Understanding mutations

[kitkat]

Please correct me if I have this wrong is that mutations occur mostly through copying errors, transporons that move genes to different locations, environmental damage, viruses that change protein functions that through time eventually changes the appearance of life forms.

 

I realize that HGT from microbial life is rare but I can't help thinking that it occurs more often that what is believed right now. Basically it is the microbial life that enable this planet to remain a living one. It is also believed that our cells originated from two different species of microbes. The chloroplast and the mitochondria was once an independent microbial life form. We are dependent on them for everything from the oxygen we breathe to the food we consume. Isn't it logical to believe that we serve them?

[Ophiolite]

Please correct me if I have this wrong is that mutations occur mostly through copying errors, transposons that move genes to different locations, environmental damage, viruses that change protein functions that through time eventually changes the appearance of life forms.

That seems comprehensive.

 

I realize that HGT from microbial life is rare but I can't help thinking that it occurs more often that what is believed right now.

How rare do you think Horizontal Gene Transfer is? My impression is the exact opposite of yours. The role of HGT in evolution of the prokaryotes is widely recognised and is, I understand, argued by some to be the dominant form of gene transfer. So are you suggesting it is even more prevalent than dominant?

 

 

Basically it is the microbial life that enable this planet to remain a living one. It is also believed that our cells originated from two different species of microbes. The chloroplast and the mitochondria was once an independent microbial life form. We are dependent on them for everything from the oxygen we breathe to the food we consume. Isn't it logical to believe that we serve them?

No. It is completely illogical. If you apply the same twisted logic then I serve my car: I provide it with nourishment, I groom it, I guide it arounf the country; I am it's servant and slave. B)

[kitkat]

That seems comprehensive.

 

How rare do you think Horizontal Gene Transfer is? My impression is the exact opposite of yours. The role of HGT in evolution of the prokaryotes is widely recognised and is, I understand, argued by some to be the dominant form of gene transfer. So are you suggesting it is even more prevalent than dominant?

 

 

 

No. It is completely illogical. If you apply the same twisted logic then I serve my car: I provide it with nourishment, I groom it, I guide it arounf the country; I am it's servant and slave. B)

What I meant to say is HGT between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The car analogy is twisted since we are dependent on our cars to get us from point A to point B and this is evident in that we do not want to give them up in light of what we know as one of the causes of global pollution.

[Ophiolite]

What I meant to say is HGT between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Certainly that is less common, but it is acknowledged as being important. Since it is a comparatively new field of research we can expect examples of it to multiply. It is still probably to early to say how important it has been, but - as noted - I sense the consensus is that it has been of some importance. Your OP suggests you think its importance is being overlooked. If this is what you meant I would disagree - I think it would be more accurate to say its importance is still being assessed.

 

The car analogy is twisted since we are dependent on our cars to get us from point A to point B and this is evident in that we do not want to give them up in light of what we know as one of the causes of global pollution.

Of course it is twisted. But that is exactly what you were doing with your original statement. Continuing your logical thrust i would say that the cars are dependent on us to get them from A to B, not the other way round.

[kitkat]

Certainly that is less common, but it is acknowledged as being important. Since it is a comparatively new field of research we can expect examples of it to multiply. It is still probably to early to say how important it has been, but - as noted - I sense the consensus is that it has been of some importance. Your OP suggests you think its importance is being overlooked. If this is what you meant I would disagree - I think it would be more accurate to say its importance is still being assessed.

 

 

Of course it is twisted. But that is exactly what you were doing with your original statement. Continuing your logical thrust i would say that the cars are dependent on us to get them from A to B, not the other way round.

i am glad that it is not being ignored. The big difference between cars and prokaryotes is that they did not need us to survive for most of early earth's history. The connection seems to lie in the point when the sun's energy intensified or not (do we know) that affected their ability to expand to other ecological niches. The output of oxygen by photosynthesis by prokaryotes did not appear to be the cause for the rise of oxygen that arose to become a crisis, it wasn't until chloroplasts in eukaryotes arose is believed to be the cause while simultaneously the cambrian explosion occurred at the same time. This of course killed many of prokaryotes competitors thus giving many of the new eukaryotes a much higher odds of survival.

 

Sexual reproduction is an arms race against evolving pathogens while at the same time offers protection for the microbial communities that live in us and in our environment.