Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)
The Scientist ^ | July 5, 2007 | Melissa Lee Phillips

Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

1 posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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 intriguing–”these 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 this—it’s very easy to deny anything (in fact, I deny that I’m 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 doesn’t fossilze that well; but there is a well-preserved fossil in the Burgess Shale dating from the Middle Cambrian. ]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/


2 posted on 07/06/2007 11:22:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; editor-surveyor; AndyTheBear; metmom

ping


3 posted on 07/06/2007 11:23:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Very interesting.

Grabbing my popcorn!

;-)

4 posted on 07/06/2007 11:26:00 AM PDT by The Blitherer (What would a Free Man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The history of Darwin's theory has been a comedy of errors.
5 posted on 07/06/2007 11:31:14 AM PDT by be4everfree (We're on a mission from God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


6 posted on 07/06/2007 11:32:09 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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?


7 posted on 07/06/2007 11:32:26 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (A man who will not defend himself does not deserve to be defended by others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: GodGunsGuts

Duh.


9 posted on 07/06/2007 11:33:44 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

LOL. How long have you been holding on to that one?


10 posted on 07/06/2007 11:34:03 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FrPR

36 seconds. missed it by that much.


11 posted on 07/06/2007 11:35:13 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution

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.

12 posted on 07/06/2007 11:35:16 AM PDT by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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.


13 posted on 07/06/2007 11:36:18 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FrPR; Jeff Chandler

Wow. Literally seconds apart. Now that’s impressive.


14 posted on 07/06/2007 11:37:01 AM PDT by JamesP81 (Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dmz

I think I got it from an old Dilbert comic strip.


15 posted on 07/06/2007 11:38:09 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (A man who will not defend himself does not deserve to be defended by others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FrPR

LOL!


16 posted on 07/06/2007 11:38:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler; FrPR

Okay, you’re both suspended for a week!


17 posted on 07/06/2007 11:39:20 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Duncan Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This article, contrary to your statement, was not published in Science.
18 posted on 07/06/2007 11:40:07 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dmz

See post #2


19 posted on 07/06/2007 11:40:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Widely held by whom?

20 posted on 07/06/2007 11:41:47 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
More like a tragicomedy of errors. But I do see your point. The more science learns, the less relevant Darwinism becomes.
21 posted on 07/06/2007 11:42:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So like, Adam and Eve were anemonies?


22 posted on 07/06/2007 11:42:56 AM PDT by Paradox (Foreign Policy suggestions from Jimmy Carter are like Beauty Tips from Rosie O'Donnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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?

23 posted on 07/06/2007 11:43:48 AM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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


24 posted on 07/06/2007 11:48:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dmz
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.

25 posted on 07/06/2007 11:49:31 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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?

26 posted on 07/06/2007 11:51:48 AM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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?

27 posted on 07/06/2007 11:51:52 AM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
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.

28 posted on 07/06/2007 11:52:21 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.
29 posted on 07/06/2007 11:52:28 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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


30 posted on 07/06/2007 11:52:43 AM PDT by be4everfree (We're on a mission from God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
But with anemones like that, who needs friends?

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

31 posted on 07/06/2007 11:53:50 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
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.

32 posted on 07/06/2007 11:55:38 AM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

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.


33 posted on 07/06/2007 12:04:26 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
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.
34 posted on 07/06/2007 12:05:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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


35 posted on 07/06/2007 12:05:28 PM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Spoken like a true Church of Darwin devotee.


36 posted on 07/06/2007 12:07:23 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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

It was published in THE SCIENTIST : MAGAZINE OF THE LIFE SCIENCES.
37 posted on 07/06/2007 12:10:51 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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

What does heaven have to do with the article in THE SCIENTIST ?
38 posted on 07/06/2007 12:11:48 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

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


39 posted on 07/06/2007 12:13:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“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?

40 posted on 07/06/2007 12:14:52 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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?


41 posted on 07/06/2007 12:16:32 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree

My how that song has evolved since it was originally released 36 years ago.


42 posted on 07/06/2007 12:17:57 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

But he wasn’t comparing Darwin’s house to historical landmarks, he was comparing it to religious shrines.


43 posted on 07/06/2007 12:19:23 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
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?

Sounds like another anti-social zoologist, Kinsey, who went in a slightly different direction.

44 posted on 07/06/2007 12:22:17 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


45 posted on 07/06/2007 12:29:11 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
==Once again, did this article demonstrate how intelligence can alter DNA?

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.

46 posted on 07/06/2007 12:30:56 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I have two salt water aquariums, and anemones have always fascinated me. They do not have a brain, but only a ring of only a few thousand neurons.

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?

47 posted on 07/06/2007 12:31:42 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

==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.


48 posted on 07/06/2007 12:35:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Of course, they omit the fact that IDers have predicted frontloading all along, but such behavior is to be expected from nature worshiping darwinists.

Now you do have me very curious...

Please define the term "Front Loading", since that is something rather new to me.

49 posted on 07/06/2007 12:35:48 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Uh, Darwinian evolution was never "random" in any way, shape or form.

Does the term: "NATURAL SELECTION" ring any bells?

50 posted on 07/06/2007 12:38:31 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson