Home » Intelligent Design » The Genome of a Microbial Eukaryote: You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

The Genome of a Microbial Eukaryote: You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

New research is confirming the evolutionary conundrum of early complexity. The research shows that a microbial eukaryote, Naegleria gruberi, shares a large number of genes in common with other eukaryotes. And why is this a problem? Evolutionists have resorted to many incredible just-so stories of convergence. From intricate spider web designs to entire vision systems, evolutionists have been forced to say such designs, because they are found repeated in distant species, have evolved more than once. And while the supposed independent evolution of these striking designs is silly, even these evolutionists have not yet said that similar genes evolve independently. Until and unless they resort to such a fantasy they must say that similar genes in different species have arisen from a common ancestor. And that leads to another problem.  Read more
  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to The Genome of a Microbial Eukaryote: You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

  1. Dr Hunter,

    It was, as evolutionists now say, a giant step to an amoeba, yet a small step to man.

    And they’d be right.

    For the same of argument, let’s say that the minimal genome coming out of some OOL process was 200 genes. It takes at least five whole genome duplication events to reach >4000 genes. In contrast, only two or three additional doublings are required to reach the number of genes in the human genome.

    Except for the most specialized of our cells, each of them contains all of this complex machinery. Our ancestors obviously worked out the efficiencies of being a eukaryote as single celled entities before going on to the relatively simpler tasks of sticking together to make big bodies, and differentiating cell types to make big, organized bodies.

  2. I take it that Nakishima-san is unaware of alternative (gene) splicing.

  3. I take it that Nakishima-san is unaware of alternative (gene) splicing.</blockquote?

    I would bet a nickel that you are wrong. And I would bet an additional nickel that you know you are wrong.

  4. hrun0815-

    Only a person naive of alternative (gene) splicing would say:

    For the same of argument, let’s say that the minimal genome coming out of some OOL process was 200 genes. It takes at least five whole genome duplication events to reach >4000 genes. In contrast, only two or three additional doublings are required to reach the number of genes in the human genome.

  5. I take it that Nakishima-san is unaware of alternative (gene) splicing.</blockquote?

    I would bet a nickel that you are wrong. And I would bet an additional nickel that you know you are wrong.

  6. Mr Joseph,

    You are right to bring up alternative gene splicing. Because the article on the microbe only says >4000 protein families, not genes, I assume the authors of the original Cell article are open to the idea that alternative splicing allows several proteins to be coded for by one gene.

    However, Dr Hunter does not make this distinction. His article talk about >4000 genes, so it appears that he’s making a simplistic assumption of a 1:1 ratio of gene and protein, which we know is inaccurate for eukaryotes.

    Would taking alternative splicing into account change my back of the envelope argument? It might lower the total number of genes in the LCA eukaryote. But if we assume that the splicing ratio (the ratio of proteins to genes) is constant over time, then it will always be dominated by a geometric rate of doubling. In Big O notation, O(1) vs. O(n^2). Bottom line – I did think of gene splicing, but only briefly.

    To say any more, we’d have to get specific about a few things. When did Eukarya pick up the trick of alternative gene splicing in their history? Do all Eukarya use gene splicing at near the same rate? Do all Eukarya genes use splicing at the same rate?

    I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I’m willing to hazard a guess that the genes for the core components of cellular biochemistry use splicing less often than other parts of the Eukarya genome.(I’d also expect that we have more copies of these genes.)

  7. I am waiting for moderation to clear my posts.

    Alternative (gene) splicing is a deisgn mechanism instituted during the design process.

    But anyway who cares?

    Anyone who thinks that blind processes can splice and edit isn’t worth the effort.

    And being held in moderation stifles discussion, so pardon my interuption…

  8. Mr Joseph,

    Alternative (gene) splicing is a deisgn mechanism instituted during the design process.

    Do you have evidence to prove it? Is alternative splicing any more amazing than ERVs?

    Yes, moderation makes participation difficult, but I try to check threads where there is some active discussion, so I hope I see your comments. Sorry if you think I’m not worth the effort.

Leave a Reply