/b/ - Random

CatalogNew ThreadPage End
options

*not required

Recent Posts

> What if I tell you there is no time? Just space, Time is just a biological entity, a byproduct of our perception, we only move through space, not time, and time is for the observer, not a real entity, a quantity used to measure Space?

View

View

stories of a lost childhood

View

View

View

Where to see japani ladki dancing video?

View

View

View

View

ITT: lundian sexhaver stories, bhachads join in

**Do not come here and blame me later for roping if u are a suicidal incel in any way, this is a disclaimer for u, leave now while u can** hey anons this is the story of how I lost my virginity to a girl I really like, let me know if you guys thin...

View

who tf is this u/TejuuuOP chammar has OP in his name why do these jeenigtards dickride this faggot i wanna beat this nigga up 1v1 irl

View

View

Chhetri retirement

View

View

Khatri girl wakes up thinking about Jat boys and goes to sleep to dream about Jat boys

View

View

View

Suifuel

View

/rekt/

View

skillmaxxing

View

English songs

View

My blood is boiling

View

View

Modi is losing kek

View

How to get laid asap as a 19cel in India

I am 19m, I'm suicidal but I don't want to die a virgin, I'd like to hook up with some chubby sexy aunty, put entire face inside her asshole and lose my virginity asap before killing myself what shud I do.

View

Is evolution just a belief?

anonymousIN

vYgeUN

Abiogenesis, Macroevolution and speciation have never been observed in nature or lab. Does it not mean origin of species as given by theory of evolution fails the scientific method of observation, hypothesis and experimentation?

V5Pvdo

>>19712(OP)

We have bred thousands of dog breeds, new plants, veggies etc with selective breeding alone.

Genetic study has established domestication as a process that has, at minimum, created "subspecies" of animals different from the parent species.

Controlled experiments like Silverfox domestication project, or even study of bacteria and viruses has confirmed gradual evolution due to helpful mutations.

What the fuck are you talking about Muslim faggot

V5Pvdo

>>19712(OP)

Also, angiogenesis is possible too. Just extremely expensive. We can synthesise so many organic chemicals. Gene editing exists too.

It's not just commercially viable to make an organism from absolute zero just to prove a point.

YliV0Q

>>19767

Breed=/=species

Dog breeds can be crossed to produce fertile offsprings. We also have different races of humans but they all are still the same species. Thats microevolution(changes within the species) which has been observed. Macroevolution(emergence of a different species) is a leap of faith as it has never been observed. I choose to not believe it because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also i am not a muslim, retard. I am an agnostic atheist.

YliV0Q

>>19768

How do you know it is possible if it has never been done. Organic molecules=/=full fledged living cell.

AFktNW

>>19943

Ackshually that definition you are using for le species isn't complete.

Two beings who can produce HEALTHY offsprings are said to be of same species.

Even different species can breed and actually produce offsprings, however the offsprings in this case are extremely unhealthy, because of outbreeding depression.

Example - When Horse and Donkey breed, they produce mule, which is infertile from birth.

Do you know that research has shown that, children produced by East Asian women bred by White Men are more likely to suffer from certain physical deformities and psychological disorders? And infact the miscarriage rate in such women is way higher.

Various such examples exist in nature.

I personally think that the taxonomy structure isn't as objective as it seems.

AFktNW

>>19767

Dude Speciation doesn't necessarily imply Evolution.

At no point we see an organism completely transform into something else, or an organism develop some new organ or shit.

Hks02G

>>19943

We have observed cases of speciation in many cases of microorganisms. We've even seen a recent case of speciation even among animals such as the case with mosquitos.

Hks02G

>>19955

There's many cases where human babies grow a tail due to mutation.

YliV0Q

>>19954

Offspring maybe unhealthy but they are still fertile in case of race mixing. Actual interspecific hybrides such as mules(donkey×horse). Liger(lion×tiger), zebroid(zebra×horse) are infertile.

YliV0Q

>>19956

Source/reference? I am not aware of any instance of observed speciation so far? Mind you most of the cases touted as examples of speciation turn out to be just cases of formation of new subspecies( or breed) not a separate species.

AFktNW

>>19960

Mixed race people suffer from various deformities and disorders, including fertility issues

Hapas (white+Asian) have extremely high rates of depression, this obviously takes a toll on their fertility too.

Also I talked about high miscarriage rates in Asian women bred by white, it has to do with the hip size of Asian women and head size of the mixed offspring

This is also seen in plants btw.

Species concept and the whole taxonomical structure is too rigid, what happens in the real world is that, organisms can be genetically close enough breed and far enough for the offspring to be extremely unhealthy.

Hks02G

>>19962

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

This is the mosquito species that diverged only in the last few thousands years.

YliV0Q

>>19964

>Hurr durr its arbitrary, vro.

As long as they can produce fertile offsprings no matter how rare they are members of same species. A dog and a cat can never interbreed. It is pretty clear existence of separate species is a rigid demarcation in nature.

YliV0Q

>>19967

The same article says.

>However, a more recent paper from 2012 argues that it is more accurately "a physiological and ecological variant of Cx pipiens" and should not be considered a distinct species.

AFktNW

>>19973

members of different species can breed and produce "fertile" (somewhat) offsprings with other health issues, that definition is obsolete.

Female Tigons are fertile, this doesn't mean that Tigers and Lions are of same species.

Hks02G

>>19973

>Dogs and cats

Because they're completely different genus and even clade. Species in the same group like Neanderthals and Sapiens can breed and sometimes generate healthy offsprings.

Hks02G

>>19974

Read further instead of just reading the header, it clearly talks about difficulty mating with common pipens species.

Hks02G

Also one thing this entire thread is missing, evolution isn't about belief. Its a theory that explains the most about how different species evolved. It's the best theory that explains it all, unless there's a counter theory that explains things better or doesn't resort to god of the gaps argument, it'll be better and displace evolution.

YliV0Q

>>19977

If thats the case then lion and tiger cant be considered separate species. They should be reclassified as subspecies/breed of same species. Kinda how wolves and dogs were once believed to be separate species but were classified as subspecies of same species when it was found they can interbreed to produce wolf dogs.

YliV0Q

>>19983

Is it just difficult or straight up impossible?

YliV0Q

>>19985

You are assuming that not believing in evolution automatically means belief in creationism. Thats a very narrow view. How about we humans accept there are things we dont know instead of believing in something without scientific evidence just because 'we dont have a better explanation'. I am an agnostic atheist and dont believe in macroevolution for the same reason i dont believe in god. They both are religious beliefs. But since i am agnostic i am ready to change my beliefs when confronted with evidence.

Hks02G

>>20005

I never called you a creationist, I told you how the scientific process worked.

It's not a belief, it's a theory, just like theory of gravity or theory of relativity. You can find contradictory evidence for it to disprove it such as finding cases where its wrong or finding wrong conclusions made by it, not by claiming "durr we don't know akshually universe is a mystery my dude bro".

>>20003

>>20002

That's not what a species means.

YliV0Q

>>20069

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Abiogenesis and Macroevolution fails the scientific method.

>That's not what a species means.

Yeah. Biologists havent come up with an absolute definition but you get what i mean. Species as reproductively incompatible groups of organisms is a quite sound definition.

Hks02G

>>20084

>claim made without evidence

There's enough and more collaborating evidence for it. Especially after DNA analysis.

>abiogenesis

It's just a hypothesis, nobody ever said its how life actually formed.

>yet biologists

Most biology is spectral. There's no clear demarcation and in many cases it might overlap. This doesn't prove that tigers and lions are same species because both don' proforma healthy offsprings more than 50% of the time.

YliV0Q

>>20090

>There's enough and more collaborating evidence for it Especially after DNA analysis.

All that proves is that organisms have similar chemical composition. It doesnt tell you anything about validity of macroevolution. Our current observation is that chamges happen within a species. You can breed a german shepherd and a pomeranian but they will always remain dog as a species. Macroevolution would have been proven had humans bred dogs to be so genetically distant that they are unable to interbreed.

>There's no clear demarcation and in many cases it might overlap.

Demarcation is overwhelming. Dogs can never reproduce with cats, parrots can never reproduce with sparrows, honey bee can never reproduce with wasp and human can never reproduce with other primates. Things get a bit fuzzy in case of rare hybrids but that creates confusion regarding difference between species and subspecies. It doesnt discount the fact that species do exist as discrete units in nature.

Hks02G

>>20114

>All that proves is that organisms have similar chemical composition

When two organisms in on same branch shows X% of resemblance and two on the patent branch shows Y% and Y>X and both look incredibly familiar, then it tells more than just "similar chemical composition".

>our current evidence

What evidence? Again you don't seem to understand how scientific process works.

You don't create evidence for a theory, you try to disprove a theory by bringing up evidence against it. So what is your evidence against theory of evolution that disproves it? That macro evolution doesn't exist in nature? I've already provided you enough evidence from microorganisms to even insects that are observed in nature yet you still play like an obtuse retard and arguing over the definition of species because you aren't arguing in good faith. Look nigha, if you just want to be contrarian, just say so.

>durr demarcation matters

Because once again cats and dogs are different clades. Just because the simplified kindergarden definition of species that your teacher gave to make your primitive brain understand don't apply in case of lions and tigers don't mean their same species. When one says they give fertile offsprings, they mean "generally", not Benger.

And Humanzee hybrids are possible in certain percentages. Its just that nobody ender tried enough though we've created hybrids of other interbred generas after enough trial and error like wholphins.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

YliV0Q

>>20153

Ofc a human is going to be chemically more similar to a mouse than a lizard. It is because both humans and mice are mammals and share similar bodily mammalian biology. How does it anyway prove that they had common ancestor.

>You don't create evidence for a theory, you try to disprove a theory by bringing up evidence against it.

Retard, scientific theories have to based on observation. By your logic i can come up with retarded claims and ask you to disprove them. Can you disprove existence of god, can you disprove afterlife, ghosts, unicorn. Can you disprove the claim that life is a simulation. Should i accept these claims as true because they cant be disproven.

YliV0Q

>>20153

Also, are those mosquitos unable to breed at all? Didnt get a clear answer.

Hks02G

>>20181

>Because we're mammals

Us being simply being mammals isn't the reason why we have more in common with a monkey than a mice. Or a mice have with a us than with marsupial mouse despite both looking alike and having same birthing methods.

>Theories have to be based on observatum

Again that's not how it works. I recommend you read Brief History of Time where Hawkins clearly explains how scientific process works.

A) A hypothesis is formed

B) You find evidence to disprove hypothesis

C) After evidence against your hypothesis, you correct it

D) After several trial and error and repeating A to B, you come up with a final hypothesis

E) Once this theory can't be disproves, it becomes a theory.

That's a brief overview of the soyntific process.

>By your logic i can come up with retarded claims and ask you to disprove them

Yes you can. Only that your meme hypothesis is easily disproven.

>Can you disprove existence of god, can you disprove afterlife, ghosts, unicorn.

What can I deploy to prove them wrong? A claim that can't be attempted to be proven wrong isn't a hypothesis.

I can try to disprove theory of natural selection by collecting samples for creatures that lived in an environment that didn't suit it but still survived there for long.

>Should i accept these claims as true because they cant be disproven.

Again that isn't how scientific process works.

YliV0Q

>>20204

>I can try to disprove theory of natural selection by collecting samples for creatures that lived in an environment that didn't suit it but still survived there for long.

Yeah retard, thats why i clearly stated in the beginning of thread that i accept microevolution because it is observable. We can clearly see humans getting selected for different skin color on different latitudes. Give me a falsifiability test for macroevolution if you have any. If you dont then it is just a fantasy not much diffetent from god fantasy of religious people.

Hks02G

>>20209

See >>20204

>collecting samples for creatures that lived in an environment that didn't suit it but still survived there for long

For examples, find evidence whales still keeping their mammalian 4 legged, furry ungulate features despite living in the sea for millenia.

YliV0Q

>>20204

>Us being simply being mammals isn't the reason why we have more in common with a monkey.

A monkey closer to human in body size and intellect.

Hks02G

>>20212

Yeah and why do you think so? Also does that mean mouse is closer to human body than say pic related?

YliV0Q

>>20211

Because they are mammals duh! They also dont lay eggs unlike fishes. Where is the falsifiability test for macroevolution?

Hks02G

>>20216

Egg laying isn't a fish specific feature that is suited for land. There are many live bearer fishes like Guppies or even ancient reptiles like Ichytgoras that have live birth. If anything live bearing seems more suited for seas as the buoyancy of water allows them to be large as they want unlike on land where live birth places restrictions on how large mammals can get(hence why there's no mammal the size of dinos).

Hks02G

>>20220

I mean Ichtyosaur, the first creatures known to give live birth and reptiles who went back to the sea like whales did and then grew large.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosauria

YliV0Q

>>20213

It isnt just about superficial appearance. It is also a combination of common cellular biochemistry, common anatomy and internal makeup. I am genetically closer to my sister than a random guy despite not sharing the same sex.

Hks02G

>>20228

>superficial appearance

A whale showing more chemical dna similarity to a fucking elephant than a shark isn't because of "superficial" appearances.

>common cellular biochemistry, common anatomy and internal makeup.

At this point (by the way I am a nigger), you are just throwing terms and hoping something sticks. The defining features of mammals isn't even live birth or even the fur but two holes on the side of the skull, which isn't observed in most other non mammalian creatures hence the term "synapsid", meaning single opening.

>am genetically closer to my sister than a random guy despite not sharing the same sex

(by the way I am a nigger), if you think some other random guy look more alike to you than your sister, then I got news for you buddy.

Hks02G

>>20234

Wrong image

YliV0Q

>>20226

Again. Thats your religious belief. What evidence do you for this claim? Did you replicate this phenomenon in a lab, did you observe it in nature. Where is the empirical data or do you just believe in fairy tales.

Hks02G

>>20238

You can just try to find a non-synapsid skulled creature that's more similar to mammals than they're to reptiles or any other vertebrate and prove that mammals didn't have a common lineage anon.

YliV0Q

>>20234

>A whale showing more chemical dna similarity to a fucking elephant than a shark isn't because of "superficial" appearances.

Yeah nigher thats exactly what i said. At least read properly before you hurry to reply. It isnt just superficial appearance that dictate genetic closeness. If that were the case whales would be closer to sharks going by appearance. A whale has a very different reproductive system. It is a mammal and even produces milk for its offspring. Thats why it is closer to other mammals retard.

>The defining features of mammals isn't even live birth or even the fur but two holes on the side of the skull.

I thought defining features were mammary glands. I am not an expert in biology perhaps you have studied it more so i could be wrong here.

YliV0Q

>>20245

Look nigher i am not an expert in evolutionary biology. I am not an expert in islamic studies or biblical studies either but i still dont believe in their religion or scholars. My demand is simple. Just show me an example of macroevolution observed in nature or lab and i will believe it. I am an empiricist and only believe hard evidence for such extraordinary claims.

Hks02G

>>20248

>A whale has a very different reproductive system. It is a mammal and even produces milk for its offspring. Thats why it is closer to other mammals retard.

None of these are the reasons why it shows more similarity with a elephant(ungulate) than to a seal(carnivora), if your argument is muh superficial similarity.

As I said, live birth and feeding isn't the defining feature of mammals, these features convergently evolved in many other creatures, including non land dwellers. The point where we differ from reptiles is the openings in our skulls.

Hks02G

>>20259

I did hours ago.

See >>19967

YliV0Q

>>20261

So are these mosquitos not able to breed at all? Dont tell me they can breed with 'muh difficulty'.

Hks02G

>>20277

>Cannot breed at all?

Nigha, if they couldn't breed they would go extinct ages ago 🤣

YliV0Q

>>20279

I mean interbreed with the other variant. Can they do that?

Hks02G

>>20294

Nigha, do you even understand what you're trying to talk about? The reason why a species can't breed with another species is because of completely different adaptions selected for its macro environment resulting in barriers that is placed at a macro level, not like some movie where the egg reject sperm because it scans it before entering and says "muh rejected" after its found to be another species. For instance, a human sperm might not be able to penetrate the outer layer of a donkey or in some cases, the human sperm might absolutely smash the egg of some other species when it enters the womb because its too big. Or shape of a certain organ not allowing it to breed or some other body organization being incompatible with the another parent and so on. This is what outbreeding depression entails.

In case of these mosquitos, the completely different environments both lived in resulting in its larvae being difficult to breed in either environment. Despite there being creatures much more distant(the aforementioned tigers and lions, which diverged millenias ago) being much easier to breed thanks to their closer environments.

YliV0Q

>>20260

You mean a whale is genetically closer to elephant than to seal? If that is indeed true then i will accept evolution. But i need to look into this more. I need to make sure if their methodology is well established and has been tested thoroughly. It defies all common sense so i need to dwell into extraordinary research behind this extraordinary claim.

Hks02G

>>20296

In short that mosquito meets your kindergarden definition of 'species' yet your first argument that you came up with upon me posting it is quoting it and saying "b-but soyntists consider them same species" because of their similar dna composition lol.

PnZSm+

>>20296

Well there are mechanisms on cellular level to prevent fertilization in the first place such as fertilizin antifertilizin reaction, fast block reaction. If those mosquitos are able to birth living fertile offsprings they are same species. Are they unable to?

Hks02G

>>20301

Hks02G

>>20304

No they can't, is that enough of an answer? And no, they're not considered different species.

PnZSm+

>>20311

Ok. How do we know they weren't separate species to begin with and diverged later. Is there any documentation?

PnZSm+

>>20311

Why arent they considered separate species then?

Hks02G

>>20300

A whale is an ungulate while a seal a carnivora. There are many animals that were historically considered related due to superficial stimulus but was found to be different when dna analyzed. Another case would be bats, which were very recently considered related to hares, mouse and squirrels but now we know they're more related to deers(scrotifera) than to mice(supraprimates).

Hks02G

>>20314

>>20313

Because their dna composition is similar and has only minute difference and the difference being one more adapted for warmer environment than the other? It's similar to how huskies struggle in tropical climates but the difference being that unlike mammals, insects are much more vulnerable creatures and their larvae die in the early stages itself because the conditions aren't suitable.

ozUU5P

>>20259

>>20260

>>20296

A species is a set of animals which can breed with each other to form a fertile offspring. Tiger and Lions can make ligers, but since Ligers can't breed, Tigers and Lions remain different species.

PnZSm+

>>20317

Bats are closer to deers!? What are these extraordinary claims based on? Genetic studies? Seems pretty absurd.

Hks02G

>>20324

That's the kindergarden definition of species that your teacher gave you so you could understand it. Please stop referring to it, this entire thread would be unnecessary if one mofo didn't keep insisting it is true.

Tigons are fertile while being from different species while the london underground mosquito and common mosquito can't breed despite both being "same" species.

PnZSm+

>>20322

And if the larva are provided optimum temperature by human intervention would they hatch?

Hks02G

>>20325

Go check them yourselves lol.

>muh extraordinary evidence

Please stop using Cuck Soygan quotes anon as argooments anon. He's an entertainer first, politician second, philosophy third and soyntist last.

Hks02G

>>20328

How do you provide ideal temperature for completely different environments? In a scrodinger's air conditioner lol?

PnZSm+

>>20326

Are pygmies a separate species according to you. Since the female pygmies are too small to accomodate foetus resulting from impregnation by a normal sized male? Also do you consider very distant races as separate species because the child of a swede and nigher would die in african climate of skin cancer or rickets in sweden without modern conveniences.

Hks02G

>>20339

No

No

PnZSm+

>>20341

Why not? Without sunscreen, clothing, vit d supplements a brown skinned child will not live for very long in such extreme climates. Also a vastly smaller uterus and pelvic girdle cant accomodate the foetus fathered by a male from race of tall people. Isnt this a form of reproductive barrier.

Hks02G

>>20339

>female pygmies are too small to accomodate foetus resulting from impregnation by a normal sized male

Also has this ever been proven true lol

>the child of a swede and nigher would die in african climate of skin cancer or rickets in sweden without modern conveniences.

Yts colonized Africa and and Australia way before modern medicine bro.

Hks02G

>>20344

The most richest man in the world is a South African.

Hks02G

>>20345

And it's only been few years and Swedes can't handle the huge amount of Africans btfoing them in streets. Africans and Whites aren't completely different species lol, even Yts need clothing, alcohol and heating to survive their cold temperatures. They're not some polar bear that can move out naked in the winter.

PnZSm+

>>20345

>Also has this ever been proven true lol.

There are studies on higher miscarriage rates in WMAF couples due to size difference. Now imagine the female being smaller in case of pygmies. Without modern medicine and gynaecology she will most likely die during or shortly after childbirth along with child.

>Yts colonized Africa and and Australia way before modern medicine bro.

And many died due to malaria, heat spells and parasites. Also protective clothing had already been invented. Also we couldnt afford to stay indoors when we still lived as hunter gatherers.

PnZSm+

>>20352

Yet they were selected for pale skin. The selection pressure must have been quite strong as people with even slightly darker skin tone perished due to rickets caused by vit d deficiency.

Hks02G

>>20353

>higher miscarriage rates in WMAF couples

Based if true. Also before "modern medicine", yts were manlets as well.

>And many died due to malaria, heat spells and parasites.

And so did many Africans. What matters is who btfo'd who.

Hks02G

>>20355

>The selection pressure must have been quite strong as people with even slightly darker skin tone perished due to rickets caused by vit d deficiency.

Again, based if true kek.

PnZSm+

>>20358

Yeah but pygmies will most likely remain smol even with improved nutrition and healthcare. Also nighers carry sickle cell anemia genes which protect them from malaria. So should distant human races and pygmies be considered separate species according to you?

Hks02G

>>20360

Not all nighers have sickle cells.

>should they

No

PnZSm+

>>20361

>Not all nighers have sickle cells.

Not the cells but recessive genes for sickle cells incidentally confer anti malaria immunity.

>should they no.

Why not?

Hks02G

>>20365

I dunno anon, almost half of the kids died during infancy before "modern medicine". Should all humans be considered different species then lol?

PnZSm+

>>20367

But the mortality increases in case of pygmies and distant races.

2xa4Sq

>>19712(OP)

I believe in abogenesis: the birth of abbos

CatalogGo to Top