If evolution is true why would different life forms emerge from single celled organisms. It the alleged purpose of evolution is to create the optimal organism which can survive and reproduce then evolution should have stopped with bacteria which have the simplest and best method of reproduction (asexual) and are capable of propagating themselves to a much greater degree than any mammalian species. This is not to mention the many flaws and gaps of the theory such as the mysterious origins of highly complicated systems like the adaptive immune and endocrine system
dos, windows 3, Windows 95, how do you call that kind of progress?
>dos, windows 3, Windows 95, how do you call that kind of progress?
Cancerous nepotism.
Divine intervention leading to the one true OS (temple).
>if evolution is about creating the optimal organism (faulty premise) then evolution should have stopped (which it never does) with bacteria which I personally deem the best organism for some bullshit reason.
Tell us how the emergence of sexual reproduction is in line with evolutionary theory when asexual reproduction is much simpler and less energy intensive. Surely natural selection would punish these wasteful inefficiencies in nature?
Sexual selection is superior to asexual reproduction because it increases genetic variability of the offspring, which in turn increases their capabilities to survive changing conditions.
Asexually reproducing species are essentially clones of one another and thus if one of them is vulnerable to say, a pathogen, then all of them are, whereas in species that reproduce sexually, each is unique mixture of genes from the parent organisms, and thus their immune systems aren't copies of one another and so some of them are able to resist pathogens others might be vulnerable to.
Cumulative error.
Adaptation is near false in describing the phenomena.
The driver of evolution is 'as it just so happens' luck of the defective draw.
so, man is a defective species?
Except myself of course.
There is no such thing as a perfect species, so yes, obviously.
>btfo by a forklift
if it was so perfect, home come it ended up starring in such a shit sequel?
evolution, ironically
the entire tree of evolution is the result of random mutation that diverged genetically form their ancestors. some of them died but some managed to find ways to live through other random mutations.
>the entire tree of evolution is the result of random mutation that diverged genetically form their ancestors. some of them died but some managed to find ways to live through other random mutations.
This is the least convincing line of thinking to explain the divergence of life on this planet I have ever heard in my entire life.
I believe it is probably stepwise and occurs over shorter time scales. Species represent local minimums in the possible configurations. Selective pressures push the ball up and over hills so to speak. Incremental, slow change doesn't really align with how irreducabily complex a lot of biological systems are. Once the ball is over the hill it will quickly settle to the next nearest valley.
>I believe
interesting choice of words...
It is a matter of belief and speculation, regardless of how devoutly you hold to a certain dogma.
Thank you, this is what I wanted from this thread, for an intelligent person to admit finally that belief in evolutionary theory is akin to belief in religious faith. Evolutionists and evangelicals are pretty much one in the same, preaching truths that are as of yet unprovable.
> belief in evolutionary theory is akin to belief in religious faith
It's not though.
>It the alleged purpose of evolution is to create the optimal organism which can survive and reproduce
This is wrong.
Also asexuao reproduction allows for faster genetic recombination which is more efficient. There are mathematical proofs that evolution will always converge to 2 sexes
>There are mathematical proofs that evolution will always converge to 2 sexes
then share it. You admitted in your first sentence that asexual reproduction is more efficient which contradicts your second sentence that "evolution will always converge to 2 sexes". I'm still also waiting for a plausible origin for sexual reproduction under current evolutionary theory.
sexual reproduction allows for faster evolution, as one of the sexes will be the gatekeepers of reproduction and selection, as opposed to everyone just fucks everyone. e.g. a large set of the males will die without passing their inferior genetics on while the females select for traits that benefit the specie.
Asexual reproduction means all offspring are clones. Sexual reproduction is how you can have variation in the species which lowers the chances that diseases or other dangers become a threat to the whole species.
You are a shit for brains moron.
The reason it converges is because asexual reproduction has no way to do genetic combination. All offspring are clones with each other. It has nothing to do with whatever bullshit you're saying, it's purely about genetic combination. You do know monogamy if common throughout nature right?
Stop posting shit you don't understand, dumbfuck.
also I did not admit asexual reproduction is more efficient, my phones autocorrect for some reason fucked up the word.
> I'm still also waiting for a plausible origin for sexual reproduction under current evolutionary theory.
>ancestors used horizontal gene transfer as a gateway drug
>progressed until everyone was hermaphroditic
>normalfags spend, idk, half their available reproductive energy toting eggs, the other half fertilizing each other
>be me, hermaphrodite/asexual reproducer
>have a mutation that makes me put 100% of my effort into fertilizing others (proto-male)
>outcompete everyone else in fertilization, spreading my genes the farthest
>next generation have even more "100% fertilizers" (proto-males), who continue the process
>hermaphrodites getting btfo at every stage, 'males' completely dominating
>oh wait, if the 'males' are spreading in the population, and the hermaphrodites are receding, who exactly are all my excess sons fertilizing? Are we on the path to extinction?
>oh look, someone had a mutation that makes them a 100% egg-toter (proto-female).
>they'll outcompete the other egg-toters to attract mates, and there's a surplus of fertilizers, so they'll have the best reproductive outcomes of any of us
>the proto-male surplus thus generates an advantage for proto-females, who more successfully spread their genes
>following generations have more and more proto-females
>balance eventually swings the other way
>and swings back
>and swings back
>eventually, equilibrium is reached and the population consists of two sexes, oscillating around rough equality in numbers
1. Bait
2. Postulated before the automobile
3. Fuck you
One should not forget it's called "the theory of evolution"
There are evidence of it being true, but it's not unbreakable evidence
Until today it haven't been proven true or false yet
>Until today it haven't been proven true or false yet
Yes it has. The fact that life evolves has been proven true beyond all reasonable doubt.
Post the proof of macroevolution if you're so certain.
No matter what I post, you won't accept it because you'll say that it can be explained by miracles performed by a Canannite thunder god. I said reasonable doubt. Your doubt will be unreasonable.
Any reasonable person would agree that the mountain of evidence within each of these broad categories is solid proof that species evolve.
1. The fossil record. Fossils of species become more complex and branch out into different taxa throughout geologic time. You won't find trilobite fossils in strata newer than the Permian and you won't find a horse fossil in strata older than the Eocene. If you started finding mouse fossils in the Cambrian, you will have disproved the current theory of evolution.
2. Transitional fossils. This is sort of a part b to the first thing, but it shows that one species can evolve from another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Not only will species that had been previously classified as closely related based on anatomy and physiology have very similar genomes, they also tend to have conserved endogenous retroviruses in the same genetic environment (on the same chromosome, surrounded by the same genes), meaning they have been passed down since at least the last common ancestor.
These three things alone prove to any reasonable person that species evolve.
>Post the proof of macroevolution
Kek. I love the macroevolution cope. Microevolution has been proven so well beyond a doubt that now people like you have to argue against macroevolution specifically when they’re the same thing on different time scales
Calling micro"evolution" evolution instead of selection is a bigger cope. No new forms arise from it, it just results in a lowering of genetic diversity around a selected form.
It’s hilarious you think that
Speciation is macroevolution
Most people, even scientists, don't even know what evolution they're talking about. Ironically the people who understand evolution the most are its debunkers.
>It the alleged purpose of evolution is to create the optimal organism
It's not. In fact, there is no purpose.
I believe in micro addition, things like 0.04 + 0.01, but macro addition, 147 + 501 etc, just stretches credulity too far.
Wild schizo cope lol
Show me proof that addition can make an entirely different number instead of just a different type of the same number. I'm expected to believe in addition involving numbers in the billions despite the fact no human can count that far in a lifetime, its ridiculous.
If this kind of cope is the best you have, then I agree you did evolve from chimps. You have the same IQ.
In what way is my argument different to yours regarding evolution? "Micro" and "macro" evolution are exactly the same thing on different scales.
Your analogy is unlike either however. Information about a number is never lost in addition or subtraction unless you do it intentionally (rounding). Information is always lost in speciation. The general form can almost never be recovered after a certain amount of time.
What point are you even making? How is any of that relevant?
Organisms are slightly different from their parents due to being a random combination of their genes + random mutation, you agree with this and call it "micro evolution". What happens if you have millions of generations of slight differences?
>What happens if you have millions of generations of slight differences?
Speciation. But show me how large, complex forms develop. Especially confluences of multiple forms which require each other to work at all.
Via millions of generations of small differences.
So deleterious mutations are preserved because one day that teratoma will be a lovely new organ? You're basically arguing for guided evolution/intelligent design.
Mutations are an advantage/disadvantage in a probabalistic sense, not a binary one. On the time scale of an individual organism, mutations might only confer a tiny change in reproductive fitness, meaning plenty of evolutionary 'experiments' stick around for enough time for the environment to change enough for a previously negative mutation to become positive or vice versa.
You can see this happening right now with elephants and their tusks.
>Speciation. But show me how large, complex forms develop.
Good bait, anon.
we have billions of billions of different species
>. Information about a number is never lost in addition or subtraction unless you do it intentionally
>[1,1,1,1,1,1,1]
>the last '1' mutates to '2'
>[1,1,1,1,1,1,2]
"General Form" can't be recovered, except by an unlikely mutation from 2 back to 1.
I hate the autistic so much it's unreal.
>It the alleged purpose of evolution is to create the optimal organism
where did you get that idea?
you should probably understand the theory enough to at least learn what a "niche" is before you attempt to refute it
I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people can't grasp the logic behind evolution. Is it autism?
yes, perceiving theory as dogma is autism, weakness, debilism