Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
I doubt any of the religious will watch this, or if they do, appreciate what it's illustrating, but it's a good example of 'evolution' in the immediate sense. As in, when people don't understand why or how viruses and bacteria become immune or resistent to antibiotics.

This is a nice visual example of exactly that happening in more-or-less realtime:

Do you know that antibiotic resistance in these strains is quickly reversible after a few generations? This is a clear indicator this is not evolution, but instead is adaptation. They even found the mechanism responsible for it, it is epigenetic inheritance. They are increasing the epigenetic expression of a detoxification pump, which then get's passed on to subsequent generations by epigenetic inheritance. Eventually this effect plateaus and the detox pump productivity reaches a maximum.

Surely enough, once the antibiotic is removed from the population, the bacterial line resumes normal vulnerability to the antibiotic:

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium. Recent work shows that adaptive resistance requires epigenetic inheritance and heterogeneity of gene expression patterns that are, in particular, associated with the production of porins and efflux pumps...Our results identify the molecular mechanism of epigenetic inheritance as the main target for therapeutic treatments against the emergence of adaptive resistance. Finally, our theoretical framework unifies known and newly identified determinants such as the burden of efflux pumps that underlie bacterial adaptive resistance to antibiotics."

link

a reply to: Kurokage

Ok maybe if we imagine a lush world hit by a magnetic storm that rips away the magnetic field.
if shrooms would die along everything else due to radiation from space, earth would never recover... But that scenario wouldn't have happend so many times. And it's only their Spores that are resistent the rest of the organism is fragile. It's kind of counterintuitive...

Also why would they develop in an environment where everything they decompose can't develop?

This organism to me has all the tell tale signs of intelligent interplanetary life. As prime décomposer they're a blessing for any plant life, They are masters at engineering proteins and peptides that have a wide range of application. Humanity has been tripping on shrooms throughout prehistoric times and it's considered to have had a major impact on our cognitive evolution...

originally posted by: cooperton
This is a clear indicator this is not evolution, but instead is adaptation. They even found the mechanism responsible for it, it is epigenetic inheritance. They are increasing the epigenetic expression of a detoxification pump, which then get's passed on to subsequent generations by epigenetic inheritance. Eventually this effect plateaus and the detox pump productivity reaches a maximum.

Let's see.. Harvard Medical School.... or cooperton the theist.... Harvard Medical School.... or cooperton...hmm.

Harvard Medical School.

I can't debate with people like you - you're simply just too backwards and living in the dark ages.

Enjoy your experience of actually 'not knowing' things, and being content with your draconian tome of archaic opression as your sole means of explaining the world around you. I just find this too tedious to continue.

a reply to: Venkuish1

100%. What I find funny, in a sad way, is how Christians will interprete scripture in the bible to support the scientific community's understanding of a certain phenomena, for that period in time. And then, say 100 years later, when science advances and understandings change to support different explanations, suddenly Christians will now reinterprete the bible to match that new understanding in order to say, "Aha! See? God was right".

Shame they didnt seem to know how to do that 2000 years ago when the Bible (and still does) advocate slavery, homophobia, abuse to women and children. Weird, huh?

a reply to: NoOneButMeAgain

No, I am not
I won’t ask the same question because I know you are not
Thinking you are Just a bit docile to “clever ignorance”
I don’t care to explain anymore, you don’t care to listen
Gullible, it’s a verb..

a reply to: NoOneButMeAgain

Just a quick question
Evolution, is it a gain of function or a loss of function
Seriously, I would like an answer

a reply to: NoOneButMeAgain

And you will not answer my question?
ha ha funny

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
Let's see.. Harvard Medical School.... or cooperton the theist.... Harvard Medical School.... or cooperton...hmm.

Harvard Medical School.

I can't debate with people like you - you're simply just too backwards and living in the dark ages.

Enjoy your experience of actually 'not knowing' things, and being content with your draconian tome of archaic opression as your sole means of explaining the world around you. I just find this too tedious to continue.

what? I am referencing verbatim from a peer-reviewed article, it explains the mechanism exhibited in the video. The Harvard researchers presumed it was evolution they were seeing, but further analysis shows it is actually epigenetic inheritance. There's no random mutations creating new resiliencies. Rather, it is turning up a gene that already exists within the genome to create more detoxification pumps. This is known as "epigenetics". This is peer-reviewed science:

antibiotic resistance is epigenetic inheritance

originally posted by: Creaky
Just a quick question
Evolution, is it a gain of function or a loss of function
Seriously, I would like an answer

I think the mistake you're making, if you're serious, is that you are somehow thinking it's a conscious or 'intelligence-behind-it' decision. It isn't.

It could be functional gain, like say, a spotted pattern on the skin which helps an organism become less perceptible to its predators, meaning, it's generation is more likely to survive and pass on that same 'mutation' to the next gen, and so on.

Conversely, some mutations could lead to traits could lead to physical characteristics which become exaggerated to the point where they become detrimental. One (extreme!) example could be the peacock's elaborate tail, which, while beneficial in attracting mates, also makes the bird more susceptible to predators as it makes it more visible.

A lot of people think 'evolution' is about an organism 'deciding' to evolve. Evolution is 'dumb' in that it isn't a consious process. It could be a genetic misshap during cell division which leads to a wanted or unwanted trait that helps the organism survive over others, or die off quicker, allowing existing generations to move ahead.

Mutations can be from anything; environmental, genetic defects, etc. It isn't a process with an intelligence behind it with some concept of 'How do I make myself better'.

a reply to: cooperton

I did read it. It's very fascinating. But it doesn't deny the observations of how the bacteria, in that experiment, evolved passed the antibacterial agent preventing their expansion.

Sure, reversion can occur (often at high rates as your linked article says)

But nothing in your article discounts evolution, mutations leading to adaptive advantages or ANYTHING to suggest a 'god' had anything to do with it.

Try harder, dude.

originally posted by: Creaky
And you will not answer my question?
ha ha funny

Give me a chance, man. I just did. See above.

I don’t care to explain anymore, you don’t care to listen

Explain? Where ? What did you 'explain'? I only responded to your haiku-like posts... :|

Gullible, it’s a verb..

Adjective, actually...

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
a reply to: cooperton

I did read it. It's very fascinating. But it doesn't deny the observations of how the bacteria, in that experiment, evolved passed the antibacterial agent preventing their expansion.

I never said it denied the observation, I said it explained the mechanism of the observation. It is due to epigenetic inheritance, not hard-wired mutations that give rise to new traits. That's also why it's reversible, epigenetics can be reversed.

But nothing in your article discounts evolution, mutations leading to adaptive advantages or ANYTHING to suggest a 'god' had anything to do with it.

It shows that mutations didn't lead to adaptive changes in the video you provided. It is epigenetics, a mechanism present in all cells.

originally posted by: cooperton
It shows that mutations didn't lead to adaptive changes in the video you provided. It is epigenetics, a mechanism present in all cells.

Sigh, whatever, man. I can also find peer reviews that say it does - do you know how peer reviews work?

But, what does it matter? We're never going to agree.

You're a religious person who abandons logic and reason for archaic scripture and I'm an atheist who believe in science, critical thinking and open mindedness.

I assume you're a flat earther as well.

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
You're a religious person who abandons logic and reason for archaic scripture and I'm an atheist who believe in science, critical thinking and open mindedness.

And yet you're the one who just refused empirical data to continue to support your evolutionary mythos.

Ignorance will tell you everything comes from nothing.

Common sense/Intuition tells us there was a Creator.

Curiosity leads us to the questions,

Who is the Creator ?

Who Created the Creator ?

So on.

These are questions we should be exploring and pursuing. We should not be funding science to prove that everything comes from nothing. It’s ridiculous in my personal opinion although I thoroughly respect the opinions of others.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
I doubt any of the religious will watch this, or if they do, appreciate what it's illustrating, but it's a good example of 'evolution' in the immediate sense. As in, when people don't understand why or how viruses and bacteria become immune or resistent to antibiotics.

This is a nice visual example of exactly that happening in more-or-less realtime:

Do you know that antibiotic resistance in these strains is quickly reversible after a few generations? This is a clear indicator this is not evolution, but instead is adaptation. They even found the mechanism responsible for it, it is epigenetic inheritance. They are increasing the epigenetic expression of a detoxification pump, which then get's passed on to subsequent generations by epigenetic inheritance. Eventually this effect plateaus and the detox pump productivity reaches a maximum.

Surely enough, once the antibiotic is removed from the population, the bacterial line resumes normal vulnerability to the antibiotic:

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium. Recent work shows that adaptive resistance requires epigenetic inheritance and heterogeneity of gene expression patterns that are, in particular, associated with the production of porins and efflux pumps...Our results identify the molecular mechanism of epigenetic inheritance as the main target for therapeutic treatments against the emergence of adaptive resistance. Finally, our theoretical framework unifies known and newly identified determinants such as the burden of efflux pumps that underlie bacterial adaptive resistance to antibiotics."

link

From amino acid formation to amino acid polymerization to dark matter formation and existence and now to antibiotic resistance. Which of these processes prove the existence of a supernatural force?

None!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
a reply to: cooperton

I did read it. It's very fascinating. But it doesn't deny the observations of how the bacteria, in that experiment, evolved passed the antibacterial agent preventing their expansion.

I never said it denied the observation, I said it explained the mechanism of the observation. It is due to epigenetic inheritance, not hard-wired mutations that give rise to new traits. That's also why it's reversible, epigenetics can be reversed.

But nothing in your article discounts evolution, mutations leading to adaptive advantages or ANYTHING to suggest a 'god' had anything to do with it.

It shows that mutations didn't lead to adaptive changes in the video you provided. It is epigenetics, a mechanism present in all cells.

You are clearly confused.

You have even asked the question if evolution is true then why the influenza virus didn't evolve yo become poliovirus?! Grade-10 science gaps not to say gaps in all aspects of science and mathematics.

And monkeys haven't evolved to become humans according to your logic. So... evolution is not true.
Why don't you write a scientific review to see if you can get it peer reviewed?

originally posted by: BLD23
Ignorance will tell you everything comes from nothing.

Common sense/Intuition tells us there was a Creator.

Curiosity leads us to the questions,

Who is the Creator ?

Who Created the Creator ?

So on.

These are questions we should be exploring and pursuing. We should not be funding science to prove that everything comes from nothing. It’s ridiculous in my personal opinion although I thoroughly respect the opinions of others.

How do you suggest pursuing those questions? How do you trace, isolate and dissect a sample of "the creator" so as to compare that data with other examples of alleged divine providence or metaphysical phylum and generate an objective diagram of all such phenomena? Otherwise I doubt you will get useful answers. Demagoguery sure but not answers.

a reply to: BLD23

Curiosity leads us to the questions,

Who is the Creator ?

Who Created the Creator ?

If you infer infinity as a property of god you can make that one in the same and end the conundrum.

By this tried and true logic: If God created the universe, what created God, and if God can always exist in some form, why can't the universe?

Maybe God is nothing but a zero point field of potential existence, and it's infinite existence allows for infinite fluctuations from nothing into an infinite amount of finite bubbles?

That's not an actual theory, I just jammed vacuum Genesis with the multiverse for rhetorical reasons.

I honestly roll my eyes at this apologetic conundrum. What changes between the two? God now manifests in zero point, universal histories, and all the presuppositions and theorem that try to go before inflation. We do not have access this observation.

The 4D-26D (depending on theory) universe we live in is just one finite bubble popping from god's potential creations. Or infinity's potential creations.

Never really conflicted because it deals with "pre-observational" things.

a reply to: NoOneButMeAgain
Retarded
Is Pretending adaptation is evolution