Horizontal gene transfer discovered from bacteria to insects

_{News
November 28, 2014

horizontal gene transfer, News

3}_{Categories
horizontal gene transfer
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

(“several species of ticks and mites”)

It’s a dog eat dog world, and bacteria have been living in it for a long time. It’s of no surprise that bacteria have a sophisticated arsenal to compete with each other for valuable resources in the environment. In 2010, work led by University of Washington Department of Microbiology Associate Professor Joseph Mougous uncovered a weaponry system used in this warfare between bacteria. The combatants inject deadly toxins into rival cells.

Now, in a surprising twist, Mougous and colleagues have found that many animals have taken a page from the bacterial playbook. They steal these toxins to fight unwanted microbes growing in or on them. The researchers describe their findings in a report to be published online Nov. 24 in the journal Nature.

“When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab. “We immediately started wondering why they were there.”

…

While such transfer events are common between microbes, very few genes have been reported to jump from bacteria to more complex organisms.

Best guess: There’ll be more.

One problem this creates for Darwinian evolution is this: Determining when a change actually happened in a Darwinian way (natural selection acting on random mutation) as opposed to horizontal gene transfer is now a matter for research, not dogma.

Abstract

Horizontal gene transfer allows organisms to rapidly acquire adaptive traits1. Although documented instances of horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes remain rare, bacteria represent a rich source of new functions potentially available for co-option2. One benefit that genes of bacterial origin could provide to eukaryotes is the capacity to produce antibacterials, which have evolved in prokaryotes as the result of eons of interbacterial competition. The type VI secretion amidase effector (Tae) proteins are potent bacteriocidal enzymes that degrade the cell wall when delivered into competing bacterial cells by the type VI secretion system3. Here we show that tae genes have been transferred to eukaryotes on at least six occasions, and that the resulting domesticated amidase effector (dae) genes have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years through purifying selection. We show that the dae genes acquired eukaryotic secretion signals, are expressed within recipient organisms, and encode active antibacterial toxins that possess substrate specificity matching extant Tae proteins of the same lineage. Finally, we show that a dae gene in the deer tick Ixodes scapularis limits proliferation of Borrelia burgdorferi, the aetiologic agent of Lyme disease. Our work demonstrates that a family of horizontally acquired toxins honed to mediate interbacterial antagonism confers previously undescribed antibacterial capacity to eukaryotes. We speculate that the selective pressure imposed by competition between bacteria has produced a reservoir of genes encoding diverse antimicrobial functions that are tailored for co-option by eukaryotic innate immune systems. (You have to pay to read the article.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

bornagain: your appeal to millions of years instead of direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence to falsify ID and substantiate Darwinism is duly noted and dismissed as completely unscientific Hypothesis: evolution occurs over millions of years fifthmonarchyman: I can't see it happening before my eyes. You do realize that's not a valid falsification. bornagain (quoting): None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Speciation has been observed. Varying degrees of reproductive isolation have been observed. bornagain: moreover, contrary to what you imagine, ‘embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence’ are certainly not your friends in trying to substantiate Darwinism As you refuse to look at it, it's not clear you would be able to tell. You don't even seem to understand the basic evidence scientists consider important in support of evolutionary theory. Again, you might want to consider the evidence for the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. It's a excellent example because the modern structure is irreducibly complex, but we have fossils showing how it evolved.Zachriel_{November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Zach, your appeal to millions of years instead of direct OBSERVATIONAL evidence to falsify ID and substantiate Darwinism is duly noted and dismissed as completely unscientific:
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: "Eldredge claims that, after 150 years, science has failed to disprove the theory of evolution and, therefore, "evolution has triumphed". In other words, the theory of evolution rests on the failure of science to show that it is false. Nevertheless, he believes the theory can be scientifically tested. But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.,,," Alan H. Linton is emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/159282.article
moreover, contrary to what you imagine, 'embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence' are certainly not your friends in trying to substantiate Darwinism,,,bornagain77_{November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: contrary to what you imagine to be true, you have no cited OBSERVATIONAL evidence for codes originating, nor getting more complex, by unguided material processes. The authors, peer reviewers, and editors of scientific journals disagree. As do we. bornagain77: You instead have a literature bluff Teehee. Oh. Sorry. bornagain77: You instead have a literature bluff saying how the genetic code MIGHT HAVE originated. But instead of responding to the specifics as to why the researchers may be mistaken, you just wave your hands and spew forth a long "literature bluff". bornagain77: if there were ever ANY OBSERVED instances of unguided material processes creating functional information and/or complexity, then ID would be quickly falsified. Evolution occurs over millions of years, so it's unlike you will see much happening in a few years. Let's try a simler example. A canonical example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, which is supported by studies of embryos, fossils, and molecular evidence.Zachriel_{November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski's project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,, ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, ,,, If you folks think that direct, parsimonious, rather obvious route to 1 in 10^20 isn't reasonable, go ahead, calculate a different one, then tell us how much it matters, quantitatively. Posit whatever favorable or neutral mutations you want. Just make sure they're consistent with the evidence in the literature (especially the rarity of resistance, the total number of cells available, and the demonstration by Summers et al. that a minimum of two specific mutations in PfCRT is needed for chloroquine transport). Tell us about the effects of other genes, or population structures, if you think they matter much, or let us know if you disagree for some reason with a reported literature result. Or, Ken, tell us how that ARMD phenotype you like to mention affects the math. Just make sure it all works out to around 1 in 10^20, or let us know why not. Everyone is looking forward to seeing your calculations. Please keep the rhetoric to a minimum. With all best wishes (especially to Professor Myers for a speedy recovery), Mike Behe http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html etc.. etc..bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Zach, contrary to what you imagine to be true, you have no cited OBSERVATIONAL evidence for codes originating, nor getting more complex, by unguided material processes. You instead have a literature bluff saying how the genetic code MIGHT HAVE originated. For you to claim that is OBSERVATIONAL evidence is, sans Matzke, dishonest! Moreover, if there were ever ANY OBSERVED instances of unguided material processes creating functional information and/or complexity, then ID would be quickly falsified. As it is, as Dr. Stephen Meyer has repeatedly pointed out, every time we see information (or functional complexity) we invariably trace its source back to mind. There simply are no instances where we trace functional information and/or complexity back to unguided material processes. A few notes to that effect:
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996 Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum - March 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors - 2011 - pictures Excerpt: Figure 3 - Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/ Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291 The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html "As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information." - Stephen Meyer http://www.signatureinthecell.com/responses/response-to-darrel-falk.php
bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Hypothesis: An idea you can test. References https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0CGhy6cNJE http://www.pbs.org/parents/dinosaurtrain/activities/a-colorful-hypothesis/Gary S. Gaulin_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: you equate hypothesis with observational evidence! No. It's hypothesis, entailed predictions, observation. The hypothesis is a tentative assumption held for the purpose of deducing and testing its empirical implications through observation. bornagain77: NO ONE has ever SEEN any code arise, nor any simpler code get more complex, by unguided material processes! And Galileo couldn't see the Earth move. bornagain77: Galileo could directly observe the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter and could hypothesize from that direct observational evidence he saw. That's correct. Galileo had indirect evidence of the Earth's movement. In any case, you continue to ignore the cited evidence.Zachriel_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Zach, it may interest you to know that observation has a far more important place in science than you seem to realize. Einstein's breakthroughs in relativity came from thought experiments in which he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference to make measurements: Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein's approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct "frame of reference" in which velocities are measured,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video https://vimeo.com/93101738 Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.). Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 Einstein - General Relativity - Thought Experiment - video https://vimeo.com/95417559 Moreover, quantum mechanics has an irreducible subjective element of conscious observation to it that is not merely a 'hypothetical observer' as it was/is in special relativity. How observation (consciousness) is inextricably bound to measurement in quantum mechanics: Quote: "We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/neumann/ The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories - Sachs - 1986 Excerpt: quantum theory entails and irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view. http://books.google.com/books?id=8qaYGFuXvMkC&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Zach, that is your problem, you equate hypothesis with observational evidence! NO ONE has ever SEEN any code arise, nor any simpler code get more complex, by unguided material processes! Moreover, to equate what Galileo did to what you are doing is an insult to Galileo. Galileo could directly observe the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter and could hypothesize from that direct observational evidence he saw. You have nothing of the sort to equate to Galileo.bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: MIGHT HAVE evolved certainly do not count as direct observational evidence for unguided processes creating a code. You asked for observational evidence. Many scientific findings are supported by such means. It's not as if Galileo could see the Earth's motion. Ignoring the evidence is not an argument.Zachriel_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

So Zach, once again, you have no direct observational evidence that HGT machinery evolved from simpler machines as you had claimed???? Moreover, Hypothetical papers as to how the DNA code, ribosome, etc.. MIGHT HAVE evolved certainly do not count as direct observational evidence for unguided processes creating a code. OBSERVATIONAL science means exactly that. WE OBSERVE IT! We don't simply hypothesize it and then accept our hypothesis because it sounds pretty. Moreover, I have ample reason to request observational evidence instead of hypothetical evidence since it is known that the first DNA code of life on earth had to be at least as complex as the current DNA code found in life: Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video https://vimeo.com/106430965 “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Moreover, the simplest way to explain why channel capacity is so problematic for unguided Darwinian processes to overcome is best explained by Dawkins himself: Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011 Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal: "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10) OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code). Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI Of related note: “Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature.” (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) etc.. etc..bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Present your observational evidence Where to start! How about the genetic code? The order of incorporation of amino acids into the genetic code. See Bernhardt & Patrick, Genetic Code Evolution Started with the Incorporation of Glycine, Followed by Other Small Hydrophilic Amino Acids, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2014. Here's an overall map of the process. See Hartman & Smith, The Evolution of the Ribosome and the Genetic Code, Life 2014. On triplet expansion. Frenkelab & Trifonov, Origin and evolution of genes and genomes. Crucial role of triplet expansions, Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics 2014. Even practical uses for this knowledge. See Davis & Chin, Designer proteins: applications of genetic code expansion in cell biology, Nature 2012. How protein function guided expansion. Francis, Evolution of the Genetic Code by Incorporation of Amino Acids that Improved or Changed Protein Function, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2013. Here's an overview. Flügel, The Evolution of the Genetic Code, Chirality and Life 2010: "To date, most agree that the Genetic Code was formed in the RNA world and that a primitive mechanism of translation predated the Code." bornagain77: I, and many others on UD, truly want to see ANY observational evidence whatsoever that unguided Darwinian processes can produce this level of sophistication: "The origin of the life we know Just like this poem rose from simple forms, In meaning, and in kind, step-by-step."Zachriel_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Zach, "We have evidence that the current mechanisms evolved from more primitive mechanisms." well what are you waiting for man? Present your observational evidence and let's shut ID down baby! I, and many others on UD, truly want to see ANY observational evidence whatsoever that unguided Darwinian processes can produce this level of sophistication: Virus – Assembly Of A Nano-Machine – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto Bacteriophage T4 DNA Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQQz0NGUNQ Here is a short video of the Bacteriophage ‘landing’ on a bacterium: Bacteriophage T4 – landing – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc… mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. Moreover Zach, although you deny making any claims about a designer, since you have no observational evidence that unguided processes can produce such sophistication, then your entire argument against ID, and your belief that unguided processes built all the wondrous complexity in life, must be based on your subjective opinion as to what a designer would and would not do. You simply have no other path available to arrive at your atheistic/deistic belief since you have no direct observational evidence for unguided processes producing functional complexity/information. and FYI, I don't care what your subjective opinion is.bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

bornagain: so once again, what you are really saying is that you have no observational evidence whatsoever for unguided processes creating any of the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT We have evidence that the current mechanisms evolved from more primitive mechanisms. bornagain: but you subjectively believe that HGT is not the way a designer would do it if He did it We didn't make any claims about the designer.Zachriel_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Zach, so once again, what you are really saying is that you have no observational evidence whatsoever for unguided processes creating any of the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT, i.e. machines that transfer the 'simple strings of genetic material', but you subjectively believe that HGT is not the way a designer would do it if He did it, and you consider that subjective opinion of yours to be proof enough that sophisticated molecular machines, that outclass anything man has built, can arise by unguided processes! Thanks for clearing that up!bornagain77_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: so what you are really saying is that you don’t have ANY evidence that unguided processes built the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT, you just presume what you listed is incompatible with what a designer would do for HGT. In the case of viruses, we have simple strings of genetic material that can invade a genome. We also have evidence of their long evolutionary history, including examples of genomic invasion. No one knows the origin of genomes, if that is what you are asking, however, there is evidence that the genetic code evolved from simpler relationships. If you want to put your purported design in the gaps, just keep in mind that the gaps keep getting smaller. Mapou: a tree that incorporates horizontal gene transfers does not form a nested hierarchy by definition. It forms a statistically significant nested hierarchy. Mapou: I remember a time when you used to argue for a strictly nested hierarchy. No. See Darwin 1859.Zachriel_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, a tree that incorporates horizontal gene transfers does not form a nested hierarchy by definition. So stop lying. I remember a time when you used to argue for a strictly nested hierarchy. I noticed that, recently, you have changed your tune and have taken to calling it "an objective nested hierarchy". What we need is a theory of the evolution of Darwinian evolution (TEDE).Mapou_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Moreover, many times evolutionists will scan molecular sequences using computer algorithms designed to look solely for evidence that accords to a preconceived evolutionary conclusion whereas ignoring all sequences that disagree with their inherent bias:,,,
Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract “The computer programs that analyze the sequence similarities, or differences, are programmed in advance to generate a tree-like pattern. In other words, the assumption of a common ancestor is built into the way in which the analysis is performed. So there is no way you would get anything other than the conclusion,,, It’s a question begging assumption.” Stephen Meyer – on the Cambrian Explosion – podcast (15:25 minute mark) http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-30T17_33_15-07_00 Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070 - Whif Excerpt: One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well.,,, Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden. But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contradictory-trees-evolution-goes-0.html Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/
of related note:
Heks' in depth refutation of keith s's 'trillions to one' claim for 'Objective Nested Hierarchy' https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heks-continues-to-suggest-a-way-forward-on-the-ks-bomb-argument/#comment-532847
bornagain77_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Despite what Darwinists falsely imagine to be true, the fossil record and genetic evidence simply looks nothing like what we would expect to see if neo-Darwinism were actually true, but it does look like what we would expect if top-down design were true::
What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg
, as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html
Moreover, there are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion, which is certainly not what Darwin predicted,,
"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is also found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians
The genetic evidence, contrary to what many Darwinists tell the public, is as problematic as the fossil record is for them,,
Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php Darwin’s Tree of Life was uprooted in the Cambrian explosion - March 17, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,The study had sought to determine the evolutionary history of the animal phyla by analyzing fifty genes along seventeen taxa. He hoped that a single, dominant phylogenetic tree would emerge. Rokas and his team reported that “a 5-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among most metazoan phyla” because it generated numerous conflicting phylogenies and historical signals. Their conclusion was candid: “Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.”,,, Sean B. Carroll went so far as to assert that “certain critical parts of the TOL [Tree of Life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.” This problem applies specifically to the relationships of many of the animal phyla, where “[m]any recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies.” Investigators studying the animal tree found that “ a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality” such that in one case, a study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom”,,, Their article brings the discussion of the Cambrian explosion full circle from an attempt to use genes to compensate for the absence of fossil evidence to the acknowledgment that genes do not convey any clear signal about the evolutionary relationships of the phyla first preserved by fossils in the Cambrian. Steve Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (pp. 120–21) https://uncommondescent.com/tree-of-life/darwins-tree-of-life-was-uprooted-in-the-cambrian-explosion/
bornagain77_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

lifepsy: Nor does Evolution, your denial notwithstanding. Yes, the nested hierarchy is an entailment of the Theory of Evolution. See Darwin 1859. lifepsy: Evolution doesn’t even necessarily predict a variety of traits that make classifying distinct organisms possible. Yes, variation is observed, and is fundamental to the Theory of Evolution. See Darwin 1859. lifepsy: Yet all intelligently designed objects fall into distinct groups that can be organized hierarchically, as we see in life. Artifacts do not generally form an objective nested hierarchy. They can be arranged in many equally consistent ways. Library books, for instance, can be arranged by Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress classification, or any of a number of systems.Zachriel_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, Human designers mix-and-match so much that artifacts generally don’t form an objective nested hierarchy. Nor does Evolution, your denial notwithstanding. Evolution doesn't even necessarily predict a variety of traits that make classifying distinct organisms possible. Yet all intelligently designed objects fall into distinct groups that can be organized hierarchically, as we see in life. Life appears far more designed than evolved any way you look at it.lifepsy_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

OT: Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase "Design Principles" - November 28, 2014 Excerpt: The word "design" appears 24 times in the paper. "Selection" appears twice, in the phrase "selective pressure" (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word "evolution" appears just once:,,, We see, therefore, that "design" references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find "machine" or "machinery" four times, "coding" or "encoding" 15 times, "information" (in terms of information to be processed) five times, "accurate" (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, "precision" 29 times, "efficient" four times, and "optimal" or "optimum" 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1. Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,, The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, "Yep, it's fit. It's optimal." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/biologists_are091531.htmlbornagain77_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Zach, so what you are really saying is that you don't have ANY evidence that unguided processes built the sophisticated molecular machines behind HGT, you just presume what you listed is incompatible with what a designer would do for HGT. To give you a clue what kind of scientific proof I'm asking you Darwinists for, do you have any observational evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can build a 'simple' bacteriophage virus? Virus - Assembly Of A Nano-Machine - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto Bacteriophage T4 DNA Packing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQQz0NGUNQ Here is a short video of the Bacteriophage 'landing' on a bacterium: Bacteriophage T4 - landing - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY The first thought I had when I first saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks very similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye.bornagain77_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: put more simply, you actually don’t have any proof that the sophisticated mechanisms/machines behind HGT are the result of evolution, you just think that the designer wouldn’t have done it that way??? Well, we might presume that the designer of all life would have more capabilities than humans, not less. But leaving that aside, and to answer your question, we have evidence of mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer, such as hybridization, endogenous retroviruses, and specifics regarding bacterial invasions.Zachriel_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Here's what we KNOW:
When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab.
Here's what happens next:
“We immediately started wondering why they were there.”
This means: "think like evolutionists," as if the theory is dogma, or fact. This results in:
Now, in a surprising twist, Mougous and colleagues have found that many animals have taken a page from the bacterial playbook. They steal these toxins to fight unwanted microbes growing in or on them
This is all conjecture passing itself off as learning. It is more probable that the "bacteria" received the "toxin" from the "animal." Why? Because snake 'toxins,' e.g., are simply a combination of proteins that are not normally produced by somatic cells. IOW, the so-called "toxin" is nothing more than 'proteins' that are not in their proper place. You can see that one bacteria might excise one protein to act as a 'toxin,' while another bacteria might select another, and thus, the two bacteria 'compete' with each other. This is more probable than HGT from "bacteria" to "animals." If you want to complicate the scenario even more, than you only have to consider that the 'bacteria' might simply commandeer the m-RNA responsible for the 'toxic' protein and incorporate it into its genome with a reverse transcriptase. IOW, there are lots of possibilities, ones more probable than simply HGT in the direction of 'bacteria' to 'animal,' and yet, our Darwinist brethren simply go into their Darwinian toolhouse, pick out a few little tools that give some kind of plausible explanation, and then off they go. Again, this is ALL we know:
When we started digging into genome databases, we were surprised to find that toxin genes we thought were present only in bacteria were also in several animals,” explained co-author Matt Daugherty, a postdoctoral fellow in the Malik lab.
As to what happened to brings this about, well, any old Darwinian "just-so" story will do. Let's hear it for science!PaV_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Zach, put more simply, you actually don't have any proof that the sophisticated mechanisms/machines behind HGT are the result of evolution, you just think that the designer wouldn't have done it that way??? Thanks for clearing that up.bornagain77_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Mung: I don’t know why the designer didn’t think of using HGT. That's rather the point. Human designers mix-and-match so much that artifacts generally don't form an objective nested hierarchy.Zachriel_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

I don't know why the designer didn't think of using HGT.Mung_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

News: Determining when a change actually happened in a Darwinian way (natural selection acting on random mutation) as opposed to horizontal gene transfer is now a matter for research You seem to be conflating natural selection with branching descent. Natural selection acts on variations, whether from mutation or horizontal gene transfer or whatever. And yes, that's what evolutionary biologists do, research.Zachriel_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply