Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa

Anyone with any proposals about the origins of matazoans has to account for the origin of wet electricty- that is the current that runs our bodies. Blind/ purpose-less forces just happened upon the right ions for the job? Not likely. Joseph

Wow. How did that get published without the secret handshake? Jehu

I think it ironic that Darwin's theory works fine, but only in reverse. mad doc

sparc I suggest you heed my prior warning to you about one line replies lacking any explanation of the point you wish to make. DaveScot

Dave, this is a splendid article. Thanks for staying on top of it. While reading it, I got very angry. Sherman presents two very testable hypotheses, which completely flies in the face of the usual, "ID isn't a science. It doesn't have any ideas that can be tested." Isn't it clear that if the Darwinists would open up their labs and their peer-reviewed journals to ID thinking, that ID would generate more and more testable hypotheses? But the Darwinists will have to open up their minds before this will happen; so, lots of luck with that one. Sherman writes this: "Among entirely novel families of genes that appeared in Metazoa are genes associated with formation of body plans, organ development and cell-cell communications, for example HOx, TGFbeta, Wnt, nuclear receptor systems, etc. Some of them are clearly involved in complex developmental programs, associated with bilateral organization. Existing data from morphology suggest that bilateral taxons emerge from organisms with radial symmetery, like Cnidaria. Whether this suggestion is correct or these groups evolved independently, one does not expect to find genes responsible for development of bilateral organisms in primitive Metazoa with radial symmetery" Radial and bilateral symmetry are radically different body types. How do Darwinists explain the presence of needed genes for a bilateral body plan inside an organism that has radial symmetry? What possible evolutionary advantage would these impart? PaV

No citations yet in Google Scholar. Gregor Mendel was ignored for 30 years. Evolutionary biologists as a group aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, evidently. DaveScot

From my reading, Sherman posits an ancestral "universal genome" with some serious coding that produced the diversity that came afterward, via encoded development programs and other systematic parameters. I.E. top-down diversity and variety, not bottom-up. The "universal genome" would be the intelligent designer proxy. You don't have to explain where it came from, if the empirical evidence indicates it's a better explanation. William J. Murray

No citations yet in Google Scholar. Some blogs etc citing: "Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa" Google DLH