Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s more, from the literature, on those 760 million year old fossil sponges

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Paper:

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.

Comments
Yet the real world evidence states;
Your sentence construction suggests you are presenting contradictory evidence. Is the rest of your post a typographical error?Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
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.
Environmental conditions? We have soft bodied critters today. How do they survive without protection?Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
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?PaV
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
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;
Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats. https://uncommondescent.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/#comment-340412 Earliest known Australian Tertiary mammal fauna:- 1992 Excerpt: Radiometric dating of illites forming part of the matrix of the mammal-bearing zone has given a minimum age estimate of 54.6 plusminus 0.05 x 10^6 years, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v356/n6369/abs/356514a0.html First Eocene Bat From Australia Excerpt: Remains of a bat, Australonycteris clarkae, gen. et sp. nov., are reported from freshwater clays radiometrically dated to 54.6 million years old in southeastern Queensland, Australia. It is the oldest bat recorded for the southern hemisphere and one of the world's oldest. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576?cookieSet=1 Australonycteris clarkae Excerpt: Australonycteris clarkae, from the Eocene of Queensland, is the oldest bat from the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest in the world. It is similar to other archaic Eocene bats from the Northern Hemisphere, and could probably navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today. (of note: some "modern" bats do not use echolocation today): http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae
bornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
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.
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.
Nevertheless I will go on record prediction that more pre-Cambrian animals will be found.
You mean sponges, or true intermediates?
Your line of reasoning argues they never existed. Right?
Right.Stu7
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
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/journal/v451/n7180/full/nature06549.htmlPetrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Petruska imagines:
I’m sure there were, but soft bodied animals don’t get fossilized,
Yet the real world evidence states:
As well, as is often overlooked, the Ediacaran biota themselves were soft bodied, but well preserved, fossils that add even more evidence testifying to the suddenness of the Cambrian Explosion. Because to state the obvious one more time, "if there were any transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion then they certainly should have been found": Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010 Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/02/macroscopic_life_in_the_palaeoproterozoi Response to John Wise - October 2010 "So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record." Sean Carroll developmental biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
bornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
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.
Wait a sec, from what I understand it's about 570mya in the late Precambrian that sponges first appeared.
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?
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.Stu7
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Pet imagines:
Before this fossil find there were no metazoan fossils older than 530 million years.
Yet the real world evidence states:
The Avalon Explosion: Excerpt: Ediacara fossils [575 to 542 million years ago (Ma)] represent Earth's oldest known complex macroscopic life forms,,, A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace. (i.e. they appeared abruptly in the fossil record and retained their same basic shape and form throughout their tenure in the fossil record before they went extinct prior to the Cambrian explosion.) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5859/81 Many times atheists will attack the Genesis account of creation in the Bible by saying that plant life on the land did not precede the Cambrian explosion of animal life in the seas as the Bible account in Genesis says it does. Yet, at about the thirty minute mark of the following video, Hugh Ross reveals that scientists have now discovered evidence that the Genesis account is in fact correct and that plant life on land did in fact precede the explosion of animal life in the seas of the Cambrian era. Science and Scripture: Enemies or Allies? - Hugh Ross - video (recorded in October 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6ryCArkRk Here is the relevant paper that Dr. Ross referenced at the 31 minute mark: Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes - April 2011 Excerpt: They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1 Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature09943.html
Pet goes on to imagine;
On the list of failed bets are bat fossils, whale fossils, feathered dinosaur fossils.
Yet the real world evidence states:
Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/ Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed http://vimeo.com/30921402 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video http://vimeo.com/30926629 Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video http://vimeo.com/30932397
bornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
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.
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?Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Pet states: What separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses. And yet scripture dictates:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
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!
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
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:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027
Last power point of preceding video states:
The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
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.
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
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;
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw
Further notes on the mysterious reason why the Judeo-Christian presupposition would be so successful to the sustained development of modern science;
Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit
bornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
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.Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
I think you can safely assume that modern sponges are not ancestors of modern animals. TV characters notwithstanding.Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
So basically you’re admitting there are no intermediates other than in your and the imagination of evolutionists.
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.Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
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.
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.Stu7
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
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.Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
The studies used the wrong sponges... :)Joe
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
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.
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video http://vimeo.com/32148403
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;
Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”. When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/
And need I remind that Darwinism cannot even ground 'science in the first place? (Plantinga)bornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
As far as I know genetic studies discarted sponges as animal ancestors.Blas
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
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.Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
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.htmbornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
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?Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Hmm extreme stasis is observed for 210 million years for a sponge. Furthermore they state:
That these organisms arose prior to the ‘snowball earth’2 and survived its extremes, presents a challenge to contemporary scientific thought.
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.
Marine animals cause a stir - July 2009 Excerpt: Kakani Katija and John Dabiri used field measurements of jellyfish swimming in a remote island lake, combined with a new theoretical model, to demonstrate that the contribution of living organisms to ocean mixing via this mechanism is substantial — of the same order of magnitude as winds and tides. (Winds and tides, due to their prevention of stagnation, are known to be essential for life on earth.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7255/edsumm/e090730-08.html Sponges Determine Coral Reef's Nutrient Cycle Excerpt: Sponges, which have worldwide distribution in the oceans, filter water. They take up planktonic particles such as bacteria and excrete inorganic nutrients. In turn, these nutrients can facilitate the growth of marine plants and other organisms. Sponges filter water at a phenomenal rate: if the seawater were to remain stationary, the sponges would have completely pumped it away within five minutes,,,, these organisms play a key role in the marine nutrient cycle due to their incredible capacity to convert enormous quantities of organic plankton into inorganic material (nutrients). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050917085649.htm
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).
Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7E1rq7zHLc
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:
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “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
further notes:
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009 Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved." http://www.discovery.org/a/12471 Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWEsW7bO8P4 Exotic Cambrian Animals and Plants and Ediacaran biota- Animated video clips http://www.lightproductionsvideo.com/Cambrian-Animals.html
Verse and Music:
Psalm 104:24 O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions Alison Krauss - There Is A Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs
bornagain77
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
This paper can also be freely downloaded here: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15982/1/SpongeNamibia.pdfEnezio E. De Almeida Filho
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply