Evolution My ToE

[Jose Fly]

Oh No! Someone intentionally quoting out of context?

Oh, well, at least it isn't the old well worn...

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
​

I wonder why people have to stoop to doing that. Is it because their arguments are so full of holes that they have to be deceitful?

You also have to wonder why the folks who claim to be on the side of God so regularly stoop to such dishonest tactics.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd be surprised if you would be compelled by the truth. So that was not my intention. I simply pointed out you deliberate attempt to mislead from what is the truth.

If someone says, the sky is blue because someone got a brush and gallons and gallons of paint, and painted it, and I wanted to show them otherwise, with reference, I would clip the section that says why the sky is blue, and provide the link.
I don't need to provide anymore information from the page.
The person can read that for themselves.

So your claim that I left out parts deliberately to make it look like the quote supports my point, even though it doesn't, is clearly false, and a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from the truth - namely, that I am only pointing to one of the facts presented in the article... the other facts, being irrelevant to the one I quoted.

As you did previously in a discussion with me, you quoted Theobald describing a problem but deliberately left out his subsequent explanation of the solution to the problem. As others have noted independently, you attempted to cite biologists quibbling over the details of how evolution occurs as evidence that they are questioning the entire construct, including UCA.

It's not just me who's reached those exact same conclusions about your behavior here.

 

[nPeace]

As you did previously in a discussion with me, you quoted Theobald describing a problem but deliberately left out his subsequent explanation of the solution to the problem. As others have noted independently, you attempted to cite biologists quibbling over the details of how evolution occurs as evidence that they are questioning the entire construct, including UCA.

It's not just me who's reached those exact same conclusions about your behavior here.

Birds of a feather flock together.

 

[Jose Fly]

Birds of a feather flock together.

Dismissive reply noted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seem strange, you used the term "professional biologist". Is there a reason for that?

I can't count the number of times I have been told to go and learn what I don't know, nor understand.
I suppose you can always apply that. Learning is fun... sometimes.

I decided though, rather than send you to find the information yourself, I'd snip out some bits on HGT (horizontal gene transfer)

Transfer of DNA from Bacteria to Eukaryotes\
...Indeed, analyses of accumulating genomic data reveal cases of horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes and suggest that it represents a significant force in adaptive evolution of eukaryotic species. Specifically, recent reports indicate that bacteria other than Agrobacterium, such as Bartonella henselae (a zoonotic pathogen), Rhizobium etli (a plant-symbiotic bacterium related to Agrobacterium), or even Escherichia coli, have the ability to genetically transform their host cells under laboratory conditions.

Numerous cases of HGT from bacteria to eukaryotes have been demonstrated, although this process is assumed to be much less frequent than HGT between bacteria. The early evolution of eukaryotes was marked by endosymbiotic events leading to permanent acquisition of major organelles, e.g., mitochondria that originated from proteobacteria and plastids that originated from cyanobacteria, followed by organelle-to-nucleus gene transfer, usually referred to as endosymbiotic gene transfer (EGT) (6). Whereas the episodic gene transfer via EGT has a demonstrated evolutionary significance, the importance of HGT in the evolution of eukaryotes is still debated

Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes - The weak-link model
About a decade ago, Doolittle et al. raised a question about the number of bacterial genes in protists, speculating that many bacterial genes should have accumulated in genomes of protists through feeding activities 1,2. Back then, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) had been documented widely as a mechanism to gain foreign genetic materials in prokaryotes, but remained largely an exotic concept in eukaryotes, with little substantial evidence. It is now clear that HGT has occurred in all major eukaryotic lineages. Horizontally acquired genes are not only frequent in unicellular eukaryotes 3–5, but also found in various multicellular eukaryotes, including cnidarians 6,7, mites 8, insects 9–12, nematodes 13–15, fish 16, and land plants 17–22. Although reports of HGT in eukaryotes are still frequently met with skepticism, evidence for HGT throughout eukaryotic evolution is abundant and increasing.

In this paper, I discuss issues related to HGT in eukaryotes. Because most foreign genes reported in eukaryotes thus far are from bacteria, I will focus on bacterial genes. I argue that many bacterial genes in eukaryotes cannot be explained simply as gene transfers from mitochondria or plastids; rather, HGT in eukaryotes should be widespread and expected. Further, I propose a mechanism for integration of foreign DNA into eukaryotic genomes during unicellular or early developmental stages, when their nuclear DNA is relatively exposed to potential sources of HGT.

Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution

Horizontal Gene Transfer and the History of Life
Microbes acquire DNA from a variety of sources. The last decades, which have seen the development of genome sequencing, have revealed that horizontal gene transfer has been a major evolutionary force that has constantly reshaped genomes throughout evolution. However, because the history of life must ultimately be deduced from gene phylogenies, the lack of methods to account for horizontal gene transfer has thrown into confusion the very concept of the tree of life. As a result, many questions remain open, but emerging methodological developments promise to use information conveyed by horizontal gene transfer that remains unexploited today.

Evolutionary Consequences of Horizontal Transfer
The true evolutionary role and impact that horizontal gene transfer has had on the evolution of life were only realized recently with the advent of genome sequencing. The above mechanisms have relatively low specificity, and thus allow movement of genetic information even between distant species, with correspondingly profound consequences on the modes of adaptation and the concept of bacterial species (Ochman et al. 2005).

In comparison to descent with modification, horizontal gene transfer offers the possibility for quite drastic adaptation. However, far from questioning the principle of Darwinian evolution, as has been suggested, this mode of evolution underscores the importance of taking into account different levels of selection (e.g., genes vs. genomes) for understanding the evolution of genomes.

Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges
The contribution of horizontal gene transfer to evolution has been controversial since it was suggested to be a force driving evolution in the microbial world.

Recently, several calls have been put forward for a new evolutionary synthesis (Dean & Thornton 2007; Pigliucci 2007; Carroll 2008; Koonin 2009) that encompasses mechanisms other than mutation, natural selection and drift to explain evolutionary changes, such as developmental constraints and epigenetic modifications among others.

Today it seems evident, from the studies discussed below, that horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, the direct visualization of which has been achieved recently (Babić et al. 2008), is an important force driving the evolution of Bacteria and Archaea, as well as that of unicellular eukaryotes, and should therefore also be considered as part of the structure of any evolutionary synthesis.


You can always do some more research, on it.
In a nutshell, scientists don't know. They discover new things that overturn previous assumptions, and their current assumptions can be thrown out tomorrow.

Just as the tree of life was turned into a web, with new discoveries, including HGT... and I am sure there will be more webs, we can wait and see what new surprises may be in store.

However, whatever assertions scientists make, or don't make, the fact is, they don't know, and time will tell.
Did you notice that the discovery of HGT in eukaryotes, has already led to some suggesting that question the principle of Darwinian evolution?

What makes you think that others do not understand horizontal gene transfer? It does not help your case. It is not evidence against evolution. And you need to define what you mean by "Darwinian evolution". If you mean it shows that Darwin was not one hundred percent right the obvious answer is "Well duh!". That would only show incredible ignorance of people that argue against evolution by using that strawman. We have learned a lot since Darwin's time. It has only made us more sure of evolution and how it works. All that HGT shows is that the based of the "tree of life" was not a straight forward branching tree, it was more of a "bush" With shoots going in between the various branches.

And it would really help your posts if you tried to tone down the excessive "green ink" just a skosh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it seems reasonable to realize the other nations thought their god(s) were real. There is a big difference between Yahweh's dealings with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and other lineages. A big difference.

What would those differences be?

 

[YoursTrue]

What big difference is that?

They, like you, believe(d) they're worshiping the right god(s). What makes you any different from them?

Sometimes there were mentions of other gods than the one who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Bible gives references to the gods of the nations. It also mentioned the one "true God." There is only one true God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes there were mentions of other gods than the one who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Bible gives references to the gods of the nations. It also mentioned the one "true God." There is only one true God.

And you think that other religions do not do the same? Wow! That really shows a lack of understanding of religions in general.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they have. And with each generation, we are learning more and more about the contradictions, the out and out falsehoods, and the immorality of scripture.

For example, we have learned that the sun could not have stood still.
For example, we have learned that Jews did not wander in the desert for forty years.
For example, we have learned that the universe is a lot older than the bible states.
For example, we have learned that the writers of the Gospels were not firsthand witnesses to the words of Jesus.
For example, we have learned that there was no global flood that killed almost all humans and animals 4000 years ago.

I haven't learned that about the flood although I know others say it did not happen as recorded. As the Gospel accounts, it appears clear to me they were basically written by those who said they wrote it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven't learned that about the flood although I know others say it did not happen as recorded. As the Gospel accounts, it appears clear to me they were basically written by those who said they wrote it. I also believe that the Jews wandered as recorded and that God can make the sun shine longer than expected when He wants to. I also realize after these many posts that evolution and how it started is a guessing game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't learned that about the flood although I know others say it did not happen as recorded. As the Gospel accounts, it appears clear to me they were basically written by those who said they wrote it.

You have not studied the Gospels very well since they are all anonymous. None of them claim to have be written by anyone.

 

[dad]

Also, don't eat bacon or lobster or clams. I'm sure you go by these old teachings, don't ya?

Christians were not involved or included in ancient restrictions for Israel. Keep up.

Nah! Your Jesus came along and contradicted what His Daddy said, so now you can put bacon around your lobster claw.

Changes are not contradictions. When the post flood world came, there was a change where meat was cool. When His kingdom comes, it changes again, nothing kills any more so no meat. Some narrow minded so called science fundamentalists seem to think all changes are bad, including nature.

I do understand why none of the Commandments said:
Thou shalt not be a hypocrite.

Maybe He wanted to make you feel like you were included?

 

[dad]

It doesn't matter. Your omniscient God knew what would happen. Your omniscient God set them up to fail.

I do not agree that to learn is to fail. For important life lessons we are better off to learn. Either the hard way or some easier way. Adam needed the hard way.

 

[dad]

I am under no delusion that your total indoctrination would allow you to believe anything anyone might say that goes against deeply ingrained beliefs.

? That misfired sentence has what to do with the inability of science to deal in the spiritual?

 

[dad]

Oh, they are detectable! Great! Let's see the evidence for them. I can't wait! You wouldn't just be making another baseless claim, right?

The people eating the loaves and fishes Jesus made for them had the evidence in their hands. The people hugging jesus after He rose from the dead had the Evidence in their hands! People over ages who invited Him in to their hearts and lives had the evidence in their lives. None of this science could detect. The angels talking to people had what they said evidenced by coming true. You seem to think that engaging in history and witness denial, and looking only to what modern science can grab hold of has any reality.

It's not at all irrational to expect evidence for things people claim to exist.

God gives it and has done so all through history. Science sees none, and will continue to be left out of the loop by God probably. They are a body of believers in only the flesh, the physical, the temporal. Then they yell about how they are left out.

In fact, evidence is how we know things exist in the first place

False, you have none for your origin beliefs.

. What is irrational is to believe in things for which there is no good evidence

Good is not limited to what God deniers decide to include in their little box.

 

[YoursTrue]

Dismissive reply noted.

Except it's true. And then you have to wonder WHY "birds of a feather flock together." Evolution? Hmm I wonder. All those different types of birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

... Good is not limited to what God deniers decide to include in their little box.

You're right about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

What big difference is that?

They, like you, believe(d) they're worshiping the right god(s). What makes you any different from them?

I believe the future as described in the Bible is coming, and therefore people will see the difference. Jesus spoke about Noah, and also spoke about the future similar to the days of Noah. You may have heard about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they have. And with each generation, we are learning more and more about the contradictions, the out and out falsehoods, and the immorality of scripture.

For example, we have learned that the sun could not have stood still.
For example, we have learned that Jews did not wander in the desert for forty years.
For example, we have learned that the universe is a lot older than the bible states.
For example, we have learned that the writers of the Gospels were not firsthand witnesses to the words of Jesus.
For example, we have learned that there was no global flood that killed almost all humans and animals 4000 years ago.

You know what I find interesting? That some, I think, believe that Neanderthals were all killed out or died out, don't they? And some (evolutionists and scientists that describe previous cataclysms) also believe that there were great disasters wiping out lots and lots of animals and possibly (?) some of those they claim were close humanoid types. Not that it means one should believe in the Bible, but yet you do believe there were great disasters, don't you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nice duck and dodge. The definition of omniscient is not "knowing what one wants to know and being ignorant of what one does not want to know".

​

om·nis·cient
/ämˈnisēənt,ämˈniSHənt/

adjective
knowing everything.

​

If He did not know beforehand, He is not Omniscient.
If He is Omniscient, he knew beforehand.

What is your belief?

Are you asking me if God is omniscient? No. Does that mean God is not the Almighty Creator with power over the heavens and the earth? No, that He is not omniscient in the sense most people think of omniscience does not mean He does not have ultimate, unlimited power. As the Bible says, no one can check His hand. He knows what He wants to know. He knows what He will do, and has told mankind. He could have created Adam foreseeing what he would do, but He didn't. God knew that Adam could have done what He told him not to do, otherwise He would not have put the test before Adam, warning him. It seems apparent to me (not to everyone) that God did NOT know what would happen to Adam. Some others say God knew in advance what Adam would do. That idea is not consistent with what the account indicates. But that's me. Others have their opinions.