I was watching a video on Youtube featuring an interview of Richard Dawkins. The poster of the video apparently disagreed with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and started putting up annotations.
One of them (screenshot – http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/3586/20110138dawkins.png) claimed that, because bacteria have many times fewer genes than humans, and because there is no evolutionary method of gene creation, evolution cannot justify descent of man from bacteria.
I tried to look around on Google and Wikipedia for answers, but the closest thing I found was this (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Gene_transfer.shtml), which simply says that we have only inherited a very small number of genes from bacteria, and says nothing of a problem of difference in gene number.
What might the annotation be referring to, and is there an evolutionary explanation for it?
One of them (screenshot – http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/3586/20110138dawkins.png) claimed that, because bacteria have many times fewer genes than humans, and because there is no evolutionary method of gene creation, evolution cannot justify descent of man from bacteria.
I tried to look around on Google and Wikipedia for answers, but the closest thing I found was this (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Gene_transfer.shtml), which simply says that we have only inherited a very small number of genes from bacteria, and says nothing of a problem of difference in gene number.
What might the annotation be referring to, and is there an evolutionary explanation for it?
-
There are a couple of factors ignored in these claims.
Endosymbiosis took simple bacterial cells to eukaryotic cells. This process added entire genomes with every new organelle. The genetic material was somewhat duplicated but this allowed for redundancy and divergence of function by genetic drift. This allowed the organelles to specialize for far greater efficiency.
This theory is supported both by genetic homology between organelle genomes and bacterial genomes but by lab observation of a new endosymbiosis.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane…
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/…
http://www.morris.umn.edu/~goochv/CellBi…
Microbiologist Kwang Jeon, using artificial selection, created a new endosymbiosis between the eukaryotic Amoeba proteus and its infective bacteria. After many selective generations the amoeba became dependent upon the bacterium, and endosymbiotic gene switching occurred moving genes to the host as predicted by the gene transfer theory. The bacterium went from an independent, self reproductive organism to being an organelle with regulation of its reproduction tied to the amoeba's reproductive cycle.
Endosymbiosis took simple bacterial cells to eukaryotic cells. This process added entire genomes with every new organelle. The genetic material was somewhat duplicated but this allowed for redundancy and divergence of function by genetic drift. This allowed the organelles to specialize for far greater efficiency.
This theory is supported both by genetic homology between organelle genomes and bacterial genomes but by lab observation of a new endosymbiosis.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane…
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/…
http://www.morris.umn.edu/~goochv/CellBi…
Microbiologist Kwang Jeon, using artificial selection, created a new endosymbiosis between the eukaryotic Amoeba proteus and its infective bacteria. After many selective generations the amoeba became dependent upon the bacterium, and endosymbiotic gene switching occurred moving genes to the host as predicted by the gene transfer theory. The bacterium went from an independent, self reproductive organism to being an organelle with regulation of its reproduction tied to the amoeba's reproductive cycle.
keywords: claim,about,creationist,this,evolution,true,Is,Is this creationist claim about evolution true