Time in a bottle: Scientists watch evolution unfold

Watch Evolution Unfold

Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/...

- "demonstrates natural selection at work"

Natural selection is involved only in a small fraction of evolution, in cases of genetic accidents. Normal evolution is an evolution of culture, of reaction to circumstances, fed back to the genes, who consequently modify their expressions accordingly, by way of alternative splicing.

- "By the 20,000-generation midpoint, researchers discovered 45 mutations among surviving cells"

They did not "discover", but uncover, the "mutations", which were not mutations but alternatively spliced genes in response to the conditions of the culture.(It is not a coincidence that a community of monocell organisms is termed a culture. It is a culture just as a community of multicell organisms).

- "Those mutations, according to Darwin's theory, should have conferred some advantage, and that's exactly what the researchers found."

What the reserchers uncovered (not found, no more found than Columbus found America when stumbling upon it) is NOT "mutations that conferred advantage". They uncovered what has been known and explained for the past several years, i.e. that cultural advantages induced genetic changes, manifest in the form of changed expressions of genes.

It seems that mundane scientific decadence blinds 21st century science to the lifehood of genes.

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/...
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/...

Lying scientists. If it were really evolution, we'd see a croco-duck by now.

Dov Henis wrote:

Watch Evolution Unfold
Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/...
- "demonstrates natural selection at work"
Natural selection is involved only in a small fraction of evolution, in cases of genetic accidents. Normal evolution is an evolution of culture, of reaction to circumstances, fed back to the genes, who consequently modify their expressions accordingly, by way of alternative splicing.
- "By the 20,000-generation midpoint, researchers discovered 45 mutations among surviving cells"
They did not "discover", but uncover, the "mutations", which were not mutations but alternatively spliced genes in response to the conditions of the culture.(It is not a coincidence that a community of monocell organisms is termed a culture. It is a culture just as a community of multicell organisms).
- "Those mutations, according to Darwin's theory, should have conferred some advantage, and that's exactly what the researchers found."
What the reserchers uncovered (not found, no more found than Columbus found America when stumbling upon it) is NOT "mutations that conferred advantage". They uncovered what has been known and explained for the past several years, i.e. that cultural advantages induced genetic changes, manifest in the form of changed expressions of genes.
It seems that mundane scientific decadence blinds 21st century science to the lifehood of genes.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/...
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/...

Wow, and when is this evidence going to out? I mean, I've had an assload of science education and I've NEVER heard of a genetic feedback mechanisms on this scale. This implies that a human rather than falling when kicked out of a plane will grow wings.
-
They didn't uncover anything. They performed experiments which discovered mutations. They had to select for the organism with the mutations by killing or inhibiting the remainder.
-
You can't make up crap about genetic feedback loops without proof. Please, explain the new genotype as there is no evidence of a "genetic changing" protein or other DNA or RNA catalysts, nor were these genes present previously.
=
So, no....you fail.

Have you guys seen his cut and pastes on the other blog?(Which by the way, referencing your own cut and pastes in another forum doesn't constitute proof.) If he starts in here with cut and pastes he's out.

Looks like a new Shoob.

Or maybe the OLD Shoob in a new dress?