The Sponge is Proof of Creationism

ALMOST two weeks ago, when we wrote Meet Your Ancestor — The Sponge, we didn’t realize that we had stumbled upon a major piece of evidence for creationism. Now we know better.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom, has realized the truth. Our corrected understanding comes from their new article: Are Sea Sponges Mostly Human? Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

For decades, zoology textbooks have described sponges as the simplest form of life that could still be called an “animal.” Therefore, they have also been considered to represent the assumed common ancestor of all animals, from insects and squids to birds and humans.

Well, maybe the simplest multi-celled animal, but we won’t quibble. Let’s read on:

But this DNA comparison, published in the journal Nature, not only found extensive similarities across gene families, but also very similar gene layouts. Sponges have “more than 90 percent of all the genes associated with human diseases,” according to Australian biologist Bernard Degnan, who led the study team.

Yes, that’s what we wrote about earlier. To us — and to everyone else who understands evolution — it was evidence of common ancestry. The ICR creationists have a deeper insight. We continue:

But despite the findings and subsequent admission that sponges can no longer be called “simple,” Degnan called them “simple” three times in the same press release. Clearly, evolutionary indoctrination is so entrenched that affected researchers cannot abandon the standard language, even while trying to explain contradictory evidence.

Huh? Well, never mind that. Here’s more:

In order to form an animal, even one as “simple” as a sponge, an entire host of specified genes and cell parts are needed.

Aaaargh!! It’s specified complexity. How could we have been so blind? Moving along:

If anything, what this international team of researchers discovered was that animals occur as all-or-nothing entities, where the “all” encompasses a very long list of integrated items. Indeed, complicated genes and the precise cell features that they encode clearly show the leap of faith necessary to believe that, without a Creator, a single-cell ancestor took an evolutionary “jump” to become the first fully-fledged animal.

Yes — the evolutionist’s foolish faith in the all-or-nothing appearance of creatures. Here’s the article’s conclusion:

Sponges and humans share so many genes not because they share an evolutionary history, but because they share the same Designer.

Verily, no one can deny it.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “The Sponge is Proof of Creationism

  1. Gabriel Hanna

    These guys are not going to like the results of hitching their religion to the DNA wagon.

    What are they going to do when extraterrestrial life is discovered? It almost certainly will not be DNA based, and if it is the code will be completely different.

  2. “Sponges and humans share so many genes not because they share an evolutionary history, but because they share the same Designer.”
    Could have been written by Casey Luskin or Jonathan Wells, or any other creationist I can think of. Yawn.

    Isn’t it cute when creationists dress up and play scientist?

  3. waldteufel says:

    Isn’t it cute when creationists dress up and play scientist?

    I remember playing “doctor” when I was a little kid, but that’s another story.

  4. Yes, we find the genes in sponges that evolution co-opted to produce supposedly (actually, in some definitions) irreducibly complex organs and systems in more complex animals such as ourselves, and it’s quite naturally evidence for creation (or almost as stupid, for “front-loading”).

    Since they’ve never explained a single thing in life, only making the false claim that complexity = design, well, why stop lying now?

  5. > Sponges have “more than 90 percent of all the genes associated with human diseases,” …

    The ICR is proof that some people are mostly sponges*, so why not the other way around?

    * with Apologies to any sponges that might happen to be reading this. The ICR is not your fault.

  6. the leap of faith necessary to believe that, without a Creator, a single-cell ancestor took an evolutionary “jump” to become the first fully-fledged animal.

    They. Didn’t. Jump. From. A. To. B.

    When will creationists tire of saltational straw-men? I know, it was rhetorical, the answer is never.

  7. I remember playing “doctor” when I was a little kid, but that’s another story.

    I remember playing “doctor” even after I grew up… but I’m not gonna go into that.

    If anything, what this international team of researchers discovered was that animals occur as all-or-nothing entities, where the “all” encompasses a very long list of integrated items.

    Irreducible complexity redivivus! I guess bacteria have become outmoded even with creationists, and they found another dead horse for their… hum, flagellum.

  8. If sponge DNA were incompatibly different from human or other animal DNA, THAT would have created an argument for creation, or at least a second, independent genesis. The fact that it is so similar, requiring only certain modifications to become Human DNA, argues for evolution. The ICR has their logic completely reversed…or, whatever passes for logic in the monkey house.

    Gabriel, I am soooo looking forward to the discovery of that first microbe on Mars, Europa, Titan, Enceladus, or wherever. I hope it happens in my lifetime. Is DNA a sort of inevitable construct of life anywhere, or is it specific to our life? So many questions…

  9. Ed asks:

    Is DNA a sort of inevitable construct of life anywhere, or is it specific to our life?

    My guess is that if carbon is involved, something like DNA is almost inevitable, because that’s the way the molecules assemble themselves. If something else is involved, like maybe silicon (less likely, but said to be possible) then the structure would be different.

  10. [S]omething like DNA is almost inevitable, because that’s the way the molecules assemble themselves.

    Yes — the molecules that make up DNA. An “alien” DNA could be made of nucleotides composed of different bases, and could be coding some totally alien (right…) proteins. And so on. But in principle it should be similar: a copolymer coding something, and having some way to reproduce.

    Yeah, it’s a little vague. Let me put it this way: the chemical compounds involved could be totally different than on Earth; but what they do, and how should be very similar.

    If something else is involved, like maybe silicon (less likely, but said to be possible) then the structure would be different.

    Actually, if silicon is to be involved instead of carbon, the structure should be similar, too. It’s “said to be possible” precisely because, from the whole periodic table, silicon’s chemistry is the most similar to that of carbon. After C, Si is also about the only element with a decent tendency to polymerize… and enough valences to create some fairly complex monomers.

    As a side issue, silicon-based life would most probably need mean much higher temperatures than carbon-based. (Well, much higher in terms of chemistry, not physics…)

  11. retiredsciguy

    Gabriel Hanna says,
    “These guys are not going to like the results of hitching their religion to the DNA wagon.
    What are they going to do when extraterrestrial life is discovered?”

    Not to worry. By the time we get our hands on extraterrestrial living material, all people living today will most likely be dead.

  12. retiredsciguy

    Ed asks,
    ” Is DNA a sort of inevitable construct of life anywhere, or is it specific to our life?”

    There has been speculation that earth’s first living organisms may have been “splashed” off another planet by cosmic impact and arrived here imbedded within a meteorite or comet. If that’s the case, then our DNA is the same as what’s somewhere else in the universe (most likely within our Solar System). Meteorites have been found on earth that are believed to have come from Mars, and others almost certainly did come from the moon.

    Another thought — if other forms of genetic code-carrying molecules are possible in an earth-like environment, wouldn’t it be likely that they would have formed independently on earth? Conditions have been favorable for life on this planet for 4+ billion years. Can anyone think of why the existence of DNA would preclude the development of another form of life material? Just guessing here, but it would seem that if some other molecular structure works as well as DNA in an earth-like environment, it would have developed, and we’d see it around today.

    Then again, maybe it did develop but was more fragile than DNA and didn’t survive some long-ago extinction event. Did Isaac Asimov write about this? Seems like he would have.

  13. retiredsciguy says:

    Then again, maybe it did develop but was more fragile than DNA and didn’t survive some long-ago extinction event. Did Isaac Asimov write about this? Seems like he would have.

    I’ve come across some SF stories with the theme that some totally different life is actually present, but it doesn’t interact with us. Not terribly scientific, but still … I recall one about thunderstorms, but that was rather too fanciful. There are other ideas that have floated around — deep in the earth, rocks and such. I haven’t seen anything like that since those deep-sea vent thingies were discovered, which are practically what you’re talking about. Anyway, I don’t read as much SF as I used to. Aside from that, I don’t think we can be certain that DNA is the whole game on Earth.

  14. Just before seeing the first sponge stories, I was commenting on one of those Louisiana Town Talk letters. The commenter to whom I was responding had said:

    Lower less complex life forms do not appear to “evolve” into higher more complex life forms. Different, yes. Higher, no.
    I have yet to see the report of an organism that has been observed to become more complex, more evolved.

    I responded with this:

    If you are hoping for evidence of some single celled organism evolving directly into a dog or human (or even a sponge), you are living in a fantasy world. Evolution (nature) doesn’t work that way. Species (populations) change over time, becoming new species, then eventually new families, orders and phyla (as previously stated).

    Maybe my sponge comment was inspired.

  15. Lynn Wilhelm says: “Maybe my sponge comment was inspired.”

    The Force is strong in you.

  16. It could be that the advent of DNA was the extinction event for any other form of life, either by out-competing it, or commandeering it in the manner that a virus takes over a cell*. I wouldn’t hold much hope of finding other forms on Earth, but then no one expected extremophiles either.

    * Caution: Statistician talking a wee bit out outside of his field.

  17. And the genes that are different – those are because there was a different designer for those parts?

  18. TomS asks:

    And the genes that are different – those are because there was a different designer for those parts?

    The Designer (blessed be he) has been known to cut costs by sub-contracting some features to less-accomplished designers who are willing to work cheap. The result is often a bit messy, but as long as it works well enough for survival the Designer will accept it.

  19. Interestingly, archae (the extremophile bacteria) have more similarities with the other kingdoms (plant, animal, etc) than Eubacateria do.

  20. In his book “The Eerie Silence”, Paul Davies, who works with SETI, has an excellent overview of the idea that aliens might be among us in the form of microbes which arose from a second genesis. Since we have examined only a tiny fraction of the microbes on earth, there might conceivably be microbes which operate on a different type of DNA or other mechanism which are waiting to be discovered. He suggests looking in extreme environments on the theory that if there is life there, it is probably not our type of life. (on the other hand, we are regularly finding spectacular examples of extremophile bacteria, so our type of life is turning out to be amazingly adaptable). We are really only starting to study the microbial world, beyond those that affect us directly. My understanding is that in any random gallon of seawater there will be thousands, maybe millions, of microbes as yet undescribed by science.

  21. I doubt we will find a different kind of microbe. Well, it might actually be our own fault, right? We look for DNA, and probably also get, by accident, some RNA … hum. Tricky, tricky. Sure it might be that there are current systems exchanging and dispersing energy. We might even know a few of them and still ignore that we could call them “life.”

  22. techreseller

    There are plenty of theories about DNA and non-DNA based life. One DNA based life theory is that the first animal life did not breathe oxygen, but rather used some other element to “breathe”. Their problem was a fuel problem. Once the first oxygen breathing animal evolved, it was faster and more powerful than the existing animals and wiped non-oxygen breathing animals out. Oxygen started as a poison. But it is an explosive fuel allowing a higher metabolism than any likely source. Once something figured how to use it, they dominated the entire available spectrum.

  23. No, no and no again,

    The Egg and Bacon sandwich is proof of The Creator.

    Only divine influence could have inspired man to combine the deep fried arse of a pig with the shat out dead foetus of a chicken slapped between two slices of white and some marge….thus making the perfect all occasion sandwich.

    Fellow Buttyites stand up and be counted! Burn the heathen Wedgies in the frying pan of Our Lords Wrath!!!!