The discussion centers around the interpretation of fossilized cell clusters from the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation, which have been traditionally viewed as early animal embryos. Recent findings suggest these fossils may instead represent reproductive structures of single-celled ancestors of animals. The conversation explores the implications of this reinterpretation for the understanding of early multicellular life and the fossil record.
Participants generally agree that the interpretation of the Doushantuo fossils is contested, with multiple viewpoints on their classification and implications. There is no consensus on the validity of the new interpretations versus traditional views.
Some participants note the complexity of the terminology and the need for further clarification on the implications of the findings. There are references to previous literature that may present alternative views on the classification of these fossils.
This discussion may be of interest to those studying paleontology, evolutionary biology, and the history of life on Earth, as well as individuals interested in the scientific process and how new evidence can reshape understanding in a field.
The scientists say they were surprised when the results indicated the fossilized cell clusters were not animals or embryos. That is because it had long been thought that fossils showing this apparent pattern cell division represented the embryos of the earliest animals.
Instead, they say the finely detailed X-ray images exposed features pattern that led them to conclude the organisms were, “the reproductive spore bodies of single-celled ancestors of animals.”
Study co-author Phil Donoghue of Britain’s University of Bristol said the new results mean much of what has been written about the fossils for the last 10 years is “flat wrong.”
Dr_Morbius said:It was published in Science magazine which is a peer reviewed journal so I would say that yes it's very credible.
Pythagorean said:I know Science and Nature are the holy grails of scientific publishing and all, but I don't think that's a good place to stop a critique.
Pythagorean said:Following is a non-peer reviewed journalism. Is there merit to this?
atyy said:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1696
Fossilized Nuclei and Germination Structures Identify Ediacaran “Animal Embryos” as Encysting Protists
Pythagorean said:Integrating all that new terminology is not an easy task; the abstract seems to make the same challenge.
Thanks for the link! I love PZ Meyers.lpetrich said:A problem with the embryo identification of the Doushantuo fossils is the lack of better-developed embryos.
One can find some well-developed embryos in the fossil record, like the early Cambrian to early Ordovician worm Markuelia. Its closest relatives are the priapulids, kinorhynchs, and loriciferans, obscure seafloor worms. Priapulids are also known from the Cambrian: Ottoia.
PZ Myers has a nice discussion of this recent work in http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/protists_not_animals.php , and he shows some pictures of them.