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.
Now you do have me very curious...
Please define the term "Front Loading", since that is something rather new to me.
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?
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.