Random mutations deteriorate the genome.
In a new paper in Science,3Khan et al, working with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on the evolution of E. coli, found a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis. The abstract said:
Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
Mechanisms that affect the phenotype
Non random mutations: How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome 2 3
And all available scientific evidence also indicates that evolution is an engineered process. In engineering and computer science, evolution never happens by accident. It’s always the result of a deliberate act. A program that can self-evolve is always considered an engineering marvel.
Scientists engineer animals with ancient genes to test causes of evolution
January 13, 2017
“For the first test case, we chose a classic example of adaptation-how fruit flies evolved the ability to survive the high alcohol concentrations found in rotting fruit. We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies’ evolution is simply wrong.
Siddiq and Thornton realized that this hypothesis could be tested directly using the new technologies. Siddiq first inferred the sequences of ancient Adh genes from just before and just after D. melanogaster evolved its ethanol tolerance, some two to four million years ago. He synthesized these genes biochemically, expressed them, and used biochemical methods to measure their ability to break down alcohol in a test tube. The results were surprising: the genetic changes that occurred during the evolution of D. melanogaster had no detectable effect on the protein’s function.
What’s that you say? No detectable effect?
One supposes that the gene selected is one, among very many, that can be best ‘reverse-engineered’ to give a facsimile of the ‘ancient’ form. Yet, when tested in vivo, there is no difference found between the supposed ‘slow’ ancestral gene, and the ‘fast’ extant form. This is not how neo-Darwinism is supposed to work. Something is seriously wrong, no?
It might be that the techniques employed to identify the ‘ancestral’ form are bad. Maybe that’s it, and it alone. But, OTOH, maybe something is seriously wrong with current neo-Darwinian theory.
Some notions concerning adaptation will therefore remain difficult to study rigorously. Nevertheless, because of technical and conceptual advances, it should now be possible to experimentally assess the causal predictions of many previously untested or weakly tested hypotheses of historical molecular adaptation, allowing them to be corroborated or, like the classic hypothesis of ADH divergence in D.melanogaster, decisively refuted.
One wonders what’s really left of natural selection. Between Behe’s Edge of Evolution, Shapiro’s “Natural Genetic Engineering,” the whole field of epigenetics, the disappearing of “Junk-DNA”, and now the disappearance of a ‘fitness’ change in a “classic case” of molecular adaptation, can anyone seriously believe that Darwinism has much to say about how life evolves?
Remarkably, already in 2010, following paper reported that the claim of NS was not observed in Drosophila.
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila.
2010 Sep 15
"Genomic changes caused by epigenetic mechanisms tend to fail to fixate in the population, which reverts back to its initial pattern." That's not all that doesn't fixate. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.
In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable.
regarding the origin of the species and life (DNA), even Darwin commented, “If it could be shown that complex systems could not arise by small sequential steps, then my theory would completely break down.” Irreducibly complex systems involving thousands of interrelated specifically coded enzymes do exist in every organ of the human body. At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA. As new theories emerge that explain the origin of life, the inevitable emotional accusations of heresy and ignorance are not surprising in a period of scientific revolution. It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm.
Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.
The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).
The process of morphogenesis, which can be defined as an evolution of the form of an organism, is one of the most intriguing mysteries in the life sciences. The discovery and description of the spatial– temporal distribution of the gene expression pattern during morphogenesis, together with its key regulators, is one of the main recent achievements in developmental biology. Nevertheless, gene expression patterns cannot explain the development of the precise geometry of an organism and its parts in space. 1
Irreducible Complexity falsifies Darwins ToE
Now a definition:“Irreducible Complexity”: Occurs when a biological form cannot exist without multiple independent aspects that cannot be reduced further. (Behe)
In other words, an irreducibly complex system would require two or more independent features to be present simultaneously in order to function. Any thing less would be a meaningless feature, of no value to the host. Behe gives the mousetrap as an example: if only the board exists, no mice will e caught. If only the spring exists, no mice will be caught. If only the latch exists, no mice will be caught. It takes all three elements to be present for a mouse trap to function. So the irreducible complexity of the mouse trap is three elements.
Examples of Irreducibly Complex systems:
1. Behe’s flagellum. Some bacteria have on-board propulsion systems consisting of a rotary motor, a free turning shaft, a bushing around the shaft as it emerges to the outside, and a propeller. The motor can reverse directions and go to 100,000 rpm. All components are required in order to function.
2. Bombardier Beetle. The beetle contains two sacs, one which contains a volatile substance and another containing an oxidizing substance; it also has a mixing chamber, an expulsion mechanism, and a movable nozzle for aiming the ejection of the explosive mixture at a foe.
3. DNA / RNA Interactions. DNA supplies the blueprint of the required protein to the RNA, which uses the blueprint to manufacture the protein. One can’t do anything without the other.
4. Stomach. Digests, yet doesn’t digest itself.
5. Coagulation of blood. If blood coagulated inside the vein, the entire arterial/venous system would clog shut. If blood did not coagulate when it needs to, excessive bleeding to the point of death would occur. A number of clotting factors are needed in order for blood clotting to perform correctly.
6. First Life. Requires 9 essential features, all present simultaneously.
7. Feathers. Extremely complex mechanisms that are not direct off-shoots of hair or scales.
8. Toxic snakes. 3 necessary systems: They generate toxin in a fashion that keeps them immune, they hypodermically inject the toxin without injecting themselves, they consume their own toxin by eating the prey, yet are unaffected.
9. Giraffe’s neck. Must have extra vascular valves to make the length work.
10. DNA / protein dependency: DNA requires proteins, but proteins require DNA.
These are just a sampling of the myriad systems that are too complex to have occurred with just one step, one mutation. So Darwin’s first falsification proposition is satisfied. But there’s more.
A list of irreducible complex systems
Catch22, chicken and egg problems in biology and biochemistry
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable fact
Cerebral Probabilities falsify Darwins ToE
Here is the reason Darwin specifically eliminated the origin of the mind from his theoretical discussion: The complexity of the human brain, let alone the human mind, is far more than any stretch of evolutionary theory can possibly accommodate. So Darwin eliminated it from the evolutionary discussion with a stroke of denial. (See “Darwin’s Dodge”, in the Paradox section of the Appendix).
We aren’t that naïve or lacking in intellectual integrity. Here are some stats (1) to consider:
The Cerebral Cortex (part of the brain):
•Contains 9,200,000,000 neurons (9.2 x 10^9);
•Contains 1,000,000,000,000,000 (10^15) neural interconnections.
•The earth is 3,500,000,000 years old, give or take a little.
Assuming gradual mutation of the cortex, say a daily constant rate from the beginning of the earth (A very generous assumption!), the successful mutations required for development of the cortex is:
(10^15) / (3.5x10^9) = 2.86 x 10^7 (interconnects/year)
(2.86 x 10^7) / 365 = 0.78 x 10^5 (interconnects/day)
Or, to restate,
78,000 new, successful new neural interconnections…each and every day, for 3.5 billion years.
The likelihood of this is clearly negligible. It is another Falsification of Darwinism.
(1) These numbers are taken as reasonable averages of a great number of variations reported.
Falsification by Redundancy
If a system demonstrates back-up systems, the likelihood of this resulting from evolution is negligible.
An example is the Circle of Willis in the human brainpan, where the six (6) arteries that feed the brain come together and terminate into a circular artery which connects them all together. If any of the main arteries lacks capacity to supply blood, the other arteries can supply it backwards through the Circle of Willis, into the endangered region.
Another example: It is now thought that the “extra” DNA in the helix is actually used for back-up in the repair process, another redundancy.
What are the probabilities of this occurring randomly, by chance mutation? So close to zero as to be considered negligible. It is a Falsification of Evolution.
Falsification By Rapid Complexity
Darwinists have been unable to explain away the “instant complexities” that occurred during the Cambrian “explosion”. In the Pre-Cambrian era, only single celled creatures, algae, and later, a few worms existed. Then suddenly in the Cambrian era, 35 or possibly all 40 of the world’s phyla (top category) came to exist. (Stephen C Meyer, PhD, Cambridge U.)
If the world’s history were 24 hours long, the Cambrian era would be one minute.
Is this the result of gradual selection by natural processes? Hardly likely. More likely, it is a Falsification of Evolution.
What’s more, in China the discovery of soft-bodied, microscopic sponge embryos in the pre-Cambrian zone, with no sign of higher forms, falsifies the theory that there are not yet enough fossil records, or that pre-Cambrian creatures were too small and soft bodied to leave records. (J. Wells)
The empirical data are that the phyla did not happen slowly from a single source. A Falsification of Evolution.
Falsification By Skipping Steps
Even more telling is the instant complexities of certain organs, such as the eye. Coordinated binocular, 3D, range-finding, auto-focusing, auto light-value adjusting, color vision requires 2 coordinated eyes, of very high complexity.
If eyes developed gradually, there would have been numerous creatures with, say, one eye. Or just a light sensitive spot.
Where is the lineage of animals with the intermediate light spots? Or single eyes? Or just heat sensors? Why the instantaneous complexity?
It’s a Falsification of Evolution.
The lack of forensic data to fill in the many gaps has caused Gould to propose a different theory from Darwin’s:
Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium: small isolated populations mutate, then re-populate and dominate the original population. This would “leave no traces”.
The proof for this theory is that it matches the facts by requiring no evidence. Actually, so did Darwin’s! An amazing twist of logic. And a direct violation of the concepts of empiricism and forensics. No evidence is just no evidence, nothing more.
In fact there is empirical refutation of the mutated population theories. in the bacterial populations there is a loss of staying power for “selected” populations, which lose out to the parent population. When stressors are reduced, the original population resumes dominance. Mutations are weaker, not stronger.
There is no empirical evidence to support Gould’s Theory, which is seen to be a “just so story” in a desperate attempt to shore up a failing theory.
Falsification by Process Interruptus.
At some point, the supposed process of evolution stopped, and changed over to a process of extinction.
Had the process of evolution been driven by natural selection of mutations, new super species would be developing now at a rapid rate, due to the supposed pollution of the earth by man. Species should develop that are immune to the attack of man, but the process of extinction seems to be the only process active.
Don’t bother to throw in the selection of hardened E-Coli, or other bacteria. These are not mutations, they are micro-evolved populations, and they are still E-Coli. They have not become wolves, snakes, or super-humans. It does not demonstrate macro-evolution. And when the cause for hardening is removed, the population, like that of Darwin’s Finches, returns to it’s previous configuration.
Extinction is a true process that existed long before mankind. It is observable. Evolution is not observable, as is admitted by evolutionist Dawkins. Process Interruptus is a Falsification of Evolution.
What is provided by an empirical look at the Theory of Evolution? Empirical observation is the weapon of choice for Atheists, yet it can’t produce much support for evolution.
1.For example, empirically, life has never been observed to erupt spontaneously. There is currently a $1 Million reward for anyone who can produce, repeatably, I presume, an organism that contains the nine requirements for life. The cash is still available, unclaimed.
2.Life is always observed to come from prior life. It is never seen to spontaneously erupt or self-assemble. This is the Falsification of Evolution that causes Darwinists to deny any involvement in First Life.
3.The Miller Lab Experiments in the 1950’s claiming to have produced amino acids from primordial soup have been falsified. The existence of primordial soup itself has been falsified.
4.To evolve would require a selection of a new characteristic not present in the current population, i.e. a mutation. Very few if any mutations are observed (none documented) to be beneficial; in fact most mutations are detrimental and would decrease the creature’s ability to compete. Statistically, the mutation theory is so weak as to be a Falsification of Evolution.
5.Spontaneous mutations that occur simultaneously are not observed.
Lönnig: Complex systems in nature point to an intelligent origin for life 1
“A scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable, that is, there should be criteria according to which a hypothesis can be disproved and thus be rejected as false. As to the origin of species, Darwin had asserted that evolution proceeds by “infinitesimally small inherited variations”, “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties” and “insensibly fine steps”, “for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps”. This is also the credo of most modern evolutionists (neo-Darwinians) and, in principle, even of the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory. However, the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“
Ignorance + "body plans" + misinformation (lies) + god-of-the-gaps = Intelligent Design Creationism 3
Lantog wrote: Everything we’ve learned from developmental biology and comparative genomics in the last decade is consistent with extant body plans being derived by descent with modification from simpler ones…
That question is the center and core of dispute between evolution and design. No wonder, this question keeps the debates and disputes alive, because we have not yet a clear and fully elucidated picture. In order to know what provokes the origin of body plans, and if the claim that evolutionary mechanisms might explain biodiversity, and the change from one kind or species to another, and the formation of evolutionary novelty, like eyes, wings, legs, finns, ears etc. we need to know first what ontogenetic mechanisms and forces actually provoke body forms. Paul Nelson has not lied in regard of stating that mainstream science has been greatly ignorant to point out clearly what mechanism that is.
EVEN PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION ADMIT TO NOT KNOWING HOW EVOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY WORKS:
No coherent causative model of morphogenesis has ever been presented. 5
“Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010, 6
“Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life 4
“Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today.”
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History’s website, “Foundational Concepts: Evolution” page 7
“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that’s not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education 8
“Much of the recent experimental work on natural selection has focused on three goals: determining how common it is, identifying the precise genetic changes that give rise to the adaptations produced by natural selection, and assessing just how big a role natural selection plays in a key problem of evolutionary biology—the origin of new species.”
Scientific American Magazine, “The Evolution of Evolution: Testing Natural Selection with Genetics”, December 18, 2008. 9
Science however goes forward, and keeps elucidating what goes on inside the cell, and development biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).
Two reasons :
One primary feature of oriented cell division is the proper positioning of the mitotic spindle relative to a defined polarity axis. In principle, spindle orientation is achieved through signaling pathways that provide a molecular link between the cell cortex and spindle microtubules. These pathways are thought to elicit ( provoke ) both static connections and dynamic forces on the spindle to achieve the desired orientation prior to cell division. Although our knowledge of the signaling molecules involved in this process and our understanding of how they each function at the molecular level remain limited, collective efforts over the years have shed light on the importance of spindle orientation to animal development and function. Moreover, emerging evidence shows an association between improper spindle orientation and a number of developmental diseases as well as tumor formation. 10
and: Electrical gradients and fields are critical in the 3D function and shape of cells and organs.
Electrical signaling is key for cells to properly interpret their environment, and when this process goes awry, the cells default to a cancer program.
While ion flows control cell-level behaviors such as migration, differentiation, and proliferation, bioelectric signals also function as master regulators of large-scale shape in many contexts: a simple signal can induce complex, highly orchestrated, self-limiting downstream morphogenetic cascades. For example, an unmodulated flux of protons can cause the formation of a complete tail of the right rise and tissue composition. 11
BOTH EXPLANATIONS POINT TO INFORMATION. INFORMATION IS THE KEY. CHANGE THE INFORMATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE RESULT IS NOT NEW BODY PLANS, BUT DESEASE, CANCER ETC. IN THE END, THE QUESTION IS: WHERE DOES THE INFORMATION COME FROM THAT DIRECTS THE FORMATION OF NEW BODY PLANS ?
And a second question arises : Why the heck would unicellular protozoans want to evolve into multicellular organisms, if they compartmentalize and are able to work with multiple organs which exercise various tasks just fine, like multicellular organisms do ? As for example : Diplodinium (Epidinium) ecaudatum, which has a kind of "brain" (motorium); 2 - - mouth; 4 - conductive filaments of the pharynx; 5 - fibrils pharynx; 6 - skeletal plate; 7 - endoplasm; 8 - "hindgut"; 9 - poroshitsa; 10 - contractile vacuole; 11 - Ma;Mi-12; 13 - dorsal lip; 14 - dorsal cirri area ??? 2
Theodore Holden : how evolution is a failed hypothesis.
A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.
In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.
At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.
Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:
The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.
The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:
The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.
The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)
The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)
The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
The question of irreducible complexity.
The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.
The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.
The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).
The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...
The question of genetic entropy.
The obvious evidence of design in nature.
The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.
Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
I ask you: What could be stupider than that?
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.
There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:52 am; edited 16 times in total