is evolution /sci/entific?
>>16141571no, its scientism dogma. scientific theories must be formulated in a way that they can be disproved, darwin's is intentionally formulated in a way that prevents disproof without access to a time machine, which means that its just a conjecture rather than a scientific theory.
>>16141571How are people still this confused on how evolution works?
>>16141571That kind of visual doesn't show the branching, not to mention the many branches that have died, and stuff that regressed.
>>16141590we don't need a time machine when there are fossils in the ground
Natural selection has potential problems in explaining the emergence of complex life.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrY_CEGpZCQ
>>16141640>Absurd manbun ponytail>Quantum consciousness>Justin 'Riddle'Hard pass
Why’d he do it though??
>>16141657This faggot ruined everything
>>16141571what does evolution predict?
>>16141827In a sense, change. "Evolution" isn't really a theory on its own, you'd need Natural Selection and genetic inheritance/mutation in order to get a full picture.
>>16141829>in order to get a full picture.>doesnt mention BioElectric manipulation via BioMagneticslollmao
>>16141830Actually, not a very pertinent picture.Here, what force is flowing through the clouds to produce these shapes.These flow through you too...subconsciously you react to it.
>>16141834Meaning you have no control over Evolutionary Forces.I do, because I was trained how to manipulate sub-Physiological parts of my body, mind over matter.
>>16141829ok.predict how humans will evolve then.
>Uncanny valley.Yes....where DID it come from?Two hybridic species beginning to seperate into two, occationally interbreeding to maintain a cartain level of familiarity.
>>16141843Pic unrelated right? Thats just mimicry, flies and bees don't breed
>>16141571yes stop questioning the science
>>16141878>Pic unrelated right? >mimicryYou didnt use your brain, you used your emotional feeling of certainty.No, 100% related. Why did you read my previous posts?
>>16143109>didnt*PhD in something Bio or else you dont have the prerequisits.
>>16141571It’s a model. Pretty much the only explanation for why all life on earth didn’t exist at the same time. It’s a theory that has limited practical application and the only reason it’s controversial with certain people is because those people are super butthurt we don’t just throw our hands in the air and say “god did it”
>>16141827The Abrahamic religions never being proven true.
>>16143115you just throw your hands in the air and say "it happened by accident" instead
>>16143109>>16143113You're a special kind of schizo. First prize!
>>16141590>implying you don't need time machine to say anything about the universe with certanity
>>16141571according to that chart, non-Whites ca e from monkeys but Whites didn't?
>>16143271If Jesus isn't real, then how do you explain me not raping and murdering women?
>>16143657Atheist' relative/subjective morality = conditioning + cost/benefit analysis + naturally selected empathic bias.
If evolution ain't real, then DNA and RNA make no sense, evolution deniers should protest to free everyone convicted due to DNA tests and revoke all paternity tests. All of the doctors in the world are just getting it right by pure chance, all of the geologists and biologists in the world are wrong and you look like your parents because... well, it's just like that, ok?!
>>16141590This isn't entirely incorrect, and stands on the same footing as the big bang.>>16141593People fail to understand natural selection. >>16141606>fossilsWe have a bunch of skulls, at least for humans. There are other odd fossils, but it could be argued those are other species(race) of humans. I'm not against evolution, but people shouldn't just accept it without skepticism. >>16141642Attacking someone's appearance is a lame way to reject something. That said, this person doesn't seem to grasp how natural selection works.>>16141657Because you touch yourself at night.>>16141827That some day whites will go extinct, and people will look back at us like we do neanderthals.>>16143113LSD much?>>16143115Just like the big bang. Understand the church and its importance in science before you berate it. (Fuck the modern church though)>>16143271Has nothing to do with it.>>16143395And then one day a big dense ball collapsed into itself and created the universe!
>>16141571My favorite part is that there's no argument at all. Just him being incredulous. There is nothing in that picture that's difficult to understand. Why is it so difficult for these people to accept reality?
>>16141590Wrong. You can disprove evolution by disproving the way DNA and proteins worksIf DNA works in the way that we observe it does, evolution is implied as a direct consequence
>>16143743Do you just see that picture, understand its implications, and take it for an absolute fact?
>>16143751No. I have a master of science in computational biology and I've spent enough time looking at genomic and proteomic data to know that evolution is a fact.Beyond that, there's nothing in that picture that's difficult to understand, nor is it unreasonable or impossible or any other nonsense that creationists spew. There is nothing whatsoever stopping accumulated mutations from leading to speciation and you have to get over it.
>>16143757Did I ever say I was against it either? Look at you with your retarded piece of paper from an indoctrinated school that doesn't teach critical thinking anymore. If you can prove evolution as a fact you'd be famous. That fact being the all life sharing one common ancestor. That image doesn't do well in showing branches, etc. Evolution is observable, we know this. The only people denying this fact are the same zealots that say the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground. The argument they have is that earth was created 6,000 years ago - which is up for interpretation. That God created man, but the Bible also states that Adam was created from dust in the ground. Who's to say that couldn't be from single celled organisms? Animals did come before man according to Genesis as well.My point being, people like you get angry over a Christian having a belief through faith, but refuse to look at the bible with a scientific standpoint without an agenda. Make yourself feel like you're so smart with your little degree and your insignificant life. Reminding yourself that you're better than anyone who's a Christian out of some impotent rage.
>>16143764>Evolution is observable, we know this.Car evolution is observable too, we all know this.
>>16143941You're probably trying to bait me into a parallel, in that car evolution is influenced by man. One could say that God influenced ours. We can observe evolution from microorganisms and fruit flies as a result of their environment.
>>16143962Same with cars
>>16141571If you don't believe in - and, further, can't explain - evolution & natural selection you don't have any business engaging with any of the scientific disciplines. Or any of the non-scientific ones, really.
>>16141590you can observe the process of evolution/natural selection in bacteria in a laboratory setting, though...?
>>16143722>Attacking someone's appearance is a lame way to reject something. That said, this person doesn't seem to grasp how natural selection works.natural selection doesn't work
>>16144281i'm curious what you get at all out of visiting and posting on /sci/, since you don't seem to believe in science as a methodology or any of the results or evidence it's produced as a methodology.
>>16144290evolution is likely true. But it cannot be explained by natural selection alone. https://youtu.be/Z6ElA0--JNg?si=6-UrMlbYj4LsqESa&t=208
>>16144308Is the objection supposed to be 'abiogenesis is difficult to prove'? that plot hole exists in theology tooIt's natural that the fossil record is difficult to interpret; all they are are vague impressions in stone of life that came before. The best explanation for it, though, has and likely always will remain evolution.'This level of complexity' is an arbitrary barrier; natural selection has been proven to cause changes in the phenotype and genetic code of living organisms. If you're completely unwilling to extrapolate (which isn't reasonable) and want to prove that complex life can emerge from microbia under obtuse conditions over millions of years, I guess you'd better buckle up and wait millions of years. This is not a mathematical proof; the theory of evolution does not need to cover every edge case -- it describes a general trend over a very, very long period of time.
>>16144336>the theory of evolution does not need to cover every edge case -- it describes a general trend over a very, very long period of time.the edge cases are the hardest part retard and the part of contention.I don't believe in Abrahamic nonsense but I don't see how some very small random mutation over a long period of time can create extreme and fundamentally different life form over a long period of time either. well shit, if you tell me it is possible, show me how and show me one good example, i.e. a fish evolve to a lizard. you can't just tell me it'll randomly mutate under the fitness function and create everything without showing a single example because that sounds extremely stupid. if anything, because the mutations effect are either so small or kill the organism, mathematically, regression to the mean should dominate the evolution of all life form all earth as a general trend. there has to be something very important and radical piece missing from the current stupid random mutation theory of evolution.
>>16144180>laboratory settingliteral intelligent design. >>16144308>evolution is likely trueIt's a religious replacement for the rubes. Observable in nearly everything. The best outcome cannot dive more then a few minutes run faster then a snake, unable to fly and the very few who are capable for invention keeps endless hordes of idiots alive. The outcome of "evolution" in RL didn't look very convincing.
>>16144381>le regression to the meanyou don't understand how genetics work. there isn't a 'mean' genetic code; plenty of organisms with fitness-neutral mutations persist in their respective gene pool for no reason other than random chancel; also, the 'ideal organism' for any given environment fluctuates wildly and constantly.a fish doesn't just 'evolve into a lizard', there was an agonizingly slow process over generations where random mutations accrued with minor changes to the organism's bodyplan until those bodily changes had accumulated to an extent you could call it a major change. By it's own definition, there is no 'single example' I can show you, because a fish did not spontaneously birth a lizard between one generation and the next.If you want a 'scale' of changing traits, the formation of wrist/digit bones from bony fins in tetrapods is a classic and obvious example.
>>16144395>"evolution" in RL didn't look very convincingyep can confirm. part of my background is optimization/reinforcement learning. if you just optimize directly for the cost function in extremely non convex landscape, most of the time the optimization stuck at some very local plateau and never step out of that. if your mutation is small, you'll just stuck as a single life form till eternity of time and never evolve into anything else. to break this plateau, there need to be a radical change to the cost function.relevant video to watch for you "randomly mutation will achieve everything" retards here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWIrXN-yy8g
>>16144395The laboratory setting mimics harsh environments that also exist in nature, retard. If it's 'intelligent design' to subject experimental subjects to laboratory conditions which mimic natural conditions, and that invalidates the result of the study, then you're saying nothing but purely observational study is worth a damn, which is obviously not true.
>>16144413mathtards should stick to their spreadsheets - regression analysis is a model, don't conflate it with reality.
>>16141571wow, beautiful diagram, thanks for posting that. Here is a better version.
>>16141593I don't know, it's baffling, isn't it? Something so simple to understand, and yet so much confusion about it.
>>16141571>is evolution /sci/entific?Yes, absolutely. We postulate the ideas that collectively make up the Theory of Evolution, then go out to nature and observe what is at play and affecting populations.
>>16141590>darwinThe Theory of Evolution is long past Darwin's ideas. His basic fundament was right, but the minutiae are now a vast set of ideas, many proven, many still under study.
>>16144947I think it's just a byproduct of poor education i.e. people still having ancient religious texts forced on them in childhood. The monotheistic religions seem to cause a mental barrier for these people when it comes to grasping modern ideas, either in philosophy or science. OP's image is a classic case. The illustration conveys the underlying conviction that human beings are the "ultimate" life form. Evolution is expressed there as a single linear pathway towards humans. Of course, this isn't even remotely what the theory is about. All species are on their own evolutionary path and are all intermediates in their own right. The intermediates that led to human beings millions of years ago are all gone because we are them, now evolved. Other primates aren't our intermediates, but intermediates for entirely different evolutionary paths.And because monotheistic education creates a mental barrier in people, preventing them from grasping the above, they also fail to understand how all knowledge is part of evolution, and how all ideas are in an intermediate phase as well, and only relevant to the evolutionary path they stem from.
>>16141571It’s the safest bet, by far. Life adapts.
>>16141571return to fishe>>16141657>>16141705right????????
>>16144949I should call her
hm...
>>16145363ew
>>16145204>people still having ancient religious texts forced on them in childhoodProjecting much? I had a good education, and am a Christian. I have already posted in this thread in support of evolution and creationism. The reality is people are just retarded. It's not religion that creates a barrier, it's retarded families and parents. Even people who are college educated these days still lack critical thinking. >evolutionary pathThe question is not the path, but the actual theory of all life sharing one common ancestor. Interesting how the bible explains that too, no?
>>16145363Makes you think all those human ancestor bones we find, such as Neanderthal bones, are just extinct races. Pure white, pure black, and pure asian will be treated the same way in a thousand years from now.
>>16145380>Even people who are college educated these days still lack critical thinking.>Interesting how the bible explains that too, no?bait
>>16145394I'm sorry you haven't read the bible without an agenda. It's okay, faggot.
>>16145385>Pure white, pure black, and pure asian will be treated the same way in a thousand years from now.Jew wish
>>16144422>laboratory conditions which mimic natural conditionsMimic is the term, pro tip you can't in RL. Simple fact: you mimic things/processes/forces you think! what RL is. Humans have made great achievements, but for "the big questions" there is no way to make a setup in any thinkable! lab. So cope harder, as long you are on the technical road you are the guy who makes an FFT on a recorded symphony and thinks he knows what's going on.
>>16144175That's literally dogma
>>16145380>It's not religion that creates a barrier, it's retarded families and parentsWell, it's both. These ancient texts are full of batshit insane bullshit. It's not just the people who are retarded.>Interesting how the bible explains that too, no?It doesn't. Evolution is gradual, iterative. Human beings didn't just appear on the scene as they are. This means the notion of an immortal individual soul makes no sense, which also means the conventional concept of an afterlife doesn't either.
>>16145416I've read it anon.
>>16145547Your understand of the bible and religious documents is minimal. I suggest actually reading it before criticizing it. I have read numerous religious text, and the only ones that are batshit are the Wicca and pagan nonsense.>It doesn't.It does. Life began with water, which then created Adam from the dirt, and all the plants and animals. The time it was written, microorganisms weren't even a thought. All we are doing is further understanding our knowledge of the world that God created. When the church was in charge of science, it had a far more reputable basis that benefited man, not the farce it is today. From the Gregorian Calendar to Astronomy(Galileo was punished for directly calling the pope a simpleton, not because heliocentricism). Even medicine wouldn't be where it is without religion. Like it or not, Abrahamic religions have benefited humans since the beginnings. The fact that such a document like the old testament has survived and still read by millions and millions of people is a testament of its own. Your hatred of religion must stem from strict religious parents, and instead of understanding it you outright refuse it because you are conceited. Probably have some silly Star Trek utopian future in your mind that, if there were no religion, would have already been achieved. Such a thing is pure ignorance. I'm a skeptic, I don't believe the bible is 100% literal truth. However, the writing is right in front of you and all you need to do is remove your blinders.
>>16145552I didn't say you didn't read it. I said you read it with an agenda. You clearly read it with so much disdain as if to laugh at the bible, rather than view it with a neutral perspective. Like a fascist reading marx, or a marxist reading Adam Smith.
>>16145568brainlet
>>16145578>calls me a brainlet>clearly didn't read the bible.To actually read the bible and understand it can take years. Reading a few scriptures here and there without the context is not reading the bible. I've never met a single person that says they hate Abrahamic Religions that has actually read the bible. I read about all religions and cultures to expand my mind so I can be more racist and blasphemous to people, but there is still a lot underlying in these texts that are important. I haven't gotten to scientology and the book of mormon yet, among others, but I will. The benefit of being Christian is if you put off the nonsense from the boomer pastors, you can be as anti-semitic is you want.
>>16145563There is no God (except as the projection of the ego), no immortal soul (consciousness evolves and dies too), no good and evil (morality is neural conditioning), no heaven and hell (except as states of mind). Humans are animals and perfection, the absolute, objective knowledge is all a fiction.
>>16145591>There is no GodNot a big man in the sky playing the sims, no. God is perhaps a force we haven't scientifically discovered yet. The meaning of life is to discover that, I believe. "projection of the ego" has nothing to do with God or the belief in God.>no immortal soulImmortality implies time, implies eternal life. I don't like the use of immortal soul, because that would mean the body animates the soul, not the soul animates the body. You are correct it is consciousness, but the whole heaven/hell thing is different. >good and evil"Good" and "Evil" is not explicitly defined, and is not so much morality as it is "be a good person". >no heaven and hellIf a soul is consciousness as you said, but heaven and hell exist as a state of mind, consciousness being the mind and soul, then we have a soul that goes to heaven or hell.
>>16145601stupid talk, all of it
>>16145629>can't refute>just calls it stupidIf you can't educate me on how my statements are "stupid", then you should educate yourself more..
>>16145638engaging with your bullshit is always a waste of valuable time
>>16145644Atheists are so cute when they're angry.
>>16145648SchizobabbleBibbly babbly bubblyI'm a fagEveryone ignore my post it's stupid Hurr durr herp herp herp herp herp herp herp
>>16145648I am not an atheist, I'm just saying your bullshit is stupid. I don't care what you believe in, just like I don't care what you got between your legs. keep that shit to yourself moron
>>16145651Ah, resorting to the tactics of a 2nd grader.>>16145653>I can't come up with an argument so I'm just going to say silly things so I can pretend I won
>>16145656there is no argument to be had for your fantasy stories. we talk about science here not fantasy
>>16145659>we talk about science here not fantasyScience has always had fantasy. The point of science is to understand that fantasy. However, the only thing we can truly know is real are the thoughts in our own head. For all you know, you could just be a brain in a jar being fed information, and I am nothing but a thought in your head.
>>16145664you're never arguing in good faith, you are here to make sure you convince as many to adhere to your strict particular path. there's nothing to discover for you, you decided science is allowed to discovery only that which fits your narrative, and you are here to make sure of that. end of story. that's all there is to any debate on your fantasies. nothing else.choosing to believe in shit without scientific evidence ruins a scientist's ability to observe what is. not fully but enough to warrant hygiene on the spiritual side.
>>16145669See, you have me mixed up. I'm a skeptic. I don't believe science should be used to attempt to disprove faith based beliefs, but I do think science can benefit from those with faith - be it their work ethic, morals, or what have you - those types are beneficial to the scientific community, and to ostracize people for having faith is retarded. You should respect the opinions of others, no matter how ridiculous you may think they are. The way you talk about it makes you seem like you have some high and mighty superiority complex, bragging about how great you are and nothing else. I don't care if you believe in God or not, my entire argument here has been that your criticism of the bible is ignorant, and that you can use it as a tool to assist science - not the opposite.The only people who hinder science are retards, regardless of faith or lack thereof. Open mindedness is absolutely necessary, otherwise you have an agenda, and that is not scientific.
>>16145693yes you're hindering science with your fantasies. this is not place to talk religion, do that shit on /pol/, /lit/, or /x/. you have plenty place to talk about it, why talk about it here on /sci/ anon?also I'm not ostracizing anyone's faith as long as they don't act like entitled pieces of shit here on /sci/, I really don't need your bullshit.
>>16145708Again again, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not sitting here praising God or talking about the religion itself, all I was pointing out is your view of the bible is not very scientific. You were the one who brought up religion, I just replied to it. This entire conversation would never even occur if you(or another anon) brought it up in the first place.>>16145204
>>16145715to me it looks like you are a weasel but I may be wrong
>>16145722Kys
>>16141590Every individual mechanism or principle underlying evolution can be tested. Name me one principle you think is untestable.Phylogenetics is pretty hard to explain except by shared descent.
>>16145722No, you're just projecting your hatred of religion likely due to strict religious parents and possibly schooling, and are going through some dark times right now most likely. Probably 16 years old, think you have the world figured out. Don't worry, I was there once too. What ever it is that's bothering you, things will get better. They always will.
>>16145730so you are a weasel, supposing all that shit about me. you're miserable anon
>>16145727The principle that keeps it a theory and not a fact is that all life comes from the same ancestor, that single celled organism in the ocean. Scientists were able to force a single celled organism into a multi celled organism, but that is an external influence forcing the mutation... It happening naturally has never been observed and due to the amount of time it takes, I do not believe it will.
>>16145733But am I wrong? Projecting much? I'm not miserable at all, this is just the internet. Lurk moar.
>>16145736>But am I wrong?yes you are. I'm not judging the religion, I'm judging people, of any religion or no religion, based on their behavior. nothing more.
>>16141571>>16144946The Deuterostome -> Plathelmintes -> Pikaia step is not very convincing
>Dick-in-Sonialol
>>16145737There you go, that's the phrase I was looking for>of any religion or no religion, based on their behaviorYou single out religion a couple times, then backtrack and fail to mention secular people. I'm just saying your anger is misplaced and unwarranted. Turn that energy into something positive, instead of acting like a faggot.
>>16145751>uh I'm a victimyou weasel
>>16145754Did I ever call myself a victim? No. If I am weasel then u r baboon.
>>16141640It was two or three "1 in a billion" events as in as far as we know it only happened twice in cellular history, the endosymbiosis of mitochondria and some retro viral DNA enabling multi-cellular life to enable the likes of the Cambrian explosion. Around the time of Cambrian explosion, new cell sheaths appear which enable significantly faster nerve conduction. That is arguably the third one.And that was almost 1 billion years ago, and we might have a new such event discovered recently with eukaryotic nitroplasts.Nitroplasts are a newly discovered symbiotic genus of bacterium inside an algae. They have lost genes enabling independent reproduction, relying on algal derived proteins to survive. When the algae performs mitosis to reproduce, the nitroplast separates into two and is inherited by each daughter cell, just like mitochondria and chloroplasts. So each cell is now nitrogen and carbon sufficient, growing glucose from photosynthesis and using a portion of that to fix organic nitrogen from n2. This has happened twice before, but this event is only 100 million years old or so, based on phylogenetic analysis between the wild type nitrogen fixing bacteria.We've caught so-called macroevolution red handed: two organisms combining to form a supercreature.
>>16145734>Scientists were able to force a single celled organism into a multi celled organism, but that is an external influence forcing the mutationSo? Still counts. Proved it wasn't a one-off act of creation only possible by a deity.
>>16144180And every time you take antibiotics?
>>16145583u mad bro lol
>>16145601>God is perhaps a force we haven't scientifically discovered yet.Why call it God, if there even is anything besides the will to power?>we have a soul that goes to heaven or hell.What we have are feelings in our slowly decaying bodies. This is what it is. No need to use vague terms from outdated religions.
this reminds me of a good joke>What came first? The chicken or the egg?Primordial soup!GET IT??????????evolution isn't real retardsdevolution is what's real
>>16146154shouldn't we have found any of these more evolved us remnants from the past? you didn't really think it through did you?
>>16146162depends on what a college-educated simpleton such as yourself considers "thinking" because I would ask you the same thing
>>16146166why did you avoid answering my question? you should have been able to. are you also going to avoid it in your next reply?
>>16141642>he cant handle the riddlerNGMI, pleb
>>16144946>all these made up missing links with no actual evidence
We didn't come from Monkeys, we came from Tree Lizards. (Our skin clearly used to be rough but it has softened).
>>16145825My point there was that supports more of an intelligent design theory rather than it happening naturally. >>16145845Not at all.>>16146038>Why call it GodGod is just a human given name for the creator, what actually created life from a human understanding is presently unknown.>feelings in our slowly decaying bodiesWe don't know if we have souls or not. This is one of those things you can't prove or disprove. It's based entirely on faith.>outdated religionsThe only ones outdated are Judaism and Islam.
>>16146711I know what created the universe, so your blanket assertion that we don't know what created us is more academic wriggling out of the debate with intellect in-tact.
>>16146714We are reversed box dimensionality, so we originally were from box dimensionality. Meaning that someone from box dimensions or upper dimensions created us.
>>16146715It's simple.A. multiverseB. Someone in a different dimension spawned this oneWhat's hard about this conception. It must have happened. Things don't just pop up without cause. Thinking this is academic trained retardation. You don't even park on 'i don't know'. You must assume a cause, and this was the most suitable theory.
>>16146711>God is just a human given name for the creator, what actually created life from a human understanding is presently unknown.It's not a given that the universe was "created." Creation is a man-made concept, since the "I" is man-made.>We don't know if we have souls or not. We know that we do not have an immortal soul.>The only ones outdated are Judaism and Islam.All religions which originated prior to the 19th century are outdated.
>>16146729And man makes good things sometimes. How can you claim to be intelligent if you put no worth on your own thoughts?
>>16146729>We know that we do not have an immortal soul.There's more evidence for a soul than against it, and certainly no evidence that negates the possibility entirely.
>>16146731>How can you claim to be intelligent if you put no worth on your own thoughts?I put worth into my own thoughts. I just don't blow them out of proportion and anthropomorphize the universe.>>16146742The "I" is a man-made concept, and consciousness is part of evolution — it's gradual and iterative like all biology. So, what exactly is the soul then, especially an "immortal" one?
>>16146729>We know that we do not have an immortal soul.to be fair...here. if we consider the soul as the information encoded by our brains, which makes the matter we're made out of to manifest (Us), then yes, that soul is "mortal" but only here and now. from its perspective things may be different. it could be immortal. or is immortal in nature
>>16146745>The "I" is a man-made conceptYou think no other animal has a sense of self? Even dogs and cats obviously have a sense of self, it's apparent by interacting with them at even a cursory level.>consciousness is part of evolution — it's gradual and iterative like all biology.Even within the framework of evolution we can say that the body/brain is an interface the soul uses to interact with physical reality. As the brain becomes more complex, it allows the soul to interact in a more complex way with physical reality.>So, what exactly is the soul then, especially an "immortal" one?That's a very good question, I'm not sure we have an exact answer to that. There's plenty of evidence of things beyond our physical reality but we're not sure what it all is exactly.
>>16146762>You think no other animal has a sense of self?No, but they have a different sense of "I." I was just referring to ours. As I said, consciousness is gradual and iterative.>Even within the framework of evolution we can say that the body/brain is an interface the soul uses to interact with physical reality.In that case, the term "soul" is being used in an almost poetic way. It's a euphemism for the body or some aspect of it rather than something to be "discovered in it" in some isolated or tangible form.>I'm not sure we have an exact answer to that. I already gave the answer in the question: nothing. There is no "immortal soul" in an individual organism, except if we're using "soul" to refer euphemistically to a unity of processes over time, but this makes the term so broad and vague as to be meaningless.
I recognize zero.
>>16146714You know what created the universe? What did, the big bang? It's not proven, and you can only know what you can observe. >>16146729No, we do not know. There is no way to know unless some massive life changing event happens. Who knows, we might find our beach.>prior to the 19th centuryFucking kek. Industrialization did not make religions outdated. This isn't a video game.
>>16146767>soulcall it identity anon, it's simpler. identity built on experiences.
I got lots of luck(too much), but no stees. And today is opposite day.
>>16146772>No, we do not know.Those of us who are actually paying attention to the data we currently have do know.>IndustrializationI was referring to evolution.
>>16146779>data we currently haveData changes, our understanding of that data changes. There is no data on a soul that confirms or denys.>evolutionEvolution is a byproduct of industrialization. Where evolution falls flat is the one common ancestor, that single celled organism. It has never been observed without external force to mutate into a multicellular organism. With an external force involved being the only observable way, that seems to imply intelligent design. And now there's data supporting the young earth theory and data against the big bang. The Webb Telescope has done some very interesting things.
>>16146786>There is no data on a soul that confirms or denys.are we talking about the religious soul? because there's no scientific data for thatare we talking about the closest real thing to a religious soul? that's completely something else and we may have something thereabouts(*)I don't want to argue for the religious version, there's no reason to, here, with no scientific info on it.
>>16146789Fagging a 2 into a zero calibration to do.
>>16146790I will be on Twitter today.
>>16145204>The illustration conveys the underlying conviction that human beings are the "ultimate" life form. Evolution is expressed there as a single linear pathway towards humans. Of course, this isn't even remotely what the theory is about.The original picture is literally titles "Human Evolution". How could it possibly chart the path of all lifeforms? Of course it would naturally incline to the human story, because we're humans, so that's our default story. Don't be so insufferable
>>16146786>There is no data on a soul that confirms or denys.Define "soul" because we certainly have already refuted various definitions of it.>Evolution is a byproduct of industrialization.It doesn't matter. EVOLUTION is what made ancient religions outdated, not industrialization.>With an external force involved being the only observable way, that seems to imply intelligent design.It just implies that there was an external force. It doesn't imply the universe had a creator.>>16147282It lines up too many different species. They're not all in the evolutionary history of human beings.
