Thread 16761175

how does darwinism explain that the DNA copying mechanism had to already exist in order for natural selection to be possible?

>>16761175 (OP)
RNA world hypothesis attempts to explain this because RNA is able to catalyze its own replication.
It's an ongoing debate which we will never know the exact answer to. Even if we could get life to spontaneously generate in laboratory conditions that mimic the early earth, that wouldn't mean life followed the same pathway.

Thats abiogenesis. It's not part of the theory of Natural Selection and doesnt have to be, like why gravity exists didnt have to be part of Newtons theory of Gravity.

>>16761186
cells copying is natural selection since a cell that can not copy has failed to reproduce. dna has to be able to replicate in order for a cell to copy

>>16761190
Darwin observed and described the laws that governs natural selection in a world with the DNA copying mechanism, like Newton observed and described the laws that govern gravity in a world where it exists. Why those came too be are interesting questions, but doesnt have to be answered by those theories specifically. Those are separate lines of inquiry

>>16761175 (OP)
>>16761185
>IT JUST RANDOMLY DID IT ON ITS OWN BRO
>no you should not begin to question which random processes caused it or if they’re intelligent
>no you should not begin to question what intelligence is just know jews have that quality always
>no you should not begin to question if true randomness is possible
thanks for the knowledge bomb doctor einstein

>>16761175 (OP)
Bro what the fuck, did Heliocentrism have to explain every reason why Geocentrism was wrong before existing?

>>16761175 (OP)
there is a primordial fractal embedded in every single quark, all 6 types
it both reads and executes itself

>>16762121
>no you should not begin to question
Literally nobody ever said this, retard. I answered the question OP asked in the post you replied to and all you can do is cry about it.

>>16762121
you can have a mechanical coin sorter, and 10 different coin size ejectors, all of which are connected to radioactive detectors. so random size coins will go out of them, and in the end, you will have order in the coins. based on...laws of these universe.
randomness feeds variation, out of which things may make sense. based on laws.
or have a 3 digit pin lock code and make a random number generator and input each code, you will eventually unlock it.
why is it so hard for people to understand random? it just tries a lot of things.
brainlets just cannot fathom what A LOT of things happening at once for a very long time means. there are more water molecules in a spoon of water than there are spoons of water in the ocean. there is A LOT of shit happening, at the same time, all over the planet.

>>16762789
You don't get it. It's not that he "cannot fathom" the answer. He doesn't want to understand the answer. He wants there to be no answer.
It's the same smug retard shit as people asking "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" People like this would have no problem answering these kinds of questions themselves in any other context. But applying that little bit of common sense to evolution/abiogenesis would mean accepting that the theory isn't the retarded strawman they like to pretend it is.

>>16761175 (OP)
that's like asking how the standard model of particle physics explains the expanding universe. models have domains over which they're designed to have explanatory power, nitwit

>>16762789
why is there no evidence of these random intermediate species?

>>16762888
>why is there no evidence of these random intermediate spec-ACK!

>>16761186
>Thats abiogenesis. It's not part of the theory of Natural Selection and doesnt have to be
>the origins of life and how life sustains itself are distinct processes
evolution really is just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual niggerbabble

>>16762994
>evolution really is just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual niggerbabble
what's the ascended alternative though? enlighten us
let me guess, something about a jewy boy in a jewy desert and a jewy god? lulz

>>16762997
>whataboutism
you're the one that made the statement that darwinian natural selection and abiogenesis are wholly separated from one another. obviously this is stupid if you bother to think about it, hence your failure to reconcile the two.

>>16762994
>>the origins of life and how life sustains itself are distinct processes
Unironically yes. How you build a car is distinct from how you keep it running.

>>16762998
>provides no alternative
what do you expect, or are you too ashamed to admit your jewy issues?

>>16762999
>How you build a car is distinct from how you keep it running.
the means to sustain the car and to build the car are both built on the same exact causal mechanisms. so which is it? evolution operates on the same exact brute physical laws as abiogenesis does, or there is a supernatural origin behind it?
>>16763000
you can keep throwing a tantrum all you like, the salient issue i have is the way evolutionists try to hand-wave abiogenesis as if it its merely incidental - not fundamental, to the naturalistic assumptions baked into darwinian evolutionary mechanisms.

>>16763014
idk what the hell you're talking about, what I'm saying is that you have an agenda

>>16763021
>idk what the hell you're talking about
of course you don't, you're 16 years old.
>what I'm saying is that you have an agenda.
i think darwinian natural selection is bullshit. so what?

>>16763022
>so what
so that's the talking point of the average christian shill

>>16763030
very science minded of you.

>>16763031
statistics

>>16763034
still waiting for a counterargument.

>>16763037
what counter argument? shills should kts, that's all

>>16763044
you're the one shilling for the dogma of darwinian evolution, not me.

>>16763045
cool story bro, tell your pastor to dilate for me

>>16763046
anti-intellectual little niggers like you are killing /sci/ btw

>>16763048
oh the ironing in this post

>>16763050
>LALALALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALALALALALA

>>16763052
you n*g*erfaggots are not stealthy, what did you expect?

>>16763056
i don't think i've made a single technically incorrect statement in this entire thread. all i asked is to operate on first principles. what's wrong with that?
>le christcuck xD
schizo

>>16763058
not stealthy at all, guess have fun bumping your shill thread, faggot

>>16763061
seething.

>>16762789
>It's random because I'm too much of a midwit to understand how my analogy of a pre-built mechanism offering a limited set of variables undermines my entire argument

>>16763014
>the means to sustain the car and to build the car are both built on the same exact causal mechanisms
No they are not.

>>16763096
are you retarded? or do you believe that a car is magically emergent from its constituents.

>>16761175 (OP)
it doesnt and doesnt intend to.

>>16762998
They aren’t wholly separated. They are related but distinct. Darwin’s theory of evolution does not explain how life arose, it explains the process by which organisms that already exist change over generations. That doesn’t mean they aren’t connected but it also doesn’t mean they’re the same thing

Do not let this distract you from the fact that whales have legs

>>16763223
Show me where filling the gas tank is part of the production process.
Tell me how to change the oil without an already built engine, retard.

>>16764182
You can’t convince them. They need to lump in the origin of life with Darwin’s theory of evolution because the latter has been observed in real time and proven true, something they absolutely cannot accept

>>16764210sage
>Darwin's theory of evolution
Lol, there is more to the theory of evolution than just Darwin and Dawkins retard. Most of the ignoramuses on this board refuses to accept that though.

>>16764210
>Darwin's theory of evolution
Lol, there is more to the theory of evolution than just Darwin and Dawkins retard. Most of the ignoramuses on this board refuses to accept that though.

>>16764170
>whales have legs
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.12516

>>16764294
lol this is what happens when retards speak with only a surface level understanding. The hip bones of basilosaurids aren’t connected to the spine and they have complete legs and feet

>>16764289
Literally nobody refuses to accept that

>>16761175 (OP)
It just does. Its part of the universe OS.

>>16764303
Na, pretty much every creationist I've seen make this argument always restricts to darwinism.

Never mine the specific considerations in modern population genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, epigenetics, our much more sophisticated understanding of DNA and ways of testing family trees, some oppositions to aspects of gradualism ie punctuated equilibrium, etc. etc.

The modern synthesis is essentially population genetics + natural selection. There is for some a push for an extended evolutionary synthesis.

>>16764294
>SCIENTISTS MAKE CATASTROPHIC BLUNDER
>look inside
>uneducated misinformation
Many such cases

>>16764302
>>16764329
what is the operational definition of a leg if it isnt connected to the hip and spine? Why not call wings, arms then? Why are seal flippers not legs?

>>16764352
>what is the operational definition of a leg
Operational definitions are less important than homology of structures in biology. Like how a fly has wings and legs, but they are completely different structures that arose independently. Meanwhile a bat’s wings have a different common name to a human’s hands but they both have pretty much all the same bones
>if it isnt connected to the hip and spine?
They are connected to a hip. Picrel is a closer look. We know a whale’s hips are hips even though modern whales don’t have legs because older ones still had tiny legs
>Why not call wings, arms then?
They are. We don’t call them arms in common usage but in biological terms they are a bird’s arms. They have fingers, shoulders, elbows, etc
>Why are seal flippers not legs?
Same as above. Seals still use their flippers as legs though

>>16762130
Heliocentrism has yet to explain one way in which geocentricism is wrong. But that is not the topic of this thread. Neither is the topic of the thread: why does evolution not explain why creationism is wrong, as these are often conflated. Having said that, if evolution has nothing to do with creation (abiogenesis), then evolutionists should stop claiming that evolution disproves creationism in any way shape or form.

>>16762789
I don't think you understand the number of combinations required to bring about a single strand of dna, much less any of the other systems needed to keep it going. If all this was going on at the same time in every square billionths of a metre all over the ocean what were the conditions that allowed for this and why don't we see it today anywhere. How do you know the size of the oceans at the time of the supposed event. How can you be sure of the time frame even when even the geological column and the length of time needed to create it is disputed?

>>16764376
>Heliocentrism has yet to explain one way in which geocentricism is wrong
This can’t be real

>>16764376
Creationism, as defined by essentially everyone who subscribes to the belief, is the belief that all basic animal "kinds" were created by a divine being already complete.
Evolution directly contradicts this as new "kinds" emerge naturally over time.

>>16764302
how does that change the findings of the study that was linked?

>>16764535
What finding in that study do you think needs changing?

>>16764310
>The modern synthesis is essentially population genetics + natural selection.
But that's the thing; modern synthesis/natural selection (i.e. random mutations being the primary driver behind evolution) *is* what's abjectly false and incorrect about the theory of evolution. This doesn't mean common descent is false, mind.

>>16765165
Why is that 'abjectly false'?

>>16765166
Because randomness doesn't exist.

>>16765171
Roll some dice
>but that's not "truly random"
Some things are more random than others. Your pet definition of "random" is irrelevant.

>>16765171
Out of all the stupid responses that is not the one I was expecting.

Sure you can argue day and night whether true randomness exists but the point is the process of mutation is essentially random, as a result of errors in genetic copying generally.

how exactly can evolution happen if a single nucleotide change causes the entire cell to become dysfunctional and die?

>>16767141
Because sometimes it may cause a change in a nucleotide that doesn't cause it to become dysfunctional or die or causes a change that might be advantageous. In any case we have readily observed evolved adaptations in bacteria across generations that weren't there in the last generation. Where the hell you think those adaptations come from?

>>16767201
that ability was already part of the cell. show it something completely foreign to the dna and it will never adapt to it

>>16764535
It doesn’t change anything about the findings of that paper. It changes everything about the misinformed interpretation by people who want to believe whales don’t have pelvic bones. That paper doesn’t even remotely suggest that whales never had limbs or a pelvis to begin with

>>16767141
Because it doesn’t always cause the cell to die

>>16767209
the paper shows that those "vestigial" body parts are not vestigial at all, and are important for these mammals to reproduce. they aren't legs that are shrinking.

>>16767219
>the paper shows that those "vestigial" body parts are not vestigial at all
“vestigial
/vɛˈstJdʒJəl,vɛˈstJdʒ(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: vestigial
1.
forming a very small remnant of something that was once greater or more noticeable.
"he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night"

2.
BIOLOGY
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution”
They are certainly an atrophied remnant that has degenerated over time. Regardless of whether or not you want to call that being truly vestigial, that doesn’t change the fact that they are hip bones. The idea that being disconnected from the spine is proof that they aren’t hips shows that whoever came up with that only has a surface level understanding
>they aren't legs that are shrinking
The legs have already shrunk and disappeared. They are pelvic bones and that same paper refers to them as such

>>16767206
Nylon is a man-made material. Nylon eating bacteria are found with. A genetic mutation has been traced to be responsible for this.

If you want a direct start to end observation, there has been a long running E. coli experiment by Lenski, namely with E. Coli gaining the ability to use citrate. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2430337/

>>16767236
>Nylon eating bacteria
You should go look in the apes thread if you think they’re gonna accept that

>>16767240
I know they're not, Id just throw out the easiest to describe thing. Im not going to waste my time on this.

Not worth trying to find something that fits someone's exact criteria, ignoring the absolute avalanche of evidence that few truly understand as they get the cliff notes vwrsion from high school textbooks and mever bothered to plunge in what the research really looks like.

>>16767224
>The legs have already shrunk and disappeared.
that's not what anons keep telling me

>>16767252
Ok but the photos of shrunken legs on primitive whales are right there >>16764329

>>16767255
how do scientists know those were legs instead of auxiliary flippers that need extra structural strength?

>>16767260
Whale flippers are legs dude. We know they’re legs because they have all the same bones as any other mammal leg

>>16767267
you said they were not legs though

>>16764378
Consider how lif could have began anywhere in the universe.

>>16767224
No bro I made a biased search on google in order to prove the common scientific belief wrong then copy pasted the first article I found here without reading it.

Trust me evolution is a total hoax man.

>>16767278
I didn’t tho

>>16762888
Every species is an intermediate species, there is no final form, it is an eternally ongoing process

>>16761175 (OP)
>how does darwinism explain that the DNA copying mechanism had to already exist in order for natural selection to be possible?
The theory is that DNA caused a phenotypical revolution, because it supplanted RNA, which used DNA as a better encoding mechanism, but by letting a foreign entity take control of it's own replication ability, RNA became a slave to DNA.

>>16761186
No, the question is valid. The first replicating life-forms did in fact descend from another replicating life-form. DNA-based life descended from RNA-based life.

>>16762888
Did you check for any before you said this?

Abiogenesis was just a complete freak occurance with like a 10^-10000 chance that will never happen again anywhere else in the universe. Prove me wrong.

>>16767141
The vast majority of mutations are benign. IIRC the average human mutation rate is ~50 base pairs per generation depending on who you ask. That’s 50 nucleotide changes creating base pairs in you that are not present in either your mother or your father.

>>16765171
I know why brainlets like you refuse to accept it lol
even if it wouldn't be random, the mechanic works the same.
psychos hate the randomness concept so fucking much its unreal. I wonder why lol

>>16767380
happened fast in the grand scheme of things. since earth cooled and started taking water until it popped up some 800 mil years passed, at which point there was between 50-70% of the total water there's today.

>>16764392
The sun is the centre of the solar system.

"Cosmos" =/= solarsystem.

Earth is the center of the cosmos. Anywhere you are is the center of the cosmos from the pov of you as an observer. Humans live on earth so placing the centre of the cosmos on earth makes more sense than the sun.

Every point revolves around every other point.

The chicken crossed the road but the road also crossed a chicken.

>>16767842
Cool. That’s not what people mean by geocentrism

>>16762994
end your trumpanzee life

>>16764170
>>16764294
It's a penis.

>>16768737
I too have toes on my penis

>>16768121
Lol because they think of a strawman.

>>16763014
>how does a combustion engine work, what are the principles?
>who built that blue volvo over there in the corner?
>why is it that energy is conserved?

We dont have to bring questions 2 and 3 into a discussion of 1. In this example question 3 might very well be unanswerable and question 2 - who gives a fuck?

>>16761175 (OP)
it doesn't have to because the theory of evolution (or darwinism I guess) explains how evolution works, not how it first came to exist. That's a different step in the appearance of life, called abiogenesis, which is prior to evolution and natural selection.

That said this origin of life is somewhat decoded bow but there's a lot of blurry holes in our understanding.

>>16768765
No they think of what geocentrism is

>>16761186
>t. moving the goalposts to avoid the question
every time with humanists/pantheist/"atheists"/whatever you identify as

I, for one, believe the evidence most logically supports a combination of geyser and clay theory. It stills begs the question of why the first proteins broke the laws of thermodynamics to replicate, but it's the best theory we have. If I could explain it to someone thousands of years ago before our modern understanding of biochemistry and earth sciences, I'd probably have to use poetic wording. Think about, "a special polar oxygenated liquid was trapped in the clay interlayers and the phosphate began to form complex chains" just wouldn't make any sense to anyone back then. I'd probably say something more, the driving force of the universe breathed life into the dirt.

But that's just me

>>16768796
>doesn't have to because
Just give me the probability of the egg-chicken-egg "selection".

>>16768850
>the first proteins broke the laws of thermodynamics to replicate
In what way does a replicating protein "break the laws of thermodynamics?"

If you say entropy I will mock you.