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.
From quota “The nearest common ancestor of birds and mammals was probably an eight-inch long reptile that lived anywhere between 320 and 340 million years ago.”
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?
“Can be faked & was at least once” =/= all of it is fake
& 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.
“The church” that perpetuated this hoax was the Catholic Church, not the christian church. & in the Catholic Church the pope is infallible.
Wouldn’t throw out all christianity because they at one time thought (along with nearly everyone else) that the sun revolved around the earth.
Thats the purpose of this counterpoint. John_Doe is using one example of falsified data to throw out all data supporting evolution, a ridiculous position.
You miss my point. My point isnt one instance of a hoax. It is that the mainstream scientists refused to consider the evidence of it being a hoax for 40 years.
You make it sound like scientists of the time watched the fake being made then greedily rubbed their hands together thinking of all the money they could make off this hoax for 40 years
Everything is obvious in hindsight. Scientists “refuse to consider evidence” every day. What you see as solid evidence may be disregarded by others as fake, weak, or unimportant.
Yes. This is our fundamental difference on this subject, you believe in the mainstream scientists on this subject, I do not. We will not be able to convince each other. Lets agree on t
Do you think BCH is trestles?
You’ve also ignored the fact that the scientific community self-corrected. You can complain it wasn’t fast enough, if you’ve got a better alternative…
Science isn’t about believing others. Data is presented as is. & it is possible to think for your self & reach the same conclusions as a majority.
The majority always gets up-ended by a minority. Often it's a single researcher who found something, gets ostracized, and then won't let it go until their reaserch is acknowledged.
Seems more like a fact of life than an issue with science. kind of like BTC vs BCH.
Bingo
then idk why people place this issue at the feet of science.
Because many scientists in the majority have taken an arbiter-of-truth stance instead of one of curiosity. Also I think money is a very big factor.
as do religious figures (of nearly all religions). there's just no way to prove them wrong. & doesn't mean we should listen to them. yeah money & public policy is likely a huge factor.
There is not enough time in the day to consider every piece of evidence. Eg scientists could spend all day every day considering evidence from flat earthers.
Even if every point were refuted flat earthers would find more evidence & we’d get nowhere.
My 2 cents... stop believing everything you think you know is “real”. I think we live in a rational/ irrational construct. It could be both, or none all at the same time.
umm... ok. thanks? any specifics? “rational/irrational construct” is very vague. & why should I blindly accept whatever you think is real (whatever that is)?
I actually think flat earth theories are fun to explore deeply. These theories pose some valid questions and shouldn’t be dismissed just bc most can’t get beyond GROUPTHINK.
flat earth theories are not being dismissed because of accusations of group think on either side. they're dismissed because they hypothesize things that are not observed.
Reading flat earth, hollow earth, holofractal theories etc. expand awareness in our quest for truth. Theories aren’t necessarily truths. Most theories we have today aren’t truths.
I would hope by considering such theories people would become more critical / better able to reason with data.
Not asking you to blindly accept this. Try Rudolf Steiner: An Outline of Esoteric Science. It will open your eyes to a whole new theory that is just as plausible as anything else.
Going to be honest though, dont have high hopes. These spirit things will become experimentally testable in time. Everything else has.
There are many observable truths outlined in the book mentioned. What makes a living thing “alive”? As soon as you die you begin to decompose. What makes you compose?
thanks for the book. reading through wiki of Anthroposophy is not encouraging though.
Yeah Wikipedia will never get you there for any objective reality. Why not explore the source directly?
there are too many things to read :(
There are a lot of perspectives. Just remember not to fall for the fallacy from authority, or fallacy of majority. Just because MOST believe one reality doesn’t make it truth.
Very similar to scientific consensus. “It is a fallacy to claim something is true because of scientific consensus. The claim is not that scientific consensus is true
but that it is probable because of the supporting evidence amassed by those knowledgeable in the field and assessed by their piers. Very different.”
I would add evidence that people can test. not necessarily just "those knowledgeable in the field"
What we experience is not called reality because most people believe it. Its called reality because repeatable experiments collect data that describes (ie predicts) the world.
Humans inability to photosynthesize is reality, not because we voted & chose that as our reality but because there is evidence that can be repeated that supports this view of reality
(ie lacking proteins that plants use to photosynthesize, people starving to death in the sunlight, etc.)
It’s important to realize humans perception of reality is very limited. Plant medicines offer even more perspective in our quest for truth.
Plants are the source of health & happyness. Fresh fruits are my fuel. Marihuana opened my heart. DMT made me consciouss. Garlic is my antibiotic. Mother nature has all the knowledge.
From sound in our ears, to light in our eyes, to taste on our tongue, to touch on our nerves; everything we perceive is frequency. How to perceive more bandwidth?
What?? :)
Everything we perceive is frequency. Think about it. Electrical impulses being fed into our sensory perception. Only 5 senses. What other senses are we not perceiving?
As you say that it reminds me of my last LSD trip. I was in a dark room with little light looking at my hand which had waves around it. And thinking:...
depends what you think reality is. if you assume every hallucination is reality then yeah our perception is limited.
“Hallucination” is a word used by people who are afraid to test the boundaries of perception. Plant medicines should not be discounted so easily.
“A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception.” Also includes things that that cannot be reliably repeated & tested.
If you throw out objectivity (ie repeatably testable), reality can be whatever you want it be (eg inedia). undermining the concept of reality.
Yeah, your point is some scientists refuse to consider literally all evidence thus we cant trust any of them. Ie one instance of “refusing to consider the evidence” to throw
out the rest of the sci community as unscientific & dogmatic.
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
theory, “large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet”). As such it was accepted & defended.
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.
