Comments on: The Comb Jelly http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/ An independent blog about intelligent design Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:47:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: The Pixie http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179230 The Pixie Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:48:46 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179230 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 "<i>Earth's first animal was much more complex and sophisticated than originally predicted</i>". 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctenophore" rel="nofollow">Ctenophora</a>), 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 <i>become</i> 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. 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.

]]> By: nullasalus http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179211 nullasalus Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:15:39 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179211 <blockquote>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? </blockquote> 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. :cool:

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?

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. :cool:

]]> By: Doug http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179209 Doug Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:41:48 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179209 <blockquote>Just kidding, Doug. I apologize if I upset you. </blockquote> Everyone else is fair game, I'm cool with that. My wife doesn't need to be brought up in this forum.

Just kidding, Doug. I apologize if I upset you.

Everyone else is fair game, I'm cool with that.
My wife doesn't need to be brought up in this forum.

]]> By: Raevmo http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179205 Raevmo Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:22:50 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179205 nullasalus: <blockquote>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</blockquote> 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? nullasalus:

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

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?

]]> By: Raevmo http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179204 Raevmo Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:14:31 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179204 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. 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.

]]> By: nullasalus http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179203 nullasalus Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:56:48 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179203 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? :wink: 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? :wink:

]]> By: Doug http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179202 Doug Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:46:39 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179202 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. 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.

]]> By: Doug http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179201 Doug Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:42:47 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179201 <blockquote><em>Looks</em> like she was</blockquote> 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.

Looks like she was

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.

]]> By: Raevmo http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179200 Raevmo Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:26:47 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179200 Doug: <blockquote>[Mother Theresa] Wasn't an atheist.</blockquote> Looks like she was: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtml Doug:

[Mother Theresa] Wasn't an atheist.

Looks like she was:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

]]> By: Doug http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179199 Doug Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:19:26 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/the-comb-jelly/#comment-179199 <blockquote>proceeds go the foundation of our fellow atheist Mother Theresa.</blockquote> Wasn't an atheist.

proceeds go the foundation of our fellow atheist Mother Theresa.

Wasn't an atheist.

]]>