Science Daily - HGT rapid between bacteria

[kitkat]

Today, Science Daily had a great article regarding rapid HGT between many different species of bacteria, they found that there are 43 independent cases of antibiotic resistant genes crossing between nations. It is known that the U.S. uses antibiotics in their food animals but it is banned in Europe and other nations. They stated that genes are being transferred from food animals to humans. It also shows that they were recent since there has not been enough time for mutations to occur.

 

They commented that even though a billion years of genome evolution separate a bacteria living on a cow and a bacteria living on a human, both are accessing the same library. Environmental niches appears to the most important to bacteria and that explains rapid HGT. Does anyone have any comments on this article?

[Arete]

Today, Science Daily had a great article regarding rapid HGT between many different species of bacteria, they found that there are 43 independent cases of antibiotic resistant genes crossing between nations. It is known that the U.S. uses antibiotics in their food animals but it is banned in Europe and other nations. They stated that genes are being transferred from food animals to humans. It also shows that they were recent since there has not been enough time for mutations to occur.

 

They commented that even though a billion years of genome evolution separate a bacteria living on a cow and a bacteria living on a human, both are accessing the same library. Environmental niches appears to the most important to bacteria and that explains rapid HGT. Does anyone have any comments on this article?

 

We've known that bacteria experience a lot more gene flow between independent lineages than eukaryotes for a long time. The way prokaryotic cell division takes place means there's a lot fewer constraints on combining genetic information from different individuals/lineages/species than there is in eukaryotes.

http://en.wikipedia....ial_conjugation

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

 

The resultant article therefore doesn't raise any scientific surprises or revelations.

 

From previous posts, I'm going to infer that you think you're raising a problem for evolutionary theory (apologies if I'm mistaken) which it isn't. The issue you're raising is (well, was) a problem for the concept of species, which is related to evolution, but distinct. The use of reproductive isolation as a strict criterion for defining species is problematic and for this reason was largely discarded under the biological species concept proposed by Mayr in the 1940's. http://en.wikipedia....species_concept http://www.blackwell...ies_concept.asp

 

Since then the concept has undergone a huge amount of debate, conjecture and refinement to emerge as the current best practice concept - The general lineage species concept (GLSC). http://sysbio.oxford.../56/6/879.short

http://plato.stanfor...ntries/species/

 

In short, the GLSC defines a species as a metapopulation of organisms with a distinct evolutionary history. The means by which we can identify these metapopulation lineages - genetic distinctiveness, moprhological distinctiveness, reproductive isolation from relateds metapopulations, distinct ecological requirement etc ad infinitum

are secondary operational criteria by which metapopulations are discovered and defined but not strict criteria defining what a species is.

 

Hope that adds a bit of clarity - it's a complex topic with a long history of conjecture and debate

Edited November 2, 2011 by Arete

[CharonY]

Nice summary. I just wanted to nitpick that HGT in bacteria is technically independent on cell division. Thus theoretically (though highly unlikely) a mobile genetic element could spread within a (diverse) population without the actual need for reproduction (essentially an extreme model of selfish genes).

Also HGT is not unknown in eukaryotes (including limited transfer of bacterial genes to their hosts), but as already stated the rate is much, much lower.

[kitkat]

But they stated that genes are being transferred from food animals to humans. You are saying it is rare that it occurs, how was this tested to confirm this?

Edited November 2, 2011 by kitkat

[CharonY]

I have not read the article, but you were describing the transfer of resistance genes in bacteria that live in foodstock. That means that there may have been HGT between bacteria. It appears to me that your assumption was that there was transfer between humans and other animals which does not appear to the be topic of the article. However, if you provide a link to the article in question I can check it out .

[Arete]

But they stated that genes are being transferred from food animals to humans.

 

No they did not.

 

You misread or misunderstood the article. It cites bacterial-bacterial HGT only.

 

http://www.scienceda...11101125958.htm

 

Original peer reviewed paper the science daily article is about:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10571.html

Edited November 3, 2011 by Arete

[kitkat]

No they did not.

 

You misread or misunderstood the article. It cites bacterial-bacterial HGT only.

 

http://www.scienceda...11101125958.htm

 

Original peer reviewed paper the science daily article is about:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10571.html

 

 

Does it mean food animal bacteria transferred to human bacteria?

 

Okay it is bacteria to bacteria but doesn't it have a direct impact on how it is influenced in the human body? I mean we have a planet that was and is completely dominated by bacteria and our origin of the eukarotic cell is believed to be evolved from bacteria with another bacterium moving in that made it possible for us to multicellular organisms that require alot of energy to carry out its processes. Our DNA is 90% microbial and they dominate our digestive processes (first in line for energy nutrients, smart), train our immune system (again wise since this works to keep their enemies out too) and upon our death they consume us from the inside out (winner to the end), all of these observations made by science.

 

Now here is where I get confused, science treats them still as a separate entity with very strict limitations or so its believed based on differences in our cells that prevents bacteria from messing with the program of our DNA. These bacteria that live in us and have been here since the beginning, isn't it logical to believe that our success is their success and these bacteria that are housed in our bodies have a large invested interest in the conditions that improve their ability to survive by mutational engineering in the living entity through evolution?

 

it is frustrating to me when science provides us with all of this new information on bacterial behavior and it is amazing what they can do, they still do not want to accept the possibility that bacteria are doing far more then we realize in the bodies of living creatures. I understand that at this point due to limits in technology advances that we have a long way to go of understanding the microscopic world in its detail. What we do know so far is very impressive and it opens your mind to form a slightly difference opinion of the evolution of life.

 

I believe the facts have been staring us in the face all along but we were too busy trying to find a complicated explanation to explain it.

[Arete]

I'm not sure what the problem is...

 

 

 

That endosymbionts are considered seperate species to the host?

That bacteria which can exchange genes are considered separate species?

 

Both these questions are dealt with under the discussion of species concepts.

 

Are you trying to state that the DNA in a human cell nucleus can be considered 90% prokaryotic?

 

Because that's simply not true.

 

That intelligent design is not considered a scientific theory?

 

Not for this thread/section of the forum, and has to to with how the scientific method works.

[kitkat]

I'm not sure what the problem is...

 

 

 

That endosymbionts are considered seperate species to the host?

That bacteria which can exchange genes are considered separate species?

 

Both these questions are dealt with under the discussion of species concepts.

 

Are you trying to state that the DNA in a human cell nucleus can be considered 90% prokaryotic?

 

Because that's simply not true.

 

That intelligent design is not considered a scientific theory?

 

Not for this thread/section of the forum, and has to to with how the scientific method works.

 

I do not share the definition of intelligent design as the religious followers. I do have conflict in believing that the microscopic world is not directly involved in the visible world that defines you and me and the rest of the biodiversity. It is scientific evidence that allows me to interpret it differently from your interpretations of the same evidence. I am not bounded by peer review or the desire to be accepted by my peers by agreeing with the rest of them. I would like to fully accept the scientific explanation in its entirety of how they interpret the evidence of what they test. I would also like to prove to myself that I am wrong in what I interpret of the scientific evidence but more and more evidence that is being published in science reconfirms my beliefs.

 

No, I am not saying it is 90% prokaryotic because it does have a nucleus which is how you define the difference between prokarotic and eurkaryotic. The language and how it is defined is constantly changing in scientific journals and the media written for the public is intentionally misleading to obtain a captive audience, otherwise no one would be interested whatsoever of what the lastest discoveries are in science. To get frustrated with people responding with questions or beliefs of their own from the members of the scientific community requires an understanding that the masses are being misled from every direction that has their own idea of the truth.

[Arete]

I do not share the definition of intelligent design as the religious followers.

 

It might be because I'm one of them mainstream science people but I really don't differentiate between flavours of intelligent design. If a concept can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis which can be validated by observation, it isn't science, belongs outside of the science classroom, natural history museum, science funding and science forums. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a strong secularist and support the right to formulate one's own beliefs but in the world of science a concept we can put a p-value on trumps one we can't every time.

My personal view is if people have a problem with that, they have a problem with the scientific method, which while not perfect, has a considerable history of answering complicated questions.

 

I do have conflict in believing that the microscopic world is not directly involved in the visible world that defines you and me and the rest of the biodiversity. It is scientific evidence that allows me to interpret it differently from your interpretations of the same evidence. I am not bounded by peer review or the desire to be accepted by my peers by agreeing with the rest of them. I would like to fully accept the scientific explanation in its entirety of how they interpret the evidence of what they test. I would also like to prove to myself that I am wrong in what I interpret of the scientific evidence but more and more evidence that is being published in science reconfirms my beliefs.

 

It's still a little unclear - are you saying you disagree that say, E. coli and humans are considered different species?

If that's the case the answer is in the species concept issue I raised earlier. Size/scale is irrelevant to contemporary delimitation of species, which is based on evolutionary independence of metapopulations.

E. coli is, by a number of genetic, phenotypic and physiological attributes, considered an organism in its own right, as are humans. They have independent evolutionary histories, thus they are considered independent species. The fact one is an endosymbiont of the other is not relevant to their status as species.

If you're proposing that you use an entirely different system of classification to the Linnaean system, you'll need to describe it and how it works if you expect not just the scientific establishment, but anyone else to understand anything based on it - in order to have it adopted by others you'd need to demonstrate how it is superior to other systems - I can already see major issues with it if you're considering symbionts to be the same species, if it is indeed what you're proposing.

 

No, I am not saying it is 90% prokaryotic because it does have a nucleus which is how you define the difference between prokarotic and eurkaryotic.

There's a rather long list of genetic, phenotypic and physiological distinctions between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The nucleus is but one. I'm still not sure what you mean by "OUr DNA is 90% microbial"...

 

The language and how it is defined is constantly changing in scientific journals and the media written for the public is intentionally misleading to obtain a captive audience, otherwise no one would be interested whatsoever of what the lastest discoveries are in science. To get frustrated with people responding with questions or beliefs of their own from the members of the scientific community requires an understanding that the masses are being misled from every direction that has their own idea of the truth.

 

Scientific language doesn't "change all the time" in fact, quite the opposite. Scientific terms generally have succint, very clearly defined meanings. Any new terms need to be clearly defined. Public scientific illiteracy is a problem, but pointing blame solely at the media is unwarranted. Most scientific study and thus explanations require dedication, attention to detail and are difficult to integrate in a sound-byte ridden, 5-30 min entertaining story. Many scientists, including myself find it irritating that something which takes years to understand properly is expected to communicated in such a fashion and don't try hard enough to make our research understandable to the general public. The media need it be so, and often incorrectly interpret research in their communication of it to the public. The public attention span is often too short for the message to get across anyway. It's a problem which needs to be addressed by everyone in the chain. It was rather neatly demonstrated by your own misinterpretation of the article you started this thread about

[kitkat]

It might be because I'm one of them mainstream science people but I really don't differentiate between flavours of intelligent design. If a concept can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis which can be validated by observation, it isn't science, belongs outside of the science classroom, natural history museum, science funding and science forums. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a strong secularist and support the right to formulate one's own beliefs but in the world of science a concept we can put a p-value on trumps one we can't every time.

My personal view is if people have a problem with that, they have a problem with the scientific method, which while not perfect, has a considerable history of answering complicated questions.

 

 

 

It's still a little unclear - are you saying you disagree that say, E. coli and humans are considered different species?

If that's the case the answer is in the species concept issue I raised earlier. Size/scale is irrelevant to contemporary delimitation of species, which is based on evolutionary independence of metapopulations.

E. coli is, by a number of genetic, phenotypic and physiological attributes, considered an organism in its own right, as are humans. They have independent evolutionary histories, thus they are considered independent species. The fact one is an endosymbiont of the other is not relevant to their status as species.

If you're proposing that you use an entirely different system of classification to the Linnaean system, you'll need to describe it and how it works if you expect not just the scientific establishment, but anyone else to understand anything based on it - in order to have it adopted by others you'd need to demonstrate how it is superior to other systems - I can already see major issues with it if you're considering symbionts to be the same species, if it is indeed what you're proposing.

 

 

There's a rather long list of genetic, phenotypic and physiological distinctions between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The nucleus is but one. I'm still not sure what you mean by "OUr DNA is 90% microbial"...

 

 

 

Scientific language doesn't "change all the time" in fact, quite the opposite. Scientific terms generally have succint, very clearly defined meanings. Any new terms need to be clearly defined. Public scientific illiteracy is a problem, but pointing blame solely at the media is unwarranted. Most scientific study and thus explanations require dedication, attention to detail and are difficult to integrate in a sound-byte ridden, 5-30 min entertaining story. Many scientists, including myself find it irritating that something which takes years to understand properly is expected to communicated in such a fashion and don't try hard enough to make our research understandable to the general public. The media need it be so, and often incorrectly interpret research in their communication of it to the public. The public attention span is often too short for the message to get across anyway. It's a problem which needs to be addressed by everyone in the chain. It was rather neatly demonstrated by your own misinterpretation of the article you started this thread about

 

 

A human Being is 90% microbial DNA and 10% Human DNA according to the Genome Project.

 

It might be because I'm one of them mainstream science people but I really don't differentiate between flavours of intelligent design. If a concept can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis which can be validated by observation, it isn't science, belongs outside of the science classroom, natural history museum, science funding and science forums. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a strong secularist and support the right to formulate one's own beliefs but in the world of science a concept we can put a p-value on trumps one we can't every time.

My personal view is if people have a problem with that, they have a problem with the scientific method, which while not perfect, has a considerable history of answering complicated questions.

 

 

 

It's still a little unclear - are you saying you disagree that say, E. coli and humans are considered different species?

If that's the case the answer is in the species concept issue I raised earlier. Size/scale is irrelevant to contemporary delimitation of species, which is based on evolutionary independence of metapopulations.

E. coli is, by a number of genetic, phenotypic and physiological attributes, considered an organism in its own right, as are humans. They have independent evolutionary histories, thus they are considered independent species. The fact one is an endosymbiont of the other is not relevant to their status as species.

If you're proposing that you use an entirely different system of classification to the Linnaean system, you'll need to describe it and how it works if you expect not just the scientific establishment, but anyone else to understand anything based on it - in order to have it adopted by others you'd need to demonstrate how it is superior to other systems - I can already see major issues with it if you're considering symbionts to be the same species, if it is indeed what you're proposing.

 

 

There's a rather long list of genetic, phenotypic and physiological distinctions between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The nucleus is but one. I'm still not sure what you mean by "OUr DNA is 90% microbial"...

 

 

 

Scientific language doesn't "change all the time" in fact, quite the opposite. Scientific terms generally have succint, very clearly defined meanings. Any new terms need to be clearly defined. Public scientific illiteracy is a problem, but pointing blame solely at the media is unwarranted. Most scientific study and thus explanations require dedication, attention to detail and are difficult to integrate in a sound-byte ridden, 5-30 min entertaining story. Many scientists, including myself find it irritating that something which takes years to understand properly is expected to communicated in such a fashion and don't try hard enough to make our research understandable to the general public. The media need it be so, and often incorrectly interpret research in their communication of it to the public. The public attention span is often too short for the message to get across anyway. It's a problem which needs to be addressed by everyone in the chain. It was rather neatly demonstrated by your own misinterpretation of the article you started this thread about

 

 

A human Being is 90% microbial DNA and 10% Human DNA according to the Genome Project.

[CharonY]

A human Being is 90% microbial DNA and 10% Human DNA according to the Genome Project.

 

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

Edited November 4, 2011 by CharonY

[kitkat]

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

 

The comment I made above has been repeating several times in many different science articles. The Genome Project I would think should be credible when they made this statement.

[kitkat]

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

 

.

Edited November 5, 2011 by kitkat

[kitkat]

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

 

.

Edited November 5, 2011 by kitkat

[kitkat]

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

 

.

Edited November 5, 2011 by kitkat

[kitkat]

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

 

This is a gross misunderstanding. Generally speaking there is no species specific DNA per se. Since we all related in some distant way there are only relatively short stretches that can be considered unique for a giving organism. If we compare on genes (i.e. coding regions) the similarity between human genes and mice is, on average 85%. However, there are some that do not map to the genome of the respective others, while others are practically identical.

 

 

Even taking highly conserved enzymes such as cytochrome C that basically all eukaryotes share, the similarity between human and yeast (still an eukaryote) is only around 70%. As such it is inconceivable that the 90% similarity exist on a broad scale between humans and prokaryotes.

 

That being said, since our ancestors were prokaryotes early in time, it is expected that our genome was of prokaryotic origin. Due to the changes over time it is non-trivial to track those relics down, however. Nonetheless, simple homology searches reveal that roughly 40% of our genes show some degree of homology with prokaryotic genes. Note that the number refers to the number of genes sharing any degree of recognizable similarity and should not be confused with the percentage in the other examples above. On the sequence level they can be very diverse.

 

The comment I made above has been repeating several times in many different science articles. The Genome Project I would think should be credible when they made this statement.

Edited November 5, 2011 by kitkat

[Arete]

The comment I made above has been repeating several times in many different science articles. The Genome Project I would think should be credible when they made this statement.

 

Wow quadruple post....

 

A quick literature search fails to find this statistic reported anywhere. Care to link?

Unless you're referring to the report from the Human microbiome project which reports that >90% of the cellular diversity of the human body is made up of microbial cells, once endosymbionts are included.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/your-body-is-a-planet

http://mpkb.org/home/pathogenesis/microbiota

 

If this is the statistic you are referring to, it's a statement of the biodiversity of our symbionts and has nothing to do with humans having 90% microbial DNA.

[kitkat]

Wow quadruple post....

 

A quick literature search fails to find this statistic reported anywhere. Care to link?

Unless you're referring to the report from the Human microbiome project which reports that >90% of the cellular diversity of the human body is made up of microbial cells, once endosymbionts are included.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/your-body-is-a-planet

http://mpkb.org/home/pathogenesis/microbiota

 

If this is the statistic you are referring to, it's a statement of the biodiversity of our symbionts and has nothing to do with humans having 90% microbial DNA.

 

Had a problem with my computer is why quadruple post, sorry!

 

Yes, 10% of the trillions of cells are truly human while 90% are bacteria, viruses, and other microbes cells.

 

I believe that is where DNA is stored in a cell, right? 90% of bacteria cells is 100% bacterial DNA while 10% of human cells is 100% human = 90% bacterial DNA and 10% human DNA.

[Arete]

living inside a human =/= being part of a human.

Otherwise this is evidence that trees are actually part parrot.

[kitkat]

living inside a human =/= being part of a human.

Otherwise this is evidence that trees are actually part parrot.

 

 

 

Thats cute! Both tree and parrot are also homes to trillions of bacterial cells.

[Psycho]

Both tree and parrot are also homes to trillions of bacterial cells.

I believe that is where DNA is stored in a cell, right? 90% of bacteria cells is 100% bacterial DNA while 10% of human cells is 100% human = 90% bacterial DNA and 10% human DNA.

Both of these facts are irrelevant, not to mention the second being incorrect as bacterial genes out number your own 100:1.

 

I am sitting in a house, am I therefore part of a house, no, I am completely separate, just because you are inside something doesn't mean you are part of it.

 

The best example would be eating a marble, it passes right through your gastrointestinal tract but is never part of you, not to mention that anything that passes through or resides in your gastrointestinal tract never enters your body, under a medical definition.

[kitkat]

These facts are relevant and you yourself admitted they were facts. Your analogy makes no sense and your comparisons are meaningless. It is amazing how science provides all of the wonderful details of microbes and how we can't live without them, how we are dependent on them for oxygen and so on, but when it comes to our microbial biota they are insignificant. There only purpose for being their is free room and board and in return train our immune system and provide us with changing what we eat into chemicals so our body can use them.

 

The fact is we have mitochondria which is viewed as its own microbe that allow us to breathe oxygen and we have microbial biota in our digestive system so we can consume nutrients. Without this we would not survive very long so yes the facts are very relevant to me.

[Psycho]

These facts are relevant and you yourself admitted they were facts.

How does it make them relevant because they are facts...that is a fallacy.

 

Your analogy makes no sense and your comparisons are meaningless.

Yes it does, you just have no idea of medical definitions.

 

how we are dependent on them for oxygen and so on

Plants make plenty of oxygen and most bacteria aren't photosynthetic, ironically it is the exact opposite for what we should actually be thankful to them for.

 

but when it comes to our microbial biota they are insignificant.

I never said that and neither did anyone else.

 

provide us with changing what we eat into chemicals so our body can use them.

They don't do that, we can metabolise them fine after acid hydrolysis and proteolytic cleavage.

 

The fact is we have mitochondria which is viewed as its own microbe that allow us to breathe oxygen

No it isn't and that isn't what they allows us to do, mitochondria have nothing to do with breathing, they create a proton motive force.

 

microbial biota in our digestive system so we can consume nutrients.

That isn't what it does and you can consume nutrients just fine without them.

 

Without this we would not survive very long so yes the facts are very relevant to me.

We would survive fine as the environment would be sterile.

 

Well done you wrote an entire post that was wrong

Edited November 7, 2011 by Psycho

[Arete]

Your analogy makes no sense and your comparisons are meaningless.

 

The fact a microbe lives within a human does not make it part of the human nor it does make human DNA 90% microbial - I think Psycho's analogies are trying to convey this point.

 

It is amazing how science provides all of the wonderful details of microbes and how we can't live without them, how we are dependent on them for oxygen and so on, but when it comes to our microbial biota they are insignificant. There only purpose for being their is free room and board and in return train our immune system and provide us with changing what we eat into chemicals so our body can use them.

 

Hmm the source you seem to be citing - the Human Microbiome project, is a major NIH funded investigation into human endosymbionts.... which would rather strongly suggest that scientists are not ignoring them - see publication list below. A major component of their research is investigating the role of the human microbiome in human health.

http://commonfund.nih.gov/hmp/sciencepub.aspx http://commonfund.nih.gov/hmp/initiatives.aspx#relationship

 

The fact we have endosymbionts just simply doesn't pose any challenges to the theory of evolution or current best practice species concepts, which it seems to be what you started out arguing.

 

 

 

The fact is we have mitochondria which is viewed as its own microbe

 

No it's not, it's an organelle.

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

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