Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A pre-Cambrian arthropod ancestor?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A pre-Cambrian arthropod ancestor?

    Interesting find announced today - a foot long, segmented worm from the Ediacaran, the period that came before the Cambrian explosion. Paper here:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1522-7

    Popular article here:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/s...ortichnia.html

    It's an important find. We've found one or two bilateral animals in the Ediacaran. And we've found a lot of tracks made by mobile animals. But the two didn't match up - the animals we knew about couldn't make tracks like the ones we saw. The new animal end that - they actually found a track leading right up to the body of one, so there was no doubt this was the source. And it definitively shows there were mobile bilateral animals before the Cambrian.


    Separate from the news, it's also relevant to one of Lee's threads, where he was arguing that the arthropods of the Cambrian having eyes and a brain showed that these features appeared suddenly instead of evolving. So, this thing is clearly not an arthropod, since arthropods are defined in part by the presence of eyes and a brain. And there's a chance it's an annelid, like many present-day segmented worms. But the discoverers of this fossil see things that might be like insect legs on the segments. In which case this would have a subset of arthropod features, and therefore be a strong candidate for the sort of creature that would be an arthropod precursor.

    In which case Lee's argument would be even worse than it was at the time.

    (Sorry i can't be bothered to find the original discussion. Was a bit of a car crash, and i'd rather not have looking at it set off some sort of internet-driven PTSD....)
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  • #2
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    In which case this would have a subset of arthropod features, and therefore be a strong candidate for the sort of creature that would be an arthropod precursor.

    In which case Lee's argument would be even worse than it was at the time.
    What I was arguing for was an early head and heart, and a creature in the Ediacaran with insect-like legs would not affect this argument.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Interesting find announced today - a foot long, segmented worm from the Ediacaran, the period that came before the Cambrian explosion. Paper here:
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1522-7

      Popular article here:
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/s...ortichnia.html

      It's an important find. We've found one or two bilateral animals in the Ediacaran. And we've found a lot of tracks made by mobile animals. But the two didn't match up - the animals we knew about couldn't make tracks like the ones we saw. The new animal end that - they actually found a track leading right up to the body of one, so there was no doubt this was the source. And it definitively shows there were mobile bilateral animals before the Cambrian.


      Separate from the news, it's also relevant to one of Lee's threads, where he was arguing that the arthropods of the Cambrian having eyes and a brain showed that these features appeared suddenly instead of evolving. So, this thing is clearly not an arthropod, since arthropods are defined in part by the presence of eyes and a brain. And there's a chance it's an annelid, like many present-day segmented worms. But the discoverers of this fossil see things that might be like insect legs on the segments. In which case this would have a subset of arthropod features, and therefore be a strong candidate for the sort of creature that would be an arthropod precursor.

      In which case Lee's argument would be even worse than it was at the time.

      (Sorry i can't be bothered to find the original discussion. Was a bit of a car crash, and i'd rather not have looking at it set off some sort of internet-driven PTSD....)
      The critter in question has been named Yilingia spiciformis, which translates to "spiky Yiling bug" with Yiling being the name of the Chinese district in the province of Hubei near the discovery site in the Yangtze Gorges area.



      It looks like they uncovered 35 specimens with the longest being 27cm/10.6" in length but since that specimen was incomplete this means that animal was longer than that.

      It is being described as resembling a millipede-like or elongated trilobite although what their relation to one another is still unknown.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        What I was arguing for was an early head and heart, and a creature in the Ediacaran with insect-like legs would not affect this argument.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Back peddling par excellence. As usual trolling around for 'arguing from ignorance.' The Hokus Boggus 'missing links' approach to fossil evidence.

        By the way this species likely has a primitive nervous system, sensory capability, and head. because it crawls on it own power. If you follow the fossil evidence the heart and circulatory system evolved later.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-05-2019, 07:27 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          What I was arguing for was an early head and heart, and a creature in the Ediacaran with insect-like legs would not affect this argument.
          Your inability to understand how to interpret evidence does not make for a compelling argument.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            By the way this species likely has a primitive nervous system, sensory capability, and head. because it crawls on it own power.
            There doesn't seem to be a head on the reconstructed critter. And sensory capability? Why that?

            If you follow the fossil evidence the heart and circulatory system evolved later.
            Well, that was kind of my point.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              There doesn't seem to be a head on the reconstructed critter. And sensory capability? Why that?
              Because it hadn't involved yet. Which, if this turns out to be an arthropod ancestor, means that rather than being an "early head and heart", those features had tens of millions of years to evolve. Which, by most reasonable standards, means they're rather late.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                There doesn't seem to be a head on the reconstructed critter. And sensory capability? Why that?
                Please note it crawls in one direction and has motor skills indicating a primitive nervous system. es it likely has a head, but a primitive one. Besides, your perpetual motion half life of missing links arguing from ignorance' fails to acknowledge the fossil evidence as another part of the evolution of life.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-06-2019, 09:46 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Source: NY Times

                  Because Yilingia is made up of repeated, symmetrical segments, it is closer to the form that evolved into most life on earth, including human beings. Segmentation allowed for legs and wings.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  Does this mean Yilingia didn't have legs? And it's referred to time and again as a worm, which would have a simpler nervous system than a legged creature.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Source: NY Times

                    Because Yilingia is made up of repeated, symmetrical segments, it is closer to the form that evolved into most life on earth, including human beings. Segmentation allowed for legs and wings.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    Does this mean Yilingia didn't have legs? And it's referred to time and again as a worm, which would have a simpler nervous system than a legged creature.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    The present fossil knowledge indicates that it has a primitive nervous system, primitive head and capable locomotion and determining its motion, direction and feeding, and the head is different from the tail based on the fossil evidence. Stop this foolishness of 'arguing from ignorance' to justify your agenda.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-07-2019, 11:33 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Source: NY Times

                      Because Yilingia is made up of repeated, symmetrical segments, it is closer to the form that evolved into most life on earth, including human beings. Segmentation allowed for legs and wings.

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      Does this mean Yilingia didn't have legs? And it's referred to time and again as a worm, which would have a simpler nervous system than a legged creature.
                      Sigh. As my original post said, it's right in the abstract:
                      "Yilingia is possibly related to panarthropods or annelids, and sheds light on the origin of segmentation in bilaterians."

                      And, in the body of the paper:
                      "In this regard, the lateral lobes of Yilingia would be homol- ogous to appendages in arthropods or parapods in annelids, and provide an affirmation of other trackways of the terminal Ediacaran period that suggest the presence of bilaterians with paired locomotory appendages. This possibility is supported in Yilingia by putative podomeres in some lateral lobes."

                      Podomeres are arthropod legs.

                      Are you ever going to learn that your gut responses to things are invariably ill informed?
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        "This possibility is supported in Yilingia by putative podomeres in some lateral lobes."
                        Well, "putative" indicates some doubtfulness.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon
                        The present fossil knowledge indicates that it has a primitive nervous system, primitive head and capable locomotion and determining its motion, direction and feeding, and the head is different from the tail based on the fossil evidence.
                        Not if calling it a worm is correct! And how does a fossil show its nervous system?

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, "putative" indicates some doubtfulness.
                          Did you read the initial post i made or not?
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Did you read the initial post i made or not?
                            Yes, I did, I also read the quote you gave from Nature. And I think "putative" indicates some doubt.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Yes, I did, I also read the quote you gave from Nature. And I think "putative" indicates some doubt.
                              What part of this didn't already explain that?
                              And there's a chance it's an annelid, like many present-day segmented worms. But the discoverers of this fossil see things that might be like insect legs on the segments. In which case this would have a subset of arthropod features, and therefore be a strong candidate for the sort of creature that would be an arthropod precursor.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X