Evolution- messy but fascinating

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Back on topic ...

This "horizontal gene transfer" is fascinating, and it is of special importance to scientific right now. Understand the transfer of these genes can help us understand how to prevent and cure genetic diseases.

 

[Syriusly]

Back on topic ...

This "horizontal gene transfer" is fascinating, and it is of special importance to scientific right now. Understand the transfer of these genes can help us understand how to prevent and cure genetic diseases.

Thanks- I know that the article is complicated for those who deny science but it is fascinating look at how our understanding of evolution is expanding

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Kosh-if I may ask, what do you practice?

What I practice is not relevant, what I do is mock the far left and their beliefs. You know like they do others?

But yes anyone can practice what they believe, it is up to them..

So is it your opinion that the belief of evolution is primarily the domain of the far?

No I am mocking the far left and the OP who started this thread.

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution

I know the far left drone troll was not serious in wanting to discuss this issue.

So they believe because they are told to believe and have shown they do not understand it or practice it.

I am a conservative, I also realize that anybody who denies that there is evidence of evolution is either a religious nut or a scientifically illiterate.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Kosh-if I may ask, what do you practice?

What I practice is not relevant, what I do is mock the far left and their beliefs. You know like they do others?

But yes anyone can practice what they believe, it is up to them..

So is it your opinion that the belief of evolution is primarily the domain of the far?

No I am mocking the far left and the OP who started this thread.

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution

I know the far left drone troll was not serious in wanting to discuss this issue.

So they believe because they are told to believe and have shown they do not understand it or practice it.

Dang you complain a lot. When you are done whining...would you like to tell us how you would suggest someone "practice" evolution?

Would it be like "practicing" the theory of gravity, by jumping out of a plane without a parachute?

Fort Fun- don’t bother with Kosh. He’s an admitted troll with no point to make.

 

[RWS]

We can "practice evolution" by having sex and having babies.

We can "practice Christianity" by having sex with babies....

jus sayin...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We can "practice evolution" by having sex and having babies.

We can "practice Christianity" by having sex with babies....

jus sayin...

Damn

 

[Old Rocks]

That sounds suspiciously like LaMarckism . By what mechanism would you suggest the education alters the genetics of a living human, or its gametes?

Not sure who/what LaMarckism is or why you would find it suspicious but mine is just an idea I believe but would not try to sell as a certainty.

as for the "mechanism" I can only guess it would be our genes themselves, they would absorb information in the same way brain cells do [you do believe in that don't you?] and they do alter our minds and they/we do pass that knowledge on to others, and then those genes would pass that on to offspring the way brain cells allow information to be processed by the mind...
one of the lessons of darwin is that whatever we do repetitively through necessity or otherwise will be passed on through evolution, all the Islands of the galapagos have finch on them and each Islands finch had different beaks uniquely suited for eating the food on that particular Island, one cannot simply write that off as coincidence, those beaks developed from the genes adapting to it's environment through the finch's use of their beak.

I suggest you read a good deal more on evolution. I understand where you are coming from, but is simply does not work that way. Your genes do not 'learn'. What happens are random changes, most of which are neutral, many are bad, and a few are beneficial. And those organisms with the beneficial changes survive better than those without in their particular environment, and have more descendants.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I suggest you read a good deal more on evolution. I understand where you are coming from, but is simply does not work that way. Your genes do not 'learn'. What happens are random changes, most of which are neutral, many are bad, and a few are beneficial. And those organisms with the beneficial changes survive better than those without in their particular environment, and have more descendants.

There are several problems with your post .
even if I am completely wrong you are not addressing what I am talking about, Your suggestion that I need read more on evolution shows some confusion on your part. My entire reason for making my original post is based on the fact that the more I read on evolution the more certain I am that my claim probably has some validity and is also one of the reasons I get excited about evolution.

Just look at "fun in indiana's" posts to me, the more information he divulged, the more reason I had/have to believe that there may be something tangible to my claim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just look at "fun in indiana's" posts to me, the more information he divulged,

Which actually was not at all what you were saying ....

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Just look at "fun in indiana's" posts to me, the more information he divulged,

Which actually was not at all what you were saying ....

k

 

[Old Rocks]

it has recently been found that certain genes that already exist may be turned on or off by environmental factors, and then this on/off state passed to offspring.

This was my point, nothing else.

That is not what you point sounded like. You sounded as if you stated that the genetics of an individual could be influenced by thought, and that genetic change would be passed on. Both observation, and the makeup of DNA falsified that hypothesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kosh-if I may ask, what do you practice?

What I practice is not relevant, what I do is mock the far left and their beliefs. You know like they do others?

But yes anyone can practice what they believe, it is up to them..

So is it your opinion that the belief of evolution is primarily the domain of the far?

No I am mocking the far left and the OP who started this thread.

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution

I know the far left drone troll was not serious in wanting to discuss this issue.

So they believe because they are told to believe and have shown they do not understand it or practice it.

Another dumb fuck troll. If you wish to participate, say something that at least sounds a bit intelligent. Thus far, you have just demonstrated that you are a know nothing troll.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

That is not what you point sounded like. You sounded as if you stated that the genetics of an individual could be influenced by thought, and that genetic change would be passed on. Both observation, and the makeup of DNA falsified that hypothesis.

well ok, that is what I was saying, for some reason this post seems to get it while it did not seem that way to me in your other posts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just look at "fun in indiana's" posts to me, the more information he divulged,

Which actually was not at all what you were saying ....

k

It's not meant as a dig on you. It's just that what you are suggesting, even by the mechanism I presented, wouldn't happen in most or nearly all cases. It may happen in some, when genes to code for the new state already exist, but are dormant.

 

[james bond]

The Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of Life

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution- I wanted to share this article that I found fascinating as it explores some of the complicated science and messiness of what we now know about evolution- and how we got here.

In particular what I found fascinating was horizontal gene transfer- how genes can transfer between species

It's more circular reasoning science. HGT is being used to explain evolution. Evolution explains HGT.

The real science is there is currently no evidence that HGT can occur in the wild between multicellular organisms. These genes are doing what they're supposed to do in the single-cell organism.

 

[james bond]

Syriusly, you criticize me for using the Bible as hypothesis when you use the NYT. One of the most liberal-biased rags of our generation. Even Popular Science is better for science, but probably above your level ha ha.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's not meant as a dig on you. It's just that what you are suggesting, even by the mechanism I presented, wouldn't happen in most or nearly all cases. It may happen in some, when genes to code for the new state already exist, but are dormant.

No no, I never took any of it as a dig, I actually enjoyed this and will look more deeply into evolution and mclarck [sp]

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, you criticize me for using the Bible as hypothesis when you use the NYT. One of the most liberal-biased rags of our generation. Even Popular Science is better for science, but probably above your level ha ha.

Did I quote the New York Times on science? I didn't even realize I was doing so but I would have no problem quoting anything from the NYT's science section.

If you think that the New York Times is one of the most biased organizations of our generation then I think you are just showing what a partisan idiot you are. While I think the NYT is partisan- there are tons that are far worse- even more so- there are few- if any- newspapers in America- with a better journalistic reputation than the NYT.

The funny thing is that you didn't even attempt to read the article. But then again real science is hard.

But then again you believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark that floated above the Himilayas 6,000 years ago....so we have to understand your limitations.

 

[james bond]

Syriusly, you criticize me for using the Bible as hypothesis when you use the NYT. One of the most liberal-biased rags of our generation. Even Popular Science is better for science, but probably above your level ha ha.

Did I quote the New York Times on science? I didn't even realize I was doing so but I would have no problem quoting anything from the NYT's science section.

If you think that the New York Times is one of the most biased organizations of our generation then I think you are just showing what a partisan idiot you are. While I think the NYT is partisan- there are tons that are far worse- even more so- there are few- if any- newspapers in America- with a better journalistic reputation than the NYT.

The funny thing is that you didn't even attempt to read the article. But then again real science is hard.

But then again you believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark that floated above the Himilayas 6,000 years ago....so we have to understand your limitations.

Already you lost the argument using ad hominem attack in the OP and again in your reply. I would not think NYT is serious science. It's easy to defeat. Instead, I would research deeper and see if it's worth it. If you did that, then you'd would have found that HGT is not multicellular. Also, you don't refute that HGT is based on evolutionary thinking. If it didn't use evolution and showed that it happens, then you got some science. What you have is circular thinking. Those were my two arguments which you could not refute.

 

[james bond]

Here's a good article on HGT leaving out the OP's bullsh*t link to NYT and macroevolution. Use some real science and you've got a decent argument.

Horizontal gene transfer | genetics