Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-13-2015, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,212,849 times
Reputation: 7528

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUMBONyc View Post
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A paper that is dated 10 years old doesn't automatically become outdated and invalid.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I know how science works...and even if a paper is dated true that does not mean that it's outdated and invalid. I get it but my point really was that you posted very outdated papers that did not support your claim.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.

 
Old 06-13-2015, 09:13 AM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,875,624 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
...

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 suggest you study up before posting more rubbish. Background Information on Pseudogenes
What???

You mean the much smaller version of Ken Ham's Creation Science museum that is 4 blocks from my place isn't real?

I prefer my neighbors perspective on how to call it, which is the Creative science Museum.
 
Old 06-13-2015, 09:20 AM
 
159 posts, read 176,791 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
The significance of unproven postulations?

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 View Post
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.
 
Old 06-13-2015, 09:36 AM
 
159 posts, read 176,791 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
LOL no that's not what I am saying at all. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Really? This is what you wrote.

Quote:
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.
It's pretty obvious that you don't understand vector-mediated gene transfer and that you thought it was "experimentally unproven".
 
Old 06-13-2015, 09:54 AM
 
164 posts, read 159,346 times
Reputation: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUMBONyc View Post
So much for your MS in molecular diagnostics.
Pitiful isn't it how much college degrees have become devalued in the last generation or so.
 
Old 06-13-2015, 10:01 AM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,593 posts, read 15,532,511 times
Reputation: 10830
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.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
 
Old 06-13-2015, 10:08 AM
 
159 posts, read 176,791 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
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.
 
Old 06-13-2015, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,212,849 times
Reputation: 7528
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.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-13-2015 at 10:24 AM..
 
Old 06-13-2015, 10:34 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
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.

Last edited by Eusebius; 06-13-2015 at 10:47 AM..
 
Old 06-13-2015, 10:42 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
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 View Post
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top