Image not available

1262x826

jeffrey-combs.jpg

๐Ÿงต comb jellies as animals?

Anonymous No. 16087623

I just can't believe they are animals. Their genes are completely different from animal genes.
In fact even sponges show genetically closer relation to animal genes than comb jellies do.

It would seem to me that they are separate branch of life that just happens to be similar to medusae (transparent, jelly bodies) due convergent evolution since both are sea creatures an this simple body plan is economical and effective for certain sea environment.

They look and act like animals but certainly dont have animal genes.

1. They have mitochondria
2. Animals have mitochondria
3. Mushroom has mitochondria
4. Plants dont have mitochonria.

Anonymous No. 16087629

>>16087623
OP, you are probably flat out fucking wrong, but taxonomic arguments are better than most of the other recurring crap posted on /sci/. Good thread.

Anonymous No. 16087633

>>16087629
this is based on purely genes and omits all the non genetic data on what is animal and what is not

(genes were discovered 100 years ago and before that nobody knew about DNA, yet even before that mankind was fascinated for 3000 years about how animals, plants and fungus are different from each other)

Cult of Passion No. 16087644

>>16087623
Same. I marked 'oyster' as the first animal but found jellyfish to be a greyzone, as the 'central nervous system' is what I counted.

Anonymous No. 16087656

>>16087644
theres another point for this whole thing: comb jelly nervous system is unlike other nerve animals nervous systems

all animals except sponge has nerves but this doesnt mean sponge could not be the ancestor for everything except comb jelly

so what I suggest is that all animals except comb jellies evolve from sponges after they invented nerve cells

meanwhile, comb jellies come from non-animals and invent nerve cells by themselves all while being unconnected to animals

multicellular organisms have appeared many times from single celled ancestors