Skip to comments.Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex
Posted on 04/27/2008 6:07:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn't imagine the earliest critter could be so complex... scientists analyzed massive volumes of genetic data to define the earliest splits at the base of the animal tree of life... The new study surprisingly found that the comb jelly was the first animal to diverge from the base of the tree, not the less complex sponge, which had previously been given the honor... Unlike sponges, comb jellies have connective tissues and a nervous system, and so are more complex. Though squishy and tentacled, they are not, however, true jellyfish as they lack the classic bell-shaped body and characteristic stinging cells. The finding was unexpected because evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first... "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," Dunn said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Early life on Earth - no predators, plenty of sex
Reuters on Yahoo | 3/20/08 | Reuters
Posted on 03/20/2008 2:10:20 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
Yes, I would consider Adam a complex entity. ;-)
Said one scientist, "It's weird, it's like someone made it that way."
What really happend: In six days the LORD GOD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day!
Apparently lots, and lots and lots and yet lots of stuff happened in those first few days of creation. Genesis 1:1 and following. ;-)
And Peter says that a day with the LORD is as a thousand years ... so after the LORD GOD rested a thousand years... He made the Adam and Eve... and their farm animals, which the Adam named. The earth would have been fairly well populated after 2000 years of the 6th day creation replenishing this earth.
How could it be?
Before this is new “discovery” is tossed aside....let those who would say - complexity does not disprove evolution....please note this is a “shock” to the evolutionists.....finding this more complex animal branching off....first....total shock.
Had they been following the discoveries of recent years .....it would not have been a “shock” at all. Oh but all those discoveries were in the “banned” category. Too bad. Maybe this shock will spur some more investigations in to the fallacy that complexity was not there at the very beginning of creation....which even more significantly indicates a CREATOR being necessary to START this process....from the very beginning....(but this is not an endorsement of theistic evolution...noter topic for another day).
From the article:
“Earth’s first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn’t imagine the earliest critter could be so complex... scientists analyzed massive volumes of genetic data to define the earliest splits at the base of the animal tree of life... The new study surprisingly found that the comb jelly was the first animal to diverge from the base of the tree, not the less complex sponge, which had previously been given the honor...”
Is it related to the ooze that Q almost destroyed with an expanding time-space anomaly?
I think if it goes the other way they call it "devolution".
And anybody watching humanity would have to agree we are going the wrong way.
“You change the gravitational constant of the universe.” “How?” “You just *do it*.”
Yeah, those pesky biologists, reviewing and revising their theories in the light of new facts and findings...
Oh wait, that's how science works. You pose a question, you set up some hypotheses, you do a bit of research to test them, you review/revise and you do some more tests, eventually moving to the next question. Its been a pretty successful system of inquiry for mankind so far. A bit more useful than saying some god caused it anyway.
Its supposed to be established fact and yet time after time some new study radically changes the facts. Amazing what you can figure out if you stack enough assumptions together.
Or a great serpent Tiamat split in two. Your myth is no more convincing than any other.
“Its been a pretty successful system of inquiry for mankind so far.”
Its been useful in many ways.
“A bit more useful than saying some god caused it anyway. “
some god? Or one God? It takes a lot less faith to believe in God than a bunch of grant chasing closed minded ‘scientists’.
“Your myth is no more convincing than any other. “
Its not myth and its a lot more convincing than some person who is so egotistical as to think they can understand and define how the universe was created.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.