Empty assertion with zero evidence to back it. What I have noticed is that you don’t understand the difference between claims and evidence.
Hi Bill,
Evolutionary mechanisms have explained the appearance of de novo genes. Since the mechanisms are capable of that, nothing in the consensus natural history is beyond their reach.
Now the appearance of the first reproducing cell is a different matter, of course.
Best,
Chris
This is something I disagree with respectfully. The spliceosome requires 200 genes. It also has proteins that are over 2000 amino acids long. All genes are not equal. Proving you can fly 100 ft in the air does not establish you can fly to mars.
But the appearance of de novo genes anlong with empirically observed evolutionary increases in genetic complexity does establish there’s no barrier to prevent 2000AA proteins from forming.
1 Like
That’s a claim which requires evidence. You need to show that all splicing systems through time have required 200 genes.
1 Like
There is no such thing as “the” spliceosome. The spliceosomes of different species can vary quite a lot in their protein content. Nevertheless it is true enough to say that even the smallest known spliceosomes have 200 genes or thereabouts.
But just because they have 200 genes doesn’t mean a simpler version of it couldn’t work in some ancestral organism. Or even that it couldn’t work today. You can’t actually claim to now that a functional spliceosome requires 200 or more genes.
3 Likes
This is what is being observed. Yes, yeast spliceosomes are smaller but the problem remains the same. Your little trick of making the design claim impossible is cute 
What observations do we have of splicing systems from 300 million years ago?
Those are modern yeast species, not species from hundreds of millions of years ago.
How do you know?
How do I know that modern yeast species come from modern times? Are you serious?
Please show us these genomes that were around during the emergence of gene splicing, and please show that they had at least 200 genes. This is the claim you are making, and it needs evidence.
1 Like
Whether it is 80 genes or 200 it does not matter. There is no matter based model that explains it. What is your evidence that a yeast spliceosome was different 1 Billion years ago? Yep you don’t have it either, so why don’t we work with the evidence we have.
That would be an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how something came about is not evidence for design.
1 Like
Sheesh.
1 Like
Thats not the argument. Mind with additional mechanisms for arrangement. can explain the spliceosome. Matter alone cannot explain the necessary sequential arrangements of nucleotides and amino acids.
Where is the evidence?
Our exchanges today.
Wonderful evidence for the lack of evidence in the ID-Creationist grab bag of empty assertions. 
You have only given us empty assertions. I can therefore conclude that you have no evidence.
Our ability to generate sequences in the form of the English language is evidence of a mind being up to the task. If you continue arbitrary denial then this discussion has no purpose. The mechanism along with our ability to type is observable and powerful enough to account for what we are observing in biology.
“Mind” by itself didn’t build the keyboard and processor, or the signal wires used to carry the data, or the computer and monitor used to display the message.
Sorry Bill but your disembodied “mind” itself as a mechanism is still a dismal failure.