@SarahisCensored Do you think the scientists have not proven evolution to be factual?

@lilmoemusic No.

@SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic Why not?

@TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic because it hasn't been proven. if you really dig deep into the literature and don't just take what pop science articles and textbooks say at face value.....you'll be shocked at how much evolution is propped up assumptions and wishcasting, and how many holes there are

@logarithmsuckz @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic The exact opposite is true. If you actually looked into it and made an effort to understand it you'd say the same thing

@BTHBcRMY @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic but i did and i have. and i found that evolution relies on quite a lot of unproven assumptions....and a lot of ignoring of experimental evidence and mathematical models. we know that evolution of novel information cannot occur stepwise by mutations. but is there another choice?

@logarithmsuckz @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic What unproven assumptions? What experimental evidence and mathematical models disprove it?

@TokarevEnjoyer @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic The experimental evidence showing mutations don’t lead to an increase in informational novelty (such as the LTEE), fossil evidence demonstrating punctuated equilibrium, and mathematical models showing the impossibility of novel structures appearing by chance. Assumptions 👇

@logarithmsuckz @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic How is the long term ecoli experiment not proof of evolution?

@BTHBcRMY @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic because there is no evolution of novel information or structure, despite trillions of bacteria, hundreds of thousands of generations, and billions of mutations. that's the equivalent of 8 million years of mammal evolution simulated in 40.

@logarithmsuckz @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic And that is evidence against evolution how?

@BTHBcRMY @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic um....because it shows that mutations do not build incrementally towards novel structure...

@logarithmsuckz @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic They do https://www.caltech.edu/about/...

@TokarevEnjoyer @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic this is almost comical. this does not prove they evolved. it ASSUMES they evolved and makes a GUESS how it did, in extremely vague terms. they say “it is challenging to explain how it evolved. we find that the two cell types must have evolved at the same time for natural

@TokarevEnjoyer @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic selection to work” notice how it doesn’t prove anything? doesn’t list the series of mutations that occurred, step by step, mapping out a lineage? you know why? because it doesn’t exist. random chance doesn’t build new organs.

@logarithmsuckz @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic I feel like you started with the premise and you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary by calling observations "assumptions" and whatnot

@TokarevEnjoyer @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic I feel like you don’t even know what you’re trying to defend. New cell types don’t just “evolve” out of nowhere. Saying they did isn’t an explanation of how they could have done so, it’s hand waving.

@logarithmsuckz @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

@TokarevEnjoyer @BTHBcRMY @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic It would be nice if you could explain why you think this supports evolution. I went through the article. As usual, it does not prove evolution, but assumes it occurs. It’s yet another paper that uses homology to prove evolution….it says nothing about how mutations could

@logarithmsuckz @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic The goal isn't to prove evolution. Evolution is already proven. The goal is to share understanding of a particular phenomenon. Scientific articles and papers don't have to re-explain every single previously established bit of relevant information

@BTHBcRMY @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic Oh. But it’s never been established. That’s…the point. Evolution is just “assumed” to have occurred. You ask how though, and suddenly the whole theory collapses.

@logarithmsuckz @TokarevEnjoyer @SarahisCensored @lilmoemusic That's not true though. Not in the slightest