Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A way evolution can happen—that is, how information gets shared

Categories
Evolution
horizontal gene transfer
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

from The Scientist , we learn,

In what appears to be a novel form of bacterial gene transfer, or conjugation, the microbe Mycobacterium smegmatis can share multiple segments of DNA at once to fellow members of its species, according to a study published today (July 9) in PLOS Biology. The result: the generation of genetic diversity at a pace once believed to be reserved for sexual organisms.

The researchers found that, after the transfers, up to a quarter of the recipient bacteria’s genomes were made up of donated DNA, scattered through the chromosomes in segments of varying lengths.

According to the authors, the diversity resulting from distributive conjugal transfer approaches that achieved by meiosis, the process of cell division that underlies sexual reproduction. “The progeny were like meiotic blends,” said Derbyshire. “The genomes are totally mosaic.”

As to where the “original” information came from, in a sense, that is like asking how life itself originated. It is a separate question from the evolution of life thereafter.

That is, if we want to study evolution, we want to study the mechanisms by which life forms change over time. We can do so even if we do not know how the information they have altered, traded, or expunged* originated. Good thing, that, as it is likely much harder to find that out.

Note: Perhaps expunged only temporarily, as in the case of the blind cave fish whose offspring’s eyes reappeared when they were hybridized.

Comments
I don’t see a particularly dramatic change. “Evo-devo” has been around for a while.
I have read Sean Carroll's book, "Endless Forms, Most Beautiful." There was nothing there. If I missed something, let me know. I have both a hard copy and the ebook so I can re-read it.
they believe (wrongly) that in a multiverse there are unlimited probabilistic resources that make their implausible creation myth (Darwinism) more plausible.
The funny thing about the mulitverse and the unlimited probabilistic resources is that it says anything is possible including a massive intelligence that just might utter the words, "Let there be light." But would this massive intelligence do it English. Unless the materialist propose there would be a limit on the intelligence of an entity in a multiverse of unlimited resources. For those of you who still advocate naturalistic evolution Massimo Pigliucci says that there is no known mechanism for the heavy lifting part of evolution: http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGAES Darwin's ideas can explain the trivial but anything complicated is a mystery. Maybe Pigliucci is a closet ID advocate.jerry
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle,
It might turn out that life is as inevitable as stars and planets and galaxies and black holes.
This sentiment basically equates to naval gazing. We know that Life on Earth is driven in local systems by recorded information. It is unreasonable to ignore this fact just because materialists cannot demonstrate an adequate basis for the organization that makes those local systems possible.Upright BiPed
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
I paraphrase EL: “Given the way things are, things are the way they are.” Indisputably true, as all tautologies are. But it does not address the really important and exciting questions: (1) Why are things the way they are instead of some other way? And (2) Why, indeed, are there things at all instead of pure non-being? The materialists answer to 1: Chance. That is why materialists are so enamored with multiverse silliness – they believe (wrongly) that in a multiverse there are unlimited probabilistic resources that make their implausible creation myth (Darwinism) somehow plausible. The materialist answer to 2: I dunno.Barry Arrington
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
I didn't say it could :)Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
EL; The universe we have, being quite fine tuned, cannot properly be taken as a given. KFkairosfocus
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
^Sorry, messed up the tags The last two paragraphs are my response to Barry.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Barry
EL: “It might turn out that life is as inevitable as stars and planets and galaxies and black holes.” This statement is interesting. Why do you believe stars, planets, galaxies and black holes were in any sense “inevitable”?
Inevitable given the universe we seem to have. I wasn't saying anything more than that. My own hunch, and its no more than that, is that we live in a universe in which life is quite likely, and therefore probably is not unique to earth. I think such a position is perfectly consistent with the idea that life was intended.
Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
“Evo-devo” has been around for a while.
This is true. And developmental biologists don't know what makes an organism what it is.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
EL: “It might turn out that life is as inevitable as stars and planets and galaxies and black holes.” This statement is interesting. Why do you believe stars, planets, galaxies and black holes were in any sense “inevitable”?Barry Arrington
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
jerry:
No one said DNA is not important. Look at DNA as the building blocks but that the blue print and instructions are some place else. Can’t build anything without materials and individual buildings may require some specialized materials. But without a blue print those materials would not get used in any meaningful way.
I absolutely agree.
No one said it does. I certainly did not. I am saying that the debate will change dramatically from now on. Those who want to dwell on the old will be bogged down in irrelevant stuff.
I don't see a particularly dramatic change. "Evo-devo" has been around for a while.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
UB
There’s no need for me to repeat the number of materialist promoters who have spent their careers assuring the public that Life is an unguided cosmic accident without purpose.
OK, if that's what you mean, fair enough. However, that still wouldn't mean it was "dumb luck". It might turn out that life is as inevitable as stars and planets and galaxies and black holes. But sure, it might not have been created by some being with a mind who had us in mind. On the other hand it might.
This is a statement of belief. Why should it take precedence over the evidence it ignores?
What I mean is that nobody proposes that the first common ancestor was as complicated as a modern-type cell with DNA.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
but while epigenetics are very important, the idea that DNA is not is, well, bizarre.
No one said DNA is not important. Look at DNA as the building blocks but that the blue print and instructions are some place else. Can't build anything without materials and individual buildings may require some specialized materials. But without a blue print those materials would not get used in any meaningful way.
evolutionary theory does not require that hereditary variance is inherited via the genome.
No one said it does. I certainly did not. I am saying that the debate will change dramatically from now on. Those who want to dwell on the old will be bogged down in irrelevant stuff. I am finished for the day since I have to work now.jerry
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle,
All of biology did not pop into existence via spontaneous dumb luck.
There's no need for me to repeat the number of materialist promoters who have spent their careers assuring the public that Life is an unguided cosmic accident without purpose.
Almost certainly what “popped into existence” to become the ancestor of all biological organism didn’t even have what we now associate with “biology” (DNA for example).
This is a statement of belief. Why should it take precedence over the evidence it ignores?Upright BiPed
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
"Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?"*- by Giuseppe Sermonti:
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”- chapter VI
* Book and Chapter TitleJoe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Moreover, the mutations Darwinism needs for Body Plan morphogenesis are the ones most likely to be catastrophic: Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/bornagain77
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
What about hox genes?
Darwinian processes cannot explain their existence. Also HOX genes definitely do not determine the type of organism. So what about them?
In any case, evolutionary theory does not require that hereditary variance is inherited via the genome.
How do you know? Can you link us to this alleged "evolutionary theory"? But anyway no one has any idea what needs to be altered in order to account for the diversity of life observed. Darwin's big idea is totally untestable. And yet it is being pushed as science.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681bornagain77
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
jerry is correct-> DNA is NOT a magical molecule that allows for shape-shifting. Genetic changes influence traits, ie eye color, hair/ fur/ skin color, height, ear lobes, chin shape, etc. Nothing that would lead anyone to infer that it determines what type of organism will develop. That is the question that requires answering- what makes an organism what it is? We are in the 21st century and no one has a clue. Or rather those with a clue are not being heard.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Again, I will bring up Meyer’s book which introduced to me and I guess almost everyone else here some new concepts. Evolution of any consequence did not take place in the genome. It took place in the epigenetics of the egg and my guess in the cell wall of the egg. It is there and at other places in the egg that form is created.
This is a very strange claim. I have not yet finished Meyer's book, but while epigenetics are very important, the idea that DNA is not is, well, bizarre. What about hox genes?
Again not in the genome so all of you who are looking to changes in the DNA as the source of evolution, you are probably in a cul de sac with no useful address. If I have read it right, the whole evolution debate will take a completely different route now. We will be talking about sugar combinations in the cell membranes and other types of molecules stragegically placed in the egg cytoplasm. I believe that is the main thesis of Meyer’s book. Dawkins, Coyne et al are in the cul de sac wandering around trying to find an address that is not there. Anyone with a different understanding, please correct me.
In any case, evolutionary theory does not require that hereditary variance is inherited via the genome. Darwin didn't even know how traits were varied or inherited.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Again, I will bring up Meyer's book which introduced to me and I guess almost everyone else here some new concepts. Evolution of any consequence did not take place in the genome. It took place in the epigenetics of the egg and my guess in the cell wall of the egg. It is there and at other places in the egg that form is created. Again not in the genome so all of you who are looking to changes in the DNA as the source of evolution, you are probably in a cul de sac with no useful address. If I have read it right, the whole evolution debate will take a completely different route now. We will be talking about sugar combinations in the cell membranes and other types of molecules stragegically placed in the egg cytoplasm. I believe that is the main thesis of Meyer's book. Dawkins, Coyne et al are in the cul de sac wandering around trying to find an address that is not there. Anyone with a different understanding, please correct me.jerry
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
UB:
Dr Liddle, the question that was asked referred specifically to biology popping “into existence”, which is almost certainly related to it origin. Perhaps you might try taking your own advice.
Vh wrote:
I’m just amazed at the number of seemingly intelligent people who believe that all of biology could have popped into existence via spontaneous dumb luck
All of biology did not pop into existence via spontaneous dumb luck. Almost certainly what "popped into existence" to become the ancestor of all biological organism didn't even have what we now associate with "biology" (DNA for example).Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
2. The capacity of descent with modification plus natural selection to produce both adaptation and speciation
There is no evidence to support this other than minor changes. Darwin did not supply it and neither have any of those who followed him. No one knows how species have arisen unless you are talking about the minor differences between various types of organisms which somehow gets classified as species differences. There are a lot of beetle species. Again adaptation is not the issue because there is little of no evidence that adaptation has led to anything more than trivial changes in the gene pools. I am not saying that some of these trivial changes have not been useful but again these changes are not the thing being debated. You might want to look at all these wonderful adaptations as "Incredible Design." Why does such a complicated process exists that helps organisms adapt but only allows adaptation so far. Amazing design.jerry
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Upright Biped: seriously, do try reading for meaning.
Dr Liddle, the question that was asked referred specifically to biology popping "into existence", which is almost certainly related to it origin. Perhaps you might try taking your own advice.Upright BiPed
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
3. The capacity of descent with modification to do any more than “microevolution”. Most people here accept 3.
Then they do so absent of supporting evidence. Meaning they do so for non-scientific reasons.
“Evolutionists” think that 2 is supported by the data, and that the idea that Darwinian process can only produce “microevolution” is not.
And yet there aren't any microevolutionary events we can take and extrapolate macroevolution. IOW micro only is supported by the evidence.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
Well, not necessarily – if optimal variance generation mechanisms are selectable.
That has nothing to do with darwinian evolution. There isn't any selecting with darwinian evolution, just elimination.
But NOT “sheer dumb luck” that the advantageous ones will breed more – that is true by definition.
Umm surviving and breeding are two different things. And "advantageous" is relative.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
^First line above is Joe'sElizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Darwinian evolution is most assuredly nothing but sheer dumb luck. Well, not necessarily - if optimal variance generation mechanisms are selectable. But yes, in principle, the variance is produced by local random exploration in the region of what already works.
With darwinian evolution ALL the variation is due to sheer dumb luck. It’s sheer dumb luck that any mutation will confer an advantage. It is sheer dumb luck that any given mutation will be detrimental.
But NOT "sheer dumb luck" that the advantageous ones will breed more - that is true by definition.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
There are two issues here. Organisms and adapted organisms. Darwin’s ideas can not explain the origin of the organism or as Darwin put it, the origin of species, but probably does contribute a lot to their adaptation after they are here.
Well, Darwin did not seek to explain the first common ancestor, but he did did seek to explain adaptation and speciation thereafter.
So the statement really has no relevance in the context of the overall evolution debate. If one wants to ask do most people here accept micro evolution, the answer is yes but it is not a question at issue.
In that case there are three issues, not two: 1. The origin of the first Darwinian-capable self-replicators 2. The capacity of descent with modification plus natural selection to produce both adaptation and speciation 3. The capacity of descent with modification to do any more than "microevolution". Most people here accept 3. Nobody knows the answer to 1. "Evolutionists" think that 2 is supported by the data, and that the idea that Darwinian process can only produce "microevolution" is not.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Darwinian evolution, which is not dumb luck, is almost certainly responsible for the extraordinary range of beautifully adapted organisms that we see.
There are two issues here. Organisms and adapted organisms. Darwin's ideas can not explain the origin of the organism or as Darwin put it, the origin of species, but probably does contribute a lot to their adaptation after they are here. So the statement really has no relevance in the context of the overall evolution debate. If one wants to ask do most people here accept micro evolution, the answer is yes but it is not a question at issue.jerry
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Darwinian evolution is most assuredly nothing but sheer dumb luck. With darwinian evolution ALL the variation is due to sheer dumb luck. It's sheer dumb luck that any mutation will confer an advantage. It is sheer dumb luck that any given mutation will be detrimental. BTW we understand what you are saying- we understand that is is wrong.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply