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

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
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
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: GodGunsGuts

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?


52 posted on 07/06/2007 12:42:32 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts

So then you accept common ancestry for animals generally?


53 posted on 07/06/2007 12:44:45 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts

>> this is completely contrary to what Charles Darwin himself expected; viz., that such complex regulatory functions developed in so short a period of time. <<

Uh, no. This all happened in the last fifth of organismal development. Nearly all changes among animals are primarily structural, and involve very minimal changes in cell chemistry. What the earliest multicellular organism represented was, essentially, a complete unit of metabolic functioning.

It’s like building with Legos. While I can construct legos into many different form, a Lego is a Lego is a Lego.\

The challenge that this creates for evolutionary theory is that it reminds evolutionists that they have accomplished almost nothing when they describe how, for instance, legos (cells) arranged into fish evolve into legos (cells) arranged into dinosaurs or legos (cells) arranged into monkeys. The tricky part is how legos (cells) appeared in the first place.

And that’s what the sciences of paleontology and anatomy have previously been nearly entirely useless in doing.


96 posted on 07/06/2007 1:51:51 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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