I looked around the forum for the piece you posted asking me to gently dissect a claim about 5 mutations and such but I can no longer find it.
Perhaps some moderator mistook serious science for desecrating the flag. Anyway my recollection is that somewhere in there was a comment about 10,000 genes and one of my arguments against the piece having any validity was that the number was purely arbitrary.
Here we are, just a few weeks later, and proof of that is published.
Researchers Find Smallest Cellular Genome
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184647.htm From which I quote:
"Carsonella ruddii has only 159,662 base-pairs of DNA, which translates to only 182 protein-coding genes, reports a team of scientists from The University of Arizona in Tucson and from Japan."
I would say 182 a far cry from 10,000 and a clear demonstration of the fact that the items numbers were there to lend credibility to a fairy tale rather than to provide value.
