Original Research--join In

Zosimus · Dec 16, 2014

The complete sequence of the smallest known nuclear genome from the microsporidian Encephalitozoon intestinalis : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

The genome of the microsporidia Encephalitozoon cuniculi is widely recognized as a model for extreme reduction and compaction. At only 2.9 Mbp, the genome encodes approximately 2,000 densely packed genes and little else. However, the nuclear genome of its sister, Encephalitozoon intestinalis, is even more reduced; at 2.3 Mbp, it represents a 20% reduction from an already severely compacted genome, raising the question, what else can be lost? In this paper, we describe the complete sequence of the E. intestinalis genome and its comparison with that of E. cuniculi. The two species share a conserved gene content, order and density over most of their genomes. The exceptions are the subtelomeric regions, where E. intestinalis chromosomes are missing large gene blocks of sequence found in E. cuniculi. In the remaining gene-dense chromosome 'cores', the diminutive intergenic sequences and introns are actually more highly conserved than the genes themselves, suggesting that they have reached the limits of reduction for a fully functional genome.

Math: Since the microsporidia Encephalitozoon cuniculi has 2.9 Mbp, and 2000 genes, the average size of the genes in question is:

1450 base pairs.

NannaNae · Dec 16, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
"I don't believe that. I believe that many years of reproductive shuffling of the genetic decks of cards, plus some effects of mutations, has changed things substantially. IOW, Genesis "kinds", such as a dog group, allows for the idea that over the years many different varieties of dogs had the same ancestor, whose genome contained all the information to produce the varieties.".

you and they still believe in a genetic shuffling "the Mystery , " the Magic ". what if it is not magic ? just like heck gravity isn't magic... what you say and what they say neither is happening. is not really happening at all.

They don't understand what is happening to make any such predictions. maybe in a one cell things that cares not what
type it is ..
but IRL they are not even close because there is no kind of magic dna shuffling.
There is not anything remotely magical about genetics that isn't well 90 % predicable . just like flipping a coin your going to get heads or tails.. once you know the formula of flippin coins it is predictable in a range, for a coin it is 50/50 and you can't get anything but heads or tails each 50 % of the time.
but they don't want to know that!

selfinflikted · Dec 16, 2014

I can never understand your posts, NannaNae. Is English not your native tongue?

TheBear · Dec 16, 2014

bhsmte said:
Your last point, is always what immediately comes to mind when I see threads like this. It is as if, someone looking stuff up on the internet, is going to discover something thousands of scientists have missed.

Indeed.

We have a layman arguing with a biologist, about biology.

selfinflikted · Dec 16, 2014

TheBear said:
Indeed.

We have a layman arguing with a biologist, about biology.

It's not going to end well for the layman.

JacksBratt · Dec 16, 2014

Split Rock said:
I recognize that many creationists here believe this, but unfortunately, this idea is not supported by scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16International Standard Version (ISV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed[a] and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21International Standard Version (ISV)

21 because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

NannaNae · Dec 16, 2014

TheBear said:
Indeed.

We have a layman arguing with a biologist, about biology.

so is that to you is that like accusing Obama of arguing with the Pope maybe ?

Non sequitur · Dec 16, 2014

lasthero said:
Completely irrelevant. You're comparing a term with a fuzzy definition to a term with NO definition. No scientist, for instance, would say that housecats and tigers are the same species, but I have met creationists who make that claim for kinds. I've met creationists who claim that all spiders are one kind. I've met creationists who claim that birds are all one kind. I've met creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, and don't get me started on how insane that is.

The definition of species is fuzzy because life is vast and complex - it's hard to get a solid definition that's going to apply to all the organisms on this planet. That being the case, just because a term is fuzzy doesn't mean it's useless. There's no set number for how many beans are in a 'heap of beans', but you wouldn't say it's impossible to have a heap of beans for that reason. You know a heap when you see one. The same applies to species. Though there are different definitions, they fall within a range.

With 'kind', however, there's nothing that even comes close. It's just whatever the creationist at the time wants it to be.

BOOM, new signature.

Split Rock · Dec 17, 2014

JacksBratt said:
2 Timothy 3:16International Standard Version (ISV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed[a] and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

An understanding of nature is not required for teaching righteousness. The bible is about theology, not science.

JacksBratt said:
2 Peter 1:21International Standard Version (ISV)

21 because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

None of this indicates God dictated scripture concerning anything about nature. At best, it may indicate that prophecies were directed from God... not science.

Loudmouth · Dec 17, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
O.K.--try the Dystrophin gene for example. Look it up, analyze it, play with it in your mind and try to imagine an sequence of naturalistic events that would not be expected to terminate its formation in a thousand places because of stop codons.

That's easy. Thousands of substitution events and indels that are multiples of 3 would not produce frameshift mutations and their accompanying stop codons. Challenge met.

Added in edit: It is worth mentioning that mouse and human dystrophin differ by 27% at the RNA (i.e. cDNA) level.

http://uswest.ensembl.org/Mus_muscu...048295-85055597;t=ENSMUST00000128983;seq=cDNA

I would like to know why dystrophin poses such a problem for evolution.

Look up Duchene's muscular dystrophy and see what caused it. Notice also that Natural Selection is not purging this terrible result from within anyone's genome, nor from within the population of humans.

If it isn't being selected against, then why is it so uncommon? Shouldn't half of all boys have DMD since it isn't being selected against instead of only 1 in every 3,600 boys?

Loudmouth · Dec 17, 2014

Zosimus said:
The complete sequence of the smallest known nuclear genome from the microsporidian Encephalitozoon intestinalis : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

Math: Since the microsporidia Encephalitozoon cuniculi has 2.9 Mbp, and 2000 genes, the average size of the genes in question are:

1450 base pairs.

Those species are still the product of 3 billion years of evolution and in no way represent what a protocell would look like, nor what one would require. Those species still have to compete with other complex and highly evolved species, something that early protocells would not have had to do.

Zosimus · Dec 17, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Those species are still the product of 3 billion years of evolution and in no way represent what a protocell would look like, nor what one would require. Those species still have to compete with other complex and highly evolved species, something that early protocells would not have had to do.

Protocells do not exist. There is no reason to believe that one ever has. You have never seen one. Accordingly you could never possibly say what a protocell would look like.

Loudmouth · Dec 17, 2014

Zosimus said:
Protocells do not exist. There is no reason to believe that one ever has.

There are tons of reasons, which are the characteristics that all life shares. Humans and bacteria still share fundamental metabolic and genetic systems. That is the evidence for a protocell.

Accordingly you could never possibly say what a protocell would look like.

We can determine if we can build a minimal RNA replicator that could form through natural processes.

Zosimus · Dec 17, 2014

Loudmouth said:
There are tons of reasons, which are the characteristics that all life shares.

Reasons are the characteristics that all life shares?

Humans and bacteria still share fundamental metabolic and genetic systems. That is the evidence for a protocell.

Don't you mean the evidence for a designer?

We can determine [something or other] if we can build a minimal RNA replicator that could form through natural processes.

So basically you feel that if you can prove that event A is not completely and utterly impossible right out of the box, then event A is known to have actually occurred?

Isn't it amusing that the people who demand evidence so often are the first ones to throw it out the window when discussing a theory for which they have an a priori philosophical bias?

Loudmouth · Dec 17, 2014

Zosimus said:
Reasons are the characteristics that all life shares?

Yes. For example, glycolysis and tRNA's.

Don't you mean the evidence for a designer?

Why would an omnipotent designer need to use the same genetic and metabolic systems in both bacteria and humans? Why do you and your siblings and/or cousins share features? Because of common ancestry?

So basically you feel that if you can prove that event A is not completely and utterly impossible right out of the box, then event A is known to have actually occurred?

I do not feel that way, and nothing in my post indicated any such thing.

Isn't it amusing that the people who demand evidence so often are the first ones to throw it out the window when discussing a theory for which they have an a priori philosophical bias?

All you have is the strawman version of my position.

Zosimus · Dec 17, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Yes. For example, glycolysis and tRNA's.

Glycolysis and tRNAs are reasons?

Why would an omnipotent designer need to use the same genetic and metabolic systems in both bacteria and humans? Why do you and your siblings and/or cousins share features? Because of common ancestry?

Let me see if I have your argument correct. Things that share common ancestry have some similarities. Therefore everything that has a similarity shares common ancestry.

Would you say that a Toyota shares some similarities with a Ford? Would you say that they are both descended from a common ancestor?

bhsmte · Dec 17, 2014

Zosimus said:
Glycolysis and tRNAs are reasons?

Let me see if I have your argument correct. Things that share common ancestry have some similarities. Therefore everything that has a similarity shares common ancestry.

Would you say that a Toyota shares some similarities with a Ford? Would you say that they are both descended from a common ancestor?

Are Ford's and Toyota's living creatures, that can reproduce?

Non sequitur · Dec 17, 2014

I have a man crush on Split Rock and Loudmouth.

One can only hope for a bromance...

Loudmouth · Dec 17, 2014

Zosimus said:
Glycolysis and tRNAs are reasons?

Yes.

Let me see if I have your argument correct. Things that share common ancestry have some similarities. Therefore everything that has a similarity shares common ancestry.

That is only part of my argument. It is also the PATTERN of similarities that points to common ancestry and evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. My position is that the observed similarities and the pattern that the similarities fall into are are all consistent with what we would expect from evolution. That is why these observations are evidence for evolution.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason why a designer would need to put designs in a nested hierarchy. The designer of different car models would not be forced to use a specific radio in a car if a specific tire rim is used. These are two independent design elements that can be mixed and matched however the designer sees fit. However, with life we do see independent adaptations that are always found with each other, such as middle ear bones and mammary glands.

If you want to claim that the similarities found between different species is evidence for a designer, then you need to explain why a designer would go to such lengths to make it look just like evolution.

Would you say that a Toyota shares some similarities with a Ford? Would you say that they are both descended from a common ancestor?

No, I wouldn't. Automobiles do not fall into an objective nested hierarchy like life does. This is one of the big clues that automobiles did not evolve through Darwinian mechanisms from a common ancestor through vertical inheritance like complex life did.

Split Rock · Dec 17, 2014

Non sequitur said:
I have a man crush on Split Rock and Loudmouth.

One can only hope for a bromance...

Oh my!.....

Original Research--join In

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

NannaNae

Guest

Under Deck

NON-WOKED

Under Deck

Searching for Truth

NannaNae

Guest

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Newbie

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency