ICR article image
Posted on 09/11/2014 7:44:16 AM PDT by fishtank
Ciliate Genome Reveals Mind-Bending Complexity
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A newly discovered genome for the unicellular chromosome-morphing ciliate Stylonychia lemnae has been published, and it’s breaking all the evolutionary rules. It exhibits a repertoire of unbelievable complexity and gene sequences that we’ve never seen in the schema of life.1
Protozoa are an elaborate group of unicellular organisms that have a nucleus and are mobile. However, the extreme diversity and complexity within this group of one-celled critters which has been divulged by modern ultrastructural, biochemical, and genetic techniques, makes them an unruly and uncooperative bunch to neatly place on the evolutionary tree of life. Hence, the common term “protozoa” is no longer being used in official taxonomy circles.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image
In before religious atheists begin their insults and ad Homs.
Something is complicated therefore evolution is a lie. /sarc
Just for kicks, please name ONE evolutionary rule that it has broken...
Nothing can break an evolutionary rule.
Cite any evolutionary based predictions of this, or any, genome structure.
I’d be interested.
You really need to learn science, including evolution, is not religion and needs not be emotionally defended.
Well it could if evolution were wrong. Nothing violates the theory of heliocentrism either because the plain fact of the matter is that the Sun is at the center of our solar system.
Cite any evolutionary based predictions of this, or any, genome structure.
R u series? The most obvious prediction is that organisms that are phenotypically related are likely to be genotypically close as well. Darwin knew nothing about genetics, but it's amazing how genetic science has corroborated essentailly everything we suspected about common descent, selection, mutation, gene flow and drift.
Read the article
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/7/1707.full
If you can.
Your responses are canned regurgitation of talking points that indicate you don’t even understand the question I asked.
Genome science is in it’s infancy. Evolutionary theory should be predictive of many genomic structures yet to be rigorously determined.
Can you proved references to any predictions on what we will find, based on evolutionary theory?
Me and my softball bar buddies ain't using that term anymore either......
What exactly are these "evolutionary rules"?
“The most obvious prediction is that organisms that are phenotypically related are likely to be genotypically close as well.”
You leave out the converse, without which your comment is meaningless
The converse was supposed to also be true, that phenotypically different organisms should genotypically differ, but isn’t.
The entire modern synthesis idea of genotype difference among species failed with the advent of sequence data and genomic data.
I can. What's your point? It describes the genome of the species in question. What in it disproves evolution? The authors make no such claim.
Evolutionary theory should be predictive of many genomic structures yet to be rigorously determined.
Huh?
Can you proved references to any predictions on what we will find, based on evolutionary theory?
Sure, try this for starters http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality
Again, evolution is not a religion, you don’t need to be so defensive and think any discussion of the theory is an attempt to disprove it.
Again, also, your response to the mole rat link was a canned pre-packaged response.
That and your huh clearly show you do not even understand the question.
Read the part about telomere binding proteins. You’ll note it contradicts an earlier statement you made about the more phenotypically similar being most genotypical similar.
And again, stop freaking out over your religious beliefs. It doesn’t disprove your god, evolution.
I wrote:Nothing can break an evolutionary rule.
You in turn wrote: Well it could if evolution were wrong. Nothing violates the theory of heliocentrism either
Writing nothing violates the theory of heliocentrism is very different than saying nothing can violate the theory of heliocentrism, which is the equivalent of what I wrote.
Many things can violate the theory of heliocentrism, but don't because it's physical reality.
But my comment was nothing can violate the "rules of evolution".
Big difference.
Have you read the article at the top of this thread? The ICR claims that the study disproves evolution. It does not. That's not my claim, that's the claim of the author.
Again, also, your response to the mole rat link was a canned pre-packaged response.
Of course it is. It's not as if you came up with a novel argument so why should I waste time producing a novel response?
And again, stop freaking out over your religious beliefs. It doesn’t disprove your god, evolution.
I'm going to just point out for the record that in sentence #1 you say that evolution isn't a religion and in sentence #6 you say that it is. How can I possibly follow along when you're not making any sense? I'll also note that it's funny that the worst insult that you creationists can apparently come up with is calling science "religion."
That appears to be a ceramic or china spoon.
Semantics. In any event, there are plenty of things that could violate our understanding of evolution. For example, we assume common descent. Although it wouldn’t be fatal, it would be pretty easy to find evidence of an organism not exhibiting evidence of common descent and that would require an overhaul at a minimum of our understanding of evolution. When you find me a silicon-based life form that uses a mechanism other than DNA to store genetic information, you’ll have my attention. The fact is, you have zero evidence to support your argument, which is why it has no support from the scientific community and hasn’t for over a century.
“When you find me a silicon-based life form that uses a mechanism other than DNA to store genetic information, you’ll have my attention.”
How would that disprove evolution?
” fact is, you have zero evidence to support your argument”
You actually just agreed with it with your acknowledgment that not even lack fo common descent would disprove it.
I will try again.
Can you think of any finding that could come out of comparative genomics in the near future that would disprove, or call in to serious question, evolution?
In other words, how testable is the theory?
This is a real time opportunity to show the theories strength.
I’m saying you take evolution as a religion.
“ICR claims that the study disproves evolution”.
They always say that.
You somehow take it seriously and are bothered by it.
I think it is because of your adherence to evolution as a religion to you and you are overtly sensitive.
Thanks also for admitting you simply pass out tracts from your co-religionist proselytizers in response to questions.
Consistent with your inability to discuss or understand the topic.
ICR may be wrong about things, but they understand evolution and biology better than you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.