Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8359
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:30 am

There is this idea, that life on Earth evolved from rather simple forms of life, species of life, into more complex. Surprises in sea anemone genome would say otherwise. To quote from that page I just linked to:

    The genome of the sea anemone, one of the oldest living animal species on Earth, shares a surprising degree of similarity with the genome of vertebrates, researchers report in this week's Science. 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.
Further down it has:

    The authors found that the sea anemone genome contains about 450 million base pairs and 18,000 protein-coding genes. They identified many gene families common to all sequenced animals. "We have this basic toolkit now for the whole animal kingdom," senior author Daniel S. Rokhsar of JGI and the University of California, Berkeley, told The Scientist. "It gives a kind of unity to all animals that I think is kind of surprising."

Heh, a basic "toolkit" common to all animals sequenced. y:-? More confirmation for believing that similar "gene code" or "toolkits" were used across many species, particularly if we throw in how such goes against evolution of a simple to complex progression (rather we have the contrary of de-evolution it seems i.e., "the flies and worms").

Understand, Sea Anemone came onto the scene perhaps around 500 million years ago so far as we know. Anatomically modern humans much more recent, like it is said between 125 to 200k years ago. Here's another article in Nature, Evolutionary biology: Small regulatory RNAs pitch in (requires paid access), but is summarises:

    How did organismal complexity evolve at a cellular level, and how does a genome encode it? The answer might lie in differences, not in the number of genes an organism has, but rather in the regulation of gene expression.

    It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal1, 2 that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone — a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal — is almost as complex as that of a human.

There is another recent thread on the board, to do with humans and chimps sharing 99% DNA (which is really just 99% of 2% of DNA considered "coding DNA"). Evidently, though, even to the naked eye we see very large differences. So declaring similarity, well such is to also be expected not just in Natural Evolution but also within Progressive Creation.

The more important question however, isn't how similar we are, but rather the differences. If we go by such studies above which support a "basic genetic toolkit" for the whole animal kingdom, then evidently the complexity of all species is much the same -- again, as far as protein-coding genes (the non-"junk" coding DNA), genomes in sea anemone are as complex as found in us humans.

Now I'm not saying evolution can't explain such, indeed, I think it can explain anything we come across. While it's a sword to Darwin's Evolution, the theory itself has evolved into something that seems able to cover scenarios we wouldn't predict. Yet, while explanations can exist, such does not mean they have the greatest explanatory power.

To provide an alternative explanation, it's articles like this that make me believe Progressive Creation makes greater sense -- God re-using and adapting genetic code across created species. Rather than a thorough-going evolution, wherein the idea is that things evolve, de-evolution I see is better explains by spontaneous creation (providing the "toolkit" and/or new genetic information) followed by a diminishing of what was created spawning new species through mutations, natural selection and the like.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

thatkidakayoungguy
Established Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:12 am

See this is good evidence for a creator god. Sure it doesn't rule out evolution but ti does give strong support to intelligent design.
My question is why do people deny it so much? I figure it's bc they reject the creator, as stated in Romans 1.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5580
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Byblos » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:45 pm

It says as much about a 'creator god' as the god of the gaps argument says about a creator god. From simple to complex is a fact, not only in recent biological evolutionary processes (and yes, they are considered recent in the grand scheme of things), but also in astro-physical/chemical evolutionary processes that saw first generation galaxies produce simple elements such as hydrogen and helium coupled with nuclear reactions in second generation galaxies producing more complex elements such as carbon and oxygen and later on in third generation galaxies yet even more complex compound elements and molecules such as water. In current (perhaps more materialistic) jargon it is referred to as emergent properties, which is otherwise historically known as the aristotelian/thomistic potentiality being actualized.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

hughfarey
Senior Member
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:48 pm

This is quite an old paper (from 2007), so hardly news, but it is perfectly true that some fairly simple organisms have huge genomes, compared to more complex organisms which have much smaller ones. The "top ten" for genome size include plants, amoebae and fish, and they're all much bigger than ours. Without rather more detailed study, it is difficult to claim that this is an example of 'intelligent design' or 'evolutionary contingency'.

Might I recommend that commenters read the actual paper, rather than the over-excited press release, which muddies rather than clarifies comprehension? The sea anemone in question, Nematostella vectensis, is certainly not "one of the oldest living animal species on Earth". There is no reason to suppose it is any more ancient than any other living species. Certainly there were ancient sea anemones long before there were any humans, and modern sea anemones resemble such few fossils as we have better than humans do, so it is reasonable to suggest that their genomes resemble those of their ancient ancestors. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the ancestral genome is a theoretical model based on investigations into modern ones.

The researchers compared the genomes of the three main eumetazoan branches, cnidaria (represented by Nematostella), protostomes (represented by flies and nematodes) and deuterostomes (represented by humans, puffer fish and frogs). The choice of animals depended on what DNA sequences were available at the time rather than any specific selection. They found that: "Of the 7766 ancestral eumetazoan gene families, only 72% (5626) are represented in the complete genomes of all three major modern eumetazoan lineages". Only 72%. That's quite a close relationship as far as I'm concerned. But also: "We found 1292 eumetazoan gene families that had detectable descendants in anemone and at least two of the three vertebrates, but that appeared to be absent in both fruit fly and soil nematode. This indicates that they were either lost or highly diverged in both of these model protostomes." On the other hand there were 33 genes common to Nematostella and the protostomes but not the deuterostomes, suggesting a much smaller loss of genes by the latter, and 673 genes common to both protostomes and deuterostomes, but not Nematostella, suggesting that they might be the origin of bilateralism, which is lacking in cnidaria.

Kurieou is right that evolution explains all this very neatly indeed, but "explanatory power" is surely a subjective judgement, and I do not deny his right to conclude that sporadic spontaneous creation is a better explanation for him.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:32 pm

hughfarey wrote:This is quite an old paper (from 2007), so hardly news, .....

Might I recommend that commenters read the actual paper,


These comments above are 'vaguely' abusive and a rude reply to Kurieuo, that is uncalled for. It appears hughfarey, that although you take insult easily to the point that you refuse to engage with posters further, eg me, you certainly don't seem to mind dishing it out. One may call that a hypocritical stance.

BTW, a published Nature article is not a press release, and the entirely of evolutionary propaganda is based on similarly published articles.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8359
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:46 pm

Fwiw Mazzy, there is an undercurrent I suppose, but I wasn't offended and don't believe Hugh intended anything more than following his own thought processes in his response which was quite detailed and I found that quite respectful even if we conclude differently.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

hughfarey
Senior Member
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:55 pm

I hope Kurieou didn't feel vaguely insulted at all, especially as I agreed with him in several ways. No doubt he's capable of letting me know if he feels so, or has risen above it. And my point about actually reading a paper was about the press release in The Scientist, which referred to the Research Article in Science, not about the Nature paper mentioned later. As it happens, it did not occur to me when I wrote those words that Kurieou hadn't actually read them - I'm sure he has - it was for the benefit of others.

You see,
Mazzy wrote:unlike you, [insert name here], I actually understand what I'm reading.

hughfarey
Senior Member
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:56 pm

I see our posts have crossed. Many thanks. Now on with the show!

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:30 pm

hughfarey wrote: The sea anemone in question, Nematostella vectensis, is certainly not "one of the oldest living animal species on Earth". There is no reason to suppose it is any more ancient than any other living species.


Maybe you could explain to Kurieuo how a Tiny sea anemone from the Lower Cambrian of China is no 'more ancient' than tetrapods, which are one of those 'other living species'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20967244

What comes out of the research into the sea anemone is that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. Any story or 'theoretical model' can be used to hand wave any falsification away.

The sea anemone is an example of complex life suddenly appearing in the lower Cambrian. In fact bacteria, is a complex factory of reproduction.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20133866

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:35 pm

hughfarey wrote:I hope Kurieou didn't feel vaguely insulted at all, especially as I agreed with him in several ways. No doubt he's capable of letting me know if he feels so, or has risen above it. And my point about actually reading a paper was about the press release in The Scientist, which referred to the Research Article in Science, not about the Nature paper mentioned later. As it happens, it did not occur to me when I wrote those words that Kurieou hadn't actually read them - I'm sure he has - it was for the benefit of others.

You see,
Mazzy wrote:unlike you, [insert name here], I actually understand what I'm reading.


You said the same thing to me as well as Kurieou, regardless of whether or not he was insulted. Nothing you can say would offend me. You are the one that feigned offence and refused to engage with me further..... I'm just pointing that out to you.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:51 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:See this is good evidence for a creator god. Sure it doesn't rule out evolution but ti does give strong support to intelligent design.
My question is why do people deny it so much? I figure it's bc they reject the creator, as stated in Romans 1.


I more or less agree in that organisms are intelligently designed, not necessarily in the theory behind Intelligent Design supporters.

However, evolutionists need to remember that they do not align with the theory of evolution. To do so means one does not believe God planned to ultimately create mankind. Rather, TOE suggests mankind was stumbled upon and could just as easily not appeared at all.

thatkidakayoungguy
Established Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:54 pm

Mazzy wrote:However, evolutionists need to remember that they do not align with the theory of evolution. To do so means one does not believe God planned to ultimately create mankind. Rather, TOE suggests mankind was stumbled upon and could just as easily not appeared at all.

I suppose it can depend on the version of TOE. I figure God intentionally made man. Which is what the bible says.

thatkidakayoungguy
Established Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:02 pm

Byblos wrote:It says as much about a 'creator god' as the god of the gaps argument says about a creator god. From simple to complex is a fact, not only in recent biological evolutionary processes (and yes, they are considered recent in the grand scheme of things), but also in astro-physical/chemical evolutionary processes that saw first generation galaxies produce simple elements such as hydrogen and helium coupled with nuclear reactions in second generation galaxies producing more complex elements such as carbon and oxygen and later on in third generation galaxies yet even more complex compound elements and molecules such as water. In current (perhaps more materialistic) jargon it is referred to as emergent properties, which is otherwise historically known as the aristotelian/thomistic potentiality being actualized.

I get that it is a god of the gaps argument, which thinking back is a reason why many abandon ID. But it does have it's logic.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:38 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
Mazzy wrote:However, evolutionists need to remember that they do not align with the theory of evolution. To do so means one does not believe God planned to ultimately create mankind. Rather, TOE suggests mankind was stumbled upon and could just as easily not appeared at all.

I suppose it can depend on the version of TOE. I figure God intentionally made man. Which is what the bible says.


I also agree that God intentionally made man. :esmile:

As far as the thread topic is concerned, I don't even atheist evolutionists argue the simple to complex line anymore. "Life" is complex. It has to be to reproduce. That to me is one of the best supports for a creationist view that does not accept a molecules to man theme. Observation does not rely on theoretical modeling and supposition.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8359
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:24 pm

Things can get tense in such discussions, but let's not not fight, argue or think the worst intentions of others here. Everyone is entitled to see things how they do. If Hugh sees evolution is good for him, then so long as he understands the facts of the matter, that's his choice. I'm sure he feels the same way vice-versa.

In any case, an important take away I saw is that lifeforms may not necessarily start off "simple". While they might seem that way at a surface-level phenotypically, we see upon deeper inspection that earlier apparently "simple" lifeforms are actually not simple at all, but more complex than worms and flies (the genomes of which lost some intricacy) and as complex as us modern humans.

This I see does directly impact upon the often taught idea within common descent that "life evolves from simple and becomes more complex." This just isn't born out by scientific research, and has been known for some time (as Hugh pointed out these studies go back a decade, and I'm sure I could find earlier). And yet, evolution per se isn't falsified, but adapts and its explanatory story becomes longer. Any legitimate "pre-Cambrian rabbit" being found, and I see we have types of such, don't really make much difference. The evolutionary story just becomes longer and more elaborate, and rather than calling into question the validity of such being the be-all and end-all solution to life's diversity, instead any odd findings will be accommodated and actually be viewed as increasing our knowledge as to the workings of evolution.

Yet, perhaps, at some point we ought to say the explanation is becoming too much. This would require putting one's starting philosophy aside. Sure, I can accept general ideas within evolutionary thought such as natural selection, random mutations and the like, but as a complete solution -- especially considering it's built upon no known natural foundation to life's origin -- sometimes it feels like evolutionary explanations become some long and convoluted explaining data no one previously expected, that it's like witnessing a child tell some long story that keeps changing.

And, what makes me smile are often verbs using the infinitive form as part of many explanations in evolutionary science, which is a constant reminder to me that many cannot break away from an intelligence working behind the scenes. Yes, such papers often ultimately conclude with naturalistic causation, yet their "Freudian slips" in explaining how evolution worked its magic with words like evolution "chose", "tinkered", "recruited", "grabbed" and many other infinite verbs, it just doesn't slide with me, especially when I see an alternative position that seems more reasonable and better fits even with explanations often given with how evolution accounts for [insert unexpected finding].
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest