Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Derek Meyer]

I dont brush over that the HGT events happened early and in fact I have stated this. Cross breeding happened earlier as well because creatures were able to cross breed between species more then as they were not as separated as they are now. So these process may have allowed a great variety of life to be created in the early history of life. If all life had access to not just the genetic material available in their own pools but to a vast array in all pools then this would give them a great amount of genetic material to use in adding new features and creating different types of animals.

All I know is paper after paper keeps mentioning that HGT was more prominent in complex life then thought and is still happening today. Doolittle is one of many who have mentioned HGT and these are models to explain the existence of foreign genes in different creatures. So there are going to be different perspectives for how this happened. Doolittle focused more on prokaryotes so therefore he was going to view the pattern for eukaryotes as still being tree like. But there have been new discoveries since the work of Doolittle which show that HGT is far more prevalent in eukaryotes. As stated earlier as time goes by more and more cases of HGT are being discovered.

Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes. In addition, the discovery of both recent and ancient HGT events in all major eukaryotic groups suggests that HGT has been a regular occurrence throughout the history of eukaryotic evolution.

About a decade ago, Doolittle et al. raised a question about the number of bacterial genes in protists, speculating that many bacterial genes should have accumulated in genomes of protists through feeding activities 1,2. Back then, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) had been documented widely as a mechanism to gain foreign genetic materials in prokaryotes, but remained largely an exotic concept in eukaryotes, with little substantial evidence. It is now clear that HGT has occurred in all major eukaryotic lineages.

There are many straightforward cases of HGT in eukaryotes that involve recently acquired genes 10,18,36,75,76.

Unicellularity is the most common form of eukaryotic life, and it is known that unicellular eukaryotes are prone to HGT 3,4.

In fact, acquired genes can be found in numerous unicellular eukaryotes including many obligate intracellular parasites 76,87–89, which often have streamlined genomes and retain fewer foreign genes. The fact that all multicellular eukaryotes descend from unicellular ancestors points to potentially more frequent ancient HGT 20,90. Indeed, foreign genes were introduced regularly at major historical stages during the evolution of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes 17,20,91–96.

Therefore, HGT during early eukaryotic evolution might occur as frequently as in modern bacteria and archaea, allowing foreign genes to trickle into early eukaryotes continually.

External fertilization occurs in animals inhabiting aquatic environments, meaning gametes and zygotes are, likewise, freely exposed to foreign sources of DNA. Structurally internalized gametes in seed plants and animals in terrestrial environments may be protected from mechanical damages, but not necessarily foreign DNA from symbiotic bacteria, pathogens, or other microbes 8,10,19,38. Propagation of foreign genes also is possible through gene transfer among neighboring cells, as demonstrated in natural plant grafts 102,103. In these respects, the entry points in early developmental stages represent the weak link in recipient organisms for initiating foreign gene transfer; as such, they ultimately control the transmission of foreign genes to offspring.

This model also makes the following specific predictions regarding the occurrence or overall frequency of HGT in eukaryotes of different lifestyles:

1. Frequent HGT in unicellular eukaryotes. Since all developmental stages of unicellular eukaryotes represent weak-link entry points, there are ample opportunities for foreign genes to be integrated and, therefore, transmitted to offspring.
2. Occurrence of foreign genes in multicellular eukaryotes with fully exposed unicellular or early developmental stages (e.g. spores, zygotes, or embryos) in their lifecycles (see above).
3. Frequent HGT in asexual multicellular eukaryotes. The absence of specific germ cells means that any cell carrying foreign genes may propagate them into offspring. The frequency of HGT should be even higher if bacterial endosymbionts exist in asexual structures, such as spores and hyphae in fungi 67.
4. Existence of many anciently acquired genes in multicellular eukaryotes. Because multicellular eukaryotes are ultimately derived from unicellular ancestors, it is expected that many foreign genes acquired by their unicellular ancestors remain in the genomes of their multicellular descendants.

Given the difficulties and complications discussed above, it is important that putative cases of HGT in eukaryotes be investigated carefully. To do so, independent lines of evidence and alternative scenarios should be considered. Many cases of patchy distribution probably reflect combined effects of duplication, gene loss, HGT and other processes 80,112,113. Nevertheless, as long as vertical inheritance remains the null hypothesis, HGT in eukaryotes will likely be underestimated. Therefore, it is useful to bear in mind that HGT, although difficult to “prove” in every individual case, offers a valid explanation for many of the atypical gene distributions in eukaryotes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033532/

So, from all of this I gather that all modern organisms are a result of genetic variation coupled with natural selection?

 

[KCfromNC]

HGT wouldn't have just happened billions of years ago. It could have happened many times over and still happens today. The Cambrian explosion could be a result HGT. The spread of genetic info through HGT early in the history of life could have given access o a wide range of genetic material that could produce a lot of various features.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Might as well just drop all of this nonsense and go with "god could have created all of this". Get to the point already.

The basic codes for most body plans was around early.

Still waiting to see 4 chambered hearts and bipeds "around early".

So modern life including humans have just built upon that basic code.

What do you mean by basic code? Yes, DNA's been around a while but that has little to do with natural selection, mutation and so on not being responsible for the diversity of species we see today.

Just that they purely stemmed from evolution theory. Darwin's theory of evolution has a tree of life with a single trunk which goes back to the universal common ancestor. The evidence for this isn't there. The evidence shows a forest network for life rather then a single tree and trunk.

OK, so maybe there are a few universal common ancestors. What does that have to do with your preference of a random intelligent designer as opposed to the scientific explanation?

But the evidence seems to show that more than a handful.

In mammals?

If that was the case then how does a relatively simple organism exist with a complex one like humans at the same time yet have evolved for just as long. Evolution would say that somehow they just stayed pretty much the same.

I have no idea why you'd think this.

 

[Loudmouth]

HGT wouldn't have just happened billions of years ago. It could have happened many times over and still happens today.

And here we are at the same crossroads. You refuse to admit that HGT happens extremely rarely and had minimal impact on human evolution. I have shown you the evidence. You refuse to address it.

The Cambrian explosion could be a result HGT. The spread of genetic info through HGT early in the history of life could have given access o a wide range of genetic material that could produce a lot of various features. The basic codes for most body plans was around early.

Could be? Now you are just making stuff up.

No I didn't argue against phylogenies altogether. Just that they purely stemmed from evolution theory. Darwin's theory of evolution has a tree of life with a single trunk which goes back to the universal common ancestor.

No, it doesn't go back to the universal common ancestor since Darwin never demanded that there be a universal common ancestor. What the phylogenies do converge on is common ancestors that you refuse to accept, such as the common ancestor for all primates, all mammals, all vertebrates, and so on. You keep trying to change the subject to the very early history of evolution so you can avoid this evidence.

But the evidence seems to show that more than a handful.

Not for human evolution. I already showed you. There are just 3 genes in humans that have been acquired by HGT since the common ancestor shared with all other primates. Just 3.

You still refuse to address this.

If that was the case then how does a relatively simple organism exist with a complex one like humans at the same time yet have evolved for just as long.

Are you saying that they can't, because obviously they can.

 

[stevevw]

OK, so maybe there are a few universal common ancestors. What does that have to do with your preference of a random intelligent designer as opposed to the scientific explanation?

having several common ancestors rather then the one that evolution claims means that not only do we have to believe that life can created itself once but now several times. Not only did random mutations with natural selection somehow construct single celled life into multi celled life once but many times and it did it the same way over and over by a chance process. Its hard enough to believe it happened once and we have no evidence for it happening. Nor do we have any credible details about how simple life evolved into ,re complex life. So maybe we should start looking at design by a creator because the alternatives seem to take even more faith.

In mammals?

Yes in mammals, havnt you been checking the evidence I have already posted.

I have no idea why you'd think this.

Darwinian evolution claims that when a creature stays relatively the same they are fixed in their environments. So they dont need to change that much. Yet we have creatures who will live in similar environments who do change. Of course evolution will have some explanation for this to explain it away.

 

[Ophiolite]

having several common ancestors rather then the one that evolution claims

"Evolution" does not make that claim. "Evolution" observes that the weight of evidence, currently, points towards there being a single common ancestor. The theory of evolution would not be impacted in any meaningful way were we to discover there were multiple ones.

It would have an impact on helping to clarify abiogenesis theory. But - despite protestations I expect form some sources - evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. They are related, but distinct.

 

[stevevw]

"Evolution" does not make that claim. "Evolution" observes that the weight of evidence, currently, points towards there being a single common ancestor. The theory of evolution would not be impacted in any meaningful way were we to discover there were multiple ones.

It would have an impact on helping to clarify abiogenesis theory. But - despite protestations I expect form some sources - evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. They are related, but distinct.

From what I have read and the examples I have seen they do promote the idea of a single common ancestor called LUCA (last universal ancestor.

The period between simple life (single cell) and complex life (multiple cell) is unexplained and unaccounted for in any credible detail by evolution. So what we hear is just speculation in an attempt to address this. The important point is the reason why they cant come up with anything is that it is near impossible to comprehend how simple life could evolve by random mutations and natural selection into complex life. So it does impact a lot on evolution as trying to explain the process once is impossible but many times is beyond comprehension. What it does indicate is that if it did happen on multiple occasions and produced similar outcomes over and over again then that points more to design from a set blue print. Life shows set and predetermined development patterns as set out in the previous papers I have posted. Evolution is subject to too many possibilities happening.

The story that SET tells (standard evolution theory) is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
So they are major players and not minor outcomes as evolution claims in how life changes rather then evolution through random mutations and natural selection.

A random process would have a mismatch and uneven result. Some lines will find optimum positions faster then others. The research and tests show that evolution via random mutations would take a very long time and longer than what evolution claims if it could happen. In fact tests show it is unlikely for random mutations to create functional proteins because the optimum space is so small and the possibilities of non functional proteins are so great that it would always be dealing with unfit results. So we should be mostly seeing sick and unfit life not functional and fit life as we observe.

The fact that complex fit life was around early only testifies to optimum life already being formed quickly and early which is opposite to evolution. The possible combinations that proteins can end up forming is too great and the time to find those optimum protein shapes too great. This would have to happen over and over again if there were several lines of evolution. The Cambrian creatures end up virtually coming form nowhere. They show many lines of development and all at similar levels of complexity. This was the basis for all life and its what we see today.

 

[Hoghead1]

From what I have read and the examples I have seen they do promote the idea of a single common ancestor called LUCA (last universal ancestor.

The period between simple life (single cell) and complex life (multiple cell) is unexplained and unaccounted for in any credible detail by evolution. So what we hear is just speculation in an attempt to address this. The important point is the reason why they cant come up with anything is that it is near impossible to comprehend how simple life could evolve by random mutations and natural selection into complex life. So it does impact a lot on evolution as trying to explain the process once is impossible but many times is beyond comprehension. What it does indicate is that if it did happen on multiple occasions and produced similar outcomes over and over again then that points more to design from a set blue print. Life shows set and predetermined development patterns as set out in the previous papers I have posted. Evolution is subject to too many possibilities happening.

The story that SET tells (standard evolution theory) is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
So they are major players and not minor outcomes as evolution claims in how life changes rather then evolution through random mutations and natural selection.

A random process would have a mismatch and uneven result. Some lines will find optimum positions faster then others. The research and tests show that evolution via random mutations would take a very long time and longer than what evolution claims if it could happen. In fact tests show it is unlikely for random mutations to create functional proteins because the optimum space is so small and the possibilities of non functional proteins are so great that it would always be dealing with unfit results. So we should be mostly seeing sick and unfit life not functional and fit life as we observe.

The fact that complex fit life was around early only testifies to optimum life already being formed quickly and early which is opposite to evolution. The possible combinations that proteins can end up forming is too great and the time to find those optimum protein shapes too great. This would have to happen over and over again if there were several lines of evolution. The Cambrian creatures end up virtually coming form nowhere. They show many lines of development and all at similar levels of complexity. This was the basis for all life and its what we see today.

The article you referred to definitely did not attack evolution, however.

 

[stevevw]

The article you referred to definitely did not attack evolution, however.

Of course not, but the purpose for the article was to show that Darwin evolution theory does refer to a last universal common ancestor or (LUCA). Just because the article still supports evolution doesn't make it any more correct. As the paper in that same post stated that the standard theory of evolution (SET) will stick to its beliefs about evolution and relegate any evidence which is pointing to things like the tree of life and evolution theory through adaptation not being the dominate source or the only source for how life changes. So its no surprise that the site will still support aspects of the theory even though they are in doubt. Its hard for them to let go of something they have believed in for so long. Who said evolution didn't have any faith.

The story that SET tells (standard evolution theory) is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

In other words evolution theory will dismiss the above evidence as minor outcomes of evolution and still insist that the core theory of random mutation and natural selection are responsible for creating life and therefore stick with the traditional tree of life. Thats despite more and more evidence to the contrary showing that the tree of life is more like a forest or web and that there are other major processes that shape and change life besides Darwin's evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

Of course not, but the purpose for the article was to show that Darwin evolution theory does refer to a last universal common ancestor or (LUCA). Just because the article still supports evolution doesn't make it any more correct. As the paper in that same post stated that the standard theory of evolution (SET) will stick to its beliefs about evolution and relegate any evidence which is pointing to things like the tree of life and evolution theory through adaptation not being the dominate source or the only source for how life changes. So its no surprise that the site will still support aspects of the theory even though they are in doubt. Its hard for them to let go of something they have believed in for so long. Who said evolution didn't have any faith.

The story that SET tells (standard evolution theory) is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

In other words evolution theory will dismiss the above evidence as minor outcomes of evolution and still insist that the core theory of random mutation and natural selection are responsible for creating life and therefore stick with the traditional tree of life. Thats despite more and more evidence to the contrary showing that the tree of life is more like a forest or web and that there are other major processes that shape and change life besides Darwin's evolution.

The scientists are not holding onto something despite the evidence. The article made that plain.

 

[stevevw]

The scientists are not holding onto something despite the evidence. The article made that plain.

Which article are you talking about. The one in Nature.com stated that the standard theory of evolution (SET) viewed the things they mentioned such as developmental bias, extra-genetic inheritance ect as outcomes of evolution and not causes. Whereas the article was saying these things were not outcomes but causes of change in living things. This is a common theme for evolution in that they dismiss these extra processes as irrelevant. It seems to be that way on this very forum where most are rejecting the ideas and not acknowledging that these things are major influences besides evolution for change.

 

[Hoghead1]

Which article are you talking about. The one in Nature.com stated that the standard theory of evolution (SET) viewed the things they mentioned such as developmental bias, extra-genetic inheritance ect as outcomes of evolution and not causes. Whereas the article was saying these things were not outcomes but causes of change in living things. This is a common theme for evolution in that they dismiss these extra processes as irrelevant. It seems to be that way on this very forum where most are rejecting the ideas and not acknowledging that these things are major influences besides evolution for change.

No, I don't think you are presenting an accurate interpretation of science at all here.

 

[stevevw]

No, I don't think you are presenting an accurate interpretation of science at all here.

Then why doesn't anyone on this forum acknowledge these processes let alone admit they may affect the concept of evolution. More and more scientists are acknowledging these extra factors that can influence how life can change and there is still more investigation to go. But there are also many who deny that these things are relevant just like HGT. Some scientists are saying that evolution plays a minor influence in how creatures change and these other factors that are non adaptive are the real forces for change. I have posted many articles on this. I think it is some who support Darwins theory that are not presenting an accurate picture. There is no evidence for macro evolution and they assume that what is seen in micro evolution with a species can be extended beyond the species level. As the article stated the support that is used for speciation is examples like antibiotic resistance. Yet it has been shown that these types of changes are restricted to within a type of organism and influenced by HGT. They also incur a fitness cost as well as the change. The evidence shows that there are limits to mutational changes and that they cannot make fitter life for which I have also posted evidence. All this taken together builds a strong case against the type of evolution that many are supporting.

 

[Hoghead1]

Then why doesn't anyone on this forum acknowledge these processes let alone admit they may affect the concept of evolution. More and more scientists are acknowledging these extra factors that can influence how life can change and there is still more investigation to go. But there are also many who deny that these things are relevant just like HGT. Some scientists are saying that evolution plays a minor influence in how creatures change and these other factors that are non adaptive are the real forces for change. I have posted many articles on this. I think it is some who support Darwins theory that are not presenting an accurate picture. There is no evidence for macro evolution and they assume that what is seen in micro evolution with a species can be extended beyond the species level. As the article stated the support that is used for speciation is examples like antibiotic resistance. Yet it has been shown that these types of changes are restricted to within a type of organism and influenced by HGT. They also incur a fitness cost as well as the change. The evidence shows that there are limits to mutational changes and that they cannot make fitter life for which I have also posted evidence. All this taken together builds a strong case against the type of evolution that many are supporting.

The distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, to start with, is something held by creation-science people. Such terms are never used in legit science."Macro-evolution" has, in point of fact, been crated and observed more than once in the lab. The issue you presented here is simply one of defining what factors underlie evolution, not whether or not evolution is correct. All agree there is a vasrt evolutionary process going on, but there was and can be disagreement as to how this actually takes pace.

 

[KCfromNC]

having several common ancestors rather then the one
that evolution claims means that not only do we have to believe that life can created itself once but now several times.

No we don't : e.g original life A evolves into species B and C which can exchange genetic info with each other.

Nor do we have any credible details about how simple life evolved into ,re complex life.

Come on, be serious. Even your sources disagree with you on this one.

So maybe we should start looking at design by a creator because the alternatives seem to take even more faith.

We can just as soon as you figure out what the designer is and how to identify what it designs. So far you've been unable to do so. Feel free to start whenever you'd like.

Yes in mammals, havnt you been checking the evidence I have already posted.

What you've been posting doesn't back up your claims. I'd go into detail about why, but the last few times I did you ignored it and changed the subject so I'm not going to bother now.

Darwinian evolution claims that when a creature stays relatively the same they are fixed in their environments.So they dont need to change that much. Yet we have creatures who will live in similar environments who do change. Of course evolution will have some explanation for this to explain it away.

Yes, the main explanation will be the obvious one - "don't change that much" is perfectly consistent with some amounts of change. What's your point again?

 

[KCfromNC]

Then why doesn't anyone on this forum acknowledge these processes let alone admit they may affect the concept of evolution.

They do. For example, I remember one poster repeatedly posting info that HGT was responsible for, what, like a grand total of 3 of the base pair differences between humans and chimps. People who understand the science aren't ignoring it, they're just being realistic about the relatively minimal impact it has outside of single-celled organisms. You, on the other hand, read an abstract of a paper and are now convinced you've disproved modern biology.

There is no evidence for macro evolution

Careful - your creationism is showing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not, but the purpose for the article was to show that Darwin evolution theory does refer to a last universal common ancestor or (LUCA). Just because the article still supports evolution doesn't make it any more correct. As the paper in that same post stated that the standard theory of evolution (SET) will stick to its beliefs about evolution and relegate any evidence which is pointing to things like the tree of life and evolution theory through adaptation not being the dominate source or the only source for how life changes. So its no surprise that the site will still support aspects of the theory even though they are in doubt. Its hard for them to let go of something they have believed in for so long. Who said evolution didn't have any faith.

We have evidence, so why would we need faith? The evidence for LUCA is abundant.

The story that SET tells (standard evolution theory) is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

That is completely untrue. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) is one of the hottest fields in the evolutionary sciences.

In other words evolution theory will dismiss the above evidence as minor outcomes of evolution and still insist that the core theory of random mutation and natural selection are responsible for creating life and therefore stick with the traditional tree of life.

None of that evidence is ignored.

Thats despite more and more evidence to the contrary showing that the tree of life is more like a forest or web and that there are other major processes that shape and change life besides Darwin's evolution.

Not for eukaryotes, it isn't. This has been gone over multiple times now. The tree of life model still works for eukaryotes.

 

[stevevw]

The distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, to start with, is something held by creation-science people. Such terms are never used in legit science."Macro-evolution" has, in point of fact, been crated and observed more than once in the lab. The issue you presented here is simply one of defining what factors underlie evolution, not whether or not evolution is correct. All agree there is a vasrt evolutionary process going on, but there was and can be disagreement as to how this actually takes pace.

Well at least we are beginning to have some agreement. I would like to know the evidence for the macro evolution that has been proven in lab tests though as I have never heard of anything like that. What has been presented so far doesn't prove macro evolution. Despite you saying that macro and micro evolution are something made up by creationists this is not true. many evolution sites speak about these terms as part of evolution. Berkeley.edu which is a prominent evolution site uses these terms and describes them as part of evolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

These terms are very important in distinguishing the difference between what has been proven and observed which is micro evolution and what hasn't been observed and proven. What is mistaken and taken as macro evolution is the limited smaller changes in micro evolution. There is only assumption that this same mechanism can keep going being the species level and therefore create a new type of animal. Dogs are dogs and they have great variation within their type. We have seen the limits of trying to push the boundaries of their genes and how it can weaken the species. the further breeders try to push towards the limits of the natural genetic state the more unfit creatures become.

Darwin's finches changed in beak size when the food source changed but then it was observed later that they also reverted back to they natural and original state as well. They certainly were not going to keep changing into some other creature. Dino's did not become birds and there is no evidence for it apart from assumption based on a few similarities. But similarities dont mean one animal morphed from another. There are also many features which are not the same which can be argued against transitions. But despite all that type of evidence which is based on observational interpretation the genetic evidence shows that it is unlikely to happen. The developmental evidence in which I posted previous to this which was another area that is disputing how evolution claims life evolves through adaptation methods also shows that it is unlikely. I have posted evidence for this on many occasions. In fact I think I have already debated this with you anyway from memory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why doesn't anyone on this forum acknowledge these processes let alone admit they may affect the concept of evolution. More and more scientists are acknowledging these extra factors that can influence how life can change and there is still more investigation to go. But there are also many who deny that these things are relevant just like HGT.

Do we need to go over this AGAIN?????

3 genes. That's it. That is the grand total of genes acquired in the human lineage through HGT since the common ancestor shared with primates.

JUST 3!!!!

This, compared the tens of thousands of genes acquired through VGT.

So why should any biologist think HGT had anything more than a very, very minor role in human evolution?

Some scientists are saying that evolution plays a minor influence in how creatures change and these other factors that are non adaptive are the real forces for change.

Not for phenotypic changes. What you are pointing to is genetic changes, which includes neutral drift in non-functional DNA.

I think it is some who support Darwins theory that are not presenting an accurate picture.

My irony meter just exploded.

There is no evidence for macro evolution . . .

29 evidences for macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[KCfromNC]

Well at least we are beginning to have some agreement. I would like to know the evidence for the macro evolution that has been proven in lab tests

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[KCfromNC]

So why should any biologist think HGT had anything more than a very, very minor role in human evolution?

Heck, I'm even curious why a creationist would. I've asked multiple times to connect the dots between "HGT is an important factor in mammalian evolution" and " therefore an intelligent creator god did it", but I've been consistently ignored.