The Central Flaw of Evolution

It seems like you are dismissing the evidence for fused chromosomes because the segments before and after the point of fusion do not exactly match the chromosomes of the chimp. Even within a single generation you cannot guarantee that two successive offspring will have identical DNA. In fact, if a man and woman have two daughters (not twins) I guarantee that they will NOT have identical DNA. Every generation after that will drift slightly (depending on viruses and other factors), so exactly how "different" are those two segments? Does your source offer any details?

 

I am dismissing the ASSERTION of fused chromosomes, based on several factors:
1. There are other possible explanations for the 'looks like they fused!' assumption.
2. The genes are not the same.. how did you get all this variety in humans from the chimp genes, if the chromosomes merely fused?
3. A virus does not create new genes, or add complexity. No experimentation has shown this belief to be possible, yet it is constantly asserted as proven fact.
4. The 'cumulative, slow changes' are what is asserted, & is the flaw that the OP describes. This is believed, but is not a proven concept. There is a huge hurdle in the genetic structure that does not allow the kinds of changes in the architecture that is claimed.

 

what is this hurdle? where is your actual evidence debunking the foundation of modern biology and medicine? you simply hand waiving and saying "nuh uh" is not in any way convincing, or even an argument.

 

1. Gene splicing happens outside of the laboratory and was involved in shaping evolutionary history

2. Genes can move between species. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than via vertical transmission (the transmission of DNA from parent to offspring). HGT has been shown to be an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.

3. Horizontal gene transfer can increase the complexity of an organism and it can add traits to an organism. The arrival of a new transposable elements in a host genome can have detrimental consequences because transposable element mobility may induce mutation. However, horizontal transposon transfer can also be beneficial by introducing new genetic material into a genome and promoting the shuffling of genes and transposable element domains among hosts, which can be co-opted by the host genome to perform new functions.

""""""Where how demonstrate this claim""""""

The Mechanisms:

There are several mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer

• Transformation, the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the introduction, uptake and expression of foreign genetic material (DNA or RNA) This process is relatively common in bacteria, but less so in eukaryotes.

• Transduction, the process in which bacterial DNA is moved from one bacterium to another by a virus (a bacteriophage, or phage)

• Bacterial conjugation, a process that involves the transfer of DNA via a plasmid from a donor cell to a recombinant recipient cell during cell-to-cell contact.

• Gene transfer agents, virus-like elements encoded by the host that are found in the alphaproteobacteria order Rhodobacterales.

""""""""Where How demonstrate this claim"""""""

In Eukaryotes, "Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic 'domains'.

For Example:

• Analysis of DNA sequences suggests that horizontal gene transfer has occurred within eukaryotes from the chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes to the nuclear genome. As stated in the endosymbiotic theory, chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell.

• Horizontal transfer occurs from bacteria to some fungi, such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

• The adzuki bean beetle has acquired genetic material from its (non-beneficial) endosymbiont Wolbachia. New examples have recently been reported demonstrating that Wolbachia bacteria represent an important potential source of genetic material in arthropods and filarial nematodes.

• Mitochondrial genes moved to parasites of the Rafflesiaceae plant family from their hosts and from chloroplasts of a not-yet-identified plant to the mitochondria of the bean Phaseolus.

• Striga hermonthica, a eudicot, has received a gene from sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to its nuclear genome. The gene is of unknown functionality.

• Pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) contain multiple genes from fungi Plants, fungi and microorganisms can synthesize carotenoids, but torulene made by pea aphids is the only carotenoid known to be synthesized by an organism in the animal kingdom.

• The malaria pathogen Plasmodium vivax acquired genetic material from humans that might help facilitate its long stay in the body. A bacteriophage-mediated mechanism transfers genes between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nuclear localization signals in bacteriophage terminal proteins (TP) prime DNA replication and become covalently linked to the viral genome. The role of virus and bacteriophages in HGT in bacteria, suggests that TP-containing genomes could be a vehicle of inter-kingdom genetic information transference all throughout evolution ]HhMAN1 is a gene in the genome of the coffee borer beetle (Hypothenemus hampei) that resembles bacterial genes, and is thought to be transferred from bacteria in the beetle's gut.

• A gene that allowed ferns to survive in dark forests came from the hornwort, which grows in mats on streambanks or trees. The neochrome gene arrived about 180 million years ago ]Plants are capable of receiving genetic information from viruses by horizontal gene transfer.One study identified approximately 100 of humans' approximately 20,000 total genes which likely resulted from horizontal gene transfer,[58] but this number has been challenged by several researchers arguing these candidate genes for HGT are more likely the result of gene loss combined with differences in the rate of evolution

• Bdelloid rotifers currently hold the 'record' for HGT in animals with ~8% of their genes from bacterial origins. Tardigrades were thought to break the record with 17.5% HGT, but that finding was an artifact of bacterial contamination

HTT has been shown to occur between species and across continents in both plants and animals (Ivancevic et al. 2013

The arrival of a new TE in a host genome can have detrimental consequences because TE mobility may induce mutation. However, HTT can also be beneficial by introducing new genetic material into a genome and promoting the shuffling of genes and TE domains among hosts, which can be co-opted by the host genome to perform new functions.

 

I am sorry for being harsh, but this IS settled science. It is more settled among the science community than gravity and no one doubts its existence. 97% of biologists believe in evolution. 97%! Not only that, but US courts have continually ruled in favor of evolution and even the Catholic Church supports it.

 

The issue is more clear than that though.
The end of each chromosome has a Telomere configuration.
We see that configuration inside the #2 Chromosome which means it had to be fused.

 

Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[10]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional sequences in the middle.[11]

I ask you again to start convincing science minded people that Genesis is correct based upon hat they believe now,... because otherwise,... you chase away religious potentialities.

- - - Updated - - -

... why Us doesn't explain to you that scripture says evolution did happen is beyond my understanding:

Chapters 4, 5, and 10 explain the correspondences of the Genealogy with the species of Paleontology:

 

You know it is science. You know science should be settled . You know it is settled. .
If you don't mind to ask you - is it like in your bro hood against another bro hoods settling the difference of opinions which bro hood sells the stuff at that corner?
So far I think I see you have made the best description of the scientific method accepted by the scientific bro hood of the 21th century.
Oh, man, you are a genius.
You have made a full description of the scientific method of the 21th century science in one short post
Oh, man, you are a genius.

 

Now you're taking cheaper shots.. i've always been fair & reasonable with you.. & you with me. You're not being 'harsh' with any science, but are taking cheap shots accusing me of 'cut & paste'. THAT was my complaint, not that your arguments were so powerful, or the science so settled they sent me blubbering into the corner.

And, BTW, science is not a democracy. Even if a majority of the 'scientists' of the day believe the earth is flat, that does not sway actual reality. I deal in facts, evidence, & reality. The majority opinion means nothing, without evidence.

I see a trend the other way.. more & more 'scientists' seeing the flaws in the ToE. Oh, sure, there are dedicated followers who blindly cling to their archaic beliefs, but those who study the issue without an agenda are starting to get it. More & more intelligent people are seeing through the bluff, & following the science.

 

this seems to me to be a very bizarre bluff. All of this PROVES that genes can somehow be magically created, & new organisms spawned? So now, you're getting away from the old 'Mutation & Time' repetition, & going for 'viruses & gene splicing!' as the mechanism for the ToE.

I'm not sure of the source of your material, but i notice many interesting terms.. 'suggests'.. 'thought to be',, 'bacteria transform genes'.. and many other fuzzy 'proofs' that really say nothing. You have not produced a single experiment that does what you suggest, but only a barrage of technical jargon to mask the impotence of your argument.

Bacterial conjugation? Really? Bacteria having sex in an organism 'creates' new traits? Maybe this bluff works with some of the 'true believers', but you have produced no studies, or anything that even resembles your claim. Are these really your words? Or are you reaching, getting some mumbo jumbo tech jargon to try to bluff your position, which has no validity.

You're trying to correlate some transformation between bacteria to other living things? They are in a different world.. their dna is completely different.. their chromosomes do not match other 'higher' life forms. Trying to say that some action of bacteria & its effect with a yeast is ridiculous. They do not correlate, & there is no mechanism to show that they can.

Most of the other stuff is speculation.. like the hornwort gene.. how can you assume it 'transferred' to other organisms? Bacteria cause increasing complexity, now? Since when? I have not heard this 'mechanism' suggested as a serious theory, but mostly is thrown out to confuse & bewilder uneducated readers in the origins debate. If this is your goal, perhaps it will succeed. But if you are trying to present valid scientific argument for the ToE, you have a little more work, to show actual scientific evidence of the things your points claim. Merely asserting that it 'implies' or 'suggests' or 'believed to' or other disclaimers only shows the impotence of the science.

All you need is ONE. Give me ONE valid argument, with evidence, that supports your 'theory'. Long cut & pastes that say nothing with volume does not help, other than a bluff & appearance of expertise. Use the scientific method.
1, State the hypothesis
2. support it by experimentation.
3. review & scrutinize the conclusions.

Just one will be fine. I have not been able to sift one from your post, so if you think there is some real meat in there, summarize it with a clear example of actual events & repeatable science. ..but make sure it is demonstrating significant updates to the genetic code, & not mere horizontal variation. You should also post the link to your sources, so they can be examined.

And... you do not define your terms. You toss many things around like they are common knowledge, but for most readers on this forum, they are not.

And... if all you have is this kind of bluff & obfuscation, i will be probably tire of responding to them.

How about a real example of gene splicing that would prove the descendancy between chimp & man, as that is the subject of the last few pages. HOW would these human genes suddenly get into a chimp chromosome, that fused or left dangling telomeres, centromeres, & orgasmic alleles all blended together & orchestrated by some mysterious mechanism that can order them into useful, functional traits?

 

By all means, if you think this is not settled science, please tell me why you think this. Now, when I say "settled science" I am not talking about the details, I am talking about evolution as a whole. And what the heck is a bro hood?

 

Please let me know which parts of my last post were "cheaper shots". All I did was present facts, there were no ad hominem attacks or any other kind of fallacies

Science is, in a way, a democracy. When a new theory is presented, a scientist must decide if he/she accepts the theory as true or not. If they do not, they are expected to give a reason and show evidence why it is not true. Then other scientists decide whether if the rebuttal is correct, and if not, give a reason and so on and so forth. Eventually, the new theory is either accepted by the majority scientific community or it is rejected. Now you may say that you have been doing the same thing by showing evidence that the TOE is incorrect, however, the difference is that you are not offering any evidence that you, yourself, have discovered, but rather what someone else has come up with. Even that would be ok, if that information came from a scientific journal instead of a creationist web site. Now, if I am wrong, and you really did research and discover this evidence on your own, then I apologize and you have my utmost respect. Either way however, I would think that something of this magnitude would have been published in a scientific journal and if it was a damning as you say, the scientific community would be all a buzz with the news.

Now, please show evidence that there is a trend where scientists are beginning to reject the TOE. I am especially interested in why 'scientists' was quoted.

 

I think perhaps there is some confusion about the genome in bacteria. They are completely different than most other life forms. They have a circular structure, compared to the coiled, double helix of most everything else. Here are some other interesting graphics about the genome:

About 45-50% of the current gene pool just in humans is unknown, as to function or purpose. Lots of the 'millions' of base pairs are repetitive.. copies of the dna blueprint so that you can't stray from the original design. Bacteria have different parameters that they operate under.. you cannot correlate the actions of the bacterial genome to those of other organisms.

Bacteria can & do vary more WITHIN their genetic structure, modifying their genes on the fly, & adapt to conditions. Here is an article about the bacterial genome.

source
I know this is a mouthful.. and these bacteria don't taste very good, anyway. But the gist of the article is about certain bacteria adapting to conditions, such as antibiotic resistance, on the HORIZONTAL level. They have genes that adapt & change.. this is something observable, & repeatable, & the mechanism within the genes of the bacteria can be defined. IOW, we can see it happening, & it is a real, scientifically proven process.

But to make a leap over to other organisms, or claim they can do this too, is not accurate. It is false. There are SOME genes that can allow more variability, such as Darwin's finches.. which is some birds that have greater beak variability WITHIN that species. They have even isolated the genes in the finch that allows this variation. But the variety of beaks is NOT new & different genes, but the same ones, allowing a wider range of variability. See the difference? We can SEE & OBSERVE the genes working in bacteria, finches, & some other organisms. But those are specific genes, that we cannot observe in other organisms. You cannot correlate this ability in all other organisms. The genes are specific to the organism, & do not apply universally to all organisms.

Also, note the first sentence in the above paper:
Horizontal gene transfer is an important mechanism for the evolution of microbial genomes.
This 'seems' to imply that bacterial gene transfer proves evolution. But the 'evolution' they are talking about is HORIZONTAL, or 'micro' evolution. It is the changing goal posts again.. the false equivalency. Just because you can see the obvious variability WITHIN a basic genetic structure, does NOT mean you can apply it OUTSIDE of that structure. That is another process, & has to be proved, scientifically, not just asserted that they are the same.

 

I do agree with you and I just described "the details", the ways and methods of how it has been settled.
Bro-hood is ghetto, trailer park, scientific community.

 

Endosymbiotic Theory
Mitochondria are spherical or a elongated organelle in the cytoplasm of nearly all eukaryotic cells, including the cells of humans that contain genetic material and many enzymes important for cell metabolism, including those responsible for the conversion of food to usable energy.
Mitochondria contain their own DNA, which is circular as is true with bacteria, along with their own transcriptional and translational machinery. Mitochondrial ribosomes and transfer RNA molecules are similar to those of bacteria, as are components of their membrane. These and related observations led Dr. Lynn Margulis, in the 1970s, to propose an extracellular origin for mitochondria.

Mitochondria do not contain anywhere near the amount of DNA needed to code for all mitochondria-specific proteins, however, a billion or so years of evolution could account for a progressive loss of independence. The endosymbiotic hypothesis might be called a theory, but experimental evidence can't be provided to test it. Only circumstantial evidence is available in support of the proposal, which is the most likely explanation for the origin of mitochondria. The evidence needed to change the model from hypothesis to theory is likely forever lost in antiquity.

However, among other processes, mitochondria contain their own independent machinery for protein synthesis, including DNA, messenger and transfer RNAs, and ribosomes. They reproduce by fission in a manner similar to that of bacterial cells. In fact, the seeming independence of mitochondria from the eukaryotic cell's genetic code, as well as the resemblance of mitochondria-associated macromolecules to those of bacteria, are strong evidence for an endosymbiotic origin for the organelles.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/mitofunction.html

 

I win.

 

Indeed. It is a good tactic for evolutionists.
the old saying says: you can beat them with brilliance you beat them with BS.
And scientists have posted tons of BS for evolutionists to use.

 

An experiment showing there has been horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes (bacteria) and a eukaryote (yeast)

Horizontal transfer occurs from bacteria to some fungi, such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

“””””””The genomes of the hemiascomycetes Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Ashbya gossypii have been completely sequenced, allowing a comparative analysis of these two genomes, which reveals that a small number of genes appear to have entered these genomes as a result of horizontal gene transfer from bacterial sources. One potential case of horizontal gene transfer in A. gossypii and 10 potential cases in S. cerevisiae were identified, of which two were investigated further. One gene, encoding the enzyme dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHOD), is potentially a case of horizontal gene transfer, as shown by sequencing of this gene from additional bacterial and fungal species to generate sufficient data to construct a well-supported phylogeny.””””””””

Hall C, Brachat S, Dietrich FS (June 2005). "Contribution of Horizontal Gene Transfer to the Evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae". Eukaryotic Cell

The Hypothesis:

In order to determine a broader estimate of horizontal gene transfer in a specific eukaryotic lineage, we employed a genome-wide comparative screen to determine the extent of horizontal gene transfer in the S. cerevisiae and A. gossypii lineages. This comparison allows us to identify potential cases of horizontal gene transfer since the divergence of these species; we expect these recent transfer events to be more readily identified and more easily experimentally supported than more ancient events.

The Experiment:

Phylogenetic methods.Accession numbers for all sequences used in this analysis can be found in Table S1 in the supplemental material. Ribosomal small-subunit ribosomal (SSU) DNA sequences used in this analysis were acquired from the European database on small-subunit rRNA (57).
Ribosomal SSU sequences were aligned by primary structure using ClustalX (51). Amino acid sequences for dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHOD) and sulfatase proteins were aligned by primary structure using ClustalX. Alignments were manually refined. All alignments used in this analysis have been submitted to TreeBASE (32). Coding DNA sequences of DHOD and sulfatase genes were aligned from protein alignments. Estimates of phylogenetic relatedness among species were determined using neighbor-joining (NJ) (47) analysis of SSU sequences. NJ trees were constructed in ClustalX using the IUB matrix. NJ trees were bootstrapped in ClustalX using 1,000 replicates.
Estimates of phylogenetic relatedness among DHOD and sulfatase genes were determined using NJ and Bayesian analyses of protein sequences and maximum likelihood (ML) analysis of coding DNA sequences for DHOD genes. NJ trees were constructed in ClustalX using the method of Saitu and Nei (47) and the Gonnet matrix (1. NJ trees were bootstrapped in ClustalX using 1,000 replicates.

Bayesian analyses were performed with MRBAYES 3.0 (21). The Whelan-Goldman protein matrix was used as a substitution model (54). Markov-chain Monte Carlo chain length was 1,000,000 generations run with four chains, with every 100th tree saved. The first 1,000 trees were discarded as “burn-in.” The remaining trees were used to construct a majority-rule consensus tree.

ML trees were constructed in PAUP* 4.0b (50). Likelihood settings were estimated using Modeltest (42). A general time reversible model of sequence evolution was used with the gamma distribution with invariants in all cases. Tree searching was performed using 100 random-addition-sequence replicates. ML tree searches for DHOD-coding genes were carried out both unconstrained and with a constraint forcing all fungal sequences to be monophyletic in the resulting trees. To assess the significance of the difference in likelihood between the constrained and unconstrained ML trees, the Shimodaira-Hasegawa test (4 was implemented in PAUP* 4.0b, using 1,000 bootstrap replicates.

The Conclusion:

Horizontal gene transfer provides a mechanism for genomic innovation and plasticity.In bacteria, horizontal gene transfer is well known as an adaptive mechanism. Horizontal transfer events can be classified into three distinct categories: acquisition of new genes, acquisition of paralogs of existing genes, and gene displacement whereby a gene is displaced by a horizontally transferred ortholog from another lineage (2. All three categories appear to be present in the genome of S. cerevisiae.

S cervisiae is A type of yeast and yeast are eukaryotes.

 

Just because you do not posses the ability to understand Science doesn't mean it's, quote, "BS."....LoL

The computor you are reading right now is the result of science.

 

You wouldn't bother to demonstrate that The computor I am "reading" right now is the result of the same science as the belief in evolution, would you?
You wouldn't bother to demonstrate that I do not posses the ability to understand Science of evolution, would you?

I am a kind of slowly circling around ryobi and weighting pros and contras of spending my time to choke ryobi with BS he has been posting.
Do you have even a slight doubt that if I decide to spend my time I will reduce him to the same state of posting only personal insults and trolling you have been living in
since I decided to spend some time for entertaining myself here?
You know me for almost a decade.
Do you have even a slight doubt?

 

My apologies to the public. I confused one fanatical believer with another one

 

I’ve successfully contested every single point usfan tried to make including this one and he’s simply giving up.

Usfan wrote :

“”””””I tried to point out, with no success, it seems, that the GENES within the organism are very different, & do not flit about & change easily. I believe you attempted to say they did, in the other post, but that is absurd. Gene splicing is a VERY difficult task, & does not happen at all, outside of the laboratory, as far as we know. Claiming that genes can move freely between species is a baseless assertion. Where? How? Demonstrate this claim.””””””

1. Genes flitting about and changing is a good collioqialism for crossing over and independent assortment during meiosis.

2. Gene splicing is not very difficult and it does happen very easily, and it does happen outside of the laboratory. Retroviruses use the enzyme integrase to insert their genetic material into our genome. In fact 5 to 8 percent of our DNA is viral DNA. This genetic material can be inherited and can result in new genes including genes that give an organism a selective advantage. Therefore retroviral DNA has contributed to the evolution of our species.

3. Genes can and do move freely between different species,.including between prokaryotes like bacteria and eukaryotes (we’re eukaryotes by the way) such as Yeast which is the case with the enzyme dihydroorotate dehydrogenase in yeast.

..and most likely even our own mitochondria that are responsible for the conversion of food to usable energy were most likely once bacteria.

Mitochondria contain their own DNA, which is circular as is true with bacteria, along with their own transcriptional and translational machinery. Mitochondrial ribosomes and transfer RNA molecules are similar to those of bacteria, as are components of their membrane.


Moreover, among other processes, mitochondria contain their own independent machinery for protein synthesis, including DNA, messenger and transfer RNAs, and ribosomes. They reproduce by fission in a manner similar to that of bacterial cells. In fact, the seeming independence of mitochondria from the eukaryotic cell's genetic code, as well as the resemblance of mitochondria-associated macromolecules to those of bacteria, are strong evidence that mitochondria were once bacteria.

4....and I demonstrated the "Where? How?

The mechanism is Horizontal Gene Transfer.


Now show me your evidence that plants can talk.

 

Ok. I wanted to read this & sift through what was being said before i replied, & see if there was something missing in my understanding of mtDNA, or the mitochondrial gene, which is a fascinating part of the genome in many living things. It actually contains a traceable history.. a 'proof' of descendancy.. for many things. Canids, humans, equids, & many other 'families' have the mtDNA gene as a traceable part of the genome. I addressed the mtDNA earlier in this thread in the discussion about canids.

The difficult part was trying to discover what is actually being said, here. It is not real clear, and there seems to be an attempt at obfuscation. I'll try to simplify the alleged 'study'.

1. This is not an experiment. It is a theory, based on similarity between mtDNA.
2. This 'theory' alleges that because the mtDNA 'looks like' the single, unbroken strand of a bacterial dna, that proves ancestry. This is a very wild claim.. bordering on the absurd.
3. Similarity in appearance does NOT equate to descendancy, as has been discovered countless times in organic classification. Organisms once thought to be related, from a morphological (looks like) basis have been found to be completely different, genetically. Other organisms, once thought to be completely different, morphologically, have been discovered to be related, genetically. That is the beauty of genetic science. It removes the subjective, visual opinion about descendancy. You no longer have to study the baby's face, to see if it 'looks like' the father, to determine if he's the guy. You can confirm it with real science.

Correct me, if i'm missing something, but this seems to be the core of this argument.. that because the mtDNA is a single unbroken strand, like bacteria, you are correlating descendancy.

The non-bacterial nudna is a long strand with telomeres tying up the ends, & centromeres linking the duplicates together, in the chromosome strand, which is the 'chapter' in the genome of the organism. Perhaps this graphic will help, in showing the difference.



I suppose this is the gist of your post.. that the similarity between a bacterial dna & the mtDNA somehow proves descendancy. But there is a huge leap.. the mtDNA only contains information from the mother, & a 'looks like', visual similarity does not equate to actual identity, & certainly does not prove descendancy. How could it? There are millions of differences between the actual inner workings of the bacterial dna & the mtdna of a canid, for example. They are not the same, in either function or architecture, & speculating they are related based on them looking similar under a microscope is a nice theory, but it has nothing to validate it, scientifically. You cannot DEMONSTRATE how this happened, or repeat this action, going from a bacteria to a canid, for example, yet you assert it as 'proof'.



This is actually not a bad effort.. it's a bluff, i know, because it does not meet the criteria of the ONE, demonstrable proof of the claim. It is, at best, a wild speculation, very similar to the ToE itself. IOW, you have some circular reasoning going on. You are attempting to prove the ToE, which presumes descendancy of living things based on similarities of appearance, with the genetic makeup, that has *some* similarities in appearance as well. But there is a huge chasm between them. The appearance of the mtDNA might be similar, but it is not identical, & it does not prove descendancy. You have a lot of gaps to fill, to show how you got from the circular, unbroken chain of dna to the double helix coils of the nuDNA. They are not interchangeable, & are not identical, so any visual similarity is just that.. a visual similarity. It does not prove descendancy.

The human mtDNA contains 37 genes relating to humans. Bacteria contain anywhere from ~500 to over 4000 in e.coli. Then you have the rest of the human genome, with its 30,000 additional genes.. where did these come from? You still have no mechanism for 'creating' genes & variability in an organism, even if you assume descendancy. How & why did the bacterial ancestral gene go from thousands to 37, in a human, if it was just an mtdna variable?

No, i don't see any evidence of descendancy, here. the claims are big, but the evidence is non existent. There is no path, or mechanism, or repeatable methodology that can show this is even possible, much less that it did happen. This is merely an assertion.. a claim of common descent, with nothing to demonstrate it.

An interesting part about the mtDNA: Since the mother passes it down, all living things that have the mtDNA can be traced. It has been discovered that ALL humans are related, now, & did not evolve separately, in different regions. At one time, evolutionists believed there were different origins for humanity. It was believed some evolved in africa, china, & perhaps n. europe, from similar but different ancestors. Peking man was one such 'link', & neanderthal was another. But since the advent of genetics, & especially the mtDNA, we now can prove ancestry through it. We now know that all living humans have the same ancestral mother.. the mtDNA is proof of that. Some theorize an african & others a chinese origin, but they all agree that humans have clear evidence of common descendancy. A great many people still contain the neanderthal genes, as well, which challenges the previous theory of them being a different species. Since they could interbreed with other humans, they were likely just another tribe of homo sapien, with only morphological differences. We have a lot of that today, even in fairly close proximity. You have tall africans & pygmies, which are very different morphologically, but have plainly evident genetic relation.

I don't know if i'll have time to sift through the other post, as it is even more muddled with technical, undefined terms, but as i said, i know enough to be dangerous, & after reading it carefully, i do, pathetically, understand what is being said. You would think i would have better things to do with my time than babble on about obscure genetic terms on internet forums, but the subject fascinates me, & i'm drawn to it like a nerd to a pocket protector. Thanks for sourcing this post, as i can refer to it for any clarification. Let me know if i need to clarify any of my 'rebuttal' in this reply.

 

The cheap shot was you accusing me of plagiarism.. of not sourcing my post, which are all my own words. I provide a source if i quote someone.
The 'cheaper shot' was after me complaining of your accusation, you twisted it into an appearance of me complaining about the power of your arguments & facts, when no such arguments or facts had been presented.

 

Ok, i'll play along & see where this is going..

Ok, so they mapped the genome of a yeast, & it is hypothesized that the source of a particular gene is from a bacteria.. Is this the 'make hypothesis' stage in the scientific method? Am i getting this right?

This is not really the hypothesis, but it is laying the framework of the hypothesis, which is, more accurately, that there was horizontal gene transfer between this bacteria & this yeast, based on comparing 2 similar looking genes, of which only one was 'potentially' a result of horizontal gene transfer.. so am i getting this right? ONE gene that MIGHT be a result of this claim, among the thousands of genes in the genome? I also see a lot of presumption of the conclusion proving the premise, which is come circular reasoning going on. 'since the divergence of these species' is presuming they DID diverge. The purpose of this 'experiment' is to determine if there is any evidence of descendancy, which has not been proven, yet. How could they 'diverge' if they are not related?

Also, 'to determine the extent of horizontal gene transfer' is assuming the premise. You have to prove that there WAS 'horizontal gene transfer' before you can 'determine the extent' of it. Perhaps that seems like a fine point, but if you're going to be purely scientific about these things, you have to go where the evidence leads, not tell the evidence where you want to go.

Ok, this is getting cute.. very technical, with the goal of obfuscation, it seems to me. I don't see any real comparisons between the single gene from the bacteria, compared to the yeast.. just a bunch of undefined terms, abbreviations, & techno blabber. The gist of this is the comparison of the gene in question.. to see if it is actually identical between the organisms. I don't see any actual number of iterations, or the actual times the gene was compared, or how close it was to the other, so this remains a bit vague.. which seems to be the intent. Summarize it, & produce the data that relates to the hypothesis. How many times was the gene mapped & parsed? How close were they in similarity? 90%? 80%? No data or figures are given.

So here you declare the conclusion, but i do not see any correlation with the data, which has not really been presented. Did the gene compare or not? To leap ahead & go on about gene transfer, when it is not at all clear that this is what took place, is not really a compelling conclusion. 'Well known'? You haven't even demonstrated it, yet, but now are declaring it 'well known?'

You did not post a source for this, so i could not refer to the original 'experiment' whatever it was. I do see a few problems with this 'proof':
1. Out of the thousands of genes, finding ONE that 'looks similar' is not compelling evidence.
2. Proving the premise with the conclusion is circular reasoning.
3. Is there any evidence that these 2 organisms ARE actually related.. IOW, is this merely another indicator of micro evolution, or simple variability, within a gene structure. Are these clearly distinctly different organisms? I will assume they are, since only one gene was examined that 'looked' similar.
4. The parameters of the study.. how it was done, the way the gene was isolated & compared, were not given.
5. The results of the study, the data, the percentages, & the significance of the results were not explained or even presented, that i can tell.
6. The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premise, without any compelling evidence.
7. this seems like a computer model, with the data from another source.. it is unclear. Reference to a table was made, & a 'european database', which was not defined.
8. No data was presented.. just a conclusion with a jumbled mix of obscure, undefined terms that say nothing.

You see, finding even one evidence of the claim is not easy. This is not evidence, but is a convoluted bluff, hoping to dazzle the reader with techno babble, & hope they are intimidated enough to slink off. If you would post the source of this 'study', i could examine it more closely, but i don't think it would aid your cause. It does not say what you hope it does. There is no proof here of horizontal gene transfer.. just 'maybe' the 'potential' that it 'could have' 'possibly' happened... if you squint your eyes right, & hold your tongue a certain way, you can imagine how this maybe could have happened. But that is not scientific evidence. It is merely proclaiming the plausibility of an imagined scenario.