Skip to comments.Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)
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 ...
Brief commentary from Uncommon Descent website:
This of course comes as no surprise for those of us who hold that evolution was front-loaded (anatomical complexity in later animals was present but not expressed in the ancestral animals) by an intelligent designer. Nothing in macro-evolution makes sense except in the light of front loading!
I just wanted to bring this article in Science to the attention of this blog. The results are very intriguingthese gene inventions along the lineage leading to animals were likely already well integrated with preexisting eukaryotic genes in the eumetazoan progenitor.
It seems that the very primitive looking sea anenome is a very sophisticated animal.
[As an aside, though Darwinists will be quick to deny thisits very easy to deny anything (in fact, I deny that Im writing this right now!)this is completely contrary to what Charles Darwin himself expected; viz., that such complex regulatory functions developed in so short a period of time. Since it is soft-bodied, it doesnt fossilze that well; but there is a well-preserved fossil in the Burgess Shale dating from the Middle Cambrian. ]
Grabbing my popcorn!
I wonder if you could, in your own words, describe how this article is vindication of creation science and/or intelligent design.
I read the linked article, and could not find a single word about creation science or intelligent design.
Try to remember that evidence against evolution is not the same as evidence for intelligent design or creationism.
I had an uncle who studied fascinating rare anemones from the Red Sea. His research was so all-consuming that he had no social life whatsoever. But with anemones like that, who needs friends?
Fruit flies, nematodes... With friends like that, who needs anenomes?
LOL. How long have you been holding on to that one?
36 seconds. missed it by that much.
It might be widely held, but it is not central to Darwinian evolution. (IOW it's a straw man.) Darwin's theory predicts that, e.g. organisms permanently living in dark caves will lose eyes as it's not worth the energy to continue producing eyes, and so those that lack eyes will have a slight survival advantage. Indeed, cave-dwelling sightless salamanders and fish are known, and this is taken to support, not refute, Darwin, even though it represents an example of simplification-through-evolution.
Don’t bother with the popcorn. The number and variety of misconceptions regarding evolution are so numerous as to be not really worth addressing.
Thus all you’ll probably get is a polysymphonic echo chamber.
Wow. Literally seconds apart. Now that’s impressive.
I think I got it from an old Dilbert comic strip.
Okay, you’re both suspended for a week!
See post #2
Widely held by whom?
So like, Adam and Eve were anemonies?
Did I miss something?
Widely held (and expected) by the Church of Darwin. Read the article, it was published by one of your own—GGG
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.
Now, once again, how did this article demonstrate how an intelligence was able to alter DNA?
Now, once again, how did this article demonstrate how an intelligence was able to alter DNA?
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.
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. ...That anybody can think this supports ID suggests they are doing creation "science" rather than real 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.
I reminds me of one of my favorite classic songs, Locomotive breath by Jethro Tull.
For those interested in the lyrics:
And here is a great live performance:
And you, sir, deserved to be soundly thrashed with a rolled-up newspaper!
I understand what you are trying to say, but actually, you are supporting the theories from the other side of the debate.
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.
Do you creotards really believe you can lie your way into heaven?
Spoken like a true Church of Darwin devotee.
Speaking of Church of Darwin devotees:
Darwins 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.
And lets 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.
Sounds like religion to me-GGG
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?
Elvis fans go to Graceland. Patriots go to Washington, DC. Civil War buffs go to Gettysburg. Trekkies go to Vegas, and they even argue about canon. Are all these religions? Is the mere act of visiting an important, historic site sufficient to establish a religion?
My how that song has evolved since it was originally released 36 years ago.
But he wasn’t comparing Darwin’s house to historical landmarks, he was comparing it to religious shrines.
Sounds like another anti-social zoologist, Kinsey, who went in a slightly different direction.
I don’t understand why you can’t be a creationist who believes that the means God uses to create was evolution. Only the idea of random selection is inconsistent with creationism.
No, the article proves that darwinist expectations are wrong again. ID scientists predict frontloading, whereas the Church of Darwin predicts evolution from the simple to the complex. Seeing how sea anemones are thought to precede the Cambrian explosion, this article flies in the face of Darwinist expectations (and to their credit they admit it). Of course, they omit the fact that IDers have predicted frontloading all along, but such behavior is to be expected from nature worshiping darwinists.
However, with only such a single ring of neurons, they are able to move around my aquarium, find a location that they can get the most food, and capture any live prey that gets too close.
As a software engineer for over 35 years now, my highest goal is to teach a stupid computer how to think as smart as an anemone!
With today's complex computers and multiple megabytes of RAM, why has it been so darn difficult to create a computer as smart as an anemone?
==Only the idea of random selection is inconsistent with creationism.
Yes and no. Random selection is at odds with ID and Creationism. But IDers who postulate theistic evolution (from the simple to the complex) are at odds with both Darwinian evolution and Creation Science. But most of what IDers discover re: molecular biology will vindicated both ID and Creation Science. The real fight between ID and CS will come later re: origins.
Now you do have me very curious...
Please define the term "Front Loading", since that is something rather new to me.
Does the term: "NATURAL SELECTION" ring any bells?