Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The number of genes in the human genome has been reduced recently to around 19,000. It is estimated now that 81% of all genes in bacteria may have been involved in HGT at some point. At this point it is controversial just how much of the human genome has been involved in HGT. It is much smaller for sure but still a certain number is not available as far as I know of.There are 30,000 genes in the human genome. 300 genes acquired by HGT would be 1% of the total genome, with 99% due to vertical inheritance.
You have always misunderstood the Christian outlook on life. We all understand the importance of this life, not because we will be rewarded after but because we are loved and love. We love our families, we love life. Even knowing that life exists after this one, doesn't make it easy to leave this one. WE still have to die and sometimes horrible deaths.Fear, fear and more fear.
Creationists think that if evolution is true then there is no after life and if there is no after life what's the point of living this life?
If we die when we die we might just as well not have been born because there is no reason to live this life if there is no reward at the end of it.
i believe it's important in the sense that darwinian evolution is simply wrong.Yes, it is important. But how important for building the cladograms?
the question here is, how much of that is due to gene duplication by the organisms?Again, we're still looking at a handful of genes, a few percent of the genome at best, with almost all the rest passed down by vertical gene transfer.
The fact that obviously several people here think (mistakenly then, I guess) you are a creationist, is evidence that you say things that makes you look like one (at least).
I believe that we are going to see many more studies that will show that life has an inner adaptability built in to adapt and evolve.i believe it's important in the sense that darwinian evolution is simply wrong.
it appears that the organisms themselves is responsible for most of the "evolution" we see, not the environment.
i have also presented a link to a paper which states species trees do not correlate to gene trees, in most cases.
the question here is, how much of that is due to gene duplication by the organisms?
don't you think it's prudent to have some evidence before you accuse someone?I don't feel like looking it up at this time.
And I shouldn't have to.
we have at least one molecular biologist on record saying it's a failure.Abiogenesis is a work in progress. Nobody ever claimed that this riddle was solved. The origins of life are still pretty much unkown. There are a couple of good ideas with some evidence under investigation. Progress is being made, but there is still quite a long road of research ahead. And that's okay.
that's assuming the airplane will get off the ground.Those cells are the result of 2 billion years of evolution.
It seems that anyone that questions evolution in any way is somehow seen as a creationist. whois has said many times that he sees problems with an evolutionary worldview as well as a Theists worldview. He seems to be open minded about the possibility of God but that is all I've seen.
The number of genes in the human genome has been reduced recently to around 19,000. It is estimated now that 81% of all genes in bacteria may have been involved in HGT at some point. At this point it is controversial just how much of the human genome has been involved in HGT. It is much smaller for sure but still a certain number is not available as far as I know of.
We don't even know yet how this is all going to play out. Do you go where the evidence leads or do you doggedly hold on to what you are comfortable with?Would you agree that it is not an either/or situation, HGT or VGT? If the vast majority of the genomic data among complex eukaryotes continues to be explained by vertical genetic transfer and neo-Darwinian mechanisms, then why shouldn't we use that theory?
No one here is denying that HGT occurs. What we are arguing is that discovering a small amount of HGT does not mean that we have to throw out Darwin's entire theory.
I haven't checked his sources on everything but it seemed like most were scientific journals , but like I said I don't follow all of his postings to know for certain.I'm a little tired of this "anyone who disagrees with evolution is accused of being a creationist" strawman. whois has been accused of being a creationist because he has quoted creationist sites, used various creationist sources, and has used various creationist arguments found in typical creationist literature. Even the sources that aren't inherently creationist, are usually quote mines and the vast majority of them can be found on creationist websites. No one is arbitrarily labeling anyone a creationist.
we have at least one molecular biologist on record saying it's a failure.
we do not even have a working model.
We don't even know yet how this is all going to play out.
Do you go where the evidence leads or do you doggedly hold on to what you are comfortable with?
I believe that we are going to see many more studies that will show that life has an inner adaptability built in to adapt and evolve.
the paper i cited stated 223 protein sequences due to HGT from bacteria.
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.
How do we know those are the only two choices?assuming the "holographic" universe false:
true, there appears to be life present on earth.
i don't know.
we can make some assumptions, then come to a conclusion though.
if we assume the answer false, then life is some kind of fundamental property of the universe.
if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.
if the "holographic" universe assumption is true then the above questions are moot.
Can anyone help me understand this? In another thread, a member tried to explain to me that the only reason people like me cling to the theory of evolution is because if evolution is untrue, belief in god must follow.
How many genes were inherited by VGT?
i find this type of argument hilarious.I haven't checked his sources on everything but it seemed like most were scientific journals , but like I said I don't follow all of his postings to know for certain.
You keep repeating this lie, that doesn't make it more true. Dog morphology is explicitly different from the morphology of every other species because of how we modified it. Find me one other species with this degree of morphological diversity.You are quite welcome to "believe" whatever you like. All I ask is that you at least come up with a plausible theory that fits observations. And evolution isn't it.
Husky mates with Mastiff - Chinook comes into the record suddenly, with no intermediaries required. The same thing is observed in the fossil record, you have just classified different breeds incorrectly as species, because you have no living specimens to study and refuse to apply what is currently observed to past life. So when you come up with a new theory that fits the facts, let me know, until then you practice a "belief" that can not be reconciled to the data without ignoring 90% of it.
Unknowable, since you can not tell which genes are original, and which genes were inserted by HGT.
Because all genes inserted by HGT would thereafter proceed by VGT as genes are continued to be passed down generation to generation.
Now, if you had DNA of a past creature - not just modern DNA, you could compare. But all your claims are made upon the "assumption" that so much time must pass for mutations to work.
Yet in real life we see the Husky and Mastiff mate . . .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?