Randman said:
Or is it your contention that no matter what the results are, NeoDarwinism predicts it (as far as this issue)?
http://www.physorg.com/news127055240.html
"This finding challenges the traditional view of the base of the tree of life, which honored the lowly sponge as the earliest diverging animal. "This was a complete shocker," says Dunn. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong."
"But even after Dunn's team checked and rechecked their results and added more data to their study, their results still suggested that the comb jelly, which has tissues and a nervous system, split off from other animals before the tissue-less, nerve-less sponge.
The presence of the relatively complex comb jelly at the base of the tree of life suggests that the first animal was probably more complex than previously believed, says Dunn."
I think the NeoDarwinists specialise in the game called Heads I win, Tails you lose.
“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live” (Sam Harris-The End of Faith, p. 52).
™ Version 4.2
