The Logical Pathway From "Evolution is wrong" to "Therefore God"

[Oncedeceived]

i believe HGT does a pretty fair job at smashing common descent in the darwinian sense.
there simply cannot be that kind of thing.
a tree of life drawn up at the species level does not correlate with one drawn up at the genetic level.
this correlates well with what maynard says about these transitions being major ones.

The tree of life is not at all what it was thought to be in Darwin's day, I agree.

 

[whois]

Can you give an example of such a genetic mismatch?

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

 

[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.
This assumption of parallelism across levels has now been widely dropped.

Can you show where morphological change was expected to parallel molecular change? Where are the papers that made this claim? Why is that an essential part of Darwinian evolution?

As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated.
www.biologydirect.com/content/2/1/30

In eukaryotes, they can.

"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])."--Maureen A O'Malley and Eugene V Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

 

[Loudmouth]

The tree of life is not at all what it was thought to be in Darwin's day, I agree.

Yeah, it is.

" 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])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

In Darwin's day, the tree only had eukaryotes on it since they hadn't discovered bacteria yet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, it is.

" 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])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

In Darwin's day, the tree only had eukaryotes on it since they hadn't discovered bacteria yet.

This might update your information:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300007/pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

This might update your information:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300007/pdf

More of the same. No one is denying that HGT occurs. What we are saying is that the overwhelming majority of DNA shared by distant eukaryote species is due to VGT, not HGT.

Of the DNA shared by chimps and humans, how much do you think is due to HGT that has occurred since those lineages diverged?

 

[Oncedeceived]

More of the same. No one is denying that HGT occurs. What we are saying is that the overwhelming majority of DNA shared by distant eukaryote species is due to VGT, not HGT.

Not really. It is claiming that HGT might be more frequent than originally thought.

Of the DNA shared by chimps and humans, how much do you think is due to HGT that has occurred since those lineages diverged?

I've not read any studies in relation to that question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really. It is claiming that HGT might be more frequent than originally thought.

Yes, really. 0.5% instead of 0.01% HGT would be more frequent than originally thought, but it would still be a vanishingly small percentage compared to VGT.

I've not read any studies in relation to that question.

I only know of one major source of HGT, and that is ERV's. In chimps, there are about 1 to 2 million bases found in chimp specific ERV's due to HGT. That would be about 0.01% of the chimp genome. About 99% of the chimp genome was inherited veritically from the common ancestor that chimps share with us. The other 1% are mutations that have occurred since common ancestry.

So you tell me. If we are talking about the mechanism that explains a vast majority of the data for a comparison of the human and chimp genomes, would you look to VGT or HGT?

 

[whois]

Not really. It is claiming that HGT might be more frequent than originally thought.

it is:
. . . 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.
-Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

it is:
. . . 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.
-Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes.htm

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.

 

[whois]

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.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

Yes, it is important. But how important for building the cladograms? 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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

can you post a link to a post of mine where i used a "creationist argument"?

I don't feel like looking it up at this time.
And I shouldn't have to.

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).

correct, it's the evidence that matters.
i've seen no evidence whatsoever that "things become alive".

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.

Secondly, chances are really small that if it finally is solved, that you would be seeing things "becoming alive" then. Because most likely, at that level it will be a very blurry line between "alive" and "not alive".

alive, as in the biological cell found in plants and animals.

Those cells are the result of 2 billion years of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.

And if we assume that we live in candy-la-la land, then santa claus is real.

Having said that...
Plenty of people surely have pointed out to you that evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life and not the ORIGINS of life.

You asked earlier if I could point out a post where you use creationist arguments. I didn't feel like digging, and apparantly I was right not to do so. It's only a matter of time before you come with a great example yourself.

Here we have one.

You give a false dichotomy of only 2 choices to explain where life comes from.
In the first choice, you misrepresent evolution.
In the second choice, you say "god-dun-it".

You couldn't get a more cliché creationist argument then this one.
1. Present false dichotomy
2. Lie about science
3. Pretend that the only alternative to the misrepresented science is "god-dun-it"

And then you wonder why we conclude that you are a creationist....

 

[Cearbhall]

if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.

And evolution could have been guided by a god.

 

[JasonClark]

And evolution could have been guided by a god.

Or even the giant pink wombat, who knows?

 

[Cearbhall]

Or even the giant pink wombat, who knows?

Sure, why not. As long a belief doesn't contradict reality, I have no problem with it. Theistic evolution is better than nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Theistic evolution is better than nothing.

Why do I never hear about "theistic" germs, "theistic" gravity, "theistic" heliocentrism, "theistic" plate tectonics, etc?

What is it about evolution that it apparantly requires the "theistic" qualifier?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it about evolution that it apparantly requires the "theistic" qualifier?

God.

 

[JasonClark]

Why do I never hear about "theistic" germs, "theistic" gravity, "theistic" heliocentrism, "theistic" plate tectonics, etc?

What is it about evolution that it apparantly requires the "theistic" qualifier?

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.