Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cambrian shrimp’s heart more complex than modern one

Categories
Cambrian explosion
Intelligent Design
News
stasis
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We’ll let BioScience Technology tell it:

“This is only the second case of the description of a cardiovascular system in a Cambrian arthropod, the first one being that of the inch-long Marrella from Burgess Shale,” emailed Diego Garcia-Bellido of the University of Adelaide, who co-discovered that first arthropod while at the University of Cambridge. Garcia Bellido was not involved in the new study. “This new finding of a cardiovascular system in a larger animal (Fuxianhuia is about two to three times as large, thus more detail), together with a fantastically preserved, and very complex, nervous system, unknown in Marrella, and the gut, make it probably the most complete arthropod internal anatomy known in the fossil record.”

The main conclusion drawn, said Garcia-Bellido: “The level of complexity of the Fuxianhuia was extremely high, considering that we are studying some of the oldest animals on Earth.”

This leaves how much time for neo-Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation)?

It’s a good thing that most Americans doubt Darwin.

As the facts roll in relentlessly, to believe in Darwinism is to believe in magic.

Indeed, even the language assumes that character, as when scientists (scientists!) say things like,

“Evolution is telling us these genes are really important for survival,” adds Winston Bellott, a research scientist in the Page lab and lead author of the Nature paper. “They’ve been selected and purified over time.”

They believe in a wizard and his name is Darwin.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments
rhampton7, color me unimpressed. Those papers all appear to be of the 'seeing faces in the clouds' wishful speculation variety. ,,,, Moreover, as Meyer pointed out in Darwin's Doubt, common descent is, in reality, an aside to the main issue. Indeed many here on UD, such as Dr. Torley and gpuccio, support common descent. The main problem for you as a Darwinist is that Atheistic Darwinists have no demonstrated mechanism to account for the huge influx of information required to generate new body plans. On Darwin’s Birthday Big Fossil Find Deepens His Dilemma, says New York Times Bestselling Author of Darwin’s Doubt - Feb. 12, 2014 Excerpt: “Even if one were to take the most generous evolutionary estimate for the length of the Cambrian explosion, it would not allow enough time for natural selection and random mutations to do the job.” All the animals are complex at their first appearance. The first trilobite is 100% trilobite, complete with jointed appendages, eyes, and internal organs. No “pre-trilobites” or “half-trilobites” are found. The same is true for all the other animals discovered there. http://www.discovery.org/a/22571 Storming the Beaches of Norman - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Even if the Cambrian explosion had lasted 40 million years, as Westrop had claimed, there would not have been enough time for unguided processes to produce the enormous amount of specified complexity in the DNA of the animal phyla. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/storming_the_beaches_of_norman.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video https://vimeo.com/91322260 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Darwin's Doubt narrated by Paul Giem - The Origin of Body Plans - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&v=rLl6wrqd1e0&feature=player_detailpage#t=290bornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Not just plants, but animals like Kimberella have been found before their supposed Cambrian origins. [Note these papers appear after Ediacaran life on land, Gregory J. Retallack, Nature 493, 89–92 (2012)]
Palaeontology: Fossils come in to land, Shuhai Xiao & L. Paul Knauth, Nature 493, 28–29 (03 January 2013) Trace fossil evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals with complex behaviors, Zhe Chen, Chuanming Zhou, Mike Meyer, Ke Xiang, James D. Schiffbauer, Xunlai Yuan, Shuhai Xiao, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author Precambrian Research 224, 690-701 (January 2013) Reply to comment on "Trace fossil evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals with complex behaviors" [Precambrian Research 224 (2013) 690–701], Zhe Chen, Chuanming Zhou, Mike Meyer, Ke Xiang, James D. Schiffbauer, Xunlai Yuan, Shuhai Xiao, Precambrian Research 231, 386-387 (2013) Ediacaran matground ecology persisted into the earliest Cambrian, Luis A. Buatois, Guy M. Narbonne, M. Gabriela Mángano, Noelia B. Carmona & Paul Myrow Nature Communications 5, (March 2014) Trace Fossils of Precambrian Metazoans "Vendobionta" and "Mollusks", Andrey Ivantsov, Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation Vol. 21 No. 3, 252–264 (2013) Scratch Traces of Large Ediacara Bilaterian Animals, James G. Gehling, Bruce N. Runnegar, and Mary L. Droser, Journal of Paleontology 88(2), 284-298, (March 2014)
rhampton7
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
of related note is this 2.7 feet long shrimp-like creature: Gigantic Cambrian Shrimplike Creature Unearthed in Greenland - March 26, 2014 Excerpt: A new filter-feeding giant that trolled the Cambrian seas has been unearthed in Greenland. The species, dubbed Tamisiocaris borealis, used large, bristly appendages on its body to rake in tiny shrimplike creatures from the sea,,, While on an excavation trip in 2009, the team unearthed fragments of strange feeding appendages attached to a head shield from an unknown creature. The appendages, which date to about 520 million years ago,,, These ancient sea monsters grew to about 70 centimeters (2.7 feet) long and "looked like something completely out of this planet," with massive frontal appendages for grasping prey, huge eyes on stalks, and a mouth shaped like a piece of canned pineapple, Vinther told Live Science. But the appendages from T. borealis were different from those of other anomalocarids. Instead of large grasping claws, the front pieces sported fine, delicate bristles, much like the baleen found in the mouths of filter-feeding whales. http://www.livescience.com/44381-filter-feeding-cambrian-creature-unearthed.html also of note: Giant Sea Scorpion Discovered; Was Bigger Than a Man Excerpt: The size of a large crocodile, the 390-million-year-old sea scorpion http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071121-giant-scorpion.html Ancient sea monsters not to be messed with Bizarre shrimp-like predators grew larger and survived longer than thought - May 2011 Excerpt: Past research showed they dominated the seas during the early and middle Cambrian period 542 million to 501 million years ago, a span of time known for the "Cambrian Explosion" that saw the appearance of all the major animal groups and the establishment of complex ecosystems.,,, Now, extraordinarily well-preserved fossils unearthed in the rocky desert in southeastern Morocco by local collector Mohammed Ben Moula reveal giant anomalocaridids that measured more than 3 feet in length.,,, "There have been suggestions of Cambrian anomalocaridids of over 6 feet in length, but these estimates are extrapolations from very fragmentary material, and hence not too reliable." Moreover, these newly examined creatures date back to the period that followed the Cambrian, the early Ordovician, 488 million to 472 million years ago, meaning these predators lived for 30 million years longer than previously known. "Now we know that they died out much more recently than we thought," Briggs said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43171662/ns/technology_and_science-science/bornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Oh great, Rhampton7, now we have two Origin of Lifes - origin of sea life and separate origin of plant life:) And Origin of Animal life too. Three origins of life to explain.ppolish
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
rhampton7 thanks for the link. The only evidence I see is telltale evidence for plants. Which is good. But I see no evidence for animals. So do you think that Cambrian animals came from Precambrian plants that lived on the land? I don't. Moreover, it might interest you to know that many times atheists will attack the Genesis account of creation 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. Genesis 1:11-12 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: Funny how the evidence you cited refutes that argument. Of note: Ediacarans Not Related to Cambrian Animals - December 16, 2012 Excerpt: “These fossils have been a first-class scientific mystery,” he said. “They are the oldest large multicellular fossils. They lived immediately before the Cambrian evolutionary explosion that gave rise to familiar modern groups of animals.”,, If not sea creatures, what are they? Retallack suggested they could be “lichens, other microbial consortia, fungal fruiting bodies, slime molds, flanged pedestals of biological soil crusts, and even casts of needle ice.” In the paper and the press release, he had very little to say about evolution, except that the Ediacarans represent “an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea.” http://crev.info/2012/12/ediacarans-not-related-to-cambrian-animals/bornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
This leaves how much time for neo-Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation)?
Possibly two to three hundred million years is Knauth keeps finding more evidence to support his theory...
In 2009, Knauth and Martin Kennedy of the University of California, Riverside, shocked their more conservative colleagues with a meta-analysis of thousands of geochemical records from around the planet. They reported additional evidence that a land-based explosion of photosynthesizing algae, mosses, fungi and other organisms was likely to have greened the continents and facilitated the global expansion of multicellular life (including animals) as long ago as 850 million years ago, giving even more geochemical teeth to Knauth’s reverse Cambrian-explosion model.
rhampton7
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Progress will be meaningful after "appearance of design" is replaced by "unadulterated design". Then the debate becomes Guided Natural Design or Guided SuperNatural Design. But unguided "appearance of design" is Victorian Era myth. The "standard model" of Evo Sci is broken kaput. Exciting times for real Scientists.ppolish
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
For several years, the Awake! magazine has had a featured called "Was It Designed?" In the November 2010 issue, they discussed the peacock mantis shrimp.
The peacock mantis shrimp, found on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, is equipped with the most complex eyesight in the animal kingdom. “It really is exceptional,” says Dr. Nicholas Roberts, “outperforming anything we humans have so far been able to create.” Consider: The peacock mantis shrimp can perceive polarized light and process it in ways that humans cannot do. Polarized light waves may travel along a straight line or rotate in a corkscrew motion. Unlike other creatures, this mantis shrimp not only sees polarized light in both its straight-line and corkscrew forms but is also able to convert the light from the one form to the other. This gives the shrimp enhanced vision. DVD players work in a similar way. To process information, the DVD player must convert polarized light aimed at a disc into a corkscrew motion and then change it back into a straight-line format. But the peacock mantis shrimp goes a step further. While a standard DVD player only converts red light—or in higher-resolution players, blue light—the shrimp’s eye can convert light in all colors of the visible spectrum. Researchers believe that using the peacock mantis shrimp’s eye as a model, engineers could develop a DVD player that plays discs with far more information than today’s DVDs. “What’s particularly exciting is how beautifully simple it is,” says Roberts. “It works much, much better than any attempts that we’ve made to construct a device.” What do you think? Is the remarkable eye of the peacock mantis shrimp a product of chance? Or was it designed?
Here's a picture: http://www.livescience.com/20796-gallery-mantis-shrimp.htmlBarb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
This is easily explained by neutral evolution theory, right?Box
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
as to disparity preceding diversity: Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.htmlbornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
But, Darwinian evolution is a fact. The science is settled. Go away, creationist fools. ;)OldArmy94
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Mantis Shrimp Stronger than Airplanes - April 21, 2014 Inspired by mantis shrimp, researchers design composite material stronger than standard used in airplane frames (w/video) Excerpt: Inspired by the fist-like club of a mantis shrimp, a team of researchers led by University of California, Riverside, in collaboration with University of Southern California and Purdue University, have developed a design structure for composite materials that is more impact resistant and tougher than the standard used in airplanes. “The more we study the club of this tiny crustacean, the more we realize its structure could improve so many things we use every day,”,, The peacock mantis shrimp, or stomatopod, is a 4- to 6-inch-long rainbow-colored crustacean with a fist-like club that accelerates underwater faster than a 22-calibur bullet. Researchers, led by Kisailus, an associate professor of chemical engineering, are interested in the club because it can strike prey thousands of times without breaking. The force created by the impact of the mantis shrimp’s club is more than 1,000 times its own weight. It’s so powerful that Kisailus needs to keep the animal in a special aquarium in his lab so it doesn’t break the glass,,, ,,,Kisailus recently learned he has been selected to receive a $7.5 million Department of Defense grant to continue this work. “Biology has an incredible diversity of species, which can provide us new design cues and synthetic routes to the next generation of advanced materials for light-weight automobiles, aircraft and other structural applications,” Kisailus said. http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/21670 Hmmm, with all this talk of shrimp today,,, I'm getting hungry for a plate of shrimp tonight! :)bornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
bornagain77, Will build macro for same.News
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
If evolution were true should they not find the 'missing' transitional fossils before the Cambrian period instead of finding that the animals of the Cambrian were 'more complex than expected'? i.e. The trend in evidence is that Meyer's thesis in 'Darwin's Doubt' keeps getting verified whilst Darwinian predictions go begging for any confirming evidence whatsoever!
"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures… To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin - fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381. A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes - David Berlinski July 9, 2013 Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - The Significance of Sponge Embryos - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPs8E7y0ySs "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 Darwin’s Doubt and the Plea for more time! – Dr. Stephen Meyer - audio http://radiomaria.us/discoveringintelligentdesign/2013/08/29/august-29-2013/ Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg "The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright's (1) term as 'from the top down'." (James W. Valentine, "Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).) “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma? - JonathanM - May 2012 Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/has_the_talk-or059171.html Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
Disparity preceding diversity is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found after it as well. In fact, in the following paper, some Darwinists tried to argue that since Disparity preceding Diversity is a consistent pattern in the fossil record after the Cambrian Explosion then, by their reasoning, that means the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t that special after all:
Cambrian Explosion Solved? - October 2010 Excerpt: Looking at the big picture, though, they argued that the Cambrian explosion was really not all that special; other parts of the fossil record show similar patterns: “the observation that disparity reaches its peak early in a group’s history seems to reflect a general phenomenon, also observed in plants (Boyce, 2005), the Ediacara biota (Shen et al., 2008), Precambrian microfossils (Huntley et al., 2006), and within many individual animal clades, such as crinoids (Foote, 1997), gastropods (Wagner, 1995), and ungulates (Jernvall et al., 1996). Although of significant interest, this high disparity soon after a group’s appearance is not unique to the Cambrian,” they said. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101031a
bornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
News, Can we start adding 'more complex than expected' to the usual 'earlier than expected' findings in fossils?bornagain77
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply