/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #7612037

[21 / 3 / ?]

81KiB, 720x550, 5f8c1e26e03d1b75bba1c9fa95bad019[1].jpg

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:05:30 No.7612037 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612046 >>7612071 >>7612093 >>7612098 >>7612211

Can we prove evolution ? Is there a way scientists can lay down an organism to it's most basic form and document it throughout the following years to see any changes or environmental adaptations ? If they can document the significant structural changes and gaining functions, it will also debunk the irreducible complexity theories.

Isn't there a way we can finally make evolution a fact ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:18:20 No.7612046 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612113

>>7612037
Nope. No matter how hard we try, we can never really, truly, fully prove that anything at all happened in the past. For all our ability to provide concrete proof, the world might have been assembled fully formed hitchhikers guide to the galaxy style in 1950 and all the old people are just actors. Even if we could perfectly replicate the genetic shifts of a specific evolutionary change, that would not constitute actual proof that such a process was the original mechanism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:24:30 No.7612051 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612056

> we can never really, truly, fully prove that anything at all happened in the past
But it would prove the inevitable evolution of the organic entities, which is enough to debunk any other theory relating to the past, because evolution would be a fact then.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO a05bf3e5a62c69c018bf06f1fbda364c (...).jpg, 7KiB, 184x184

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:28:44 No.7612055 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>evolution does not exist
>ban AI research

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:28:53 No.7612056 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612062 >>7612113

>>7612051
Technically even if we did clearly demonstrate a species evolving now that wouldn't necessarily mean it happened in the past as well.

You really can't "prove" anything. All you can do is look at evidence and reason on it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO There is no God.png, 82KiB, 500x475

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:30:21 No.7612060 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>Evolution
>Real
Heh. Good one KID

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:32:06 No.7612062 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612065

>>7612056
No. If we can prove that an organism gains it's functions through evolution, it would explain the functions and current states of other organisms because there would be no competing theories which hold any proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:36:08 No.7612065 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612070 >>7612113

>>7612062
>if we prove it can happen to one organism that proves it happened to all of them

Nah m8.

And look I'm not trying to debate evolution my argument is just that you can't prove anything. You can look at evidence and reason that's all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:38:02 No.7612069 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Dunno, but one clever chappie at MIT has a mathematical theorumm that appears to prove that inorganic matter organises itself into a structured form under the action of sunlight in order to dissipate heat. I clean toilets i a hotel for a living so dont understand it, as far as I am concerned we havent evolved very far, you may like it OP.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:39:39 No.7612070 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612087

>>7612065
So if I'm getting you correctly you're saying that it would make evolution more credible, but still not proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:39:57 No.7612071 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7612107 >>7612157

>>7612037

if you need proof don't look further away then human. talk to a dentist or dental surgeon... they can already deduce that children are born without canine teeth (adapted for cutting and tearing meat) because for generations we're consuming food for which our canine teeth are not necessary. hence, this is altering our genes and our offspring is being born without canines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:05:47 No.7612087 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612070
Yes

LINCE

LINCE Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:10:31 No.7612091 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>>/v/314129057

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:11:33 No.7612093 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612037
No, because evolution is a random process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:15:27 No.7612098 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612037
yes we can prove it in that way you are describing, e.g. with bacteria

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:21:44 No.7612107 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612071
That is simply not true. Everybody has canine teeth. Unless you have a defective tooth or a condition that is usually accompanied by other negative health effects, that cause people to not grow teeth. But everybody will develop the canine teeth when their second set of teeth come in.
If anything we are becoming a species where we hardly selectively breed for the sole purpose of physical survival like other animal species. Take eyesight for example, it's genetic, yet at least half if not a third of the population of humans have defective eyesight, which is a huge disadvantage for basic survival. It's hard to model human 'evolutionary path' because of how we are. canine teeth is a horrible way of trying to explain human evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:23:43 No.7612109 Report Delete

Quoted By:

"With evolution, everything in biology makes sense.
Without evolution, nothing in biology makes sense."
That's basically how it works. Without evolution, you need to do backflips to explain some things, like different fossils in different strata, molecular clocks, the agreement of DNA and anatomical data, and so on.
With evolution, everything fits in to a simple framework.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:27:21 No.7612113 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612046
>>7612056
>>7612065
>No matter how hard we try...

See this part is where you're wrong. You don't understand what a proof is apparently. At least I hope you don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 03:32:11 No.7612157 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612071
Do canine teeth lead to any distinct disadvantage? Why would our the genes for them simply stop existing or lead to use getting the teeth we have now? Humans still eat meat and even if they're not 'necessary' there's no mandate or evolutionary disadvantage to having them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 05:28:51 No.7612211 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7612037
It's very well recorded in micro-organism level, hell I see it every week when I go to the lab with viruses and Bacteria. It's impossible not to accept evolution, at least for such organisms. Also you can see it really well in immune reactions. Of course it's hard to take those minuscule changes and apply them to a larger frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 06:09:12 No.7612230 Report Delete

Quoted By:

LENSKY AFFAIR FAGGOTS

Evolution is random, but it's testable. A famous example is the Lensky experiment, where bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches