>if theres no natural experiment then theres no science theorythis knowlege saved me from becoming a bootlicking globohomo liberal
>>17002959experiment or observationin general terms, you need to be able to check what someone says
>>17002959>>17002971Could you provide an example of "bootlicking globohomo liberal" claims passed off as science for which there exists no "experiment or observation?"
>>17002975The theory of evolution
>>17002977>observationA lot of animals seem more similar to each other than others>experimentSequence their DNA and see if these similarities are signify common ancestry>resultThe DNA of more similar creatures show all the hallmarks of more recent common ancestry than less similar creatures.This is generalizable. The more similar the animals are the more signs of common ancestry appear.
>>17002975Most of history, paleontology, geology and similar fields that talk about the past.
>17002979A bunch of numbers that can be manipulated by shitentists in a laboratory to give results they want do not constitute something experimental nor observable. It is pretty much bolshevism/communism in action, with "experts" making up whatever stuff they want via manipulating DNA sequences in order to get some shekels.
>>17002980Be specific.>>17002981>bunch of numbers that can be manipulated by shitentists in a laboratory to give results they want do not constitute something experimental nor observableYes. They literally do.But now that you've shifted the goalpost from "there is no experiment/observation" to "they're lying about their experiments and observations" I accept your full and uncontested concession on toir original thesis.Likewise, "they're lying" is a positive claim. You must provide evidence of that claim for non-retards to take it seriously.What experiment or observation do you believe shows that they're lying?
>>17002983Show me one single ape evolving into a man. No need to make up lame excuses like "We need to wait a few million years for that to happen"
>>17002985Us lol. We are outright apes and any aliens would see that quite obviously.
>>17002985I don't need to. There are other experiments and observations which point to that having happened in the past.
>17003000Leftist needs to cope via making up entirely unproven "past observations"The Bible proves theory of evolution is false, and that is a more serious proof than any made up garbage you soientists can come up with.
>>17003001Present observations can shed insight on past events. You don't need to witness a murder to know it happened.
>>17003001Amen brother. The Bible contains all knowledge that man ever needs. We should cancel all scientific and mathematical endeavors and go back to the good book. Don't think it mentioned cell phones or AI porn, or 4chan. Let's get rid of the garbage infesting our society.
>17003004Deliberately false analogy.You can make up whatever you want lie using the media and liberals like you will eat it up anyway.Not a single monkey evolving into a man, no theory of evolution.No homicidal gaz chambers, no holohoax.
>17003012AI is garbage soience slop porn addict soi boy
>>17003013>loses argument>resorts to trollingI accept your concession.
>>17003013You converted me from atheism to the way of Christ. A little halo just sprung up over my head. God was real the whole time? Why didn't any of you Christians mention this? You could have said, you know. Jeez.
>17003016Show me one single monkey evolving into a man.You cannot. You lost and are coping by claiming you won.
>17003017>Soi boy trusts his leftist women school teachers over His Maker.
>>17003018Already explained why I don't have to.Show me a woman made out of a rib.
>17003020Cope != ExplanationShow me one single ape evolving into a man. No need to make up lame excuses like "We need to wait a few million years for that to happen"
>>17003022It is you who is coping, my friend. Your argument has been rigorously refuted and you know it. Unless you actually address my counter I will happily take my dub and move on.
>>17003019nta, but >"""theology""">on /sci/>of all places
/pol/tard raid, spam, trolling, and shitposting threads are cancer and against >>>/global/rules/3 >>>/global/rules/4 >>>/global/rules/6 >>>/global/rules/10 and >>>/sci/rules/1OP is a faggot. Fulfill your civic duty to help purge this board of anarchistic, sociopathic, intellectually regressive youtube/reddit/twitter immigrant subhuman troglodytes like him, who are under the delusion that all of 4chan (instead of just the designated shitposting playpens like /b/, /trash/, /bant/, etc.) is a toilet by reporting this thread en masse.If necessary, force the "mods" to actually do their fucking jobs by reporting this shitty thread as a violation of U.S. law.Here's a link so you don't have to scroll up to the top of the page. https://sys.4chan.org/sci/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=17002959You can report something multiple times by clearing your cookies and reseting your router.
>>17003024>Show me one single ape evolving into a man. No need to make up lame excuses like "We need to wait a few million years for that to happen"Until you show me something real, I am not obligated to believe your leftist garbage "explanations"
>17003028>17003026>17003024
>>17003004Except there is evidence whenever a murder happens, with a murder weapon, a body, a murderer. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is pretty much science fiction with mental gymnastics serving as "evidence"
>>17003032There is evidence of evolution though. See: >>17002979
>>17003033Your "explanation" is mental gymnastics. Show me something based on reality, like a film showing an animal changing species. I'll wait.
>>17003042define mental gymnastics
>>17003046>>observation>A lot of animals seem more similar to each other than others>>experiment>Sequence their DNA and see if these similarities are signify common ancestry>>result>The DNA of more similar creatures show all the hallmarks of more recent common ancestry than less similar creatures.>This is generalizable. The more similar the animals are the more signs of common ancestry appear.There you go. Show something real and concrete, don't tell and share your science fiction and subjective interpretation.
>>17003028Holy shit i have never seen somebody just as mad over a 4chan post. And im not even agreeing with op.
>>17003080newfag
>>17003084plebbitor
>>17003084>IM SOOOOOO MAD AAAAAAAAAAA
>>17002983>Be specific.I was, fields of science that talk about the past. You cant observe or experiment with historical tales
>>17002977Evolution is directly observed.
What the fuck is with these literal retarded christians that have been swarming 4chan for like a year now?
>>17003230This is false. You can observe the ground being wet now and that is evidence that it rained earlier. Do we can, in fact, make observations now which indicate historical facts.
>>17003088>>17003091how is observing that someone is new related to being a redditor or being mad?
>>17003365I specifically talked about how these fields talk about the past. Twice already, you simply want to argue for the sake of arguing.From cosmology that talks about the big bang to recent 20th century history, some things you just cant now and you never will,
>>17003395You are special pleading. Either the principle applies or it doesn't. You claimed that we can't make observations about historical facts and that is provably false. Now that you've provided an actual example, we can discuss it:We can make observations now that indicate the universe is expanding. We therefore have every reason to suspect that it was expanding in the past. So the notion that the universe was once arbitrarily dense and will continue to grow arbitrarily sparse is purely on the basis of observation.You can argue all you want about the quality of that evidence, but remember the goalpost you set is that there is *no* observation supporting this claim.
>>17002977Macro evolution yes, micro evolution no.
>>17002979But has nothing to do with evolution. In fact the similarities fit way better in a creational theory because a creator would rely on proven models like any car, food, building or soap opera - and their building blocks - proves.
>>17003365>You can observe the ground being wet now and that is evidence that it rained earlier.Lol, wet ground can have a bunch of other reasons.>>17003048>Show something real and concrete, don't tell and share your science fiction and subjective interpretation.He can't if they would do. They ignore all arguments against that BS too. It's a church, bootlicking the ones in power for more gibs.
>>17003515Read carefully. I said "hallmarks of common ancestry." This would include things like ERV's that would have no reason to be shared from a utilitarian perspective.Common ancestry of distinct species is evolution.>>17003517>wet ground can have a bunch of other reasonsYes. As a matter of fact it can. But that has no relevance to the point being made. See: >>17003397>You can argue all you want about the quality of that evidence, but remember the goalpost you set is that there is *no* observation supporting this claim.
>>17003570>Suggesting that white men owe AfricaThat is not a scientific claim. Humanity originating somewhere does not imply anyone "owes" anything to a geographic location.>man is equal to an animalThat is not a scientific claim. That is a value judgement. Nothing about the origin or ancestry of a species says anything about its value.>proofExplicitly not a thing in science. Even absurdly well documented findings like the chemical composition of water have a non-zero chance of being incorrect. Proof only exists in math and formal logic.>>17003577>White colonialism debunks the idea that Europeans were "ancient africans".That's an interesting claim.>why would white men leave Africa instead of building their castles and roads in Wakkanda and living happily there?"White men" didn't exist yet. Everyone was nomadic hunter-gatherers during this time period. "White people," as we know them today, come from Europe. The people leving Africa had no concept of what continent they were in, leaving, or entering.
>>17003585All you've done is demonstrate that you have zero understanding of the thing you are expressing an opinion on. You lost, tranny.
>>17003587I voted for Trump too. But with the amount of reality denying delusions you hold I can easily see you as a Blair White style abomination.
>>17003590>more hallucinations from the deluded retardAnyway. We've veered way off course. You've already conceded every relevant point so I'll happily accept my dubsky.
>>17003594>slowly evolving over millions of years makes no sense!>an omnipotent creature that has never shown itself actually just popped humans into existence on a whim instantly instead!Seriously I hope you kill yourself
>>17003602>Make it make sense
>>17003000>Trust me bro.
>>17003397>You claimed that we can't make observations about historical facts and that is provably false.We cant, because you cant make observations nor experiments about history.>>17003397>We can make observations now that indicate the universe is expandingThis isnt an observation of the past>>17003397>We therefore have every reason to suspect that it was expanding in the past.This isnt an observation or experiment. Reason is a pre-scientific concept that lead to insane ideas that sounded reasonable. Scientific knowledge requires observations or experiemts, not reason.
>>17003720>We cant, because you cant make observations nor experiments about history.You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. We can't directly observe the past because we're in the present. But we can reconstruct what happened using models applied to the current observed state. We can observe and record those observations, then observe the recorded observations to get a limited window into the past.
>>17003378Dude look at this guy being mad>>17003028
Literally what the fuck is going on here on /sci/ lately? Where the fuck are these dogshit for brained subhuman christcucks coming from?Evolution is directly observed, morons. Both "Micro" and "macro" evolution are directly observed all the time. Science can in fact make predictions about the past and confirm them, whoever told you that you can't verify things in the past lied to you.
>>17003722>But we can reconstruct what happened using modelsHow are these models tests, sir?
>>17003378>>17003747you're a soijak lmao stay seething soiglobalhead
>>17003747>dogshit for brained lets see just how badly dogshit for brained this post is>evolution is directly observedno it fucking isnt, no human has lived long enough to see a fish grow legs and become a monkey, then a human. because darwintards claim evolution takes millions of years (beyond human life span, duhhhhh)youre just flat out wrong logically, but on top of that a liar. "Micro evolution" is just a fancy way of saying enviornmental pressure. "Macro evolution" is just a religion of pseudoscience.in order for you to have any test hypothesis prediction you would have to first OBSERVE in nature a feature of "macro evolution".Nobody has EVER observed a fish growing legs, then explained how it happenedThere was never any observation nor explanation nor validation for any of this horseshit. youre literally smoking drugs you dont know what science is
>>17003747Christian faggots spam here because they are jewish puppetsThere's a handful of intelligent people who still post here sometimes, just ignore the creationist retards and pray they kill themselves soon desu
>>17003747>reference to argumentThis summarizes the entire evolutionary argument. There is nothing there. No cogent statement. No underlying justification of belief. Just a bunch of retards that passed mandatory government indoctrination and then shelled out money for more of it.Name one instance of direct observation.
>>17003784>no it fucking isntYes, it is. You don't know what evolution is. We have in fact seen novel tissues form via random mutation. "micro" evolution is not a "fancy way of describing environmental pressures", because mutation generating novel information (which we also directly observe all the time) is not environmental. >>17003806Buddy, we directly observe evolution and the underlying mathematical model has been formally proved. That is the argument. You guys pretending otherwise is never going to change reality. Your church lying to you about how the world formed is not real knowledge, shit for brains. The bible is not the word of God. Get it through you shit skull.
>>17003833you cannot read. There doesnt exist "evolution experiment" for fish to grow legs, period. "novel tissues" is a red herring.you dont have an experiment, you dont have science. You have formal textbook just-so-story. Nothing based in evidence whatsoever
>>17003851>There doesnt exist "evolution experiment" for fish to grow legs, period. "novel tissues" is a red herring.There are fish with that have fish, and novel tissues and organs are not "red herrings", they are precisely the novel information that you retards pretend don't exist.>you dont have an experimentWe do>You have formal textbook just-so-storyNo, evolution is directly observed. It is not a "Just so story">Nothing based in evidence whatsoeverAgain, buddy, we directly observe the thing you pretend we have no evidence of.
>>17003833Name the experiment.Name the proof.
>>17004328Ok, fine. I'll break it down for you retards. Let's follow along, shall we? First step: we're a product of our DNA, which I'm hoping you won't deny. If we're getting into whether DNA is real you're really gone full retard. Anyway, change the DNA change the life form.Second step: you can force cultures of bacteria to evolve and watch it in real time by introducing some sort of environmental stress. Their DNA changes, not through some sort of magic, but random mutation. This is literally evolution in action.> Inb4 hurr butt whu wont bacteria grow arms. Still invalid because I am not actually honestly arguing, just shitposting
>>17004331Wait, so you aren't actually naming it?Is this even science? Are you really going to quote chat GPT? Is an argument an observation?
>>17004332https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC373105/
>>17004332>>17004337Literally a 10 second Google search if you're not a faggot. If you are? Also 10 seconds, you just don't do it and will complain instead.
>>17004332>Are you really going to quote chat GPT?Also, fuck you. I don't write like ChatGPT, it writes like me. I was here first.
>>170029591. There's no natural experiment that proves that you're conscious. 2. I've compared vegans with people who eat McDonald's every day. Therefore there's no natural experiment that proves that eating meat is healthier than veganism.3. Mathematics suggests black holes might exists and then I saw things moving strangely around an empty space as if there was a black hole. I never went there and tested the black hole myself though so that means black holes don't exist.4. I've never seen a real woman naked. Therefore real naked women don't exist.
>>17004359Imagine doing science fiction(mathematics and black holes) and pretending it is real; shitentists are big losers.Since you never saw a naked woman, that means you are a faggot.>>17004340This guy loses so hard he has to use AI, and globohomo liberals authority arguments, it really is pathetic.If only one of them could show one single film of an animal changing species. Alas, too much to ask from these shitentists who voted Kamala.
>>17004359propositions dont require experimentnutrition isnt a natural sciencemathematics isnt natural scienceobservation or lack thereof isnt science either
>>17004243genetic mutation and adaptation to enviornmental pressures doesnt support darwinism. Youre begging the question/ appealing to abstraction and expecting everyone to pretend it isnt ridiculous
>>17003001>referencing the past is forbidden, it says so in this book from the past that I am obsessed with
>>17004630The Bible is an historical book with real life events, unlike science which is undistinguishable from science fiction.
>>17004641>I will double down and say you definitely should not reference the past because it says so in this history book about talking donkeys that I would definitely prove if I could reference the past.
>>17004597>genetic mutation and adaptation to enviornmental pressures doesnt support darwinismYes it does. You just have a very poor understanding of what the word "supports" means.
>>17004698>If people don't accept my subjective globohomo liberal woke anti-white science fiction theory, it means they are stupid!Shitentists are such garbage.
>>17004707The basic understanding that a data point supports a conclusion is not the same as accepting the conclusion. Not believing in evolution doesn't make you stupid. An inability to understand basic terminology does.
>>17004708Evolution has yet to be proven or observed. You have no idea what happened billions/millions of years ago, but you want to force others to believe your made up science fiction.Liberals are garbage who can only harm children via school indoctrination and propaganda.
>>17004717Okay, buddy. Let me know when you're done with your schizophrenic meltdown.
>>17004720Imagine believing your ancestor is an ape.Pathetic.
>>17004717>Evolution has yet to be proven or observed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
>>17004730Not a single ape has been shown to evolve into a human, try again soi boy with something other than jewpedia.
>>17004733https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
>>17004597>genetic mutation and adaptation to enviornmental pressures doesnt support darwinism.Yes, it does.>Youre begging the questionThis is not happening.>>17004733Humans are apes. This is like saying "birds don't evolve into pigeons".
>17004814>Trust me bro humans are apes
>>17004910All evidence points that way. It's a bit more compelling than "trust me bro they're not". What's your alternative hypothesis? We are gods sperm cells?
>>17004814>ERRRMMMM UMM ERRMMMM ACTUALLY NUH UHHHH"nuh uh" isnt a refutation or rebuttal my friend
>>17004922Well, if you are a leftist tree hugger, it may make sense to think humans and apes are the same thing, but that is subjective nonsense.>>17004735Coping shitentist unable to show one single ape turning into a human. Hopefully Trump deports garbage nonwhites like you.
>>17004958But... they're not the same thing. Nobody says that. We evolved from a common ancestor which doesn't exist any more.
Bumping glorious thread
>>17003552>Common ancestry of distinct species is evolution.Defining it that way solves the discussion because it includes everything from primal soup up to a creater because it's only rewording of the term common ancestry. Methink it's a good definition of the state of science because not much more is known that makes any sense or withstands serious critic.
TLDR summary:Scientist: Man is an evolved monkey, trust me bro.."/pol/tard": Where is proof bro?Scientist: *Goes on a mental gymnastic and unproven theories spree*"/pol/tard": That is not proof bro.Scientist: *Autistic screechings *
>>17007635>/pol/: where da proofs?>/sci/: here's your proof>/pol/: *cries*>/pol/: *makes up conspiracy cope*>/pol/: *cries some more*
>>17007891Get a load of this coping shitentist
>>17003747This.
>>17007894/pol/ asked to see the purple text(a monkey progressively turning into a man) but shitentists could never provide such a thing because they are professional liars who make money by whoring themselves out. So shitentists are forced to tell you science fiction and can only impose their truths via brainwashing children with leftist ideology.
Ignoring the tardation in this thread, isn't OP correct about the original claim in a sense? Idk about there being no scientific *theory* without experiment, but doesn't experiment need to consistently confirm a hypothesis for the hypothesis to be taken as valid? Can we really draw conclusions from data alone? These are genuine questions btw
>>17007894>words words words words
>>17007904>a monkey progressively turning into a manThis is not what evolution predicts. What you are asking for has nothing to do with the theory you are disputing.
>>17007909The statement is tautologically true. Hense why it goes without saying unless someone can provide an example of someone thinking otherwise.>Can we really draw conclusions from data alone?Not very well. Any arbitrary set of data points will fit infinitely many models. Hence why predictive power is the the goalpost which must be met.
>>17002959Yes. Unfortunately, children are brainwashed with science/leftist ideology since they were small, hence all those people calling you dumb and a retard.
>>17007941Ok so can you demonstrate this evolution
>>17007943The belief that a prediction demonstrates anything is the goyim jabbar.
>>17002971People don't observe monkeys changing into humans, but they believe it anyways.
>>17007891Trust the science goy
>>17007909hypothesis is confimed after experiment. an experiment gives an alternative or null. It then is put in the citation indexes after being validated (which is the "consistently confirm" youre referring to)it depends on which data youre referring to, if its any data then its inferred. if its experimental data that would arrive during or after experiment (in which you are already seeking an alternative or null)The entire point of science is to arrive at a theory and experimental data of course. inference of data alone can mean something else
itt: retards arguing past each otherSome of you are talking about the principle of species gradually shifting in characteristics over time, a demonstrable factSome of you are talking about the principle that any two living beings have a common ancestor, an unfalsifiable assumption
>>17010436>>/pol/: *makes up conspiracy cope*>>/pol/: *cries some more*
>>17010512Good leftist goy thinks his ancestor is a monkey
>>17010492Evolution has never been observed.Imagine believing shitentists knew what happened 6 x 10^6 years ago
>>17010516It's been observed and replicated in labs wtf are you talking abouthttps://the-ltee.org/about/
>>17010526>https://the-ltee.org/about/>we observed evolution>let me tell you about how our e coli is still e coli decades laterNice.
>>17010620If you are too low IQ to understand microscopic stuff maybe you could take a look at dogs ? It's probably the most accessible case of evolution controlled by man. And if you still believe god created all dogs for some retarded reason maybe look at the silver fox ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
>poodles exist therefore we wuz monkeys n shietthis is what libcucks believe
>>17002977>>17002981>>17002985Whales>>17003515>>17003784>>17004597have>>17004733>>17007904>>17009139legs
Ohmyfuggingodthefugginwhalesgotfugginleggshwatthefugg
>>17010817>Whales have legs therefore we wuz homo n shiet
>>17010820THE WHALES HAVE LEGS SOMEBODY STOP THIS
>>17002985>>17003018>>17004733>>17007904Here you gohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
>>17010822How about showing a real life film instead of CGI?
>>17010841Have you tried looking in the mirror?
>>17010844If you are a leftist tree hugger, it may make sense to think humans and apes are the same thing, but that is subjective nonsense.
>>17010848I’ll take that as a no
>>17010850>Anyone who does not believe his ancestor to be a monkey is a monkey, unlike those who do!Leftist logic
>>17010857Don’t be silly, you’re not a monkey for your beliefs. You’re a monkey for your retardation
>>17010865Leftist monkey(by his own admission) calling an alpha right wing male a monkey
>>17010848>>17010857>>17010882
>>17010899Leftists believe they are monkeys from Africa.Right-wingers believe they are children of God.Make your choice.
>>17010902>Leftists believe they are monkeys from AfricaThen why are you brown and I’m not
>>17010905>Then why are you brown and I’m notYou're black anti-white scum just like your fellow leftists.
>>17010907>not denying itRip brownie
>>17010908Low IQ post
>>17010907>>17010908LEFT VS RIGHT IS A DISTRACTION. IT IS US VERSUS THE WHALES WITH LEGS
>>17010910>Whales have legs therefore we wuz homos n shiet
>>17010911Correct. The whales have legs
>>17002959Imagine believing your libtard soience teacher over /pol/
>>17002959Millennials are the most brainwashed generation; glad you broke out of the evil education you had to endure.
>>17002977lmao'the right wing is the party of science'
>>17010910this guy seems fairly dead
>>17012293That’s just what they want you to think
>>17010848Humans are apes just like humans are mammals. This is an objective fact, there is nothing subjective about it.
>>17010492>Some of you are talking about the principle that any two living beings have a common ancestor, an unfalsifiable assumptionThat is not an assumption nor is it unfalsifiable. That is the conclusion of the data. You're just showing you don't know what science is.
>>17012594>That is not an assumption nor is it unfalsifiable. That is the conclusion of the data. You're just showing you don't know what science is.The whole discussion is BS. A scientific process cannot find reasons or explanations. It's neither the intention to nor being paid for. It's a process to isolate natural phenomena in order to make them useful. The midwit idea to claim science can explain something beyond an isolational process is gross. Good example is evolution (wich reason can be an unknown natural force, an act of creational will an result of a process of pure coincidence, an illusion or whatever) cannot be answerd by taking slices under an microscope. It's similar to understand an symphony by FFT microphone readings in different distances of the kettledrum.
>>17012710The thing is if you claim something happened millions of years ago, you are pretty much doing science fiction
>>17012713How are they estimating the time to make a claim like that? You can recite studies say and then say whatever, but then someone can always just ask to see the studies you are referencing
>>17002959The sheer volume of seething "i can't even" really brings home that this board is just pretending
>>17012594Explain.
>>17013328Do you know what an inference is, retard?
>>17013333I infer from your unwillingness to expand upon the shitty argument "That is the conclusion of the data" that you're trolling or retarded.
>>17013346I didn't make that argument, I just think you're a retard who doesn't understand what an inference is.
>>17013347ok but is it in fact the conclusion of the data?
>>17013353You'll have to discuss that with your equal opposite brainlet. I'm just saying you wouldn't be calling it an unfalsifiable assumption if you knew what an inference is.
>>17013359what would you call it?
>>17002959Board is so full of leftists it's laughable and pathetic
>>17014546Board is so full of WHALES it’s LEGS and HAVE
>>17015370
>>17015386I said HWALES not rabbits
>>17014546go some place else if you want right wing incel nazis
>>17002977everyone knows evolution is caused by spiritual intent, the mind creates the body not the other way around.
>>17016032>>>17014546>go some place else if you want right wing incel nazis
>>17014546Telling you that evolution is true is not a political position. The majority of right wingers also understand evolution. You're just retarded.
>>17016576Moderates and "cuckservatives" who just want to preserve gay marriage and other leftist degeneracies without going back to full traditionalism are useful idiots
>>17016576refusing to argue the point and instead producing breathless seethe about "right wingers" is however a political position
whale
>>17016865Wait a minute. Does that whale have legs?
>>17016866This whale had legs
