exist
Not him but what amounts to "it was magic" always felt like a low IQ copout. Its like ICP not really getting what magnets are. Its just miracles.
Intelligent creation also gives out more questions than answers and it ultimately also boils down to "its magic".
Its my position as well. I am an atheist and believes in evolution as well but anytime I see an atheist go turbo at some flat earther, I am like, who cares lol. What does it matter if Earth is flat or not, how is it going to affect me. Its one thing to be in denial of medical knowledge like vaccines, etc… but things like evolution, big bang, etc… ultimately don't matter.
I remember seeing a penguinz0 video where he was shitting all over flat-earthers and that was the last time I ever clicked on one of his. I was just thinking about how it's such low-hanging fruit to feel so smug over. If he just made a video explaining the mechanisms that prove the earth isn't flat, that would've been fine. Instead it was just insult after insult. In my opinion, being so self-assured about something that you make no effort to prove its veracity is even less scientific than flat earth is. It's a bad attitude to cultivate.
i do not believe it i knoe it, nit in the monkey human unga bunga sense but rather that its oainfully obvious
your imoression of scientific material is fundamebtalky incorrect
penguinzniggaz is demebt shit that is only a few teirs heigher than news in terms of intelligence
>>206899>homo habilis>could speak
how tf could they possibly know that?
This is really such an incredibly retarded viewpoint it's hard to believe someone actually holds it. When you read about evidence of evolution you can see what evidence there is for yourself and see if the conclusions drawn from that evidence make sense and why. It is not a matter of faith. That would only be if you were too retarded to actually absorb anything you read. I just assume anyone taking this retarded stance must have basically zero knowledge about evolution or else they would realize why it's dumb to say this.
Not saying evolutionary theory is law or anything of that sort, but I could see how a bombardier beetle could come into existence over millions or billions of years of trial and error. There isn't a single species of bombardier and even that sophisticated mechanism isn't such a far cry from ones found in other kinds of beetles that it is impossible for it to have been iterative of something else. It's hard for humans to fully grasp something like longterm genetic changes because our lives are relatively short. Consider that beetles' lives are even shorter, granting them many more generations to iterate through.
>>209561>millions or billions of years of trial and error.
This is what I would call Darwinian magic. All you need to say in order to solve all the problems that evolutionary theory has is by saying one word: "time". Time solves everything. But it isn't really that simple because trial and error in itself isn't sufficient as an explanation.
Mutation rates in prokaryotic cells are calculated per cell division and when you look at what causes mutations it is mostly spontaneous replication errors. Replication is amazingly accurate because fewer than one in a billion errors are made in the course of DNA synthesis. So when bacteria propagate themselves they rarely produce new genetic features and when they do it's harmful, genetic mistakes that aren't beneficial to the organism (typical mutation rates for bacterial genes range from about 1 to 100 mutations per 10 billion cells, which is practically nothing). A huge amount of genetic information and an enormous number of cell divisions are required to produce a multicellular adult organism. Even a low rate of error during copying would be catastrophic. A single-celled human zygote contains 6 billion base pairs of DNA. If a copying error occurred only once per million base pairs, 6000 mistakes would be made every time a cell divided and those errors would be compounded at each of the millions of cell divisions that take place in human development.
There are different mutations like somatic and germ-line. Somatic mutation arises once in every million cell divisions, and so hundreds of millions of somatic mutations must arise in each person. Many somatic mutations have no obvious effect on the phenotype of the organism, because the function of the mutant cell, even the cell itself, is replaced by that of normal cells. However, cells with a somatic mutation that stimulates cell division can increase in number and spread. This type of mutation can give rise to cells with a selective advantage and is the basis for all cancers. But germ-line mutation can be passed to future generations, producing individual organisms that carry the mutation in all their somatic and germ-line cells. When we speak of mutations in multi-cellular organisms we’re usually talking about germ-line mutations. In single-cell organisms there is no distinction between germ-line and somatic mutations, because cell division results in new individuals.https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-organism-that-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years>Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years
Picture this. You are such a hardcore Darwin fanboy that even though you find bacteria that has undergone trillions of mutations during an unfathomable time span and defied the very principles that define evolution by not transforming into something else, you still think evolution is true. This, my friend, is living in denial.
Well, time is important to all natural processes. Rocks are eroded by forces over massive periods of time. Atoms decay at various speeds. The concept of the second is entirely based upon that. Evolution isn't ever presented like how it functions in Pokemon by any serious researcher. That is, it's not supposed to be considered wholly beneficial when something mutates. How about blind fish? Losing an entire sense would be considered horrible by most people, but for those fish they lived in an environment that harbored no pressures necessitating eyesight. Likewise, an organism won't be pressured to change if its environment doesn't significantly change. There won't be any culling process and so the genetic stock will remain stable. When they say the species hasn't changed in 2 billion years, they certainly don't mean that every individual of the species possesses identical genetic sequence.
Maybe you don't like the term "evolution", but how do you reconcile fossil records then? Entire species and families of species were long-extinct before the oldest-discovered human remains. Where do different species come from if not from common forebears? What do you believe explains speciation? Again, I'm not saying evolutionary theory is close to perfection, but it seems like a decent general thrust.
>>209570>Rocks are eroded by forces over massive periods of time
Irrelevant to the discussion but I can entertain your line of thought.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity. However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances.
Funkhouser and Naughton at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Klauea and got ages of up to 3 000 000 000 years when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957Natur.179..213C/abstract>Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?
If the earth is billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to its atmosphere. Current diffusion models all Indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young.
So there you have another issue: how do you prove the Earth is X years of age? There isn't. There are dating methods and they are not exactly accurate or flawless.
>organism won't be pressured to change if its environment doesn't significantly change
Mutations happen irregardless if the environment changes or not. Evolution doesn't happen without genetic changes.
>When they say the species hasn't changed in 2 billion years, they certainly don't mean that every individual of the species possesses identical genetic sequence.
It has mutated for supposedly billions of years and yet remained the same. It is physically bacteria and not an amoeba or a bacteriophage. This means it hasn't evolved. Evolution means that something morphologically has changed into something else.
>how do you reconcile fossil records then?
It's just bones. The fossils themselves prove nothing because there is no genetic material, only bones.
>common forebears?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability
A stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and ﬁfty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well? The problem is that we cannot tell which DNA sequence alignment is right, and the one we choose will contain implicit information about what evolutionary events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally. How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a ﬁve-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequences in the other species? The answer is that no one knows. Since you don't have genetic remains that have been preserved for millions of years, as with all the empty hominid skeletons in Africa, you have no case. It's guesswork and not solid proof.
>What do you believe explains speciation?
Speciation isn't even an observable phenomenon. It's theoretical.
>I'm not saying evolutionary theory is close to perfection, but it seems like a decent general thrust.
I've never said you have claimed this but I think you have a very rudimentary understanding/knowledge about this subject.
Wait, where tf did that other guys post go???? Why did it get deleted??
>Irrelevant to the discussion
I disagree. You seemed to be handwaving time in regards to evolution and the point I was attempting to make is that time is extremely important to many natural processes. I wasn't arguing the accuracy of dating methods.
>Mutations happen irregardless if the environment changes or not
Yes, but mutations happen on an individual level and, if the environment is stable, then it would likely follow that the genetic stock of the entire population would also remain stable and subsequently specific mutations would only become a trend if they somehow further improved survivability or breeding success. Otherwise, the mutation would disappear within a couple generations since the rest of the population did not possess it and it had no effect on viability.
>It's just bones
Well, we can't accurately identify how ancient creatures looked from fossils, but we can tell many were significantly different than ones we can see today. Mostly, I was curious what you personally feel explains the endless shapes of species, why some appear to have existed only now and others were never witnessed while alive.
He was probably just correcting some grammar or formatting error. I try to proofread stuff before I post it but mistakes often get through anyway.
>>209576>time is extremely important to many natural processes
And yet billions of years didn't transform a single strain of bacteria into something else.
>I wasn't arguing the accuracy of dating methods.
Neither was I but you brought up time as a factor for change and then I had to give an example of why there is no real evidence for these vast periods of time you keep referring to.
>mutations happen on an individual level
I already made my point clear regarding mutation rates and the various differences. You clearly didn't read any of it.
>were significantly different than ones we can see today
Obviously they are different in shape and appearance but that still doesn't prove evolution has happened.
My fault. Deleted the wrong post.https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_06>in Southern California where the muted western form (eschscholtzii) and the blotchy eastern form (klauberi) live together and actually do interbreed, producing blurrily blotched hybrids>they do sometimes interbreedhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20298702/>Evolution and instability in ring species complexes>Ring species are a biological complex that theoretically forms when an ancestral population extends its range around a geographic barrier and, despite low-level gene flow, differentiates until reproductive isolation exists when terminal populations come into secondary contact. Due to their rarity in nature, little is known about the biological factors that promote the formation of ring species.
>theoretically>rarity in nature>instability in ring specieshttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0001751.pub4>A ring species is a monophyletic group whose range has expanded around a geographic barrier producing a ring‐shaped distribution. Populations that make up the ring should be contiguous and without barriers to gene flow except at one location where two reproductively isolated populations co‐occur. Ring species that meet this definition provide an opportunity for studying how speciation occurs through the gradual accrual of differences leading to reproductive isolation. However, few if any of the species that have a ring‐shaped distribution meet these requirements. The most studied species, greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides and Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders, fail to exhibit all of the characteristics of a strict ring species.
>few, if any of the species that have a ring‐shaped distribution meet these requirements>fail to exhibit all of the characteristics
When the bombardier beetle is threatened by another bug the beetle has a special method of defending itself and that is to squirt a boiling-hot solution at the enemy out of an aperture in its hind section. The heated liquid scalds its target. Specialized structures called secretory lobes make a very concentrated mixture of two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. The mixture is sent into a storage chamber called the collecting vesicle. The collecting vesicle is connected to a second compartment called the explosion chamber. The two compartments are kept separate from one another by a duct with a sphincter muscle. Attached to the explosion chamber are a number of small knobs called ectodermal glands. These secrete enzyme catalysts into the explosion chamber. When the beetle feels threatened it squeezes muscles surrounding the storage chamber while simultaneously relaxing the sphincter muscle. This forces the solution of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone to enter the explosion chamber where it mixes with the enzyme catalysts. The hydrogen peroxide rapidly decomposes into ordinary water and oxygen. The oxygen reacts with the hydroquinone to yield more water and a highly irritating chemical called quinone. These reactions release a large quantity of heat. The temperature of the solution rises to the boiling point and a portion vaporizes into steam. The steam and oxygen gas exert a great deal of pressure inside the explosion chamber. With the sphincter muscle closed, a channel leading outward from the beetle's body provides the only exit for the boiling mixture. Muscles surrounding the channel allow the steam jet to be directed at the source of danger.
How could such a complex biochemical system be gradually produced through Darwinian trial and error? There is no answer to this question at this point because chemically the bombardier beetle would have to study advanced molecular biology in order to get the precise mixture of chemicals without hurting itself.
I can't really tell you that you aren't entitled to your opinion but all I'm saying is that evolution as a concept is so full of contradictions and the so called "evidence" for it amounts to a belief, not objective and unquestionable facts.
That sad part is that all the animals listed in that article can interbreed so Darwinists have to do a lot of mental gymnastics.
funny how there hasn't been a new species evolved in the thousands of years of recorded history
Exactly. The Darwinists usually retort with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" which is how they interpret everything. It's like they think evolution is de facto proven by simply extrapolating a hypothetical scenario after another hypothetical scenario and then tell you that this is enough.
1. the recorded history cannot be trusted as it is very sparse. only recently we got tools good enough to actually record history
2. do you have any other theory? perhaps we were all created by the demiurgus right the way we are now
"New species" appear plenty of times - only to be subsumed into their parent or another.
Evolution cannot work the way the modern synthesis theory claims, because it is a political theory based on death. Nothing new could grow by the assertions made in it.
The original Darwinian claims were not as grandiose or suggested a totalizing imperial cosmology, but they were also not defensible without severe modifications. The core, which I keep telling you, is that political economy was imported into the natural world, but those political economic laws (a) didn't apply anywhere, and (b) do not account for what life really is and how it would struggle for existence. Darwinian "natural selection" cannot be the driver Darwin claimed it would be in real conditions. In simulated conditions, arranged just-so, it appears that the weak and unfit perish those adapted to survive win by numbers. In realistic conditions, life-forms operate on their own power and possess at least an animal's awareness of their surroundings, and so their "fitness" is contingent not on a passive Satanic impulse in the race, but an active game played in the natural world. That game entailed cooperation, interbreeding, and the formation of colonies and constructs. In other words, the view of life-forms as atomized instances - which was a consequence of importing the imperial political economic thought into the natural kingdom - doesn't describe what happens in communities of life-forms, and doesn't describe sexual reproduction which always takes place in some society in practice. Mating choices are never random and are established through rituals which actively reject traits before any "natural selection" can passively act. Victory in the struggle of life does not go to the strongest or to anything suggesting a rational advantage, but purely to those who can produce more or sustain their social units.
This also means the evolution of animals with weak societies like reptiles is not like the evolution of plants or mammals or ants. It also suggests that specialization within species and societies is likely, and this is very much the case with humans - technology has led to humanity diverging into what are effectively castes, based on their technological niche and functions adapted to the political forms humans adopted. There is no reason aristocracy would be "fit" in natural selection, but aristocrats dominate reproduction and society because politically they hold all of the relevant cards and can compel the subordinated classes into submission through fear alone.
The segregation of humanity into castes is increasingly pronounced and intended over the past century, foreseen. By now it operates on inertia that will assert itself for some time to come. It is unlikely the caste arrangement will be entirely broken, given how it has locked in to the institutions and the value of caste has been internalized so thoroughly. Caste stuck in India and won't go away, even though it was maladaptive at the level of society. It won not because it was fit or strong in any way, but because it could win and no one would be allowed to say no. The same mentality was seized by the British Empire with eugenics, turned into the sole law of the land, and now perpetuates itself. It has been adopted without a peep of resistance, as if driven by an inexorable force - because it is taboo to speak of what was done to us, the poisonings and the lying. That's all a part of nature.
I grew up homeschooled in an evangelical family. I still think fossil records are kind of bullshit, but my doctoral research into the mechanism of a family of eukaryotic enzymes led me to molecular evolution and the correlation of the primary sequence of these enzymes between closer families of organisms relative to more distal ones made it glaringly obvious that we evolved in some form.
What is that image supposed to prove? That's not talking about evolution, it's talking about the tendency of matter to settle in a stable low-energy state. Unless you're implying that the odds of a protein forming capable of sustaining an organism are merely 1/(4^149) to 1/(9^149), which indicates you don't know the first thing about molecular evolution. Many mutations are totally inconsequential to function, a great many more have minimal effect in isolation, and should they prove detrimental to growth, they will either be selected against (no propagation) or compensated for (additional mutagenic event to cancel out first negative phenotype). While the origin of life is total speculation at this point, the evolution of eukaryotic life is very clear just by tracing homology between related enzymes.
then how come hook noses are scared shitless of a revolution and fill out homelands with orcs to prevent it
>>209655>you don't know the first thing about molecular evolution
Sure thing. Whatever you say.
>Many mutations are totally inconsequential to function
I have already mentioned mutations in this thread and the differences between them.
>evolution of eukaryotic life is very clear just by tracing homology between related enzymes.
lol, no. Homology is the biggest larp in modern science because it's just autistic mathematical masturbation without any basis in empirical observation. Basically number fetishism.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58511/>Searching sequence space for protein catalysts>This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number of sequences compatible with a given fold and implicates previously unidentified residues needed to form a functional active site.>Misplacement of catalytic residues by even a few tenths of an angstrom can mean the difference between full activity and none at all.>Our estimate of the low frequency of protein catalysts in sequence space indicates that it will not be possible to isolate enzymes from unbiased random libraries in a single step.>The required library sizes far exceed what is currently accessible by experiment, even with in vitro methods
This study determined that you cannot prove evolution experimentally because the amount of trials you would need is beyond anything that is remotely possible. Notice how it says "even a few tenths of an angstrom can mean the difference between full activity and none at all". When proteins are destabilized they lose function and if they lose their function they cannot continue to exist, which means further transformation or conversion into other proteins become impossible. This loss of function gives a measure of the rarity of stable functional folds.
The Victorian Christians who warned about evolution were right. The Scopes Trial makes William Jennings Bryan look like an idiot. What is the big deal if the Bible is literally true.
Who cares that we came from monkeys? What you think humans are so great and wonderful, that we can't be related to dirty smell apes?
It took 2 centuries, but finally we see the final form of Darwinism in the Black Pill. And the Black Pill is complete nihilism and the universe not worth living in.
Darwinism applied to humanity is the the Black Pill, and the Black Pill is a suicide pill.
It's funny how he begins the video by talking about ring species when they have been proven to be unstable and not valid evidence for evolution in nature. The greenish warbler does interbreed with other variations of it and it has already been mentioned in this thread. Sloppy and poorly researched video.
Most Darwinists think they have solid proof for their claims but in reality they don't. They have a lot of conjeture and assumptions but nothing else.
In case you haven't realized it yet, Darwinism, just like any worldview relies mostly on personal intuition, conjecture, assumption and some evidence. Whether your worldview is Christian, Buddhistic, Hinduistic, Islamic, Darwinistic you are mostly going off personal intuition and basic verifiable facts (lets call them "common sense")
Darwinism, or evolutionism is based mostly observations about reality made in order to make sense of it. And it works, kind of. For example evolutionary psychologists can often make quite accurate analysis and prediction of human behavior. Of course they can't tell you the whole story of human existence and can only ever begin to analyze the workings and meaning of consciousness but none the less there is some validity and usefulness of EP.
I came to the discussion late, but by the way, evolution and the Christian God (since I assume you're some kind of a theist if you're arguing against Darwinism) are capable of coexisting. See post above.
Exactly.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000096>Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space
This Japanese study determined that you would need an unfathomable amount of trials to acquire the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the Fd bacteriophage and it concluded that functional protein sequences are ridiculously rare.
They had to take a defective bacteriophage that could not survive in the wild due to the fact that they removed the most crucial component to its survival (the gp3 minor coat protein) and put it inside a bacterial host in order to let it duplicate itself.
After 7 generations the bacteriophage stagnated. After 20 generations, they saw negligible changes. Beyond 20 generations they needed huge amounts of trials to even come close to the adaptive fitness in the original protein. Without the g3p minor coat protein the bacteriophage cannot infect other organisms and as a result dies out. To summarize: the bacteriophage never adapted and developed its own gp3 minor coat protein.
Bacteriophages are not able to self-replicate because they are primitive (a human cell contains billions of base pairs while a bacteriophage has tens of thousands) and thus they need external material so they can perpetuate their existence. The experiment eliminates all obstacles such as environmental factors and even host scarcity meaning the defective bacteriophage has optimal chances for survival because they select only those that show the most changes. Despite all this they couldn't reproduce the g3p minor coat protein. In short: in nature a defective bacteriophage do not survive and reproduce and they certainly do not produce proteins through uninterrupted contact with the same host.
Evolution, in other words, is not proven. When science disproves a theory then the Darwinists will ignore it and say it has no meaning or relevance.
idk about what you posted, maybe that's why i don't see how it disproves anything
it seems like you would similarly get disappointing results placing random people into a room and instructing them to construct something high-tech, like a transistor. in this case you are actually able to communicate wiht them and order them to do something… but still they'd be unable to. it doesn't mean we are incapable as a whole of doing these things though
The thing is that a bacteriophage is parasitic and can't exist without infecting hosts because it is so primitive. Without the ability to enter other organisms it dies out.
The study in itself shows that the bacteriophage at some point couldn't have acquired this protein through a step by step process because then it would have needed constant access to hosts which, for some reason, would let it infect them and later on develop the gp3 minor coat protein during a time span that stretches out over an unfathomable length and this would also have to be uninterrupted. So obviously it can't be a gradualistic Darwinian explanation for this.
so this is a virus that needs to infect bacteria to 'reproduce', and doing so requires a certain protein coating to infect the bacteria
and the researchers removed the coating, to see if it would regain it? but because it didn't have the coating, it was unable to infect the bacteria and reproduce?
is this right
>>210859>but because it didn't have the coating, it was unable to infect the bacteria and reproduce?
They had to artificially infect hosts with the bacteriophage because it didn't have the right protein. If it had its own gp3 protein it could do it by itself. They did this successively with several iterations of the bacteriophage and it couldn't produce the desired protein.
okay so, there is a virus that infects bactera, and requires a protein coating to do so. the experiment was them removing the coating, and then manually introducing the virus into the bactera. they were trying to see if the virus would eventually develop the coating on its own
is this right?
maybe they did not perform the artifical infection enough times, for the slight chance of the gene or whatever for the protein coating to redevelop. i'm guessing each time the virus replicates it creates millions of copies, and there is a slight chance for differences to occur, and they figured the number of times it was necessary for such a change like developing the protein coating to occur, but maybe they were wrong
maybe the protein coating was developed gradually in the past, in an environment when it wasn't essential, but beneficial. and eventually it became essential when the other method was no longer possible. so without replicating the previous environment where it was developed (where it wasn't necessary, but beneficial) it is now impossible
maybe the protein coating does something else besides allow the virus to infect bacteria, and removing it is just too much of a handicap
any of these possible?
The problem is how it could happen gradually. The bacteriophage couldn't have had it from the start since it needs to feed on others and in doing so it is dependent on the host and its genetic material.
[Last 50 Posts]
Interesting! The Fd bacteriophage only codes for about 11 proteins so there is not much room for variation.