Universal genes

All known cellular life on Earth shares a set of genes that is regarded to as the genetic core. Last night I built a phylogenetic tree from one such gene which encodes the Ribosomal protein S12 (COG0048).



If you are interested in finding out what the species are, search the identifiers against the COG database. I marked just a few species with color (red = eukaryote, blue = bacteria, magenta = archaea). Notice that eukaryotic genes are found from both archaeal and bacterial branches. From evolutionary perspective this observation makes sense. The eukaryotic genes in the bacterial branch are mitochondrial genes. Mitochondria were once bacteria. Makes sense. Anyway, how do creationist explain the tree and the distribution of eukaryotic genes within it?

reply to post by rhinoceros

From evolutionary perspective this observation makes sense.

Can you explain this in further detail?

The Bible tells us that man was formed from the dust of the earth and we already know that everything that helps to form life exists in...

SOIL BIOLOGY...

en.wikipedia.org...

With this in mind, how does the evolutionary perspective trump the creationist perspective?

reply to post by Deetermined

The Bible tells us that man...

Wow this just degraded the whole thread..... /faceplam.

"made from soil" is just a stupid retarded concept they used to explain things, what options do they have? water or soil.. heck if bible said life came from water(which would make more sense), people would still be holding on to that, he look it says this!

Its like 3000yrs ago, ill say, oxygen comes from heaven. then 3000 yrs later, some nut job will say see he meant heaven as in "space and atmosphere"....


Yeah Keep trying to fit in our modern understanding into retarded verse to make sense.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by rhinoceros

From evolutionary perspective this observation makes sense.

Can you explain this in further detail?

So the COG (Clusters of Orthologous Groups) database clusters all genes of 66 organisms (bacteria, archaea, eukarya). In this particular tree you see COG0048 cluster. In the majority of bacteria and archaea, this gene is present in only a single copy. However, in eukaryotes it is present, in general, in two copies. However, the two copies of the gene in eukaryotes have in a sense, two origins (albeit in the end they converge into a single origin). As to these origins, the bacterial branch gene is inherited from bacteria that became mitochondria, whereas the archaeal branch gene represents a nuclear gene.

Originally posted by Deetermined
The Bible tells us that man was formed from the dust of the earth and we already know that everything that helps to form life exists in...

SOIL BIOLOGY...

en.wikipedia.org...

With this in mind, how does the evolutionary perspective trump the creationist perspective?

It shows that man was not created but exists as a chimera of archaea and bacteria that evolved over time (just look at the length of the mitochondrial gene branch).

reply to post by rhinoceros

It shows that man was not created but exists as a chimera of archaea and bacteria that evolved over time (just look at the length of the mitochondrial gene branch).

So, where did the "archaea and bacteria" come from?

reply to post by luciddream

Yeah Keep trying to fit in our modern understanding into retarded verse to make sense.

Hey, the OP is the one who mentioned "creationist".

Your modern understanding doesn't even have an understanding of how the earth came into existence to support life to begin with, so why bash my view?

Do you have anything worthy to add to this argument?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

It shows that man was not created but exists as a chimera of archaea and bacteria that evolved over time (just look at the length of the mitochondrial gene branch).

So, where did the "archaea and bacteria" come from?

From something like the introduction of this article describes..