As an aspiring evolutionary ecologist living in the heart of the Charnwood Forest, Charnia represents something so palpable for me. This lecture is absolutely phenomenal.
They recently opened up the Ediacara site (well... the site now has a visitor centre however the site is excluded). I thought about driving there. I'm Australian living in Australia. Then I did the maths on that trip and hoboy! Even by Aussie standards its a long trip, and in a part of our big country with like one road. But imagine driving 1800km and ending up however many billion of years ago. I reckon I'll give it a crack when I retire. Grey Nomad it. Thank you for this video. Dr Frankie is a gem.
Really excellent walkthrough of where these fossils lie in the tree of life. Robust elimination of hypotheses with direct methods. Now when I get the chance to see ediacaran formations for myself I’ll be better able to train my eyes to what’s significant.
Given that these animals mostly lived in deep water (usually cold with low concentrations of nutrients), had no known predators (those started to appear in the Cambrian), and grew fairly large, I'm going to guess that they had long lifespans -- perhaps 10 to 100 years. They likely lived much longer than modern fish of a similar size.
I tend to believe that the creatures at that time were functionally immortal, limited in life span only by environmental changes and events, and perhaps by growing too large to stay upright or able to absorb nutrients efficiently.
Some of the Ediacaran organisms have populations of little ones surrounding a big one: could be gamete release but you'd expect a wider dispersion tactic, so it could also be spreading by budding, which is effectively cloning.
Wonderful lecture - thanks! Have you considered how these paleontological and genetic insights inform our understanding of the human brain? I would argue that the coding for biological structures remains remarkably constant.... the notion that consciousness is a recent evolutionary invention is untenable. With consilience, that is the growing together of the different sciences, we can understand human cognition more objectively.
I'm purely an interested amateur on the issue of consciousness and its origins. But I can't help feeling it arose out of some co-ordination between the developing ganglia and guts in animals. There had to be motivation to move in an energy demanding, purposeful way to collect food, rather than just stand or float into it and sift or engulf it, and there had to be a reward which would be the sating of an unpleasant 'empty' signal from the gut. Or if the first motivator was to escape from predation, that would quickly have led to the dynamic just described.
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 i just wrote a college paper last week easily debunking it for my final, i can send it to you with a reference page if youd like ;p its mostly imagination mixed in with some truth, some parts of the theory are true and the rest is imaginitive
Love the video :). Fawn shapes? I don’t see fawns.. what do you mean -is this a cheeky joke like my calculus prof used 4 naught squared instead of 4 theta squared. Naught sounds like = not. A calc nightmare
Yes it has filled and expanded a small empty space in the differentiation of life categorisation. As a physical scientist, I would be keen to incorporate a parallel analysis based on at simple chemical/ materials properties. Possibly very simple. Eg microscopy and EDAX .
One issue that stands out the that phylogenetic tree as thanks to embryology and molecular biology it is now understood that similarities between ctenophores and cnidarians are a product of convergent evolution. In the case of cnidarians they are now confidently recognized to be the sister group to bilaterians having evolved HOX gene clusters to establish a system of coordinate s during developmental programing through formation of an ion gradient. The key difference between radial and bilateral symmetry is the development of a second perpendicular axis via these mechanisms which is now known to have likely developed thanks to Polyploidy duplicating the genetic machinery responsible for this process. HOX genes importantly are only found within Cnidarians and bilaterians where they serve to coordinate body plan development which is one of the strongest lines of evidence for both groups being sister groups sharing a common ancestor between each other which used HOX genes Importantly the nervous systems of ctenophores and the clade containing cnidaria + bilaterian emerges developmentally from different tissues and utilize very different molecular basis for neurotransmitters. Placozoans while lacking true neurons possess neurotransmitters that respond similarly to cnidarians and bilaterians. Thus this provides good evidence that coeleterata is a paraphyletic group due to it excluding bilaterians and likely placozoans now both known to be more closely related to cnidaria than any of them are to ctenophores. The combined clade Parahoxozoa is then considered to be a sister group to ctenophores. This has little to no effect on the position of rangiomorphs but it was strange to see this antiquated model still in use as I thought that group had been thrown out. Still great talk on the evolutionary history of these ancient organisms they are really fascinating It really makes me wonder how long the Rangiomorphs lasted and why they disappeared did predation end them? I know some other Eidacaran biota have been found in Cambrian particularly Cloudinia and possibly several fossils suggesting ctenophores to be motile descendants of some Ediacaran biota due to similar cilia structures( though this is controversial) Thus is it possible that some rangiomorphs might have hung on in certain environments? Alas with the incompleteness of the fossil record we will likely never know.
"Alas with the incompleteness of the fossil record we will likely never know." Alas there are those who can't imagine discoveries of new 'Lagerstatten' to augment the fossil record nor developments in technology to reassess existing ones to extract hitherto unforeseen data and insights. Correct me if I am wrong, that one of the first USA recipients of the physics Nobel price declared that despite some fringe anomalies in thermodynamics the human understanding of physics was complete. Just before Einstein used experimental data to prove that these fringe anomalies are fundamental to how the Universe operates. All to common is the hubris of the 'wannabe' and/or ideological corrupted scientists who seek shelter of critical peer scrutiny in 'scientific consensus'. I'm just an engineer who is proud being a member of a (vocational) educated club who build the world we live in. Academia GB: We betrayed our Nation during the cold war; We betrayed our Nation during the democratic BREXIT vote. Please, can I have some more?
I have always subscribed to the oxygen theory of the.cambridge explosion. And.evidently there really had not been much done in this puzzle.since i was young...in 80 plus. I have found that dame sue BLACK is one of the few people alive i admire due to u tube suggestions ...i had never heard of her and her work...well done sue..well done.
Check out the section on The Cambrian Explosion and the evolutionary origin of animals with Professor Paul Smith, he has a really interesting counter hypothesis based on what is geochemically fairly convincing evidence to limit that as a factor I hadn't considered that there might be a too much oxygen threshold for early metazoans i.e. oxygen was important but there could also potentially be too much for most early animals i.e. typical Cambrian lagerstatten were in deeper waters with lower oxygen levels. It still could be (and I suspect is likely) that there was a higher up more dynamic biosphere that doesn't fossilize easily thanks to being biologically much more accessible but the argument is an interesting counterpoint. Edit: whoops wrote the wrong section is was The Cambrian Explosion and the evolutionary origin of animals with Professor Paul Smith.
As an aspiring evolutionary ecologist living in the heart of the Charnwood Forest, Charnia represents something so palpable for me. This lecture is absolutely phenomenal.
They recently opened up the Ediacara site (well... the site now has a visitor centre however the site is excluded). I thought about driving there. I'm Australian living in Australia. Then I did the maths on that trip and hoboy! Even by Aussie standards its a long trip, and in a part of our big country with like one road. But imagine driving 1800km and ending up however many billion of years ago. I reckon I'll give it a crack when I retire. Grey Nomad it.
Thank you for this video. Dr Frankie is a gem.
Thank you so much for the wonderful lecture!
Really excellent walkthrough of where these fossils lie in the tree of life. Robust elimination of hypotheses with direct methods. Now when I get the chance to see ediacaran formations for myself I’ll be better able to train my eyes to what’s significant.
Given that these animals mostly lived in deep water (usually cold with low concentrations of nutrients), had no known predators (those started to appear in the Cambrian), and grew fairly large, I'm going to guess that they had long lifespans -- perhaps 10 to 100 years. They likely lived much longer than modern fish of a similar size.
AFAIK there's now populations known from what appears to be several different depths.
It definitely added to my understanding of pre-Cambrian evolution.
I especially liked the statistical analysis of side branches, etc.
Me again. I see episode 3 does exactly as I suggested. Will followup on that!😎
I tend to believe that the creatures at that time were functionally immortal, limited in life span only by environmental changes and events, and perhaps by growing too large to stay upright or able to absorb nutrients efficiently.
Some of the Ediacaran organisms have populations of little ones surrounding a big one: could be gamete release but you'd expect a wider dispersion tactic, so it could also be spreading by budding, which is effectively cloning.
Wonderful lecture - thanks! Have you considered how these paleontological and genetic insights inform our understanding of the human brain? I would argue that the coding for biological structures remains remarkably constant.... the notion that consciousness is a recent evolutionary invention is untenable. With consilience, that is the growing together of the different sciences, we can understand human cognition more objectively.
I'm purely an interested amateur on the issue of consciousness and its origins. But I can't help feeling it arose out of some co-ordination between the developing ganglia and guts in animals. There had to be motivation to move in an energy demanding, purposeful way to collect food, rather than just stand or float into it and sift or engulf it, and there had to be a reward which would be the sating of an unpleasant 'empty' signal from the gut.
Or if the first motivator was to escape from predation, that would quickly have led to the dynamic just described.
Watching a dinosour with teeth turn into a ostrich with beak and a 13ft salamander shrinking into a 1ft frog was the funniest thing ever
Theories not always correct. But nice and informative
can you read what is above Charnis in the philogenetic tree at 40:00 ? Too blury for me to make out
You lost me at how a sea worm turned into a fruit fly ;p
Sex, sex, sex, nom, nom, nom, sex, sex, sex. Repeat for a hundred million years.
I imagine you don’t understand a lot of things. Anything outside your religion’s BS claims.
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 i just wrote a college paper last week easily debunking it for my final, i can send it to you with a reference page if youd like ;p its mostly imagination mixed in with some truth, some parts of the theory are true and the rest is imaginitive
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 ill just assume you never finished college and have a great imagination
Where can we read your paper?
Fantastic lecture, very well explained for a enthusiastic amateur!
Thanks - that was very interesting. I need to know more about the Ediacaran Period and will keep looking out for colloquia like this one !
Talking starts at about 0:43, housekeeping ends about 3:30.
Thanks Frankie, that was very VERY interesting. great work.
Wonderful lecture!
Would love to tune in sometime.
Love the video :). Fawn shapes? I don’t see fawns.. what do you mean -is this a cheeky joke like my calculus prof used 4 naught squared instead of 4 theta squared. Naught sounds like = not. A calc nightmare
If these are branches, why are they so tied together?
What is that above Charnis in the tree of life? I can't make out the letters. Even changed monitors & sitll can't read :(
Yes it has filled and expanded a small empty space in the differentiation of life categorisation. As a physical scientist, I would be keen to incorporate a parallel analysis based on at simple chemical/ materials properties. Possibly very simple. Eg microscopy and EDAX .
Evolutionists be like... Oldest similar looking thing we can find must be our ancestor!
Typical unthinking theist.
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 very intelligent comment sir
One issue that stands out the that phylogenetic tree as thanks to embryology and molecular biology it is now understood that similarities between ctenophores and cnidarians are a product of convergent evolution. In the case of cnidarians they are now confidently recognized to be the sister group to bilaterians having evolved HOX gene clusters to establish a system of coordinate s during developmental programing through formation of an ion gradient. The key difference between radial and bilateral symmetry is the development of a second perpendicular axis via these mechanisms which is now known to have likely developed thanks to Polyploidy duplicating the genetic machinery responsible for this process. HOX genes importantly are only found within Cnidarians and bilaterians where they serve to coordinate body plan development which is one of the strongest lines of evidence for both groups being sister groups sharing a common ancestor between each other which used HOX genes
Importantly the nervous systems of ctenophores and the clade containing cnidaria + bilaterian emerges developmentally from different tissues and utilize very different molecular basis for neurotransmitters. Placozoans while lacking true neurons possess neurotransmitters that respond similarly to cnidarians and bilaterians. Thus this provides good evidence that coeleterata is a paraphyletic group due to it excluding bilaterians and likely placozoans now both known to be more closely related to cnidaria than any of them are to ctenophores. The combined clade Parahoxozoa is then considered to be a sister group to ctenophores.
This has little to no effect on the position of rangiomorphs but it was strange to see this antiquated model still in use as I thought that group had been thrown out.
Still great talk on the evolutionary history of these ancient organisms they are really fascinating It really makes me wonder how long the Rangiomorphs lasted and why they disappeared did predation end them? I know some other Eidacaran biota have been found in Cambrian particularly Cloudinia and possibly several fossils suggesting ctenophores to be motile descendants of some Ediacaran biota due to similar cilia structures( though this is controversial)
Thus is it possible that some rangiomorphs might have hung on in certain environments? Alas with the incompleteness of the fossil record we will likely never know.
"Alas with the incompleteness of the fossil record we will likely never know."
Alas there are those who can't imagine discoveries of new 'Lagerstatten' to augment the fossil record nor developments in technology to reassess existing ones to extract hitherto unforeseen data and insights.
Correct me if I am wrong, that one of the first USA recipients of the physics Nobel price declared that despite some fringe anomalies in thermodynamics the human understanding of physics was complete. Just before Einstein used experimental data to prove that these fringe anomalies are fundamental to how the Universe operates. All to common is the hubris of the 'wannabe' and/or ideological corrupted scientists who seek shelter of critical peer scrutiny in 'scientific consensus'.
I'm just an engineer who is proud being a member of a (vocational) educated club who build the world we live in.
Academia GB:
We betrayed our Nation during the cold war;
We betrayed our Nation during the democratic BREXIT vote.
Please, can I have some more?
I have always subscribed to the oxygen theory of the.cambridge explosion. And.evidently there really had not been much done in this puzzle.since i was young...in 80 plus.
I have found that dame sue BLACK is one of the few people alive i admire due to u tube suggestions ...i had never heard of her and her work...well done sue..well done.
Check out the section on The Cambrian Explosion and the evolutionary origin of animals with Professor Paul Smith, he has a really interesting counter hypothesis based on what is geochemically fairly convincing evidence to limit that as a factor I hadn't considered that there might be a too much oxygen threshold for early metazoans i.e. oxygen was important but there could also potentially be too much for most early animals i.e. typical Cambrian lagerstatten were in deeper waters with lower oxygen levels. It still could be (and I suspect is likely) that there was a higher up more dynamic biosphere that doesn't fossilize easily thanks to being biologically much more accessible but the argument is an interesting counterpoint.
Edit: whoops wrote the wrong section is was The Cambrian Explosion and the evolutionary origin of animals with Professor Paul Smith.
any Fibonacci numbers at work in some of these?