Sponge Bob disproves Darwin?

[Hunor]

Hi there,

I'm a programmer and I'm convinced that Sponge Bob disproves Darwin! and yes, I'm serious.


I think biologists are too busy focusing on bacteria and viruses in their small petri dishes and they just can't see the big picture as a whole.
If you open your eyes you have to notice, that there are three levels of organization and complexity in biology:


“- The first level is molecular organization. In every living cell there is a highly sophisticated and complex system in operation, which controls the secretion and organization of different molecules like proteins and enzymes.
- The second level is the multicellular organization. In most multicellular organisms there are different types of cells that must be differentiated and organized in order to assemble and maintain the existence of a multicellular life form.
- The third level is the ecological organization. This level refers to the differentiation and selection of different species. This process is just as complex and vital as the previous levels. We are dependant on plants and insects just as much as we are on blood cells and neurons. Our existence relies on the current specific equilibrium. All kinds of biological equilibrium is possible, and the support of intelligence is not a necessity.
I have to point out, that our equilibrium is not a product of a long-term balancing and tuning process, but during a geologically rapid event - Cambrian explosion - just the right types of organisms happened to evolve and the right kind of differentiations occurred .


It is a fact that the first level of organization is controlled by encoded gene expressions. It is also a fact that the second level is controlled by gene expressions and gene regulations. I think it is reasonable to think, that the third level is also controlled by pretty much the same way. “


The similarity between ontogeny and evolution can't be denied, even Darwin saw an evidence for evolution in embryology. We have to see though, that ontogeny is not driven by mutations, but by precoded instructions.


Isn't it possible then, that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny?


Actually there are solid proofs that this is exactly what actually happened! This is where Sponge Bob comes into the picture. Sponges are the most primitive multicellular animals on the planet, and yet they posses astonishingly rich genetic resources and we share 70% of our genes with them.
The incremental, gradual accumulation of genes is a myth. We can see that a creature that is so primitive as the sea-sponge can have just as complex genome as any other animal. If we compare genome sizes and the number of genes between different species we can't say that birds have more complex DNA than fish or that fish have more complex DNA than sponges. The evolutionary progression is apparent only on the surface, only in physical structures and it's not clearly evincible in genetic information. Genetic complexity is not related to structural complexity.


The most interesting part about sponges is that amongst their thousands of genes, there are many that they should not have: "Curiously, the cells of a sponge bear little resemblance to cells found in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example, sponges lack neurons; however, the sponge genome reveals the presence of many genes found in neurons."
“What are the genes even doing there if they don't have neurons or synapses? We still don't know the answer to that question." said researcher Kenneth S. Kosik. (University of California-Santa Barbara)
Answering Kenneth S. Kosik's question is very easy. These genes are there, because the sponge genome isn't evolved from simple bacterial DNA, but it is degenerated from a genome of a primordial stem cell. They don't have neurons but later, more advanced creatures do, so those genes had to be there.


This is the theory of Pre-Coded Equilibrium


There are huge amounts of additional proofs, if you are interested in them check this blog:
pceq.weebly.com


it is absolutely add-free, you can ban me if you find anything harmful on that site

cheers

[Willowleaf]

"The incremental, gradual accumulation of genes is a myth. We can see that a creature that is so primitive as the sea-sponge can have just as complex genome as any other animal. If we compare genome sizes and the number of genes between different species we can't say that birds have more complex DNA than fish or that fish have more complex DNA than sponges. The evolutionary progression is apparent only on the surface, only in physical structures and it's not clearly evincible in genetic information. Genetic complexity is not related to structural complexity."

I like that you provided such a well thought out debate, but there is a lot to be said about it, mainly what struck my interest was the above paragraph. As a programmer I would think the problem of DNA would be more apparent to you; that is to say, any given animal's genetic makeup is not only its working code, but a log of every other past version, comment or error log, if you haven't already, you should really research the field of evolutionary development, which explains how and why certain things are turned on and off in a genome.

While this doesn't explain every strange gene in say, a sea sponge, it gives us a great grasp of why an amoeba's DNA could fit a platypus's within it several times over, because the amoeba is massively times older and has breed so quickly it has become a catalog of trillions of different versions of the same thing. The same goes for a bird, but in the bird's case it doesn't have a history of growing in tiny pools of water, it has a vastly more interesting history with parts obviously not seen in their physical structure today; like teeth, or genes to make them bigger than elephants. (hence why we think they descend from dinosaurs, genetically it is pretty obvious)

Now to address your discussion in a more general scope, I see some problems with it that I don't see much evidence of how to get around. Namely; one, if you believe that a stew of chemicals got trapped in a bubble and as more chemicals got in the bubble got to big and popped into two smaller ones, eventually creating life, then why would all of known life for infinity be in that one cell, and more importantly, how? (Arsenic dwelling pond organisms do not share their immunity to a known toxin with us nor anything else). Two; if genetics is predetermined how has life survived such devastating events, luck? Take for example any number of mass extinctions, how does life coupe with death if it can't change its predetermined path? Three; if change is predetermined, why does change occur with selection in a population; hybrids, food crops, domestic animals, Mendel's peas, etc.

And finally, if every animal and plant's DNA is coded into every cell; can you fish me out a Plesiosaur sex cell, I want to clone one and release it in a heavily populated, land locked lake just for the laughs. Or perhaps a futuristic virus cell's DNA from a few million years from now, I'd love to bring it into existence early on and reek mass destruction upon the earth with my super-future-virus, Bwhahaha!...

Anyways, nice thread.

[House]

A 30 minute fictional cartoon only proves those who make extensive theories about it to prove or disprove scientific theory are deserving of a Darwin Award.

Anyways, nice thread.

[queenlillian1962]

Hi there,

I'm a programmer and I'm convinced that Sponge Bob disproves Darwin! and yes, I'm serious.


I think biologists are too busy focusing on bacteria and viruses in their small petri dishes and they just can't see the big picture as a whole.
If you open your eyes you have to notice, that there are three levels of organization and complexity in biology:


“- The first level is molecular organization. In every living cell there is a highly sophisticated and complex system in operation, which controls the secretion and organization of different molecules like proteins and enzymes.
- The second level is the multicellular organization. In most multicellular organisms there are different types of cells that must be differentiated and organized in order to assemble and maintain the existence of a multicellular life form.
- The third level is the ecological organization. This level refers to the differentiation and selection of different species. This process is just as complex and vital as the previous levels. We are dependant on plants and insects just as much as we are on blood cells and neurons. Our existence relies on the current specific equilibrium. All kinds of biological equilibrium is possible, and the support of intelligence is not a necessity.
I have to point out, that our equilibrium is not a product of a long-term balancing and tuning process, but during a geologically rapid event - Cambrian explosion - just the right types of organisms happened to evolve and the right kind of differentiations occurred .


It is a fact that the first level of organization is controlled by encoded gene expressions. It is also a fact that the second level is controlled by gene expressions and gene regulations. I think it is reasonable to think, that the third level is also controlled by pretty much the same way. “


The similarity between ontogeny and evolution can't be denied, even Darwin saw an evidence for evolution in embryology. We have to see though, that ontogeny is not driven by mutations, but by precoded instructions.


Isn't it possible then, that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny?


Actually there are solid proofs that this is exactly what actually happened! This is where Sponge Bob comes into the picture. Sponges are the most primitive multicellular animals on the planet, and yet they posses astonishingly rich genetic resources and we share 70% of our genes with them.
The incremental, gradual accumulation of genes is a myth. We can see that a creature that is so primitive as the sea-sponge can have just as complex genome as any other animal. If we compare genome sizes and the number of genes between different species we can't say that birds have more complex DNA than fish or that fish have more complex DNA than sponges. The evolutionary progression is apparent only on the surface, only in physical structures and it's not clearly evincible in genetic information. Genetic complexity is not related to structural complexity.


The most interesting part about sponges is that amongst their thousands of genes, there are many that they should not have: "Curiously, the cells of a sponge bear little resemblance to cells found in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example, sponges lack neurons; however, the sponge genome reveals the presence of many genes found in neurons."
“What are the genes even doing there if they don't have neurons or synapses? We still don't know the answer to that question." said researcher Kenneth S. Kosik. (University of California-Santa Barbara)
Answering Kenneth S. Kosik's question is very easy. These genes are there, because the sponge genome isn't evolved from simple bacterial DNA, but it is degenerated from a genome of a primordial stem cell. They don't have neurons but later, more advanced creatures do, so those genes had to be there.


This is the theory of Pre-Coded Equilibrium


There are huge amounts of additional proofs, if you are interested in them check this blog:
pceq.weebly.com


it is absolutely add-free, you can ban me if you find anything harmful on that site

cheers

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz huh?

[TruthRealityForce]

The fact is, there is no evidence out there for anything besides evolution, so any rational person has to conclude that it is the truth until some other evidence shows up, even if the details aren't completely worked out yet. Why would we expect them to be? Hardly anyone realizes how extremely rare it is for a fossil to be preserved, let alone found, dug up and analyzed.