Replies

Note that the links make it clear we're talking about eukaryotes, relatively large nucleated cells, and not bacteria. That's all one needs to understand when *the lawyers who lie with truth* start waving bacterial lateral transfer around to dazzle the jury.

Why do I keep catching crap like this from people who obviously know better?

The answer to that question is the answer to all the others. Why not "teach the controversy?" Why not "teach both theories?" Why not teach the valid "alternatives" (and / or "the valid objections") to evolution?

The only controversy is outside of science, so the controversy does not belong in science class. (Unless perhaps we spend some little time teaching the kids how to tell crackpot presentations from serious science, in which case there's exactly that much room for analysis of creationist claims.) There is only one reasonably tight scientific hypothesis square with the evidence and it isn't creation or ID. There are no alternatives and no objections which are reasonable or even honest.

Why not "teach the controversy?" Why not "teach both theories?" Why not teach the valid "alternatives" (and / or "the valid objections") to evolution?

Or, as sometimes shows up around here: "What are you afraid of?"

Which is kinda like gays labeling the attitude of normal men as "homophobia." It ain't fear. It's revulsion.

... bacterial lateral transfer ...

As my mind fails, I seem to have forgot the actual text of the lawyerly dodge in mid-post. It was reproductive rates and not lateral transfer. The fallacy is the same:

A bacterium is not a eukaryote.

A eukaryote is a cell with a nucleus. (As opposed to a prokaryote, which is a cell without a nucleus.) Plants and animals are made up of eukaryotes.
A eukaryote might be 25 microns across, and a nucleus is about 5 microns across. So, one cubic inch of flesh might hold a billion eukaryotes. An adult human has about a trillion eukaryotes.
An E. coli bacteria is a prokaryote and is about one micron across. So, about 10,000 E. coli would fit inside one eukaryote. About a thousand viruses could fit inside one E. coli.

Single-celled eukaryotes reproduce faster than multi-cellular eukaryotes, but bacteria are in another league. Screamingly fast with streamlined, all-gene-no-junk DNA. And bacteria have lateral transfer and eukaryotes don't.

So the path to sexual eukaryote multicellulars logically goes through a slowdown of evolution rates when lateral transfer is lost and fast reproduction is lost. This probably happens in the larger archaebacteria before the first true eukaryotes even appear. The invention of sex by multicellulars will then boost evolution rates by mechanisms fully explained.

Anyone understanding all of the preceding but nevertheless waving simultaneously true and logical statements, inviting the listener to perceive a contradiction where there is none, demonstrates what is meant by the term "Twist and Shout."

Science 101

Lateral transfer was first mentioned on this thread in post 453.

That's all one needs to understand when *the lawyers who lie with truth* start waving bacterial lateral transfer around to dazzle the jury.

Evolution makes no distinction as to what life is being considered. One of the statements concerning reproductive rates mentioned only the asexual method of reproduction.

However here is science.

Lateral transfer in natural populations of eukaryotes.

Consistent with general observations of phylogenetic regularity, the limited molecular evidence suggests that lateral transfer of eukaryotic genomic sequences is at best very rare. However, due to limited data, the possibility of rare transfers that could have considerable evolutionary significance cannot be ruled out.

But expect to be entertained by more tap-dancing Darwinians employing the tactic of projection.

Bacteria, all-gene-no-junk(hmm not even a psuedogene to use as a workshop), the fugu fish of life

Darn, it takes years to make bread because of those stupid eukaryotes.