File: qaBYfun4Bi8DG5erojHuHd.jpg (312 KB, 865x1083)

312 KB JPG

Leaf bugs disprove evolution

>>16996053
retard thread

>>16996067
just because you're here?

>>16996053
>extremely primitive life can't just pop into existence therefore we need an absurdly complex creator who just pooped into existence

>>16996080
>extremely primitive life
(You) can't even create a grain of barley, IFLS fag.

>>16996080
>therefore we need an absurdly complex creator who just pooped into existence
Incorrect, The Creator has always existed and will always exist. He exists outside of space and time and is not bound by the constraints you and I are. It's core to the philosophy of creation which you have failed to grasp. The Creator did not "just pop into existence" It's more correct to say "existence exists as a by product of The Creator."

>>16996108
Why not apply that idea to the universe? Time isn't real. The universe is a timeless 4 dimensional block and it happens that there I lifeforms in that block who hallucinate the appearance of time.
Why go the extra step?

>>16996110
The universe is 3D with a 4D over-environment layer called time.

>>16996080
>fallacy of excluded middle

>>16996107
Barley isn't primitive.

>>16996080
>complex creator
Actually, God is simple.

It destroys the ability to interact with other life (reproduce)

>>16996053
>Time and mutation cannot create anything, they can only destroy.
you made that up

>>16996242
it follows directly from the involved odds

if you start with a book and letters are randomly replaced, it won't turn into a better book but gibberish
selection is not nearly strong enough to counter this because the odds are astronomical

>>16996256
Now imagine a randomly generated book where anything comprehensible is selectively retained while the gibberish is free to randomize freely. Now imagine millions of these books are going though the same process at the same time: anything legible is retained, gibberish keeps randomizing.
And these millions of books are crossing the legible bits with each other while this selection process is happening.

You won't end up with a masterpiece, but the overall legibility increases at an exponential rate.

File: 1749732511245003.jpg (282 KB, 828x714)

282 KB JPG

>>16996256
Yes, that's where the selection part comes in. Are you seriously this retarded? Or just trolling?

Or, imagine that every path is taken somewhere. If a path leads to life it will be taken, and the life will then be complaining about it.

>>16996291
>>16996279
You talk about this as if 30% of mutations are beneficial and a fine-grained, controlled exchange of genetic elements depending on their fitness is possible. This is not the case. Selection after an individual and a new genome has been formed will never be enough.
But this isn't even the point. The existence of orphan genes is the point.

>this mathematically nonsensical theory would work if the math weren't nonsensical
yeah

>>16996291
these people are actually just retarded

all we can do is ignore them and hope they die soon

>>16996053
>Time and mutation cannot create anything, they can only destroy
what the fuck does that even mean?

>>16996300
You don't even know what this thread is about.
Go on, explain where orphan genes come from.
Explain why you think the argument in the link is invalid. You can't, because you believe in lies.
>>16996301
Do you believe bitflips will improve a computer program?

>>16996301
it's cope for fringe religious lunatics. It's not based on anything in reality.

>>16996306
Do you believe everything life does is to improve the lifeform with some kind of omniscient view of the future? Life has no idea what it's doing, it's a brute force search algorithm. You're one of the branches. If you die, other branches continue.

>>16996306
>Do you believe bitflips will improve a computer program?
A single bitflip? Probably not.
But if you had a process by which the programs with the flipped bits could replicate and acquire additional bitflips while under some form of selective pressure? Sure.

>>16996299
>>16996306
Orphan genes were one specific example listed by the OP among other examples of things he's too stupid to understand. Acting like any comment that doesn't explicitly explain orphan genes is off topic is disingenuous.

Anyway, orphan genes can be explained by gene duplication, rapid alteration from various sources, and/or ancestral genes dying off. It's not that puzzling.

>>16996066
*disproves neo-darwinism

>>16996279
>where anything comprehensible is selectively retained
by what

>>16996388
Natural selection.

>>16996390
a book?

>>16996398
for a book, I mean.

>>16996398
Obviously the book analogy breaks down at that point. But that's a problem with the analogy, not the principle.

>>16996402
but it still begs the question how natural selection kickstarted the process to begin with, assuming the absolute earliest stages of life was akin to a "book" aka static bundles of information.

>>16996405
We don't know exactly what the earliest stages of life were like, but once you have some chemical composition capable of self replication with variation then all the selection principles previously outlined apply. A book does not self-replicate which is precisely why the analogy breaks down.

>>16996066
They don’t

File: Dorudon.jpg (33 KB, 1024x299)

33 KB JPG

>>16996053
But whales have legs

>>16996351
>Anyway, orphan genes can be explained by gene duplication, rapid alteration from various sources, and/or ancestral genes dying off. It's not that puzzling
No. Do you know how rare functional proteins are? Estimates vary from 1 in 10^63 sequences for amino acid lengths of 150 to 10^80. It's obvious that these "explanations" are pure cope.

>>16996518
The orphan genes are a minority as well.
Again, all the ancestral genes could have died off. Or maybe we just haven't discovered the homologues. Or maybe endogenous retroviruses. Or maybe gene duplication. There's a lot of well understood ways de novo gene birth can occur abd the only thing that defines an "orphan gene" is a lack of known homologues.

But you'll ignore all of these points without doing any research whatsoever.

Ok, how about we meet in the middle and say that God, through obvious divine brilliance, created a fully automatic mechanism which allows life to try new configurations of life without divine intervention. Obviously we still need to thank the creator for building such a wonderful setup, which is where you religious folks come in. She's a very tentacles-off deity, although obviously still watches you in the shower. Can't help herself. Happy?

>>16996532
I'm not religious but this is the most reddit thing I've read in a long fucking time.

>>16996053
>Time and mutation cannot create anything
>t. bitter barren bitch
Don't worry, lady, you can still contribute to the world without actually being able to reproduce and create more babies like a normal woman.

>>16996108
>The Creator has always existed and will always exist
Which just means it popped into existence an indeterminate amount of time in the past and none of your attempts to define it or its properties can ever possibly be correct, so even referring to it as The Creator is a falsehood since it can magically transcend all of that.

>>16996256
>if you start with a book and letters are randomly replaced
They aren't randomly replaced, though, new combinations are randomly attempted by the author (a new organism) and the editor (natural selection/physical environments) chooses which combinations make sense and fit the story. You are leaving out half of the mechanisms of evolution in your poor attempt to explain how evolution works which is why it doesn't make sense.

>>16996306
>Do you believe bitflips will improve a computer program?
Yes, I know for a fact that the Monte Carlo Method is used to improve computer programs.

>>16996386
>neo-darwinism
Hasn't that been superseded by almost a century now? I'm not a biologist.

>>16996405
>but it still begs the question how natural selection kickstarted the process to begin with
Things that can replicate well, will replicate more than things that can't replicate well.
And from memory we can trace this back all the way to chemical reactions that produce their own catalyst as a byproduct. So through natural selection, the chemicals that could do this best replicated the most and became the basic building blocks for life.

>>16996575
Yeah but what if instead of that it was magic. That would be a lot simpler. It just magically happened from a wizard.
It also stands to reason that the wizard hates it when you wear mixed fabrics and wants you to cut the end of your penis off. That's a lot more reasonable than this "self replicating" nonsense.

>>16996578
Very true. You know, maybe this is silly or a copout, but my stance on this is that it doesn't really matter if origin of life and evolution researchers find the real pathways by which life as we know it came to be, or if god just snapped the world into existence at some point and they just find the pathways which he planted all the evidence for, for some reason.
And purely philosophically the latter becomes very weird very quickly. Because if you accept that as a possibility, who's to say that the world as is didn't snap into existence 5 minutes ago with all your memories fabricated?
So really, who cares?

>>16996531
>Again, all the ancestral genes could have died off. Or maybe we just haven't discovered the homologues. Or maybe endogenous retroviruses. Or maybe gene duplication. There's a lot of well understood ways de novo gene birth can occur abd the only thing that defines an "orphan gene" is a lack of known homologues.
The number of orphan genes hasn't decreased in the last 20 years despite the existence of better homology detection algorithms.

The question is not whether a mechanism can theoretically cause mutations, the question is whether it is mathematically plausible. Current estimates suggest that one in 10^77 amino acid sequences (consisting of 150 amino acids linked together) produces a biologically useful protein. In light of these facts, it is absurd to cling to the theory of evolution.
>>16996551
Start with 10 books and in each book you randomly swap out 10 letters. Then choose the best book and it will still be worse than the initial design. And no matter how hard you select, it will always deteriorate. No matter whether number of offspring is 10 or 10 billion.
>>16996578
>wants you to cut the end of your penis off
The New Testament explicitly calls on Christians to refrain from doing so.

Evolution - here are eye balls so you can see shapes, colours, patterns and apex predators easier

>thousands of years later on 4chan
Evolution doesn't make sense

It does make sense, it's just inefficient and more like adding things to something rather than designing the perfect system. If you could build a perfect human then you would do a lot of things differently but the way evolution works is it spawns things that you need and loses things that you don't need rather than re-writing the whole human body. If we the sun went out, and we lived in darkness out eyes would change over thousands of years.

>>16996590
>The New Testament explicitly calls on Christians to refrain from doing so.
No, Jesus explicitly says to cut off any limb that may tempt you to sin because it is better to enter the kingdom of god without the limb than to go the the pit of fire, he also says its good for people to be eunuchs to glorify god and they are higher class than people who became eunuchs by accident.

>>16996590
>The number of orphan genes hasn't decreased in the last 20 years despite the existence of better homology detection algorithms.
Okay... so literally any other mechanism. Or undiscovered/unanalyzed species. You're missing the point.
>>16996590
>The question is not whether a mechanism can theoretically cause mutations, the question is whether it is mathematically plausible
No. It's quite literally whether these mechanisms exist. Mathematical plausibility is irrelevant when the alternative you propose has zero evidence whatsoever.

>Current estimates suggest that one in 10^77 amino acid sequences produces a biologically useful protein
Irrelevant in the face of gene duplications, extinct homologues, or endogenous retroviruses. You are rejecting these pathways with zero research as predicted.

>>16996590
>In light of these facts, it is absurd to cling to the theory of evolution
You don’t even know what the theory of evolution is. None of you retards ever do

>>16996590
>the initial design
That isn't how evolution works, though, the initial design would be more like the alphabet than the books.

>>16996053
bro is so filtered and assblasted by biological evolution he'll argue chemical evolution doesn't exist lmfao. btw biological evolution is a direct corollary of chemical evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

>>16996590
Which is why the book analogy shouldn't be taken too far, since a book has a clearly defined purpose.
You might disagree that random mutation and natural selection lead to life as we know it today, but you seem to be disputing that the process, in principle, could work at all, which is just stupid. (the former is stupid too, but less so)
It really isn't hard to wrap your head around it. A random change to the gene that has no effect on an organism's ability to reproduce will proliferate. Eventually enough changes will accumulate that they will have a statistically significant impact on the organisms reproduction. If it's a positive effect it will be selected for, if it's negative it will be selected against.

>>16996532
>we meet in the middle and say that God
that's not meeting in the middle. how about your fuck off and leave religion out of scientific discourse entirely?

>>16996641
Read the rest of his post. It's snarky redditor shit.