Intelligent Design

Last eukaryotic common ancestor had many “modern-like features”

Spread the love
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues

At Design Matrix, blog for the book of the name, Mike Gene introduces us to the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor:

Earlier I showed you that the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) was quite modern-like in terms of its nuclear pore complex, mechanisms of transport through this complex, and the entire endomembranous system. Yet the modern-like features do not stop there.

Introns and Spliceosome

I have already provided some evidence that indicates LECA had introns in their protein-coding genes and a complex spliceosome. .

Consider also:

The spliceosome, a sophisticated molecular machine involved in the removal of intervening sequences from the coding sections of eukaryotic genes, appeared and subsequently evolved rapidly during the early stages of eukaryotic evolution. The last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) had both complex spliceosomal machinery and some spliceosomal introns [1]

And

Evolutionary reconstructions using maximum likelihood methods point to unexpectedly high densities of introns in protein-coding genes of ancestral eukaryotic forms including the last common ancestor of all extant eukaryotes. [2]

More.

– “Oh my. LECA was really complex” (July 3, 2011)

One Reply to “Last eukaryotic common ancestor had many “modern-like features”

  1. 1
    DrREC says:

    This is almost a tautology. The last Eukaryotic common ancestor had the defining features of a Eukaryote….which happen to be more complex than prokaryotic life.

    Therefore design?

    Curious also to invoke LECA, which assumes common ancestry of all Eukarya. This is a technique of using modern sequences to peer back and infer what was.

    Using this assumes there are not multiple origins of Eukarya, and could even be interpreted as ruling out design, as those lines of descent are unbroken and unperturbed (otherwise, we can’t infer what was in LECA-a more modern insertion of a common design kind of rules out inferring what was commonly present in an ancient organism).

    I grant this isn’t mutually exclusive with some versions of ID, but it nearly reduces it to theistic evolution.

Leave a Reply