New Cambrian fossil diversity in China ~518 million years old.

[Roy]

I think you misunderstand me, I meant that scientists have postulated soft-bodied creatures as a missing link explaining the sudden appearance of Cambrian animals. Now they have such soft-bodied fossils! And this makes the Cambrian conundrum worse, because now they can see soft-bodied creatures in that time frame, and they appear to be Cambrian animals, not Cambrian predecessors.

A rare variation of the monkey non-argument: "if Cambrian animals evolved from soft-bodied animals, why are there still soft-bodied animals?"

No, I meant that these newly discovered soft-bodied fossils don't seem to have Ediacaran predecessors, certainly not Dickinsonia and Spriggina.

Oh, so you were inventing garbage as usual.

The article doesn't provide enough detail about the soft-bodied fossils to determine whether or not we have any possible predecessors for them.

[shunyadragon]

Well, again, I don't think Dickinsonia and Spriggina are considered predecessors, which ones did you have in mind?

Blessings,
Lee

Too clarify; what is your source?

Here is one source, and I may cite more . . .

Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/4865

The advent of animals: The view from the Ediacaran

© Copyright Original Source

. . . and there are more Ediacaran genera . . .


list of ediacaran genera

Spriggina
Dickinsonia
Kimberella
Charnia
Parvancorina
Cyclomedusa

[lee_merrill]

They are considered predecessors and some still exist in the early Cambrian. There is an observable pattern of increased complexity of animals.

Well, again, I don't think Dickinsonia and Spriggina are considered predecessors, which ones did you have in mind?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Alrighty, I stand corrected.


It would be interesting to know if these Ediacaran animals are considered predecessors of these Cambrian animals.

Blessings,
Lee

They are considered predecessors and some still exist in the early Cambrian. There is an observable pattern of increased complexity of animals.

[lee_merrill]

A rare variation of the monkey non-argument: "if Cambrian animals evolved from soft-bodied animals, why are there still soft-bodied animals?"

No, I meant that these newly discovered soft-bodied fossils don't seem to have Ediacaran predecessors, certainly not Dickinsonia and Spriggina.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

It would be interesting to know if these Ediacaran animals are considered predecessors of these Cambrian animals.

...but (as usual with Dory) not interesting enough to bother looking.

[Roy]

I think you misunderstand me, I meant that scientists have postulated soft-bodied creatures as a missing link explaining the sudden appearance of Cambrian animals. Now they have such soft-bodied fossils! And this makes the Cambrian conundrum worse, because now they can see soft-bodied creatures in that time frame, and they appear to be Cambrian animals, not Cambrian predecessors.

A rare variation of the monkey non-argument: "if Cambrian animals evolved from soft-bodied animals, why are there still soft-bodied animals?"

[lee_merrill]

First sentence of the Wikipedia article, bolding added:
"The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation[1] was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period..."

Alrighty, I stand corrected.

And fossilised bodies of soft tissue animals from the Edicaran era - are well known.

It would be interesting to know if these Ediacaran animals are considered predecessors of these Cambrian animals.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Well, from the opening post: "Animal life exploded in diversity and form during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago." So 518 million year old fossils would be right at the pre-Cambrian boundary.

Blessings,
Lee

Um, no.

The Cambrian Period started roughly 541 million years ago (mya) and lasted approximately 55.6 million years (meaning it ended around 485.4 mya). That would put 518 mya real close to the middle of the Cambrian. Maybe these two timelines will help

Click on an image XXXX
to enbiggenate XXXX
CambrianChart.PNG XX CambrianChart2.jpg
Click on resulting XXXX
image to increase XXXX
enbiggenation XXXX

Also note that the "Cambrian explosion" took place over a period that lasted at least 20 millions years. This is why folks like the noted geologist and paleontologist Donald R. Prothero as a "slow fuse" rather than an explosion.

ETA: For whatever reason only the first enbiggenates

[tabibito]

And fossilised bodies of soft tissue animals from the Edicaran era - are well known. Again - lots of fine silt and a geologically stable area preventing the usual destruction of soft tissue.

Between 570 and 540 million years ago (long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth) these warm seas were inhabited by soft-bodied organisms, similar to jellyfish.

Some of these organisms became trapped in fine silt in tidal flats and were fossilised as the silt turned to stone. As sea levels changed, the sea-floor became part of what we today know as the Flinders Ranges in South Australia, and the fossils found there formed part of a period known today as the Ediacaran Period. Examples of these unusual and fragile fossils, including Dickinsonia and Spriggina can be seen at the South Australian Museum.
Uncovering important evidence of early life

In 1946, while exploring for minerals, geologist Reginald Sprigg discovered fossil imprints in rocks around the low hills of the western Flinders Ranges at the old Ediacara minefield.

Sprigg's discovery was extremely important, as it was the first time the fossilised remains of an entire community of soft-bodied creatures had been found in such abundance anywhere in the world. Sprigg's discovery was so significant that fossils were named after him and the Ediacaran Period was named after the location where the fossils were found.

[shunyadragon]

Well, from the opening post: "Animal life exploded in diversity and form during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago." So 518 million year old fossils would be right at the pre-Cambrian boundary.

Blessings,
Lee

As noted by TheLurch this is a confusing response based on selective quotes from the source to create confusion that does not reflect the article nor the present view of the evolution of life from the PreCambrian through the Cambrian, and the context of the recent finds in China.

[TheLurch]

Well, from the opening post: "Animal life exploded in diversity and form during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago." So 518 million year old fossils would be right at the pre-Cambrian boundary.

First sentence of the Wikipedia article, bolding added:
"The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation[1] was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period..."

There's this thing called Google. Try using it sometime.

[lee_merrill]

That's because they've been found in Cambrian era fossil beds. If you wanted to find precursors of the Cambrian biota, soft-bodied or not, you wouldn't look in Cambrian deposits. You'd look in the period that came before it (namely the Ediacaran).

Well, from the opening post: "Animal life exploded in diversity and form during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago." So 518 million year old fossils would be right at the pre-Cambrian boundary.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I think you misunderstand me, I meant that scientists have postulated soft-bodied creatures as a missing link explaining the sudden appearance of Cambrian animals. Now they have such soft-bodied fossils! And this makes the Cambrian conundrum worse, because now they can see soft-bodied creatures in that time frame, and they appear to be Cambrian animals, not Cambrian predecessors.

That's because they've been found in Cambrian era fossil beds. If you wanted to find precursors of the Cambrian biota, soft-bodied or not, you wouldn't look in Cambrian deposits. You'd look in the period that came before it (namely the Ediacaran).

Look, i realize your goal in life is to convince yourself that you've found weaknesses in evolutionary theory that over a century of brilliant scientific minds have missed. Maybe try thinking a bit harder before pronouncing victory in the future though, ok?

[shunyadragon]

I think you misunderstand me, I meant that scientists have postulated soft-bodied creatures as a missing link explaining the sudden appearance of Cambrian animals. Now they have such soft-bodied fossils! And this makes the Cambrian conundrum worse, because now they can see soft-bodied creatures in that time frame, and they appear to be Cambrian animals, not Cambrian predecessors.

Blessings,
Lee

They are Cambrian predecessors of later Cambrian animals. The Precambrian worms and soft bodied animals are predecessors of later Cambrian animals.

There is no conundrum. This is simply more older fossil evidence.