How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Different organisms. Yes.
And those differences add up.

in theory differences add up, but in actuality this has never been observed in a lab. Never. It is blind faith because it is not based in empirical evidence.

Take for example antibiotic resistance. It is totally reversible. This is because it isn't evolution, it is an increase in expression of a particular detox pump (an epigenetic mechanism) that results in the antibiotic resistance. Because it is epigenetic, turning already-existent genes up or down, it is quickly reversible, as is exhibited in the lab:

epigenetic inheritance and antibiotic resistance

We also only have the single point of reference here on earth. Yes we have male and female organisms which drive diversity in the genetic make up of most organisms. Yes life on earth could, and thats a big could have been intelligently designed or altered at one point in it’s history to drive this diversity. This dosent suggest that the entire universe is designed by intelligents just our slice of it. The beings or being that gave rise to the genetic diversity found here dosent have to be a god it dosent have to be a being. Could be a force or some yet undiscovered phenomenon that caused fundimential changes in organisms perhaps even creating basic ones.

Could be anything really at this point but with only a single data point of us to observe at the moment and that’s the earth, we really won’t know anything about any of this until we have more points of reference to draw a conclusion.

a reply to: cooperton

This is because it isn't evolution, it is an increase in expression of a particular detox pump (an epigenetic mechanism) that results in the antibiotic resistance.

Detox pump. Heh.

So, when exposed to a toxin, a population acquires resistance.
And, when not exposed to a toxin, a population loses its resistance.

Makes sense. Is that what that paper says? Because that sounds a lot like how evolution works.

Epigenetics is a fascinating field.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Detox pump. Heh.

So, when exposed to a toxin, a population acquires resistance.
And, when not exposed to a toxin, a population loses its resistance.

Makes sense. Is that what that paper says? Because that sounds a lot like how evolution works.

It doesn't lose the pump. Genes code for proteins, in this case a detox pump. When exposed to excessive toxins, the gene for the detox pump turn up, allowing greater rates of detoxification. When the toxin is removed, the organism returns to baseline because it is a metabolic burden to create so many detox pumps. This isn't evolution because it is working with pre-set genetics. There is no change to the genetic code, just the expression of it.

To call this evolution would be like saying a mountain climber is evolving as his 2,3-DPG levels change to allow an acclimation to higher elevations. Obviously it is not evolution, it is adaptation mechanisms that have always been present in the organism.

a reply to: cooperton

You should find out what an efflux pump actually is before you start throwing words around.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

You should find out what an efflux pump actually is before you start throwing words around.

Wow great diversion. Instead of responding to the actual argument, you deflect. By context I know exactly the function of the protein - I mentioned the metabolic burden of these pumps in my prior post, they are called "active transporters" because these pumps require energy/ATP to pump the toxin out of the cell.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

You should find out what an efflux pump actually is before you start throwing words around.

Dude totally won the argument with this statement... once you can properly define definitions.

a reply to: cooperton

Because your actual argument is specious.

Your claim is that because a single epigentic trait found in bacteria may be reversible, it negates the theory of evolution.

they are called "active transporters"

Yes. Yes they are.
www.google.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Because your actual argument is specious.

Your claim is that because a single epigentic trait found in bacteria may be reversible, it negates the theory of evolution.

Antibiotic resistance was once touted as an example of evolution, but this experiment demonstrated it was an epigenetic mechanism not involving any permanent hardwire genetic changes. It was turning up a gene that was always existent in the gene pool

This was to demonstrate my statement that there have never been any observable examples of evolution in the lab. Therefore making it a faith-based theory.

a reply to: cooperton

This was to demonstrate my statement that there have never been any observable examples of evolution in the lab.

You know that paper is theoretical and demonstrated with a computer model, right? It is impressive, but it wasn't observed in a lab either.

The population consists of a set of replicating cells, each one represented by a copy of the system of equations governing the dynamics of the EPRN (formally presented in the SI). Each cell runs internally its own system of equations independently from other cells. These cells will grow or die depending on their internal concentration of nutrients and antibiotics, respectively.

Remember that old computer program? "Life?"

In any case, your argument is specious. Reversible epigenetic (or genetic, for that matter) traits (on a computer or in a lab) do not falsify the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: Phage
You know that paper is theoretical and demonstrated with a computer model, right? It is impressive, but it wasn't observed in a lab either.

It was based off these experimental studies:

primary source - epigenetics are the root of antiobiotic resistance

epigenetics are the root of antiobiotic resistance -source 2

epigenetics are the root of antiobiotic resistance - source 3

a reply to: cooperton

I suggest you glance through them.
None of them say what your link titles do.


Oh I see you're paring things down now. Good idea.

It was based off these experimental studies:

primary source - epigenetics are the root of antiobiotic resistance

Your first source:

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.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Sure does a good job of falsifying evolution. Yup. Real good.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

I suggest you glance through them.
None of them say what your link titles do.

Edited. Was looking at the wrong reference numbers. They are correct now.

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.

This is the bias I constantly point out. They assume evolution is true, and say all observations must be examples of evolution. But it is not evolution because there are no hard-wired changes. Epigenetic inheritance is closer to Lamarckism than evolution. You can't just believe everything these people say blindly. Look at the empirical evidence.

a reply to: cooperton

You can't just believe everything these people say blindly. Look at the empirical evidence.

The irony is staggering.

originally posted by: Phage
The irony is staggering.

I use my own thoughts based on empirical evidence. Epigenetics are responsible for antibiotic resistance, this shows it is not evolution.

originally posted by: Athetos
We also only have the single point of reference here on earth. Yes we have male and female organisms which drive diversity in the genetic make up of most organisms. Yes life on earth could, and thats a big could have been intelligently designed or altered at one point in it’s history to drive this diversity. This dosent suggest that the entire universe is designed by intelligents just our slice of it. The beings or being that gave rise to the genetic diversity found here dosent have to be a god it dosent have to be a being. Could be a force or some yet undiscovered phenomenon that caused fundimential changes in organisms perhaps even creating basic ones.

Could be anything really at this point but with only a single data point of us to observe at the moment and that’s the earth, we really won’t know anything about any of this until we have more points of reference to draw a conclusion.

Take for example the orbits of the cosmos. They have been going like clockwork since the beginning of known history. The movements of the stars, sun and moon is not chaotic or random, it is an ordered process. Same with all biological processes, they require complex cascades of proteins and biomolecules to execute even the simplest functions. We and the cosmos are far beyond the current comprehension of humanity, so if us intelligent beings are incapable of wrapping our heads around it, then it is sourced from a greater intelligence than we currently possess.

a reply to: Phage

It's funny because the word evolution appears in that article 22 times.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Athetos
We also only have the single point of reference here on earth. Yes we have male and female organisms which drive diversity in the genetic make up of most organisms. Yes life on earth could, and thats a big could have been intelligently designed or altered at one point in it’s history to drive this diversity. This dosent suggest that the entire universe is designed by intelligents just our slice of it. The beings or being that gave rise to the genetic diversity found here dosent have to be a god it dosent have to be a being. Could be a force or some yet undiscovered phenomenon that caused fundimential changes in organisms perhaps even creating basic ones.

Could be anything really at this point but with only a single data point of us to observe at the moment and that’s the earth, we really won’t know anything about any of this until we have more points of reference to draw a conclusion.

Take for example the orbits of the cosmos. They have been going like clockwork since the beginning of known history. The movements of the stars, sun and moon is not chaotic or random, it is an ordered process. Same with all biological processes, they require complex cascades of proteins and biomolecules to execute even the simplest functions. We and the cosmos are far beyond the current comprehension of humanity, so if us intelligent beings are incapable of wrapping our heads around it, then it is sourced from a greater intelligence than we currently possess.

Far beyond your current comprehension, you mean?

a reply to: cooperton

in theory differences add up, but in actuality this has never been observed in a lab. Never. It is blind faith because it is not based in empirical evidence.

You know this is blatantly false. Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? Do you expect that if you throw enough mud at the wall that some will stick? Is that your "scientific method"?