Plebius Seenothingous Maximus
All you have proved is that denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Salgir River
This is actually a good one but thankfully lâve heard of this already. Phase-variable genes = genes with variable expression. Thatâs not actual gene mutation in the lab. Itâs a gene that does indeed change its form in the lab but it was encoded to act thus.
Clue is in the terminology: âMicroevolutionâ is never, ever going to be evolution by gene mutation.
ÂŁ10 says youâll never get the reference @felix_dakat
A further ÂŁ10 says youâll say ya donât want my ÂŁ10 and then you start swearing like a poltergeist again.
Man, lâve performed about 3 excorcisms on this site already.
Shall l rebut further articles?
This is another interesting one.
Quote: The hybrid progeny showed novel mutations that were not attributable to either (diploid) parent showing an increase in amino acid changes. In long-term culture, up to 800 generations, there was a variable but gradual erosion of progeny genomes towards triploidy, yet retention of elevated copy number was observed at several core housekeeping loci.
They identified multiple SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in the offspring, that were not attributable to the parents i.e. they didnât come from shuffling of the parentâs chromosomes.
However, as lâve said:
So, what l gather is that while these SNPs led to new amino acids being formed, the net result in the protein being coded for was null change. It is a neutral mutation, and in fact thereâs a clue in the name: âSingle Nucleotide Polymorphismâ i.e. just a variant of the same basic thing. Thankfully the new amino acids being produced would not have changed the proteins being transcribed, and because thankfully, a protein has inbuilt tolerances and the 3D shape of the protein is what matters. Itâs like a woman, if her makeup is good most guys consider her legit, no matter if sheâs an absolutely evil psycho. Itâs the outer form of the protein that does the job.
Bottom line: if there were new improved functionality, the authors would have shouted it out loud.
@felix_dakat want some more or can i go now? I wonât do all the articles as they are micro-evolution. I wanted gene mutation in the lab.
I really need to wipe your spit off me and get back to my real life. Is that okay?
And yes, l have effectively given you two articles showing that evolution does not occur in nature.
ONE MORE FOR THE ROAD:
Quoting the article abstract:
âLong-term maintenance of Culex mosquito laboratory lines allowed this study to witness the emergence of novel cytoplasmic incompatibility patterns, showing that they arose from rapid evolution of Wolbachia genomes through gene loss and recombination.â
Basically what l infer is that bacteria started getting messed up genomes when bred in the lab and this means genes got lost, and also genes began appearing that were reconstituted from different strands of DNA during bacterial reproduction (asexual, binary fission), rather than mutations along the DNA code.
What this is, is loss of gene information. and mixing up of gene information to create new genes. However, the result was clearly deleterious on the mosquito, making the male and female incompatible at the cellular level and i think that means they couldnât protect each other from each othersâ infections (âWe showed that loss of specific cidA gene copies in some wPip genomes results in a loss of compatibility.â), and lâm unsure if there was any innate benefit to the bacteria either, and lâm unsure if mosquito gender incompatibility helps the bacteria as they wouldnât be able to continue to new generations. You could say the bacteria could then thrive in the soil after host dies but then, the bacteria doesnât need any genetic change for that, it was happy as pigs in mud before any mutations and in fact, once in the soil, lâm sure the bacteria will really feel the loss in parts of its genome and the weird nonsensical genes it acquired through cycles of reproduction,
Iâd give this one a miss too.
The rest of what you posted are not even articles but general Googl e searches
Curious note: @felix_dakat you say ITâS OKAY JUST CHILL, EVOLUTION IS COMPATIBLE WITH ALLAH, WITH GOD, WITH CHRISTIANITY.
Then when l merely challenge evolution, l have to drag some articles out of you, you give me the wrong ones (just a bunch of overviews of evolution and Darwin biographies) and spit in my face and pour scorn on me. Then when pressed you paste some articles on MICRO-EVOLUTION not Evolution by GENE MUTATION. And pour more scorn. And half the articles werenât even articles but Google searches.
So my point is: WHY HAVE A HISSY FIT AT THE THOUGHT OF RELIGION WITHOUT EVOLUTION? IF EVOLUTION IS A-OKAY WITH RELIGION AND UR REALLY URBANE ABOUT THAT, BUT ⌠when Evolution is cast into doubt ⌠you spit in my face. You seem strangely invested in making religion lean toward Atheism. I repeat, Evolution in Religion = okay by you, we all need to chill out. But when l disprove Evolution, you have a Bob-esque meltdown.
Plebius Seenothingus Maximus Walnut
Here are the results of a peer reviewed scientific article I posted above. ALE is a highly effective means for obtaining target strains with specific phenotypes that make them more productive or tolerant to adverse environments relevant to industrial applications. Adaptive evolution has a wide range of applications in microbial breeding for metabolic pathway activation, substrate utilization, optimization of microbial growth phenotypes, and overaccumulation of target metabolites. Due to the development of massively parallel microbial culture techniques, high-throughput sequencing, bioinformatics, and genome editing technologies, adaptive evolution has become a powerful breeding tool, which also provides an important research basis for genomic analysis, mechanistic studies, and rational metabolic engineering. However, ALE technology still has many problems to overcome. For example, the evolutionary process is often time-consuming and labor-intensive, which is an important reason limiting the widespread use of this technology. ALE technology should be closely integrated with rational metabolic engineering to maximize its role in rapidly improving strain phenotypes. Compared to rational metabolic engineering, which introduces exogenous genes directly or knocks out the original genes, ALE cannot significantly reshape metabolism in a short period of time, but if a rationally engineered strain is used as the initial strain for evolution, it can significantly shorten the evolutionary process, especially for the acquisition of complex phenotypes, where the combination of metabolic engineering and ALE is more effective. In addition, the genetic stability of the constructed industrial strains is also an important issue, which will cause serious losses in the process of fermentation scale-up. Fully understanding ALE and combining it with systems biology approaches can provide insights into strain stability, leading to a reduction of deleterious mutations and an increase of production stability, facilitating the transfer of the strain to industrial-scale applications. Notably, the growth-coupled ALE design is an excellent choice to address this issue (Czajka et al. 2017; Czajka et al. 2020).
Furthermore, although the accumulation of mutations during evolution can be analyzed by technologies such as genome and transcriptome sequencing, the random nature of mutations results in a complex and often intractable evolutionary mechanism, which makes it difficult and time-consuming to identify the relevant beneficial mutations for reverse engineering. With the widespread use of ALE, mutation analysis and elucidation of evolutionary mechanisms has become increasingly important, and the investigation of genotype-phenotype relationships has become an important area of research. Although reverse metabolic engineering has made great progress, its scope still limited, and the interpretation of genotype-phenotype associations in ALE studies still lacks standardization. To solve this problem, more multi-omics techniques should be used in future studies to fully integrate genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomics, and fluxomic information and thereby increase the available data for the identification of phenotype-genotype associations at the systems biology level. ALE technology has been used to systematically resolve the evolutionary mechanisms at the levels of microbial metabolism and gene regulation (Henson et al. 2018). In conclusion, ALE technology facilitates the selection of industrial production strains, and the development of related technologies has led to its rapid application as an important tool for industrial microbial breeding strategies.
The authors of that study claim to have observed microscopic evolution in a lab which is what you challenged me to produce. You called me a liar. Are you now insinuating that they and the scientific journal that published the article are lying too?
I have presented references to voluminous evidence from multiple scientific sources and disciplines that support evolution of the human species by natural selection. And I have barely scratched the surface. But, itâs not like I supposed I would change your mind. You showed yourself to be a committed dogmatist from our first discussion.
Studies comparing human and chimpanzee DNA have consistently shown a high degree of sequence identity, often stated as 98.8%. This means that a significant portion of the DNA building blocks (nucleotides) are identical in both species. Coincidence? I donât think so. If you werenât committed to a dogma which sees evolution as an anathema, that fact alone might persuade you.
You have presented zero evidence to support whatever your theory is, claiming a lack of funds to begin to investigate it scientifically. The preponderance of evidence overwhelm ingly supports the modern evolutionary theory. Your quibbling at the margins is unpersuasive to me. I donât think any amount of evidence could change your dogmatic mind. Maybe some who think that they have to negate science in order to hold to their faith might agree with you.
Ironically, the rhetorical style you now take offense at is me responding in kind to your own style. You can dish it out including cursing me to hell or outer darkness etc. but you canât take it. Anyway, weâre just chatting. Itâs all in good fun. I recognize you are a child of God. Ciao
So⌠a few bible quotes. That is your divine revelation.
I am sorry, I had thought you were being honest.
Oh, I know you are⌠honestly describing, or trying to, why you cling to this idea of yours.
But the fact that despite being intelligent you cannot admit that you MIGHT be wrong, in fact that you DO NOT KNOW what you claim to know⌠you have a belief, a faith, a feeling. Yeah, beliefs faiths and feelings are awesome, do not mistake me. But I am trying to raise things here to the level of absolute truths. Real honesty. Philosophy.
So please try again. And maybe think about the billions and billions of people who practice authentic religious worship outside of the biblical passages you quote. Oh, I am sure the REAL God would just randomly condemn billions of people to hell or whatever because of where they were born, into different religious cultures and systems. Yes of course, because YOUR specific version must be THE. ONE. SINGLE. ONLY. TRUTH.
âŚRight?
Honesty time:
your turn.
Clearly, if God exists, and is nameless from having no parents to name him/it/whatever, still and despite all that⌠humans could still give that being a name. Or that being could find a name for itself.
So your silly idea of âgods with names ⌠are idolsâ (fake, not real, whatever) is logically absurd. But hey, I give you credit for trying.
I can tell youâre smart, really trying here. I appreciate that. Then again, you say things like âabsolute certainty is nonsense compared to knowledgeâ⌠so⌠the âknowledgeâ you invoke and value here, is not certain? You know something but you donât really KNOW it? Go ahead and tell me how useful that knowledge is, or why it would even be classed as knowing.
Then there is this,
Which⌠pretty much every authentic theist and religious adherent would agree with.
Soooo⌠care to clarify your position here? Or ..no?
Itâs nice how this subject really brings people out of the woodwork 
You have a choice Either/Or
Thatâs it mate!
I am not turning this into a War and Peace novel.
So you admit you are unable to be honest about this. Sad. I thought better of you.
âWhat do you suggest clarifying? The existence of the Universe, its being? Or why to interpret it as a personality?â
I meant you need to respond to the points I already wrote to you.
Even if God existed with no name because he had no parents he could still be named by humans, or he could give himself a name. So your idea of Gods with names being false idols doesnât work.
âAbsolute certainty is nonsense compared to knowledgeâ, what does this mean to you? Are you just saying that people who THINK they are CERTAIN about something and of course arenât, are inferior to those who have real knowledge about the issue? Yes I would certainly agree with that. If you are saying that knowledge itself never touches upon absolute certainty, then I would disagree.
âThe existing (truly existing) God is the understanding of all existence as a whole, by a rational, all-powerful being.â --Demonstrate it. There is no reason to think this is NECESSARILY true. But like I said, pretty much every theist and religious person is going to agree with you (despite the fact they actually donât know).
âThus, God becomes the face of matter, space, and time. I hope atheists wonât argue that existence itself doesnât exist?â --Huh? Existence doesnât exist? Are you trying to say that existence AS WE SEE IT (devoid of God) is really a fake illusion or something and we already live inside the mind of God, and EVERYTHING IS GOD therefore âexistenceâ (presumed without God in it) is a false idea? Again, sure that might be the case (if this is what you are claiming), but Iâll have to ask you to demonstrate it. I see no logical or otherwise reason to conclude such an idea is NECESSARILY true. Nor do I really see any evidence for it being true. But maybe you can convince me by showing me the logic and evidence you must certainly have that supports your position here.
âAnd religious adherents canât object either â because beyond everything that exists, there is nothing, and nothing can possibly be.â --Yeah, but not really. Nothingness-itself cannot be. A state in which NOTHING is there, at all, anywhere, ever, at all, pure emptiness (even emptiness is a thing)⌠I donât believe that could happen. Once something were dissolving out of existence getting smaller and smaller, or fading, or whatever⌠as soon as it approaches Nothing it would just vanish. Itâs not like âNothingâ is out there, itâs more like a conceptual limit in our minds.
One of the only certainties we can know in this subject is that nothingness-itself, pure ânothingâ cannot be. The idea refutes itself logically. If it were truly nothing, then it wouldnât be there. We arrive at the idea of âNothingâ in this way by doing a mental operation of subtracting things in our minds. We imagine some part of space, then mentally subtract all the planets and stuff, even little bits of dust, then even the light and all energies, and poof magically we have achieved something like a concept for pure Nothing. But that is really just a mental conceptual operation we are doing, a series of subtractions in our own abstraction. That doesnât mean it has any bearing upon anything actually real outside in the world beyond our own mind.
Here is a way to demonstrate the idea that Nothing cannot be. I take a glass cup, hold it in my hand. The cup is there. I see it, feel it, put water in it, etc.
Now I drop it on the floor and it shatters into a thousand little pieces of glass. Does the cup still exist? No, the CUP does not exist anymore. It popped out of existence. It did not go somewhere into a ânothingnessâ place or state of being. Sure, the bits of glass exist and the same number of molecules as formerly composed the glass cup still exist only now rearranged as smaller, chunkier bits of glass pieces scattered on the floor. But the cup stopped existing.
That is the key here. When something like that stops existing it simply no longer exists. We can understand this. No one believes in a heaven afterlife for cups. We can understand that at one moment âa cupâ existed, as however we would reasonably define what âa cupâ means, and then the next moment that same cup no longer existed. It was nowhere in existence, its existence had been removed.
This is not a violation of the law of thermodynamics because âa cupâ is not âenergyâ, it is a macro form that energies can take. Forms can change and come into existence and stop existing, while the underlying energy that had supplied those forms remains.
So you notice that the concept of ânothingâ applies to forms specifically here. Logically we can rule out nothing applying to EVERYTHING as I already showed. If it exists, then it is already there somehow. If it doesnât exist, like the cup, then it simply no longer is. There is no ânothingâ remaining. No âNothingness-of-a-cupâ state of being pervades my kitchen after I dropped the cup and it broke. Such a state of being absent the thing that used to be there, exists only in our own minds as a consequence of our own memories.
And sure, maybe the universe is really the 5D sculpture thing where all energy and matter exists in all ways and forms and places and times that it ever did and ever will exist, all âfrozenâ in a huge hyperdimensional sculpture and THAT is the real reality, but we simply move along tracks within this in our little 4D experience and never realize. Maybe that is true, and maybe even God also exists as the sum of that structure or as some Mind sitting above it. Who knows? Those things are certainly possible. But until you demonstrate that ideas like that are CERTAINLY TRUE or must be NECESSARILY THE CASE then you have no business âbelieving in themâ or doing anything but treating them as anything other than interesting thoughts and possibilities.
Now, the above aside, I also talked about the Leap of Faith. That is a related but somewhat different issue here. If you want to take the leap of faith, I say go for it. BUT make sure you are doing it philosophically, which means you are fully aware of everything I just wrote above AND you still decide to take the leap, AND while you will be leaping with full faith and no doubt you are also aware of everything else regarding the issue. That is the entire point of leaping like that, leaping INTO FAITH. If you have faith but you truly have no reason in your mind to think that which you have faith in could not possibly be true, then it isnât even faith at all, but delusion. FAITH is more like âI have no reason to believe this, it could be wrong, I see that, but I choose to believe anyway despite those reasons and arguments against it.â
The more powerful your reasons and arguments against something, the more powerfully you can leap into the faith of it. And this is not only an emotional and conceptual move but primarily a philosophical one. For you, as a philosopher it can be philosophical directly, whereas for non-philosophers who reach this point they can at least experience the philosophical nature of this indirectly. Iâd say its usually better to be fully aware (philosophers) than to remain ignorant and only indirectly affected by truth (non-philosophers), but I will admit that is somewhat my own bias on the issue AND I am also aware there must be certain times at which states of relative ignorance would be not only helpful but perhaps preferential and even necessary in some ways.
Not bad attempts. But a designation is not a name. Anyone can assign a designation, but only parents give a true name. Granted, one might object with the question: âWhat about a foundling? Who names them if there are no parents?â True, in such cases, the saying goes: âThe parent is not the one who gave birth, but the one who raised and nurtured.â One could go further: what about orphanages, where staff can fill out documents and assign a name?
But in the case of God, there are no parents, no one to raise or nurture, and no staff to fill out the paperwork. Though, the Bible insists otherwise. And thatâs its own mockery of the idea â God is sometimes portrayed as a âson,â sometimes a âlittle god,â sometimes a âmessiah,â or even a representative of sexual minorities â all signs of a dissociative mental disorder.
Once we define faith, we can easily understand its consequences. Faith is a herd instinct â literally, animalistic behavior. Where one sheep goes, the others follow. Thatâs why faith cripples the mind â it invents dogmas and rejects knowledge.
Also, thanks for the âcupâ analogy â but now try to âreassemble it from the shards.â Itâs simple. We live in a structure of Order, where existence is defined through three forms: matter, space, and time. By analogy, these are the shards of a cup, which is a single form.
Now think of a monolithic point â where there is only one form, and name it NOTHING. Then try to imagine what content it could hold. It gets amusing: a form opposite to existence can be imagined. But actual existence within it is impossible â because there is no division into forms, which is what defines existence.
Want me to tell you what comes next?
The names of many gods are used to invoke them, and the word God itself;
Perhaps for me, the problem lies in speaking a foreign language and catching the nuances, but knowing the basics makes it easy to refute any opponent.
Every word is doubly false â due to the clumsiness of the speaker and the misunderstanding of the listener.
Hence, truth itself is merely a justified lie, or a lie in search of justification.
But the root of all lies is the unwillingness to accept the absolute nature of truth.
Sorry, I thought you were worth talking to. I was mistaken. But donât feel too bad about it.
Well, the refusal of war is the strength of weakness. This will preserve beliefs. The problem, though, is their faith, not the weakness of reason.