https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-life-of-one-of-earth-rsquo-s-earliest-an...

"Yet despite their abundance, nobody has been able to figure out how trilobites reproduced—until now. In a very unusual fossil, scientists have found one of the first examples of sexual anatomy in the fossil record: a small pair of grasping appendages that let the male trilobite hold the female close during mating.

***

"Trilobites’ delicate bits, such as legs, antennae and reproductive structures, were made of soft tissues that rarely petrified. Paleontologists can infer the existence of legs based on sockets in some species’ outer shells and trace impressions. But reproductive organs were frustratingly elusive.

***

"The species, Olenoides serratus, is about as well-known as ancient arthropods get: it makes up many of the Burgess Shale’s fossils and the genus even lends its name to a Yu-Gi-Oh fantasy game card.

"Losso’s specimen was in an unusual position, however. It fossilized lying on its side rather than on its back or belly like most Olenoides fossils. What’s more, its appendages were stretched out and preserved in remarkable detail, down to the joints. Among them, researchers found two sets of short, grasping appendages that looked an awful lot like reproductive structures called claspers.

***

"The looks of claspers in horseshoe crabs helped Losso and her team verify that the Olenoides appendages were more than just malformed feet. Claspers suggest that, in some species, male and female trilobites had different looking bodies. “They have found that Rosetta stone fossil that allows us to really confirm these theories about sexual dimorphism,” Bicknell says. “This is just a really nice, fundamentally important addition.”

"Losso cautions that the feature might not be universal. “Finding claspers in Olenoides serratus doesn’t mean that all trilobites reproduced that way,” she says. Nevertheless, the study marks an important milestone in trilobite paleontology, one which will help inform future research. It hints the animals evolved a wider variety of specialized limbs than previously thought and did so early in their evolutionary history. “It speaks to a really cool underlying modularity,” Hegna says. “They’re an armored Swiss Army knife.”

Comment: our favorite Cambrians are yielding more secrets. It has alwasy bee presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.

dhw: Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.

DAVID: The human brain appeared 300,000 years ago. Life started 3.6-8 billion years ago. Somethings had to fill in the in-between time.

dhw: “I’m in control,” said God to Man, “an’ all I wanted to do,
Right from the start – cross my heart – was manufacture you.
Why did I make all those other critters and let ‘em live and die?
‘Cos I needed to fill in several billi’n years. Ask David why.”

Loved it! 'Cause all of them had to eat.

dhw: Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.

DAVID: The human brain appeared 300,000 years ago. Life started 3.6-8 billion years ago. Somethings had to fill in the in-between time.

“I’m in control,” said God to Man, “an’ all I wanted to do,
Right from the start – cross my heart – was manufacture you.
Why did I make all those other critters and let ‘em live and die?
‘Cos I needed to fill in several billi’n years. Ask David why.”

DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.

dhw: Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.

The human brain appeared 300,000 years ago. Life started 3.6-8 billion years ago. Somethings had to fill in the in-between time.

dhw: Agreed. And each find kills the supposed anthropocentrism of David Turell’s theory.

DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.

Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.

QUOTE: "Capinatator—whose name translates to grasping swimmer—lived 500 million years ago at a time when creatures started getting bigger and more diverse. It's difficult to find complete fossils belonging to the chaetognatha family because they decayed easily, said Briggs. This latest find, however, was so good that even soft tissue was saved, giving scientists a good idea about what Capinatator looked like.
"The discovery expands scientists' knowledge of a "pretty enigmatic" group of animals from the Cambrian era, said Smithsonian paleobiologist Doug Erwin, who had no role in the research."

David’s comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.

dhw: Agreed. And each find kills the supposed anthropocentrism of David Turell’s theory.

This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.

David’s comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.

Agreed. And each find kills the supposed anthropocentrism of David Turell’s theory.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-id-tiny-prehistoric-sea.html

"Long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, a bizarre creature with a Venus flytrap-like head swam the seas.

"Scientists have uncovered fossils of a tiny faceless prehistoric sea worm with 50 spines jutting out of its head. When some unsuspecting critter came too close, its jaw-like spines snapped together and dinner was served.

'The discovery reported in Thursday's journal Current Biology offers a glimpse into the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth about 541 million years ago.

"The new creature dubbed Capinatator praetermissus is so different that scientists said the fossils represent not only a new species, but a new genus—a larger grouping of life—as well.

"It was only 4 inches long and its spines were about one-third of an inch long. It feasted on smaller plankton and shrimp-like creatures.

"It is an ancestor of a group of marine arrow worms called chaetognatha that are abundant in the world's oceans. The prehistoric version was larger and with far more spines in its facial armory but without the specialized teeth of its descendants, said Derek Briggs of Yale University who led a team that discovered the trove of fossils in two national parks in British Columbia, Canada.

"'The spines are like miniature hooks, although more gently curved. They were stiff rather than flexible," Briggs said in an email. "It's hard to say why there are so many spines in the fossil example—but presumably thus armed it was a successful predator."

"Capinatator—whose name translates to grasping swimmer—lived 500 million years ago at a time when creatures started getting bigger and more diverse. It's difficult to find complete fossils belonging to the chaetognatha family because they decayed easily, said Briggs. This latest find, however, was so good that even soft tissue was saved, giving scientists a good idea about what Capinatator looked like.

"The discovery expands scientists' knowledge of a "pretty enigmatic" group of animals from the Cambrian era, said Smithsonian paleobiologist Doug Erwin, who had no role in the research."

Comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130111008.htm

"Researchers have identified traces of what they believe is the earliest known prehistoric ancestor of humans -- a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, which lived about 540 million years ago.

"Named Saccorhytus, after the sack-like features created by its elliptical body and large mouth, the species is new to science and was identified from microfossils found in China. It is thought to be the most primitive example of a so-called "deuterostome" -- a broad biological category that encompasses a number of sub-groups, including the vertebrates.

"If the conclusions of the study, published in the journal Nature, are correct, then Saccorhytus was the common ancestor of a huge range of species, and the earliest step yet discovered on the evolutionary path that eventually led to humans, hundreds of millions of years later.

xxxxxx

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130133409.htm

"A new species of fossil has been discovered that will shed light on early animal ecosystems. Investigators discovered the new species while conducting a survey of microfossils in mudstones from western Canada. To their surprise, the samples yielded miniscule loriciferans: a type of animal so small it has been considered “unfossilizable.

"To their surprise, the samples yielded miniscule loriciferans: a type of animal so small it has been considered "unfossilizable."

"Moreover, the fossils date to the late Cambrian Period, meaning they lived around half a billion years ago. This suggests that soon after the origin of animals, some groups were adopting specialized "meiobenthic" lifestyles, living among grains of sediment on the seabed.

***

"Loriciferans are a group of miniscule animals, always less than a millimetre long, which live among grains of sediment on the seabed. They are easy to overlook: the first examples were described from modern environments as recently as the 1980s.
Dr Harvey added: "As well as being very small, loriciferans lack hard parts (they have no shell), so no-one expected them ever to be found as fossils -- but here they are! The fossils represent a new genus and species, which we name Eolorica deadwoodensis, loosely meaning the "ancient corset-animal from rocks of the Deadwood Formation."

"'It's remarkable that so early in their evolution, animals were already exploiting such specialized meiobenthic ecologies: shrinking their bodies down to the size of single-celled organisms, and living among grains of sediment on the seabed.'"

***

"The dramatic diversification of animals known as the Cambrian "explosion" is a source of fascination to many people. Working out why animals evolved when they did, and how they came to dominate almost all ecosystems on Earth, is a longstanding scientific question that affects how we think about our place in the universe."

"The scientists added that the new fossils also support a close relationship between loriciferans and another obscure group of animals (the priapulid worms), helping to piece together the tree of animal life."

Comment: These fossils are complex animals. There is still an enormous gap from the earliest fossils predating the Cambrian era.

dhw: The “staccato dance” is your fancy term for punctuated equilibrium. We have long, long, long ago agreed that we do not accept Darwin’s random mutations or his gradualism, and we learned recently that even his bulldog Huxley rejected gradualism. But if it hadn’t been for Darwin, we might not even have been having these discussions. I know you much prefer Wallace’s take on evolution, but it happens to have been Darwin’s work that revolutionized modern thought, whether you like it or not, and that’s not bad for an “only contribution”!

Yes Darwin made the world recognize chance evolution. Wallace and I prefer design, and I have made you recognize the huge holes in the the theory presented by Darwin.

No it’s not. It’s simply a term to describe the fact that evolution appears to be static for long periods and then to burst into sudden activity. It is a rejection of Darwin’s gradualism, but is not meant to explain speciation.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/irony_alert_mic103445.html

QUOTE: "The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence."

David’s comment: Evolution is a staccato dance from on distinct species to another. There never is any gradualism. Darwin's only contribution is to show us that it seems we evolved from earlier simpler life which was a common singular source. Period.

The “staccato dance” is your fancy term for punctuated equilibrium. We have long, long, long ago agreed that we do not accept Darwin’s random mutations or his gradualism, and we learned recently that even his bulldog Huxley rejected gradualism. But if it hadn’t been for Darwin, we might not even have been having these discussions. I know you much prefer Wallace’s take on evolution, but it happens to have been Darwin’s work that revolutionized modern thought, whether you like it or not, and that’s not bad for an “only contribution”!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/irony_alert_mic103445.html

"How about those fossils that appear "as though they were planted there," as Richard Dawkins once admitted. One of those "planted" classes, the humble trilobites, had eyes that were perhaps the most complex ever produced by nature.1 One expert called them "an all-time feat of function optimization."
And even Shermer's go-to source, Wikipedia, admits ancestral forms, err, "do not seem to exist":

"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist.

"Likewise, even the evolutionist Niles Eldredge admitted2 they didn't make sense in light of standard evolutionary theory:

"If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendant species to their ancestors.

"Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendant) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.

"And it just gets worse:

"The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence."

Comment: Evolution is a staccato dance from on distinct species to another. There never is any gradualism. Darwin's only contribution is to show us that it seems we evolved from earlier simpler life which was a common singular source. Period.


> dhw: The major difference between us is your insistence on abstract thinking, which again confines your definition to humans. ... Even your intelligent dog cannot think abstractly as Higgs did. You go on to argue that cells react "according to instructions in their genome", so did your God give them instructions to cope with every possible situation as well as produce every possible innovation? (Bacteria can adapt to virtually whatever you throw at them.)-Yes they can, and I believe the massive informtion in the genome lets them handle it well.--> dhw: I wonder how they "know" which sets of instructions to obey. Is it not conceivable that he simply gave them the ability "to reason out solutions to changes or challenges" as they arose? It's worth quoting A-B again: "The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters."-Won't buy it. They have a set of automatic reactions, and their lives are really not very complicated. Sense nutrients, eat them. Sense danger, avoid it, etc. -
> 
> dhw: It is silly because you insist on equating "intelligence" with human consciousness, as if human intelligence is the only possible kind. Cells and cell communities solve problems, and have come together to create innovations. None of us know how. -We know that cells have been developed into complex organs and organisms. You are right, the 'how' is the issue. You are still confusing information supplied to the cells as intelligence. Intelligence supplied information to the cellular genome for the cells to use. This is a stepwise concept on my part. the cells are not intelligent. They automatically use intelligent information implanted within them..


> dhw: The Mayweather sidestep. Please, once and for all, give us your definition of intelligence (not the MI5 form, but the doggy form).-No sidestep. The meaning of the word intelligence is so obvious, I didn't think I had to do this. Intelligence is the ability to learn information, to recognize new situations, to reason out solutions to changes or challenges, to think abstractly as Higgs did when he thought of his particle. (this is a form of planning ahead). To understand complex information.-What can cells do. They are automatically instructed by complex information to perform molecular tasks. They receive information, to which they must respond, by molecular signals as a series of molecular reactions. They then respond by the production of molecules according to instructions in their genome. There is no thought here. Intelligence in my dog or me or you nestles in a consciousness which is an emergent property from the brain, which has plasticity and grows new neurons and connections as it learns. Cells don't reason, they are instructed to react. Cells can't plan like Higgs did. He integrated a large number of prior observations to make his proposal of a particle. Cells don't integrate, they react.-This is all so obvious I didn't think I had to spell it out. This is why I strongly believe in theistic evolution. -> dhw; You have not explained how the above statement, or Margulis's, can be called metaphorical.-I know that. I view her statement as a metaphor in a perverse way. It is the way I wish to interpret her thought. You don't know either exactly what she meant by it, since it is a tiny statement taken out of the totality of her work. And she believed in Gaia Earth, which reveals a tone of wackiness in her ruminations.-> dhw: Yes, materialists are bound to believe that life is "just a complex of chemical reactions", but that does not explain how chemicals have produced innovations and self-awareness. -Of course it doesn't. Consciousness and its intellect are emergent qualities out of the biochemistry.-> dhw: Even Venter still has to choose between random mutations, your God, and cooperation between intelligent cells. Margulis was an agnostic and A-B does not base his findings on any philosophical position, so we have at least two experts in the field who are not out to proselytize........since when did you put your trust in the scientific majority?-I am my own thought pattern. I reach my own conclusions and pick and choose between reasonable ideas, presented by others, that fit together for me, making my own Higgs particle as it relates to the process of evolution.-
> DAVID: Yes, we are talking about how cells communicate [...]Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate.
> 
> dhw: There is no argument about this. It is also how our human cells communicate. But WHAT they communicate is a message created by the intelligence of the cellular community that forms the human brain. If I decide to perform an action, the message passes through the relevant molecules in my body in the manner you have described. But "I decide" is the non-automatic part of the process (unless humans are automatons too). What part of the cell or the cell community decides which message is to be passed on? According to some scientists, it is the intelligent 'cell brain', or centrosome, or Constructive Planner. According to you, it is God.-This is silly. You are attempting to give cells consciousness. It takes billions or neurons and trillions of connections for consciousness to emerge in teh brain. And of course, I have no idea how that happens. Tell me how do your cells do it? They look automatic to me.
> 
> DAVID: Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I believe your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry.
> 
> dhw:From your knowledge of biochemistry, how could the earliest cells have been preprogrammed to produce the billions of innovations leading to humans? You have told us repeatedly that we are far from solving all the mysteries of the cell. Since you admit to not knowing how evolution advanced, why not keep an open mind?-I opened my mind to the answer that there must be a Higher Intelligence, religions call God. I see no other way out of the mystery.


> dhw:In which case I presume you now accept the definition of intelligence as "the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems." All of these abilities are present in cells and your dog, and therefore cells and your dog are intelligent. QED.-Not QED. The cells automatically use intelligent information.-> 
> dhw; He agrees with you that cells are automatons, not that Margulis and Co are speaking metaphorically. Where is the metaphor in the statement: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being"? As an atheist, Venter thinks life consists ONLY of chemicals, which might not make him your ideal buddy. What we now have are some scientists agreeing that cells are automatons, and some not agreeing.-I would judge that since most folks like Venter are atheists they would be on the side of automatic cells. The only way I can accept Margulis is as a metaphor. Remember she also deep-ended on the Gaia hypothesis; there is a kook side to her.
> 
> dhw: Our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry has no explanation for evolutionary innovation, and of course it cannot provide any evidence of a "tooth fairy" preprogramming the first cells with lungs, legs and livers.
> 
> DAVID: Some of us can make intelligent guesses, but in general you are correct. No one knows how species and new organs appear.
> 
> dhw: So you can stop protesting that my proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. -I'll still keep in protesting. Cells do not think, an that is what you are proposing.
 
> dhw: Not for the first time, you have left out the fact that my hypothesis ONLY seeks to explain how evolution works, and leaves open the question of how the cells became intelligent in the first place. The hypothesis can be theistic (God designed the "cell brain" that did the designing) or atheistic (it evolved of its own accord). Again you are confusing it with the atheistic form of panpsychism.-I am not confused and I understand your stated position above is what you have constantly stated.-> 
> dhw: We are not talking here of how cells communicate ... we are talking of what composes the messages that are to be communicated. A appears, and the human brain proceeds to decipher the meaning of A, to take decisions, to pass its decisions to B, C, D, all of which make their contribution before implementing the instructions issued by the human brain for dealing with A, thereby completing the feedback loop. You simply assume that your God preprogrammed the "cell brain" to do the same thing. Some scientists agree with you, and some don't.-Yes, we are talking about how cells commmunicate. That is the point of bbella's lecture. Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate. No planning or thinking here. Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I belive your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry.