This is a good example of the lack of objectivity of scientists who are predisposed to believe evolutionary theory. And creationists are also guilty of the same type of thinking at times. It is the human condition.
They "deduced" something that existed (supposedly) 450 million years ago using computers. They they whipped up some in the lab - "this ancient thing". Then they find that a modern day hormone complements it.
The level of presupposition is huge. The reliance on computers to make up something is staggering.
And voila! we've "proved" that there is no irreducible complexity is not a valid argument.
Believe it if you will. I find it unconvincing. We are now making up facts through "scientific method" and using made up facts to support a belief.
I know it will be accepted hook line and sinker around here by committed evolutionists, but I dont' find it convincing. I believe this is a human foible. It recurs over and over in these postings.
ampu
You dare doubt the authority of a Computer?
I keep wondering how a single cell with three billion bites of information evloved so quickly. I mean at one mutation per year your looking at three biilon years. That sounds like a mighty fast rate of mutate.
Computers are just a tool. You can infer the sequence of a gene in a common ancestor without them; it just takes longer. But it's a useful demonstration of the technique, whose logic is transparent and difficult to refute. I taught a class of freshmen to do it a couple of years back.
Of course they were neither stupid nor irremediably prejudiced against the idea. Either would make it very hard to learn.