Thought Provoker
Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007
|
| Quote | It sounds very advanced for a "young" organism, but I don't think it's evidence for front loading, Nor do I have the right knowledge and perhaps intellect to discuss it in detail with you. Sorry :(
I can talk big picture, though. |
Are you sure?
I am just an engineer with very little biological science training, but I can learn. I learn by listening to people who explain things rather than telling me how and what to think.
I provided a link to PZ Myer's pharyngula for a reason. He explains why finding Vernanimalcula guizhouena was important. It wasn't just "a" young organism that happened to be complex. From the pharyngula link...
The important point is that this animal possesses the rudiments of morphological characters that are going to erupt into a wide range of diverse specializations in the Cambrian, and it has them roughly 50 million years before the Cambrian 'explosion'. The phyletic innovations we have first seen so clearly in the Cambrian did not come out of nowhere, but have a solid evolutionary foundation in simpler animals.
Chen et al.'s summary of their paper:
"The morphology of Vernanimalcula demonstrates that the evolutionary appearance of developmental programs required to generate a multilayered bilaterian body plan preceded the entrainment of the growth programs required for macroscopic body size. Furthermore, the organization of these fossils, taken together with their provenance, indicates that the genetic toolkit and pattern formation mechanisms required for bilaterian development had already evolved by Doushantuo times, long before the Cambrian. Therefore, the diversification of body plans in the Early Cambrian followed from the varied deployment of these mechanisms once conditions permitted, not from their sudden appearance at or just before the Cambrian boundary."
This sounds a lot like MikeGene talking about evidence for front loaded evolution. Which is why I included the Telic Thoughts link where he included this about the complexity of early organisms...
In this week's issue of the journal Cell they report that hormone-secreting brain centres are much older than expected and likely evolved from multifunctional cells of the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms.
and this...
"These findings revolutionise the way we see the brain," says Tessmar-Raible. "So far we have always understood it as a processing unit, a bit like a computer that integrates and interprets incoming sensory information. Now we know that the brain is itself a sensory organ and has been so since very ancient times."
By the way I understand the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms is called Urbilateria which was the predesesor to Vernanimalcula guizhouena. However, I am just an engineer, what do I know?
Earlier, you wrote...
| Quote | | All of the info for the complicated future creatures would be compressed somewhere in the simpler ancestor? This origional life was seen to be "very simple", I believe. |
Therefore, I thought you would be interested in discussing early life forms like the Vernanimalcula guizhouena.
As to your questions... | Quote | one front-loaded ancestor, or many?
If many, what where the time(s) of introduction?
Was the designer aware of how future environments would develop (so he could front load them specifically) or is it closer to NDE?
> This is important if you think of the interplay of the various species through time and environments,
Genetically, what would a front-loaded ancestor look like vs. current life? |
First of all, I can only speak to the hypothesis I am proposing and not to the strawman stereotype you wish to hack up.
There is no presumption of "the designer" in the hypothesis I have presented. There is a presumption of a universal wavefunction that is timeless because time is just another dimension in space/time geometry.
I don't know how the universe came to be, do you?
I tend to believe in Common Descent in the sense mainstream biologists refer to it.
Interconnected quantum effects are holistic from a time point of view. Therefore, asking about "time(s) of introduction" makes no sense.
Whether this is closer to NDE or ID depends on definitions. If you ask a typical ID proponent, NDE is totally based on randomness. If there is no such thing as randomness then NDE falls. I tend to be more neutral, that is why I call it the Third Choice. Presumes neither NDE, nor an Intelligent Designer. It wouldn't bother me to have both sides claim it.
As to what a front-loaded ancestor might look like. It might look like a Vernanimalcula guizhouena.
|
