JP...all the sponge tells us is that the sponge fills its niche in the environment and is successful. Other mutations were perhaps not a successful and therefore coud not compete in that niche.Others may have evolved further and no longer be recognised as sponges and now inhabit a different niche.

We are at the end of a long line of a complex series of mutations / evolution. The sponge may also be. It doesn't need a brain to be succesful - much like reality TV stars.

I think Bugsy had implied all of this in his first post.

Perhaps so Phil, but I think my point still stands. It is inappropriate to use the word ‘why’ when it comes to science. Science may be able to discover how things work but it can tell us nothing about why things are as they are.

In the article Roger did ask, “Why does a sponge have most of the genes it needs to make a brain? And why has it not developed a brain in 600 million years?” That could be taken to mean, “How did it come to be that sponges have most of the genes needed to make a brain?” and if that is what was meant that is how it should have been phrased.

It could also be taken to mean, “Why is it that sponges have most of the genes needed to make a brain? What is the reason for such a phenomena?” and it seemed to me that is how he intended it to be read, and if so, then it is an essentially meaningless question.

JP,

No disrespect intended, I wonder if you miss the point - that of the connectedness of all multi-celled lifeforms, indicated by the described shared basic genome, all the way from a humble sponge to an incredibly complex human? This indicates an extraordinary level of relationship, pointing to a single origin.

It has to be food for thought, with the why equally important to the how.

If you have to mangle the correct and common usage of language to defend your point JP, I don't think you can defend it it well.

Most people do not say " how did it come to be that the sun shines?" or "How did it come to pass that I have lung cancer?". Not all why questions have to have 'purpose' behind them.

What is the 'reason' for such a phenomena? That is what scientists do: they find reasons. Reasons are causalities.

"What is the 'purpose' for such a phenomena" is what you intend to mean. Now THAT is a meaningless question.

Why does the sponge have no brain?

- Because it is more successful than man.

Men with their brain will soon finish off each other, while sponges are here to stay.