The existence of histone-like proteins in prokaryotes (discovered in the 1980s) strongly suggests that the eukaryotic “histone code”, although complex, is not truly irreducible. [Someone help me out, I can’t recall if this fits IC1, IC2, or IC3]
Review articles written in the 1980s here and here. There is even a 2018 article regarding methylation of one of the histone-like proteins here. For some reason, these studies didn’t make into the ENV article.
It’s standard boilerplate ID propaganda probably written by Denise O’Leary.
“Look at this (insert biological phenomenon XYZ) here. Science doesn’t know the exactly how (XYZ) evolved so therefore it must have been designed!”
Flagellum, spliceosome, ribosome, mammalian eye, yadda yadda yadda
Wash, rinse, repeat.
It absolutely is boilerplate, so much so that it is barely worth engaging (though @cwhenderson raises some good points).
On what basis do you infer Denise O’Leary?
She normally posts as “News” especially at UD. It could be someone else though.
13 posts were split to a new topic: What is Sealioning?
I have attended scientific conferences where the evolution of specific proteins has been discussed. What I noticed is that not a single scientist went up on the stage and showed how there wasn’t an ID/creationist explanation for that protein, and then concluded, in the absence of all positive evidence, that it must have evolved.
I wonder what an equivalent presentation at an ID/creationist conference would look like . . .