Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Gracchus]

Three things, first that is not what happens from tests done.

Please cite the tests.

Even beneficial mutations are affected by other beneficial ones which eventually work towards a fitness cost overall.

That makes no sense to me. Could you clarify, perhaps with examples?

Proteins are not good at dealing with any mutations no matter what their contribution is that change the structure of them period.

And yet there are different forms of hemoglobin, for instance, that all seem to work, and perform the same functions. Humans show a wide variation in DNA. There is more than one road to success. That is what evolution explains so well: The variety of living things we see around us.

Secondly the rarity of any beneficial mutation is not enough to justify the amount of high level of ordered complexity and info needed to create a living thing.

Mal-adaptive mutations are culled by selections. The only justification necessary is survival and reproduction. Most organisms don't reproduce, even in very successful species. That is why we aren't knee-deep in cockroaches and rats. We only see the descendants of the very few successes.

Thirdly function proteins let alone functional organs and features require multiple beneficial mutations to all work towards the same objective without each knowing it needs to.

Did you ever play Yahtzee? You keep the dice you want, and throw again the dice that don't suit your purpose. The dice don't know or need to know. In evolution, natural or human selection does the choosing, not the mutation.
Again: Most things die without leaving progeny.

For that level of benefit and direction it would be impossible and require a multitude of negative mutations to achieve which need to be dealt with. It would make a hell of a lot of unfit features and creatures. yet we dont see a lot of that.

And when they come to award the medals in the Olympics, you don't see the losers on the podiums. In evolution, organisms and whole taxa die out if they don't make the cut. That's why "we dont see a lot of that."
That is the whole point. The losers, the unsuccessful, the majority, just die and go extinct.

Its a nice idea and as you said something that can be thought up as logical way of making a living thing. But in reality and in tests it doesn't work that way.

I ask again: Which tests? Please give citations.

Mutations are mostly deleterious and even when beneficial work against each other because they are changing what already was working well.

Working well? You keep pointing out that many mutations would cause organisms to work less well. And a changing environment might cause whole taxa to work less well. Survival is not guaranteed for organism or taxon. Most die without progeny.

Thats why our DNA has a great ability to rectify errors caused by mutations. When it doesn't it is nearly always a cost to fitness and when those rare times it does benefit it is so small and isolated that it doesn't amount to much.

It might not amount to much, just all the survivors we see around us.

 

[stevevw]

Simply because, unlike yourself, I have studied several phyla in fossil form. I have noted the slow development of features such as sutures on ammonites, or thecae on graptolites, or a host of characteristics on trilobites and thus witnessed the morphing of one species into another, one genera into another, one family into another

As with some life such as microorganisms, aquatic and plant life there is a higher ability for genetic material to be transferred through HGT and symbiosis. So therefore there are many variations or features and species that come from the genetic material already there and is shared among a type of organism. How do you know that these are not just natural variations within that type of creature or organism showing what you think are different stages of morphing. Why isn't this same thing not found in more complex creatures. We do not see many transitional stages for most animals and what has been often interpreted as a transitional was in fact a variation of the same animals. IE the skulls at Georgia which found several different shaped skulls together that covered several species that have been named in the past.

The new discovered showed that scientists were to quick to have made new species out of what was just variation of the same species all because they thought the skulls showed slight variations towards one creature morphing into another. You have to remember that this type of evidence is observational and looking back on fossils which dont tell the full story and are sometime hard to read. Genetic evidence hasn't matched what scientists have made with observation such as Darwin's tree of life based on similarities of anatomical features.

And then I have studied the research reports of scientists, not restricting myself to their conclusions and blindly following those, but exploring their methodology and detailed results, before accepting or rejecting their findings. You would be right to criticise my position if I had done what you suggested and believed something "some scientist guru" told me. But that is not what I have done.

Thats fair enough and I have done similar and not restricted the evidence to one side or the other. But a faith based position can happen with anyone and not just religion. I think we all have a tendency to be swayed by our beliefs. But rigorous checking and comparison is what is needed. I have learnt this in my studies and the evidence needs to have academic support and not just someones say so.

Now, may I ask you - have you studied many hundreds of fossils, have you collected numerous fossils in the field, have you read scores of research papers on palaeontology, have you discussed the work of palaeontologists, at length, in a critical fashion, with those palaeontologists? If not, it would seem you have arrived at your belief by accepting what "some theologist guru" told you

No but I have studied research and referencing methods and can then turn to the experts like you do and assess through the support they supply if it is validated or not. That can be done by comparing things to a variety of sources ensuring that those sources are valid and academic. If you use 1 source that is not validated and supported by a variety of other sources then it may be suspect. But if you look at my support it comes from a cross section of sources which are not refined to one area or just religion. If my position was only based on faith then I would only have one restricted area of support. I may not know all there is in every area but luckily I have expert sources who do.

You would be quite right to ignore my beliefs if I had acquired them second hand, but I did not do so. If you have not explored the original material upon which your beliefs surrounding evolution are based then I question your right to have that opinion given any attention. In that regard we seem to be in complete agreement - if one hasn't studied a subject in depth then one isn't really entitled to an opinion.

I am not sure what you mean by first and second hand sources. Even the first hand sources from the scientists themselves can be suspect if not compared and checked with other sources on the subject. If you acquired second hand sources meaning that they come from someone else and you have checked and compared them to others then they can be valid. But as you say I think we are on the same page when it comes to valid sources. Its the research and referencing of sources to see if they stand up that I think is most important.

 

[Gracchus]

This is exactly what evolution does. They take what happens in micro evolution which has been scientifically verified in tests and then apply it to macro evolution. If we have proof of evolution in micro examples does that mean evolution can end up evolving anything and everything beyond the micro that doesn't have the evidence by assumption.

Micro-evolution is a short series of changes. Macro-evolution is just changes over a longer period of time. Thus, while speciation has been observed in taxa with short generation times, like fruit flies, it happens much more slowly in, for instance, people or turtles. And always bear in mind that taxa with large populations, existing for long times in stable environments evolve much more slowly than those with small populations in rapidly changing, highly stressed environments.

The problem with your example is that there are no examples of verified science that show that mutations can evolve fit and functional features and creatures.

The rate of evolution is measured against the number of generations. Thus, the shorter the time between generations the more rapid the evolution. And the strength of the selective force is also a factor.

So its like saying all we have are instances where we see airplanes that kill people and so far we havnt got proof that people survive them.

What we see is that lots of planes take off and only some of them land. If the difference is the design of the plane then the successful planes are the kinds of planes most people would prefer to travel in.

Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations?
It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favorable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10849074

Please note: It is not in debate whether favorable mutations happen, the debate is about the rate. And the rate would depend on selective pressures.

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
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,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193.abstract

“Epistasis is a phenomenon that consists of the effect of one gene being dependent on the presence of one or more 'modifier genes' (genetic background). Similarly, epistatic mutations have different effects in combination than individually. It was originally a concept from genetics but is now used in biochemistry, population genetics, computational biology and evolutionary biology. It arises due to interactions, either between genes, or within them leading to non-additive effects. Epistasis has a large influence on the shape of evolutionary landscapes which leads to profound consequences for evolution and evolvability of traits.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis

So, what the article seems to be saying is that the more the expression of a single gene is linked to other genes, the less likely it is to be beneficial. This is probably why drastic changes in the genes that control development are rare. The same basic hox genes that control mammalian development are found in insects. Only the expression of the linked genes is different. If the hox gene commands “Make an eye” the linked genes determine the particulars. If it says make an appendage, the linked genes determine whether it is to be a leg, an arm or a wing.

This understanding is not the result of divine revelation, but of thousands of hours of research by very smart people who have studied the subject intensively.

Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli.

At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9720287

A bit more comprehensive is the complete abstract:
"Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli.
Elena SF1, Ekunwe L, Hajela N, Oden SA, Lenski RE.
Abstract

Very little is known about the distribution of mutational effects on organismal fitness, despite the fundamental importance of this information for the study of evolution. This lack of information reflects the fact that it is generally difficult to quantify the dynamic effects of mutation and natural selection using only static distributions of allele frequencies. In this study, we took a direct approach to measuring the effects of mutations on fitness. We used transposon-mutagenesis to create 226 mutant clones of Escherichia coli. Each mutant clone carried a single random insertion of a derivative of Tn10. All 226 mutants were independently derived from the same progenitor clone, which was obtained from a population that had evolved in a constant laboratory environment for 10,000 generations. We then performed competition experiments to measure the effect of each mutation on fitness relative to a common competitor. At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect. The mutations reduced fitness by about 3%, on average, but the distribution of fitness effects was highly skewed and had a long, flat tail. A compound distribution, which includes both gamma and uniform components, provided an excellent fit to the observed fitness values."

What we have here is a population that had had 10,000 generations to fit itself into a constant environment. It is no marvel that almost any change in genome would be mal-adaptive. If they had placed cloned population in variously stressed environments, I would expect that randomly inserted mutations would have produced lots of extinctions and a very few evolutionary adaptations. That would have no doubt required significantly more lab techs, petri dishes, agar and incubators.

 

[Ophiolite]

Accidental duplicate post

 

[Ophiolite]

As with some life such as microorganisms, aquatic and plant life there is a higher ability for genetic material to be transferred through HGT and symbiosis. So therefore there are many variations or features and species that come from the genetic material already there and is shared among a type of organism. How do you know that these are not just natural variations within that type of creature or organism showing what you think are different stages of morphing. Why isn't this same thing not found in more complex creatures. We do not see many transitional stages for most animals and what has been often interpreted as a transitional was in fact a variation of the same animals. IE the skulls at Georgia which found several different shaped skulls together that covered several species that have been named in the past.

You seem to completely unaware that trilobites, ammonites and arguably graptolites are every bit as complex as any other invertebrate (which are pretty much as complex, in many cases, as vertebrates). They most certainly are neither microorganisms or plants, and the suggestion that complex aquatic organisms somehow are more likely to make significant use of HGT in comparison with terrestrial organisms is ludicrous. Do you have some specific citations to support such a contention?

I shall be happy to continue discussion on the other points we raise, but prefer to focus on one or two issues at a time. Your apparent misconceptions here need to be addressed first.

 

[stevevw]

You seem to completely unaware that trilobites, ammonites and arguably graptolites are every bit as complex as any other invertebrate (which are pretty much as complex, in many cases, as vertebrates). They most certainly are neither microorganisms or plants, and the suggestion that complex aquatic organisms somehow are more likely to make significant use of HGT in comparison with terrestrial organisms is ludicrous. Do you have some specific citations to support such a contention?

I shall be happy to continue discussion on the other points we raise, but prefer to focus on one or two issues at a time. Your apparent misconceptions here need to be addressed first.

Thanks for the way in which you are conduct yourself in this debate. I am aware of trilobites and this is a good example of how as you have said a complex creature that is just as complex as today's life in its own way can appear completely formed without any transitional traces of where it came from. This was the point I was making earlier that the Cambrian creatures had most of today's modern body plans which would have involved high levels of genetic info to produce and this may have rivaled or been on par with the level of genetic complexity and ability as today. So we can see that even back when many of these creatures first appeared there was high levels of complex genetic info which wasn't just complex in one direction but covered many different and separate branches of the tree of life.


So how does all of this complex variety just suddenly appear in evolutionary terms. Its one thing to show that perhaps a single line/branch or two slowly evolved stages to reach a high level of complexity. But we have multi lines which would require more evolution and time to create the different genes needed for each branch being that many were distant. So something before hand had to have been active to create that variety and complexity. Evolution states that all life began with bacteria. Bacteria are known for their massive ability for HGT. Was this a method to shortcut the process for genes to be dispersed throughout life to all living things. If so then it shows that much of the modern body plan was derived from HGT. Possibly there is a way where all living things have a great capacity to tap into a vast amount of dormant or unused genetic ability that is called upon when needed. Perhaps rather then the environment acting as a way to force adaptation and changes it actually accommodates change as a living organism that can allow genetic material to be transferred when needed.

It makes sense in that the environment which is a very big part of a living organisms life is also an extension of it. Plants and aquatic life have a great capacity for sharing genetic material through their environments such as with symbiosis. It is said that bacteria which has a great capacity for HGT can live in more complex creatures and this environment is conductive with transferring genetic info from simple organisms to more complex ones. If bacteria/microorganisms make up 95% of life then surely complex creatures are just a small extensions of that and genetic material has already been shared for most of life. Scientists have been discovering that even that small extension of life has a greater capacity then first thought for HGT and even cross breeding between species especially earlier on in the history of life when creatures were not so isolated. This can also spread genetic info between distant and unrelated creatures.

Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals
Horizontal gene transfer is increasingly described between bacteria and animals. Such transfers that are vertically inherited have the potential to influence the evolution of animals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068243/

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
In order to make sense of the conflicts, biologists had to reconstruct Darwin's tree, which assumed that organisms primarily pass their traits down to their offspring. Besides this "vertical" gene transfer, organisms may also share traits through "horizontal" gene transfer with other species, or even by reproducing with other species to produce genetic hybrids. Horizontal transfer and hybridization would result in a web of life, with species sharing some traits but not others, as the molecular evidence shows.

But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses.
http://phys.org/news/2009-01-darwin-tree-life-thicket.html#jCp

 

[KCfromNC]

If you read what I said , I stated that it is unfair for you to demand specific papers on the items like a lawn mower and border collie dog as it would be hard to find. on biological design for animals (border collie and a paper on engineering design for machines ( lawn mower) would be relevant.

You know what would be more convincing that describing what sort of hypothetical paper might support your guesses? Actual references to real papers which do. Feel free to start any time you like. Nothing's stopping you from backing up your claims here but you.

Its not as simple as how many bits of information. In fact the amount of information is not necessarily what makes something designed. It is more to do with highly ordered and structured info.

What specific measurement are you using to determine the level over order and structured info in a particular genome? Everything you've mentioned here seems so fuzzy as to be completely useless. And your continued inability to produce anything of substance isn't helping. But I'll be patient and keep on waiting.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem with your example is that there are no examples of verified science that show that mutations can evolve fit and functional features and creatures.

Really? You're going to stake your religious beliefs on such a wacky claim?

 

[KCfromNC]

So you reject peer reviewed papers which do relate to the ability proteins to evolve functional folds and show examples in a wide variety of examples. IE
The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability--the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.

In the interest of accuracy, let's quote the rest of the abstract, shall we?

"We describe ways of predicting and analyzing stability effects of mutations, and mechanisms that buffer or compensate for these destabilizing effects and thereby promote protein evolvabilty, in nature and in the laboratory."

I'll also note that the paper explicitly says that evolution was the cause of the great diversity of protein structure we find in organisms today and that mutation provides new raw material for evolution to work with. Both directly undermine stevew's other claims in this thread. I guess you'd actually have to have read the paper to know that, though, instead of just quote-mining from abstracts. That's the problem with his approach - it is easy to throw a bunch of random claims against the wall to rationalize a religious objection to science. But the tough part is putting together a consistent story - both consistent as in internally consistent and consistent with the literature you're claiming as support.

The funny thing is, if you put together a consistent story even from the actual findings in stevew's cherry-picked sources, you learn that ID is a failure as science, mutations create new information and that evolution explains the diversity of protein structures we find in nature.

I'll let stevew address this problem before bothering with the rest of quotes. I imagine they're just as much of a misrepresentation as this one, so no point in wasting my time until he at least comes clean about this one.

 

[KCfromNC]

Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals
Horizontal gene transfer is increasingly described between bacteria and animals. Such transfers that are vertically inherited have the potential to influence the evolution of animals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068243/

From the paper :

the view that HGT is unimportant in animal evolution needs to be re-evaluated. It is not clear what levels of HGT will be found in other animal genomes, particularly vertebrate ones.

This isn't a conclusion that HGT is significant in animals, just that it is one of many possibilities. You'll have to do better than that to convince us that a - this is an actuality rather than a possibility and b - that this has anything to do with disproving evolution and providing support for ID or other forms of creationism.

 

[KCfromNC]

As with some life such as microorganisms, aquatic and plant life there is a higher ability for genetic material to be transferred through HGT and symbiosis.

Higher in what sense? How much of the evolution of these groups influenced by it rather than by mutation, drift and so on?

Why isn't this same thing not found in more complex creatures.

Your own sources explain the difficulties. Perhaps you should have read them rather than just quote-mining from the abstract.

We do not see many transitional stages for most animals and what has been often interpreted as a transitional was in fact a variation of the same animals. IE the skulls at Georgia which found several different shaped skulls together that covered several species that have been named in the past.

Great, you've found one example of a mistake by scientists - assuming this vague reference to something or another is as you say it is. All you need to do next is show that every other example of a transitional fossil is a similar mistake. Have fun with that.

 

[stevevw]

OK, fine, Stevew. But big claims, especially when you are taking on the whole scientific community, require big evidence. Where is yours?

Gee if you look back through my posts you will find plenty of big evidence. heres a few to save the search.
#673 #658 #606 #573 #580 #522

 

[Loudmouth]

So you reject peer reviewed papers which do relate to the ability of proteins to evolve functional folds and show examples in a wide variety of examples.

You ignored my critique of the paper. Why don't you address it.

If proteins cannot tolerate amino acid substitutions which is needed to create new protein folds and it diminishes the fitness of them then how does this not relate to Axes paper which states the same thing.

In the example you keep using (the Axe paper with beta-lactamase), there is no support for the loss of all function, just a single function. That's the problem.

Axe never surveyed millions and millions of different substrates to see if the protein still bound or altered those other substrates.

 

[Loudmouth]

As with some life such as microorganisms, aquatic and plant life there is a higher ability for genetic material to be transferred through HGT and symbiosis. So therefore there are many variations or features and species that come from the genetic material already there and is shared among a type of organism.

HGT is insignificant in animal species.

How do you know that these are not just natural variations within that type of creature or organism showing what you think are different stages of morphing.

Is a chimp just a natural variation of modern human? Yes or no? What about a dolphin? Is a dolphin jus ta natural variation of human? How do you know?

Do you understand why your question is rather ridiculous?

 

[Loudmouth]

This was the point I was making earlier that the Cambrian creatures had most of today's modern body plans which would have involved high levels of genetic info to produce and this may have rivaled or been on par with the level of genetic complexity and ability as today. So we can see that even back when many of these creatures first appeared there was high levels of complex genetic info which wasn't just complex in one direction but covered many different and separate branches of the tree of life.

Show me the mammalian body plan in the Cambrian. Show me a bony fish from the Cambrian. Bet you can't do it.

Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals
Horizontal gene transfer is increasingly described between bacteria and animals. Such transfers that are vertically inherited have the potential to influence the evolution of animals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068243/

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
In order to make sense of the conflicts, biologists had to reconstruct Darwin's tree, which assumed that organisms primarily pass their traits down to their offspring. Besides this "vertical" gene transfer, organisms may also share traits through "horizontal" gene transfer with other species, or even by reproducing with other species to produce genetic hybrids. Horizontal transfer and hybridization would result in a web of life, with species sharing some traits but not others, as the molecular evidence shows.

But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses.
http://phys.org/news/2009-01-darwin-tree-life-thicket.html#jCp

HGT is insignificant in animal species.

 

[stevevw]

Higher in what sense? How much of the evolution of these groups influenced by it rather than by mutation, drift and so on?

Higher as in a greater capacity for HGT. Put it this way according to many scientists eukaryotes themselves were the result of HGT in the first place. Bacteria have a very large capacity for HGT. Plants also have a very high proportion of genes transferred horizontally.

Horizontal gene transfer in plants.
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) has played a major role in bacterial evolution and is fairly common in certain unicellular eukaryotes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17030541

Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) is the transfer of genes between organisms living in the same environment. It is common among single-celled organisms, which is how bacteria evolves so quickly to resist antibiotics.
http://www.wsusignpost.com/2015/03/17/science-weekly-sharing-genes-with-microorganisms/
As you see from these papers it states that HGT bacteria and other microorganisms is common or plays a major part. It even states that this was the reason why bacteria became antibiotic resistant. So rather then how some supporters of evolution claim that bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance was evidence for evolution it is actually not from evolution but HGT. In fact they have found antibiotic resistant bacteria thousands of years old well before antibiotics were around.

Your own sources explain the difficulties. Perhaps you should have read them rather than just quote-mining from the abstract.

What difficulties.

Great, you've found one example of a mistake by scientists - assuming this vague reference to something or another is as you say it is. All you need to do next is show that every other example of a transitional fossil is a similar mistake. Have fun with that.

No it happens a lot. This is because it is based on observational interpretation. Observational evidence is very weak evidence and when you are looking back in time at fragmented fossils its hard to determine exactly what has happened. Especially if you already have the view that everything you see is evidence for a preconceived idea of evolution. So you will see variations as transitions and turn everything into support for evolution. Some people interpret a lot more into those fossils then what was there and make big assumptions. They dont have any solid support for this apart from their interpretations. Then other scientists disagree and so there's no definite conclusion. It is well known that there are two opposing views with classifying the features of animals as to whether they are variations of the same species (Lumpers) or a transition into a new species (splitters).
Lumpers and splitters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

 

[stevevw]

Show me the mammalian body plan in the Cambrian. Show me a bony fish from the Cambrian. Bet you can't do it.

I have already addressed this on this thread. It isn't about showing the exact animals that we see today. The evidence states that the Cambrian creatures produced most of the modern body plans of today's creatures. Thats the original structures like eyes, brains, limbs, guts, digestive systems, genetic info for bone, tails, ect. If you look at trilobites they look every bit if not more complex then any of today's creatures. Take a look at some micro organisms under a microscope and tell me they are not even more complex with limbs and other features then today's creatures.

HGT is insignificant in animal species.

So what about the papers I have posted that say it is significant. Up to 50% of human genes were the result of HGT. They are discovering more and more all the time. If 95% of all life is micro and microorganisms have a great capacity for HGT what doe that tell you about all life as a whole. What does that tell you about how life came about. If all life was once Microorganisms and they shared genes so easily then there was already a great deal of gene sharing going on before eukaryotes came along. If eukaryotes were the result of HGT then they also must have been part of that sharing. Its not about eukaryotes sharing with other eukaryotes its about microorganism like bacteria sharing genetic info with eukaryotes. All eukaryotes have vast amounts of bacteria living in them that transfer genetic material.


Bacterial genes end up in plants; fungal genes wind up in animals; snake and frog genes find their way into cows and bats. It seems that the genome of just about every modern species is something of a mosaic constructed with genes borrowed from many different forms of life.
https://aeon.co/essays/genes-that-jump-species-does-this-shake-the-tree-of-life

 

[KCfromNC]

Higher as in a greater capacity for HGT. Put it this way according to many scientists eukaryotes themselves were the result of HGT in the first place. Bacteria have a very large capacity for HGT. Plants also have a very high proportion of genes transferred horizontally.

Greater capacity than what? What's "very large" in numbers? Same question for "very high"? I see lots of weasel words but no actual specifics. Why is that?

What difficulties.

If you read the paper you were quote-mining from, you'd have an answer.

No it happens a lot.

What percentage is "a lot"? Please be specific - how many fossils do you believe are miscategorized by scientists?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have already addressed this on this thread. It isn't about showing the exact animals that we see today.

Yes, it is. You said all of the body plans were present in the Cambrian. If you can't show us a mammalian body plan in the Cambrian, then your argument is refuted.

The evidence states that the Cambrian creatures produced most of the modern body plans of today's creatures.

That's not what you said. You said that the modern body plans were already present in the Cambrian.

If evolution were true, then of course we would expect to find the ancestors of modern species in the Cambrian. We would expect to find the base of major branches in the earliest parts of the fossil record. Where else would they be? All you are doing is pointing to evidence for evolution.

Thats the original structures like eyes, brains, limbs, guts, digestive systems, genetic info for bone, tails, ect.

Of course we are going to find the origin of structures for modern organisms in the early fossil record if evolution is true. Where else are we going to find them?

If you look at trilobites they look every bit if not more complex then any of today's creatures.

By what measure?

Take a look at some micro organisms under a microscope and tell me they are not even more complex with limbs and other features then today's creatures.

Are you saying that a vertebrate without bones, lungs, or limbs is as complex as a mammal?

So what about the papers I have posted that say it is significant. Up to 50% of human genes were the result of HGT.

Then why don't we differ from chimps by 50%? Why do we differ from chimps by 98% instead? At a minimum, 98% of our DNA was inherited vertically from the ancestor we share with chimps. In fact, this paper demonstrates that humans have only inherited 3 genes through HGT since the common ancestor that all primates share:

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3

That's it, just 3 genes. We have about 30,000 genes, so this means that vertical genetic transfer accounts for 99.99% of our DNA since the common ancestor for all primates.

They are discovering more and more all the time. If 95% of all life is micro and microorganisms have a great capacity for HGT what doe that tell you about all life as a whole.

They have already sequenced more than 95% of the human and chimp genome. 98% of that DNA is shared which means it can't be the product of HGT. Just because microorganisms participate in HGT does not mean that complex eukaryotes do to any significant extent.

Bacterial genes end up in plants; fungal genes wind up in animals; snake and frog genes find their way into cows and bats. It seems that the genome of just about every modern species is something of a mosaic constructed with genes borrowed from many different forms of life.
https://aeon.co/essays/genes-that-jump-species-does-this-shake-the-tree-of-life

What percentage is from HGT and what percentage is from VGT? Finding a handful of HGT events does not erase the overwhelming percentage of DNA that is passed on by VGT.

 

[KCfromNC]

Funny how quiet things got once a few people started discussing the actual content of the papers being referenced and asked specific questions about them.