Uppsala University: The immense variability of microfossils has convinced the researchers that the complexity of life in that period must have been greater than has hitherto been known.
This “revolutionary animal” is not that much like the Cambrian creatures so far found but the big question is, how did life explode so quickly if it was only by chance? Why not just give up on that idea and study the creature for what it is?
Paleontologist Gunter Bechly looks at the claim that the Cambrian animals evolved from a long train of ancestors who somehow all just disappeared without a trace and finds it, well, unconvincing:
It’s the oldest found to date.
In reality, we don’t know that earlier Ediacarans didn’t “evolve” the ability to form shells or skeletons. True, we haven’t found any yet. But some of us can’t help remembering the “bombshell” of Neanderthal art. Why was it a bombshell? Because Darwinians had staked a claim on the idea that Neanderthals couldn’t “do” art. This is likely just an another attempt to shape the history of life as a Darwinian fairytale.
Researchers: “This approach reveals an unprecedented level of fundamental genomic novelties in two nodes related to the origin of land plants: the first in the origin of streptophytes during the Ediacaran and another in the ancestor of land plants in the Ordovician.” Stuck for what to call this, some of us would call it creationism.
Well, now that Zhu mentions it, hadn’t we better be sure that there are no adult stages before we make such dramatic claims? Otherwise, what we really have is another early Ediacaran complex animal which, while a marvellous find, is not the one Darwinians would be hoping for.
The Ediacaran creatures are fascinating predecessors to be sure. They will likely turn out to be explosions of life, just like the Cambrian, but often not clearly related to it.
The claim that the worm challenges the Cambrian explosion which followed this Ediacaran period is weird because we knew there were worms in the Ediacaran on account of the tracks (and comb jellies too) but the explosion of multi-faceted life in the Cambrian is a unique event in any case.
Dickinsonia, he says, is not an animal.
Associate Professor Jochen Brocks commented, “These fossils comprise our best window into earliest animal evolution and are the key to understanding our own deep origins.” Yes, in the sense that sudden emergence rather than a long, slow Darwinian process seems more likely all the time.
MOVE over, Dickinsonia. This 558-million-year-old creature was named the earliest known animal last year, but New Scientist can now exclusively reveal one that existed even earlier – by more than 40 million years. (paywall) Graham Lawton, “Exclusive: 600-million-year old blobs are earliest animals ever found” at New Scientist Note: They are described at New Scientist Read More…
A new paper tests the hypothesis that stable temperature was the key — cold but stable.
Even if these researchers are a teensy bit optimistic about their pinpoint accuracy, the pattern is clear: The history of life is becoming a field markedly less favorable to hand-waving. And note, in 410,000 years, the transition from the multicellular but simple Ediacaran life forms to the diverse Cambrian life forms is supposed to have taken place purely by natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism). Aw, come on.
Rather, he thinks, it is an unknown type of life form, which belonged to “an alien clade,” not certainly related to later life forms. Readers will recall that fats (sterols) were recently recovered from a 558 million-year-old fossil entity, Dickinsonia, which was previously uncertainly classified but is now classified as an animal as a result. Read More…