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 ...
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?
I'm certain that the song was "Intelligently Designed"
GGG, I think it’s fair to assume you are versed in Intelligent Design, yes? Would you mind answering a question that’s been nagging me?
What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?
So then you accept common ancestry for animals generally?
From “Predictions of Intelligent Design”
Information infusion and/or Front-loading
Informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found.
(One of the only ways to gain greater understanding of the abilities of chance and forces is to study them and test their limits. This prediction is one of the many reasons that research into contingency and forces, including natural selection and random mutation, is absolutely and indispensably necessary in the design paradigm.)
Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
That's a new one.
Hardly an original comparison; such comparisons are made every day about the places I mentioned. Not only are such comparisons made, they are afar more apt. Washington is full of Grecian temples housing statues of culture heroes. A US President declared Gettysburg to be consecrated and hallowed ground. Traditional cult activity takes place at Graceland -- processions, offerings made to the dead, the sale of mementos, etc.
Why, then, is Darwin's house alone among these examples a literal religious shrine?
(Aside: I'm glad you noticed he was only comparing it to religious shrines. Think back to middle school English: What do you call a comparison of two unlike things?)
==What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?
It would totally change the way we think about biology, origins, disease, etc.
We already think a thousand ways about these things, including ID. Nothing will change.