Professor Darwin's Church of 'Evolution': So what exactly is the faith in? Confirmation in total futility?

Capsids have evolved independently in multiple "forms" across different virus kingdoms. Protein Coats themselves were simply proteins attached the viruses that formed into a circular "coat" around the virus.

What are they now?

Protein coats in their current form are basically shells formed of multiple protomers (smaller subunits of proteins that chain together to form the protein coat as a whole.)
The capsid is USUALLY (not always) inside of the coat as a whole.

[link to upload.wikimedia.org (secure)]

They should continue in that function forever, no?

Perhaps, some might end up with a new or additional function, some might drop the capsid entirely and become "non enveloped" (Papillomaviridae is an example of a capsid-less virus.)

However, most with caspids will retain them (unless they go extinct of course.)

Best any organism can do is accurately replicate is model, or fail and die.

Small mutations in it's D.N.A overtime are fine (microevolution), but a large mutation all at once is always fatal. Small mutations over many generations add up (macroevolution). Almost all of the mutations that are beneficial are due to processes such as mutation duplication or D.N.A transfers.

No, cell replication failures result in crash and burn, no exceptions ever observed, madness = run away madness, never superior intelligence. There is zero upside opportunity to defy divinely designed biology


Last Edited by DGN on 01/19/2018 12:18 AM

Incorrect. There have been multiple observed accounts of useful mutations. For example, people with the new ccr5-Δ32 mutation have 2 ccr5-Δ32 alleles instead of one, and it gives resistence to both Yersinia pestis (the Black Plague) and Smallpox.

Another great example of mutations was in Richard Lenski's 2 decade long observation of isolated E.Coli populations, which;
"Lenski eventually discovered that this population had evolved the ability to "eat" citrate, an organic molecule which was part of the solution the E. coli lived in, but which E. coli cannot normally uptake. Thus, evolution had been visibly observed, with an exquisite amount of evidence establishing the timeline along the way. Not only that, but the experiment was repeatable; Lenski started new experiments with the frozen "archives" of the population which exploded, and found that beyond a certain point, that particular population of E. coli were highly likely to evolve the ability to digest citrate. "

Can you agree that there are clear limitations within the evolution paradigm?

Why do you ignore the fact that bacteria remain bacteria?

Plenty of fauna and flora adapt their diet due to external circumstances, that's not evolution, that's adaptation.
In every single case of adaptation we know, it is the (re)selection of pre-existing materials within the organism. Where do you see evolution at work?

They didn't evolve into a different species at all, they simply adapted to eat what's available.

Bacteria becoming something OTHER than a bacteria is possible (it has happened once in a lab), but bacteria is a DOMAIN, meaning that bacteria constitute a wider range of organisms than just animals, for example. There are three domains of life (Archae, Bacteria, and Eukaryota), bacteria being any organism in the group bacteria. Most changes we see in bacteria would be equivalent to lets say, the fish - amphibian jump (a change between class.)

Bacteria becoming something OTHER than a bacteria is possible (it has happened once in a lab), but bacteria is a DOMAIN, meaning that bacteria constitute a wider range of organisms than just animals, for example. There are three domains of life (Archae, Bacteria, and Eukaryota), bacteria being any organism in the group bacteria. Most changes we see in bacteria would be equivalent to lets say, the fish - amphibian jump (a change between class.)

Entirely new species have evolved in labs before. Yeast were placed under pressure and started working together as a colony of sorts, and ended up being a multicellular organism.

Entirely new species have evolved in labs before. Yeast were placed under pressure and started working together as a colony of sorts, and ended up being a multicellular organism.

You mean they were still yeast and always have been and always will be?

No, they were no longer considered a form of yeast, and had ceased to be a form of yeast and could arguably have ceased to be a form of fungi as well, but the fungi bit is a bit more debatable.

So does this mean by means of deliberate intelligent design in a lab life was created from scratch validating Professor Darwin's beloved theory?

They were never designed. The yeast simply adapted to the environment it was placed in, just like it would if it was placed on soil or in a tree.

The SMALL mutations in the yeast built up over time, each new generation adding something to the old (with a lot dying off.) Yeast never simply jumped straight to multi-cells, instead starting with just minor mutations that made cooperation a bit better.

Nope you totally made that up, no one rewrote their DNA least of all themselves.

Incorrect. Simple errors in D.N.A replication added information to the D.N.A, like it always does. Most of it was bad (which was why many of the yeasts died off) and some of it was good (which is why they went from colonies to becoming a multi-cell organism.)

Like I've said before, we've seen plenty of beneficial mutations (many in humans.) This is what a lot of people call "microevolution." Macroevolution is just microevolution repeated over and over again, the difference between the two like the difference between 1+1 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

Show me.

ccr5 delta -32 is a mutation of the normal ccr-5,which is a protein on the surface of white blood cells. People with this mutation smallpox and the plague.

Another mutation is that of fungi which are able to survive the highly radioactive environment that is Chernobyl.

People with this mutation are immune to smallpox and the plague.* Whoops

The fungi adaption is still making more fungi, just like animal fur thickens in winter but they never turn into Eskimos..... unless there's something we don't know.


Last Edited by DGN on 01/19/2018 02:04 PM

Of course, it's a small scale mutation. Evolution doesn't snap it's fingers and pop a new species, let alone a new order or even kingdom (fungi is an entire kingdom, just like animals) out of nowhere. Kingdom to kingdom evolution takes a few hundred million years on average, and new orders a few million years.