Slashdot Mirror
Single-Celled Species' Genome As Complex As Ours?
An anonymous reader writes: "A new paper reports on the sequencing and analysis of the genome of a single-celled species known as Tetrahymena thermophila. This ciliate (like the Paramecium people look at in school) has some 27,000 genes, or nearly as many as humans. And despite existing as a single cell, this spcies encodes fantastic complexity and unusual features. For example, it has a primitive immune system that prevents the invasion of foreign DNA. Also, it is able to cordon off its germ cell lineage much as humans do with sperm and eggs. But Tetrahymena does this by having two nuclei within each cell, with one of the nuclei being held in reserve for sex. Basically, this species uses its genome complexity to function like a single celled chameleon, changing its shape and its properties in response to the changing environment. For example, when a new nutrient shows up in its neighborhood this species can build a kit to suck the nutrient in, degrade it, and turn it into cellular biomass quickly. Thus whereas humans use their genomic complexity in part to create a stable environment for the body, this species simply uses a genomic swiss army kit to make do with whatever environment it encounters."
Genes are the creation of Satan, yeeeeaaassss - praise Jesus!
The secular scientists are being misleaded by Saaatan, yeeeaaahhhsaaa! Praise Jesus!
The only science book needed is the book of Genesis in God's word the holy bible, yeeeaaaahssa! Praise Jesus
I know you should Never Burn Money, but I think I'll get a bucket full of these and put it in my living room (I know a place where I can get Two for the Price of One. It's in A Converted Church in Venice, Italy). Then I can go Couch Fishing, although I will probably fail at first - but who cares, I can always Try Again; it's not like I Ain't Got Time Pfhor This. I will probably also take them to Waterloo Waterpark and show them Carrol Street Station and then we'll storm The Big House. Nobody will be able to escape our single-celled assault because We're Everywhere. Then I'll take them back home, turn on the stereo and make them Feel The Noise.
That's what I'm going to do with My Own Private Thermophilae.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
PFI_Optix, you have in #3 confused the terms microevolution and macroevolution. Most creationists would accept microevolution (within the species) but would reject macroevolution (speciation, change into new species).
I believe by simply lumping it all under "evolution", you are presenting an argument that confuses the issue at best or deceives ignorant individuals at worst. I've seen quite a few make this very argument, but it is unconvincing to a creationist who has done some research.
Of course, empirically speaking, microevolution happens ALL THE TIME, but macroevolution theories continue to evolve (from the synthesis model of evolution to the punctuated equilibrium model to the next big thing) because they refer to evolution between species, where observation is nil and evidence is debatable (at least between creationists and "evolutionists").
I guess this would qualify as the evolutionary-friendly rebuttal...?
This sig donated to Pater. Long live