Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the studies you cite merely show local taxonomic schemes. They don't challenge the problems of broader phylogeny.
What it means is that gene transfer vectors (in this case retroviruses) can transmit DNA code "horizontally" across species boundaries altering orthologous locations on chromosomes of different organisms.
Some postulate that up to 50% of the human genome is derived from these mechanisms rather than through "vertical" gene transfer (directly from ancestor to offspring), so the implications are significant if one is intending to formulate some taxonomic scheme based on similarities in orthologous loci.
A paper that is dated 10 years old doesn't automatically become outdated and invalid. That isn't how science works. You invalidate a paper by presenting contrarian evidence.
I know what it means however that does not apply to any species other than the retroviruses in those studies.
Some can postulate all they want but until they can prove it experimentally then it's just a postulation.
I know how science works...and even if a paper is dated true that does not mean that it's outdated and invalid. I get it but my point really was that you posted very outdated papers that did not support your claim. We still know that orthologous genes that have evolved directly from an ancestral gene. No one would be wasting their time today preforming Comparative, Evolutionary and Systematic Studies if your claim was truly valid.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,875,624 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
...
Make no mistake Creationism is not science. Creationist don't understand the science and as we have seen over and over in this thread. They either twist the real science or show an utter lack of understanding of the science just as we see in dumbonyc's post.
I have a MS in Molecular Diagnostics. This subject matter is not hardly out of my depth. But it seems to be out of yours with respect to current uses of Pseudogenes to prove evolution.
You keep trying to make points that are irrelevant to the current understanding in molecular evolution.
You made the claim that the use of Pseudogenes is out of date and no one is using this to prove evolution but yet it is in use today and you can find hundreds of current peer received published papers. I even listed some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
I know what it means however that does not apply to any species other than the retroviruses in those studies.
Some can postulate all they want but until they can prove it experimentally then it's just a postulation.
I know how science works...and even if a paper is dated true that does not mean that it's outdated and invalid. I get it but my point really was that you posted very outdated papers that did not support your claim. We still know that orthologous genes that have evolved directly from an ancestral gene. No one would be wasting their time today preforming Comparative, Evolutionary and Systematic Studies if your claim was truly valid.
So, in summary, you think lateral gene transfer (a keystone of post-modernist evolutionary biology) is "not experimentally proven" and only affects the vectors. So much for your MS in molecular diagnostics.
Might I suggest that you take your argument about genetics over to the Science and Technology forum so we can discuss Religion & Spirituality here? You have gotten well off topic.
It's clear that you misrepresent everything I say. I see I was not clear...what I meant is that vector mediated gene transfer studies that you posted to try and disprove my point that by comparing the polymorphism of pseudogenes in orthologous loci in other species, any nested hierarchies they fall into can be identified...had nothing to do with the orthologous loic in other species that have been published.
This is what I was referring to when I stated they can postulate all they want.
I am not playing this circular game and you also took my sentence out of context.
This is incoherent nonsense.
If you send me a PM, we can keep the thread on-topic and continue a genetics discourse separately.
Yes let's get this back on track. What exactly is Evolution and Natural Selection vs. Creationism?
Evolution is the process by which new species come into being. The term is also used for the history of speciation on the planet. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs: variations in the population which spread or are eliminated based on how well they manage to survive in the environment.
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation." For young Earth creationists, this includes taking a Biblical literalism to the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.
There are tons links for evidence of evolution on this thread but virtually none exist for Creationism.
While we certainly descended from apes..which is why we are apes...we did not come from a knuckle dragging buffoon...perhaps you did
I bolded the above. I suggest you read this: Humans aren't monkeys. We aren't apes, either. · john hawks weblog
and educate yourself. We are not apes. You are a homonoid. I am a human. While it may be true that YOU, personally, are an ape living in a zoo and have access to a computer, humans are not apes nor are they orangutans nor chimpanzees. Quit embarrassing your ape friends in the zoo.
Originally Posted by Yousseff Sorry Arequipa, but why is it around a half of your posts either barely make sense or go off on a complete tangent to the topic being discussed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Youseff, why is it that you have not the brain capacity to make sense of my posts, or the mental flexibility to spot the relevance?
Just for once, I am going to tell one of you tossers without two brain cells to bang together to go *********rself in the hope of injecting some brain cells.
I enjoyed that
This is just what I'm talking about . . . posters putting other posters down. In the words of Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?" Why must we resort to such childish banter? Let's try to keep on topic rather than attack the individual.
AREQUIPA often, more often than not does keep on topic. Just don't rile the great ape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.