Jump to content


Photo

Has Hgt Ever Been Actually Observed?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 27 February 2017 - 06:56 PM

Has Horizontal Gene Transfer been proven in a lab to actually occur? I'm making a distinction between assuming or believing that it occurs (or seeing evidence that it occurs) vs someone actually proving somehow in a lab that it has actually occurred?

 

Has anyone produced a repeatable test that one can use to observe HGT actually happening?

 

Relatedly, what do creationists say about HGT?



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 February 2017 - 09:09 PM

Welcome, Edd.  I spent two years at Univ of Utah in SLC and loved the area.

 

My primary area of interest is the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, etc.), so the biological stuff isn't really my thing.... but I'm pretty sure genetic engineering works by HGT. 

 

Viral insertions are well known and documented in the literature.  Does that count?



#3 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 February 2017 - 10:26 PM

interesting question.
it's apparent that transposons can mimic HGT.

judging from all the other nonsense surrounding evolution, interpret at your own risk.

apparently, transposons act as a pointer to where to get the genetic sequence.
expressly:
The first type or Class I transposons are retrotransposons. They are called so because they behave like the DNA of retroviruses. They are first transcribed by the cell to form RNA and then, this RNA is reverse transcribed by reverse transcriptase (often encoded by the transposon) to give DNA that is then integrated into a random position by enzymes called integrases (also encoded by the transposon). It can be clearly seen, that in this case, the original donor element remains intact. Hence, the transposable element gets replicated.
https://www.quora.co...nome-to-another

it's clear from the above that entire sequences can be considered "transposons", not just a single gene.

i don't see why this wouldn't work for single celled life.

transposons aren't an accumulation of genetic material.

edit:
from wiki:
A transposon (jumping gene) is a mobile segment of DNA that can sometimes pick up a resistance gene and insert it into a plasmid or chromosome, thereby inducing horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance.[34]
https://en.wikipedia...l_gene_transfer

#4 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 February 2017 - 09:38 PM

transposons aren't an accumulation of genetic material.

i hate it when i get ahead of myself like this.
the above quote by me was in reference to type 2 transposons.

transposons are a result of routine genetic activity and not acquired from outside the cell like HGT.

also, type 1 transposons seems to suggest there may be a "transposon code".

furthermore, transposons in conjunction with epigenetics can explain a large part of evolution.

#5 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 02 March 2017 - 11:58 AM

Hi, what parts of evolution does it explain, and what parts does it not explain?



#6 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 March 2017 - 02:57 PM

Hi, what parts of evolution does it explain, and what parts does it not explain?

if you are referring to my post, i said it can, i didn't say it does.

transposons can explain some of evolution because it can mimic genetic additions to the genome.
apparently epigenetics moderates this process

you must remember a few things.
1. i'm about a million miles from being even close to an expert.
2. the above is my opinion, but it's based on material i've read.

but it does raise the curious quote from glansdorf:
LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse. LUCA's genetic redundancy predicts loss of paralogous gene copies in divergent lineages to be a significant source of phylogenetic anomalies, i.e. instances where a protein tree departs from the SSU-rRNA genealogy; consequently, horizontal gene transfer may not have the rampant character assumed by many.
- The Last Universal Common Ancestor emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.htm

the interesting part is:
. . . horizontal gene transfer may not have the rampant character assumed by many.
- ibid.

this seems to suggest all of this stuff (transposons, epigenetics) evolved together.

there is just no way this can be ascribed to dumb luck, in my opinion of course.

#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 March 2017 - 01:14 PM

Hi, what parts of evolution does it explain, and what parts does it not explain?

the following gives a general idea:
https://en.wikipedia...iki/Transposase


the above quora source (post 3) i posted seems to be in error, because this process cannot be ascribed as "random".

#8 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 March 2017 - 06:48 AM

i've been looking for some answers for the thread title.
i came across this just recently:
Nevertheless, the correlation between an organism's lifestyle and the apparent source of horizontally acquired genes is, along with phylogenies of individual protein families, a strong argument in support of horizontal gene transfer (1, 16). This correlation is seen in certain parasitic bacteria that have more genes which seem to be acquired from their eukaryotic hosts than their free-living relatives, and in hyperthermophilic bacteria that possess an excess of genes of apparent archaeal origin (see http://www.ncbi.nlm....ez/taxik?gi=141and http://www.ncbi.nlm..../taxik?gi=138). It could be argued that shared genes in archaeal and bacterial hyperthermophiles are ancestral, rather than horizontally transferred. However, the fact that hyperthermophilic bacteria possess archaeal versions of many genes, along with typically bacterial ones, strongly supports the horizontal transfer interpretation.
www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(00)80867-3

as you can see, HGT is basically an interpretation of the evidence, it hasn't been actually observed.

transposons can mimic HGT in that a gene (or sequence of genes) can appear.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users