/sci/ - Science & Math

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer_in_evolution
>The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms.
>Furthermore, HGT poses challenges for the ambitious reconstruction of the earliest events in evolution. Because the early branches of the tree of life spanned long time intervals and involved large numbers of organisms, many low-probability HGT events are certain to have occurred.

>>4171460
>Fine, then. You're making an unfalsifiable argument, which means that I can reject it without proof.
Animals and protists exist. That is the necessary proof I need. Almost any claim regarding evolutionary missing links is unfalsifiable in the first place. If you choose to disregard me at this point, then you are a flaming hypocrite. Unless you're willing to discredit all and any missing links science has not yet found.
>you're merely pointing out a coincidence.
I'm pointing out that the behavior of these early animal cells and the behavior of bacteria cells are similar because they circular for the exact same reasons. The difference, however, is that the animal cells are able to move both outward and upward without the center cells dying off. The formation of a bacteria colony would be similar to an MRI scan of an early sponge.
>I won't claim to be an expert on cnidaria and porifera. But as far as I know, medusa are just larval cnidaria. Sponges and medusa have nothing to do with one another. So I'm not sure how this relates to anything.
I'm mostly suggesting that the difference between sponges and medusa is irrelevant because each of their structures simple and both were asexual to begin with. Genetic interchange was unnecessary, so the conventional ideas of "species" could hardly apply to them in the first place.
>Excessive apoptosis causes atrophy, whereas an insufficient amount results in uncontrolled cell proliferation, such as cancer
Oh look.

Atrophy and cancer are related. Interesting, isn't it?

Whatever. I'm already convinced you're an idiot who doesn't know how to ask questions and think for himself. I'm off to go publish my ideas and revolutionize the scientific community if this is all you really have to offer me in terms of objection.

Cause frankly; my theory is FUCKING. AWESOME.