Link is farked already.

The find reinforces the idea that "life got large" around 580 million years ago

"shiat just got real."

Subby, you are confusing archaeologists and paleontologists.

Dear subby:

ARCHAEOLOGISTS DON'T STUDY 500 MILLION YEAR OLD ANIMALS, YOU GOT DAM STUPID BUTT-NUGGET!

Thank you.

FloydA: Dear subby:

ARCHAEOLOGISTS DON'T STUDY 500 MILLION YEAR OLD ANIMALS, YOU GOT DAM STUPID BUTT-NUGGET!

Thank you.

Well, that saves me having to post. What he said.

OK, that's some serious hate on poor subby. At least it was an interesting submission. (No Tom cruise, or Jennifer anniston) could have used more boobies, however.

Ooba Tooba: OK, that's some serious hate on poor subby. At least it was an interesting submission. (No Tom cruise, or Jennifer anniston) could have used more boobies, however.

/just here to help

/ummm - bigger images

jekxrb: Subby, you are confusing archaeologists and paleontologists.

FloydA: Dear subby:

ARCHAEOLOGISTS DON'T STUDY 500 MILLION YEAR OLD ANIMALS, YOU GOT DAM STUPID BUTT-NUGGET!

Thank you.

Thanks guys, glad to see it's taken care of.

That said, it's interesting they said these things are from deep enough there wouldn't have been light. One leading idea (that I'd heard of) was that these things could have had something similar to the zooxanthellae in corals, and would have been functionally photosynthetic, but I guess that's out now. I'm assuming the actual article says if these things are actually anchored to the sea floor or if it's possible they were planktonic in their juvenile stages, and just got buried in the ash fall. Off to look for that..

So the original paper does obviously explain this all in better detail, and apparently the idea that this was below the photic zone isn't new, but has been around since 2003. As they look like they represent a community in the middle of succession, the environment was not constant but temporally heterogeneous, so it's possible this was a cold seep/vent community. It would be pretty cool if complex life first evolved around deep sea vents or seeps instead of as photosynthetic organisms or algae grazers.

Erix: It would be pretty cool if complex life first evolved around deep sea vents or seeps instead of as photosynthetic organisms or algae grazers.

Isn't that the idea these days? You have minerals for organization, heat to drive the reactions, and organics for building blocks. Anyway, photosynthesis came later, as the Oxygen Catastrophe didn't occur for a couple billion of years after life formed.

theorellior: Erix: It would be pretty cool if complex life first evolved around deep sea vents or seeps instead of as photosynthetic organisms or algae grazers.

Isn't that the idea these days? You have minerals for organization, heat to drive the reactions, and organics for building blocks. Anyway, photosynthesis came later, as the Oxygen Catastrophe didn't occur for a couple billion of years after life formed.

Well, that's a leading idea for the origin of life in general, but I was talking about complex, multicellular life. As far as I know, there haven't been a lot of well-supported theories concerning that.

I wouldn't really take the great oxygenation event to really signal the start of photosynthesis, either. Oxygen was being produced by photosynthetic bacteria well before that, but the free oxygen was mostly being immediately taken up by the chemicals in the highly reduced environment, such as iron and carbon compounds. That just really signifies exactly when the production of oxygen overwhelmed the available oxygen sinks.

"Mysteriously, their frond-shaped body-plan, which might have helped them gather oxygen or food, does not survive into the Cambrian period (542-488 million years ago)."

Hmm, wonder why that might be....
Also, big boobed chick up top really, really needs to wear a bra. That can really screw up a lady's back and I'm sure they're down to her knees at this point because she can't stand straight.

gadian: "Mysteriously, their frond-shaped body-plan, which might have helped them gather oxygen or food, does not survive into the Cambrian period (542-488 million years ago)."

Hmm, wonder why that might be....
Also, big boobed chick up top really, really needs to wear a bra. That can really screw up a lady's back and I'm sure they're down to her knees at this point because she can't stand straight.

I recently heard a really interesting theory on the reason for the Cambrian explosion, and which may apply to that as well. There is a large, almost global gap in the rock record in the Precambrian, during which very little deposition of carbonate minerals occurred. Carbonates form from the weathering of siliciclastics (e.g. granite) on land, which washes Ca down to the oceans, where it typically gets deposited as limestone and other carbonates. However, these carbonates weren't deposited for a long period of time, and it's likely that they were simply being dissolved into the seawater instead of precipitating out. Life had evolved before this massive influx of carbonates however, and had trouble adapting to the change in ocean chemistry. What organisms ended up doing was taking the extra carbonates out of their tissue, and sequestering them in blocks of solid carbonate within their bodies. This is the origin of hard parts, and once they evolved at all, they were suddenly open to being acted upon by natural selection, which led to the explosive radiation of animals with hard parts we see at the start of the Cambrian. What was just a sink for annoyingly high levels of carbonate minerals in the water eventually became the shells, teeth, and skeletons of animals today.

Oh, and it may apply to the disappearance of the Ediacaran fauna because they were likely replaced/outcompeted/eaten by the organisms that subsequently evolved the incredibly useful hardparts.

Pretty cool idea, which is unfortunately not mine. I just saw that Shanan Peters, the guy who I heard it from, has apparently published something (which I haven't read yet) on this in Nature if anyone's interested.

Erix: I recently heard a really interesting theory on the reason for the Cambrian explosion, and which may apply to that as well...

Fascinating. Would this change in sea chemistry be because a Snowball Earth cause all the landmasses to be covered in ice? I read another theory that multicellular creatures came about because of colonies of single-cell eukaryotes started clustering together during another Snowball Earth to conserve resources and evidently something worked.

theorellior: Erix: I recently heard a really interesting theory on the reason for the Cambrian explosion, and which may apply to that as well...

Fascinating. Would this change in sea chemistry be because a Snowball Earth cause all the landmasses to be covered in ice? I read another theory that multicellular creatures came about because of colonies of single-cell eukaryotes started clustering together during another Snowball Earth to conserve resources and evidently something worked.

Actually, it's more likely that the change in ocean chemistry would be a symptom of the cause of Snowball Earth, instead of being a direct cause or effect. The weathering of siliciclastic rocks into carbonates removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which would have had a strong cooling effect on the earth. A similar thing seems to have happened at the end of the Ordovician, where massive, global mountain forming events exposed lots of fresh granites and led to the Hirnantian glaciation. It's been suggested that this later glaciation was helped by the recent evolution of lichens, which would have accelerated the weathering of siliciclastics, and removed CO2 at a higher rate than was previously possible, but that's not really accepted as solid science yet.

At this point, I'm more convinced by Peters' ideas that I briefly and poorly explained previously as the impetus complex life to evolve, at least in animals.

I just realized my link to Shanan Peters' paper didn't work for some reason, so here's the info on it:

Peters, S. E., & R. R. Gaines. 2012. 'Formation of the 'Great Unconformity' as a trigger for the Cambrian explosion.' Nature 484:363-366.

Erix: It's been suggested that this later glaciation was helped by the recent evolution of lichens, which would have accelerated the weathering of siliciclastics, and removed CO2 at a higher rate than was previously possible, but that's not really accepted as solid science yet.

You know, one of the more interesting things about all this stuff is the realization that of all the gases in the atmosphere at this point in time, only nitrogen and argon are stable in geologic timeframes. CO2 reacts with silicates, O2 reacts with everything, water and methane will disassociate under UV and the hydrogen will escape the atmosphere.

theorellior: Erix: I recently heard a really interesting theory on the reason for the Cambrian explosion, and which may apply to that as well...

Fascinating. Would this change in sea chemistry be because a Snowball Earth cause all the landmasses to be covered in ice? I read another theory that multicellular creatures came about because of colonies of single-cell eukaryotes started clustering together during another Snowball Earth to conserve resources and evidently something worked.

I hadn't heard that theory; that poses an interesting model for the development of intercellular communication and development of receptor/signaling systems for both nutrient detection and uptake as well as transcriptional cooperation and eventual cellular differentiation and specialization.

*raises eyebrow*

Fascinating...

/If you know offhand a primary source (even a review), I'd love to know
//Can also look it up myself

Erix: I just realized my link to Shanan Peters' paper didn't work for some reason, so here's the info on it:

Peters, S. E., & R. R. Gaines. 2012. 'Formation of the 'Great Unconformity' as a trigger for the Cambrian explosion.' Nature 484:363-366.

Learning stuff? On FARK? I gotta start coming to the "geek" tab more often!

/Love primary sources
//Thanks for sharing
///So far behind on reading for my own research, I don't have time to read science for fun.

Embedded in the article SEE ALSO: Caught In The Act: Prehistoric Turtle Sex
some of the worlds oldest pron

born_yesterday: /If you know offhand a primary source (even a review), I'd love to know

Alas, the only reference I have is "something I read in the last four years".

born_yesterday: Learning stuff? On FARK? I gotta start coming to the "geek" tab more often!

If it's gonna happen, this is the place to find it.

theorellior: born_yesterday: /If you know offhand a primary source (even a review), I'd love to know

Alas, the only reference I have is "something I read in the last four years".

born_yesterday: Learning stuff? On FARK? I gotta start coming to the "geek" tab more often!

If it's gonna happen, this is the place to find it.

I should hang out here more often -- A bunch of us were just having a pointless argument with a guy over on the main page who won't accept the validity of anything published in Nature.

Because it's a "magazine".

phaseolus: I should hang out here more often -- A bunch of us were just having a pointless argument with a guy over on the main page who won't accept the validity of anything published in Nature.

Because it's a "magazine".

LOL. Who was this genius?

theorellior: phaseolus: I should hang out here more often -- A bunch of us were just having a pointless argument with a guy over on the main page who won't accept the validity of anything published in Nature.

Because it's a "magazine".

LOL. Who was this genius?

Not sure I'm allowed to call him out by name so let's just say we were discussing climate change, the text wasn't green this time, and somewhere around post #90 he started calling everyone names.

phaseolus: theorellior: born_yesterday: /If you know offhand a primary source (even a review), I'd love to know

Alas, the only reference I have is "something I read in the last four years".

born_yesterday: Learning stuff? On FARK? I gotta start coming to the "geek" tab more often!

If it's gonna happen, this is the place to find it.

I should hang out here more often -- A bunch of us were just having a pointless argument with a guy over on the main page who won't accept the validity of anything published in Nature.

Because it's a "magazine".

OMG, priceless. Which thread?

phaseolus: Not sure I'm allowed to call him out by name so let's just say we were discussing climate change, the text wasn't green this time, and somewhere around post #90 he started calling everyone names.

He's probably mad because his posts got bahleeted for threadjacking yesterday, even though the headline was AWG trollbait and I was egging him on.

FloydA: OMG, priceless. Which thread?

The coldest July in Alaska thread. And it wasn't who I thought, phasoleus, you should have added "paid shill" and all would have been clear.

FloydA: phaseolus: theorellior: born_yesterday: /If you know offhand a primary source (even a review), I'd love to know

Alas, the only reference I have is "something I read in the last four years".

born_yesterday: Learning stuff? On FARK? I gotta start coming to the "geek" tab more often!

If it's gonna happen, this is the place to find it.

I should hang out here more often -- A bunch of us were just having a pointless argument with a guy over on the main page who won't accept the validity of anything published in Nature.

Because it's a "magazine".

OMG, priceless. Which thread?

7213844.

What's more, "peer review" means that the study's authors are lying and the exact opposite is true. Or something.

theorellior: FloydA: OMG, priceless. Which thread?

The coldest July in Alaska thread. And it wasn't who I thought, phasoleus, you should have added "paid shill" and all would have been clear.

Ah, okay. I've always wondered about his motivation, because he never shuts up even after he's been humiliated.

theorellior:

The coldest July in Alaska thread. And it wasn't who I thought, phasoleus, you should have added "paid shill" and all would have been clear.

phaseolus:
7213844.

What's more, "peer review" means that the study's authors are lying and the exact opposite is true. Or something.


Thanks. Just looked through that. Wow. Are you sure he's serious? This isn't a Poe's Law thing? I just find it difficult to believe what I'm seeing.

As soon as I read someone was trash-talking Nature, I figured it had to be a climate change story.

I was going to get involved in that thread, but he's just far too absurd to even argue with. Apparently experimental results are the only form of valid science. Well, there goes most geology, cosmology, astronomy, ecology, etc..

FloydA: Thanks. Just looked through that. Wow. Are you sure he's serious? This isn't a Poe's Law thing? I just find it difficult to believe what I'm seeing.

Two words: paid shill.

theorellior: FloydA: Thanks. Just looked through that. Wow. Are you sure he's serious? This isn't a Poe's Law thing? I just find it difficult to believe what I'm seeing.

Two words: paid shill.

I see that tossed around a lot, and while I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, does anyone have any evidence of this? There seems to be a lot of troll paranoia around here, where every conservative automatically gets labeled a troll or paid shill. I mean, there are plenty of conservatives in the world, both crazy and sane, so why does every one of them on Fark automatically get written off?

theorellior: FloydA: Thanks. Just looked through that. Wow. Are you sure he's serious? This isn't a Poe's Law thing? I just find it difficult to believe what I'm seeing.

Two words: paid shill.


But who would pay him to do that? Al Gore?

Erix: theorellior: FloydA: Thanks.

Just want to say thanks for your part in making this a great thread.

/ Wish I could contribute, but so far out of my field.

Psychohazard: Erix: theorellior: FloydA: Thanks.

Just want to say thanks for your part in making this a great thread.

/ Wish I could contribute, but so far out of my field.

Thanks! I love talking about this stuff, and it's more fun to spew about the fun parts of paleo than to do my work, which is on the boring parts.

/Just overlook where I repeatedly called silicate rocks "siliciclastic", which is wrong, but I'm currently writing about sedimentary systems, so that's my excuse.

Erix:

Thanks! I love talking about this stuff, and it's more fun to spew about the fun parts of paleo than to do my work, which is on the boring parts.


Your work includes boring? I thought you paleo guys mostly did slow, cautious chipping away with rock hammers!

;-)

FloydA: Erix:

Thanks! I love talking about this stuff, and it's more fun to spew about the fun parts of paleo than to do my work, which is on the boring parts.


Your work includes boring? I thought you paleo guys mostly did slow, cautious chipping away with rock hammers!

;-)

You're confusing me with one of those vertebrate paleo people. I do invert work, which involves counting little pieces of critters under a microscope, after collecting them from steamy roadcuts along noisy highways. Not nearly as glorious, but it yields more of those big-picture ideas of evolution than our sexier counterparts!

Thanks for TotallyFarking over my research and writing abilities this month! Haha.. I'm doomed.

Erix: I do invert work, which involves counting little pieces of critters under a microscope, after collecting them from steamy roadcuts along noisy highways.

I'm a teacher- it's pretty similar, only my collection of tiny, insignificant invertebrates comes to me. ;-)

Cheers.