Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human evolution: Well, this IS a new take on “genetically modified organisms” (GMOs)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From the Economist:

Alastair Crisp and Chiara Boschetti of Cambridge University, and their colleagues, have been investigating the matter. Their results, just published in Genome Biology, suggest human beings have at least 145 genes picked up from other species by their forebears. Admittedly, that is less than 1% of the 20,000 or so humans have in total. But it might surprise many people that they are even to a small degree part bacterium, part fungus and part alga.

Dr Crisp and Dr Boschetti came to this conclusion by looking at the ever-growing public databases of genetic information now available. They did not study humans alone. They looked at nine other primate species, and also 12 types of fruit fly and four nematode worms. Flies and worms are among geneticists’ favourite animals, so lots of data have been collected on them. The results from all three groups suggest natural transgenics is ubiquitous.

It’s called horizontal gene transfer, and we have been covering it for years.

After all, it is a form of evolution for which there is lots of evidence, unlike the Darwin-in-the-schools textbook rot.

It is nice to be able to talk about evolution when there is actually a subject other than the impostures of the Darwin lobby. We hope to do much more on this in the future.

See also: Human evolution as a narrative

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Evolutionists Celebrated This Prediction But When it Later Failed They Didn’t Care - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: Sometimes their use of this lateral or horizontal gene transfer mechanism is a real stretch. And in any case, their story calls for evolution to have created this incredible mechanism which then was so important for adaptation and the supposed subsequent evolution. In other words, evolution created evolution.,,, In some cases evolutionists have no idea, beyond pure speculation, about how it could have happened. As they admit in one paper: "An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolutionists-celebrated-this.html An Enzyme’s Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case of Convergent Evolution – Jonathan M. – February 11, 2013 Excerpt: The authors attempt to account for the incongruity by positing that “the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” They thus attribute the shared genes to horizontal gene transfer (with no offered mechanism), a proposition that has become a catch-all to explain away severe conflicts between evolutionary phylogenies.,,, “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception” (Dávalos et al., 2012). Is it possible that the real reason for such striking and widespread phylogenetic discordance is that evolutionary biologists are looking at biology through the wrong lens? Could the reason that there is so much difficulty in correlating organisms to a tree be that no such tree exists? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/an_enzymes_phyl068911.htmlbornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Piotr:
The substitutions tend to occur in some parts of the protein rather than others, but they don’t form a sequence.
It does not matter. We can calculate the odds of two different genes having the exact same mutations, no? 1. Count the number of letters in the gene. 2. Count the number of identical mutations. 3. Calculate the probability of those mutations occurring twice in different species. If the probability approaches the number of particles in the known universe, you got yourself a big problem of not being credible. If not, you can continue to cruise on the leaky plausibility boat, which is all that convergent evolution is. It's certainly not falsifiable science. It's just a religion (materialism) betting on a lame pony in the race.Mapou
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
“Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – January 1, 2015 Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year092291.htmlbornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
And how do you explain that these substitutions are in the exact same locations in the prestin genes of both species? Let’s calculate the odds. Please do, you may surprise yourself... If you want to see other sequences of prestin genes they are available herewd400
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Mammalian prestin is well out of the reach of unguided evolution. And synonymous mutations can make a difference.Joe
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
#55 Mapou, Mammalian prestin is well conserved: more than 90% of the 700+ amino acids are identical between, say, humans and rats. Toothed whales, during their separate evolution, have acquired about fifty AA substitutions (varying from lineage to lineage), and roughly half of them can also be found among echolocating bats. Additionally, there is a positive correlation between the number of substitutions in toothed whales and the frequency at which they echolocate. For the pygmy sperm whale it's 120 kHz, and about a dozen AA substitutions convergent with those in some bats (corresponding to non-synonymous mutations in the prestin gene; non-synonymous are those that make a difference). This suggests that the trait under selection was high-frequency hearing. The substitutions tend to occur in some parts of the protein rather than others, but they don't form a sequence.Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman, thank you for that Quanta Magazine link. Amazing stuff but this kind of stuff is to be expected because the Darwinist theory is wrong. We'll see many more stuff like this now that genome sequencing is getting to be really cheap.Mapou
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Seems like more assumptions about common ancestors...
But what does it mean to "document" HGT in a multicellular organism? For them, again, it simply means finding a gene that contradicts the phylogeny. They don't actually demonstrate that the gene arose by HGT. They just find a gene that seems more similar to one in another very different type of organism (like bacteria, protists, or fungi) than to more closely related organisms. Then they assume it got there by HGT. Under their (macro)evolutionary mindset, such severe phylogenetic conflict is not taken as evidence that something is wrong with the hypothesis of common ancestry. Rather, it is taken as evidence of HGT
A Big Problem for Common Descent Hardly an isolated opinion by ID scientist as other non-design scientist agree and are recognizing the fall of Darwin's Tree of Life. Looks more like a Forest of Life, multiple trees, not one... Darwin's Tree of Life Wrong As others pointed out above with good questions and observations - research contradicting Darwinist faithful never matter. They appeal to more assumptions, showing a blind, "unguided" faith. Far from being skeptical and scientific, this is beginning to look like a cult of Darwinism.DATCG
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Zachriel and wd400, How many synonymous substitutions are we talking about here? Are we talking about a few pinpoint letters in a sequence or entire sequences within the genes? And how do you explain that these substitutions are in the exact same locations in the prestin genes of both species? Let's calculate the odds. I know, the great convolution, uh... I mean convergence, spirit in the dirt did it.Mapou
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
HGT is interesting. Our technological world experiences horizontal technology transfer all of the time. We see transistors, LEDs, titanium etc. showing up all over the place. This technological interchange is the greatest difference we see between the way nature has assembled life, and the way humanity has assembled technology. HGT in the micro-organism world didn't seem that compelling to me, but extensive HGT in advanced organisms? Quite unexpected. What would really be interesting, however, is if the HGT that has occurred was biologically significant. Its one thing to pick up something from somewhere else, but if what is picked up is "important" that is another matter.bFast
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Correct, just like the amazing parallel evolution of Neurons. Not "just like". The prestin gene has many similarities in bats and whales (parallel), while the neurons of comb jellies are distinct but have a similar function (convergence). Moroz et al. is still tentative though intriguing.Zachriel
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Mapou: So we have complex identical sequences in two species residing in distant branches of the tree of life. Convergence, eh? They are not identical. The synonymous substitutions support the conventional phylogeny. Cross: Or a common designer. That doesn't explain the pattern of synonymous substitutions.Zachriel
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
The Kingdom Plantae has quite a few Intelligently Designed species. Delicious and nutritious. Edit....my bad, I mean they're all Intelligently Designed. But some are "made in the image" by Man.ppolish
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Zac said, That is not an example of horizontal gene transfer, but parallel evolution. I say, Correct, just like the amazing parallel evolution of Neurons. check it out https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150325-did-neurons-evolve-twice/ Apparently there are lots of things in nature that the average Joe would consider to be evidence against UCD but according to Darwinists are no problem at all. ;-)fifthmonarchyman
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
wd400 @ 48 That's what software designers do all the time, incorporate some code that works (class) and make modifications to suit. CheersCross
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
"So we have complex identical sequences in two species" In fact, we do not. They are not identical -- they just share some changes.wd400
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
The really new take on GMOs is the possible connection to autism... My brother feels very strong about it... He has one autistic and one asbergers kid... Who can blame him...? Some selectively blame evolution for it but my brother doesn't buy it... The circle of people I have been around for few years now makes me not to question science, which I do all the time anyways... It's my middle name...Quest
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Piotr @ 43 "leaving molecular convergence as the only remaining possibility" Or a common designer. CheersCross
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Piotr:
The prestin gene occurs in all mammals (including humans), and the researchers who compared the bat and whale sequences were careful to rule out HGT and several other explanations, leaving molecular convergence as the only remaining possibility.
So we have complex identical sequences in two species residing in distant branches of the tree of life. Convergence, eh? This is akin to superstition. It's chicken feather voodoo science. Piotr quoting the article:
The distribution of transfer events is different in the primates, with most foreign groups mapping to the base of the tree (a common ancestor of primates), suggesting that the majority of HGT in primates is ancient.
How do they explain the minority? Whole genes transferred between animals and they're only interested in the base of the tree where HGT between simple organisms is known to be common? Where is the Minority Report? :-DMapou
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
The prestin gene occurs in all mammals (including humans), and the researchers who compared the bat and whale sequences were careful to rule out HGT and several other explanations, leaving molecular convergence as the only remaining possibility.
Common design is more likely.Joe
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Then how do you explain the transfer of complex bat DNA sequences involved in echolocation to whales many millions of years after the sequences first appeared in the tree of life?
Please show that those sequences (I suppose you mean SLC26A5, the gene encoding for prestin, the cochlear motor protein) are "foreign" in whales (e.g. have no orthologues in other mammals) and present the evidence for HGT. OK, you needn't bother. The prestin gene occurs in all mammals (including humans), and the researchers who compared the bat and whale sequences were careful to rule out HGT and several other explanations, leaving molecular convergence as the only remaining possibility.Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Mapou: Then how do you explain the transfer of complex bat DNA sequences involved in echolocation to whales many millions of years after the sequences first appeared in the tree of life? That is not an example of horizontal gene transfer, but parallel evolution. Mapou: Never mind, I know the answer. It’s the all magical and powerful convergent-evolution voodoo God of the genome. Right? No. The prestin gene involved is conserved in mammals, so the common ancestor of the bat and whale shared much the same gene. Both evolved echolocation, which requires higher frequency sensitivity, so the prestin evolved along the same pathway. However, if you look at the synonymous substitutions, they reveal the conventional phylogeny.Zachriel
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
#37 From the article:
To determine whether the detected HGT is ancient (prior to the divergence of the studied taxon), or has occurred throughout the evolution of a particular taxon, we mapped the foreign ortholog groups (representing founding HGT events) for each taxon onto the corresponding phylogenetic trees. In Drosophila species, there is a broad correspondence between length of branch (time) and the number of HGT events along each branch, suggesting that HGT has occurred throughout Drosophila evolution and is likely to be ongoing (Figure 1). ... The distribution of transfer events is different in the primates, with most foreign groups mapping to the base of the tree (a common ancestor of primates), suggesting that the majority of HGT in primates is ancient. In these cases we are not inferring that the HGT event occurred in the most recent common ancestor of all primates, but that it occurred sometime between the common ancestor of Chordata and the common ancestor of the primates, that is, prior to the time period shown in Figure 1. For example, in the case of HAS1 (Figure 3), which is found in a wide variety of chordates, the HGT event likely occurred soon after the common ancestor of Chordata arose.
I suppose it's easier said than done (see the "Discussion" section for a list of problems), but it seems a reasonable approach if you can compare a large number of closely related taxa. (I'm not sure if 10 primate species counts as a large number; if not, there's room for improving the accuracy of the method.)Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: I was not thinking of ERVs as a subset of HGT. The protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi, which causes Chagas disease, can infect human germ cells, and then the DNA is passed down through generations. Other organisms do the same. It's consistent with the selfish gene paradigm.Zachriel
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Mapou:
I mean, how likely is it for a gene to be transferred from one animal to another, make its way to sperm or egg and finally result in an offspring with the newly acquired gene?
Piotr:
From animal to animal? Extremely unlikely.
Then how do you explain the transfer of complex bat DNA sequences involved in echolocation to whales many millions of years after the sequences first appeared in the tree of life? Never mind, I know the answer. It's the all magical and powerful convergent-evolution voodoo God of the genome. Right?Mapou
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: I’d like to see a convincing suggestion of how a gene could transfer horizontally and get into the gamete that becomes egg or sperm for the next generation. Retroviruses are commonly observed, and if they infect a germ cell, they can enter the germ line.Zachriel
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
#34 Aurelio Smith, If my cursory reading of Crisp et al. 2015 is correct, they have identified only three HGT events in the human line since the MRCA of all primates. In other words, it means one "successful" event per 20 million years (of course there may have been others that failed to reach fixation).Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Even rotifers, apparently kings of the HGT game among animals, appear to only have acquired genes from single-celled organisms: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003035wd400
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
#30 Dr JDD, Ha! A good question to ask a specialist, if a specialist ever strays into this neighbourhood. The Wolbachia phage, WO, usually leaves its fingerprints (characteristic prophage elements) in the host's genome, but I have no idea if there are any general methods of detecting such insertions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862486/Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
#29 Mapou, From animal to animal? Extremely unlikely. When the receiver is an animal, the usual sources are prokaryotes, protists, sometimes fungi (DNA transfer from plant to plant is not unknown). One could imagine transfer mediated by an endoparasite which borrows a genome fragment from one of its hosts (like Plasmodium vivax, which has some material "stolen" from Homo sapiens) and passes it on to another. But are there any sure examples?Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply