Thursday, December 13, 2012
'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers
According to some scientist, fossils of early organisms, such as the Dickinsonia, may really have been land dwellers rather than marine organisms. Previously it was almost unquestionable that these early fossils proved marine life began to blossom about 635 million years ago. However, the notion that these fossils belonged to land dwelling creatures would push the emergence of marine life back 100 million years.
The leading scientist in this argument is Gregory Retallack from the University of Oregon. He argues that the fossilized rocks were formed by paleosols, an ancient soil. This would make the rocks terrestrial instead of marine. His argument is supported by the texture of the rocks, arrangement of interlocking grains (showing the rock is windblown), and distinct color patterns. Also immediately beneath the rocks are fossils containing tubular structures that resemble early forms of clinging moss.
Not all scientists agree with Retallack’s theory, but they are eager to investigate and are not completely saying it’s out of the question. If Retallack is correct, scientists would have more evidence that during the Ediacaran period (time period these fossils are from), there was more life on land than expected. It also would create new conversation on when earths first soils were created and how to ID them
I thought this was an interesting article. It opens your eyes up to the fact that science is not fact, and new discoveries and arguments can be made each day that can counter previously accepted ideas. The only problem I had with this article was that the author didn’t specify which ancient organisms they were debating about, you could only deduce it was a Dickinsonia from the caption of an image.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/marine-fossils-may-instead-repre.html?ref=hp
"'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers." - ScienceNOW. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Matt James
Comment
I read Allina’s review of the article “Marine fossils may instead represent early land dwellers.” I liked how she talked about the fossils immediately as it is exactly what you want to hear after reading the title. I also like how she uses the credibility of the Oregon Professor before introducing the evidence as it makes it much more believable. Another thing I like is how she addresses the opposition, giving both sides of the argument.
I thought this review could be slightly longer as the topic is so controversial that people want to hear more about it.
One thing that I learned is that animals may have lived on land long before we have thought.
Maxim Izotov
Article review 1/3
Reading Alina’s artile review left me with a lot to think about. Primarily, she did a great job of breaking down the information into pieces (paragraphs), and not presenting it all at once. In addition, I found it fascinating that she explained certain terms such as “paleosols” and “tubular structures.” This was especially important to me because without understanding such words I would not have been able to understand the article and the article review that she wrote. Last but not least, I thought it was great that Alina analyzed the importance of this discovery, and explained how things like this can prove that “science is not fact.” This was an interesting thought and it really made me think of other discoveries that could alter our nature.
However, there were two things that Alina could do better in her review. First of the two is that she did not explain the Dickinsonia, even though there was not enough information about it in the article. As a reader, I would expect the reviewer to do a bit of extra research on the topic so that the article review makes a little more sense. The second and last of the two things that Alina could have done a better job with is that she did not explain how the fossils actually ended up in the marine area. In my opinion, this was vital to the review, for the whole topic was about the fossils being found in surprising for them places.
In my personal opinion, this discovery will make a lot of people rethink their nature, since things that they have learned since day one have now been altered. However, I do believe that there may be a flaw to the theory, such as some mammals died on the shore and got carried away by the water, leaving their remains in the marina.
Overall, I really liked how Alina introduced the issue. I felt she gave a specific (but brief enough) background to the article, which was informative and important. Without her introduction, much of the article’s impact would be lost. I also really liked how Alina described specific information about the theory and its impact (that this notion would push the emergence of marine life back 100 million years). I also really liked how Alina provided a contrasting viewpoint to the theory, which enabled us to have an informed opinion formulated by the end of her summary.
I felt that Alina did an excellent job with this article, which was informative and important. Perhaps Alina could have implemented some quotes or direct thoughts from those involved with the theory, which may have helped make her point stronger. I also felt that Alina could have maybe described the thought and discovery process that the scientists went through to either agree or disagree with the conclusion. However Alina did a really great job with the article.
I learned that science is ever-changing; that new theories discovered today can make previously totally-accepted theories questionable. This is an extremely important realization as a student of science.
Jimmy Purdy
I liked this article review a lot. For one, she did a great job at giving all the back round information such as the who, what, when and where. This just helped me understand it better. I also liked how she gave both sides of the argument. Not only did she give the reasons why rocks could be aquatic but also gave the opposing view. A third thing she did well was talk about the importance of the discovery. This is crucial to talk about because the topic wouldn’t be important if it didn’t have practical use.
One thing she could have improved on is going into more detail about paleosols. She mentioned it in the article but did not give what it meant. I also thought she could have mentioned how fossils ended up in the ocean. Overall, their were some details missing.
One thing that I found very interesting about the article is that as in Alina’s worlds science is not always fact and new discovery are made every day. The things we know to be true may not be that way, and that is why science is necessary in this world.
I thought Alina did a good job in describing the overall point of the story. She effectively conveyed the message by being broad about the subject. She mentioned a few examples of these old fossils and how the theory applies to them, which was also very insightful. Alina also did a nice job in describing the difference between the pervious belief of the ossification of plants and animals. I finally thought Alina did a good job in explaining the impact of this theory. If it is found true, a lot more new information can be found about the Ediacaran period.
I thought Alina could have improved her article review by making the organization of paragraphs more understandable. She seemed to just start a new paragraph after the previous one got too long, because it was obvious that the topics were not different enough to be in separate paragraphs. I also thought Alina could have changed her first sentence to make the review more compelling. “Some scientist” is too vague to put in the first sentence, or even anywhere in the paragraph. I am sure this some scientist had a name. The article would have started much stronger by having this change.
I really liked this article because I thought it was a cool perspective on a new idea. And I thought it showed how brave this scientist was by trying to contradict another, well know, theory. His argument seemed clear and effective, which leads me to believe that his reasoning might be correct and that he may have found all this new knowledge to a period where there isn’t as much information and historical artifacts. I really enjoyed this article and it made me want to learn more about it by reading the full article.
Post a Comment