Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2018 2:32 AM
195 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,278 Year: 19,101/29,783 Month: 1,046/2,043 Week: 91/507 Day: 2/89 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   New Cambrian Discoveries
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 16 of 25 (844593)
12-02-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AZPaul3
12-02-2018 1:45 PM


Re: New Evolutionary paradigms possible?
You forget how to spell "ok"?

Yes, and it was very embarrassing, thanks so much for pointing it out in front of the whole world on the internet.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 12-02-2018 1:45 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 25 (844621)
12-02-2018 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tanypteryx
12-02-2018 12:20 PM


So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
Land plants did exist at this time, it seems.

quote:

Land plants arose earlier than thought—and may have had a bigger impact on the evolution of animals
By Elizabeth PennisiFeb. 19, 2018 , 9:35 AM

We have land plants to thank for the oxygen we breathe. And now we have a better idea of when they took to land in the first place. While the oldest known fossils of land plants are 420 million years old, researchers have now determined that pond scum first made landfall almost 100 million years earlier.

https://www.sciencemag.org/...igger-impact-evolution-animals


quote:

Origins of land plants pushed back in time
By Helen Briggs
BBC News
20 February 2018

Land plants evolved from "pond scum" about 500 million years ago, according to new research.

These early moss-like plants greened the continents, creating habitats for land animals.

The study, based on analysing the genes of living plants, overturns theories based purely on fossil plant evidence.

"Land plants emerged on land half a billion years ago, tens of millions of years older than the fossil record alone suggests," said study author, Dr Philip Donoghue of the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol.

"This changes perception of the nature of early terrestrial environments, displacing pond scum in favour of a flora that would have tickled your toes - but not reached much higher. "

Early plants would have provided a habitat for fully terrestrial animals, which emerged onto land at much the same time, he said.

This coincides with the time period when life became more diverse and abundant in the seas - an event known as the Cambrian explosion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43116836


The study shows that it is even slightly possible that today's plants have land ancestors that even pre-date the Cambrian.

quote:

The Origin of the Embryophytes and Tracheophytes.
Considering the 95% HPDs of divergence times across all topologies, the origin of crown embryophytes is dated to 515.1 Ma to 470.0 Ma (middle Cambrian–Early Ordovician). However, all of the mean estimated ages are resolved within the Phanerozoic across all alternative topologies and dating strategies, and the majority are dated to around 500 Ma (middle Cambrian Series 2). Only one analysis has a 95% HPD that stretches into the Proterozoic. The full span of age estimates for the crown tracheophyte node is 472.2 Ma to 419.3 Ma (Floian, Early Ordovician to the late Silurian). Only one analysis has a 95% HPD that stretches to the Early Ordovician, with those using a uniform prior resulting in estimated mean ages close to the Ordovician−Silurian boundary (∼444 Ma). The span of the tracheophyte stem lineage ranges across all analyses from 25.1 My to 60.0 My; these intervals are shorter for the paraphyletic topology than the monophyletic bryophytes topology (35.5 My and 51.6 My, respectively) (SI Appendix, Fig. S6).

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/E2274


However, there is not a single genetic analysis that places VASCULAR plants before the time just AFTER the end of the Cambrian, and the analyses seem to put the origin 30 million or so years after the Cambrian ended.

But, again, this only is an analysis of the plants that have living descendants.

There could have been Sea plants that colonized a certain number of Cambrian (or pre Cambrian) islands, and became "land" plants, but became extinct without leaving any descendants that survived in the fossil record.

It seems to be assumed that novel evolution didn't happen twice, but the discovery of lignin in red algae raises questions, and specifically about convergent evolution.

From a journal:

quote:

Until now, such developmentally specialized cell walls have been described only in vascular plants. The finding of secondary walls and lignin in red algae raises many questions about the convergent or deeply conserved evolutionary history of these traits, given that red algae and vascular plants probably diverged more than 1 billion years ago.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19167225


See endless journal articles when LIGNIN RED ALGAE is put into google.

Such as:

quote:

The 'starch' that stiffens land plants is discovered in seaweed
https://news.stanford.edu/.../january28/cellwall-012809.html
Jan 28, 2009 - "Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic ...


The discovery raises questions, and helps show that previous assumptions were wrong.

As for the issue of animals, dont forget that Cambrian LAND-strata is very very rare and precious. It might not be correct to assume that no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times. The is no guarantee that the most "advanced" creatures (all assumed to be watery) survived Cambrian times and left descendants. We should not assume that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times.

The plant assumptions were wrong, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2018 12:20 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Pressie, posted 12-12-2018 5:45 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 1:56 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 18 of 25 (845099)
12-12-2018 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
12-02-2018 8:14 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
LamarkNewAge writes:

As for the issue of animals, dont forget that Cambrian LAND-strata is very very rare and precious. It might not be correct to assume that no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times. The is no guarantee that the most "advanced" creatures (all assumed to be watery) survived Cambrian times and left descendants. We should not assume that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times.

Actually, in my country we can. No plant or animal fossils have been found in the Vanrhynsdorp Group (Early Cambrian in age) or any other Groups (Klipheuwel, Nama) or Subgroups (Kansa) deposited during the Cambrian in my country. My country missed complex life in the Cambrian!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-02-2018 8:14 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 19 of 25 (845145)
12-12-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
12-02-2018 8:14 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
It might not be correct to assume that no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times.

You are mistaken if you think that I am saying that "no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times."

I am saying that we have found no fossils of vascular plants in Cambrian strata. And just so you know exactly what I am saying, I am saying that we have found no fossils of vascular plants in Cambrian strata.

We should not assume that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times.

I am not assuming "that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times."

I am saying that we have not found any fossils of land animals in Cambrian strata.

The is no guarantee that the most "advanced" creatures (all assumed to be watery) survived Cambrian times and left descendants.

So? Is anyone saying that?

The plant assumptions were wrong, right?

Yes, your assumptions about what I said are incorrect.

In Message 12 I said:

Tanypteryx writes:

I said there were no land plants, and I based that on fossil evidence of the emergence of vascular plants at the beginning of the Silurian Period.

I more narrowly defined what I meant by "land plants" as "vascular plants."
I am not talking about Algae or Bryophytes.

We have found no Cambrian fossils of vascular plants that grew on land.

I will add that I am also unaware of fossil pollen, spores or seeds of vascular land plants found in any Cambrian deposits. These sorts of trace fossils are found in later sediments deposited when vascular plants arose, and pretty much continuously ever since.

We have found no fossils of modern vertebrates or any kind of mammal whatsoever in Cambrian strata (which would have to eat either other animals or vascular plants... and yes I remember that Caribou eat moss).

Look, the fossils we are finding in Cambrian deposits are exciting and are continuing to train young scientists. Speculating about "out of sequence fossils" that have never been found and carrying on pointless discussions about something that we don't know anything about is not something I want to waste my time on.

I think there are plenty of exciting and interesting discussions to be had with all our actual discoveries so far.

If you want to speculate or have a discussion about what sorts of things we might find in the future, based on what we have found so far, start a thread.

Try predicting what sorts of organisms we might find in the next new discovery that is just a bit older than what we have found so far or in strata that is just a bit younger.

Scientists have already successfully applied that technique. see Tiktaalik


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-02-2018 8:14 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-14-2018 9:42 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 20 of 25 (845362)
12-14-2018 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tanypteryx
12-12-2018 1:56 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
quote:

I more narrowly defined what I meant by "land plants" as "vascular plants."
I am not talking about Algae or Bryophytes.

We have found no Cambrian fossils of vascular plants that grew on land.

I will add that I am also unaware of fossil pollen, spores or seeds of vascular land plants found in any Cambrian deposits. These sorts of trace fossils are found in later sediments deposited when vascular plants arose, and pretty much continuously ever since.

We have found no fossils of modern vertebrates or any kind of mammal whatsoever in Cambrian strata (which would have to eat either other animals or vascular plants... and yes I remember that Caribou eat moss).


You said there were not any kind of Cambrian land plants, in your earlier posts.

I always said that mammals (which clearly evolved in the period roughly 200 million years ago) were not the issue, but "rabbit"-like (non mammal)creatures were (slightly)possible.

quote:

If you want to speculate or have a discussion about what sorts of things we might find in the future, based on what we have found so far, start a thread.

Try predicting what sorts of organisms we might find in the next new discovery that is just a bit older than what we have found so far or in strata that is just a bit younger.


Well, I showed a fossil discovery (in a link), back around January or February, that had a 482 million year old land plant, if I recall correctly. It was only a few million years too young to be Cambrian.

It was slightly before the genetic study was published (which I never posted until now).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 1:56 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2018 10:11 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 21 of 25 (845363)
12-14-2018 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by LamarkNewAge
12-14-2018 9:42 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
You said there were not any kind of Cambrian land plants, in your earlier posts.

And when I realized that you were not thinking "vascular plants" when I said "land plants" I tried to clarify what I meant, several times.

Whenever I said anything about land plants in this thread I meant vascular plants and I regret that I was not clearer.

This thread is about new Cambrian fossil beds and new interesting fossils being discovered which I think is really neat.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-14-2018 9:42 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-14-2018 11:03 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 25 (845364)
12-14-2018 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tanypteryx
12-14-2018 10:11 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
Tanypteryx said:
quote:

And when I realized that you were not thinking "vascular plants" when I said "land plants" I tried to clarify what I meant, several times.

Whenever I said anything about land plants in this thread I meant vascular plants and I regret that I was not clearer.

This thread is about new Cambrian fossil beds and new interesting fossils being discovered which I think is really neat.


There is a larger issue here and it is a very big problem imo.

Take a look at this post (and I will quote the entire thing), and tell me what you think the implication is.

quote:

Actually, in my country we can. No plant or animal fossils have been found in the Vanrhynsdorp Group (Early Cambrian in age) or any other Groups (Klipheuwel, Nama) or Subgroups (Kansa) deposited during the Cambrian in my country. My country missed complex life in the Cambrian!

Edited by Pressie, 12-12-2018 5:49 AM: No reason given.


(I appreciate the information, though it would be nice if there was a description of the total land area excavated and then the total area potentially dug/hammered into at some point )

South Africa does not the entire world make.

Put ARGENTINA OLDEST LAND PLANTS into google.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ants-unearthed-Argentina.html

quote:

Fossils of 'world's oldest plants' are unearthed in Argentina | Daily Mail ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ants-unearthed-Argentina.html
Oct 13, 2010 - Prior to this discovery, the oldest known plants had been liverwort cryptospores found in Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic which were thought to date back around 462 million years. Dr Rubenstein said the discovery was totally unexpected.
Oldest land plants? ~ Hudson Valley Geologist
hudsonvalleygeologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/oldest-land-plants.html
Oct 14, 2010 - Early Middle Ordovician evidence for land plants in Argentina (eastern Gondwana). New Phytologist 188: 365-369) recently discovered ...

This also came in search

quote:

The oldest land plants (1)
steurh.home.xs4all.nl/eng/old1.html
The oldest indications for the existence of real land plants have been found in cores from boreholes in Oman. They contained fours of mutually connected spores ...

Another search brought this

quote:

LON-CAPA The oldest land plants (1)
https://s10.lite.msu.edu/...line/library/steur/eng/old1.html
The first fossils of real land plants have been found in the Middle Silurian of Ireland. They are about 420 million years old. They consist of small bifurcations ...

Why do we keep assuming that everything under our nose really is (literally) everything (that is, was, and ever will be)?

I detect a problem here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2018 10:11 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2018 11:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 25 (845365)
12-14-2018 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LamarkNewAge
12-14-2018 11:03 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
I detect a problem here.

Me too,

Tanypteyrx writes:

And when I realized that you were not thinking "vascular plants" when I said "land plants" I tried to clarify what I meant, several times.
Whenever I said anything about land plants in this thread I meant vascular plants and I regret that I was not clearer.

This thread is about new Cambrian fossil beds and new interesting fossils being discovered which I think is really neat.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-14-2018 11:03 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-14-2018 11:39 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 24 of 25 (845366)
12-14-2018 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tanypteryx
12-14-2018 11:24 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
Me three!

Here is one of your most recent posts.

quote:

We have found no fossils of modern vertebrates or any kind of mammal whatsoever in Cambrian strata (which would have to eat either other animals or vascular plants... and yes I remember that Caribou eat moss).

Me three and all of we.

Here is the relevant text from my post 9 (which came after your early "world without any land plants" post, and most certainly before any of your corrections)

I said:

quote:

It is very much on topic, if you focus on the comments about a (possible archaeological scenario) "rabbit"-like creature (perhaps a remnant from some isolated island that existed only for a few million years) in the Cambrian (and with the need for a modified theory of evolution to explain it).

....

Could a rabbit like creature have once lived on an isolated island in the Cambrian times?

With hair?

(It , of course, would not be a mammal.)


I will give you credit for one thing: you did admit that there are actual mammals that eat some of the modern-day remnants of the oldest land plants.

But I really do wonder how you justify the creationist-style argument of yours that a hypothetical Cambrian animal - as a requirement for survival - MUST HAVE eaten things that a mammal from several hundred million years later would have eaten. The professional creationist sites surely must be considering your job application/resume as we speak (lol).

Try another hypothesis..

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2018 11:24 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2018 11:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 25 of 25 (845367)
12-14-2018 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LamarkNewAge
12-14-2018 11:39 PM


Re: So did land plants exist in the Cambrian (which you said did not earlier)?
But I really do wonder how you justify the creationist-style argument of yours that a hypothetical Cambrian animal - as a requirement for survival - MUST HAVE eaten things that a mammal from several hundred million years later would have eaten. The professional creationist sites surely must be considering your job application/resume as we speak (lol).

Try another hypothesis..

For FUCK'S sake. I told you at the very beginning of this that I had no interest in having a discussion with you.

Take your fucking bullshit character assassination and shove it up your ass.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-14-2018 11:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018