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

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

 

[whois]

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

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.

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 question here is, how much of that is due to gene duplication by the organisms?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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).

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

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.

 

[whois]

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

don't you think it's prudent to have some evidence before you accuse someone?

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.

we have at least one molecular biologist on record saying it's a failure.
we do not even have a working model.

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

that's assuming the airplane will get off the ground.
we can't even get it to roll down the runway.

 

[crjmurray]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

we have at least one molecular biologist on record saying it's a failure.

Once scientist does not a community make.

we do not even have a working model.

We have the Modern Synthesis which continues to explain the vast majority of observations in the genetics of complex eukaryotes.

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't even know yet how this is all going to play out.

Yes, we do. HGT of different genetic material would show up as indels when we compare the human and chimp genomes. More than 98% of the genomes align which means that HGT is only 2% at the most, and probably much less since that 2% includes insertions and deletions that are not HGT.

Do you go where the evidence leads or do you doggedly hold on to what you are comfortable with?

I follow the data. Notice how I keep referring to the data and you keep ignoring it?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

You believe?

Have any data?

 

[Loudmouth]

the paper i cited stated 223 protein sequences due to HGT from bacteria.

Out of how many proteins?

most of the genome, as you know, is composed of junk (or non coding) genes.

Non-coding genes would be closer to pseudogenes which are a subclass of junk DNA, just so we are on the same page. Only a minority of junk DNA is pseudogenes.

the paper outlines 3 important genes that was "inherited" by HGT.

How many genes were inherited by VGT?

 

[[serious]]

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.

How do we know those are the only two choices?

Off the top of my head, other possible options:
3. Life arose by spontaneous generation
4. Life was seeded into this universe from another via wormhole
5. life was actually originally created in the future and someone went back in time to plant life here in the past.

Now, even if each of those are also ruled out, you see that someone was able to come up with options you hadn't. no doubt, others could come up with options I hadn't.

It's basically the definition of a false dilemma fallacy

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How many genes were inherited by VGT?

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 and produce a new breed in one single birthing. So your claims of the time required are clearly erroneous.

 

[whois]

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 find this type of argument hilarious.
most of them are indeed science sources, but i've also used magazine and news sources too.
i have also used material from creationist sites.
i'm sorry if certain posters have a problem with that.
if they choose to attack the source instead of what the source says, then that's their problem, not mine.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unknowable, since you can not tell which genes are original, and which genes were inserted by HGT.

Then how can you make the claim that HGT occurs in the first place?

Because all genes inserted by HGT would thereafter proceed by VGT as genes are continued to be passed down generation to generation.

Hold on. You are saying that VGT happens? Doesn't that disprove HGT (according to your backwards logic)?

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.

So where is the DNA of past creatures that you are using to evidence past HGT events?

Yet in real life we see the Husky and Mastiff mate . . .

Where did the Husky and Mastiff come from?