Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity Tree of life

Another axe lying at the root of the Tree of Life

Spread the love

A brand new early eukaryote (“its own eukaryotic lineage”) From Katarina Zimmer at The Scientist:

From an aquarium at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, scientists have identified a unicellular species that could shed light on how eukaryotes evolved, they report in Current Biology this week (November 22). The tiny organism—named Ancoracysta twista—is not only its own species, says lead author of the study, Jan Janouškovec, but “it represents a whole new lineage in the eukaryotic tree of life.”

A. twista is about 10 micrometers long and moves by using its whip-like flagellum. It is named after its distinguishing feature—the “ancoracyst,” a gun-like organelle that it uses to “shoot” at and immobilize its prey, usually other flagellate species. Janouškovec, a molecular biologist at University College London, along with an international team of scientists, discovered A. twista in a sample collected from the surface of a brain coral in a tropical aquarium.

The researchers realized that Ancoracysta represents its own lineage when phylogenetic models could not reconcile its genetic material with that of any existing lineages.

But Janouškovec’s discovery has thrown a spanner into the works, because A. twista’s mitochondria also have a large number of protein-coding genes, 47, but they’re not closely related to the jakobids at all. This suggests that the origin of eukaryotes might be a bit more complicated than previously thought. A. twista is “helping us get a bit closer to answering some of those questions,” Janouškovec tells The Scientist. More.

Yet another brand new highly specified weapons system that Darwinians will need to claim is not irreducibly complex. How much easier it would have been for them if all the systems were descendants of The Primeval System.

See also: Dinosaurs are tearing paleontology apart?

Jumping’ Genes!: A quarter of cow DNA came from reptiles?

No coherent “narrative” for transposable elements (jumping genes)?

Jumping genes make the tree of life a bush

and

Life continues to ignore what evolution experts say

16 Replies to “Another axe lying at the root of the Tree of Life

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    The researchers realized that Ancoracysta represents its own lineage when phylogenetic models could not reconcile its genetic material with that of any existing lineages.

    New life forms continue to appear on earth validating the hypothesis of special creation and disproving the hypothesis that some “RNA World” was required for life o appear.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Should have named it Ancoracysta kalashnikova, subscripted by the number of protein-coding genes.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Mung at 1, if not special creation, then a force that is capable of getting over – rather than talking around – the huge hump of specified, possibly irreducible, complexity.

    One thing we know that the missing force isn’t is a Darwinian biology teacher. His one claim to fame is, he isn’t breaking the law by raising doubts.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Sort of related from 2006- Can evolution make things less complicated?:

    Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

    The bottom of the tree trunk made the roots and branches! 😎

  5. 5
    Latemarch says:

    Janouškovec: This suggests that the origin of eukaryotes might be a bit more complicated than previously thought.

    Unexpected!

    A. twista is “helping us get a bit closer to answering some of those questions,” Janouškovec tells The Scientist.

    Pure bluff. They’re not getting closer to anything because they have all the wrong premises.

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    Scientists who are staunch Darwinists continue to find evidence disproving their theory, and people who understand these finding better than the scientists say; ‘see?’

    Perhaps, (just a thought), instead on relying on Darwinists to so relentlessly destroy their own theory, ID take a turn at finding evidence destroying evolutionary theory.

    Aside from IC, and SC, and Kairos’s opaque FSCRI? FCSRI? CSI-ID?

    I hear scientists have disproved a watery Mars? Well done the researchers at ID.:) I hear there is confusion amongst Human origins fossils? Well done ID?

    Come on one, just one piece of ‘positive evidence.’ That is, all negative pieces should be side lined until, Gauger, Axe, and Chaffee produce their latest devastating findings?

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Hi Troll!

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:

    Hi Mung,

    I’m not trolling, it’s just that over the last months UD has been spiralling, with nothing to get the juices going. (You may have noticed my absence? No?)

    Just same ole, ‘They can’t explain this, they can’t explain that. This is what we expect with design etc etc.’

    No trolling honest. Just waiting for something new.

  9. 9
    gpuccio says:

    rvb8:

    Maybe you are, as usual, epistemologically confused.

    IC and CSI are not “evidence”, but fundamental principles of the ID theory. Asking ID to find something different is like asking neo-darwinists to find something different from RV and NS.

    The theory is as it is: if good, it explains facts, if bad it doesn’t.

    Facts are the evidence for theories, not the other way round.

    Another important point that you seem to miss: facts belong to nobody, or rather they belong to all.

    You seem to believe that the myriad of facts that daily support ID and falsify neo-darwinism has no relevance unless it is provided by ID researchers. I don’t understand why you think that way.

    Science is not a game. There are no opposing teams, and no scores, other than the single score of what is true and what is not.

    Non ID researchers are providing most facts in favor of ID for the simple reason that they have huge resources, while ID researchers’ resources are very limited.

    But there is no problem with that. As I have said, facts belong to all. Do you deny that?

  10. 10
    gpuccio says:

    rvb8:

    Moreover, just consider this:

    If the facts supporting ID come mainly form neo-darwinist researchers, that makes ID even stronger, because it means that no cognitive bias is implied in that empirical support.

    Indeed, if the researchers providing those facts are neo-darwinists, any cognitive bias will be in favor of neo-darwinism, not certainly in favor of ID.

    Therefore, if those facts still support ID and not neo-darwinism, as it is constantly the case, no cognitive bias can be implied.

    That is a very strong point in favor of ID.

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio @9:

    “Science is not a game. There are no opposing teams, and no scores, other than the single score of what is true and what is not.”

    “Science is not a game. There are no opposing teams, and no scores, other than the single score of what is true and what is not.”

    “Science is not a game. There are no opposing teams, and no scores, other than the single score of what is true and what is not.”

    How many times should this be repeated before your politely dissenting interlocutors finally get it?

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio @10:

    If the facts supporting ID come mainly from neo-darwinist researchers, that makes ID even stronger, because it means that no cognitive bias is implied in that empirical support.

    Indeed, if the researchers providing those facts are neo-darwinists, any cognitive bias will be in favor of neo-darwinism, not certainly in favor of ID.

    Therefore, if those facts still support ID and not neo-darwinism, as it is constantly the case, no cognitive bias can be implied.

    That is a very strong point in favor of ID.

    gpuccio @10:

    If the facts supporting ID come mainly from neo-darwinist researchers, that makes ID even stronger, because it means that no cognitive bias is implied in that empirical support.

    Indeed, if the researchers providing those facts are neo-darwinists, any cognitive bias will be in favor of neo-darwinism, not certainly in favor of ID.

    Therefore, if those facts still support ID and not neo-darwinism, as it is constantly the case, no cognitive bias can be implied.

    That is a very strong point in favor of ID.

    gpuccio @10:

    If the facts supporting ID come mainly from neo-darwinist researchers, that makes ID even stronger, because it means that no cognitive bias is implied in that empirical support.

    Indeed, if the researchers providing those facts are neo-darwinists, any cognitive bias will be in favor of neo-darwinism, not certainly in favor of ID.

    Therefore, if those facts still support ID and not neo-darwinism, as it is constantly the case, no cognitive bias can be implied.

    That is a very strong point in favor of ID.

    How many times should this be repeated before your politely dissenting interlocutors finally get it?

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    Can somebody explain how can a tree* develop and survive for so long without a root?

    (*) is it a bush?

  14. 14
    ET says:

    rvb8- It just so happens that science mandates all design inferences eliminate stochastic processes first. Those “negative arguments” are required.

    What we expect if ID were true is to see signs of intelligence, with both CSI and IC being part of it. But it does turtle down to what nature can and cannot produce vs what intelligent/ intentional agencies can and cannot produce.

    Nature tends towards the simple, ie the line of least resistance, and the messy. Spiegelman’s Monster is evidence for nature’s simplicity with respect to molecular replicators. Just can’t seem to get beyond that. So when we observe something much greater than that we have reason to investigate further. And when we do we see those signs of intelligence-> IC and CSI, all the way down.

    But that isn’t the evidence that you want. You want to meet, talk to and observe the alleged intelligent designer(s). For you no amount of evidence will be good enough short of that.

    We can’t help you with that.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, I suggest to you that you would be well advised to take time to study a little on the logic of inference to best current explanation, aka abduction. KF

  16. 16

    Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

    Vision begets design >
    Design begets engineering >
    Engineering begets construction >
    Construction begets use.

    Example of use – hearing, balance and song
    Note: Vision in the sense of thoughts, not sight.

Leave a Reply