Sponge Bob disproves Darwin?

[Hunor]

Hi there dear fellow Christians!


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


God bless you!

[God's legacy]

Hi there dear fellow Christians!


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


God bless you!

It's more evidence that intelligent design was behind creation- and that designer was God. Evolution is a fairy tale for atheists.

[decrumpit]

I see you've posted this all over the internet and that Pre-Coded Equilibrium only turns up hits for this post.

Does Pre-Coded Equilibrium hypothesize that sponges "devolved"? I'm quite suspicious, personally.

[Liquid Tension]

I thought the OP title was pretty funny.

[Laish]

Oh man ,I am so disappointed . I was really pulling for Bugs Bunny to disprove Darwin .
Still a interesting read though .
Your brother in Christ
Bill

[Liquid Tension]

I was kinda wondering........where can one get a pair of square pants???

[Hunor]

I see you've posted this all over the internet and that Pre-Coded Equilibrium only turns up hits for this post.

Does Pre-Coded Equilibrium hypothesize that sponges "devolved"? I'm quite suspicious, personally.

True, I've posted this on some other forums as well, I was working on this theory for years and I've published the site 2 days ago so google hasn't indexed it yet. This is a new thing, that's all.

Edit: Oh, and answering your question: yes PCE assumes that every genome we can find in nature today is a degenerated version of an original source, but it doesn't mean that the creatures are degenerated as well. The original source was created in way that even after serious distortions and changes it could still work as intended. One of the methods for achieving this is sexual reproduction. You might find this interesting:

Let's say you have a certain source of information - a book for example - and you decide to make a copy of it. Let's assume that there is no digital or mechanical technology available so you have to copy it on your own. Inevitably you will make some mistakes. Now what if, after you are finished, another person comes along and he creates a copy of your copy, then yet another person creates a copy of the copy of the copy? Imagine the results after - let's say - 10 million iterations! It is very likely that the final copy wont have too much to do with the original source. But if we make some rules it is possible to get more favourable results. Let's say we forbid to make a copy by one source alone, and we establish the following rule: one may create a copy if, and only if she/he finds two distinct sources which are word by word compatible. Probably it will take much longer to reach the same number of iterations, but it is sure that the final copy will be way more accurate than in the previous case.
This is a very simplified description of sexual reproduction. The purpose of sexual reproduction is to preserve the initial information, to preserve a certain state and layout of genes and genetic instructions. Sexual reproduction doesn't leave too much room for divergences. Biologists make a huge mistake when they extrapolate changes that they observe on bacterial populations to macro evolutionary levels, not only because the differences between reproduction rates are astronomical (if we compare bacteria to vertebrates), but because they completely ignore that sexual reproduction is not as forgiving towards mutations and divergences as fission.
On the Darwinian account sexual reproduction is a self-defeating mechanism. On wikipedia there is the following statement on this matter: “The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle.”7 The presence of genders sets up very strict limits for evolution. If an organism that reproduce this way is born with certain mutations - it's no matter if those changes make it the fittest, strongest, smartest animal ever lived -, and its DNA diverges from the rest of its species, it wont be able to reproduce. This is huge evolutionary drawback. Sexual reproduction also cause tremendous vulnerability against extinction. If an environmental catastrophe or a disease decimates a population and only a few members survive - the most resistant and fittest ones -, it is possible that the survivors consist only of members of a certain gender, and thus the whole species go extinct. This situational and circumstantial nature of sexual reproduction cause a huge evolutionary disadvantage. You always have to find a member of the opposite gender to reproduce. The genetic diversity and possibility of gene exchange/combination can not justify these tremendous drawbacks, since bacteria have much simpler and more effective ways to achieve the same results. Horizontal gene transfer and bacterial conjugation make them capable of exchanging genetic information between each others. If evolution is true, why hasn't this system advanced forward, why do we have a way more complicated and more circumstantial system?

[Hunor]

It's more evidence that intelligent design was behind creation- and that designer was God. Evolution is a fairy tale for atheists.

You are quite right that if evolution is fairy tale, it is not possible that evolved space aliens brought the first cells here (as Richard Dawkins mentoned), because evolution does not work. God is the only option that remains.

[Athanasius]

Darwin will never be wholly disproved, because some aspects of the theory of evolution are incontrovertible.

You can now return to your silliness.

[decrumpit]

True, I've posted this on some other forums as well, I was working on this theory for years and I've published the site 2 days ago so google hasn't indexed it yet. This is a new thing, that's all.

Sounds good.

n the Darwinian account sexual reproduction is a self-defeating mechanism. On wikipedia there is the following statement on this matter: “The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle.”7

The original article is saying that sexual reproduction is a mystery to evolution as to why it evolved, not how it works. The hows of sexual reproduction are well known.

The problem with this conjecture is that you don't construct a new theory explaining all of life in a few blog posts using gimmicky titles. Even if we leave aside the validity of evolution at the moment, evolutionary biology can explain why humans and sponges share DNA - common ancestry. Additionally, evolutionary biology never said that larger genomes equal more complex organisms.

But this theory really collides with scripture in that there is no single original life that devolved into all organisms. If you publish peer-reviewed articles about this or manage to publish some scientific research, then you might be getting somewhere. But the fact you have come to non-specialists shows you have no idea of how science actually works. This is hucksterism, or just trying to get blog hits.

Everyone else, save your time. Don't read this stuff.

[Hunor]

Sounds good.



The original article is saying that sexual reproduction is a mystery to evolution as to why it evolved, not how it works. The hows of sexual reproduction are well known.

The problem with this conjecture is that you don't construct a new theory explaining all of life in a few blog posts using gimmicky titles. Even if we leave aside the validity of evolution at the moment, evolutionary biology can explain why humans and sponges share DNA - common ancestry. Additionally, evolutionary biology never said that larger genomes equal more complex organisms.

But this theory really collides with scripture in that there is no single original life that devolved into all organisms. If you publish peer-reviewed articles about this or manage to publish some scientific research, then you might be getting somewhere. But the fact you have come to non-specialists shows you have no idea of how science actually works. This is hucksterism, or just trying to get blog hits.

Everyone else, save your time. Don't read this stuff.

I don't know why you are so hostile to suggest others not to even read my post. My site has no adds, so I don't profit from views at all, my goal is to provide an alternative theory for thinking ppl. You clearly don't understand at all what this is about, It's not not a single original life devolved into all organisms.

if PCE is true, then what we see on earth today is a result of a precoded terraformation and inhabitation of a once lifeless planet by the right differentiation and selection of organisms, to maintain equilibrium, and eventually support intelligent life.

You also very wrong when you assert that "The hows of sexual reproduction are well known." This is simply not true.

“To date, many of the genes involved in meiotic recombination have been identified and the mechanistic basis of recombination have begun to emerge. However, the mechanisms that regulate recombination are poorly understood. Particularly, little is known about the control of genomewide recombination rates.”8 Edward S. Buckler

And common ancestry doesn't explain why sponges have neuron genes, when they don't have neurons and synapses. Evolutionary biology is constantly misinterpreting the facts to make them look like if they would fit in the evolution theory when they clearly don't, but you have to dig deeper to see these fallacies, you have to filter out the facts from the swamp within they are covered in darwinian preconceptions, assertions and wild speculations. The point of my site is to point out the true facts behind the darwinian framework.

[decrumpit]

You also very wrong when you assert that "The hows of sexual reproduction are well known." This is simply not true.

You can search Wikipedia, buy any of hundreds of books from Amazon and then finish up on PubMed.com and read about HOW sexual reproduction works. What you have stated is a small part of a small part of sexual reproduction that is poorly understood and tried to build a theory on it. What evolutionary science is uncertain of is WHY sexual reproduction evolved. Like gravity, we are quite certain of the "how" without knowing the why.

Just a few points:

1. Saying that "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." Is like saying that Mozart used the notes C and D in his music, and Justin Bieber used C and D in his music, therefore Mozart wrote Justin Bieber's music.

2. Do you understand how science works? Science isn't something where you can just post stuff for non-professionals (I doubt any of us is a specialist in recombination, and probably only a handful of us even know what it is) and hope to get a following from below. Since I am not a professional, I acknowledge your theory could be correct, but this isn't the place to be validating it or spreading it. If this is a real theory, you should do your best to get it published and read by some folks in the scientific community (or the Christian scientific community, if you think naturalism in the mainstream scientific community will make them reject you outright).

3. Scientific work is introduced by an abstract (basically saying your core thesis and findings) and proceeds material backing it up. You are presenting your work like it is something you want to sell. Tired of stains on your clothes? Are you frustrated that you can't through metal and plastic? etc. If it is not famous, it doesn't deserve a cliff notes version yet.

4. I also don't know your credentials but if you plan on destroying an entire scientific system that has been in place over the last hundred and fifty years, it would be helpful to be involved with a university so you can have some professors to help you.

[Free Indeed]

I thought the OP title was pretty funny.

So is his hypothesis.

[BrianW]

I like a good joke as much as the next guy but let's not be disrespectful.

[Fenris]

He lives in a pineapple under the sea