Where did the laws of nature come from?

Gracchus · Apr 23, 2016

juvenissun said:
It sounds like a version of Zen conversation.

People can speak truth regardless of religion, although religion can make it harder.

Is it a judgement if one used a feature or an object to describe a status?

Let me discriminate between "judgement" as "discernment" and "judgment" as "condemnation" or "blame".

What the abbot said is very good. But the comment from the interpreter is not.

The comment from the interpreter was specifically addressed to one who was too obviously attached to his idea of some sort of moral superiority and inferiority. In Buddhism, such attachments must be released if one is to attain enlightenment.

Just like an outsider have no way to really understand the meaning of a reply from a Zen master.

To understand a koan is not hard for the enlightened mind, for to understand the koan, one need only understand its purpose.
The Buddha-mind is free from illusion, and does not cling to falsehood. In many cases the koan presents a contradiction, and the tension thus created tears the acolyte free from his delusion. The Buddha-mind accepts what is real. The unenlightened mind does not understand because it clings to falsehood and superstition.

Consider:
"For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good." --- NIV Romans 7:18-21

Your "apostle" Paul claims that he cannot control himself. This is because he refuses to understand his own nature. He is deluded because he clings to a falsehood. He tries to separate himself from himself, his "good" from his "evil". Thus, he cannot control that part of himself that he denies is himself. He denies that he wants to do what he does, denies that he does it because he wants to, and thus excuses himself, in an effort to cling to his false view of his own nature. So he continues to do what he claims he doesn't want to do. One must claim and accept one's true nature before one can begin to control it.
That should be obvious, like the sound of one hand clapping.

:wave:

juvenissun · Apr 23, 2016

Gracchus said:
Your "apostle" Paul claims that he cannot control himself. This is because he refuses to understand his own nature. He is deluded because he clings to a falsehood. He tries to separate himself from himself, his "good" from his "evil". Thus, he cannot control that part of himself that he denies is himself. He denies that he wants to do what he does, denies that he does it because he wants to, and thus excuses himself, in an effort to cling to his false view of his own nature. So he continues to do what he claims he doesn't want to do. One must claim and accept one's true nature before one can begin to control it.
That should be obvious, like the sound of one hand clapping.

I recognize my sinful nature. And I do what I don't want to do all the time.
What else do I need to claim and accept first?

What is your true nature? Are you not sinful, so you freely do whatever you want to do? Do you think that is a way to solve Apostle Paul's problem?

Do you know what Confucius said about that?

Gracchus · Apr 23, 2016

juvenissun said:
I recognize my sinful nature. And I do what I don't want to do all the time.
What else do I need to claim and accept first?

Accept the fact that you do what you do because you want to do it. You may be conflicted, but you do whatever you want most. You cannot escape your "free will".

What is your true nature?

It probably differs only in minor details from most of mankind. It may change in minor ways from time to time

Are you not sinful,...

"Sin", if defined as transgression of some divine law, I do not find a useful concept. People don't exactly agree on what "divine law" is. Some behavior gains social approval and some does not. Some is tolerated and some is not.

so you freely do whatever you want to do?

I do what I want to do, appreciating that there may be consequences, to myself and to others.

Do you think that is a way to solve Apostle Paul's problem?

Paul's "problem" was that he wanted to present himself as morally helpless. He was one of those who preach, "Do as i say, not as I do." He probably got caught, like Swaggart, McPherson or Haggard, and was trying to excuse himself as not being in control.

Do you know what Confucius said about that?

Kong Qui wrote much, and said more. What do you think is pertinent?

Edited to add: Perhaps these?
"Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes."
"Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart."

:wave:

juvenissun · Apr 23, 2016

Gracchus said:
Accept the fact that you do what you do because you want to do it. You may be conflicted, but you do whatever you want most. You cannot escape your "free will".

It probably differs only in minor details from most of mankind. It may change in minor ways from time to time
"Sin", if defined as transgression of some divine law, I do not find a useful concept. People don't exactly agree on what "divine law" is. Some behavior gains social approval and some does not. Some is tolerated and some is not.

I do what I want to do, appreciating that there may be consequences, to myself and to others.

Paul's "problem" was that he wanted to present himself as morally helpless. He was one of those who preach, "Do as i say, not as I do." He probably got caught, like Swaggart, McPherson or Haggard, and was trying to excuse himself as not being in control.
Kong Qui wrote much, and said more. What do you think is pertinent?

Edited to add: Perhaps these?
"Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes."
"Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart."

You torn apart my post and replied it line by line. You did not catch my main argument and diffused the issue.

You want to do whatever you like to do.
Unfortunately you can not. Because you are a human, not an animal.
Confucius said a person might be able to do that after his 70 years old, provided that ...

Gracchus · Apr 23, 2016

juvenissun said:
You torn apart my post and replied it line by line.

I do that a lot. (I got trained as an analyst by the NSA, probably because I demonstrated some small talent for such.)

a·nal·y·sis
n. pl. a·nal·y·ses
a. The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.
b. The study of such constituent parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole.
c. A spoken or written presentation of such study: published an analysis of poetic meter.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analysis

I might suggest that if your argument were better constructed it would not be so easily torn apart.

You did not catch my main argument and diffused the issue.

I diffused it? Perhaps I diffused it like mist in the sunlight, or fog in the wind? What issue was diffused? Even some Christians have figured out that yielding to temptation sometimes has predictably unpleasant results.

You want to do whatever you like to do.

Well, sometimes my likes conflict. I like to eat, but I do not like to get fat. I dislike exercise, but I do not like the helplessness that is a consequence of sloth. I like women, but they give much trouble. I like dogs, babies and small children, but... Actually, there is not much of a down side there!

Unfortunately you can not.

What can I not?

Because you are a human, not an animal.

Not all animals are human, but all humans are animal. I am a human, and thus, unavoidably, I am an animal. I thought you must be too. Are you a fungus? Or perhaps a cabbage?! That would be very odd!

Confucius said a person might be able to do that after his 70 years old, provided that ...

Provided what?
I might argue that with Kong Qiu, but the point is moot, because I am 72 years old. My mind thinks the thoughts of mighty thinkers, many of them long dead, but their thoughts live in me.

A metaphor for your consideration:

Crystal Cabinet
by Julian Huxley

The world of things entered your infant mind
To populate that crystal cabinet.
Within its walls the strangest partners met,
And things turned thoughts did propagate their kind.
For, once within, corporeal fact could find
A spirit. Fact and you in mutual debt
Built there your little microcosm - which yet
Had hugest tasks to its small self assigned.

Dead men can live there, and converse with stars:
Equator speaks with pole, and night with day;
Spirit dissolves the world's material bars -
A million isolations burn away.
The Universe can live and work and plan,
At last made God within the mind of man.

Your rabbi once said, (Or so it is reported!), "I am the vine and you are the branches." But root, branch, leaf and fruit, the vine is just rearranged earth, air, rain and sunlight.

:wave:

juvenissun · Apr 24, 2016

Gracchus said:
What can I not?

Many. But, for a critical one:
You can not learn well any more. (When was the last time you really learned something like you were learning in school?)
Like many retired persons, that is sad. No curiosity. No motivation.
Do you know the best time of learning in one's life is not before 25, but is after 65?

Gracchus · Apr 24, 2016

juvenissun said:
Many. But, for a critical one:
You can not learn well any more.

I would ask the basis for that assertion, but it is irrelevant to the thread.

(When was the last time you really learned something like you were learning in school?)

Today, if you must know, but that is also irrelevant to the thread.

Like many retired persons, that is sad.

I am not sad. But then, your rhetoric is somewhat unclear.

No curiosity.

That, sir (or madam), is a baseless falsehood. I am probably curious about matters of which you are completely unaware.

No motivation.

I have never sought fame, power, popular approval, or fortune, it is true. Learning has always been to me a pleasure, and an end in itself.

Do you know the best time of learning in one's life is not before 25, but is after 65?

Actually, I do not know that. I have found the best time for learning is always now.

Still, all of this is off topic, and I will not respond again to your opinions of my intellectual deficiencies. I have formed an opinion of your opinions.

:wave:

juvenissun · Apr 24, 2016

Gracchus said:
I would ask the basis for that assertion, but it is irrelevant to the thread.
Today, if you must know, but that is also irrelevant to the thread.

I am not sad. But then, your rhetoric is somewhat unclear.

That, sir (or madam), is a baseless falsehood. I am probably curious about matters of which you are completely unaware.

I have never sought fame, power, popular approval, or fortune, it is true. Learning has always been to me a pleasure, and an end in itself.
Actually, I do not know that. I have found the best time for learning is always now.

Still, all of this is off topic, and I will not respond again to your opinions of my intellectual deficiencies. I have formed an opinion of your opinions.

YOU made me go off topic. I can not remember what is the topic by reading the style of your reply.
What is the topic? If you forgot it too, then bye.

Gracchus · Apr 24, 2016

juvenissun said:
YOU made me go off topic.

I made you go off topic?! Ooooh! :sorry:

I can not remember what is the topic by reading the style of your reply.

Are you sure it was the style and not the substance that confused you?

What is the topic?

It is posted at the top of each page. If you have trouble finding it, it is "Where did the laws of nature come from?"

If you forgot it too, then bye.

I have noted that such digressions are normal in these forums. I did not really forget the topic. But I do understand that you did not understand the subject, and attempted to explain it to you. Such sidetracks sometimes lead to derailments. I hope you weren't badly injured in your train wreck.

:sorry:

juvenissun · Apr 24, 2016

Gracchus said:
It is posted at the top of each page. If you have trouble finding it, it is "Where did the laws of nature come from?"

I never directly responded to this topic.
What did you say?

stevevw · May 3, 2016

KCfromNC said:
I've posted multiple examples and as far as I can tell, you've ignored them all. I'm not going to waste my time with more.

I'm baaack. Finished assignments for now. So where was I. Yes I have looked over you replies going back a 5 or 6 weeks and can’t see ant multiple examples you claim. In fact you haven’t posted any support for you claims from scientific sources. Its always good to take the time to double check things.

Why did you forget to highlight "seemingly" here?

Never even occurred to me it was a big deal. You have noticed it more then I. Like I said if you want to start using the type of language as a guide to prove something then evolution is in trouble because its full of that type of language such as possibly, maybe, apparently, likely, appears to be, may have ect.

Oh, so you can ignore it in your paraphrase of what the paper said. At least you're consistent.

No if you look further along I have used that word anyway. Like I said you seem to be making something of it, not me.

At least according to the model presented in this paper. If I actually bother to read the paper, am I going to find experimental results showing that the paper is correct or will I be wasting more of my time?

The paper gives examples of latent developmental programs. The point is it is an hypothesis about how life may change and gain new features according to how they see the evidence. Just like all the other ideas that have been made according to how they see the evidence including Darwin's theory of evolution and the other ones I have posted that show non adaptive processes as the drivers for change. It is up to others to assess whether they are right or wrong. As time goes by and more evidence is discovered the way people see things change and therefor new ideas are proposed.

Because without knowing what designer you're talking about or what process that designer uses, there's no way to know if a particular thing is designed or not. That's why you've been unable to answer my simple questions about quantifying design in a few simple examples - without knowing how the designer is supposed to work there's no way to do so.

If you found a plastic model of an airplane would you need to know who the designer was or how they made the plane to realize it was designed. No you wouldn't so how does knowing who designed life and how they did it make it any less or more designed. Same logic and reasoning.

Not in humans. See the post above for an example.

First off that is only one paper that makes a claim. I have shown you support for how HGT played a big part in humans. The papers below is another which shows that HGT is prominent in eukaryotes as well. I have posted other sources that state there is more then 3 events of HGT within complex life. Micro organisms to complex life HGT accounts for many 100s if not 100s of occurrences. Secondly the evidence for the tree of life is not a tree but a forest with not one trunk leading back to the universal common ancestor but many trunks of multiple ancestors. Microorganisms make up over 95% of life so the pattern is much more complicated because of HGT. So if the tree of life is a forest and is 95% of that forest then complex life only represents a twig on one of these trees in that forest. Hardly a major player in the scheme of how life formed overall. Even on those small twigs there is more HGT than previously thought and being discovered all the time.

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. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp

Extensive Gene Transfers Occur in Complex Cells Way More than Expected
A single gene from bacteria has been donated to fungi on at least 15 occasions. The discovery shows that an evolutionary shortcut once thought to be restricted to bacteria is surprisingly common in more complex, eukaryotic life.http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ne-transfers-found-to-occur-in-complex-cells/

Thirdly HGT is only one part of the evidence for other processes in how life changes. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1. Other processes play a bigger part as viewed from areas such as developmental bias an how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species other than evolution. 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). Genomics, epigentics, symbiosis, cross breeding especially earlier on in the history of life also play a big part in how life can change besides Darwin's theory of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Loudmouth · May 3, 2016

stevevw said:
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. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp

Already covered this multiple times. Since the common ancestor shared with other primates, they could only find 3 genes that were acquired through HGT in the human lineage.

Figure 1

Phylogenetic relationships of the main taxonomic groups studied. The blue numbers indicate the ortholog groups mapping to each branch (HGT events). Events may have occurred anywhere along the branch, not just where the number is indicated. Events found at the base of the tree have occurred anywhere between the origin of the phylum and the base of the tree. Trees are not drawn to scale with each other.
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3

Also, Koonin is one of the biggest proponents for the importance of HGT in evolutionary histories, and even he says that the tree of life model holds for eukaryotes because of the paucity of HGT and the predominance of VGT.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., [27])."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-6-32

What you keep trying to brush over is that the HGT events occurred very early on in eukaryote evolution, and the predominant mechanism since that time is VGT.

Since Darwin dealt with the evolution of eukaryotes, his conclusions still hold for lineages that he spoke of.

KCfromNC · May 3, 2016

stevevw said:
I'm baaack. Finished assignments for now. So where was I. Yes I have looked over you replies going back a 5 or 6 weeks and can’t see ant multiple examples you claim.

Start with http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ature-come-from.7928975/page-39#post-69462873

In fact you haven’t posted any support for you claims from scientific sources.

That's a lie. I simply read the very papers you posted to support your claims and found out what they actually said.

Never even occurred to me it was a big deal.

Yes, it is important to read and understand all of the words - even the ones which make things have meanings different from the one you wished was there.

The paper gives examples of latent developmental programs.

Let's worry about your peculiar interpretation of the paper I mentioned in the link above rather than going off on a bunch of tangents.

If you found a plastic model of an airplane would you need to know who the designer was or how they made the plane to realize it was designed.

Yes. For example, if you were thinking it was designed by purely natural undirected processes I could rule out design. Or if you were proposing that it was designed by a pre-industrual society I could also rule them out. Or if it was designed by aliens who had no contact with any previous human airplanes it would also be very unlikely. But designed by modern humans seems likely - and I can figure that out because it lines up with the capabilities of the designer in question there where it doesn't for the other proposed designers.

But just a generic designed? Who knows. Designed by what is an important question when considering design.

I have shown you support for how HGT played a big part in humans.

In the sense that it happened in distant single-celled creatures billions of years ago, perhaps. On the other hand, you've consistently ignored the data which shows that it has very little to do with recent human evolution.

Micro organisms to complex life HGT accounts for many 100s if not 100s of occurrences.

Out of 3 billion base pairs in human DNA? Stop the presses.

Secondly the evidence for the tree of life is not a tree but a forest with not one trunk leading back to the universal common ancestor but many trunks of multiple ancestors. Microorganisms make up over 95% of life so the pattern is much more complicated because of HGT. So if the tree of life is a forest and is 95% of that forest then complex life only represents a twig on one of these trees in that forest. Hardly a major player in the scheme of how life formed overall. Even on those small twigs there is more HGT than previously thought and being discovered all the time.

And this shows it was designed by a supernatural creator god in what way, exactly?

In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.

Hate to break it to you but hybridization isn't horizontal gene transfer. Did you copy and paste the wrong part of the quote-mine?

A single gene from bacteria has been donated to fungi

Any this is applicable to human evolution exactly how?

Other processes play a bigger part as viewed from areas such as developmental bias an how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species other than evolution. 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). Genomics, epigentics, symbiosis, cross breeding especially earlier on in the history of life also play a big part in how life can change besides Darwin's theory of evolution.

Funny, your author seems to have forgotten to list Intelligent Supernatural design as one of the processes at play. Must have been an oversight - or just another example of you quoting people as experts and having them totally disagree with your conclusions.

stevevw · May 4, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Already covered this multiple times. Since the common ancestor shared with other primates, they could only find 3 genes that were acquired through HGT in the human lineage.

Figure 1

Phylogenetic relationships of the main taxonomic groups studied. The blue numbers indicate the ortholog groups mapping to each branch (HGT events). Events may have occurred anywhere along the branch, not just where the number is indicated. Events found at the base of the tree have occurred anywhere between the origin of the phylum and the base of the tree. Trees are not drawn to scale with each other.
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3

Also, Koonin is one of the biggest proponents for the importance of HGT in evolutionary histories, and even he says that the tree of life model holds for eukaryotes because of the paucity of HGT and the predominance of VGT.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., [27])."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-6-32

What you keep trying to brush over is that the HGT events occurred very early on in eukaryote evolution, and the predominant mechanism since that time is VGT.

Since Darwin dealt with the evolution of eukaryotes, his conclusions still hold for lineages that he spoke of.

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:

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.
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).
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.
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/

Loudmouth · May 4, 2016

stevevw said:
I dont brush over that the HGT events happened early and in fact I have stated this.

If they happened billions of years ago, what bearing do they have on human evolution?

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.

But you discount the recent evolutionary history of life, which we are discussing. That recent history of evolution is evidenced by phylogenies. You tried to argue against phylogenies as evidence because of HGT events. Do you see the problem here?

All I know is paper after paper keeps mentioning that HGT was more prominent in complex life then thought and is still happening today.

Going from 0.001% to 0.01% is more prominent, is it not? That's the type of change you are talking about. The overwhelming mechanism of inheritance is still vertical. Finding a handful of examples of HGT does not make VGT go away.

Doolittle is one of many who have mentioned HGT and these are models to explain the existence of foreign genes in different creatures.

A handful of genes are from HGT, but tens of thousands are from VGT. It is that evidence from VGT which supports common ancestry and evolution, and finding examples of HGT does not make it go away.

Doolittle focused more on prokaryotes so therefore he was going to view the pattern for eukaryotes as still being tree like.

Are humans eukaryotes?

Are you saying that you have no problem with humans and amoeba sharing a common ancestor, and having evolved from that common ancestor through Darwinian mechanisms?

stevevw · May 9, 2016

Loudmouth said:
If they happened billions of years ago, what bearing do they have on human evolution?

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. The basic codes for most body plans was around early. So modern life including humans have just built upon that basic code. As one of the papers said there could have been many genes that coded features that layed dormant and were switched on (activated) when the time came when they were needed. The paper gives examples of latent gene networks in creatures from the past and today. This is just one hypothesis.

But you discount the recent evolutionary history of life, which we are discussing. That recent history of evolution is evidenced by phylogenies. You tried to argue against phylogenies as evidence because of HGT events. Do you see the problem here?

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. The evidence for this isn't there. The evidence shows a forest network for life rather then a single tree and trunk. So there are many trunks which go back to the beginning which indicate multiple beginnings. So there could have been several main creatures that all life stemmed from. Each of these creatures may represent the heads of animal/life such as phylum's where all life is a variation of this. This still allows HGT because some phylum especially earlier in the history of life could transfer genetic material between them. Within each phylum there is a lot of capacity for HGT. This creates a forest of life and can account for the Cambrian explosion.

Going from 0.001% to 0.01% is more prominent, is it not? That's the type of change you are talking about. The overwhelming mechanism of inheritance is still vertical. Finding a handful of examples of HGT does not make VGT go away.

But the evidence seems to show that more than a handful. Its almost as if life had this capacity to have HGT and it was needed for survival. But it was just an ability built in because thats was life is like. The environment acts like a living organism as well. It acts like a conduit between living things. Its all one big organism that is not separate and works together. When you say that VGT is more prominent what do you mean. This is the question because if HGT plays a part then any VGT is then in question. HGT isn't the only thing that questions VGT in the Darwinian sense. The evidence doesn't show that darwinian evolution theory accounts for changes through VGT. Most change comes from non adaptive processes including HGT which I have posted in a previous post. Evolution process cannot account for the type of changes we see in life.

A handful of genes are from HGT, but tens of thousands are from VGT. It is that evidence from VGT which supports common ancestry and evolution, and finding examples of HGT does not make it go away.

Like I said its much more then a handful. Other processes besides evolution account for how animals change which I have already posted several times. Darwins evolution plays a minor role if at all. So even if more genes do transfer vertically its not from darwins evolution and may be from other sources like developmental evolution.

Are humans eukaryotes?

Well yes in a way they are as that is what they are made of.

Are you saying that you have no problem with humans and amoeba sharing a common ancestor, and having evolved from that common ancestor through Darwinian mechanisms?

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. Yet other organisms moved on and evolved into more complex creatures. They all were subject to similar environments so how does that work out. All life has similarities and some more than others. But that doesn't mean they all have come from common ancestors. It just means there are some similar design plans in there because they share some similar features and environments.[/QUOTE]

Derek Meyer · May 9, 2016

stevevw said:
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.

Why are you under the impression that scientists think that modern prokaryotes are just as 'relatively simple' as the first prokaryotes from 3.5 billion years ago? From everything I've read about biology, it is accepted that all life forms existing today are equally evolved. From the latest forms of prokaryotes to the latest race horse to the latest human baby. All equally evolved.

stevevw said:
Evolution would say that somehow they just stayed pretty much the same.

No, it wouldn't. Evolution says the opposite of what you claim. Modern
prokaryotes have been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years to get where they are today.

Derek Meyer · May 9, 2016

stevevw said:
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. The basic codes for most body plans was around early.

Really? So why don't we get any evidence for the body plans of amphibians or mammals from the Cambrian Explosion?

Gracchus · May 9, 2016

Derek Meyer said:
Why are you under the impression that scientists think that modern prokaryotes are just as 'relatively simple' as the first prokaryotes from 3.5 billion years ago? From everything I've read about biology, it is accepted that all life forms existing today are equally evolved. From the latest forms of prokaryotes to the latest race horse to the latest human baby. All equally evolved.No, it wouldn't. Evolution says the opposite of what you claim. Modern prokaryotes have been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years to get where they are today.

Actually, an organism that is well fitted to a stable environment doesn't change very much, because any change is likely to be away from the adaptation that has already been achieved.
The coelacanths that dwell in the abyssal ocean haven't changed much because they have been adapted to that stable environment for millions of years. Evolution is fastest in small populations in rapidly changing environments. Moreover, the speed of evolution depends on the time between generations. In a changing environment, bacteria evolve (or go extinct) faster than fruit flies, and fruit flies in turn faster than humans.

:wave:

Derek Meyer · May 9, 2016

Gracchus said:
Actually, an organism that is well fitted to a stable environment doesn't change very much, because any change is likely to be away from the adaptation that has already been achieved.
The coelacanths that dwell in the abyssal ocean haven't changed much because they have been adapted to that stable environment for millions of years. Evolution is fastest in small populations in rapidly changing environments. Moreover, the speed of evolution depends on the time between generations. In a changing environment, bacteria evolve (or go extinct) faster than fruit flies, and fruit flies in turn faster than humans.

That's why modern prokaryotes are just as evolved as all other modern living organisms such as dolphins or humans.

Where did the laws of nature come from?

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

inquisitive

Contributor

Regular Member

inquisitive

Contributor

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads