Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

a reply to: whereislogic

But your belief about evolution comes from the fact you believe in a god and religon that has absolutly no evidence to back it up, just faith!

a reply to: Akragon

my name is paul , yes it is me hahaha

a reply to: Jay-morris

aye what evidence is there for god out with the bible and any human accounts of "god"

what evidence is there in nature

when you say maths etc , or "intelligent design"

all that says to me is that the universe has both order and chaos

that doesnt scream "deity" to me

.

However I will concede that there is far more than meets the eye

in that there are laws that may govern everything we do yet we are simply not aware due to our limited senses
just as there may be deities whom we cannot see due to our limited senses

originally posted by: Barcs


LOL!!! This is some next level ignorance, dude. You just repeat your original lie that was literally just proved wrong by the article I posted.

Sigh... the article you posted was a pop-sci blog post from 2011. You need to actually dig into peer-reviewed articles to read empirical research, rather than just popular opinion not based in actual empirical evidence.

You don't have a clue about genetics or epigenetics.

You seriously can't make this stuff up, people...

Where was I wrong in my analysis about epigenetic inheritance of increased detox pump expression to combat antibiotics? It doesn't require any evolutionary mechanism, all that is necessary is an increased expression of a gene that is already existent in the genome of the bacteria. You are incapable of having a scientific discourse. Either be mature and respond to the content, or stop barcing.

a reply to: Akragon

Sorry just to probe further , do you mean Paul as in the book of Paul , as in the disciple of Jesus christ ?

Did he say as much ?

originally posted by: cooperton
Where was I wrong in my analysis about epigenetic inheritance

The entire thing. Pretending that viruses don't evolve and ONLY experience epigenetic mutations despite me directly proving that wrong is ridiculous and dishonest.

Where were the multiple articles posted, wrong?

Funny how you invoke such blatant double standards all the time. You blindly ignore the articles that explain evolution in viruses and then demand we prove YOU wrong instead of looking at the research. Why do you think your opinion is worthy of considering credible? Why do you think that because epigenetic changes happen, that it negates all other types of changes? You have falsely claimed many times that ONLY epigenetic changes can happen in viruses and that's 100% wrong.

originally posted by: Barcs
You blindly ignore the articles that explain evolution in viruses and then demand we prove YOU wrong instead of looking at the research.

This was the "article" you used to defend the idea that viruses evolve every year:

livescience blog post

which states:

But flu viruses replicate quickly and have a high rate of genetic changes, or mutations, so the helpful antibodies you may have developed to a previous year's strains often can't attach to this year's mutated viruses. Such adaptation helps the flu virus thrive in its environment. It survives, infects and multiplies. In other words, it evolves.

Yet this statement is not backed by any peer-reviewed research that shows that viruses are evolving each year. It is an assumption made by evolutionists. Your source does not discount the possibility that these viral populations are simply experiencing antigenic drift, which is another term for allele drift which is simple Mendelian genetics that does not require any mutations or evolution for its explanation. I would resort to checking a peer-reviewed article that you used for your defense, but your pop-sci blog post did not include any in its citations. You think that statement above proves your case, but it provides no empirical evidence that mutations are what created the antigenic diversity of viruses. It is totally based on blind belief.

The problem with evolutionary science is that it assumes evolution to be true as a premise, and then tries to fit observed reality into that biased perspective. It is literally backwards science. It is a testament to how hollow the theory of evolution is, and how blindly the adherents will believe every pop-sci blog post that reinforces their beliefs despite having no basis in empirical reality.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Akragon

Sorry just to probe further , do you mean Paul as in the book of Paul , as in the disciple of Jesus christ ?

Did he say as much ?

there isn't a "book of paul"... what you wrote sounded like paulian theology

And he wasn't a disciple of Jesus... they never met... aside from a supposed encounter on the road to Damascus 30 some odd years after his death

a reply to: Akragon

Aye thanks for that I started reading about him and his supposed interactions with christ.

thanks

a reply to: cooperton

Ecology and evolution of the flu

Pandemic swine influenza virus (H1N1): A threatening evolution

Mapping the Antigenic and Genetic Evolution of Influenza Virus

Predicting the Evolution of Human Influenza A

The evolution of human influenza viruses

But yeah, influenza hasn't evolved at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Ecology and evolution of the flu

You don't even have access to the article to read why they came to that conclusion. You are blindly believing what they say in the abstract, which they give no clue regarding how they came to such a conclusion.

Pandemic swine influenza virus (H1N1): A threatening evolution

Again, there's no free access to the full article, so you are just taking their word for it. why do you suppose it constitutes evolution? There is a snippet in this abstract though:

"These current 2009 infections were found to be caused by a new strain of influenza type A H1N1 virus which is a re-assortment of several strains of influenza viruses commonly infecting human, avian, and swine population. This evolution is quite dependent on swine population which acts as a main reservoir for the reassortment event in virus."

You see how they are assuming evolution is responsible? It simply has a different genetic make-up, yet they assume it must have evolved. Do you see why this is backwards science? There is no lab evidence that these viral strains are actively mutating. The leading idea behind vaccine resistance in viruses is antigenic drift - which means certain genotypes of viruses are more successful some years than others. There is no proof that these evolved, it is simple Mendelian genetics.

Mapping the Antigenic and Genetic Evolution of Influenza Virus

Again, no access to the actual article. You are simply believing them without actually addressing the empirical data on your own. That's how evolutionary theory perpetuates, because people blindly believe the opinions of these scientists without addressing the actual empirical evidence of the matter. From the abstract (since the article is not available):

"Antigenic evolution was more punctuated than genetic evolution, and genetic change sometimes had a disproportionately large antigenic effect."

The bold part above means there are vast gaps between the structure of the various antigens. Again, this gives credence to the idea that these did not evolve as shown by the immense differences between the structure of the antigens. They are simply variable alleles that have always been within the viral population, acting according to Mendelian genetics.

Predicting the Evolution of Human Influenza A

and again - no access to the article. Are you a blind believer?

The evolution of human influenza viruses

And finally! access to the article. So now to prove you aren't just blindly believing, tell me what empirical evidence in this article proves that viruses are capable of evolving through random mutations to generate the varying antigenic proteins within a population.

Speculative phylogenetic trees do not count as empirical evidence.

AS far as I understand your posts , you are asserting that viruses dont evolve , and that they simply change their surface proteins through the various antigenic phases to resist antigens from the hosts immune system

and that random mutations simply couldnt account for the number of different viruses we see in human and animal populations.

In viruses
Different virus families have different levels of ability to alter their genomes and trick the immune system into not recognizing. Some viruses have relatively unchanging genomes like paramyxoviruses while others like influenza have rapidly changing genomes that inhibit our ability to create long lasting vaccines against the disease. Viruses in general have much faster rate of mutation of their genomes than human or bacterial cells.

In general viruses with shorter genomes have faster rates of mutation than longer genomes since they have a faster rate of replication.[15] It was classically thought that viruses with an RNA genome always had a faster rate of antigenic variation than those with a DNA genome because RNA polymerase lacks a mechanism for checking for mistakes in translation but recent work by Duffy et al. shows that some DNA viruses have the same high rates of antigenic variation as their RNA counterparts.[15] Antigenic variation within viruses can be categorized into 6 different categories called antigenic drift, shift, rift lift, sift, and gift

Antigenic rift: Recombination of viral gene. This occurs when there are again two viral cells that infect the same host cell. In this instance the viruses recombine with pieces of each gene creating a new gene instead of simply switching out genes. Recombination has been extensively studied in avian influenza strains as to how the genetics of H5N1 have changed over time.[16]

Antigenic drift: point mutations that occur through imperfect replication of the viral genome. All viruses exhibit genetic drift over time but the amount that they are able to drift without occurring a negative impact on their fitness varies between families.

Antigenic shift: reassortment of the viral genome that occurs when a single host cells is infected with two viral cells. As the viral cells go through replication they reassort and the genes of the two species get mixed up and make 256 new variations of the virus. This occurs in influenza every couple of decades.

Antigenic sift: direct transmission with a zoonotic strain of a virus. This occurs when a human is infected during a spillover event.

Antigenic lift: Viral transmission of host derived gene. Some viruses steal host genes and then incorporate them into their own viral genome, encoding genes that sometimes give them an increased virulence. An example of this is the pox virus vaccinia which encoded a viral growth factor that is very similar to the human growth factor and thought to be stolen from the human genome.[17]

Antigenic gift: Occurs when humans deliberately modify a virus's genome either in a lab setting or in order to make a bioweapon.

Anyway all of these antigenic states are mutations which give rise to evolution of the original organism

then we have viral cooperation , viruses being social and sharing genes

Sociovirolog: Conflict , Cooperation, and Communication among viruses

Researchers in tokyo have found the emergence of a new virus from the cooperation of two viruses

This newly discovered Virus replicates in a completely unknown way

Researchers uncover novel virus type that may shed light on viral evolution

The paper is linked in the article however it is behind a pay wall and only the abstract is available
LINK to abstract


it seems as thought its far more complex than you or I can comprehend
mutations arent as random as once believed either .

How do you explain the emergence of a new virus , from two known virus sharing their genetic information then making a new virus without surface proteins

if you are saying its the antigenic properties that allow the variations of each virus to exist and not an evolution of a virus to another type of virus

I dont think we will get any closer to the origins of life as of yet , we have a long way to go

a reply to: cooperton

LMFAO!!!! You are the one that claimed the article was making unsubstantiated claims, so I posted several peer reviewed research papers backing up that fact and you dismissed them all blindly. Your dishonest denial and rejection of science is pure absurdity. Those papers are but a TINY fragment of the sample size of papers that have studied the evolution of the flu and other related viruses. You literally don't care what the papers say, you just assume they are wrong if they support evolution.

Let's not forget that your original claim was that evolutionary knowledge was not applied in flu shots or vaccines. You lied. It clearly is, I even posted a paper where scientists were predicting future evolution of the virus. None of that would work if evolution was false.

originally posted by: Barcs
so I posted several peer reviewed research papers backed up that fact and you dismissed them all blindly.

Not letting you get away with lies like this. The papers you presented only had access to the abstract. I made my case based off what is present in the abstract and still managed to give you the reasons why I thought their conclusions were unfounded. Respond to that. Don't just say crap like this:

Thanks for proving yourself a complete ignoramus.

You can't keep up with a scientific discourse, that's ok. But don't go insulting people to hide that fact.

originally posted by: sapien82
AS far as I understand your posts , you are asserting that viruses dont evolve , and that they simply change their surface proteins through the various antigenic phases to resist antigens from the hosts immune system

Antigenic shift: reassortment of the viral genome that occurs when a single host cells is infected with two viral cells. As the viral cells go through replication they reassort and the genes of the two species get mixed up and make 256 new variations of the virus. This occurs in influenza every couple of decades.

Viruses are unique because they don't have their own replicating machinery. They require the host cell to execute DNA replication for them. The mechanism you describe above about gene assortment is essentially a mirror to the way that our immunity works. Our body creates antibodies - which are the proteins that target specific antigens - which target the viruses based on their antigen.

The re-assortment mechanism in our immunity is very precise and purposeful. Known as V(D)J Recombination, it is a mechanism primarily present in virus-slaying leukocytes. This recombination method purposefully generates countless combinations of antibodies to be able to detect all sorts of antigens and eradicate the virus from the host, no matter how they may be hiding.

Think to your self - how could random mutations ever create such a precise mechanism? It is capable of dealing with threats that have literally never been exposed to humans before. It is the best anti-viral program known to humankind. And we want to assume it came to be by random chance? Not a chance.

it seems as thought its far more complex than you or I can comprehend
mutations arent as random as once believed either .

Exactly. The more complex it gets, the more we realize material randomness (evolution) could not be the cause.

The method I described above just scratches the surface of immunology and virology. And even that is leaves you wondering about the amazing depths of biology. There is a not-so-well-known research article by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier. He found that viruses are not limited to material transmission. He recorded various frequencies that viruses were emitting. He then used that same frequency on an inert vial that included the basic building blocks of biological life (which would be present in all living things), and then inducted the frequency on the vial. Without any material contact, the virus was able to generate due solely to the electromagnetic frequency emitted on the vial of monomers. The virus had a 98% match to the mother virus.

DNA waves and water

This then gives credence to the idea of how these things came to be. In essence, this experiment firmly shows that material-reductionism (evolution) is not the main organizing and generating force of life. There are deeper organizing layers present in various energy frequencies that can, for example, create a virus.

a reply to: cooperton

well yeh there always appear to be more and more laws which govern the things we have come to understand , layers within layers

I get what you are saying about how random mutations couldnt give rise to the diversity of life due to their randomness but the rate at which these mutations occur is extremely quick

and that geneticist are now saying mutations may not be as random as they once thought

gentic variation and random mutation



Maybe tesla was right there is more to it , and to understand think of frequency and vibration .

ANyway work is finished I better catch the trian

great subject and good info to digest over the weekend in your links , ill be reading about it over the weekend and get back to you with my thoughts

Take care mate

Peace

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton
I get what you are saying about how random mutations couldnt give rise to the diversity of life due to their randomness but the rate at which these mutations occur is extremely quick

and that geneticist are now saying mutations may not be as random as they once thought

gentic variation and random mutation

Genetic variability is definitely a great mechanism for adapting to environmental variables, but as we see in the lab these adaptation traits can never amount to a change of an organism (evolution). Rats remain rats, flies remain flies, microbes remain microbes. Adaptation traits most definitely use genetic variability, but it cannot go outside a particular bound. This is most exhibited by epigenetics, which simply turn genes up or down to cope with various environmental cues.

ANyway work is finished I better catch the trian

great subject and good info to digest over the weekend in your links , ill be reading about it over the weekend and get back to you with my thoughts

Take care mate

Peace

Pleasure talking to you man. Enjoy the weekend

originally posted by: cooperton
Not letting you get away with lies like this. The papers you presented only had access to the abstract. I made my case based off what is present in the abstract and still managed to give you the reasons why I thought their conclusions were unfounded. Respond to that.

That is completely irrelevant. They are still peer reviewed experiments and research. If you search you can find copies of them. Just because you can't access the whole thing, doesn't mean I lied. You are seriously grasping at straws here. You spewed ignorance and denied the papers blindly, you didn't present any case, LOL.

You can't keep up with a scientific discourse, that's ok. But don't go insulting people to hide that fact.

You didn't even attempt to refute anything in the papers. You just said you can't access the whole thing so they are automatically wrong. You are an idiot and a fraud. Even if the entire paper was available you'd still grasp at straws to deny it. You have your conclusion set in stone. You simply don't care. It's not like if the whole paper was available you'd refute it LOL. You've never refuted a single paper in all your years crusading against science and evolution. You are an excuse machine.

originally posted by: Barcs


That is completely irrelevant. They are still peer reviewed experiments and research. If you search you can find copies of them. Just because you can't access the whole thing, doesn't mean I lied.

Stop trolling. Stop barcing. If you want to discuss science find a paper that is accessible and explain why the observable evidence supports your position.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs


That is completely irrelevant. They are still peer reviewed experiments and research. If you search you can find copies of them. Just because you can't access the whole thing, doesn't mean I lied.

Stop trolling. Stop barcing. If you want to discuss science find a paper that is accessible and explain why the observable evidence supports your position.

Posting 5 peer reviewed research papers is trolling? You are incapable of rational discussion.