Posted on 09/26/2014 11:44:23 AM PDT by Red Badger
A Virginia Tech geobiologist with collaborators from the Chinese Academy of Sciences have found evidence in the fossil record that complex multicellularity appeared in living things about 600 million years ago – nearly 60 million years before skeletal animals appeared during a huge growth spurt of new life on Earth known as the Cambrian Explosion.
The discovery published online Wednesday in the journal Nature contradicts several longstanding interpretations of multicellular fossils from at least 600 million years ago.
"This opens up a new door for us to shine some light on the timing and evolutionary steps that were taken by multicellular organisms that would eventually go on to dominate the Earth in a very visible way," said Shuhai Xiao, a professor of geobiology in the Virginia Tech College of Science. "Fossils similar to these have been interpreted as bacteria, single-cell eukaryotes, algae, and transitional forms related to modern animals such as sponges, sea anemones, or bilaterally symmetrical animals. This paper lets us put aside some of those interpretations."
In an effort to determine how, why, and when multicellularity arose from single-celled ancestors, Xiao and his collaborators looked at phosphorite rocks from the Doushantuo Formation in central Guizhou Province of South China, recovering three-dimensionally preserved multicellular fossils that showed signs of cell-to-cell adhesion, differentiation, and programmed cell death—qualities of complex multicellular eukaryotes such as animals and plants.
The discovery sheds light on how and when solo cells began to cooperate with other cells to make a single, cohesive life form. The complex multicellularity evident in the fossils is inconsistent with the simpler forms such as bacteria and single-celled life typically expected 600 million years ago.
While some hypotheses can now be discarded, several interpretations may still exist, including the multicellular fossils being transitional forms related to animals or multicellular algae. Xiao said future research will focus on a broader paleontological search to reconstruct the complete life cycle of the fossils.
More information: "Cell differentiation and germ–soma separation in Ediacaran animal embryo-like fossils" Lei Chen, Shuhai Xiao, Ke Pang, Chuanming Zhou & Xunlai Yuan Nature (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nature13766
Journal reference: Nature search and more info website
Provided by Virginia Tech
Until the next ‘discovery’ is made to set it back even further.........
Of course I see the point you're hoping to make, but it's simply not valid.
First of all, "faith" is a religious term, which refers to spiritual experience, and so has nothing to do with science.
Second, what I'm here calling bedrock assumptions of science are also described as reasonable conclusions, based on overwhelming physical evidence supporting them, plus no confirmed physical evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- seriously falsifying them.
So these are far from "blind faith" assumptions, and since they lead to confirmed predictions, scientists consider them scientifically valid.
That's the way science works.
Of course, your faith is based on a different set of bedrock assumptions -- spiritual assumptions -- which lead to very different conclusions, and the most important point to remember is that such conclusions are totally outside the material realm of natural science.
Therefore, imho, it is not necessarily the case that if one is true the other false.
They could each be largely true, without necessarily falsifying the other.
Think about it...
each book piled on top of the others, to reach that unreachable stair...
;-)
Any assumption is based on a faith - a belief in the unobserved.
It takes more faith to write God out of science than it does to make the assumption of a creative Mind.
I also see an unacknowledged assumptive belief in uniformitarianism - that the processes we see to day have always been.
Define “science” as you are referencing it: “nothing to do with science”.
An interesting speculation, suitable for sophomoric dorm-room bull-sessions and little else, absent some confirmed evidence seriously supporting it.
But, much of the material realm which science deals with cannot be directly observed -- from the smallest strings & quarks to the Big Bang itself, none of it can be directly seen.
So these natural processes are, instead, proposed as theories to explain squiggles on paper, produced by super-colliders or radiation detectors in space.
And I'll repeat: there is no "faith" involved in those theories, it is simply a matter of understanding the latest scientific explanations -- hypotheses & theories -- explanations which will very likely be overturned by future discoveries.
So, FRiend MrB, how can you call it "faith" if we expect our current ideas to be overturned sometime in the future?
I'll say it again: that's not "faith", that's just science.
MrB: "It takes more faith to write God out of science than it does to make the assumption of a creative Mind."
And yet the "proofs" of science are the amazing ways in which it demonstrably works.
And God's Creative Mind is nowhere ruled out by science, He's simply recognized as a non-scientific spiritual power.
As such, God is not necessarily in conflict with anything proposed by science.
MrB: "I also see an unacknowledged assumptive belief in uniformitarianism - that the processes we see to day have always been."
There's nothing "unacknowledged" about it, since I've pointed it out now several times, on this thread and others.
And again, yes it's a bedrock assumption, but it's also a very reasonable conclusion based on the fact that we have no evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- suggesting otherwise.
MrB: "Define “science” as you are referencing it: “nothing to do with science”."
As I have pointed out many times now, today's word "science" is short for the classical "Age of Enlightenment" Founding Fathers' term: "Natural Science", meaning in short: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
So, as soon as you bring the Super-Natural into a discussion, then it is no longer "natural science", but something else -- i.e., metaphysics or theology.
"Science" by definition and intent only covers those branches of learning and questions which can be addressed by natural explanations of natural processes.
Of course, there are atheist-scientists who tell us that the natural realm is the only realm which actually exists, that there is no Super-Natural realm.
But those expressions of philosophical/theological opinions are not in themselves scientific!
They are merely opinions, equivalent to the "faith" you keep talking about.
Given your apparent desire to belittle such a notion, it seems clear that you regard it as anything but interesting and are prone to ruling such a thing out before the fact.
It's interesting to me, that those who deem themselves defenders of science are also so prone to a priori assumption in defense of their pet theories.
RegulatorCountry: "...those who deem themselves defenders of science are also so prone to a priori assumption in defense of their pet theories."
So... cite some confirmed evidence seriously falsifying today's theories on "deep time", or go home, Pal.
I’m not your “pal,” BroJoeK. What an annoying, dated attempt at slang.
Don’t get out much do you, lol?
I would surmise there are beliefs held by scientists that would light up the superioposterior parietal cortex, which is associated with religious belief.
The point here is, if we’re going to define religious belief shouldn’t we look to neurobiology rather than language or semantics in order to find it?
It seems like you’re speaking of naturalism as defined in lay terms. But the presumption of lay naturalism is generally consistent with the view of metaphysical naturalism, which says that all of reality is reducible to natural explanation.
For this reason, the most honest among metaphysical naturalists admit that thought, intentionality and self are not explainable by natural causes and therefore they are not part of reality. They don’t exist.
“intentionality and self are not explainable by natural causes “
Really? That’s a bold assertion. They are clearly observable. They have been studied for a very long time with much commentary.
So American English is also your second language?
What is it with you people?
You fit the exact definition of the word, as used in such expressions, pal.
Sure, and those beliefs could well be traditional Christianity, but any "lighting up" of any "neural areas" would be strictly non-scientific responses to a scientific discovery.
Seriously, you need to recognize that statement -- stripped of it's qualifiers -- as not just a lie, but a d*mned lie.
You must comprehend that the scientific enterprise is not, and certainly was not, based on your "metaphysical naturalism", which denies all reality outside the natural realm, but rather on methodological naturalism, which simply sets aside all super-natural processes and explanations, for the purpose of scientific investigations.
That the "public mind" is totally confused on this subject is certainly the result of very aggressive atheists blurring the distinctions, and true Believers cowering in the face of "politically correct" onslaughts.
Indeed, it seems to me that some "fundamentalists" encourage the confusion, as a way of more sharply dividing their own faith from, let us call it: "worldly science".
No, but it appears to be yours.
What is it with you people?
You tell me. What is it with these people, with whom you've apparently lumped me?
You fit the exact definition of the word, as used in such expressions, pal.
Define the word "pal" exactly, as used in such expressions.
Obviously, you’ve used the word “pal” as your own personal red herring, to go chasing after, instead of addressing the issue posed in my post #48.
I take it then, that you concede my point, but hope to save some face by changing the subject to quibble with me over the definition of “pal”.
What point is there to concede, that you’re here defending your orthodoxy?
“but a d*mned lie.” There, there little scientist... unless you can reference a higher order (then test that higher order reality to prove its existence) in which to judge between lies and ‘damned’ lies you run the risk of being run out of the scientist club.
You might think I’m being facetious but actually what I’ve said gets to the heart of what reasonisfaith is saying.
A statement can be proven true or false or judged a tautology by the strictest of scientific reasoning but a lie is a deliberate falsification of truth forbidden by religious moral codes, the sources of which , the scientific method would deem “untestable”.
You don’t say his statement is false or suggest that he is misinformed, you accuse him of a religious moral failing “by lying” or telling “a damned lie” there bye referring to a “fundamentalist” religious frame of reference you seem to scorn.
I think you have missed your calling. You should become a Sunday school teacher! A “fundamentalist” one at that!
Please explain to me what they are then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.