Evolution- messy but fascinating

[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.

Already you lost the argument using ad hominem attack in the OP and again in your reply. .

LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.

Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.

>>Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit<<

What's to discuss? HGT's been around for a while. What did you find fascinating? It does destroy Darwin doesn't it? Another nail in the coffin for tree of life? We can discuss that. I find that fascinating.

One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.

What do I find fascinating about HGT? That for most of history we didn't believe that this kind of genetic transfer was possible.

How does it 'destroy Darwin'? Darwin postulated on 'the origin of the species' - that modern species all descend from earlier ancestor species. Darwin of course didn't know about genetics or genes when he came up with his theory.

What has happened in the last 150 years is that our knowledge about evolution has expanded as our knowledge of biology has expanded. The science- including genetics- still show for example that modern whale species descended from earlier whale species which in turn came from earlier land species. H.G.T. doesn't change any of that- but it does show there are additional ways that genes can transfer- which is fascinating and will need to be incorporated into any genetic research of any species.

 

[Syriusly]

Evolution is ultimately being used as a proof that GOD is unnecessary and replaces GOD in the field of public education.

Too bad, cry us a river. The teaching that pathogens cause disease also upended the idea that diseases are caused by demons. But I don't see you complaining about that.

Ha ha. Pathogens causes disease is in the Bible. As I said, science backs up the Bible.

You say all sorts of incorrect stuff.

 

[Syriusly]

but never practice it

Is there anyone here who can explain what the hell this means?

I believe hes saying the belief in evolution is being a religion itself. Though I dont know why religious people feel evolution is a threat to the existence of god. I for one don't feel that it is.

Evolution is ultimately being used as a proof that GOD is unnecessary and replaces GOD in the field of public education.

Yes- you are exactly correct- just as chemistry is ultimately being used as proof that God is unnecessary, and just as physics is being used as proof that god is unnecessary.

LOL- you luddites.

 

[RWS]

but never practice it

Is there anyone here who can explain what the hell this means?

I believe hes saying the belief in evolution is being a religion itself. Though I dont know why religious people feel evolution is a threat to the existence of god. I for one don't feel that it is.

Evolution is ultimately being used as a proof that GOD is unnecessary and replaces GOD in the field of public education.

Yes- you are exactly correct- just as chemistry is ultimately being used as proof that God is unnecessary, and just as physics is being used as proof that god is unnecessary.

LOL- you luddites.

I agree, especially in that "GOD" should not be in the field of public education.

We should not be feeding "beliefs" as fact to students.

If parents wish to do so, they have all the right to do so. But public education should focus on facts, and mathematics, and science. Even if it pisses the religious people off.

We need to curb future generations from the influence of religious zealots, thinking they are 100% right, and having apocalyptic prophecies for non-believers.

Because as more and more technology gets more readily available to the masses, the zealots will have more opportunity to do bad things to the normal good people of this earth. It's only going to get worse, and that's only because of false religions.

Only religious people want to destroy everyone else.

Atheists want to have peace!

And a religious person can be my neighbor.

To each his own.

 

[james bond]

Pathogens causes disease is in the Bible. A

Shameless.lie.

You don't do Bible. For that matter, you don't do science.

 

[james bond]

I find it amazing that life forms, cells, simple organisms etc have the inherent knowledge/ will for survival to evolve

Why? The ones that don't adapt die out. So, naturally, only those that do survive for us to observe.

Of course dna is stable and persistent...the unstable meolecules that did not persist would not be in abundance for us to obsevre.

This is the work of SELECTION, not magic.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. It's the mind of God. He designed it as such. Not Satan's evolution.

BTW it's molecules and observe. You're welcome.

 

[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. .

LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.

Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.

>>Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit<<

What's to discuss? HGT's been around for a while. What did you find fascinating? It does destroy Darwin doesn't it? Another nail in the coffin for tree of life? We can discuss that. I find that fascinating.

One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.

What do I find fascinating about HGT? That for most of history we didn't believe that this kind of genetic transfer was possible.

How does it 'destroy Darwin'? Darwin postulated on 'the origin of the species' - that modern species all descend from earlier ancestor species. Darwin of course didn't know about genetics or genes when he came up with his theory.

What has happened in the last 150 years is that our knowledge about evolution has expanded as our knowledge of biology has expanded. The science- including genetics- still show for example that modern whale species descended from earlier whale species which in turn came from earlier land species. H.G.T. doesn't change any of that- but it does show there are additional ways that genes can transfer- which is fascinating and will need to be incorporated into any genetic research of any species.

>>One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.<<

You definitely need a clue. What have I been complaining about? Today's science has eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible. It wasn't that way in the past.

So, no they're no open to creation science today.

HGT is still not possible in multicellular cells. It just goes to show that you're clueless reading NYT for actual science.

As for the rest, it goes with your NYT level of science. Thank you not.

 

[RWS]

 

[james bond]

Didn't Mr. Rogers invite you to his neighborhood? I guess not.

Mr. Rogers Was a Counter-Culture Christian Icon, Not Just a Wholesome American TV Star, Says 'Peaceful Neighbor' Author

 

[Old Rocks]

Science addresses the natural processes of nature, not the supernatural mythology of the various religions. No, God has not been eliminated by science, science simply does not address the issue of the existence of a Deity. Science deals in explanations of what we see in nature, not faith in things we cannot see.

 

[Old Rocks]

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. .

LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.

Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.

>>Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit<<

What's to discuss? HGT's been around for a while. What did you find fascinating? It does destroy Darwin doesn't it? Another nail in the coffin for tree of life? We can discuss that. I find that fascinating.

One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.

What do I find fascinating about HGT? That for most of history we didn't believe that this kind of genetic transfer was possible.

How does it 'destroy Darwin'? Darwin postulated on 'the origin of the species' - that modern species all descend from earlier ancestor species. Darwin of course didn't know about genetics or genes when he came up with his theory.

What has happened in the last 150 years is that our knowledge about evolution has expanded as our knowledge of biology has expanded. The science- including genetics- still show for example that modern whale species descended from earlier whale species which in turn came from earlier land species. H.G.T. doesn't change any of that- but it does show there are additional ways that genes can transfer- which is fascinating and will need to be incorporated into any genetic research of any species.

>>One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.<<

You definitely need a clue. What have I been complaining about? Today's science has eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible. It wasn't that way in the past.

So, no they're no open to creation science today.

HGT is still not possible in multicellular cells. It just goes to show that you're clueless reading NYT for actual science.

As for the rest, it goes with your NYT level of science. Thank you not.

Do Viruses Exchange Genes across Superkingdoms of Life?
Shahana S. Malik1†, Syeda Azem-e-Zahra1†, Kyung Mo Kim2, Gustavo Caetano-Anollés3and Arshan Nasir1,3*

• 1Department of Biosciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
• 2Division of Polar Life Sciences, Korea Polar Research Institute, Incheon, South Korea
• 3Evolutionary Bioinformatics Laboratory, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States

Viruses can be classified into archaeoviruses, bacterioviruses, and eukaryoviruses according to the taxonomy of the infected host. The host-constrained perception of viruses implies preference of genetic exchange between viruses and cellular organisms of their host superkingdoms and viral origins from host cells either via escape or reduction. However, viruses frequently establish non-lytic interactions with organisms and endogenize into the genomes of bacterial endosymbionts that reside in eukaryotic cells. Such interactions create opportunities for genetic exchange between viruses and organisms of non-host superkingdoms. Here, we take an atypical approach to revisit virus-cell interactions by first identifying protein fold structures in the proteomes of archaeoviruses, bacterioviruses, and eukaryoviruses and second by tracing their spread in the proteomes of superkingdoms Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. The exercise quantified protein structural homologies between viruses and organisms of their host and non-host superkingdoms and revealed likely candidates for virus-to-cell and cell-to-virus gene transfers. Unexpected lifestyle-driven genetic affiliations between bacterioviruses and Eukarya and eukaryoviruses and Bacteria were also predicted in addition to a large cohort of protein folds that were universally shared by viral and cellular proteomes and virus-specific protein folds not detected in cellular proteomes. These protein folds provide unique insights into viral origins and evolution that are generally difficult to recover with traditional sequence alignment-dependent evolutionary analyses owing to the fast mutation rates of viral gene sequences.

Do Viruses Exchange Genes across Superkingdoms of Life?

Well, Mr. Bond, the abysmal depths of your ignorance is showing, as usual.

 

[LittleNipper]

Only to the simple minded that take that myths in the Bible literally.

So what of those who totally believe everything evolutionists say a absolute truth, because that's all they hear?

 

[LittleNipper]

Science addresses the natural processes of nature, not the supernatural mythology of the various religions. No, God has not been eliminated by science, science simply does not address the issue of the existence of a Deity. Science deals in explanations of what we see in nature, not faith in things we cannot see.

Science ultimately can only regard what it observes now and not pretend to see what once happened. To classify the supernatural as "mythology" is akin to classifying science as "magic" and I cannot imagine you'd choose such a word to define what you respect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pathogens causes disease is in the Bible. A

Shameless.lie.

You don't do Bible. For that matter, you don't do science.

Pathogens are not mentioned in the Bible. You embarrass yourself to say so.

And yes, tell us all again how you outsmarted all the scientists that taught the uneducated slob creationist blogger you plagiarize everything he ever knew about the material. Nope, nothing absurd about that at all...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's the mind of God. He designed it as such.

I don't have any problem with this fantasy. It doesn't get in the way of science or contradict science, unlike all of the garbage you usually vomit .

 

[james bond]

Pathogens causes disease is in the Bible. A

Shameless.lie.

You don't do Bible. For that matter, you don't do science.

Pathogens are not mentioned in the Bible. You embarrass yourself to say so.

And yes, tell us all again how you outsmarted all the scientists that taught the uneducated slob creationist blogger you plagiarize everything he ever knew about the material. Nope, nothing absurd about that at all...

Huh? You're rambling. I have no idea what you are talking about.

>>Pathogens are not mentioned in the Bible.<<

It's mentioned as how we can keep good health and prevent disease. It helps how to avoid germs.

 

[james bond]

It's the mind of God. He designed it as such.

I don't have any problem with this fantasy. It doesn't get in the way of science or contradict science, unlike all of the garbage you usually vomit .

The topic was HGT. I'll ask the same question I asked the OP poster. What fascinates you about it?

 

[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. .

LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.

Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.

>>Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit<<

What's to discuss? HGT's been around for a while. What did you find fascinating? It does destroy Darwin doesn't it? Another nail in the coffin for tree of life? We can discuss that. I find that fascinating.

One of the wonderful things about science is that science is open to new ideas and new facts.

What do I find fascinating about HGT? That for most of history we didn't believe that this kind of genetic transfer was possible.

How does it 'destroy Darwin'? Darwin postulated on 'the origin of the species' - that modern species all descend from earlier ancestor species. Darwin of course didn't know about genetics or genes when he came up with his theory.

What has happened in the last 150 years is that our knowledge about evolution has expanded as our knowledge of biology has expanded. The science- including genetics- still show for example that modern whale species descended from earlier whale species which in turn came from earlier land species. H.G.T. doesn't change any of that- but it does show there are additional ways that genes can transfer- which is fascinating and will need to be incorporated into any genetic research of any species.

>>What do I find fascinating about HGT? That for most of history we didn't believe that this kind of genetic transfer was possible.

How does it 'destroy Darwin'? Darwin postulated on 'the origin of the species' - that modern species all descend from earlier ancestor species. Darwin of course didn't know about genetics or genes when he came up with his theory.<

HGT only in single cell. Not multicellular, so not that big a deal.

Darwin claimed vertical transfer for his common ancestor theory.

>>What has happened in the last 150 years is that our knowledge about evolution has expanded as our knowledge of biology has expanded. The science- including genetics- still show for example that modern whale species descended from earlier whale species which in turn came from earlier land species. H.G.T. doesn't change any of that- but it does show there are additional ways that genes can transfer- which is fascinating and will need to be incorporated into any genetic research of any species.<<

We do not adequate evidence of macroevolution of whales and land animals.

HGT doesn't have anything to do with it and you admit that. So, what's the big deal?

Darwin was wrong about vertical transfer.

ETA: Sometimes I miss your reply because your avatar is similar to others who do not use one. I go through my alerts and then try to go through the forum, but probably miss your reply when going through the forum.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's mentioned as how we can keep good health and prevent disease. It helps how to avoid germs.

Oh really? Sterilization methods are mentioned? Contagions are mentioned, and how to avoid passing a cold? No....this is just more "snap to fit" religious bullshit.

 

[james bond]

It's mentioned as how we can keep good health and prevent disease. It helps how to avoid germs.

Oh really? Sterilization methods are mentioned? Contagions are mentioned, and how to avoid passing a cold? No....this is just more "snap to fit" religious bullshit.

Sterilize is a more modern term. It didn't mean the same in ancient times; It meant castration. You mean sanitation and disinfection.

"The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe in water and be clean Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days." Leviticus 14:8

Castration is mentioned, too.