[PatrickHenry]

It's been a while since I took evolutionary biology, but I'm not entirely sure how this fits in with the Creation/evolution debate.....

It's not a head-on collision of evolution and creationism, that's true. Rather, it's a good example of biologists chugging along, in a field that is essentially based on evolution. For example, the article says:

Although roundworms, not related to earthworms, and people are different, they shared a common ancestor just 600 million years ago, and many genes in the two species have a similar sequence of DNA units and similar function. The researchers say 100 fat-regulating genes in worms have counterpart genes in people.

Although this seems like a routine example of science being conducted, there are creationists who will faint dead away when they realize the implications. Expecially those strident few who continue to claim that there is no evidence for evolution, that all of science disproves evolution, that evolution is nonsense, that scientists are abandoning evolution, etc. Notwithstanding such fantasies, the world of science goes merrily on, ignoring the comic-book "science" of creationism.

[f.Christian]

Science // technology is a 'spin off' of knowledge // creation . . .

evolution is a 'knock off (( fraudulent // cheap imitation // forgery ))' . . .

hijack // RAPE // MURDER - - - of science // creation // GOD! ! !

[balrog666]

It must have been an even better article than I realized since the Creationists don't seem to have a handle on how to spin it.

[ricpic]

"Although roundworms, not related to earthworms, and people are different, they shared a common ancestor just 600 million years ago...."

I have no science background whatsoever. That said, is the statement about a common ancestor backed up with overwhelming, incontravertible evidence?
Or is it merely an assertion?
Similarly, is the 600 million year figure nailed down?
Or is it also merely an assertion.

I have no agenda. Just curious.