sinequanon:
Taxonomy started out as an exercise in categorizing organism by similarity in form -- morphology.

Heredity was determined as the mechanism which explained why similar structures could be found in different species.

This led Darwin to propose common ancestry and a possible ultimate common ancestor -- "last universal ancestor".

This is really a problem in information transfer. How does information (like structure) transfer from one organism to another. Just because we see this information transfer, does it demonstrate heredity?

Take a look at these..



http://www.pbase.com/image/103530756

This is not a wasp. Its structural similarities to a wasp are not inherited. It is a moth.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_viridis

This slug contains "genes" found in plant cell nucleii. [size=18]This transfer of information is not by inheritance.[/size]

Therefore evidence for transfer of information, morphological or genetic, does not imply heredity.

This puts into question the taxonomical basis for common ancestry.

[Please ignore the trolls.

They will obfuscate by ignoring the point, repeating how "science works", regurgitating the Theory of Evolution for no reason, and copying and pasting irrelevant essays on the NON-inheritance mechanisms (like mimicry in natural selection) that may account for the examples above (just to give the impression that they are clued up and nobody else is). Meanwhile, their essay will not address the point of the thread. Please ignore them -- the usual suspects.]

Dapo777:
Lol

plaetton:

Lol indeed.

Hilarious, isn't it?.
Start a discussion by begging everyone to ignore the relevant points of opponents.
This is quite ingenious.

plaetton:
Well,
I am going to be the first to throw in the towel and say that I don't what the op is talking about.

I am eager to learn something new today.
I hope the op will give us all a simple lesson on biology and hereditary today.

sinequanon:
Taxonomy started out as an exercise in categorizing organism by similarity in form -- morphology.

Heredity was determined as the mechanism which explained why similar structures could be found in different species.

This led Darwin to propose common ancestry and a possible ultimate common ancestor -- "last universal ancestor".

This is really a problem in information transfer. How does information (like structure) transfer from one organism to another. Just because we see this information transfer, does it demonstrate heredity?

Take a look at these..



http://www.pbase.com/image/103530756

This is not a wasp. Its structural similarities to a wasp are not inherited. It is a moth.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_viridis

This slug contains "genes" found in plant cell nucleii. This transfer of information is not by inheritance.

Therefore evidence for transfer of information, morphological or genetic, does not imply heredity.

This puts into question the taxonomical basis for common ancestry.

[Please ignore the trolls.

They will obfuscate by ignoring the point, repeating how "science works", regurgitating the Theory of Evolution for no reason, and copying and pasting irrelevant essays on the NON-inheritance mechanisms (like mimicry in natural selection) that may account for the examples above (just to give the impression that they are clued up and nobody else is). Meanwhile, their essay will not address the point of the thread. Please ignore them -- the usual suspects.]

davien:
sinequanon can you provide the genetic variation between the two organisms?

sinequanon:


Between the slug and the moth?

I am sure their is no database of slug or moth genomes, let alone slug vs moth.

And what were you looking for, exactly? A list of tens of millions of base pairs?

Weah96:


I may be wrong, but I believe what you're asking is, how are phylogenetic trees constructed if genes can be transferred horizontally?

Dapo777:


By default he has won the argument already even before the argument starts,since he has asked the audience to ignore all the opponents' points

davien:
We could atleast know if its just a molecular vestige with that..

Irrespective of that,the slug has a subcellular endosymbiotic relationship with the alga Codium fragile....
so how do you expect not to find plant genes on the slug when it has a subcellular symbiotic relationship with a plant?

Humans also have genes from different viruses....does that make a human a virus?

sinequanon:


This is the sort of nonsense post I warned about in the OP.

Yes, we can all quote "subcellular endosymbiotic relationship with the alga Codium fragile" from wikipedia, well done.

The rest of your post is junk.

davien:
Did I deny not quoting from wikipedia? The point is that you aren't interested in anything that contradicts your preconceptions....
If I begin explaining anything else it would be a non sequitor...

sinequanon:


Nope. That question is not in the OP. Neither does a similar gene imply transfer of that gene.

The question is why are you ASSUMING gene transfer and heredity (a phylogenetic tree) from the actual observation, which is INFORMATION TRANSFER.

The actual observation is information transfer.

The ASSUMPTION in the vast majority of cases is HEREDITY, usually without any consideration of other mechanisms.

For example, the mass of evidence in the fossil record is simply ASSUMED to be cause by heredity.

Weah96:


Wait a minute. You do know that the horizontal gene transfer is responsible for the algal dna found in the slug, right?

..irrelevant essays on the NON-inheritance mechanisms (like mimicry in natural selection) that may account for the examples above..

Weah96:


Wait a minute. You do know that the horizontal gene transfer is responsible for the algal dna found in the slug, right?

davien:
That doesn't count, horizontal gene transfer is an assumption...lol

sinequanon:


You are so locked into ToE defence mode, that you are totally clueless and incapable of following the OP. I even predicted your behaviour.

sinequanon:
The OP is about the ASSUMPTION OF HEREDITY.

a) Any post that does not address this is junk.

b) Any post that addresses it merely using rhetorical questions is junk.

A valid post either:

i) refutes that HEREDITY is an independently unproven assumption in most cases (e.g fossil record).

ii) discusses WHY it is valid not to independently verify the assumption.

sinequanon:


From the OP



Now, can you answer the correct question.

[size=18pt]NOT[/size] "what other mechanisms are there, apart from heredity" -- the OP even gives examples, for you!

BUT -- [size=16pt]GIVEN THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER MECHANISMS, WHY IS HEREDITY ACCEPTED IN MOST CASES, WITHOUT PROOF.[/size]

e.g Similar morphology in fossils is usually explained by heredity, without considering other possibilities, even though there is no independent proof of heredity in that specific instance.

Weah96:
Show me a similar phenomenon which was attributed to the hereditary transfer of information, and not horizontal gene transfer.

sinequanon:


The OP is about TAXONOMY in general.

Answer the question in the OP and stop trying to change it into a subjective and meaningless squabble about whether one phenomenon is similar/similar enough to another.

Weah96:


You have a certain aggression about you. What's the point of opening a thread if you're going to behave like a spoiled child who has just conceded a goal?

What's the point of mentioning the slug in the OP, if I'm expected to completely ignore it?

Weah96:
I told you what I thought the OP was asking. You denied it, only to come repeating the same question.

How does phylogenetics address the issue of horizontal gene transfer? That's your question, and a pretty good one at that.
I suggest you read up on your material before posting. Some of these answers are readily available online.

sinequanon:


"Readily available online" is not an answer.

You obviously have a comprehension problem, too.

"HOW do you justify an ASSUMPTION of HEREDITY" is a totally different question to "How does phylogenetics address the issue of horizontal gene transfer?"

Weah96:


Just so we're clear, you're saying that there is no basis to assume a hereditary relationship between two organisms because genes can be transferred by non hereditary means.

Weah96:
If that is true, than DNA tests that determine paternity are flawed, since heredity can only be assumed.