Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The study also found that these similarities were absent from fruit fly and nematode genomes, contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution. The findings suggest that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex, and fly and worm genomes lost some of that intricacy as they evolved.
It’s surprising to find such a “high level of genomic complexity in a supposedly primitive animal such as the sea anemone,” Koonin told The Scientist. It implies that the ancestral animal “was already extremely highly complex, at least in terms of its genomic organization and regulatory and signal transduction circuits, if not necessarily morphologically.”
(Excerpt) Read more at the-scientist.com ...
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/
ping
Grabbing my popcorn!
;-)
I wonder if you could, in your own words, describe how this article is vindication of creation science and/or intelligent design.
I read the linked article, and could not find a single word about creation science or intelligent design.
Try to remember that evidence against evolution is not the same as evidence for intelligent design or creationism.
I had an uncle who studied fascinating rare anemones from the Red Sea. His research was so all-consuming that he had no social life whatsoever. But with anemones like that, who needs friends?
Duh.
LOL. How long have you been holding on to that one?
36 seconds. missed it by that much.
It might be widely held, but it is not central to Darwinian evolution. (IOW it's a straw man.) Darwin's theory predicts that, e.g. organisms permanently living in dark caves will lose eyes as it's not worth the energy to continue producing eyes, and so those that lack eyes will have a slight survival advantage. Indeed, cave-dwelling sightless salamanders and fish are known, and this is taken to support, not refute, Darwin, even though it represents an example of simplification-through-evolution.
Don’t bother with the popcorn. The number and variety of misconceptions regarding evolution are so numerous as to be not really worth addressing.
Thus all you’ll probably get is a polysymphonic echo chamber.
Wow. Literally seconds apart. Now that’s impressive.
I think I got it from an old Dilbert comic strip.
LOL!
Okay, you’re both suspended for a week!
See post #2
Widely held by whom?
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.