Complexity Bible Study: A Complexity Science Approach To The Bible
Q: Why isn't ID a possible alternative to evolution?A: ID is not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put forward as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. ID has no explanatory power or predictive power. It simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.
Complexity Bible Study: A Complexity Science Approach to the Bible
The definitions to describe syllabic complexity vary among researchers. Fenk-Oczlon and Fenk (2008) define the concept as the number of phonemes per syllable. Their definition is narrower than the one proposed by Adsett and Marchand (2010), who define syllabic complexity as a measure of how difficult it is, on average, to determine the syllable boundaries in words in a specific language. In Seymour et al. (2003), the syllabic complexity dimension refers principally to the distinction between the Germanic languages, which have numerous closed CVC syllables and complex initial or final consonant clusters and the Romance languages, which have a predominance of open CV syllables with few consonant clusters in both onset and coda position. Thus, there is little consensus on how the syllabic complexity of languages should be determined. Previous research in this field generally adopted one of two approaches, the structural or the behavioral approach. Adsett and Marchand (2010) propose an alternative means, namely syllabification by analogy. All three interpretations will be discussed in the following sections.
Analyzing the syllabic complexity of Basque, Dutch, English, French, Frisian (primarily spoken in the Dutch province of Friesland), German, Italian, Norwegian, and Spanish using their SbA approach, Adsett and Marchand (2010) employed same-sized subsets with matching word length for spelling and pronunciation to facilitate comparisons across languages (see Adsett & Marchand, 2010, for more information about the lexicons used). To verify the representativeness of these lexicons for each specific language, they computed the frequencies of the CV syllables and compared these to values reported in the literature (Bortolini, 1976; Dauer, 1983; Frota & Vigário, 2001; Laks, 1995; Levelt & Van de Vijver, 1998)
Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn't imagine the earliest critter could be so complex. The mystery of the first animal denizen of the planet can only be inferred from fossils and by studying related animals today. To get to the bottom of that, scientists analyzed massive volumes of genetic data to define the earliest splits at the base of the animal tree of life. The tree of life is a hierarchy of evolutionary relationships among species that shows which groups split off on their own evolutionary path first. The new study surprisingly found that the comb jelly was the first animal to diverge from the base of the tree, not the less complex sponge, which had previously been given the honor. "This was a complete shocker," said study team member Casey Dunn of Brown University in Rhode Island. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong." Dunn's team checked and re-checked their results and came up with the same result every time: the comb jelly came first. The results are detailed in the April 10 issue of the journal Nature, a journal that, like most respected journals, requires other scientists review a paper prior to publication. Unlike sponges, comb jellies have connective tissues and a nervous system, and so are more complex. Though squishy and tentacled, they are not, however, true jellyfish as they lack the classic bell-shaped body and characteristic stinging cells. The finding was unexpected because evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first. Dunn says that two evolutionary scenarios can explain why the comb jellies would actually have been first among animals. The first is that the comb jelly evolved its complexity independent of other animals after branching off to forge its own path. The second is that the sponge evolved its simpler form from the more complex form. This second possibility underscores the fact that "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," Dunn said. Though scientists can say which animal branched off first, they can't date precisely when this early comb jelly diverged away. "Unfortunately, we don't have fossils of the oldest comb jelly," Dunn said. "Therefore, there is no way to date the earliest jelly and determine when it diverged." Though comb jellies are a common creature in the seas today, these modern specimens likely look very different from their early ancestors. Dunn and his team hope that their approach will fill other gaps in the tree of life, including where the branches of many of today's species belong. Other researchers involved in the study, funded by the National Science Foundation: Gonzalo Giribet of Harvard University, Mark Martindale of the University of Hawaii and Ward Wheeler of the American Museum of Natural History.