Posted on 02/01/2010 4:24:31 AM PST by decimon
JUST suppose that Darwin's ideas were only a part of the story of evolution. Suppose that a process he never wrote about, and never even imagined, has been controlling the evolution of life throughout most of the Earth's history. It may sound preposterous, but this is exactly what microbiologist Carl Woese and physicist Nigel Goldenfeld, both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, believe. Darwin's explanation of evolution, they argue, even in its sophisticated modern form, applies only to a recent phase of life on Earth.
At the root of this idea is overwhelming recent evidence for horizontal gene transfer - in which organisms acquire genetic material "horizontally" from other organisms around them, rather than vertically from their parents or ancestors. The donor organisms may not even be the same species. This mechanism is already known to play a huge role in the evolution of microbial genomes, but its consequences have hardly been explored. According to Woese and Goldenfeld, they are profound, and horizontal gene transfer alters the evolutionary process itself. Since micro-organisms represented most of life on Earth for most of the time that life has existed - billions of years, in fact - the most ancient and prevalent form of evolution probably wasn't Darwinian at all, Woese and Goldenfeld say.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Crossing evolution ping.
Suppose, suppose, suppose,
Assume, assume, assume
Consider, imagine, visualize
What if
Probably
Must have
Could have
Should have
May have
Creationists who misinterpret this as somehow undermining TToE in 3...2...1...
That means "organisms" evolve individually while they're still alive ... which means gene structures change within the organism's lifespan ... I'm not a biologist but this doesn't sound quite right ...
DARWIN IS DEAD.
Finally, at long last, the truth is out about horizontal gene transfer among species.
Next detailed plans for intergalactic space craft found among plankton in the North Atlantic ~ (just looking to the future).
Of course there can be successful gene transfer from species to species. Happens all the time. We just don't notice it until some virus comes along and breeds with our cells.
Intensely interesting, and my, aren’t we stirring up trouble early in the morning!
Since around 1951 when I got old enough to eat things other than cereal and soft foods, a week has never gone by in which I didn't eat at least one piece of chicken. I mean, I should be able to fly by now, right??
I wuz set up.
We have seen for decades that microbes can pick up antibiotic resistance from other microbes outside their own species.
It sounds like this guy is studying the effects of gene transfers outsied of antibiotic resistance.
It is a reasonable field of study based on the behavior of bacteria already seen and documented.
Get a clue! Chickens can't fly worth a damn. Switch to duck, and check back in 2070.
I don't know about flying, but I've seen a lot of ladies who grow into the "fryer thigh" model of adulthood... ;-P
To look at me, you'd think I primarily ate Butterball Turkeys!
After a crack like that about the ladies, you may soon be eating crow. 8^
Well, at least I didn’t talk about white meat areas from the chicken! ;-P
Yet another huge argument against evolution. Chickens started out as a 1-lb jungle fowl and were bred into a 7-lb meat animal but still have the 1-lb bird’s wings. You’d think it would be easy for some small number of them to evolve wings adequate for the 7-lb bird and start flying better, but it never happens. In real life, there’s no such thing as gaining new functionality on a macro level.
Assume, assume, assume
Consider, imagine, visualize
What if
Probably
Must have
Could have
Should have
May have
Scientists are taught to write like that. It's a reflection of the uncertainty of the profession. No matter how carefully thought out the hypotheses and interpretation of the data, it is always possible for someone to come along with a better hypothesis or interpretation. In the scientific literature, about the only time you will see a scientists state anything with certainty is when they are describing their direct observations.
"Following treatment with the compound ABN342394, expression of caspases 3 and 8 increased; however, the cells did not enter apoptosis. We believe that the inhibition of apoptosis results from the binding of ABN342394 to the caspase active site." The second sentence leaves open the possibility of a different interpretation.
With microorganisms, introduction of exogenous DNA can enable them to function in ways they did not before (e.g. they become resistant to antibiotics that previously would have killed them). In complex organisms, insertion of exogenous DNA can have a number of different effects (cancer is one). A large fraction of mammalian (including human) DNA is thought to be of viral origin; we have a complex set of mechanisms for maintaining those viral sequences in an inactive state, so they don't kill us.
Only if "huge" and "specious" are made interchangeable.
That’s what science does. That’s how we learn about the world around us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.