Posted on 12/10/2006 5:29:49 PM PST by shrinkermd
Oxygen may be the clue to first appearance of large animals, says Queen’s prof
The sudden appearance of large animal fossils more than 500 million years ago – a problem that perplexed even Charles Darwin and is commonly known as “Darwin’s Dilemma” – may be due to a huge increase of oxygen in the world’s oceans, says Queen’s paleontologist Guy Narbonne, an expert in the early evolution of animals and their ecosystems.
In 2002, Dr. Narbonne and his research team found the world’s oldest complex life forms between layers of sandstone on the southeastern coast of Newfoundland. This pushed back the age of Earth’s earliest known complex life to more than 575 million years ago, soon after the melting of the massive “snowball” glaciers. New findings reported today shed light on why, after three billion years of mostly single-celled evolution, these large animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record.
In a paper published on-line in Science Express, Dr. Narbonne’s team argues that a huge increase in oxygen following the Gaskiers Glaciation 580 million years ago corresponds with the first appearance of large animal fossils on the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland.
Now for the first time, geochemical studies have determined the oxygen levels in the world’s oceans at the time these sediments accumulated in Avalon. “Our studies show that the oldest sediments on the Avalon Peninsula, which completely lack animal fossils, were deposited during a time when there was little or no free oxygen in the world’s oceans,” says Dr. Narbonne. “Immediately after this ice age there is evidence for a huge increase in atmospheric oxygento at least 15 per cent of modern levels, and these sediments also contain evidence of the oldest large animal fossils.”
Also on the research team are Don Canfield (University of Southern Denmark) and Simon Poulton (Newcastle University, U.K.). Geochemical studies by Drs. Canfield and Poulton included measurements of iron speciation and sulphur isotopes to determine the oxygen levels in the world’s oceans at the time these sediments accumulated in Avalon.
The close connection between the first appearance of oxygenated conditions in the world’s oceans and the first appearance of large animal fossils confirms the importance of oxygen as a trigger for the early evolution of animals, the researchers say. They hypothesize that melting glaciers increased the amount of nutrients in the ocean and led to a proliferation of single-celled organisms that liberated oxygen through photosynthesis. This began an evolutionary radiation that led to complex communities of filter-feeding animals, then mobile bilateral animals, and ultimately to the Cambrian “explosion” of skeletal animals 542 million years ago.
God created through His Word.
Now everyone can sleep.
Thanks!
I bet these scientists believe maggots come from rotting meat.
It didn't say that oxygen creates life. Think when you read.
YEC INTREP
That is a very fruity statement, and it doesn't explain anything.
Life is change.
Exactly. "Sudden appearance of large fossils." Gee, I wonder how that could have happenned??? Oxygen, yeah right.
They'll never admit to even wondering if God created those large animals. Their secular world would crumble!
I wish I could be a fly on the wall when they figure out nothing in this universe is older than 10,000 years. Parking at church is going to be much harder!
Miasma theory is indisputable!
So melting glaciers caused an explosion in complex animal life-forms. It seems we are melting the remaining glaciers right now. So what complex life-forms come next?
This is a very significant hypothesis to explain the "Cambrian explosion" of biodiversity.
It is naturally a bit confusing to the scientifically illiterate, as some of the foregoing posts indicate.
The mention of the "iceball" refers to the idea that the late Precambrian was a time of almost worldwide glaciation. Then the ice melted. Through global warming. And humans were not even around. Al Gore, take note!
Free oxygen can only exist when there is no active molecule to bind it. This accounts for the extended period in which there was only single celled anaerobic bacteria in the oceans--there was an incredible amount of atmospheric iron that had to be fixed as iron oxide by the waste product of the bacteria, before oxygen could accumulate.
This resulted in a huge geological band of rust in much of the world. And when the iron was finally fixed, the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere multiplied. And once there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere, oxygen levels in the oceans increased so much that bacteria had to evolve to live around it.
Now, this took place long before the events discussed in the article, but it took a vast amount of time.
RINOs
OK Darwins dilemna is "the sudden appearance of large animal fossils". Fine, dilemnas happen.
Now we have a hypothesis that states that the level of O2 and nutrients increased dramatically at some point for some reason. OK fine there as well.
Darwinian evolution, RM/NS/heritability, posits small changes over long periods of time. So, I'll need somebody to help me out with how increases in O2 and nutrient levels explains "the sudden appearance of large animal fossils".
dilemna with two m's dumdum.
To geologists and paleontologists that work in the Precambrian, "sudden" means "over several million years."
It's even more confusing when you have the scientifically illiterate reading very short press releases about something that possibly took a decade of work and likely resulted in a 20 page detailed article in a scientific journal.
It's impossible to summarize these things and the work done by the scientists in these brief press releases, but there's a lot of people who have never read an actual scientific paper in their lives and get the impression that this is all there is.
I will get flamed by the Darwiniacs soon. Nothing heats them up more than when I saw, "I believe this because of the Word."
That said, the whole universe makes a lot more sense. Dinosaurs did not disappear. Some are still in the ocean. Stories of dragons from all over the world may just be the sightings of those leftover flying dinosaurs. Coast to Coast AM thinks the dinosaurs are still around in very remote parts.
I wonder where all that fossil fuel came from. Billions of animals died all at once. I wonder how. Maybe the global Flood which never happened? And all that coal.
I am struck by the disconnect between the physical data, what they call it, and how this data came into being. How could we have a 90 foot seam of coal when it takes 10 feet of leafy matter to make a 1 foot seam?
Rehwinkel's The Flood is good on this. Concordia Publishing House.
For a fuller study of fluctuating oxygen levels through geologic time, and it's possible effects on the development of life, try Peter D. Ward's OUT OF THIN AIR (Joseph Henry Press, 2006).
My understanding is that "sudden" to the above mentioned fellows means appearing in the strata with insufficent precursors in the lower strata to explain them.
But what do I know, I'm a blue collar guy.
Sadly the hoi polloi have not been blessed with the superior intellect of the technocrats.
You want to discuss science with folks who read papers, go to a science forum.
Here you get opinions from the downtrodden and stricken.
Such is life!
Darwin’s Dilemma = The more educated a human gets, the more he/she is drawn to fables..
The fact that the seam is not explained by the deposition of biological matter is not evidence that the world was created by God 10,000 years ago. The better explanation is that coal and oil are not biological in origin. But if you would rather believe that people riding around on camels in the desert 9,900 years ago had a better source of information, that is your right.
I find it hard to believe that God chose to talk to a handful of people 9,900 years ago, yet has not talked to anyone else since, except Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. I also don't believe that God is going to lie to us all by creating fossils that look like they are older than 10,000 years old, and stars that are over 10,000 light years distant, just to fool us.
I just don't understand how the theory of evolution calls into question the existence of God. One can believe in both. Perhaps God has left us all the clues to understand who were are and where we came from as part of the path that we are to follow. That he wants us to realize that we are only part of the story, not the end. Remember He created the universe, no? The laws that govern it are his, no? So how does the theory of us evolving from a single cell organism into a human diminish God, or his "gifts"? It doesn't.
I have personally collected and obtained radiocarbon dates older than that.
How do you explain those?
Herein lies the rub: Scientists have already proven that the universe is much much older than your simplistic statement, but, if somehow, it can be absolutely proven that the universe is 10,000 years old, and its a testable fact, then scientists would accept the data. Creationists will never accept any data that is in conflict with their beliefs. So, you have your unflinching dogma, which does not allow you to think in a rational way, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you want to live a live of pure ignorance, go ahead, I hope you enjoy it.
It's impossible to summarize these things and the work done by the scientists in these brief press releases, but there's a lot of people who have never read an actual scientific paper in their lives and get the impression that this is all there is.
But yet you feel comfortable summarizing a persons entire life, and their accumulated knowledge therein, by one or two posts on this thread.
I've read plenty of scientific papers, and if in this case, all you can squeeze out of those years or decades of intensive research are mere speculations, then there can't be much substance to the work itself.
Could be that is exactly what these so called illiterates are opining about.
But where are my manners. I've injected myself in a conversation that is clearly outside of my class. My apologies, and please do carry on...
Um, not to butt in or anything, but you personally told me that if you had found young-earth dates, your assumptions about the world would lead you to recheck those, presumably until you got them "right."
Given your naturalistic assumptions and your old-earth evolutionary framework, to arrive at anything different would be a miracle.
My word, have the unwashed masses dared to voice their uneducated opinions? Dear me, these peasants have no business stepping out of their place. They really should leave the deep thinking to their betters. Pass the grey poupon, would you?
Typical CS b.s. You are the most self-absorbed snob I have ever encountered on this forum. You always insist that anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant neanderthal, who is so blind to science that they still believe the world is flat. To you, anyone who believes that in order for something to be, it must have been created, is nothing more than a blind fool, who ignores all science. You are beyond arrogant. Evolution is your religion, and it is YOU who is blind to evidence to the contrary. You can accept any fantastic tale, if it's part of your particular dogma, and you quickly revile any poster, who submits any evidence to the contrary, as an idiot. Scrutinize that.
542 MILLION yrs ago....and my friend questions God because he didn't get instant results....
Heh...LOL I like that!
There you go again.
"Life appeared due to, due to.... oxygen - yeah, that's the ticket."
A couple questions. How could there be free iron in the atmsphere? What form would/could it have existed in? Where did the oxygen come from to bind with the iron?
My understanding is that the majority of the oxygen that exists in the atmosphere today has it's source in the oceans. Were the bacteria in the anaerobic conditions of the oceans of the time capable of producing it; were they capable of photosynthesis? If that was the case, the oceans would have been oxygenated before the atmosphere. How could the atmosphere been oxygenated first?
It wouldn't fit in with His character to do that but He can't help it if humans misinterpret the data they find.
Adam was created as a grown man, with the appearance of age. The day he was created, how old would you say he was, just by looking at him? You could say (estimate here for the sake of argument) *30 years old* and you would be right, in a way. If you said *one day*, you would also be right but according to all appearnces, you would be wrong. So which one is right? Both are. But God didn't do it with the intend to deceive, He did it out of practicality. He couldn't have started with a sperm and egg and left it lying on the ground.
Still waiting for a scientific answer to your question....
The Cambrian "explosion" took place over millions of years; it was not "sudden" (a fact well-known to anyone who cares to do a few minutes of research).
I just don't understand how the theory of evolution calls into question the existence of God. One can believe in both.
Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:
Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were no
one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.If
Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the
one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.Are we to believe that the
one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
Acts 17:24-26 24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Was LUKE wrong about this? 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Timothy 2:13
If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word?? |
NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Thanks for continuing to live up to the stereotypes.
How old is the universe? 10,000 years?
I want you to show me some proof, not just a bunch of yammering. Whenever a creationist is shown real data, they just ignore it, whenever a creationist is asked to explain something, they cop out and just claim its a miracle. I'd call that pretty snobbish.
Actually, you can be a christian and not be ignorant. But it takes one hell of a lot of ignorance in 2006 to cling to a belief that the universe is 10,000 years old because a book of faith is being used as a scientific textbook.
Yeah, I'd say you are ignorant, and pretty petty, you claim to be a Christian, but you are just itching to do the judgement that is reserved to God. I doubt that God appreciates you trying to be His surrogate.
Why doesn't evolution happen at that rate all the time? Or, why did it happen at that rate when it's happened so slowly the rest of the time. What speciation has occurred in the last 10,000 years or so that there have been records of human habitation?
Thanks. My bad. It says oxygen creates fossils.
Seriously, this is what the article says:
" ... the first appearance of oxygenated conditions in the world’s oceans and the first appearance of large animal fossils confirms the importance of oxygen as a trigger for the early evolution of animals, the researchers say. They hypothesize that melting glaciers increased the amount of nutrients in the ocean and led to a proliferation of single-celled organisms that liberated oxygen through photosynthesis. This began an evolutionary radiation that led to complex communities of filter-feeding animals, then mobile bilateral animals, and ultimately to the Cambrian "explosion" of skeletal animals 542 million years ago.
I'm sorry, I simply don't believe a change in the mix of chemicals in the oceans or atmosphere will "trigger" evolution of animals from single-celled organisms.
Even Darwin believed it was a mutation within an existing species which triggered evolution of a new variant. If the mutation was better for survival, the mutated creature lived on, and passed on the mutation.
As an example, consider the following: Did giraffes grow long necks because the trees were tall (environmental trigger), or did mutated giraffes with long necks (genetic trigger) survive and pass on their genes because they could eat more?
This is one of my complaints about those who believe evolution explains the creation of life forms (it does not), rather than just the adaption and change of life forms.
Many evolutionists find it absurd someone can believe the following:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
but believe inanimate matter can become a life form. And apparently can believe an increase in oxygen can cause oxygen breathing creatures to evolve from photosynthesizing creatures.
I would put forth the notion that both of these beliefs are based in faith in certain fundamental assumptions.
There is never going to be any evidence proving dirt became life. It is a matter of faith for atheist scientists as well as religious people.
"Thanks for continuing to live up to the stereotypes. "
Yeah, I'm just another sterotypical dufus. Proof is hardly something that you're concerned with, since it is in your face, every day. The creationists who you continually label as blind cavemen are not quite as resistant to scientific evidence as you seem to be. OK. Here's something. If a thing exists, it must have been created. You claim evolution proves the non-existence of a creator, so... what did hydrogen evolve from? If people evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-cell organisms? If you claim evolution is the answer to our existence, then why are there no half and half creatures in the fossil record? If the universe is billions of years old, does that mean there can be no creator? You act as though you have all of the answers, that the proof of your assertions is in "science." Then why have so many of these "proofs" been disproven over the years, with constant changes in the story? I think you are so anti-Christian, it blinds you to reality. A single-celled organism is, in itself, so complex that it would be impossible for it to have created itself accidentally. Period. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but looking at these theories of evolution, I sure as heck have a lot of questions. You seem to be satisfied with every bit of supposition, hypothesis and theory that comes down the pike. You are an ignorant, incompetent scientist, and you question nothing. You merely yammer.
Brilliantly put, Magellan. I couldn't have said it nearly as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.