Odd Marine Animal In Cambrian Turns Evolution Upside Down

A new study has found hundreds of  small animals which looks like a flower in the strata located in China as reported in live science. This unusual but amazing small creature has a  U-shaped digestive tract, along with mouth and anus side by side. They attached themselves to the seafloor where they use their tentacles to create a water current which guides food particles to their mouth so they can eat.

The body plan of this fossil is almost identical to modern living animals!  One of the most notable differences is, the fossil is bigger than modern living ones, about 56mm.  Also, “unlike what is found in living entoprocts, the stem and flowerlike feeding cup of the ancient creature were covered by tiny hardened protuberances called sclerites, which may have formed a sort of hard exoskeleton for the creatures.”

This fossil evidence recently discovered turns evolution upside down! Here is another example of an animal phylum appearing suddenly in the oldest layers containing multicellular animals. It appears out of nowhere, fully formed, and doesn’t change its basic body plan for 520 million years in the evolutionary time frame.

And this is not the only animal discovered like this,  it’s true about all the animal phyla! How does this fit into the story of evolution? Reporter Stephanie Pappas tried to answer that question by claiming the animal was “likely an ancestor of a group known as the entoprocta.”  Do you realize what she just did in order to try to rescue evolution from this discovery?

Think about it, How can this animal be an ancestor to the modern ones? How can you argue that this creature which is larger and more complex than the modern animals of its kind, be an ancestor?  It turns Darwin’s tree upside down!

It’s about time evolutionists come to grip with reality, to start viewing things in a logical manner and that the fossil record is not their strongest evidence for evolution! From a creationist prospective, this scientific discovery is another confirmation which doesn’t increase complexity in its explanation that it turns things upside down and all around.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Odd Marine Animal In Cambrian Turns Evolution Upside Down

  1. The body plan of this fossil is almost identical to modern living animals!

    Michael seems to think this is a big deal.[0] However, all of the millions of extent animals have only about 35 different body plans. Humans and earthworms have the same basic body plan. So you could say that humans have the same body plan as some Cambrian species, 520 million years ago.

    As the authors say, a number of modern species also have this plan. The significant point of this paper is actually that, because of the incomplete preservation of early fossils, this animal had previously been wrongly assigned to the Cnidaria, which includes jellyfish, corals, and hydra.[1] The other significant point is that the new find extends the history of this body plan from the Jurassic back to the Cambrian.

    Think about it, How can this animal be an ancestor to the modern ones? How can you argue that this creature which is larger and more complex than the modern animals of its kind, be an ancestor? It turns Darwin’s tree upside down!

    What is this idée fixe that Michael has about size and complexity as indicators of design? A random field rock is more complex than a brick—yet the brick is designed and the rock is not. A tornado has a much more complex air patten than a wind tunnel—but the tunnel is designed and the tornado is not. And so on.

    The only significant difference in complexity is the sclerites on the fossil, which are absent from the crown animals. These are like the armor plates on cichlid fish, which appear and disappear in various species over hundreds of years, depending upon the environment. It seems likely that the sclerites played a similar defensive role. Why would they be lost during evolution? Creationists seem incapable of appreciating that many body features incur a fitness cost. In this case energy needed to mineralize particles from the seawater. In addition, the paper notes that the sclerites prevented nodding, which increases the feeding efficiency of the modern species. Also, the Cambrian species was solitary, while the modern ones are colonial, thus reducing the need for this defense against predators.

    The evolution of smaller body size is also a common phenomenon. Michael must have missed that chapter. So here it is, from a 1993 paper—-

    Miniaturization, or the evolution of extremely small adult body size, is a widespread phenomenon of animals. It has important consequences for for both organismal biology and phyletic diversification above the species level. The miniaturized phenotype is a complex combination of ancestral and derived traits, including reduction and structural simplification, increased variability, and morphological novelty…. In some cases, miniaturization has resulted in novel bauplans associated with the origin of higher taxa.

    Note especially that reduction in complexity frequently accompanies smaller size. So much for decrease in “complexity” as falsifying evolution.

    One of these days, Michael may learn a little about evolution, and his arguments might not be quite so risible.[3]

    ===============

    [0] He purloined this post from the creationist blog that he is chained to, which, like its subject entoprocta fossils, has its anus right next to its mouth. “Another Phylum Found in Cambrian Explosion,” Jan. 17, 2013.

    [1]

    Reporter Stephanie Pappas tried to answer that question by claiming the animal was “likely an ancestor of a group known as the entoprocta.” Do you realize what she just did in order to try to rescue evolution from this discovery?

    Yes. She rectified a misclassification which had been based upon previous incomplete fossils. Creationists seem to be unacquainted with the concept of correcting mistakes in the light of new data.

    [2] Actually, major decrease in complexity can occur even within the same animal, from juvenile to adult stages. The sea squirt eats its own brain when it grows fro juvenile to adult. Some creationists may do that as well.

  2. Am interesting factoid.

    Michael snatches almost all of his post subjects from two blogs: Creation Evolution Headlines, and Evolution News & Views. Sometimes he quotes large swaths from them, with no attribution whatever.

    And yet—

    These two blogs are conspicuously absent from the nine entries listed in his blog roll. (Labeled “Science Links” (guffaw)).

    Could it be that Michael is trying to give the false impression that he writes his own material? That he does his own research? That he actually has some personal knowledge of the subjects he writes about?

    Michael recently trumpeted an increase in scientific fraud. Et tu, Brute?

  3. Humans and earthworms have the same basic body plan

    Please lay out this “same basic body plan” great sage Olorin.

    A random field rock is more complex than a brick—yet the brick is designed and the rock is not

    On your worldview, the rock is also designed, by nature. Thus despite your dissonance, you are an intelligent design advocate.

    The miniaturized phenotype is a complex combination of ancestral and derived traits, including reduction and structural simplification, increased variability, and morphological novelty

    Isn’t devolution part of the creationist framework?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s