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
click here to read article
>> But you have no problem with breakthroughs that claim to support Darwinian evolution? <<
Where did I say that? It’s a presumption which is entirely wrong. For example:
I’m a former biology instructor. When scientists caused amino acids to form under early-Earth conditions, journalists reported this as demonstrating that life could be spontaneously created. I used the incident to teach my class the complexity of proteins and amino acids, and to critically reject media hype. We completely debunked as ludicrous and corrupt the assinine media assertions.
But you don’t know that. You crammed an interesting science story into your world view, and when I questioned it, you created a straw man out of what you knew about me, so you could cram your perception of me into a little box.
But if that’s your normal way of experiencing the world, there’s sadly nothing unique about it. It’s the way things are done, and the result is the very soullessness which you probably think you are fighting against. There’s no wonder, revelation, or anticipation in the modern world, just demands for pre-digested data.
A long time ago, an evolutionist (Haeckel) created schematics showing the parallel development of vertebrates. What came to be presented as realistic drawings were, to an extent, merely schematics. Creationists jumped on that fact as proof of a evolutionist conspiracy to mislead schoolchildren.
The irony is what you are crowing about as vindication for “Creation science” is the genetic confirmation of what Haeckel tried to illustrate.
The truth is far more mysterious and wondrous than the gross charicature of biological science which nihilist journalists report and which creationists bludgeon as a straw man. And it’s far more wondrous than one chapter of Genesis can express, once stripped of its life, meaning and context. And I’ll be damned if I think I can tell you or can understand myself exactly where the truth lies. But if you want to find any true joy in the revelation of God’s handiwork, or contribute anything positive to science, don’t continue to put everything that challenges your presuppositions into safe, little boxes.
Yeah. You really do. What you're saying, wrt the article, is that it looks like animals are "frontloaded" wrt their subsequent evolution.
If you don't accept that animals are generally related by common descent, then you can only be saying, at most, that God separately created all these thousands and thousands of different animals "kinds," reusing and distributing and slightly modifying their DNA code in such a way that it merely looks like animals as a group evolved with frontloading, even though they aren't related at all.
This (that God created animals with genomes that look like they evolved, with "frontloading") is every bit as problematic and arbitrary from your creationist perspective as saying that God created animals with genomes that look they evolved without frontloading.
The article was written by evolutionists. Their interpretation is their own. I am only interested in the data, which is much more in keeping with the notion that the created kinds were frontloaded.
Again, the data only (even potentially) has this significance if you treat animals as a single "created kind". Since you're treating them as thousands and thousands of separately created kinds, this data is entirely artifactual, i.e. irrelevant (at best; anomalous or contradictory at worst), wrt to your creationist position.
“I said practical goals. Not spiritual. Unfortunately, GGG has not responded.”
Yup, I understand what you asked; the answer I gave is practical.
Who can question why God designed something or not? The term “Spiritual” and “Practical” are our own definitions...If, say, ID were true, don’t you think our level of understanding would dwarf that of the Designer of the Universe?
I can’t (and won’t) speak for GGG, but after reading his posts, he more than likely agrees with me.
Wish you were a current biology instructor. It sounds like you were a good one.
What? I don't think I follow you. If we were to condlude that something is designed by God...that would give us knowledge of the organism greater than that which created it? I am going to assume you mis-spoke.
Let's assume that ID is true. Let's say we find proof that our DNA was designed. How does that help us in practical terms, such as medicine?
"An anemonemone. Amnemonemomne....."
==”reusing and distributing and slightly modifying their DNA code in such a way that it merely looks like animals as a group evolved with frontloading, even though they aren’t related at all”
That’s one way of looking at it. But when I look at the same evidence I see animals that look like they are related by a common designer, in much the same way as paintings have certain commonalities that point to a common painter. And to that extent, many IDers and Creationists are saying much the same thing, although they would differ on the parameters of said frontloading.
If a mischaracterized your position, I apologize.
No I'm not. I'm just inconveniently catching on to the fact that you don't have a point. The problem is you keep saying you accept this "data" as evidence of "frontloading". That's contradictory when you likewise insist that the UNloading of that "frontloading" never actually occurred.
That "data" you're pointing to only shows (putative) "frontloading" with respect to ALL animals, i.e. wrt the subsequent diversification of a single ancestral animal into the thousands and thousands of types which you consider separately created kinds.
Now, you can assert that God used relatively slight variations of, mostly, the same genes, and when He created additional genes put them into the same existing "gene families" (which is kind of an odd thing to do, but anyway...) you can say that. But you have no basis to call if "frontloading".
PS I should have said “disallow RM+NS altogether.”
BTW, you are the one confusing the two types. You’re saying evidence of the former is evidence of the latter. I’m the one distinguishing them.
It can, it has, and the whole notion of "frontloading" has been repeatedly falsified. Deal with it.
Not only is all the genetic evidence firmly against any kind of "frontloading" hypothesis, but the very notion is clearly unworkable even in concept.
First, there quite simply isn't space in any workable genome for all the "frontloading" that would have been required to "frontload" all the genetic information present in modern plants/animals. Period. It would have required a genome larger than any cell that would have attempted to contain it. It's like trying to assert that somewhere there's a book which was "frontloaded" with all the text of all the books that have subsequently been written, and all the millions of subsequent books were merely produced when modern authors just plagiarized from it... That would have been one freakishly unwieldy book, wouldn't it?
Second, almost all the "frontloaded" genetic information would have been soon destroyed through copy errors and other kinds of degrading mutations. The only thing that keeps functional genetic information intact over many millions of years is purifying selection, and that requires that those portions of the genome actually be *functional*. There's no way to "frontload" the earliest cells with, for example, the genetic information which encodes the vertebrate immune system, because this immune system requires a complex of diversified cell types in a multicellular animal to function. It quite simply could *not* be functional in a unicellular organism *as* the fully functional vertebrate immune system, and that's what would be required for purifying selection to keep that genetic complex intact in a way that would allow it to retain the necessary encoding *for* a vertebrate immune system. Had it been "frontloaded" there's no way in hell that it would have remained fully intact and undegraded during the hundreds of millions of years before the first vertebrate came about.
Finally, the origins of many, many genes and gene complexes have been traced, and what do you know, they arose through evolutionary change across many millions of years, and were *not* present (thus not "frontloaded") in ancestral species. There's no trace of them in lineages which diverged before those genes arose, as would be expected if everything had been "frontloaded" from the beginning.
Deal with it.
Thats one way of looking at it.
That's the way that a comprehensive, honest examination of the evidence compells one to look at it.
But when I look at the same evidence I see animals that look like they are related by a common designer, in much the same way as paintings have certain commonalities that point to a common painter.
That's because you actually have very little knowledge of the evidence, nor the relevant processes, nor the vast amount of research that has been done on the subject.
There are huge differences, both qualitatively and quantitatively, between the kinds of similarities/differences that are produced across lineages by "common design", and those produced evolutionarily through common descent. The vast amount of evidence and research accumulated to date -- and you truly have *no* idea how vast it is, I've spent a lifetime coming up to speed on even a portion of it -- points squarely at the latter and not at the former.
No one who has any familiarity with 1) the products of common design, and 2) the products of evolutionary common descent (via for example evolutionary algorithms and genetic programming), and 3) the evidence from biology (including DNA and the fossil record, among many other lines of evidence) has any problem recognizing the biological evidence as starkly consistent with evolutionary origins and not at all with the kinds of similarities and the kinds of differences produced by "common design".
This is why 99+% of biologists accept the validity of evolutionary biology.
And to that extent, many IDers and Creationists are saying much the same thing, although they would differ on the parameters of said frontloading.
The IDers and Creationists are as usual engaging in wishful thinking based on either unfamiliarity with the evidence, or a willful distortion of it. I have yet to see a single one of their pro-ID claims stand up to serious scrutiny or comparison to the available evidence and research results. Even their attempts at ivory-tower arguments, like Behe's, have glaringly obvious fatal flaws and inherent fallacies.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. Evolution predicts that creatures will evolve so that their offspring will survive. It has nothing to do with higher beings. That is a term that non-scientists use to describe evolution. The fact that the so-called higher beings evolved is because they were able to exploit their environment better. If losing traits makes it more likely for a creature to survive and reproduce then that is how it will evolve.
By the way, don't you also have a fight to maintain geocentricism? After all, it is in the Bible that the Earth cannot be moved. The heathen scientists are claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Isn't that heresy?
So, the phylum cnideria are a sign of intelligent design?.... What is special? The radial nature of cnideria? The coiled barbed cells? Or the lack of a central nervous system?
Does coral count? How about sponges? But then they are phylum porifera.
I don’t deny intelligent design, infact I embrace it. However, I disagree with anti evolutionist garbage.
I want to go back to the Aristotelian table of the elements: earth, air, fire, water. Chemistry students everywhere will rejoice.
Hardly. Neither the original theory of Darwin, nor the modern version of the evolutionary theories predict or even expect let alone demand that organisms move from the simple to the complex.
There has been an observed tendency to go from extremely simple to more complex but this is nothing more than a side effect of starting with the extremely simple. If you start with something absolutely simple and modify it in some way, the probability is that at least some changes will lead to the more complex but none will become less complex - the absolutely simple cannot get any simpler, it is already at the extreme. However when some complexity has been reached, both directions become possible, which is why 'Darwinists' as you call us, believe that Cetaceans, Sirenians, and Pinipeds have lost some morphological functionality and that viruses, and a number of parasites were at one time more complex than they are currently.
The complexity of organisms, as far as complexity can be quantified, is likely to form a skewed distribution with a longer right tail than left. What you are suggesting would form a skewed distribution with an extremely long left tail and almost no right tail. These two aren't the same.
The only people who insist that Evolution demands an increase in complexity are those with the desire to attack the evolutionary theories.
"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).
The authors found that the sea anemone genome contains about 450 million base pairs and 18,000 protein-coding genes. They identified many gene families common to all sequenced animals. "We have this basic toolkit now for the whole animal kingdom,"
This doesn't sound like the scientists believe that the findings 'fly in the face of Darwinist expectations'. Funny that scientists haven't had a fit about Amoeba dubia which is morphologically much simpler than say Homo sapiens but has a genome of 670,000,000,000 compared to our 3,100,000,000.
"Of course, they omit the fact that IDers have predicted frontloading all along, but such behavior is to be expected from nature worshiping darwinists.
I take it then that if you agree with front loading you also agree with common descent? If the complexity for increased complexity has been front loaded this implies that all later organisms gained their complexity from simpler forms.
Seeing as how the deceitful poster subtitled the article with a mention of the completely bogus concept of intelligent Design/Creation Science, I believe my question was perfectly within reason. I notice I didn't get an answer? Of course no one really expects anything resembling honesty from the lunatic fringe pushing this ridiculous intelligent Design/Creation Science farce, do they?
Does the theory of plate tectonics glorify God? If so, how? If not, do you believe in the theory of plate tectonics? How about the theory of optics, or the theory of gravity? If none of the commonly-accepted scientific theories glorify God, why is the theory of evolution held to a different standard?
I wonder how anyone can look at the photos from the Hubble Space Telescope and believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. I look at the deep space photo that contains thousands of little splotches, each a galaxy possibly teeming with life, and I feel my heart leap with a joy I never experienced in church. I guess different people find their epiphanies in different ways.
Being a Trekker is not.
Because C++ is too lame for the job?
Most machine language programmers have died or gone onto the happy land of bits, just when the tools are there to let them do what they could not do 30 years ago?
Could it be a big conspiracy by intel to keep you on P4's forever?
Because Steve Jobs worked on the stupid iPhone instead of something useful for things other than listening to music?
I am not trying to falsify Darwinism. I am saying that as a working hypothesis, there are still some glaring gaps which cannot be satisfactorily reconciled.
Is there intelligent design? At the moment, that explanation, which seems to invoke supernatural intervention, has to be placed in the category of “creation myth”. There may, after all, be a simple and revealed truth to be read in the genome of every Terrestrial living creature, that ties it all into a unified whole.
Like, WHY are only four basic amino acids used in the construction of DNA? And why does the DNA helix replicate? Accidental and random chemical reactions alone do not give rise to that spark that ignites life. Did life arise spontaneously, or was there some kind of selection made? Is DNA the only way life can be ignited in otherwise lifeless compounds? Were there perhaps other, and competing, compounds, that DNA won out over, and thus became dominant?
People have not yet started to ask the right questions. Lord knows, I would not know how to ask them.
Be more specific. ID proponents conceeded common descent some time ago. It's not even on the table.
There are new earth Christians and old earth Christians. Everything still is the CREATION OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER. Now I’ve always been an old earth Christian. However, there has been evidence coming to light in the last few years that make me go HMMMM..........
To my mind, the researchers’ assumption of common descent doesn’t make much difference. Data is data, and can be interpreted and reinterpreted without regard for the data collector’s original intent for the same. I’m interpreting the data as both supportive of ID front-loading and supportive of Creationist front-loading, and I’m interpreting the data as yet one more nail in the coffin of neo-Darwinism. It is a nail in the coffin of neo-darwinism because it further constricts the time that RM+NS had to act in order to construct an extremely complex, heritable genome. It is supportive of ID frontloading because as you constrict the time available for the same, frontloading becomes more and more tenable in direct proportion to the degree that neo-Darwinism becomes untenable. Finally, the data also lends support to (and certainly doesn’t contradict) the notion that life came from a single designer (shares a common design that points to the common designer), that life was created spontaneously, and that the created kinds were frontlaoded for survival (to include genetic variation, but that also resist any theories that postulate that animals can genetically vary beyond the limits of the created kinds).
Now, if you think the data contained in the original post falsifies what I have just outlined, feel free to cite the data in such a way as to prove me wrong (remembering, of course, that I am fully aware that I’m using the data against the very theory motivating the researchers themselves).
That’s a coming debate between Creationists and IDers that will begin in earnest once the Church of Darwin is vanquished.
But the data here IS a broad comparison of animal genomes. It compares sequences from extremely different animals, from invertebrates through mammals, and finds that a large percentage of animal genes (or at least progenitors of "gene families" that latter grew through gene duplication and evolution) presumably -- and presumably only BECAUSE of their broad distribution among ALL animals -- were present in very early and anatomically "simple" animals.
Now if you believe, as you do, that these animals are UNrelated by ordinary reproduction, and the consequent copying of their genomes from hereditarily common copies thereof in the process, then you're not entitled to follow the conclusion that an ancestral animal, which you don't believe ever existed, was "frontloaded" in terms of having all these genes that would later be used and modified differently by it's ancestors. But that's what you're doing. You're endorsing a conclusion which is unavoidably and uniquely based on premises with you utterly reject.
Really? Can you give some examples? I'm genuinely curious. My observation of the antievolution movement suggests that the "classic" young earth arguments (e.g. moon dust, shrinking sun, grand canyon, sea salts, earth's magnetic field, etc) have all been pretty decisively smashed, and that not many new ones have taken their place. However I haven't followed antievolutionism as closely in the last decade or so as I used to, so if I'm out of date enlighten me.
I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.
Um, no, I don't. It's just that we haven't even gotten to that argument yet. I've simply been conceding your characterization of the evidence for the purpose of arguing that you have no basis for accepting even that characterization.
and Creationist claims that the similarity in animal genomes stem from common design (which, for some reason, you have a hard time coming to grips with).
No, I don't. I readily concede that, if creation were true, we would expect the Creator to use common elements in His designs (if only so his creatures could eat each other, for for many other reasons as well). What I dispute is that a creationist is entitled to expect any particular pattern to these commonalities. And I certainly dispute, and have been here disputing, that a creationist is entitled to expect or find vindication and a very particular pattern that only crystallizes and emerges as a pattern at all on the assumption of, and therefore looks like, universal common descent of all animals.
(if only so his creatures could eat each other,
for but for many other reasons as well)
disputing, that a creationist is entitled to expect or find vindication
and in a very particular pattern
==What I dispute is that a creationist is entitled to expect any particular pattern to these commonalities.
I suppose it depends on what kind of Creationism you’re talking about. IDers, although certainly not YEC, certainly would expect common patterns in living things re: frontloading. And this paper lends credence to such expectations. Biblical YEC would expect that each of the created kinds would be frontloaded with the capacity for variation within the limits of its overall design. A Biblical YEC would also expect signs of descent with modification within the created kinds, but definite breaks/discontinuity between the lineages of the created kinds. As per Romans 1:20, A Biblical YEC would also expect that all organisms would be linked by design and point to a single designer (and that nature would resist materialist explanations like Darwinism). Thus, a Biblical YEC would expect to find a commonality of design that resists naturalistic explanations while at the same time bearing the marks of a single designer (as opposed to multiple designers). Thus, a Biblical YEC would indeed be "entitled to expect" common life patterns (unity within diversity) that would point to a single designer/creator, such as genome similarity, system similarities, cellular similarities, anatomical similarities, etc., etc...all of which is supported by the original article, and none of which is contradicted by the same.
Thanks for the ping!
On the topic of what would definitively falsify Darwinian evolution, UndauntedR wrote:
==To add to js1138’s (unanswered) response...Finding an animal whose offspring differ from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance. (i.e. Lamarckian Evo)
What do you make of this, UndauntedR?
LAMARCKISM REVISITED Normally, the fur of agouti mice is yellow, brown, or a calico-like mixture of the two, depending on the number of attached methyl groups. But when Duke University researchers Jirtle and Waterland fed folic acid and other methyl-rich supplements to pregnant mothers, despite the fact that all offspring inherited exactly the same agouti gene (i.e., with no nucleotide differences), mice who received supplements had offspring with mostly brown fur, whereas mice without supplements gave birth to mostly yellow pups with a higher susceptibility to obesity, diabetes, and cancer. The methyl groups bound to a transposon at the 5’ end of the agouti locus, thereby shutting off expression of the agouti gene, not just in the murine recipient but in its offspring as well.
Thanks for the ping!
It's very interesting stuff, but it has nothing to say about whether evolution happened, or whether natural selection is the dominant cause of change in populations.
Darwin was not opposed to the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Epigenetic inheritance, however, is a far cry from the inheritance of learned behavior, or the inheritance of characteristics achieved through striving (as with the example of the giraffe).
Fortunately, science isn't judged by the care with which people write on chat forums. Lamarckian inheritance co-existed with evolution for eighty years or so. It was dropped not because it disagreed with Darwinism, but because the evidence was against it.
Epigenetic inheritance is quite unlike "lamarckian" inheritance as originally formulated.
It's the magical, flexible, unfalsifiable Super Theory!
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.