Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 1 of 4 (356545)
10-14-2006 8:08 PM


The BBC has a report on these fossils found in China and recently analyzed by microCT (a form of tomography for visualizing interior structures in 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:
S. Xiao writes:
It is amazing that such delicate biological structures can be preserved in such an ancient deposit. We digitally extracted each cell from the embryos and then looked inside the cells.
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'.
So this is another monumental accomplishment for modern paleontology that is beautifully consistent with the predictions of other independent lines of reasoning w/r/t the time frame when higher life began to diversify into the forms we would find recognizable today.
Furthermore, given the disparity in intracellular structure between these fossil cells and modern embryonic cells we can say that nothing comparable exists today.
So, in an effort to be fair, let's see how this is consistent with the YEC view.
1. The dating is wrong, so the rocks are really only about 5,500 YO, not 550,000,000 years.
2. The fact that such embryological cells are no longer found is consistent with loss of biological diversiy after the fall.
3. The fact that the 'dated' materials yield biological inferences consistent with other independently 'dated' materials is only a coincidence, despite the vanishingly small probability.
Am I missing anything?
Seriously though, I think you have to accept this kind of work as great science with great public impact potential, whether you believe in evolution or not. But if you doubt evolution, consider this.
Of this international team that independently and collectively...
-discovered the micro-fossils
-dated the materials
-inferred taxonomy
-adapted the technology to image the fossils
-digitally reconstructed the images
-interpreted the images in terms of biological function
-etc. etc.
These scientists conceived of techniques, obtained funding, and collected and processed data under the operating assumption that their collective efforts would be interpreted within a framework of evolutionary paleontology. And that is precisely how they chose to interpret their results. No creationist assumptions anywhere to be found, nor anything to be gained in understanding by adding them.
But perhaps some might disagree...
Proposed for Biological Evolution -EZ

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-15-2006 9:12 AM EZscience has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 4 (356645)
10-15-2006 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EZscience
10-14-2006 8:08 PM


You're using a scientific finding as a point of departure for broad and not-too-specific criticisms of YEC views that range from dating to diversity to multicellular evolution. We don't need a thread so broad that no focused discussion could ever take place, and where practically any digression could be introduced without fear of having it ruled off-topic.
Could you narrow the focus?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EZscience, posted 10-14-2006 8:08 PM EZscience has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 3 of 4 (356666)
10-15-2006 11:19 AM


Insights into cellular development > 500 MY ago
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.
Edited by EZscience, : Add abstract

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 4 (356676)
10-15-2006 12:10 PM


Message 3 released as Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation? in the [forum=-5] forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024