Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Surprises in Sea Anemone Genome

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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!

Excerpts with my emphasis:

Surprises in sea anemone genome
By Melissa Lee Phillips, The Scientist, 5/7/07

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.”

Comments
Umm just because today's anemones' have X complexity does not mean the anemones' of eons ago had that same complexity. IOW today's anemone genome could very well be the product of culled mutations.Joseph
July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
fross is the front loaded information contained only in the genome? I doubt it. It seems there's too little information in it for the final product. The surrounding structure of the cell, or parts of it, likely serves as a template for daughter cells. I don't know of any successful experiments where the complete compliment of nuclear DNA was replaced in the egg cell of an animal much different from the donor. In other words if you want to clone a sheep you can't do it by putting sheep DNA in a cow egg. It won't be viable. This suggests that there is critical heritable material in the cell other than DNA. Or would you consider outside sources to be a source of information as well. For instance, the culling that is done by natural surroundings, or things that increase/cause mutations, etc. I compare ontogeny to phylogeny as similar processes operating on different scales, particularly the time scale. In ontogeny the environment plays little role except to provide triggers for successive stages of the process. I believe the environment plays the same role in phylogeny - no more and no less. Since the unfolding of the front loaded information isn’t linear, but branches and branches and branches, wouldn’t we see more shared “non-used” DNA among much different species? First of all we don't know what's used and not used. Second we have barely scratched the surface in sequencing all the different organisms on this planet. Third we have barely begun to understand the intricacies surrounding DNA, replication, and cellular function. Fourth I consider it quite possible that as phylogenetic branches unfold there is a progressive loss of potential - i.e. phylogeny is a one way street. The DNA of ancestral organisms in the distant past cannot be examined and we can't presume that any modern DNA is inclusive of everything in ancient DNA. Ontogeny is a self-terminating process and it doesn't go in reverse. Phylogeny may be the same. For all we know it may have terminated already - it hasn't generated anything new much beyond sub-species in recorded history and there hasn't been a new genera generated in many millions of years. Also, if the front loaded DNA isn’t expressed, what’s the mechanism that keeps it from mutating to an unusable form over countless generations? That is the key question. We don't know but we have evidently seen it in operation. In an experiment I've blogged numerous times over a thousand highly conserved sequences between mice and men were deleted from the mouse and to the amazement of the experimenters the GM mice were healthy and indistinguishable by any metric from unmodified mice. The DNA was highly conserved for ostensibly a hundred million years yet it appears to have no selection value. If not selection then what mechanism conserved it? A good question. Sadly no one is pursuing it. The experimental goal was to identify functional non-coding DNA. Since those sequences had no evident function the researchers discounted the methodology used to identify them (conservation between mice and men) and kept on searching for a way to identify functional non-coding sequences. The direction they took was not to discount conservation by natural selection in toto but rather to go farther afield looking for conservation between men and more distant vertebrates - fish, reptiles, birds, and amphibians. russ It might not be possible to tell at what points in time front loaded information was added to the global gene pool. If ontogenesis and phylogenesis similarity holds then it suggests the required information for the preprogrammed diversification process was in the very first cell. Ockham's Razor I think would also have us prefer a one-time event.DaveScot
July 7, 2007
July
07
Jul
7
07
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Dave, at what point to front-loading theories suggest that complex specified information was first added? Was it from the first organism, or at points along the way?russ
July 6, 2007
July
07
Jul
6
06
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
in regard to the front loading hypothesis, is the front loaded information contained only in the genome? Or would you consider outside sources to be a source of information as well. For instance, the culling that is done by natural surroundings, or things that increase/cause mutations, etc. Since the unfolding of the front loaded information isn't linear, but branches and branches and branches, wouldn't we see more shared "non-used" DNA among much different species? Also, if the front loaded DNA isn't expressed, what's the mechanism that keeps it from mutating to an unusable form over countless generations?Fross
July 6, 2007
July
07
Jul
6
06
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
I gave Darwin up in 1998. Too late, I guess, but early enough to wake up from an epistemological nightmare!Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
July 6, 2007
July
07
Jul
6
06
2007
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply