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 ...
Geology is all wrong too - diamonds are really the tears of Jesus.
Many very smart Freepers keep telling me that my Intelligence can alter his DNA, and insure that he will adapt and survive.
HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?
Many Freepers tell me that the concept of evolution is false, and that his talents to eat were only obtained because some intelligence was able to tailor his abilities.
So, are Freepers lying to me and my Chameleon only has his inherited DNA abilities, or can I do something to alter his DNA to make him adapt better?
==Why, then, is Darwin’s house alone among these examples a literal religious shrine?
These statements are being made by hardcore materialists who have let their gaurd down (I thought the Dawkins’ quote was even better in terms of unmasking their religious devotion to their natural selection god). I wouldn’t have such a problem with it if the Darwinists allowed their so-called theory to be tested in the free market of scientific ideas. But as it stands now, the Church of Darwin is relying on the force of government to control the ideology of science. Indeed, I find this to be one of the most important aspects of the current war between ID/CS and the Church of Darwin.
What does that mean? Everything we are currently doing is wrong? Please be more specific.
There is a basically wrong assumption here, and reflects the bias of the investigator. Highly evolved does not necessarily mean highly complex. Sometimes simplification is the improvement over the previous highly complex organization.
Improved almost always beats out the primitive.
I do not think that “Intelligent Design” means what you think it means.
==HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?
Whose DNA?
Darwin on progress:
“After long reflection, I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists”
Charles Darwin, December 4 1872.
Letter to the American paleontologist Alpheus Hyatt.
I am referring to Darwin's idea that beneficial genetic mutations to a species are completely random, rather than an act of God.
Thunder is the angels bowling.
This (the present article) doesn't. This only makes sense as an argument for "front loading" if you first accept that animals ARE all related by common descent, which contradicts "Creation Science". If you reject common descent then this only shows that the "designer" reused code in some particular pattern. But a priori the designer might have reused code in any particular pattern, or multiple patterns, or no particular pattern.
And what would you have them do. Ignore the facts when they contradict the theory? This is the scientific process at work. Theories are constantly tested and when evidence supports a new theory then that is accepted.
How do you test intelligent design anyway?
Did you read my most recent posts? I was asking our smartest Freepers on how to apply the concept of Intelligent Design to best help my baby Chameleon alive in his new environment.
I learned from Wicca over 35 years ago, how I can cure a critter from an illness and keep it alive. Yes, I strongly believe (and know) that intelligence can be used to help a critter that is sick.
I WAS CURIOUS, IF YOU KNEW HOW TO DO THAT ALSO?
As I have said many time, I remain neutral on this issue, but demand that everyone keep their facts honest.
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.
Yeah. I get the impression you're a special creationist type, i.e. one who thinks that most "kinds" of living things were separately created, but you keep posting these articles, like the present one, that only provide evidence of anything on the premise that common descent is true.
So I just wondered. Maybe I read you wrong and you do believe in common descent.
I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but I imagine that creationists would contend that the created kinds were frontloaded (complete with the capacity for variation) at the time of their creation.
Biologist also believe that the earliest living things (however they arose) had the capacity for variation.
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.