“‘We were surprised by what we found because we were not looking for, or expecting it,’ says Johan Lindgren, an Associate Professor at the Department of Geology, Lund University, and lead author of the study published this week in the journal Nature.” Note that they are now wondering whether Cambrian arthropods’ eyes were really that different. Talk about stasis.
Also, here’s a 2017 Abstract from Nature, noting that “Our results expand the known repertoire of ‘eukaryote-specific’ proteins in Archaea, indicating that the archaeal host cell already contained many key components that govern eukaryotic cellular complexity.” Thus they had that complexity back then. Not so good for Darwinism unless Darwinism is magic.
So if all this complexity got started in something like the twinkling of an eye, are we looking at an argument for creationism? Or what? What exactly is the source of all this very complex, very early information?
“Dr Cardona also suggests that this might mean oxygenic photosynthesis was not the product of a billion years of evolution from anoxygenic photosynthesis, but could have been a trait that evolved much sooner, if not first.” So when did the billions of years of Darwinian evolution that “gradually evolved” photosynthesis happen?
They didn’t find anything like a “parenting switch” that applied across frog and mouse species, they noted. But parenting behavior, however caused, may be very much older that we used to think (the rise of amphibians about 360 million years ago?). And yet many later life forms don’t care for their offspring. The more evolution becomes a history, the more it features puzzling complexities that can’t be resolved by a fatuous appeal to an “ism”.
Dear readers, It has been far too long since my last post, occasioned by the fact that I have entirely too many irons in the fire. I hope you will forgive this brief “drive-by” post, with a request for some help and information. One of the common refrains that comes up regarding the fossil record, […]
It seems that most post-Chernobyl animals “Don’t Look Any Different from Their Non-Chernobyl Counterparts. “
The folks at Nature will be back to us when they come up with a no-design story.
Maybe those 200 mya feathers were just for insulation. But maybe there are more surprises yet. Marcos Eberlin is probably right. Evolution has Foresight. 😉
“‘This means that if fungi are already present around 900-1000 million years ago, so should animals have been,’ he told AFP.” If so, not nearly as much time from the Big Bang onward for all that complexity to just sort of slosh into existence…
Well, they will just have to keep looking for that early, really simple bedbug, below which there is nothing but sub-bedbugs.
Life forms trapped in amber—hardened resin from conifers—can show remarkable examples of stasis: No real change from one ten-million-year span to the next one.
He offers a Darwinian explanation that “individuals who just happen to have sesamoid bones at their knees” happened to run better and thus left more offspring. More and more, that sort of explanation begins to sound like what we say when we don’t really have more specific information. Especially now that we are starting to get more specific information.
“It’s a perfect scenario for cooking up new species,” he said. What? Wait! This isn’t a “new species.” This is a holdover from 50 million years ago, during which it’s always been an obvious frog.
From ScienceDaily: Bats fly, whales swim, gibbons swing from tree to tree, horses gallop, and humans swipe on their phones — the different habitats and lifestyles of mammals rely on our unique forelimbs. No other group of vertebrate animals has evolved so many different kinds of arms: in contrast, all birds have wings, and pretty […]