All Life Came From One Initial Life - Evidence?

[Split Rock]

What pattern of similarities wouldn't.

As I expected... no matter what the pattern of similarity is or the evidence is, you will claim it supports "design." I rest my case.

 

[Split Rock]

ALL kinds.

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

And which of these are affected by HGT?

 

[Split Rock]

the tree i posted shows these HGTs throughout the tree, they are not confined to the lower half.

They are much more prevalent in the lower half of the tree. In vertebrates, they are rare.

my honest opinion about this, is that HGTs are an attempt to restruture current evidence.
IOW, the old tree was an attempt to show a linear lineage depicting accumulating changes.
the tree could not be resolved with the evidence.
apparently lifeforms would come into the record that just didn't jive with a "linear" approach, HGT was implemented to explain that.
these genes had to come from somewhere, and they could not have come from "distant species" because the inability to mate was one of the criteria for defining species.

You are missing some points:
1. We understand the mechanisms of HGT. Bacteria, for example, produce pilia that allow them to transfer genes between even individuals of different species. No such mechanism exists in vertebrates.
2. HGT is simply very rare in higher organisms.
3. If HGT was prevalent in primates, for example, then we would not expect chimps to have a genetic sequence more similar to humans than gorillas do. Or baboons, or monkeys.
4. As I indicated earlier, one can have both genetic descent and HGT at the same time. If there are for example, three genes out of thousands that are identical between a bacterium and a beetle, we can safely conclude it got there by HGT.

and stop trying to turn this into a "creationist" argument.
just because someone picks apart your hypothesis/ theory does not make them a creationist.
scientists pick apart each others theories all the time.

When did I do that? I used an example that is of primary concern in the "debate" this sub-forum is supposed to deal with. Did I accuse you personally of being a creationist?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. We understand the mechanisms of HGT. Bacteria, for example, produce pilia that allow them to transfer genes between even individuals of different species. No such mechanism exists in vertebrates.

In addition, bacteria can pick up naked DNA from the environment around them (which is why E. coli are so useful for cloning DNA). Phage can also take genes from one species and trasnfer them to another.

In eukaryotes like humans, this simply doesn't happen. We don't pick up naked DNA from our surroundings and make it part of our genome. Retroviruses only move viral genes between hosts, and not other genes from the host genome.

3. If HGT was prevalent in primates, for example, then we would not expect chimps to have a genetic sequence more similar to humans than gorillas do. Or baboons, or monkeys.

As sfs mentioned, if HGT were prevalent then we wouldn't be able to align 98% of the human and chimp genomes, which even discounts hard to sequence repeat regions that may also align.

The fact that whois can't understand this data, and can only keep throwing the term "HGT" at everything highlights just how skewed this discussion is.

 

[Mediate]

Really? That's your argument?

Your are right, we are made up of those chemicals...

Can you show me a cup of "life". Cause it's the only thing missing that man cannot create, make, find, measure, weight, control, grow, mine, or synthesize.

It's like cake. Its made of eggs, flour, sugar, milk and baking powder. Yet put in a bowl and it ain't cake.



Please show me evidence that all life have a common ancestor.




Very profound... hmmm Canines are canines and if it's not a canine then it's not a canine.... hmmm

If you teach your child that blue is red, red is yellow and yellow is blue... and they grow up and see the world that way.... what is the real colour of the sky? Remember it's only a categorization made by man.

Organisms exist and evolve regardless of our classification systems. The sky exists regardless of what colour we call it.

Do you think that because we call an organism "canine" it can't, in the future, evolve traits that aren't canine? WE call it a canine, but those labels don't have any bearing on the direction an organism might evolve. We ascribe these terms AFTER THE FACT.

If something isn't a canine, it's going to be a different organism than a canine. And before organisms evolved canine-like attributes and we ascribed the term "canine" to them, canines didn't exist.

 

[JacksBratt]

Organisms exist and evolve regardless of our classification systems. The sky exists regardless of what colour we call it.

Do you think that because we call an organism "canine" it can't, in the future, evolve traits that aren't canine? WE call it a canine, but those labels don't have any bearing on the direction an organism might evolve. We ascribe these terms AFTER THE FACT.

If something isn't a canine, it's going to be a different organism than a canine. And before organisms evolved canine-like attributes and we ascribed the term "canine" to them, canines didn't exist.

Right you are, a rose by any other name is still a rose......a canine by any other name will still be a dog.

 

[Split Rock]

Right you are, a rose by any other name is still a rose......a canine by any other name will still be a dog.

And a primate is still a primate, and a mammal is still a mammal, and a vertebrate is still a vertebrate, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

And a primate is still a primate, and a mammal is still a mammal, and a vertebrate is still a vertebrate, etc.

Can any primate, mammal, or vertebrate mate with any other primate, mammal, or vertebrate and have viable offspring?

 

[whois]

Can any primate, mammal, or vertebrate mate with any other primate, mammal, or vertebrate and have viable offspring?

science is going to have to face the fact that its definition of species does not apply across the board to all life.

 

[Split Rock]

Can any primate, mammal, or vertebrate mate with any other primate, mammal, or vertebrate and have viable offspring?

Not necessarily, no.

science is going to have to face the fact that its definition of species does not apply across the board to all life.

We already do acknowledge this. Nature does not create "species," or "genera," or "families," etc....... but creationists claim that God did. Who are the ones who should have problems with your statement?

 

[AV1611VET]

science is going to have to face the fact that its definition of species does not apply across the board to all life.

For the record, I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens for a variety of reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

We already do acknowledge this. Nature does not create "species," or "genera," or "families," etc....... but creationists claim that God did. Who are the ones who should have problems with your statement?

Whois, Rocky here is one of my favorite secular friends.

He can be aggressive and sarcastic at times, but he will endeavor to learn your point of view and answer your questions as you asked them with honest, straightforward, easy-to-understand answers.

 

[Split Rock]

Whois, Rocky here is one of my favorite secular friends.

He can be aggressive and sarcastic at times, but he will endeavor to learn your point of view and answer your questions as you asked them with honest, straightforward, easy-to-understand answers.

Thank you my friend!

 

[PsychoSarah]

For the record, I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens for a variety of reasons.

50% of that reason is the "homo" part. Hey, at least we aren't Homo erectus

 

[AV1611VET]

50% of that reason is the "homo" part.

But the "sapiens" part carries more weight.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Proclaiming themselves "sapiens," some ended up becoming atheists.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But the "sapiens" part carries more weight.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Proclaiming themselves "sapiens," some ended up becoming atheists.

I am pretty sure who came up with that one was Christian. I view it as blatant hubris as well, but whatever, it isn't like I refer to myself as a Homo sapien on a regular basis, and when I do, it tends to be facetiously. Human is still a word, you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I view it as blatant hubris as well, but whatever, it isn't like I refer to myself as a Homo sapien on a regular basis, and when I do, it tends to be facetiously. Human is still a word, you know.

Then this:

50% of that reason is the "homo" part.

... can take a hike.

I don't even refer to myself as "Homo," let alone "sapiens."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then this:

... can take a hike.

I don't even refer to myself as "Homo," let alone "sapiens."

I was making a joke from the start sir, I thought it was obvious

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I was making a joke from the start sir, I thought it was obvious

Yes, that was obvious.

A rather interesting species is man, but what sort of species was Jesus and all who are being changed by his love?

 

[Loudmouth]

Right you are, a rose by any other name is still a rose......a canine by any other name will still be a dog.

A primate by any other name will still be a primate. Does this mean that all primates, including humans, evolving from a common ancestor is just change within a kind?

A mammal by any other name will still be a mammal. Does this mean that all mammals, including humans, evolving from a common ancestor is just change within a kind?


A vertebrate by any other name will still be a vertebrate. Does this mean that all vertebrates, including humans, evolving from a common ancestor is just change within a kind?