question about HGT

[Loudmouth]

this doesn't really answer the question.
substitute mutated and evolved and try again.

"The aim of explicit phylogenetic methods is to compare gene trees with their associated species trees. While weakly supported differences between gene and species trees can be due to inference uncertainty, statistically significant differences can be suggestive of HGT events (see Figure 1a). For example, if two genes from different species share the most recent ancestral connecting node in the gene tree, but the respective species are spaced apart in the species tree, an HGT event can be invoked."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferring_horizontal_gene_transfer#Explicit_phylogenetic_methods

For example, here are the closest species in our part of the overall phylogeny.

If you found a human gene that was more closely related to a obligate intracellular parasite like Chlamydia, and there wasn't any gene elsewhere in the primate tree that shared significant sequence with it, then that would be positive evidence for HGT.

 

[Loudmouth]

Make your living scamming tax dollars maybe, but certainly not accepting those natural observations.

You are disparaging real geneticists based on your complete ignorance of genetics.

Good job.

 

[Loudmouth]

ALL HGT are inherited from the point of insertion - which you them simply mistake as ancestral - when it is due to those foreign virus inserting foreign genomes - and hence you are able to trace it only to it's insertion point where it began to be passed down vertically.

Anything inherited from the point of insertion is vertical inheritance. There is no mistaking it as ancestral since it came from your ancestors.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Uh huh.

That's an Native American - from:

"In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within the nation's modern boundaries.... The usual theory of the settlement of the Americas is that the earliest peoples of the Americas came from Eurasia over a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait during a period of glaciation, when the sea water level was lower....

...Three major migrations occurred, as traced by linguistic and genetic data; the early Paleoamericans soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes."

Which simply means that three (count them 3) separate infraspecific taxa migrated into the America's and through interbreeding became what we now call Native Americans. Get it right - they did not EVOLVE, they mated between infraspecific taxa just as we observe in the natural world you are ignoring.

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-native-american-populations-descend-key.html

"
This reflects the fact that these two later streams of Asian migration mixed with the First Americans they encountered after they arrived in North America.

"There are at least three deep lineages in Native American populations," said co-author David Reich, Professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. "The Asian lineage leading to First Americans is the most anciently diverged, whereas the Asian lineages that contributed some of the DNA to Eskimo–Aleut speakers and the Na-Dene-speaking Chipewyan from Canada are more closely related to present-day East Asian populations. .... Thus, Eskimo-Aleut speakers migrated back to Asia, bringing Native American genes."

I.e. genes from that new infraspecific taxa that was brought about in the America's by the breeding of at least 3 different infraspecific taxa.

Just as you can not first get a Husky without first breeding several other infraspecific taxa. There is no need of Fairie Dust beliefs of one thing evolving into another when we all understand how reproduction works and variation is introduced. When two or more different infraspecific taxa mate.

So they are more closely related to present day East-Asian populations? No evolution on a separate path, but convergent, because they came from the same subset of infraspecifc taxa. And mutations merely repeat.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

All you in reality have done is proved my point. That it takes (two or more) different infraspecific taxa to create another. There was no evolution of Asian into Native American - just the mixture of two or more genetic strands from two or more infraspecific taxa. No links missing, no mutations beyond the occasional damage to the genome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are disparaging real geneticists based on your complete ignorance of genetics.

Good job.

Real geneticist, yah right. Someone that doesn't even understand that Asian remains Asian until they mate with another infraspecific taxa - thinking it is instead the rare deformity that is evolution - is more than what it is - damage to the genome.

 

[Loudmouth]

Real geneticist, yah right. Someone that doesn't even understand that Asian remains Asian until they mate with another infraspecific taxa - thinking it is instead the rare deformity that is evolution - is more than what it is - damage to the genome.

sfs is an author on the human genome paper.

He is also correct. Asians are Africans, as are all of us.

 

[sfs]

...Three major migrations occurred, as traced by linguistic and genetic data; the early Paleoamericans soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes."

Which simply means that three (count them 3) separate infraspecific taxa migrated into the America's and through interbreeding became what we now call Native Americans. Get it right - they did not EVOLVE, they mated between infraspecific taxa just as we observe in the natural world you are ignoring.

There are no infraspecific taxa among modern humans; what you've just written is scientifically meaningless. And yes, they evolved from multiple Asian populations, which in turn evolved from one or more earlier Asian populations, which evolved from a single southwest Asian population, which evolved from an East African population.

"There are at least three deep lineages in Native American populations," said co-author David Reich, Professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. "The Asian lineage leading to First Americans is the most anciently diverged, whereas the Asian lineages that contributed some of the DNA to Eskimo–Aleut speakers and the Na-Dene-speaking Chipewyan from Canada are more closely related to present-day East Asian populations. .... Thus, Eskimo-Aleut speakers migrated back to Asia, bringing Native American genes."

Do you know what "deep lineage" and "most anciently diverged" means? It means they evolved from a single common ancestral population, located in Asia. (If I remember, I'll tell David the next time I see him that someone was quoting him in support of the idea that Native Americans didn't evolve from Asians. I'm sure he'll be thrilled.)

 

[sfs]

sfs is an author on the human genome paper.

Not on the human genome paper. I was on the chimpanzee genome paper, and on one of the companion papers to the human genome (this one). But I did get a "We did it" t-shirt when the genome was declared done, with my name in the list on the back. Slightly misspelled.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not on the human genome paper. I was on the chimpanzee genome paper, and on one of the companion papers to the human genome (this one). But I did get a "We did it" t-shirt when the genome was declared done, with my name in the list on the back. Slightly misspelled.

Close enough.

 

[sfs]

Close enough.

As we used to say at the national lab, "Close enough for government work."

 

[[serious]]

Why is that the best definition?

It best fits the use of the term in the relevant field.

 

[[serious]]

how does science know the difference between a HGT gene and an "evolved" gene?

You should always write out terms before using an acronym.

Now, to answer the question, we would compare the gene to those in ancestral, or related populations. If we see a hemoglobin gene, and similar hemoglobin genes in related species, it suggests the differences were due to mutation.

If, on the other hand, we have a pig with a bioluminesence gene identical to that found in a jellyfish, but absent from all other mammals, we can assume a scientist put it there.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Real geneticist, yah right. Someone that doesn't even understand that Asian remains Asian until they mate with another infraspecific taxa - thinking it is instead the rare deformity that is evolution - is more than what it is - damage to the genome.

You have repeated this claim mutation is synonymous with damage in another thread. I asked you there to cite a source that supports this claim. You never responded so I will ask again here. What are the characteristics of damaged DNA and where is the evidence that mutations always produce such characteristics? If you can provide mothing beyond mere assertion to this effect then your point has little value.

 

[lasthero]

Who mentioned the fossil record? I thought this thread was about HGT.

That's just how Justa is. You watch him long enough, and you'll notice that he has a certain set of arguments that he uses, and ONLY those arguments. Everything he posts is pretty much just a rehashing of something else he's posted, numerous times. Every time he pops up, he tries to turn the subject to what he wants it to be, even if the connection is incredibly tenuous.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are no infraspecific taxa among modern humans; what you've just written is scientifically meaningless.

Yah, yah, we just call them "races". Doesn't make your claims any more valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"In biological taxonomy, race (Latin: prōles, stirps[1]) is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies; the term is recognized by some, but is no longer governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature."

So race was initially instituted to show the division between different taxa within a species. So, is an Asian a different race or not from an African?

And we call the infraspecific taxa within domesticated species "breeds". We all understand the difference between the Husky and the Mastiff is no greater or less than the differences between Asian and African.

You know - what the "species" becomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So if you wish to stop the designation at subspecies, we can do that too. As the Husky subspecies mates with the Mastiff Subspecies and produces the subspecies Chinook, so the Asian subspecies mates with the African subspecies and produces the Afro-Asian subspecies.

How you want to do this? What names do you want to use?

And yes, they evolved from multiple Asian populations, which in turn evolved from one or more earlier Asian populations, which evolved from a single southwest Asian population, which evolved from an East African population.

Didn't evolve at all, they were bred, just as a Husky when bred with a Mastiff Makes a Chinook. Please quit ignoring not only all of nature - but now also how reproduction works.

Do you know what "deep lineage" and "most anciently diverged" means? It means they evolved from a single common ancestral population, located in Asia. (If I remember, I'll tell David the next time I see him that someone was quoting him in support of the idea that Native Americans didn't evolve from Asians. I'm sure he'll be thrilled.)

No, it means they came (the "First Americans" their wording) from Asia. Later another different infraspecific taxa migrated and began mating with the ones already there. Different because we understand that it is at that point - two separate classes of DNA were combined - not of the same population. On a further occasion another infraspecific taxa migrated over. We also know this because their DNA was also different. As for the pretty phrase "most anciently diverged" it means that the first one that migrated over was from the first infraspecific taxa from Western Asia. We know this because the Native Americans (specifically the Eskimo branch - even has a pretty subname if u want to look it up) migrated back and mixed with the Eastern infraspecific taxa.

At no time was the fantasy of evolving from one species to the next involved. In fact, without even realizing it you have revoked all claims to evolution - by insisting humans cannot ever become other than they are. By ignoring the very biological data that was your only claim to fame. When you say "modern Humans" does this include Neanderthal????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project

"According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee. (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 99% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)"

Yes it is, just imagine what a little .3 does in some peoples imaginations.

At least be a little more realistic in the artwork.

 

[sfs]

Yah, yah, we just call them "races". Doesn't make your claims any more valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"In biological taxonomy, race (Latin: prōles, stirps[1]) is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies; the term is recognized by some, but is no longer governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature."

So race was initially instituted to show the division between different taxa within a species. So, is an Asian a different race or not from an African?

And we call the infraspecific taxa within domesticated species "breeds". We all understand the difference between the Husky and the Mastiff is no greater or less than the differences between Asian and African.

You know - what the "species" becomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So if you wish to stop the designation at subspecies, we can do that too. As the Husky subspecies mates with the Mastiff Subspecies and produces the subspecies Chinook, so the Asian subspecies mates with the African subspecies and produces the Afro-Asian subspecies.

How you want to do this? What names do you want to use?




Didn't evolve at all, they were bred, just as a Husky when bred with a Mastiff Makes a Chinook. Please quit ignoring not only all of nature - but now also how reproduction works.



No, it means they came (the "First Americans" their wording) from Asia. Later another different infraspecific taxa migrated and began mating with the ones already there. Different because we understand that it is at that point - two separate classes of DNA were combined - not of the same population. On a further occasion another infraspecific taxa migrated over. We also know this because their DNA was also different. As for the pretty phrase "most anciently diverged" it means that the first one that migrated over was from the first infraspecific taxa from Western Asia. We know this because the Native Americans (specifically the Eskimo branch - even has a pretty subname if u want to look it up) migrated back and mixed with the Eastern infraspecific taxa.

At no time was the fantasy of evolving from one species to the next involved. In fact, without even realizing it you have revoked all claims to evolution - by insisting humans cannot ever become other than they are. By ignoring the very biological data that was your only claim to fame. When you say "modern Humans" does this include Neanderthal????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project

"According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee. (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 99% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)"

Yes it is, just imagine what a little .3 does in some peoples imaginations.

At least be a little more realistic in the artwork.

Learn something about genetics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Learn something about genetics.

I already have - apparently more than you. As i said:

It is very simple.

show me an Asian that has become anything but an Asian??? African???? Husky???? Mastiff???? Panda Bear???? Bottle-nose Dolphin????? ______________ (insert animal/plant/bacteria/virus name here)????????

I am still waiting for your observational data which you rely on for support - since in each and every case we will find two or more infraspecific taxa mating to produce a brand new one. Just like we did with the Native American one - because you forgot that the old theory of one tribe migrating over and evolving - logical with half the data missing - but still wrong, was falsified by genetic data. In each and every case we will have no need of evolution to explain what we see around us or in the fossil record.

Just that we accept what we observe in the natural world over flights of fancy.

But lack of data is usually what leads evolutionists in each and every case to fall back to standard attack the poster instead of the evidence - because they can never attack the evidence - as they have no data to counter with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's just how Justa is. You watch him long enough, and you'll notice that he has a certain set of arguments that he uses, and ONLY those arguments. Everything he posts is pretty much just a rehashing of something else he's posted, numerous times. Every time he pops up, he tries to turn the subject to what he wants it to be, even if the connection is incredibly tenuous.

A certain set you have all failed time and again to counter and that falsifies your religious beliefs in evolution - so - being left without any actual data to counter with - you of course resort to ad-hominem attacks and attacking the poster instead of the data. Typical when someone's religious beliefs have been dashed.

You fit the prime definition every single post you make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly."

Because all of us here understand you can't attack the argument directly. Avoidance is all you are left with.

Your talking about tenuous? Lol, that's a good one! I needed a good laugh.

Instead of Asians and Huskies, would you care to discuss Finches???? Or just continue with those ad-hominem attacks? Doesn't really matter to me either way - one will show you wrong - the other will show your avoidance.

 

[[serious]]

I already have - apparently more than you. As i said:

It is very simple.

show me an Asian that has become anything but an Asian??? African???? Husky???? Mastiff???? Panda Bear???? Bottle-nose Dolphin????? ______________ (insert animal/plant/bacteria/virus name here)????????

I am still waiting for your observational data which you rely on for support - since in each and every case we will find two or more infraspecific taxa mating to produce a brand new one. Just like we did with the Native American one - because you forgot that the old theory of one tribe migrating over and evolving - logical with half the data missing - but still wrong, was falsified by genetic data. In each and every case we will have no need of evolution to explain what we see around us or in the fossil record.

Just that we accept what we observe in the natural world over flights of fancy.

But lack of data is usually what leads evolutionists in each and every case to fall back to standard attack the poster instead of the evidence - because they can never attack the evidence - as they have no data to counter with.

My friend's dad is asian, but made someone who is mixed race. How many mixes would be required before such a person was not asian? i hope you aren't trying to adopt a one drop rule.

Going back further, native americans are descendants of asians, but are not considered asians themselves. Likewise for australian aborigines. Since I have a very small amount of native american ancestry, that means I would be another not-asian that is descended from asians.

 

[lasthero]

A certain set you have all failed time and again to counter and that falsifies your religious beliefs in evolution - so - being left without any actual data to counter with - you of course resort to ad-hominem attacks and attacking the poster instead of the data. Typical when someone's religious beliefs have been dashed.

You fit the prime definition every single post you make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly."

Because all of us here understand you can't attack the argument directly. Avoidance is all you are left with.

Your talking about tenuous? Lol, that's a good one! I needed a good laugh.

Instead of Asians and Huskies, would you care to discuss Finches???? Or just continue with those ad-hominem attacks? Doesn't really matter to me either way - one will show you wrong - the other will show your avoidance.

Case in point.