The Comb Jelly
by MikeGeneNow that it is beginning to look like Earth's first animal was much more complex and sophisticated than originally predicted, perhaps we should begin familiarizing ourselves with this amazing animal. Enjoy.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
April 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Out of curiosity – how does one define 'first animal'? I mean, what was the precursor to this thing, if it was in fact what scientists are now saying it is?
Comment by nullasalus — April 12, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Precursor? If it is indeed the most basal lineage, then the precursors would be single-celled protozoa.
Comment by MikeGene — April 13, 2008 @ 1:18 am
April 13th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Comb jellies aren't animals. They just organized sea water.
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2008 @ 3:08 am
April 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am
This observation is mind boggling. To my untrained eye the gap between single-celled protozoa and comb jellies is as big as the gap between comb jellies and science professors.
It's as if we eliminated the entire fossil record in one swoop and we are now supposed to imagine a pathway from Ctenophora to MAMMALIA with no fossil evidence at all.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2008 @ 9:59 am
April 13th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Getting to know its embryo, circa 540 MYA.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0701246104v1
Comment by Pez — April 13, 2008 @ 10:30 am
April 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
There is very little fossil evidence from these early transitions. However, mammalia did not evolve from ctenophora, but from bilateria. They share a common ancestor in some more primitive metazoa, with ctenophores as the "earliest diverging extant multicellular animals." Porferia diverged later, along with Cnidaria.
Sister. Not mother.
Urmetazoa may have been a community of related cells. There is evidence that suggests that they had developed primitive communication (via tyrosine kinases) and other features that would later evolve into animals. So, yes. There is a very substantial evolutionary gap between the advent of eukaryotes and metazoa.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2008 @ 10:51 am
April 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Hi All,
Time for me to drag out my favorite bilateria, the Vernanimalcula guizhouena.
They were running around 600 million year ago (pre-Cambrian).
Here is the link to my original comment on them.
The significance of this creature is that in was complex enough that it had a lot of the basics (e.g. four of the five senses).
I would like to provoke thinking, or at least discussion/argument, as to the relationship between Vernanimalcula guizhouena and Comb jellies.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 13, 2008 @ 11:23 am
April 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Hi fifth,
It may actually be bigger. I would expect that many will try to disonfirm this finding, thus we'll have to see how it plays out.
Comment by MikeGene — April 13, 2008 @ 11:51 am
April 13th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Hi TP,
Well, I have a few minutes before running off. The body plan of the comb jelly is poised to reach the Vernanimalcula stage in two very significant ways "“ the origin of the bilateral plan and the origin of the mesoderm.
You are right to make this critter you favorite bilateria. Here's a schematic of its body plan:
From a front-loading perspective, it looks like the fundamental blueprint for every animal. In other words, if the front-loaded state could reach this stage, the rest is downhill.
Comment by MikeGene — April 13, 2008 @ 11:59 am
April 13th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hi Pez,
Thanks for the link. Here's a pic of a living larva of the "organized seawater."
Comment by MikeGene — April 13, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Except for those that are not. For instance, ctenophores are diploblastic, have only a single digestive opening, differentiated tissues but no organs, and no coelum.
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Interesting choice of words by Mike:
From the link:
Slightly misleading, isn't it? Just as it is slightly misleading to suggest that the "first animal" was as complex as a contemporary comb jelly.
Comment by Raevmo — April 13, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Quoting from the link:
Note the inherent vagueness to data relevant to an analysis. A critical juncture point at which one could assess front loading complexity vs. non-front loading would be the time scale allotted to the process. As long as there is no effective way of pinning down a reasonable time range our knowledge of mutations and other factors inducing change is of little value. However, there is a theoretical point at which evidence of radical evolutionary changes would not fit a too small time frame. That is the juncture at which front loading would offer a useful differentiating paradigm.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Bradford:
That doesn't make sense at all. I thought the FL allegedly happened before the multicellular stage, and that standard evolutionary processes took over from there, the outcome (primitive multicellularity and beyond) being very predictable for Teh Frontloader. Thus, if the time frame would be too small for evolution, so it would be for FL.
Comment by Raevmo — April 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The quoted article states "Therefore, there is no way to date the earliest jelly…" How did you estimate the time it took for multicellularity to develop?
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Bradford:
Sorry, but I don't see how a quote from the article implies that I estimated something. What makes you think I did?
Comment by Raevmo — April 13, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Raevmo:
You didn't but if you are going to find data that distinguishes between two explanations- one of which is based on a concept of facilitated evolution made possible by cellular constructs lending foresight and the other explanation based on evolution, as depicted by the blind watchmaker, then time frames can be critical. A front loaded starting point can allow quick traversing of time constraints the blind watchmaker would have to grope his way through.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Zach:
In light of the new information how do you know that there is a more primitive metazoa?
or it may have been a more complex animal than todays ctenophora the point is how do we know given the latest information.
We simply have no way to know the complexity of Urmetazoa and we have no way of estimating it as far as I can tell. It might be more or it might be less complex than ctenophora as far as we know.
I don't think you quite understand how big a deal this is.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Bradford:
That's an interesting assertion, but without any supporting logical arguments. If an organism is in state X, does it matter for its future evolution how it arrived in state X (e.g. by means of FL or some handicapped manufacturer of time pieces)?
Comment by Raevmo — April 13, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
A front loaded starting point can allow quick traversing of time constraints the blind watchmaker would have to grope his way through.
Apparently the manner of arrival matters quite a bit to many of the commenters at this blog based on their reactions to Mike's FLE ideas.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The headline in EurekAlert is misleading. Your statement makes no sense in light of the actual scientific paper.
It's all about Common Descent. Ctenophores branched before porifera. Branched from what?
Note the word "extant". What Dunn et al. are doing is using molecular data from extant organisms and arranging them in the most parsimonious cladogram. (There are a variety of statistical means to determine if the inference is strong or weak.)
Here's a snippet of the cladogram showing the relevant portion. You will see that ctenophora branches off first, the other branch later diverging into bilateria and cnidaria and porifera. Once you understand Common Descent, you will see why it is considered such a powerful theory. Hope that helps.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Bradford:
I was hoping you would explain how you arrived at this conclusion:
Comment by Raevmo — April 13, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
A front loaded starting point can allow quick traversing of time constraints the blind watchmaker would have to grope his way through.
One way of viewing front loading is to think of it as a series of set-ups. Evolutionary result z was made possible by both a process and the fact that genomic precursor x came loaded with what was required to enable outcome z. If the time lapse between outcome z and precursor x were found to be surprisingly short, i.e. inadaquate by conventional reckoning, a front loading perspective could predict what genomic properties to look for in precursor x.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Zach:
I don't know and neither do you. All we know is that the older does not necessarily mean simpler even in deep time. It is possible that Urmetazoa is even more complex than comb jelly.
And your point is? Common Decent tells us nothing about complexity. Its ovious ctenophore is more not less complex than porifera. If that is the case for early life forms we know How do we know that the trend does not hold for their common ancestor as well?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Bradford:
How is this different from standard evolutionary theory?
Do you know of an example where evolution happened too fast according to conventional reckoning, and where FL correctly predicted genomic properties in ancestors?
Comment by Raevmo — April 13, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
My initial comment noted the inherent vagueness of relevant data including an inability "to date the earliest jelly." Given the great uncertainty as to what actually took place in deep time, an FL perspective could play a deciding role. It is difficult, if not impossible, to assess if "evolution happened too fast" when we are short on even basic information needed to estimate time and fix events.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Comb Jelly, heh?
There's a truck stop near where I live, and they sell these "comb jellies" in the men's rest room.
Hiiiii OOOOHHHH!!!!!!
Comment by Doug — April 13, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Yet, we have every reason to believe that it did branch, and some idea as to the characteristics of the common ancestor. Common Descent is strongly supported, and there is significant evidence that this continues to apply to the earliest branches of metazoa. Furthermore, you're citing the conclusions of a paper based on Common Descent to support your argument!
Let's back up a bit and find out why I took issue with your previous statements.
This misstates the evidence. Mammals did not evolve from ctenophores. They share a common metazoan ancestor.
Because the evidence strongly supports Common Descent rooted long before metazoa.
Of course not. You also seem to be conflating "primitive" with "complex".
My point was that you were attempting to reason from a faulty understanding of the facts.
Evolution isn't posited to follow a straight line. However, there is clearly a trend towards greater organization in metazoa. But you have to look at all the evidence to see that.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Zach
You are priceless
Let me say it again so you can read my lips I don't dispute common decent. My point is that to affirm common decent says nothing about the complexity of the last common ancestor.
I was not claiming that mammals evolved from ctenophores only that there was a greater complexity gap between mammals and ctenophores than between ctenophores and protozoa.
I agree but the evidence says nothing about the complexity of the last common ancestor. Are you really this dense or am I just not making my self clear?
I'm not disputing that. I'm only stating the fact that we have no way of knowing the complexity of the Urmetazoa.
Sometimes dialogue with you is like pulling teeth.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
If you don't dispute Common Descent, then you wouldn't ask whether there was a "more primitive metazoa", a common ancestor of mammalia and ctenophora.
If you weren't claiming mammal evolved from ctenophores, then you wouldn't say "we are now supposed to imagine a pathway from Ctenophora to MAMMALIA with no fossil evidence at all."
Though we can't be sure about the specific organisms involved, we do see a general trend towards greater complexity over the period in question. There is also substantial evidence as to how metazoa evolved, and this evidence includes mechanisms (e.g. via tyrosine kinases) that stretch back far before metazoa evolved.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Hi fifth,
That's how I interpreted it when I read your words.
Zachriel,
For what it's worth, you increasingly come across as a guy who is on the constant lookout for the most uncharitable interpretation just so you can score trivial debate points. Have you paused to consider that people on the receiving end of such treatment will be inclined to tune you out?
Comment by MikeGene — April 14, 2008 @ 12:15 am
April 14th, 2008 at 12:23 am
What's the big deal? This study's findings were already confirmed years ago. Here.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2008 @ 12:23 am
April 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Just curious, but if one questions whether blind processes alone (no intervention of any kind) led to mammal from ctenophores in its evolution, is that necessarily questioning common descent in your mind?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 14, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Hi kornbelt888! Excuse me just a moment.
……
Aargh!!!!Anyway, as you are late to the discussion, ctenophores are not ancestral to mammals. This is supported by Dunn et al, the paper MikeGene cited above.
But questioning the processes of evolutionary change does not necessarily mean rejecting Common Descent. There are a variety of known mechanisms, and in many respects, it is the fact of common descent that we are trying to explain.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I don't actually care about the particular species and it's putative predecessor. (I admit I wasn't paying close attention.) Sorry, to jar your tender sensibilities.
Ok. Just checking.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 14, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Zack:
I would venture to say that there is no one who frequents this site who does not understand Common Descent. The fact that you feel you must continue to explain it like some obnoxious school marm gets on the nerves.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 14, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 2:36 am
FMM,
Didn't you know Zack is our own resident Hank Hill? Instead of propane he sells "scientism and scientism accessories".
If your lucky, Zack'll wax nostalgic about the triumphant voyage of the Beagle before lecturing you about scientific hypotheses entailing specific and distinguishing predictions. Good times!
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2008 @ 2:36 am
April 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I belabor the point because Common Descent is certainly germane to the paper under discussion.
Perhaps. Let's take another look.
Nearly all scientists, including Dunn et al., agree that metazoa is monophyletic (from a variety of data, including microbiological and molecular evidence). That means that the most recent common ancestor of any two metazoans is also a metazoan. Ctenophora and bilateria are certainly both metazoan, so their most recent common ancestor is metazoan.
Maybe you're confusing "primitive" with being less complex.
primitive
1 a: not derived.
2 a: of or relating to the earliest age or period : primeval.
b: closely approximating an early ancestral type.
c: belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development.
Primitive does not necessarily mean less complex. Indeed, a cobbled together mechanism may become simplified and irreducible through a process of optimization. Consider which has the more complex respiratory system, an air-breathing reptile, or its air-breathing and water-breathing ancestor lungfish. Or even a common frog that breathes with its lungs and through its skin. The answer is not so simple.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2008 @ 10:24 am
April 15th, 2008 at 10:29 am
That significantly misrepresents my view. I would certainly argue against scientism, "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation".
Certainly one of the great adventures and scientific expeditions of all time.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2008 @ 10:29 am
April 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Zachriel,
Ironically, most adherents do. But that wasn't the definition I had in mind.
Hank has his Tom Landry, you have your Charlie D. I just can't seem to lose the mental image of you in the bathtub with a toy Beagle and Galapagos Action Figures.:grin: (Charlie D. action figure sold separately)
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2008 @ 11:28 am
April 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
By the way, this is closer to what I mean by 'scientism'.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
That's what I thought you meant. As I am not a philosophical naturalist, and as I have often disputed (on the appropriate forums) those who claim scientism as the only legitimate philosophy, I'm not sure why you would say I peddle that particular brand of bland, gray metaphysics. However, the ID Movement has used false claims of scientific support to influence laypersons to effect political and social change.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I agree with the bland depiction.
Kindly spell this out for me. What changes are pushed for based on which claims of scientific support?
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I confess that I assumed that by primitive you meant less complex. lets see if I was wrong?
Do you agree that given the new findings we have just as much evidence to believe that the base of the tree is more complex than its first branch as we have to believe it's simpler?
Do you think a comb jelly is cobbled together as compared to a sponge?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 15, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Thank you for persevering. (I had mentioned the possibility of this confusion above.)
Complexity can be difficult to quantify. We do see a general trend towards integrative complexity over the history of life. By most definitions, ctenophora is not as complex as vertebrates. But evolution doesn't have a goal, so complexity may wax and wane in different lineages.
We would normally think of the comb jelly as more tightly integrated than the sponge.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
The Discovery Institute: To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science… To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
They certainly have every right to rail against excessive "materialism" or to advocate for whatever changes they want, but the scientific support does not exist.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Who is this we you keep referring to? Are you royalty or do you just have a frog in your pocket?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 15, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Zachriel,
Umm, no it's not! You may want to look 3 posts earlier to see what you actually thought I meant. LOL! (side note: selective memory is a scientifically supported clear indicator of prejudice)
Never said you were, because that is something different. I said you were selling scientism. (And scientism accessories.)
Peddling scientism, and scientism accessories, does not entail that it is the only legitimate philosophy. You are twisting and turning, but I have yet to see you refute scientism in any way. Jeez, a couple of months ago you flat out refused to entertain a hypothetical question about ID, on scientismic grounds.
I'd love it if you prove me wrong on this, and I'll freely admit that I misjudged you. But so far it seems like when TT'ers say: (paraphrasing)
"ID is not science, but the suspicion may be valid"
you say:
"ID is not valid because it is not science"
In other words, you are peddling scientism to people who's suspicions transcend your opinion, and who have no use for your bland metaphysics.
Fingerpointing is the most primitive form of logical fallacy.
And do you really think that "The ID Movement" that you think you are attacking is to be found at Telic Thoughts? LOL!
If by posting Discovery Channel quality scientism you were hoping to interrupt a meeting of "The ID Movement", I'm afraid you've simply wandered into the internet equivalent of a Starbucks. Grab a mocha decaf and be quiet for a minute and you might actually be able to see the world from an ID'ers point of view.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Please quit with the semantic games. You introduced the term "scientism", but it is apparently not the dictionary definition. If you want to provide a precise definition of "scientism" and a clear statement for discussion, please do.
{snip balance of incomprehensible comment}
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
chunkdz:
Oh, wow, chunk. You weren't supposed to let them know the ID Movement is full of latte-drinking, berkenstock-wearing, volvo-driving elitists!
Comment by Joy — April 15, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Chunkster, you've been in good form this week. Win the lottery?
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
No. I just stopped sniffing glue.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Yeah, well, so what. Evidence certainly exists that lead A) leads many to wonder, and B) comports with many peoples' intution, philosophical, and religious views.
In the end, the cultural significance is "what it's really all about." I don't agree with some of the DI's agenda, but I certainly agree with them getting the evidentiary word out about certain features of the universe, the solar system, earth, and the nature of cellular mechanisms. For example, the "fine tuning" viewpoint of the universe may not be "science", but science isn't the end all be all to a lot of people. Probably most people. A lot of people have intuitions about such things, thank you very much, and are happy to deal with the evidence on that basis until something better comes along.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 15, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Ah yes, who needs understanding when we have intuition!
To be honest, if the DI claimed they where pushing religion and philosophy I would have no qualms with them at all. I would still think they are Luddites, but perhaps less harmful than, say, saccharin. I think people have a right to remain ignorant if they choose, although I feel bad when they thrust ignorance upon their children.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 1:00 am
April 16th, 2008 at 7:25 am
That's fine. And these ideas should be discussed in the appropriate forums; philosophy and comparative religion classes, or during catechism and bible studies.
Because much of the ID Movement falsely and explicitly makes a claim to scientific relevance and support.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 7:25 am
April 16th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Todd B:
Then have no qualms. The DI is open about their philosophical preferences and supplies detailed opinions about different social and political matters on their public blog.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 9:00 am
April 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Don't forget forums about "nascent proto-science" like this.
I would add philosophy of science classes to your list.
I agree. And I think they're wrong to try to play the game with the rules the scientific establishment has set, except to point out scientific weaknesses of certain aspects of neo-darwinism.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 16, 2008 @ 9:06 am
April 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I have no problem with speculation clearly labeled as such.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 9:37 am
April 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Zachriel:
Is this an example of what you have in mind?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4529
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 9:55 am
April 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
You linked to a long article about Francis Collins who, while rejecting the claims of the modern ID Movement, reconciles his religious faith with science. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 10:15 am
April 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Zachriel, we at Telic Thoughts are regularly provided with vague claims about the ID movement. I looked at Evolution News and Views this morning. I did not find any scientifically false claims on the home page. Maybe I missed them. If the ID movement is more than a talking point it should be easy to provide a laundry list.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 10:41 am
April 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I wasn't making a vague claim, but clearly stating my position. You could start a thread on specifics (in deference to those who might actually be interested in comb jellies). For instance, I had suggested a review of Dembski's paper on Specification. No one has been able to apply Dembski's ideas on specification in a consistent manner.
I didn't see any scientific claims, true or false. Here are the most recent articles.
And this nice bit of symmetry.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 11:02 am
April 16th, 2008 at 11:44 am
That's the point. If the "ID movement" is as pernicious as critics would have us believe then there should be evidence of it. When pressed critics invariably go to the archives and dredge up things like the dreaded Wedge document or the Dover PA case. The word movement conjures up the idea of continuous action and if this movement is continuous to the present day then could we at least see evidence of it being so?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 11:44 am
April 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I didn't say the "ID Movement" was pernicious, but made false claims. I thought the term "ID Movement" was a fairly well known social phenomena. Do you reject that there is an "ID Movement"
According to your own resource, there is apparently no news to report concerning the 'science' of ID. Yes, I got the point.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Come on baby, and do the twist. o/~
Speaking as someone who is closer to the TEs than the ID proponents in philosophy, I have to say – the worst scientific excess I see out of the ID movement (assuming 'movement' is 'the main and popular sites they run, and their more prominent speakers') is arguing that the known science leads to certain philosophical conclusions. Which I'd be upset at, except it comes on the heels of decades of the same from other, typically opposing, schools of thought.
Otherwise, most of what I see the "ID Movement" doing is highlighting developments in mainstream science, arguing against any erroneous philosophy they see inserted into a given discovery or press release, or arguing about how said discovery could support a philosophical view they enjoy. In other words, "Same crap, different viewpoint".
Comment by nullasalus — April 16, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
It's hype. There are culture warriors on all sides. The DI is one of many players.
But your prior comment alluded to false claims- not no claims. Are you amending your view?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
That's a reasonable interpretation of how I was using the term.
They do far more than that. They make sweeping *scientific* claims that the Theory of Evolution has been debunked or is fraudulent, and that they can scientifically detect design in biology.
Not at all. Your own cite merely reaffirms the lack of new ID contributions to science. The claim that evolutionary biology is corrupt and that ID is a valid scientific alternative is a false claim. That these claims are being made by important voices in the ID Movement is supported above.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Zachriel:
You cite one individual- Dembski- who used the word corrupt and paint every IDist as holding that view. If I can name one Nazi evolutionary biologist, by your logic that taints everyone else who holds to the tenets of evolutionary biology.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Zachriel:
The quotes you cite are the opinions of Behe, Dembski et. al. Where is the evidence of a movement and how exactly is this "movement" harming the larger society? Given the long list of serious problems affecting people's lives your complaints are trivial by comparison.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
How is it harmful? The erosion of science and scientific thought could, in theory, significantly impact the economy of our nation. There is a lot of money to be made through application of scientific advancement be it increased crop yield, new energy sources, new materials, or advanced medical treatments. There is fierce international competition to develop new products based on new research, and by some estimates the US is starting to fall behind and lose our once dominate position as a science and technology leader. The ID sub-group that claims science is a corrupt "big-business" that only cares about money is at least correct that there is a huge financial impact from science.
Beyond that, scientific reasoning and critical thinking are valuable skills for many other high paying professions. In my opinion the intentional confusion sewn by the DI ID crowd and the foisting of superstition as if it were science weakens these skills in some people. If this leads to high paying jobs moving over seas then it will hurt our entire economy from top to bottom.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
We have defined the term ID Movement as 'the main and popular sites they run, and their more prominent speakers'. I am not wed to the term, though. My statement was in the context of chunkdz's ill-defined claim about "scientism", and concerned why I defend valid scientific assertions. I'll restate more simply.
The claim that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory is false, and those that use this false claim to effect political and social change are wrong to do so.
Dembski is hardly a Nazi, but it is funny you would bring that up. There's a new movie out about Intelligent Design that uses a lot of Nazi imagery.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
So I can add your personal opinion to that of Dembski, Behe and others. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence linking ID to a tangible ill effect.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
There is a homegrown term for that type of thinking- threatiness. The sky is falling. The United States economy will fall apart and all because of those IDists. IDists will succeed in doing what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Usama Bin Laden et. al. could not accomplish- bringing down the USA. Wow! What a movement!
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
You are resorting to blatant exaggeration of what I said. But keep pounding on that straw man if it makes you feel better about your position.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I expected the ID movement hobgoblin to be better supported with evidence. What we are seeing are personal opinions backed by fearfulness.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Huh? I already responded to this point. I didn't say the "ID Movement" was linked to a "tangible ill effect". I said the claim that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory is false, and those that use false claims to effect political and social change are wrong to do so.
Todd Berkebile didn't say that. He said it could "impact the economy".
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Who is this?
Comment by chunkdz — April 16, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The "ID movement" is a political and philosophical movement, as such it is itself nothing more than personal opinions backed by religion. So how is simply stating my differing opinion not sufficient? When the "ID movement" makes false claims that their opinions are backed by evidence or supported by science then we can make evidentiary statements against those claims, but opinions are just opinions.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Zach,
As for detecting design – I have to say, so what? Stenger, Dawkins, etc and far more have been passing off philosophical claims as science for quite a long time prior. In my ideal world, science is science and philosophy/theology is philosophy/theology. In the world I live in, ID proponents are just doing what their (religion-hostile) predecessors have done. I have trouble getting too worked up over this, even though I try to maintain and advocate a sharp and reasonable dividing line.
Regarding the ToE, that's the funny thing – go to Allen MacNeill, who is himself pretty hostile to ID by any measure, and he'll quite happily admit that there have been major changes and developments in how we view evolution and ToE, even in the past few decades (Unless I read him wrong, so by all means Allen, c'mon over and correct me if you please. But I think I'm being fair here.) Hell, the "RM+NS = Evolution" explanation is such a gross oversimplification that calling it fraudulent is more correct than incorrect.
And before I hear it – yes, I know 'the basic understanding hasn't changed' – but the basic understanding was ludicrously simple anyway. If aliens periodically come to earth and intervene to promote certain traits over others, 'the basic understanding hasn't changed'. Yes, I'm sure there are some ID proponents who have either simplistic or flat-out incorrect views of the science – but then again, I've encountered ID-opponents with a grossly simplistic, incorrect view of ToE as well. By and large what I see most often are philosophically/theologically motivated people poring over the science news RSS feeds for news they can jump on and interpret according to their preference. If you want me to believe that's an ID-exclusive sin, sorry, I hang out at one too many religion-intolerant forums to swallow that line.
Comment by nullasalus — April 16, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I've been asking for evidence for a connection between beliefs and political and social changes and have yet to see any. Is there evidence?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The boys discussing politics on a street corner are a "movement" too by your standards. So you and others have been spouting about a movement based on nothing more than your feelings.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I would suspect that nearly all political and social changes are associated with beliefs. But that seems far removed from a discussion of comb jellies.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
nullasalus:
Indeed. And guess who is erecting the "RM+NS = Evolution" strawman over and over again.
Comment by Raevmo — April 16, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
*Especially* in the past few decades.
A good scientific theory yields new hypotheses and guides research. A great scientific theory spawns entire new fields of inquiry. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most important theories in science unifying observations in such diverse fields as geology and genetics. Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
More blatant exaggeration, keep beating up those straw men. Soon scarecrows everywhere will fear your wrath. Boy's on street corners don't get booked onto national talk shows or fund their own documentaries or create their own think tanks or testify as experts in court cases or have the President of the US state his support for their ideology.
You clearly believe their is a culture war, just above you mention there are "culture warriors on all sides." Do you have some scientific or mathematical description of this culture war and who's on what side or is your position just as much based on feelings? When you make a political decision do you utilize some form of advanced math or is your position just as much based on feelings? I guess I fail to see the relevance of your statement. Politics is fundamentally about opinions. Some opinions are more connected to rational thought than others but that never makes an opinion "science." So what's your point?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Raevmo,
"Tons of people on all sides" in my experience. I'm not sure if it's a strawman when it's what amounts to the de facto popularized understanding of ToE. You may as well call gene-centric views of evolution a strawman as well, just because it's a mere model rather than a penultimate view of science. But blaming many ID proponents for attacking such a view would be, I don't know. Really funny, I suppose.
Zach,
Yes, Zach, get that catch-phrase in there for the thousandth time, so it can get ignored for the trash it is the thousandth time. And the ID (or even TE) proponents will shoot back that the whole concept of development according to natural laws was thought up by theists who saw God as rational, ergo every success of science owes a debt to religious motivation. You'll see me a Galileo and raise me a Giordano Bruno, I'll check-raise you Gregor Mendel and William of Ockham and more, and it'll go on until a more interesting fight breaks out on TT, probably right beneath an otherwise innocuous picture of a bunny. There, we've done the dance and saved each other time. Science!
I happen to love the ToE myself, so praise it all you want. The principles contained therein can be used to outstanding effect by an intelligent agent – it's leading to some wonderful concepts in software design and otherwise. Kind of amazing what evolution can accomplish for an intelligent force, isn't it?
Comment by nullasalus — April 16, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
nullasalus:
Yes, I suppose you have a good point there. Plenty of ignorance to go around.
Good lord, do I hear the pope there in the background with his terrible German accent? Yes, he's on TV.
Comment by Raevmo — April 16, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Who are you referring to?
Comment by chunkdz — April 16, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Todd, do you realize that you are a part of a movement by the standards you describe in this thread? Do you then realize how banal your "ID movement" charges are? You are part of the same dynamics you criticize. If the DI's position is your problem then this all amounts to "I disagree with them." That's the gist of the movement complaints. The DI does not agree with you.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Yes, absolutely. I am proud to declare my affiliation with secular movements and would never attempt to hide such affiliations in order to obfuscate my biases.
I don't see this as a "charge", merely a classification. If you can provide some better or more accurate classification then please do. I mean, I could use some other term like "cdesign proponentsists" but that seems truly banal to me. In other words, I think the phrase is often repeated simply because it is a meaningful classification.
I have already stated that I disagree with the DI and of course I would prefer to see my views win out over theirs. So sure, that's undoubtedly a factor. But then they go about making blatantly false claims in order to trick people into agreeing with them so we get to have fun proving they are false
. If opinion is stated as fact then it is right to point out that error. If bias is treated as evidence it is right to point out that error. If evidence is exaggerated it is right to point out that error. But if opinion is stated as opinion, while it would be an error to simply call that opinion wrong, it is acceptable to state an alternative opinion.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Be proud but at the same time do not be so foolish as to think you have made a point worth listening to when you decry the ID movement to a group of IDists. Should anyone care that you like your own movement and dislike those that disagree with it?:roll:
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I jumped in to answer you question of why someone might think the ID movement is harmful. You asked for an opinion so I offered an opinion. I guess I should assume that whenever you ask for an opinion you don't really want a response?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 16, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
April 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I don't think you're getting this Todd. Your opinions as to what is harmful are unrelated to ID itself. They are socio-political in nature. Even an IDist who shares your views will not be persuaded because he or she knows IDists come in all varieties and what unites us is our views about Intelligent Design. If your intent is to persuade people you are doing nothing more than preaching to the choir.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Who in the world is this ID sub-group you are speaking of? Is this something you heard at a Raelian conference?
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2008 @ 11:56 am
April 17th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Are you denying anyone holds this position or are you expecting my to formulate an exhaustive list of every view every person on earth holds? If you deny the position is held by anyone I might be willing to dig up a single example to show it does, but I will not waste my time cataloging people's beliefs. Since I make no claim whatsoever about the size or importance of this sub-group then unless you deny it's existence entirely there is nothing else to say.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 17, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
ID as presented by the thought leaders of the movement is socio-political in nature. Even here where people are generally much more rational ID is presented as metaphysics. There is no science of ID. Since ID is nothing but opinions it seems that contrary opinions hold just as much significance to me. As I have mentioned many times you cannot disprove an opinion, even if you can disprove some of the assumptions that are used as a foundation for the opinion it ultimately comes to subjective assessments. Battles over metaphysics are always about both sides preaching to the choir, and yet that preaching does seem to have an effect over the long haul. I am not denying these issues, just pointing out they apply equally to all parties involved.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 17, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Wrong. Behe, Dembski et. al. sincerely believe in the ID views they put forth. The fact that you would characterize them as socio-political while ignoring the blatent socio-political ejaculations of a godless liberal and much more of that tripe speaks volumes. The socio-political comments in evidence here come primarily from ID critics- including you.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Todd B.,
I'm sure some people hold that position. ALF certainly does, but I wouldn't consider them an "ID subgroup". Maybe the Raelians. Are they an "ID subgroup" I don't know.
My guess is that this is just some boogeyman you concocted to further confirm your bias against ID.
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Bradford:
You don't know that. I think they are lying for Jesus, but that's just my opinion.
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Are you lying for yourself? With the benefit of unbridled ability to indulge in your desires, believing yourself to be exonerated from any (hopefully)hokum laden ideas of consequences that befall those who comport themselves in a particular manner?
Comment by Doug — April 17, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Raevmo:
That's getting to be an old cliche. Can't you come up with something more original? Like the obvious connection between the flagellum and the Sermon on the Mount?
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Doug:
Is the fear of hell the only reason you are not a philandering lying criminal homosexual? [assuming you actually aren't]
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that they are not lying for Jesus but that they sincerely believe in the ID views they put forth. That does not make those views apolitical. The DI knows very much that this is a socio-political issue, just read their wedge strategy or look at their latest buzz-word, "denormalization." Even someone who is not political themselves is a part of this socio-political struggle if their works are used as ammunition for one side or the other. This might not be fair, but that's the way it is regardless. If you use the term "ID" you are part of the Culture War no matter how apolitical you try to claim you are.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 17, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Todd, all you're claiming, based on your arguments, is that prominent people on all sides have socio-political agendas. So the DI has their movement and you and PZ have your own. Comments like yours help others see the existence of an anti-ID movement and its desire to substitute red herrings for substantive discussions.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
No, but being a Christian is one of the few things that held back my desire to find you and beat the piss out of you for the stuff you said about my wife, punk.
I mean that too.
Too bad this isn't pre-2003.
Comment by Doug — April 17, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I've got a promo. A tag team mixed martial arts bout featuring IDists Doug and Nathan Munson on one side of the octagon and Raevmo and PZ Meyers on the other. Proceeds go for ads on behalf of The Design Matrix.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Doug:
I'm so glad you're a Christian then. But what did I say about your wife? I didn't even know you had a wife.
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Bradford:
Gladly, with both hands and feet tied behind my back. The winner decides on the proceeds. If (I mean when) we win, proceeds go the foundation of our fellow atheist Mother Theresa.
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Sure, fair enough, but those comments also help others to see the existence of a pro-ID movement and its desire to substitute red herrings for science and rational thought. In this case statements of equal substance are being provided by both sides, metaphysical positions have been outlined. Honestly I hope that Mike's ideas have a strong impact on Joe Midwest ID supporters, apologists, and sympathizers. And by knowing that us Godless heathen types still find Mike's middle ground to be largely unsupported it might be easier for them to integrate Mike's more reasonable position with their various superstitious beliefs. I mean, if us godless heathen types supported Mike we'd scare off all the religious folk! So we have to point out these limitations in order increase their conviction in Mike's theory and steering them clear of the deeper abyss of ignorance they might otherwise fall into.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 17, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Wasn't an atheist.
Comment by Doug — April 17, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Doug:
Looks like she was:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtm l
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
She doubted her faith, doubted the existence of God. You take that as meaning she believed there is no God and no substance to her faith?
Why?
For you does doubt mean denial?
She wasn't an atheist. She was a Catholic that struggled, add her to the ranks.
Comment by Doug — April 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
For you though it should be a non-factor. Her initial compulsion to the Catholic faith wasn't empirically based. It was one of those nonsensical spiritual experiences that would have meant nothing to you from the get-go. Why are you acting now like this is gained real estate?
Her initial attraction toward the faith was certainly not of the type that led Antony Flew to admit the existence of a Designer.
Comment by Doug — April 17, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Doug,
Just ignore Raevmo – he knows damn well Mother Teresa was a Catholic, but he's baiting. Just as he knows Stalin and Mao were atheists, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair proved that atheists can be duped by the equivalent of a televangelist just as easily as anyone in a super-church.
BTW, Sam Harris still demanding those 50k speaking fees from the saps? I mean, free thinkers?
Comment by nullasalus — April 17, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Doug, it's pretty obvious that Mother Theresa lost her faith. Good for her. She belongs to us now. May her non-existent soul rest in peace.
Just kidding, Doug. I apologize if I upset you.
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
nullasalus:
Hey, it's nice to see Hitler is no longer on the list. Let's move on to Stalin. He outlawed Darwinism, just like Hitler. Can we remove him too?
Comment by Raevmo — April 17, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Everyone else is fair game, I'm cool with that.
My wife doesn't need to be brought up in this forum.
Comment by Doug — April 17, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Hitler, the christianity-hater? Hell if I know what his faith (or lack) was. Sure liked eugenics though. Then again, so did a few of your idols – it was big back then. Part and parcel with those 'enlightenment values' I hear so much about.
Stalin 'outlawed Darwinism'? Him boosting his crony Lysenko hardly counts. But if you're trying to tell me that atheists can have a warped view of what constitutes science and truth, hell – I agree without reservation.
Comment by nullasalus — April 17, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:48 am
I am coming to this discussion late, and have only skimmed through the comments (especially the later ones), so maybe this has already been discussed. In the OP Mike says "Earth's first animal was much more complex and sophisticated than originally predicted". I do not understand how that can be inferred from the research. My reading is that a long time ago the primitive animals split into two groups, one of which gives us the comb jellies we see today (actually a phylum Ctenophora), the other group giving all the other species of animal in the world today. The comb jellies have had perhaps a billion years of evolution (the paper notes that they could not determine when the split happened, so this figure is merely my guess) in which to become the complex and sophisticated creatures we see today. Also, there may well have been another billion years (say) of evolution prior to that between the first animal and the split between the comb jellies and the rest of us.
Perhaps the first animal was extremely simple, evolved into a species that was fairly complex (as well as numerous species that have left no remains todays). That fairly complex species evolved into two new species (both fairly complex still), one of which was the ancestor of the very complex and sophisticated comb jellies, the other the ancestor of all the other very complex and sophisticated animal species around today.
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 4:48 am