Endosymbiosis --- A challenge to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism

by hamilcarr 46 Replies latest jw friends

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    According to a later theory by Margulis, symbiotic relations between organisms of different kingdoms (or domains, for instance between prokaryots and eukaryots) are the driving force behind evolution. Results from the Human Genome Project have recently lend support to this hypothesis because it was shown that significant portions of the human genome are either of bacterial or viral in origin.

    Meteorite impacts, as destructive as they are, shaped the Earth as we see it today.

    BTS

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    BurnTheShips:

    Hamlet is just a merger of many already extant English words, no new information comes from already extant words.

    Right?

    No, not at all. That's not even close to being right or relevant.

    hamilcarr:

    According to a later theory by Margulis, symbiotic relations between organisms of different kingdoms (or domains, for instance between prokaryots and eukaryots) are the driving force behind evolution. Results from the Human Genome Project have recently lend support to this hypothesis because it was shown that significant portions of the human genome are either of bacterial or viral in origin.

    OK, but you understand it's not that the human genome collided with that of a virus, right? That the differences between apes and humans are not the result of endosymbiosis, right?

  • apfergus
    apfergus
    Ah, so it's a challenge to a belief that nobody actually holds.

    This is entirely true. Whether or not endosymbiosis constitutes a "random mutation" in the strictly formal sense of the word is wholly irrelevant. There is no such world view as "neo-Darwinism." There is modern evolutionary biology--to which Dawkins is a contributor--which recognizes a variety of mechanisms by which organisms can change that are by no means strictly limited to the basic insertion, deletion, and mis-copied base pairs.

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    OK, but you understand it's not that the human genome collided with that of a virus, right? That the differences between apes and humans are not the result of endosymbiosis, right?

    The incorporation of foreign organisms (and consequently, the transfer of information) may trigger off mutations etc.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    hamilcarr:

    The incorporation of foreign organisms (and consequently, the transfer of information) may trigger off mutations etc.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain and perhaps provide an example please?

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    OK, but you understand it's not that the human genome collided with that of a virus, right? That the differences between apes and humans are not the result of endosymbiosis, right?

    Do tell. How, exactly, do you know that? More precisely, how do you know the precise mechanism that differentiated our concestors into Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Homo, Pan troglodytes, and Pan paniscus.

    You seem to believe you have cause for empirical certainty, so please divulge your body of evidence in support of your conclusion.

  • BurnTheShips
  • hamsterbait
    hamsterbait

    The primitive cells that could not cooperate with others were selected out by natural selection.

    Look at the virus - a selfish set of genes - they are now being killed off by the very beings they helped select from the gene pool.

    Just as - on another thread - it was pointed out that amoral selfish early humans were selected out.

    This woman is just taking advantage of a fact and then putting her own lovey-dovey warm and fuzzy spin on it. And don't anybody tell me she didn't try to get a huge research grant to explore the question.

    By the side burntheships - your assetion about Hamlet is crap. There are several words coined by Shakespeare himself, which did not exist before he wrote the play. many expressions coined in the drama have passed into english usage.

    This is the case with many of his plays. (If you don't know this elementary fact taught in high school english, how can anybody trust your knowledge of biology and other sciences - let alone give credibility to your - apparently - ill informed opinions?)

    HB

    HB

  • quietlyleaving
    quietlyleaving

    very interesting hamilcarr - I must look into it further

  • jaguarbass
    jaguarbass

    To my way of thinking Darwinian Dawkinism is absurd as taking the bible literally.

    To me what everybody is looking for is somewhere out of the mainstream box.

    Dont be a sheep. Thats how the world is playing you.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit