It is evidence against guided evolution if you consider the amount of functional information or change to the genome required to build the structure this protein is a part of.
You also need to consider the other structures needed for the eukaryotic cell such as chromosomes, the nuclear pore complex and other organelles.
What do you mean evolved stepwise? Is this an unguided claim?
No, because even if it needed to evolve in one fell swoop, God could have simply caused this full gene to appear in the genome of a eukaryote precursor. This is not evidence against common ancestry, merely unguided evolution.
@AndyWalsh showed that Prp8 would not have needed to appear in one fell swoop, as you claim. This is compatible with both guided and unguided evolution.
Its also evidence against common ancestry. I agree God could do anything and this says that common ancestry was a choice. Evidence against common ancestry is when that choice does not seem necessary. You need to differentiate in your mind “evidence against” and “logically impossible” as they are very different.
If your standard is “logically impossible” then we should move on from this topic.
No, that’s a theological objection, and a bad one at that. We cannot know why God would have made the choice to use common ancestry or not. So we must focus on the scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly indicates that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor.
That is not my standard. That is an unscientific standard, as science cannot “prove” anything one way or another. I’m only asking you to provide any scientific evidence that separate ancestry, rather than common ancestry, is true. The fact that you haven’t provided any tells me that you have none.
I appreciate that there are lots of comments here for you to respond to. So I just wanted to ensure my earlier question was not overlooked:
When you say God could do anything this is a theological assertion. You are not sticking to your own standards. There is little if any evidence God used common ancestry exclusively.
BTW it looks like the PRP8 gene
Position: hg19 chr17:1,553,923-1,588,176 Size: 34,254 Total Exon Count: 43 Strand: -
Coding Region
Position: hg19 chr17:1,554,096-1,587,865 Size: 33,770 Coding Exon Count: 42
Has 43 exons. So in order to make prp8 you need the spliceolome which requires prp8 to splice out the exons. How would you explain this origin with common ancestry or reproduction as a mechanism? Big chicken and egg problem 
Then you should not be so rigid in your dismissal of evidence against universal common ancestry if truth is your end objective. Which I believe it is.
The only thing purifying selection requires is functional constraint. Common descent is real the only question is how universal it is.
That did not answer my question. But, then again, why would you treat me any differently than you do everyone else in this discussion?
My point has been made, anyway, and everyone capable of getting the point did, I am sure.
Has =/= always had.
Solved.
I accept common descent I do not think this it is universal.
Also purifying selection is a product of reproduction and stoping a highly deleterious mutation from being passed on. This has nothing to do with universal common descent. Purifying selection can occur with universal common descent or with multiple points of origin.
Evidence of purifying selection is comparing different species sequences and seeing little change over time. The starting point of these sequences could be a common ancestor or separate designs that share the same gene.
Yes, that gets to what I was asking: If you say a particular gene that is common between the human genome and the slime mold genome is subject to purifying selection, as you seem to have said, then how would you know this unless you first accepted that humans and slime molds are related by common descent?
I don’t expect you to provide a relevant or even coherent answer. The question works as a rhetorical device to further expose your incomprehension. But if you feel like trying to answer, by all means do.
Then show us the steps the cell went through and why evolution could not have produced those steps.
He could also know it if he had evidence that the particular sequence had been conserved, separately in humans and slime molds, over hundreds of millions of years. Of course our only evidence of such conservation, practically speaking, would be from phylogenetic analyses. But it could conceivably be analyses of separate human (i.e. vertebrate) and slime mold trees. Mind you, your point is made that this is way beyond Bill’s comprehension.
Here it is again.
Explain what you mean when you say “used common ancestry exclusively.” Again, common ancestry is not a mechanism to generate diversity.
First, you are completely ignoring the existence of self-splicing introns. Second, you are assuming that because it has introns now, it must have had introns from the beginning.
Also, you are still making the really basic mistake of thinking that common ancestry is a mechanism to generate diversity. It’s not… so whether or not Prp8 can be explained by stepwise mechanisms (although it certainly can), this says nothing about whether common ancestry is true or not.
I haven’t dismissed any evidence against universal common ancestry since you haven’t provided any. You have only provided objections to unguided evolution, and you still fail to realize that this is a separate issue from common ancestry.
I’ll try.
Its means that all animals past the original population are modifications to prior animals.
Self splicing introns cannot operate in the cell nucleus where the spliceosome is located. You are assuming it did not always have introns. Where is the evidence for this?
This is false as reproduction does crate diversity. The challenge is how much.
This implies you have a model and you don’t. You have no idea if this is true and most likely you are wrong. 40 plus exons were inserted by a step by step process? 3000 plus bits of genetic information was inserted by a step by step process?
The problem is you have come to this conclusion through inconsistent argument standards. You cannot dismiss a theological argument then on the other hand use it in order to make evidence against common ancestry impossible.
If we used the same tactics to argue for the evidence against special creation we would get the same result.
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that.
Is that what you did, @colewd?
Close enough. The evidence here came originally from @gpuccio article at common descent where he did a blast analysis. I have also looked at the preservation of prp8 for various vertebrates. Here is gpuccio’s article which I posted earlier.
So Bill reveals that he doesn’t understand the question, as if any further confirmation were needed. He has no idea that he has just confirmed common descent of vertebrates. But @gpuccio probably didn’t either.
I take it back about @gpuccio. In the article, he clearly assumes that all eukaryotes are related by common descent, that Opisthokonta is a clade, and so on. Bill apparently does not notice that sort of thing.
Bill has on many occasions argued both that we can’t explain divergence, nor conservation.
If sequences are conserved it means they’re evolving below the spontaneous rate of mutation,and we can’t explain it because then purifying selection would be needed and then… well it’s not clear why that’s a problem but it just is, okay? Bill says so.
If sequences are diverging it means mutations has to occur and fix, and we can’t have that happening either because that would imply, well, that mutations occur and drift and selection, and that’s also a problem because… well that’s not clear either. But Bill thinks so.
Divergence? Nope. Conservation? Nope.
Just what the hell WOULD be happening on evolution then, according to Bill? At what rate of change is it acceptable to Bill? @colewd please explain how much the sequence SHOULD be diverging if common descent is true? Not at all? A little bit? A lot more than we observe? What is the rate of mutation and fixation that common descent is compatible with?
Somehow common descent is simultaneously incompatible with both change and with stasis. One wonders what, that takes place in the brain fog that takes the place of Bill’s thoughts, common descent even is.