New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species

Vanderbilt University ^ | 23 February 2006 | Staff

[muawiyah]

The junk DNA in so terribly many of your genes IS viral DNA.

And, plasmids appear "rod-shaped".

Half a billion years before the "Cambrian Explosion" is probably right. That's why pre-Cambrian multi-cellular fossils have been found.

The sudden appearance of incredible novelty after several billion years of bacterial mats is more than startling.

In fact, it may well be the evidence that the virus is NOT the foundation of all life on Earth as the authors speculated in the piece on mimivirus in February's Discover magazine.

Now, how to test the theory ~ well, we could create a standard, but otherwise "artifical lifeform" (a manmade bacteria) and start plugging in viruses to see what they do. If they create the various enzymes and proteins found in the "higher" lifeforms, that's a start. I suspect some of them, properly arrayed, can be read as instruction books for building devices ~ that would certainly justify the expense creating an artifical lifeform is going to entail.

[darbymcgill]

I think this is it....

[Fester Chugabrew]

I do not place quantum mechanics on the same level of scientific accuracy as biological history concocted from unrecorded, unobserved history. Observed history has always denoted speciation within limits. Quantum mechanics throws into question our very understanding of history.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I do not think electricity is a mental concept, but a driving force. "Natural selection" is hardly a driving force, but an abstract concept that can be applied arbitrarily to any historical event whether it be past, present, or future.

[muawiyah]

"Natural Selection" is the process where by the local "god like process" "Natural" decides which species propers and which species does not.

Sure looks different from Genesis.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yeah, it looks different. But it's the only truly "scientific" way, you know.

[LiteKeeper]

Creationists have believed in Natural Selection as an explanation for speciation from the beginning.

[muawiyah]

There are, of course, those Creationists who believe the "Age of Prophecy" is closed, as is the "Age of Creation", so God is simply not creating any new species these days.

In the meantime the courts are busy telling us that the "godlike process" Natural Selection is now in charge.

[edsheppa]

The junk DNA in so terribly many of your genes IS viral DNA.

While it is certainly true that some "junk" DNA (about 8% of the 98% of human DNA so considered) is viral DNA, that is not what you said. You said that

your own genes are clustered together the same way as DNA viral genes.

and that is not true.

And, plasmids appear "rod-shaped".

Hmmm, let's take a look:

Nope, not very "rod-shaped" there.

Also, your test has been underway for quite some time now. Viruses routinely infect bacteria. They are called phages. There are even endogenous phages that integrate into the bacterial genome.

[edsheppa]

You're hopeless. I said field, not electricity. Forget it.

[muawiyah]

I'm just quoting from the article several of us are referencing. "Rodlike" is a rather flexibile term.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hey, this article calls "natural selection" a "driving force." I maintain it is nothing of the kind. Energy is a driving force. The word "natural" is hardly scientific in its own right. It is philosophical. The word "selection" is abstract. It may or may not have a basis in reality depending on how it is applied, and as such it has little place where more exact science is concerned.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Natural selection, when offered up as a "driving force," pretends to "answer every question" when it comes to the origin of species. In fact, it is only one of many possible explanations.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Origin of species? As in, "the very cause of the first possibility of distinguishing one species from another"? Science is still undecided as to what constitutes one species from another. Or is it solely the incapacity to reproduce? There are humans who cannot reproduce with other humans. Does that make them a different species?

If you want to talk about hopeless, then talk about those who think matter can organize itself apart from intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Thatcherite]

What's your concept of Zenos Paradox, muawiyah?

I noticed that piece of nonsense too. (which seemed to cause unseemly hilarity on the OP's part, which was odd, because I didn't say anything funny, and my post in no way resembled Zeno's paradox.)

[Thatcherite]

Look, if they don't taste the same a million years from now, you get back to me ya' hear!

So your claim wasn't based on any actual knowledge or information. Just a bald assertion that you cannot back up. OK.

[Thatcherite]

Creationists have believed in Natural Selection as an explanation for speciation from the beginning.

Except of course for those creationists who don't. (numerous on these threads deny that speciation *ever* occurs, perhaps a majority).

[dread78645]

... it refers to "isolated breeding groups" as constituting a "species".

By that definition, I have an aquarium of 'Endangered Species'.
Not to mention just about anybody who keeps cats, dogs, hamsters ...

[PatrickHenry]

200