A Call To The Humanities To Reclaim Its Concious Self
Exchange 2
- Details
- Written by Shaun Johnston Shaun Johnston
- Published: February 24, 2013 February 24, 2013
- Hits: 30214 30214
Shaun: I read your story. Well written and intelligently developed, so I felt in safe hands, I would be led by stages to an idea. I got the situation from the writing, alien beings raising humans for food and humans finding this natural, assuming it to be part of how well they were otherwise cared for, with all wants satisfied, meanwhile the aliens are having second thoughts and exploring what this all "meant" and wanting their subject to tell them how the ancient moral humans thought.
But I'm not sure it gave me insight into you. I couldn't make out what I should conclude about your ideas from it. It appeared to say, our "morels" are superfluous, and could be bred out of us without anything of absolute value being lost. That is, it faced readers uncertain of the value of morals with the respective outcomes of choosing between having morals or not having them (modern human livestock or ancient independent humans). OK, I guess that's the point. Secularity leads to loss of basis for morals, religion provides a basis for them. You face secularists with the human nature that secularity would ultimately lead to, a future that you assume would be repelling to anyone. Hence a challenge to find an alternative basis for morals.
In placing high value on morals, under threat from secularity, we'd be close. I can meet that challenge. I believe morals are implicit in the process of evolution, else why would we have them. Morals are, I take it for granted, species-specific, they emerge in the process of our species' evolution. I put it this way: we will automatically adopt as our meaning of life whatever we have been pre-adapted for. By discovering what we've been pre-adapted for, we acquire new "real" meaning. The morals of religions are these meanings given expression in pre-discovery-of-evolution times.
For me morals are an evolution issue. For you I read the story as saying morals are a rationale-for-being-religious issue, and evolution must be seen in that context. Now, that would be a great difference between us. It would also mean to me, that ultimately you must make evolutionary theory secondary to the issue of morals. But:
I could not hold to my religious beliefs, which include putting a premium on knowing and accepting Truth, if I felt that the story about life forming by natural processes alone and then likewise evolving into all forms of life were true. Alternatively, I might then come up with a clever modification of my religious beliefs to accommodate this truth. So, while my religious beliefs play a role in my opinion of Darwinism, I could not continue to doubt it apart from my considerations of philosophy, history, and "scientific facts."
I'm surprised. I believe believers will always find truth defined by religious belief before anything else. What kind of faith can you have that you could find any other standard of truth more convincing? What other standard could be that convincing? A laboratory measurement? A mathematical formula? A neat theory? Is your faith conditional on scientific consensus? A modification of faith, that's more like it. So you'll bend to other standards just as much as you need to maintain faith. I appreciate the warning.
I share your disillusion with evolutionary theory. In my mid-teens I read "Origin..." as a text for practicing oratory, and became converted to evolution as the source of further wisdom about human nature. But nothing happened. Ethology never amounted to much. Evolutionary psychology was awful.
I've seen a whole new (if overlapping) subset of Darwin doubters arise in the ID movement (which, despite its strong creationist ties, includes a number of people who don't believe in Divine creation)
I've kept clear of the Discovery Institute, through I know it contains a subset as you mention. But I'm intent on not accepting the creationist label by having anything to do with them. Any thoughts?
On your responses to my points: Mentions of evolutionary origins in the ancient world had never lead to a tradition of wisdom based on it, I believe--unlike atomism for example. By 1880 Western culture was entirely unaffected by it. All traditions available then were based on alternative origin stories. For me, no philosophy prior to 1840 could be valid, since it must have been proposed without reference to evolution. Kant is a case in point, just too early, presented with the idea in a crude form but had rejected it. All his thinking worthless (not that I've read it).
I don't think the fossil record proves evolution at all, rather I think belief in evolution has guided and provided the interpretations of paleontology.
I think there is enough evidence for some species having followed from other species for the process of extending the process back to a single trunk to have have sufficient likelihood, despite large gaps in the fossil record. Once one abandons special creation to any degree, there is no better alternative than supposing the process of evolution to have been the guiding principle from the start. Also, both Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck found the process plausible, before any supporting theory had been proposed. So existing evidence and likelihood satisfies me. They process being extended back to a single trunk is not to fit a theory, but a plausible linking up of scraps of evidence.
You seem to think that the story of evolution itself suggests a transcendence of mere physical processes (which would include the chemical ones, ultimately).
YES!!!! To me, my experience of myself strongly suggests that the process generating me transcends today's limits of physics. Or, that phsyics should be defined by what we know to be true of evolved creatures, eg ourselves, that they have properties that to today's physics seem transcendent. My quest is from the study of what must be involved in living creatures evolving to draw outlines of what those properties are, and what they imply about the universe as a whole. For me, conscious experience testifies to realities that must be acknowledged, whether or not they can be accounted for by today's physics. But they are not mystical or spiritual, they are physical realities, just not understood today. We lack the necessary concepts. No reason, though, why we shouldn't try to sketch their outlines so we can take advantage of some of the capabilities we know evolution must engage in.
"What does the cell's almost-perfect system of DNA repair say about the role of DNA in evolution?" By this I was referring to the supposed need for genetic mutation to provide fuel for selection; if mutation is needed why do we have such an efficient repair system, which acts to prevent mutations? And since the system acts in the cell, it will eliminate many potentially beneficial mutations prior to selection getting a chance to work on them. Question: would a 100% efficient repair system, with no mutations at all, be less adaptative than one letting a few mutations get through? Certainly the properties of this repair system will have a far greater effect on the proportion of harmful to beneficial mutations than selection can have. The existence of this repair system, never mentioned in discussions of the modern synthesis, actually throws the whole system into doubt.
Most likely forms of dreaming gradually evolved along with levels of consciousness;
YES!!!!! So here we have a phenomenon to be accounted for that doesn't involve our subjective self awareness, that scientists seem to think doesn't need to be accounted for. It emerged probably 100 million years ago, so it predates civilization. And since in us it is associated with conscious experiences, we may assume that was true of its original manifestations, part of what it was "for." So dreaming poses evolutionists with having to account for something nonphysical back in pre-dinosaur days, definitely part of their jurisdiction. Physicalism says anything non-physical can't affect anything physical. Selection and mutation are purely physical, so they can't operate to "evolve" the non-physical aspect of dreaming. That's why I bring it up. It's a neat challenge to darwinism.
Consciousness is probably a corollary of the evolution of certain forms of intelligence, and appears to be possessed to some extent by several other animals, such as the great apes, whales, and probably other mammals and even some birds. Again, as an evolutionary development, there is probably no clear line dividing some level of intelligent awareness and what we might be tempted to call "true consciousness."
So? It still has to be accounted for in any evolutionary theory.
"What kinds of patterns of connection must already be built into it, and what kind of process must it take to generate those patterns during gestation? How can such information be stored in genes and read out of them to generate tissues embodying those patterns of connection?"... All of this is simply a matter of studying cerebral organization down to the cellular or possibly molecular level, along with genetic and epigenetic factors.
I disagree. I think phenomena involving patterns of connection as intricate as these are inherently too elaborate, no matter whether we understand them in detail or not, to be encoded in a string of single-action genes selected separately for their individual action, as the modern synthesis supposes. These phenomena seem to me to involve processes requiring capabilities many orders of magnitude more "capable" than what we conceive of mutated genes being acted on by selection being able to do.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stirs its own tissues." The cells of its bones and even soft parts all maintain the same positions relative to each other. Besides, as whales evolved in the water, hydrodynamic effects probably contribute to maintaining symmetry and proportion.
I was taught embryology worked through successive patterns of chemical gradients each inducing the next. But chemical gradients are exactly what are destroyed by stirring. Chemical gradients in the early embryo cannot maintain their positions in the face of stirring the way later bones and tissues do. Says I!
computer simulations demonstrating that a few mental rules (or reflexes) in each individual can produce this group behavior
Those I read about involve communications between neighbors spreading across the group. To us the swarm seems to move as one, that is, within the one tenth of a second that we can discriminate. Suppose the swarm is 200 creatures across. Suppose their reactions times are smaller than ours, say each can react to signals in one 25th of a second. For a signal to pass from one side of the swarm to the other will take 200/25 seconds, or 8 seconds. That's 80 times as long as we see it taking. Only in computer simulations can such a rapid spread of signals propagate across that many "creatures."
"What does an evolved creature choosing to become a scientist say about evolution?" Whatever he or she wants to say about it! but seriously...
Come now! You can't be serious. Is there no fundamental difference between the chemicals in a test tube and the scientist next to it evaluating the chemicals' "behavior"? Does the scientist assume his curiosity about cosmology is the consequence of selection for adaptation to the savanah?
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
I know I cannot fully appreciate the capabilities of evolution, given today's wisdom: but, discounting all pre-discovery-of-evolution philosophizing I strain forward towards the goal of bringing down into human nature some portion of the creative power characteristic of our creator, the process of evolution.
I would make a better evolutionists than you, if I wanted to. Maybe I'm wrong, see what you think of my responses below...
So, given my responses to your responses, how are we doing?
------------------------------
David: ["Very long post I skimmed" Shaun. Warning!]
It's funny that I'm helping you, as I really have no interest in advancing your cause. Just being friendly with a
Anyway, you originally caught my attention as a critic of Darwinism, and that seems to be at the center of your
So it seems to me that what you're objecting to is the dry, cold, hyper-rationalist view that there's essentially
But you don't want to mess with that. In fact, besides avoiding any hint of connection to a super nature, you're
"Why don't I argue against quantum physics the way I argue against darwinism?" To me, and most other creationists,
So you need to make it clear that this "self" that you are arguing is more than an illusion (but not much more)
"...there's a much better science of evolution lying far in our future." Reminds me of Clarke's dictum that "Any
"If we can alter the course of their evolution like that, we can also change how we evolve ourselves."
Are you familiar with the term Eugenics, and how it was applied in various countries, especially in the 1930s?
I think you might be onto something at a populist level. Some of us creationists have noted that we can only help
"I used to envy people who had ready access to ways to exercise the self; Christians who could simply thumb through
Oh, it's not like that at all, you know. The self is a different thing for Christians. While we hold our spirit/soul
You might also mention the Western tradition of philosophical soul-searching that goes back to ancient Greece and
The "self is like a relationship" idea reminds me of the view that the self is an illusion, in that it is said to
546 B.C. death of Anaximander, who taught that all life developed from amphibians
{384-322 B.C.} {Darwin, in a footnote:} Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib. 2,
cap. 8, s.2) ... (as translated by Mr. Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), "So
what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in
nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity... since they were not made for the sake of
{their various roles in biting and chewing}, but it was the result of accident... Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together... happened like as if they were made for the sake of something,
these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and
whatsoever things were not thus constiuted, perished..." We here see the principle of natural
selection shadowed forth... {But I think with a bit more of a "modern" emphasis on chance than
Darwin felt comfortable with.}
1655 _Men Before Adam_ argued that Adam "was simply the first Jew"
1714 Bernard Mandeville's _The Fable of the Bees_ argues "that the wealth and strength of
the state depend not upon the virtues ... but upon vices... Nature herself pays no heed... she
defines virtue as any quality that makes for survival... out of that awful struggle... man had
evolved language, [etc]."
***[1735 Benoit de Mail let's (1656-1738) _Telliamed_, an "evolutionary hypothesis," begins to circulate informally
1748 Benoit de Maillet -- Earth's age = 2x10^9 (2 billion)years (book published 10 years posthumously) "our universe
corresponding marine organisms; indeed, men and women were evolved from mermen and
mermaids who, like the frog, had lost their tails." "birds had originated from flying fish, lions from
sea lions."
***{1748 "In _L'Homme plante_ (1748) La Mettrie developed the 'great chain of being' into a
theory of evolution."}
***{1749 Buffon's _Theorie de la terre_ postulates a day-epoch interpretation of Genesis, with an
estimated age of the earth of 85,000 years. "The first three volumes of the _Histoire naturelle,
generale et particuliere_ were published." More volumes were added, the last ones (after his death
in 1788), in 1804. Buffon "undertook to describe the heavens, the earth, and the whole known
world of plants and animals, including man. Buffon sought to reduce all this wilderness of facts to
an order and law through the conceptions of universal continuity and necessity. ... One of his
boldest hypotheses was that there are no fixed and unchangeable species in nature..."
{Oh look: a comment from that Darwin fellow} "... the first author who in modern times has
treated {the theory of descent with modification from a common ancestor} in a scientific spirit
was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly... and as he does not enter on the causes or
means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details."
***{1751 "Maupertuis' _Systeme de la nature_ not only classed apes and men as allied species,
but anticipated in outline Darwin's theory..."}
***{1761 "Jean Baptiste Robinet returned, in _De la Nature_ (1761), to the older idea of
evolution as a 'ladder of beings' ... all nature is a series of efforts to produce even more perfect
beings..."}
1770 D'Holbach's _The System of Nature_ "a highly-charged attack on supernaturalism...'the Bible of Atheism'"
***{1773 "James Burnett, Lord Monboddo, a Scottish judge, was a Darwinian nearly a century
before Darwin." In _The Origin and Progress of Language_..." Man and anthropoid apes are in
the same genus, Human history is not a decline from primeval perfection, as in Genesis, but a slow
and painful ascent."}
1774 Comte de Buffon -- Earth's age = 75,000 years
***{1778 Buffon's _Epoques de la nature_ "founded paleontology by studying fossil bones and
deducing from them the successive epochs of organic life."}
1789-1799 the French Revolution
1793-1794 Reign of Terror -- "senseless slaughter of some 20,000" French citizens. [1793 “Roman Catholicism banned
{1793-1795 Thomas Paine’s _Age of Reason_. "a scathing attack on the Bible" -- much impact in England and America.
[1794 Erasmus Darwin: _Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life_.
"Now all we have to do is break the code it's written in."
We've actually already come a long way in understanding the DNA code, what you need to look into is the subject of
"... some of evolution’s own awesome creative power."
Say what? Even as an evolutionist, I wouldn't say that evolution had "awesome creative power." For one, it just
"I may have glimpsed the promised land but I almost certainly won’t live long enough to enter it."
There are scientists alive now who expect human life will be extended, perhaps hundreds of years, before they die,
"life originates when the genome develops sufficient “intelligence” (whatever that means) to support living
I think for "intelligence" you want to use "information" or "coding" here.
"That “intelligence” develops steadily for four billion years."
See my Timeline sample (far below) to check on this and the following statements.
"...feel the process of evolution..."
Both as a creationist and a hard-nosed evolutionist I would say you're just fooling yourself, playing an imaginary
"...why have I been given senses..."
See, "why questions" of this nature are not only outside the bounds of evolutionary studies, they're outside the
Ah, yes, I had to save this bit for last. You do realize, don't you, that this is the old lie that started all the
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to
[Attach: Dealing with Design, Evo boo-boos, Different Evo Ideas, Uncommon Descent » Neither Matter Nor Magic..., God
FRENCH MICROBIOLOGIST QUESTIONS EVOLUTION, according to Science vol 335, p1035, 2 March 2012. French microbiologist
According to Raoult genes can be exchanged between microbes and complex organisms, which means de novo creation of
***********
the "General Theory of Evolution." I don't see how any evolutionists
cannot be bound by all 7 of these (at least in some form). Therefore,
that would seem a good place to start.
to reptiles, and reptiles gave rise to mammals and birds.
What's also interesting is that he then acknowledged that none of these
assumptions can be experimentally verified. So, while the lack of
experimental verification doesn't mean they cannot be true, it does mean
they fall outside the realm of empirical scientific study - an area
evolutionists have always claimed the possessor and defender of.
************
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the
**********
Dr. Ernst Mayr / Editorial review of his pending new
book, NATURAL HISTORY / May '97; Pgs. 8-11. . "The point of the book
THIS IS BIOLOGY; THE SCIENCE OF THE LIVING WORLD (Harvard University
Press / 1997) is that the great public, and that includes most
biologists, don't hav e the correct image of the science of biology.
Many still have the idea that the physical sciences, physics, and other
mathematical sciences are real science and everything else is inferior
science. The physicist Ernest Rutherford once referred to the other
sciences as postage-stamp collecting. Now physics is perfectly good
science, and many things about it don't apply to the other sciences.
(following is included as a direct excerpt from text) -----
"Biologists have to study all the known facts relating to the particular problem, infer all sorts of consequences
"Of course, proving categorically that a historical narrative is
'true' is never possible."
"Among the sciences in which historical narrative play an important role are cosmogony (the study of the origin of
biology. All these fields are characterized by unique phenomena. ...
Unique phenomena have long frustrated the philosopher. Dave Hume noted
that 'science cannot say anything scientifically about the cause of any
genuinely singular phenomenon.' '' ... "However, if we enlarge the
methodology of science to include historical narratives, we can often
explain unique events rather satisfactorily, and sometimes even make
testable predictions."
==============
(Quote 2) Mayr, Dr. Ernst / In his chapter in EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS
/ Depew and Webber, Editors / MIT Press / 1985 / Pg. 60 ( I strongly
endorse your reading this summary text. Chapters by many leading
evolutionists. All struggling to make it appear the lesser criteria
they now use to qualify evolution as "science" is somehow justified ...
not always successfully. It contains a good deal of acadamese jargon,
but their meaning is clear to careful readers.) "By expanding the
concept of science so as to include biology in all its aspects, it is
possible to construct a philosophy that is far richer and far more
suited for man than a philosophy largely based on the physical
sciences. There is no pathway from the laws of physics to man."
==============
(Quote 3) The concluding paragraph in EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS as
written by editors Depew and Webber reads: "Mayr says that the
generalizations most useful to biologists trying to establish the facts
about some stretch of evolutionary history are embodied in concepts
rather than laws. They have interpretative dimension in the way they
are to be applied to particular cases in nature. The interpretative
finesse with which the able inquirer brings concepts to bear on
individual cases can itself prevent the retelling of ad hoc 'just so'
stories (Mayr, 1983). Thus Mayr implies here what he has asserted
elsewhere: evolutionary biology can and should maintain its deep
connection with natural history. But, as Mayr also points out, this
view runs counter to the methodological demands of the received
philosophy of science. For the interpretative rule of conceptual
models, on which Mayr and Stent place such great emphasis, is precisely
what the progressive testing of hypotheses is supposedly gradually to be eliminating from science, as the latter
should reject the physicist model of science that generates this
dilemma."
From EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS again. On Pg. 52 Dr. Mayr
tells us: "It took some time before this was fully realized, but
eventually it became apparent that there are two biologies, the biology
of proximate causations (functional biology) and that of ultimate
causations (evolutionary biology). The biology of proximate causations
deals with the functional processes of living organism, or to put it in
a different way, with the translation of genetic programs. Its major
method is indeed the experiment, and it most important question is how.
The biology of ultimate causations deals with evolutionary biology in
the widest sense of the word. It occupies itself with the origin of new genetic programs, and its principe question
both in the literature of the physical sciences and in philosophy, that
the physical sciences obey strictly deterministic laws, while biology,
as J. Hershel said of evolutionary biology, obeyed the law of
higgledy-piggledly. There seemed to be a total contrast between the two sciences."
"Dr. Ralph Lewis, Prof. Emeritus Biology, Mich. State Univ. in article
titled "Biology: A Hypothetico-Deductive Science" appearing in THE
AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER; Vol. 50; No. 6; Pg. 6; Sep't. '88 advises:
"During the 50-year life of THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER there has been
a change in the general view of method in biological science. A brief
look at this change and its possible consequences for biology education
may interest those who are searching for ways to improve education at
the high school and college levels. The change was from descriptive
biology to hypothetico-deductive (HD) biology, that is, to theoretical
biology."
************
ScienceWeek
1. Lovejoy, A. O. The Great Chain of Being (Harper and Row, New York, 1965)
2. Gee, H. Nature 420, 611 (2002)
3. Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E. The Major Transitions of Evolution (W. H. Freeman & Co., Oxford, 1995)
4. Dawkins, R. The Ancestor's Tale (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, New York, 2004)
5. Nee, S. Nature 429, 804-805 (2004).
09:30 20 January 03
(Note how the new theory portrays living things or the process of evolution itself as "responding" to situations and
Journal reference: Journal of Theoretical Biology (vol 220, p 323)
********
Links:
---
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050030
(Evolution by Any Other Name: Antibiotic Resistance and Avoidance of the E-Word)
---
http://insectman.us/articles/karls/helping-evos.htm
***********
{A Frequently Asked Questions file from an evolutionist web site,
with comments and added emphasis by David Bump}
[i.e. one chosen to fit our purpose for the moment.]
of evolution."> [Which, as we'll see, was derived from commonly-accepted definitions
and confusing statements by evolutionists themselves]
[So why all the griping about "non-scientists" concepts? Get the beam out of your own eye...]
evolution as follows:
all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all
evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties
of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a
single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered
evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in
populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are
inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the
next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
everything from slight changes in the proportion of different
alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest
protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology,
Sinauer Associates 1986
population spread over many generations.
[Again, perhaps the writer should consider that there are good reasons for standard dictionaries to have broader
[Yes, O all-knowing one! We hear and fall into lock-step!]
[Very true - if evolutionists stuck to that very narrow definition about changes in frequencies of alleles, there
[Well, DUH, this is just what the writer here has been saying, although claiming that it's simply because scientists
[I'd like to know that "person's" exact statement, but at any rate, if you include in this definition the idea that
[What, then? Lazy, stupid, inc ompetent, apathetic, hypocritical, arrogant..?]
[Then WRITE TEXTBOOKS that stick to one limited definition!]
[Such snidely sarcastic parting shots are so juvenile! Unfortunately, one could probably find as many "erroneous"
20 Things that (honest) evolutionists (have to) agree about with creationists (and vice-versa)!
11 -- No scientific evidence of life existing beyond earth (and earth spacecraft) has been recorded.
**************
Beyond belief: In place of God
*20 November 2006
*Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
*Michael Brooks
*Helen Phillips
It had all the fervour of a revivalist meeting. True, there were no hallelujahs, gospel songs or swooning, but there
"We can find comfort in knowing that everyone who has ever lived on the Earth will some day adorn the heavens"
Like many of the others at the meeting, Porco was preaching to the choir, and there was no more animated or
DeGrasse Tyson clearly found it hard to swallow the idea that a scientist could be satisfied by revelation rather
Dawkins, though, is ready to mobilise. The meeting, he says, achieved "probably a little" - but every little helps.
"It is just as futile to get someone to give up using their ears, or love other children as much as their own...
Mel Konner, ecologist, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
"Religion is leading us to the edge of something terrible... Half of the American population is eagerly anticipating
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith
"Religion allows billions of people to live a life that makes sense - they can put up with the difficulties of life,
Francisco Ayala, biologist and philosopher, University of California, Irvine
"No doubt there are many people who do need religion, and far be it from me to pull the rug from under their feet."
Richard Dawkins, biologist, University of Oxford
"Science can't provide a sense of magic about the world, or a community of fellow-believers. There's a religious
Steven Weinberg, physicist, University of Texas, Austin
"Science's success does not mean it encompasses the entirety of human intellectual experience."
Lawrence Krauss, physicist and astronomer, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio
If not God then what?
"It is the job of science to present a fully positive account of how we can be happy in this world and reconciled to
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith
"Let me offer the universe to people. We are in the universe and the universe is in us. I don't know any deeper
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, Hayden Planetarium, New York
"Let's teach our children about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is so much more
Carolyn Porco, planetary scientist, Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colorado
"I'm not one of those who would rhapsodically say all we need to do is understand the world, look at pictures of the
Steven Weinberg, cosmologist, University of Texas, Austin
Can we be good without God?
"The axiom that values come from reason or religion is wrong... There are better ways of ensuring moral motivation
Patricia Churchland, philosopher, University of California, San Diego
"What about the hundreds of millions of dollars raised just for Katrina by religions? Religions did way more than
Michael Shermer, editor-in-chief, Skeptic magazine
"It doesn't take away from love that we understand the biochemical basis of love."
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith
Selection from my Timeline file, from the formation of the Earth to 500 million years ago:
4.6B formation of earth (Science Horizons Yearbook, '96, p. 337), moon (rocks (moon? meteorite?) dated from
4.54.7B)& (Reuters, Dec. 2002)
>moon rock (Spec. 13) dated this old, "intensely radioactive" (Pop. Sci. Aug. '70, p. 14)
>Scientists view asteroids as remnants of the "protoplanetary disk,"
>water within salt crystal in meteorite SN: 10/30/99, p. 2845)
4.56B dating of mineral grains in some meteorites
4.54B "Best value for the age of the Earth" (Dalrymple) based on Canyon Diablo Troilite (meteorite)
4.5B Earth's crust just beginning to form [halflife of Uranium]. Age of earth (Discover, July 91)
>20 "Galactic years" (revolutions of galaxy) ago
>Age given for crystallization of "Mars rock" discovered in Antarctica (see 3.6B, 13K) (SAPMC: p. 19)
> “The Moon's birth, in a collision between Earth and another planetsized body about 4.5 billion years
ago...”(Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
4.4B "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans..." (Nature 409, 175 178
(Jan. 11, 2001)
4.44.3B Setterfield chronology adjustment: 1st extrusion of volcanic rocks, shortly after the birth of
Methuselah, around 4505 BC
4.44B "The last 'Earthsterilizing giant impact' probably" happened during this time (SAPMC: p. 16)
4.43.9B Moon rocks dated this old (Sci. Am. July 74)
4.3B New estimate of decay of lutetium 176 indicates crust actually this old, not 4.1B (Science, 7/27/01, SN
8/25/01)
4.2B Fragments of zircon crystals from Western Australia (Discovering Fossil Fishes, p. 19)
4.1B crust formed
4.09B The oldest rock yet (?? old source) found... between Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes, Canada. It
looks no different from more recent granites; believed to be the product of subduction of previous rock!
4B 8 "supercontinent cycles" (at current rate of movement?). Sun strength est. 70% current
> "lack of samples older than 4 Gyr" (Nature 404, 488 490 (2000))
> rock in Labrador claimed to be 4B mantletype rock (Discover, July 91)
> youngest "nearby" galaxies believed to contain black holes (S.N., vol 157, 4/8/00, p. 235)
3.96B Oldest continental crust, in Canada (Science Horizons Yearbook, '96, p. 337)
3.9B Lunar studies indicate asteroid strikes may have kept Earth uninhabitable up to this point.(Also indicated
by: http://gallery.in%1etch.com/~earthhistory/geologic%20timepage.html)
> Study says bombardment consisted of asteroids, not comets. Supposedly created hydrothermal areas conducive
to the origin of life.(Journal of Geophysical Research Planets, 2/28/02)
> Moon rocks collected in the1970s suggested the moon was blasted in a maelstrom of solar system debris recent
3.85 B Tiny (microscopic?) sphere of graphite found in Greenland indicates presence of life ("Brave New
World," ABC TV, Sept. 2, 1999)(other dating methods place Greenland samples at: 1.5 or 1.71.6BYA.
(Nature, 6/8/00)) Later study fails to find carbon inclusions, throws doubt on interpretation of traces as signs of
life. http://www.innovations%1ereport.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht%1E38796.html
> evidence life existed earlier (SAPMC: p. 16)
> studies suggests life originated in hot water systems (Science Daily web site, 2/28/02)
3.825B Rocks near Hudson Bay (Reuters, Dec. 2002)
Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004)
3800 TO 540 MYA
(http://gallery.in%1etch.com/~earthhistory/geol ogic%20timepage.html)
> oldest discovered subaerial rock (Discovering Fossil Fishes, p. 19)
> comparison of Hf–Nd isotope data on rocks from Greenland, with similar data on lunar rocks and martian
meteorites, shows that the geochemical signature of the Archaean mantle was partly inherited from the initial
differentiation of the Earth. The features seem to indicate that the planet was still losing a substantial amount of
primordial heat.(Nature 404, 488 490 (2000))
> Asteroid bombardment ended (see 3.9B)
> Mars “ocean” vanished or not until 2B? (SN: 12/18&25/99, p. 390)
>Scientists have known that microorganisms have lived in oceans for about 3.8 B...(Scientists: Land Life Began 2.6
3.7B Study finds evidence of life: microscopic globules of graphite ...C12/C13 ratio similar to more modern
deposits (http://cnn.com/TECH/science/9901/28/science.life.reut/)
> Study that “analysed the amount of uranium and thorium in ancient sea floor sediments” claims evidence for
photosynthesis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stm)
> "geological traces that are preserved are not much available before" this(Reuters, Dec. 2002)
3.61.3 B Date range given for formation of traces of microbes in "Mars rock" discovered in Antarctica (later
highly disputed) (see 4.5B, 13K) (SAPMC:, p. 19)
> Date given to Caloris crater, a feature on Mercury indicating massive impact. (SAPMC: p. 29)
3.5B Samples of moon dust “suggest” bombardment of moon & Earth “began to dwindle” (“Meteoric Wallop
may have diversified life” S.N. 157, 3/11/00, p. 165)
> sulphates in rocks in Australia could not have formed without an oxygenrich atmosphere. (Science Daily
webpage, 1/9/02)
> prokaryotic microfossils, cyanobacteria "virtually indistinguishable" from modern forms evidence of 11
distinct species." ... a significant degree of complexity" by at least 3.465B. DNA studies indicate beginning of
eukaryotic life forms. (cf.1.7,1.4,1.2B; 850, 800, 700M).
>(Archaean microbes in Obsidian Pool in Yellowstone park show little change from earliest forms)
>evidence indicates life had become widespread (SAPMC: p. 16)
> Dr Frances Weston of the University of Bologna in Italy thinks she has found cells [in South African rocks] in
the process of dividing.(THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON), June 09, 1999, Wednesday, Pg. 20)
> "Scientists are haggling over an ancient chunk of rock that contains either imperfections or 3,500
millionyearold fossils of bacteria evidence of the oldest form of life on Earth." News report on articles in
Nature, 3/7/02.
> South African Barberton greenstone rock formation reinterpreted as mere Quaternary age. (Geology, Vol. 31,
No. 10, pp. 909–912) “no more than 100,000 years old” (Nature Science Update webpage, 30 October 2003)
3.47 evidence of a huge extraterrestrial object impact researchers estimate it was "between 20 and 50
kilometers across...100 times as massive as" the dinokilling K/T impact.(Science News 8/24/02, p. 115,
Science, Aug. 23, 02)
3.46 Evidence of the earliest dry land, in north western Australia (Science Horizons Yearbook, '96, p. 337)
3.235B probable fossil remains of threadlike (?thermophilic?) microorganisms (Nature 6/8/00, pp. 676679)
3.22.8B Mesoarchaean era? (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
3.2B Australia: the world's oldest oil discovered, suggests that oilforming microorganisms were widespread
very early in the Earth's history...oilforming bacteria may have been among the earliest life, the sulphursprings
that formed the rocks ...the "cradle of life on Earth". (BBC news, 4 August, 00)
3.22.7B Evidence of land mass movement (S.A. Feb. 90)
3 B "age" of 200 yrold lava sample by KAr dating
>Sedimentary rocks over 3BY very rare (Penn State Eberly College Of Science. Posted 1/21/99)
> The largest deposits of gold, in South Africa, were eroded from 3Byo rocks and deposited in 2.75Byo
formation.(Science, 9/13/02)
> Parts of Australia dated over 3BY (Creation, Vol. 22 No. 2, 2000, p 18)
>The moon "rumbled with volcanism until about 3.0" bya (SAPMC: p.19)
> Asteroid & comet impacts “tapered off about 3” Bya (“Meteoric Wallop may have diversified life” S.N. 157,
3/11/00, p. 165)
2.82.7B Pisoliths in Australia indicate oxygenrich atmosphere (Science Daily webpage, 1/9/02)
2.82.5B Neoarchaean era? (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
2.7B 12 galactic years
> Evidence (sterane molecules) of some form of eukaryotic life in Australian rocks (Aug. 13 SCIENCE, as
reported in Science News, Vol 156, Aug. 28, 1999, p. 141)
> "Sequence comparisons of smallsubunit ribosomal RNA genes suggest a deep evolutionary divergence of
Eukarya and Archaea; ...2.7B minimum age on this split (05 July 2001 Nature 412, 66 69)
2.6B Organic matter in South African rocks.(Scientists: Land Life Began 2.6 Billion Years Ago, LONDON
(Reuters)) "...very probably represents remnants of microbial mats that developed on the soil surface..."
Photosynthetic bluegreen algae...are a likely possibility... have nearly identical carbon isotope ratios as modern
bluegreen algal mats in fresh water. "... may then imply that an ozone shield developed before 2.6 billion years
ago... would have protected landbased [life].... Development of the ozone shield requires an oxygenrich
atmosphere. ... a growing line of evidence suggesting that the rise of atmospheric oxygen took place more than
2.6 billion years ago." (Nature 408, 574 578, 30 Nov. 2000)
(Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
“The Proterozoic aeon (2.5 to 0.54 billion years (Gyr) ago) marks the time between the largely anoxic world of
the Archean (> 2.5 Gyr ago) and the dominantly oxic world of the Phanerozoic (< 0.54 Gyr ago).” (Nature 431,
173 177, 09 September 2004)
Palaeoproterozoic era, 2.5B1.6B
Siderian period 2.5B2.3B
2.5B Continents formed at least this long ago but 93 miles of continental height could have eroded away i n this
time (Creation, Vol. 22 No. 2, 2000, pp. 18, 19)
> Section of oceanic mantle almost 1 mile long found in China. (GSA Today July 2002)
> Setterfield adjustment chronology: the Archaean/Proterozoic boundary 2500 million atomic years ago, roughly
corresponds with the birth of Noah in 4136 BC.
2.52.1B Sulfur samples from some of the oldest rocks show a 'profound shift' in atmospheric chemistry, could
mark the first flourish of oxygenproducing bacteria on Earth.
2.4B "oldest known" continental ice sheets
2.32.050B Rhyacian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
2.3B Laterites [banded iron mineral rocks] indicate there must have been atmospheric oxygen and terrestrial life
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991028072233.htm)
> “progressive oxygenation of the deep ocean in response to an increase in atmospheric oxygen”(Nature 431,
173 177, 09 September 2004)
> First eukaryotes formed by two forms of bacteria combining. (S.N. 4/26/02, v. 163, pp. 264266)
2.2B An experimental simulation of nitrogen fixation by lightning, suggests"as atmospheric CO2 decreased ...,
production of nitric oxide from lightning discharge decreased by two orders of magnitude until about 2.2 Gyr.
After this time, the rise in oxygen (or methane) concentrations probably initiated other abiotic sources of
nitrogen. Although the temporary reduction in nitric oxide production may have lasted for only 100 Myr or less,
this was potentially long enough to cause an ecological crisis that triggered the development of biological
nitrogen fixation."
2.22B “...the atmosphere and hydrosphere became pervasively oxygenated between 2 and 2.2 gigayears ago.”
(Nature 425, 279 282,18 September 2003)
2.12.03B increase of oxygen starts abruptly (see 1.5B, 2.52.1, 2.6B)
2.02 Vredfort, South Africa, impact structure, (Science News, 6/15/02, pp. 378380)
2B Edwin Hubble's first result in attempt to date age of universe.
> massive glaciation, uranium decay estimate of age of earth in 1907 (Planet Earth: Ice Ages) oldest Grand
Canyon rocks; 4 supercontinent cycles
> Oldest craters almost this old (S.A. April '90)
> “by 2 billion years ago there were ocean basins” (Discovering Fossil Fishes, p. 19)
>10 oceanfloor cycles (Discovering Fossil Fishes, p. 20, see 200M)
>"Investigators concluded that many [Martian] rocks were deposited by a massive flood at least" 2Bya SAPMC:
p. 35)
> evidence for ocean on Mars? or only until 3.8B? (SN: 12/18&25/99, p. 390)
> Lava on Io 1,900 kelvins, “higher than any known eruption on Earth during the past 2 billion years.” (SN:
10/30/99, p. 156)
> 1st Eukaryotes (“Snowball Earth,” Sci. Am., Jan 2000, pp. 6875)
> Giardia and other diplomonads are thought to be a roughly 2 billion yearold lineage, making them among the
earliest diverging eukaryotes. (The Scientist :: Giardia's sex life revealed, January 26, 2005)
2.050B1.8B Orosirian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
1.9B oxygen greater than 1% of atmosphere oldest craters
1.85 Sudbury, Ontario, impact site (Science News, 6/15/02, pp. 378380)
1.81.6B Statherian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
1.8B 8 galactic years
> Nine 200Mlong oceanfloor cycles (see 2B)
> “the oxidation of dissolved iron, Fe(II), thus ending the deposition of banded iron formations (BIF)”(Nature
431, 173 177, 09 September 2004)
1.75B Oxygen levels reached a critical level (Discovering Fossil Fishes)
1.7B possible 1st eukaryotes possible algae fossils in China
> layers of granite in the deepest part of the Grand Canyon (S.N. ? before Oct 22, 00)
1.71.5B Newer dating of Greenland samples formerly dated 3.85B. (Nature, 6/8/00)
1.6B1B Mesoproterozoic Era
1.6B1.4B Calymmian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
1.6B Three of the major kingdoms of living things animals, plants, and fungi first diverged from a common
ancestor ...earliest date yet obtained by gene studies for this evolutionary event (Source: Penn State Eberly
College Of Science. Posted 1/21/99)
> 8 oceanfloor cycles (see 2B)
1.5B Oxygen level reaches current value
> the cytoskeletal and ecological prerequisites for eukaryotic diversification were already established in
eukaryotic microorganisms in northern Australia.(05 July 2001 Nature 412, 66 69)
> Fungi made landfall about 1.5B (Science, 293, 1129 1132, 2001, per Nature web page, Aug 16th, '01).
> fundamental time of divergence between animals, plants and fungi, according to molecular clock study.
Sponges and coelenterates evolved 1.51.2B(http://www.nature.com/nsu/990204/990204%1E4.html)
1.41.2B Ectasian period(Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
1.4B 1st eukaryotes possibly earlier (multicell seaweeds)? (see 1.6, 1.7, 2, 2.7B)
> Study suggests “elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the ancient atmosphere—between 10 and 200 times the
present atmospheric level.”(Nature 425, 279 282,18 September 2003)
> 7 oceanfloor cycles (see 2B)
1.21B Stonian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
1.2B partial rift in what is now Ohio
> Origin of Nematode worms, according to molecular clock
study.(http://www.nature.com/nsu/990204/990204%1E4.html)
> 6 oceanfloor cycles (see 2B)
>Volcanic activity could produce the entire earth's crust in only 1.2 billion years even with no crust to begin
(Morris, J. '94. The Young Earth)
>evidence for cyanobacteria on land or freshwater (see 2.3B) in the form of mats of bacteria and algae, in cherts
in Arizona ('When algal mats ruled the land', New Scientist, 2 January 1993). (New Scientist, vol 139 issue 1885,
07/08/1993, p 23)
>animals have been evolving steadily into different species for at least 1200 million years (study using gene
sequences) (Penn State Eberly College Of Science. 1/21/99)
>Molecular clock study claims “chordates and echinoderms branched away from arthropods, annelids, and
mollusks” (Discover, Dec. 96, p. 52)
1.1B Trails of worms or wormlike animals! ("Fossil Could Push Advent of Animals Back 500 Million Years:
Early Worm Leaves a Trail?" ABCNEWS.com, 1998) Critics say maybe only half as old.
>Burst of evolutionary activity produces many multicellular forms (which?) (Discovering Fossil Fishes, p. 26)
1B542M Neoproterozoic Era,
1B850M Tonian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
1BYA Two supercontinent cycles estimate of earliest animals?
> molecular clock study claims echinoderms and chordates split (Discover, Dec. 96, p. 52)
> 5 oceanfloor cycles (see 2B)
> 6 Ice Ages in past 1B, about 150M apart, lasting about 50M ea. on avg. (P. E.: Ice Ages)
> Report from UCalDavis of a theory that the early earth was 95% under water and continents appeared
relatively suddenly (only about 200 million years!) (Feb. 2002)
>1B to 800M Earth spinning at faster rate; days only 21 or 22 hours (based on stripes in rocks found in Utah).
> Theory that earth had little topological diversity, shallow seas over 9095% of surface, until supercontinent of
Rodinia rose over a period of about 200M. (Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1/1/02)
>Keplerian motion should destroy the arms of a spiral galaxy in just a few rotations of the galaxy 2001000
million years at most . (Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos)
993M arthropods (insects and crustaceans) and chordates (vertebrates and allies) said to have diverged from a
common ancestor as far back as 993 Mya, according to molecular clock study.
(http://www.nature.com/nsu/990204/990204%1E4.html)
950850M planktonic organisms were at their peak (Discovering Fossil Fishes, p. 26)
900 Million years ago 4 galactic years
880 MYA Ice Age?
870M Setterfield: Noah was given the command to build the Ark around 3656 BC, corresponding to 870
million years atomically.
850M600M Cryogenian period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))850M Spitsbergen area under shallow
seas to 600 M; Eukaryotes undergo marked diversification
830M Ice Age?
800M multicellular seaweed, estimate of earliest animals?
> Four oceanfloor cycles (see 200M)
800600M Ice sheets may have reached the Equator, but maybe there was a belt of open water (NATURE, 25
May 00, v. 405, pp. 425 429)
> Ice Age to 540M? (Discover, April 2000, p. 20)
> "There is genetic evidence that simple plants, such as algae and lichens, colonized the land 800 million years
ago. But no plant fossils from this time have been found." (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030929/030929%1E4.html)
800M580M “Sulphidic conditions may have persisted until a second major rise in oxygen between 0.8 to 0.58
Gyr ago, possibly reducing global rates of primary production and arresting the pace of algal evolution.”(Nature
431, 173 177, 09 September 2004)
750M "North America" rifts from Supercontinent of Rodinia (see 4B, 425M)
> up to 4 extreme climate fluctuations 750580M (see 600, 590) (“Snowball Earth,” Scientific American, Jan
'00, pp. 6875)(NATURE, 18 Jan '01, vol. 409, p. 306)
720M Ice Age (Setterfield attributes the tillites explained as “snowball earth” glacial in origin to the Flood, and
claims all the Flood deposits are found in these strata: “Geologically, this event dates from the NeoProterozoic
around 720 million years ago atomically. This closely approximates the time of Noah's Flood, 3536 BC”)
720630 The Cryogenian (ca. 720–630 million years ago)
730M Setterfield correction: 5424 years ago – Flood – Everything completely destroyed. Only post-Flood strata have
700M(600? 570?) Ediacaran life forms, poss. hydraulic mats; mudburrows, jellyfish, sea pens. Some appear to be
just prokaryotic microbial mats (Geology: Vol. 29, No. 12)
> Controversial theory that continents shifted rapidly: “Evans calculates that the Earth's mantle and crust must
have been moving at well over 20 cm a year, sending the landmasses that eventually became South America and
West Africa scuttling from the equator into the Northern Hemisphere in just 5 million to 10 million years.”
(Nature Science Update, 21 May 2004)
> First (land?) plants, may have triggered this Ice Age(Science, 293, 1129 1132, 2001, per Nature web page,
Aug 16th, '01).
> Queen’s researchers have discovered the mineral ikaite in ... marine sedimentary rocks in the Mackenzie
Mountains of the Northwest Territories and eastern Yukon. This discovery proves that the ancient ocean was
much colder than previously believed...The researchers discovered ikaite at several different levels in what were
believed to be rock formations deposited in shallow, warm oceans during the interval between two ice ages that
extended all the way to the equator millions of years ago. But ikaite forms in shallow water on the sea bottom at
cold temperatures and melts when brought to the surface.
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111090920.htm)
675M 3 galactic years
650M Stripes in Australian rocks indicate moon receding at only 2.5 cm/year (Modern measurements indicate
3.5 cm/year)
600M542M Ediacaran period (Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004))
“... rocks in Australia's Flinders Ranges that record the end of glaciations thought to have covered Earth some
600 million years ago have become the starting point for the Ediacaran.”
> “even the tropics froze over” (“Snowball Earth,” Sci. Am., Jan '00, pp. 6875)
>The Earth might have tilted toward the sun far more than it does today 55 degrees. (article in Nature, per
Flint Journal, Dec 3, '98)
> Three oceanfloor cycles
>Fewness of craters suggests surface of Venus this young (SAPMC: p.31)
> Fullerene rock with "woody structure"
>Study “suggests that genetic analysis could reveal something about the genes of the common ancestor of all
animals that lived more than 600” mya (The Telegraph (online), 99/7/1)
> “Analysis of genetic divergence indicated the split” between simple radial animals and more advanced
bilaterally symmetrical ones occured. Vernanimalcula is claimed to be a microscopic bilaterian.
(http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995070).
> Controversial theory that estrogen was the first of its kind of hormone to evolve (more than 600M), based on
finding similar hormones in sea hare molluscs (Science News 9/20/03, pp. 180181)
>?Cambrian "explosion" begins?(See 544, also 590, 540, 530)(Prob. old source, rounded)
>?1st brachiopods (some representatives still not extinct)(round figure?)
>one estimate of age of Earth by ocean salinity
600540M End of Snowball Earth. Carbon dioxide levels (from vulcanism?) three hundred times present level
estimated to be needed to thaw (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iceage%1E01c.html)
600500M bombardment of Earth/moon “down to an alltime low” (“Meteoric Wallop may have diversified life”
S.N. 157, 3/11/00, p. 165)
Late Precambrian
>A group of vaseshaped microfossils, the chitinozoans, resemble tintinnids and might represent fossil ciliates;
chitinozoans go back into the late Precambrian.
>Many of the very best cnidarian fossils date back to the time when animals first appear in the fossil record, the
Vendian. (Berkeley Tree of Life website?)(see 700M)
>The oldest fossil fungi probably chytridlike forms from the Vendian Period (Late Precambrian), in north
Russia. Older fossils of Precambrian "fungi" are now usually considered to be empty sheaths of filamentous
cyanobacteria, not distinct enough to be placed certainly.
PALEOZOIC ERA: 570/540/542 251/245/225 M
(Lower Paleozoic to 407M)
(See Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004) for most offical dates at that date)
Cambrian Period 590/570/550/544/542/540 510/505/500/490/488.3 M
SKELETONS, (LIKE MOLLUSKS, CORALS) DEVELOP, FIRST CHORDATES EVOLVE (GIVES RISE
TO VERTEBRATES(oldsee 530M)), BURGESS SHALE CREATURES, FIRST TRACES OF VASCULAR
PLANTS (http://gallery.in%1etch.com/~earthhistory/geologic%20timepage.html)
>"Tethys was an ocean when trilobites...flourished" Trilobites abound in shallow seas. Many shelled brachiopods,
gastropods, bivalves; also crinoids, graptolites, sponges & segmented worms
> a few mineralized corallike fossils have turned up
>Cnidarianlike embryos associated with the first shelly fossils in Siberia, in the Lower Cambrian Manykay
Formation(http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/geology/0799geo.htm#S8)
> The oldest probable uniramian known to date is Cambropodus, from the Middle Cambrian of Utah
580M ?end of Ediacaran life? (see 700, 570) 1st macroscopic invertebrate
580M Tommotian life (odd bits of shells) marks transition. Also trace fossils of burrows.
> Sponge embryos in phosphate ore, Guizhou, China SEM study reveals ultrastructures, including yolk
granules, ... cytoskeleton, and nuclei. The granules show features matching the periodicity of known invertebrate
yolk granules (various sources (see PrecambChina.txt), Jan 23, 2001)
575M “Until recently ... the Cambrian explosion...was thought to have occurred some” [575Mya, and lasted for
an indefinite period, but new measurements] “show that it actually began 544 million years ago and lasted just a
few million years (Science 261, 1293–1298; 1993)”(Nature 425, 550 551 (09 October 2003))
> fossils of filterfeeders (frondlike creatures which live attached to the ocean floor) that stretched up to two
metres long—defying paleontologists’ ideas about when the first anatomically complex multicellular animals
evolved. (New Scientist, 11 January 2003, p. 13)
570M Ediacaran fossils of “jellyfish, sea pens, worms and others” (?see 700, 580) (The World Unfolds:
Dinosaurs, '95, published '96)
565M Rangeomorph fossils enigmatic frilly forms, extinct by 540M (SN, July 31, 2004, p. 78)
560M Possible vertebrate fossil in Australia (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAGMOG34MD.html)
555M Study Suggests Macroscopic Bilaterian Animals Did Not Appear earlier. (Science Daily, 9/30/02. Ref.:
PNAS)(but see 600M)
>”The oldest macroscopic fossils that are clearly bilateral are of a mollusclike creature called Kimberella”
(http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995070).
550M fragmentary protocontinents (Planet Earth: Continents in Collision, '83)
> Cambrian explosion begins?(TWUD) (see 600/540/530M)
> "...the Cambrian explosion of 550 m..., the major animal groups evolved over 510 million years." (Nature web
page, Aug. 16, '01)
>?1st trilobites?
>Burgesslike fossil beds in China
>it seems certain that reproduction in twos was well established. (THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), June
09, '99, p. 20)
544M(at least) Microfossils from deepsea hydrothermal systems were not reported in Precambrian rocks
(greater than 544M) until recent discovery of filaments dated 3.235M (see)(Nature 6/8/00, pp 676679)
> CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION: “Until recently ... the Cambrian explosion...was thought to have occurred some”
[575Mya, and lasted for an indefinite period, but new measurements] “show that it actually began 544 million
years ago and lasted just a few million years (Science 261, 1293–1298; 1993)”(Nature 425, 550 551 (09
October 2003))
543M “rapid diversification of bilateral animals in the Cambrian explosion”
(http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995070).
> Precambrian ended 543 mya (Science 2005 310:1910)
540M The animal fossil record stretches back to 540 m (Telegraph website 99/7/1)[?"to"??]
> Controversial theory that plants changed atmosphere and triggered Cambrian explosion
(http://www.nature.com/nsu/030929/030929%1E4.html)
> first major explosion of life in the seas(New Scientist, vol 139, #1885, 07/08/1993, p 23)
>fossil record provides uniformly good documentation of life from this point on (3/2/00 Nature 403, 534 537
"Quality of the fossil record through time")
> Chinese fossils include Xidazoon, weird baglike creature with "a prominent, circular mouth ringed with two
concentric circles of plates" and a set of terminal spines at the other end. Possibly the most similar fossil is
Pipiscius zangerli from the Mazon Creek deposits of 300M Illinois.(Nature, 19 August, ?year?'00?)
> Small shelly fossils in early Cambrian sandstone (various sources (see PrecambChina.txt), Jan 23, 2001)
530M "Cambrian Explosion" Burgess shale deposits(515M?), widely varied exotic forms. appearance of most
or all major animal groups, (phyla)(1140 phyla?)
> Radiometric dating pinpointed age of Chengjiang fossils at 530M, 15M before the Burgess Shale. Samples
include: sponge, jelly fish, jellyfish like organism, worm, Alacomenaeus Simonetta(?), Cindarella eucalla (new
genus of arthropod), many different arthropods... also Algae (4 types), Porifera (10 types), Chancelloriida
(unnamed new genus and species), Priapulida, Lobopodia, Phoronida, Brachiopoda (4 types), Hyolitha,
Hemichordata (2 types), Chordata (Yunnanozoon lividum Hou), possibly Ectoprocta and Annelida, and of
"uncertain affinity": Facivermis yunnanicus, Eldonia eumorpha (Sun and Hou, 1987), Rotadiscus grandis
(various sources (see PrecambChina.txt), Jan 23, 2001)(see Chinese Cambrian.htm)
> paper clipsize impressions “fossils of two fish that push the origin of vertebrates back ... by at least 30” my.
(Science News, Vol 156, Nov. 6, '99, p. 292) fish named Haikouella already displayed many vertebrate characteristics ...some of the 305 fossil specimens Chen's team has recovered are so well preserved that
paleontologists practically swoon over them.
>Tardigrade fossil(s) in Siberia, Russia (Kuonamka formation, Lena area) Middle Cambrian (approx. 530 M),...
“Regrettably” the fossils are already as specialized and diminished as today's tardigrades
>A few mineralized corallike fossils have turned up in the Cambrian Period
>The oldest fossil uniramians are myriapodlike marine organisms from the Cambrian.
>Tracks indicate animals on land: "Lobster-sized, centipede-like animals...25 rows of footprints...in southeastern
Canada...had between 16 and 22 legs, and dragged a tail behind them... may well have been
euthycarcinoids...There are no fossils of land plants as old as the footprints, other than remains of mosslike mats
of greenery. But sandstone rocks of this age are notoriously difficult to date. (Nature online, 30 April 2002, ref.
Geology, 30, 391 394, (2002))
>A number of fossils from the Cambrian have been described which look more or less like onychophorans. ...
Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale form Aysheaia ...rather similar to living forms ...Hallucigenia, armored with
long spines...Xenusion, from early Cambrian sandstones of eastern Europe ...All of these Cambrian forms
differed from living onychophorans in being marine ...do not appear in the fossil record after the Cambrian
520M "late Cambrian" trilobites "most abundant arthropod"
>Extinction of 80% of existing genera (Report dated 08/14/92)[1st of 5 according to Discovering Fossil Fishes,
p. 214, “end of the Cambrian”](500M? also see 440, 425)
> Arrow worms "The discovery of the Lower Cambrian chaetognath (arrow worm) supports the hypothesis that
all living animal phyla appeared in Cambrian times or even earlier, although only one third of them have been
recorded from Lower Cambrian." (Science vol 298, p187, 4 Oct 2002)
515M Conodonts, small (2 in.), softbodied, eellike, named after their (sandgrainsized) teeth (common "all
but ubiquitous" in rocks dated from 520515 to 208205M), classified as vertebrates because they have true teeth
and evidence of a notochord. (see fish fossils at 530M) 23 separate species, evidence they preyed on other
animals. Science Horizons Yearbook, 1996, p. 359 notes they had muscle for vertical eye movement that
"appears only in vertebrates."
511M "The oldest fossil crustaceans ever found...tiny, 1/2mm-long... near the beginning [sic] of the Cambrian
period...very close relatives of modern arthropods like lobsters, crabs and shrimps" (NewScientist.com, "Ancient
fossils suggest fuse for Cambrian explosion" 19 July 01)(see Old Crustaceans.txt) “The unusually complete fossil
510495 Huge stranding event of jellyfish (or up to 7 events), some jellies greater than 50cm, in Wisconsin,
which was about 10 deg. south of the Equator. (GEOLOGY, Feb. 2002, SN 2/9/02)
500M four major land masses before Pangaea. (start of current supercontinent cycle)(PE: C in C)
>Appalachian mts formed, much longer than today, poss. through S. America and Antarctica
> “earlier than about 500 million years ago, the palaeomagnetic data recorded in the rocks becomes
difficult to interpret. Older rocks can be tricky to date accurately, and their magnetic signatures are often
muddied by eons of tectonic movement.”(Nature Science Update, 21 May 2004)
> “the reversion from a benign to a violent solar system about 500”mya (“Meteoric Wallop may have diversified
life” S.N. 157, 3/11/00, p. 165)(see 3.5 B, 3B, 600500M, 400M, 300M)
> ALL (1140?) phyla present (“Snowball Earth,” Scientific American, Jan 2000, pp. 6875)
>Brachiopods(still extant), trilobites abundant
> mollusc Neopilina similar to living ones (Creation, Vol. 22 No. 2, 2000, p 56 (back cover))
>Peripatus supposed ancestor of arthropods etc. (still extant)
> “fossil evidence suggests that the chiton skeleton has changed little since the first appearance of the class in
the Late Cambrian period”(Nature 429, 288 291, 20 May 2004)
>1st chordates?(very old see 515, 530), 1st fish(old see 530M), 1st cephalopods
>Perhaps 80% of genera become extinct in late Cambrian(see 520M)
500-400M fossils showing telltale signs of rampant sexuality ...shells of small creatures called ostracods...(THE
DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), June 09, '99, Pg. 20)
“latest Cambrian” Euthycarcinoid fossil (Nature 430, 554-557, 29 July 2004)
Ordovician period 510/505/500/488.3M 443.7/440/438/430/425M
(See Nature 429, 124 125 (13 May 2004) for most offical dates at that date)
“a period of glaciation on a global scale”(D.F.F. p. 214)
[Heyday of graptolites(still extant as pterobranchs), + corals, brachiopods, cephalopods (500M), echinoids,
bryozoans(all still extant). Number of marine families bloomed from 160 to 530, genera from 470 to 1,580.
The marine taxon Tintinnida has a fairly extensive fossil record...at least to the Ordovician.
Many mountain ranges appear, poss. contributing to explosion of animal groups]
identifiable corals began an evolutionary radiation in the Early Ordovician: included taxa known as tabulate
corals, rugose corals, and heliolitid corals.
FIRST LANDBASED PLANTS, SECOND GREAT EXPANSION AND DIVERSITY OF MARINE LIFE,
JAWLESS FISH APPEAR (but see 530M)