This primeval worm may be the ancestor of all animals

[admin]

This ancient fossil worm may be the progenitor of all animals, a new study suggests.

This primeval worm may be the ancestor of all animals : Read more

 

[kamikrazee]

A mouth, a digestive tract, and a back passage. Charming. Reminds me of a well known chief executive.

 

[snowyphile]

Convergent evolution.

 

[Gracehartsoe]

I love his writing style! This boring information was written in a comical way that made the information more interesting and exciting to read! I actually laughed out loud-and I’m a teenager so that’s saying something if I think your funny-any way please write more in a comical way I love it.

 

[Broadlands]

It is obviously not the ancestor of ALL animals, but only the bilatera. The title is very misleading.

 

[createdworld]

Oh, the assumptions! Are we still using the circular reasoning of dating rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks? To state this as science (observable, testable, repeatable) is really a leap in the dark.

 

[Broadlands]

Oh, the assumptions! Are we still using the circular reasoning of dating rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks? To state this as science (observable, testable, repeatable) is really a leap in the dark.

No... they are not. Take a trip down the Grand Canyon, going back through time. There are no vertebrates, no dinosaurs. The fossils become more and more primitive. When you get to the bottom there are only microbes. That's evolution over geological time...observable and testable...and repeatable.

 

[createdworld]

Not really a good example, I think. Latest science on the Grand Canyon is rapid deposition of strata with formation being as little as 40,000 years ago, others see 6-7 mya. Lessons from Mt St Helens indicate catastrophic layering in very short order - not to mention the great unconformity stretching thought the canyon and much of the world, or the planation so obvious in the region. Fact is, the age of the canyon has been debated for years on end. Scientists of every bias have interpreted the actual evidence with incredible diverse conclusions, but it still seems that the issue is not a little water over vast eons of time, but a whole lot of water in a much shorter period of time. The so-called geologic column then would not be "a trip though time" but the burial order of billions of dead things buried in rock laid down by water all over the earth. Still, since no one was there, I have to question "observation" and "testable" - certainly not repeatable except in the sense of other catastrophic phenomena, like Mt. St Helens.

 

[Broadlands]

Not really a good example, I think. Latest science on the Grand Canyon is rapid deposition of strata with formation being as little as 40,000 years ago, others see 6-7 mya. Lessons from Mt St Helens indicate catastrophic layering in very short order - not to mention the great unconformity stretching thought the canyon and much of the world, or the planation so obvious in the region. Fact is, the age of the canyon has been debated for years on end. Scientists of every bias have interpreted the actual evidence with incredible diverse conclusions, but it still seems that the issue is not a little water over vast eons of time, but a whole lot of water in a much shorter period of time. The so-called geologic column then would not be "a trip though time" but the burial order of billions of dead things buried in rock laid down by water all over the earth. Still, since no one was there, I have to question "observation" and "testable" - certainly not repeatable except in the sense of other catastrophic phenomena, like Mt. St Helens.

You are not paying attention? The age of the Grand Canyon is not the point. The rocks are deposited is horizontal layers. The oldest at the bottom, the youngest at the top. The most primitive fossil organisms are at the bottom, the most advanced (evolved!) at the top. This is repeatable in other parts of the world in similar layered rocks. Obviously impossible if it all was a flood. The same thing happens today in local garbage dumps. The oldest newpapers, radios, TVs, telephones are toward the bottom, Yesterday's newspapers and garbage at the top. Repeatable from dump to dump.

 

[createdworld]

To the last comment on this thread: I think I see what you are saying. Again, we are looking at the same data (strata, in this case) and coming up with different interpretations. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the time of the formation of the canyon is not the important point, but the layering of rock strata with fossils. I'm thinking of the canyon as the rock cut out by an incredible amount of water. It is, after all, sedimentary rock until you get to the great unconformity. As we see from Mt St Helen, the layering is caused by water, or mud flow, laid down in very finely defined strata - just like the Grand Canyon (only a 40th of size). So, from my worldview (which does not include billions of years), the strata was laid from a major flood, and then the canyon of sedimentary (by definition) rock was carved by incredible water flow as the flood receded (or, as some scientists posit, a major break in the Missoula glacier lake). I base this "belief" on actual observations - particularly the lack of erosion between layers, the planation of buttes in the area (a really good geological study there!), the lack of millions-of-years kind of erosion in the canyon itself, and a number of other factors. (Actually, I became convinced by an aerial survey - obviously a whole lot of water! It seemed to fit. ) Since fossils are 95% marine fossils anyway (found in also in higher elevations, including Mt Everest), is shouldn't surprise anyone that some are found in many various rock layers. A study of the pre-Cambrian explosion should raise questions as well, with the trilobites and the nautilus obviously NOT primitive organisms. So, your view of time really does matter and provides a bias in interpreting the data - from either worldview.

 

[Broadlands]

"So, from my worldview (which does not include billions of years), the strata was laid from a major flood,"

Not possible to lay all that sediment in one global flood event and have the included fossils be from the most primitive at the bottom and the most evolved at the top. And it's observable, testable and repeatable in other parts of the world. And, I believe you have seriously misread the Cambrian explosion of fossils by referring to it as the Pre-Cambrian explosion. The Pre-Cambrian goes back billions of years to those microbes that are found as fossils at the base of the Grand Canyon...unaccompanied by any more advanced life...trilobites, dinosaurs, horses or even people.

 

[createdworld]

Thanks for your input! Same data, same strata - different worldview informing both. What an amazing world we have! Thanks again!