What about the DNA evidence?

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok ive been just wrapping what i say with quotes. I will highlight what i have said by right clicking and dragging over text and then hit quote. This will put a quote at the beginning and the end.

So i have to just put 1 quote after what you say and not at the beginning of what i say. Then i put another quote at the begi9nning of the next bit you say but not at the end of what i say. How do you do a quote if you want to just put one like that. I only know to do it by wrapping the text. I had asked this before as i couldn't find any instructions in the how to section and wasn't sure. Will this then make my writing different to yours like you have with the straight writing and and mine is slanted. Rather then them being the same.

you would put a beginning quote

then another beginning quote before this sentence, then two end quotes

like so. To do it manually type beginning [ quote ] and end [/ quote ] with no spaces between the brackets. I also believe [ q ] and [ /q ] works.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well the best evidence and area of science i regard as most reliable is the genetics. Evolutionist try to link creatures by their look and similar features. We all know this is shaky as it is an observation without any definite confirmation.

When they started to look at the genetics and match it to what evolutionists were saying and predicting it was showing a different picture. It was linking different looking creatures together when it should have shown that creatures that looked like they came from each other should have the closet genetics. HGT also showed that there were other ways for creatures to get their features so this also made it harder to tell where they came from and what features were a result of natural selection. More and more genetics is showing a different tree in fact a hedge rather than a tree thanks to gene transfer. It is placing and linking creatures and organism that look like they dont belong together and taking others out of the neat line and branches that evolutionist had built. Therefore it has and is creating more gaps and making it harder to prove evolution in the way Darwin made it and could also be showing that the evolution theory as we know is completely wrong.

These days, phylogeneticists – experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life – suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.
“It has become common for top-notch studies to report genealogies that strongly contradict each other in where certain organisms sprang from, such as the place of sponges on the animal tree or of snails on the tree of mollusks


Untangling the Tree of Life


For a century and a half evolutionary biologists have been trying to prove that this tree is real rather than just a mental concept or a taxonomic tool for naming things. The discovery of DNA was thought to be the answer to validating the hereditary associations of different species. By sequencing the genetic material of living things it was predicted that the relationships of animals could be shown to be real; ultimately supporting the idea that similar beings share ancestry. Gene sequences were thought to enable an unbiased proof of evolution through the construction of molecular phylogenetic trees. It was hoped that random modification in the DNA code would allow scientists to literally visualize the history of evolutionary change. However, what actually has happened is that an entirely new genetic branch of life was discovered; totally unrelated to the bacteria or multicellular organisms.


Molecular phylogeny discovers an entire new branch of life form – the archaebacteria.
The discovery of the archaeal bacteria established an entirely new branch of biology. And now there is more unrelated organism to deal with than related organisms. Molecular phylogeny created new problems for evolution and has not answered any problems save the revelation of a failed theory.

I repeat, the development of a tree of related species has proven to be false. Gene sequence alignments create “networks” of connections of completely different, obviously unrelated types of beings. DNA did not and will not conform to descent with modification.
For example, 2000 gene sequences common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes were compared.1 Theoretically, the results should have constructed a tree that revealed evolutionary relationships. However, different genes aligned in different sequence among the 6 types of life forms. No tree is possible in such an analysis. Ultimately, there appears to be no consistent relationship among these animals.


Molecular phylogeny represented as trees, the result of DNA sequence alignments, has failed to support biological evolution.

The evidence in molecular biology damns the descent with modification hypothesis. New evidence does not just blur the edges of this incredibly poor hypothesis but it erases its hold on biological science altogether.


[FONT=&quot]Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog[/FONT]

The Darwin tree of life is wrong and shows that many of the branches are wrong

Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".

But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.
[FONT=&quot]Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

[/FONT] Similarities are often used as arguments for evolution. But lack of similarities is never accepted as an argument against it. The similarity of the shape of my hand and that of a frog is an argument for common ancestry. The difference between mine and that of a horse or a bat is not. And yet the latter are supposed to be closer relatives of mine.
The same logic is used when claiming that the universality of the genetic system (DNA-RNA-protein) proves common ancestry. There are many biochemical systems that are not universal. They are specific for some groups of organisms and absent in others. These are never accepted as arguments against evolution.
Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic2 distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic3 sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus,4 not Darwin.
[FONT=&quot]Professor of Genetics Says ''No!'' to Evolution - Answers in Genesis


[/FONT]

Oh they use the differences, that is how they come up with a Lion and a Tiger being two separate species, even though they interbreed with fertile offspring, the prime definition of species. They just don't use it as you point out as an argument against evolution and instead mere variation. Instead they separate kinds into so many different species based on these differences the whole classification system is a complete and utter mess.

Got to get their names in the books for discovering a new species don't you know, and you don't do that by simply discovering another variation of a species. Sideways gene transfer, can we spell variation not evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh they use the differences, that is how they come up with a Lion and a Tiger being two separate species, even though they interbreed with fertile offspring, the prime definition of species.

If they interbreed, why are there lions and tigers? Also, ligers are usually infertile and they don't occur in the wild. They are, by definition, separate species. They are two populations with extremely limited gene flow between them.

You still have not defined what features a fossil needs in order to be transitional. We are still waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

justa, the offspring of lions and tigers have very limited fertility. It is higher than the fertility of horses and donkeys, i.e. mules, but it is still extremely low.

Do I need to link the articles that point this out to you again?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

justa, the offspring of lions and tigers have very limited fertility. It is higher than the fertility of horses and donkeys, i.e. mules, but it is still extremely low.

Do I need to link the articles that point this out to you again?

Who cares what you think? The point is they produce fertile offspring. Do we need to point out evolutionists description of species again?

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring"

Limited fertility, if you say so.

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y). According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[15]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara"

Liger (Panthera leo × Panthera tigris) - Animals - A-Z Animals - Animal Facts, Information, Pictures, Videos, Resources and Links

"Most Ligers are created through the accidental introduction of Lions and Tigers in the same enclosure although it can take up to a year for the two to mate. After mating the male Lion with the female Tiger, the Tiger gives birth to a litter of between 2 and 4 Liger cubs after a gestation period that lasts for about 100 days"

So you mistake the animals natural inclination to mate Lion to Lion and Tiger to Tiger with infertility. It is the male that is usually infertile having X and Y, while the female has two X. The Y caries the SRY gene responsible for sperm production.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If they interbreed, why are there lions and tigers? Also, ligers are usually infertile and they don't occur in the wild. They are, by definition, separate species. They are two populations with extremely limited gene flow between them.

You still have not defined what features a fossil needs in order to be transitional. We are still waiting.

They don't occur in the wild because they live in completely different habitats. My god people, you will use any excuse won't you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tig...mFoSergHv-oGwAQ&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=929

https://www.google.com/search?q=lio...YGM-tqQGox4GoCw&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=929

They don't even live on the same continent anymore, of course they don't interbreed in the wild.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you show me innumerable intermediate fossils as is required by evolutionary theory, then you can ask what defines a transitory species. Until then there is nothing but make believe. Darwin required innumerable intermediate's, the fossil record shows only stasis, from the first of every species to the last. The leaps of faith in between is just that, imagination and leaps of faith.

Innumerable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"too many to be numbered : countless"

So they should outnumber the ones in stasis, but sorry, no such evidence exists, except in your own minds.

 

[stevevw]

Oh they use the differences, that is how they come up with a Lion and a Tiger being two separate species, even though they interbreed with fertile offspring, the prime definition of species. They just don't use it as you point out as an argument against evolution and instead mere variation. Instead they separate kinds into so many different species based on these differences the whole classification system is a complete and utter mess.

Got to get their names in the books for discovering a new species don't you know, and you don't do that by simply discovering another variation of a species. Sideways gene transfer, can we spell variation not evolution.

Its like what the link has said they use similarities to show the links. Like Archaeopteryx they use the wings but dont look at the differences. As more discoveries come along it starts to show that those differences were there for a reason because it was not a bird and it was a dino. It was a dino that happened to have wings. But they grab onto the one or two similarities and use that. If they could do DNA tests it would have settled a long time ago. But because its based on observation they can get away with making these claims until its proved wrong.

The DNA should match the predictions they have made with the fossil records and the connections they have made with species and what lines they are in. But it doesn't and the more tests that are doing the more it is contradicting what they have said. It should match it 100% not have these contradictions all over the place. You can match it up in places like with ape to man and that is to be expected. But that doesn't mean that man comes from ape because there is so many other contradictions with the other lines. The links are broken again and again.

The thing is the lion and the tiger look like they are in the same group. From that group you can see sometime in the past or along the way that group gave birth to the great variation of cats. They didn't come from buffalo or dogs they all come from cat like creatures. Whether some cross breading has happened in the past that has also allowed more variation they all come from the same group. Thats the same fro all creatures.

There may even be some cross species breeding that has created more creatures of different shapes that evolutionist mistake as new species that evolved from them. They become more specialized as time goes by. This has happened with humans. All the different species that evolutionist have labeled as links to transform into man are just variations from our own genetic makeup and other genes past through interbreeding and HGT from viruses being passed back and forth. There is also a certain amount of evolution happening like with darwins finches where beaks can change in shape to adapt to the environment they are living with. But thats it thats the limit, there's no fish becoming lizards or lizards becoming birds or dogs becoming cats.

I think they are underestimating the power of these influences because they want to make the links that will show their hypothesis that they have backed and promoted for years. They mistake these variations for transitions from one different creature to the next going as far as saying a dog type creature became a whale. The evidence points more towards creatures being made as they were are then creating the great variations we see by many influences over time.

 

[Shemjaza]

There may even be some cross species breeding that has created more creatures of different shapes that evolutionist mistake as new species that evolved from them. They become more specialized as time goes by. This has happened with humans. All the different species that evolutionist have labeled as links to transform into man are just variations from our own genetic makeup and other genes past through interbreeding and HGT from viruses being passed back and forth.

If it's just variation within a species of humans... why isn't there any real gap between humans and other apes?

Also could you explain what you mean by "HGT from viruses being passed back and forth" because I'm pretty sure that doesn't work as a source of variation in a creature on the scale of a human.

 

[stevevw]

If it's just variation within a species of humans... why isn't there any real gap between humans and other apes?

This still doesn't mean that creatures are made with closely related DNA. If a man is made with a certain DNA makeup that gives him the features he has then it stands to reason that an ape that looks similar in a lot of aspects will have similar DNA makeup. Not because one has come from the other in a evolution sense like Darwin has said. But partly because thats how they are made and the variation comes from the genetics that was already there that has been transferred or influences from other factors such as the environment and HGT. If creatures are created then the blueprint that has been used will be the same for all but with differences that are adjusted in the DNA to make the different creatures. Why use a completely different blue print for each animal. I just think that blueprint and its capabilities are to great and specific as well as having a degree of knowledge and intelligence in it to be something that has come from chance and random mistakes.

Also could you explain what you mean by "HGT from viruses being passed back and forth" because I'm pretty sure that doesn't work as a source of variation in a creature on the scale of a human.

This is something that has come up more recently i think and i am reading a lot about it. There is evidence for it but there needs to be more confirmation. But it seems a lot of tests so far have indicated that there is an influence that is coming from HGT. I am not a geneticists and i understand the basics of what they are talking about. This link goes into a bit. But the fact that there has been so many results and evidences of the Darwin theory and the tree of life being more and more like a thicket or a hedge and is showing a more horizontal gene transfer. The reasons are yet to be fully understood.

Today, biologists disagree on whether horizontal gene transfer plays the prominent role in evolution, or if it just adds noise and makes it difficult to pinpoint the complex branching of the tree of life. Some scientists think that horizontal gene transfer may accurately explain the evolution of the simple organisms such as bacteria, archaea and prokaryotes such as amoeba, but that complex animals evolve vertically. But considering that these simple organisms make up 90% of all species, and have been around for 3.8 billion years whereas multi-cellular organisms appeared just 630 million years ago, a linear tree of complex creatures would be more like a small offshoot of the overall web.
But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals.
While this interrelatedness makes evolution more complex than originally thought, vertical processes still explain how multi-cellular organisms are related to each other pretty well - so the tree is still useful, but just for parts, not the whole. More significantly, understanding the complexity of evolution's branches may reveal that biology overall is more complex than it seems. As New Scientist points out, the field of biology is looking remarkably similar to that of physics around 1900 - just before groundbreaking discoveries in relativity and quantum mechanics revolutionized the field and the way we view the physical world.


Read more at: Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

Still cant get this quoting thing right.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who cares what you think? The point is they produce fertile offspring. Do we need to point out evolutionists description of species again?

Do we need to point out that ligers do not exist in the wild?

 

[Loudmouth]

When you show me innumerable intermediate fossils as is required by evolutionary theory,

You start off with a lie. Not a good start. You have been shown this over and over and over. The theory of evolution does not require a SINGLE fossil, much less innumerable ones. In fact, this thread is about the DNA evidence which you continue to ignore.

then you can ask what defines a transitory species.

How do you know if you have any intermediate fossils unless you define your criteria ahead of time?

You keep telling us that there are no transitional fossils. How do you know that? What criteria are you using?

 

[Loudmouth]

They don't occur in the wild because they live in completely different habitats.

Why do they live in different habitats? If they are the same species then you shouldn't be able to draw a line between lion and tiger habitats.

 

[Dizredux]

One of the major problems with defining species is that nature has few clear dividing lines. There are a several definitions of species according to what is being studied. This is how science works.

The most commonly used definition by scientists of species is the BSC.

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition, known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC) of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

From the Wiki article on species

The key term in that definition is reproductive isolation.

Here it is not can they interbreed but do they? As in all things in nature it can get fuzzy at times. As an example: Two populations that may be able to interbreed but don't because their reproductive cycles come at a different time so they could be considered as different species-they are reproductively isolated. The definition of capability is not as useful in that it can be very difficult to test.

The thing of importance here is that the definition of being able to be interfertile does not always work well. Lions an tigers as an example do not normally breed and I am not sure they will even if their ranges overlap. One can artificially breed them but that is a different thing. Mayr's BSC (reproductive isolation) is a more common working definition of species from what I understand from scientists studying this.

With nature, nothing is simple.

On another note, I see Answers in Genesis being used as a source. Keep in mind that AIG states clearly in its Statement of Faith that:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

They are saying that they will automatically reject any evidence that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible. That is not how science is done and they are basically stating that they will not do science as a principle of faith. For that and other reasons, AIG is not considered a reliable science source.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth,

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

I am still confused on something, and was wondering if the creationists could clear it up for me.

Archaeopteryx is classified as a dinosaur. Why does that disqualify Arachaeopteryx as being a transitional?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Its like what the link has said they use similarities to show the links. Like Archaeopteryx they use the wings but dont look at the differences. As more discoveries come along it starts to show that those differences were there for a reason because it was not a bird and it was a dino. It was a dino that happened to have wings. But they grab onto the one or two similarities and use that. If they could do DNA tests it would have settled a long time ago. But because its based on observation they can get away with making these claims until its proved wrong.

The DNA should match the predictions they have made with the fossil records and the connections they have made with species and what lines they are in. But it doesn't and the more tests that are doing the more it is contradicting what they have said. It should match it 100% not have these contradictions all over the place. You can match it up in places like with ape to man and that is to be expected. But that doesn't mean that man comes from ape because there is so many other contradictions with the other lines. The links are broken again and again.

The thing is the lion and the tiger look like they are in the same group. From that group you can see sometime in the past or along the way that group gave birth to the great variation of cats. They didn't come from buffalo or dogs they all come from cat like creatures. Whether some cross breading has happened in the past that has also allowed more variation they all come from the same group. Thats the same fro all creatures.

There may even be some cross species breeding that has created more creatures of different shapes that evolutionist mistake as new species that evolved from them. They become more specialized as time goes by. This has happened with humans. All the different species that evolutionist have labeled as links to transform into man are just variations from our own genetic makeup and other genes past through interbreeding and HGT from viruses being passed back and forth. There is also a certain amount of evolution happening like with darwins finches where beaks can change in shape to adapt to the environment they are living with. But thats it thats the limit, there's no fish becoming lizards or lizards becoming birds or dogs becoming cats.

I think they are underestimating the power of these influences because they want to make the links that will show their hypothesis that they have backed and promoted for years. They mistake these variations for transitions from one different creature to the next going as far as saying a dog type creature became a whale. The evidence points more towards creatures being made as they were are then creating the great variations we see by many influences over time.

There is no cross breeding species, merely wrong classifications, since any animal caple of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring is one species, merely variations thereof. They are attempting to break all the laws of biology by claiming cross-species interbreeding, because otherwise their evolutionary theory falls flat. So instead they attempt to ignore the basics of biology, as two separate species have NEVER been observed to breed. Those they claim do so, are simply the same species, as evidenced by the very definition of species.

The same genes have been found in cow and snake. Are we to assume cows and snakes interbred sometime in the past? Foolishness.

 

[CabVet]

There is no cross breeding species, merely wrong classifications, since any animal caple of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring is one species, merely variations thereof. They are attempting to break all the laws of biology by claiming cross-species interbreeding, because otherwise their evolutionary theory falls flat. So instead they attempt to ignore the basics of biology, as two separate species have NEVER been observed to breed. Those they claim do so, are simply the same species, as evidenced by the very definition of species.

The same genes have been found in cow and snake. Are we to assume cows and snakes interbred sometime in the past? Foolishness.

Have you ever had a biology class or read a biology text book? Also, who is "they"? The "man"? And what (non-existing) biological "laws" are "they" attempting to break?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no cross breeding species, merely wrong classifications, since any animal caple of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring is one species, merely variations thereof.

That is not the definition that scientists use which is a population that interbreeds when given the chance. Tigers and lions do not interbreed. They are genetically isolated populations that have diverged to the point that forced breeding produces a high number of infertile offspring.

So instead they attempt to ignore the basics of biology, as two separate species have NEVER been observed to breed.

You have already given us an example of two species that have limited fertility: lions and tigers.

The same genes have been found in cow and snake. Are we to assume cows and snakes interbred sometime in the past? Foolishness.

Homologous genes have been found in cows and snakes, but not the same gene sequence. Besides, cows and snakes are both in the vertebrate kind so I don't understand why you object to them sharing a common ancestor to begin with. They are just variations of vertebrates.

 

[stevevw]

That is not the definition that scientists use which is a population that interbreeds when given the chance. Tigers and lions do not interbreed. They are genetically isolated populations that have diverged to the point that forced breeding produces a high number of infertile offspring.



You have already given us an example of two species that have limited fertility: lions and tigers.



Homologous genes have been found in cows and snakes, but not the same gene sequence. Besides, cows and snakes are both in the vertebrate kind so I don't understand why you object to them sharing a common ancestor to begin with. They are just variations of vertebrates.

It seems there's more to it than that. A study has revealed that a 1/4 of the cows genome comes from the snake. I would have thought being that much thats a bit high to say that its because they are both vertebrates. But its not just cows it seems there's a lot of animals that have this. You would have thought that the cows closer relatives would have had this as well but they didn't find that.

There actually loads of different animals and if you look at the kind of family tree of this gene sequence, you find all these really odd things where it seems like cows are actually closer to snakes than they are to elephants, and there's a gecko that seems to be very closely linked to horses with the amount of this DNA sequence, much more closely than it is to other lizards. So, you're looking at this thinking, this just can't be possible. These results must be wrong. It’s really weird.

Well, we think Darwin wasn’t wrong, so that’s a relief at least, but what it appears to be is that these are what are called jumping genes. So they're genes that can literally take themselves into the genome, copy themselves all around. They're really, really good at doing this but the question is, how have they got between these different species and the answer could be, something as simple as a tick. So parasitic insects that can actually go between say, a lizard and a cow, and transfer these genes in that way, so it’s pretty crazy stuff.

In other words they have attributed it to a tick to explain these crazy results. How else can it be explained. What i dont understand is that it is said to also be in purple sea urchin, the silkworm and the zebra fish. So how does a tick get into them. Once again the results are not matching the links that evolutionist have made and predicted. This and other results are putting doubt into the Darwin theory of evolution and bringing up more contradictory results.

Genes jump from snakes to cows - Nell Barrie - The Naked Scientists

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems there's more to it than that. A study has revealed that a 1/4 of the cows genome comes from the snake.

It shows that the BovB DNA retrotransposon might have come from snakes, but the insertions are still species specific. This is not unlike the ERV evidence. These jumping genes can be moved from species to species just like a virus. Once in the new species they copy themselves and start inserting all over the place. By comparing the sites of insertions we can determine if they were inherited vertically or horizontally.

More importantly, this is nothing like functional genes involved with larger morphological and physiological features moving willy-nilly between genomes. We are talking about retroviruses and retrotransposons whose primary funciton is just to copy themselves.

You would have thought that the cows closer relatives would have had this as well but they didn't find that.

Well, we think Darwin wasn’t wrong, so that’s a relief at least, but what it appears to be is that these are what are called jumping genes. So they're genes that can literally take themselves into the genome, copy themselves all around. They're really, really good at doing this but the question is, how have they got between these different species and the answer could be, something as simple as a tick. So parasitic insects that can actually go between say, a lizard and a cow, and transfer these genes in that way, so it’s pretty crazy stuff.

I would focus on that paragraph.

Once again the results are not matching the links that evolutionist have made and predicted.

Yeah, they are. We are able to tell the difference bewteen HGT and VGT, and the VGT DNA matches the hierarchy we would expect to see.