Brown Algae Study Falisifies Evolution’s Model

Sequenced and analyzed, the genome of Ectocarpus siliculosus fits evolution like a mountain fitting into a shoe (like everyone knows Volvox have always been Volvox).  A ‘theory’ that is supposedly vital to predictions within the genome and how understands it but actual observations say otherwise…

“Analysis of the Ectocarpus genome failed to detect homologues of many of the enzymes that are known, from other organisms, to have roles in alginate biosynthesis and in the remodelling of alginates, fucans and cellulose, indicating that brown algae have independently evolved enzymes to carry out many of these processes.”

“For example there are several additional membrane-localized proteins of interest, including three integrin related proteins. Integrins have an important role in cell adhesion in animals but integrin genes are absent from all the previously sequenced stramenopile genomes. The Ectocarpus genome also encodes a large number of ion channels, compared to other stramenopile genomes…”

Close to ten thousand ORFans are contained in the Brown Algae which evolutionary ‘theory’ had assumed did not exist and has a huge difference between it’s cousins. As a result, this complicates even more the story of the evolutionary model. Instead of claiming that it arose once and features were then finely tuned, now they have to claim that things arose several times each one independently of the another producing unlikely molecular machines, which then in turn enabled their model to be successful on paper but not in reality.

“Animal tyrosine and green plant serine/threonine receptor kinases form two separate monophyletic clades, indicating that these two families evolved independently, and in both lineages the emergence of receptor kinases is thought to have been a key event in the evolution of multicellularity. The Ectocarpus  receptor kinases also form a monophyletic clade, discrete from those of animal and green plant receptor kinases, indicating that the brown algal family also evolved independently.”

What they are trying to say is, stuff happens! Evolution just happened to create a major new innovation because it’s there. Engineering doesn’t come from a mindless mechanism because it’s there rather engineering comes from intelligence, namely, God.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Brown Algae Study Falisifies Evolution’s Model

  1. Still no anwers to our growing list of outstanding questions, Michael ?

    Still hiding ? Still pretending the questions will just go away ?

    Well, they won’t:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

  2. Michael,

    I still want you to refute me on what I show about the bacterial flagellum. . . .

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — In 1988, G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    Still waiting for a refutation . . . .

    You realize that failure to refute can be taken as an indirect admission?

  3. Michael’s eminence grise[1] has grasped at another straw.

    Instead of claiming that it[2] arose once and features were then finely tuned, now they have to claim that things arose several times each one independently of the another producing unlikely molecular machines, which then in turn enabled their model to be successful on paper but not in reality.

    Now if Michael—or his source, for that matter—had actually read the cited Nature article, he would have noted that the multicellularity of the brown algae is not the second but the fifth evolutionary lineage in which this feature has evolved.[3] Therefore, Michael is perpetrating a tempest in a teapot here. We already knew that single cells have got together to form colonies and principalities.[4] Without the context, the quotes that Michael proffers may seem to indicate that the authors question that these algae evolved. If we look a little further, just beyond Michael’s ken, we see their actual view—

    Comparison of genomes from a broad range of organisms (Fig. 3) indicated that the major eukaryotic groups have retained distinct but overlapping sets of genes since their evolution from a common ancestor, with new gene families evolving independently in each lineage.[5]

    Yes, brown algae display many genes, and even whole families, that have evolved independently, and are not found in more distantly related organisms. Animals display many features, such as legs and eyes, that have not evolved in plants. Plants display structures, such as leaves and Co2 metabolism, not found in animals. Big deal.

    Michael has picked up the term ORFan from his source, although he has not a clue as to its significance. So he just repeats it mindlessly, because AiG thinks it ‘s important.[6] I’m not sure what Michael’s point is about “ten thousand ORFans” in brown algae., or even whether it’s accurate. Since the referenced Nature paper does not even mention the term . we must ask, MICHAEL, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT?’ Superficially, it appears to be BOGUS.

    We might even ask Michael if he has any idea what an ORFan is, or represents. Michael, what is the different between a long and a short ORFan/ Pretty elementary, but we’ll see.; more on ORFans later. All for now, must fly.

    ===============

    [1] Michael obviously obtained this material from an unattributed source, then edited it lightly.

    [2] I assume that “it” refers to multicellularity, although this is muddled, as usual.

    [3] See Fig. 1 on page 618. Multicellularity has arisen independently in metazoa, fungi, green algae, red algae, and now in brown algae. What is unusual about brown algae is that multicellularity arose so recently, as compared to the others.

    [4] I noted some time ago that research into the evolution of multicellularity has already produced a new way to avoid drug resistance by bacteria.

    [5] p. 619.

    [6] Incidentally, Michael, the vaunted E. coli flagellum has only one ORFan in its 40 proteins. How about that?

  4. Close to ten thousand ORFans are contained in the Brown Algae which evolutionary ‘theory’ had assumed did not exist and has a huge difference between it’s cousins. As a result, this complicates even more the story of the evolutionary model. Instead of claiming that it arose once and features were then finely tuned, now they have to claim that things arose several times each one independently of the another producing unlikely molecular machines, which then in turn enabled their model to be successful on paper but not in reality.

    What is an ORFan? An ORF is an “open reading frame”—an sequence of more than about 100 amino acids that putatively codes for a protein. An ORFan is an ORF that has thus far been found only in a single species. ORFans are found in viruses, bacteria, and eukaryotes—listed from highest to lowest frequency.

    ORFans are a darling of creationists, because they must have been the product of a unique design for that specific organism. Of course, their taxonomy is based upon created biblical “kinds” that cannot evolve beyond some undefined boundary.

    The first thing we must notice, however, is that ORFans show no relation whatever to any sort of “kinds” that anyone has ever defined. That is, one breed of dog may have an ORFan that another breed does not have, and numerous ORFs are shared between species such as humans and oak trees, which are most definitely not in the same kind. So it is puzzling that creationists feel so fond of them.

    Where do ORFans come from? Could finding ORFans in almost every species of virus indicate that all viruses were separately created, and thus that changes which produce drug resistance are a figment of the evilutionists’ imagination?

    One of the creationist arguments is a pure argument from ignorance. Since we only know about genes in organisms that have been sequenced, today’s ORFan may well be found in another species that has not yet been investigated. For example, in 2008, ORFans represented about 0.4% of genes found in newly sequenced genomes—this is down from 17% just five years earlier. Ignorance decreases, ORFans decrease.[1]

    Many ORFans are not genes at all, or at least not functional genes. It is estimated that about half of all ORFans are only fragments of a gene, or genes that do not code for any protein, or code for a nonfunctional protein, or code for a protein that the organism does not use. (Creationists may wish to explain why a designer would incorporate such supernumeraries into a genome. A divine practical joke?)

    Many of these ORFans may be annotation artifacts; the computer programs used to detect ORFs are notorious for false positives. That is, the ORFan may not exist at all.

    Some ORFans represent rapidly evolving genes.; They are found nowhere else because they have recently evolved. Again, not much evidence for creationism here.

    About 17% of ORFans represent horizontal gene transfers from unrelated organisms. These are mostly found in bacteria, because that is where most HGTs occur.

    Finally, some ORFans are actually novel genes produced by evolutionary mechanisms. Not many, but a few.

    Since creationists tout ORFans as indicators that the organisms bearing them were created separately from all other organisms, it should be of interest to then than the human genome has no ORFans whatsoever. That is, if ORFans are a test to determine which species could not have evolved from any other species, then the first species we must cross off the special-creation list is homo sapiens. Ironic, isn’t it?

    =====================

    [1] Michael claims 10,000 ORFans in brown algae. Does that even sound reasonable? Let’s see; the algae studied in the cited paper has 16,000 genes (Table 1, p618). That would mean over 65% of its total genes are not known in any other species on earth. Eukaryotes have the smallest proportion of ORFans; a typical bacteria has about 5% in its genome. So the number of ORFans in brown algae is likely to be less than 800 if it is typical, But let”s more than double that and say about 2,000. That’s still five times less that Michael’s quoted figure. So, Michael, Let’s have your source for the number of ORFans in brown algae.” Either that or stuff a sock in it.


  5. So, Michael, your claim that this new line of multicellularity is unprecedented is BOGUS. Multicellularity has evolved five separate times—that we know of so far. Hardly any problem for evolution, and certainly not evidence for creation.

    And ORFans as evidence of creation falls FLAT ON ITS FACE. Ironically, viruses, which everyone knows evolve, have the highest number of ORFans, while humans, whom you claim to be created separately from all other species, have no ORFans in their genome at all.

    Oh, and the two subjects you tried to jam together in this post—multicellularity and ORFans—have nothing to do with each other.

    Michael, once again you are in reckless disregard off the truth. Another reason that creationists have less credibility than a carnival huckster.

  6. The June 25 issue of Science carries an interesting research report on “A Generalization of Hamilton’s Rule for the Evolution of Microbial Cooperation” (328:1700-03).

    Cooperation is a precursor to multicellularity.

    The new experimental work with Myxococcus xanthus removes the requirement for some assumptions made by Hamilton, and uses game theory to determine the parameters under which sporularion evolves resistance to cheater strains.

    Yet another evolutionary pathway, Michael.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s