Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
I realize that Corny's insights consist merely in finding anything that can be construed as if it were contrary to evolution, without explaining anything at all of the vast number of data that are explained only by evolution, and, of course, without explaining any so-called "problems" for evolution by anything but meaningless fictions. But I still thought it was interesting what a dung-heap of omissions and dishonesty his tripe about T. brucei's mitochondria is, so here's the abstract of, and a link to, a paper that discusses evolutionary relationships of the mitochondria of various kinetoplastids, as well as demonstrable relatedness to both bacteria and to mammalian mitochondria:
| Quote | Although eukaryotic mitochondrial (mt) ribosomes evolved from a putative prokaryotic ancestor their compositions vary considerably among organisms. We determined the protein composition of tandem affinity-purified Trypanosoma brucei mt ribosomes by mass spectrometry and identified 133 proteins of which 77 were associated with the large subunit and 56 were associated with the small subunit. Comparisons with bacterial and mammalian mt ribosomal proteins identified T. brucei mt homologs of L2–4, L7/12, L9, L11, L13–17, L20–24, L27–30, L33, L38, L43, L46, L47, L49, L52, S5, S6, S8, S9, S11, S15–18, S29, and S34, although the degree of conservation varied widely. Sequence characteristics of some of the component proteins indicated apparent functions in rRNA modification and processing, protein assembly, and mitochondrial metabolism implying possible additional roles for these proteins. Nevertheless most of the identified proteins have no homology outside Kinetoplastida implying very low conservation and/or a divergent function in kinetoplastid mitochondria.
Trypanosoma brucei Mitochondrial Ribosomes |
It's BS to say that no one-offs are expected in evolution, of course (certain one-offs are, particularly mimics of any meaningful miraculous designs), not to mention that there's no reason why genes can't evolve well beyond the point where existing relatedness can actually be demonstrated. Yet this mitochondrion is no one-off, although it's more than a little interesting in its evolutionary development, and, oh gee, our level of detailed knowledge of such evolution remains not great, while any knowledge of design remains as absent as ever.
Sure, that Corny's being dishonest any time the issue is evolution is obvious from his pattern of mendacity. But it's still an interesting matter, not to mention one that evolution manages to explain partially, while ID is its usual abysm of ignorance.
Glen Davidson
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
