Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[whois]

What you quoted me saying ("What you have done is encroached upon is copyright infringement." has no relationship to what you just stated.

it wasn't directed at you, it was directed "for those that want"

Even though I have free access to all issues of the journal Science, I have no interest on that topic.

you don't have an interest in science?

I'm a physical science guy.

me too, wanna dance?

 

[Loudmouth]

you don't have an interest in science?

Sedimentology and stratigraphy are not science?

The topic is not HGT, epigenetics, or even evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

i have some real difficulties getting my hands around a godlike figure.

God is.

And is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

OTOH, when i start looking at things like DNA, its coding and transcription scheme, i can't help but think there is some kind of intelligence at work here.

Good for you.

I believe, of course, that God created DNA.

But I also believe that Satan tried to get scientists to believe it came from the minds of aliens (viz., panspermia) by leaving DNA crop circles on our landscape.

As far as I know, it hasn't worked yet.

i honestly believe that this sort of thing will be found not only about abiogenesis, but evolution too.

I'm on record here as saying I think the Antichrist will meld abiogenesis to evolution during the Tribulation period ... and demonstrate how it works by giving life to an image.

The result will be so successful, scientists will line up to take the Mark.

And after they do, that's when the "great tribulation" or "time of Jacob's trouble" or "second half of the Tribulation" will start.

 

[RickG]

you don't have an interest in science?

Not the biological sciences.

 

[USincognito]

punctuated equilibrium is another theory that has been incorporated into evolution.
this theory certainly wasn't accepted because science anticipated more fossils to be found.
granted, HGT can explain this, but it also says HGT has major effects on ALL of the record.
as of this date, no one has provided any evidence why or how HGT would affect some organisms and not others.

There is just so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. PE is not a theory. It is an explanation for why we find so many fossils for transitions at genus or higher level, but very few at the species level. I have no idea what horizontal gene transfer has to do with PE or vertebrate fossils because it's very rare amongst animals.

 

[whois]

There is just so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. PE is not a theory. It is an explanation for why we find so many fossils for transitions at genus or higher level, but very few at the species level. I have no idea what horizontal gene transfer has to do with PE or vertebrate fossils because it's very rare amongst animals.

in regards to PE, explain what you mean by "at the species level".
niles eldredge is on the record as early as 1980 saying we have very few transitional fossils, and that some would say we have none.
i have the above on my hard drive.
refer to the science issue i mention for additional info.

in regards to HGT, i have a couple papers ( i have to find them) that state HGT is more common than once believed in animals.
also, no one has offered any theory as to why it would be common amongst unicellular life, but not with multicellular life.
the best we can say in this regard is that HGT is not as pervasive in animals.

 

[whois]

God is.

And is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.Good for you.

I believe, of course, that God created DNA.

But I also believe that Satan tried to get scientists to believe it came from the minds of aliens (viz., panspermia) by leaving DNA crop circles on our landscape.

As far as I know, it hasn't worked yet.I'm on record here as saying I think the Antichrist will meld abiogenesis to evolution during the Tribulation period ... and demonstrate how it works by giving life to an image.

The result will be so successful, scientists will line up to take the Mark.

And after they do, that's when the "great tribulation" or "time of Jacob's trouble" or "second half of the Tribulation" will start.

i really don't know what to say about all of this.
unfortunately science, and a great many people, require some kind of tangible evidence.
my biggest problem is trying to determine how a god can create life without any kind of physical means of doing so.
OTOH, if life is infinite, both in scope and time, it's reasonable to expect an intelligence far beyond that of man.
please note, the above doesn't necessarily imply a god, any sufficiently advanced technology will appear godlike.
just imagine you going back to the caveman days with your cameras, cellphones, and shotguns.

i am not ridiculing your position, i'm simply pointing out that the vast majority of people require some type of tangible evidence.
it's still an interesting position though, because it appears that due to the human condition, humanity needs a god.

 

[AV1611VET]

unfortunately science, and a great many people, require some kind of tangible evidence.

Ya.

That's a blind spot they can't get around.

my biggest problem is trying to determine how a god can create life without any kind of physical means of doing so.

Indeed.

Life is a miracle, is it not?

The first life created by God were the angels: created ex nihilo.

The second life created by God were plants: created ex materia.

Then animals and finally, man.

 

[The Cadet]

in regards to HGT, i have a couple papers ( i have to find them) that state HGT is more common than once believed in animals.

What's the total rate?

also, no one has offered any theory as to why it would be common amongst unicellular life, but not with multicellular life.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because unicellular life has a much, much simpler path to HGT (simply sharing a plasmid ring will do the trick) whereas in multicellular life, such mechanisms are generally not available. But that's just my best guess.

 

[whois]

What's the total rate?

the papers i've read does not put a rate on this.
they simply say that it is less than unicellular life.
to imply that this is "tiny" is a strawman.
most scientists believe that HGT resulted in the major evolutionary transition to multicellular life, which i hardly call tiny.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because unicellular life has a much, much simpler path to HGT (simply sharing a plasmid ring will do the trick) whereas in multicellular life, such mechanisms are generally not available. But that's just my best guess.

the fact that HGT happens at all in animals negates the above position.

 

[Shemjaza]

the fact that HGT happens at all in animals negates the above position.

Isn't that like assuming that all seals can fly because you've seen birds do it?

 

[whois]

Isn't that like assuming that all seals can fly because you've seen birds do it?

the question here is, what are the differences of cells that allows or disallows HGT?
the cadet put forth one proposal, but hasn't provided any papers on it.

aren't some bacteria classified as both plant and animal?
but yet HGT is abundant in them.
i've seen no real research in this area, what would account for widespread HGT in bacteria but less so in plants/animals.
it seems to be a matter of cell differentiation.

 

[The Cadet]

the papers i've read does not put a rate on this.
they simply say that it is less than unicellular life.
to imply that this is "tiny" is a strawman.
most scientists believe that HGT resulted in the major evolutionary transition to multicellular life, which i hardly call tiny.

@Loudmouth you seem to know quite a bit on HGT (given that ERV thread); maybe you can be of some assistance? The best I could find was this recent article talking about Crisp's recent paper in the AAAS. They found 145 foreign genes in humans. This is compared to around 25,000 genes that code for proteins, which make up about 1.5% of the total genome. So basically, HGT accounts for about 0.0087% of the genome. This is secondary literature, but the paper in question shouldn't be too hard to find given that this is literally the press release about that paper. 0.0087%. That's really not that much. And this is the most recent, up-to-date research which supposedly has increased the number quite substantially. I will, however, admit that I'm more than a little confused, because Wiki cites the number of ERV insertion sites as about 8% of the genome. So... Is that not HGT? Time to do a little research. Well, actually, time to do the dishes, then hope that Loudmouth knows the answer, and then, if I really have to, do a little research.

the fact that HGT happens at all in animals negates the above position.

As said, it was pretty much just a wild guess on my part and I will gladly retract my position until I figure out more about what the literature actually has to say on the matter.

aren't some bacteria classified as both plant and animal?

No. Plants and animals (and, in fact, all multicellular life) are Eukaryotes; bacteria and archaea are Prokaryotes. You can hardly get a more fundamental split in the tree of life. As you said, this almost certainly has a lot to do with why HGT is so much harder among Eukaryotes - Prokaryotes don't have a cell nucleus. They don't have any particular protection for their genetic material.

 

[Loudmouth]

in regards to PE, explain what you mean by "at the species level".
niles eldredge is on the record as early as 1980 saying we have very few transitional fossils, and that some would say we have none.

Here is what Gould had to say about it.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
i have the above on my hard drive.

Transitionals between larger groups are abundant. Perhaps you should learn what PE is before lecturing us on it.

in regards to HGT, i have a couple papers ( i have to find them) that state HGT is more common than once believed in animals.

How common was it thought to be before? If it was thought to contribute 0.01% before and it is now thought to contribute 0.1%, that is a 10 fold increase. However, it is still miniscule in the overall picture.

also, no one has offered any theory as to why it would be common amongst unicellular life, but not with multicellular life.

Animals don't have the recombinases and other enzymes that allow exogenous DNA to be stitched into the genome as easily as it is in bacteria. Also, the sequestration of germ line cells reduces the number of recombination events that make it to the next generation.

the best we can say in this regard is that HGT is not as pervasive in animals.

In fact, it is so rare that Darwin's tree of life concepts still work just fine in animals.

 

[Loudmouth]

@Loudmouth you seem to know quite a bit on HGT (given that ERV thread); maybe you can be of some assistance? The best I could find was this recent article talking about Crisp's recent paper in the AAAS. They found 145 foreign genes in humans. This is compared to around 25,000 genes that code for proteins, which make up about 1.5% of the total genome. So basically, HGT accounts for about 0.0087% of the genome. This is secondary literature, but the paper in question shouldn't be too hard to find given that this is literally the press release about that paper. 0.0087%. That's really not that much. And this is the most recent, up-to-date research which supposedly has increased the number quite substantially. I will, however, admit that I'm more than a little confused, because Wiki cites the number of ERV insertion sites as about 8% of the genome. So... Is that not HGT? Time to do a little research. Well, actually, time to do the dishes, then hope that Loudmouth knows the answer, and then, if I really have to, do a little research.

The primary paper can be found here:

http://beta.genomebiology.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3

Figure 1 is probably the most telling.

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. [caption from paper]

Right away, we see that 101 of these HGT genes were already present in the common ancestor of all primates. As far as the primate lineage leading to humans, there are 2 at the base of the great ape tree and 1 human specific HGT event.

If you want to argue that HGT was an important mechanism in the evolution of humans since the primate common ancestor, then you are going to have a tough time convincing anyone. You are saying that 3 genes transferred by HGT explains all of human evolution. I find that a bit hard to believe.

Also, it is a bit misleading to call all of these genes "human genes" since they are shared with other species and would have happened in a distant common ancestor. They are as much a human gene as a baboon gene.

You may also notice a slight discrepancy between the numbers, 101 v. 145. The authors used different thresholds of sensitivity and species distribution which may include or exclude genes as being HGT genes.

 

[pat34lee]

Ah yes, the proverbial 2nd law of TD. I wonder who came up with that claim originally. I can think of three things right off the bat why it doesn't exclude evolution.

• Its about the transfer of heat in an isolated system which has nothing to do with evolution.
• The environment in which life exists is not an isolated system.
• Even if it were an isolated system, it wouldn't prevent evolution.

But the idea that adding energy to a system would help anything is funny.
Adding energy only increases disorder unless and until you have a way to convert it to a useful form, and a design to follow.

 

[pat34lee]

[/thread]

You do know that the horse chart was discredited decades ago, don't you?

 

[Shemjaza]

But the idea that adding energy to a system would help anything is funny.
Adding energy only increases disorder unless and until you have a way to convert it to a useful form, and a design to follow.

You aren't talking about thermodynamics anymore. You seem to be referencing some kind of "Lack of Conservation of Information" law... which doesn't exist.

 

[Armoured]

You do know that the horse chart was discredited decades ago, don't you?

How so? In your own words, please?

 

[Loudmouth]

But the idea that adding energy to a system would help anything is funny.
Adding energy only increases disorder unless and until you have a way to convert it to a useful form, and a design to follow.

Nowhere does any textbook on thermodynamics claim any such thing. This is something you have made up from whole cloth.

Let's take a look at the oceans. They are warmer at the equator and cooler at the poles. That is an ordered system, and it is maintained due to the energy coming in from the Sun. A disordered ocean system wouldn't have currents or differences in temperature. It would be at equilibrium. The fact of the matter is that thermodynamically improbable chemical reactions can be made probable by the addition of energy. That's the real science.