Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes

[whois]

whois isn't a garden variety creationist.

i don't consider myself as a creationist at all

I think he has a "Universe is eternal, life is eternal" kind of belief system.

TBH, i'm not exactly sure what i believe.
i believe life is more than what physical laws can explain, especially human intelligence.
when you delve into the complexities of DNA and its transcription system, you indeed get the sense of some sort of design.
then you find that darwinian evolution isn't what you think it is.
on top of that you find that science is still scratching its head as to how it all came about.
i believe we only have 2 choices here, well actually 3.
1. life is eternal and somehow a function of the infinity of the universe.
2. life evolved naturally from the elements.
3. there is indeed a god of sorts.

(I mean no offense if I've misread you @whois this is just the impression I've gleaned from your references.

my references?
the overwhelming majority of my references are respected sources

I would very much appreciate you being more open about your beliefs as the HGT and Koonin references have not been creating productive or interesting threads or discussions.)

koonin isn't the only one that i refer to on this topic.
the primary author (there are 5) of the paper i uploaded is alastair crisp, none of the others are koonin.

 

[Loudmouth]

only because you don't want to believe it.

Says the person rejecting the study described in the opening post.

Why are you trying to suppress that study?

 

[Loudmouth]

then you find that darwinian evolution isn't what you think it is.

I think my irony meter just pegged.

What we have found is that YOU don't know what Darwinian evolution is. Punctuated Equilibrium is entirely Darwinian, as an example.

You also like to draw false equivalencies. You read that HGT can cause large changes. You then read another paper that says that a mutation caused a large change. This is followed by the completely unsupported leap of logic that the mutation had to be the product of HGT.

You also read that punctuated equilibrium involves quick change in short time periods. You make the leap of logic once again, assuming that it has to be due to HGT.

You never stop to consider that substitutions, indels, and recombination events are just as capable of producing these large changes.

the overwhelming majority of my references are respected sources

The entertaining part is when we look at the peer reviewed papers you reference and they don't support your claims. This example is perhaps the best one:

http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/981.full

You thought the paper supported the idea that Darwinian mechanisms were not capable of increasing fitness in a lineage. What you failed to understand is that they removed one of the most important Darwnian mechanisms from the experiment, that of natural selection. It's as if you took the battery out of a car, and then claimed that automobiles don't work.

 

[bhsmte]

i don't consider myself as a creationist at all

TBH, i'm not exactly sure what i believe.
i believe life is more than what physical laws can explain, especially human intelligence.
when you delve into the complexities of DNA and its transcription system, you indeed get the sense of some sort of design.
then you find that darwinian evolution isn't what you think it is.
on top of that you find that science is still scratching its head as to how it all came about.
i believe we only have 2 choices here, well actually 3.
1. life is eternal and somehow a function of the infinity of the universe.
2. life evolved naturally from the elements.
3. there is indeed a god of sorts.

my references?
the overwhelming majority of my references are respected sources

koonin isn't the only one that i refer to on this topic.
the primary author (there are 5) of the paper i uploaded is alastair crisp, none of the others are koonin.

You're references, don't say what you claim they say.

That is a big problem for you.

 

[whois]

This is followed by the completely unsupported leap of logic that the mutation had to be the product of HGT.

i never once said mutations were the result of HGT loudmouth, nor have i even suggested such a thing.

i've just about had it with your strawman, false accusations.

 

[The Cadet]

i never once said mutations were the result of HGT loudmouth, nor have i even suggested such a thing.

...What? Sorry, whois, but what? Why does it matter then?! Seriously, I don't think a single person here didn't come away with that impression! If HGT isn't responsible for mutations, then why are they in any way meaningful? What do they do? At a certain point, when everyone keeps misunderstanding you, you should stop and wonder, "maybe I'm saying it wrong?"

 

[bhsmte]

...What? Sorry, whois, but what? Why does it matter then?! Seriously, I don't think a single person here didn't come away with that impression! If HGT isn't responsible for mutations, then why are they in any way meaningful? What do they do?

It appears desperation has set in.

 

[Shemjaza]

i don't consider myself as a creationist at all

TBH, i'm not exactly sure what i believe.
i believe life is more than what physical laws can explain, especially human intelligence.
when you delve into the complexities of DNA and its transcription system, you indeed get the sense of some sort of design.
then you find that darwinian evolution isn't what you think it is.
on top of that you find that science is still scratching its head as to how it all came about.
i believe we only have 2 choices here, well actually 3.
1. life is eternal and somehow a function of the infinity of the universe.
2. life evolved naturally from the elements.
3. there is indeed a god of sorts.

my references?
the overwhelming majority of my references are respected sources

koonin isn't the only one that i refer to on this topic.
the primary author (there are 5) of the paper i uploaded is alastair crisp, none of the others are koonin.

Sorry, references was a bad word to use. Intimations might have been a better choice.

 

[whois]

...What? Sorry, whois, but what? Why does it matter then?! Seriously, I don't think a single person here didn't come away with that impression! If HGT isn't responsible for mutations, then why are they in any way meaningful? What do they do? At a certain point, when everyone keeps misunderstanding you, you should stop and wonder, "maybe I'm saying it wrong?"

the quote you responded to was in reference to loudmouths accusation that i said the MA mutations experiment was the result of HGT.
frankly, i consider this a deliberate attempt on his part to seriously confuse the issue.
loudmouth was the one that raised the issue of HGT in regards to the MA experiment, NOT ME.
like i said, i never once said HGT was the cause of these mutations.
as a matter of fact i said i wasn't sure if they were or not because the paper never specificallt said so, but the prospect wasn't impossible because they were bacteria.

thanks loudmouth for causing this confusion buddy.
i see how you are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i never once said mutations were the result of HGT loudmouth, nor have i even suggested such a thing.

i've just about had it with your strawman, false accusations.

I completely understand your frustration.

 

[Zosimus]

I completely understand your frustration.

I agree. I don't know whether he does it on purpose or whether he simply cannot understand any argument that is not his own. At any rate, his rebuttals rarely have anything to do with the original argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

the quote you responded to was in reference to loudmouths accusation that i said the MA mutations experiment was the result of HGT.

Here is what you said:

"again, you believe wrong, the entire point of the paper was to prove fitness is strongly influenced by rare mutations of strong effect."--whois

Why is that a point you want to stress?

as a matter of fact i said i wasn't sure if they were or not because the paper never specificallt said so, but the prospect wasn't impossible because they were bacteria.

The authors did specifically describe what the mutations were. There were only two events involving genetic recombination out of nearly 400 observed mutations. The rest were substitution mutations and short indel mutations. It's right in the paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree. I don't know whether he does it on purpose or whether he simply cannot understand any argument that is not his own. At any rate, his rebuttals rarely have anything to do with the original argument.

The original argument made by whois implied that evolution through mutation and selection can only decrease fitness. In order to try and support this implied claim, whois cited a paper where they didn't allow natural selection to occur. They didn't even allow the populations to evolve. However, whois failed to mention this when using a quote about a decrease in fitness.

I understand the argument just fine. I understand the paper whois is referencing way better than whois does.