…Herein, we identify 382 of the 482 M. genitalium protein-coding genes as essential, plus five sets of disrupted genes that encode proteins with potentially redundant essential functions, such as phosphate transport…

Whoops! Time for an update.

Smallest genome clocks in at 182 genes
Philip Ball, Nature News, Published online: 12 October 2006; | doi:10.1038/news061009-10

Let me check my math… yes, 182 is les than 382. Let me reiterate that a “minimal genome” is the minimum to encode a certain set of functions for a certain environment. Since the environment may have been different in the past, there is no theoretical roadblock to the development of minimal genomes.

There you go. William Bradford, who doesn’t have the wherewithal to find a paper in a widely-read and widely-distributed scientific journal, thinks the fact that he has cited a reference somehow matters, even though the reference does not back his claims, and leads to no furhter experiements which might back up his claims.

A minimal genome has nothing to do with technology or your garbled thoughts. It correlates function to minimal gene number.

Minimal gene number for what? There you go again. William Bradford cannot or will not acknowledge that “minimal genome” entails a set of requirements on what must be encoded, and a set of requirements for what environment the genome can survive in.

As for a testable prediction, found universally are error detection and repair mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity. Causes of genomic mal-function include factors that were present on earth at life’s origins. The prediction is that such mechanisms are absolutely essential to the viability of a genome and a test involves observing replication without such mechanisms.

This is getting stranger all the time. William Bradford insists that replication must be observed without error-correction mechanism, even after research has been cited which demonstrates that error correction is inherent in the structure of RNA.

Do keep in mind that references to RNA replication evidence no biologically useful information. RRRRRR is replication, not information.

If William Bradford expressed a coherent thought somewhere in that jumble, I’m afraid it escaped me.

How is this relevant to a discussion of abiogenesis?

The discussion has ranged rather more widely than just abiogenesis. It appears you are having trouble keeping track.

That’s about enough for me. I will just point out to any readers of this thread that, no matter how badly William Bradford need tutoring in biology, I am not getting paid for this and it takes a great deal of effort to keep repeating points that he either forgets or ignores.

Bye now.

How is this relevant to a discussion of abiogenesis?

RNA was coding for RNA? You seem confused.

No encoding nucleic acids have been produced or is that too difficult for you?

The citation provides a gauge by which minimal genomic function is measured. It is a starting point for future research. If minimal function entails hundreds of functional genes and prebiotic earth contains none you have a clear problem with selection value in any theorized process.

Future research? That paper did not support ID, and it does not indicate any future research that would support ID.

A completely irrelevant point. ID was not the focus of the study

As I already explained, “minimal function” involves a defined set of technology and a defined environment. For example, primates, including humans, do not manufacture their own vitamin C, they get it from their diet.

A minimal genome has nothing to do with technology or your garbled thoughts. It correlates function to minimal gene number.

As for a testable prediction, found universally are error detection and repair mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity. Causes of genomic mal-function include factors that were present on earth at life’s origins. The prediction is that such mechanisms are absolutely essential to the viability of a genome and a test involves observing replication without such mechanisms.

Since evolution also predicts error correction, and error correction mechanisms have already been identified which might have operated in the RNA World, I have no idea what you might be predicting here that is unique to ID.

Then study error and correction mechanisms. They apply to many different types of genomic disruption not addressed by the study you referenced.

If the rate of information loss exceeds gains a generation mechanism is fatally compromised.

Do keep in mind the amplification due to replication.

Do keep in mind that references to RNA replication evidence no biologically useful information. RRRRRR is replication, not information.

Now you are confused about who has provided evidence and who has not.

When you have a citation you have read at your fingertips as it appeared you did then providing links, summaries or qoutes from the article is no big deal. It is done all the time. Others are not going to take the time to run down every title you throw up on a screen. Why would you not want to take a little extra time to describe what you consider essential information?

Keep whining about this. It tells anyone else who might be reading this who is prepared to discuss science and who isn’t.

Genetic information is that which is biologically useful in enabling an organism to code for proteins and RNA. OOL literature is full of references to biologically useless RNA.

RNA was coding for RNA? You seem confused.

The citation provides a gauge by which minimal genomic function is measured. It is a starting point for future research. If minimal function entails hundreds of functional genes and prebiotic earth contains none you have a clear problem with selection value in any theorized process.

Future research? That paper did not support ID, and it does not indicate any future research that would support ID. As I already explained, “minimal function” involves a defined set of technology and a defined environment. For example, primates, including humans, do not manufacture their own vitamin C, they get it from their diet.

It was you who introduced the inadaquate analogy.

Yes, I did, as an instructive method to explain something. I did not claim that the analogy extended beyond the comparison for which I was using it. Apparently I overestimated your ability to rationally take in data.

Abiogenesis does not entail precursors and intermediates. That is one of the difficulties with the belief. There are no intermediates to a genetic code and a minimally functional genome. You can assert the contrary but not based on the identification of functional intermediates.

You seem to be at odds with the scientific community on this one. People have actually been researching the origin and evolution of the genetic code; i.e. exploring events which you claim didn’t happen. These papers were already cited in this thread, so you can’t claim ignorance:

Knight, The Origin and Evolution of the Genetic Code: Statistical and Experimental Investigations Ph.D. Thesis 2001

Knight, R. D. and L. F. Landweber (2000). “The Early Evolution of the Genetic Code” Cell 101(6): 569-572.

Knight, R. D., S. J. Freeland, and L. F. Landweber (1999). “Selection, history and chemistry: the three faces of the genetic code.” Trends Biochem Sci 24(6):241-7.

Why don’t you write the authors and share your wisdom with them; that they are wasting their time exploring something which doesn’t exist.

As for a testable prediction, found universally are error detection and repair mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity. Causes of genomic mal-function include factors that were present on earth at life’s origins. The prediction is that such mechanisms are absolutely essential to the viability of a genome and a test involves observing replication without such mechanisms.

Since evolution also predicts error correction, and error correction mechanisms have already been identified which might have operated in the RNA World, I have no idea what you might be predicting here that is unique to ID.

If the rate of information loss exceeds gains a generation mechanism is fatally compromised.

Do keep in mind the amplification due to replication.

Asserting that something as intricate as a cell arises from unspecifed chemical reactions without the evidence to back the claim is the stuff of miracles.

It shows something about you that you are unwilling to summarize, briefly quote from or provide a link to what you reference unless pressed for it. This is not a private conversation. If you do not wish others to evaluate whatever you throw up on a screen then by all means just give a title and journal name.

1) I used links in a couple previous posts which have not shown up. No point in repeating that failure. 2) Nature is a subscription-only site. Even if I gave a link I’m not sure if you would have access to it. 3) I gave a publication quality citation, complete with volume and page numbers. It should be more than adequate for anyone with the wherewithal to be discussing science in public.

When you have a citation you have read at your fingertips as it appeared you did then providing links, summaries or qoutes from the article is no big deal. It is done all the time. Others are not going to take the time to run down every title you throw up on a screen. Why would you not want to take a little extra time to describe what you consider essential information?

Reliability is not the strong suit of RNA. It is ill-suited as an information storage medium; a task better left to DNA. Of course error correction is fine but you have yet to explain how genetic information is acquired and expressed in the first place in this prebiotic world.

Yes, that piece of evidence was not a comprehensive explanation of all steps necessary to go from a pre-biotic state to the current DNA-RNA-protein cellular life forms by which we are surrounded. Is that what you’re complaining about? I provided a piece of evidence. You have provided none at all. Also, perhaps you could explain what “genetic information” would even mean in an RNA World.

Genetic information is that which is biologically useful in enabling an organism to code for proteins and RNA. OOL literature is full of references to biologically useless RNA.

I gather you did not understand that a test indicating that minimally functional genomes do in fact arise without intelligent direction would falsify the hypothesis.

Do you have a point here? Did the reference you cited establish that that cannot happen? You cited a reference that did not back up your claims about it. Then you try to twist the rhetoric to blame me for your failure.

The citation provides a gauge by which minimal genomic function is measured. It is a starting point for future research. If minimal function entails hundreds of functional genes and prebiotic earth contains none you have a clear problem with selection value in any theorized process.

I gather a part of your Indy car includes a computer program specifying how the scooters, bicycles and go carts are assembled as well as the mechanisms of their function. Best of all the program was the product of unspecified and undirected chemical interactions. No intelligence involved.

More senseless rambling, and an attempt to stretch my instructive analogy too far. As I hope you know, machines such as Indy cars do not replicate themselves the way that biological organisms do.

It was you who introduced the inadaquate analogy.

As for post ad hoc claims, claiming that a living cell arose as a result of an unknown stochastic chemical process falls short of a predictive claim.

Since evolution entails precursors and intermediates, i.e. a history, that claim would lead to many more specific claims that could be tested through experiments, such as those already cited in this thread, and many more that I could cite. ID meanwhile, makes no testable predictions at all.

Abiogenesis does not entail precursors and intermediates. That is one of the difficulties with the belief. There are no intermediates to a genetic code and a minimally functional genome. You can assert the contrary but not based on the identification of functional intermediates.

As for a testable prediction, found universally are error detection and repair mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity. Causes of genomic mal-function include factors that were present on earth at life’s origins. The prediction is that such mechanisms are absolutely essential to the viability of a genome and a test involves observing replication without such mechanisms. If the rate of information loss exceeds gains a generation mechanism is fatally compromised.

You are rambling incoherently. You are very confused over who is invoking miracles.

It shows something about you that you are unwilling to summarize, briefly quote from or provide a link to what you reference unless pressed for it. This is not a private conversation. If you do not wish others to evaluate whatever you throw up on a screen then by all means just give a title and journal name.

1) I used links in a couple previous posts which have not shown up. No point in repeating that failure. 2) Nature is a subscription-only site. Even if I gave a link I’m not sure if you would have access to it. 3) I gave a publication quality citation, complete with volume and page numbers. It should be more than adequate for anyone with the wherewithal to be discussing science in public.

Reliability is not the strong suit of RNA. It is ill-suited as an information storage medium; a task better left to DNA. Of course error correction is fine but you have yet to explain how genetic information is acquired and expressed in the first place in this prebiotic world.

Yes, that piece of evidence was not a comprehensive explanation of all steps necessary to go from a pre-biotic state to the current DNA-RNA-protein cellular life forms by which we are surrounded. Is that what you’re complaining about? I provided a piece of evidence. You have provided none at all. Also, perhaps you could explain what “genetic information” would even mean in an RNA World.

Study this Ivypivey. Your belief that cells arise has been tested repeatedly without a single cell in evidence. In case you have not noticed there are only two options here. Either cells arose with intelligent input or woithout it. The zeros on your test report card suggest the only alternative.

No, there are many possible naturalistic explanations, which have not been exhausted. Are you saying ideas that haven’t even been thought up yet should have been already tested? The RNA World theory, for example, did not become popular until the 1980s, when the existence of catalytic RNA was firmly established.

I gather you did not understand that a test indicating that minimally functional genomes do in fact arise without intelligent direction would falsify the hypothesis.

Do you have a point here? Did the reference you cited establish that that cannot happen? You cited a reference that did not back up your claims about it. Then you try to twist the rhetoric to blame me for your failure.

Pre-bacterial entities are the stuff of your dreams

Meaningless rhetoric

If you had an RNA genome like a virus then good luck in your search for a host cell.

Do these useless rhetorical games amuse you? How about this wording: “If I had an RNA genome, as an RNA virus does.”

I gather a part of your Indy car includes a computer program specifying how the scooters, bicycles and go carts are assembled as well as the mechanisms of their function. Best of all the program was the product of unspecified and undirected chemical interactions. No intelligence involved.

More senseless rambling, and an attempt to stretch my instructive analogy too far. As I hope you know, machines such as Indy cars do not replicate themselves the way that biological organisms do.

As for post ad hoc claims, claiming that a living cell arose as a result of an unknown stochastic chemical process falls short of a predictive claim.

Since evolution entails precursors and intermediates, i.e. a history, that claim would lead to many more specific claims that could be tested through experiments, such as those already cited in this thread, and many more that I could cite. ID meanwhile, makes no testable predictions at all.

Ivy: That is not positive evidence. We already know that nucleic acids encode information, so post hoc claims that this supports ID fails to provide any predictive power, i.e. any scientifically testable hypotheses.

The prediction: each time a new symbolic coding system is encountered anywhere in the universe and the cause generating the symbolic codes identified, an intelligent source, rather than a stochastic chemical process, will be implicated. As for post ad hoc claims, claiming that a living cell arose as a result of an unknown stochastic chemical process falls short of a predictive claim.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/2/425

You seem to have badly misinterpreted that article,
Essential genes of a minimal bacterium
John I. Glass, Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Nina Alperovich, Shibu Yooseph, Matthew R. Lewis, Mahir Maruf, Clyde A. Hutchison, III, Hamilton O. Smith *, and J. Craig Venter
PNAS | January 10, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 2 | 425-430

How would a requirement for a minimal bacterial genome place any restrictions on pre-bacterial entities?

Pre-bacterial entities are the stuff of your dreams

Specifically, if I had an RNA genome, such as is postulated for the RNA World, and as is the case in many viruses, I wouldn’t need any of the DNA replication enzymes, would I?

If you had an RNA genome like a virus then good luck in your search for a host cell.

That article explores the minimal number of genes required for a bacterium using a particular technology set. There is nothing in that article about an Intelligent Designer.

The article indicates that even an obligate parsite requires hundreds of genes and a means to express them. Hundreds of encoding genes translated by means of an existing code which we’ll pretend resulted from unintelligent chemical reactions about which we are unable to specify very much. Other symbolic codes are the product of intelligence but not this one. Natural selection dunnit.

I’ll give you an analogy: I could tabulate a minimum parts list for an Indy racing car. This would place no limits on scooters, bicycles or go carts.

I gather a part of your Indy car includes a computer program specifying how the scooters, bicycles and go carts are assembled as well as the mechanisms of their function. Best of all the program was the product of unspecified and undirected chemical interactions. No intelligence involved.

You seem confused here. Even if ID were true, if it is not testable, it is not science. Write that down. Study it.

Study this Ivypivey. Your belief that cells arise has been tested repeatedly without a single cell in evidence. In case you have not noticed there are only two options here. Either cells arose with intelligent input or woithout it. The zeros on your test report card suggest the only alternative.

Only evidence is relevant.

And you don’t have any.

ID hypothesizes that a minimally functional genome would not arise in that absence of intelligent direction.

I missed the part about how that is a scientifically testable hypothesis. I get the impression you are not familiar with this whole science thing.

I gather you did not understand that a test indicating that minimally functional genomes do in fact arise without intelligent direction would falsify the hypothesis. I’m not surprised because nothing can falsify abiogenesis.