Jump to content

Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals


Recommended Posts

Another piece of the puzzle of life. Seems to present very primitive form of cell differentiation, with only two types of cells.

A billion year old fossil, which provides a new link in the evolution of animals, has been discovered in Torridon, Scotland.

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-link-evolution.html

The organism was spherical in shape, suggesting also that cellular differentiation, "tissue" formation, and body plan were very primitive.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00424-3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted. (+1) I note that Martin Brasier is credited as a co-author. Brasier played a significant role in the identification and analysis of Pre-Cambrian micro-fossils and their evolution. He died in a car accident six or seven years ago. The organism's Linnaein name, Bicellum brasieri, presumably commemorates him and his role in this work. His popular book Darwin's Lost World, is an excellent read.

I love such work that puts another (unnecessary) nail in the coffin of those Creationists who fail to understand what occurred in the previous billion years to enable the Camrbian Explosion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Area54 said:

His popular book Darwin's Lost World, is an excellent read.

Thanks for the tip.

I'm especially interested in the pre-Cambrian. Obviously the key to life is there. I'm not sure, as you, because of the word "unnecessary", that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince creationists. As someone very far from an expert, I would very much like to have a map of the territory, so to speak, of those Archaean seas, lakes, and puddles, and the events that took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joigus said:
6 hours ago, Area54 said:

 

I love such work that puts another (unnecessary) nail in the coffin of those Creationists who fail to understand what occurred in the previous billion years to enable the Camrbian Explosion.

I'm especially interested in the pre-Cambrian. Obviously the key to life is there. I'm not sure, as you, because of the word "unnecessary", that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince creationists. As someone very far from an expert, I would very much like to have a map of the territory, so to speak, of those Archaean seas, lakes, and puddles, and the events that took place.

Re-enforcing the already accepted knowledge that the obvious process of abiogenesis, is the only scientific methodology explaining the origin and arising of life. It would certainly be a feather in the cap of science [and a big fat nail in the creationists coffin] if and when the exact methodology of that abiogenesis is known.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, joigus said:

A billion year old fossil, which provides a new link in the evolution of animals, has been discovered in Torridon, Scotland.

The main point in that article is posted below.

“The discovery of this new fossil suggests to us that the evolution of multicellular animals had occurred at least one billion years ago and that early events prior to the evolution of animals may have occurred in freshwater like lakes rather than the ocean.”

This finding does not in any way bridge the gap between monkeys and humans.

Ape.jpg

Edited by farsideofourmoon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent evidence suggests that humans may have left Africa half a million years earlier than previously thought. A joint Franco-Indian team has found human artefacts in the Siwalk Hills north of New Delhi dating back at least 2.6 million years. This is earlier than the previous earliest finding of genus Homo at Dmanisi, in Georgia, dating to 1.85 million years. Although controversial, tools found at a Chinese cave strengthen the case that humans used tools as far back as 2.48 million years ago.[64] This suggests that the Asian "Chopper" tool tradition, found in Java and northern China may have left Africa before the appearance of the Acheulian hand axe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm not sure, as you, because of the word "unnecessary", that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince creationists.

I feared my qualifier might be ambiguous. The Creationist argument (such as it is) was dismantled long ago, with a small fraction of the evidence we have today. In that sense no further nails are needed and this one is unnecessary. However, as you suggest, nothing will convince diehard Creationists, as their beliefs are based not on fact, but on fancy.

 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Re-enforcing the already accepted knowledge that the obvious process of abiogenesis, is the only scientific methodology explaining the origin and arising of life. It would certainly be a feather in the cap of science [and a big fat nail in the creationists coffin] if and when the exact methodology of that abiogenesis is known.

Yes, it's a valuable step in countering their "Goo to You" meme. I'm not sure we will ever determine the exact process by which life arose, but I think we shall, within this century, have identified a number of viable candidates. What I think will be possible, and this research is such an example, is to confidently  establish in detail the emergence of eularyotes, the appearance of multicellular organisms and thence to complex metazoans.

 

10 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said:

This finding does not in any way bridge the gap between monkeys and humans.

Why should it? In what possible way could that have any relevance, unless one had an unhealthy, anthropocentric obsession that saw the emergence of humans as central to evolutionary theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I feared my qualifier might be ambiguous.

:D No, it was my bad syntax to blame, sorry. What I meant was:

I, as you, am not sure that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince die-hard creationists. You expressed yourself perfectly. It was I who messed up my own meaning.

Having said that, my main excitement from this kind of news is quite a different one, as I assume yours is, really. My main motivation is to have as many snapshots of these first faltering steps of life, as well as the levels of complexity that went with it. I know palaeontologists call this Archean period "the boring Billion", which is easy to understand why. But I think it's the opposite. Nothing could be more exciting than figuring out how a pot of chemicals gives rise to self-organising, self-replicating structures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Area54 said:

Why should it? In what possible way could that have any relevance, unless one had an unhealthy, anthropocentric obsession that saw the emergence of humans as central to evolutionary theory?

I though this discussion was about evolution along the lines of Darwinism.

“Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Personally, I do not believe humans evolved from apes and finding some microbe does not prove otherwise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I though this discussion was about evolution along the lines of Darwinism.

“Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Personally, I do not believe humans evolved from apes and finding some microbe does not prove otherwise.

 

What you, or I, or @Area54, or any other, "personally believe" has no bearing on what science is about. Science is concerned with evidence and finding a theoretical framework of ideas to explain that evidence. Besides, this thread is not about human evolution.

Try your notions here, and see how they fare:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

Personally, I do not believe humans evolved from apes and finding some microbe does not prove otherwise.

!

Moderator Note

Which is irrelevant to the discussion, so there can be no follow-up in this thread

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I though this discussion was about evolution along the lines of Darwinism.

“Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Personally, I do not believe humans evolved from apes and finding some microbe does not prove otherwise.

 

This is a science site. A majority of the active members have scientific educations, or an extensive interest in science. As such I should be greatly surprised if many of them, perhaps not any of them,  failed to accept evolutionary theory, as developed from the original Darwin-Wallace concept, as being the best explanation of the diversity of life on the planet. So evolution is a given, on this forum and in this thread. What this thread is actually about is substantive evidence for an important stage in the evolution of more complex organisms. Empty prattles about personal incredulity have no relevance.

Edit: Cross posted with @swansont's mod comment.

 

Edited by Area54
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/30/2021 at 3:05 PM, joigus said:

Thanks for the tip.

I'm especially interested in the pre-Cambrian. Obviously the key to life is there. I'm not sure, as you, because of the word "unnecessary", that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince creationists. As someone very far from an expert, I would very much like to have a map of the territory, so to speak, of those Archaean seas, lakes, and puddles, and the events that took place.

The precambrian facentates me as well, far to many people assume the world began with dinosaurs, but before the reign of those terrible lizards some really fascinating and complex animals existed and the precambrian was definitely through a glass darkly..  

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I do not believe humans evolved from apes

As noted above, nobody cares what you believe, but just so you’re aware… humans ARE apes. You may as well be saying you refuse to believe flowers evolved from plants. Lol. 

Anyway, apologies for continuing the off topic tangent. Cool article in the OP, joigus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, iNow said:

As noted above, nobody cares what you believe, but just so you’re aware… humans ARE apes. You may as well be saying you refuse to believe flowers evolved from plants. Lol. 

 

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

As noted above, nobody cares what you believe

Oh wise one, since you speak for everybody, let me tell you and yours, everybody thinks you speak for nobody.

This is a digression from the OP. Humans are humans, apes are apes. But since you refuse to accept this I suggest you mate with a female ape and the offspring will end this debate once and for all.

agree?

(:-

 

I do not belong here, you know it, I know it so away I go

enjoy

(:-

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I do not belong here, you know it, I know it so away I go

The problem is that you speak with a confidence that doesn't match your level of knowledge, and you are intransigent with respect to your mistaken beliefs.

I suspect you will find very few places that will accept your style of discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iNow said:

Technically, I already have. Thanks, though 

ROFLMAAO

On 4/30/2021 at 9:42 PM, farsideofourmoon said:

The main point in that article is posted below.

“The discovery of this new fossil suggests to us that the evolution of multicellular animals had occurred at least one billion years ago and that early events prior to the evolution of animals may have occurred in freshwater like lakes rather than the ocean.”

This finding does not in any way bridge the gap between monkeys and humans.

Ape.jpg

It's sad that you have been indoctrinated so strongly that the two words "missing link" can only mean one thing when in fact, even in evolutionary biology, "missing link" can apply in a great many ways to things both in and outside biology. 

The OP does indeed not bridge the gap between monkeys and humans. To be sure mating with an ape would be a difficult task but the chromosome difference between humans and Gorillas, Bonobos, Chimps, and even Orangutans is far less than the difference between horses and donkeys yet they do produce offspring. I would be surprised if a mating between Humans and Chimps or Bonobos wouldn't produce offspring. The problem is that most scientists have a moral code that would prevent such a thing from being done. 

One of the most important things about science is that when you stop believing it it doesn't go away.    

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.