Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


In the beginning God created the sponge

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 February 2009
IT is a discovery that would have set the mind of Charles Darwin at rest.
When the great naturalist was forming his famous theory of evolution, he puzzled over the lack of evidence for the most primitive forms of life.

Fossils only existed for relatively complex creatures that appeared during an explosion in life about 530 million years ago, during the Cambrian period.

Now scientists say they have discovered the missing link in the chain of evolution. They have found evidence of the oldest animal life yet discovered on Earth – ancient sponges that lived 635 million years ago.

Darwin always believed life developed from biologically basic organisms, such as sponges, which he put at the bottom of his famous Tree of Life.

However, he was puzzled by the lack of evidence for the most simple lifeforms.

Now a team led by Scottish scientist, Dr Gordon Love, from the University of California, has found evidence of very basic organisms that lived about 100 million years before the Cambrian period.

Dr Love said: "Darwin had his so-called dilemma. He couldn't understand why we would see this Cambrian explosion – the appearance of all these animal forms – but nothing earlier. He thought there must be huge chunks of fossil evidence missing. He was puzzled.

"Now, as we have started to celebrate his legacy, we have shown his gut instinct was correct."

Dr Love agreed the discovery could have put the great scientist's mind at rest.

His team found chemical evidence for tiny sponges, dating back to the end of the last major ice age, known as the Marinoan glaciation. The sponges would have lived in the shallow water of the sea off Oman.

The discovery suggests the ocean basins at that time contained enough dissolved oxygen to support simple lifeforms. The organisms would have been similar to modern sponges, which now line seabeds across the world, but they would have been far smaller.

Just enough oxygen would have existed in the shallow areas of the sea for them grow to a few millimetres in size, whereas today sea sponges can measure metres across.

Finding evidence of early forms of life lacking shells or skeletons is not an easy task.

One answer, used by Dr Love's team, is to look for chemical biomarkers which the animals would have left behind.

It was these "chemical fossils" that the scientists found in Oman. Dr Jochen Brocks, of the Australian National University, Canberra, said Dr Love's research was "compelling evidence" of the rise of the sponge lineage before 635 million years ago, which helped to vindicate Darwin.

He said: "Charles Darwin was famously sceptical about the sudden appearance of fully formed animals in the early Cambrian fossil record, beginning some 542 million years ago.

"To a degree, he has been vindicated by the discovery of animal and animal-like fossils extending throughout the preceding Ediacaran period, which followed the end of the second of the great Cryogenian ice ages, 635 million years ago."

Letter that was the genesis for Darwin's evolution idea

A LETTER sent by Charles Darwin to James David Forbes, a college principal at St Andrews University over 150 years ago, forms part of an exhibition to mark the 200th anniversary of the father of the theory of evolution's birth.

In the document, sent in October 1844, Darwin tells Forbes – an eminent Scottish scientist in the field of glaciology – of his observations of parallel lines and the effects of glacial ice.

From 1859, Mr Forbes was principal of the United College of St Salvator and St Leonard at the University of St Andrews.

The exhibition is the centrepiece of events at the university including a series of lectures, on "Darwin Day", 12 February. Academics from across the university will gather to celebrate the bicentennial of Charles Darwin and 150 years of On the Origin of Species.

"On the track of the Beagle", one of the highlights of the event, will be delivered by leading maritime historian Dr Robert Prescott.

Dr Prescott will detail his exploration to discover the final resting place of the ship, aboard which Charles Darwin began to formulate his influential theory of evolution.

Valentina Islas, the event organiser, said: "This brings together some of the greatest minds in the university to celebrate and appropriately honour one of Britain's best known and respected scientists."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 February 2009 9:56 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Creationism
 
1

gordon'sboomhasbust,

glasgow 05/02/2009 02:22:47
Heck I think The Scotsman is brave.
Imagine saying that life might have begun 635million years ago.
And that we're all related to a sponge. Maybe that's why men are good at washing cars ?
Jehovas Witnesses reckon 6,000 years ago.
The bible says about 4,000 years ago.
Stand by for barking mad religious folks.
Over to Canada et al................
2

weeshooie1,

Wollongong 05/02/2009 02:36:47
When you think of it, we must be related to sponges. With all the crud that we are supposed to absorb and believe from politicians and bureaucrats, what else can/could we be?
3

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 05/02/2009 04:01:37
No #1
Bible doesn't say 4000-years. Like lots of things about religion, Man says the Bible says this. Look at the different meanings that can be used for the 6th word of the Bible, and you see there is such a thing as the Gap Theory.
4

St Caledonia,

05/02/2009 05:17:33
This is beautiful story because it delivers us answers. Science is mans best friend, science will never desert us and science is always there for us. Science speaks back to us, whereas religion offers nothing other than speculation.
The question for science, is how did the universe begin? And science and scientists ask questions and accept the evidence - The religious question should be, where did god come from? But there is no definitive answer and no proof, therefore, SCIENCE will need to take over and deliver us the answers.

If, as the religious folk say, god "just is" nobody or anything made god, then maybe the same is true of the universe, nobody made it - IT JUST IS

Faithless were wrong - God is not a DJ - God is a sponge
5

Bluevoice,

Dubai, U.A.E. 05/02/2009 07:10:00
Our brains LOOK like sponges and they do contain a lot of water! (o:
6

tommy,

belfast uk 05/02/2009 07:13:24
Thankfully this illusive creature has been preserved for posterity hiding chameleon like amongsy genuine claimants of the "Nanny State"
7

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/02/2009 09:11:19
#9/10 Why would you explicitly choose to latch on to fringe views which do not meet the peer-review standards required to attain mainstream scientific publication? What buttons does it press for you to be on the outside, in opposition to the vast majority, that you are prepared to put your faith in one set of views but not another, despite having no expertise yourself?

Do you believe also that HIV does not cause AIDS - as fringe researchers have claimed - or that the CIA planned and executed the 11/9 attacks?

Fringe conspiracy theorists like yourself fascinate me.

Are you religious? Or do you reserve your blind faith for pseudo-science?
8

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/02/2009 10:02:50
#12 You examine all the evidence and come to conclusions? Well why do you bother to read books that are filled with conclusions, and are very light on evidence, such as those you mention? And where do you get your expertise in biology, from Wikipedia?

As for 911, the "vast majority" don't believe any of the crackpot ideas that you promote. Don't kid yourself.
9

Scottish Canadian,

ottawa canada 05/02/2009 10:38:54
A Darwin Exhibit? How can we get that to Canada? Darwin's theory changed everything in science. He was bold enough to write and publish it and he took alot of stick for it. This discovery, as many continue to do, prove his theory which is accepted as fact within the scientific community. For those of you who doubt this, read Jonathan Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch". If you doubt his theory, take an evolution course at University and find out for yourself. He was a great man who did a great thing for science.
As for viruses, they are little packages of rna or dna which inserts itself into the host dna for replication. Generally the virus has passed on to another host before the current host dies. If this didn't happen, the virus would simply die out.
Utter scrutinizer: what is your source for stating evolution by natural selection is "utter drivel"? To debate a scientific theory you need scientific sources. And who is Leonard Pye and what are his scientific credentials?
10

AJ Fife,

05/02/2009 10:49:00
Forget a sponge, looking at the various paintings of Mr God, he really should've created a pair of scissors first. His beard and hair are a disgrace!
11

Boggle fey the Bog,

05/02/2009 10:50:14
3 For Scotlands Future,Vote for the SNP 05/02/2009 04:01:37
"No #1
Bible doesn't say 4000-years. Like lots of things about religion, Man says the Bible says this. Look at the different meanings that can be used for the 6th word of the Bible, and you see there is such a thing as the Gap Theory."

What 6th word might that be?
Might it be 'old','mighty','called','god' or 'the'?

Or are you referring to the seventh word of the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, Chapter 1 verse 1, which is 'Heaven'.
Although that will depend on which version of the Book you are using as your reference, I'm using the King James version, or indeed where upon from the book you call the 'beginning'.

As for the 'Gap Theory' doesn't that go along the lines of, 'If yer weans, see their pals werrin it, an they've no goat it, then they huv a GAP in their wardrobe'. ;-).

BOT, a nice we story from the Hootsmaun, and given the average Scots ability tae 'sook' up liquor, it's nae surprise then tae see a Scotsman suggest wir awe descendants frae sponges!!!
12

Pete McClelland,

05/02/2009 11:08:07
And where is the evidence of these lizard headed politicians?
13

Boggle fey the Bog,

05/02/2009 11:25:25
Scrutinizer,telling it like it is... 05/02/2009 10:53:38
# 17

"Darwin changed science? Did he? What did he change? He only presented a 'theory', which to this date is unproven."

Nor has it been disproven!!!
Did he change science?, well perhaps he didn't 'change science', but he certainly changed the perception of science, and further pulled it out from under the veil of heresy and into the open.

As for your crack-pot theories, suffice to say up until the destruction of the Middle Eastern Caliphates by the the Holy Roman Empire, everyone knew the world was not flat, and that the world was created a lot longer than 5 millennium earlier.

The most scientifically advanced civilisation in the world was the Chinese Empire, up until the 16th century, when they were gradually overtaken by the Europeans, who basically 'stole' most of their ideas and those of the Islamic scientists that predated European Science.

Even then, they were hamstrung, as science is today, by so called 'ethics' and 'morality' of the 'religious fantasists' who seem to have a pecuniary vested interest in science not advancing and proving their 'fairy stories' to be just that, fairy stories.
14

Lianachan,

Highlands 05/02/2009 11:47:05
In the beginning, Man created the Gods. It all kind of went downhill from there.
15

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

05/02/2009 11:56:53
Still....where would we be waeoot the humble sponge eh?....think aboot it....wash the car, wash the waens, contraceptive, artists and interior designers tool..eh...oh aye and pittin up the wa'paper..!
16

danbob,

05/02/2009 12:07:40
So they think they have found the sponge that washs the car. Now find where the water that washes the car came from. Over to the egg heads
17

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 05/02/2009 12:17:08
#1 gordon'sboomhasbust,glasgow
"Stand by for barking mad religious folks"

I hope you weren't meaning me!
18

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 05/02/2009 12:21:43
#4 St. Calednia
"science will never desert us and science is always there for us."

I had two pupils in my class at school that were severly diabled because of Thalidomide. So much for science. Last week I bought a brand new Bosch dishwasher - to dispense with my sponge! My brand new dishwasher caried out half of one cycle and then packed in - perhaps I should have bought a Zanussi - the applience of science???!!!
I'd rather have faith in God!
19

Lianachan,

Highlands 05/02/2009 12:46:13
#30 It might be quicker if you just tell us all what you DON'T believe in. Nobody with at least half a brain thinks that Columbus was the first European to set foot in the Americas, so you can hardly claim that as some secret knowledge. I'm curious, though, what exactly do you think we should make of the Piri Reiss map - ie, what do YOU make of it?
20

St Caledonia,

05/02/2009 12:51:17
Ivan Jellicoe

Nothing wrong with you having a faith in a god, if believing in something that cannot offer you answers is your thing, then its your thing.

I hear you regarding your dishwasher, but at least science proved a dishwasher is possible. And whilst you had a bad experience, 30 million other homes didnt. And because science is dedicated to answering difficult questions, future dishwashers wont break down.

I was going ask god to teleport me from New York to London, but I ended up taking a jumbo jet - I placed my faith in science, I need to , waiting for the god thing would result in nothing...

21

Pete McClelland,

05/02/2009 13:18:40
*yawn* And the evidence of the lizard heads? Pictures? Diaries? Hmm?
22

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 05/02/2009 13:35:46
#32 St.Caledonia’s point is gracious and well made.
As one employed in the aviation industry, I too fly regularly. According to the scientific laws of aerodynamice (that I believe in!) it is impossible for a bumble-bee to fly.
In my opinion, that shows how much the Good Lord thinks about the laws of aerodynamics!

One further thought :-

Consider X = Y
multiply by X X² = XY
subtract Y² X² - Y² = XY - Y²

factorise (X + Y) (X - Y) = Y(X - Y)

remove (X - Y) (X + Y) = Y
therefore 2Y = Y
and so 2 = 1


you can use science, or mathematics or ‘laws’ to prove whatever you want.
23

Lianachan,

Highlands 05/02/2009 13:38:30
#33 Of course history is questionable. History, by definition, has to be recorded by human beings - who are fallable, and can have their own axes to grind. The "venerable" Bede is a good example. However, it can only be updated with proven facts and evidence. We can't open the history books up to be scribbled all over by every crackpot "alternative history" idea that comes along. As for "do your own research", yes, thanks, I'm perfectly aware of the Piri Reiss map. If you think that because I'm well versed in the Norse presence in the Ameican, I'll book a seat next to you on the mothership then I'm afraid you're mistaken.
24

nick prince,

warrington 05/02/2009 14:01:06
in your equation you have multiplied by zero, your equation is meaningless mr jellicoe x-y is zero, all your equation proves is that zero is equal to zero, not really worth publishing this anywhere is it?

Tell me some more about aerodynamice? Also in what capacity are you employed, minding mice at the crossroads outside the airport?
25

nick prince,

warrington 05/02/2009 14:02:58
thought, one further thought, some use of the word thought with which I am not familiar.
26

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 05/02/2009 14:09:03
In the beginning God created the sponge, Quickly followed by the labour party.
27

St Caledonia,

05/02/2009 15:01:44
Strict Ivan Jellicoe

Point I was making is that Science for all its flaws still provides us with answers, questions, more answers, amazing flying machines and much more. The god possibility is understandable, it's kind of like kids and Santa Claus, when your 5 it makes sense that an old man in the sky makes presents, but as you mature you accept the fantasy of it all. God is the same, for me that is - Science offers me answers and problems, it offers me perfection and imperfection, but it OFFERS, it is there and we can use it. God on the other hand, well he or she, it or them, is nowhere and offers nothing.
PEOPLE who think god is offering them something will find that once they remove the blinkers, it is actually they who are offering themselves that feeling of security - the power of the mind eh - so powerful we have geniuses who can fly us to the moon.
If the god thing had no maker, it must have just appeared. If people can accept that theory, they must also be open to the possibility that the universe came from nothing to
28

St Caledonia,

05/02/2009 15:23:17
So the earth is 7 billion years old? The sponges were born 635 million years ago. That means the god thing appeared from nothing some 7 billion years ago, and then sat about doing nothing for 6.3 billion years until he made a universe and some sponges.
Then after the creation of the sponge he sat about for another 6.2956 billion years before creating the man object.
Wow - if we didnt know for certain there was a god, we would find it impossible to believe in one...Oops!
29

JAL,

Duns 05/02/2009 15:31:26
How absolutely fascinating to see St Caledonia, Lianachan and to a lesser extent Duncan in Edinburgh bangs their heids off the brick waw that is Central Scrutinizer. Particularly so when they must have known that it was a pointless exercise in the first place.
Methinks Central Scrutinzer needs some scrutization in the blind faith department. Never mind though, I haven't wasted my time - I've had a good laugh!!
And as an aside I need to know if "working in the aviation industry" means pilot. If so, I'm never flying again - unless of course the natural selection process leads to me evolving wings.
30

St Caledonia,

05/02/2009 15:34:25
JAL #45

Evolving wings is not far fetched - science has brought us cloning, in essence we are now god, which is so cool.
So in 100 years from now, people with built in wings, NOT so far fetched.
31

JAL,

Duns 05/02/2009 15:44:13
St Caledonia - I actually agree but am terrified of being the target of every religous zealot and crackpot theorist who writes on these pages so.... I've just evolved closed lips, naturally selected for the good of my mental health
32

Lianachan,

Highlands 05/02/2009 15:45:26
#45 Well, he sort of answered a question I'd asked so I felt bound to respond out of decency. I've not bothered going back!
33

greenhill,

05/02/2009 16:25:29
RE St Caledonia,05/02/2009 15:34:25

What about a half man half owl creature: an Owlman,that would be brilliant and really upset the clergy.
34

cgrant,

tyler 05/02/2009 16:27:53
I don't understand where all this is coming from.
I haven't seen any proof that Darwin actually existed.

I believe that all those books were made up by some crackpot.

Please, someone prove to me without a doubt, that Darwin actually did exist. Where is the body and the DNA?
35

Dk,

Broxburn 05/02/2009 17:53:46
#29
god made the sponges as well
this is not so far fetched
36

St Caledonia,

05/02/2009 19:10:59
I think the bible needs to abolished - every bible in the world needs to be taken out of classrooms, homes, churches etc - That is not to say that religion must be abolished, it is to say that we know life existed for 600 million years before the bible tells us it does. Lets get the bible out the way and find some middle ground because lets face it, that book, the torah and the qaran are nothing short of far fetched desperate fantasy.
37

greenhill,

05/02/2009 19:18:42
RE St Caledonia,05/02/2009 19:10:59

Yes! Yes! I agree but what about the Owlman surely my dream of such a creature is not a farfetched desperate fantasy.

You must believe in the Owlman.
38

Aiken Head,

Dumbarton 05/02/2009 20:52:30
In the beginning? This would be the beginning of what exactly? This entity responsible for the beginning apparently has no beginning and is timeless - the conditions that apply to us do not apply to it. This would mean that, from its point of view, it created the sponge and the spermicide simultaneously and not 635 million years apart.

On a non-timescale like that would the existence of Anne Atkins be as annoying as it seems to us?

This particular god has existed in the human imagination for a few brief centuries and will soon join its predecessors in history's footnotes. The sponge is doing a lot better than that and proving more useful to boot.
39

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

05/02/2009 21:23:16
Apparently we can understand over-population by studying this new information. Jam sponges hold the key.
40

Stewart_in_Oz,

Alexandra Hills 07/02/2009 00:22:09
"And declaring themselves to be wise, they became as fools.' I read that somewhere. Reading the posts I can find many applications.
Pity Darwin didn't live today. His hypothesis ('theory') would be shot so full of holes it would make a good (bad) science fiction yarn. At least some of them are believable. Anybody for a trip to Mars?
41

Stewart_in_Oz,

Alexandra Hills 07/02/2009 02:27:37
#4,17,24 for just a few.
I would advise becoming too hung-up on "Science" (derived from Latin Verb 'scio' to know).
To go back just a few centuries, conventionial science said the world was flat, the Earth was the centre of the Universe and last century, Fred Hoyle, who was Astronomer Royal, believed in the Steady State Universe as opposed to the 'Big Bang'
In Vienna, Semelweis went against convential thought by washing his hands between post mortems and examining pregnant mothers, to prevent child bed fever. Others not so fortunate eventually died from this when his peers did not believe that anything so simple as debris from corpses put into a pregnant mother in pelvic examination with unwashed hands would casue problems.
More recently it was believed that 'Barnacle Geese hatched from barnacles' because no one had found their nests and there were ornithological drawings showing this 'fact', fully fledged geese flying out of barnacles.
When I was at college many years ago in Animal Husbandry, although Genetics was basically understood, we were taught the Heredity was determined by Germ Plasm which somehow permeated the cells in the body. This was before Watson, Crick et al published the structure of DNA.
The examples are so numerous, space and time do not permit.
Darwin, in his latter years, doubted that an organ as complex as the eye could have evolved. However he was old, so perhaps he was becoming senile!
42

Aiken Head,

Dumbarton 07/02/2009 18:31:04
Hey Stewart_in_Oz,

I'm intrigued so I've got to ask.

First you come across as someone who knows the meaning of neither theory nor hypothesis and is similarly unenlightened as to current evolutionary biology.

Then you post a slightly incoherent series of examples of how the scientific method has become the best approach to overcoming ignorance and making the world a better place.

What exactly are your points?

It's "scire" (to know) and "conventional" by the way.

I'd better run a spelling check for typos before offering advice like that!
43

Scottish Canadian,

Canada 08/02/2009 13:24:29
central scrutinizer: Do you read scientific journals, reports, etc. with an open mind? Darwin took science away from its roots in creation. He showed scientists a hypothesis that allowed them to posit in purely scientific terms.After 150 years it has stood up to the scrutiny of many scientists and is now generally regarded as fact. You can find world-class scientists that disagree with the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection, but not too many biological scientists disagree with the fact of evolution. And did Maxwell, Tesla, Einstein, and Bohr come before or after Darwin? There's no doubt that all of these people provided a valuable contribution to science and were influential to those following them. Darwin took scientific thinking to a new, non-religious level and therefore influenced all who came later. Einstein did a similar thing, but not if science was mired in religious dogma.
Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" changed my life and the lives of others who study science and wrestle with the reconciliation of religion and science. Darwin was science's paul on the road to Damascus.
There's no question that he changed scientific thinking. Read any University-level textbook on accepted scientific thought before and after the publishing of his theory and make up your own mind.
44

Scottish Canadian,

Ottawa canada 08/02/2009 21:07:35
central scrutinizer: Any University-level text on the history of scientific thought will show how Darwin's theory removed it from it's religious bondage. And influenced virtually every scientist to come later. Can you imagine Einstein's Theory of Relativity with a religious twist? Creationism and Intelligent Design are perfectly fine for religion class. However they should be kept out of any scientific discourse. And it was Darwin publishing "On the Origin of Species" that allowed this to happen. So, yes. He changed scientific thought.
45

Scottish Canadian,

Canada 10/02/2009 02:38:11
Stewart-in-oz: The fact of evolution is not in dispute. The mechanism by which it is accomplished, however, is still open to scientific debate. Scientific hypotheses are constantly under criticism by the most learned of scientists. Evolution as a theory has lasted 150 years. That's alot of criticism.
Of course new scientific information will come to light. And scientists will discard the old theories that aren't consistent with the new peer-reviewed information.
Finally, just because Darwin can't explain the evolution of the human eyeball doesn't mean it can't be elucidated. Christopher Hitchens refers to this in his book "god is not Great".
I think it best to leave the science to the scientists.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.