Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation?

The really novel nature of this work is the visualization of intracellular structure of embryonic cells that are 550 MY old.The discovery of such delicate microstructures in fossilized form is unprecedented to my knowledge.They provide a unique opportunity to contrast the cellular development of very primitive extinct animals with that of extant organisms that are already well described. A number of important similarities and contrasts have already been noted. These comparisons will provide insights into how cellular development has evolved since the Cambrian explosion and evolutionary theory is certain to be used in interpreting their significance.A focus of the discussion could be that the very primitive intracellular structure revealed is consistent with the evolutionary view that no complex life existed at that time and completely inconsistent with the Creo view that all life was created at once, and that what followed was a loss of diversity after 'The Fall'.Regardless of any contention that dating techniques might be flawed, these geological strata, that were apparently formed in conditions remarkably conducive to fossilization, contain no complex higher organisms that should be there if the Creo view were to be supported.Here is the Astract from the Science article.

quote:

---

Stereoblastic embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China exhibit occasional asynchronous cell division, with diminishing blastomere volume as cleavage proceeded. Asynchronous cell division is common in modern embryos, implying that sophisticated mechanisms for differential cell division timing and embryonic cell lineage differentiation evolved before 551 million years ago. Subcellular structures akin to organelles, coated yolk granules, or lipid vesicles occur in these embryos. Paired reniform structures within embryo cells may represent fossil evidence of cells about to undergo division. Embryos exhibit no evidence of epithelial organization, even in embryos composed of 1000 cells. Many of these features are compatible with metazoans, but the absence of epithelialization is consistent only with a stem-metazoan affinity for Doushantuo embryos.

---

Released from Message 3 of thread Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation? in the [forum=-25] forum. --Admin

can be found at the BBC site here A form of tomography, microCT, was used to visualize interior structures in the rock.Using digital reconsruction, the organelles of specific embryonic cells could be visualized and conpared to those of modern embryonic eukariotes.Quotes from one of the scientists: The consensus was that the embryos were those of very primitive sponge-like animals.This apparently rich bed of fossil embryos dates to the pre-Cambrian (around the time of the Burgess shale) and the primitive intracelluar structure supports the view that multi-cellular life forms were not yet highly evolved before the 'Cambrian explosion'.Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

Yes, quite correct. Earlier than the Burgess Shale, but still consistent with a lack of multicellular diversity in the Pre-Cambrian.

Yes, there was obviously Pre-Cambrian diversity in primitive groups like cnidarians etc. What the Cambrian explosion really represented was the appearance of multiple new and more complex body plans with both bilateral and radial symmetry, many of which gave rise to the extant lineages of higher organisms we see today, and many strange 'experiments' that left no descendents at all, but would be considered to represent novel phyla if they were alive today. Although there wasn't a lack of diversity prior to the Cambrian boundary it was limited, and diversity of higher life forms began an exponential increase at that point.

Definitely, yes. But bilateral symmetry does not imply much complexity - it only sets the stage for a polarized body plan with a head end and a tail end. These were very primitive microscopic organisms.

Apart from the fact they are working from a flawed premise?I think that models derived from biblical accounts of nature are constructed with the objective of engineeering a consistency with pre-existing assumptions, rather than trying to achieve any paradigm shift in understanding.They are not designed to explain, only to confirm what is already assumed. Nor can their fundamental assumptions or premises be questioned or subject to modification. Thus we should not expect evolving, functional explanations to be generated by religiously-derived models of nature.In a sense, most great scientific advances are iconoclastic in nature, and iconclasts are anathema within religious sects, most of which decry any intellectual doubt in hopes of perpetuating their own world view without change.