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.
Its 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 ...
There you go again.
If you hadn't intended to misrepresent what Gould intended, you would have presented his thesis intact. Instead you pulled a snippet that makes no sense out of context.
You have absolutely nothing to say about his actual position. If you did, you would respond to it.
... as a complete theory of the origin of the species (just helping, you left that part out.)
In which of those (and where in it) can I read the argument?
Don’t you get it, even on your own/darwinist terms, the time allowed for a genome to evolve into something nearly as complex as the human genome” has just shrunk by one-fifth! The probability of that happening by chance within such a limited time period = ZERO.
This discovery means that, even on evolutionary terms, the time allowed for a genome to “evolve” into something “nearly as complex” as the humane genome has just shrunk by one-fifth! The probability of that happening is nil. I suggest you read the following, and then go back and re-read the OP:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155
You remind me of a number of banned evos who posted here and continually called people who disagreed with them liars.
I am truly interested. I think there's an obvious argument why the statement cannot be derived from any reasonable ID theory and I'd therefore like to see why you think otherwise. So please, instead of pointing me to pages that don't bear on the question, just post the argument in your own words.
PS, I don't know what the "OP" is.
PPS, that ICR article you linked is riddled with typical creationist sophistry. I hope you don't actually find it persuasive.
But, you still don’t answer the question.
“Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.”
Actually, you are only half right.
Any evidence which shows other than a pattern of descent with modification in the fossil record would serve to falsify. Fossils wouldn’t necessarily have to be sorted by density, it would just have to be any fossil data which show other than a pattern of many unsuccessful mutations and a few successful mutations over a relatively long period of time. That’s why the discussion of the Cambrian “explosion” (yes, I know many don’t like to call it that, but that’s the simplest way to refer to it) is relevant to falsification of the TOE.
How do you measure complexity?
I know of no mathematical characteristic of the human genome that makes it significantly more complex than that of an amoeba. Genes are just parameters. Humans don't have significantly more parameters than other living things. Evolution just tweaks parameters a one or two at a time. In engineering, this is called Muntzing.
A Cambrian mammal would cause a major upheaval in biology, but the Cambrian "explosion" is looking more and more like a dud. This is an era with few hard parts to be preserved by ordinary fossilization, so the things we find seem to appear suddenly. This picture is changing with DNA analysis.
This is a management decision by FR. It does not change the fact that quote mining and misquotation are lying, nor does it change the fact that creationists like Ken Ham destroy children's' minds with their lies.
I was merely quoting a Science Daily article on the sea anemone genome. This just goes to shoe that the genome was already as complex as modern day humans even BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. This, of course, comes as no surprise to the Creation Scientist, as he is already well aware that all living things were created with their current complexity built-in (fully formed and fully functional). Here is the Science Daily quote in full:
“The first analysis of the genome of the sea anemone shows it to be nearly as complex as the human genome, providing major insights into the common ancestor of not only humans and sea anemones, but of nearly all multi-celled animals.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153000.htm
I have no problem with that, to an order of magnitude or so. This has been known for some time. Evolution is mostly bit changes to parameters.
The period since the Cambrian is one-seventh of the history of life. Virtually everything prior has been erased. Why should it be surprising that more happened in three billion years than in 500 million?
Putting my question another way: suppose you gave a test of general knowledge to people aged 60 and again at age 70.
Suppose you discovered that most of what people know at age 70, they already knew at age 60.
Would you call that “front-loading”?
Then, as Darwin predicted, there should be innumerable transitional species...billions and billions of them...and yet there are none. The evidence overwhelmingly points towards Creation, and against Darwinian evolution. Or as Arthur Strahler (evolutionist in good standing) admits:
“...(the creationist) finds all the confession he needs from the evolutionists that each of these classes appears suddenly and with no trace of ancestors. The absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution...This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendre.”
Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. “Science and Earth History: The evolution/creation controversy”, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. p. 408
Give me a good reason, based on the physics and chemistry of fossilization, why every part of every individual should be preserved.
Do you think, for example, that there are naturally preserved specimens of every stage in the evolution from wolf to teacup poodle? This has happened within the time of recorded history, and the morphological changes are greater than any gap in the fossil record.
Morphological change requires that a few individuals get cut off from the parent population. Changes equivalent to the changes in dogs can occur in a thousand years or less. There is little chance for this transition to be recorded.
Now for those Young Earthers out there lurking, creationists like Ham assert that current species are descended from a few hundred “types” over the last few thousand years — a rate of evolution that vastly exceeds anything claimed by biologists. If the divergence from generic cat to all the existing cat species occurred in a few thousand years, where are the transitionals?
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.