Is There Visible Proof of God?



what about this paper?:

if its true that for a minimal cell we will need about 100 genes, then the first cell could not evolve stepwise.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #208

It is not true. Solves that problem pretty quickly.


but how do you know that its not true? where is the evidence?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #210

I know that we do not know how many proteins are required for the least complex cell possible and the paper you linked to has nothing to do with this either.


That is the minimal set for modern genes. It says nothing about primordial genes.


first: a tipical gene need big amount of bp to be functional.

second: even if we are talking about simpler genes we are still dealing with about 100 genes. this is a lot.


We aren’t dealing with simple genes. We are dealing with modern genes that are the product of 3+ billion years of evolution. They have evolved within large genomes, so they are adapted to large genomes. The number of modern genes it takes to get a functional cell can not tell us the absolute minimum for a simple organism.


but any tipical gene need big amount of bp even in its minimal state. so this notion isnt true.

no problem. but in sicence we go by the evidence we have and no by the evidence we dont have. so by the evidence we do have any cell we know of need many genes. again: i go by what the evidence show.


It isn’t the number of base pairs that matters. What matters is the function.

We don’t have evidence for how many primordial genes would be in a minimal set.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #216

Exactly. We just do not know.


the function determined by the gene length. so the gene length is important.

so again: i go by what the evidence lead. if we have no evidence for a simpler cell then why we need to believe that such a cell exist? its like saying that even if we have no evidence that a blue cat exist, we can still believe that such a cat exist. thats make no sense.


There is no correlation between gene length and function for many, many genes. There are functional genes that are just a few hundred base pairs long, and others that are thousands and thousands of base pairs. They all have function.

If we have no evidence of what the sequence of primordial genes were, what functions they had, or how they interacted then we can’t make any claims about how many would be needed for a minimal set. No evidence means no conclusion.


but they have different function in most cases. so a globin for intance need a specific length and an insluin need a specific length etc. so the =specific function determined by the gene length.

so why you conclude that abiogenesis is possible at all? (if you believing so).

(Dale Cutler) #220

Atheists have no choice. They have to believe in abiogenesis – it’s the only game in town.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #221

No, we also have that life arrive on Earth from space.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #222

Also known as “kick the can”.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #223

That’s right. Life could have began long ago and far away, and has been spreading across the cosmos for billions of years and billion of light-years on microscopic meteors.

(Dale Cutler) #224

The radiation in space would have fried any life during the eons. I call it wishful thinking. But you’re right about acronym: Genealogical Amoeba Pansperia, panspermia of the gaps.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #225

Look at you! Reminds me of when you declared your Adam. Seems like science fiction is strong with you :slight_smile:.

That does not seem likely.

(Dale Cutler) #226

I hope that meant that indeed it does not seem likely that life or molecular entities could survive without being dissociated by radiation in space.