Message from @Draco
Discord ID: 520289226676240414
You are completely wrong. We now know that Neo Darwinism is wrong because horizontal gene transfer has been proven. The argument from Neo Darwinists was that their model which does not include horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics was sufficient to explain diversity of life. We now know that statement was a lie because there was no evidence of that. All studies conducted on mutation rate showed otherwise.
Creationism or ID may not be Science, but Evolutionists are liars. And I would rather have pseudo Science than lying progressivism
wat
first
```Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT)[1][2][3] is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).[4] HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.[5][6] ```
```The argument from Neo Darwinists was that their model which does not include horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics ````
this
what
uwotm8?
```The argument from Neo Darwinists was that their model which does not include horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics was sufficient to explain diversity of life.```
>does not include horizontal gene transfer
```Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT)[1][2][3] is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).[4] HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.[5][6] ```
>by reproduction
>natural selection
are you fucking retarded
``` It often involves temperate bacteriophages and plasmids```
(horizontal gene transfer theory)
>inheritable genetic material
>major factors responsible .... include mutations, genetic recombination, natural selection
mutations fucking include alien plasmids
who the fuck is lying, I never even fucking read about darwinism (at least neo-darwinism) but the first two sources claim against you
Do you have trouble reading? Or you have low IQ? You literally posted a definition for HGT that says other than from parents to offsprings and then you posted what Neo Darwinism that says inheritable
``` inheritable (ĭn-hĕrˈĭ-tə-bəl)►
adj.
That can be inherited: inheritable traits; inheritable property.
adj.
Having the right to inherit or the capability of inheriting: an inheritable heir.
```
```verb (used with object)
to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors.
to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors. ```
So, sorry. Scientists disagree with you
The Modern Synthesis adds discrete (Mendelian) inheritance to neo-Darwinism. Alternatives to the Modern Synthesis include: symbiogenesis, the idea that major steps in evolution, such as the formation of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, resulted from cooperation and/or fusion between different organisms; horizontal gene transfer within and between organisms
```Essentially, neo-Darwinism introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical Darwinism with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of changes in allele frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly divided research traditions, the Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This fusion took place roughly between 1936 and 1947.
While the modern synthesis remains the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it has both been expanded and challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged.```
```This article argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, ```
```selfish gene theory holds that adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation,```
I love how you are just pasting bits to somehow find a counter to the direct statement by the same author
Lol
this is his hypothesis:
```he selfish gene idea is not useful in the physiological sciences, since selfishness cannot be defined as an intrinsic property of nucleotide sequences independently of gene frequency, i.e. the ‘success’ in the gene pool that is supposed to be attributable to the ‘selfish’ property. It is not a physiologically testable hypothesis.```
Im putting it in here to develop a hypothesis-argumentation-proof chain
Well, press Ctrl+F and search this - The Modern Synthesis adds discrete (Mendelian) inheritance to neo-Darwinism. Alternatives to the Modern Synthesis include: symbiogenesis, the idea that major steps in evolution, such as the formation of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, resulted from cooperation and/or fusion between different organisms; horizontal gene transfer within and between organisms
That is not his hypothesis; that is his assertion backed by citations, you can find.
```These are not at all the same thing when it comes to questions like ‘what do genes do?’ and ‘what kind of causation is involved?’ When Johannsen (1909) introduced the term ‘gene’ it was defined as the (necessary) cause of a phenotype, since it was defined as an inherited phenotype that could be attributed to an allele. But now it has to be shown to be a cause, and the nature of that causation needs clarification. ```
I love how you are avoiding the key statement. By any chance, are you an atheist?
``` They are reinforced by the fact that most changes at the level of DNA do not have a measurable phenotypic effect under normal physiological conditions (see, for example, Hillenmeyer et al. 2008). By the original definition, these would not even have been identified as genes, since a gene was an entity that necessarily had a phenotypic manifestation.```
so thats his "proof"?
thats not even against the fucking theory
He merely says that not every change could be categorized as a whole new phenotype