Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at livescience.com

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

livescience.com — "This was a complete shocker," said study team member Casey Dunn of Brown University in Rhode Island. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong." The finding was unexpected, evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first. -A lot of guess work to make the parts fit?

Bury

rjwusa 176 days ago

34 diggs
digg it

SampleX, on 04/14/2008, -9/+15listen to the sound.......... of silence..............
camelseye, on 04/14/2008, -7/+13From the article: "This was a complete shocker," said study team member Casey Dunn of Brown University in Rhode Island. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong."

Something has gone wrong. very wrong.
Nannybell, on 04/14/2008, -15/+14Well, I'm not shocked.
"...evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity..."
Perhaps evolution isn't *marching* at all. Maybe it's sitting there spinning its wheels in the minds of people who can't bear the thought that God created everything.
- Look4Truth, on 04/14/2008, -11/+12Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:20-21
  
  No shock here either.
Wolfpack46, on 04/15/2008, -7/+8Sample is that the "Sound of Silence" from the, long time ago/LOLO/Simon and Garfunkel or something like that.
I think the old: Be afraid be very afraid fits a little better, maybe Jesus is coming very soon and guess what?
little "g" gods and their followers get to answer while down on their knees, is that the reason why the darwin fish has legs so it can kneel down too/things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
allisonrose870, on 04/15/2008, -10/+8[[ The finding was unexpected because evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first. Dunn says that two evolutionary scenarios can explain why the comb jellies would actually have been first among animals...]]

There ought to be a third evolutionary scenario these scientists should consider as they attempt to explain the complexity and diversity of life? How's this for starters?

Maybe Evolution isn't the answer for all things natural as the end all be all of life. In other words - quash it already and flush it down the toilet where it belongs!! You gotta love scientists that won't follow the evidence but rather manipulate findings instead to fit into their unyielding notions of what is and what isn't. They might as well try putting the square peg in the round hole and tell me how its fine that it won't fit.
- Salesti, on 06/28/2008, -3/+3WELL-put! That is *precisely* what so many "scientists" do!
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4What did they manipulate to make it fit? Are you another one of those creationists that assumes that all evolutionary biologists are intentionally falsifying data?
  
  One of the arguments I usually see against Evolution is that "Evolutionists are biased and always find what they want to find from the experiment." Funny. This article seems to suggest the opposite. If they were doing that, wouldn't they have found that the sponges were the earliest divergence, just to make things easy on themselves?
  
  Guess how science progresses? If you find something unexpected in your data, you try to explain it to the best of your knowledge. Then you get to test those hypotheses! And so on...
  
  Much unlike ID and creationism, which are entirely untestable and have no data to "Fit" to anything.
  - eir574, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4"If you find something unexpected in your data, you try to explain it to the best of your knowledge."
    
    Furthermore, I *want* to find something unexpected in my data that can't be explained by existing theories. So does every other scientist I've ever known.
InRussetShadows, on 04/16/2008, -9/+5Surprise, surprise, scientists got yet something else wrong. So much for the theory of the superhero scientist, perfect in every way.
flip2trip, on 04/16/2008, -11/+7Evolution has to be RIGHT, dang it, fit in with the theory nature, c'mon fit, fit, FIT! Ahhhhhh! It won't fit! Maybe there IS another explanation, no wait, if I just force this and disregard that and then.......

It kinda makes me think of a monkey trying to force a square peg into a round hole, ooops! I said monkey, sorry not trying to lend credence to evolutionists and their theories, even though their behavior is similar.
Orion682, on 04/21/2008, -3/+15You guys realize that even if evolution is disproved (which for a scientific theory is very difficult. It's more likely that parts will be changed to explain new findings and observations, since a single fault does not fault an entire theory), it still DOESN'T PROVE creationism right?

Disproving one theory does not prove another, science doesn't work that way. You still have to prove creationism.

That being said, evolution is simply the theory that animals that are better suited for the environment survive to pass on offspring, and that over time this can be seen as major changes in a species. Survival of the fittest. This does not necessarily mean everything becomes more complex, and it says nothing about how life originated, so this is not a "death knell" for evolution.
- drachemorder, on 05/15/2008, -5/+5When you say it that way, that isn't what we object to. We object to the notion that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years, and we object to the idea of spontaneous generation of life from non-life, but we don't object to the mere assertion that species adapt to their environment.
  
  But when I say "I don't accept evolution" I'm referring to the over-arching theory of the origin of life from non-life and its subsequent development into the vast array of life we see today. I DO believe that "evolution", by your definition, can account for the development of wolves and retrievers and hounds and bulldogs and what not from a common ancestral dog, but I DO NOT believe that it can account for the development of all those things from an amoeba.
  - alkajazz, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8"but we don't object to the mere assertion that species adapt to their environment." You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Evolution is real or it isn't. Not just parts that agree with your holy book of choice.
  - Salesti, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3Adaptation based on environmental suitability is observable and has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Inorganic compounds have never been observed to spontaneously form into living systems. Why do you think they are the same thing?
    Only *one* of those is a cake. The other is a crock.
  - Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7"Inorganic compounds have never been observed to spontaneously form into living systems"
    
    Getting there:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    
    Not that it is even necessary for Evolutionary theory to be correct, but wouldn't you enjoy being informed?
  - Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5@drachemorder
    
    Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the lines about what you think had developed from what, and what can't?
    
    If you accept that the modern dog and wolves being related (Canis genus), do you also accept that they are related to foxes (genus: Lupus) - all members of the family: Canidae? Then, can you accept that the Canids are related to cats (family: Felidae) - both members of the order Carnivora, which includes other things as well, like bears and seals)? And so on...
    
    I'm really not trying to flame you, but I don't see where that logic comes from.
    
    I also would suggest, for anyone who feels this way, to pick up a copy of Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr's book "Speciation" if you want to understand more about how it happens.
  - eir574, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5"I also would suggest, for anyone who feels this way, to pick up a copy of Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr's book "Speciation" if you want to understand more about how it happens."
    
    Sorry, I'm still busy digging in my backyard as per yesterday's instructions.
  - Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Did you find any large dinosaur bones yet? SOLGAARD says they are there!
  - eir574, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6It turns out that I don't own a shovel, so progress has been slow. Also, I have to dodge my apartment building's landscapers.
- Salesti, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I will be impressed WHEN -- and ONLY when I see life from nonliving matter. No scientist ANYWHERE has EVER made this come about. We do have much speculation, and much excitement (in places), but (example) we've "almost" had a cure for cancer since the '60s! Where is THAT one?
  
  There is all kind of potential in this world, but it's not the least bit scientific for a person to say he/she KNOWS that something is a certain way in the *scientific* sense when that something is based on blind faith.
  I will believe in spontaneous generation when I see it, but not a moment before.
camelseye, on 05/15/2008, -5/+5This complexity induces the logical conclusion that there is a Designer.
- sethisastud, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4no it doesn't. ***** you guys are stupid.
  - Salesti, on 06/28/2008, -3/+3Wow! You're astoundingly smart and articulate!
  - Coven, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Let me rephrase sethisastud's statement:
    
    No, it doesn't. You guys lack a great deal of the intelligence one would expect to find a typical human to possess.
bsmang, on 06/15/2008, -4/+3Leave it to the fruit loops to think this proves (or even points to in any way) religion.
Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3I will read the complete paper later, but from what I gather from the article, they studied the genetic data from a large assortment of organisms to determine the relationships to one another.

So all this means is that the comb jelly is the least genetically related to other animals. Which means, if you look at the phylogenetic tree of the animal kingdom, comb jellies would have their own branch near the base of the tree.

It says nothing about how complex it was (or how complex anything was) at the time of branching. Just because it diverged early, doesn't mean it wasn't still evolving.
Salesti, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2 "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary Theory..." (Dr. Gary Parker, PhD., Biologist/Geologist/Chemist). Many evolutionists will say that the DNA compared between a chimpanzee and a person is the same by 98 percent. Dr. Gary Parker disagrees. He states that the DNA within ourselves at best can match our parents by 93 percent. He further points out that a cloud is 98 percent water, jellyfish is 98 percent water and a watermelon is 98 percent water. "Using the logic of an evolutionist, they would be saying there is no difference between water, a cloud and a jellyfish."

Those crazy Ph.D. professionals! Always using logic.

By the by....if people are so similar to apes, why is it that most folks have so *little* DNA in common with one another that there are always people dying from leukemia because they can't find a HUMAN donor who has even FIVE of the six necessary markers for a transplant match?
DNA is far more complicated than we seem to think.....
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

Login or register to add a comment