I don't unless it was an animal that was conscious and it died horribly like mammals in the tar pits. After all, without death there can be no complex life, and without sudden geological events, we would have no fossils...
@@SoulDelSolFor me it's just a shame, like "Oh it lasted all this time. And now... *Poof*." Like seeing a priceless antique getting shattered. So much history just to end unceremoniously. It's like the creature is finally, truly dying, for good.
@@SoulDelSol I don't particularly care about myself: I'm a disposable sack of meat whose passing will be unnoticed, easily replaced by any of the billions marching one step behind me. The last relic of something barely understood, potentially something so poorly represented that we might never understand it, is something *far* more important than a random retail-monkey like myself.
Crawling around on the sea floor absorbing nutrients from bacterial mats directly through a permeable membrane was probably a fairly efficient feeding strategy, that is until the Bacteria did a bit of mutating and found It now had an excellent food source in Dickinsonia. There's always some Joker wanting to breakup the good times.
That's really probably not what happened. During the cambrian explosion many animals turned to burrowing behaviors to evade the newly evolved predators, this ended up breaking up the microbial mat which dickinsonia probably fed on, incorperating the microbes into the previously anoxic soil and creating the microbe-rich soil we know today. sadly the last dickinsonia most likely starved to death
Ediacaran creatures are so fascinating, particularly because this was a time before the tree of life was pruned down, so there are body plans and lifestyles we wouldn't even recognize today! Fascinating video and research!
and apparently much like the even earlier huainan biota (of which almost nothing or absolutely nothing is related to anything alive today) , very little of it is actually related to things alive today
Edicaran flora or fauna or "biota" or whatever they were are really strange and different from most life I've heard of today, very weird, I first heard of it from a BBC in our time episode and I was like, what the hell were these things?
I, just the other day, got a fossil called Andiva. At first, scientists thought that it was just a large form of Dickinsonia. However, now they think that it is a related, slightly more evolved species. Great video on one of the first (likely) animals!
Yes, but some researchers since then have questioned the results. I still feel they're probably valid, but didn't want to rely too much on my personal feelings on the study
In Mycology, we were told that part of the definition of "fungi" was that they were all sessile. The motion of Dickinsonia would therefore rule out it being a fungus.
Fair enough! Considering the common ancestor I would question where that delineates early on though. For example corals spend most of their lives sessile, and even fungi spores can be fairly mobile depending on the environment. So I think there'd need to be more specific language, such as sessile as an adult, without a significant separately independently motile period.
Since I wrote that Comment, I have been concerned that there were motile spores in fungi...and it turns out that there are (as you point out). Some fungi have zoospores that have flagella. So while "sessile as an adult" is more accurate, that does not hold water (so to speak) in an evolutionary sense, because the motile form might have been the dominant one, half a billion years ago. Darn. I wanted to rule out one Kingdom...
The head-first development is _really_ panarthropod-like, which is the most unusually part for me. so many weirdos in groups like crustaceans are essentially born as heads that grow their body out behind them as their metamorphosis. And looking at Tardigrades, they have basically reduced themselves down to being just a head for their whole life. Not saying these were panarthropods or even especially related to then, but it's a pretty weird parallel to notice.
in plant biology, one identifying factor is the node arrangement on the stem. There are several more than i mention, but two very common ones are "opposite" vs "alternate". This life form appears to have the alternate form like hollies, camelias and oaks. Some examples of the opposite would be maples, boxwoods, ligustrums, tea olive and crape myrtles. Maybe this alternate form of growth could give us a clue?
Maybe. Unfortunately we have very few early plant fossils, and the examples you gave are angiosperms, which didn't evolve for at least several hundreds of millions of years afterwards (this is before even mosses existed on land), so it's not that likely. Still it could be possible with some of that symmetry that it was related to plants somewhat, I think the chemical analysis is pretty solid though.
And evolution doesn't redesign things that get in the way along it's path. Think of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It goes down the neck, under the aorta, and back up. Not an issue in fish, where it can go directly from the brain straight down to the gills. But as animals developed necks and the head and heart moved away from each other, the nerve followed. A redesign would bring it straight to the larynx, but that would mean completely redesigning it's development, and evolution doesn't do that.
I was told by a Jehovas witness that I was designed by god. I mentioned that our spines are not designed to be upright. And, Ben Elton's favourite, spectacles. She came up with ' the devil did that' as her response. 😂😂😂😂
I think that bilateral animals could have evolved when a flat, 2 layer animal like Placozoa rolled into a tube. The Placozoa top layer became the ectoderm and the Placozoa bottom (food absorbing layer) became the endoderm, or gut tube.
I always imagined it more like they folded into a cup shape, with one orifice like we see on pre-bilateral animals like cnidarians and ctenophores, and then that cup shape pinched together in the middle to form the two orifices of bilateral animals, and the specialization of those two orifices leading to the protostome-deuterostome split (Probably spelled those two wrong but you know what I mean lol)
So, according to your hypothesis, ctenophora and cnidaria developed their tissues independently from bilateria? According to molecular data, ctenophora are not related with bilateria, while still having ecto and endoderm.
@@ВиталийМандыбураI think, the ctenophores are maybe a kind of a sister Group to the bilaterians. And the ctenophores are in fact the only multicellular animals, who are moving with ciliates, wich is normally typical for some one cellular organisms. Maybe there is a kind of closer relationship between some Ediacara animals and the ctenophores? I wouldn't wonder....
@@Tyra-2534ctenophora are indeed not bilateria. Whether they are sister or cousin group is discussionable. My point is, animals developed tissues before bilateria appeared, even sponges (in particular homocelomorphyal (i hope it is the right name) sponges) have something similar to epithelium without some of its proteins tho. (And there's also some plat worms which locomotes with cilia, but it is secondary adaptation) Hypothesis I've been told in uni is a suggestion that first bilateria used to be quite a complex organisms with caelom, limbs, nervous system, and segmented body.
The possibility that's most intriguing to me is that Dickinsonia and other Ediacaran specimens represent stem-metazoans, that is to say, animals from a line that diverged at some point before the most recent common ancestor of all living animal species.
Nature really did like to experiment, didn't it? Not content with just picking a kind of symmetry and trying out body plans from it, it actually experimented with different body symmetries to start with! One has to wonder what life would have been like if trilateral radial had taken off, though...
Nature is not a sentient being, it's not content of anything, it's just evolution, it was the start of the life, all niches were free, so species evolved in all directions, and given they were not ordered yet, they tried for different orders ˆˆ
Immediate spectulation. They got the head and tail mixed up. The head is actually the other end. This creature would grow by developing a biased division in the wide segment at the back, and that process alternated from left to right. It had a growth pattern similar to a modern tapeworm, and as it grew larger the new segments grew larger. It used suction to hold it to the sea flood in the intertidal zone, where the photosynthetic mats it would feed upon were the most plentiful. The niche it occupied is now exploited by the sand dollar.
How do you think Dickinsonia moved? Was it more of a crawl (scrunch and stretch), a slither (alternately tensing its segments back and forth), or a flappy motion (as it lifted itself off the bottom a bit)? Could they have been able to glide in the water?
I could see them sort of vavy motion. If the "head" had any nervous center it might send the movement signal along the body and each segment does it's thing in line.
Aloha. Dickinsonia Was 100% an animal. There are protein Fragmentes in that rocks that are proof of it. Was hard to extract and analyse but worked out well. Only true animals have that protein. ❤
Not sure if you were one of the ones who studied it, but I would generally agree based on that paper. I have heard critiques of it and without being "in the know" for Ediacaran paleo I didn't want my personal feelings to interact with this video. I think I did a decent job of presenting multiple lines of evidence that it was an animal though.
True animals made by fallen angels?. God of the Bi bell is lucifer and he put his hands on everything including his son ya.sonia Bright Mourning star fallen from ✡️ heaven. All stars are fallen angels. Elohim is most High of diety God's. Yaweh is serpent worship. Lord means baal worship. Amen is ra amenra God is gad gadreel fallen angels. Unless you already knew this, our creator Aravat 2nd Enoch 20:3 is the true Creators name. He arrives in months for judgment day
I don't know why it is so hard to believe that bilaterians evolved from creatures like Dickinsonia. Charnia to Dickinsonia to Spriggina to something like a Trilobite or annelid worm convinces me quite a lot. Maybe the glide symmetry turned into bilateral symmetry?
Thanks for sharing! The Ediacaran is one of the most interesting to me. Everything looked so alien. I imagine that life in Europa's ocean would be similar.The part about the cholesterol is new to me and i havent heard anyone else discuss this. Thanks!
We have some lovely Ediacaran fossil sites in Australia at the Flinders Ranges, went there for a geology field trip and got to meet one of the paleontologists who was working on one of the sites! SO many Dickinsonia at that site along with a bunch of Spriggina and you could see the ripples in the sand! (Also we pronounce it Edi-ac-aran here in Australia, I almost didn't understand what word you were saying from how you pronounced it XD)
I've heard Ediacaran pronounced so many ways I have just decided to commit to one. If I ever teach a class I'll say all of them in one class and if students complain I'll tell them that's the reality of pronunciation in paleontology lol
@RaptorChatter Talmorne is correct about the pronunciation. I'm from South Australia and familiar with the Flinders Ranges. The Edicara Hills were named from an Aboriginal word. The emphasis on the mddle part of the word is typical of many localities in the Flinders, eg ArkaRoola, WilPena. I found this YT video which is close, albeit with an American accent. m.ruclips.net/video/LdvYxdjlMig/видео.html . Love your videos though.
@RaptorChatter Ediacaran was so named after the Ediacara Hills in South Australia. Ediacara is the local Aboriginal word for a water spring. So you might commit to the wrong pronunciation like Americans do with a lot of English words. But it's not English and as my heritage is from the area and the people I find it offensive.
Only tangentially related, but I love how the sandy background of the art in the thumbnail makes that specific dickinsonia look city-sized at thumbnail resolution. lol
Sorry, but I think the internet has broken me, my first thought seeing this video title was "What the Hell was Dickinsonia?!"... "Dickinsonia face.. . gottem"
Thank you for this interesting take on the enigmatic Dickinsonia, and indeed Spriggina! I look on their 'pesudo-bilateralism' and have long thought "I bet these aren't animals, at least not in the sense one would commonly understand." I also find it hard to believe their seeming 'alternating segments' are a taphonomic artefact. What, every example? What hadn't occurred to me is that they may be showing a step along the way to becoming truly bilateral, something to think about.
I wonder how they go to true bilateral symmetry. Would the segments shift along until they are in pairs, or would each segment start growing on both sides of the body.
I don't pretend to know the answer to what Dickinsonia is, but it does look like a transition from some kind of placozoan/radial animal toward bilaterals.
They named it in honour of Ben Dickinson, a Mines director who directed the ministry where the founder worked. If there's people who can live with being called Dickinson, I don't see why it should be different for fossils XD
@krankarvolund7771 Look, he could have been named Glasscock, he could've been named Buttz, he could've been named Gaylord Focker. A funny name is a funny name😅
@@krankarvolund7771 We have a planet called Uranus, which isn't an issue in latin, but with the right accent the name becomes a huge immature joke. Good thing is, we only have to wait 597 years until it will be renamed. To Urectum
An alga is just a photosyntetic organism in water. It is not a clade. Claiming that kelp is algae, essentially says nothing. They are brown algae, which is the clade Phaeophyceae. And land plants are algae too, namely Green Algae, that belong to the new clade Plantae. Some "algae" are plants, some aren't, so one cannot distinguish plants from "algae" like mutually exclusive groupings.
Most researchers consider all algae to be basal plants. Also, the different groups of algae are all more closely related to each other than to...anything else in the domain of life, so they absolutely do form a clade. Their photosynthetic life-style is ancestral, it's not a case of convergent evolution, even if not all of them use chlorophyl for the process.
@@RaptorChatter Red algae are also ancestral to plants, brown algae evolved due to secondary endosymbiosis where their ancestor engulfed an ancient red algae. Brown algae are stramenopiles a group of "protists" that include kelp, diatoms, and oomycetes.
He doesn't have to define "glide symmetry" because it's an extremely obvious term that has nothing to do with paleontology. You should be able to intuit that it's imperfect symmetry characterized by one of the sides being slightly offset. Like this is a phrase with its definition built-in
No need to be snotty about it, @@SnoFitzroy. Sorry, but the definition is not 'built in'. Yes, I gathered what he meant, but it would have been nice to have had it confirmed. 'Glide symmetry' conjures a different image in my mind. If the term were something like 'offset symmetry' or 'staggered symmetry', that has a built in definition. But there's nothing about 'gliding' that carries anything of the notion of being offset. Quite the opposite, actually. 'Glide' only implies forward motion under no power. You could equally call it 'walking symmetry' or 'running symmetry' or 'crawling' symmetry. All are equally as obtuse as 'glide symmetry'.
Nice video. I recommend including source links for the technical works being discussed, so viewers can more easily do their own follow-ups (I do that in the link sections for my Evolution Hour stuff. In this case the obvious one would be: Bobrovskiy, Ilya, Janet M. Hope, Andrey Ivantsov, Benjamin J. Nettersheim, Christian Hallmann, & Jochen J. Brocks. 2018. “Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals.” Science 361 (21 September): 1246-1249.
I don’t know a ton about dickinsonia but is it possible it could be a sea pen relative that freely floated because they have been found near or next to crinoid fossils
could it possibly be that it evolved from a bilateral animal then stopped being bilateral? that could explain why it's so unusual. maybe its ancestor had a bunch of symmetrical segments but then its body flattened and every second segment after the head grew laterally in a different direction to the previous
I’ve got to defend the researcher who theorized they were lichen a tad (he’s my dads friend, I have to lol). Lichen, theoretically at least, doesn’t have to live on land. Lichen isn’t a particular type of life after all, it’s a group I’d symbionts from vastly different kingdoms. Lichen may look like a primitive plant but they are not. Lichen are made up of at least one type of algae, fungus, and yeast, but often they have multiple species of each. All three, fungus, algae, and yeast, can live in water which theoretically means there could be a type of ocean dwelling lichen. I haven’t talked to Greg Rucka about it so I don’t know if that was his argument, but that seems somewhat plausible to me. Personally I think he’s wrong here, I think it’s far more likely they are animals, but if you don’t challenge theories and present new hypothesis then science can’t move forward.
That's totally fair. I do still think it would be odd for such early evolution of complex symbiotes, but that is true, all of them can live in salt water.
Personally, I wonder if Ediacaran life is even related to modern life in any way. It might have been sort of an alpha test for complex life (if we think of the Cambrian as the beta, ala TierZoo), with nearly all of those organisms proving unsuccessful and dying out.
So having two origins of life on earth, with the failed ediacaran experiment, and a second one that leads to today's life? OR with another start for complex life that comes from the same unicellular origen?
@HappyBeezerStudios Probably something akin to the former. Like two separate trees of life, branched off from the same common eukareotic organism, existing and evolving at the same time. One produces the Ediacaran biota and the other the Cambrian biota. The stem-Cambrians were obviously the more successful in this hypothetical scenario. However, some Ediacarans may have survived to become extant species. Maybe someday we'll find transitional fossils of the period in between.
great video but you gotta work on those outros bro maybe add like 15 seconds of outro music with source data or attributions the video just ended so suddenly I was like " oh thats it?" it made sense to end there don't get me wrong but it was still surprising
Absolutely, great video. Subscribed. As a performer, I also don’t give a shit what my hair looks like often, and I have gotten into hats as a tool for lookin a bit better.
What if we're wrong about glide symmetry? What if what we consider left and right, are in fact up and down? What if instead of living flat on the ocean floor like a sand dollar, they were floating vertically just above the ocean floor / algal mat, with a maximized two-sided surface for filtering nutrients floating in the water?
It could be something like the myomers of segmentation in fish, but based on everything we see they weren't really moving in the water column for that idea. There's been a lot of debate about these organisms, and that has been proposed, but in Dickinsonia there's no evidence of a holdfast which would actually make that lifestyle work.
@@RaptorChatter Did we know if there were any free-floating complex/large organisms? Life without a holdfast would have been very hazardous though, since they had no real muscular fibers... But if other ediacaran organisms used their segments as pneumatic systems to rise from the ocean floor and "float", then what was the purpose of the similar pneumatic system in Dickinsonia?
Let's fuckin goo bebe! I always look forward to your uploads. Love your channel bro! It is hard to pick a favorite RUclips channel... But yours is high on my list. No contest.
Just my opinion: No organism is radially symmetrical. Anything described that way can be bisected into two equal halves, once one knows where its seam starts. Starfish start out obviously bilateral, then merely appear radially symmetrical, while one arm contains the genitals, thus, cut in half through that arm, they are still bilateral. Flowers that appear radially symmetrical come from stems that are not, from seeds that are not. Follow their growth from the start, and you can bisect odd-petaled flowers perfectly. All that said, this creature, made to give delicate pedicures, is obviously a bilateral animal, as the impressions left behind would not have been done by a plant, nor do fungi typically move (and this is obviously not a slime mold). It would be cool if it ends up being one of our ancestors, but I am betting more it's not going to lead to deuterostomes. It looks like a bug. BTW, as an uncle many times over, let me just say, the eye roll thing you do unconsciously, for emphasis of ideas? It's adorable, and works well. So few people do this. I am sure that means something. Oy, if someone was of an age, single and looking... (Then, as I was leaving, subbing, I saw your link for Gaza aid... Who would not adore you?)
its a br0n movie, starring Sonia Blaze and the mandingo brothers title, 'DickinSonia, lost in the museum' a small best seller from the 2000s a classic. Look it up
Seen the title, googled it, and saved time by getting my answer without watching this video. And because I paused the piece when the ad’s were loading, you will not get the view point. Have a great day, thanks for teaching me something without teaching!
I think it’s more likely that proarticulatans were originally bilaterian and then slowly had glide symmetry,some bilaterian fossils are found before most proarticulatans existed,thus this is more likely
Great presentation... I was wondering do bilateral animals have a hox gene that makes us bilateral , rather then have near bilateral glide symmetry like our potental animal ancestors had...also how that perhaps explains why some animals favour left and right , why some organs ( eg : Heart not being in the centre of our bodies) etc...
Some animals give up their bilateral form during their life. Think of starfish, their larvae are free swimming and bilateral. The "bottom" of the adult starfish is the left side of the larva. Their closest relatives are sea urchins and sea cucumbers, followed by a type of worm and then us chordata.
it reminds of a smart saying" in enviroment of controlled humidity, temperature and nutrition, every life form dose whatever the hell it wants". That is how evolution realy works i think, lots of random trail and failures untill something gives enough of an edge to someone and than we get massive extinction because oxygen came in to the world and noone was ready. (or other much less devastating events)
Natures simple way to show the same pattern through one slice of the pie. So many names, just one pattern repeated. Should we burn those degrees or use them to wipe?
I can't agree with the argument that if the segments are asymmetrical, we can exclude our suggestions that this creature is a part of bilateria clade. There's an examples of such shift in symmetry in bilateria
"what the hell was dickinsonia" the peak of life on earth thats what it was. we should've never evolved past that
Except its Kryptoinite was mud slides.
Jumped the shark before the first fish
We might go back to that stage, Universe doesn't owe us anything
My question is who is Sonia? 🤨
Surely you mean Shirley....but don't call me that 😉😂
I’ll do you one better!
Why is Sonia?
She was the best ice skater of her time
1:32 Not sure but Ezi says she wasn't bi so that limits the options.
As the automatic subtitles keep addressing her as "dicking Sonia", she must be a quite lively girl.
It hurts my heart whenever a fossil gets destroyed, even if it's for science.
I don't unless it was an animal that was conscious and it died horribly like mammals in the tar pits. After all, without death there can be no complex life, and without sudden geological events, we would have no fossils...
I think it's bc it represents that someday you will too
@@SoulDelSolFor me it's just a shame, like "Oh it lasted all this time. And now... *Poof*." Like seeing a priceless antique getting shattered. So much history just to end unceremoniously. It's like the creature is finally, truly dying, for good.
@@BlokHeadAnim ya it makes it millions of years and then boop joe touches it and it's gone. Hurt when isis destroyed ancient megalithic sites..
@@SoulDelSol I don't particularly care about myself: I'm a disposable sack of meat whose passing will be unnoticed, easily replaced by any of the billions marching one step behind me. The last relic of something barely understood, potentially something so poorly represented that we might never understand it, is something *far* more important than a random retail-monkey like myself.
I hardly knew her
i only knew her from the time we spent in your bed
I found her face embedded in rock, she looked like a shell
Ah yes, Our greatest ancestor was a disk
I want this on a t-shirt
It knew how to lie flat and take it easy. It’s an inspiration to us all.
Return to disk
Or possibly a bag. It’s hard to tell from what’s basically a footprint / impression of a flattened corpse
Ah, to be a slime disk gobbling up bacteria mats in a primordial ocean
Crawling around on the sea floor absorbing nutrients from bacterial mats directly through a permeable membrane was probably a fairly efficient feeding strategy, that is until the Bacteria did a bit of mutating and found It now had an excellent food source in Dickinsonia. There's always some Joker wanting to breakup the good times.
That's really probably not what happened. During the cambrian explosion many animals turned to burrowing behaviors to evade the newly evolved predators, this ended up breaking up the microbial mat which dickinsonia probably fed on, incorperating the microbes into the previously anoxic soil and creating the microbe-rich soil we know today. sadly the last dickinsonia most likely starved to death
Wtf is that emoji???
@@melody3741 it's a sudden WTF
But hey it's a living 😂😂😂😂😂!
They evolved to be 🥞pancake like, but too many algae evolved into syrups that made them mushy and easily damaged! 😢 Poor critters!😭🥞
Ediacaran creatures are so fascinating, particularly because this was a time before the tree of life was pruned down, so there are body plans and lifestyles we wouldn't even recognize today! Fascinating video and research!
and apparently much like the even earlier huainan biota (of which almost nothing or absolutely nothing is related to anything alive today) , very little of it is actually related to things alive today
Edicaran flora or fauna or "biota" or whatever they were are really strange and different from most life I've heard of today, very weird, I first heard of it from a BBC in our time episode and I was like, what the hell were these things?
I, just the other day, got a fossil called Andiva. At first, scientists thought that it was just a large form of Dickinsonia. However, now they think that it is a related, slightly more evolved species. Great video on one of the first (likely) animals!
The sterol study did compare the on-specimen versus nearby matrix measures and did find contrast
Yes, but some researchers since then have questioned the results. I still feel they're probably valid, but didn't want to rely too much on my personal feelings on the study
Those are good principles to hold. Respect for that @@RaptorChatter
In Mycology, we were told that part of the definition of "fungi" was that they were all sessile. The motion of Dickinsonia would therefore rule out it being a fungus.
Fair enough! Considering the common ancestor I would question where that delineates early on though. For example corals spend most of their lives sessile, and even fungi spores can be fairly mobile depending on the environment. So I think there'd need to be more specific language, such as sessile as an adult, without a significant separately independently motile period.
Since I wrote that Comment, I have been concerned that there were motile spores in fungi...and it turns out that there are (as you point out). Some fungi have zoospores that have flagella. So while "sessile as an adult" is more accurate, that does not hold water (so to speak) in an evolutionary sense, because the motile form might have been the dominant one, half a billion years ago. Darn. I wanted to rule out one Kingdom...
The head-first development is _really_ panarthropod-like, which is the most unusually part for me. so many weirdos in groups like crustaceans are essentially born as heads that grow their body out behind them as their metamorphosis. And looking at Tardigrades, they have basically reduced themselves down to being just a head for their whole life.
Not saying these were panarthropods or even especially related to then, but it's a pretty weird parallel to notice.
Convergent evolution, maybe?
@@jfangm most likely in my opinion. Who knows though
in plant biology, one identifying factor is the node arrangement on the stem. There are several more than i mention, but two very common ones are "opposite" vs "alternate". This life form appears to have the alternate form like hollies, camelias and oaks. Some examples of the opposite would be maples, boxwoods, ligustrums, tea olive and crape myrtles. Maybe this alternate form of growth could give us a clue?
Maybe. Unfortunately we have very few early plant fossils, and the examples you gave are angiosperms, which didn't evolve for at least several hundreds of millions of years afterwards (this is before even mosses existed on land), so it's not that likely. Still it could be possible with some of that symmetry that it was related to plants somewhat, I think the chemical analysis is pretty solid though.
Evolution doesn't make perfect, it makes good enough... man, what a weirdly inspirational thought. Thank you, and thanks Dickinsonia
And evolution doesn't redesign things that get in the way along it's path.
Think of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It goes down the neck, under the aorta, and back up. Not an issue in fish, where it can go directly from the brain straight down to the gills. But as animals developed necks and the head and heart moved away from each other, the nerve followed. A redesign would bring it straight to the larynx, but that would mean completely redesigning it's development, and evolution doesn't do that.
I was told by a Jehovas witness that I was designed by god. I mentioned that our spines are not designed to be upright. And, Ben Elton's favourite, spectacles.
She came up with ' the devil did that' as her response. 😂😂😂😂
I think that bilateral animals could have evolved when a flat, 2 layer animal like Placozoa rolled into a tube. The Placozoa top layer became the ectoderm and the Placozoa bottom (food absorbing layer) became the endoderm, or gut tube.
Not an unreasonable hypothesis
I always imagined it more like they folded into a cup shape, with one orifice like we see on pre-bilateral animals like cnidarians and ctenophores, and then that cup shape pinched together in the middle to form the two orifices of bilateral animals, and the specialization of those two orifices leading to the protostome-deuterostome split (Probably spelled those two wrong but you know what I mean lol)
So, according to your hypothesis, ctenophora and cnidaria developed their tissues independently from bilateria? According to molecular data, ctenophora are not related with bilateria, while still having ecto and endoderm.
@@ВиталийМандыбураI think, the ctenophores are maybe a kind of a sister Group to the bilaterians. And the ctenophores are in fact the only multicellular animals, who are moving with ciliates, wich is normally typical for some one cellular organisms.
Maybe there is a kind of closer relationship between some Ediacara animals and the ctenophores? I wouldn't wonder....
@@Tyra-2534ctenophora are indeed not bilateria. Whether they are sister or cousin group is discussionable. My point is, animals developed tissues before bilateria appeared, even sponges (in particular homocelomorphyal (i hope it is the right name) sponges) have something similar to epithelium without some of its proteins tho. (And there's also some plat worms which locomotes with cilia, but it is secondary adaptation) Hypothesis I've been told in uni is a suggestion that first bilateria used to be quite a complex organisms with caelom, limbs, nervous system, and segmented body.
The possibility that's most intriguing to me is that Dickinsonia and other Ediacaran specimens represent stem-metazoans, that is to say, animals from a line that diverged at some point before the most recent common ancestor of all living animal species.
Nature really did like to experiment, didn't it? Not content with just picking a kind of symmetry and trying out body plans from it, it actually experimented with different body symmetries to start with! One has to wonder what life would have been like if trilateral radial had taken off, though...
Nature is not a sentient being, it's not content of anything, it's just evolution, it was the start of the life, all niches were free, so species evolved in all directions, and given they were not ordered yet, they tried for different orders ˆˆ
The aliens in Clark's _Rendezvous with Rama_ had trilateral symmetry.
@@jemborg also the Old Ones
Life doesn't experiment, it throws everything on the wall and sees what sticks. Or rather, what survives.
@@HappyBeezerStudios that's a rudimentary form of an experiment though
Immediate spectulation. They got the head and tail mixed up. The head is actually the other end. This creature would grow by developing a biased division in the wide segment at the back, and that process alternated from left to right. It had a growth pattern similar to a modern tapeworm, and as it grew larger the new segments grew larger. It used suction to hold it to the sea flood in the intertidal zone, where the photosynthetic mats it would feed upon were the most plentiful. The niche it occupied is now exploited by the sand dollar.
Come to think of it, it kinda looks like a sand dollar too. Might be something.
Yes that's the comment I was looking for
I'm a big fan of Dickinsonia...
One of your best videos yet ! Keep up the good work !! The ediacran organisms are wonderful !!
How do you think Dickinsonia moved? Was it more of a crawl (scrunch and stretch), a slither (alternately tensing its segments back and forth), or a flappy motion (as it lifted itself off the bottom a bit)? Could they have been able to glide in the water?
Warping Time and Space
It may have been similar to a planaria, using primarily cilia for movement
I could see them sort of vavy motion. If the "head" had any nervous center it might send the movement signal along the body and each segment does it's thing in line.
Back and forth
I imagine it like a centipede with "webbed feet"
Aloha. Dickinsonia Was 100% an animal. There are protein Fragmentes in that rocks that are proof of it. Was hard to extract and analyse but worked out well. Only true animals have that protein. ❤
Wow! Were you part of the team who was studying the dickansonia fossil? That is so cool!
Not sure if you were one of the ones who studied it, but I would generally agree based on that paper. I have heard critiques of it and without being "in the know" for Ediacaran paleo I didn't want my personal feelings to interact with this video. I think I did a decent job of presenting multiple lines of evidence that it was an animal though.
True animals made by fallen angels?. God of the Bi bell is lucifer and he put his hands on everything including his son ya.sonia
Bright Mourning star fallen from ✡️ heaven. All stars are fallen angels. Elohim is most High of diety God's. Yaweh is serpent worship. Lord means baal worship. Amen is ra amenra God is gad gadreel fallen angels. Unless you already knew this, our creator Aravat 2nd Enoch 20:3 is the true Creators name. He arrives in months for judgment day
@@Shadoweknows76 So are you saying God made Dickinsonia?
@@Shadoweknows76 Or are you saying that fallen angles created dickinsonia?
I don't know why it is so hard to believe that bilaterians evolved from creatures like Dickinsonia. Charnia to Dickinsonia to Spriggina to something like a Trilobite or annelid worm convinces me quite a lot. Maybe the glide symmetry turned into bilateral symmetry?
Thanks for sharing! The Ediacaran is one of the most interesting to me. Everything looked so alien. I imagine that life in Europa's ocean would be similar.The part about the cholesterol is new to me and i havent heard anyone else discuss this. Thanks!
We have some lovely Ediacaran fossil sites in Australia at the Flinders Ranges, went there for a geology field trip and got to meet one of the paleontologists who was working on one of the sites! SO many Dickinsonia at that site along with a bunch of Spriggina and you could see the ripples in the sand!
(Also we pronounce it Edi-ac-aran here in Australia, I almost didn't understand what word you were saying from how you pronounced it XD)
I've heard Ediacaran pronounced so many ways I have just decided to commit to one. If I ever teach a class I'll say all of them in one class and if students complain I'll tell them that's the reality of pronunciation in paleontology lol
@RaptorChatter Talmorne is correct about the pronunciation. I'm from South Australia and familiar with the Flinders Ranges. The Edicara Hills were named from an Aboriginal word. The emphasis on the mddle part of the word is typical of many localities in the Flinders, eg ArkaRoola, WilPena. I found this YT video which is close, albeit with an American accent. m.ruclips.net/video/LdvYxdjlMig/видео.html . Love your videos though.
@@RaptorChatter not good enough 😠
@RaptorChatter Ediacaran was so named after the Ediacara Hills in South Australia. Ediacara is the local Aboriginal word for a water spring. So you might commit to the wrong pronunciation like Americans do with a lot of English words. But it's not English and as my heritage is from the area and the people I find it offensive.
@@TheRottenPenguin It's your choice to be offended. No one here is trying to offend. We all just want to learn.
Only tangentially related, but I love how the sandy background of the art in the thumbnail makes that specific dickinsonia look city-sized at thumbnail resolution. lol
Bro, whoever has their Dickinsonia has been rock hard for hundreds of millions of years 💀
A joke to make my aunt in law laugh her ass off.
thank you sonia.... i never will get this out of my head.
Nature’s first Roomba
Sorry, but I think the internet has broken me, my first thought seeing this video title was "What the Hell was Dickinsonia?!"... "Dickinsonia face.. . gottem"
Thank you for this interesting take on the enigmatic Dickinsonia, and indeed Spriggina!
I look on their 'pesudo-bilateralism' and have long thought "I bet these aren't animals, at least not in the sense one would commonly understand." I also find it hard to believe their seeming 'alternating segments' are a taphonomic artefact. What, every example?
What hadn't occurred to me is that they may be showing a step along the way to becoming truly bilateral, something to think about.
I wonder how they go to true bilateral symmetry. Would the segments shift along until they are in pairs, or would each segment start growing on both sides of the body.
I don't pretend to know the answer to what Dickinsonia is, but it does look like a transition from some kind of placozoan/radial animal toward bilaterals.
They really couldnt give it a better name? It's 2 letters away from being very cursed
How could it be even more cursed than it already is?
Forgive my density, but what two letters?
They named it in honour of Ben Dickinson, a Mines director who directed the ministry where the founder worked.
If there's people who can live with being called Dickinson, I don't see why it should be different for fossils XD
@krankarvolund7771 Look, he could have been named Glasscock, he could've been named Buttz, he could've been named Gaylord Focker.
A funny name is a funny name😅
@@krankarvolund7771 We have a planet called Uranus, which isn't an issue in latin, but with the right accent the name becomes a huge immature joke.
Good thing is, we only have to wait 597 years until it will be renamed.
To Urectum
An alga is just a photosyntetic organism in water. It is not a clade. Claiming that kelp is algae, essentially says nothing. They are brown algae, which is the clade Phaeophyceae. And land plants are algae too, namely Green Algae, that belong to the new clade Plantae. Some "algae" are plants, some aren't, so one cannot distinguish plants from "algae" like mutually exclusive groupings.
Most researchers consider all algae to be basal plants. Also, the different groups of algae are all more closely related to each other than to...anything else in the domain of life, so they absolutely do form a clade. Their photosynthetic life-style is ancestral, it's not a case of convergent evolution, even if not all of them use chlorophyl for the process.
I will say specifically, as far as I know it's the green algae which are basal to plants. red-brown algae are kinda their own closely related thing.
@@RaptorChatter Red algae are also ancestral to plants, brown algae evolved due to secondary endosymbiosis where their ancestor engulfed an ancient red algae. Brown algae are stramenopiles a group of "protists" that include kelp, diatoms, and oomycetes.
Back when protists were a thing, "algae" was used for all the plant-like species
Johnny Cage's favorite fossil
first read the thumbnail as “Dickensona” like a sona from Charles Dickens. but learning about animals with radial and glide symmetry is so woah!
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you ever defined 'glide symmetry'. Helpful for those of us who aren't Paleontologists.
He doesn't have to define "glide symmetry" because it's an extremely obvious term that has nothing to do with paleontology. You should be able to intuit that it's imperfect symmetry characterized by one of the sides being slightly offset. Like this is a phrase with its definition built-in
No need to be snotty about it, @@SnoFitzroy. Sorry, but the definition is not 'built in'. Yes, I gathered what he meant, but it would have been nice to have had it confirmed. 'Glide symmetry' conjures a different image in my mind. If the term were something like 'offset symmetry' or 'staggered symmetry', that has a built in definition. But there's nothing about 'gliding' that carries anything of the notion of being offset. Quite the opposite, actually. 'Glide' only implies forward motion under no power. You could equally call it 'walking symmetry' or 'running symmetry' or 'crawling' symmetry. All are equally as obtuse as 'glide symmetry'.
Nice video. I recommend including source links for the technical works being discussed, so viewers can more easily do their own follow-ups (I do that in the link sections for my Evolution Hour stuff. In this case the obvious one would be:
Bobrovskiy, Ilya, Janet M. Hope, Andrey Ivantsov, Benjamin J. Nettersheim, Christian Hallmann, & Jochen J. Brocks. 2018. “Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals.” Science 361 (21 September): 1246-1249.
Did he ask Sonia for consent first tho?
The title is self explanatory
it's the tully monster's rug
I don’t know a ton about dickinsonia but is it possible it could be a sea pen relative that freely floated because they have been found near or next to crinoid fossils
Ah, yes, Dickinsonia, Penispersona, Phallusfamiliarus, how could I forget?
Hits different when you're a pokemon fan
Dickinsonia?! I barely knew her!
could it possibly be that it evolved from a bilateral animal then stopped being bilateral? that could explain why it's so unusual. maybe its ancestor had a bunch of symmetrical segments but then its body flattened and every second segment after the head grew laterally in a different direction to the previous
I’ve got to defend the researcher who theorized they were lichen a tad (he’s my dads friend, I have to lol). Lichen, theoretically at least, doesn’t have to live on land. Lichen isn’t a particular type of life after all, it’s a group I’d symbionts from vastly different kingdoms. Lichen may look like a primitive plant but they are not. Lichen are made up of at least one type of algae, fungus, and yeast, but often they have multiple species of each. All three, fungus, algae, and yeast, can live in water which theoretically means there could be a type of ocean dwelling lichen. I haven’t talked to Greg Rucka about it so I don’t know if that was his argument, but that seems somewhat plausible to me. Personally I think he’s wrong here, I think it’s far more likely they are animals, but if you don’t challenge theories and present new hypothesis then science can’t move forward.
That's totally fair. I do still think it would be odd for such early evolution of complex symbiotes, but that is true, all of them can live in salt water.
This was very hard to watch as someone named Sonia!
Don't make the joke !
don't make the joke !
don't make the joke !
*AHEM*
who’s Sonia?
I told my wife a moment ago that I want to go see a Dickinsonia at the museum and I got a priceless WTF look😂
I cannot believe they named it that
very cool. also, kelp is not a plant, just a big algae?!? i was today years old when i learned this
Yep, it's technically a species of red-brown algae
you are the first person to say cambrian explosion without singing it in over a decade. congratulations
like how now $ is pronounced munn - ee
I've gotta' admit it: when I read the title, the first response in my mind was, "It's how Sonia got pregnant."
Silly question. Trilobite. All life was Trilobite. Soon, all will be Trilobite again.
Personally, I wonder if Ediacaran life is even related to modern life in any way. It might have been sort of an alpha test for complex life (if we think of the Cambrian as the beta, ala TierZoo), with nearly all of those organisms proving unsuccessful and dying out.
So having two origins of life on earth, with the failed ediacaran experiment, and a second one that leads to today's life? OR with another start for complex life that comes from the same unicellular origen?
@HappyBeezerStudios
Probably something akin to the former. Like two separate trees of life, branched off from the same common eukareotic organism, existing and evolving at the same time. One produces the Ediacaran biota and the other the Cambrian biota. The stem-Cambrians were obviously the more successful in this hypothetical scenario. However, some Ediacarans may have survived to become extant species. Maybe someday we'll find transitional fossils of the period in between.
great video but you gotta work on those outros bro maybe add like 15 seconds of outro music with source data or attributions the video just ended so suddenly I was like " oh thats it?" it made sense to end there don't get me wrong but it was still surprising
4:58 “ Not the most interesting lifestyle but it’s a living”
A bit like being an airline pilot.😂😂
Absolutely, great video. Subscribed.
As a performer, I also don’t give a shit what my hair looks like often, and I have gotten into hats as a tool for lookin a bit better.
Dickinsonia? I barely know her!
Dickinsonia was the bottom of the tribrachidium -- line up the holes.
I've never even considered a beehive to be simple...
YOU DID WHAT TO SONIA!!?
“What the hell was dickinsonia?” A roomba. A flippin roomba
What if we're wrong about glide symmetry? What if what we consider left and right, are in fact up and down? What if instead of living flat on the ocean floor like a sand dollar, they were floating vertically just above the ocean floor / algal mat, with a maximized two-sided surface for filtering nutrients floating in the water?
It could be something like the myomers of segmentation in fish, but based on everything we see they weren't really moving in the water column for that idea. There's been a lot of debate about these organisms, and that has been proposed, but in Dickinsonia there's no evidence of a holdfast which would actually make that lifestyle work.
@@RaptorChatter Did we know if there were any free-floating complex/large organisms? Life without a holdfast would have been very hazardous though, since they had no real muscular fibers... But if other ediacaran organisms used their segments as pneumatic systems to rise from the ocean floor and "float", then what was the purpose of the similar pneumatic system in Dickinsonia?
No. We have feeding trace fossils for Dickinsonia.
I still think of Dickinsonia as a meme when I see or hear the word, like updog or ligma.
Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much, and the woman happens to be named Sonia...
I love this era of time ❤ more please
Struggle with glide symmetry
Let's fuckin goo bebe! I always look forward to your uploads. Love your channel bro! It is hard to pick a favorite RUclips channel... But yours is high on my list. No contest.
Thanks!
I hope someone bought Sonia dinner first
what time was this thing around?
What was dickinsonia? Bring me sonia and I'll show ya!
The radial symmetry to bilateral symmetry transition doesn't sound too far fetched. Starfish are bilateria that have transitioned to radial symetry.
Chicks named Sonia: 🥵😮💨
Pre earthworm that lived before there was soil to munch on
Just my opinion: No organism is radially symmetrical. Anything described that way can be bisected into two equal halves, once one knows where its seam starts. Starfish start out obviously bilateral, then merely appear radially symmetrical, while one arm contains the genitals, thus, cut in half through that arm, they are still bilateral. Flowers that appear radially symmetrical come from stems that are not, from seeds that are not. Follow their growth from the start, and you can bisect odd-petaled flowers perfectly. All that said, this creature, made to give delicate pedicures, is obviously a bilateral animal, as the impressions left behind would not have been done by a plant, nor do fungi typically move (and this is obviously not a slime mold). It would be cool if it ends up being one of our ancestors, but I am betting more it's not going to lead to deuterostomes. It looks like a bug.
BTW, as an uncle many times over, let me just say, the eye roll thing you do unconsciously, for emphasis of ideas? It's adorable, and works well. So few people do this. I am sure that means something. Oy, if someone was of an age, single and looking...
(Then, as I was leaving, subbing, I saw your link for Gaza aid... Who would not adore you?)
But did it taste like lobster?
It looks like a mushroom coral. I looked at pictures of mushroom corals and they don't seem to be perfectly symmetrical either.
Dickinsonia? I hardly know her!
Bonus question: What the Dickens is Hellinsonia?
I like the apparent bilateral symmetry. And it also looks like it has segments. Single-sided segments?
It has the best name ever ! ...right after *amorphus globosus*
its a br0n movie, starring Sonia Blaze and the mandingo brothers title, 'DickinSonia, lost in the museum' a small best seller from the 2000s a classic. Look it up
Alright so, amateur guess but, i think it might be a disk
Seen the title, googled it, and saved time by getting my answer without watching this video. And because I paused the piece when the ad’s were loading, you will not get the view point. Have a great day, thanks for teaching me something without teaching!
No worries. I love letting people learn things, even when they aren't polite!
I think it’s more likely that proarticulatans were originally bilaterian and then slowly had glide symmetry,some bilaterian fossils are found before most proarticulatans existed,thus this is more likely
who's Sonia
who makes these names?
thought this was about Dicksonia for a moment and was confused
I don’t know, but Sonia is always really happy about it.
I just came here to say i first read the thumbnail as dicksona.
Prepare for the internet to make this a real thing sooner than you think.
i truly thought from the thumbnail that i was going to be diving into some fictional rpg monster creature. still, was not dissapointed
Great presentation... I was wondering do bilateral animals have a hox gene that makes us bilateral , rather then have near bilateral glide symmetry like our potental animal ancestors had...also how that perhaps explains why some animals favour left and right , why some organs ( eg : Heart not being in the centre of our bodies) etc...
Some animals give up their bilateral form during their life. Think of starfish, their larvae are free swimming and bilateral. The "bottom" of the adult starfish is the left side of the larva. Their closest relatives are sea urchins and sea cucumbers, followed by a type of worm and then us chordata.
"Dickensonia" is the people who watch Patrick Dickenson's "wild camp" videos.
it reminds of a smart saying" in enviroment of controlled humidity, temperature and nutrition, every life form dose whatever the hell it wants".
That is how evolution realy works i think, lots of random trail and failures untill something gives enough of an edge to someone and than we get massive extinction because oxygen came in to the world and noone was ready. (or other much less devastating events)
A good time for Sonia?
I suggest you ask Sonia, but she will probably tell you that it's none of your business.
The prehistoric frisby
Natures simple way to show the same pattern through one slice of the pie.
So many names, just one pattern repeated.
Should we burn those degrees or use them to wipe?
I can't agree with the argument that if the segments are asymmetrical, we can exclude our suggestions that this creature is a part of bilateria clade. There's an examples of such shift in symmetry in bilateria
That would kind of ruin archaecaelomatic theory
Dickinsonia has bilateral symmetry, you merely need to look at it from its side.