Mollusk fossils push back evolution, ROM scientists say

The Globe and Mail ^ | 7/13/06 | UNNATI GANDHI

[pby]

The Australian Museum states:

"Only one other organism-living or fossil-has a body design and feeding apparatus like that of Bowengriphus. The other 'Blob' is named Odontogriphus omalus. It was described in 1976 from much older (Middle Cambrian, 515 million year old) rocks in Canada."

http://www.amonline.net.au/collections/palaeontology/blob.htm

[stands2reason]

I think the Cambrian Explosion should be referred to by it's more factual name: the Cambrian Explosion of Fossils.

[stands2reason]

You seem to have a problem with science in general.

It's not an uncommon phenomenon among creationists.

[stands2reason]

Will it wear a lavender fannypack, as you need arms for a purse?

[bobdsmith]

You seem to have a problem with science in general. It's not an uncommon phenomenon among creationists.

Well tell me Mr Scientist, how can the entire universe and everything in it have come from this so-called cambridge explosion? Everyone knows that explosions destroy things not create fossils.

[/s?]

[stands2reason]

Science is not static. If you have a problem with the fact that science continually updates and refines itself and is not writ in stone, you have a problem with science itself.

[Virginia-American]

...and another overturning of currently-held beliefs....

Which ones? Be specific. Thanks.

[Virginia-American]

Amazing. Here's an article that touches on some of the Cambrian transitionals, including Wiwaxia corrugata which appears to be an intermediate between two phyla, Mollusca and Annelida. This new fossil is similar to Wiwaxia but without the sclerites. (IMO only!)

[furball4paws]

Precisely.

[Sopater]

I think the Cambrian Explosion should be referred to by it's more factual name: the Cambrian Explosion of Fossils.

Very true. The fossil record is a very poor indication of dates that various species may have disappeared from (or for that matter appeared on) the face of the planet as this List of Living Fossils clearly shows.

[AndrewC]

Life 560 million years ago more advanced than previously believed, article says.

The specimens were collected over 15 years in the late 1980s and 1990s by the ROM

Seems as if we have some "dating" questions.

Not quite so old dates in 2004

Only one other organism - living or fossil - has a body design and feeding apparatus like that of Bowengriphus. The other 'Blob' is named Odontogriphus omalus. It was described in 1976 from much older (Middle Cambrian, 515 million year old) rocks inCanada. Odontogriphus and Bowengriphus are separated from each other by some 265 million years and half a world geographically; Odontogriphus is marine, whereas Bowengriphus lived in fresh water. Still, the two share enough similarities to suggest that they are each others' closest known relative, and they are classified together in the extinct group Odontogriphidae. Their position in the animal kingdom remains an enigma.

[AndrewC]

"They were the last of their kind and they were dying out because the sea floor was changing and all these other animals started developing hard parts and new strategies for dealing with predators," Mr. Rudkin said. "The successful mollusks are those that branched off and developed shells."

Interesting in how long it took an endangered species to die off. From my link --- Bowengriphus perphlegis, from Late Permian (250 million year old) lake deposits near Blackwater,

AND

Only one other organism - living or fossil - has a body design and feeding apparatus like that of Bowengriphus. The other 'Blob' is named Odontogriphus omalus.

265 Million years(give or take a few) to die out. Pretty long swan song.

[AndrewC]

You don't believe the date controversy? Well hot off the press from Nature. A soft-bodied mollusc with radula from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale

Nature 442, 159-163(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04894; Received 15 February 2006; Accepted 8 May 2006

A soft-bodied mollusc with radula from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale

Jean-Bernard Caron¹, Amélie Scheltema², Christoffer Schander³ and David Rudkin¹

Top of page

Abstract

Odontogriphus omalus was originally described as a problematic non-biomineralized lophophorate organism. Here we re-interpret Odontogriphus based on 189 new specimens including numerous exceptionally well preserved individuals from the Burgess Shale collections of the Royal Ontario Museum. This additional material provides compelling evidence that the feeding apparatus in Odontogriphus is a radula of molluscan architecture comprising two primary bipartite tooth rows attached to a radular membrane and showing replacement by posterior addition. Further characters supporting molluscan affinity include a broad foot bordered by numerous ctenidia located in a mantle groove and a stiffened cuticular dorsum. Odontogriphus has a radula similar to Wiwaxia corrugata but lacks a scleritome. We interpret these animals to be members of an early stem-group mollusc lineage that probably originated in the Neoproterozoic Ediacaran Period, providing support for the retention of a biomat-based grazing community from the late Precambrian Period until at least the Middle Cambrian.

Top of page

Aha! The moving date is nothing but a speculation(notice in the title that the fossil comes from the Middle Cambrian), We interpret these animals to be members of an early stem-group mollusc lineage that probably originated in the Neoproterozoic Ediacaran Period.

[AndrewC]

PBY, sorry, I just noticed your post. You beat me to the punch.

[AndrewC]

See post 115. It will explain the "dating". It's just another "just-so" story.

[SirLinksalot]

http://creationsafaris.org/

Cambrian Mollusk: Does It Help Animal Evolution Story?

07/13/2006

A soft-bodied mollusk named Odontogriphus known from the Burgess Shale, placed in the Middle Cambrian, has been described in more detail in Nature.1 If the Middle Cambrian is well after the Cambrian explosion, how can the authors claim this pushes the story of animal evolution far back into the Precambrian, before the explosion? A reporter for the Globe and Mail learned this from David Rudkin, one of the four co-authors of the paper:

This discovery pushes back the history of animal evolution tens of millions of years to 560 million years ago in Precambrian time (543 million years ago and earlier), according to the Royal Ontario Museum’s David Rudkin, co-author of the article published in today’s issue of the journal Nature.

This interpretation is based on perceived similarities with Kimberella, an unusual flattened, frond-like fossil categorized as Ediacaran (see 08/19/2004), dated at 555 million years ago in the late Precambrian. Yet a look at the original paper shows that the association is tenuous: “Odontogriphus and perhaps the Ediacaran form Kimberella possess distinctive characters that place them in the molluscs before the acquisition of a calcified dorsum,” it says. It qualifies the association with prefaces like, “If the interpretation of Kimberella as an early mollusc-like organism with radula is correct,” and portrays affinities with other early and mid-Cambrian mollusk fossils as “ambiguous” and “highly contentious.”

A look at their timeline chart demonstrates the point. There are more dashed lines and question marks than solid lines. All the indisputable mollusk fossils are found in the early or mid Cambrian, side by side. The evolutionary relationships are inferred by dashed lines extending into the Precambrian, with no fossils except for the puzzling Kimberella, which may have nothing to do with mollusks.

Moreover, the Globe and Mail article admits that very few fossils exist from the Precambrian, and that the Cambrian “marked the sudden appearance of complex multicellular macroscopic organisms” (see 04/23/2006). It also states that “In the Precambrian era, before the so-called explosion, organisms were thought to be much simpler, but this study shows that was not the case.” The paper describes these organisms as possessing a nervous system, a digestive system, reproductive system, excretory system, salivary glands and neat rows of teeth (radula). Nor is Odontogriphus the new kid on the block. The authors describe it as a holdover from “a handful of Cambrian fossils that probably represent surviving Neoproterozoic lineages” that survived whatever made the Ediacaran biota go extinct.

Such statements would seem to pose severe challenges to evolutionary theory, yet the news report speaks glowingly of how this fossil is helping evolutionists rather than hurting their case. “This is a crucial interval in evolutionary history because it seems to represent a time in which a great deal happened,” Rudkin is quoted as saying. He added that the specimen is “opening up new windows on evolution for us.” The article ends with a call for us to learn the lessons of evolution:

Mr. Rudkin said the fact that many mollusks have survived such a catastrophic extinction could shed light on the evolutionary path many animals may take.

“Those lessons we learn from the past — about where groups of organisms originated, when they become extinct, how they became extinct, or if they didn’t become extinct entirely, how they recovered from extinction — we use that kind of historical background to help us predict what might happen in modern extinction circumstances. Maybe there’s a lesson in there for us.”

-------------------------------------

1Caron et al., “A soft-bodied mollusc with radula from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale,” Nature 442, 159-163(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04894; Received 15 February 2006; Accepted 8 May 2006.

The lesson is not to tell myths and call it science. This paper registered multiple hits on our Baloney Detector. Enough baloney, and you have a virtual big lie.

These extinct mollusks with all their complex parts have nothing to do with evolution. If this is a window on evolution, it’s a new view of the wreckage. How scientists can take evidence that falsifies their view and turn it into praise service for Charlie is another example of the shameful shenanigans of the shameless Darwin Party these days. Their shifty shell game is a sham and should be shot down by those who respect real science sans spin.

[Coyoteman]

Their shifty shell game is a sham and should be shot down by those who respect real science sans spin.

So creation "science" is the standard to which we all should aspire?

(I think you're joshin' me!)

[PatrickHenry]

I think you're joshin' me!

Or worse. A quick review of this thread will be instructive. The fun starts at post 4, resumes at post 7, and then it really never ends.