My view is that science often conflates epigenetics and adaptation with evolution. What is commonly presented as “evolution” appears to me to be organisms expressing or regulating capabilities that were already present in the genetic system rather than generating genuinely new biological information.For example, I do not see antibiotic resistance as proof of evolution in the sense of new biological novelty arising. Bacteria already exist in environments with natural antimicrobial compounds produced by other microorganisms, so resistance mechanisms may reflect built-in capacities or dormant functions being activated or selected, not entirely new traits appearing.I distinguish epigenetics from mutation. Epigenetics changes gene expression without altering the underlying code, suggesting organisms can adapt using preexisting biological potential. In my framework, much of what is labeled mutation—especially insertions and deletions—looks more like degradation, loss, or disruption of an existing genetic system rather than the creation of new information.For genetic diseases, I tend to view missing or damaged genes as evidence of a broken state rather than a truly “randomly mutated” state. The fact that some single-gene disorders can sometimes be treated by reinserting or replacing missing genetic material reinforces the idea that the underlying genomic architecture already exists and is being restored rather than newly created.So, in short: adaptation seems real, epigenetic regulation seems real, and genetic damage seems real—but I remain unconvinced that these examples demonstrate evolution in the sense of fundamentally new genetic information arising from random mutation alone.The categorization and classification of insertion and deletion is flawed.
It doesn't matter if evolution is true or not since biologists are retards for making the simple categorical error of rejecting acquired traits for over a century straight.
>>16999568*inherited acquired traits
>>16999568It's not their fault. They don't know better. They are just working in the body of knowledge, the framework, that was created before them. They are inside the box.
What specific part of it is fake?
>>16999562Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
>>16999562This is just a blob of vibes. I just like, feel like the trees are all connected, you know, man? I know they measured it and say it's not but, like, I just kinda feel like it is, you know?>The fact that some single-gene disorders can sometimes be treated by reinserting or replacing missing genetic material reinforces the idea that the underlying genomic architecture already exists and is being restored rather than newly created.This bit is especially daft, though. Swapping out one thing for another can't possibly imply that the old thing was damaged rather than altered, the whole point is that it's gone or overridden now. You're rationalizing after the fact.
Genes don't matter and Lysenko was right all along.
>>16999601No he wasn't.
>>16999605You're clearly retarded.
>>16999562So you're denying that chimpanzees and humans can be cousins because their common ancestor had no way of generating enough "new information" to evolve into these different species?
>>16999586This has already been debunked. The death of any single member in a population is definitionally a change in allele frequency of that population. And now you are stuck with a position of saying that the whole population evolved all at once. What was the physical mechanism of that evolution?
>>16999568>>16999571This anon gets it. The Evolutionists are more dogmatic than any theist you will ever meet.
>>16999568>>16999571>>16999575>>16999598>>16999662These are all retards
>>16999562This is LLM trash
>>16999668>Seethes in The Dog Consented.
>>16999674what?
>>16999562Studying biochemistry really made me doubt that evolution is true. For example, the immune system is able to figure out antibodies. It wouldn't be such a stretch that similar mechanisms can figure out changes to proteins. DNA could be capable of some sort of computation (it actually seems to be doing something). We only understand its memory that stores recipes for proteins, and the rest is a mystery.
>>16999662>This anon gets it. The Evolutionists are more dogmatic than any theist you will ever meet.You are full of shit
>>16999657>And now you are stuck with a position of saying that the whole population evolved all at once.Yes, it did. It just didn't speciate or become a different subspecies based on whatever criteria you're using for species and subspecies.
