Blowing Up Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, the opinions of someone who would fail a 6th grade science quiz aren't worth anything, here.

And that is exactly why you are ignored.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whenever I'm absent for a while/month/s, The Lying Devil PolitcalSheik comes back into the Science section with her Kweationist 7-11 Adventist Crap.

Wiki:

"Stephen Charles Meyer (born 1958) is an American historian, author, and former educator.
He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God.[1][2]

Meyer was a founder of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI),[3] which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[4][5][6]
Before joining the institute, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. He is a senior fellow of the DI and the director of the CSC.[7]"..."

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

Try to be absent more often.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, Kraus is wrong.

(And Dawkins is a nutball).

There's no accounting for peoples' beliefs.

More importantly though, people misunderstand the words they read. Language is imperfect. Lots of scientific papers start out with a punchline, and then take the next two pages to explain what it means. Sometimes people don't read the two pages, they just look at the punchline and move on.

We are starting to understand how stem cells work. We can already coerce them into behaving differently. People used to think nerve cells can't regenerate, and now we know they can and doO. Embryology is fascinating. A cell will broadcast its identity, it'll say "I'm a brain cell", and scientists already know how to say "no you're not, you're a liver". The interesting thing is, the liver always looks like a liver, it never looks like a brain. The shape is part of the programming.

Once again, it boils down to simple math. Check out "space filling curves". Most of them are simple recursion equations. The instruction will be something like "remove the middle third" or "double size and turn left". But what results is complex and beautiful.

Obviously he is wrong.

My point in providing that post is to show the state of "science" and the lengths Liberal/Marxist 'scientists' will go to show that there is no need for God as an explanation.

Some scientists admit that they make stories up to slander religion:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

WRONG!

It is well understood science that a successful species will not evolve significantly, and significant evolution can only occur when a species is doing so badly that there is huge amounts of inbreeding.
So punctuated equilibrium of long periods of statis followed by short periods of rapid change, is always expected to be the case, and does prove evolution.

Evolution is abundantly apparent all around us.
Like all those warm blooded dinosaurs have left us with the rich avian history.

There has NEVER been an observed case of evolution.

Never.


"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe because your boogie man wrote his works 150+ years ago and we've learned much since then? Of course nothing we've learned changes the central tenet of Darwin, we all descended from a common ancestor. 150 years ago Newtonian physics was all we knew, Einstein was still way in the future.

"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, an unsuccessful organism will reduce in number, until it is forced to inbreed.
That causes mutations, which are always recessive, to possibly manifest.
That allows the next generation to be significantly different from the past failing ancestors.

A successful organism can not possibly evolve, since mutations are always recessive by nature.

But the "origin of life" IS by evolution as well.
Lifeless chemical reactions will always exist, but not be as efficient as organic chemical reactions.
So natural selection will pick organics, and eventually lead to what we consider life.
That is evolution.

No it doesn't cause mutations.


Gads, you are an imbecile.

AI Overview
Learn more


Mutations are primarily caused by errors occurring during DNA replication during cell division, exposure to environmental mutagens like radiation or chemicals, or sometimes even viral infections; essentially, any factor that alters the DNA sequence can lead to a mutation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I could be wrong, but I believe all cells have the exact same DNA so do not start as differentiated, such as liver or brain.
I believe that what happens is neighboring cells send out exosome that use a spike protein to enter the ACE2 receptor of the new cell, and tell the new cell what kind of cell they are supposed to change into.

You are a moron.

Have you ever heard of Watson and Crick??????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are no proofs in science. Sorry, to say you are correct. However, if you cared about science and truth, you'd say all the EVIDENCE in the fossil record supports Darwin's theory of descent from a common ancestor.

"There are no proofs in science."


Please go somewhere else to drop your excrement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There can be an infinite number of "minor mutations" until eventually it no longer can crossbreed with its original ancestors.
Once that happens, you have a new species.
Whether it will still be like a moth and able to fly, all depends upon what works best.

No you dunce.

Mutations kill the organism as it is less able to survide where it was doing so.


" Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious. In general, the more base pairs that are affected by a mutation, the larger the effect of the mutation, and the larger the mutation's probability of being deleterious."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong.

1. Primordial chemicals contain carbon compounds that are more efficient in using surrounding energy as they accidentally form organic compounds. As this process continues, it forms "first life". And the Miller-Urey experiments confirmed it.
{...
The Miller–Urey experiment,[1] or Miller experiment,[2] was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
...}

2. All fossil records show the slow change of one species into another.

3. There has NEVER been any species that did not have a precursor fossil record.

4. It is obvious science that the ancient world was vastly different than the current one, and yet the transition is almost tediously slow and slight. There is no possible way for that to happen except evolution.

Don't bother using material you don't understand.


Miller -Urey and every other attempt failed to produce anything other than chemicals.


"Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.


More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
Maybe life is a miracle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong

You understand nothing of marx. They were not insertested in the poor but in ruling the world.

he never propsed communal oving or cooperation but temanded universal slavery

There are many examples of marxism

More that interesting is that Marx worshipped the Devil.



Marx wrote poetry, and in one, "The Fiddler," we find


"Why do I fiddle? Or the wild waves roar?

That they might pound the rocky shore,

That eye be blinded, that bosom swell,

That Soul's cry carry down to Hell."



"Fiddler, with scorn you rend your heart.

A radiant God lent you your art,

To dazzle with waves of melody,

To soar to the star-dance in the sky."



"How so! I plunge, plunge without fail

My blood-black sabre into your soul.

That art God neither wants nor wists,

It leaps to the brain from Hell's black mists.



"Till heart's bewitched, till senses reel:

With Satan I have struck my deal.

He chalks the signs, beats time for me,

I play the death march fast and free.

http://[URL='https://www.marxists.o...ive/marx/works/1837-pre/verse/verse4.htm[/URL

]





There is no way to separate communism, socialism, Progressivism, the Democrat Party, and, therefore, no way to ignore their ties to Satan.

It is of interest that the godfather, maybe even the god, of the above, Karl Marx, had a fascination with Satan. Clearly, Marx believed in the existence of Satan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Naw, I just find you so nuts that you can't even be responded to.

Yes, or no, do you think Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed?

"Naw, I just find you so nuts that you can't even be responded to."


Please take you own advice and don't subscribe to my threads......no matter how interesting they are.


I will try to bear up under the weight of your loss.

 

[scruffy]

Here's the reason that is flawed: No individual cell or bacterial "becomes" resistant to antibiotics. What happens is that in any population of cells or bacteria there are some who are more resistant to antibiotics than others. Introduce antibiotics to that population and the least resistant dies immediately, moderately resistant ones die soon, and resistant ones survive and reproduce.

No entirely new cell or bactria is created, they just keep on reproducing as they were designed to do millions of years ago.

Well, yes and no. Here's kinda how it works:

As you say, there is variability in any population. You can think of it like a point surrounded by a circle, where the point is the mean or average representative, and the circle is the boundary of the variation.

So, in the scenario you suggest, where only the resistant survive, it's kind of like chopping off half the circle. So when this generation reproduces, it will only be the remaining half.

But then what happens is you get the same number of transcription errors and mutations and whatnot, in the next generation - only instead of being drawn from the mean, they're now drawn "only" from the survivors.

The net effect is to move the circle, for the next generation. It moves in the direction of the survivors. The diameter of the circle stays the same, because the amount of variability is constant, it's due to external factors that have nothing to do with the particular genetic sequence. And as a result of this, the mean changes. The population average is now in a different place.

This process is called a "guided" random walk, or in fancier language, a "stochastic attractor". It would be an example of adaptation, or "gradual" evolution. Which is something quite different from a chromosome duplication or an insertion. Gradual adaptation usually obeys first order statistics, that is, the mean changes but the variance stays the same. So if you were just observing the population, you'd see a gradual increase in resistance.

 

[alang1216]

"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

The opinions of a mathematician and philosopher are just that opinions, hardly science. How many millions of years did those laboratory demonstrations run for?

Has anyone tried for six thousand years to induce a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings?

 

[alang1216]

"There are no proofs in science."


Please go somewhere else to drop your excrement.

It is sad that you consider science to be excrement and frustrating that you bring your ideological ignorance to a science thread.

 

[scruffy]

There has NEVER been an observed case of evolution.

Well.... the counterexample comes from the world of horticulture, where humans "induce" mutations using mutagen agents like colchicine. (We can't do these experiments on animals, it's unethical).

Depending on how much colchicine you give a plant, you can change the color of a rose, or you can turn a geranium into a triffid. The genetic changes are permanent, they're reflected in all subsequent generations.

Plants are simple organisms though, if you wanted to do this same thing with animals you'd have to tweak the stem cells, and we don't know how to do that yet. But we're getting close. The problem with the stem cells is a complexity called "post translational modification". It happens when proteins get modified "after" they've been read out. It's a very intricate process in animals, there are little factories where the raw proteins enter and then get operated on by other proteins. So you can't "just" change a gene, you also have to change the other genes that code for the factory.

This situation is what they call "epigenetic", and to make it harder and more difficult, it turns out that certain proteins modify the DNA itself, through methylation or other means. This is part of why it's very hard to turn a muscle cell back into a nerve cell - because it doesn't start from the same place anymore.

So this is why point mutations of the kind induced by colchicine are unlikely to work in animal cells, because to do something useful with an animal cells you have to change more than one thing at once. You need "coordinated genetic and epigenetic changes", and we're not quite there yet

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well, yes and no. Here's kinda how it works:

As you say, there is variability in any population. You can think of it like a point surrounded by a circle, where the point is the mean or average representative, and the circle is the boundary of the variation.

So, in the scenario you suggest, where only the resistant survive, it's kind of like chopping off half the circle. So when this generation reproduces, it will only be the remaining half.

But then what happens is you get the same number of transcription errors and mutations and whatnot, in the next generation - only instead of being drawn from the mean, they're now drawn "only" from the survivors.

The net effect is to move the circle, for the next generation. It moves in the direction of the survivors. The diameter of the circle stays the same, because the amount of variability is constant, it's due to external factors that have nothing to do with the particular genetic sequence. And as a result of this, the mean changes.

Totally agree with all of the above, except that the circle analogy seems flawed. I take issue with a couple of things after that.

The population average is now in a different place.

That is an inaccurate description which seems to be meant to imply something that is not true. The population is in the petri dish, same as the previous generations, so it is not in a different place. I believe that you used that phraseology to imply something more than that "The population average is different," which is more accurate.

If you mean a different place on the circle, or that the circle is in a different place, I think that points to the flaw in the circle you envision. A bar graph would be more accurate with one bar representing non-resistant, and another bar representing resistant. Or perhaps multiple bars each representing a different level of resistance.

Before the introduction, the bars might be of equal height, for example, but after, the "resistant" bar would be much higher than the non-resistant bar. The non-resistant bar may disappear altogether - but only from that petri dish.

This process is called a "guided" random walk, or in fancier language, a "stochastic attractor". It would be an example of adaptation, or "gradual" evolution. Which is something quite different from a chromosome duplication or an insertion. Gradual adaptation usually obeys first order statistics, that is, the mean changes but the variance stays the same. So if you were just observing the population, you'd see a gradual increase in resistance.

Could you explain what you mean by "stochastic?" Because "guided" and "stochastic" are nearly antonyms, yet you say one is fancier language for the other.

My point is that you are not the first to defend Darwinism by attributing apparent motivation to the theorized influence most often called "natural selection." The phrase itself implies some intelligence making choices. Richard Dawkins wrote about genes being "selfish."

Select is a verb. If something is selecting, it is not random or "stochastic," in fancier language.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Can you explain why Darwin's theory is so important to Marxism.

Under Communism, Only the Strongest Party Members Survive

Guilt by Association. Anti-Communists, such as Ayn Rand, praise Darwin as much as Engels did. Some Theists even say that evolution is God's plan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is sad that you consider science to be excrement and frustrating that you bring your ideological ignorance to a science thread.

The old saying is we judge others by ourselves….for that reason I am always surprised to find worms like you who have no compunction about lying.

Case in point, this lie you authored about me:

Did you write this?
"So you don't like doctors or Blacks."

Of course you did .....and I proved you could find no such quote.

Much To Our Chagrin.... post 35



Do you find it necessary to use nose clips to allow you to live with yourself?

 

[meaner gene]

There has NEVER been an observed case of evolution.

Never.

Evolution in your lifetime

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 - Nature Reviews Microbiology

In this Review, Markov, Katzourakis and colleagues explore the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 at different scales, the phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, factors that drive the evolution of the virus, theories for the emergence of epidemiologically important variants and potential future evolutionary...

www.nature.com

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2