Acropora millepora: genetic findings "surprise" scientists

http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?u...The authors of this study state that their findinds are "paradoxical" due to inconsistency between the organism's "simplest extant organism" and it's genetic complexity. They state this "complexity is particularly surprising given the morphological simplicity of the coral nervous system", and go as far as to claim their findings appear "to turn upside down several preconceived ideas about the evolution of animal genomes."The authors are evolutionists themselves. My questions to start this off are:What preconceived ideas do they think appear to have been overturned?Why do they think their findings are "particularly surprising" and "paradoxical"? What specific facts are they referring to?What specific genetic complexity are they referring to and how did it get there? For example, they discuss at length comparisions between the human genome and some others, and they draw conclusions about the theoritical common metazoan ancestor.Note: Please do not request any creationist or ID explanations for the facts presented in the study as I have been warned that will not be allowed. We are discussing what the findings are, how they appear to overturn preconceived ideas of the evolution of animal genomes, and what all that entails. So we will be working within the given assumptions of universal common descent, evo dating techniques, etc,.... for sake of argument.Some additional links:PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning CompanyPage not found | Research & Innovation | University of AdelaideEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : small correction

In your previous proposal I explained that I would not promote a thread where you would argue your misinterpretation for page after page, and now you're proposing a thread to discuss what is the proper interpretation? The paper has a clear interpretation. It presents some surprising findings about evolutionary history but is completely consistent with evolutionary theory.Rand, any legitimate scientific paper challenging key aspects of evolutionary theory would not look like this one, plus it would receive a lot of attention. You have lots of odd ideas, for example Wheeler's views of QM and Einstein's view of God, and you'll argue for them endlessly, but you're no longer permitted to do that here.Rejected.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director