quote:
Look, for God sake if you don't understand what I'm saying read the damned website! The major issue here is your "belief" that micro-evolution by genetic allel mutation actually provides real beneficial change to the genetic structure. IT DOESN'T! Genetic faults are VERY RARE!! Yes, you see organisms with problems, (i.e. sickle cell) but consider how many hundreds of billions of cells YOU are made out of, and each person is made out of, if so-called micro-evolution had any MAJOR effect on the genetic code, it would be obvious! Cells within us would have different genetic code!
Get out of the dogmatic BOX! Read the website, at least read the Whats New section to see the gradual build up of evidence. You are an intelligent person, i can see that, but don't let yourself be trapped. The only way out is to read. You've said yourself before you haven't read much about it. Read about it and come back.
ave to say its very interesting talk to you because you make me think.
Thanks. I do not consider myself a dogmatic person (although hardly someone dogmatic would admit it easily), there's a lot of things that I don't understand, and there's the way I understand things. And, in the way I understand things (that might be wrong, of course) this thing of HGT driving evolution didn't seems to make much sense. I'll keep with this further on the message, now I just want to say that there's a considerable time since I'm planning to read this site, among lots of other stuff (such as things about directed - or not - mutations). I didn't read it yet due to lack of time, not because dogmatic refusal or something. Actually, even if I was "against" this idea (but in this case I'm more curious than against), it would paradoxically increase my interest about that... it happened with creationism and some other alternatives ways of evolution that I've briefly heard (although I couldn't find much things on these yet).
quote:
HGT transfers WHOLE WORKING GENES! WHOLE PROTEINS! Whole TOOLS that the cell can use. Micro-evolution provides single allel mutations, that will invariably destroy protein effectiveness (i.e. sickle cell) and the probably the organism, if it ever gets past gestation.
...but, genes really work this way? Like man-made program sub-routines? Don't they generally depends on the "context" of the genome?The site provides examples of possible traits/sequences acquired this way?
... I don't want to bomb you with all the questions that came to my mind, but, anyway, just one more for this part of the post... what about phylogeny? How much the standard phylogenetic tree would be affected by this theory, or it stays the way it is? Seems to me that if HGT is more frequent and relevant than commonly thought, then many shared characters could not be due to common descent, but due to HGT. But yet I guess that the phylogenetic tree would retain the same basic look of a tree, with the addition of a tangled web of thin "veins" linking many branches... but... I have no idea yet of what could be those H-shared traits....
quote:
1st u've made an assumption that muation occurs only on non-expressed portions of the genome. Thats wrong. When it does happen it will happen more likely to expressed "working" regions.
No, I didn't, I was just making an analogy the most equivalent possible to the example that you gave, where a mutation activates unexpressed genes that were H-acquired, but instead of unexpressed genes H-acquired it could just be a "normal" sequence, that were deactivated for some reason.
And, for the second case, there's, I think, the advantage of the sequence reactivated being a former activated sequence of the same lineage of organisms, so, that wouldn't be a completely odd, alien, sequence suddenly activated, which I think that doesn't differ much of mutationism/saltationism. I think that it would be a problem because the RA Fisher's analogy of the focus adjustment; the more radical a change in an organism is, the more unlikely is to fit in the actual environment, since the fitness of the parent organism obviously is due to its present phenotype. I don't discard totally "hopeful monsters", but I don't think they are the main cause of drastic changes in evolution... but I don't even know if that would be the case with H-inheritance....
That's all for while, I got to go.... but I'll read the next post and the recomended page, and hopefully, more on the site.... but, just one more question... how exactly this stuff of HGT connects with panspermia? Suddenly I realized that we didn't talked of panspermia properly, but only about stuff that can exist independently, and, maybe be some sort of support for that (yet I couldn't wonder much far how would that be)
sorry if I left some part unanswered (I probably did), I'll check that later....
™ Version 4.2