×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Did Land-Dwellers Emerge 65 Million Years Earlier Than Was Thought?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the why-there's-a-snooze-button dept.

Earth 41

ananyo writes "A controversial paper published in Nature argues that enigmatic fossils regarded as ancient sea creatures were actually land-dwelling lichen. If true, that would suggest life on land began 65 million years earlier than researchers now estimate. The nature of fossils from the Ediacaran period, some 635 million–542 million years ago, has been fiercely debated by palaeontologists. But where others envisage Ediacaran sea beds crawling with archaic animals, Gregory Retallack, a geologist at the University of Oregon in Eugene, sees these sites in southern Australia as dry, terrestrial landscapes dotted with lichens. He proposes that rock in the Ediacara Member in South Australia — where palaeontologist Reginald Sprigg first discovered Ediacaran fossils in 1947 — represents ancient soils, and presents new geological data. Among other lines of evidence, Retallack argues that the rock's red colour and weathering pattern indicate that the deposits were formed in terrestrial — not marine — environments (abstract). Others strongly disagree."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

41 comments

Once again... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281111)

Evolution proven to be wrong. Why do people still believe in such a bogus theory?

Re:Once again... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281191)

So which religion do you think got it right?

Re:Once again... (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#42281839)

There's so many, with such a wide range of views, that one of them must have got it right!

On the other hand, itty bitty chemercules organising themselves into the building blocks of life is so unlikely that it clearly cannot happen, even if you wait forever.

I mean, it's like basic statistics what they learns you down in Texas...

Stop belittering Texas !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42282983)

In Texas, the Lone Star State, they do not teach statistics like that.

In fact, they do not teach statistics until you reach the university level.

Re:Once again... (2)

gigaherz (2653757) | about a year ago | (#42281285)

There's one part of me saying "don't feed the troll... don't do it", but it lost. Unlike "alternative theories", science doesn't pretend that everything written must be right, and has room for corrections. Regardless, this doesn't even touch evolution's status. Things DID evolve just fine, they just may have been in dry land somewhat earlier than previously thought.

Re:Once again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281287)

Because we don't believe in raping little boys and taking 8 year olds as brides.

Life on Land May Not Have Evolved From the Sea (5, Interesting)

Hugh Pickens writes (1984118) | about a year ago | (#42281177)

Conventional wisdom has it that complex life evolved in the sea and then crawled up onto land but NPR reports that a provocative new study published in Nature suggests that the earliest large life forms may have appeared on land long before the oceans filled with creatures [npr.org] that swam and crawled and burrowed in the mud. Paleontologists have found fossil evidence for a scattering of animals called Ediacarans that predate the Cambrian explosion about 530 million years ago when complex life suddenly burst forth and filled the seas with a panoply of life forms. Many scientists have assumed Ediacarans were predecessors of jellyfish, worms and other invertebrates [nature.com] but palaeontologist Greg Retallack has been building the case that Ediacarans weren't in fact animals, but actually more like fungi or lichens [wikipedia.org] and that Ediacarans weren't even living in the sea, as everyone has assumed. "What I'm saying for the Ediacaran is that the big [life] forms were on land and life was actually quite a bit simpler in the ocean," says Retallack adding that his new theory lends credence to the idea that life actually evolved on land and then moved into the sea. Paul Knauth at Arizona State University has been pondering this same possibility. "I don't have any problem with early evolution being primarily on land," says Knauth. "I think you can make a pretty good argument for that, and that it came into the sea later. It's kind of a radical idea, but the fact is we don't know." Knauth says it could help explain why the Cambrian explosion appears to be so rapid [wikipedia.org] . It's possible these many life forms gradually evolved on the land and then made a quick dash to the sea. "That means that the Earth was not a barren land surface until about 500 million years ago, as a lot of people have speculated."

Sheldon Cooper loves Penny's .. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281233)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

##

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com]

##

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

##

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

##

"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

##

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

##

[1967] Jim Garrison Interview "In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."

Okay Slashdot! (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#42281291)

Look I understand this is a news aggregator not an originator, but its still a website it should be a little ahead of the MSM. Whats the deal with the apparent pattern of posting whatever they talked about on NPR's all things considered the previous day?

Re:Okay Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281347)

Goddamn if you didn't post exactly the words I was looking for to describe what has happened to this site. You pegged them good. Aggregator and clickbait...

Re:Okay Slashdot! (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42282173)

Mod parent up.

It seems this ananyo submitter, which resolves to Nature.com (?!!?) submits a story that is "New to Timothy"(tm) who dutifully parrots it back to Slashdot. Neither of them read any other news sources, and apparently listen to NTR on the drive into work, so to them, everything looks fresh and interesting.

Re:Okay Slashdot! (2)

Omestes (471991) | about a year ago | (#42283295)

"NTR"?

New Tropical Resort?
Never Trust Rehnquist?
Naked Teddy Roosevelt?
Nevada Television Remotes?
Narwhal Tap Revival?
Numismatist Telecommunication Radio?
Null Thermal Reflux?
Nigerian Theocratic Rector?
Nuclear Televangelist Reactor?

Re:Okay Slashdot! (3, Informative)

ananyo (2519492) | about a year ago | (#42285681)

hi - there's no conspiracy here. I have no special insight in what slashdot editors look for in a submission but I imagine that if they see a well written synopsis that helps. There's no way slashdot (nor any other aggregator site) could ever be ahead of the MSM (if you include Nature in that) on this - as research papers are sent to journalists IN ADVANCE of publication. This is supposedly to allow reporters time to put together an accurate story but also allows journals to control the news agenda a little. So this is why newspapers around the world publish the same science stories from the big journals at the same time.
I live in the UK - so I tend to post stuff to slashdot during my morning. If an embargo lifts at 7 or 10pm in the UK (typical journal embargo times), I'm not around to post it until the next day. Other people often do post the same story before I can as a result.
Lastly, it's no secret that I work for Nature - that's why a link to the news site and some smart googling of my user name reveals who I am. I've noticed the journal Science does the same (sciencehabit). There are good and bad things about that - news stories in Science and Nature are authoritative, in-depth and well balanced. They're far better sources of science news than newspaper coverage by and large, which is patchy and superficial by and large and often fails to address the big holes in the research. Because slashdot has editorial control, the editors get to decide which stories they take and which ones they decline.
I would add that means that slashdot hasn't suffered from the same problems as some other sites, which link to pretty awful stories or worse, journalism-free press releases that are essentially advertisements from researchers/universities.

Re:Okay Slashdot! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#42287537)

You guys forget two facts: Stories are submitted by readers, and voted on in the firehose. Submitted any stories lately? Been to the firehose lately? If not, stop bitching.

In B4 The Anti-God Squad rubbing their noodle (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281305)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

##

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com]

##

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

##

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

##

"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

##

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

##

[1967] Jim Garrison Interview "In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."

Where's the overload welcoming committee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42281531)

People are slowing down here.

Headline is in the form of a question... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#42281793)

... so the answer must be "no". Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Headline is in the form of a question... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#42287609)

Betteridge's law of headlines is like Hanlon's razor: very often wrong. In fact, Betteridge has admitted to breaking his own law, in an article published at his own site!

Jabberjaw? (1)

MooseTick (895855) | about a year ago | (#42282181)

I know Jabberjaw dates back to 1976.I didn't read the article, but are they implying there was marine life even before that?

Controversial paper published? (1, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#42282325)

Remember this next time a creationist or global warming denier claims that scientists can't get published if they don't adhere to the party line.

Re:Controversial paper published? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42282883)

This is more interesting than that. Retallack is a well-respected expert in the area of paleosols (ancient soils) and wrote what is probably the definitive book on the subject [amazon.com] . He's also an expert in many aspects of terrestrial trace fossils and paleobotany. Few people would dispute his contributions in those areas. So he's a well-respected guy, and if anybody is going to recognize a cryptic terrestrial environment, he would. As the article mentions, when Retallack first put forth his "lichen" hypothesis for the Ediacaran fauna, people certainly gave it proper consideration, and they still do so via this recently published paper. It's published, so people will read it. That doesn't mean most people think much of the idea, and I personally don't buy it at all (not only lichens, but terrestrial for these Ediacaran sites? Uh, not a chance in hell for most of them). But yeah, an unusual and fringe interpretation doesn't preclude publication if you make your scientific case well, even if most people don't ultimately buy it.

Publication sometimes happens with reviewers saying something like "I disagree with the authors' interpretation, but if they address points X and Y, it should still be published." Something controversial does have to rise to a bit higher standard to overcome initial impressions and the usual "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" expectation, but controversy will not by itself preclude publication. Some of the best papers ever were "controversial".

Re:Controversial paper published? (4, Insightful)

gewalker (57809) | about a year ago | (#42283017)

There is a significant difference between an article that leaves the basis premise alone but changes some of the details compared to an article that attacks the core of the theory.

Even in the recent case where someone suggested that the speed of light was slightly exceeded by neutrinos the results were broadly assumed to be experimental error because the theory of special relativity is widely considered proven fact. Perhaps a small refinement to SR would accommodate FTL neutrinos -- this would not necessarily destroy the basic theory. Einstein did not destroy Newton, he improved the model.

If I invented a time machine and go back in time to interview Adam & Eve it would be very difficult for a science journal to accept this evidence as scientific because it violates the very concept of scientific study -- natural causes are always assumed as anything else is not science (this assumption is reasonable). Short of time travel, I would say it is impossible for any theory to replace modern evolutionary theory unless it also has a naturalistic explanation. If I found a complete set of mammal fossils in pre-Cambrian rock it would be publishable in Nature, etc. but this does not mean that most evolutionists would suddenly embrace special creation. Evolutionists would simply modify their their to accommodate new data -- they have modified it a number of times in the past to accommodate new data.

In the case of global warming the full-blown time-to-panic theory is not well established as a scientific fact, so it is relatively easy to publish against that oppose this -- if you attempt to say that there is no anthropogenic global warning due to industrial greenhouse gases you will find it much more difficult to get it published -- this is how science works.

Re:Controversial paper published? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42289171)

...natural causes are always assumed as anything else is not science (this assumption is reasonable).

I feel I have to argue for amending this statement slightly, to reflect accurate epistemology and science. In scientific reality, any given thing that one might ascribe as being "supernatural" in origin could occur, -at very low probability-, as a function of quantum behavior. This is, in fact, the current mainline Naturalistic proposal of how the entire universe came to be--Quantum Field Theory. In this respect, "natural" and "supernatural" isn't a distinction grounded in physics, rather, one of scoping and usage of terms.

Since it's a well-known effect of Confirmation Bias to interpret experience according to one's established paradigms, I think it important to note that to be specific, "science" has as a primary criteria events which are essentially reproducible at will (i.e., "testable"), which highly-improbable events, even if quite theoretically grounded in physics, do not necessarily easily meet. I think it best to note this rather than stipulating an exclusionary conceptual scope to "science" (i.e. "natural") that may preclude discovery of valuable knowledge while not, strictly speaking, being scientifically justifiable.

Re:Controversial paper published? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | about a year ago | (#42300147)

"Einstein did not destroy Newton, he improved the model."

That depends. When you look at physics narrowly, we could agree that Einstein expanded Newton's physics.

But there is more at stake. As a natural philosophy, the contents of the two are worlds apart. Newtonian nature was a philosophical center for other thinkers, e.g. Hobbes, and their theories are also questionable.

In terms of actual content, Newton's world lost, and few (if any) think "Newtonian" anymore. Because it is untrue.

Re:Controversial paper published? (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about a year ago | (#42286019)

The thing is that this paper does not counter the Theory of Evolution, the process is not in question just the order of events and it puts forward a reasoned augment for an alternative sequence of events. As opposed to a creationist article which is science is wrong 'God did it'. Actually all creationist articles are always about no, can't, not, never, sort of like religion really.

Sounds pretty weak (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#42282985)

The assessment by the other paleontologists quoted suggests that the evidence is currently weak.

And why is red soil color being used as evidence? Don't they analyze the soil to see what specifically makes it red, and use that as the metric? There are multiple causes of soil and rock redness. Perhaps the author merely tried to simplify the writing and excluded causes. But that makes it a bit misleading, implying that visual inspection is sufficient observation.

Footprints (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#42283035)

Look closely; those are simply the footprints of Martian elephants. Silly earthlings, dontcha know a piece of Mars broke off and drifted to Earth?

Re:Footprints (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42284147)

Look closely; those are simply the footprints of Martian elephants. Silly earthlings, dontcha know a piece of Mars broke off and drifted to Earth?

Hey careful now. Start spewing some outlandish shit like that, and people will start to call you crazy, which apparently is a completely different kind of crazy than those who believe in Zombie Jesus or Noah's awesomely fantastical floating animal sanctuary...

Can you stop asking questions in the title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42283527)

it puts everything that following the same basket as 'did aliens build the pyramid'. What's more if you want to ask questions you've got ask slashotdot for that.

Are you asking or telling, you seem confused.

Waist of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42283683)

Nature must not have much to publish if they waist time with pointless articles like this. I might be dumber for reading it.

Uh Oh ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42283959)

Looks to be, 'back to the alien poop' origin.

XD

Oh dear.

Was the alien poop 'black' or 'white' ?

XD

Worth thinking about (1)

vtcodger (957785) | about a year ago | (#42287859)

By no means a dumb idea, but not especially likely. The Ediacarian/Vendian faunas don't seem closely related to the mainstream faunas of arthropods, echinoderms,brachiopods,vertebrates,etc that appeared a few tens of millions of years later although there are a few tenuous proposed relationships. In all likelihood, the Ediacarians were not ancestoral to the conventional forms. So sure, they could have lived on land (or, one supposes, freshwater lakes) while the conventional forms were evolving in the seas.

On the other hand, it's a little difficult to explain why the ediacarians seem to disappear shortly after the conventional critters arrive on the scene. ... Unless one assumes that the often mobile, and sometimes toothy, conventional critters ate the presumably more or less sessile Ediacarians -- which is only possible if both types lived in the same medium

Martians left Mars, hence the red color. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42288449)

Obviously the Martians crashed into the water, and the space vehicles have since been destroyed by time and weather and such. Simply put, Martians were once real, but they have since ceased to exist.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...