Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Erolz, since it is you who disagrees with me, find me a molecular biologist who disagrees with what I've said - and I don't mean someone in the occupied areas.

Yet YOU were the one to claim to speak for what 'most molecular biologist' believed, yet you can not find a single one to support your ridiculous claims ? Do you even know a SINGLE one, that you could then claim to speak with authority as to what 'most believe' ?

- I gave you the clue with HGT but it went over your head.

No you looked up something that you thought could be used to try and support your ridiculous claims, without ANY understanding of the subject you stumbled across - that is plainly clear and obvious and once again typical of how you behave on this forum. The notion that HGT (horizontal gene transference) could explain how you could, by breeding and selection of goats alone, produce a goat that produces spiders web in its milk if given enough time, just once again shows your actual ignorance of what it is you are talking about, rather than what you no doubt think it shows. It would be easy to show that the phenomenon of HGT as we currently understand it could in NO WAY explain how you could produce a goat that produces spiders web in its milk merely by selective breeding of goats. Yet what would the point be ? You have no interest in actuality and what best understanding of science today does or does not suggest is possible or not. Your only interest it would seem is in trying to pretend that you understand such things and all you succeed in achieving imo is in displaying how shallow your knowledge is and how deep and ingrained your ignorance is. You have no interest in actual understanding and the intellectual effort that is required for such understanding. Your only interest is in trying to APPEAR to have an understanding that is the result of intellectual effort, without having to bother with any actual effort, presumably to feed the needs of your own ego. Sad and pathetic really.

[DrCyprus]

Erolz, since it is you who disagrees with me, find me a molecular biologist who disagrees with what I've said - and I don't mean someone in the occupied areas.

Yet YOU were the one to claim to speak for what 'most molecular biologist' believed, yet you can not find a single one to support your ridiculous claims ? Do you even know a SINGLE one, that you could then claim to speak with authority as to what 'most believe' ?

- I gave you the clue with HGT but it went over your head.

No you looked up something that you thought could be used to try and support your ridiculous claims, without ANY understanding of the subject you stumbled across - that is plainly clear and obvious and once again typical of how you behave on this forum. The notion that HGT (horizontal gene transference) could explain how you could, by breeding and selection of goats alone, produce a goat that produces spiders web in its milk if given enough time, just once again shows your actual ignorance of what it is you are talking about, rather than what you no doubt think it shows. It would be easy to show that the phenomenon of HGT as we currently understand it could in NO WAY explain how you could produce a goat that produces spiders web in its milk merely by selective breeding of goats. Yet what would the point be ? You have no interest in actuality and what best understanding of science today does or does not suggest is possible or not. Your only interest it would seem is in trying to pretend that you understand such things and all you succeed in achieving imo is in displaying how shallow your knowledge is and how deep and ingrained your ignorance is. You have no interest in actual understanding and the intellectual effort that is required for such understanding. Your only interest is in trying to APPEAR to have an understanding that is the result of intellectual effort, without having to bother with any actual effort, presumably to feed the needs of your own ego. Sad and pathetic really.

The spider net is just a naturally occuring protein.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Erolz, you're the one Googling opinions and current research to back up your outdated ideas.

Pleased you finally looked up HGT but I didn't expect you to fill in the knowledge gap - that's fine. There are still some molecular biologists, no doubt, who would be surprised at the examples emerging of insect DNA naturally finding its way into mammals without the intervention of genetic engineers.

I also don't need to boost my ego with giving you free lessons (did that for too many years), nor to rise to your insults and waste my time since I was passing comments with Pyro and you butted in to exert your ego, again.

[erolz66]

There are still some molecular biologists, no doubt, who would be surprised at the examples emerging of insect DNA naturally finding its way into mammals without the intervention of genetic engineers.

Yes evidence has relevantly recently been found that suggest the horizontal transmission of genes from insects to mammals - that are in a symbiotic relationship . That idea that this supports the claim that it would therefore be possible to create a goat that produces spiders web in its milk merely by selective breeding of goats it so absurd its not worth discussing. This is the level of your argument.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yes evidence has relevantly recently been found that suggest the horizontal transmission of genes from insects to mammals - that are in a symbiotic relationship .

Not only. Keep Googling!

[erolz66]

Yes evidence has relevantly recently been found that suggest the horizontal transmission of genes from insects to mammals - that are in a symbiotic relationship .

Not only. Keep Googling!

Show one.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Lol - Googling's your specialty. Maybe 10 years from now it will be easier to appreciate.

For now, here's an easy intro:

We did not invent gene transfer; DNA did.

[repulsewarrior]

...God willing, some day we will understand the strand that is His image, the code, the key(s) we have not found yet.

...interesting, in that i have learned today, what i have always believed. Animals communicate, and willfully adapt, themselves. It reminds me of my story, once i told on this Forum, talking to a bird, but nothing like it, still, an ant and a human living together can be helpful to each other, too.

Thanks.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Nature is the most wonderful thing and man can only tinker with it ...

[erolz66]

Lol - Googling's your specialty. Maybe 10 years from now it will be easier to appreciate.

For now, here's an easy intro:

We did not invent gene transfer; DNA did.

What you mean is you can not show a single scientific report that shows any evidence that HGT can occur between insects and animals that are NOT in some kind of symbiotic relationship.

What you do instead is take an out of context quote from a googled article that actually proves that your assertion that you could produce a goat that produces spiders web in its milk by breeding and selection alone is just not true.

Is the horizontal transference of genes from one species to another a 'natural' event - yes it is under rare and specific circumstances it can and does happen.

Does this therefore mean that you could given enough time produce such a goat by means of 'breeding and selection' - no it absolutely and categoricaly does NOT mean this.

Changing an animal species over time by breeding and (human) selection is the process of exploiting the variations from generation to generation caused by VERTICAL transmission of genes (and the errors in such transmission). What it is NOT is a process of continually breeding an animal whilst waiting for a whole gene sequence to jump from another species (via some symbiotic relationship or third vector) in the hope that such a transfer will just by sheer random chance imbue the animal with a specific trait you are seeking to achieve. It is just absurd nonsense to claim that such a migration of genes from one species to another to achieve a specific outcome can be achieved by 'breeding and selection' yet this is what you claimed and are now so desperately trying to prove is correct, not because it is correct but because you HAVE to be right an infallible. Pathetic.