Complex Life Evolved One and a Half Billion Years Earlier Than Previously Thought, New Fossils Show

Life and earth were created 6014 years ago, so this is impossible.

i hope you're being sarcastic

When there is no sun or earth yet in existence, who long is a day?

The folding in the image is reminiscent of the folds of a brain lobe.

this is an interesting find.

I thought it was common knowledge at this point that oxygen is a necessary catalyst for multicellular life. Oxygen serves as an integral part of the binding agent for cells.
My point being, why the heck would THIS finding "suggest" that oxygen is needed for multicellular life? We kind of already know.
Oh and by the way, lack of oxygen in the water would be my number one argument against complex life on Europa. Honestly though, I hope I'm wrong about that.

You know, I may not be a believer, but I am not arrogant enough to think that one can prove or disprove God or creation quite as brashly as some others. I think there's a plausible explanation in which creationism and evolutionism can BOTH be correct.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a God does exist, and that he uses natural forces for his work, albeit not in the magical sudden creation way that we think about. The bible talks about creating things in days. Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom (if that word was indeed the original), like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). So what if this God used evolution to create what he wanted, and then finally "created" the most evolved form of man "recently" in time?

I don't expect any history, written or oral, factual or mythological, to persist over the last several millenia without major errors and/or changes. So I'm not going to take issue with something in the bible just as I'm not going to take it as fact. But I do think people have divided themselves into the camps of creationism and evolutionism and decided that there is no plausible middle ground. I for one, think there is a plausible middle ground. And though I wouldn't consider myself in that middle ground, but more towards the lines of evolution, I cannot discount the possibility of that middle ground, nor can I think of any way to prove or disprove it logically or otherwise.

So I think the creationists and the evolutionists should all just lay off each other, cause so many of them come off as closed-minded arrogant SOBs, on both sides.

I find this discovery very exciting! I always theorized that if any early microbial life managed to get a hold of enough oxygen to go multicellular, it would. I knew the reshaping of the Earth's surface would make finding any of these dramatically old and rare multicellular fossils close to impossible. So I'm very happy about this news. It fits nicely with the universe I've been building in my mind. I still need a lot more input :-/

This is pretty fascinating. I love how science can just be flipped on its head occasionally and have to completely re-evaluate. Truly a living art.

"Not until the Cambrian explosion, about 600 million years ago, did complex life evolve -- or so scientists thought."
What about the Ediacara biota?

Are they certain these life forms are from earth to begin with?

If you don't believe in science why visit this website ?
The people here don't want to hear about how the earth was created 6014 years ago or how complex life couldn't exist without god .

If your religious get lost you retard .

steve28, if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all.
I will admit that SLNuke87 was trying to get a rise out of people, but by saying "If your religious get lost you retard ." (sic) you have destroyed all credibility for yourself.

*Also, it is you're, not your.

"Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a God does exist"

Logic is broken.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that evidence is required for the exsistence of God to be available for your argument to be valid. Your argument is not valid.

Lets say that legs hold up a table which holds up books. You put a book on a table top, it has no legs, it is no longer a table.

Oh creationists go take a walk your not welcome in a science discussion. Your so full of it. Science is science mythology is quackery.

And for all you naysayers, life was invented infinitely long ago, and is infinitely small and infinitely large. We are but 'gluons' in a universe so unimaginably larger than our own that it makes a farce of trying to observe the observable we can see. So life has been around nearly for an infinite time as we are just a blip on the timeline ourselves.

@MIP, steve
Why are so many religion haters misspelling "you're" as "your"? Are you the same person with multiple logins?

@MIP
Where is the evidence that "life was invented infinitely long ago." Point out some evidence, as you would require of the religious "quacks".

@Thor
Using hypothetical situations to prove scientific points is part of the scientific method. Google gedankenexperiment or Einstein.

To the rest of the religion bashers, isn't the non-existence of God also an assumption? By definition, an all-powerful being could hide its existence in a non-repeatable way or by creating false histories. Science requires humility, not arrogant attacks against what you have assumed (not proved) to be.

HOW ABOUT THIS: What if this multicelled form of life died out. It went extent. No other life evolved from this. then 1.5 billion years later it happened again!!! This would prove that the process of life, and its ability to become multicelled is much more common and easier than ever believed.

I think you're on the right track Inaka_rob. I was thinking that exact same thing! Just with proper spelling :D
@paulcrosoft
While I won't go so far as to postulate whether or not life is infinite (although it appears the universe very well may be) it does only require one step of logic to support MIP's little theory here. Life, apparently, sprung forth on this planet with no aid from anyone. Which means it's normal, which means that it will happen again and has probably happened before. So if the universe(s) is indeed infinite and life shows up only so rarely... Life then, would still be infinite.
And to any nay-sayers!!! It's probably not a good idea to assume that a god can't exist. I would do some funky crazy shit if I were god and I can't count this truly psychedelic universe out of the running for having a beautifully insane creator. That being said I haven't found a single belief system that even comes close to portraying a god who even has an inkling about the universe he/she/it supposedly created.
Thank you and good night!

I really love how many times we hear, scientists have to rethink their timeline.

This fossil proves them wrong, then the next week another changes their initial findings.

They act like they know everything and tell everyone how wrong they are so often and then a week later a new discovery proves them wrong. yet they never admit it.

The whole perfect primordial soup thing still cracks me up.

These idiots have no idea how we got here because they create an entire belief off of incomplete data.

I have a clue for you morons, male and female negates evolution as creation.

Animals adapt to their environment, yes, but this is not the source of creation. Stop spending your life and our money on this impossible explanation.

If a single cell evolved into a complex organism and reproduced from there, why would it eventually lose the ability to re-create without a mate?

Are we really to believe that most of earths creatures split into a male and female that need each other to reproduce? Seriously?

That is completely against the survival nature of your evolutionary model.

For the rest of you, the bible was written by man. Just because it has this timeline you believe in does not mean that is it completely accurate. it is a bunch of books compiled into one. how many times does it say "and the gold was good there? God does not care about gold. That is a human commodity.

Something created life on this planet. It was embedded at the molecular level. No matter how deep we drill, or how much heat and pressure there is, life exists at the molecular level.

Why would an animal need a mate to continue the species. That is a creator, plain and simple.

I think a alien spaceship landed on earth long ago, doing a walk about, survey. There was some kind of accident and he lost his ear. The biology of the ear, microprobes and such establish the first life on earth and Wa-La, here is life today!
The picture kind of look like a ear?
Hmmm, make ya wonder, doesn't it......

Sorry, my comment posted 3 times. I do not know why. I guess my pc or the internet stuttered....

@A_Rock
I've enjoyed your comments on a few posts lately. This one is thoughtful as well. It’s true that if life occurs when there is a universe and the universe is infinite, then life is infinite. I'd challenge the premises though based on the big bang.

We don't have evidence that life can exist in conditions just before the big bang, and we don't know how the universe was long-term before the big bang. Because of that, any theory claiming life is infinite, as someone here claimed, is a leap of faith, not science.

Just like religion, the idea seems right to some people and when they trace the implications of the theory they replicate the predicted results in their lives.

My criticism was over the double standard given to religion. The scientific complaint against religion (other than the oppression of the dark ages) is that it is an appeal to authority, rather than an appeal to reason and data. I think the climate debate brewing in the other Pop Sci column shows that science isn't immune from claims of authority, and, moreover, many religions ask their adherents to conduct experiments with the teachings to see if they produce the desired results (e.g., Malachi 3:10: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven…”; 1 Thes. 5:21: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”; Moroni 10:4 (Book of Mormon): “When ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Alma 32 (Book of Mormon) (teaching to experiment with the teachings and see if they work)).

So I reject the distinction claiming that science uses one process and religion uses another. As long as religion requires individuals to experiment, and as long as branches of science are appealing to authority, we shouldn't be so critical of one another.

"Why would an animal need a mate to continue the species. That is a creator, plain and simple."

I'd like to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.

Whose god? Who's god? Whence god? My god? Your god? One god? All gods? Any god? There are 6.5 billion opinions about god. Who is right?

Experiment with god?

"Prayer works! It was a miracle! I prayed, God saved me during the train wreck and I am here to tell you about it! What a powerful proof of God's existence! Now, if you will all please turn away while they come to clean up the 499 bodies left in the wreckage ..."

"I was saved from sharks by a dolphin once. It proves dolphins save humans from sharks." Fortunately for that line of "reason", those who are killed by sharks while dolphins look on like Romans at the games don't get to tell everyone how they weren't saved from sharks by dolphins.

Oh, how much one has to want to believe in miracles to find one in the survival of one Dutch child when so many others died in the plane crash.

Can anyone tell us why anecdotal evidence is logically fallacious?

The Book of QIII, Chapter 1, Verse One: "Verily, we are but an infinitesimally small part of a Universe which is, itself, nothing more than a clotted clump in a scabrous weeping sore on the scrotum of an unimaginably vast beast of burden that some huge, sweaty and unwashed being is using to plow his infertile field in the hopes that this season it might actually provide sustenance for his numerous illegitimate offspring until the next planting season."

There. You have my religious text. It is as valid as yours. Now go to your shrine and rub the testicles of your statuette of the Great Ox of the Cosmos and accept the truth I have given you.

By the way, it's turtles all the way down.

"They act like they know everything and tell everyone how wrong they are so often and then a week later a new discovery proves them wrong. yet they never admit it."

New things are always being discovered. It's a great benefit of not being tied down to a millennia-old doctrine that you can adapt to new information. It's also what science *is*.

Anyway, none of that discussion has anything to do with the topic, which is just incredibly exciting. I mean, holy crap, this changes the whole taxonomy. Or at least makes the most interesting parts just another branch that happened to go a little farther.

Well seeing how a thriving (slightly off topic- kudos SLNuke87) flame war about religion is going on I might as well add my opinion.
My problem with religion is it doesn't answer the question of why anything exists. So far I have yet to find an answer... Example: God made the world and stuff. Then who(what) made god? I don't care how omnipotent and eternal he (she?, it?) is he had to start somewhere and something. Religion kinda veils the question and says its answered it.
Universe exists because the big bang which fulfills the question of why I exist and the matter and energy and stuff exists but what happened before the universe/big bang? Then there's multi-verses and those crazy membranes from string theory (or something...) but then the question still remains what made those (as at that level time may not even have effects..stupid dimension shinagins) ?
I side very strongly with science as for the matters of this universe science is doing a pretty awesome job of explaining for me and if something is going to answer that question (although I'm doubting if it is answerable) science is going to be the one while religion..(insert very long rant here not worth saying as that isn't the point of this comment, maybe some other day)

On the subject of that life is infinite silliness I'd just like to point out in some ways there's no such thing as "life" rather its a phenomena arising from complex physical reactions and phenomena (thank you spell check) are just human abstractions so asking if life is infinite is like asking whether things bouncing of each other when colliding is infinite which is a silly silly question.

Then that one guy who saying sex is proof of god. Just take biology man- sexual reproduction = genetic variation as traits are "shuffled" and new combinations are made. Variation means a population is more likely to survive a catastrophe or change since if everyone is different the odds are better at least some of them are adapted to this new change. Even bacteria swap genetic code which is sorta like sex. Imagine if people just cloned themselves every time something happens like a plague or tsunami or a global change like a change in climate or a drop in oxygen that kills certain people especially well due to their genes then over time the number of genetically distinct individuals would dwindle until everyone was dead. (simplification I know but that's the basics...I think)

HAHA!! Success!

My brain melds religion and science together perfectly. It sees no conflict where others do. The older texts, such as Genesis, I see as an explanation to a people not ready for the whole truth. Is the big bang theory right? Perhaps. My mind is open to any truth, so that when the time to learn the whole truth comes, I am not blinded by what I thought was the truth. There is no physical evidence for or against God. While I personally am a Mormon, I do not hold my beliefs over others. I will always be open minded, ready for the truth when it comes.

Yeah the infinite life theory does require a leap of faith. I'm not a huge supporter I was just backing up MIP. I do still believe that there is more life out there though. To quote the movie Contact. "I guess I'd say, it just seems like an awful waste of space"

while i read through the comments, i was thinking that this discussion should have stopped with what marcoreid had to say. perhaps with a few, "yeah, i agree, marcoreid." comments to finish it off. geez, right?

True science is based on observation. This is the weakest link for both evolutionist and the creationist. There has been no human observation of how the universe/creation began, or even what occurred shortly thereafter. All we have to go on is the after effects of how it formed and the preserved remains of organisms that lived in ancient times. Christian theologists will add that we also have scripture which claims that it is the word of God. These scriptures however are not a detailed account and do not provide observable data. As yet neither side has been able to provide conclusive proof and yet both sides continue to prattle on as if they are the only ones who are right.

Science makes a hypothesis (assertion), if the hypothesis is not observable then it remains theory (fiction).

Many on both the side of science and of religion have great faith in what they assert is true and yet have no observable proof for the assertion. Logic and reason seem to have been abandoned by both sides in favor of dogmatic statements.