Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)

The Scientist ^ | July 5, 2007 | Melissa Lee Phillips

[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.”

[GodGunsGuts]

More like a tragicomedy of errors. But I do see your point. The more science learns, the less relevant Darwinism becomes.

[Paradox]

So like, Adam and Eve were anemonies?

[Hunble]

You have me rather stumped, since I could not find anything in this article that explained how intelligence was able to alter DNA.

Did I miss something?

[GodGunsGuts]

Widely held (and expected) by the Church of Darwin. Read the article, it was published by one of your own—GGG

[ClearCase_guy]

Cave-dwelling salamanders with no eyes are an example of devolution, I would think. The "starting point" is a fully functional salamander. How that came to exist is an interesting question. However, once you start there, it should not be all that odd to lose some capability if it is not needed. Over time, the salamanders lose their eyes. Fine.

The anemone is like that too. The starting point is complex and has a variety of highly complex genes. Other creatures seem to come later and we're finding that in some cases they are less complex, and have less capability. They are simpler than the anemone.

Question: How does life start off complex? The classic theory is that natural selection leads to new features in order to assist in adapting to environmental changes. Here we have a starting point with capabilities that can be used, but which are discarded when they are not needed.

It fits more with an Intelligent Design approach better than a natural selection model, I think. It's a bit like showing up at the work site with a complete tool-box. You may decide that all you need is a hammer, but you hit the ground ready for multiple challenges. That's a sign of Intelligence.

[Hunble]

The findings suggest that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex, and fly and worm genomes lost some of that intricacy as they evolved.

Now, once again, how did this article demonstrate how an intelligence was able to alter DNA?

[Hunble]

The findings suggest that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex, and fly and worm genomes lost some of that intricacy as they evolved.

Now, once again, how did this article demonstrate how an intelligence was able to alter DNA?

[js1138]

It might be widely held, but it is not central to Darwinian evolution.

The article is so badly written that it contradicts its "widely held" claim just a few paragraphs later. Genome simplification is widespread, even if this instance is larger than expected. The human genome is also smaller than expected.

[Coyoteman]

Two more interesting paragraphs:

The genome of the sea anemone, one of the oldest living animal species on Earth, shares a surprising degree of similarity with the genome of vertebrates, researchers report in this week's Science. ...

"What's exciting about this paper is that you're seeing the footprints of that ancient organization, reaching back perhaps 700 million years, which is an enormous expanse of evolution," said David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the work.

That anybody can think this supports ID suggests they are doing creation "science" rather than real science.

[be4everfree]

Tragic indeed.

I reminds me of one of my favorite classic songs, Locomotive breath by Jethro Tull.

For those interested in the lyrics:

http://www.lyricsondemand.com/j/jethrotulllyrics/locomotivebreathlyrics.html

And here is a great live performance:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3554482268153790602&q=ian+anderson&total=562&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

[FormerLib]

But with anemones like that, who needs friends?

And you, sir, deserved to be soundly thrashed with a rolled-up newspaper!

[Hunble]

Here we have a starting point with capabilities that can be used, but which are discarded when they are not needed.

I understand what you are trying to say, but actually, you are supporting the theories from the other side of the debate.

[ClearCase_guy]

I would disagree. I am attempting to state a view from the pro-Evolution side and I am attempting to state why I think it doesn’t make much sense.

[GodGunsGuts]

As the article clearly states, this new evidence contradicts “the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution.” This widely held belief is of course held/predicted by the Church of Darwin. Whereas ID/CS predicts frontloading. Thus, the complexity of the “ancient” Sea Anemone genome fits in with ID/CS expectations, and flies in the face of Darwinist expectations. But I’m sure the Church of Darwin will simply amend their “theory” in order to fit the facts, just like the geocentrists were forced to invent epicycles to give life support to the dying embers of geocentrism.

[shuckmaster]

Do you creotards really believe you can lie your way into heaven?

[GodGunsGuts]

Spoken like a true Church of Darwin devotee.

[SirLinksalot]

This article, contrary to your statement, was not published in Science.

It was published in THE SCIENTIST : MAGAZINE OF THE LIFE SCIENCES.

[SirLinksalot]

Do you creotards really believe you can lie your way into heaven?

What does heaven have to do with the article in THE SCIENTIST ?

[GodGunsGuts]

Speaking of Church of Darwin devotees:

Darwin’s House: A Religious Shrine?

“An article quoted Darwin scholar James Moore saying, ‘Muslims go to Mecca, Christians go to Jerusalem, Darwinians go to Downe.’ This seems to equate Darwinians with believers in a religion, but Nature quoted this proudly.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070628a

And let’s not forget Richard Dawkins, a scientists who speaks for millions of the Darwinist faithful:

“In 2005 online magazine ‘Edge The World Question Centre’ posed the following question to a number of scientific intellectuals: ‘What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?’ Dawkins revealingly answered: ‘I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.’”

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf

Sounds like religion to me-—GGG

[Hunble]

“the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution.”

That is a false statement, but it is a widely held belief.

Every critter on Earth will exploit it's environment to it's best abilities. Over time, if something works, then that ability will be passed down through it's generations. If it was a failure, then the parents will die and nothing will survive.

Sometimes, getting rid of "excess baggage" will help a critter to survive. This article presented a good example of how this was done, and why.

I have always been rather neutral about this issue. However, just like "Global Warming", I demand that everyone be honest with the facts that they present.

Once again, did this article demonstrate how intelligence can alter DNA?