Applying Ocaam's Razor to the Creation/Evolution Discussion

[Waggles]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Genome sequencing shows that, among living organisms, the choanoflagellates are most closely related to animals.^[8] Because choanoflagellates and metazoans are closely related, comparisons between the two groups promise to provide insights into the biology of their last common ancestor and the earliest events in metazoan evolution.

A great deal of speculation about possibilities here - did any of you guys actually observe any of this happening? 

common ancestor is their creator. The mind and power that created them and all life. 

No examination of biology and life ever precludes God. 

[Starise]

This probably isn't a new idea,not  a scientific view. I think God made similarities in many of His creatures. This doesn't expressly mean A. had to come from B. Both A and B came from God. 

[teddyv]

8 minutes ago, Starise said:

This probably isn't a new idea,not  a scientific view. I think God made similarities in many of His creatures. This doesn't expressly mean A. had to come from B. Both A and B came from God. 

True enough, but there is enough genetic evidence to also suggest a common lineage. This also does not preclude involvement of God.

[Waggles]

The problems for the aficionados of Darwin is their inherit unconscious bias - all things must be explained through "natural" methodology because they begin by discounting truth from the equation. Richard Attenborough is a classic example of this when in his docos he highlights (repeatedly) biological design and biological engineering that is marvellous to behold. And yet denies the possibility outright that design and engineering is of God. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRPTYVi5nY&t=545s 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Waggles

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Waggles said:

A great deal of speculation about possibilities here

Nope.   All in genetic evidence.    And we know it works because we can compare genes of organisms of descent known by other means, including observation.

2 hours ago, Waggles said:

did any of you guys actually observe any of this happening? 

The idea that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe is easily disproven by example.   That dodge won't work.  

Would you like to see the next step, the evolution of eumetazoans, with true tissues?  

 

[The Barbarian]

26 minutes ago, Waggles said:

The problems for the aficionados of Darwin is their inherit unconscious bias - all things must be explained through "natural" methodology because they begin by discounting truth from the equation.

Two major errors, in that statement.   In fact, scientists will tell you that scientific methodology will only work for things of the physical universe.   It's remarkable how many creationists believe their own myth of "science explains everything."

Second creationist error is in denying the truth.   Fact is that without that kind of bias, science is able to be open to the truth, whatever it is. 

To be fair, there are a great many creationists who don't accept either of these fallacies.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Next step: eumetazoans and tissues

Science

2006 Feb 10;311(5762):796-800

Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans

Eric H Davidson  ¹ , Douglas H Erwin

Abstract

Development of the animal body plan is controlled by large gene regulatory networks (GRNs), and hence evolution of body plans must depend upon change in the architecture of developmental GRNs. However, these networks are composed of diverse components that evolve at different rates and in different ways. Because of the hierarchical organization of developmental GRNs, some kinds of change affect terminal properties of the body plan such as occur in speciation, whereas others affect major aspects of body plan morphology. A notable feature of the paleontological record of animal evolution is the establishment by the Early "Cambrian of virtually all phylum-level body plans. We identify a class of GRN component, the kernels" of the network, which, because of their developmental role and their particular internal structure, are most impervious to change. Conservation of phyletic body plans may have been due to the retention since pre-Cambrian time of GRN kernels, which underlie development of major body parts.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16469913/

Evolutionary development has, by the discovery of homobox genes, found that major evolutionary changes come about through modification of these conserved developmental genes.

 

Evolutionary conservation of the eumetazoan gene regulatory landscape

Genome Res. 2014 Apr; 24(4): 639–650.

Abstract

Despite considerable differences in morphology and complexity of body plans among animals, a great part of the gene set is shared among Bilateria and their basally branching sister group, the Cnidaria. This suggests that the common ancestor of eumetazoans already had a highly complex gene repertoire. At present it is therefore unclear how morphological diversification is encoded in the genome. Here we address the possibility that differences in gene regulation could contribute to the large morphological divergence between cnidarians and bilaterians. To this end, we generated the first genome-wide map of gene regulatory elements in a nonbilaterian animal, the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by deep sequencing of five chromatin modifications and a transcriptional cofactor, we identified over 5000 enhancers in the Nematostella genome and could validate 75% of the tested enhancers in vivo. We found that in Nematostella, but not in yeast, enhancers are characterized by the same combination of histone modifications as in bilaterians, and these enhancers preferentially target developmental regulatory genes. Surprisingly, the distribution and abundance of gene regulatory elements relative to these genes are shared between Nematostella and bilaterian model organisms. Our results suggest that complex gene regulation originated at least 600 million yr ago, predating the common ancestor of eumetazoans.

The evidence, from a number of different sources, clearly demonstrates that these conserved Hox genes, which were present at the very base of the eumetazoan clade, have coded for all the variety found in organisms of that clade.

This is a daunting problem for special creationism, but one more demonstration of the common descent of all higher animals.

Would you like to see the next step, the evolution of deuterostomes?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Starise said:

This probably isn't a new idea,not  a scientific view. 

It's the way science works.   You hypothesize some explanation, and then try to see if the facts support it.   As you see, genetics provides a way to determine descent.   And it works.   The same process can be tested with organisms of known descent.

5 hours ago, Starise said:

I think God made similarities in many of His creatures.

We can test "similarities" to see if they are "common design" or "common descent."   For example, "Tasmanian wolves" (thylacines) looked very much like real wolves,even down to carnassal teeth, ears, body shape, etc.   But when you look closer, the dental formula is different, the thylacine has a pouch, and a host of other differences. 

And genetics shows that thylacines are more closely related to kangaroos than they are to wolves.   This is a case of analogous structures, or as creationists have it, "common design."   They both evolved to the same lifestyle, so they look and function alike.    On the other hand, the homologies dental formulas, pouch, etc. show that they have a more recent common ancestor with other marsupials (common descent).

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by The Barbarian
eror

[Starise]

I don't think it has to be an either or explanation. No I don't believe we came from apes. No I don't think small ocean dwelling creatures developed on their own into land mammals. In fact, I think the idea is ridiculous and more importantly "God Created" these divisions of creation between animals.

The only play I see as of now is some animals adapt over time. Not into other animals. They adapt to be better suited for their environment.

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

I don't think it has to be an either or explanation. No I don't believe we came from apes.

To be precise, we are apes.   Genetically and physically, we and chimpanzees are a clade with other apes as the outgroup.

6 hours ago, Starise said:

No I don't think small ocean dwelling creatures developed on their own into land mammals.

Actually, there were a lot of other stages there.   Mammals evolved from therapsid reptiles.   There's a huge amount of information showing how this happened.   We can talk about that, if you like.