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
==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.
I’ll do you one better. How about a fossile record that:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
I'm willing to be convinced. Please show me how this statement is a prediction of ID. IOW, please reply with the logical argument from the axioms of ID whose conclusion is that statement and also show that its negation is inconsistent with the theory.
Good luck getting to 1000 posts!
You might want to start by reading the OP. Here are some links for further commentary:
From the ID perspective:
And now for my favorite, from a Creation Science perspective:
Unlike some evolution critics, Gould was not a liar. He did not pull quotations out of context, attempting to make them say the opposite of what they intend.
From the article linked by Dembski:
"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.
When Dembski talks about "front-loading" is he unaware that 700 million years is just one-fifth of the history of life? He is a mathematician, isn't he?
By the way, what happened to the Cambrian "explosion"? I thought the designer zapped all this complexity into the Genome one day 500 million years ago. What is it doing showing up 200 million years prior?
And what is a creationist doing admitting to 700 million years of evolution, anyway? Do the troops in the trenches know about this?
I don't see it. Why would a Creator make His creatures so they eat each other? Even supposing that were true, it doesn't follow they need be made of common elements, at least as I understand the term.
There you go again.
If you hadn't intended to misrepresent what Gould intended, you would have presented his thesis intact. Instead you pulled a snippet that makes no sense out of context.
You have absolutely nothing to say about his actual position. If you did, you would respond to it.
... as a complete theory of the origin of the species (just helping, you left that part out.)
In which of those (and where in it) can I read the argument?
Don’t you get it, even on your own/darwinist terms, the time allowed for a genome to evolve into something nearly as complex as the human genome” has just shrunk by one-fifth! The probability of that happening by chance within such a limited time period = ZERO.
This discovery means that, even on evolutionary terms, the time allowed for a genome to “evolve” into something “nearly as complex” as the humane genome has just shrunk by one-fifth! The probability of that happening is nil. I suggest you read the following, and then go back and re-read the OP:
You remind me of a number of banned evos who posted here and continually called people who disagreed with them liars.
I am truly interested. I think there's an obvious argument why the statement cannot be derived from any reasonable ID theory and I'd therefore like to see why you think otherwise. So please, instead of pointing me to pages that don't bear on the question, just post the argument in your own words.
PS, I don't know what the "OP" is.
PPS, that ICR article you linked is riddled with typical creationist sophistry. I hope you don't actually find it persuasive.
But, you still don’t answer the question.
“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.”
Actually, you are only half right.
Any evidence which shows other than a pattern of descent with modification in the fossil record would serve to falsify. Fossils wouldn’t necessarily have to be sorted by density, it would just have to be any fossil data which show other than a pattern of many unsuccessful mutations and a few successful mutations over a relatively long period of time. That’s why the discussion of the Cambrian “explosion” (yes, I know many don’t like to call it that, but that’s the simplest way to refer to it) is relevant to falsification of the TOE.
How do you measure complexity?
I know of no mathematical characteristic of the human genome that makes it significantly more complex than that of an amoeba. Genes are just parameters. Humans don't have significantly more parameters than other living things. Evolution just tweaks parameters a one or two at a time. In engineering, this is called Muntzing.
A Cambrian mammal would cause a major upheaval in biology, but the Cambrian "explosion" is looking more and more like a dud. This is an era with few hard parts to be preserved by ordinary fossilization, so the things we find seem to appear suddenly. This picture is changing with DNA analysis.
This is a management decision by FR. It does not change the fact that quote mining and misquotation are lying, nor does it change the fact that creationists like Ken Ham destroy children's' minds with their lies.
I was merely quoting a Science Daily article on the sea anemone genome. This just goes to shoe that the genome was already as complex as modern day humans even BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. This, of course, comes as no surprise to the Creation Scientist, as he is already well aware that all living things were created with their current complexity built-in (fully formed and fully functional). Here is the Science Daily quote in full:
“The first analysis of the genome of the sea anemone shows it to be nearly as complex as the human genome, providing major insights into the common ancestor of not only humans and sea anemones, but of nearly all multi-celled animals.”
I have no problem with that, to an order of magnitude or so. This has been known for some time. Evolution is mostly bit changes to parameters.
The period since the Cambrian is one-seventh of the history of life. Virtually everything prior has been erased. Why should it be surprising that more happened in three billion years than in 500 million?
Putting my question another way: suppose you gave a test of general knowledge to people aged 60 and again at age 70.
Suppose you discovered that most of what people know at age 70, they already knew at age 60.
Would you call that “front-loading”?
Then, as Darwin predicted, there should be innumerable transitional species...billions and billions of them...and yet there are none. The evidence overwhelmingly points towards Creation, and against Darwinian evolution. Or as Arthur Strahler (evolutionist in good standing) admits:
“...(the creationist) finds all the confession he needs from the evolutionists that each of these classes appears suddenly and with no trace of ancestors. The absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution...This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendre.”
Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. “Science and Earth History: The evolution/creation controversy”, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. p. 408
Give me a good reason, based on the physics and chemistry of fossilization, why every part of every individual should be preserved.
Do you think, for example, that there are naturally preserved specimens of every stage in the evolution from wolf to teacup poodle? This has happened within the time of recorded history, and the morphological changes are greater than any gap in the fossil record.
Morphological change requires that a few individuals get cut off from the parent population. Changes equivalent to the changes in dogs can occur in a thousand years or less. There is little chance for this transition to be recorded.
Now for those Young Earthers out there lurking, creationists like Ham assert that current species are descended from a few hundred “types” over the last few thousand years — a rate of evolution that vastly exceeds anything claimed by biologists. If the divergence from generic cat to all the existing cat species occurred in a few thousand years, where are the transitionals?
Who said we require “every part of every individual” should be preserved? Of the billions upon billions of fossils, even if a small percentage were could be proved to be transitional fossils, that would be fine. Instead, we find none, zero, nada, zilch....Or in the words of one of Darwin’s high priests:
the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987). p. 229
Take his assumed timescale, and I couldn’t agree with him more!—GGG
I suggest YOU go back and READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. That’s exactly what the article is talking about. They changed the diet of the agouti mice which produced a mutation that was inherited by their offspring. Thus, by your own criteria, Neo-Darwinism is falsified.
==DNA and Mendialian genetics were unknown when this (Lamarckian) theory was popular, so it seemed reasonable
They were also unknown during Darwin’s time. The researchers studying DIRECTED MUTATION have just as much right to these discoveries as the researches who study random mutation.
Quote mining is not a substitute for thinking. Anyone who quotes Dawkins or Darwin or Gould to make it look like they are arguing against evolution is just admitting they haven’t got enough attention span to follow an argument.
The biggest problem with citing missing transitionals as a problem for evolution is that they are an even bigger problem for creationism.
Ken Ham, the leading spokesman for creationism at the moment, says everything from the Family level on down to the Species level evolved in just a few thousand years. Where are Ken Ham’s transitionals?
I quote mine because every time I present the findings of Creationists/IDers your side disqualifies them as being religion masquerading as science. Additionally, if our side is correct (and it is) nature will force the evolutionists to prove our point for us (which it does).
==Ken Ham, the leading spokesman for creationism at the moment, says everything from the Family level on down to the Species level evolved in just a few thousand years. Where are Ken Hams transitionals?
If DIRECTED MUTATION is in fact true, you won’t find the extremely fine gradations in the fossil record that Darwinism predicts.
If angels push the planet along we have no use for laws of gravity. If everything was created by the great invisible pink unicorn, we have no use for science at all.
I hate to break it to you, science is still science, even when Directed Mutation contradicts Darwinist religion:
The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions. The significance of the Cairns paper is not in the presentation of new data but in the framing of the questions and in changing the psychology of the situation. He has taken the question Are mutations directed? which was taboo, and made it an issue that people will now do experiments on.
(Moffat, Anne Simon; A Challenge to Evolutionary Biology, American Scientist, 77:224, 1989.)
==I asked for an animal whose offspring differed from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance.
The offspring did differ from the parent in a way unattributable to genetic variance. As you said yourself, the underlying gene sequence of the agouti mice remained the same, and yet the change in their diet/environment produced changes to the phenotype that were non-random and heritable. And as for whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian, one of the researchers (Douglas Ruden from the Univ. of Alabama) quoted in The Scientist article says just that: “Epigenetics has always been Lamarckian. I really don’t think there’s any controversy.” If this is all true, the neo-Darwinian synthesis is falsified.
Then you will no doubt provide an example of this happening.
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.