It is part of a complex system called the spliceosome. It being irreducibly complex would take experiment to confirm. As the complex has almost 200 proteins and whether it could do the job with 1 missing in not known.
Even through the evidence is there are limited functional sequences given the preservation the functional space still could be very large and yet finding this protein through a random search would not be possible. For example if 50% of the amino acids work in every position the functional space is still 1/2^2000 of the total sequence space. The mechanism needs to be deterministic in this case as there are less 2^200 evolutionary searches available since the beginning of life on earth.
Yes. The splicing function is very precise and mission critical for eukaryotic cells function. You need it to produce the prp8 protein (chicken and egg).
The evidence shows that this sequence was achieved most likely by a deterministic process. In addition the 3 other spliceosome proteins that gpuccio aligned were also over 99% conserved in the alignment programs I ran between mice and humans.
Heh. Another day, another post by Bill with the ridiculous claim evolution has to search the entire ginormous possible search space randomly and find an extant functioning protein all at once.
I’d remind him that isn’t how actual evolution works for the 2,475th time but he’ll just forget and be back tomorrow with the same dumb claim.
If it’s any consolation, it was watching the antics of people like Bill that (years ago), helped convince me anti-evolutionist Christians have absolutely no clue about the science, make stuff up as they go along, and are simply fighting a rearguard theological action against facts.
To me this was a clear demonstration that they had no scientific arguments against evolution, and were rejecting it out of personal distaste. People like this help convince other Christians to accept evolution.
Thank you for proving my point. Once again you make a post trying to change the subject while completely ignoring everything which has gone before, ignoring all the evidence for evolution, and ignoring the fact that you have presented no evidence for your own case.
This is all you ever do. If you had evidence for your case you would have presented it by now. You have nothing.
I don’t see evidence, I see assertion. To challenge evolution credibly, you need a case at least as sophisticated and complete as the case you’re challenging. You need to account better for the available data. Where’s your explanation of the fossil record? Where are your nested hierarchies? Where are your hypotheses? Where are your predictions, experiments, validated theories? Where is your evidence?
All I’m seeing from you is the typical God of the Gaps argument. No evidence, and no science.
Which means you are proposing sequential special creation of individual species? With each new special creation a population of its own, owing no descent from populations that come before it, correct?
How? Where’s your evidence? Where are all the points I listed? You’ll at least need that in order to challenge common descent. So far so you ever do is point to absolutely tiny knowledge gaps and try to insert God. That’s literally all you ever do. No science whatsoever.
No the argument is simply against the claim of universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms. The evidence is the highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells.
Which parts of evolutionary theory aren’t you challenging? Be specific. You are clearly challenging common descent between species, including species of crocodiles and sparrows. “Universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms” doesn’t describe most of what you’re challenging.
It has considerable to do. Notably, it’s relevant to your hypothesis (which you won’t state) of how things got to be the way they are, and it’s relevant to what sort of evidence one can use to explore the question.
I don’t have a complete hypothesis to how things got to the way they are. There is a claim that we can explain this solely by evolutionary mechanisms yet the first transition is very problematic.
but he’ll just forget and be back tomorrow with the same dumb claim.