Seriously Mom? A mere 5% of our gene code coming in from viral sources over 10 million generations and you think that that is comparable to what is being done in genetic engineering labs today? I'll bet you live in some kind of human-fabricated structure instead of a cave that took eons to form. But are you complaining about that? No? So what, if we have learned to use Nature's tools for our own betterment and can do so in far faster fashion and in a much more directed way?
And the process of viral material entering genomes is on-going. Koalas in Australia are undergoing such a genome-altering event right now, and scientists are tracking it.
And I see you want to go back to our CO2 conversation which you abandoned last time when I disproved your assertion that all biomass comes originally from the process of photosynthesis. [...] Some bacteria live on nothing but rock and water, extracting energy from chemical reactions rather than from sunlight."
Once again, you are illustrating your own lack of knowledge and projecting it on to me. Note that the professor stated that the energy comes from chemical reactions, not that the basic building block of biomolecules is anything other than CO2.
If you were to take a basic biology class, you would learn that photosynthesis takes place in two steps. The first step is the gathering of light energy and converting it to chemical energy. The second step is the use of the chemical energy to convert CO2 to glucose and the other biomolecules. What the professor said is not that the bacteria bypass the use of CO2, but that they bypassed the use of photo energy. If you were to read down in that same link, you would see this little tidbit: "In their scheme, the methane was made by bacteria that used the hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the water. High methane contents were associated with enrichments of carbon-12 over carbon-13. This change in isotopic ratio is characteristic of methane produced by bacteria during the reduction of carbon dioxide, supporting their interpretation. Stevens and McKinley also devised two experiments to see if these reactions would take place and if bacteria could live in an environment consisting of oxygen-free water and rock." And you can read down the page, where they carefully set up experiments to show that the bacteria did, indeed, use chemical energy to convert CO2 to other carbon molecules.
Maybe I'm not the one that needs to be taking some basic science courses ...
You have demonstrated multiple times that you desperately need to take a class or two. So why don't you take some of those classes, starting with Bio 101, Chem 101, and Phys 101, and working your way up from there? And then you can get back to me in a few years with, perhaps, some informed comments?
Me: "Seriously Mom? A mere 5% of our gene code coming in from viral sources over 10 million generations and you think that that is comparable to what is being done in genetic engineering labs today?"
Mom: "I'll bet you live in some kind of human-fabricated structure instead of a cave that took eons to form. But are you complaining about that? No? So what, if we have learned to use Nature's tools for our own betterment and can do so in far faster fashion and in a much more directed way?" ____________________________________________________________
Seriously Mom? Using the comparison of building a house versus living in a cave to whitewash the unknown dangers of genetic engineering? Our genetic code and the genetic code of our food have learned to co-exist over billions of years. It is not a one way street. Historically, when a change occurs in one of our food sources we, as a species, have adapted to that change
over time. Today, genetic engineering is introducing, all in one step, changes which used to occur over hundreds of millions of years and this engineering is completely bypassing the back and forth, action and reaction nature of our traditional relationship with the organisms which we eat.
As a highly trained, government scientist I completely understand why you fail to understand this basic concept - it simply doesn't fit your narrative. And I see you want to go back to our CO2 conversation again Mom. Well, okay. Let's start at the beginning.
You said that all the food on the table of a friend of your friend was atmospheric CO2 just a few short months ago.
"No exceptions." A phrase you in your almost infinite wisdom and arrogance are very fond of.
I gave you the example of a long dead tree in my backyard being consumed by turkey tail mushrooms (an edible species) as an exception. That tree was over one hundred years old and had been dead for many years - the material being consumed by those mushrooms was
not atmospheric CO2 just a few months ago.
But you chose to ignore that obvious example of your error and decided instead to up the ante and declared that all biomass was at one time atmospheric CO2.
I pointed out that this was an over-statement of the facts and gave you CO2 being spewed out of undersea volcanoes and then proceeding directly into the CO2 life cycle without ever entering the atmosphere as an example of biomass being created without the use of atmospheric CO2. Again, a simple example of your error which you tried to hide by saying (and you even provided a nice little graphic) that the CO2 coming out of the undersea volcanoes came from the subduction of limestone laid down by life forms that had used atmospheric CO2 and therefore you were right and I was wrong.
But of course you were not right. You were wrong. You ignored the basic fact that not all CO2 coming out of those volcanoes was coming from subducted limestone and in fact volcanoes managed to create a CO2 rich environment on the early earth
long before life appeared. Basic science Mom, something you in your lofty Ph.D. fortified tower seem to know little of.
Still not willing to admit to any of your numerous errors you decided again to ignore that proof of your error and instead decided to attempt to refute my third example of your overstatement concerning atmospheric CO2 - namely, anaerobic microbes - and to refute my assertion you stated:
"Again, no exception. Anaerobes use biomolecules to form their bodies, and, just as with aerobes, those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of >photosynthesis."
This is obviously false and as proof I linked you to
Professor Taylor's article <
link > where he states:
"Recent research on deep rocks on Earth has shown that bacteria can live kilometers beneath the surface. Some bacteria live on nothing but rock and water, extracting energy from chemical reactions rather than from sunlight."
Did you note that he says that these anaerobes acquire their energy from chemical processes far below the earth's surface rather than from sunlight?
Those microbes are not using photosynthesis to acquire energy and your statement that
"those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of >photosynthesis"
is simply false and a wall of text will not change the fact that you were wrong about the photosynthesis.
And that is just one half of your error Mom. You stated that all biomass originated from
atmospheric CO2. The fact that those subterranean anaerobes are using CO2 does not make your misstatement about atmospheric CO2 go away. Remember the undersea volcanoes Mom? All of the CO2 being consumed down there by those subterranean microbes has not been in the atmosphere.
You have made numerous mistakes Mom. I have corrected you numerous times - too many times to count - but your ego will not allow you to admit your errors. I understand that. You are, after all, a Ph.D. and I am just a lowly uneducated fool, so when you told me:
Mom: "You have demonstrated multiple times that you desperately need to take a class or two. So why don't you take some of those classes, starting with Bio 101, Chem 101, and Phys 101, and working your way up from there? And then you can get back to me in a few years with, perhaps, some informed comments?"
what can I do but laugh. You are a hoot Mom. I love your conceit and your arrogance but you are simply out of your league. You can't baffle me with your bullshit as you are so used to doing with your fellow govt minions.
You are a prideful, arrogant, poorly educated person Mom, completely lacking in the ability to admit to the mistakes you have made AND you are a lot of fun to play with!
Don't give up now - please come back with another wall of text that ignores my examples of your ignorance and tells me again what a brilliant Ph.D you are!