Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch


tech / sci.bio.paleontology / Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

SubjectAuthor
* Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.erik simpson
`* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Peter Nyikos
 `* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.erik simpson
  +* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Oxyaena
  |`* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.erik simpson
  | `* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Ruben Safir
  |  +- Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Oxyaena
  |  `* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Peter Nyikos
  |   `* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Ruben Safir
  |    `- Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Peter Nyikos
  `* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Peter Nyikos
   +* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.erik simpson
   |+* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Oxyaena
   ||`* Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.erik simpson
   || `- Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Oxyaena
   |`- Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Peter Nyikos
   `- Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.Oxyaena

1
Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3171&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3171

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:29cb:: with SMTP id gh11mr1897378qvb.55.1627510850341;
Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:5d02:: with SMTP id r2mr2750987ybb.82.1627510850102;
Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!fdc2.netnews.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.34.122.133; posting-account=7D0teAoAAAB8rB1xAF_p12nmePXF7epT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.34.122.133
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: eastside...@gmail.com (erik simpson)
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:20:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1550
 by: erik simpson - Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:20 UTC

Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9

The article being descibed is currently open source:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z

and can be downloaded as a PDF.

The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3174&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3174

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a154:: with SMTP id k81mr18972476qke.202.1627955747773;
Mon, 02 Aug 2021 18:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:f80a:: with SMTP id u10mr24773241ybd.391.1627955747551;
Mon, 02 Aug 2021 18:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:5cca:95c3:4c43:331c;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:5cca:95c3:4c43:331c
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 01:55:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 01:55 UTC

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>
> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals

Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"

And the second sentence of text goes:

"If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."

But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:

"A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021

https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3

You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM

[Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]

> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9

The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.

But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.

> The article being descibed is currently open source:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z

Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
"Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
the Discussion we suddenly see:

"possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"

and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread ..

Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

> and can be downloaded as a PDF.
>
> The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
> are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.

I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3175&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3175

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5cee:: with SMTP id iv14mr19848708qvb.33.1627964945162;
Mon, 02 Aug 2021 21:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1ac3:: with SMTP id a186mr13241383yba.465.1627964944898;
Mon, 02 Aug 2021 21:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=45.130.83.154; posting-account=7D0teAoAAAB8rB1xAF_p12nmePXF7epT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.130.83.154
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com> <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: eastside...@gmail.com (erik simpson)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 04:29:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: erik simpson - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 04:29 UTC

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> >
> > https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
>
> And the second sentence of text goes:
>
> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>
> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
>
> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
>
> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
>
> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
>
> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
>
>
>
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
>
> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
>
> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
> > The article being descibed is currently open source:
> >
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> the Discussion we suddenly see:
>
> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>
> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
>
>
> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
> > and can be downloaded as a PDF.
> >
> > The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
> > are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.
> I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
publication? It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
certainty (or uncertainty).

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<sebuce$kli$1@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3176&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3176

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:28:40 -0400
Message-ID: <sebuce$kli$1@solani.org>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
<1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:28:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="21170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pEDOHwWOwUwEtaeMIno/n5Vy+Ow=
X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBACAIA8BKoownDqDrH8E7HBMbV4MpCN67HHi9h4VoquxVFlmuGfdYh2/zzCApU1eUS8+8J5PowQdbQxXZ
In-Reply-To: <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Oxyaena - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:28 UTC

On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
>> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
>>
>> And the second sentence of text goes:
>>
>> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>>
>> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
>> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
>> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
>> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
>>
>> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
>> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
>> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
>> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
>>
>> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
>>
>> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
>> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
>> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
>> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
>>
>> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
>>
>>
>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
>>
>> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
>> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
>>
>> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
>>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
>> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
>> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
>> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
>> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
>> the Discussion we suddenly see:
>>
>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>>
>> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
>>
>>
>> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
>>> and can be downloaded as a PDF.
>>>
>>> The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
>>> are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.
>> I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> publication? It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> certainty (or uncertainty).
>

The 2Gyo organisms probably represent an early experiment into
multicellularity that didn't really pan out after oxygen levels dropped
again after the GOE. I'd be surprised if they really are metazoans, the
earliest certain putative fossils of Opisthokonts known are 1.1 gyo
fungal fossils found in the Canadian Arctic:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31118507/

The time span between 1.1-2 gya is a difference of 900 million years,
and contrary to Peter's hand-wringing about "a mere gigayear" a while
back, 900 million years IS a long time.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3177&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3177

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f0c:: with SMTP id gw12mr23451940qvb.33.1628023600001; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 13:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ce0e:: with SMTP id x14mr22969345ybe.82.1628023599641; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 13:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sebuce$kli$1@solani.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.34.122.133; posting-account=7D0teAoAAAB8rB1xAF_p12nmePXF7epT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.34.122.133
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com> <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com> <sebuce$kli$1@solani.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: eastside...@gmail.com (erik simpson)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 20:46:39 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 126
 by: erik simpson - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:46 UTC

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
> >> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> >> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
> >>
> >> And the second sentence of text goes:
> >>
> >> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
> >>
> >> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> >> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> >> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> >> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
> >>
> >> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> >> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> >> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> >> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
> >>
> >> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
> >>
> >> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> >> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> >> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> >> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
> >>
> >> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
> >>
> >> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
> >> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
> >>
> >> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
> >>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
> >> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> >> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> >> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> >> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> >> the Discussion we suddenly see:
> >>
> >> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> >>
> >> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
> >>
> >>
> >> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
> >>> and can be downloaded as a PDF.
> >>>
> >>> The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
> >>> are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.
> >> I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> University of South Carolina
> >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >
> > What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> > publication? It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> > to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> > not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> > certainty (or uncertainty).
> >
> The 2Gyo organisms probably represent an early experiment into
> multicellularity that didn't really pan out after oxygen levels dropped
> again after the GOE. I'd be surprised if they really are metazoans, the
> earliest certain putative fossils of Opisthokonts known are 1.1 gyo
> fungal fossils found in the Canadian Arctic:
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31118507/
>
> The time span between 1.1-2 gya is a difference of 900 million years,
> and contrary to Peter's hand-wringing about "a mere gigayear" a while
> back, 900 million years IS a long time.

To paraphrase Walt Kelly, there's nothing mere about a gigayear. Even 100 million
is a long time. At 2 Gy, multicellular organisms would seem to be almost impossible
to identify with metazoa. Maybe Holozoa, but we really don't have a good idea what
life looked like that far back, and the use of molecular clocks amounts to serious
extrapolation.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3178&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3178

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:66d2:: with SMTP id m18mr20130043qtp.196.1628024052578;
Tue, 03 Aug 2021 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa94:: with SMTP id t20mr30544642ybi.127.1628024052374;
Tue, 03 Aug 2021 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:bdf4:be91:66fb:b264;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:bdf4:be91:66fb:b264
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 20:54:12 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 7326
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:54 UTC

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> > >
> > > https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals

> > Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> > The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
> >
> > And the second sentence of text goes:
> >
> > "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
> >
> > But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> > to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> > fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.

"stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.

"believed to be..." is partly based on the following popularization of the scientific article on these organisms:

"Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals"
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals#

> > The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> > doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
> >
> > "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> > by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> > Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> > Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
> >
> > https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3

As you can see, the "missing link" article was less cautious in the wording of its title. It advanced the
hypothesis that these were stem animals in the sense I gave up there, but without the use of "stem".

> > You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> > and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> > Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> > May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
> >
> > [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
We also commented on the "missing link" popularization, which I linked already in the OP.

> >
> >
> > > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
> >
> > The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
> > and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
> >
> > But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
> > > The article being descibed is currently open source:
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
> > Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> > "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> > gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> > nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> > the Discussion we suddenly see:
> >
> > "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> >
> > and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
> >
> >
> > Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing..

<snip of earlier text, not commented on this time>

> What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> publication?

Yeah, what does it matter whether the public is under the mistaken impression that these are serious
scientists who care about the data in the very article which they are popularizing?

Who gives a hoot about that, as long as the authors aren't creationists, eh? :-(

> It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> certainty (or uncertainty).

What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:

"possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"

This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.

Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.

And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.

Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3179&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3179

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a00c:: with SMTP id j12mr22066159qke.249.1628024630047;
Tue, 03 Aug 2021 14:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3604:: with SMTP id d4mr1570320yba.523.1628024629727;
Tue, 03 Aug 2021 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.34.122.133; posting-account=7D0teAoAAAB8rB1xAF_p12nmePXF7epT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.34.122.133
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: eastside...@gmail.com (erik simpson)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 21:03:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: erik simpson - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:03 UTC

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>
> > > Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> > > The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
> > >
> > > And the second sentence of text goes:
> > >
> > > "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
> > >
> > > But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> > > to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> > > fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.
> "stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
> Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
> than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.
>
> "believed to be..." is partly based on the following popularization of the scientific article on these organisms:
>
> "Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals"
> https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals#
> > > The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> > > doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
> > >
> > > "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> > > by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> > > Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> > > Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
> > >
> > > https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
> As you can see, the "missing link" article was less cautious in the wording of its title. It advanced the
> hypothesis that these were stem animals in the sense I gave up there, but without the use of "stem".
> > > You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> > > and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> > > Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> > > May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
> > >
> > > [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
> We also commented on the "missing link" popularization, which I linked already in the OP.
> > >
> > >
> > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
> > >
> > > The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
> > > and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
> > >
> > > But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
> > > > The article being descibed is currently open source:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
> > > Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> > > "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> > > gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> > > nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> > > the Discussion we suddenly see:
> > >
> > > "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> > >
> > > and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
> > >
> > >
> > > Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
> <snip of earlier text, not commented on this time>
> > What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> > publication?
> Yeah, what does it matter whether the public is under the mistaken impression that these are serious
> scientists who care about the data in the very article which they are popularizing?
>
> Who gives a hoot about that, as long as the authors aren't creationists, eh? :-(
> > It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> > to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> > not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> > certainty (or uncertainty).
> What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
> isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:
> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
> so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.
>
>
> Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
> based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.
>
>
> And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.
>
>
> Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

I will not comment further. My "2 Gy" was a slip, your incivility is not, eh?

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<secdqd$3oe$1@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3180&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3180

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:52:07 -0400
Message-ID: <secdqd$3oe$1@solani.org>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
<1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:52:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="3854"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5eQlK5mwYEJMuVjBETMcZKQMLEk=
In-Reply-To: <2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXEC2yc0Da/09Ygh0r3j2BOBCkOFVszTSr44MrV9Ye4hovvfOZzeQ49GBsLycor7Yc+wGZFBcx
 by: Oxyaena - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:52 UTC

On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>
>>> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
>>> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
>>>
>>> And the second sentence of text goes:
>>>
>>> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>>>
>>> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
>>> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
>>> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.
>
> "stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
> Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
> than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.
>

[snip idiocy]

>
>
>> It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
>> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
>> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
>> certainty (or uncertainty).
>
> What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
> isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:

You really don't know? Here's a refresher for you, Peter:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm

>
> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>
> This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
> so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.

Sensationalism sells, Peter.

>
>
> Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
> based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.
>
>
> And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.
>
>
> Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?

Says the asshole blustering about a "mere billion years."

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<secds3$3oe$2@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3181&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3181

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:53:02 -0400
Message-ID: <secds3$3oe$2@solani.org>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
<1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
<80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:53:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="3854"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:syigwfDDQdioxkOIEO2j6RgE0Bw=
Content-Language: en-US
X-User-ID: eJwNyckBwDAIA7CVoAUHxuGI9x+h1Vf+QjHH4DCnE3IXJg3wem5Y1u0uZkfxKFvPqM2f5uuP1AZmLEpk3mV+db8WiQ==
In-Reply-To: <80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Oxyaena - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:53 UTC

On 8/3/2021 5:03 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>>
>>>> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
>>>> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
>>>>
>>>> And the second sentence of text goes:
>>>>
>>>> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>>>>
>>>> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
>>>> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
>>>> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.
>> "stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
>> Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
>> than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.
>>
>> "believed to be..." is partly based on the following popularization of the scientific article on these organisms:
>>
>> "Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals"
>> https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals#
>>>> The author, science journalist Michael Price,
>>>> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
>>>>
>>>> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
>>>> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
>>>> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
>>>> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
>> As you can see, the "missing link" article was less cautious in the wording of its title. It advanced the
>> hypothesis that these were stem animals in the sense I gave up there, but without the use of "stem".
>>>> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
>>>> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
>>>> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
>>>> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
>>>>
>>>> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
>> We also commented on the "missing link" popularization, which I linked already in the OP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
>>>>
>>>> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
>>>> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
>>>>
>>>> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
>>>>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
>>>> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
>>>> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
>>>> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
>>>> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
>>>> the Discussion we suddenly see:
>>>>
>>>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>>>>
>>>> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
>> <snip of earlier text, not commented on this time>
>>> What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
>>> publication?
>> Yeah, what does it matter whether the public is under the mistaken impression that these are serious
>> scientists who care about the data in the very article which they are popularizing?
>>
>> Who gives a hoot about that, as long as the authors aren't creationists, eh? :-(
>>> It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
>>> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
>>> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
>>> certainty (or uncertainty).
>> What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
>> isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:
>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>> This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
>> so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.
>>
>>
>> Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
>> based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.
>>
>>
>> And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.
>>
>>
>> Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> I will not comment further. My "2 Gy" was a slip, your incivility is not, eh?
>

Oh? So you weren't aware of it either. Well, here's a link to catch you up:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm

I'm surprised neither of you were aware of this.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<0b22ad0f-107c-446f-b404-07a6a29393bdn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3182&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3182

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6709:: with SMTP id e9mr20554021qtp.149.1628028563074; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa94:: with SMTP id t20mr30907589ybi.127.1628028562800; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <secds3$3oe$2@solani.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.34.122.133; posting-account=7D0teAoAAAB8rB1xAF_p12nmePXF7epT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.34.122.133
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com> <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com> <2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com> <80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com> <secds3$3oe$2@solani.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0b22ad0f-107c-446f-b404-07a6a29393bdn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: eastside...@gmail.com (erik simpson)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 22:09:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 161
 by: erik simpson - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:09 UTC

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 2:53:10 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 5:03 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
> >>
> >>>> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> >>>> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
> >>>>
> >>>> And the second sentence of text goes:
> >>>>
> >>>> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
> >>>>
> >>>> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> >>>> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> >>>> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.
> >> "stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
> >> Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
> >> than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.
> >>
> >> "believed to be..." is partly based on the following popularization of the scientific article on these organisms:
> >>
> >> "Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals"
> >> https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals#
> >>>> The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> >>>> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
> >>>>
> >>>> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> >>>> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> >>>> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> >>>> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
> >> As you can see, the "missing link" article was less cautious in the wording of its title. It advanced the
> >> hypothesis that these were stem animals in the sense I gave up there, but without the use of "stem".
> >>>> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> >>>> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> >>>> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> >>>> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
> >>>>
> >>>> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
> >> We also commented on the "missing link" popularization, which I linked already in the OP.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
> >>>>
> >>>> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
> >>>> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar..
> >>>>
> >>>> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
> >>>>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
> >>>> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> >>>> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> >>>> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> >>>> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> >>>> the Discussion we suddenly see:
> >>>>
> >>>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> >>>>
> >>>> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
> >> <snip of earlier text, not commented on this time>
> >>> What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> >>> publication?
> >> Yeah, what does it matter whether the public is under the mistaken impression that these are serious
> >> scientists who care about the data in the very article which they are popularizing?
> >>
> >> Who gives a hoot about that, as long as the authors aren't creationists, eh? :-(
> >>> It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> >>> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> >>> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> >>> certainty (or uncertainty).
> >> What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
> >> isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:
> >> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> >> This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
> >> so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
> >> based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.
> >>
> >>
> >> And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.
> >>
> >>
> >> Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >
> > I will not comment further. My "2 Gy" was a slip, your incivility is not, eh?
> >
> Oh? So you weren't aware of it either. Well, here's a link to catch you up:
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm
>
> I'm surprised neither of you were aware of this.

Thanks, I'd missed it. I was thinking of the ~1 Gya "possible Holozoan" fossils, but wrote 2 Gya by
mistake. Confusio regnat. Even so, I'm done with Peter.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<secgee$5n5$1@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3183&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3183

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:36:50 -0400
Message-ID: <secgee$5n5$1@solani.org>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
<1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com>
<80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>
<secds3$3oe$2@solani.org>
<0b22ad0f-107c-446f-b404-07a6a29393bdn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:37:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="5861"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mbZKC20wfCG4Np7cOM4SZLoVg6w=
In-Reply-To: <0b22ad0f-107c-446f-b404-07a6a29393bdn@googlegroups.com>
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwDAEBMCVhPdinCL2H6F3bjzsAJ3w9c0S9K1UjD0t8ZWME5952ECoVeQjvhrtZ8+YiLG83ppY/D9FFN4=
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Oxyaena - Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:36 UTC

On 8/3/2021 6:09 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 2:53:10 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 8/3/2021 5:03 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>>>>
>>>>>> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
>>>>>> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the second sentence of text goes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
>>>>>> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
>>>>>> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.
>>>> "stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
>>>> Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
>>>> than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.
>>>>
>>>> "believed to be..." is partly based on the following popularization of the scientific article on these organisms:
>>>>
>>>> "Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals"
>>>> https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals#
>>>>>> The author, science journalist Michael Price,
>>>>>> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
>>>>>> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
>>>>>> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
>>>>>> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
>>>> As you can see, the "missing link" article was less cautious in the wording of its title. It advanced the
>>>> hypothesis that these were stem animals in the sense I gave up there, but without the use of "stem".
>>>>>> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
>>>>>> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
>>>>>> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
>>>>>> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
>>>> We also commented on the "missing link" popularization, which I linked already in the OP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
>>>>>> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
>>>>>>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
>>>>>> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
>>>>>> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
>>>>>> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
>>>>>> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
>>>>>> the Discussion we suddenly see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
>>>> <snip of earlier text, not commented on this time>
>>>>> What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
>>>>> publication?
>>>> Yeah, what does it matter whether the public is under the mistaken impression that these are serious
>>>> scientists who care about the data in the very article which they are popularizing?
>>>>
>>>> Who gives a hoot about that, as long as the authors aren't creationists, eh? :-(
>>>>> It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
>>>>> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
>>>>> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
>>>>> certainty (or uncertainty).
>>>> What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
>>>> isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:
>>>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>>>> This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
>>>> so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
>>>> based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>
>>> I will not comment further. My "2 Gy" was a slip, your incivility is not, eh?
>>>
>> Oh? So you weren't aware of it either. Well, here's a link to catch you up:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm
>>
>> I'm surprised neither of you were aware of this.
>
> Thanks, I'd missed it. I was thinking of the ~1 Gya "possible Holozoan" fossils, but wrote 2 Gya by
> mistake. Confusio regnat. Even so, I'm done with Peter.
>

Fair, that is entirely reasonable. I don't expect Peter to man up enough
to admit HE's the one who made the mistake.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<c59fb053-7cae-40b8-8680-f859f5ff5038n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3184&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3184

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:eb85:: with SMTP id b127mr1101313qkg.151.1628106374272;
Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d70c:: with SMTP id o12mr1357028ybg.222.1628106374066;
Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 12:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:a52b:8137:6390:8509;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:a52b:8137:6390:8509
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<2118c867-6e7b-42ae-ac26-b5204de895f7n@googlegroups.com> <80a8a767-d300-4011-bed5-13b9fce70a09n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c59fb053-7cae-40b8-8680-f859f5ff5038n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 19:46:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Peter Nyikos - Wed, 4 Aug 2021 19:46 UTC

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 5:03:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
> >
> > > > Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> > > > The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?"
> > > >
> > > > And the second sentence of text goes:
> > > >
> > > > "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
> > > >
> > > > But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> > > > to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> > > > fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals.
> > "stem animals" refer to extinct organisms that are more closely related to animals than to other holozoans.
> > Their more organized and differentiated multicellular structure may put them closer to animals
> > than to choanoflagellates and other mostly one-celled holozoans.
> >
> > "believed to be..." is partly based on the following popularization of the scientific article on these organisms:
> >
> > "Billion-year-old fossil reveals missing link in the evolution of animals"
> > https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals#
> > > > The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> > > > doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
> > > >
> > > > "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> > > > by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> > > > Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> > > > Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
> > > >
> > > > https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3

> > As you can see, the "missing link" article was less cautious in the wording of its title. It advanced the
> > hypothesis that these were stem animals in the sense I gave up there, but without the use of "stem".

> > > > You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> > > > and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> > > > Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> > > > May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
> > > >
> > > > [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
> > We also commented on the "missing link" popularization, which I linked already in the OP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
> > > >
> > > > The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal"
> > > > and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
> > > >
> > > > But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.

> > > > > The article being described is currently open source:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z

> > > > Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> > > > "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> > > > gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> > > > nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> > > > the Discussion we suddenly see:
> > > >
> > > > "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> > > >
> > > > and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

> > <snip of earlier text, not commented on this time>

> > > What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> > > publication?
> > Yeah, what does it matter whether the public is under the mistaken impression that these are serious
> > scientists who care about the data in the very article which they are popularizing?
> >
> > Who gives a hoot about that, as long as the authors aren't creationists, eh? :-(

> > > It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> > > to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> > > not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> > > certainty (or uncertainty).

> > What 2 Gya organisms? Perhaps you should leave off bottom posting if your short-term memory
> > isn't good enough to get such simple one-liners as the following straight:
> > "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> > This is from the peer-reviewed paper which both of the two "science journalists" were covering,
> > so you don't have the excuse that someone of whom you've cooked up a negative opinion wrote it.
> >
> >
> > Just look at how Oxyaena blindly followed you, and then made a demeaning crack
> > based on ignorance, further perpetuating your mistake.
> >
> >
> > And then you made another crack just now, blindly following her.
> >
> >
> > Would either of you have EVER caught your <cough> "minor" <cough> 1gya mistake, if I hadn't posted this?

> I will not comment further. My "2 Gy" was a slip,

Unintentional? or a joke? Keep in mind that your role model Harshman has me under suspicion
of insanity for not being able to recognize jokes.

> your incivility is not, eh?

Since when do YOU care about civility?

Incivility on the level I used is not a vice in dealing with a devil-may-care attitude about whether science
journalists are distorting the public perception of the contents of papers in _Nature_.

And in the same way, to boot: one headline says,
"Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth’s first animals?" in _Science_, no less.

The other headline is less cautious:
"Sponge-like fossil could be Earth’s earliest known animal" -- news item in _Nature_, no less.

But both articles freely admit that the identification as a sponge is quite controversial,
with other possible interpretations very far even from holozoans.

The second headline is in the same journal, _Nature_, in which the peer-reviewed article
appeared, the very article that both journalists are ostensibly reviewing.

Yet the only hint in THAT article goes the other way as far as "first animals" are concerned,
if these are not sponges:

"possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"

Note: Holozoa is a clade that includes Animalia, and there is no commitment here as to where
in Holozoa the "possible evidence" points. For details, see the article in [49], linked far above.

I estimate that at least a hundred times more people read these popularizations than they do
the original peer-reviewed articles. Evidently you don't care whether the people who are
excited by these two articles waste a lot of time thinking in only one direction which might not pan out.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

**************** QUOTE OF THE DAY *******************

"The public be damned."

-- attributed to W. H. Vanderbilt; for details see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Vanderbilt

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3190&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3190

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: mrbrk...@panix.com (Ruben Safir)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 02:35:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com> <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com> <sebuce$kli$1@solani.org> <e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 02:35:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
logging-data="14900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.5-20201224 ("Glen Albyn") (NetBSD/9.0 (amd64))
 by: Ruben Safir - Sun, 8 Aug 2021 02:35 UTC

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> >>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>> >> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
>> >> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth???s first animals?"
>> >>
>> >> And the second sentence of text goes:
>> >>
>> >> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>> >>
>> >> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
>> >> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
>> >> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
>> >> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
>> >>
>> >> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
>> >> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
>> >> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
>> >> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
>> >>
>> >> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
>> >>
>> >> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
>> >> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
>> >> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
>> >> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
>> >>
>> >> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
>> >>
>> >> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth???s earliest known animal"
>> >> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
>> >>
>> >> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
>> >>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
>> >> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
>> >> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
>> >> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
>> >> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
>> >> the Discussion we suddenly see:
>> >>
>> >> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>> >>
>> >> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
>> >>> and can be downloaded as a PDF.
>> >>>
>> >>> The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
>> >>> are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.
>> >> I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Peter Nyikos
>> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> >> University of South Carolina
>> >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>> >
>> > What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
>> > publication? It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
>> > to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
>> > not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
>> > certainty (or uncertainty).
>> >
>> The 2Gyo organisms probably represent an early experiment into
>> multicellularity that didn't really pan out after oxygen levels dropped
>> again after the GOE. I'd be surprised if they really are metazoans, the
>> earliest certain putative fossils of Opisthokonts known are 1.1 gyo
>> fungal fossils found in the Canadian Arctic:
>>
>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31118507/
>>
>> The time span between 1.1-2 gya is a difference of 900 million years,
>> and contrary to Peter's hand-wringing about "a mere gigayear" a while
>> back, 900 million years IS a long time.
>
> To paraphrase Walt Kelly, there's nothing mere about a gigayear. Even 100 million
> is a long time. At 2 Gy, multicellular organisms would seem to be almost impossible
> to identify with metazoa. Maybe Holozoa, but we really don't have a good idea what
> life looked like that far back, and the use of molecular clocks amounts to serious
> extrapolation.

One of the things that suprised scientist when genetic evaluation was
possible of microbial organisms, even bacterium, was the depth of the
of evolutionary tree that was produced. For starters, we are not nearly
equaly realated to most bactrium, and Eurakarites branch from the
smallest portion of Bacterium, and Multicellular plants and animals
likewise. It would seem obvious now, but at the time, it was a shock to
see that billions of years of evolution seperated Bacterium species.

And the suprises just kept on coming

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123014634500115

https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30257-5#secst0095

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440604/ <<==execellent
read

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<seo88b$73v$1@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3191&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3191

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 05:30:49 -0400
Message-ID: <seo88b$73v$1@solani.org>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com>
<1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<sebuce$kli$1@solani.org>
<e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com>
<senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 09:30:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="7295"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u/T1phwD0Ya5xjXkfcx1G30vJHY=
In-Reply-To: <senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com>
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXBFqw5yiT/09YwkjLLiQTHA4Anu4vyqlXlPfbxrxCPdaeREm3zWMJePq6dXy51Uzw/jZqFMU=
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Oxyaena - Sun, 8 Aug 2021 09:30 UTC

On 8/7/2021 10:35 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals
>>>>> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
>>>>> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth???s first animals?"
>>>>>
>>>>> And the second sentence of text goes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
>>>>>
>>>>> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
>>>>> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
>>>>> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
>>>>> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
>>>>> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
>>>>> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
>>>>> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
>>>>>
>>>>> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
>>>>> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each doing one post. I did the OP:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
>>>>> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
>>>>> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
>>>>>
>>>>> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth???s earliest known animal"
>>>>> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
>>>>>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
>>>>> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
>>>>> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
>>>>> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
>>>>> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
>>>>> the Discussion we suddenly see:
>>>>>
>>>>> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
>>>>>
>>>>> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
>>>>>> and can be downloaded as a PDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
>>>>>> are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.
>>>>> I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>> University of South Carolina
>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>
>>>> What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
>>>> publication? It's obvioiusly (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
>>>> to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
>>>> not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
>>>> certainty (or uncertainty).
>>>>
>>> The 2Gyo organisms probably represent an early experiment into
>>> multicellularity that didn't really pan out after oxygen levels dropped
>>> again after the GOE. I'd be surprised if they really are metazoans, the
>>> earliest certain putative fossils of Opisthokonts known are 1.1 gyo
>>> fungal fossils found in the Canadian Arctic:
>>>
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31118507/
>>>
>>> The time span between 1.1-2 gya is a difference of 900 million years,
>>> and contrary to Peter's hand-wringing about "a mere gigayear" a while
>>> back, 900 million years IS a long time.
>>
>> To paraphrase Walt Kelly, there's nothing mere about a gigayear. Even 100 million
>> is a long time. At 2 Gy, multicellular organisms would seem to be almost impossible
>> to identify with metazoa. Maybe Holozoa, but we really don't have a good idea what
>> life looked like that far back, and the use of molecular clocks amounts to serious
>> extrapolation.
>
>
> One of the things that suprised scientist when genetic evaluation was
> possible of microbial organisms, even bacterium, was the depth of the
> of evolutionary tree that was produced. For starters, we are not nearly
> equaly realated to most bactrium, and Eurakarites branch from the
> smallest portion of Bacterium, and Multicellular plants and animals
> likewise. It would seem obvious now, but at the time, it was a shock to
> see that billions of years of evolution seperated Bacterium species.
>
> And the suprises just kept on coming
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123014634500115
>
> https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30257-5#secst0095
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440604/ <<==execellent
> read
>
>
>

Welcome back, ruben. Long time no see.

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<01290d43-8c5c-4e76-866c-1fc5a4ec47fcn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3241&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3241

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:135c:: with SMTP id c28mr27738622qkl.18.1629831356088; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c095:: with SMTP id c143mr12276442ybf.179.1629831355815; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:91f:1088:a843:73aa; posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:91f:1088:a843:73aa
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com> <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com> <sebuce$kli$1@solani.org> <e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com> <senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <01290d43-8c5c-4e76-866c-1fc5a4ec47fcn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:55:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 180
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:55 UTC

Ruben! It's so good to see a post from you again. I'm just sorry I've missed it until now,
and I hope you are still around.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:35:03 PM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:
> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >> > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:20:50 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >> >>> Some news descriptions of a possible sponge fossil are:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/do-these-fossilized-structures-belong-earth-s-first-animals

> >> >> Very interesting, but also a strange case of "ignoring the elephant in the room and moving on."
> >> >> The title of the article goes: "Do these fossilized structures belong to Earth's first animals?"
> >> >>
> >> >> And the second sentence of text goes:
> >> >>
> >> >> "If the claim bears out, the structures would represent the oldest animal fossils yet found."
> >> >>
> >> >> But the article focuses after that about whether these things are sponges and never returns
> >> >> to the theme of these two announcements. And "the elephant in the room" is a collection of gigayear-old
> >> >> fossils believed to be of animals, or at least stem animals. The author, science journalist Michael Price,
> >> >> doesn't seem to know about them, yet they were described in a prestigious journal:
> >> >>
> >> >> "A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity,"
> >> >> by Paul K. Strother, Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey, Leslie Timpe,
> >> >> Martin Saunders, Charles H. Wellman,
> >> >> Current Biology 31, 1--8 June 21, 2021
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2821%2900424-3
> >> >>
> >> >> You and John and I commented on it in several posts, and Glenn (I hear you going "hiss" :)
> >> >> and Trolidous ("yay!" I say, and you can too) each [did] one post. I did the OP:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/2KXAzM6x-q4/m/Nc8Q2U5jAQAJ
> >> >> Billion year old fossils of an exciting new sort
> >> >> May 28, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
> >> >>
> >> >> [Yeah, almost a month before the putative date of the article. I haven't tried to figure that one out.]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02066-9
> >> >>
> >> >> The title blares it out in big type: "Sponge-like fossil could be Earth's earliest known animal"
> >> >> and the caption to the video in the middle of the article is similar.
> >> >>
> >> >> But the author, Max Kozlov, seems oblivious to that earlier article in _Current_Biology_.
> >> >>> The article being descibed is currently open source:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03773-z
> >> >> Here, the whole situation is turned on its head. The title,
> >> >> "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reef,"
> >> >> gives no mention of this "earliest known animal" possibility; nor does the Abstract;
> >> >> nor do the Background and Results sections of the article. But a good bit down in
> >> >> the Discussion we suddenly see:
> >> >>
> >> >> "possible evidence of 1-billion-year-old multicellular holozoans [49],"
> >> >>
> >> >> and Lo! [49] is our old friend from _Current_Biology_ on that other thread .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Truly, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

> >> >>> and can be downloaded as a PDF.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The rocks in which the (possible) fossils are found are ~890 Mya in northwestern Canada. "Possible" is operative in this case, as the fossils
> >> >>> are very suggestive, but. Interesting paper in any event.
> >> >> I wonder when and where we can expect a resolution.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> >> University of South Carolina
> >> >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >> >
> >> > What does it matter what science jounalists of varying stretchiness of imagination say about a scientific
> >> > publication? It's obviously (?) a fossil, and its morphology is suggestive. I imagine there will be an effort
> >> > to see what biochemical markers may be present. It's certainly conceivable that it's a sponge, but it's
> >> > not conceivably certain. Whether or not the 2 Gya organisms represent metazoans is arguably of comparable
> >> > certainty (or uncertainty).
> >> >
> >> The 2Gyo organisms probably represent an early experiment into
> >> multicellularity that didn't really pan out after oxygen levels dropped
> >> again after the GOE. I'd be surprised if they really are metazoans, the
> >> earliest certain putative fossils of Opisthokonts known are 1.1 gyo
> >> fungal fossils found in the Canadian Arctic:
> >>
> >> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31118507/
> >>
> >> The time span between 1.1-2 gya is a difference of 900 million years,
> >> and contrary to Peter's hand-wringing about "a mere gigayear" a while
> >> back, 900 million years IS a long time.
> >
> > To paraphrase Walt Kelly, there's nothing mere about a gigayear. Even 100 million
> > is a long time. At 2 Gy, multicellular organisms would seem to be almost impossible
> > to identify with metazoa. Maybe Holozoa, but we really don't have a good idea what
> > life looked like that far.

I don't know whether you noticed, Ruben, that all of the above was based on a mistaken
notion of what I had been talking about. And I still have no idea what Oxyaena was quoting
from when she wrote, "a mere gigayear." I can only hazard a guess that it had something
to do with the early universe, whereby the distinction between 1.5 gigayears and 2.5
gigayears since the beginning is far smaller than the distinction between 0.5 and 1.0
gigayears since the beginning of our universe, so great were the changes in those
first billion years.

> One of the things that suprised scientist when genetic evaluation was
> possible of microbial organisms, even bacterium, was the depth of the
> of evolutionary tree that was produced. For starters, we are not nearly
> equaly realated to most bactrium,

Really? Are you lumping together eubacteria and archae? In that case, you
are just referring to what has been pretty well accepted since Woese
gave the evidence for it forty or more years ago. Specifically, archae are
all more closely related to us than eubacteria where our nuclear genomes are concerned.
On the other hand, our mitochondria are more closely related to eubacteria
than they are to ourselves.

> and Eurakarites branch from the smallest portion of Bacterium,

"smallest" in what sense? methanogenic archae, for example, may have been far more
diverse when the amount of free oxygen on earth was negligible -- perhaps until more
than half of the earth's age had gone by.

> and Multicellular plants and animals likewise.

Plants and animals are eukaryotes, so I'm not sure what you mean here.
Besides, fungi have been fairly universally considered to be closer to animals than
to plants, so you have to be careful about what you call a "smallest portion" within Eukarya.

> It would seem obvious now, but at the time, it was a shock to
> see that billions of years of evolution seperated Bacterium species.

To whom? since prokaryotes have been on earth for over 3 billion years,
the really shocking thing would be to discover that all eubacteria alive
today go back less than a billion years.

>
> And the suprises just kept on coming
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123014634500115
>
> https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30257-5#secst0095
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440604/ <<==execellent
> read


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<sgc8th$4sk$1@reader1.panix.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3271&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3271

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: mrbrk...@panix.com (Ruben Safir)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <sgc8th$4sk$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com> <0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com> <sebuce$kli$1@solani.org> <e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com> <senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com> <01290d43-8c5c-4e76-866c-1fc5a4ec47fcn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
logging-data="5012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.5-20201224 ("Glen Albyn") (NetBSD/9.2 (amd64))
 by: Ruben Safir - Sat, 28 Aug 2021 03:01 UTC

Sure - 40 years ago. Why not. I am an old man now and I recall seeing
the genetic tree being graphed and discussed when I was a kid, in my
20's. It was one of those - gee whiz -- moments when in the face of
evidence, it is obvious. But it was a complete revelation at the time

Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.

<d095f5bd-7f3b-4ee7-9c97-eccd623359abn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3334&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3334

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8503:: with SMTP id n3mr8330715qva.48.1631040659520;
Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:65c4:: with SMTP id z187mr26664831ybb.113.1631040659353;
Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sgc8th$4sk$1@reader1.panix.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:7420:c673:e92d:5065;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:7420:c673:e92d:5065
References: <12a6736d-56f4-414f-9be9-6b89ba3e1196n@googlegroups.com>
<0a215c51-6a74-4817-8903-9cfe47fabb57n@googlegroups.com> <1f835ee6-a0dc-458e-a7b4-0d955108f3c1n@googlegroups.com>
<sebuce$kli$1@solani.org> <e0e9b484-dc99-46fd-8511-5288f5588488n@googlegroups.com>
<senfsm$ehk$1@reader1.panix.com> <01290d43-8c5c-4e76-866c-1fc5a4ec47fcn@googlegroups.com>
<sgc8th$4sk$1@reader1.panix.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d095f5bd-7f3b-4ee7-9c97-eccd623359abn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Neoproterozoic sponge fossil.
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 18:50:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 11
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 7 Sep 2021 18:50 UTC

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:
> Sure - 40 years ago. Why not. I am an old man now and I recall seeing
> the genetic tree being graphed and discussed when I was a kid, in my
> 20's. It was one of those - gee whiz -- moments when in the face of
> evidence, it is obvious. But it was a complete revelation at the time

Something seems to have gone wrong with this post of yours, Ruben,
and I'm sorry I've only seen it now; I hope you are still around, and
can tell us what you were referring to in your first sentence.

Peter Nyikos

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor