[GodGunsGuts]

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/

[The Blitherer]

Very interesting.

Grabbing my popcorn!

;-)

[dmz]

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.

[Jeff Chandler]

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?

[Born to Conserve]

Duh.

[coloradan]

the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution

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.

[js1138]

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.

Widely held by whom?

[Paradox]

So like, Adam and Eve were anemonies?

[Hunble]

You have me rather stumped, since I could not find anything in this article that explained how intelligence was able to alter DNA.

Did I miss something?

[shuckmaster]

Do you creotards really believe you can lie your way into heaven?

[PC99]

Geology is all wrong too - diamonds are really the tears of Jesus.

[alloysteel]

There is a basically wrong assumption here, and reflects the bias of the investigator. Highly evolved does not necessarily mean highly complex. Sometimes simplification is the improvement over the previous highly complex organization.

Improved almost always beats out the primitive.

[dangus]

Well, what it suggests is that 600 million-year-old organisms were similar in complexity to more “advanced” organisms that are current than they are to 3 billion-year-old organisms. Not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.

But what IS interesting (even if I can’t see how it is relevant to an ID discussion) is that vertebrates have removed far fewer introns than annelids and arthropods. I wouldn’t read too much into it, however: Such organisms (the little guys) have far fewer mitotic divisions (enlarging a given organism) per meiotic division (enabling sexual reproduction) than vertebrates. I could easily imagine how it gives them more opportunity to clean up the excesses, and maybe provides more evolutionary pressure to do so.

[dangus]

It's actually kind of sad to see that this very interesting breakthrough is immediately used to score points in the ID vs. evolution vs. creationism debate. I would love to see what kind of phylogeny could be created by such genetic comparisons, and how such a genetic phylogeny would differ from previous phylogenies speculated at from anatomical and paleontological relationships.

Incidentally, I'm quite sure that it will "prove" meany anatomical/paleontological phylogenies very "wrong"... but only in the same sense that early explorer's maps were very, very "wrong."

[shield]

How could anyone not look at this magnificent earth and NOT SEE OUR HEAVENLY FATHER’S HAND....It’s HIS CREATION...a gift to us.

[Porterville]

So, the phylum cnideria are a sign of intelligent design?.... What is special? The radial nature of cnideria? The coiled barbed cells? Or the lack of a central nervous system?

Does coral count? How about sponges? But then they are phylum porifera.

I don’t deny intelligent design, infact I embrace it. However, I disagree with anti evolutionist garbage.

[TChris]

Evolutionists aren't worried. The theory will just be tweaked a bit, a plausible scenario covering the evidence will be described, and presto! Evolution v6.2.0307 will be released!

It's the magical, flexible, unfalsifiable Super Theory!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

More detailed article here.

Good luck getting to 1000 posts!