The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

More than a single article would be required neigbour. That paper also is NOT saying what you think it does. Thus I question that you have read the article. I read it when it came out

I further question your understanding of what evolution is, to question it as you do.

It says exactly as I have said, I was paraphrasing directly from the paper:

"It has been well-established that various species of bacteria, including E. coli, S. enterica and P. aeruginosa, exhibit resistance when they are exposed to successive steps of increasing concentration of antibiotics. This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations "

further proof

more proof:
"In the absence of selective pressure, resistances fell to low levels within 100 generations of growth"

These studies also found the same result:
example 1
example 2
example 3
etc, etc,

a reply to: cooperton

Which in no way invalidates that it is an adaption passed on through genetic heritability. Viz a viz evolution. Again, it does not prove your assertion. You perhaps do not understand antibiotic resistance may come with other effects that in an antibiotic free environment that are undesirable to the bacterium. Humantity has a couple of these. Hemoglobin mutations that give (say) resistance (increased survivability) against maleria are the result of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms, ie a single amino acid difference which gives a vasty different form of protien) eyt (say) Sickle Cell is not a very good thing to have, and people don't tend to want it, thus it is a mutation almost never seen in populations where maleria is unknown. There are a bunch of other mutations like this.

Quite simply you are claiming more than the paper is saying.

a reply to: cooperton

Pardon me for a sec... but didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot with your link?

This thread totes the idea that evolution is impossible but from the conclusion in your link...

In this report we describe the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria mediated by the epigenetic inheritance of variant gene expression patterns. This provides proof in principle that epigenetic inheritance, as well as DNA mutation, can drive evolution.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Which in no way invalidates that it is an adaption passed on through genetic heritability. Viz a viz evolution.

The quick return to non-resistance demonstrates that it is epigenetic inheritance, and not classical mutation inheritance as theorized by evolutionists. Don't go on about other topics, focus. The study shows that it is epigenetic inheritance, and even succinctly shows that it is the methylation of a particular efflux pump. It is totally epigenetic - no new genes, no mutations. If this is how adaptation works, then it relies totally on genes that are already present in an organism and cannot go outside those bounds.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Pardon me for a sec... but didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot with your link?

This thread totes the idea that evolution is impossible but from the conclusion in your link...

In this report we describe the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria mediated by the epigenetic inheritance of variant gene expression patterns. This provides proof in principle that epigenetic inheritance, as well as DNA mutation, can drive evolution.

They call it evolution but it is not evolution in the traditional sense, or any sense for that matter. There are no mutations, which is the core tenet of how novel traits arise according to evolutionary theory. They can call it evolution all they want, but they proved otherwise. They demonstrated Lamarckism, which is antithetical to evolutionary theory. Epigenetics work on already existent genes, any generational alterations due to epigenetics are reversible, and therefore could not culminate in new species, because it is always working off the original gene template.

a reply to: cooperton

You really are not up to dateon evolutionary theory. As evidenced by the phrase "evolutionist". We are SCIENTISTS. Also stop cherry picking papers to try and prove a point. IF there is not a general trend in the data, its nothing more than an interesting discussion point.

a reply to: Akragon

Yes he did. BUT he is refusing to admit that. He is using weasel words to step around this

a reply to: cooperton

They call it evolution but it is not evolution in the traditional sense, or any sense for that matter. There are no mutations, which is the core tenet of how novel traits arise according to evolutionary theory. They can call it evolution all they want, but they proved otherwise.

So you use a citation, but disagree with your own citation... and claim the opposite of what it says is correct...

You know it doesn't really work that way right.... that is unless you can write a paper proving your point... and your OP doesn't make the cut just so you know...

which is basically evolutionary theory Vs Cooperton's theory... which you don't automatically win just because you

presented it

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton
Like you said previously, epigenetic inheritance seems to be the underlying mechanism of most supposed observations of evolution in action.

The study showed traditional evolution when they ran it for a longer time frame. I would caution against using epigenetics as a means to refuting evolution. If an epigenetically induced adaptation (or phenotype) is heritable then it is still evolution, because it passes to subsequent generations. The difference with it being via epigenetic mechanisms is that it's not encoded into the genome.

Regardless, the current framework (MES) relies too heavily on genetic mutation and natural selection as the overarching explanations for how/why things are, biologically speaking. You dare not speak of evolution without doing so in terms of selection.

I also think the MES inherently promotes this idea that there's a direct/linear relationship between the genotype and the phenotype (there isn't). It assumes that genetic mutations are the primary source/cause of novelty & variation and that natural selection is responsible for all the creative diversity, morphological innovations, and keen adaptations that exist amongst organisms. And of course the big one - speciation. It's the easy answer to say something is the way it is because Natural Selection. 9.5 out 10 biologists won't think twice about disagreeing if NS is given as the reason. It's just accepted. Meanwhile, studies are showing that epigenetic mechanisms are giving way to phenotypic plasticity, allowing organisms to adapt almost instantly (evolutionarily speaking) to sharp changes in their environments (No NS required). And if these environmental changes persist long enough? -> so do the adjusted phenotypes, which can then become genetically assimilated (hardwired) into the genome (as per your study). So it seems that evolution could also be happening the other way around, i.e adaptation caused by epigenetic mechanisms (plasticity) leads to genetic mutation due to its persistence. This is the opposite of what we've learned from our textbooks, and the MES.

Why shouldn't evolution be viewed as the arrival of the fittest, alongside the survival of the fittest? NS may maintain an adaptive trait in the population but it does not produce it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm
they adapted, but they did not evolve because that adaptation did not become hardwired into their genetics.

But it did when they ran the simulation for a longer time interval. Regardless, if an adaptation induced by the environment occurs at the population level and is heritable over multiple generations then it is precisely evolution. The key difference here is it is not encoded in the genome yet it's still heritable. But this is not how traditional evolution is said to happen.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
enough adaptation becomes micro evolution, enough micro evolution becomes macro evolution. it works in gradients that are determined by whether the adaptation has become genetic and whether the carriers have propagated to form a new species.

So, "enough adaptation" becomes evolution. Not sure what you mean by "enough adaptation".

When "the adaptation has become genetic" (hardwired) that is called genetic assimilation - a very real phenomenon. Is that what you’re referencing? If it's not, how do you propose an environmentally induced adaptation gets encoded into the genome?

originally posted by: cooperton
The quick return to non-resistance demonstrates that it is epigenetic inheritance, and not classical mutation inheritance as theorized by evolutionists.

The key word here is "inheritance", so it was passed down to subsequent generations. That's how evolution works.

originally posted by: cooperton
They call it evolution but it is not evolution in the traditional sense, or any sense for that matter. There are no mutations, which is the core tenet of how novel traits arise according to evolutionary theory. They can call it evolution all they want, but they proved otherwise. They demonstrated Lamarckism, which is antithetical to evolutionary theory. Epigenetics work on already existent genes, any generational alterations due to epigenetics are reversible, and therefore could not culminate in new species, because it is always working off the original gene template.

Lamarck still thought he was describing evolution though. I agree the problem with current MES is that it doesn't account for non-genetic inheritance, but this doesn't mean evolution is not happening. Just in a different way than is cemented in the current theory. Even if the epigenome reverts back to its original state, as long as there was some heritable component to it, than its evolution. Just a much faster and direct version of it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Yes he did. BUT he is refusing to admit that. He is using weasel words to step around this

The scientific community refuses to consider that evolutionary theory may not have given rise to the diversity of life. This form of bias prevents them from realizing the evidence right in front of them.

originally posted by: Akragon

So you use a citation, but disagree with your own citation... and claim the opposite of what it says is correct...

You know it doesn't really work that way right.... that is unless you can write a paper proving your point... and your OP doesn't make the cut just so you know...

which is basically evolutionary theory Vs Cooperton's theory... which you don't automatically win just because you

presented it

I am using their empirical data as proof. Their conclusion disagrees from mine, but you would expect all scientists publishing in a journal to agree with the current standing theory, otherwise it is much more difficult to publish. Scientists disagree on conclusions all the time, I don't have to blindly adhere to their dogma.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

The study showed traditional evolution when they ran it for a longer time frame. I would caution against using epigenetics as a means to refuting evolution. If an epigenetically induced adaptation (or phenotype) is heritable then it is still evolution, because it passes to subsequent generations. The difference with it being via epigenetic mechanisms is that it's not encoded into the genome.

Which is a huge difference. If the extent of adaptibility mechanisms can only work on a pre-existent, then there is no possibility to go outside a particular range that the genes allow. I forget if it was Plato or Aristotle who hypothesized this way back when - types of organisms cannot go outside a particular range that would render them no longer the same type of organism. That is what epigenetic inheritance is strongly hinting at. If all supposed examples of evolution are merely epigenetic inheritance, then we have to reconsider how the diversity of life culminated as it is today.

a reply to: cooperton

I suggest you read the title of that article again:

'Adaptive Resistance in Bacteria Requires Epigenetic Inheritance, Genetic Noise, and Cost of Efflux Pumps'

The content of the article is about ADAPTIVE RESISTANCE. The project was not designed to include discovery/analysis of any related mutations.

Here's an article that deals with mutations related to drug resistance. This phenomenon is also present in certain cancer therapies where patients become resistant to a particular drug, then recover after the drug is withdrawn. That doesn't imply, however, that no mutation occurred. Mutations, like the entire gene, can be switched on and off.

The article you cited analyzes drug resistance as an adaptive feature, which it is. But that does not rule out mutations related to that adaptive resistance.






www.pnas.org...

originally posted by: cooperton
Which is a huge difference. If the extent of adaptibility mechanisms can only work on a pre-existent, then there is no possibility to go outside a particular range that the genes allow. I forget if it was Plato or Aristotle who hypothesized this way back when - types of organisms cannot go outside a particular range that would render them no longer the same type of organism. That is what epigenetic inheritance is strongly hinting at. If all supposed examples of evolution are merely epigenetic inheritance, then we have to reconsider how the diversity of life culminated as it is today.

Genes don't work in isolation. They operate in complex networks. Then there are the genes that just regulate but don't code for anything. There was a long held belief that each trait had their own gene, then they were able to sequence the genome and what an eye opener that was. Sometimes one gene may code for many different traits (pleiotropy), in other cases one trait may be coded by multiple genes (multifactorial). Point is the range (or norm of reaction) can be quite wide especially when you factor the epigenome and the impact the environment has on regulatory effects. It's really cool actually

a reply to: PhotonEffect

So, "enough adaptation" becomes evolution. Not sure what you mean by "enough adaptation".

essentially what you described with the population level. the mendelian inheritance part of evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Genes don't work in isolation. They operate in complex networks. Then there are the genes that just regulate but don't code for anything. There was a long held belief that each trait had their own gene, then they were able to sequence the genome and what an eye opener that was. Sometimes one gene may code for many different traits (pleiotropy), in other cases one trait may be coded by multiple genes (multifactorial). Point is the range (or norm of reaction) can be quite wide especially when you factor the epigenome and the impact the environment has on regulatory effects. It's really cool actually

Yeah the common misconception is that a mutation in a gene, and voila, you now have wings, or half wings, or the first bone in creating a wing. But a genetic mutation would only alter the protein that it codes for, and the symphony of effects which that protein has. This makes it troublesome to say evolution occurs through genetic mutations, because the old gene gets ruined, along with the multitude of other functions that it had in synchrony with the rest of the physiology of the organism. The implications of this cannot be realized if you are zealously attached to the idea that "evolution did it". It is an anchor to the progress of philosophical thought.

Here's a dilemma:

which came first, the protein coding gene, or the factors that maintains its homeostatic expression?

looks like you're the one with misconceptions. You have zero evidence that any one of your sources corroborates your opinions. You simplemindedly pick out a few articles and make your own interpretation. That is not science. It's sheer guesswork. a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Which in no way invalidates that it is an adaption passed on through genetic heritability. Viz a viz evolution.

The quick return to non-resistance demonstrates that it is epigenetic inheritance, and not classical mutation inheritance as theorized by evolutionists. Don't go on about other topics, focus. The study shows that it is epigenetic inheritance, and even succinctly shows that it is the methylation of a particular efflux pump. It is totally epigenetic - no new genes, no mutations. If this is how adaptation works, then it relies totally on genes that are already present in an organism and cannot go outside those bounds.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Pardon me for a sec... but didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot with your link?

This thread totes the idea that evolution is impossible but from the conclusion in your link...

In this report we describe the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria mediated by the epigenetic inheritance of variant gene expression patterns. This provides proof in principle that epigenetic inheritance, as well as DNA mutation, can drive evolution.

They call it evolution but it is not evolution in the traditional sense, or any sense for that matter. There are no mutations, which is the core tenet of how novel traits arise according to evolutionary theory. They can call it evolution all they want, but they proved otherwise. They demonstrated Lamarckism, which is antithetical to evolutionary theory. Epigenetics work on already existent genes, any generational alterations due to epigenetics are reversible, and therefore could not culminate in new species, because it is always working off the original gene template.

Yes
. Yes there are mutations. You just choose to ignore the literature

a reply to: cooperton

Utter nonsense. If someone comes with tevidence, it is evaluated. Here is the thing, since Darwin postulated the first itteration of the theory of evolution, we as a species have discovered how it works.

Darwin did not know DNA was the engine of heritiability. Watsin and Crick did not know about epigenetics. Untill the late 90s we could not really sequence DNA in any useful time frame etc etc etc.

You are well behind your came neighbour.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Utter nonsense. If someone comes with tevidence, it is evaluated. Here is the thing, since Darwin postulated the first itteration of the theory of evolution, we as a species have discovered how it works.

Darwin did not know DNA was the engine of heritiability. Watsin and Crick did not know about epigenetics. Untill the late 90s we could not really sequence DNA in any useful time frame etc etc etc.

You are well behind your came neighbour.

. He deliberately ignores anything that doesn't support his his position. Sorry for typing. Sitting in airport

a reply to: Phantom423

Conformation bias is a terrible drug to behold in action BEtween flat earthers, and these partly educated creationists, you get a lot of nonsense typed. (Sitting in plant in full PPE)