New Cambrian Discoveries

New sites for Cambrian fossils are revealing new species and details of known species. Exciting times.

Cracking the Cambrian: New fossils and sites are helping make sense of the mysterious flowering of animal life half a billion years ago.

quote:

---

Throughout much of Cambrian paleontology, that's the game—a high-stakes, sometimes contentious race to find diagnostic body parts on known or new fossils, make arguments about what taxonomic groups they belong to, and maybe revise evolutionary history in the process.

---

quote:

---

In the past few years, paleontologists have approached the problem with an array of new techniques. Those include scanning electron microscopes, which can discern a specimen's chemical makeup as well as image it, and computerized tomography (CT) scans, which can penetrate fossils without scraping away material.

---

quote:

---

The uncertainties leave paleontologists ever hungry for newer, better specimens. “When there is a debate, you bring a new fossil and say, ‘Look, this is the feature we see,’” Caron says, warming up in a tent perched high above Tokumm Creek. “Without fossils, it's speculation.”

---

quote:

---

Each successive excavation in this valley has targeted the same band of rock, which records a single slice of geologic time. But each dig has yielded a different array of new species. That's because conditions varied across the ancient sea floor, favoring different animals. Such variation is “not a shock to anybody that has ever strapped on a snorkel and swum around,” Gaines says. But this vast, wide-open valley captures that kind of diversity at a single moment, allowing glimpses of how the earliest animal ecosystems were structured.

---

Links and Information please.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

They're still looking for that rabbit aren't they?

Well, the ones hoping for that rabbit, are not actually doing any of the science.

The cool thing though is that if anyone did find a rabbit science would have to incorporate it into its thinking somehow.

Yep. It would also spur a flurry of research trying to understand how the rabbit managed to evolve in a world without any land plants or any obvious ancestors.

What interests me is that organisms completely new to science are being discovered in these deposits and that even in these early times of complex life there were already complex interconnected ecosystems.

It seems that there might already be work on some of these issues. A scientist had a big (1114 pages?) work published, but it seems he died just before. Is this type of thing going to be seen as "pseudo science"?

This is a thread in the Links and Information Forum", so not really the place for discussion about what seems to me to be unrelated except for the mention of "Cambrian."

I tend to dismiss books and articles that mention "Velikovskian global cataclysms" since reading some of Velikovsky's books back in maybe the '70s. I suspect it will indeed be seen as pseudo science. That's how I see it anyway.

If you want to discuss this I suggest you propose a new topic.

Are you loaded?

You can keep on making jokes, but the biggest joke is the assumption, by posters in this thread, that there is some large Cambrian land-strata field that has been looked at and dug excavated.

Well, I think a larger and mistaken assumption is you assuming that we are assuming that. We are well aware that exposed strata deposited in many periods is rare.

I made a minor post (without much commentary to clarify) about Cambrian genetic controls possibly allowing for the creation of a morphological rabbit-like creature possible. You then complained that it was off topic.

I figured it was going to get complicated and suggested starting a new topic.

(Posters here were saying that land "plants" of any sort weren't present ANYWHERE, and other arguments that can only be described as an "argument from absence of evidence")

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.

Don't make fun of creationists when they ask about missing links, if the Cambrian situation is going to be treated, by posters here, like everything has been found that ever existed. It isn't even close to true.

Perhaps you missed the part where I posted a link to an article about all the new fossils being discovered Message 1?

Tanypteryx writes: New sites for Cambrian fossils are revealing new species and details of known species. Exciting times. Cracking the Cambrian: New fossils and sites are helping make sense of the mysterious flowering of animal life half a billion years ago.

You can keep on making jokes

I wasn't joking. You jumped around semi-coherently in Message 9 in way that reminded me of people who are high.

The possibility of non-DNA genetic "information" being present, but not apparant (according to current understanding of genetics), could explain how the "Rolly Polly" crustacean has some sort of genetic expression that makes it nearly identical to a few millipedes (including the rolling ball feature).

Consider is the recapitulational stages of embryology and then the issue of metamorphosis.

What the hell does this even mean?

But, first Velikovsky: The "Velikovsky" part seems to be only loosely related. (All Velikovsky proposed, as far as I have read, is that "Numerous catastrophes or bursts of effective radiation must have taken place in the geo-logical past in order to change so radically the living forms on earth" which would be consistent with "The fact that the geological record shows a sudden emergence of many new forms at the beginning of each geological age" and would solve the problem that comes from "The fact that in many cases the intermediary links between present-day species are missing, as well as those between various species of the geological record, a vexing problem")

The geological record shows rapid evolution of new species from the survivors after major extinction events.

"The fact that in many cases the intermediary links between present-day species are missing, as well as those between various species of the geological record, a vexing problem"

What is a vexing problem is why should there be intermediary links between present-day species? Are you saying that there are no transitional fossils? Or are you saying that there should be some kind of links between living species and that there should be some different link between fossil species?

The theory of Ginenthal goes beyond the standard issue of mutations as they WERE (and perhaps are) commonly understood. Ginenthal seems to be saying that there was alot of non-DNA type of genetic material that ALREADY had lots of "information". Back to embryology. Françoise Jacob and Jacques Monad found "control genes" to be an important issue to understand when they worked on bacteria.

And you continue bouncing around until:

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.) Genetic quiescence means what? McClintock said: "I believe there is little reason to question the presence of innate systems that are able to restructure the genome. It is now necessary to learn of these systems and determine why many of them are quiescent and remains so over very long periods of time only to be triggered into action by forms of stress." "Quiescent" features? Explain what that means.

That's why I asked if you are high.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

I reject the idea that earlier periods lacked many of the things the incomplete fossil record might presently indicate.

ok.

There could have been lots of evolutionary dead-end LAND islands in Cambrian times.

ok.

And intelligent life, as well as plants themselves, could have colonized the islands.

Maybe even intelligent plants.

There could have been some interesting islands (of life) before extinctions.

ok.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Fossil Treasure Trove of Ancient Animals Unearthed in China

quote:

---

In a paper published today in the journal Science, Paleontologist Dongjing Fu of Xi’an’s Northwest University and colleagues describes the Cambrian Period fossils. At 518 million years old, the collection is about 10 million years older than the Burgess Shale. The way the fossils formed, however, is similar to those in North America. Visible in high contrast as dark fossils on gray stone, the organisms of the Qingjiang Biota are preserved down to the finest details. The fossils include trilobites, jellyfish, shrimp-like arthropods and even tadpole-like animals from the earliest days of the vertebrate family.

---

quote:

---

Some of the most beautiful specimens from the site are of soft-bodied creatures that don’t easily enter the geologic record. “The presence of so many stunning cnidarians was an absolute pleasure to see,” Daley says, referring to the jellyfish and sea anemones that thrived in this ancient ecosystem and are some of the key fossils that make the Qingjiang Biota stand out. “The significance of this site is in the way it fills several gaps in knowledge about key animal groups,” including cnidarians, strange invertebrates known as “mud dragons” and comb jellies. Representatives of all these groups are still alive today, making them some of the most ancient and successful animals in the world.

---

Abstract: The Qingjiang biota—A Burgess Shale–type fossil Lagerstätte from the early Cambrian of South China

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Oh, god. The number of missing transitionals just got a whole lot bigger.

Shit! And more unexplained gaps for god to hide in.

Thanks for posting this. I look forward to watching it.