Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
The tree of life is not at all what it was thought to be in Darwin's day, I agree.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The tree of life is not at all what it was thought to be in Darwin's day, I agree.i believe HGT does a pretty fair job at smashing common descent in the darwinian sense.
there simply cannot be that kind of thing.
a tree of life drawn up at the species level does not correlate with one drawn up at the genetic level.
this correlates well with what maynard says about these transitions being major ones.
When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation supplied.Can you give an example of such a genetic mismatch?
When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation supplied.
This assumption of parallelism across levels has now been widely dropped.
As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated.
www.biologydirect.com/content/2/1/30
The tree of life is not at all what it was thought to be in Darwin's day, I agree.
This might update your information:Yeah, it is.
" The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32
In Darwin's day, the tree only had eukaryotes on it since they hadn't discovered bacteria yet.
More of the same. No one is denying that HGT occurs. What we are saying is that the overwhelming majority of DNA shared by distant eukaryote species is due to VGT, not HGT.
Of the DNA shared by chimps and humans, how much do you think is due to HGT that has occurred since those lineages diverged?
Not really. It is claiming that HGT might be more frequent than originally thought.
I've not read any studies in relation to that question.
it is:Not really. It is claiming that HGT might be more frequent than originally thought.
it is:
. . . we then took our analysis a step further by comparing multiple closely related species and combining information on horizontally transferred (‘foreign’) genes found in more than one species in the group, thereby reducing mis-identification of HGT caused by spurious alignments. In this way, we identified up to hundreds of active foreign genes in animals, including humans, suggesting that HGT provides important contributions to metazoan evolution.
-Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes.htm
the paper i cited stated 223 protein sequences due to HGT from bacteria.
it also confirms an additional 128, which totals 351.
also, it isn't necessarily quantity that is important, but the value of the gene.
most of the genome, as you know, is composed of junk (or non coding) genes.
the paper outlines 3 important genes that was "inherited" by HGT.
first is hyaluronan synthases (HAS1-3). These were originally proposed as examples of prokaryote-to-metazoan HGT [19], but later rejected [20]; however, neither study considered foreign taxa other than bacteria. We were able to identify all three hyaluronan synthases as class A HGT, originating from fungi, an assessment supported by our phylogenetic analysis (Figure 3). The HAS genes appear in a wide variety of chordates, but not in non-chordate metazoans, suggesting they result from the transfer of a single gene around the time of the common ancestor of Chordata, before undergoing duplications to produce the three genes found in primates.
second is We also identify cases of HGT reported more recently that have not been analysed in detail despite the potentially interesting consequences of such a finding. For example, the fat mass and obesity associated gene (FTO, in Additional file 5: Figure S1A) seems to be present only in marine algae and vertebrates [27,28], which is a highly unusual distribution.
third is Another gene proposed to have been horizontally transferred is the ABO blood group gene (ABO, in Additional file 5: Figure S1B), which is suggested to enhance mutualism between vertebrates and bacteria [29].
as you can see, these are very important genetic transfers that did not happen in the darwinian sense, they did not "evolve".
what's more important is that they became fixed immediately upon acquisition.
so yes, HGT in humans is an important, and proven, fact.
can you post a link to a post of mine where i used a "creationist argument"?
correct, it's the evidence that matters.
i've seen no evidence whatsoever that "things become alive".
alive, as in the biological cell found in plants and animals.
if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.
And evolution could have been guided by a god.if we assume the answer true, then we have 2 choices:
1. life arose by "evolution"
2. life was created by a god.
Sure, why not. As long a belief doesn't contradict reality, I have no problem with it. Theistic evolution is better than nothing.Or even the giant pink wombat, who knows?
Theistic evolution is better than nothing.
God.What is it about evolution that it apparantly requires the "theistic" qualifier?
Fear, fear and more fear.Why do I never hear about "theistic" germs, "theistic" gravity, "theistic" heliocentrism, "theistic" plate tectonics, etc?
What is it about evolution that it apparantly requires the "theistic" qualifier?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?