Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Where Did Sea Anemones Get Human Genes?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Another surprise for Darwinists has been found in the genome of the lowly, primitive sea anemone.

In an article published in Science and summarized here
we discover that:

The newly decoded DNA of a few-centimeter-tall sea anemone looks surprisingly similar to our own, a team led by Nicholas Putnam and Daniel Rokhsar from the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, reports on page 86. This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.

The work is truly stunning for its deep evolutionary implications,” says Billie Swalla, an evolutionary developmental biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Ill say it is. Just how the heck is the Darwinian paradigm going to explain this? Advanced genetic programs installed before there was any chance of natural selection acting on them. Yikes! Another finding in the real world not predicted by, or even possible within, the Darwiniam paradigm. Another surprise for Darwinists.
Sooner or later they’ve GOT to start questioning underlying assumptions. (Naive, ain’t I?)

One of the big surprises of the anemone genome, says Swalla, is the discovery of blocks of DNA that have the same complement of genes as in the human genome. Individual genes may have swapped places, but often they have remained linked together despite hundreds of millions of years of evolution along separate paths, Putnam, Rokhsar, and their colleagues report.

To repeat the obvious question, where the heck did these codes come from?

Moreover, the anemone genes look vertebratelike. They often are full of noncoding regions called introns, which are much less common in nematodes and fruit flies than in vertebrates. And more than 80% of the anemone introns are in the same places in humans, suggesting that they probably existed in the common ancestor.

Inrons again. Funny how these sections of “junk DNA” keep turning up, conserved over hundred of millions of years, with no physical expression of them for natural selection to work on.

Finnerty and his graduate student James Sullivan also looked in the anemone genome for 283 human genes involved in a wide range of diseases. They will report in the July issue of Genome that they found 226. Moreover, in a few cases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA2, the anemone’s version is more similar to the human’s than to the fruit fly’s or to the nematode’s.

I didn’t even know anemones had breasts. 🙂

As a bottom line for the implications of this research, this line bears repeating:

This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.

I need not add (but will anyway, for anyone who needs it spelled out) that Darwinism has NO explanation for where these complex genes came from. How can you have a program to build complex multicellular creatures before there are any such creatures for natural selection to work on? How can you select mutations and build gene programs before there is expression of the genes? Hmmmm?

We see complex programs available and installed BEFORE any expression that could be acted on by natural selection.

As the genius in Princess Bride liked to say; “Inconceivable!”

At least if you’re a Darwinist.

(Acknowledgment to Brig Klyce’s website for pointing out this very interesting article.)

Comments
Here's two stunning quotations from the article: We cannot rule out the possibility, however, that such apparently animalspecific introns were indeed present in the last common ancestor of plants, fungi, and animals, but were convergently lost in both plants and fungi. And, then, later on: Where did the eumetazoan gene repertoire come from? Nearly 80% (6182 out of 7766) of the ancestral eumetazoan genes have clearly identifiable relatives (i.e., proteins with significant sequence homology and conserved domain architecture) outside of the animals, including fungi, plants, slimemolds, ciliates, or other species available from public data sets (32). These are evidently members of ancient eukaryotic gene families that were already established in the unicellular ancestors of the Metazoa and are involved in core eukaryotic cellular functions. Plant genes in the anemone? How do you spell F-R-O-N-T-L-O-A-D-I-N-G?PaV
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST
Sooner or later they've GOT to start questioning underlying assumptions. (Naive, ain't I?) LOL You Know a while back I would of said you had a shot at convincing, or at least raising some suspicion, in some evolutionists but now I realize that the brainwashing in truly deep in some of these people and no amount of clear reasoning can get through to them.bornagain77
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PST
ex-xian asked "…do people actually read the articles before declaring they falsify evolution?" I wasn't aware that anyone made such a claim. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?TRoutMac
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PST
ex-xian, I don't think you fully get it. Those of us at UD (for the most part) have been following the NDEvo/creo and now NDEvo/ID debates for a long time. We are well versed in NDE and have long been making predictions of these sorts of things. Dembski and others have been doing the theoretical work which was dismissed by NDE proponents. So when we see stories such as this, they are just more emprical findings confirming predictions of ID. We see these sorts of stories all the time. Some of them, when contested, are read thoroughly and discussed in detail. Others are just "Ok, so Darwinism is surprised again, what else is new?" Neo-Darwinism is already falsified (in myriad ways...stick around and pay attention); new findings are fun, because they show just how "onto something" ID really is.Atom
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PST
Good find dacook. "How many times can we be surprised/ At what we find in the lab/ Oh, how many times can our theory guess wrong/ Before we admit we were scammed/ And how many times can we count on the courts/ To shelter our theory from the banned/ The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind/ The opposite of inherit the wind..."Atom
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PST
[off topic] Sorry to ask, but is there a way to get the blogs to come directly to my email inbox? Not just the link, but the actual article? thxjpark320
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PST
Thank you Dr. Cook! Great article that goes to show there might be something other than evolution at play. In fact, I was looking around for a sea anenome article for some pro-ID stuff, so thank you for the links PS Can you get me an Ortho residency :Pjpark320
August 27, 2007
August
08
Aug
27
27
2007
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply