Mycoplasma mycoides Just Destroyed Evolution
“We’re Showing How Complex Life Is”
Call it Mycoplasma mycoides lite— researchers have established what is approximately a minimal organism by removing about half of the genes from the Mycoplasma mycoides genome. The result is a set of 473 genes which, collectively, appear to be required for any kind of reasonable performance. That is an enormous level of complexity. Furthermore, about one third of that minimal gene set is of unknown function. As J. Craig Venter put it, “We're showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms. These findings are very humbling.”
Yes, humbling, if you are an evolutionist. This is because this result shows how astronomically impossible evolution is in its hypothetical early stages. Simply put, there is no way such an organism is going to randomly evolve.
The origin of life problem can be divided into two broad categories: ground-up and top-down. In the ground-up approach, evolutionists try to figure out how the first life could have arisen spontaneously from an inorganic world. In spite of the evolutionist’s claims to the contrary, the century-long ground-up research program has utterly failed.
That leaves the top-down approach. Here, evolutionists work with simple, unicellular life forms, carefully removing parts one at a time in their search for smaller, simpler life forms. If evolution is true, they should be able to reduce life to a very simple, basic form which could conceivably arise by chance somehow.
This approach has been failing as well, as in recent years all the signs pointed to a minimal life form consisting of at least a few hundred genes—far beyond evolution’s meager resources of random change.
Now, this latest research has upped the ante. It is just getting worse. A minimal organism consisting of 473 genes is many orders of magnitude beyond evolution’s capabilities. Simply put, the science contradicts the theory. What the science is telling us is that evolution is impossible, by any reasonable definition of that term.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/03/mycoplasma-mycoides-just-destroyed.html
Cornelius Hunter March 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM
...... There is a tradeoff between genome size and performance. You can get a few less genes, but you'll quickly end up with an organism that just sits there and is not viable in the real world (it may not even be viable at 473 genes). We are way, way beyond evolution's resources.
Louis Savain March 24, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Let's see now. 473 genes having 531kb. In other words this minimal organism has over 500,000 base pairs. This means that the search space for this relatively simple lifeform is 2^500,000!
Now imagine using RM+NS to arrive at this complexity. You would need a computer the size of trillions of universes running at trillions of cycles per second and you would not make a dent in it! This is the curse of dimensionality, the dreaded combinatorial explosion.
Now, imagine evolving this gene via RM+NS to arrive at a whale or even a lowly insect with thousands of genes and you quickly realize that evolutionists are a bunch of stupid dirt worshippers and snake oil salesmen selling an unsuspecting public a stupid religion based on stupid superstition.
Louis Savain March 24, 2016 at 11:09 PM
.......
The genome is not some one-and-only minimal set of genes needed for life itself. For one thing, if the researchers had pared DNA from a different bacterium they would probably have ended up with a different set of genes.,,,
In the following video, Dr. Paul Nelson gives the main reason why you will get a different set of genes:
,,,”Typical bacterial species. The smallest part of the pie are the genes that all bacteria share. 8% roughly. This second and largest slice (of the pie, 64%) are the genes that are specialized to some particular environment. They call them character genes. By far the biggest number of genes are the ones that are unique. This big green ball here (on the right of the illustration). These are genes found only in one species or its near relatives. Those are the ORFans (i.e. Genes with no ancestry). They said, on the basis of our analysis the genetic diversity of bacteria is of infinite size.”
Paul Nelson – quoted from 103:48 minute mark of the following video
Whatever Happened To Darwin’s Tree Of Life? – Paul Nelson – video
https://youtu.be/9UTrZX47e00?t=3820
...........
Universal Genetic Code? No! – January 18, 2016
Excerpt: “To date, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which houses all published DNA sequences (as well as RNA and protein sequences), currently acknowledges nineteen different coding languages for DNA… “,,,
This was a shock to me. As an impressionable young student at the University of Rochester, I was taught quite definitively that there is only one code for DNA, and it is universal. This, of course, is often cited as evidence for evolution.,,,
In the end, it seems to me that this wide variation in the genetic code deals a serious blow to the entire hypothesis of common ancestry, at least the way it is currently constructed. Perhaps that’s why I hadn’t heard about it until reading Dr. Rossiter’s excellent book.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14280
|
