|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation? | |||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
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: Released from Message 3 of thread Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation? in the [forum=-25] forum. --Admin
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I can email pdf's of the paper and of non-free-access papers in Nature or Science that it references to any of you that are interested - just ask. Some of the pictures are pretty amazing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
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:
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'. Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thanks for sharing this. I saw the BBC article. Very exciting find!
. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
FWIW, there's a creationist al talk.origins arguing that it's contamination. News: Fossil embryos caught in the act of dividing (the sixth message in the tree).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What a find, fascinating stuff thanks for the lnky.
Of course this will not wash with YECers. Nothing else seems to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
EZ,
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'. Pedantic point of order; the Burgess Shale was Cambrian, the "embryo beds" predate this by quite a margin in the Precambrian. But interesting stuff, thanks for the heads-up. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Yes, quite correct. Earlier than the Burgess Shale, but still consistent with a lack of multicellular diversity in the Pre-Cambrian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, quite correct. Earlier than the Burgess Shale, but still consistent with a lack of multicellular diversity in the Pre-Cambrian. Uhmmmmm, not quite. There seems to be lots of newer evidence being found that shows more than even simple multicelular critters and even bilateral critters existing in the pre-cambrian. In particular the recent work of Chen etal describing findings from China point to a substancial body of diversity during the late precambrian period.
Shelly microfossils Pre-Cambrian Animal Life Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. But I was under the impression that we were now finding examples of both bilateral and radial symmetry 40-50 million years before the cambrian.
As one such example Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. Certainly. However what it does show is that the basics for life as we see it today go back at least to the precambrian, and that the precambrian is NOT some sudden appears of forms never before seen, but rather the basics for the lifeforms found in the cambrian explosion can be seen more than 40 million years earlier. Neither of these facts seem to provide much of a YEC explanation though and so far I have noticed that as usual, the YEC model to explan what is seen has been noticably missing from this thread. Why is it that so far NO YEC has ever been able to present a model that adequately explains anything seen? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
jar writes: Why is it that so far NO YEC has ever been able to present a model that adequately explains anything seen? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hongi Inactive Member |
Could I have the PDF for the OP? Thank you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024