Top 10 Myths About Evolution

[Speedwell]

Are all primates great apes?

No, All great apes are Primates. Primate is an Order to which many Families belong, including great apes, lesser apes, new world monkeys and several families of lemurs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, not what the evidence indicates. In fact, we're undergoing another mass extinction now.... at a glacial pace, of course...

Sure we are, that's why life is flourishing so abundantly.... Now man may make creatures go extinct, but then he hasn't replaced them with new forms so the two are not similar.

Nope! Again, even though there is a major shift at each of these extinction events, we still see the morphological changes firmly rooted in the pre-existing life forms that they derive from. Call it adaptation across generations if that makes it easier to accept.

You can't support that claim. Oh, my bad, this is where we insert the missing "common ancestors" to link forms, right? So your evidence for a continuation will be to appeal to "missing" non-existent forms as evidence?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Are all primates great apes?

Nope, Primates include a wide array of families - such as great apes, lesser apes, new world monkeys, lemurs, etc.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Sure we are, that's why life is flourishing so abundantly.... Now man may make creatures go extinct, but then he hasn't replaced them with new forms so the two are not similar.

Why aren't they similar? The reasons for many species going extinct is inconsequential - that they are is the real measure. With anthropomorphic global warming on the up & up, this trend will continue for quite some time to come. You'll probably speak to someone (if you don't remember a time and place yourself) who will lament that there used to be beautiful flora & fauna where they lived, or where they used to go camping, but now it's not as it used to be - think, boiled frog syndrome - you don't know much different to what you see around you now, but if you could remember when you were young, or if you could see what the environment and climate was like even just a few hundred years ago, you'd likely have a different outlook on how the environment is keeping these days. Every other extinction level event that has ever occurred, took decades or centuries, or even thousands of years in some cases - none of them were instant, not even the meteor impact extinctions.

The balance of the planet's ecosystem will be irreversibly upset and this will cause a chain reaction that will inevitably result in said extinction event. Depending on who you talk to, this process has already started down a track from which it will never return.

You can't support that claim. Oh, my bad, this is where we insert the missing "common ancestors" to link forms, right? So your evidence for a continuation will be to appeal to "missing" non-existent forms as evidence?

We have genetics, even if you were right and we didn't have all the transitional fossils you wish we didn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why aren't they similar? The reasons for many species going extinct is inconsequential - that they are is the real measure. With anthropomorphic global warming on the up & up, this trend will continue for quite some time to come. You'll probably speak to someone (if you don't remember a time and place yourself) who will lament that there used to be beautiful flora & fauna where they lived, or where they used to go camping, but now it's not as it used to be - think, boiled frog syndrome - you don't know much different to what you see around you now, but if you could remember when you were young, or if you could see what the environment and climate was like even just a few hundred years ago, you'd likely have a different outlook on how the environment is keeping these days. Every other extinction level event that has ever occurred, took decades or centuries, or even thousands of years in some cases - none of them were instant, not even the meteor impact extinctions.

The balance of the planet's ecosystem will be irreversibly upset and this will cause a chain reaction that will inevitably result in said extinction event. Depending on who you talk to, this process has already started down a track from which it will never return.

Oh this system is coming to an end alright, and a new one will begin. And man will be the cause as soon as he fully understands matter and so no longer has any excuses. Romans 1:20

But he won't be the one doing the destroying....

We have genetics, even if you were right and we didn't have all the transitional fossils you wish we didn't.

We do have genetics, and they have overturned everything you believed about the Tree of Life.

John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species.

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

So in reality the truth never matches the PR claims most like to put out.

What transitional fossils?

Oh, you mean the ones that occurred from simple mating that you incorrectly label as separate species?

Or the ones that are all missing that you insert to bridge the gaps by calling them "common ancestors"?

Did you think variation is something novel? I need no missing "common ancestors" nor transitional species to get from the wolf to the Poodle. Now in the fossil record, granted you can't see what mated with what from a pile of bones, and you wrongly think the different breeds are transitional and of a separate species, but that leaves no excuse to incorrectly classify the same species as a separate species just to fit your incorrect beliefs......

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh this system is coming to an end alright, and a new one will begin. And man will be the cause as soon as he fully understands matter and so no longer has any excuses. Romans 1:20

But he won't be the one doing the destroying....



We do have genetics, and they have overturned everything you believed about the Tree of Life.

John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species.

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

So in reality the truth never matches the PR claims most like to put out.

What transitional fossils?

Oh, you mean the ones that occurred from simple mating that you incorrectly label as separate species?

Or the ones that are all missing that you insert to bridge the gaps by calling them "common ancestors"?

Did you think variation is something novel? I need no missing "common ancestors" nor transitional species to get from the wolf to the Poodle. Now in the fossil record, granted you can't see what mated with what from a pile of bones, and you wrongly think the different breeds are transitional and of a separate species, but that leaves no excuse to incorrectly classify the same species as a separate species just to fit your incorrect beliefs......

lol... mosaic evolution puts an even bigger spike into the coffin of creationism. My underlying cynicism almost makes me think that creationist websites intentionally post nonsense (Onion style) knowing full well that their followers will repeat it to people who actually understand science. Either way, jokes on you, I guess.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh this system is coming to an end alright, and a new one will begin. And man will be the cause as soon as he fully understands matter and so no longer has any excuses. Romans 1:20

But he won't be the one doing the destroying....

lol! Well, we're already doing the destroying, so whatever it is you think is going to happen, should probably get a wriggle-on...

We do have genetics, and they have overturned everything you believed about the Tree of Life.

lol! Someone forgot to send that memo...

John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species.

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

Can't say I've come across either book, but still, the Theory of Evolution remains unfalsified, it yields useful and practical results all the time and Creationists still try to twist legitimate science out of shape to purport a non-existent narrative that there's some sort of dispute where there simply isn't.

So in reality the truth never matches the PR claims most like to put out.

only for those who have a predetermined belief that needs protecting... you do know that there's Theists of all stripes who have no problem accepting the science - and in fact, you even know there are some even here on this forum who engage in furthering the research in these fields of applicable science! You hilariously deny their first hand accounts of their contributory work...

What transitional fossils?

Oh, you mean the ones that occurred from simple mating that you incorrectly label as separate species?

Or the ones that are all missing that you insert to bridge the gaps by calling them "common ancestors"?

Did you think variation is something novel? I need no missing "common ancestors" nor transitional species to get from the wolf to the Poodle. Now in the fossil record, granted you can't see what mated with what from a pile of bones, and you wrongly think the different breeds are transitional and of a separate species, but that leaves no excuse to incorrectly classify the same species as a separate species just to fit your incorrect beliefs......

Before you start whistling on about Chinooks, where did the Mastiff and Northern Husky that the Chinook derives, come from? Another way to ask, What Wolf mated with what Wolf to get a Mastiff? Another question, is a Wolf a type of Chinook? Or, is a Wolf just another Mastiff? Is a Mastiff another kind of Poodle? So many questions to ask, so little sense to make of it...

Your comical view of genetics is laughable and getting your answer to what wolf mated with what wolf to get all these unique breeds of dogs in just 15,000 or so years will be an interesting foray into your 'special' line of thinking...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

lol... mosaic evolution puts an even bigger spike into the coffin of creationism. My underlying cynicism almost makes me think that creationist websites intentionally post nonsense (Onion style) knowing full well that their followers will repeat it to people who actually understand science. Either way, jokes on you, I guess.

It supports creation. It points to individual bushes, not trees.

The new bush based upon modern genetics.

In all cases they lead back to one, with no branching to other organsims.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can't say I've come across either book, but still, the Theory of Evolution remains unfalsified, it yields useful and practical results all the time and Creationists still try to twist legitimate science out of shape to purport a non-existent narrative that there's some sort of dispute where there simply isn't.

It's never yielded anything useful. I know you confuse antibiotics as an evolutionary invention, but the people that invented all the drugs that led to modern medicine were actually believers in creation....

only for those who have a predetermined belief that needs protecting... you do know that there's Theists of all stripes who have no problem accepting the science - and in fact, you even know there are some even here on this forum who engage in furthering the research in these fields of applicable science! You hilariously deny their first hand accounts of their contributory work...

There are theists that believe the Pope that started the inquisition's were christian too.

Before you start whistling on about Chinooks, where did the Mastiff and Northern Husky that the Chinook derives, come from? Another way to ask, What Wolf mated with what Wolf to get a Mastiff? Another question, is a Wolf a type of Chinook? Or, is a Wolf just another Mastiff? Is a Mastiff another kind of Poodle? So many questions to ask, so little sense to make of it...

How many times must this be answered before you all accept the truth?


PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

It's your confusion in which you believe the opposite is true, when the truth from examining animals in nature found that mating was two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variances.

Your comical view of genetics is laughable and getting your answer to what wolf mated with what wolf to get all these unique breeds of dogs in just 15,000 or so years will be an interesting foray into your 'special' line of thinking...

Your comical view that mutation is required is even more laughable, since mating has a two to three times greater magnitude affect at creating new genetic variance than what you apply to mutation....

But being an evolution fanatic I understand you can never admit that truth to yourself...

 

[Jimmy D]

Can't say I've come across either book, but still, the Theory of Evolution remains unfalsified, it yields useful and practical results all the time and Creationists still try to twist legitimate science out of shape to purport a non-existent narrative that there's some sort of dispute where there simply isn't.

Justa hasn't come across these books either, he's just palgiarizing a Creationist blog (about finches surprisingly).

I just pointed out the nature of these quote mines on Monday. Yet here he is repeating them, if there was ever any doubt about his dishonesty he's just managed to dispel it.

 

[Jimmy D]

It supports creation. It points to individual bushes, not trees.

The new bush based upon modern genetics.

View attachment 233666 View attachment 233667

In all cases they lead back to one, with no branching to other organsims.....

So if they "lead back to one" how does that "one" hybridize?

(A rhetorical question as I believe Justa has me on ignore).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa hasn't come across these books either, he's just palgiarizing a Creationist blog (about finches surprisingly).

I just pointed out the nature of these quote mines on Monday. Yet here he is repeating them, if there was ever any doubt about his dishonesty he's just managed to dispel it.

So if they "lead back to one" how does that "one" hybridize?

(A rhetorical question as I believe Justa has me on ignore).

Oh no, you aren't on ignore, I'm just going to ignore you every time you decide to get disrespectful, so you'll probably only be ignored 99.9% of the time.

Here's the summation of your Monday argument.

""The genomic revolution did more than simply allow credible reconstruction of the gene sets of ancestral life forms. Much more dramatically, it effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology (and arguably, of all biology), the Tree of Life,""

Typical of most evolutionists, you can't see when your high priests statements contradict themselves.

If it allowed a credible reconstruction of the gene sets of ancestral life forms, then the ToL would not have been dramatically overturned. Instead this supposedly credible reconstruction would have supported the evolutionary tree of life.

All of you evolutionists are simply unable to separate the fact (overturning of the Tree of Life) from evolutionary PR (that even if everything we believed has been overturned, why the reconstruction of gene sets of ancestral life forms is still credible)....

You are unable to tell when the blatant contradiction even lies in the same sentence...... Correction - paragraph.... or two sentences back to back....

The ToL - which tells you what ancestors were supposedly accurately reconstructed - has been overturned. You no longer have any viable link to any claimed ancestral form, it dissipated in the genomic revolution. But, like any true evolutionist, they are certainly not going to admit their past beliefs about lineage was in error. So even if the ToL has been dismantled, and there no longer exists any credible linkage to past ancestral forms, they are not going to admit that those past ancestral forms are not ancestral.

You don't get to have it both ways except in your own mind.

What you showed in reality is simply your inability to recognize contradictions and figure out what is truth, and what is simply evolutionary PR.....

I'll say it again, if the genomic data allowed credible reconstruction of gene sets of ancestral life forms.... the central metaphor of evolutionary biology... the Tree of Life would not have been overturned, but reinforced......

Self contradiction that fanatic supporters of their high priests of evolution are unable to comprehend.... Even now that it has been pointed out, you will still be unable to see it and will attempt double-talk to avoid it.... such is the path of fanaticism....

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh no, you aren't on ignore, I'm just going to ignore you every time you decide to get disrespectful, so you'll probably only be ignored 99.9% of the time.

Here's the summation of your Monday argument.

""The genomic revolution did more than simply allow credible reconstruction of the gene sets of ancestral life forms. Much more dramatically, it effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology (and arguably, of all biology), the Tree of Life,""

Typical of most evolutionists, you can't see when your high priests statements contradict themselves.

Typical of most creationists you haven't bothered reading Koonin's book, or even the pages containing the quote, to understand it's context. There is no contradiction.

If it allowed a credible reconstruction of the gene sets of ancestral life forms, then the ToL would not have been dramatically overturned. Instead this supposedly credible reconstruction would have supported the evolutionary tree of life.

All of you evolutionists are simply unable to separate the fact (overturning of the Tree of Life) from evolutionary PR (that even if everything we believed has been overturned, why the reconstruction of gene sets of ancestral life forms is still credible)....

Everything has been overturned? Who said that?

I see your misunderstanding though, maybe read up about why the TOL has been challenged rather than basing your posts on these short, headline grabbing quotes posted on creationist blogs, you might stop making these silly mistakes.

Maybe this paper will help to clear up your misunderstanding of what Koonin was alluding to...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158114/

Once universal characters were available for all organisms, the Darwinian vision of a universal representation of all life and its evolutionary history suddenly became a realistic possibility. Increasing reference was made to this universal, molecule-based phylogeny as the "comprehensive" tree of the "entire spectrum of life" [13-17].

However, somewhat paradoxically, the very process of building phylogenies with molecules revealed the extent of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and thereby threatened the TOL concept in regard to its core ideas of a unique ever-bifurcating branching pattern. Inter- and intra-species reticulation was a problem even when limited genetic datasets were available, but became a major issue with the advent of genomics in the 1990s. While genomic data has massively enabled comparative evolutionary analyses of microbes [18]), it has simultaneously exposed the mosaic nature of archaeal and bacterial genomes and the sheer amount of HGT that has occurred over the course of evolution (e.g., [19-22]. Although this reticulation is most extensive in the evolution of prokaryotes, eukaryotes have also increasingly been caught in the act [23-26]. 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

You are unable to tell when the blatant contradiction even lies in the same sentence...... Correction - paragraph.... or two sentences back to back....

Really? You spotted a contradiction in his writing that Koonin couldn't see? Even without seeing the context it was written in?

Given your track record for misunderstanding scientific papers I think your hubris is misplaced.

You are unable to tell when the blatant contradiction even lies in the same sentence...... Correction - paragraph.... or two sentences back to back....

The ToL - which tells you what ancestors were supposedly accurately reconstructed - has been overturned. You no longer have any viable link to any claimed ancestral form, it dissipated in the genomic revolution. But, like any true evolutionist, they are certainly not going to admit their past beliefs about lineage was in error. So even if the ToL has been dismantled, and there no longer exists any credible linkage to past ancestral forms, they are not going to admit that those past ancestral forms are not ancestral.

Again, you are completely wrong. What makes you think that "there no longer exists any credible linkage to past ancestral forms"? Koonin says the opposite...

"The opportunity to compare the complete genome sequences of thousands of organisms from all walks of life has qualitatively changed the landscape of evolutionary biology. Our inferences about extinct, ancestral life forms are not anymore the wild guesses they used to be (at least for organisms with no fossil record). On the contrary, comparing genomes reveals numerous genes that are conserved in major groups of living beings (in some cases even in all or most of them) and thus gives us a previously unimaginable wealth of information and confidence about the ancestral forms."

This paragraph immediately precedes your quote mine, I suggest that you read on.

You don't get to have it both ways except in your own mind.

What you showed in reality is simply your inability to recognize contradictions and figure out what is truth, and what is simply evolutionary PR.....

I'll say it again, if the genomic data allowed credible reconstruction of gene sets of ancestral life forms.... the central metaphor of evolutionary biology... the Tree of Life would not have been overturned, but reinforced......

Seriously, basing your whole understanding of this on a short truncated paragraph is not the best idea. Your last paragraph demonstrates this as what Koonin is actually saying is the exact opposite of your caricature.

The TOL is overturned precisely because the genomic data allows credible reconstruction of gene sets of ancestral life forms.

Self contradiction that fanatic supporters of their high priests of evolution are unable to comprehend.... Even now that it has been pointed out, you will still be unable to see it and will attempt double-talk to avoid it.... such is the path of fanaticism....

I respectfully hope my post helped clear up your misunderstandings.

Might I suggest that Creationist blogs aren't the best place for learning about biology. Please read through the links I've provided before replying, it's patently obvious when one tries to talk authoritatively on a topic one is ignorant on. (Based on your track record I expect that you will stubbornly double-down on your misunderstanding, but we live in hope!)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Typical of most creationists you haven't bothered reading Koonin's book, or even the pages containing the quote, to understand it's context. There is no contradiction.

Like I predicted. Double-talk...

Everything has been overturned? Who said that?

I see your misunderstanding though, maybe read up about why the TOL has been challenged rather than basing your posts on these short, headline grabbing quotes posted on creationist blogs, you might stop making these silly mistakes.

Maybe this paper will help to clear up your misunderstanding of what Koonin was alluding to...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158114/

Once universal characters were available for all organisms, the Darwinian vision of a universal representation of all life and its evolutionary history suddenly became a realistic possibility. Increasing reference was made to this universal, molecule-based phylogeny as the "comprehensive" tree of the "entire spectrum of life" [13-17].

However, somewhat paradoxically, the very process of building phylogenies with molecules revealed the extent of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and thereby threatened the TOL concept in regard to its core ideas of a unique ever-bifurcating branching pattern. Inter- and intra-species reticulation was a problem even when limited genetic datasets were available, but became a major issue with the advent of genomics in the 1990s. While genomic data has massively enabled comparative evolutionary analyses of microbes [18]), it has simultaneously exposed the mosaic nature of archaeal and bacterial genomes and the sheer amount of HGT that has occurred over the course of evolution (e.g., [19-22]. Although this reticulation is most extensive in the evolution of prokaryotes, eukaryotes have also increasingly been caught in the act [23-26]. 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

Oh I already understood that it is the process of horizontal gene transfer by ERV infection that makes you believe life is vertically related...

Really? You spotted a contradiction in his writing that Koonin couldn't see? Even without seeing the context it was written in?

Given your track record for misunderstanding scientific papers I think your hubris is misplaced.

That's what happens when you got to appease your peers, instead of simply stating the truth. You got to contradict yourself anf pretend the contradiction doesn't exist.

My track record is fine. I understand clearly that HGT is misunderstood and simply points to when infection occurred - not a lineage.

It seems to be you that understands HGT is prevalent, but then want HGT to mean only vertical inheritance....

Again, you are completely wrong. What makes you think that "there no longer exists any credible linkage to past ancestral forms"? Koonin says the opposite...

"The opportunity to compare the complete genome sequences of thousands of organisms from all walks of life has qualitatively changed the landscape of evolutionary biology. Our inferences about extinct, ancestral life forms are not anymore the wild guesses they used to be (at least for organisms with no fossil record). On the contrary, comparing genomes reveals numerous genes that are conserved in major groups of living beings (in some cases even in all or most of them) and thus gives us a previously unimaginable wealth of information and confidence about the ancestral forms."

This paragraph immediately precedes your quote mine, I suggest that you read on.

Genes just admitted above that are due to "the sheer amount of HGT that has occurred". I find confusing why you think all life wouldn't share a common base, being all life was created from the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons as exists in everything.

Seriously, basing your whole understanding of this on a short truncated paragraph is not the best idea. Your last paragraph demonstrates this as what Koonin is actually saying is the exact opposite of your caricature.

The TOL is overturned precisely because the genomic data allows credible reconstruction of gene sets of ancestral life forms.

Life forms in which the sheer amount of HGT occurred because of viral infection, which you then claim shows lineage, which in reality simply points to a time of infection in both species....

I respectfully hope my post helped clear up your misunderstandings.

Might I suggest that Creationist blogs aren't the best place for learning about biology. Please read through the links I've provided before replying, it's patently obvious when one tries to talk authoritatively on a topic one is ignorant on. (Based on your track record I expect that you will stubbornly double-down on your misunderstanding, but we live in hope!)

It's helped clear up the fact you still ignore that mutation is simply rewriting of "what already exists" in a new format, just as with mating....

It's helped clear up the fact that you admit that HGT as been prevalent from infection, then want to claim it's those ERV sites that point to continued lineage, instead of infection point of two separate species.

Hey, maybe you should claim electric fields in the past did it too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/health/gene-editing-cancer.html

 

[Jimmy D]

Like I predicted. Double-talk...

What are you going on about? Double talk?

What's confusing you ?

Oh I already understood that it is the process of horizontal gene transfer by ERV infection that makes you believe life is vertically related...

Does this mean that you agree with the paper I cited?

I never said anything about life being "vertically related" because of the "process of horizontal gene transfer by ERV infection" . Stop inventing things that you think I have said or believe, it's annoying, dishonest and pointless.

That's what happens when you got to appease your peers, instead of simply stating the truth. You got to contradict yourself anf pretend the contradiction doesn't exist.

What contradiction?

My track record is fine. I understand clearly that HGT is misunderstood and simply points to when infection occurred - not a lineage.

It seems to be you that understands HGT is prevalent, but then want HGT to mean only vertical inheritance....

Stop inventing things that you think I have said or believe, it's annoying, dishonest and pointless.

Genes just admitted above that are due to "the sheer amount of HGT that has occurred". I find confusing why you think all life wouldn't share a common base, being all life was created from the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons as exists in everything.

What has this got to do with what I posted?

You claimed ""there no longer exists any credible linkage to past ancestral forms"? Whereas Koonin, who were were quote mining as if he's an authority, states the opposite.

Life forms in which the sheer amount of HGT occurred because of viral infection, which you then claim shows lineage, which in reality simply points to a time of infection in both species....

Stop inventing things that you think I have said or believe, it's annoying, dishonest and pointless.

It's helped clear up the fact you still ignore that mutation is simply rewriting of "what already exists" in a new format, just as with mating....

Stop inventing things that you think I have said or believe, it's annoying, dishonest and pointless.

It's helped clear up the fact that you admit that HGT as been prevalent from infection, then want to claim it's those ERV sites that point to continued lineage, instead of infection point of two separate species.

Stop inventing things that you think I have said or believe, it's annoying, dishonest and pointless.

I'm not really sure what the point of your whole post is, I was merely trying to explain what Koonin meant in the quote you posted.

The point he was making is summed up more or less in the paper I cited...

However, somewhat paradoxically, the very process of building phylogenies with molecules revealed the extent of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and thereby threatened the TOL concept in regard to its core ideas of a unique ever-bifurcating branching pattern.

It's nothing to get worked up about and I wonder why you posted it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just more dishonest copy pasta quote mines from cdesign proponenetsists.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

For creos, it’s more about the agenda than being accurate.

Meh, you can lead a horse to water...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The point he was making is summed up more or less in the paper I cited...

However, somewhat paradoxically, the very process of building phylogenies with molecules revealed the extent of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and thereby threatened the TOL concept in regard to its core ideas of a unique ever-bifurcating branching pattern.

It's nothing to get worked up about and I wonder why you posted it.

Exactly. HGT threatens the core TOL concept because it shows there isn't a ever-bifurcating branching system. Instead it shows insertion of foreign genomes at specific times, not a continuation of forms down through the ages.

So I agree, the point he was making was that HGT threatens the very core concept of evolution by showing that foreign genomes have been inserted, not that the lifeforms are a continuation of one to the next through hereditary or a ever-bifurcating branching pattern.....

I see nothing to contradict my views, only your ever-bifurcating branching pattern in your TOL.

I'd downplay that too as unimportant if I was in your shoes.....

 

[HitchSlap]

Exactly. HGT threatens the core TOL concept because it shows there isn't a ever-bifurcating branching system. Instead it shows insertion of foreign genomes at specific times, not a continuation of forms down through the ages.

So I agree, the point he was making was that HGT threatens the very core concept of evolution by showing that foreign genomes have been inserted, not that the lifeforms are a continuation of one to the next through hereditary or a ever-bifurcating branching pattern.....

I see nothing to contradict my views, only your ever-bifurcating branching pattern in your TOL.

I'd downplay that too as unimportant if I was in your shoes.....

https://media0ch-a.akamaihd.net/13/50/e9607af574ebde28f97125cca950accf.jpg

 

[Jimmy D]

Exactly. HGT threatens the core TOL concept because it shows there isn't a ever-bifurcating branching system. Instead it shows insertion of foreign genomes at specific times, not a continuation of forms down through the ages.

So I agree, the point he was making was that HGT threatens the very core concept of evolution by showing that foreign genomes have been inserted, not that the lifeforms are a continuation of one to the next through hereditary or a ever-bifurcating branching pattern.....

I see nothing to contradict my views, only your ever-bifurcating branching pattern in your TOL.

I'd downplay that too as unimportant if I was in your shoes.....

It seems that you never ‘see’ anything that might contradict your claims but I’ve said my piece on the matter.

Hopefully any lurkers will be able to discern who’s misrepresenting Koonin’s words.

 

[HitchSlap]

It seems that you never ‘see’ anything that might contradict your claims but I’ve said my piece on the matter.

Hopefully any lurkers will be able to discern who’s misrepresenting Koonin’s words.

Don’t sweat it. We all know the creo game.