the two different ecoli can now occupy different niches (high and no antibiotic). this sets them on two different evolutionary paths. like the Galapagos finches on different islands.
And how is that not a simple function? Because it definitely is.
Now it’s too simple to count as a new code?
Yes it is because it does not prove slow evolution of complex interdependant set of codes.
there is interdependence in the paper. less proofreading > more mutations. mutating the antibiotic target. then increasing growth rate to increase competitiveness.
Not to mention youve moved goal posts “Evolution implies the creation of new codes and we are never witnessing that”. I showed experimental evidence of new codes being observed.
There's a difference between seeing a three letter word in your alphabet soup and a paragraph describing in detail how to make more alphabet soup.
Lol I know I tend to write paragraphs here. Not the most efficient. 🙃
even if those three letters allow you access to a new environment/niche? would be more efficient to only use three letters if three letters will do. why waste a paragraph?
I'm talking about your primordial RNA soup of course.
Think trashposter was complaining that only a few letters changed to allow the ecoli to live in high antibiotic environment.
oh ok, getting confused btw the ecoli & RNA. The self replicating RNA a paragraph which could make more soup. One of the simplest examples of something that could be considered alive.
I'm sorry if you can't find the distinction between simple code adjustements and complex interdependant new set of coding.
I wouldn't judge the magnitude of the change on the number of letters changed. should consider function.
Other papers show evolving new food sources, making new chemicals, increasing growth rates or degradation rates of lignin. How many examples do you need? Are all these simple?
You’re asking for proof of something that occurred over 4 billion years. These studies are accelerated testing (a well established field).
Well the methodology is pretty bad TBH.
then wait a million years. number 19 Rule of Disinformaiton >
Or show me REAL WORLD examples since it's supposed to be common, they shouldn't be hard to find.
evolution doesn't say fossils will be common. it says that when we find them their age & phenotypes will follow a trend of slowly changing over time (evolving).
You want to be shown fossils online? The fact is we have extensive fossil records. We know when and where we evolved.
thats what the fossil records show, increasing complexity. & organisms with what appears to be a progression of changes from common ancestors.
Yes piltdown man is a prime example.
🙄one fraud has more explanatory weight than all the actual science done. lets ask the Shroud of Turin if evolution is real
Straw-man and deflecting. Skilled arguing. Piltdown was "discovered" 1912. In 1913 it was found to be a hoax, yet it took "scientists" 41 years to admit it was a fraud. Very credible.
Shroud was discovered in the 1300 & they still haven't admitted its fake. 700 years and counting. Whats your point? All scientist are liars? Science is a LIAR sometimes?
People lie. Money talks and bullshit walks. If you question the science you are branded a heretic and all your funding stopped. You lose your job etc. Do your own research.
yes people lie. thanks for the update. that isn't a good counterargument to fossils gradually change over time (like evolution predicts).
There still isn't a good example of one kind of animal gradually changing into another. If there is please show me.
Here you got monkeys turning into other monkeys. I'm looking for a chicken incrementally turning into an elephant or something like that.
Well youre right, evolution doesn’t make such a prediction. no wonder you haven’t seen any proof. Evolution isn’t a biological philosophers stone, transmuting all living things.
In bacteria evolution is more of a web because of horizontal gene transfer (bacteria can pick up stray DNA & easily incorporate it even across species).
& species alive today would not be predicted by evolution to change into one another. Chickens & elephants have a common ancestor that likely looks like neither today.
Looking through progressively older fossils of each you would expect to find slow changes back to something with the most basic qualities of both.
Ie you would not expect the ancestor to have a trunk or chicken feet. Could expect multicellular, organs, brain, 4 limbs.
Evolution predicts populations slowly changing over time & branching out as sub populations fill different niches.
None of these “monkeys” invented the internet so something changed, or evolved.
So we just have to wait 41 years after every fossil is discovered until its admitted fake. Then we can stick our head back in the sand & forget about “evilution”.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
just that one lie doesn't negate all other proof.
That is correct but a bunch of scientists going along with the lie and refusing to accept scientific proof of its falseness for 40 years shows they have no integrity and dont look at..
..at all the evidence. They do as they are paid to do.
So your point is this deception has continued into the present? That we should never trust scientists? That all other fossils are faked? You can look at fossils yourself,
So the fact that the scientific community covered up a hoax for 40 years is fine with you. No red flags. Lets agree to disagree then.
sci community also uncovered & corrected it. you said solution is to, "Do your own research." I've given you a way to do that & you've avoided it in favor of weaker social arguments.
The fossil records can be faked and the mainstream scientific community will not easily admit to this, as demonstrated. Can you refer me to a experiment that demonstrates this?
& the church imprisoned Galileo for exposing a “hoax” they perpetuate. They didn’t concede until the 1970s, 342 years for those counting.
"The church" you're referring to is a centralized authority of humans and their loosely assembled minions. You straw man all Christians by knocking down this small cadre.
It wasn’t a ‘cover up’. “scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by
fossils found elsewhere.” Limited data is ambiguous. Multiple theories could produce the same data (ie be correct). This hoax (& I assume other data) supported one
From the paper, mutants had mutations in the DNA proofreading enzyme (allowing them to mutate faster). & most mutated the target of the antibiotic.
Could your ancestors survive on Mount Everest? You could. Is it simple? Not really. Requires knowledge, technology, & planning.
These ecoli are living in an environment that was lethal to their ancestors. You can call it simple if you want. Simple vs complex here is subjective.
