The light of evolution: What would be lost

[whois]

That's entirely accurate. The part of HGT doesn't apply to organisms like vertebrates, . . .

actually it does apply to verterbrates.

CONCLUSIONS:
We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.
. . . we then took our analysis a step further by comparing multiple closely related species and combining information on horizontally transferred (‘foreign’) genes found in more than one species in the group, thereby reducing mis-identification of HGT caused by spurious alignments. In this way, we identified up to hundreds of active foreign genes in animals, including humans, suggesting that HGT provides important contributions to metazoan evolution.
some examples from the source:
the paper i cited stated 223 protein sequences due to HGT from bacteria.
it also confirms an additional 128, which totals 351.
also, it isn't necessarily quantity that is important, but the value of the gene.
most of the genome, as you know, is composed of junk (or non coding) genes.
the paper outlines 3 important genes that was "inherited" by HGT.
first is hyaluronan synthases (HAS1-3). These were originally proposed as examples of prokaryote-to-metazoan HGT [19], but later rejected [20]; however, neither study considered foreign taxa other than bacteria. We were able to identify all three hyaluronan synthases as class A HGT, originating from fungi, an assessment supported by our phylogenetic analysis (Figure 3). The HAS genes appear in a wide variety of chordates, but not in non-chordate metazoans, suggesting they result from the transfer of a single gene around the time of the common ancestor of Chordata, before undergoing duplications to produce the three genes found in primates.

second is We also identify cases of HGT reported more recently that have not been analysed in detail despite the potentially interesting consequences of such a finding. For example, the fat mass and obesity associated gene (FTO, in Additional file 5: Figure S1A) seems to be present only in marine algae and vertebrates [27,28], which is a highly unusual distribution.

third is Another gene proposed to have been horizontally transferred is the ABO blood group gene (ABO, in Additional file 5: Figure S1B), which is suggested to enhance mutualism between vertebrates and bacteria [29].

as you can see, these are very important genetic transfers that did not happen in the darwinian sense, they did not "evolve".
what's more important is that they became fixed immediately upon acquisition.

so yes, HGT in humans is an important, and proven, fact.
-Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes. - PubMed - NCBI.htm

So what point are you trying to make?

i'm posting koonins views (in post 35), which the cadet says i'm falsely misrepresenting.

 

[sfs]

Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes

First, that's a claim made in a paper; it's hardly the last word on the subject. E.g. Jonathan Eisen's comment: '“I see little here that is particularly convincing evidence for horizontal gene transfer,” says microbiologist Jonathan Eisen of the University of California, Davis. He doesn’t rule out that horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals is possible, but says that there are other explanations for the identified genes being present in only some branches of the evolutionary tree—a gene that existed in a far-off ancestor could have simply been lost in many relatives other than two seemingly unrelated species, for instance. “It is up to [the researchers] to exclude other, more plausible alternatives, and I just do not think they have done that."'

Second, the claim in question was that "major contributions of horizontal gene transfer" undermine the tree of life concept. If 145 human genes really did arise from horizontal gene transfer, that's less than 1% of our genes. That hardly undermines the essential structure of the tree of life where humans are concerned.

Third, you didn't answer my question: What do these statements have to do with the points made by Cadet in the OP? Nothing said by Koonin here, or anywhere else, does anything to suggest that common descent isn't true, that natural selection plays a key role in adaptive evolution, and that the usefulness of evolution pointed out in the OP is very real.

Do you agree or disagree with my statement? Are you comments supposed to be on-topic or not?

 

[whois]

First, that's a claim made in a paper; it's hardly the last word on the subject.

it's more than "a claim". the paper has 5 co-authors, and gives an extensive amount of information regarding the procedures used.

E.g. Jonathan Eisen's comment: '“I see little here that is particularly convincing evidence for horizontal gene transfer,” says microbiologist Jonathan Eisen of the University of California, Davis. He doesn’t rule out that horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals is possible, but says that there are other explanations for the identified genes being present in only some branches of the evolutionary tree—a gene that existed in a far-off ancestor could have simply been lost in many relatives other than two seemingly unrelated species, for instance. “It is up to [the researchers] to exclude other, more plausible alternatives, and I just do not think they have done that."'

anyone can google the title and read the paper for themselves.
i can upload it if anyone wishes to read it and can't find it.

Second, the claim in question was that "major contributions of horizontal gene transfer" undermine the tree of life concept. If 145 human genes really did arise from horizontal gene transfer, that's less than 1% of our genes. That hardly undermines the essential structure of the tree of life where humans are concerned.

the tree of life has already been amended to include HGT, and apparently HGT in vertebrates is more common than once believed.

Third, you didn't answer my question: What do these statements have to do with the points made by Cadet in the OP?

i would consider epigenetics, transposons, and HGT a major hurdle to any kind of "prediction" based on "small accumulating changes".
as a mattewr of fact, maynard lists 8 evolutionary transitions that have no empirical evidence for them.

Nothing said by Koonin here, or anywhere else, does anything to suggest that common descent isn't true, that natural selection plays a key role in adaptive evolution, and that the usefulness of evolution pointed out in the OP is very real.

koonin has this to say:
"Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary"
-http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

Are you comments supposed to be on-topic or not?

the topic is the ability of neodarwinism to make predictions, right?
how can this be true when koonin and noble both call for this to be replaced?

 

[sfs]

it's more than "a claim". the paper has 5 co-authors, and gives an extensive amount of information regarding the procedures used.

That makes it a claim. You don't think all published scientific results are correct, do you? There have been previous claims of evidence for HGT in humans (with a lot more than five co-authors), and those claims haven't panned out. There's a reason scientists are cautious about new results, and about HGT claims in particular.

the tree of life has already been amended to include HGT, and apparently HGT in vertebrates is more common than once believed.

It has certainly occurred, so in that sense it's definitely more common than once believed. This latest result remains to be confirmed. Even if it is confirmed, however, it shows that HGT is indeed pretty small potatoes for vertebrates. If you think otherwise, show how HGT at the rate estimated by this paper is a problem for any predictions of evolution that have been mentioned in this thread.

i would consider epigenetics, transposons, and HGT a major hurdle to any kind of "prediction" based on "small accumulating changes".
as a mattewr of fact, maynard lists 8 evolutionary transitions that have no empirical evidence for them.

Evolutionary biologists all disagree with you. Who do you think is more likely to be right about evolutionary biology? (And I'm sorry, but no one named "maynard" has said anything at all on this subject, as far as I know.)

koonin has this to say:
"Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary"
-http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

the topic is the ability of neodarwinism to make predictions, right?
how can this be true when koonin and noble both call for this to be replaced?

Because the parts that have to be replaced (to the extent that these guys are right -- and Koonin himself says that some have already been replaced) are not important for the predictions being made. If you think otherwise, demonstrate that one of these effects actually changes one of the predictions in question. Don't just quote Koonin yet again. Show that there's a real problem. Address the original post.[/quote]

 

[whois]

That makes it a claim. You don't think all published scientific results are correct, do you?

no, especially when those results go against the established worldveiw.
OTOH let's not forget people like mclintok and her transposons.
she had the irrefutable evidence but science refused to accept it.
why do you suppose that is?
the only reason i can think of is because it went against the worldveiw of gradualism, and i think this phenomenon is at work in the case of noble and koonin.
you have to admit both of them are suggesting some pretty radical changes, koonin himself used the words "gaining the ire" in proposing neodarwinism be relegated to a museum.
did you notice what was said about ayala in the noble link i presented?
this stuff just can't be waved away like it never happened.
this sort of thing is what really lights my fuse in regards to all of this.
in all honesty, i really don't care "who wins", i'm more concerned with preserving the sanctity of science than anything else.

It has certainly occurred, so in that sense it's definitely more common than once believed. This latest result remains to be confirmed. Even if it is confirmed, however, it shows that HGT is indeed pretty small potatoes for vertebrates. If you think otherwise, show how HGT at the rate estimated by this paper is a problem for any predictions of evolution that have been mentioned in this thread.

the problem with genes is that its not the only "inheritance carrier".
koonin introduces the term "fundamental unit of evolution" in regards to inheritance, which implies that genes are not solely responsible for transferring characteristics.
HGT in combination with epigenetics and transposons can have major ramifications for organisms, in my opinion.
i don't see any reason why vertebrates would be relatively immune to HGT.
no one has presented anything to suggest how they would be.

Evolutionary biologists all disagree with you. Who do you think is more likely to be right about evolutionary biology? (And I'm sorry, but no one named "maynard" has said anything at all on this subject, as far as I know.)

now, who is being dishonest here sfs?
you know exactly who and what i am referring to when i made this comment.

 

[sfs]

no, especially when those results go against the established worldveiw.
OTOH let's not forget people like mclintok and her transposons.
she had the irrefutable evidence but science refused to accept it.
why do you suppose that is?
the only reason i can think of is because it went against the worldveiw of gradualism, and i think this phenomenon is at work in the case of noble and koonin.

I don't see anything in here that explains why any of the points you've raised are relevant to the subject of this thread.

you have to admit both of them are suggesting some pretty radical changes, koonin himself used the words "gaining the ire" in proposing neodarwinism be relegated to a museum.

No, I don't have to admit that. In fact, I'd be lying if I said it. I think Koonin is proposing fairly minor changes, and that he's being hyperbolical. Noble is more radical, but is also well outside his field and rather confused.

did you notice what was said about ayala in the noble link i presented?

No. I don't care about Ayala.

in all honesty, i really don't care "who wins", i'm more concerned with preserving the sanctity of science than anything else.

In all honesty, I don't believe you.

HGT in combination with epigenetics and transposons can have major ramifications for organisms, in my opinion.
i don't see any reason why vertebrates would be relatively immune to HGT.

And if you had any background in biology, your opinion would be an informed one. In my opinion, they make little difference to evolutionary theory and no difference at all to the subject of this thread -- and I'm the one who does this for a living.

no one has presented anything to suggest how they would be.

Have you tried asking? Or doing some research on the subject?

now, who is being dishonest here sfs?
you know exactly who and what i am referring to when i made this comment.

Of course I know who you're talking about. I'm not going to discuss him with you, though, until you do him the simple courtesy of using his name, rather than some nickname you made up.

Anyway, to summarize the parts of your post that addressed the practical uses of evolution, you wrote . . . nothing at all. I guess you're never planning on addressing the topic of this thread.

 

[whois]

ire, synonymous with hate, i can honestly see why koonin chose that particular word.

 

[justlookinla]

The entire point of the thread is the information contained within those videos. If you want to take part in this thread, I expect you to watch them.

If you're unable to present your own argument, just say so

This question is downright incoherent. I have no idea what you're asking.

The question is simple. Which "evolutionary model" was used? The mindless one or the intelligent one?

 

[sfs]

ire, synonymous with hate, i can honestly see why koonin chose that particular word.

I can see that you're still not addressing the question.

 

[The Cadet]

I've decided to move this discussion here because for some reason, this guy was insistent on dumping all 6 of his posts on my thread which was very explicitly not about evolution!

Evolution is not a theory.
A theory has to have a basis in experimental fact.

Experimental fact like the genetic similarities that run throughout all of life? Or the double nested heirarchy of morphology and genetics? Every single new species we find, every genome we sequence, every fossil we discovery is an observation that could potentially falsify evolution.

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

Given that evolution is used as the explanatory framework in fields as diverse as Anthropology and Zoology (and Virology, and Paleontology, and genetics, and and and and...), I think the title "theory" is entirely reasonable. As Dobzhanski famously put it, "nothing in biology makes sense except for in the light of evolution".

Evolution has never been observed.
each year a trillion animals plants bugs and birds reproduce exactly according to therir kind. this is scientific evidence.

Each year, life forms reproduce with variations. This is also observed, and was observed even before we understood the mechanism behind it.

Evolution has never been observed once. they dont have a missing link

I observe evolution every single time any creature reproduces. Or do you mean evolution above the species level? Because we've had that too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution could not happen.

watch this:

if one protein is missing for a tenth of a second the cell dies.
13,000 DIFFERENT proteins each a few billion molecules of each all in one cell
they had to all be suddenly created in a tenth of a second and placed together like a watch to work
Only a fool believes in evolution;

So... what do you think evolution says about the evolution of the human cell?

...You don't even have a clue, do you? You have no idea what the theory proposes?

Out of 13,000 proteins the largest being millions of amino acids precisely placed in exact order, the smallest we know of is INSULIN which is 51 amino acids long.
there are 23 amino acids.
God made the body create only LEVO or left mirrored amino acids
Random chemical reactions without levo ensymes are created both dextro and levo rotatory amino acids or RED and BLUE

the red ones immediately will kill you
the blue ones will work
if random theory created cell
what are the odds of picking 51 amino acids in perfect sequence with 56 possibilities for each amino acid position which if a red on is used will kill the molecule?
ANSWER:
10 to the 71 power.
the waste products made before one good ionsulin molecule is made would fill 7000 billion universes with garbage molecules before one insulin molecule is made

that is one molecule
for a cell to work that has to be done a billion times per cell

and then that has to be done for each 13000 DIFFERENT proteins or hormones

1.7 x 10^ 131 power to make them all be created and it would take, at 5000 replications per second, 1x10^121 lives of the universe to do it
and the cell would die
because to survive it needs all 13,000 molecules simultaneously to work

anyone who believes evolution is an idiot.

Oh joy, probability calculations. You might do well to check out this video:

As it explains quite clearly how extremely unlikely results can occur given reproduction with variation and natural selection. The fact that any given outcome is incredibly unlikely is not really a problem if the steps to get there were each individually realistic. Your claim that the cell needs all 13,000 molecules simultaneously to work shows a complete lack of understanding of what science actually believes the first cells looked like. Do you honestly think that the first cells on earth looked or acted anything like a modern human's cell? Nobody makes that claim. In fact, the leading hypothesis has the first cells as nothing more than a very simplistic self-replicating nucleotide string encased in a lipid shell.

Now take a ford truck
and replace it piece by piece and screw by screw with ferrari parts, WHILE RUNNING and keep it running until the whole truck has been converted to ferrari...
IMPOSSIBLE

Have you ever seen an F-150 mount a Ferrari 458? The comparison is baseless, as cars do not reproduce with modification, and evolution does not predict that within a single generation, you will see major changes. In fact, when it comes to genetics, some of the most well-conserved genes are those which have to do with the cell's basic function. Those tend not to mutate very often on a population scale, because when they do, it usually leads to a dead baby.

PBLBLBLBLBLBLBL

I will let this speak for itself.

 

[juvenissun]

That's entirely accurate. The part of HGT doesn't apply to organisms like vertebrates, but aside from that, it's true. It's also pretty much the consensus view of evolutionary biologists. So what point are you trying to make? And what do these statements have to do with the points made by Cadet in the OP? Nothing said by Koonin here, or anywhere else, does anything to suggest that common descent isn't true, that natural selection plays a key role in adaptive evolution, and that the usefulness of evolution pointed out in the OP is very real.

Why do you prefer "common descent" than "common ancestry"?

 

[whois]

Or the double nested heirarchy of morphology and genetics? Every single new species we find, every genome we sequence, every fossil we discovery is an observation that could potentially falsify evolution.

When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation supplied.
This assumption of parallelism across levels has now been widely dropped.
As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated.
www.biologydirect.com/content/2/1/30

Your claim that the cell needs all 13,000 molecules simultaneously to work shows a complete lack of understanding of what science actually believes the first cells looked like. Do you honestly think that the first cells on earth looked or acted anything like a modern human's cell? Nobody makes that claim. In fact, the leading hypothesis has the first cells as nothing more than a very simplistic self-replicating nucleotide string encased in a lipid shell.

science itself has no real "understanding" when it comes to abiogenesis:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

edit:
i think it's important to understand, at least from my point of view, that there is a difference between evolution and the theory that explains it.
the prevalent view, the mainsream, or "worldview", is neodarwinism, which is currently ungoing some changes.
some scientists such as koonin and noble are calling for a replacement.
koonin has this to say:
At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, I call this major change the transition to a postmodern view of life. Essentially, this signifies the plurality of pattern and process in evolution; the central role of contingency in the evolution of life forms (“evolution as tinkering”); and, more specifically, the demise of (pan)adaptationism as the paradigm of evolutionary biology. Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate the Victorian worldview (including its refurbished versions that flourished in the twentieth century) to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift.

it's important to point out here that koonin is referring to the theory itself.
he is saying that the worldview of neodarwinism is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

here is some more of what koonin didn't say:
The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.

and:
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life.

"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]). However, by definition, the TOL is supposed to be the tree of all life and all evolution, so it is conceptually and epistemically misleading to discount non-tree-like evolution when such processes occur in the majority of life-forms and history of life."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Koonin is an author on that paper. Koonin agrees that classic Darwinian evolution still applies in the case of eukaryotes for 99.99% of the change seen in complex eukaryotes like mammals and birds. Koonin's main argument is that the overall model doesn't work because of HGT and other mechanisms in prokaryotes.

I really don't see how this poses a problem for evolution in the organisms that Darwin talked about, which are the complex eukaryotes

 

[Loudmouth]

When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation supplied.

No, it wasn't. Stabilizing selection can keep morphology and function the same while sequences continue to diverge.

science itself has no real "understanding" when it comes to abiogenesis:

That has nothing to do with how life changed once it was here.

edit:
i think it's important to understand, at least from my point of view, that there is a difference between evolution and the theory that explains it.
the prevalent view, the mainsream, or "worldview", is neodarwinism, which is currently ungoing some changes.
some scientists such as koonin and noble are calling for a replacement.

The vast majority of scientists see no reason for a change since the theory is doing just fine. The mechanisms that Koonin et al. point to are minor mechanisms, especially in eukaryotes. The majority of change in eukaryotes is still through lineage specific mutations and common ancestry. HGT is absolutely swamped by vertical inheritance.

koonin has this to say:
At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, I call this major change the transition to a postmodern view of life. Essentially, this signifies the plurality of pattern and process in evolution; the central role of contingency in the evolution of life forms (“evolution as tinkering”); and, more specifically, the demise of (pan)adaptationism as the paradigm of evolutionary biology. Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate the Victorian worldview (including its refurbished versions that flourished in the twentieth century) to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift.

it's important to point out here that koonin is referring to the theory itself.
he is saying that the worldview of neodarwinism is wrong.

He is saying that it is "wrong" because prokaryotes do some strange things that eukaryotes don't, and the theory meant to explain evolution in eukaryotes does not fully incorporate all of the mechanisms found in prokaryotic evolution. That doesn't mean that we throw out the theory that explains evolution in eukaryotes so well.

 

[The Cadet]

Koonin is an author on that paper. Koonin agrees that classic Darwinian evolution still applies in the case of eukaryotes for 99.99% of the change seen in complex eukaryotes like mammals and birds. Koonin's main argument is that the overall model doesn't work because of HGT and other mechanisms in prokaryotes.

Something reflected in the emails he sent me.

 

[whois]

Something reflected in the emails he sent me.

instead of sidestepping the issue with your pathetic strawman "email" tactic, why don't you directly address the issue?
it's quite obvious koonin isn't a creationist*, and that is all you are concerned with.
and neither am i.
evolution IS NOT this "small gradual change" stuff everyone is led to believe.
koonin also makes it clear that "natural selection" is not the only mode of evolution, and might not be the primary mode.
the fossil record certainly seems to support that position.
in regards to punctuated equilibrium, this is not "fast gradual change".
maynard smith makes that clear with his paper of the 8 transitions noted in evolution.
maynard also makes it clear that there is no theory that explains these transitions, nor is there empirical evidence of them.

* edit:
this means he doesn't publicly support the "god did it" scenario.
whether this man believes in god, prays, and goes to church, is none of anyones business and totally irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Strathos]

The fact that he posted direct quotes from the man saying that he in no way disagrees with the major concepts of the ToE including common descent, and completely looks down upon people who try to twist his words didn't end this argument immediately?

 

[crjmurray]

The fact that he posted direct quotes from the man saying that he in no way disagrees with the major concepts of the ToE including common descent, and completely looks down upon people who try to twist his words didn't end this argument immediately?

The same scenario has played out multiple times in the past.

 

[whois]

The fact that he posted direct quotes from the man saying that he in no way disagrees with the major concepts of the ToE including common descent, and completely looks down upon people who try to twist his words didn't end this argument immediately?

did you notice that i used the word "strawman" in regards to what the cadet did in his email tactic?
i directly challenged the cadet to send koonin my posts and ask koonin if i misrepresented him.
so far, the cadet has not done that.
if you have any doubt whatsoever about what i posted, or linked to regarding koonin and what he said, then feel free to send him my posts.
please don't resort to this strawman attempt like the cadet has done.

 

[sfs]

did you notice that i used the word "strawman" in regards to what the cadet did in his email tactic?
i directly challenged the cadet to send koonin my posts and ask koonin if i misrepresented him.
so far, the cadet has not done that.
if you have any doubt whatsoever about what i posted, or linked to regarding koonin and what he said, then feel free to send him my posts.
please don't resort to this strawman attempt like the cadet has done.

Instead of continuing to argue about who said what about what Koonin said, why don't you do what I've asked you repeatedly: show how anything Koonin said -- in print, in an email, to his barber -- has any relevance at all to the subject of this thread. We have posted several examples of how evolution is used in science. If you think any issue Koonin raised affects those uses in any way, show it. Don't just suggest that HGT is some kind of problem for the practical application of evolution; explain why it is.

Let's be concrete. One of the practical applications of common descent is using a closely related species to determine the ancestral state of a locus. Thus, if I want to know which base is ancestral in humans, I see which base is present in chimpanzees and gorillas. I know that I'll be wrong a small fraction of the time (on the order of 1%, less if I take some precautions), and that's acceptable. If you think epigenomic inheritance affects that error rate, show how it does. If you think HGT means I'll be wrong a lot of the time, do the calculation and show how much it increases the error. If you can't do that, then your quotations from Koonin are irrelevant to the subject of this thread and do not belong here.