-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life From Dirt?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Jimmy
Veteran Member
You like that word tribal don’t you? Is that your new word now?You need to go beyond just googling blindly to justify your biased agenda and acquire a less biased understanding of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence to support an alternative explanation based on ancient tribal text.
The article reflects more definitive discoveries and research on the origin of Trilobites published 2022. It is likely you will not understand the scientific language considering your comprehension limits, but nonetheless, it answers your question for the present knowledge of Trilobite origins and addresses the unanswered questions concerning their origin. Note bold to possibly help you understand.
Reassessing a cryptic history of early trilobite evolution - Communications Biology
A reassessment of early trilobite phylogenetic relationships and palaeobiogeographic patterns suggests that a cryptic evolutionary history is unlikely for this group. The abrupt appearance of trilobites is likely to closely reflect their evolutionary origins, and may be explained by survivorship...www.nature.com
Trilobites are a clade of total-group euarthropods whose first appearance datum (FAD) marks the boundary between the Terreneuvian and provisional Cambrian Series 2 (currently dated to c. 521 Ma)12,13. They are one of the largest and most successful Paleozoic groups, persisting for some 270 million years, and represented by over 22,000 described species14,15. This excellent fossil record—a result of their easily-preserved, biomineralized exoskeleton that was molted many times during life—can be used to address important questions concerning early animal evolution16,17. Trilobites have been viewed as exemplary for the argument of deep bilaterian (and therefore metazoan) divergence dates, and formed an important part of the argument for early proponents of this view4,18,19. One reason for this is that trilobites supposedly show substantial provincialism when they appear in the fossil record, being separated into two major biogeographic areas in the early Cambrian: the ‘olenelline’ province (e.g., Laurentia, Baltica) and the ‘redlichiine’ province of Gondwana (including Antarctica, Australia, China and India, amongst other regions), with a transitional zone (sometimes referred to as the ‘bigotinid’ province) occurring in areas such as West Gondwana and Siberia20,21,22 (Fig. 1; we use suborders here23). It has generally been assumed that trilobites must have a cryptic evolutionary history for such a pattern to be produced, and that observed distributions of taxa are a result of vicariance, in this case resulting from supercontinent breakup and the subsequent isolation of certain paleocontinents. These patterns have been linked to either the breakup of Rodinia (c. 700–800 Ma)19 or the ephemeral Pannotia (c. 550–600 Ma)24,25,26, although the refinement of molecular clock estimates suggests that the former in particular is unlikely. Given the accepted position of trilobites as total-group euarthropods27, linking of these biogeographic patterns to supercontinent breakup in the Neoproterozoic has been used to support the argument for a deep, cryptic history of arthropod evolution, and early animal evolution more generally4,18,19,24,25. However, this reasoning is based on two major assumptions: (a) that the earliest trilobites already show established biogeographic provincialism and phylogenetic diversity; and (b) that observed biogeographic patterns result from vicariance rather than dispersal. It also raises questions about the early trilobite fossil record that are not easily answered. For example, if a biomineralized exoskeleton and associated traits are synapomorphies of the group, why are Terreneuvian trilobites absent from the fossil record despite an adequate shelly record across the same period?
Arthropod traces in the Terreneuvian
Trace fossils have also been used to argue for a cryptic history of trilobite evolution. Arthropod traces from the Terreneuvian such as Rusophycus have been attributed to trilobites34 (despite appearing c. 10–15 million years prior to the first appearance of the group35), although some authors have since suggested that these could have been produced by other arthropods36,37. Trilobites are members of a much larger diversity of Cambrian euarthropods, the great majority of which are non-mineralized. Many of these (like trilobites) exhibit a series of biramous (‘two-branched’), gnathobase-bearing appendages along the anterior-posterior axis38,39,40. In particular, the Artiopoda (a large clade of trilobite-like euarthropods, including trilobites) generally have very similar appendages38, and this is clearly a primitive trait of the group. Many artiopodans also exhibit comparable overall morphologies to trilobites, and some of these likely filled similar ecological niches. Thus, it might be expected that such taxa produced similar traces across the early history of artiopodans, which must have occurred prior to the FAD of trilobites (Fig. 2). It is even possible that more basal non-mineralized stem-euarthropods (e.g., fuxianhuiids41 and Parapeytoia42, which exhibit the same basic appendage structure) could produce similar traces. The recent interpretation of Cambrian Series 2 (Stage 4) Rusophycus from Canada as being produced by a non-mineralized crustacean-like arthropod43 supports the idea that these early traces could be produced by non-trilobites. It has also been pointed out that although trace fossils like Rusophycus and Cruziana occur after the Permian mass extinction (e.g., in the Triassic44,45), this is not considered evidence of post-Permian trilobites46 (these are also attributed to crustacean-like taxa). Why should we consider the presence of these traces prior to c. 521 Ma in a different light, when other obvious candidates for producing them are present? Based on the above, a more literal reading of the trilobite fossil record is not incongruent with the trace fossil record. Rather, it supports the interpretation of these traces representing the early diversification of total-group euarthropods starting in the early Terreneuvian (Fortunian), more derived artiopodan-type taxa later in the Terreneuvian (e.g., the more ‘typical’ Rusophycus occurring in Stage 235) and allows additional time for the evolution of trilobites before their FAD at c. 521 Ma.
A uniting feature of this group are their similar biramous appendages and it is likely that some of the non-trilobite artiopodans produced the same kinds of traces as trilobites (e.g., Rusophyscus, Cruziana). If trilobites arose close to when they appear in the fossil record (c. 521 Ma) there must have been a substantial earlier history of artiopodans (and other more distantly related taxa), thus obviating the requirement to suggest trilobites produced these traces in the Terreneuvian. Topology based on fig. 6b of Ortega-Hernández et al.38.
The suggestion of non-mineralized trilobites in the Terreneuvian or earlier is shown to be highly unparsimonious, implying rampant convergence of structures associated with exoskeletal biomineralization in all major early trilobite lineages, and abandonment of the synapomorphies uniting the clade. This suggests that no credible reason has been proposed for the absence of Terreneuvian trilobites in the fossil record, given the assumption of a substantial cryptic evolutionary history. Despite previous statements to the contrary, when trilobites appear in the fossil record they show limited provincialism and relatively low phylogenetic diversity. Even when more distinct faunas develop across the remainder of Cambrian Series 2 there is considerable overlap between these, and patterns of diversification suggest this is occurring in real time (rather than resulting from divergence prior to the FAD of trilobites). Given the change in our understanding of the relative importance of vicariance and dispersal in explaining modern biogeographic patterns over the last several decades—and the general observation that modern marine invertebrate faunas do not show vicariant patterns resulting from continental separation—trilobite biogeographic patterns are unlikely to result from this form of vicariance. The mismatch between recent morphological clock estimates (that suggest trilobites probably emerged in the Fortunian) and an even more literal reading of the fossil record can be explained by effects such as the push of the past, which anticipates higher rates of diversification during the initial radiation of clades—particularly in the case of very long-lived and successful groups like trilobites. We conclude that the FAD of trilobites closely reflects their evolutionary origins, and that there is no compelling evidence to suggest an extended cryptic evolutionary history for this group.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
You can’t understand English?
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Up until I read your post, I thought I did. Yes.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Stay with it. You’ll get there
No, it is just very descriptive of the tribal nature of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They ALL make competing tribal claims of being the exclusive fulfillment of the Abrahamic succession of Messianic or prophethood from God. Each claims that others are not the true religion of God for today. Christianity and Islam are divided into different sects each claiming to be the true religion in one way or another. They have continued to make tribal warfare turf claims over the millennia up to today.
Just the facts of the history of religions.
Last edited:
I agree that life did not 'evolve from dirt,' but the rest of your claim is based on an ancient tribal religious agenda and mythology without science. The sarcastic claim of 1980 reflects the mind crack in your broken record.
You cannot comprehend science. Too many mind cracks since the real world began in 1980. Vinyl records ended in ~1980. Your mind has been stuck in the same vinyl grove since.
Last edited:
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Sorry I didn't understand what you said. I can only read and write ancient Mayan.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Is mind crack another one of your favorite new phrases? Haha
It is well suited to those who cling to a radical anti-science extremist religious tribal agenda stuck on cracks in 1979 vinyl records before the real world began.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Oh how billions of us love to be extreme. Hahahaha
I question your billions, but yes the intentional ignorance of science is unfortunately very popular, In the USA and Europe most Christians are Theistic Evolutionists and accept the sciences of evolution.
Of course, the knowledge of science is not a popularity contest. There is a distinct relationship between education level in the USA concerning the acceptance of evolution,
Last edited:
The religious believe life poofed into existence, fully formed, from dirt, by the mechanism (?) of magic'
The scientifically literate believe life emerged from from dissolved chemicals, slowly combining into self-replicating molecules and life components like amino acids, lipid bi-layers and nucleotides; eventually assembling into proto-life forms and, eventually, primitive life. Mechanism: chemistry.
Magic has never been confirmed. Chemistry, and most of the steps mentioned above, are familiar and easily observed.
Which mechanism is better supported? Which seems more likely?
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Lol. I have a college education and I know the world began around 1980. Imo of course
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Mine isn’t a religious belief. It is knowledge of fact. Imo of course
So what?!?!?! It is obvious your college degree did not help you understand science. Nonetheless
I question your billions, but yes the intentional ignorance of science is unfortunately very popular, In the USA and Europe most Christians are Theistic Evolutionists and accept the sciences of evolution.
Of course, the knowledge of science is not a popularity contest. There is a distinct relationship between education level in the USA concerning the acceptance of evolution,
Explain how the Genesis Creation is based on fact and the sciences of evolution is not?
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Again mine isn’t a religious belief of genesis. I believe the world began around 1980
IMO of course
Explain how the Genesis Creation is based on fact and the sciences of evolution is not?
Jimmy
Veteran Member
You probably will never know. It’s cool though. It’s what makes the world go round.