Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:08 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Makalu wrote:
.. well the theory is that the atmosphere was already chock full of methane and needs carbon dioxide to warm it up and methane eating microbes produce CO2. But I don't think the snowball/slushball earth theory ever held much water anyway in the scientific community so didn't bother mentioning the media take. Was disputed here years ago:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm

you can read the disputes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

paleomagnetic "evidence" yielded three different orientations here:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994.../93JB01723.shtml
Ah, okay.. That’s strange though, because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so what would be gained by replacing methane with CO2? Apart from that, there must have been plenty of CO2 (as well as methane) in the atmosphere from volcanic activity.. Anyway, although the Earth wasn’t completely frozen, it seems we came very close and the exact warming mechanism is still unknown:
Quote:
"The total icy shutdown that we came so close to would have dealt a severe blow to early life and most likely would have resulted in a completely different evolutionary pathway. The reasons for Earth's near-miss with global refrigeration remains an important scientific question to resolve."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104746.htm


Makalu wrote:
The carbon in the Chinese dolomite isn't organic...the new method used is an estimate of the temperature at which the carbon was formed and way too high for life to exist.

Quote:
Our findings show that what happened in these rocks happened at very high temperatures, and abiologically,
I don’t suppose you suggest here that the carbon atoms involved were actually created from scratch at these high temperatures, in some very abnormal C12/C13 ratio. The C-13-depleted carbon in these rocks must have come from some initial source. And since apparently "these rocks were formed millions of years after the ice age ended", I don’t see why organic carbon deposits cannot have somehow (metamorphically) ended up at these high temperatures. Is there another possible mechanism?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
I may have the theory wrong about the methane in the atmosphere...can't find the article I was thinking of and it's not clear to me from scanning the wikipedia Snowball Earth entry what the various speculations for it's existence say the composition of the atmosphere was for sure. They can't explain what started the event either nor account for hot/cold cycles within the event so you're on your own sorry lol

I should have said the carbon in the rocks was not formed organically...or just quoted the article. There are many many inorganic forms of carbon...I can't say the origin...deep within the earth as the temps suggest maybe meteorites...closer to the surface maybe carbon dioxide.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Makalu wrote:
..There are many many inorganic forms of carbon...I can't say the origin...deep within the earth as the temps suggest maybe meteorites...closer to the surface maybe carbon dioxide.
Well, yes.. But could a non-organic carbon source have such a C-13-depleted isotope signature? Although there may not have been any living organisms present where these particular rocks formed at very high temperatures, at least the C13 depletion strongly suggests some organic carbon deposit to be (part of) the carbon source. I can’t find any references for any abiotic mechanism that could account for a selective depletion of C13..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
Bart wrote:
Makalu wrote:
..There are many many inorganic forms of carbon...I can't say the origin...deep within the earth as the temps suggest maybe meteorites...closer to the surface maybe carbon dioxide.
Well, yes.. But could a non-organic carbon source have such a C-13-depleted isotope signature? Although there may not have been any living organisms present where these particular rocks formed at very high temperatures, at least the C13 depletion strongly suggests some organic carbon deposit to be (part of) the carbon source. I can’t find any references for any abiotic mechanism that could account for a selective depletion of C13..


atmospheric exchange is an abiotic mechanism that can affect the level of c-13 between comparable carbonates...not sure this is relevant to the topic though...and definitely above my pay grade :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Makalu wrote:
atmospheric exchange is an abiotic mechanism that can affect the level of c-13 between comparable carbonates...not sure this is relevant to the topic though...and definitely above my pay grade :mrgreen:
Significance to the topic is as follows:

I think the 'ScienceDaily story' you referred to earlier ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141540.htm ), may contain a very interesting bit of information in support of the hypothesis that material life started on Earth only ~550 million years ago. But the main conclusions of the article seem to be problematic and confusing. Imo, the cited research did not "debunk" the theory that the Marinoan ice age came to an abrupt end (~600 million years ago) as a result of the release of large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. And the conclusion: "what happened in these rocks happened at very high temperatures, and abiologically," does not imply that organic life wasn’t the carbon source of the Chinese dolostone; in fact, the apparent C-13-depletion makes it hard to see how organic life could not have been the carbon source..

Anyway, I simply think/suggest that the uncharacteristic C-12/C-13 ratio of the Chinese cap dolomite could indicate that life was present only at a few locations on Earth, at the time this type of carbonate rock formed worldwide, apparently millions of years after the end of the Marinoan ice age. That would be compatible with TUB’s account of how life started on Earth, ~550 Mya..

I found this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 10096.html

Maybe I should checkout the original Nature paper (Bristow et al., 2011).. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
I think the authors of the research are debunking the theory that the earth warmed at this time due to C02 from methane munching microbes entering the atmosphere. And have proven that by showing that the carbon in the rocks that supported the theory were not formed by microbes. That's how I took it....

But I don't think there's strong evidence for a Marinoan ice age that requires explaining away in the first place.

Any isolated anomalous evidence for life will need to explain to me the lack of abundant fecundity associated with life as we know it....forewarning. :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Makalu wrote:
I think the authors of the research are debunking the theory that the earth warmed at this time due to C02 from methane munching microbes entering the atmosphere. And have proven that by showing that the carbon in the rocks that supported the theory were not formed by microbes. That's how I took it....
Agreed. And this doesn’t imply that organic life wasn’t (indirectly) the carbon source of the Chinese dolostone.


Makalu wrote:
But I don't think there's strong evidence for a Marinoan ice age that requires explaining away in the first place.
I think there is relative consensus that there was a Marinoan ice age that ended ~600Mya, but according to TUB life was implanted on Earth later and thus couldn’t have been a factor in the required warming of the Earth.


Makalu wrote:
Any isolated anomalous evidence for life will need to explain to me the lack of abundant fecundity associated with life as we know it....forewarning. :wink:
Well, according to TUB life was originally implanted at only 3 locations (58:4.2), and life was sparse throughout these early times and only slowly made its way over the face of the earth. The absence of fossils (biomarkers) in the early rock layers does not necessarily prove that living things were not elsewhere in existence (58:7.2):
Quote:
58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.

58:7.2 Fossils of this era yield algae, corallike plants, primitive Protozoa, and spongelike transition organisms. But the absence of such fossils in the early rock layers does not necessarily prove that living things were not elsewhere in existence at the time of their deposition. Life was sparse throughout these early times and only slowly made its way over the face of the earth.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
well there is plenty of disputing evidence against the snowball/slushball earth theories if you will read the literature....account for them and you'll get my ear. :)

yeah it says life was sparse...but it says what life was:

Quote:
58:7.2 Fossils of this era yield algae, corallike plants, primitive Protozoa, and spongelike transition organisms.


and we have the sparse fossil records of these...direct evidence. Some anomalous carbon levels in one rock outcropping on the earth is not direct evidence and never will be.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Ice ages did exist. Whether or not an ice age existed ~600 Mya may be controversial. I’m not an expert and I’m not sure about the main evidence against it. Anyway, what’s relevant for TUB’s account of the origin of life on Earth, is the apparent fact that an ice age didn’t exist ~550 Mya, when life was implanted.

I don’t think any direct fossil evidence of the earliest form(s) of life exists. This primordial slime and ooze would have been non-fossilizable. But I suppose it could have locally produced the significantly C-13-depleted carbon source of some rocks that formed ~550 Mya. Evidence for sparse and local life implantation on Urantia ~550 Mya, may not get any better.. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
well I don't think anyone is saying that ice ages didn't exist but that's not the same as saying the entire planet was covered in ice and I already linked to the article about hot/cold cycle evidences within the time period of the snoball theory. There's a modeling dispute:

Quote:
Attempts to construct computer models of a Snowball Earth have also struggled to accommodate global ice cover without fundamental changes in the laws and constants which govern the planet.

and evidential disputes summarized here.

I just don't feel a need to account for how the earth broke out of a global ice event that probably never happened. But before we go back that far there's also big mystery and discussions about the events between the Marinoan ice age and the sudden appearance of Edicara fossils...and it has to do with extreme c-13 depletion and cycles across the globe (not another isolated case of comparatively low depletion)...it's called the Shuram excursion:

The Curious Case of the Shuram Excursion
quote from the conclusion:
Quote:
All researchers know for sure is that the Shuram excursion represents an unprecedented signal in Earth's geological record, and it happened right before the sudden surge in biodiversity.


summary of the science:
Quote:
A profound negative excursion in the carbon isotopic composition of sedimentary rocks is recorded in middle Ediacaran-age strata globally. The excursion was first recognized in the Shuram Formation, Sultanate of Oman, by Burns and Matter (1993), who interpreted it as a primary feature of the carbon cycle based on its widespread distribution throughout Oman. Subsequently, similar magnitude excursions were found in South Australia, the western US, south China, and Siberia. These sections have globally dispersed paleogeographic locations, but robust correlation is hindered by limited geochronologic data. The defining attributes of the excursion are its large magnitude (>15 permil); stratigraphic ordination between Marinoan post-glacial cap carbonates (630 Ma) and the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary (542 Ma), likely pre-dating the appearance of Ediacaran macrobiota; expression as a single, continuous fall and rise; the substantial thickness of strata over which it is recorded, often hundreds of meters; and development in wave- and storm-dominated outer shoreface facies interbedded with oxidized, organic-lean red siltstones.



One of the possible abiotic mechanisms they postulate for the precambrian biomarkers is a Fischer-Tropsch type process at deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

Quote:
They conclude that the carbon is isotopically depleted not as a result of photosynthesis but instead because of a set of chemical reactions known as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Here carbon monoxide and hydrogen are catalysed to more complex carbon compounds at high temperatures in the presence of catalysts such as iron oxide.


There's a discrepancy in the theories between life originating in shallow tropical lagoons as Darwin, the UB and the fossil record support and the deep-sea hypothesis. Plenty of disputes for that idea...mainly the temps are too hot for the basic organic chemistry to evolve.

Any evidence dating back billions of years will also have to account for the fact that other disciplines of science don't indicate a hospitable environment for life during those periods. UB agrees on that.

Another problem I found using c-13 depletion as an early biomarker is this:

Quote:
In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, 13C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, 13C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of 13C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in 13C.


and this:

Quote:
graphite occurs abundantly in secondary carbonate veins formed at depth by injection of hot fluids reacting with older crustal rocks.


Reassessing the evidence for the earliest traces of life


and there's issues with the claims of early fossil evidence for life in Australia:

Quote:
Martin Brasier and colleagues at Oxford University recently re-examined the Apex Chert samples and presented evidence suggesting that the structures within are all mineral artefacts. The structures are branched, Brasier and his colleagues insist - a morphology that is inconsistent with Schopf's claim that they are bacteria. Furthermore the Brasier team presents geological evidence showing that the rocks of the Apex Chert are criss-crossed by lava flows of the same age as the supposed sediments.


Ancient Fossils - or Just Plain Rocks?

The air/ocean carbon cycle is not well understood but it's clear that it takes a multi-disciplinary approach to put the evidence for the origins of life together. Scientists have a tendency to find what they set out looking for since as the papers say the idea precedes the expression of its realization in science. And the further you progress the less certain you are. And interpreting all of the data seems to be in reality a lot like art appreciation. What one person thinks is genius another considers pedestrian...or what one person considers strong evidence another considers circumstantial anomalies.

I think we can find evidence for the UB account for the origin of life. It says what can be found and not found in the fossil record from the early periods of life and so far I haven't seen any thing that disputes it. The basic unit of life as science knows it is the cell and cell walls tend to fossilize. But the science account for the origin of life will never agree with the UB as long as they continue to place the bacteria before the eukaryotes and photosynthetic cyanobacteria at that. They have no way to explain the evolution of organisms that don't evolve other than to adapt and regress and lose DNA. I'm not sure if there are disputes about when the bacteria arose or not...gonna give it a rest for now...test tomorrow on todays material :badgrin:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Okay, thanks! :) It appears, then, that (extreme) C-13 depletion in carbonate rocks cannot generally be interpreted as a biomarker. The Shuram excursion may just point to specific (C-13 depleted) prerequisite conditions for the emergence of life. And any fossil evidence of Precambrian life is at best controversial. So, the sudden Cambrian surge of biodiversity ~550 million years ago may have 'come from nowhere'. All we know for sure (as did Darwin) is that Cambrian life suddenly existed..

Nevertheless, according to TUB, life on Earth was started at only a few locations and initially it progressed slowly. It may then be possible to find these sparse locations of early Cambrian life. I agree, however, that the Chinese cap dolostone probably isn’t such a site; the anomalous carbon isotope signal may well have been attained after deposition as a consequence of thermogenic methane oxidation at depth (Bristow et al., 2011). It seems irrelevant whether or not a Precambrian (Marinoan) snowball Earth existed and whether or not the release of methane caused the end of it..
Quote:
"although clathrate destabilization [methane release] may or may not have had a role in the exit from the ‘snowball’ state, it would not have left extreme carbon isotope signals in cap dolostones." (Bristow et al., 2011)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 10096.html


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
My pleasure Bart...I'm learning here and glad you brought up the emphasis on the end of the Snowball/Marinoan in that article since it's a defining event in the origin of life. :) Found an article the other day on the same research that was posted 5 days earlier in a different news category with emphasis and title on Young Graphite in Old Rocks Challenges the Earliest Signs of Life btw.

The Caltech article and pretty much everyone since Darwin including me mention the Cambrian explosion but the Avalon explosion before it is the earliest fossils in the sediments from this time period. Darwin had found a few of the large Ediacaran fossils too but wasn't sure about the dating if I recall correctly...many of them are microscopic though. The precise timing of the events in this era is something they are working on to try and make sense of...the Shuram carbon excursions and how it relates to the appearance of life...but of course it's a feedback mechanism and one affects the other. They need to be able to synchronize things in order to come up with a model.

The Urantia book chronology for this time period rounds dates off to the nearest 50 million years and gives ~150 million years for what roughly corresponds with the Ediacaran. Science dates the end of the Ediacaran after ~100my with the appearance of the first complex trace fossil treptichnus but they've since found that it appears alongside earlier things in the fossil record too. The start of the Cambrian explosion is not a clear point in time (at least not yet). It's roughly defined as the appearance of hard bodies that fosillize easily. But the trilobite in particular is sometimes also used to define it which would make it akin to the Marine-Life Era in the UB. Some see a large negative c-13 excursion around this time as a defining event too. So the dates they have for the beginning of the Cambrian varies around the globe and for the Ediacara too but more on that later. The Ediacara are all soft-bodied. The lack of fossils between the Marinoan and the appearance of the Ediacara don't seem to be due to a change in the conditions suitable for soft-body fossilization since the sediments immediately below the earliest fossil layers are pretty much the same in many places...just without fossils. But there could be an earlier life form that just didn't fossilize at all. The Shuram excursions indicate something was going on for sure. Phylogenomic dating is a new method that uses genes to date organisms somehow in someway unfathomable to a simple country boy like me. Appears to yeild a different sequence but puts the right organisms in the general timeframe.

http://www.snowballearth.org/slides/Ch12-8.gif

There's no choanoflagellate evidence predating the Marinoan as depicted above when they try to marry the gene dating with the geology timeline. Just thought I'd mention that's the organism with the genes for a nervous system but no nervous system that we talked about here before. They're interesting to me...wikipedia entry for Choanoflagellates

http://www.snowballearth.org/slides/Ch12-9.gif...that looks better...

Anyway the point I wanted to make about time is just that the papers don't get precise and the science is still lacking in precision but they are both in the same ballpark. The sequence of events with the breakup of a supercontinent and an apparent common single ancestor and simple organisms evolving to complex and a lack of intermediate forms of life are all consistent with the UB. The papers use the terms 'vegetable' and 'primitive animal' to describe this early marine life...and 'plant' for later land life so there's some distinction there between vegetable and plant. Oftentimes in the science literature the Ediacara are referred to as the first multi-cellular (eukaryote) animals but there are single-celled (prokaryote) Ediacara too sometimes referred to as Archaea. There's a single-cell algae called Chuaria too. The science/dispute of plotting a tree of life and placing all these in kingdoms and domains is ongoing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological ... nd_domains

Some info about that I've picked up from various sources follows:

Determining where Ediacaran organisms fit in the tree of life has proven impossible.

The evolutionary relationship between archaea and eukaryotes remains unclear. Aside from the similarities in cell structure and function that are discussed below, many genetic trees group the two.

Archaea are problematic because they have genes that are similar to both bacteria and eukaryotes. Phylogenetically speaking, archaea and bacteria are thought to have developed separately from a common ancestor. Eukaryotes are believed to have branched off from archaeans. This suggests that archaeans are more closely related to eukayotes than bacteria.

This might be a good place to note that Darwin's branching tree model does not fit the post-Cambrian fossil record either...Wherever we look, we find evidences of sudden abrupt appearance.

The usefulness of C-13 depletion as a biomarker is being reconsidered completely since it doesn't jive with the early carbon/fossil records. Here's a quote from Towards a quantitative understanding of the late Neoproterozoic carbon cycle

Quote:
The cycles of carbon and oxygen at the Earth surface are intimately linked, where the burial of organic carbon into sediments represents a source of oxygen to the surface environment. This coupling is typically quantified through the isotope records of organic and inorganic carbon. Yet, the late Neoproterozoic Eon, the time when animals first evolved, experienced wild isotope fluctuations which do not conform to our normal understanding of the carbon cycle and carbon-oxygen coupling.


And he goes on to present a new model for the carbon cycle which is well beyond my ability to comprehend...what little interest I had and a B I got in high school chemistry is primarily a result of trying to not get out-scored on the tests by a certain girl...but she got A's anyway :biggrin:

Ok...the papers say:

Quote:
58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago........All planetary life..........had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.


The break-up and motion of the three landmasses is mentioned in the 500mya timeframe and a sparse <cough> review here...

Quote:
58:7.1 The vast group of rock systems which constituted the outer crust of the world during the life-dawn or Proterozoic era does not now appear at many points on the earth’s surface. And when it does emerge from below all the accumulations of subsequent ages, there will be found only the fossil remains of vegetable and early primitive animal life. Some of these older water-deposited rocks are commingled with subsequent layers, and sometimes they yield fossil remains of some of the earlier forms of vegetable life, while on the topmost layers occasionally may be found some of the more primitive forms of the early marine-animal organisms. In many places these oldest stratified rock layers, bearing the fossils of the early marine life, both animal and vegetable, may be found directly on top of the older undifferentiated stone.

58:7.2 Fossils of this era yield algae, corallike plants, primitive Protozoa, and spongelike transition organisms. But the absence of such fossils in the early rock layers does not necessarily prove that living things were not elsewhere in existence at the time of their deposition. Life was sparse throughout these early times and only slowly made its way over the face of the earth.


The supercontinent break-up here would be Rodinia. They have simple models for the break-up and motion but they admit that they just don't know what the continental plates looked like back then. You can find animations but they're all different. Some they just attempt to place the cratons that have survived cycles of merging and rifting. The Urantia book says "58:7.8 In these early ages when much land was near sea level, there occurred many successive submergences and emergences.". The models that I've seen didn't include submergences but an analysis of one of the Ediacaran fossil beds shows the layers cycle from continental seabed to inter-tidal to estuarine and back again a few times. Anyway both science and the UB say a lot has changed and neither one paints a distinct picture of what the landmass looked like.

They have identified three distinctions in the Ediacara lifeforms they call assemblages that may have a link to the central, eastern and western designations for the life implantations in the UB. In the wikipedia entry there they are named Avalon (western), Nama (central) and Ediacara (eastern). The Ediacara type was first described in Australia but the best fossil beds are near the White Sea between Russia and Scandinavia and most all of the science literature discussing assemblages therefor uses the White Sea term instead of Ediacara. It's suspected that the differences are due to adaptations to the environment. So this could be a reflection of the placement, drift and environmental changes of the three original implantations. The Doushantuo Formation in China is used in a lot of research too.

What's interesting is that the earliest Ediacara life forms already occupied the full morphological range of body plans that would ever be realized through the entire history of Ediacara organisms. They interpret that to mean that the major types of Ediacara organisms appeared at first. The eastern or White Sea group diversified and the central or Nama group declined. But again, at the very best these are just a later reflection of an earlier single common ancestor-to-all-lifeform which is not identified genetically...and may never be.

Sparse is a relative term but yeah life was sparse...these early fossils have only been found in 25 places today...albeit the surface of the earth has changed too much to infer a lot from that but the ecospace utilization was sparse.

Image

The black ones are life. A couple of the trace fossils (meaning an animal moved and left a trace behind) there may be nothing...have seen things like this before turn out to be abiotic but one of them seems to be a bilaterial "worm" leaving pellets of fecal material. But only one organism known to be able to move around...Kimberella...so that'd help account for the 'life slowly made it's way over the face of the earth' bit in the UB. :wink:

There's a good graphical up to date presentation on all of this here: Geobiological Events in the Ediacaran Period. I recommend it for all. You can see how they're trying to correlate everything here. And get a better idea of what it is I've been blathering about. :razz: Page 24 there on Doushantuo Chemo- and Biostratigraphy shows a progression from the simple single-celled things and nodules and embryos to more complex things. Page 17 shows there was an experimentation with different body styles. Disc, radial, bilateral and tri, tetra, penta and octa-radials (3,4,5 and 8 sided). The bilateral type became the standard and I think the radial jellyfish and five-sided echinoderms (starfish and sea urchins) are the only alternatives that made it to the Cambrian.

There's a somewhat outdated but more wordie thing here:

The Ediacaran Assemblage

database and more fossil photos here

http://www.complex-life.org/database

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=fossil&w=1195123%40N20&m=pool

It's interesting...and a "dramatically mysterious anomaly" so they're workin' on it...which is good. :smile:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:35 am +0000
Posts: 535
Location: king of prussia, pa
no, but these numbers are so huge there could be any number of reasons why immature not very well intelligent and evolved yet man could get the numbers so wrong. i simply go with tub on all these points. they have inside information that man doesn't and know for sure. 86:6.4 Civilized man provides schemes of insurance to overcome these chance occurrences; modern science puts an actuary with mathematical reckoning in the place of fictitious spirits and whimsical gods.

this is a relatively recent development and not done as perfectly as tub can do it yet. 86:7.4 Modern civilized races are just emerging from ghost fear as an explanation of luck and the commonplace inequalities of existence. Mankind is achieving emancipation from the bondage of the ghost-spirit explanation of ill luck. But while men are giving up the erroneous doctrine of a spirit cause of the vicissitudes of life, they exhibit a surprising willingness to accept an almost equally fallacious teaching which bids them attribute all human inequalities to political misadaptation, social injustice, and industrial competition. But new legislation, increasing philanthropy, and more industrial reorganization, however good in and of themselves, will not remedy the facts of birth and the accidents of living. Only comprehension of facts and wise manipulation within the laws of nature will enable man to get what he wants and to avoid what he does not want. Scientific knowledge, leading to scientific action, is the only antidote for so-called accidental ills.

but it's early on and man's not that good at this yet.

Colter wrote:
Anyone here know about the discrepancy between the UB age of life on earth roughly 600 million years and the belief in science that microorganisms have been here 4 billion years?



THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

58:4.1 That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.

58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.



Caino


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
sorry about the major dead thread dredge...blame it on deja vu :-#

Oldest fossils controversy resolved......new high-spatial resolution data that clearly demonstrate that the 3.46 billion-year-old Apex chert "microfossils" comprise stacks of plate-like clay minerals arranged into branched and tapered worm-like chains. Carbon was then absorbed onto the edges of these minerals during the circulation of hydrothermal fluids, giving a false impression of carbon-rich cell-like walls.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:09 pm +0000
Posts: 54
Location: Allen, TX
58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.

A couple of key point in this passage need emphasis.

550 mya the LC's "RETURNED" to Urantia. This definitely signals at least one prior visit to this planet. I don't know if there's documentation in TUB on this one or more previous visits, but it could be safe to assume that they possibly did some preparation for life to occur, and that is what gave rise to life forms prior to 550 mya. Additionally, 550 mya is consistent with the Cambrian Explosion event which occurred at that time. This is essentially a dividing line between complex and simple life forms.

I honestly don't see a lot of controversy in this passage.

_________________
Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is the blockage of this process at any point. - Robert Anton Wilson


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group