Horizontal gene transfer: does drive evolution (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, July 12, 2018, 23:41 (637 days ago) @ David Turell

David: from the rticle:
"The effect of the introduction of TEs into mammals was striking. “We think the entry of L1s into the mammalian genome was a key driver of the rapid evolution of mammals over the past 100 million years,” says Adelson. (my bold)

"The specific genes that jump are not so important, Adelson continues; rather “it’s the fact that they introduce themselves into other genomes and cause disruption of genes and how they are regulated.”

"Despite being the largest study of HGT to date, Adelson believes they have “only begun to scratch the surface of horizontal gene transfer. There are many more species to investigate and other types of jumping genes.'”

David Comment: This was not anticipated in the theoretical discussions by Darwin. Is this the inventive mechanism used by God or is it another version of chance evolution? Note the effect on mammalian evolution.

Tony: It is predicted by my hypothesis, though, because it is an common element in the programming language.

David: You are implying whoever designed the program was an excellent programmer.

Well....yes. However, I think that much of the complexity is self-inflicted simply because we refuse to see it for what it is.

If we need a screw for a machine, most any machine, we don't reinvent the darn screw, we just determine the circumference and the rate of ascent of the inclined plane. We match those to the needs of the socket. Why would ANY designer reinvent the code ever time they needed to do something similar?

Their discovery actively disproves evolution by common descent, and instead of accepting that they invent more fairy tales to explain why the evidence does not fit their theory.

Does it make sense that a designer would reuse code when needed?

Is there evidence to support that hypothesis?

Could my hypothesis be tested in a repeatable fashion?
Absolutely! And has been. The fact that they are able to programmatically rewrite DNA supports my hypothesis.

Will it ever be accepted by mainstream science?

There are too many scientists who have staked their career and funding on evolution, first and foremost. However, admitting that the life and/or the universe has a designers makes them feel small and insignificant, raising a bunch of uncomfortable questions.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum