Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stasis: Lamprey larvae from 125 mya, “Our larvae look modern”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Earliest-known lamprey larva fossils unearthed in Inner Mongolia
Three stages of lamprey life cycle/Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

From Phys.org:

According to the KU researcher and fellow authors Meemann Chang, Feixiang Wu and Jiangyong Zhang of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, the larval fossils show the life cycle of the lamprey “emerged essentially in its present mode no later than the Early Cretaceous.”

This cycle consists of a long-lasting larval stage, a metamorphosis and a comparatively brief adulthood with a markedly different anatomy, according to the PNAS paper. The larvae come from the fossil lamprey species Mesomyzon mangae.

“Our larvae look modern,” Miao said. “The developmental stage is almost identical to today’s lamprey. Before this, we didn’t know how long lampreys have developed via metamorphosis. Now, we know it goes back 125 million years at least. In other words, lampreys haven’t changed much—and that’s very interesting.”

Then, like today, lampreys lived in both freshwater and saltwater. At the larval stage, they’d have dwelled in the sand or mud and drawn nutrients from micro-organisms in the water. Then, as mature lampreys, some of them would have subsisted by fastening themselves to host organisms and swigging their blood—often killing their host in the end.

Indeed, they “would have.” Lampreys are, as it happens, a threat to the Great Lakes fishery, for all that they are supposed to be so primitive. Here are lampreys building a nest:

How does a life form get classed as “primitive”? Why? Keep asking. Never get a clear answer.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
logically_speaking, There's a lot of evidence against Darwinistic evolution, none of which poses a serious threat to those who believe in it due to its philosophical nature. Virtually anything can and has been rationalized. In the case of the lamprey larvae, the usual explanation is that its environmental conditions *musta* remained nearly static during those 125 million years. The luck angle is a new one on me. Organisms that seem to remain in stasis are simply labeled "living fossils" as in, "Oh yeah, those are what we call typical living fossils. There are quite a few of them. Now moving on, let's consider the . . ." -QQuerius
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Isn’t “stasis” evidence against evolution?
No, stasis is not evidence against evolution, and ID is not anti-evolution.Mung
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Isn't "stasis" evidence against evolution? There seems to be so many of these types of examples of stasis, are there any examples of anything that is living today that is also in the fossil record that has actually changed in some fundamental way? What I mean is something that has gained something new not something that has been lost over time. I am still not sure if I've made myself clear, but if anyone can give some examples of what they think I mean we can discuss them.logically_speaking
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Yes tintinnid, some primitive fish "lucked into" stasis and some "lucked into" becoming human. Luck is neat.ppolish
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Primitive just means little changed, at least morphologically. This simply means that they lucked into a form that works well in variable environments.tintinnid
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
“The developmental stage is almost identical to today’s lamprey. Before this, we didn’t know how long lampreys have developed via metamorphosis. Now, we know it goes back 125 million years at least. In other words, lampreys haven’t changed much—and that’s very interesting.”
Maybe here's a lesson the Chinese scientists can teach some of their confused western colleagues: they said 'very interesting' instead of 'very surprising' :)Dionisio
October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply