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 ...
Who said we require “every part of every individual” should be preserved? Of the billions upon billions of fossils, even if a small percentage were could be proved to be transitional fossils, that would be fine. Instead, we find none, zero, nada, zilch....Or in the words of one of Darwin’s high priests:
“ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987). p. 229
Take his assumed timescale, and I couldn’t agree with him more!—GGG
I suggest YOU go back and READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. That’s exactly what the article is talking about. They changed the diet of the agouti mice which produced a mutation that was inherited by their offspring. Thus, by your own criteria, Neo-Darwinism is falsified.
==DNA and Mendialian genetics were unknown when this (Lamarckian) theory was popular, so it seemed reasonable
They were also unknown during Darwin’s time. The researchers studying DIRECTED MUTATION have just as much right to these discoveries as the researches who study random mutation.
Quote mining is not a substitute for thinking. Anyone who quotes Dawkins or Darwin or Gould to make it look like they are arguing against evolution is just admitting they haven’t got enough attention span to follow an argument.
The biggest problem with citing missing transitionals as a problem for evolution is that they are an even bigger problem for creationism.
Ken Ham, the leading spokesman for creationism at the moment, says everything from the Family level on down to the Species level evolved in just a few thousand years. Where are Ken Ham’s transitionals?
I quote mine because every time I present the findings of Creationists/IDers your side disqualifies them as being religion masquerading as science. Additionally, if our side is correct (and it is) nature will force the evolutionists to prove our point for us (which it does).
==Ken Ham, the leading spokesman for creationism at the moment, says everything from the Family level on down to the Species level evolved in just a few thousand years. Where are Ken Ham’s transitionals?
If DIRECTED MUTATION is in fact true, you won’t find the extremely fine gradations in the fossil record that Darwinism predicts.
If angels push the planet along we have no use for laws of gravity. If everything was created by the great invisible pink unicorn, we have no use for science at all.
I hate to break it to you, science is still science, even when Directed Mutation contradicts Darwinist religion:
“The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions. The significance of the Cairns paper is not in the presentation of new data but in the framing of the questions and in changing the psychology of the situation. He has taken the question ‘Are mutations directed?’ which was taboo, and made it an issue that people will now do experiments on.”
(Moffat, Anne Simon; “A Challenge to Evolutionary Biology,” American Scientist, 77:224, 1989.)
==I asked for an animal whose offspring differed from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance.
The offspring did differ from the parent in a way unattributable to genetic variance. As you said yourself, the underlying gene sequence of the agouti mice remained the same, and yet the change in their diet/environment produced changes to the phenotype that were non-random and heritable. And as for whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian, one of the researchers (Douglas Ruden from the Univ. of Alabama) quoted in The Scientist article says just that: “Epigenetics has always been Lamarckian. I really don’t think there’s any controversy.” If this is all true, the neo-Darwinian synthesis is falsified.
Then you will no doubt provide an example of this happening.
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.