What gave you that idea? IF-3 in prokaryotes is homologous to eIF1 in eukaryotes, and prokaryotic IF-1 is homologous to eukaryotic eIF1A. Translation initiation there is straightforwardly similar in both the figures you linked. What’s “reversed” about it?
1 Like
I am talking about ribosomes and translation.
In any case, @PDPrice, maybe you could describe your best understanding of the transition or prokaryotes to eukaryotes. I cannot discern any rhyme or reason in what @stcordova is blathering on about here. Maybe you can add some clarity.
1 Like
You said there was a “transition” that @stcordova referenced, but which in reality is a figment of his imagination. What transition were you talking about?
So you believe the eukaryotic cell evolved form you prokaryotic cell? What was the mechanism that created the spliceosome along with intron structure in eukaryotic cells? What was the mechanism that modified the ribosome as @stcordova is arguing?
The purported transition from a prokaryotic translation system to a eukaryotic one.
2 Likes
If there was no transition between those two systems, then how do we have them both?
To the same first step in translation initiation? That makes no sense. And in any case, how could you claim to know that there is no gradual path between the ancestral state and the modern one, even supposing the very first steps were different?
And there are numerous other problems as there are so many more complexes involved in the Eukaryotic cycle that have to pop in and be functional from the start.
Why is that a problem? It has to be functional when some additional component gets added to the system, or at least not interfere with other components that are sufficiently strongly deleterious. Okay, so what?
Natural selection would preclude such evolution
Why?
and the evidence of this is, ironically the supposed conservation of the Prokaryotic architecture over hundreds of millions of years. I mean, one should not be saying, “selection conserves this feature” and then simultaneously arguing selection evolved away from this feature! That is a logical contradiction
It would be a contradiction if it was claimed the very same system was simultaneously being selected for and against in the same lineage. But since one system was preserved in one lineage, and changed in another, there is no contradiction.
I think your reasoning skills could use a polish here Sal.
3 Likes
No.
@colewd, have you ever thought about the possibility that prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestry, such that eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes?
2 Likes
Yes. Thats a better explanation.
@PDPrice, this question makes absolutely no sense. It comes across along the lines of “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys?”. Surely you don’t want to be framing your questions thusly.
2 Likes
So you’re saying that there was one translation system (A) and it gave rise to both prokaryotic translation (B) and eukaryotic translation (C).
I guess my question would be, what is translation system A and where can we see it in action?
That’s better.
We don’t know everything, but I have always found that Loren Williams’ work provides an accessible starting point. I believe @pnelson may have a link or two to some multimedia stuff that gets into more detail (Sorry - I don’t have anything imediately at hand…)
Great question. Maybe one would need a time machine, or maybe just some serious prospecting deep in the bowels of the earth.
There is a fun (but serious) technical challenge that goes along with the prospecting.
Ok, that’s what I suspected. Translation system (A) exists only in peoples’ minds and has never been observed. One might even go so far as to call it a “figment”…!
Has it occurred to you that this kind of thinking is why Darwinism is unfalsifiable? Name any insurmountable problem and this is what gets invoked. No offense but in light of the fact that you are engaging in this kind of speculation, I think it might behoove you to treat @stcordova with a bit more respect and not question his knowledge, using words like “figment” and “blathering” that can be turned right back at you so easily.
An apt description of skeptic’s assessment of the suggestion of the existence of Neptune in 1845 or thereabouts.
No matter, bits and pieces can be studied in the here-and-now. I’ve given a pointer - there is no reason to pretend that this sort of experimental science is not ongoing
So is astronomy.
(Oh wait, I just realized I am having a conversation with someone who probably believes astronomy is not a valid field of science. Oh well.)
Not you, not @stcordova, not any antievolutionist anywhere has ever made a credible case, supported by experimental evidence, that any of these matters pose insurmountable problems.
I respect your sentiments here, @PDPrice, but @stcordova has a long and storied history of, not just misrepresentation, but taking delight in so doing. That he is bragging here about his knowledge is just the latest example of this sort of behavior.
@stcordova’s interactions with some of us go way, way back. I recommend enjoying the banter, the back-and-forth, and not taking it so seriously.
3 Likes
Respectfully, the very fact that (entirely unobserved) system A is being invoked at all is a tacit admission that this problem is insurmountable. Otherwise just say that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes directly! No need to invoke the middleman if this sequence is not an insurmountable problem for evolution.
EDIT: I’d also like to add that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim (as skeptics are often fond of repeating); so your challenge for us to prove it cannot happen is upside down. It is the evolutionist’s job to give sufficient evidence that this transition is even possible, and did in fact happen; and clearly you haven’t made your case.
And the discrepancies between theory and observation when it came to the orbit of Uranus were tacit admissions that the theories of that day were inferior to “the hand of God” as explanations. And that there was no good reason for hypothesizing the existence of Neptune.
The fact is that the inner workings of “system A” can be studied in there here and now. I don’t see why we should discard that which can be studied, and which provides such magnificent insights into living things.
Nobody’s talking about discarding anything, but when you say the inner workings “can be studied … here and now” I think that’s more than a little misleading when you’ve already admitted this system is entirely hypothetical.
Sorry, @PDPrice, when you (or @stcordova) claim the existence of an insurmountable barrier, it is your duty to provide evidence for such barriers.
You haven’t. Neither has anyone else. Why you expect anyone to take any of your assertions seriously, when you cannot bring to bear an iota of positive experimental support for your claims, escapes me.
3 Likes
With all due respect, @PDPrice, this is exactly what you are asking for.
3 Likes
Why is the center of both of those systems, the enzyme that catalyzes the assembly of all of your proteins, RNA?