# What does "Minimum Gene Set" imply?



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

Years ago, (94 I believe) a group of scientists got together to calculate what the minimum amount of genes that the "simplest" self-replicating cell would require to survive.    One of the simplest and most studied cells belong to a bacterium with over 400 genes.     They cut and tweaked this genome down to the bare minimum, but admitted that this hypothetical organism would have MAJOR problems surviving, since it couldn't repair DNA damage, digest complex compounds, etc.    How many genes did they come up with?   OVER 250!!!!      (You go, Designer!!!)   

What this implies to me is this.....

There was no self-replicating cell with 50 genes....or 100....or 150....or even 200 genes.       It needed over 250 to survive.   

To imagine a cell with anything less is to have blind faith in science.


----------



## JFS (Aug 1, 2011)

I wonder how many genes god has


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

JFS said:


> I wonder how many genes god has




More than 250, or He wouldn't exist.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> More than 250, or He wouldn't exist.



Source?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

JFS said:


> I wonder how many genes god has



red herring fallacy  lol


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2011)

I can honestly say I have no clue...


What this did bring to mind is the argument that carbon dating may be completely wrong and scientists theories of how old some fossils are may just be completely wrong. I've heard that argument before.
I guess that may be. I don't have any way of being able to form a really educated decision of that process. I know the basics and I doubt anyone here could say more than what has been read in articles. 
Likewise, could one who may not trust carbon dating really trust genetic testing?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can honestly say I have no clue...
> 
> 
> What this did bring to mind is the argument that carbon dating may be completely wrong and scientists theories of how old some fossils are may just be completely wrong. I've heard that argument before.
> ...



There are other methods of aging things besides carbon dating.  The examples of erroneous carbon dating usually come from polluted samples.  Carbon dating is a tool that is like a bathroom scale and there are other tools like 3 beam balances for more accurate weighing.  All of the aging tools are more accurate than counting back from Abraham's 600th birthday.

About the gene thing.  I envision a gooey puddle of material full of biological matter with some number of genes (less than 256) in it sitting around, bubbling, adding a gene her a gene there til it finally has enough to twitch.  Just a possible scenario and it doesn't require a magic wand or a nostril snort.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm not saying I don't have some trust in dating methods. Many people have reviewed specific work to confirm them, but that's all I can go by for my trust that they are probably somewhat accurate. I wouldn't bet my life on them though. Nor would I bet my life on a bible.

I was just saying that a lot of creationists have to figure out a way around dating methods saying things are old.. so they say the science is flawed. If that was the case, then why couldn't genetics be wrong?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 2, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not saying I don't have some trust in dating methods. Many people have reviewed specific work to confirm them, but that's all I can go by for my trust that they are probably somewhat accurate. I wouldn't bet my life on them though. Nor would I bet my life on a bible.
> 
> I was just saying that a lot of creationists have to figure out a way around dating methods saying things are old.. so they say the science is flawed. If that was the case, then why couldn't genetics be wrong?



My favorite one is: "God made them look old to test our faith."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 2, 2011)

Of course.. But saying the methods are inaccurate probably holds more water. But then detracts from any genetic argument such as this.


----------

