News: Fossil embryos caught in the act of dividing
Ye Old One
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/sc_nm/science_embryos_dc_2
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Thu Oct 12, 6:32 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six hundred million years ago, in what is now
China, a small, sponge-like animal laid eggs that started to divide
into embryos.
Then disaster struck, and the tiny embryos died. But they were
preserved in the shales and limestone deposits of Guizhou Province in
southwest China.
Geologists who found them have used advanced X-ray and other imaging
techniques to see what the embryos looked like, and report on Thursday
that they have caught these fossilized embryos literally in the act of
dividing.
"The fact that you can catch cells in process of division or in the
process of dividing is astonishing because we are talking about little
blobs of jelly," said Whitey Hagadorn of Amherst College in
Massachusetts, who led the study.
Writing in the journal Science, Hagadorn and colleagues said the
embryos consisted of anywhere between a few cells to nearly 1,000
cells, and appear to have been dividing in a way similar to the way
modern embryos divide.
"We're learning something about how the very earliest multicellular
animals formed embryos and how the embryos developed," said biologist
Rudolf Raff of Indiana University, who worked on the study.
"This gives us an enormous and entirely surprising look at
half-a-billion-year-old embryos in the act of cleaving. What a window
on the past. We've had no prior idea what they might have done."
The researchers have spotted what appear to be specialized structures
inside the cells, such as bubble-like vesicles that cells use to
transport, store or metabolize molecules.
"We see things that look like organelles," Hagadorn added in a
telephone interview. These include spindle bundles, which in a modern
cell helps it pull apart into two new cells.
The international team of researchers used X-ray computed tomography,
along with scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech equipment
to examine the embryos in three dimensions.
The samples came from the Doushantuo Formation in China, a
635-million-year-old to 551-million-year-old fossil bed. The team
chose about 160 embryos to look at.
They are not easy to find, Hagadorn said. "It's like looking for a
needle in a haystack. "You go out and take a sample ... take it back
to the lab, dissolve it and you sieve through the particles under a
microscope with a paintbrush."
Most look like modern-day blastocysts -- little balls of cells that
are formed soon after conception. These early embryos divide, but not
in perfect timing.
"Imagine eight cells dividing to form 16. They don't all do that
instantaneously at exact same millisecond," Hagadron said. This is how
the researchers knew the embryos were still dividing -- because one
might have 17 cells, while another might have 30 cells.
Hagadorn said no one knows what kind of animals would have grown from
these embryos, but guessed it might be a sponge-like creature.
--
Bob.
spintronic
I like mathematics better.
At least in that field a spectacular claim like this has to endure at
least 2 years criticism before every tom dick and harry jumps in the
air spouting extraordinary claims, and starts jumping on the bandwagon!
Windy
spintronic wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > Fossil embryos caught in the act of dividing
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/sc_nm/science_embryos_dc_2
>
>
> At least in that field a spectacular claim like this has to endure at
> least 2 years criticism before every tom dick and harry jumps in the
> air spouting extraordinary claims, and starts jumping on the bandwagon!
Yeah, what's so special about dividing! Let us know when they catch
fossils doing integral calculus!
-- w.
spintronic
Has this stood up to criticizm?
username_...@yahoo.com.au
Do your own research; don't try to sponge off other people's work.
John Harshman
The doushantuo embryos have been known about for several years now.
There is no controversy about whether they are really embryos. There has
been some discussion about which groups they belong to, and whether or
not some of them are bilaterians. Have you ever seen any of the photos?
Do you have a reason for doubting them, or are you just bloody-minded?
spintronic
username_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> spintronic wrote:
> > Windy wrote:
> > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > Ye Old One wrote:
> > Has this stood up to criticizm?
>
> Do your own research; don't try to sponge off other people's work.
Why? Thats what ye old one is doing, even posting this thread!
John, send me the pics!
John Harshman
Google is your friend. I'd try "Doushantuo" and "embryo" for a first
attempt.
spintronic
Nice picture. Prove there was no cross contamination!
r norman
wrote:
Cross contamination from what? Another species of embryo?
Are you suggesting that modern embryos somehow became fossilized in
that particular sample?
spintronic
A spade, a test tube, a neandertal digging a hole, etc etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc.
Anything is Possible!
Ye Old One
I, like a number of others, take the time to post links to news
stories that "may" be of interest to people eon this group. You want
more details then you have to find them yourself - I'm not here to
spoon feed lazy people.
--
Bob.
r norman
wrote:
The Chen paper cited below describes the Doushantuo formation and the
layers of fossils dating from late Cambrian to much earlier. Most of
the fossils found are characteristic of the geological dates. Then,
in particular, the authors write "It would have been suspicious had
every embryo we encountered seemed to display affinity with some
modern taxon. But such was not the case. Various forms that we saw
cannot immediately be identified by similarity to modern models, and
an example is shown in Fig. 4D; its affinities are problematic."
Anything is possible, but outrageously unreasonable hypotheses cannot
be given serious consideration.
For the record, here are two publications
Hagadorn et al.
Cellular and subcellular structure of neoproterozoic animal embryos
Science. 2006 Oct 13;314(5797):291-4
Abstract: Stereoblastic embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of
China exhibit occasional asynchronous cell division, with diminishing
blastomere volume as cleavage proceeded. Asynchronous cell division is
common in modern embryos, implying that sophisticated mechanisms for
differential cell division timing and embryonic cell lineage
differentiation evolved before 551 million years ago. Subcellular
structures akin to organelles, coated yolk granules, or lipid vesicles
occur in these embryos. Paired reniform structures within embryo cells
may represent fossil evidence of cells about to undergo division.
Embryos exhibit no evidence of epithelial organization, even in
embryos composed of approximately 1000 cells. Many of these features
are compatible with metazoans, but the absence of epithelialization is
consistent only with a stem-metazoan affinity for Doushantuo embryos.
Chen et al.
Precambrian animal diversity: putative phosphatized embryos
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Apr 25;97(9):4457-62
Abstract: Putative fossil embryos and larvae from the Precambrian
phosphorite rocks of the Doushantuo Formation in Southwest China have
been examined in thin section by bright field and polarized light
microscopy. Although we cannot completely exclude a nonbiological or
nonmetazoan origin, we identified what appear to be modern cnidarian
developmental stages, including both anthozoan planula larvae and
hydrozoan embryos. Most importantly, the sections contain a variety of
small (</=200 microm) structures that greatly resemble gastrula stage
embryos of modern bilaterian forms.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Vinegar eels in the acetic acid used to dissolve the rock sample!
And of COURSE no one would be able to tell the difference!
Chris
Tom McDonald
You want proof that fossil embryos that show no clear affiliation with
later life forms be shown not to have been contaminated with fossils of
later life forms?
Huh.
spintronic
Was it Lake Vostok that scientists wouldnt permeate, for fear of
contamination?
They have been eager to see what life forms have formed below the
isolated body of water that is below thousands of meteres of ice. They
have NOT broken through, because they feared the lake could even be
contaminated by the oil of any machinery that breaks the surface!
The lake is undisturbed to this day, for fear of contaminating the
isolated body of water.
Now show me (with a straight face) that this sample, dug out of
non-isolated rock with everyday tools could not be contaminated, and
ill show you a liar! Or an idiot; you choose!
spintronic
Fool, you are saying these embryos are nothing like *anything* on earth
in the present day.
Show me why you think there is no clear affiliation!
Huh!
Richard Forrest
Tell me, do you always ask questions in way that implies that any
answer will demonstrate the stupidity or the dishonesty of the person
to whom you address it?
Does *Stupid, ignorant and arrogant arsehole" ring any bells? You must
hear it a lot.
RF
r norman
wrote:
Because a group highly trained in making exactly such affiliations
examined them and says there isn't. Furthermore, they then published
pictures of those embryos so that everybody else in the world who has
the ability to make such an affiliation could see that their
statement is correct.
Contrast that with the statements of, pardon my bluntness, an idiot
who has demonstrated absolutely no ability in biology or embryology or
paleontology who thinks that, just because contamination is
conceptually possible without leaving all the incredible number of
visible signs of such contamination, it must have happened.
Tom McDonald
I mis-wrote, thinking of another situation. Sorry.
However, what makes you think there might have been contamination? Have
you read the original reports about how the fossils were collected and
treated? If so, what in that/those report(s) suggests contamination? If
you have not, do your homework and come back with an answer.
Of course, if anything is possible, then nothing can be proven 100%
Like the existence of God or Gods. So science is bunk, because it says
that it can prove...huh.
Half a tic! What *does* modern science say about 100% certainty? It
says it is not possible?
So what are you really asking for? Proof. What cannot science give you?
Proof.
You know this, and yet you ask for it. And I'm a fool.
Huh.
Tom McDonald
Richard Forrest wrote:
> spintronic wrote:
<snip>
> > Now show me (with a straight face) that this sample, dug out of
> > non-isolated rock with everyday tools could not be contaminated, and
> > ill show you a liar! Or an idiot; you choose!
>
> Tell me, do you always ask questions in way that implies that any
> answer will demonstrate the stupidity or the dishonesty of the person
> to whom you address it?
>
> Does *Stupid, ignorant and arrogant arsehole" ring any bells? You must
> hear it a lot.
Since he appears to be one of ours, he's probably not heard himself
called an 'arsehole' often.
Asshole, now; asshole is most likely his middle name. I can just hear
his mamma yelling at him when he screwed something up big-time. What a
prescient trinomial his must be!
Friar Broccoli
> Now show me (with a straight face) that this sample, dug out of
> non-isolated rock with everyday tools could not be contaminated, and
> ill show you a liar! Or an idiot; you choose!
I must admit to a certain confusion here. What difference would it
make if
these embryo shaped rocks where somehow the result of contamination
(from more modern rocks?)?
Are you suggesting that the entire fossil record (including at least
15,000 species
of long EXTINCT trilobites) also found only as rock images, is the
result
of contamination?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
spintronic
Cold Fusion, perpetual motion, etc etc, All highly trained Scientists
casting their *opinions*. You aquate highly trained with highly
educated. But you can educate a monkey all day long, its still a bafoon
at the end of the day! Try and take self promotion of a contraversial
idea out the equation! And just observe the facts!
> Furthermore, they then published
> pictures of those embryos so that everybody else in the world who has
> the ability to make such an affiliation could see that their
> statement is correct.
Did they take DNA samples? How did they date the embryos? (not the soil
surrounding).
> Contrast that with the statements of, pardon my bluntness, an idiot
That was Rude!
Tom McDonald
spintronic wrote:
> r norman wrote:
<snip>
> Cold Fusion, perpetual motion, etc etc, All highly trained Scientists
> casting their *opinions*. You aquate highly trained with highly
> educated. But you can educate a monkey all day long, its still a bafoon
> at the end of the day!
No, it's still a monkey. A bafoon is another animal entirely.
> Try and take self promotion of a contraversial
> idea out the equation! And just observe the facts!
They did. Your point?
> > Furthermore, they then published
> > pictures of those embryos so that everybody else in the world who has
> > the ability to make such an affiliation could see that their
> > statement is correct.
>
> Did they take DNA samples? How did they date the embryos? (not the soil
> surrounding).
Do your own homework.
And I doubt they took DNA samples. Do you know why I think this?
> > Contrast that with the statements of, pardon my bluntness, an idiot
>
> That was Rude!
It was not, however, wrong.
<snip>
spintronic
The fact that a spade hit the soil!
>Have you read the original reports about how the fossils were collected and
> treated?
No!
> If so, what in that/those report(s) suggests contamination?
I just know what contamination is. I suggest you look it up!
..........<snip>
> Of course, if anything is possible, then nothing can be proven 100%
I agree; so why the conviction, that these samples are real?
> Of course, if anything is possible, then nothing can be proven 100%
> Like the existence of God or Gods. So science is bunk, because it says
> that it can prove...huh.
No science is good! I like science, im in favour of a more stringent
peer review process, for wild and flambionant sttatements that
evolutionists make. If this were any other field
Like medicine, there is no way these claims would stand the light of
day without 5 years of testing.
Or mathematics, 2-3,4 years of reviews before acceptance. Evolutionary
science is different. ANYTHING that proves the argument is spouted as
fact ASAP! (smells of foul science, very smelly, oisch)
> Half a tic! What *does* modern science say about 100% certainty? It
> says it is not possible?
So why so certain?
> So what are you really asking for? Proof. What science cannot give you?
> Proof.
I agree 100%. Non provable 100%!
> You know this, and yet you ask for it. And I'm a fool.
Only you know, forrest knew!
r norman
wrote:
It was most definitely rude but it was in character with the nature of
your objections. You may have already noticed that others have been
far ruder.
One specific group of scientists claimed to have seen cold fusion and,
because of their prominence in physical chemistry, were taken quite
seriously. As a result, there was an immediate effort to duplicate
and validate that work, an effort which very quickly showed cold
fusion not to occur. So that was that.
The paper that I cited is now more than six years old and the
provenance of these embryos has long been well accepted.
spintronic
Tom McDonald wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > spintronic wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Now show me (with a straight face) that this sample, dug out of
> > > non-isolated rock with everyday tools could not be contaminated, and
> > > ill show you a liar! Or an idiot; you choose!
> >
> > Tell me, do you always ask questions in way that implies that any
> > answer will demonstrate the stupidity or the dishonesty of the person
> > to whom you address it?
> >
> > Does *Stupid, ignorant and arrogant arsehole" ring any bells? You must
> > hear it a lot.
>
> Since he appears to be one of ours,
One of your what? if you dont mind me asking?
Anyway that fat guy thought newton was an arsehole, I dont really care!
> he's probably not heard himself
> called an 'arsehole' often.
Your correct! I come here because i like the insults! And yous lot
claim to be the intelectually ellite! Odd.
You sound like a load of 2 year olds, yet claim the high road of
intelligence! Very stupid!
> Asshole, now; asshole is most likely his middle name. I can just hear
> his mamma yelling at him when he screwed something up big-time. What a
> prescient trinomial his must be!
Im hurt, Not at your comments, but because millions of people put their
faith in addolecant imbeciles like yourself!
spintronic
But thats the problem i have, you see; and you must agree! The
scientist's criticising-scrutinising cold fusion were able to duplicate
the experiment. Here they CANT! So cant argue!
Does not happen in any other branch of the sciences!
r norman
wrote:
See my new post on "Evidence for evolution: Congruence".
You don't complain about the non-embryonic fossils collected from
exactly the same site. Then why complain about embryos that are
exactly consistent with the presence of the metazoa that are found.
You specific complaint was that there exist embryos that could not be
affiliated with any known modern organism. That failure to affiliate
is open to anybody who examines the data.
spintronic
Could you provide a link? Thank You!
> You don't complain about the non-embryonic fossils collected from
> exactly the same site.
I didnt know ther were any, so how could i not complain, but now i do
know, (if you provide the links) I will certainly complain!
Unless its painfully obvious, that its correct!
.............<snip>.......................
> You specific complaint was that there exist embryos that could not be
> affiliated with any known modern organism.
No i said they could be! But strike that, its not important!
> That failure to affiliate
> is open to anybody who examines the data.
Is there ANY papers contradicting this claim? Because if therte isnt,
then that smells foul also!
r norman
wrote:
>r norman wrote:
>
>> See my new post on "Evidence for evolution: Congruence".
>
>Could you provide a link? Thank You!
Do a search on the subject line.
>> You don't complain about the non-embryonic fossils collected from
>> exactly the same site.
>
>I didnt know ther were any, so how could i not complain, but now i do
>know, (if you provide the links) I will certainly complain!
I gave you the scientific citation. You can search for related links
on your own.
>> That failure to affiliate
>> is open to anybody who examines the data.
>Is there ANY papers contradicting this claim? Because if therte isnt,
>then that smells foul also!
Why? Most papers are not at all controversial and do not produce
antagonistic claims.
John Harshman
From what? How many modern sponges do you think live on or near the
Doushantuo? And how would they get phosphatized and end up inside a
rock? You are very confused.
Mark Isaak
> John Harshman wrote:
>> Google is your friend. I'd try "Doushantuo" and "embryo" for a first
>> attempt.
>
> Nice picture. Prove there was no cross contamination!
No problem. China is over thataway. Go see for yourself.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
spintronic
John Harshman wrote:
> spintronic wrote:
> > Nice picture. Prove there was no cross contamination!
> >
> From what? How many modern sponges do you think live on or near the
> Doushantuo? And how would they get phosphatized and end up inside a
> rock? You are very confused.
LOL. You are VERY confused! Who ever said these embryos were sponges?
Since they are remarkably similar to modern embryos, why do you say
""modern" sponge" as if "modern" makes some distinction, that makes any
difference?
Since there are *NO* adult forms of life in the Doushantuo, (why would
you think that is) and the only adult ones are microscopic sponges, it
is *impossible* to tell what type of animal these embryos would have
grown into!
Are you further saying the dig site, equipment, labourers, are all
sterile?
Before you go spouting crap like "sure we know what these embryos are".
Ill quote you what the paper said the team leader who ran the project,
thinks about what animal they belong to!
"They have no idea what kind of animals these embryos represent"!
So how do you get so sure, when the people in "the know", dont??
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>spintronic wrote:
>
> <snip>........
>
>
>>>Nice picture. Prove there was no cross contamination!
>>>
>>
>>From what? How many modern sponges do you think live on or near the
>>Doushantuo? And how would they get phosphatized and end up inside a
>>rock? You are very confused.
>
> LOL. You are VERY confused! Who ever said these embryos were sponges?
Some of them are. The specific paper that started this thread was
talking about sponge embryos. I'm confused?
> Since they are remarkably similar to modern embryos, why do you say
> ""modern" sponge" as if "modern" makes some distinction, that makes any
> difference?
It obviously makes the difference that if they were modern sponges they
wouldn't be there, and if they were fossil sponges they would not be
contaminants.
> Since there are *NO* adult forms of life in the Doushantuo, (why would
> you think that is) and the only adult ones are microscopic sponges, it
> is *impossible* to tell what type of animal these embryos would have
> grown into!
Actually there are some adult forms in the Doushantuo, but not of the
same species we have embryos for. The reason is that in order to be
preserved in the way that these fossils are, you have to be very small.
Only embryos are small enough.
> Are you further saying the dig site, equipment, labourers, are all
> sterile?
No. But they don't have to be sterile to prevent contamination by
phosphatized embryos. Bacteria, yes. Pollen, yes. Phosphatized embryos, no.
> Before you go spouting crap like "sure we know what these embryos are".
> Ill quote you what the paper said the team leader who ran the project,
> thinks about what animal they belong to!
>
> "They have no idea what kind of animals these embryos represent"!
>
> So how do you get so sure, when the people in "the know", dont??
That's putting it a bit strongly. Early embryos of many organisms look a
lot alike, but there are differences than can sometimes help you put
them into major groups. As I recall, some of the embryos show spiral
cleavage, which puts them into a very broad group and rules out others.
Friar Broccoli
> John Harshman wrote:
> > spintronic wrote:
> <snip>........
> Are you further saying the dig site, equipment, labourers, are all
> sterile?
No, just that their sperm is not made of ROCK
These fossil embryos are made of ROCK
spintronic
I think you totally misread my post!
John Harshman!
Is it true that it is hypothesised that; the reason there is no adult
life forms in these rocks is that they may have been "washed out"
through water filtration processes?
Dont you think thats "odd?
People like yourself admit to the likelyhood of lifeforms being "washed
out" of these rocks, (to fit their theories) but dont admit the
possibility, that these embryos could have been "washed into" these
rocks from higher sediment layers!
r norman
wrote:
I think you may have totally misread the post. If there was any
"washing out" of anything, it was done at the time the sediments
formed. There is a "sorting out" of particles in water so that things
of different size sometimes settle differently in the sediment stream.
Then once the sediments are covered over with new layers of materials
there is no further washing in or out of anything. So any washing,
whether in or out, was completed during the same geologic time frame.
r norman
wrote:
>
Incidentally, the paper of Chen et al on "Precambrian animal
diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation
of China" from PNAS 2000;97;4457-4462 says about the formation that
"soft tissues of metazoan embryos, larvae, adults, and algae also
appear to have been mineralized'.
John Harshman
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>>spintronic wrote:
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>>spintronic wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>........
>>
>>>Are you further saying the dig site, equipment, labourers, are all
>>>sterile?
>>
>>No, just that their sperm is not made of ROCK
>>These fossil embryos are made of ROCK
>
> I think you totally misread my post!
I think you are incapable of stating your ideas clearly.
> John Harshman!
If you're going to reply to me, why not reply to my post instead of
Friar Broccoli's post?
> Is it true that it is hypothesised that; the reason there is no adult
> life forms in these rocks is that they may have been "washed out"
> through water filtration processes?
I haven't heard that, and I don't know what it means either. One
possible reason is that phosphatization generally only works on very
small objects. The adults would be too big. It might also be that the
particles were sorted by size before being deposited; water transport
does that.
> Dont you think thats "odd?
I don't even know what it means.
> People like yourself admit to the likelyhood of lifeforms being "washed
> out" of these rocks, (to fit their theories) but dont admit the
> possibility, that these embryos could have been "washed into" these
> rocks from higher sediment layers!
I have no idea how that would work. It makes no sense at all. And I
doubt anyone says that lifeforms were "washed out" of rocks". Perhaps
they were removed from sediment during transport. That actually happens.
Friar Broccoli
spintronic wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > spintronic wrote:
> > > John Harshman wrote:
> > > > spintronic wrote:
> > > <snip>........
> >
> > > Are you further saying the dig site, equipment, labourers, are all
> > > sterile?
> >
> > No, just that their sperm is not made of ROCK
> > These fossil embryos are made of ROCK
>
>
> I think you totally misread my post!
Perhaps. I would certainly like a better understanding.
So could you explain just exactly what it was from these
non sterile workers that you think got into the ROCKS?
Ernest Major
Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
contaminate them with more recent material. (For example the "discovery"
of recent pine pollen in ancient rocks of the Grand Canyon.)
Unfortunately Spintronic hasn't considered the specifics of the
situation - there isn't a plausible source for contamination by
phosphatized embryos, especially phosphatized embryos morphologically
different from the embryos of living organisms. He's just being a
skeptopath.
--
alias Ernest Major
spintronic
No, you are talking as if the contamination has to have happened
recently! I am not saying that at all!
According to the paper, weve had 600million years for these rocks to
get contaminated!
John Harshman
Once they're rocks, they can't be contaminated until they're exposed,
i.e. recently. Unless you are proposing that the sediments were sitting
around on the surface for millions of years before being turned to rock,
your objection makes no sense. (Proposing that makes no sense either;
these sediments belong to a series that is piled up way above them,
right through into the Phanerozoic.)
And notice, as everyone else has been telling you, the contamination
would have to be with phosphatized embryos. Do you think those grow on
trees?
spintronic
John Harshman wrote:
> > I think you totally misread my post!
>
> I think you are incapable of stating your ideas clearly.
I wasnt talkig to you on this point! However!
>
> > John Harshman!
>
> If you're going to reply to me, why not reply to my post instead of
> Friar Broccoli's post?
Efficiency!
> > Is it true that it is hypothesised that; the reason there is no adult
> > life forms in these rocks is that they may have been "washed out"
> > through water filtration processes?
>
> I haven't heard that, and I don't know what it means either. One
> possible reason is that phosphatization generally only works on very
> small objects. The adults would be too big. It might also be that the
> particles were sorted by size before being deposited; water transport
> does that.
>
> > Dont you think thats "odd?
>
> I don't even know what it means.
Odd? Its a word, that means the status quo is somehow being
circumvented by something perculiar!
> > People like yourself admit to the likelyhood of lifeforms being "washed
> > out" of these rocks, (to fit their theories) but dont admit the
> > possibility, that these embryos could have been "washed into" these
> > rocks from higher sediment layers!
>
> I have no idea how that would work. It makes no sense at all.
Its simple, kinda like a filter, it would wash stuff out and retain the
rest!
> And I
> doubt anyone says that lifeforms were "washed out" of rocks". Perhaps
> they were removed from sediment during transport. That actually happens.
"Removed from sediment during transport".
Hmmmm Sounds like washed out, to me!, but i could be missing something.
Exactly where were these life forms being transported too? How where
they transported? Did a train pick them up? Did they get a taxi? Were
they beamed up?
You see, your tryinna make a very VERY simple process sound
complicated, and you just end up sounding like a right TIT!
If you admit the possibility that;
"the absence of adult forms of almost all animal types in the
Doushantuo (there are microscopic adult sponges and corals) makes these
claims difficult to prove: some argue that their lack suggests these
finds are not larval and embryonic forms at all; supporters contend
that some unidentified process "filtered out" all but the smallest
forms from fossilization".
Then you have to admit 2 things!
1) Higher lifeforms came along later than 600 million years
2) If you can wash these life forms out of the rock, then smaller
examples can also be washed into the rock!
My 6 month old daughter understands this, and shes practically a
cabbage at her age!
Ernest Major
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
You might like to check your post up thread, where you ask "Are you
further saying the dig site, equipment, labourers, are all sterile?".
That looks very like you advocating recent contamination as an
alternative explanation of the finds.
--
alias Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli
> No, you are talking as if the contamination has to have happened
> recently! I am not saying that at all!
>
> According to the paper, weve had 600million years for these rocks to
> get contaminated!
I'd like to know where you are going with all this?
If you agree the sample was originally created 600 million years ago
and that other fossils in the same area are legitimate, what does
it matter if one sample was somehow contaminated?
I checked your old posts, and you appear to accept evolution,
and you are not a fundamentalist christian. So what is this
all about anyway?
Stanley Friesen
>
>That's putting it a bit strongly. Early embryos of many organisms look a
>lot alike, but there are differences than can sometimes help you put
>them into major groups. As I recall, some of the embryos show spiral
>cleavage, which puts them into a very broad group and rules out others.
Of course *those* embryos aren't sponges.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen