Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge

I just finished reading Evolution under the microscope by David W. Swift. Remarkable book that I recommend highly. He happens to reflect on how "simple" the sponge is (p 261-262) in terms of the sophistication required to construct their skeletons:

Of particular note is the construction of spicules in the sponges, because their cells are usually rather independent, but several cells cooperate in spicule formation. For example, to produce a three-rayed calcareous spicule, three cells partially fuse together, each then divides, a ray of mineral stars to form between the cells of each pair, and then the rays fuse together at precisely determined angles. Each pair then continues to grow its ray: one cell extending it and the other thickening it. As one textbook pus it: `Sponge cells are so poorly coordinated in most matters that the relatively complex cellular cooperation in skeleton formation is amazing' (Meglitsch and Schram, Ch. 3).

So even if the "simple" sponge was the words first animal, they would still have some splaining to do.

C'mon, MikeGene - you think you can get away with just posting this without comment?

Well, six posts earlier, I noted, "I think our understanding of evolution is still at a primitive level." Nice timing, eh?

I will venture a third prediction: no flying comb jelly will be found.

My predictions are offered as a test of the authors hypotheses where does yours flow from?

So in other words you are predicting that the first animal has no predecessor?

No just that the predecessor would not simply be a simpler version of it

thus you are denying that the shared gene sequences between the comb jelly and singled celled organisms are explained by evolution.

You are reading a lot into a simple prediction

least it follows from this that you also disagree with Mike's Front-Loaded Evolution theory

actually I'd expect the predecessor to have the genetic potential for producing things like a nervous system and connecting tissue already present. That is what I thought frontloading was all about. Perhaps I'm mistaken

Peace

fmm: negative prediction: no "simple" comb jelly will be found.
positive prediction: a comb jelly without connective tissues and a nervous system will not be viable.

So in other words you are predicting that the first animal has no predecessor? And thus you are denying that the shared gene sequences between the comb jelly and singled celled organisms are explained by evolution. Well, at least it follows from this that you also disagree with Mike's Front-Loaded Evolution theory so at least we agree on something ;).

Hey, I thought the cardboard bucket crossed the road?

1st animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, then the 2nd was the zebra. Trotted right out of the ocean. Then the wonderful diverse array of life spawned from there.

That's just like something a stupid creationist would say. Every rational, intelligent person knows that all we need to do is simply look at genotypes to see it was the chicken that was the second animal. Strutted right out of the ocean into a large cardboard bucket. Duh.

So now that this question is answered, we're trying figure out how the cardboard bucket arises from natural selection.

I will venture a third prediction: no flying comb jelly will be found.

comb jelly evolved its complexity independent of other animals after branching off to forge its own path.

end quote:

negative prediction no "simple" comb jelly will be found
positive prediction a comb jelly without connective tissues and a nervous system will not be viable

Second prediction Zach will say this is not a valid prediction

Peace

Guts: Tit mouse to waffle iron.

To think that billions of years of evolution led to the waffle iron.

That strikes me funny.

Mebbe by then, his points will be so self-evident that he won't hafta be anonymous anymore.

Nooooo Then I'd have to throw away all the masks I made for Mike Gene's conferences: