Surprises in sea anemone genome

[bob b]

NEWS
Surprises in sea anemone genome By Melissa Lee Phillips
The genome of one of Earth's oldest animal species shares genes, features with vertebrate genomes

THE SCIENTIST
[Published 5th July 2007 07:45 PM GMT] http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53364/

The genome of the sea anemone, one of the oldest living animal species on Earth, shares a surprising degree of similarity with the genome of vertebrates, researchers report in this week's Science.

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.

"What's exciting about this paper is that you're seeing the footprints of that ancient organization, reaching back perhaps 700 million years, which is an enormous expanse of evolution," said David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the work.

-----------

Apparently all the "neat stuff" was present prior to the earliest forms in the fossil record (the Early Cambrian).

Makes sense, or does it?

 

[The Barbarian]

More evidence for the common descent of all living things on Earth. Thank you, bob.

 

[SUTG]

Yeah, thanks for the evidence, Mr. Bend.

 

[Skeptic]

NEWS
Surprises in sea anemone genome By Melissa Lee Phillips
The genome of one of Earth's oldest animal species shares genes, features with vertebrate genomes

THE SCIENTIST
[Published 5th July 2007 07:45 PM GMT] http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53364/

The genome of the sea anemone, one of the oldest living animal species on Earth, shares a surprising degree of similarity with the genome of vertebrates, researchers report in this week's Science.

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.

"What's exciting about this paper is that you're seeing the footprints of that ancient organization, reaching back perhaps 700 million years, which is an enormous expanse of evolution," said David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the work.

-----------

Apparently all the "neat stuff" was present prior to the earliest forms in the fossil record (the Early Cambrian).

Makes sense, or does it?

It makes sense that some "neat stuff" was present prior to the earliest forms in the fossil record, because lots of the "neat stuff" is not likely to have ever fossilized. But this does not imply that this "neat stuff" did not evolve out of simpler stuff.

The widely held belief that organisms always become more complex through evolution is incorrect.

Evolution does not necessitate a drive toward complexity. If there were such an inherent drive, there would be no bacteria. Sometimes, as organisms become more or less specialized, they become less complex.

Living things change over time, and sometimes they become more complex or specialized, and other times they become less complex or less specialized. There is no inherent "direction" to evolution. However, in another technical sense, things by definition evolve from primitive to advanced, because this means only that when a lineage changes, the older trait is called "primitive" and the later trait is called "advanced" or "derived". But the later trait might be a lessening of an organ or the loss of an ability, like the loss of sight in cave fish and insects.

source

We sometimes think that evolution leads to ever-greater degrees of complexity. But limb reduction shows how animal structure can become less complex even though it becomes more specialized. The more limb-reduced a species is, the more specialized it is, but at the same time, it is less complex than its more fully-limbed ancestors. Snakes are another group of lizards. They probably evolved from an ancestor similar to a goanna and, like some other lizards, are almost limbless. However, not all snakes are limbless. Some species, like our pythons, retain the trace of a rear limb, noticeable as a small claw near the anal opening which they use in courtship.

source

 

[bob b]

So now we see from this latest example that evolutionists are forced to admit that all of the "neat stuff", the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system and much more must have "evolved" far back beyond what is known from the fossil record.

In other words the only reason they believe this stuff is not because of direct evidence but only because of the dogma that science can only deal with the "natural" world; ergo everything must have evolved from some hypothetical primitive protocell even though there is not a shred of direct evidence to support this belief.

The alternative is of course unthinkable, because it implies that there is something beyond this natural world.

 

[Real Sorceror]

So now we see from this latest example that evolutionists are forced to admit that all of the "neat stuff", the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system and much more must have "evolved" far back beyond what is known from the fossil record.

In other words the only reason they believe this stuff is not because of direct evidence but only because of the dogma that science can only deal with the "natural" world; ergo everything must have evolved from some hypothetical primitive protocell even though there is not a shred of direct evidence to support this belief.

The alternative is of course unthinkable, because it implies that there is something beyond this natural world.

Bob, get real. Thats just sad. :nono:
You treat every new discovery as a failure of evolutionists rather than an advancement in scientific knowledge.
And no, this discovery does not imply "something beyond the natural world". Skeptic has already given you a more than adequete explaination.

 

[bob b]

Bob, get real. Thats just sad. :nono:
You treat every new discovery as a failure of evolutionists rather than an advancement in scientific knowledge.

Actually it is both: an advancement in scientific knowledge AND a failure of evolutionary theory.

The more we learn the less credible the silly idea that all life evolved from a single hypothetical primitive protocell becomes.

 

[SUTG]

bob's right. The theory of gravity was also refuted this week.

 

[Skeptic]

So now we see from this latest example that evolutionists are forced to admit that all of the "neat stuff", the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system and much more must have "evolved" far back beyond what is known from the fossil record.

Would you expect to find such early "neat stuff" in the fossil record?

Is it a legitimate question to ask where this "neat stuff" came from?

If yes, then is it not also a legitimate endeavor to look for possible natural processes that might have resulted in this "neat stuff"? ... Or should we assume such "neat stuff" (because it is so "neat") could not possibly have resulted from natural processes?

In other words the only reason they believe this stuff is not because of direct evidence but only because of the dogma that science can only deal with the "natural" world; ergo everything must have evolved from some hypothetical primitive protocell even though there is not a shred of direct evidence to support this belief.

No, the reason why they believe that this "neat stuff" most likely evolved is because this is a plausible explanation.

There is plenty of indirect evidence to support this plausible explanation. Here's a list of reasons why it is plausible that this "neat stuff" arose from natural processes:

1. there is no evidence for supernatural processes,
2. the only evidence we have for anything consists of natural processes,
3. life is composed of strictly natural (material) elements, like organic molecules,
4. there is plenty of evidence for the abiotic production of organic molecules,
5. there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of macromolecules,
6. there are plenty of legitimate empirical questions remaining to be answered,
7. there is no scientific reason to stop the search for these answers.

The alternative is of course unthinkable, because it implies that there is something beyond this natural world.

It's not unthinkable. ... Think away to your heart's content. .... But don't expect people to seriously consider unfounded supernaturalistic explanations for physical things and events, when there are plenty of plausible naturalistic explanations that have yet to be explored.

A good rule of thumb is to look for the natural first, then consider the supernatural when all possible natural explanations have been thoroughly investigated. ..... So far, science has only scratched the surface in its investigations of the origins of "neat stuff." ... And it is foolish and entirely premature to expect conclusive results of these investigations in our lifetime.

 

[Wootenfan]

bob_b,

Hi I'm wootenfan. I'm new to this forum but I've seen many of your "scientific problem x" threads and I've been trying to figure out the point to them. I mean you're preaching to the choir on a religious forum, aren't you? Why not take your case to where it might make a difference. Publish some papers for peer review. That's how scientists decide what's good and bad information. They publish papers for each other to read and invalidate. Take your local school district to court because they're teaching lies to children....lies that contradict your sacred and holy bible! For goodness sake, bob_b, the longer you wait the more kids will be taught the universe evolved over billions of years and life naturally formed and evolved on our planet! Why don't you do something?

I think I know why...because you know you're wrong and you don't want to face it

Serouisly, go make some noise about your wacky ideas about the universe and everything in it. It'll be good entertainment. See you at the next Dover trial.

 

[death2impiety]

bob_b,

Hi I'm wootenfan. I'm new to this forum but I've seen many of your "scientific problem x" threads and I've been trying to figure out the point to them.

Must have gone to public school...

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Actually it is both: an advancement in scientific knowledge AND a failure of evolutionary theory.

The more we learn the less credible the silly idea that all life evolved from a single hypothetical primitive protocell becomes.

Bob, this is really getting sad. None of this shows anything you calim it does. ToE is still the hands down best scientific explaination for life on this planet and you're starting to sound desperate and smug at the same time.

 

[bob b]

Bob, this is really getting sad. None of this shows anything you calim it does. ToE is still the hands down best scientific explaination for life on this planet and you're starting to sound desperate and smug at the same time.

The reason that the ToE is the best scientific explanation is that people have come to beieve that scientific explanations must be natural.

Thus, the ToE is the best scientific (naturalistic) explanation, but in this case the best is none too good. In fact it is getting sillier and sillier as more about how lifeforms work is discovered by the microbiologists.

The best explanation is actually that life was created in multiple fairly advanced types at the very beginning.

Give God the glory He so richly deserves.

 

[Andre1983]

NEWS
Surprises in sea anemone genome By Melissa Lee Phillips
The genome of one of Earth's oldest animal species shares genes, features with vertebrate genomes

THE SCIENTIST
[Published 5th July 2007 07:45 PM GMT] http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53364/

The genome of the sea anemone, one of the oldest living animal species on Earth, shares a surprising degree of similarity with the genome of vertebrates, researchers report in this week's Science.

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.

"What's exciting about this paper is that you're seeing the footprints of that ancient organization, reaching back perhaps 700 million years, which is an enormous expanse of evolution," said David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the work.

-----------

Apparently all the "neat stuff" was present prior to the earliest forms in the fossil record (the Early Cambrian).

Makes sense, or does it?

This was funny:
[Published 5th July 2007 07:45 PM GMT] http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53364/
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.

Basicly:
Flies and other insects have lost genetical complexity in favor of smaller genomes, most likely because land-living regenerating poisonous anemones that stick to the ground and feed from nearby fish have trouble finding food on-land... so they loose the poison, they loose their regeneration... and farking *adapt* to the new environment in the process :thumb: .

Now.
You have proved that widely held non-scientific and nondocumented beliefs -- much like your christianity and young-earth-creationism -- doesn't fit with the new evidence.

Yet you've failed to produce anything against the *theory of evolution* -- as theories don't rely on beliefs, only on evidence -- meaning that The-Scientist just provided us with more belief-shattering evidence for how evolution works...

Thanks for helping us remember that belief without real-world evidence is a dangerous road :thumb:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The reason that the ToE is the best scientific explanation is that people have come to beieve that scientific explanations must be natural.

:duh: That's what makes it science and not religion.

Thus, the ToE is the best scientific (naturalistic) explanation, but in this case the best is none too good. In fact it is getting sillier and sillier as more about how lifeforms work is discovered by the microbiologists.

You keep saying that as though it will become true. It's like some creationsist "Waiting for Godot". Any day now, evidence will come along that will destroy ToE. Yep... any day now.

The best explanation is actually that life was created in multiple fairly advanced types at the very beginning.
Not, it isn't. Sorry, but that explains nothing and doesn't even fit the evidence.
Give God the glory He so richly deserves.

 

[bob b]

This was funny:
[Published 5th July 2007 07:45 PM GMT] http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53364/
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.

Basicly:
Flies and other insects have lost genetical complexity in favor of smaller genomes, most likely because land-living regenerating poisonous anemones that stick to the ground and feed from nearby fish have trouble finding food on-land... so they loose the poison, they loose their regeneration... and farking *adapt* to the new environment in the process :thumb: .

Now.
You have proved that widely held non-scientific and nondocumented beliefs -- much like your christianity and young-earth-creationism -- doesn't fit with the new evidence.

Yet you've failed to produce anything against the *theory of evolution* -- as theories don't rely on beliefs, only on evidence -- meaning that The-Scientist just provided us with more belief-shattering evidence for how evolution works...

Thanks for helping us remember that belief without real-world evidence is a dangerous road :thumb:

I think that you have just said that evolution predicts that creatures get more complex, except when they don't (or don't even change over millions of years).

A theory that predicts everything actually predicts nothing.

When will you people ever learn that "just so" stories are not science ?

 

[Wootenfan]

Give God the glory He so richly deserves.

15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Glory to the #1 abortionist of all time!

We eat, drink and breath out of the same hole. A percentage of us choke because of this. Glory to the worst designer of all time!

 

[bob b]

15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Glory to the #1 abortionist of all time!

I would give the "credit" to mutations, of which most lines of human descent have accumulated many in just a few thousand years.

We eat, drink and breath out of the same hole. A percentage of us choke because of this. Glory to the worst designer of all time!

I would give the "credit" for this to being drunk or high on drugs or gorging oneself instead of eating normally using small bites.

I've noticed that people who argue "bad design" rarely tell us what DNA changes they would make to fix the so-called "problem" in the developing embryo.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I think that you have just said that evolution predicts that creatures get more complex, except when they don't (or don't even change over millions of years).

A theory that predicts everything actually predicts nothing.

When will you people ever learn that "just so" stories are not science ?

When you will learn that these vague simplifications do not represent ToE in any real way and that you are swinging against a strawman formed from your own desires? Where in ToE does it say that organisms well-adapted to their enviroments would change? Why and how would they do so if there is no enviromental pressure to do so? You are the one offering "just so" stories- God created multiple types, blah blah blah. You aren't even pretending to be interested in real science that doesn't further your thinly-veiled religious agenda.

 

[bob b]

When you will learn that these vague simplifications do not represent ToE in any real way and that you are swinging against a strawman formed from your own desires? Where in ToE does it say that organisms well-adapted to their enviroments would change? Why and how would they do so if there is no enviromental pressure to do so? You are the one offering "just so" stories- God created multiple types, blah blah blah. You aren't even pretending to be interested in real science that doesn't further your thinly-veiled religious agenda.

There you go again !

"Where in ToE does it say that organisms well-adapted to their enviroments would change?"

Because if they were well adapted they wouldn't change.

And how do we determine scientifically if they were well adapted?

Because if they weren't they would change, whereas if they were they wouldn't change.

But how do we actually tell?

We look and see, and that tells us which is which.

Wow, aren't "scientific" explanations wonderful?