Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scientific American: Horizontal gene transfer more common than thought

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

And therefore, Darwinism less common, though good luck getting many to draw that out. Here:

There are a few examples of gene swapping between eukaryotes — the domain of life that includes fungi, plants and animals — and even from bacteria to eukaryotes (see ‘Bacterial gene helps coffee beetle get its fix’). But such events, known as horizontal gene transfer, were thought to be rare.

But Daniel Muller, a microbial ecologist at the University of Lyons in France, and his colleagues have cast doubt on that assumption after studying bacteria in the soil around the roots of plants. They found that the bacterial gene acdS, used to promote the growth of plant roots, was also present in several types of fungus. Their work is published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Muller and his colleagues scanned the genomes of 149 eukaryotes, and found acdS-like genes in 65 of them — 61 in fungi and 4 in parasitic microorganisms called oomycetes, including Phytophthora infestans, the microbe responsible for the Irish potato famine. After analysing the organisms’ genetic family trees, the researchers determined that the most likely explanation was that three different kinds of bacterium had donated the gene to the fungi and oomycetes in a total of 15 different horizontal-gene-transfer events.

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) did not do. If  HGT proves a factor in evolution, it carves a piece out of Darwin’s territory.

See also Horizontal gene transfer from moss to ferns

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
StephenA: "We must follow the evidence where it leads. Even if it leads us to believe life was caused by the designs of lovcraftian elder gods." The evil part of my mind would love to see the reaction of the bulk of IDists if it were proven the ID was correct and that the designer was a cruel vindictive little A-hole. Do you really think that they would "follow the evidence where it leads"?Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
On a side note, how does ID explain the numerous heritable genetic diseases that do not show their nasty little heads until after the person has reproduced and passed along the suffering to his/her offspring. Sounds like one cruel intelligence.
So? That's only an argument against a benevolent designer. ID doesn't say whether the designer actually cares about our wellbeing. You have to add extra evidence to find the answer to that. We must follow the evidence where it leads. Even if it leads us to believe life was caused by the designs of lovcraftian elder gods.StephenA
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Darwinian evolution is about random VARIATION- Darwin didn't know about mutations. That means Darwinian evolution is OK with HGT as that would be a random variation to Darwinian evolutionists. Acartia_bogart:
On a side note, how does ID explain the numerous heritable genetic diseases that do not show their nasty little heads until after the person has reproduced and passed along the suffering to his/her offspring.
Darwinian evolution. ;)Joe
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Ba77 "There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way." Marfans, Tay Sachs, fragile X and numerous other heritable diseases are caused by a gradualist process. I would call them significant. On a side note, how does ID explain the numerous heritable genetic diseases that do not show their nasty little heads until after the person has reproduced and passed along the suffering to his/her offspring. Sounds like one cruel intelligence.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
wd400 states: (Of course, once a gene is sucked up by some other genome is is subject to normal evolutionary processes and darwinism applies) And yet wd400 cannot provide empirical evidence a single gene/protein that has arisen by unguided Darwinian processes "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ Darwinian Mechanism Proven Unrealistic by Biochemical Evidence http://cn.cross.tv/91187bornagain77
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Pav, HGT is one of several processes that makes gene trees differ from species trees. I don't know how the the "information" in a gene differs when it passed down a tree or 'jumps' across branches i that tree. (Of course, once a gene is sucked up by some other genome is is subject to normal evolutionary processes and darwinism applies)wd400
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Pav:
I have a question for you: what effect would HGT have on phylogenetic trees?
Since the HGT would subsequently be inherited in the organisms lineage, I assume that it would simply be a source of new traits in a lineage. In short, it would have little difference.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Can anyone explain the logic of it to me?
Yes. Think of it in terms of information. Darwinian evolution has to account for the 'information' we find in the genome. If HGT takes place, then the 'information' found in the genome which receives the information is not due to "natural selection acting on random mutation." If you want to take the silly position that "Of course, HGT itself is a Darwinian process," then you will have problems with the logic involved.PaV
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
wd400: I have a question for you: what effect would HGT have on phylogenetic trees?PaV
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
This claim
Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) did not do
certainly makes no sense to this evolutionary biologist (and Darwinist in the special version of the term that UD insists on). Can anyone explain the logic of it to me?wd400
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Makes no sense to a Darwinist, Wd400, and I think that is the point of the post.ppolish
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Oh, but AB, this is a News post. There is no requirement (or probability) that it make any sense...wd400
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) did not do.
How do you figure that? Natural selection is about the differential survival of adaptive traits. When Darwin proposed this, he had no knowledge of DNA and genetics. And he hadn't even ruled out the heredity of acquired characteristics as a possibility.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
I'd like to know what the observed rates of HGT are across microbes, plants and animals, not rates based on the assumption of common descent.JoeCoder
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
I'd like to read Walter ReMine's thoughts on this.JGuy
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply