I don’t find precambrain worm genomes in that article, nor do I find a definition of what you meant by the term “genetic content”.
Of course, using ancestor reconstruction to infer the gene content(number or types of genes, if that is what you meant) of precambrian life entails an implicit acceptance of common descent, and the useability of phylogenies in elucidating those relationships. So what exactly is your argument here, that evolution is false because a phylogenetic reconstruction (which is only possible if common descent is true) of some ancient metazoan genome shows… what exactly, that it had approximately similar numbers of genes as extant animals?
If that is all you’re trying to say, then you’re only about 30 years too late, as that realization based on relatively simple calculations of the rate of molecular evolution, was suggested as early as the mid 90’s, and helped lead to the development of ideas such as diversity in morphological development owed largely and mostly to regulatory evolution in things like HOX genes, instead of being due to expansions in the numbers of unique genes.
Ahh, so you appear to be confusing animal complexity with “genetic content”, by which you apparently think in terms of the number of protein coding genes. This is extremely confused, and just goes to show that you really don’t know the first thing what you’re talking about.
It has been known for quite a long time now that most animals, indeed the vast majority of multicellular eukaryotes have similar numbers of total protein coding genes, and that the majority of differences we see in their anatomical and physiological complexity owes significantly to mutational changes in gene regulation, as opposed to any straightforward direct relationship between protein coding genes and complexity.
This is borne out in a recent paper discussing the evolution of limb-like bones in zebrafish due to mutations in gene regulators. @sfmatheson has a thread on the findings:
it does if we are talking about the first steps from the first single-cell organism.
see above.
in this case we can say that all animals developed similar amount of traits till some limitation. or suppose in stasis for a long time etc.
it was actually the wrong paper. here it again:
“The anemone genome is surprisingly complex, with a gene repertoire, exon-intron structure, andlarge-scale gene linkage more similar to vertebrates than to flies or nematodes.”
“While cnidarians are often characterized as “simple” or “primitive,” closer study of Nematostella and its relatives is revealing considerable molecular and morphological complexity.”
" Thus from a genomic perspective, the eumetazoan ancestor more closely resembled modern vertebrates and anemones"
maybe in a dream. in reality, since the common ancestor of all animals was a single-cell organism- evolution does predict a progression. the problem is that we dont find such progression.
here are again two different trees:
(https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(04)00142-9)
the left one is probably wrong since it base on morphology. and even so it shows a nested hierarchy. so nested hierarchy cant support common descent if we can get it even under a wrong tree.
i already heard about that idea. but remember that no one predict this genetic complexity. and as we know now, many taxa also have many unique genes, so its not just small change in gene regulation.
they are talking about the ancestral species:" Thus from a genomic perspective, the eumetazoan ancestor more closely resembled modern vertebrates and anemones"
sure. but the first animals in the fossils record were already complex like modern animals.
No, evolution doesn’t predict a progression. It does predict that some lineages will increase in complexity while others will decrease or remain the same. And in fact there is an increase in numbers of genes from bacteria to animals. There you go. Why should humans have more genes than jellyfish? You have no understanding of the theory you seek to overturn, and that’s a problem for you.
Does this paper measure the “genetic content” of the sequenced genome of a precambrian worm? I highly doubt it, but if it does, please cite exactly where.
Is it true that any exception whatsoever to a perfect tree constitutes a strong refutation of the theory of evolution?
Or does the theory of evolution have a probabilistic/stochastic nature, such that it makes predictions of strong but imperfect signals?
Also: please give a detailed explanation at both chromosome and DNA sequence level of the expected arrangement of chromosomes in humans, and how they and their contained DNA sequences should be related (if at all) to those found in other animals.
I ask this question because I have not seen any effort whatsoever on your part in this thread to think about the modeling question in a scientific manner. And thinking in a scientific manner would require that you provide an explanation of how any alternative model to evolution would…
make predictions that are logically and intrinsically connected to the alternative model (i.e., not just ad hoc), and
are intrinsically distinguishable from the predictions made by evolution, and
sufficiently detailed so as to be measured quantitatively.
Until you present this alternative model and its detailed, measurable predictions, you have no basis on which to even think about how the data are related to design, evolution, or how to fly a kite.
If you do this well, I will be ready to listen to your criticism of how others are looking at the data. Until then, you’re wearing blinders and have no standing to make a criticism of others, IMO.
If you want to talk how scientific evidence applies to different theories, you have to play by the rules. You haven’t been playing by the rules. I’m sure you’re sincere, but it’s time to add knowledge and hard work to your sincerity.
so now evolution indeed predict a simple to complex progression? that is a progression. im glad to see you now realize you were wrong about that.
what make you think that the precambrian worm had less genes from these primitive species? (which we now know they are no less complex than modern species).
We don’t know that. That is just your misunderstanding of the literature you try to quote rearing its head again. And no matter how patiently the experts in this group try to correct you, it does no good.
Why, gosh, no! We don’t!
So, again: Since you seem to agree we don’t have the genome of a precambrian worm, can you please explain why you believe you know its genome contained as much “genetic content” as yours does?
gear. so you cant claim that worm was less complex than modern animals.
since we now know that even the most ancient animals that we can test their genome content are no less complex than moden animals, and since even a modern worm has almost the same number of genes as human- we have good evidence that that ancient worm was not so different.
Sure we can. Same way we can know that a child’s wooden wagon is less complex than a jumbo jet.
Now you’re back to saying you’ve tested the “genome content” of these ancient animals. How did you do that, if we do not have even a single fragment of a DNA molecule from back then? You are very confused.
Is that what you mean by “Genetic content”? Number of genes? It’d be good to finally get a definition from you.
That does not logically follow. What is the “genetic content” of a pre-cambrian human?
