Posted on 06/11/2014 12:28:07 PM PDT by fishtank
Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3
Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Heck, just look at the first article referenced in the ICR article--it's titled "Jelly Genome Mystery." That's a pretty straightforward admission of "we don't know."
That's the problem with the explanation offered by ICR. Scientists are at least trying to figure out not only how but why these animals are the way they are. The ICR folks never ask, Why did the Omnipotent Creator make animals with genes He used nowhere else? And why did He leave out genes He used in his other creations--and do so only in these particular animals? The ICR approach is an intellectual dead end.
The Nature News and Views reported that others disagree that these findings indicate ctenophores are the oldest group.
This is a great piece of work and well done article in Nature by the (mainly) Florida group.
Hard to say what “gummed up” means but the findings are extremely unexpected and makes evolutionary relationships and descent much less understood.
Yeah. It’s not really scientists, real ones doing the work, who won’t say they don’t know.
But it is the ones who use science for their political or religious ends.
Those who use - misuse actually - science as a weapon.
There’s plenty of these abusers of science here at free rep. It’s not just libs and lefties.
“The ICR approach is an intellectual dead end.”
You figured that out all on your own?
You are the clever one.
The position of the ctenophores has been debated for several years. I don't know why you say the results are completely unexpected. From Wiki:
The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria,[48][49] sister to the Cnidaria,[50][51][52][53] sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria,[54][55][56] and sister to all other animal phyla.[57][58] A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla.[59][60][61][62] A more recent study comparing the sequenced genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi with other sequenced animal genomes showed multiple lines of evidence supporting ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals.[63] This position suggests that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage.[63] Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lacks any true hox genes.[64]makes evolutionary relationships and descent much less understood.
In general, or only concerning ctenophores? I'm not sure I agree in either case.
Your doing the science as weapon dance. Can’t be wrong. Can’t not know and have expected everything.
The fact is, this finding is astounding and comes nearly as close as there can be to a finding that disproved the whole of evolutionary theory as understood.
If you don’t understand that you don’t know biology or evolutionary theory.
The interesting thing is, it does not negate evolution, despite “gumming it up”.
You think too much like the ICR types.
You can’t defend your position, so you attack me. Nice.
Play the wounded warrior. Get off it.
Don’t be defensive. You don’t need to be.
What position are you taking?
None that I can see, other than this doesn’t mean what ICR says it means. As if that is an issue.
If one asks about findings that might disprove evolution, answers are along the lines of if we found life that used a totally separate genetic matter or code etc...
Finding a lineage that does not use half the genes used by every other lineage known and having half again a completely novel and unique set of genes would be along the same lines.
Jelly gums up EVERYTHING when eaten on bread with peanut butter.
I’m dating myself but, in my uninformed youth, I used to put that stuff in my hair.
It was called Brylcreem, and I never realized I was supposed to eat it on bread.
Anyone that places scientist and evolution in the same sentence habitually is deeply confused about the difference between science and propaganda.
For that ever-charming plastic look!
My father used to rub that crap in my hair when I was about 2 or 3 years old.
...ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla.
“My position is that this isn’t a major problem for evolutionary science”
I agree.
What it illustrates is how evolution can accommodate pretty much any finding.
I like and generally agree with what the authors wrote in their concluding paragraph.
“These findings are of relevance for regenerative and synthetic biology in designing novel signalling pathways and systems. In this case, ctenophores and their genomes present matchless examples of ‘experiments’ in nature and the possible preservation of ancient molecular toolkits lost in other animal lineages.”
Don’t imply “/s”. There are a lot of people who believe such things in earnest.
I'm sorry, did I run over your tricycle or something?
I am assuminng nothing.
Then you should be able to prove your assertions. Can you do that?
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.