ChatterBank1 min ago
Very Old, Very Deep: Places Of Ancient Interest
Afternoon.
They're looking for marvellous thing in Ontario: http:// www.the verge.c om/2013 /5/17/4 338844/ billion -year-o ld-cach e-of-wa ter-is- oldest- yet-fou nd-on-e arth
"If organisms are present in the water, which a team of researchers hopes to ascertain within a year, they will likely have followed a different evolutionary path to that of the world above."
Which is interesting.
It reminded me of the wonderful bit from "Encounters at the end of the world" featured below.
What I was going to ask is, where else in the world do we see (or we believe we are likely to see) something taking an ancient right hand turn (evolutionary speaking)?
They're looking for marvellous thing in Ontario: http://
"If organisms are present in the water, which a team of researchers hopes to ascertain within a year, they will likely have followed a different evolutionary path to that of the world above."
Which is interesting.
It reminded me of the wonderful bit from "Encounters at the end of the world" featured below.
What I was going to ask is, where else in the world do we see (or we believe we are likely to see) something taking an ancient right hand turn (evolutionary speaking)?
Answers
There have been all kinds of evolutionary blind alleys - they are difficult to find and identify though. The best example is the critters from the Burgess Shales: http://palae o.gly.bris.a c.uk/palaeof iles/lagerst atten/Burges s/ There's no evolutionary advantage to having 5 digits - it's purely by chance that we're descended from a tetrapod with 5...
12:58 Fri 17th May 2013
There have been all kinds of evolutionary blind alleys - they are difficult to find and identify though.
The best example is the critters from the Burgess Shales: http:// palaeo. gly.bri s.ac.uk /palaeo files/l agersta tten/Bu rgess/
There's no evolutionary advantage to having 5 digits - it's purely by chance that we're descended from a tetrapod with 5 rather than 7 or 8 digits.
We could have been bostin' banjo players.
The best example is the critters from the Burgess Shales: http://
There's no evolutionary advantage to having 5 digits - it's purely by chance that we're descended from a tetrapod with 5 rather than 7 or 8 digits.
We could have been bostin' banjo players.
I'm not sure, at least at this point, what significance the discovery may have since 3.4 billion year old fossils have been in hand for some time (Seen here: http:// news.sc iencema g.org/s ciencen ow/2011 /08/wor lds-old est-fos sils-fo und-in- a.html ). outstrips the water by a couple of billion years.
Significantly, the fossils found in Australia as well as very early finds in the "Tar Sands" in the Canadian Province of Alberta, seem to be more advanced than the ones described in the article. Remains to be seen though...
Significantly, the fossils found in Australia as well as very early finds in the "Tar Sands" in the Canadian Province of Alberta, seem to be more advanced than the ones described in the article. Remains to be seen though...
I seem to remember some recent story about a scientific team out in the Antarctic trying to do something very similar, and failing...
http:// www.the star.co m/news/ world/2 012/12/ 27/brit ain_sus pends_e xplorat ory_dri lling_o f_antar ctic_la ke.html
http://
It was finally a success, LG... seen here: http:// www.fox news.co m/scien ce/2013 /01/28/ pay-dir t-antar ctic-dr illing- reaches -lake-s urface/
No reports yet, though...
No reports yet, though...
Thanks all!
"Indeed, our view on the early evolution of animals would have been slanted towards groups that have hard parts if it were not for the Burgess Shale." - Oo-er Mrs Darwin.
I'd actually never considered that however; our picture of things that existed through a series of winnowing experiences has also been chopped back by only certain types of animal being suitable for rocking preservation! The creature that can best adapt to preservation (of its skeleton, shape, etc) is the one that actually goes down in history.
Not that dinosaurs cared much for legacy I suppose!
"Indeed, our view on the early evolution of animals would have been slanted towards groups that have hard parts if it were not for the Burgess Shale." - Oo-er Mrs Darwin.
I'd actually never considered that however; our picture of things that existed through a series of winnowing experiences has also been chopped back by only certain types of animal being suitable for rocking preservation! The creature that can best adapt to preservation (of its skeleton, shape, etc) is the one that actually goes down in history.
Not that dinosaurs cared much for legacy I suppose!
I listened to Professor Chris Ballentine talking about this on Radio 4 yesterday, and I almost posted a link but I wasn’t sure if anyone would be interested.
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/sc ience-e nvironm ent-225 44761
http://
Some of the deep caves remain partly unexplored because of access difficulties. The wildlife in many have come to an evolutionary nose because the contact with other life forms has been cut off many millions of years ago. Even some accessible caves produce interesting life.
http:// www.stu ff.co.n z/scien ce/7172 905/Dee p-cave- dive-re veals-N Z-nativ e
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.