Two jellyfish genomes differ “as drastically as humans do from sea urchins.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 17, 2019

Convergent evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Jellyfish start out in a stationary polyp stage and later develop into mobile medusas.

We don’t make this stuff up. Researchers who wanted to know more about why jellyfish can move around but corals and sea anemones are anchored got some insights into that, via genome mapping—but also some other ones that they had not been expecting. From ScienceDaily:

“We expected that the genome organization in the two jellyfish would be more similar to each other than to the genomes of sea anemones or corals,” said Khalturin. Surprisingly, the gene order in the moon jelly genome resembled anthozoans [anemones] much more closely than fire jellyfish. In contrast, the genetic composition of the two jellyfish hardly overlapped; their genomes differ as drastically as humans do from sea urchins.
The results suggest that the giant box jellyfish genome must have been vigorously reshuffled at some point in its evolution. The dearth of similarities between moon and giant box jellies convinced the researchers that there is no universal region within jellyfish genomes responsible for orchestrating the medusa stage formation [when they can move around].

So there is no Darwin switch. Different jellyfish converge on moving around via different sets of genes.

Now, about why corals and anemones don’t move around?

Remarkably, they found that coral and anemones contain about two-thirds of the genes active in the moon jellyfish’s medusa stage. But moon jellyfish have a special genetic toolkit: an elite arsenal of genes that activate during their medusa stage but are absent in anthozoans. Devoid of a jellyfish stage, corals and anemones lack the genes to grow certain organs and tissues, such as eyes and specialized swimming muscles. The researchers found that water and fire jellyfish share about 100 of these species-specific genes that only switch on in their jellyfish stages. A large proportion of these genes code for transcription factors, proteins that fine tune which genes are expressed, when and in what quantities.Paper. (paywall) – Konstantin Khalturin, Chuya Shinzato, Maria Khalturina, Mayuko Hamada, Manabu Fujie, Ryo Koyanagi, Miyuki Kanda, Hiroki Goto, Friederike Anton-Erxleben, Masaya Toyokawa, Sho Toshino, Noriyuki Satoh. Medusozoan genomes inform the evolution of the jellyfish body plan. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-0853-y More.

Did the jellyfish evolve this elite toolkit or did the anemones and corals lose it?

See, this is what genome mapping does to Darwinian evolution.

See also: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

LoL! @ mimus- News wasn't surprised. The authors of the article were. As I said it appears you didn't read the article at all. The fact that there isn't a known mechanism capable of producing your alleged relationships between animal lineages says your claims are not scientific.ET_{April 20, 2019
April
04
Apr
20
20
2019
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Aha, here's the paper I was looking for the other day,,,,
World’s Simplest Animals As Different From Each Other As Humans And Mice - September 25, 2018 Excerpt: A quarter of the genes were in the wrong spot or written backward. Instructions for similar proteins were spelled nearly 30 percent differently on average, and in some cases as much as 80 percent. The Hong Kong variety was missing 4 percent of its distant cousin’s genes and had its own share of genes unique to itself. Overall, the Hong Kong placozoan genome was about as different from that of T. adhaerens as human DNA is from mouse DNA. “It was really striking,” Eitel said. “They look the same, and we look completely different from mice.” https://uncommondescent.com/genomics/worlds-simplest-animals-as-different-from-each-other-as-humans-and-mice/
bornagain77_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Mimus, you disparage my comments since you cannot refute them. The comments are unambiguous. Darwinism, since it based on no known laws of the universe, does not even qualify a 'normal' science like chemistry and physics do. You claim that the referenced comments by none other than Ernst Mayr, Roger Highfield, and Murray Eden of MIT, are a "scattershot copy-paste assault". The only "assault" those comments have committed are against your belief that you are even doing science in the first place. I don't blame you for being upset and basically responding with ad hominem against me instead of responding with actual empirical evidence (much less pointing to an actual 'law of evolution' that would qualify Darwinism as a science). Number one, you have no actual empirical evidence to support your grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution. Number 2, people living in denial of reality, such as say alcoholics, drug addicts and Darwinists all live in denial of reality, often get very upset with people who point out that they are living in a imaginary fantasy land.bornagain77_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

BA, I'm not trying to be unkind play rhetorical games. I really think there has to be a better way for you to spend your time then this kind of scattershot copy-paste assault. You can, of course, continue to post them, but I don't I'll respond anymore.Mimus_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Mimus, "Maybe just step back from the keyboard or a bit?" Since we are now into giving advice to each other, perhaps you should step away from the fantasy world of Darwinian LSD trips and visit the real world of empirical science? :)
As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.” The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
bornagain77_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

What an odd crowd,
Mimus, are you saying sea urchins Evolved from something and then stopped Evolving?
No. Perhaps the analogy would be helpful to you too. French and Spanish continue to evolve (and in the case of Spanish, for new lineages), the fact they both descent from a common ancestory (Latin) has no bearing on this fact. ET, Yes, I read the piece. Again, my point is that there is not great suprise that two pairs of lineage,s each about 500 million years divergent have approximately the same level of gene-reordering. If News was genreally surprised by this fact she was probably ignorant about the relationships between animal lineages. Marfin, The evidence is easy enought to find. The major split between Deuterostomes (including echinoderms and us) and Protostomes (most other familiar animals) was originally based on shared developmental and morphological traits, and later confrimed by DNA evidence. Fossils and DNA evidence place a date on the divergence. BA, Maybe just step back from the keyboard or a bit?Mimus_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

LoL! @ mimus @ 1:
The headline rather relies on the reader being ignorant of the fact that humans are quite closely related to sea urchins.
The headline was taken from the Science Daily article. It's even quoted in the OP. Did you bother to read beyond the title?ET_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

LoL! @ Brother Brian- Your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. You lose. Natural selection is impotent for anything other than shifting allele frequencies over time within a population. You lose. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing universal common descent. You lose. And ID is still not anti-evolution. Your ignorance, while amusing, is still not an argument.ET_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

"The article itself provides some empirical evidence." No it assumes Darwinian evolution as true. "The fossil record provides more." The fossil record certainly does not provide 'empirical', i.e. experimental, evidence. Moreover, the inferences one may draw from just looking at the fossil evidence, from the Cambrian explosion onward, certainly does not support a Darwinian view of life on earth. "Observervations of natural selection provide more." Really??? Perhaps you should inform James Shapiro of this imaginary observational evidence that you have? Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ "There are thousands of pieces of empirical evidence supporting common anscestry, from disparate fields of study. That is what makes evolution as an explanation so compelling." And there again is the primary problem, Darwinists have no clue what empirical science actually is. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Again, you have ZERO empirical, i.e. experimental, evidence supporting your imaginary belief in common ancestry. Scant search for the Maker – 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282bornagain77_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Margin
Mimus , please show us some empirical evidence that sea urchins and humans came from a common ancestor 500 million years ago, and please do so with using the words , believe, probably, most likely.
The article itself provides some empiricle evidence. The fossil record provides more. Observervations of natural selection provide more. There are thousands of pieces of empirical evidence supporting common anscestry, from disparate fields of study. That is what makes evolution as an explanation so compelling.Brother Brian_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Mimus, are you saying sea urchins Evolved from something and then stopped Evolving? Andrewasauber_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Thus immaterial information is now empirically shown, directly contrary to Darwinian thought, to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it can interact with matter and energy, will never be reducible to, or emergent from, a material basis as is presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian thought. Again, if Darwinian evolution were a normal science, instead of basically being a pseuodo-scientific religion for atheists, this should count as a fatal falsification of their reductive materialistic theory. As to the fact that humans only, out of all the creatures on earth, have a unique capacity for language, the late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by the honest confession by leading Darwinists in 2014 that they have no clue how human language could have possibly evolved, that he wrote a book on the subject., "The Kingdom of Speech",,
“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech
In other words, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure. And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, and plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so. Specifically, the ‘top-down’ infusion of mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades.
Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, ,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf
What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to dominate the world through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. As Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
Moreover, "the ‘grammar’ of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world."
Complex grammar of the genomic language – November 9, 2015 Excerpt: The ‘grammar’ of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world. The findings explain why the human genome is so difficult to decipher –,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151109140252.htm
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability infuse information into material substrates. Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. And that just so happens to be precisely the proof claimed within Christianity.
The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity - Gary Habermas http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/southeastern_theological_review/minimal-facts-methodology_08-02-2012.htm Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to 3-D Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=5 Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' on a Solid Oval Object Under The Beard - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
Verses:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
bornagain77_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

Mimus humorously tries to use human language as an analogy for what he imagines happened in Darwinian evolution,,,
"Saying sea urchins evolved into humans is like saying “Spanish turned into French” because they both descend from Latin."
Human language is perhaps the worst analogy to Darwinian evolution that Mimus could have possibly chosen to use since human language, and the immaterial information inherent in it, is forever beyond the reductive materialistic explanations, (i.e. the just-so story telling), of Darwinian evolution:
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html The Galilean Challenge - Noam Chomsky – April 2017 Excerpt: The capacity for language is species specific, something shared by humans and unique to them.,,, The normal creative use of language is an even more dramatic example.,,, One fact appears to be well established. The faculty of language is a true species property, invariant among human groups, and unique to humans in its essential properties. It follows that there has been little or no evolution of the faculty since human groups separated from one another,,, There is little evidence of anything like human language, or symbolic behavior altogether, before the emergence of modern humans.,,, Our intricate knowledge of what even the simplest words mean is acquired virtually without experience. At peak periods of language acquisition, children acquire about a word an hour, often on one presentation.26 The rich meaning of even the most elementary words must be substantially innate. The evolutionary origin of such concepts is a complete mystery.,,, --- Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT. http://inference-review.com/article/the-galilean-challenge The Siege of Paris - Robert Berwick & Noam Chomsky - March 2019 Excerpt: Linguists told themselves many stories about the evolution of language, and so did evolutionary biologists; but stories, as Richard Lewontin rightly notes, are not hypotheses, a term that should be “reserved for assertions that can be tested.”4 The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,, How far back does language go? There is no evidence of significant symbolic activity before the appearance of anatomically modern humans 200 thousand years ago (kya).22,,, There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong. Recent research reveals that the semantic properties of even the simplest words are radically different from anything in animal symbolic systems.49,,, Why only us?,,, We were not, of course, the first to ask them. We echo in modern terms the Cartesian philosophers Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot, seventeenth-century authors of the Port-Royal Grammar, for whom language with its infinite combinatorial capacity wrought from a finite inventory of sounds was uniquely human and the very foundation of thought. It is subtle enough to express all that we can conceive, down to the innermost and “diverse movements of our souls.” https://inference-review.com/article/the-siege-of-paris Robert Berwick is a Professor in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT. Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT.
Nor do Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, have any clue how the material brain may process immaterial information and/or human language in the first place,
Kept in Mind - Juan Uriagereka - March 2019 Review of: Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity by Angela Friederici Excerpt: Which part of our brain carries information forward in time? No one knows. For that matter, no one knows what a symbol is, or where symbolic interactions take place. The formal structures of linguistics and neurophysiology are disjoint, a point emphasized by Poeppel and David Embick in a widely cited study.2,,, No one has distinguished one thought from another by dissecting brains. Neuroimaging tells us only when some areas of the brain light up selectively. Brain wave frequencies may suggest that different kinds of thinking are occurring, but a suggestion is not an inference—even if there is a connection between certain areas of the brain and seeing, hearing, or processing words. Connections of this sort are not nothing, of course, but neither are they very much.,,, Some considerable distance remains between the observation that the brain is doing something and the claim that it is manipulating various linguistic representations. Friederici notes the lapse. “How information content is encoded and decoded,” she remarks, “in the sending and receiving brain areas is still an open issue—not only with respect to language, but also with respect to the neurophysiology of information processing in general.”5,,, Cognitive scientists cannot say how the mass or energy of the brain is related to the information it carries. Everyone expects that more activity in a given area means more information processing. No one has a clue whether it is more information or more articulated information, or more interconnected information, or whether, for that matter, the increased neuro-connectivity signifies something else entirely.,,, ,,, present-day observational technology does not seem capable of teasing apart these different components of syntax at work,,,, https://inference-review.com/article/kept-in-mind Juan Uriagereka is a linguist at the University of Maryland.
In fact, unlike Darwinian evolution which has no falsification criteria that Darwinists will ever accept, (and is therefore not even a testable science since Darwinists forever refuse to accept any rigid falsification criteria for their theory), the falsification criteria of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is simply the creation of language and/or encoded information by purely material processes. i.e. If Darwinists could ever demonstrate the origin of such "language" and/or encoded information by purely material processes then they would immediately falsify Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. In fact there is currently up to a 5 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
The primary reason why Darwinists will never be able to meet that falsification threshold for Intelligent Design is because immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that, although it can interact with matter and energy, will never be reducible to, or emergent from, a material basis as is presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian thought. In the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, it was demonstrated that knowledge of a particle's location and/or position turns information into energy.
Maxwell's demon demonstration turns information into energy - November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the "Maxwell demon" thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a "spiral-staircase-like" potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,"
Demonic device converts information to energy - 2010 Excerpt: "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content," says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. "This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale," says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
And the following 2018 article states that, “Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics.”
Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency - Lisa Zyga - January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html
bornagain77_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Mimus , please show us some empirical evidence that sea urchins and humans came from a common ancestor 500 million years ago, and please do so with using the words , believe, probably, most likely.Marfin_{April 19, 2019
April
04
Apr
19
19
2019
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Hmmm. So, during the 500 million years while true jellies evolved into box jellies, sea urchins turned into humans?
No. Saying sea urchins evolved into humans is like saying "Spanish turned into French" because they both descend from Latin.Mimus_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

@Mimus says: "Box jellies and true jellies (the two “jellyfish” compared in this paper) are probably separated by ~500 million years of divergent evolution, not much less thatn humans (and other chordates) have been separate from urchins (and other echinoderms)" Hmmm. So, during the 500 million years while true jellies evolved into box jellies, sea urchins turned into humans? Anyone see anything fishy in that assumption/belief? Sea urchins turned into humans in just 500 million years? WOW! Gotta hand it to him for his amazing faith in the power of evolution.tjguy_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Mimi’s
BA. None of the spam you posted explain what gene-order shold be maintained in one pair of lineages that have are ~500 million years divergent (the two jellies) in anotther that is nearly is as divergent (humans and echinoderms). Let alone why this fact should render genome sequencing less useful than thought
You actually read through all of that? You are a better man than I. :)Brother Brian_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Mimus at 11 states that
"None of the spam you posted explain what gene-order shold be maintained in one pair of lineages that have are ~500 million years divergent (the two jellies) in anotther that is nearly is as divergent (humans and echinoderms). Let alone why this fact should render genome sequencing less useful than thought."
So Mimus does not understand the fact that since Darwinian evolution is empirically shown to be false, then that renders his entire just-so story for common descent, via Darwinian evolution, defunct? And he also does not understand that since "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception”, then that renders any further speculation for common descent, via Darwinian evolution, defunct as well??? Okie Dokie... So there we have the problem right there, Mimus has no inkling whatsoever how empirical science actually works. Mimus is a true believer. Even childlike in his faith in Darwinian evolution! :)bornagain77_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

You seem to be stuck in some kind of loop, BA. None of the spam you posted explain what gene-order shold be maintained in one pair of lineages that have are ~500 million years divergent (the two jellies) in anotther that is nearly is as divergent (humans and echinoderms). Let alone why this fact should render genome sequencing less useful than thought. I suspect "News" just jumped on this phrase because she doesn't know much about the history of animals, but please correct if I'm wrong and there is really something to this headline.Mimus_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Moreover, as hard as it is for Darwinian processes to account for chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite, the chloroquine adaptation came at a loss of fitness for the parasite, not a gain.
Metabolic QTL Analysis Links Chloroquine Resistance in Plasmodium falciparum to Impaired Hemoglobin Catabolism - January, 2014 Summary: Chloroquine was formerly a front line drug in the treatment of malaria. However, drug resistant strains of the malaria parasite have made this drug ineffective in many malaria endemic regions. Surprisingly, the discontinuation of chloroquine therapy has led to the reappearance of drug-sensitive parasites. In this study, we use metabolite quantitative trait locus analysis, parasite genetics, and peptidomics to demonstrate that chloroquine resistance is inherently linked to a defect in the parasite's ability to digest hemoglobin, which is an essential metabolic activity for malaria parasites. This metabolic impairment makes it harder for the drug-resistant parasites to reproduce than genetically-equivalent drug-sensitive parasites, and thus favors selection for drug-sensitive lines when parasites are in direct competition. Given these results, we attribute the re-emergence of chloroquine sensitive parasites in the wild to more efficient hemoglobin digestion. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004085
Study after study on microbes (as well as on multicellular creatures), reveal the same insurmountable problems for Darwinists in that their Random Mutation and Natural Selection mechanism is shown to be, as Pauli might put it, 'not even wrong'. And yet, despite the fact that Darwinists are completely bankrupt of any substantiating empirical evidence for their claims, Mimus feels free to infer that "humans are quite closely related to sea urchins". That claim is a complete joke! A joke that apparently everyone on this thread gets save for Minus himself. It is hard for me to believe that some people can be that clueless. Moreover, even if we were to grant, without empirical warrant, that the Darwinian mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection might be feasible, and were to try to derive a evolutionary tree from the molecular and morphological data we find that the molecular data wrecks Darwin's imaginary tree of life:
“Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.” (Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87:991-1024 (2012).) Toward a Consensus: An Open Letter to BioLogos on the Genetic Evidence - Cornelius Hunter - May 27, 2016 Excerpt: One of Venema's basic points (see here and here) is that the genomes of different species are what we would expect if they evolved.,,, What Does the Evidence Say? For starters, phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Genetic sequence data do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits.,,, As one evolutionist explained, "The tree of life is being politely buried.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/toward_a_consen102879.html Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00 "According to a new study partly focused on yeast, the conflicting picture from individual genes is even broader than scientists suspected. “They report that every single one of the 1,070 genes conflicts somewhat,” said Michael Donoghue, an evolutionary biologist at Yale who was not involved in the study. “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast,” he said." A New Approach to Building the Tree of Life - June 2013 https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-approach-to-building-the-tree-of-life-20130604/
Of supplemental note, Darwinists, with their theory being based on reductive materialism as it is, are, with advances in Quantum Biology, found to not even be on the correct theoretical foundation in the first place in order to properly understand molecular biology
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y
And yet, despite all this empirical evidence that completely undermines his theory, Minus, since he is religiously devoted to believing Darwinism to be true, will ignore all of the evidence that falsifies his theory and continue religiously believing, even evangelizing, that Darwinian evolution is true. Sometimes I wish the church had as many Christians on the internet that are as fanatically devoted to Christianity as there are Darwinists on the internet that are apparently fanatically devoted to Darwinism. And given that Christianity has, by far, more evidence going for it than Darwinism has evidence going for it, it really is a shame that we don't see as many Christians boldly proclaiming the truth of the gospel as there are Darwinists on the internet shilling for their imaginary religion..
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
bornagain77_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Mimus sees no problem with his evidence free just-so story telling. Minus simply assumes that Darwinian evolution is undeniably true without even one shred of empirical evidence that it is even remotely feasible. Again Mimus has no empirical evidence! As Jonathan Wells stated, "Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly."
Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form - March 31, 2014 Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/ Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
In the following video, at the 5:55 minute mark, Stephen Meyer states that 'you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.'
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video – 5:55 minute mark https://youtu.be/hs4y4XLGQ-Y?t=354
And here is a excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876
Studies on microbes provide even more damning evidence against the claims of Darwinists than studies on multicellular creatures do:
Darwin vs. Microbes - video https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I
In the following paper, Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, states that 'Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,'
Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
Ann Gauger and Doug Axe have found that Darwinian processes would need a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that requires just a few mutations.
When Theory and Experiment Collide - Douglas Axe - April 16th, 2011 Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
Michael Behe, in his book ‘The Edge of Evolution’, noted that the ability of the malaria parasite to develop resistance to chloroquine is a two mutation event with a probability of occurring of 1 in 10^20. He then notes that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (or 1 quadrillion years)
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
Michael Behe then put what he has dubbed 'the edge of evolution' to be at 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. ,,, Behe puts the edge of evolution at 10^40 since, as he states, 'there have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years,'.
“The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146
On page 135 of his book, Dr. Behe stated that "Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite."
"Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 135
,,,which is a very interesting finding since a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions,,,
The Complexity of Gene Expression, Protein Interaction, and Cell Differentiation - Jill Adams, Ph.D. - 2008 Excerpt: it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions,,, In a commentary that accompanied Stumpf's article, Luis Nunes Amaral (2008) wrote, "These numbers provide a sobering view of where we stand in our cataloging of the human interactome. At present, we have identified <0.3% of all estimated interactions among human proteins. We are indeed at the dawn of systems biology." http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-complexity-of-gene-expression-protein-interaction-34575
bornagain77_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

If humans are much more “closely related” to sea urchins than two jellyfish are to each other, genome mapping is hardly as good a source of information as we have hoped
Why? The relatively close relationship between echinoderms and chordates, and the deep divergences between some "jellyfish" lineages was well known long before anyone sequenced a genome. Why should conservation of gene order over hundreds of millions of years (in one lineage but not another) be important for genome sequencing (not 'mapping' which is an entirety different technique) to be useful?Mimus_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

So that's why the old man on the corner used to call us 'street urchins' eh. I have no idea why Mimas would go there because it's only biologist speak for the two genomes of jellies are very different. No one is trying to pull a fast one. The statement is in the original research abstract. It says nothing about relationship nor is it intended to. I don't like trying to pull significant information from a science reporter (ScienceDaily). But I'm also too cheap to buy an article on an area I'm not really interested in.....still.
"We expected that the genome organization in the two jellyfish would be more similar to each other than to the genomes of sea anemones or corals," said Khalturin. Surprisingly, the gene order in the moon jelly genome resembled anthozoans much more closely than fire jellyfish. In contrast, the genetic composition of the two jellyfish hardly overlapped; their genomes differ as drastically as humans do from sea urchins.
Bold mine. The ScienceDaily reporter slips in the word 'composition' in there among all the words that are referring to organization and order. The word 'overlapped' also is a word more often used when comparing genome organization. Farther down in the SD article we find that in fact both jellies have a lot of the same jelly specific genes not present in the anemones or urchins. Take home. The jellies have the same genes they're just organized differently....a lot differently. What they expected was that gene organization is somehow related to body plan and were surprised that it doesn't seem to matter. This idea comes from the Neodarwinist concept that the gene is everything. Nothing else needed but the gene. All the information is in the gene....Ha! as if. Thus the heritability of epigenetic information was resisted initially as too Lamarckian. (Poor Darwinists can't catch a break.) Now there is resistance to the idea that perhaps much of the information for body plan may in fact reside in the cytoplasm and not in the nucleus. The original authors stumble over this interesting finding that may point to exactly that, pick themselves up, and trudge on to the unsurprising conclusion that the nematocyte gene cluster is highly conserved and phylum specific.Latemarch_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Poor Mimus is just plain ate up with The Narrative and it just spews out uncontrollably. Andrewasauber_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

If humans are much more "closely related" to sea urchins than two jellyfish are to each other, genome mapping is hardly as good a source of information as we have hoped. Clearly, something is missing from this picture.News_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

We are jumped up sea urchins?kairosfocus_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Mimus, "humans are quite closely related to sea urchins" Through some marriages, ya think? Andrewasauber_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Mimus
The headline rather relies on the reader being ignorant of the fact that humans are quite closely related to sea urchins.
On the contrary, your belief that 'humans are quite closely related to sea urchins' is based on your own ignorance. Only in the fetid imaginations of Darwinists, and their evidence free 'just-so story telling', is such over the top rationalization of such contradictory evidence to their theory, not only tolerated, but encouraged in the pseudoscience that is Darwinian evolution.
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” Ernst Mayr – Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought – Nov. 2009 – Originally published July 2000 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 Darwinism Versus the Octopus: An Evolutionary Dilemma - Eric Metaxas - September 08, 2015 Excerpt: What’s the difference between evolutionary theory and an octopus? Well, one is a slippery, color-changing escape artist that can get out of any tough situation and the other is an aquatic invertebrate.,,, The key to this uncanny intelligence is the octopus’ so-called “alien” nervous system, brain, and eyes. But these features are not alien to the animal kingdom at all. In fact, they’re quite common in higher vertebrates. The octopus genome shares key similarities with ours, including the development of high-powered brains and “camera eyes” with a cornea, lens, and retina. Now here’s the problem for evolution: according to Neo-Darwinists, we’re not related to octopi—at least not within the last several hundred million years. That means all of these genes, complex structures, and incredible capabilities came about twice. The researchers who sequenced the octopus genome call this “a striking example of convergent evolution,” or the supposed tendency of unrelated creatures to develop the same traits in response to environmental pressures. Isn’t that just a fancy way of saying a miracle happened twice? But the octopus isn’t the only such miracle. “Convergent evolution” is all over nature, from powered flight evolving three times to each continent having its own version of the anteater. Think about that. As one delightfully un-self-conscious “Science Today” cover put it, convergent evolution is “nature discover[ing] the same design over and over.” Well, good for nature! But as Luskin argues, there’s a better explanation for a tentacled mollusk having a mammal’s brain and human eyes. And that explanation is common design by an intelligent Engineer. And like all good engineers, this this one reused some of His best designs. Now that explanation isn’t going to satisfy Darwinian naturalists. And they’ll probably keep on invoking “convergent evolution” when faced with impossible coincidences in nature. But hopefully knowing a more straightforward explanation leaves you forearmed—or should I said “eight-armed”? http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/darwinism-versus-the-octopus-an-evolutionary-dilemma.html
i.e. Darwinian evolution is not a true science by any reasonable measure but is, in reality, an unlimited exercise in imaginary excuse making by Darwinists for the failures inherent time and again in their theory.bornagain77_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

Two Jellyfish Genomes Differ “As Drastically As Humans Do From Sea Urchins.”
The headline rather relies on the reader being ignorant of the fact that humans are quite closely related to sea urchins. Box jellies and true jellies (the two "jellyfish" compared in this paper) are probably separated by ~500 million years of divergent evolution, not much less thatn humans (and other chordates) have been separate from urchins (and other echinoderms)Mimus_{April 18, 2019
April
04
Apr
18
18
2019
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply