Comb Jelly Footage Surprises Scientists, Upends Evolutionary Expectations

Comb jellyAUGUSTINE, Fla. – Evolutionists are once again having to scrap existing beliefs and return to the drawing board after observing one type of sea creature perform a previously undiscovered function.

On March 14 and 15, several dozen biologists met in Florida for the Ctenopalooza workshop—an event designed to further the study of ctenophores, which are a type of jellyfish-like sea creatures. Speakers at the workshop presented ideas, discussed new areas of study, and shared recent research findings.

One of the speakers at the event, William Browne of the University of Miami, presented new video footage of ctenophores—also known as comb jellies—that shows the sea creatures digesting food and expelling indigestible waste. Because comb jellies are translucent, their food remains visible as it circulates through their bodies.

The biologists were stunned by what they saw in Browne’s videos. According to a report from Science Magazine, the footage “elicited gasps from the audience.” Why were the films so shocking? According to reports, they completely upended biologists’ expectations of how comb jellies process food and excrete waste.

Per conventional evolutionary wisdom, comb jellies are ancient animals who have roamed the seas for more than 500 million years. Because of their age and position in the evolutionary tree, scientists believed comb jellies both ingested food and excreted waste through a single opening. As a result, the Smithsonian describes the comb jellies’ anatomy as “basic,” saying the “single opening [is] where food enters, waste is eliminated, and reproductive cells are released and taken in.”

However, Browne’s videos at the Ctenopalooza workshop show a much different story. Rather than returning through the opening in which they came, waste particles actually exited through muscle-lined pores along the rear of the comb jellies’ bodies—a more complex process than anticipated.

“Looks like I’ve been wrong for 30 years,” said marine biologist George Matsumoto after viewing Browne’s unprecedented videos. “If people don’t see this video, they won’t believe it.”

  • Connect with Christian News

This new discovery makes no sense  in the evolutionary tree, because species thought to have developed after comb jellies do not have this ability to get rid of waste through pores. Evolutionists are now wondering if comb jellies somehow evolved these fancy waste-expelling capabilities on their own. Regardless, evolutionists are having to return to the drawing board.

“Browne’s as-yet unpublished findings disrupt the stepwise progression of digestive anatomy from one to two holes early in animal evolution,” Science Magazine noted.

“We have all these traditional notions of a ladderlike view of evolution, and it keeps getting shaken,” evolutionary biologist Kevin Kocot added.

Ph.D. scientist Jay Wile says these comb jelly findings are another example of observable data not lining up with the predictions of evolutionary theory.

“It’s not surprising that this revelation elicited gasps from the audience, because the majority of those in attendance no doubt think that evolution is a good scientific theory,” Wile wrote last week on his blog. “Thus, they are inclined to believe the predictions of evolution, and evolution clearly predicts that comb jellies should have ‘simple’ digestive tracts.”

“Now please understand that to true believers, the fact that yet another evolutionary prediction has been falsified isn’t a big deal,” he continued. “Indeed, the same report that described the audience’s reaction at Ctenopalooza already started trying to explain around this falsified prediction. It’s possible, the report suggests, that comb jellies evolved an ‘advanced’ digestive tract independently of the other animals that have it. While adding such an epicycle forces evolutionary theory to be consistent with the known data, it doesn’t erase the fact that this is yet another example of a failed evolutionary prediction.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Cady555

    Sigh.

    If a prediction about jellyfish evolution was wrong, then the hypothesis about that aspect of jellyfish evolution needs to be revisited.

    The common term for this is “science”, not “problem.”

    This is why scientists rely on evidence.

    • David Rosario

      “Sigh” is right, because Darwinian evolution says “tree” while science says “no common ancestors”.

      “No reputable biologist …” Oh the numbers game. If a biologist disagrees, he or she is not “reputable”. Pure rubbish. Dr. Hugh Ross points out that about 75% of biologists believe in evolution. He also points out that over 50% of astrophysicists believe in creation because they can literally see into the past due to the amount of time it takes light to reach our planet. He also noted that over 50% of mathematicians believe in creation because they know the mathematical impossibility (not improbability) of evolution being true.

      Let’s not overlook that even your “reputable” biologists KNOW there hasn’t been enough time for Darwinian evolution. Here is one admitting to it (at around 58:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB3ZmLatcUI
      However, he accepts evolution BY FAITH.

      Even Dawkins knows this, so he’s ok with panspermia. Yes, evolutionists will do everything to disregard science in favor of their religion.

      • John N

        >’Dr. Hugh Ross points out that about 75% of biologists believe in evolution. ‘

        Which makes it clear he does not know what he is talking about. NO biologist EVER believed in evolution. Well, what do you expect from a creationist?

        Actually, it is estimated that more than 97% of all biologists accepts the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth. They accept it, because all the available evidence points to it, and no evidence has been found that refutes it.

        I guess your other statistics, coming from the same source, are as faulty as the first. I do not understand what your mathematicians have to do with it – since we observe evolution happening, we do know the probability of evolution to happen is exactly 1.

        Here is a biologist admitting it? James Tour is a chemist and a young earth creationist, who admits he does not understand evolution. Now why would you believe a guy who admits he doesn’t understand what he is talking about?

        Dawkins OK with panspermia? Dawkins admits organic molecules could have been formed all over the universe and might have ‘seeded’ the earth. Dawkins does not think aliens nor gods brought life to earth, which you seem to suggest.

        Maybe check your sources before making comments on scientific findings. It is clear that somebody has been lying to you. And of course you don’t want to use lies to promote your religion, won’t you?

        • David Rosario

          You answered exactly how I expected. When a scientist disagrees with the evolution hoax, you attack the scientist rather than discuss the data. In fact, you presented no data to the contrary, just “he’s wrong because I said so”; very scientific.

          Despite your statistics being wrong, even if 100% of biologists agreed (and I’m sure you are going to argue that only biologists qualify) the the moon is made of green cheese, it is totally irrelevant. Truth is not a popularity contest; something which you don’t understand. When 100% of the scientific community believed in phlogistons, 1 person proved everybody wrong.

          Let’s address your “no evidence refutes it” (when actually no evidence proves it). Using the scientific method (which evolution can never do), we have 30,000 generations of Lenski’s bacteria consistently producing nothing other than bacteria. An evolutionist will distort facts and say that because they eventually were able to survive on substrate, that proves evolution. An honest scientist will point out that it was simply a matter of gene expression, that they already had that ability.

          You obviously didn’t bother seeing the video. James Tour is DEBATING the evolution-believing biologist. That evolution-believing biologist demonstrates, USING SCIENCE (which evolution does not do), that the “evolution” rates of simple proteins is too slow to account for evolution, let alone the complex proteins. THIS is how science works. BTW, James Tour is challenging anyone to demonstrate the chemical reactions responsible for evolution, and nobody is able to. Since you believe there is evidence for it, please share it with us (or with him). Please, share ANY evidence for evolution. Here is what I predict (and this is a common thread with evolutionists):

          – you will deny the distinction between micro and macro evolution (denial and character attacks are the only weapon of evolutionists)
          – you will present no transitional fossils of whatever turned into a whale … nothing with a nose/blowhole midway between its previous position and its current
          – you will supply falsified data like embryology
          – you will point to things like the peppered moth as proof of evolution without explaining what it turned into or what it began as
          – you will not prove that any fossil had offspring, or how many offspring, or if any were a different creature

          In short, you will provide ZERO evidence for evolution and simply respond with the pathetic rhetoric that is always spewed.

          All of my sources are based on scientific findings; yours are based on SOME biologists with active imaginations. Someone has definitely been lying to me, and I have rejected those lies (evolution). I agree, I don’t want to use the lie of evolution to promote that religion; I’ll stick to science.

          • Cady555

            “chemical reactions responsible for evolution, ”

            There are no chemical reactions required for evolution. Evolution is driven by the fact that offspring are genetically different from parents.

            “- you will deny the distinction between micro and macro evolution (denial and character attacks are the only weapon of evolutionists)”

            Yep. It is like if I claimed addition works one way for numbers up to 237,974, but after that arbitrary cutoff addition works differently, then asked you to prove addition is addition while I stuffed my fingers in my ears. Sorry. Each generation is on average different from the prior generation. Add selection pressure and geographic isolation and evolution will happen.

            “- you will present no transitional fossils of whatever turned into a whale … nothing with a nose/blowhole midway between its previous position and its current”

            Protocetidae

            “- you will supply falsified data like embryology”

            Haekel published drawings of embryos in the 1860s and 1870s. His drawings have been criticized Fortunately, embryos still exist and research methods have advanced a tad in 150 years. Evidence from embryology comes from 10s of thousands of scientists and peer reviewed papers. The evidence from embryology is amazing. I trust you are aware of current research in this field.

            “- you will point to things like the peppered moth as proof of evolution without explaining what it turned into or what it began as”

            The peppered moth is an illustration of the effects of natural selection.

            – you will not prove that any fossil had offspring, or how many offspring, or if any were a different creature

            Huh? The individual lucky to be fossilized was one member of a population. Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve.

          • John N

            >’When a scientist disagrees with the evolution hoax, you attack the scientist rather than discuss the data’

            Since Ross does not offer any evidence for his silly claims, why would I need to discuss it?

            >’Using the scientific method (which evolution can never do), we have 30,000 generations of Lenski’s bacteria consistently producing nothing other than bacteria’
            Right. What did you expect? They would evolve wings and fly away? Where does the theory of evolution predicts that?

            >’An evolutionist will distort facts and say that because they eventually were able to survive on substrate, that proves evolution. An honest scientist will point out that it was simply a matter of gene expression, that they already had that ability.’

            A honest scientist would accept that a mutational change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations, like the develoment of a new metabolic pathway that was not present at the start, is indeed evidence of evolution.

            As for James Tour, let’s listen what he says regarding evolution:
            ‘Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject.’

            Which you do confirm yourself: the theory of evolution is about biological organisms, not about simple or complex proteins, like Tour and yourself seem to think. Well, he’s right – he really does not understand evolution, and neither do you.

            Now lets look at your challenges
            – you will deny the distinction between micro and macro evolution (denial and character attacks are the only weapon of evolutionists)

            Since no two creationist seem to agree on what those terms mean, please give a scientific based definition of ‘micro’ and ‘macro evolution’, and while you are at it, please explain the mechanisms blocking the one while allowing the other.

            – you will present no transitional fossils of whatever turned into a whale … nothing with a nose/blowhole midway between its previous position and its current
            Every fossil is a transitional fossil, unless it was the last in its line. You clearly do not understand what a transitional fossil is. As for your specific question, Basilosaurus would be a fine candidate.

            – you will supply falsified data like embryology
            What falsified data is there in embryology? We all know different species in the same class have similar embryos, even if the adult forms are quite different. The existence of identical structures in the embryos of more distant species, like the embryonic gill arches in fish embryos and human embryos, is more evidence of common ancestry.

            – you will point to things like the peppered moth as proof of evolution without explaining what it turned into or what it began as
            The history of peppered moth is a fine example of natural selection at work. What’s your problem?

            – you will not prove that any fossil had offspring, or how many offspring, or if any were a different creature
            What? You’re not making sense here. Of course extinct organisms had offspring. Or do you believe your creator created every or extinct organism individually?

            >’All of my sources are based on scientific findings’
            Is that so? Then you don’t mind giving us references of peer reviewed scientific articles describing your ‘findings’. Until you’ve done that, creationism belongs in church, not in science classes.

          • David Rosario

            Dr. Hugh Ross is “silly” because he disagrees with you. Common tactic of evolutionists. You never argue the findings; you attack the person. Epic fail, as usual.

            “What did you expect? They would evolve wings and fly away? Where does the theory of evolution predicts that?”
            Are you now arguing that everything produces after its own kind, or did you suddenly forget the definition of evolution?

            “A honest scientist …”
            Typical bait and switch of an evolutionist: using microevolution to claim macroevolution. Consistently having epic fails, but at least you’re consistent.

            James Tour …
            You consistently ignore the pro-evolution scientist he’s debating, the one who PROVES there hasn’t been enough time for evolution based on actual scientific data. You’re beginning to bore me.

            “Every fossil is a transitional fossil”
            If you start with the assumption that evolution is true, then you have to make that claim. This is what evolutionists do: they start with the premise that evolution is true and then shoehorn all data to fit into their religion.

            “the theory of evolution is about biological organisms, not about simple or complex proteins”
            Well, you’ve said a mouthful. Evolution jumped from nothing straight to biological organisms, skipping over every other dependency. Beyond an epic fail.

            “please explain the mechanisms blocking the one while allowing the other”
            That little inconvenient thing called “the scientific method”. I don’t have to show that there are any blockers. You have to show that things evolve, which you still haven’t. Let’s go with your “no blocker” theory. We should have 2 inch clydesdales and 40-foot chihuahuas. Science will quickly demonstrate the limits of DNA. Evolutionists will ignore these limits to support their lies.

            I’m done. You make it too easy. Goodbye

          • John N

            >’Dr. Hugh Ross is “silly” because he disagrees with you.’

            Do you have reading problems? Where did I say he is silly? I said his arguments are silly – scientific theories are not about belief.

            >’Are you now arguing that everything produces after its own kind, or did you suddenly forget the definition of evolution?’

            So what would be the definition of evolution according to you?

            >’Typical bait and switch of an evolutionist: using microevolution to claim macroevolution. Consistently having epic fails, but at least you’re consistent.’
            Since you do not seem to be able to differentiate between ‘micro’ and ‘macro evolution’, your claim is nonsense. So at least you are consistent.

            >’If you start with the assumption that evolution is true, then you have to make that claim. ‘
            Which makes it clear you do not understand the term ‘transitional fossil’. What a surprise.

            >’Evolution jumped from nothing straight to biological organisms’

            No, that would be creation. Again, evolution starts with living organisms. Please read something about it, before you make yourself a fool.

            >’ I don’t have to show that there are any blockers. You have to show that things evolve, which you still haven’t’
            Guess what – I do not have to do anything. You are the one claiming an unknown designer, aka. Jahweh, created all living organisms individually with built-in mechanisms to prevent ‘macro evolution’. Until you have evidence for all this – the designer, the creation, the impossibility of evolution – we can remain with the only accepted scientific theory for the diversity of live.

            >’Let’s go with your “no blocker” theory. We should have 2 inch clydesdales and 40-foot chihuahuas’
            More straw men, anyone? Why should we?

            >’I’m done.’
            Yes, your completely done. I guess we saw all creationists canards passing today. Let’s see – we got ‘macro evolution’, no transitional fossils, the origin of whales, evolution of chemicals, not enough time, evolution is a belief, … oh, you forgot your top argument – why are there still apes?

      • Meepestos

        Consider reevaluating your sources for credibility and bias especially on the internet. I find this helps. Google: Evaluating Sources: Bias and Credibility

    • JeffreyRo55

      Sigh.

  • Michael C

    I have more trust in someone who admits that they’re still learning than someone who claims to have all of the answers.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Would you trust more in a pilot who admitted he was still learning to fly over one who “had all of the answers?” Same question for a surgeon.

      • Michael C

        Again, I would have more trust in the person who admits that they’re still learning than someone who claims to have all of the answers.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          It’s a strawman to say that the Christian PhD in this article thinks that he has all of the answers. We do, however, point to the One Who does!

          Which reminds me of the most important thing we learn in our doctoral programs – that sort of goes along with your sentiments:

          1. Bachelors think they know everything, but they really know nothing.
          2. Masters realize that they know nothing.
          3. PhDs realize that they know nothing, and neither does anyone else.

          Or something like that. A bit too hyper-skeptical, but it does play into the general point I think you are making. Good talking with ya, Michael!

      • gizmo23

        I wouldn’t trust anyone that said they had all the knowledge concerning a given subject.
        I would definitely want my pilot or surgeon to be learning new things all the time

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “I wouldn’t trust anyone that said they had all the knowledge concerning a given subject.”

          Then, you don’t trust Jesus? 🙂 Sorry, could not resist. John 14:6

          Also, it is a strawman to imply that the Christian PhD in this article claims to know everything.

          “I would definitely want my pilot or surgeon to be learning new things all the time”

          Agreed. And they do. I just don’t want a pilot who is learning to fly over one who has much more knowledge and experience. Same for surgeon.

      • John N

        Tempting. If you put it like that, I would prefer the experienced pilot or surgeon.

        What you don’t tell us, of course, is that the guy with all the answers never actually flew a plane or performed surgery, but got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book written by people who neither flew planes or performed surgery, and that all the knowledge about these topics is covered in two small chapters known to contain factual errors an internal inconsistencies.

        If you would have told me that, probably I would have changed my mind …

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “the guy with all the answers”

          Strawman. The Christian PhD never claimed to have all the answers. He merely points to the One Who has.

          • John N

            >’Would you trust more in a pilot who admitted he was still learning to fly over one who “had all of the answers?” Same question for a surgeon.’

            Seems your are creating your own strawman here.

            As for the Christian PhD., he never pointed to anybody or anything. Seems the only thing he can say about the topic is ‘this is so complex, I can not believe it evolved.’

    • Cady555

      These are hardly the only choices. I wouldn’t want a med student to perform surgery on me. Nor would I want someone who got his M.Diety in 1958 and hasn’t learned a thing since.

      I would want someone with exceptional skills but who is still learning.

      Did you notice where this discussion took place? A two day ctenophore conference. A bunch of scientists got together to talk about jellyfish. For 2 days. They cheered when they learned something new. They broke into applause when shown evidence a hypothesis was disproven.

      Scientists care about accuracy. Scientists aren’t debating whether evolution happened because the evidence is obvious. They have moved on to learn about how jellyfish evolved from earlier life. Based on evidence.

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    The way this article is written is ridiculous. Finding out that jellyfish don’t poop through their mouths in no way discredits the theory of evolution.

    • bowie1

      It was how they thought was done was what surprised them.

    • David Rosario

      No need for this article to discredit evolution; science handily discredits evolution.

  • John N

    >’The biologists were stunned by what they saw in Browne’s videos.’

    No way. The biologists already knew for a long time that ctenophora have anal pores through which they eject undigested waste. That is one of the features that differentiates them from cnidarians. Which is quit normal, if you consider their evolutionary lines split up more than 500 million years ago. That’s an awful lot of time for mutation, natural selection and genetic drift to work upon…

    Probably the only one stunned here was the author of this article.

  • Rachelthemillenial

    Details like this are ultimately unimportant. On both sides, there is a leap of faith. One side believes that God made everything – which cannot be proven. The other side believes that God did not make everything – which cannot be proven. There are no scientific findings that will convince someone who is already set in his beliefs.

    • John N

      The fact that nor the existence nor the non-existence of gods can be proven, does not mean they are equally probable.

      Since the start of scientific research, every phenomenon, previously attributed to gods, that scientists investigated, like thunder and lightning, the movements of planets, diseases and the diversity of live, have been found to have natural causes.

      Strangely, it was never the other way around.

      What do you think the probabilty of scientists finding gods would be like?

    • TheKingOfRhye

      False dichotomy. It’s not “either you believe God made everything or you don’t.” Plenty of people are happy to leave the question unanswered. And it’s not even the kind of question science is there to answer, anyway.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Praise the Lord! Creatures behave as the Creator God has designed.

    • John N

      Ah! So you have those missing blueprints and design specifications, haven’t you? Because he seems to have lost them somewhere.

  • Benji

    The notion of jellyfish behavior “upending” the science of evolutionary biology is silly. You are talking about the most supported, tested and proven theory in science today

  • Diaris

    I thought Dippity Doo was comb jelly.

  • Seen From Space

    So when are the creation “scientists” going to do some actual research themselves?