Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong

[ohhhla]

Science isn't a dogma.

That is religion

 

[Drew_Ali]

@Oceanic......

*crickets chirping*

I apologize for the delayed response; I'm not here 24/7.

You have yet to find the example of where your article states that the common ancestor theory is out the window. As I've stated, the tree of life as a concept has been proposed to be discarded and then replaced with the web to more accurately explain how evolution occurs.

Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing

traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely

swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with

them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into

an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being

closely related in some respects but not others.

We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more

genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of

relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were

routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often

across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal

gene transfer (HGT).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

LOL......

I have had some downtime.............

Regardless.....

I made a spinoff thread in the R&R for your feelings........

What exactly dont you understand about this post??????

How does this involve Darwin?

This.....

"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself

with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy

grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an

evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in

Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was

within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces

by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that

the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no

evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.

That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of

biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...

From tree to web

"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."

 

[Bodhi]

I already explained that article to you. The real question is what do you not understand about it?

Again, you have yet to show me in that article where the common ancestor as a theory has been proposed to be thrown out the window.

 

[Bodhi]

I have had some downtime.............

as always

I made a spinoff thread in the R&R for your feelings........

No, you made a spinoff thread in the R&R because you have not been able to properly debate this topic. That is why you've continued to rehash it since I've known of your existence. It stays on your mind and probably keeps you up at night. You wanted more opinions on the topic so you included a poll in your thread in order to decide whether or not you really want to accept evolution as fact.

 

[Drew_Ali]

And what is it you don't understand about the paradigm shift from a tree (common descent) to a web (no common descent).............

I created the other thread for individuals who claim to be a part of a religion and accept evolution.....

As I have yet to hear a convincing argument that includes one species evolving into many and a supreme creator of mankind..............

I have already come to the conclusion that any theory that states that one species evolved into many is bullshit.......

 

[Bodhi]

This is the reason for the shift from a tree to a web. The article lays out the explanation in clear English.

Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing

traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely

swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with

them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into

an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being

closely related in some respects but not others.

We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more

genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of

relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were

routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often

across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal

gene transfer (HGT).http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

And still, it does not necessarily say that common descent has been disproved. If you think it does, explain it. You continue to avoid that because you cannot explain it. You are making leaps that you cannot afford to make.

 

[Drew_Ali]

The article and referenced materials states that all life has the same molecules/DNA based.............

However it does not descend into what is metaphorically understood as a tree...........

With all life forms descending from one ancestor............

Instead......

that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into

an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being

closely related in some respects but not others.

We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more

genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of

relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were

routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often

across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal

gene transfer (HGT).[/i]http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

Your L's are becoming quite extensive.................

 

[Bodhi]

The only thing that says is that descent was thought to be "exclusively vertical" when now it shows itself not to be. The web conceptualization still does not get rid of common descent. A web still springs from one point.

 

[Drew_Ali]

The only thing that says is that descent was thought to be "exclusively vertical" when now it shows itself not to be. The web conceptualization still does not get rid of common descent.

C'mon son.........

that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into

an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being

closely related in some respects but not others.

We now know that this is exactly what happens.

It became clear that the patterns of

relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were

routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often

across huge taxonomic distances

 

[Drew_Ali]

The web conceptualization still does not get rid of common descent. A web still springs from one point.

Correction........

A web springs from one creator........

Material on one side is only related to material on the other by its creator........................

 

[Bodhi]

A web springs from one creator........

that "creator" being the first lifeform, i.e. common descent

 

[Drew_Ali]

LOL......

You are reaching brother......

You have not had the chance to look at the material and fully digest the paradigm shift.............

These things take a while to be fully accepted and understood by the scientific community...........

Relax & take notes.......

As I take tokes of the marijuana smoke.................

 

[Bodhi]

C'mon son.........

that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into

an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being

closely related in some respects but not others.

What is the reason for interrelatedness? Evolution by common descent. The interrelatedness is best explained by way of the web as opposed to the tree?. Why??

It became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were

routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often across huge taxonomic distances

As the article explains, this is called horizontal gene transfer. The tree of life concept supposed that descent was solely verticle meaning that species only passed down traits to their offspring through reproduction. However, horizontal gene transfer is the process where genes are transfered in a way other than reproduction. Darwin did not consider this; therefore his tree metaphor is not completely accurate and does not tell the whole story.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) refers to the transfer of genes between organisms in a manner other than traditional reproduction. Also termed lateral gene transfer, it contrasts with vertical transfer, the transmission of genes from the parental generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction. HGT has been shown to be an important factor in the evolution of many organisms, including bacteria, plants and humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Again, you would have to explain why the common descent theory should be discarded.

 

[Bodhi]

As I take tokes of the marijuana smoke.................

I would suppose you're on something other than marijuana

 

[Drew_Ali]

As I take tokes of the marijuana smoke.................

I would suppose you're on something other than marijuana

Again, you would have to explain why the common descent theory should be discarded.

Only trees.......

Sorry to disappoint you..............

Not just me saying this again this 2 min video explains in full detail why "there is no tree of life"........

Again......

Interesting that Darwin's destruction comes from @Oceanic biology............

 

[Bodhi]

How about you address my last post. That video is not what we're talking about.

 

[Drew_Ali]

Your science has conceded this point........

Why cant you?????

 

[Bodhi]

Peace

 

[Drew_Ali]

Peace

Well you are arguing from a philosophical aspect...............

The science is clear................

Even though you evolutionists haven't quite made up your minds.....................

 

[Drew_Ali]

A web springs from one creator........

that "creator" being the first lifeform, i.e. common descent