It's true. It's much more likely than a magic Jew in the sky created everything by clapping his hands and going "shimsallahbim!"

>>18499874
Theism is that plus one or more entities popping out of nothing and then making everything else also pop out of nothing.

>>18499878
>magic Jew in the sky, OR
>men can become women
I’ll go with the magic Jew

>>18499886
Of course. I bet they cut off part of your cock as a symbol of your loyalty as well.

>>18499890
>atheists think Christianity requires or recommends circumcision
More evidence of the thesis

>>18499886
>men can become women
upset basedjak
>women are capable of parthenogenesis
content basedjak

>>18499893
>the creator of everything asked people to cut bits of their dick off but then changed his mind :)))
You're utterly insane.

>>18499900
He didn’t change His mind He changed His command.

>>18499893
They did cut off part of your dick though, didn't they?

>>18499886
You can do both, unless you're a fag(you)

>>18499886
I literally can't stop thinking about trannies

>>18499905
>The owner of the Universe "choose" a group of fags, commanded them to chop off their dicks and then he "unchoosed" them and now everyone can be "chosen but the "chosen" ones don't have to chop off their dicks anymore.

>>18499874
I fully agree, hence why I worship Zeus and all the celestial gods.

>>18499905
Why did he give them a command to mutilate their penises in the first place? Why not tell them to clean them? Or design them without foreskins? Or design them with self-cleaning mechanisms?

OP has run away. Presumably clutching his mutilated penis having being reminded what they did to him.

>>18499874
Pic related is why borderline illiterates shouldn’t be allowed to homeschool children. Fundies are so fucking retarded I can’t tell if this is bait or not.

>>18499994
To be fair, there's more evidence for God than evolution.

>>18499997
Explain. This should be good.

>>18499916
Sounds like a you problem buddy

>>18499998
>Explain. This should be good.
Evidence for God
>anything that exists.
Evidence for Evolution
>trust me, bro

>>18499997
The same evidence for one god works for all the other gods. One of the best things about the internet is its allowed fundamentalists from all the religions of the world to schizo post at each other. Nothing is funnier than a wacky prot, a salafist, and one of those literalist Hindus having what amounts to a Batman versus Superman argument that ends up with death threats

>>18500015
>The same evidence for one god works for all the other gods.
Retarded fundamentalist atheist talking point. Watch him implode with rage when I ask him to substantiate this claim.

>>18500013
>Everything that exists
Kaos and Gaia did that, not "god". Prove me wrong.

>>18500013
>Evidence for Evolution
Genes exist, genes are observably responsible for how a lifeform develops, and new genes are observed to emerge in new generations. 100% of evolution is directly observed because it's just genetics.

>>18500026
>genes exist therefore my unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life is real
No.

>>18500019
What claim? It’s really funny. You’ve got these different mythologies that some people take REALLY SERIOUSLY and like capeshit fandoms or sportsball teams they just go nuts over them. They kill each other over this goofy shit. The online version is just ESLs against each other and some basket case prots. Or when the prots, weird Catholics and orthobros get at each other. How is that not funny? Especially when the infographics and ‘memes’ start.

>>18500020
>[retarded gurgling noises specifically constructed to minimize substance]
>p-p-prove me wrong
I accept your concession.

>>18500030
>What claim?
This one:
>The same evidence for one god works for all the other gods.
Now try again.

How does "cartoon balls and dark matter" disprove Judai- I mean Christianity? The Abrahamic God can walk on water and turn water into wine but the heliocentric model (I genuinely don't understand what "cartoon balls" is supposed to imply) or math that explains what we observe in the universe is too much?

>>18500037
>monkeys exist
>hindu monkey god thus exists
Nothing personal, kid.

>>18500041
>incoherent chimpout
See >>18500019
>Watch him implode with rage when I ask him to substantiate this claim.

>>18499998
I was trolling to draw out the retards who actually believe that.

>>18500033
You're going to walk the bank of the Acheron, blind and helpless, forever.

>>18500040
It’s just some uneducated Protestant (they tend to love Zuckbook content like this) feeling insecure and tying scientific theory into their bizarre culture war hobbies. Science and religion don’t have a conflict that isn’t manufactured.

>>18500043
Are you saying the Hindu monkey god isn’t real?

>>18500049
>mentally ill and incoherent mumbling continues
See >>18500019
>Watch him implode with rage when I ask him to substantiate this claim.

File: Early_Hebrew_Conception_o(...).png (217 KB, 960x960)

217 KB PNG

>>18500040
Because this is what the bible teaches

>>18500029
Yes, actually. If you believe that genes exist, you believe in evolution. It's impossible to do otherwise.

>>18500052
>Hebrew

>>18500061
Yes, the jew Yashua who founded your religion believed the world looked like that.

>>18500060
> you believe in evolution
"Evolution" as in organisms gradually changing and adapting to their environment, or "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life?

Not that I expect publicly "educated", scientifically illiterate atheist fundamentalists to notice any difference there. :^)

Makes more sense than a magic Jew that came from nothing creating a magic garden where a dirt man and a rib woman ate an apple because a talking snake told them to thus condemning a 600-year-old man to build a floating zoo so that the magic Jew could sacrifice himself to himself to save himself from himself.

>>18500067
>unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection
You believe in natural selection too btw. You believe that genes exist, you believe that genes determine how a lifeform develops, and you believe that new genes appear, meaning that lifeforms change. You believe that some changes can be beneficial and some can be harmful. You believe that the bad changes create a lower chance of reproductive success and the good changes increase those chances. This is evolution. Which you believe in, unless you deny that genes exist.

>>18500071
>quote cut in mid sentence
>incoherent reply
I can tell your mind is breaking apart in real time.

I talk about trannies more than Jesus

>>18500068
he's god ok? he can do anything he wants

>>18500083
Biologically speaking, jesus was a tranny since all her genes came from her mother.

>>18500078
I tried to make you look less retarded since you said it's "responsible for all life" which isn't what evolution is about, sorry for trying to steelman you. BTW, do you deny that genes exist, or do you believe in evolution? Pick one.

>>18500060
>>18500110
> you believe in evolution
"Evolution" as in organisms gradually changing and adapting to their environment, or "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life?

>>18499874
>buy atheism
No one is selling it. It is just what you believe after you see the facts lol.

>>18500066
Zeus founded my religion though?

>>18500112
>natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life?
What do you mean by "responsible by all life"? Do you mean to include abiogenesis? If so it's not part of evolution. Evolution includes natural selection and random mutation, both of which are facts. If you instead mean to imply that only evolution guides the
>organisms gradually changing and adapting to their environment
Then yes, that's also clearly true as well, you can falsify it by showing something else guiding genetics.

File: negative correlation.jpg (52 KB, 710x605)

52 KB JPG

>>18500091
Evidently not since he can't even convince intelligent people he exists.

>>18500130
>What do you mean by "responsible by all life"?
You legit have some kind of problem with your head. This is the second time you fail to correctly quote the same sentence.

>Evolution includes natural selection and random mutation
And is this sufficient to explain all life forms starting from your hypothetical LUCA and up to what we see today?

>>18500144
No. The space Jew snapped his fingers and went wallah instead.

>>18500144
LUCA wasn't the first life form.
>And is this sufficient to explain all life forms
Yes.

>>18500146
>LUCA wasn't the first life form.
Notice how your psychiatric disease causes you to respond to claims that no one made.

>Yes.
So "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life it was. I wonder what it would take for your mentally ill ass to realize genetics doesn't actually prove this.

>>18500155
>all life forms starting from your hypothetical LUCA
That's not what happened. LUCA is most likely the result of a bottleneck that happened already in the Hadean.
Non-living biological agents like viruses, viroids and so on are almost certainly pre-LUCA.

>>18500156
Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to misquote me repeatedly.

>the guys who slice up their own penises as an offering to the Hebrew storm god are calling others psychotic

>>18500171
Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to hallucinate imaginary characters. I'm not religious and I don't believe in any god, I'm just rubbing your face in the fact that you're a public-"educated" golem, likely an American one.

>>18500208
>If you don't believe in the Jew storm god, you're a..a..A GOLEM!!!!!!

>>18500215
Notice your persistent psychotic pattern of inventing quotes, addressing points no one made and talking to imaginary characters. Why are atheists so mentally ill?

>I'm not religious and I don't believe in any god,
>Why are atheists so mentally ill?
Try asking yourself?

>>18500224
It has little to do with atheism and more to do with how our society treats spirituality.

>>18500146
>Yes.
So "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life, it was. I wonder what it would take for your mentally ill ass to realize genetics doesn't actually prove this.

>>18500232
>unfalsifiable fairytale
It's not, it's a proven scientific phenomenon.

>>18499874
Buy it? I sell it.

>>18500238
>proven
How did your cult prove this?
>inb4 mentally ill mumbling about genetics again

>>18499874
>>18499994
OP's pic is so silly that I assume it was made by somebody who knew what they were doing. I genuinely chucked at it.

>>18500245
>mumbling about genetics
You don't believe genes exit?

>>18500251
So "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life, it was. I wonder what it would take for your mentally ill ass to realize genetics doesn't actually prove this.

>>18500255
Elaborate.

>>18500267
Evolutionary genetics infers a phylogenetic network which supports evolution in the general sense but it doesn't prove your naive random mutation+natural selection story. It's compatible with a whole range of hypothesis about how mutation and selection work. Recent genetic research implies mutations are at the very least biased, but here's the thing: whenever your cult is forced to confront evidence that contradicts its simplistic story, it just finds some way to shoehorn new evidence into the old narrative anyway by going meta and claiming it still explains everything, because it bootstrapped the actual evolutionary mechanisms we observe at some inscrutable point in prehistory.

It's an unfalsifiable fairytale, proven wrong time and time again, but true believers stick with the dogma even as it degenerates into an increasingly empty form without substance.

>>18500255
>So "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life
For all speciation.
It's "The Origin of Species" not 'The Origin of Life.'

>>18500299
See >>18500144

>>18500305
The answer is yes pretty much.
But, this shouldn't be asked here. It's better to go to /sci/.

>>18500315
>The answer is yes pretty much.
It's funny how deeply insecure you are about your position that you have to pretend to be retarded and detail the discussion with irrelevant "corrections" instead of straight up admitting you believe in the fairytale I described.

>>18500297
There are multiple scientific discipline that corroborate the credibility of evolution.
From geology to biology and biogeography

>>18500325
At least you backpedaled from your initial delusion. Everything I wrote still stands completely undisputed. You effectively agreed with it by failing to even contradict it.

>>18500318
I'm not the same anon for one.
Secondly, evolution is most certainly not a fairy tale. There's no narrative to be had. Unlike the Bible.
Evolution is the understanding of biological processes that lead to speciation. It is a record of how species arose from other species.
But, if you still consider it a fairy tale, then I suppose phone books were novels as well.

>>18500297
>Recent genetic research implies mutations are at the very least biased,
What's your evidence? What are they biased towards exactly?

>>18500336
>evolution is most certainly not a fairy tale
"Evolution" as in organisms gradually changing and adapting to their environment, or "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life?

>>18500337
>admits his total ignorance of the last 40 years of evolutionary genetics research

>>18500297
>Recent genetic research implies mutations are at the very least biased
Post it.
>It's compatible with a whole range of hypothesis about how mutation and selection work.
Such as?
>>18500328
>everything I wrote
You said virtually nothing. You just called natural selection a fairy tale and claimed there are some other theories that explain biological diversity.

>>18500349
>admits his total ignorance of the last 40 years of evolutionary genetics research

>>18500349
>You just called natural selection a fairy tale
Also note that your psychotic disease is once again causing you to hallucinate claims no one made.

>>18500344
Evidence is the reason why anyone recognizes evolution as an existing function of life.
If you still consider it a fair tale, then I suppose that evidence that's ever submitted in a courtroom would not be sufficient in trying anyone.

>>18500357
>Evidence is the reason why anyone recognizes evolution
"Evolution" as in organisms gradually changing and adapting to their environment, or "evolution" as in your unfalsifiable fairytale about natural selection and random mutation being responsible for all life?

>>18500347
What forty year research are you talking about exactly? Be clear.

>>18500363
Yes, and phone books were novels and trials are pointless exercises.

>>18500352
You posted nothing. I genuinely don't know what you mean. Natural selection is a fact of life, if something dies it won't pass its genes. And yeah, mutations are random. Obviously some genes are more prone to mutation than others, but that doesn't make them non-random and natural selection non-valid.

>>18500363
You repeat yourself. What is responsible for life and its diversity? What causes evolution if not random mutations and environmental pressure?

>>18500374
>>18500392
>pop-evo atheist fundamentalist shows an explicit preference for scientific ignorance

>>18500397
You are not a serious person.

>>18500402
Oh, Jeez, what gave you that idea?
Having to compare phone books to novels and state trials being pointless and not getting any refutation on either of those points?
No, it's a completely silly nonsense brain broken person.

>>18500418
Kek, I'm not the same anon. You posted nothing, I don't even know what you believe in. I'm guessing you are some retarded ID proponent.

>>18500402
You've not only shown ignorance but an explicit preference for it, demanding that I spoon feed you mainstream knowledge that you could look up for yourself in 5 seconds.

Protip:

In your next post, you'll confirm your preference for ignorance by refusing to take my advice. Instead, you will take my refusal to spoonfeed you as a win for your appeal to ignorance. You will display the same ignorance next time the subject arises. It will never cross your mind to actually read a book or even a wiki article or even to prompt a chatbot to spoonfeed you. You like being ignorant. It feels safer.

>>18500432
>Kek, I'm not the same anon. You posted nothing, I don't even know what you believe in
I made reference to what I posted. But, if you're going to be shitty, then fuck you.
>I'm guessing you are some retarded ID proponent
Guessing based on what? I don't even know what that is.
You know what? I'm just going to call you an 'asshole' and fuck off.
Asshole!

>>18500450
Sorry.

>>18500444
>or even to prompt a chatbot to spoonfeed you
>In short, yes: random mutation and natural selection are the fundamental driving forces responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. They act as a two-step engine of evolution: mutations generate random genetic diversity, and natural selection acts as a filter that preserves the traits best suited for survival.

>>18500548
>instead of looking up the relevant information he asks the chatbot to soothe him and reiterate his dogma
The average atheist's dedication to ignorance and scientific denialism is impressive.

>>18500569
What the fuck? NTA, but is this what you want to be spoonfed: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html

>>18500585
>t. mentally ill retard
See >>18500444

>>18500590
>The average atheist's dedication to ignorance and scientific denialism is impressive
This sentence is confusing. Atheists tend to accept the necessary conclusions of a scientific world view?

>>18500599
>Atheists tend to accept the necessary conclusions of a scientific world view?
Then why do they desperately cling to babby's first neo-Darwinian take instead of reading anything modern about evolutionary biology/genetics?

>>18500606
What are you talking about?

>>18500619
See >>18500297

>>18500620
See what?

>>18500619
He's too shy to say what he thinks in fear of being called retarded (which he is).

>>18500627
>>18500629
>being this mindbroken

File: 395806-826517859.jpg (41 KB, 657x500)

41 KB JPG

>>18500620
>>18500297
>Recent genetic research implies mutations are at the very least biased

>>18500635
See >>18500444
A pretty consistent pattern with your cult. Keep 'em coming.

>>18500641
So in other words it doesn't exist? Or the source is CreationMuseum.org or something you know will be laughed at for it's obvious conflict of interest bias.

>>18500635
There were some papers about this. Some Jew guy tested African and European sperm or something, I don't remember. This is rather heavily criticized in the scientific community and certainly not widely accepted.
There's also nothng supernatural about this and it doesn't contradict natural selection.

>>18500643
You've not only shown ignorance but an explicit preference for it, demanding that I spoon feed you mainstream knowledge that you could look up for yourself in 5 seconds.

Protip:

In your next post, you'll confirm your preference for ignorance by refusing to take my advice. Instead, you will take my refusal to spoonfeed you as a win for your appeal to ignorance. You will display the same ignorance next time the subject arises. It will never cross your mind to actually read a book or even a wiki article or even to prompt a chatbot to spoonfeed you. You like being ignorant. It feels safer.

>>18500646
>psychotic patient continues his persistent pattern of hallucinations

>>18500647
Im begging you to enlighten me. Please show me the truth of creation. Please show me the source of your knowledge.

>>18500653
>psychotic patient is talking to the voices in its head about creation
Why are atheists so mentally ill?

Skydaddy YHWH is slowly biasing genetic mutations over hundreds of years to make it so that everyone is subservient to a certain race. The recent genetics research shows this.

>>18500654
Tell me what you know and how you know it please spoonfeed me.

>>18500659
>psychotic patient continues hearing voices


>>18500660
You've not only shown ignorance but an explicit preference for it, demanding that I spoon feed you mainstream knowledge that you could look up for yourself in 5 seconds.

Protip:

In your next post, you'll confirm your preference for ignorance by refusing to take my advice. Instead, you will take my refusal to spoonfeed you as a win for your appeal to ignorance. You will display the same ignorance next time the subject arises. It will never cross your mind to actually read a book or even a wiki article or even to prompt a chatbot to spoonfeed you. You like being ignorant. It feels safer.

>>18500661
>You like being ignorant
No I really don't, please enlighten me.

>>18500661
>>psychotic patient continues hearing voices
You've not only shown ignorance but an explicit preference for it, demanding that I spoon feed you mainstream knowledge that you could look up for yourself in 5 seconds.

Protip:

In your next post, you'll confirm your preference for ignorance by refusing to take my advice. Instead, you will take my refusal to spoonfeed you as a win for your appeal to ignorance. You will display the same ignorance next time the subject arises. It will never cross your mind to actually read a book or even a wiki article or even to prompt a chatbot to spoonfeed you. You like being ignorant. It feels safer.

>>18500635
Found it, it's studies by a guy called Livnat.

>. Recently, the theory of Interaction-based Evolution (IBE) has been proposed, according to which mutations are neither random nor Lamarckian, but are influenced by information accumulating internally in the genome over generations.
And I was right. They tested African and European sperm for de novo mutations responsible for immunity to various African diseases and those genes were more common in African cum.
Still, they weren't that common in the first place.

>>18500661
>mainstream knowledge
Then why can no one find it?

>>18500672
Because when you say "no one" you actually mean "no member of my stubbornly ignorant cult". It will never cross your mind to actually read a book or even a wiki article or even to prompt a chatbot to spoonfeed you. You like being ignorant. It feels safer.

>>18500671
Your psychiatric condition likely caused you to unsee dozens of other results.

>>18500671
>https://www.livnatlab.com/
>Supported by the John Templeton Foundation and Israel Science Foundation
Kekkk

>>18500700
>being this mentally ill

>>18500698
Post them.

>>18500692
Just post the paper or source you are talking about and prove how ignorant we are.

>>18500707
Anyone who isn't a psychotically diseased fedora is free to type "nonrandom mutation" into a search engine and see the most recent studies and articles. "The origin of mutants" by Cairns et al. (doesn't appear in search results for some reason) is the seminal paper on this, published all the way back in '88. That should give you an idea just how primitive and far behind your American public school "understanding" of evolution is.

I'll note again how several members of your cult have been losing your minds for 50+ posts instead of doing a simple google search. You've not only shown ignorance but an explicit preference for it, demanding that I spoon feed you mainstream knowledge that you could look up for yourself in 5 seconds. Atheism is the religion of ignorance.

>>18500726
>type "nonrandom mutation"
Finally, was that so hard?

>>18500745
No, I just wanted you to demonstrate your ideological dedication to ignorance, which you did unfalteringly, along with several other members of your cult.

>>18500726
>essential, life-sustaining genes are significantly less likely to mutate than non-essential genes. The plants were able to "protect" their most critical DNA to ensure survival
None of this contradicts evolution thoughbeit? You still believe in evolution.

>>18500757
Okay, mutations aren't entirely random and can be driven by environmental factors. Now what?

>>18499874
I used to believe we may be truly alone in this world but not anymore, for several reasons.
1. Evolution barely explains anything. If we're hardwired for survival then why do we possess literally anything besides primal violence? Why emotions, intellect, arts, belief, which are what define us and what created the civilizations we live in today? If survival is the utmost priority then we'd have peaked at violent niggers, or even apes. Yet those are just the starting point. Why would a specie hardwired for survival in a violent environment stray away from that and structure itself in a society that heavily disfavors and punishes acts of aggression? You know I was rewatching Madoka the other day and Kyubey started explaining why their souls are transferred to Soul Gems so they don't feel pain on their physical body, which made me think, why haven't we done the same? Why hasn't the specie that is supposedly built for survival ditch its pain receptors? They're such an inconvenience don't you think? It'd be much simpler if we felt no pain or at least a lot less, that'd make it much more compelling to engage in bloodbaths. No the fact that we have pain receptors highlights a very important fact, we're not meant to engage in violence, we're supposed to steer clear of it. And the beauty of this is it applies to animals as well.

2. Second is just the nature of our science. The scientific method is heavily dependent and also capped by our observation and understanding, which is still far from conclusive, especially questions concerning our origins.

I don't think there's an anthropic God watching us right now in the Abraham's sense who's sent prophets to guide us but I think life came from a source, something much, much deeper than we can imagine.

>>18500726
I literally posted about all of this. None of this debunks natural selection or atheism in any way.

>>18500779
>If we're hardwired for survival then why do we possess literally anything besides primal violence?
This is easy to figure out if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

>>18500786
Nope, them being helpful for survival does not mean that's why we adapted to them. Correlation =/= causation, try again.

>>18500726
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2989722/
>In several cases that have received careful experimental reexamination, however, the detection of seemingly nonrandom mutation has been explained as an experimental artifact. In the remaining cases, there is no evidence to suggest that cells have the capacity to direct or choose which genetic variants will arise.
>However, in this model the origin of adaptive mutants is random; the apparent nonrandomness of mutation is merely a consequence of natural selection. The critical distinction between the origin of genetic variation (mutation) and the possible consequence of that variation (selection) has been neglected by proponents of directed mutation.
Oh wow, this easily explained effect of the environment on the mutation rates (and not the effect of the mutation itself, which are still random) of parts of the DNA of asexually reproducing unicellular organisms totally disproves that mutations are random and proves that the environment tells the sperm in my balls which mutations to pass on to the next generation! This nothingburger has totally overthrown the atheistic neo darwinist paradigm in the last 40 years!

Congrats on wasting everyone's time for the last 60 posts, fucking retard.

>>18500779
>If we're hardwired for survival then why do we possess literally anything besides primal violence?
Because primal violence isn't a state of Nash equilibrium.
>Why emotions, intellect, arts, belief, which are what define us and what created the civilizations we live in today?
Have you taken a look at the absolute state of species that haven't evolved to be able to do those things lately? They're all our bitches.
>Why would a specie hardwired for survival in a violent environment stray away from that and structure itself in a society that heavily disfavors and punishes acts of aggression?
To reduce the risk of being prevented from reproducing and thriving by violence.
>Why hasn't the specie that is supposedly built for survival ditch its pain receptors?
Because building a body takes a ton of resources so you have an incentive to preserve it.
>the fact that we have pain receptors highlights a very important fact, we're not meant to engage in violence, we're supposed to steer clear of it
And the fact that we have pleasure receptors triggered by drugs means we're "supposed to" binge on drugs, apparently.

>>18500787
Mother nature has no preference for cooperation or pure primal violence. It is just that actually sociability, emotions, and intellect are viable. This should comfort you somewhat.

>>18500791
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2989722/
Oops I posted the wrong link
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00166600

>>18500773
>>18500773
>mutations aren't entirely random and can be driven by environmental factors. Now what?
The more they dig into it, the more it starts to look like there's some kind of stochastic optimization strategy at play instead of biology mutating blindly and throwing itself at the wall. How far that goes remains to be seen, but it's already a significant deviation from the spirit of garden variety neo-Darwinian dogma, if not the letter of it. The standard cope for this is that "random with respect to fitness" still applies to individual mutations, which reminds me a lot of that anecdote about RANDU tech support: "We guarantee that each number is random individually, but we don't guarantee that more than one of them is random."

Individual mutations are (maybe?) random but mutation - the mechanism - isn't. There's a structure there. For all anyone knows, it may turn out to be sufficiently complex to count as intelligence (as in AI, not as in ID).

But that's not what you were taught. That's not how you believed it works. That's not what you were defending every time you pulled out that old formula of microevolution x geological timescales = anything we like, trying to DEBOOOOONK any kind of skepticism. So, are you going to stop using that argument now, seeing as it was used to defend a demonstrably false belief? No. You're just gonna go like "b-b-b-but it's still evolution" and then continue using the same shit arguments, pretending they were always meant to justify the last iteration of evolutionary theory and not the random-mutations schoolboy version you were peddling 5 minutes ago.

>>18500817
>cherrypicked study from 1995
Ok. Did you at least pay attention to what it's trying to refute?
>The results of these reports suggest that mutants can arise nonrandomly with respect to fitness
>nonrandomly with respect to fitness
See >>18500825
But it doesn't matter, it's obvious that you will desperately cling to your dogma at all costs.

>>18500825
>The more they dig into it, the more it starts to look like there's some kind of stochastic optimization strategy at play
This is evolution, the more vital parts of DNA tend to have have protection mechanisms. "Epigenetics exists, checkmate atheists" isn't an argument.

>>18500838
It's funny just how predictable mentally ill "people" like you are:
>>18500825
> are you going to stop using that argument now, seeing as it was used to defend a demonstrably false belief? No. You're just gonna go like "b-b-b-but it's still evolution" and then continue using the same shit arguments, pretending they were always meant to justify the last iteration of evolutionary theory and not the random-mutations schoolboy version you were peddling 5 minutes ago.

>>18500833
>Did you at least pay attention to what it's trying to refute?
Yes? That's why I posted it, you moron. And make no mistake, this fails to make the slightest dent on neo darwinist as explained here >>18500791

>>18500825
>For all anyone knows, it may turn out to be sufficiently complex to count as intelligence (as in AI, not as in ID).
If not evolution then are you suggesting it's intelligent guidance?

>>18500825
Nothing you posted supports anything you just said. And even the shit you posted is largely a fringe belief.
>microevolution
Not a real thing. There's only one evolution.

>>18500843
You're a mentally ill retard, this has been established beyond any dispute all over the thread. You're desperately reading through the abstracts of papers you never knew existed until I basically forced you to look them up trying to find some cope, but everything I wrote still stands.

>>18500840
>it was used to defend a demonstrably false belief
Which demonstrably false belief? Epigenetics is part of evolution, fellow evolution-believing atheist.

>>18500846
>>18500848
>retarded automatons jumping out of their chairs to demonstrate my predictions to a T
Doesn't matter. >>18500825 stands completely undisputed for anyone sentient to peruse.

>>18500854
>stands completely undisputed
It's just your schizo rambling. The people who wrote those articles wouldn't agree with you. None of them dispute natural selection.

>>18500851
>Epigenetics
Lol. Stick to words you understand, like poopoo and peepee.

>>18500825
>that's not what you were taught
Wait you think epigenetics is a secret?

>>18500850
Nah, I'm quite familiar with you denis noble type crackpots who have been trying desperately and failing to bring back lamarckism.

>>18500858
Notice how your psychotic rage causes you to periodically mumble something about the voices in your head "disputing natural selection" when it has nothing to do with anything.

>>18500859
Epigenetic markers are literally what guides the biases in nonrandom mutations.

>>18500861
I think you're too mentally ill to look up what that word means, so you keep bringing it up out of context thinking it makes you sound less like an American public school dropout.

>>>18500863
>lamarckism.
See above. Pretty funny how your cult of cookie-cutter "people" all think, act and sound the same.

>>18500865
>Epigenetic markers are literally what guides the biases in nonrandom mutations.
Did you ask chatgpt to write that sentence for you, little buddy? :^)

>>18500866
>See above
Don't care. See >>18500791. You have already been utterly destroyed.

>>18500868
No, I wrote it myself to demonstrate how you have no idea what you're talking about, you're welcome.

>>18500866
You have no idea what epigenetics is do you? Sad.

>>18500871
>>18500872
>>18500873
Reminder that these mentally ill retards spent half the thread denying the scientific findings being discussed, needed specific instructions on how to find them using a search engine and are now pretending to have known them all along, regurgitating fragments from the abstracts of whatever random papers they feel are most compatible with their delusions. :^)

>>18500875
Should also note how they keep conflating nonrandom mutation with epigenetics and lamarckism - words they learned about 5 minutes ago and don't know when or how to use.

>>18500881
>conflating
kek, it's the same shit, just renamed and polished. Fringe nonsesne that most scientists don't take seriously.

little blud thought the youtube conspiracy slop he's been spouting all this time was some deep secret knowledge

>>18500889
>mindbroken retard can't decide if nonrandom mutation is just epigenetics or schizo fringe nonsense (despite like a dozen recent papers covering examples of it)

>>18500875
>denying the scientific findings being discussed
Who's denying that epigenetic markers exist?
>>18500881
>conflating nonrandom mutation with epigenetics
Wait are you denying that epigenetics is what guides the biases?

@18500898
Your incoherent fits don't matter. >>18500825 stands unchallenged.

>>18500899
So you're not challenging that nonrandom bias fits perfectly within evolution since it has been determined to be guided by epigenetics? And you're once again just getting furious and emotional over nothing?

>>18500896
Non-random mutations most likely aren't even a real thing. Epigenetic influence is exaggerated by its proponents.

For some reason Jews started pushing this nonsense. Do you believe they actually passed their trauma from the holocaust to their offspring?

>>18500797
>nash equilibrium
Looked this up, apparently it's a stalemate. Like when two players in chess are stuck repeating the same moves because their positions are optimal. How does this relate to what I said?
>They're all our bitches
AKA we are free to slaughter them, to exercise violence on them. Your point raises two issues:
1. This isn't even true. Animals are proven to be able to feel emotions just like us. This isn't exclusive to humans.
2. IIRC the reason primitive humans were able to conquer the animal kingdom isn't any of these things, it was their stamina. We're the only mammals that sweat.
If you're instead talking about our intellect then that is driven by a very simple reason, it's because we ask questions, which couldn't be farther from desiring violence. Intellect and violence are on the opposite sides.
>reduce the risk of being prevented from reproducing and thriving by violence.
This ties into the Ego and is less about primal violence. Our desire to exist does not automatically validate acting violence on the rest, which is why we're strayed away from violence to begin with, and punished it. You don't even understand what you're saying.
>Because building a body takes a ton of resources so you have an incentive to preserve it.
That's my point, and that's why I ask, if our goal is violence then why not get rid of it? Oh it turns out our survival matters more actually, okay then we stay away from violence. So then why are the species that want to stay out of violence still exercising violence? Oh because the individuals of said species interests might clash. Okay then if these species, who are primarily driven by survival, and thus hate violence, and only exercise it when forced to (ideally), where do they even come from? How did this violent environment promote such species? Is it just because we desire survival more than everybody else? And how come they triumphed in this violent environment when they're the ones that dislike it the most?

>>18500797
>And the fact that we have pleasure receptors triggered by drugs means we're "supposed to" binge on drugs, apparently.
False equivalence. Abusing your body goes against survival. Feeling pain prevents risk. Taking drugs harms.

>>18500802
Same as above

>>18500902
See >>18500825
>
But that's not what you were taught. That's not how you believed it works. That's not what you were defending every time you pulled out that old formula of microevolution x geological timescales = anything we like, trying to DEBOOOOONK any kind of skepticism. So, are you going to stop using that argument now, seeing as it was used to defend a demonstrably false belief? No. You're just gonna go like "b-b-b-but it's still evolution" and then continue using the same shit arguments, pretending they were always meant to justify the last iteration of evolutionary theory and not the random-mutations schoolboy version you were peddling 5 minutes ago.

>>18500903
>some reason Jews started pushing this nonsense
Communists pushed it because they wanted to pretend genetics doesn't exist. Religious retards pushed it because they think skydaddy works by making genetic mutations in mysterious ways. Postmoderns pushed it because genetics is associated with scientific reductionism, which is the biggest evil since the invention of the male penis.

>scientifically illiterate atheists are now denying epigenetics in general
No surprises.

>>18500912
>that's not what you were taught
You think epigenetics is a secret?
>microevolution
This isn't a thing.

>>18500920
>psychotic patient arguing with voices
Ok, moving on. Notice how your subhuman automatonism will force you to shit out another post that none's gonna read.

>>18500912
None of the guys proposing this shit dispute evolution or natural selection and all those studies are about microevolution. And yes, it's literally epigenetics that supposedly affects the germline. Did you even read these studies?

>>18500924
I'm not arguing with a "voice", you're posting in text, but apparently you don't know what a voice is just like you don't understand epigenetics.

>>18500904
You're too obsessed with violence. Violence is a natural state. Humans being social animals goes back to apes. They are also social, they are also violent (at least chimps).
We won't get rid of nociceptors because those evolved very early and such highly conserved genes won't disappear. They probably evolved in the common ancestor of invertebrates and vertebrates.

>>18500938
My main argument is how do you reconcile the existence of violence with the desire for survival?
If an organism's utmost priority is survival, which predicates abstaining from violence, then why is violence even a thing? It's almost like an external force, evil isn't part of life.

Buddhism solved everything already

>>18500854
If not evolution, aka natural material processes, then what? Stop acting like a child.

>>18500948
Survival requires resources (food), so there is a competition for the resources and violence is one strategy used in such competitions.

>>18500905
>Same as above
You mean the thought terminating cliche? You are a midwit.

>>18501021
If there's not enough resources then why was life allowed to develop to begin with?

>>18501044
No, I'm not talking about homo sapiens co-ops and adaptations to living in a group, I'm talking about the origin.
Your blanket response of "w-well they just work" misses the point entirely.
See >>18500948

>midwit
Says the faggot who thinks men can be women.

File: DNA_Transcription_and_Tra(...).gif (733 KB, 512x342)

733 KB GIF

>>18501091
>If there's not enough resources then why was life allowed to develop
The way life "survives" is not by being immortal but by replication - making copies of its genes. It is these copied genes which survive in the long term. The organism itself is just a temporary vehicle for these genes to make copies of themselves, so the "survival" of the organism is of some benefit to the genes, but the organism is not the main beneficiary. Life survives by replication instead of immortality because lifeforms are made up of many atoms and are thus subject to the laws of entropy and can't stay stable for long, unlike individual atoms.

The earliest lifeforms were just organic molecules with the tendency (due to their physical structure) to copy themselves to some degree of accuracy. These self-replicating organic molecules formed in a background of raw organic material (the so-called primordial soup). To make a copy of yourself, you need twice the amount of matter in yourself, so the way these self-replicating molecules made copies is by using raw material from the primordial soup as food for their self-replication. You can see an advanced form of this process working within your cells every time DNA is transcribed into RNA or during mitosis when a copy of DNA is made. The food in this case is the nucleotides in your cells, so the material in your cells serve as a mini primordial soup for your DNA to replicate (or to make RNA).

These early self-replicating molecules kept copying themselves until there was a food shortage, since there is only a finite amount of organic material on the planet. But because the copies weren't perfect, some of these mutant copies were better at utilizing the primordial soup than others and the ones which couldn't compete with these mutants eventually died out. This competition continues and has given rise to all life on the planet. That completes your biology 101 class for today.

>>18501207
>many atoms
*many moving parts, is more appropriate here

>>18500903
>For some reason Jews started pushing this nonsense.
Jews would love nothing better than to convince everyone that they shouldn't be forced to be held accountable for their actions, since without epigenetics your theory of evolution makes everyone into an effective p-zombie lol.

genetics is 100% pseudoscience, evidence being that CRISPR has failed to garner any meaningful results. bringing this up will make STEM tards seethe.

>>18501207
Thank you for the foundational creation myth of the 21st century.

>>18500825
>there's some kind of stochastic optimization strategy at play instead of biology mutating blindly
>The standard cope for this is that "random with respect to fitness" still applies to individual mutations, which reminds me a lot of that anecdote about RANDU tech support: "We guarantee that each number is random individually, but we don't guarantee that more than one of them is random."
But the point of that anecdote is that "random individually" doesn't mean anything. Algorithmic randomness is the property of a sequence and the sequences produced by RANDU didn't have it. Take many samples of mutations from the same genomic region, quantify their usefulness and apply any relevant statistical metric. You won't find any bias towards fitness. So what's your point?

>But that's not what you were taught. That's not how you believed it works. That's not what you were defending every time you pulled out that old formula of microevolution x geological timescales = anything we like, trying to DEBOOOOONK any kind of skepticism
Let me get this straight: you reject intelligent design and agree that life has evolved (for some value of 'evolved'), but you're mad about people extrapolating that small changes can accumulate into big changes over time?

>>18501481
>Take many samples of mutations from the same genomic region, quantify their usefulness and apply any relevant statistical metric. You won't find any bias towards fitness. So what's your point?
My point is that a scientist looked at the bigger picture of RANDU outputs and saw a structure, meanwhile the technician came up with the brilliant defense to zoom in as much as possible and say "that's your problem, I don't see the pattern". Something analogous is happening here.

There's rhyme and reason to the relative mutation rates in different parts of the genome and how they respond to the environment. It accelerates the search for solutions compared to a random walk through the solution space. If mutation (as a process acting on an entire genome, an entire population) has a strategy to increase the likelihood of useful adaptations using feedback from the environment, it's not actually "random with respect to fitness", is it?

But nobody knew it was a thing up until recently. Most pop-sci fans and atheist zealots still don't know it's a thing. Most public school science teachers probably don't know, either. They believe mutation is random, as in the plainest implications of that statement. They'll argue to the death defending that idea. If you force them to confront the evidence, they'll say: ACK-chually, it's still true that mutations are random wrt. fitness; we weren't wrong! In reality, their mental picture was so wrong they couldn't even conceive of the difference between "mutations (the individual events) are random" and "mutation (the process) is random". It's a textbook motte-and-bailey position. The way it's constructed, anything short of overturning phylogenetics can be shoehorned into the same old framework. Past claims can always be reframed to mean something narrower or something different.

>>18501481
>Let me get this straight: you reject intelligent design and agree that life has evolved (for some value of 'evolved'), but you're mad about people extrapolating that small changes can accumulate into big changes over time?
Pop-evo fags still argue fervently that natural selection + random mutation is all you need. Skepticism is invariably met with the claim that "evolution is a fact", meaning: our little story looks true enough in a petri dish (a fact), so it can account for any level of complexity given enough time (not a fact). Now that you know mutation isn't random, and the simplistic model you were defending couldn't possibly account for the nature we observe, are you going to admit everyone who called bullshit on this argument was right? Of course not. Evolution itself just mutates and evolves. Even if de facto evolutionist beliefs turn out to have been wrong every step of the way from Darwin to whatever the true mechanism is, on your death bed you'll still claim you were right all along because it was "evolution" after all and not desert demons.

File: 1769207398406151.png (612 KB, 800x925)

612 KB PNG

>>18499874
how is that more ridiculous than pic related?

>>18501613
>>18501624
You believe in fringe nonsense not accepted by any real scientist. No, even the papers you reference don't state any of this. Yes, mutations are still considered random. Mutation bias doesn't change the fact that they are still random.

>"mutations (the individual events) are random" and "mutation (the process) is random"
Probably because this is just pure nonsense.

Bro, you are not right, no one agrees with you. You don't even understand the papers you reference. None of those articles question that macro- and microevolution are different in any way. Why should they? There's no evidence for this.

>>18501613
>There's rhyme and reason to the relative mutation rates in different parts of the genome and how they respond to the environment. It accelerates the search for solutions compared to a random walk through the solution space. If mutation (as a process acting on an entire genome, an entire population) has a strategy to increase the likelihood of useful adaptations using feedback from the environment, it's not actually "random with respect to fitness", is it?
Then it's not purely random on that level, but neither is it driven by foresight. No genetic mechanism evaluates potential mutations with respect to fitness before they occur. It takes selection to sort them out.

>>18501624
>Now that you know mutation isn't random, and the simplistic model you were defending couldn't possibly account for the nature we observe, are you going to admit everyone who called bullshit on this argument was right?
You're missing the point of the argument. The details of currently known mechanisms can be abstracted. Think about it in terms of mutation and selection more generally, the key point being that there's no intention/foresight/planning/intelligence involved. Let alone divine architects.

>>18501677
>Then it's not purely random on that level, but neither is it driven by foresight. No genetic mechanism evaluates potential mutations with respect to fitness before they occur.
Right. Ok, imagine you're the charged with tinkering with some creature's DNA. You don't know what anything does, but you know that:

Region A in the genome is responsible for vital functions: you can kill off an entire population fucking with it before you ever run into a useful adaptation
Region B is responsible for more peripheral functions: most random changes would be useless or deleterious, but not disastrously so
Region C correlates with traits that deal with a certain class of stressors

You figure you better not touch A unless the alternative is extinction, you're mostly going to play around with B, and you're going to tinker with C more if the stressors are present in the environment. Suppose you explain your strategy to me and I say you're a total retard and your strategy has no foresight, because you don't know what any change to any of the region is actually going to do. Would that be a fair assessment?

>>18501751
>Suppose you explain your strategy to me and I say you're a total retard and your strategy has no foresight, because you don't know what any change to any of the region is actually going to do. Would that be a fair assessment?
No, but are you seriously anthropomorphizing evolution like it's contemplating future consequences to arrive at such schemes?

so much tldr in this thread @grok summarize

>>18501769
I'm not anthropomorphizing shit. If an optimization algorithm arrives at a strategy that makes moves anticipating the distribution of future outcomes, you could call it foresight at least from an abstract functionalist perspective. My broader point is that the way things are shaping up, it may very well turn out that nature looks like there's intelligence behind it because there IS intelligence behind it, just not the kind creationists wanted it to be. Meanwhile the "blind tinkerer" dogmatists are just blind themselves.

>>18499874
This is a flat earther meme. The "cartoon balls" is claiming that planets don't exist.

>>18500019
So the romanian subhuman who screams about qualia on /sci/ doesn't even pretend not to be an evolution denying christcuck on /his/. Sad

>>18501792
>If an optimization algorithm arrives at a strategy that makes moves anticipating the distribution of future outcomes, you could call it foresight at least from an abstract functionalist perspective.
You have language models cracking unsolved math problems and people still doubt they're intelligent, precisely because your characterization applies better than the concept of thought. You say the distribution of mutations across the genome changes a bit in response to the environment. So what? How do you expect to convince anyone that this implies intelligence?

>My broader point is that the way things are shaping up, it may very well turn out that nature looks like there's intelligence behind it because there IS intelligence behind it, just not the kind creationists wanted it to be. Meanwhile the "blind tinkerer" dogmatists are just blind themselves.
That's purely speculative.

>>18501859
>implying i'm religious
>implying i believe in any god at all
>implying i denied evolution at any point
>being so assblasted about losing an online argument that you develop paranoid schizophrenia and start seeing your e-bully everywhere

>>18501859
The schizo is actually moldovan.

>>18501864
>How do you expect to convince anyone that this implies intelligence?
Is slime mold intelligent? What about an ant colony? If the spectrum of intelligence accommodates such things, it probably has a place for the mechanism we're discussing. In most contexts, it's below the threshold of the label's applicability, but according to blind tinkerer dogma, mutation shouldn't even be on the intelligence spectrum.

>That's purely speculative.
Recent findings invite such speculations so it's not arbitrary. But that's not even the point. The evolutionist argument is unfalsifiable: they take current scientific understanding (or whatever scientists believed 30 years ago, more often) and extrapolate up to scales a thousand orders of magnitude beyond what can be empirically validated. When it's questioned, they act like it's indisputable common sense: many small changes add up to whatever they want, Q.E.D. When The Science(tm) changes - proving their extrapolation wrong and their logic to be fallacious - they simply retreat to vaguer claims, then use the same exact argument again to "prove" Evolution (Current Edition!) already explains everything.

>>18501637
Nah, religious "people" believe in flat earth and deny evolution.

>>18501859
What's wrong with that, tranny?

Evolution is pseudoscience until it can explain consciousness.

>>18500140
>negative correlation to 100IQ
>positive correlation for >100IQ

kek, literally the midwit meme

>>18499874
Atheism is for angry people who are mad at life. They're too hurt and miserable to believe in anything.

>>18502124
What is there to explain?

>>18503203
>What is there to explain?
Why is there something rather than nothing (internally)?