Incidentally, I'm quite sure that it will "prove" meany anatomical/paleontological phylogenies very "wrong"... but only in the same sense that early explorer's maps were very, very "wrong."
Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The study also found that these similarities were absent from fruit fly and nematode genomes, contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution. The findings suggest that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex, and fly and worm genomes lost some of that intricacy as they evolved.
It’s surprising to find such a “high level of genomic complexity in a supposedly primitive animal such as the sea anemone,” Koonin told The Scientist. It implies that the ancestral animal “was already extremely highly complex, at least in terms of its genomic organization and regulatory and signal transduction circuits, if not necessarily morphologically.”
(Excerpt) Read more at the-scientist.com ...
I WANT the theory of "Intelligent Design" to be true!
You are right. I am a creationist. Not necessarily a YEC, but I don’t rule that out either (but either way, I’m most definitely a Young Creation Creationist). I have long been leaning towards the notion that God created the “kinds” and the rest is just variation within frontloaded genetic/epigenetic parameters.
“What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?”
To glorify the Creator. God.
Yes. Many do. But in the context, for instance, of proposing that a "horse kind" was "frontloaded" to produce, say, horses, zebras, asses and donkeys; or a "cat kind" to produce tabbies, leopards and lions.
By the logic of the present article, however, if you want to use it the way you are using it, you have to accept a single "animal kind" which produced everything from anemones to lizards to apes to humans. Do you?
Well, what it suggests is that 600 million-year-old organisms were similar in complexity to more “advanced” organisms that are current than they are to 3 billion-year-old organisms. Not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.
But what IS interesting (even if I can’t see how it is relevant to an ID discussion) is that vertebrates have removed far fewer introns than annelids and arthropods. I wouldn’t read too much into it, however: Such organisms (the little guys) have far fewer mitotic divisions (enlarging a given organism) per meiotic division (enabling sexual reproduction) than vertebrates. I could easily imagine how it gives them more opportunity to clean up the excesses, and maybe provides more evolutionary pressure to do so.
And by logical conclusion, every flaw in the original design, was intended?
There’s a big difference between “variation” and tracing all living things back to a single common ancestor.
Incidentally, I'm quite sure that it will "prove" meany anatomical/paleontological phylogenies very "wrong"... but only in the same sense that early explorer's maps were very, very "wrong."
==By the logic of the present article, however, if you want to use it the way you are using it, you have to accept a single “animal kind” which produced everything from anemones to lizards to apes to humans. Do you?
No, I do not. The article was written by evolutionists. Their interpretation is their own. I am only interested in the data, which is much more in keeping with the notion that the created kinds were frontloaded.
So, you now accept the concept of variation? That every critter, over time, will develope variations?
Shooting is too good for some people...
Yes, but I think the evidence points to said capacity for variation being limited by the frontloader.
That just proves the earth is really flat.
Those aren't flaws, they are design features < /microsoft>
==It’s actually kind of sad to see that this very interesting breakthrough is immediately used to score points in the ID vs. evolution vs. creationism debate.
But you have no problem with “breakthroughs” that claim to support Darwinian evolution?
>> this is completely contrary to what Charles Darwin himself expected; viz., that such complex regulatory functions developed in so short a period of time. <<
Uh, no. This all happened in the last fifth of organismal development. Nearly all changes among animals are primarily structural, and involve very minimal changes in cell chemistry. What the earliest multicellular organism represented was, essentially, a complete unit of metabolic functioning.
It’s like building with Legos. While I can construct legos into many different form, a Lego is a Lego is a Lego.\
The challenge that this creates for evolutionary theory is that it reminds evolutionists that they have accomplished almost nothing when they describe how, for instance, legos (cells) arranged into fish evolve into legos (cells) arranged into dinosaurs or legos (cells) arranged into monkeys. The tricky part is how legos (cells) appeared in the first place.
And that’s what the sciences of paleontology and anatomy have previously been nearly entirely useless in doing.
Once again, a very smart Freeper has demonstrated that magic is real and that my teachings from Wicca were true.
Yes, even humans were given a small protion of God's abilities, and if properly directed, that power can influence the life of another critter.
As I have said many time, I WANT the concept of "Intelligent Design" to be proven as a fact,
However, that will never happen until people stop spouting ignorance and begin to provide factual information to support the concept.
I said practical goals. Not spiritual. Unfortunately, GGG has not responded.
I responded in post #59
Did you see my follow up request?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.