Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Horizontal gene transfer may be a big factor in evolution, and why it matters

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If we go by this:

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.

To whatever extent evolution occurs, we need evidence, not “Anything is possible!” And we’ll get a court order to teach our theory!

Further to: Bacteria use small spear to acquire antibiotic resistant genes, here are some further stories that crossed our screen in 2014, also:

Horizontal gene transfer discovered from bacteria to insects

Horizontal gene transfer: Jumping gene jumped to all three domains of life?

Why horizontal gene transfer is bad news for Darwinism:

[The modern synthesis] is called a synthesis because it is a synthesis between two different mechanisms of evolution. That is what the word synthesis means. The synthesis in this case is: natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) AND horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Darwinism is vertical and HGT is horizontal. So no, HGT is not Darwinism and Darwinism is not HGT. This vid gives the general idea of the difficulty one would face explaining the proposition to one of Darwin’s followers:

The problem HGT creates for Darwinism is that Darwinism has typically functioned as a “must be” explanation for evolution. If genes can be horizontally transferred between bacteria and animals, each and every case of claimed evolution in those animal life forms that have proved capable of it must be tested against HGT. They cannot be simply classed as evidence for Darwinism. Just think of the impact this will eventually have on “Darwinizing the culture.” First, if evolution happens by a variety of means, but mostly not Darwinian – and often just reverses itself – much Darwinism will crumble insofar as it was credited as simply the only “scientific” explanation.

In terms of ending Darwinian neuroencephalopathy (Darwinitis), that may be the most significant news of all. Will Darwin’s followers get a court order forbidding the discussion of non-Darwinian evolution in schools?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
The [more] modern synthesis then, the one that must now include HGT.
You mean evolutionary biology? We can only know how extensive horizontal gene transfer is as an evolutionary force by using the methods of evolutionary biology (phylogeny, for instance). Apart from adding another chance process by which lineages can develop new traits, I'm not sure what else we are meant to take from this. You seem to think HGT is incompatible with and distinct from "Darwinism", but you haven't explained why (or indeed which meaning of Darwinism you refer to).wd400
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
The mantra of the Current Synthesis is the same as the Modern Synthesis which is the same as Darwinism: "Survival (or else) is unguided and purposeless." What is the mantra of ID? I kind of like "Be the best you can be." "Be the best you can be" is guided and purposeful.ppolish
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
The [more] modern synthesis then, the one that must now include HGT.News
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
News,
[The modern synthesis] is called a synthesis because it is a synthesis between two different mechanisms of evolution. That is what the word synthesis means. The synthesis in this case is: natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) AND horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Darwinism is vertical and HGT is horizontal. So no, HGT is not Darwinism and Darwinism is not HGT.
By "The modern synthesis" are you referring to the developments in the 1940s? Horizontal gene transfer wasn't even known at that time, and so, obviously, that's not what the synthesis was about.goodusername
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply