Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: sponge genes

  1. #1 sponge genes 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    89
    In the most comprehensive study of its kind, the researchers show that all sponges descended from a unique sponge ancestor, who in turn was not the ancestor of all other animals. That means that humans did not descend from a sponge-like organism either, as some scientists have put forward. Moreover, the results also suggest that the nervous system only evolved once in animal history
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0402124316.htm

    How is it possible then that the sponge possesses a nearly complete set of genes identical to those of the human nervous system?

    http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com...ervous-system/

    There is a logical explanation but one that will rock the Science world.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    51
    Convergence?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    89
    My explanation will also explain this

    As part of the new analysis, the team looked in the sponge genome for more than 100 genes that have been implicated in human cancers and found about 90 percent of them.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0804151408.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman LordKelvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    28
    Humans don't have very many more "different" genes than other animals, they are basically built upon an ancestral set of genes that already existed when animals diversified, so not a great surprise that most homologs for most human genes are found in sponges, cnidarians, etc.
    Just Because Something's Unexplained Doesn't Mean It's Supernatural - Houdini
    Quantitative PCR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by LordKelvin
    Humans don't have very many more "different" genes than other animals, they are basically built upon an ancestral set of genes that already existed when animals diversified, so not a great surprise that most homologs for most human genes are found in sponges, cnidarians, etc.
    In the article I quoted the researchers claim that the sponge is not the ancestor of other animals including humans so why would it have genes of higher animals especially when it has no use for them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Stevefrey,
    welcome to the forum.

    If you intend to fart around, dangling what you believe to be tantalising hints as to your powerful insight, you will find the members become quickly bored. Please cut to the chase. Let's hear your idea.

    Edit: OK, I see you have subsequently posted your concept in another thread. Thank you for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    89
    I've cut to the chase in another thread

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Get-o...dea-29660t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by stevefrey
    Quote Originally Posted by LordKelvin
    Humans don't have very many more "different" genes than other animals, they are basically built upon an ancestral set of genes that already existed when animals diversified, so not a great surprise that most homologs for most human genes are found in sponges, cnidarians, etc.
    In the article I quoted the researchers claim that the sponge is not the ancestor of other animals including humans so why would it have genes of higher animals especially when it has no use for them?
    Because they share a common ancestor with us? Evolution isn't a line, it's a bifurcating tree...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by stevefrey
    Quote Originally Posted by LordKelvin
    Humans don't have very many more "different" genes than other animals, they are basically built upon an ancestral set of genes that already existed when animals diversified, so not a great surprise that most homologs for most human genes are found in sponges, cnidarians, etc.
    In the article I quoted the researchers claim that the sponge is not the ancestor of other animals including humans so why would it have genes of higher animals especially when it has no use for them?
    Because they share a common ancestor with us? Evolution isn't a line, it's a bifurcating tree...
    What evidence do you have to suggest that sponges share a common ancestor with us?

    Wouldn't the same evidence, if perhaps interpreted differently, also support an idea such as the one I have proposed? If all your relying upon is the contents of their genomes how can you be assured that your idea is more correct than mine when the content of genomes can be altered through horizontal gene transfrer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by stevefrey
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by stevefrey
    Quote Originally Posted by LordKelvin
    Humans don't have very many more "different" genes than other animals, they are basically built upon an ancestral set of genes that already existed when animals diversified, so not a great surprise that most homologs for most human genes are found in sponges, cnidarians, etc.
    In the article I quoted the researchers claim that the sponge is not the ancestor of other animals including humans so why would it have genes of higher animals especially when it has no use for them?
    Because they share a common ancestor with us? Evolution isn't a line, it's a bifurcating tree...
    What evidence do you have to suggest that sponges share a common ancestor with us?

    Wouldn't the same evidence, if perhaps interpreted differently, also support an idea such as the one I have proposed? If all your relying upon is the contents of their genomes how can you be assured that your idea is more correct than mine when the content of genomes can be altered through horizontal gene transfrer?
    It's not the comparison between humans and sponges that is convincing, it's the totality of the known genetic information. The commonalities between species have a nested structure, for the most part. This is what we'd expect to see if the relatedness was primarily due to vertical transfer plus variation plus natural selection. There are plenty of observable exceptions- and so far all of these appear to be due to various kinds of HGT. As you imply, HGT can make it much harder to draw conclusions about relatedness if we're working with limited data. Typically though, HGT is fairly rare outside of the prokaryotes. The eukaryote nucleus tends to make it less likely for them, though not impossible. Work with enough data, and you can resolve phylogenies even with HGT.

    That doesn't mean there aren't examples of HGT we haven't spotted yet, but the extent you're talking about seems unlikely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •