Slashdot Mirror


Oldest Animal: Fossilized While Hatching

An anonymous reader writes "Thousands of 600 million years old embryo microfossils have been found in China that may be among the first animals. It is a case of preserving the seemingly unpreserveable. The Precambrian coral-like animals seem to have spiral patterns that show some were preserved at the moment of hatching, according to the researchers: 'These organisms lived 600 million years ago -- before big animals. This would be the very first moment of animal evolution preserved in the fossil record.'"

8 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. Wish I had some concept of the size by artifex2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article says these are microfossils, but still - if they're big enough to survive this long, much less be sliced open for more detailed examination soon, they can't be all that small, can they?

    1. Re:Wish I had some concept of the size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If anything, the smaller a fossil is, the more likely it is to survive. And, with micromanipulators, we can slice anything open these days, down to individual cells.

    2. Re:Wish I had some concept of the size by Quelain · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA says 70 - 500 microns (1mm = 1000 microns).

      They were 'sliced' with digital x-ray tomography:

      http://www.microphotonics.com/skymto.html
      http: //hhmi.genetics.utah.edu/microct/

      --
      Cthulhu loves you.
  2. Unanswered question by EddieBurkett · · Score: 4, Funny

    So does this mean we have fossilized evidence to answer whether the chicken or the egg came first?

    --
    The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
    1. Re:Unanswered question by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Funny

      We already did. Dinosaur eggs, for one, were around long before chickens.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  3. Title incorrect by shrikel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shouldn't that be youngest animal?

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  4. Finally some linearity in the world by Zareste · · Score: 3, Funny

    *Sets down at his 4,000,000 year old computer and chomps a 56,000 year old hot pocket*

    Is that all? 600 million? Mph, not bad for a bunch of lightweights. Is it too late to add some more zeroes already? I mean damn, these people must really be new to this; I've used every known dating method on my entire house, and frankly, my chair is older than that.

    I used this knowledge once when I discovered that my mirrors actually evolved from the plates in my cupboard. Sounds farfetched, yeah, but hear me out. The National Organization for Plate Evolution (NOPE) was very skeptical of this theory, trying to tell me mirrors are made by 'intelligent life forms' of some sort. Can you believe that? Talk about a bunch of traitors. This nonsense went on until I said "Well uh, um... 300,000,000 years." at which point we threw a party. I'm now recognized as one of the leading authorities in America by NOPE and by the Organization for Really Gigantic Years (ORGY)

    Now if you'll excuse me, my 345 billion year old steak isn't going to cook itself you know.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  5. Re:Wow. by hyperquantization · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ok, first of all, Evolution is in itself an -ism. it is a sort of atheistic religion that fills in the gap for not having any kind of deity to explain things...well at least for as far back as evolution can go in time.
    next:
    THE SCIENCE YOU SPEAK OF IS ALL BASED ON FAITH IN THE FIRST PLACE! can we honestly say that this "reality", as we call it, is actually an absolute in and of itself? or is there an underlying, or overlying if anything, absolute that defines our very existence? if so, then science is NOT the basis of everything. in fact, science should NEVER be considered the basis of anything, it is merely an observation and analysis of what we can actually see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. there is NOTHING that we can possibly even try to observe that eludes all 5 senses. so what we cannot percieve, cannot be science, right? and you do agree that science can only be achieved by standing upon the sholders of those before us, yes? then someone, a long time ago, assumed that what they saw/heard/smelled/touched/tasted was what it was. science was built upon observations, and if observations are assumptions, then science must be in itself an elaborate assumption.

    and also, in light of eternity, the time that the universe has existed shows up only as an infinitesimal blip. this sparks the realization of another couple things we cannot begin to comprehend due to our finite speck of knowledge: that which is infinite and/or infinitesimal.
    ......
    but to return to the topic at hand: how were these fossils dated? how many samplings of the datings did they test? any other specifics?