Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

comb jellies

Comb jellies, among the oldest life forms, lost rather than gained complexity

Throwing a horseshoe into the works of Darwinism, many life forms simply reduce their complexity in order to survive. Yes, natural selection works and is real but — because it depends on randomness — it doesn’t produce reliably complexity all by itself any more than winning a lottery ticket reliably produces wealth. Read More ›

At New Scientist: Ancient comb jelly more complex than its modern relatives?

Well, it’s a good thing for “evolutionary theory” that it doesn’t “preclude” life forms becoming “simpler over geological time.” That’s called devolution and it is in fact very common. Read More ›

Convergent evolution: Our most distant relatives were sponges, not comb jellies, say researchers

Re the researcher’s comment, "It may seem very unlikely that such complex traits could evolve twice, independently, but evolution doesn't always follow a simple path,” well, he is virtually admitting that Darwinism stretches (snaps?) the bounds of probability but no one is allowed to discuss that honestly. That is most likely why there is a controversy in the first place. Read More ›

Are our claimed most distant ancestors sponges or comb jellies?

Researchers: "The alternative candidates for our most distant animal relatives are the comb jellies: beautiful, transparent, globe-shaped animals named after the shimmering comb-rows of cilia they beat to propel themselves through the water." Read More ›