Here’s more, from the literature, on those 760 million year old fossil sponges
| February 7, 2012 | Posted by News under Evolution, Intelligent Design, News |
These ones.
Robert W. Gess: The oldest animal fossils
South African Journal of Science, 2012; 108(1/2), Art. #1064, 2 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v108i1/2.1064
The description by Brain et al. in this issue, of sponge-like organisms from Namibian rocks ranging in age between 760 Ma and 550 Ma, is extremely significant as these organisms represent the earliest record of metazoan life. This discovery places the origin of animals 100 million years to 150 million years earlier than has previously been accepted. That these organisms arose prior to the ‘snowball earth’2 and survived its extremes, presents a challenge to contemporary scientific thought.
[ ... ]
By contrast, the fossils newly reported by Brain et al. demonstrate a complex rigid structure consistent with requirements for the feeding mechanism of sponges, suggesting the presence of animals of a high level of organisation. The rocks of southern Africa have yet again yielded up key evidence regarding the history of life.
The first animals: ca. 760-million-year-old sponge-like fossils from Namibia.
C. K. ‘Bob’ Brain, Anthony R. Prave, Karl-Heinz Hoffmann, Anthony E. Fallick, Andre Botha, Donald A. Herd, Craig Sturrock, Iain Young, Daniel J. Condon, Stuart G. Allison
South African Journal of Science, 2012; 108(1/2), Art. #658, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v108i1/2.658
One of the most profound events in biospheric evolution was the emergence of animals, which is thought to have occurred some 600-650 Ma. Here we report on the discovery of phosphatised body fossils that we interpret as ancient sponge-like fossils and term them Otavia antiqua gen. et sp. nov. The fossils are found in Namibia in rocks that range in age between about 760 Ma and 550 Ma. This age places the advent of animals some 100 to 150 million years earlier than proposed, and prior to the extreme climatic changes and postulated stepwise increases in oxygen levels of Ediacaran time. These findings support the predictions based on genetic sequencing and inferences drawn from biomarkers that the first animals were sponges. Further, the deposition and burial of Otavia as sedimentary particles may have driven the large positive C-isotopic excursions and increases in oxygen levels that have been inferred for Neoproterozoic time.
54 Responses to Here’s more, from the literature, on those 760 million year old fossil sponges
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This paper can also be freely downloaded here:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15982/1/SpongeNamibia.pdf
Hmm extreme stasis is observed for 210 million years for a sponge. Furthermore they state:
So what we know for a fact is that we have evidence of extreme long term stasis through dramatic environmental pressures which ‘should have’ made them ‘adapt’ according to Darwinian reasoning (if their truly be such a creature as objective Darwinian reasoning), which is a very non-Darwinian finding for them to find. Moreover the authors gave no clue as to where they think the sponges came from in the first place save for their gratuitous bow of the knee to almighty King Darwin (All Hail Darwin! psst, somebody get that guy some clothes).
Well, as foreign as it may be to “Darwinian reasoning’, or as much as it may ‘present a challenge to contemporary scientific thought’, there is actually fairly strong evidence that sponges, as well as the other life, which had preceded the Cambrian Explosion of fully articulated animals in the Cambrian seas, were integral to ‘terra-forming’ the earth to make it a suitable habitat for the appearance of those fully articulated animals in the Cambrian seas:
Notes to that effect:
Interestingly, ‘soft-bodied’ Jellyfish and Sponges appeared suddenly in the fossil record a few ten million years before the Cambrian Explosion, and have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. Moreover, contrary to evolutionary thinking, Jellyfish and Sponges appear to have essential purpose in preparing the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion that was to follow.
Fossils of all types of sponges alive today have been found virtually unchanged in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Moreover, sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume, as well as more organic matter than they consume (Wikipedia).
Moreover sponge embryos are actually one piece of evidence that argues forcefully against the ‘incomplete fossil record argument’ that evolutionists try to use to ‘explain away’ the missing transitional forms in the fossil record:
further notes:
Verse and Music:
Apparently Wells was right. They should have been preserved and were.
So the new mantra is that if animals evolved from sponges, why are there still sponges?
Pet, please do list all the transitional fossils between sponges and the Cambrian animals. and no your imagination does not count as actual evidence:
“Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm
If imagination is not allowed, what is your theory?
If imagination is not allowed, why did people look for the sponge fossils.
It strikes me that the scientific imagination leads to testable hyoptheses, and the imaginary design hypothesis has remained sterile since Paley.
As far as I know genetic studies discarted sponges as animal ancestors.
Pet, what sheer hypocrisy. You demand the right to use ‘scientific imagination’ because you have ZERO transitional fossils between sponges and Cambrian animals, and thus you are forced to ‘imagine’ them since they do not exist in reality, and then you turn right around and say ‘imaginary design hypothesis’ in a derogatory sense, so as to try to discredit ID, even though ID uses ‘imagination’ in no such ‘explanatory fashion’ as Darwinists continually do, but instead ID reasons from real world evidence, and the presently acting causes known to produce that real world evidence, to the most causally adequate explanation for that evidence we observe in the real world. A method of explanation that Darwin himself used to first advance his hypothesis.
It is also important to note what Darwin ‘ignored restraints’ that were within science at the time he formed it, and can thus be fairly said that he let ‘imagination’ take precedence in his hypothesis, just so as to advance his hypothesis;
And need I remind that Darwinism cannot even ground ‘science in the first place? (Plantinga)
The studies used the wrong sponges…
Imagination is essential to hypothesis formation.
What separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses.
You think there were metazoans before the Cambrian? then look for confirming evidence. The looking part is what makes it science.
Really, that’s your response to BA77′s request to
“please do list all the transitional fossils between sponges and the Cambrian animals. and no your imagination does not count as actual evidence”
So basically you’re admitting there are no intermediates other than in your and the imagination of evolutionists.
For which, given the truly extensive number of new phyla utilising all manner of unique biological systems, there really should be many numerous intermediate animals.
Stasis. Massive increase in specified biological complexity. Stasis. Massive increase in specified biological complexity. Repeat.
Before this fossil find there were no metazoan fossils older than 530 million years. Now there are, and with a nice comfortable 100+ million years. Far beyond the range of dating errors.
Why do you suppose that is? When they hadn’t been found it was claimed they did not exist, and that the fossils did not exist because the animals never existed.
Now it is claimed there are no intermediates between sponges and the Cambrian animals. What do you think? Are you so confident none will ever be found that you would bet serious money? Would you bet something of serious value to you?
On the list of failed bets are bat fossils, whale fossils, feathered dinosaur fossils. On the list of failed molecular predictions are functional subunits of flagella and varieties of flagella having fewer parts than the one used as the icon of ID at the top of this page. Not to mention reduced versions of the blood clotting system.
Every prediction of no intermediates has failed and will continue to fail. I’ll bet on it.
I think you can safely assume that modern sponges are not ancestors of modern animals. TV characters notwithstanding.
A fairly easy web search reveals that sponges have not been regarded as ancestors of other animal lineages. They are, however, regarded as the closest to the common ancestor of animals.
I’m certainly not an expert, but this discovery seems to push the fossil evidence for the divergence back quite a ways.
Pet states: What separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses.
And yet scripture dictates:
HMMM Pet, seems you spoke before you thought (again)! As well, it is well known that neo-Darwinists refuse to submit their beloved hypothesis (their religion) to rigorous ‘testing’ by which one can hope to falsify their beloved hypothesis (their religion). In fact ‘testing’ that runs completely counter to neo-Darwinism, and indeed falsifies neo-Darwinism, is simply ignored.,,, So I guess it was predictable that you would defend the use of unrestrained ‘imagination’ in science, since neo-Darwinism is truly a science of ‘unrestrained imagination’, indeed neo-Darwinism is truly dependent on unrestrained imagination to even be seen as viable instead of the pseudo-science it truly is!
Moreover Petruhka, ‘science’ does not equate with materialism in general, nor with Darwinism in particular. Second, ‘science’ cannot even be grounded in your atheistic-materialistic worldview!!!.
Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
Last power point of preceding video states:
This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
This ‘lack of a guarantee’, for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;
Further notes on the mysterious reason why the Judeo-Christian presupposition would be so successful to the sustained development of modern science;
I’m sure there were, but soft bodied animals don’t get fossilized, and only a tiny fraction of bony animals get fossilized. There are no fossil passenger pigeons.
Nevertheless I will go on record prediction that more pre-Cambrian animals will be found.
Your line of reasoning argues they never existed. Right?
Pet imagines:
Yet the real world evidence states:
Pet goes on to imagine;
Yet the real world evidence states:
Wait a sec, from what I understand it’s about 570mya in the late Precambrian that sponges first appeared.
No the contention has always been that there are no intermediates between sponges and the Cambrian animals. That is no different now.
All that has changed is the appearance of sponges has been pushed back. It has no effect on the “Cambrian explosion” itself.
We still lack an intermediate of any kind that can account for the inordinate increase in biological diversity of creatures that utilise sight and numerous other multi-organ systems within around 40 phyla… come now, a sponge just doesn’t cut it. Where are those “awkward”, gradual animals morphing / diverging between a sponge and creatures with eyesight.
Pushing back the appearance of sponges does not in anyway solve the problem that the Cambrian phyla pose for neo-Darwinism.
Petruska imagines:
Yet the real world evidence states:
If you presented undisputed evidence for older metazoans I must have missed it.
Needless to say, sponges did not die out prior to the Cambrian.
If You wish to present evidence, kindly do so in print form. I don’t have computer speakers and don’t watch videos. Something along the lines of this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....06549.html
Of course soft-bodied organisms will have less of a chance of being preserved, yet there has been extensive preservation of soft-bodied animals and organs within varying strata — just not the right strata to support an evolutionary pattern. The fossil record seems awfully selective in what is fossilized does it not…
- Entirely soft-bodied creatures of several phyla appear in the Cambrian strata.
- Most notably soft-bodied organisms do appear in Precambrian strata all around the world — though none of these themselves represent credible intermediates to the Cambrian phyla.
Furthermore, and more significantly, the suggestion that soft-bodied animals alone could be responsible for their hard-bodied ancestors is nonsensical. Many of the creatures could not have evolved their hard parts after the fact as those hard parts played a fundamental role in protecting the soft parts from environmental conditions.
You mean sponges, or true intermediates?
Right.
Petrushka imagines he has evidence for Bat evolution, because he cites a paper of a 50 million year old bat without echolocation.
Yet the real world evidence states;
Petrushka:
<iWhat separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses.
How do you test products of your imagination if they don’t exist?
Environmental conditions? We have soft bodied critters today. How do they survive without protection?
Your sentence construction suggests you are presenting contradictory evidence. Is the rest of your post a typographical error?
Please provide an example relevant to the topic of this thread.
I’m curious: The argument for ID in the Cambrian boils down to the lack of fossils? That’s the argument?
So did passenger pigeons exist?
Am I missing something? Is there some actual content to this argument, or just an appeal to ignorance?
Petrushka:
Please provide an example relevant to the topic of this thread.
You’re asking me to provide examples of imaginary products?
Please answer the question: how do you test products of your imagination? How is this done, exactly?
Pet, why should you try to dodge the evidence by becoming a critic of grammar? Is this best you can do? criticize grammar? Have you no integrity man??? Why don’t you honestly address the evidence, instead of playing silly games and finally admit that you are living in a fantasy land with your dogmatic belief in neo-Darwinism???
,,, Moreover, science, when allowed to work properly is suppose to eliminate such unrestrained imagination, which we find rampant within neo-Darwinism (and materialism in general) yet as noted in this page:
,,,neo-Darwinism, and atheistic materialism in particular, has apparently retarded the proper use of science to the point where imagination, no matter how wild, is given serious consideration as a valid hypothesis! Moreover, I’m positive the Judeo-Christian founders of science would be sickened as to how atheists have polluted modern science with their materialistic dogma!
I imagine (infer) that an undiscovered planet is perturbing the orbits of known planets. I search for the unknown planet.
I imagine an unknown intermediate existed between whales and land animals. I search for fossils having intermediate characteristics.
I imagine that reptiles were ancestral to birds. I look for fossils having mixed characteristics.
Pet admits:
yet the real world evidence states:
Petrushka protests (too much)
No, the point of ‘boiling it down’ was to show you that the only place transitional fossils exist is in your, and other neo-Darwinists, unrestrained imagination! On the other hand, The argument for ID is this:
So again the link is missing.
Very strange behavior for a chemical molecule, from the common ancestor we got in one side sponges and only sponges since 750 Mya, and in the other branch all the living animals.
Casey Luskin is now an expert on evo-devo?
What can happen in 200,000 generations?
It takes roughly 50 generations to turn a population of foxes into dog-like household pets.
You like to talk about evidence as opposed to imagination. What is your evidence that 200,000 generations is not enough?
I bet you aren’t willing to post links to pictures. The one supposedly fully aquatic still has the head and neck of a land animal. It is more seal looking than whale looking.
Pet asks:
Not nearly as much as your unrestrained imagination imagines:
Let’s just see what we can find after 50,000 generations of Lenski’s e-coli, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???
Now that just can’t be right Petrushka!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!
Now something is going terribly wrong here Petrushka!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror at the awesome power of unguided Darwinian processes (BWU HA HA HA,,,, evil laugh,,, BWU HA HA HA)!!!
Now, there is something terribly wrong here Petrushka! We can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!!
Further notes:
Music and Verse
Petrushka you state:
Yet contrary to your imagination that thinks this is a stunning example of Darwinian evolution the simple ‘real world’ fact is that this is accomplished by the culling of information that was already preexistent in the foxes.
This YEC suggests that the whole concept that evolution is somewhat balanced on is that SPONGES etc are more primitive then cats.
A creator would not make inferior or superior biological entities and so its to be proven a sponge is more primitive then anything else.
Whats primitive about these fantastic things!
No reason to see primitive to better by these creatures.
Thats species-ism.
Robert,
‘Primitive’ in biology doesn’t mean ‘inferior’:
But you haven’t addressed my point.
Tremendous variation in physical form can occur with very few new genes. The difference is in regulation. In fact there are very few new genes in the entire vertebrate line.
Mutations in regulatory genes are much less likely to be fatal than those in protein coding genes. So evolution in body shape can occur much more rapidly.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t make a statement that isn’t true and that you know to be a fact. If I ask, you could name the genes and the alleles involved in transforming a wolf into a teacup poodle.
Since you stated it as a fact, I expect that you can do this.
What specifically is strange? What do you think evolution is?
You might better have asked why there are still bacteria. Even more interesting, why are bacteria the dominant life forms in numbers and in biomass.
I’ve seen it seriously suggested that, by weight, there are more bacteria and viruses in the human body than human cells.
Petrushka, I stated, as a ‘fact’, that the entire spectrum of dogs has less genetic diversity than wolves! I even cited a paper to that effect, that showed the ‘sub-speciation’ of dogs from wolves was due to loss of genetic information. That’s pretty good evidence from where I sit. It seems to me that the burden is clearly on you to show the origination of your imagined novel genetic information (ORFan genes), in teacup poodles, to prove what imagine to be true is actually true instead of just imagining that new genetic information has arisen. i.e. You imagine that novel genes/proteins can arise by random material processes in ’50 generations’??? Good, since we are dealing with science and not with your unrestrained imagination, PROVE IT!!!
So are you willing to state, at peril of violating the commandment against lying, that there are no new alleles in dogs that are not found in wolves?
Petrushka, new alleles??? What are you talking about???,, sure detrimental mutations arise all the time (new alleles), in fact each human has approximately 60 to 100 new detrimental mutations (new alleles) every time a new human is born:
The problem for you Petrushka, is not finding detrimental mutations (new alleles), we are literally swimming in detrimental mutations, the problems for you is to find beneficial mutations that will work together in coordinated fashion so as to bring about new genes and proteins i.e. new genetic information!
New alleles would be what is meant by new information. As opposed to recombinations of existing alleles.
Which would still fit the ordinary definition of evolution.
Petrushka, so what you are really saying is that you don’t care that the mutations (new alleles) are detrimental and don’t build functional information, novel genes or proteins, but all you care about is that you can still believe in your unrestrained imagination no matter what equivocation and deception you have to use!!! Well Petrushka, that’s up to you, but I certainly ain’t going to live in your self made fantasy land of nihilistic atheism!!!
Usefulness of an allele is defined by differential reproductive success.
You miss the point somewhat. Animals that do employ a hard outer covering could not have evolved sans this protection.
Naturally animals that do not use such a tool, and have no use for it and can survive without the protection.
Petrushka imagines, in mythical molecular reductionism fashion, that;
Yet the real world evidence states:
i.e.,,, that is a net ‘fitness gain’ within a ‘stressed’ environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more ‘fit’, as with antibiotic bacteria:
Yet when we look for mutations in a ‘non-stressed’ environment, i.e. in a ‘normal environment’ that does not have antagonistic factors like antibiotics, mutations that may ‘build upon one another’, build upon one another in a ‘neo-Darwinian quest’ to build useful functional information, we find that,,,
so even though, in a stressed environment, neo-Darwinists may imagine that they have found useful mutations, the fact is that these supposed useful mutations of neo-Darwinists are nothing of the sort when considering the functional information of the cell. i.e. The mutations refuse to ‘cooperate with each other’ in the endeavor of building useful, novel, genes and proteins:
One of the primary reasons why random mutations (or even ‘genetically engineered mutations’) cannot build functional information is as follows:
Verse and Music:
And yet Beheld is simply wrong. Genomes are not constrained as tightly as your puzzle, and multi-step inventions do occur.
It will be fun to watch as more young researchers take Thornton’s approach.
I’ve been following this debate since 1956, and it’s been entertaining watching the goalposts move.
Petrushka, your response is lackadaisical to put it mildly. You cannot simply declare that functional information, proteins/genes, may someday be generated by neo-Darwinian processes and presuppose that we will take your word on it (especially your word on it!). It is pie in the sky ‘promissory materialism’ that you advocate, and it is this unrestrained imaginary fantasy of yours, and other neo-Darwinists, that is always off in the future, over the rainbow, somewhere. Whereas here in the real world, from the best scientific evidence we have right now, we already have evidence which falsifies neo-Darwinism!!! But what is completely ludicrous in your response is that you try to claim that Thornton’s work supports your completely unsubstantiated view that microbes are not really ‘devolving’ in their ‘beneficial’ adaptations, as I hold, and are thus not severely constrained in the amount of ‘upward evolvability’, as all evidence indicates. Yet, (in the real world) Thornton’s own work testifies that you are living in a fantasy land and could care less about all the consistent experimental results that, without fail, go against your dogmatic atheistic beliefs!!! Here is Dr. Behe’s analysis of Thornton’s exceedingly meager results, which you have placed all your faith in as to demonstrating the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution for all the rest of us to see. Drum roll please,,,
Thus Pet, it seems, as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned, evidence that you yourself cite, that you are no better than the mad Drunkard in the street, who has delusions of grandeur,,, of being ruler of the world, but in reality the mad Drunkard is but a mad Drunkard and must beg for others for scraps of charity so that he can even afford his next drink.
notes:
I’m not sure I understand your point.
Is this not a question better posed to evolutionists?
If evolution is all about change through random changes to DNA sequence, which then supposedly leads to macroevolution, why indeed do we still have bacteria?
Design explains it quite easily. Biological entities are “closed systems”. They are restricted by their body plan to allow only a limited amount of mutation before it conflicts with the overarching body plan. Hence bacteria will always remain bacteria, and so to mammals remain mammals.
How does neo-Darwinism explain such extensive stasis?
You might argue that bacteria have found their “niche” within the ecosystem; that the product of natural selection is solely to survive — but that begs the question as to why we have such a diverse, colourful and intricate array of life on the planet.
If the mutation / selection mechanism selects for survival, then what better method for survival than prokaryotic fission.
And why would this method seemingly continually select across the entire spectrum of mammals for a lifespan of 100 years or less if survival is the end-product. And if you argue that selecting for a prolonged life would put a strain on resources; well that is besides the point, as mutation / selection cannot “see” beyond what works well for that organism in the moment.
Petrushka:
I imagine (infer) that an undiscovered planet is perturbing the orbits of known planets. I search for the unknown planet.
You seem to suggest that Darwinism is just like gravity. But gravity works a little differently.
There were facts in hand that led scientists to propose this scenario. They didn’t “imagine” it; they deduced it. And they discovered they were correct.
Darwin “imagined” that there were just as many extant forms of life prior to the Cambrian as those that followed the Cambrian, except that they were less diversified. It’s right there in the OofS. So, unlike gravity, where a prediction based on logical deductions was verified, Darwinian imaginations, the fruit of inductive logic, and inductive logic alone, has not been verified.
Further, what phyla, other than Chordata, exhibits dramatic changes in morphology over time? I’m no expert, but I’m fairly confident that other than insects, we don’t see many. And, again, where are the intermediates to Archeopteryx? If you come up with some single “intermediate”, this is hardly persuasive evidence of the Darwinian model.
It appears that this paper may not have been “peer-reviewed”, and at least one scientist thinks its conclusions are wrong.
Pet said:
“I’m certainly not an expert, but this discovery seems to push the fossil evidence for the divergence back quite a ways.”
I’m not an expert either, but this is the constant pattern that we find. Everything keeps getting pushed back. At what point does this become a problem for evolutionists? I mean, it seems the available time for the first life to evolve is getting smaller and smaller. It seems that the available time for animal life to evolve from that point is getting shorter and shorter.
Time is the great friend of evolution we are told. Time makes the impossible possible it has been said. The idea of vast amounts of time has been used by evolutionists to try and get people to swallow the evolutionary story.
But what do we do when the available amount of time keeps shrinking? Do we just ramp up the level of our faith and keep on believing or is there a point where we really need to rethink what is possible and what is not possible?
Time is becoming less and less a friend of evolutionists, but it is a problem that most people don’t realize. Many people still think there are vast amounts of time available for evolution to work its magic. Embarrassingly, time has become an enemy to the whale evolutionary story and it is fast coming to a head in other areas as well.
Of course, no one knows how soon the first life evolved, but what is thought to be the earliest possible time that could have happened? I’m sure someone here must have an idea of that. Best case scenario which almost certainly could not have occurred would be what? Just curious.