FingerMan #crackpot #dunning-kruger

FingerMan #crackpot #dunning-kruger abovetopsecret.com

A Cephalopod disproves Darwin.

According to Darwin, all mutations are chance occurrences.

I have always wondered how a diamond back rattlesnake is so perfectly camouflaged with its' surroundings. And Scientists have always said it is due to selection of the fittest, based on luck of the draw genetic mutations.

HOW CONVENIENT

So, every moth, bird, snake and animal on this planet has mutated by chance to camouflage to its' natural surroundings.

I postulate that is not the case. That animals can adjust to their surroundings just by thinking it.

My proof for this theory? Cephalopods. They can match their skin perfectly camouflaging to their surroundings.
(Octopus and Cuttlefish)

While they do this instantly, animals can do this over time.

That's my hypothesis. Prove me wrong!

12 comments

“According to Darwin, all mutations are chance occurrences.”
Pretty sure Darwin died before the discovery of DNA, much less mutations.
Your premise is worse than just out-of-ass assertion.

“I have always wondered how a diamond back rattlesnake is so perfectly camouflaged with its' surroundings.”
Selection. You cannot ignore selection.

“ And Scientists have always said it is due to selection of the fittest, based on luck of the draw genetic mutations.”
Not quite.

“HOW CONVENIENT”
Can’t really snark on things you know fuck-all about, dude.

“So, every moth, bird, snake and animal on this planet has mutated by chance to camouflage to its' natural surroundings.”
Yes.

“I postulate that is not the case.”
No, you just reject the science because you don’t understand it.

“That animals can adjust to their surroundings just by thinking it.”
There are animals with camaflauge capabilities, but not all.

“My proof for this theory? Cephalopods. They can match their skin perfectly camouflaging to their surroundings.
(Octopus and Cuttlefish)”
Yes. That’s a mutation that was selected for.

“While they do this instantly, animals can do this over time.”
So, how would you design an experiment to test this dumbass hypothesis?

“That's my hypothesis. Prove me wrong!”
Do animals kept as pets change ‘over time’ to match the hamster cage, terrarium, or carpet?

This isn’t even worth debunking. This is just soooooooooooo stupid…

But just to be clear, yes, mutations are chance occurences. But if a specific random mutation happens to give a greater benefit to survival chances, then the odds of that mutation being passed on to offspring and becoming a new “default” trait increases exponentially as generations pass. Hence, evolution. As was so aptly said in the first X-Men movie “Mutation is the key to evolution”.

I suppose you think tanning and bodybuilding are humans examples of humans “adapting” by their own will? If so, why would it be so limited for us? It’s not like we can spontaneously create camouflaged skin patterns, or develop and control chromaphores like some cephalopods have.

XKCD Reference: https://xkcd.com/928/

Prove you wrong? That's not how science is done. It's you who has to prove your idea is right. The burden of proof is on you .

Look like confusion between Lamarckism and Darwinism.

While some mutations may occur randomly, natural selection is a process that's not only about random chance. Basic ignorance. If you were doing science, you'd post your findings in a proper biology peer-reviewed paper, not dismiss a whole body of knowledge with a claimed exception on a conspiracy theories website. Motivated pseudoreasoning.

Let's say you have five snakes in a tank and you're tasked with finding all of them. The ones that don't fit in with their surroundings would be spotted quickly, correct?

Same thing, but "you" are either a predator or a prey. In the former, the snake gets eaten and can't reproduce. In the latter, the snake doesn't eat and starves to death, also not reproducing. Now a snake that isn't spotted can eventually reproduce and its camouflaging genes are passed on to the next generation.

OK now find evidence for hypothesis. Test the null hypothedis. Natural observation. Etc

“A Cephalopod disproves Darwin.”
Just had a thought: No. Even if everything you suggest is true, this doesn’t disprove Darwin.
Darwin suggested that species change over time.
Darin didn’t have a clue about the mechanism. He just observed specialization and hypothesized speciation.
The most you can really claim, here, assuming you find ANYTHING that corroborates your bullshit, is that you filled in a hole Darwin was forced to leave, in a manner slightly differently than pretty much all of mainstream biology over the last 70 years.

We share at least 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. A later discovery by messrs. Watson & Crick proves Darwin.

A cephalopod knows more than you ever will, OP.

FingerMan #crackpot #dunning-kruger abovetopsecret.com

12 comments

Confused?