Tree of life

[crjmurray]

Another interesting bit of trivia about those ceratopsia is this....

No archaeologist or museum is going to damage the fossils of one of these. There is a guy who has a museum, I cannot remember where, and he does cut into these. What he found that these "different" ceratopsia are not different "links" in a chain of evolution. They are just different ages. As one of these matures it goes through different stages, as any mammal does. By cutting open his specimens he was able to prove, through bone density, that they were in fact the same beast, just different stages of maturity...

Yeah science sure is amazing.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Who is this anonymous poster?!?!?!

We did a test that affected the whole site for a few minutes.

We figured we might have a few of these type of posts.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No, because if they can interbreed - then they are not separate species - merely infraspecific taxa (breeds, variety, formae) within the same species.

Who's arguing they are different species except for evolutionists and ignoring their own definitions? You are the one claiming species can interbreed - when that is the definition of the same species. You are confused if you think I am ignoring the scientific definition in favor of Fairie Dust as are the evolutionist's.

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

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction."

So ignore the scientific definitions if you like, just don't expect me to buy the Fairie Dust you are trying to sell. So since Darwin's Finches are reproducing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes - what is your excuse for calling them separate species? What is your excuse for calling any male and female capable of producing fertile offspring a separate species????

EDIT:

I know what "they" say - I want to know why "you" are ignoring the scientific definitions? I already know why they are.

We've been through this before.

There are lots of species that can breed and produce fertile offspring. It is not me that has called them separate species, it is biologists and taxonomists. As has been shown in other discussion, there are even plants in different genuses that can hybridise and produce fertile offspring. E.g. see Savannahs which are a fertile hybrid of the different species servals Leptailurus serval and a domestic cat Felis catus. It's not me that has defined these as different species even though they can interbreed, it's the scientific community.

If you look down the wikipedia page that you quote, you'll find a whole list of other species concepts. The reason why there are other species concepts other than the one you mention is that the concept of species is far messier and less precise that you describe.

Yes, people 'often' define species as the largest group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But, this definition is over-simple and doesn't match the real world. E.g. the british freshwater fish roach and rudd (different species) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And they do, even in the wild. But, they are different species. Not decided by me, decided by the biologists who assigned them different species name.

Here's another example. Lilies in Montana. Elegant sego lily ( Calochortus selwayensis ) and the mariposa lily ( C. apiculatus ). Natural hybrids are found in the wild, but they are different species. http://www.biologyreference.com/Ho-La/Hybridization-Plant.html#ixzz3mcxeyiYs

 

[juvenissun]

2.3 Million Species Mapped on the current version of the Tree of life.

http://files.opentreeoflife.org/trees/
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/most-comprehensive-tree-life-23-million-species-created

Tree of Life is a reserved term.
I would call this one to be Tree of Death. In fact, it is a better fit term.

 

[pgp_protector]

Tree of Life is a reserved term.
I would call this one to be Tree of Death. In fact, it is a better fit term.

So you want me to change what the link's call it to suit you?
I'll pass.

 

[juvenissun]

So you want me to change what the link's call it to suit you?
I'll pass.

May be make your comment accordingly at the next time.

 

[Loudmouth]

The view of heredity that is now emerging is also challenging the tree metaphor, which is based on the assumption that the pattern of evolution is a branching one, with each branch starting from a single common ancestor.

"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])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

There are strong arguments in favor of the conjecture that in early evolution horizontal gene transfer may have been the rule rather than the exception, and that it may still be of major importance today, especially in the evolution of microorganisms and plants (Arnold, 2006; Goldenfeld and Woese, 2007).

However, it has had little influence in the evolution of complex eukaryotes since the Pre-Cambrian. The Tree of Life concept still works quite well for complex eukaryotes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tree of Life is a reserved term.
I would call this one to be Tree of Death. In fact, it is a better fit term.

Every living organism is at the end of a long line of living organisms that span billions of years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

there is some speculation that HGT is mainly confined to prokaryotes.
this is turning out to be wrong:
Researchers have also documented countless cases of viruses shuttling their genes into the genomes of animals, including our own.
What has become increasingly clear in the past 10 years is that this liberal genetic exchange is definitely not limited to the DNA of the microscopic world. It likewise happens to genes that belong to animals, fungi and plants, collectively known as eukaryotes because they boast nuclei in their cells. The ancient communion between ferns and hornworts is the latest in a series of newly discovered examples of horizontal gene transfer: when DNA passes from one organism to another generally unrelated one, rather than moving ‘vertically’ from parent to child. In fact, horizontal gene transfer has happened between all kinds of living things throughout the history of life on the planet – not just between species, but also between different kingdoms of life. Bacterial genes end up in plants; fungal genes wind up in animals; snake and frog genes find their way into cows and bats. It seems that the genome of just about every modern species is something of a mosaic constructed with genes borrowed from many different forms of life.
-How horizontal gene transfer shakes up evolution – Ferris Jabr – Aeon.htm

Oh agreed. And is why they do not want to accept the scientific conclusions of HGT. It destroys any claims of inter-species relatedness from vertical descent and renders them null and void. It crosses horizontally and is only then passed on vertically. Not due to any familial relationship, but simply from the action of virus's inserting themselves at that point into the genome.

But what most of the studies fail to take into account is that it is only those that are in the reproductive genomes that get passed on. If one inserts itself into the genome of a cell in your arm - it will not get passed to the next generation - same with claimed mutations, etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh agreed. And is why they do not want to accept the scientific conclusions of HGT.

We fully accept the widespread occurrence of HGT in prokaryotes. What you refuse to accept is the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes.

"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])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Not due to any familial relationship, but simply from the action of virus's inserting themselves at that point into the genome.

Viruses do not transport genes from one eukaryote species to another. This is something you have invented from whole cloth.

But what most of the studies fail to take into account is that it is only those that are in the reproductive genomes that get passed on. If one inserts itself into the genome of a cell in your arm - it will not get passed to the next generation - same with claimed mutations, etc.

Which studies fail to account for this? Please be specific.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Another interesting bit of trivia about those ceratopsia is this....

No archaeologist or museum is going to damage the fossils of one of these. There is a guy who has a museum, I cannot remember where, and he does cut into these. What he found that these "different" ceratopsia are not different "links" in a chain of evolution. They are just different ages. As one of these matures it goes through different stages, as any mammal does. By cutting open his specimens he was able to prove, through bone density, that they were in fact the same beast, just different stages of maturity...

Yes, am familiar with it: Jack Horner - Where are the Baby Dinosaurs?

More than likely a few of those Ceratopsia - and every other class - is merely a baby or adult of another. Of just the 12 major dinosaur of North America, 5 were found to be classified incorrectly being actually babies or adults. And this does not take into account breeds within a species which widens the gaps even further.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We fully accept the widespread occurrence of HGT in prokaryotes. What you refuse to accept is the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes.

"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])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32


Viruses do not transport genes from one eukaryote species to another. This is something you have invented from whole cloth.



Which studies fail to account for this? Please be specific.

I know, because all you ever search for or read is one out of the 1000's. And then think you understand it all.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0CBsQgQMwAGoVChMIvq_6272QyAIVh36SCh1p3AFa

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=lgt+in+mammals&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&as_vis=1

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, am familiar with it: Jack Horner - Where are the Baby Dinosaurs?

More than likely a few of those Ceratopsia - and every other class - is merely a baby or adult of another. Of just the 12 major dinosaur of North America, 5 were found to be classified incorrectly being actually babies or adults. And this does not take into account breeds within a species which widens the gaps even further.

Are you saying that humans and ceratopsia are the same species?

 

[Loudmouth]

I know, because all you ever search for or read is one out of the 1000's. And then think you understand it all.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0CBsQgQMwAGoVChMIvq_6272QyAIVh36SCh1p3AFa

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=lgt+in+mammals&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&as_vis=1

Show me a single paper that disproves anything I have said.

"What you refuse to accept is the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes."--Loudmouth

Does finding a few rare examples of HGT in complex eukaryotes change the fact that it is nearly absent? Nope.

"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])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show me a single paper that disproves anything I have said.

"What you refuse to accept is the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes."--Loudmouth

Does finding a few rare examples of HGT in complex eukaryotes change the fact that it is nearly absent? Nope.

"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])."--Eugene Koonin and Maureen O'Malley
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

I just showed you as many pages as you care to look up and read - of known examples of HGT or LGT in mammals. Can show you for reptiles, birds, or any other creature that they have bothered to get around to looking at.

No one is buying that hype but you Loud.

You can call a monkey a complex eukaryote if it makes you feel better - but according to you they are our cousins.

 

[whois]

Oh agreed. And is why they do not want to accept the scientific conclusions of HGT. It destroys any claims of inter-species relatedness from vertical descent and renders them null and void. It crosses horizontally and is only then passed on vertically. Not due to any familial relationship, but simply from the action of virus's inserting themselves at that point into the genome.

that seems to be the case.
Because of their fixed gene pool and gene loss, however, mitochondria and plastids alone cannot adequately explain the presence of all, or even the majority, of bacterial genes in eukaryotes. Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes.

Horizontally acquired genes are not only frequent in unicellular eukaryotes 3–5, but also found in various multicellular eukaryotes, including cnidarians 6,7, mites 8, insects 9–12, nematodes 13–15, fish 16, and land plants 17–22. Although reports of HGT in eukaryotes are still frequently met with skepticism, evidence for HGT throughout eukaryotic evolution is abundant and increasing.
-Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes The weak-link model.htm

We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.
-Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

I just showed you as many pages as you care to look up and read - of known examples of HGT or LGT in mammals.

You have shown very rare examples which does nothing to refute what I have said. The vast, vast majority of DNA in eukaryotes is from vertical inheritance.

You can call a monkey a complex eukaryote if it makes you feel better - but according to you they are our cousins.

Humans are also complex eukaryotes. Also, I have no problem with monkeys being my cousins.

 

[Loudmouth]

that seems to be the case.
Because of their fixed gene pool and gene loss, however, mitochondria and plastids alone cannot adequately explain the presence of all, or even the majority, of bacterial genes in eukaryotes. Available data indicate that no insurmountable barrier to HGT exists, even in complex multicellular eukaryotes.

Doesn't change the fact that HGT is exceedingly rare in complex eukaryotes which allows the phylogenetic signal from vertical inheritance to come screaming through.

Horizontally acquired genes are not only frequent in unicellular eukaryotes 3–5, but also found in various multicellular eukaryotes, including cnidarians 6,7, mites 8, insects 9–12, nematodes 13–15, fish 16, and land plants 17–22. Although reports of HGT in eukaryotes are still frequently met with skepticism, evidence for HGT throughout eukaryotic evolution is abundant and increasing.

How frequent? How does it compare to VGT?

We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.

And what scale is that? How does it compare to VGT?

We fully accept that HGT happens in complex eukaryotes on very rare occasions. What we are also saying is that it happens so rarely that it doesn't cause any problems when we construct phylogenies based on the overwhelming amount of DNA that is vertically inherited.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Doesn't change the fact that HGT is exceedingly rare in complex eukaryotes which allows the phylogenetic signal from vertical inheritance to come screaming through.

It's only rare because we are just now getting around to realizing it happens. You are still trying to live in the past - LGT or HGT is the new forefront of biological research.

Every single animal in which tests are done to look for LGT or HGT - find them in abundance. If you do not look Loud, you will never see them. The vertical is only noticeable - because you can trace the point at which it was inserted from HGT - after which it is transferred vertically. You can only focus on the vertical, while you ignore the point in which those shared genes begin - unable to be gained - if they already share a common ancestor - except from HGT. There is no reason to even accept your claims - when we should already have had those phenotype's if your claims are true.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's only rare because we are just now getting around to realizing it happens.

That's completely false. We have sequenced more than 95% of the human and chimp genomes. If HGT was common, then it would have shown up when we compared those genomes. It doesn't. The same for comparisons of other whole genomes that have been done across the eukaryote phylogeny.

You are still trying to live in the past - LGT or HGT is the new forefront of biological research.

Not for eukaryotic evolution it isn't.

Every single animal in which tests are done to look for LGT or HGT - find them in abundance.

What is "in abundance"? What percentage of the genome? How many genes compared to the number of genes inherited by VGT?

You and whois keep using these vague terms without ever using anything quantitative. Why is that?

The vertical is only noticeable - because you can trace the point at which it was inserted from HGT -

Baloney. We can trace more than 95% of the human and chimp genomes to a common ancestor, and that DNA was inherited vertically from that ancestor. The rest we are just unable to align properly because we don't know where it fits within the genome. Of that remaining 5%, I have seen no evidence that any of it was acquired by HGT since the human/chimp split.

You can only focus on the vertical, while you ignore the point in which those shared genes begin - unable to be gained - if they already share a common ancestor - except from HGT. There is no reason to even accept your claims - when we should already have had those phenotype's if your claims are true.

How many genes in the human and chimp genome were inherited since humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor? Give me a number.