Darwin re-visited

[Biochemist]

You guys are aware that evidence for complex life does go back further than the Cambrian explosion? Eukaryotic cells didn't just suddenly become multi cellular creatures! they were precede by at least a half to one billion years of what we call protozoan, single celled but much more complex than simple eukaryotic cells. ..

Understood, MM. The issue we were (ineffectively) describing was the rapid acceleration of phyla count (from about 3 to about 70) over a relatively brief period.

 

So if we look at the macrogeologic timeline, we have

 

1) Earth shows up at 4.5 billion years ago,

2) Life (the initial prokaryote) at about 3.5 billion years ago,

3) by about 0.5 billion years ago we had 3 phyla

4) then over the next 0.25 billion we get another 60+ phyla

5) subsequently we lose half of them

 

It is in the context of item 4) above that we are saying "what the heck?" I do recognize that the reigning dogma is that 250 million years is plenty of time to get all of those new body plans. I just think that hypothesis strains credulity enough to consider other ideas.

 

Bio

[Biochemist]

Basically the cells could have gained the genetic complexity over a period billions of years to act as a stem cell.

If the cell gained genetic complexity on their own (Is that what you are saying?) then what are the oolites for?

The oolites are produced within the microbial community and utilized as cohesive scaffoldings to build complex geometric structures, that would conform to fluid dynamics.

If this mechanism was in place then, why would it not be in place now for us to see it?

[Thunderbird]

If the cell gained genetic complexity on their own (Is that what you are saying?) then what are the oolites for?If this mechanism was in place then, why would it not be in place now for us to see it?

The fragile chemical and environmental conditions for this particular type of microbial community would have changed drastically once the metazoan had taken over the environment.

[Moontanman]

Understood, MM. The issue we were (ineffectively) describing was the rapid acceleration of phyla count (from about 3 to about 70) over a relatively brief period.

 

So if we look at the macrogeologic timeline, we have

 

1) Earth shows up at 4.5 billion years ago,

2) Life (the initial prokaryote) at about 3.5 billion years ago,

3) by about 0.5 billion years ago we had 3 phyla

4) then over the next 0.25 billion we get another 60+ phyla

5) subsequently we lose half of them

 

It is in the context of item 4) above that we are saying "what the heck?" I do recognize that the reigning dogma is that 250 million years is plenty of time to get all of those new body plans. I just think that hypothesis strains credulity enough to consider other ideas.

 

Bio

 

This is something I have spent considerable time reading all the various slants on the problem and I wonder how we can be so sure there were only 3 phyla and how we can really put into context how quickly the extra phyla came to be and how far apart the "phyla" really were at that point. If we had living specimens of these animals I wonder how may we would place different phyla and how many we would just say are vastly different species of the same phyla. If we were looking at fossils (and not very many of them at that) of stomatopods, fairy shrimp, crayfish and isopods would we place them all in the same phyla as we do today? Or would we place them in different phyla and try to trace out their ancestors in that manner? What I am trying to say is maybe we have over numbered the number of phyla due to differences that are simply differences magnified by time and evolution of the different species of what had been the same phyla way back when but we just didn't have enough information to make the call? a half a billion years from now with similar small pieces of information might we not make similar judgement calls on species we would know now to be more closely related? One this is for sure we recognize fewer phyla now than we say were present then. Possibly a better example would be if we had fossils of clams, snails, octopi, and nudibranch but no living examples would we call them all mollusks? Or would arbitrarily put them in completely different categories?

[Thunderbird]

Hmmm, T-Bird. This is a reasonably complex hypothesis, but then, so are the rest of them.

 

Further, my view is that the first part of your hypothesis is conjecture as well. You are suggesting that the few phyla (three as I recall) that predate the Cambrian explosion could not have carried the "blueprint for an overall body plan." I suggest that we have not confirmed that.

 

 

Those were merely a few examples of metazoans that appeared after the Cambrian explosion. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

 

 

 

 

Just prior to the Cambrian explosion, the sea contained a few multi-celled organisms, worms, sponges, and an assortment of single celled protozoan, but mostly filaments of blue green algae called cyan bacteria. Suddenly, 530 million years ago, something triggered an explosion of complex life. These original basic forms are the first and largest classification of animals called the phyla. Phyla include fish, snails, trilobites, crustaceans, etc.

[Moontanman]

I think the code was present in the autonomous cell or cells living in the microbial community, prior to the multi-cellular animals. Basically the cells could have gained the genetic complexity over a period billions of years to act as a stem cell. The oolites are produced within the microbial community and utilized as cohesive scaffoldings to build complex geometric structures, that would conform to fluid dynamics. Image magnitic ball Bearings suspended in mercury being acted upon and conforming to fluid dynamics. The oolites would dissapate however leaving behind a stucture shaped by these dynimics.

This mineral in these pearl like spheres is the same substance the first shelled animals arrived with.... do you see where I might be going with this scenario. The mineral also regulates is used to regulate the autopoietic systems in salt water aquariums. Its called Live Rock.

If correct it would explain many questions not yet answered on the origin of the phyla.

 

Now thunderbird you really have dipped into an area of my expertise. I used to grow live rock, live sand and live coral commercially. Live rock is used to regulate salt water aquariums due to the living animals of several species and phyla that live within the rock. The structure of the rock is important, the more porous the rock the greater the diversity of the animals and plant population it can hold. It's composition is less important than it's structure. The bacteria, plants and animals can turn almost anything into live rock, it's just a substrate, nothing else. Now knowing that does this still fit your scenario?

[freeztar]

I would be interested to know the familiarity with cladistics around here. It's a brutal science, but does a good job of making connections regarding lineage. :winter_brr:

[Biochemist]

The fragile chemical and environmental conditions for this particular type of microbial community would have changed drastically once the metazoan had taken over the environment.

And there would be no instances of this still in existence or fossil evidence of this chemical organization?

[Moontanman]

I would be interested to know the familiarity with cladistics around here. It's a brutal science, but does a good job of making connections regarding lineage. :winter_brr:

 

Well I do know it's a lot easier to classify living animals than it is a fossil. fossils are often incomplete and or distorted beyond any real surity of cassification. I mean even in the burgess shale some things that were just parts of larger animals were once thought to be seperate animals. In fossils there is no way to tell if a fossil is an adult or if it is a larvae. Even in live animals the larvae and adults are sometimes mistaken for differnt animals. then again some are pretty obvious but some are just not that clear. Then there is the percentage of animals that become fossils, what is it less than 10% of then existing species and less than 1% of individuals? It seems like a crap shoot to me, lots can inferred from that number but it wouldn't surprise me to see a completely new animals show in fossils from any time period tomorrow. Lots of animals simply don't live where they can become fossils, hominids are like that, I think i read somewhere that all hominid fossils could lay on a medium sized table with room to spare. It's not that I doubt the importance of fossils, it's just that judging the whole world from such a small number of fossils from such a small area as the burgess shale seems a little presumptious.

[Thunderbird]

Now thunderbird you really have dipped into an area of my expertise. I used to grow live rock, live sand and live coral commercially. Live rock is used to regulate salt water aquariums due to the living animals of several species and phyla that live within the rock. The structure of the rock is important, the more porous the rock the greater the diversity of the animals and plant population it can hold. It's composition is less important than it's structure. The bacteria, plants and animals can turn almost anything into live rock, it's just a substrate, nothing else. Now knowing that does this still fit your scenario?

 

 

That is my senario, From Earlier in the thread:

 

Thunder Bird

Recently discovered fossil evidence has led this author to develop a new evolutionary model that suggest the following; The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a microbial community bound within a geometric substrate of oolitic spheres .

 

In this senario it is not only a chemical substrate, but also a dynamic geometric scaffolding.

[Thunderbird]

And there would be no instances of this still in existence or fossil evidence of this chemical organization?

 

 

This is what my particular micro-fossil discovery is indicating. I happen to live in an area of pre-Cambrian and Cambrian strata that under lies a large chunk of North America, but only is exposed in a small area around where I live and rock hunt.

[Moontanman]

That is my senario, From Earlier in the thread:

 

 

 

In this senario it is not only a chemical substrate, but also a dynamic geometric scaffolding.

 

Ok first of all live rock grows best on inert peices of plexiglass so the chemical part really dosen't dominate the process but are you saying that various body plans came to be from different organisms colonising a structual scafolding that was already there? At what point did this become important? Before cells were part of the picture or after? I have read where certain clay minerals were the substrate the first RNA or DNA strands used for reproduction. Is this what you mean or are you saying that complex animals came to from assembleges of single celled animals that formed communities in the scafolding of these spheres?

[Moontanman]

This is what my particular micro-fossil discovery is indicating. I happen to live in an area of pre-Cambrian and Cambrian strata that under lies a large chunk of North America, but only is exposed in a small area around where I live and rock hunt.

 

I see, so where would this area be in general? I also rock hunt in some interesting area's where I find what appears to be coral like animals that are made mostly of phosphorus rock instead of calcium carbonate. I call it worm rock. The rock is so porous you can pour water through it but only in one direction. It is made up of thousands of tiny holes all running parallel to each other. Sometimes incursions of other types of rock is imbedded in this fossil rock.

[Thunderbird]

Ok first of all live rock grows best on inert peices of plexiglass so the chemical part really dosen't dominate the process but are you saying that various body plans came to be from different organisms colonising a structual scafolding that was already there? At what point did this become important? Before cells were part of the picture or after? I have read where certain clay minerals were the substrate the first RNA or DNA strands used for reproduction. Is this what you mean or are you saying that complex animals came to from assembleges of single celled animals that formed communities in the scafolding of these spheres?

 

I am referring to oolitic spheres.... It would be Important that you read over the original post.

[Moontanman]

I am referring to oolitic spheres.... It would be Important that you read over the original post.

 

Is this what you are refering to?

 

ISCID Forums

 

You could have explained it a little bit clearer.

[Biochemist]

...If we had living specimens of these animals I wonder how may we would place different phyla and how many we would just say are vastly different species of the same phyla....

Well, even though we might count phyla differently, there is little doubt that there was a significant increase (nearly two orders of magnitude) in diversity of body plans over a reasonably short time frame (250 million years) followed by a significant reduction (of perhaps 50%). We can quibble with the scalars on both ends, but the record seems pretty clear about that much.

[Moontanman]

Well, even though we might count phyla differently, there is little doubt that there was a significant increase (nearly two orders of magnitude) in diversity of body plans over a reasonably short time frame (250 million years) followed by a significant reduction (of perhaps 50%). We can quibble with the scalars on both ends, but the record seems pretty clear about that much.

 

I'll give you that but the real question for me is why so few phyla have evolved since then not why so many formed at the beginning.