Skip to main content

Fallacies in the idea of a Cambrian Explosion.

A common mistake made by people describing the Cambrian era of 545 mya is to assume that the incredible diversity of forms found in the shale strata that dates to this period is some how unique to the period. This mistake falls from the assumption that because we don't see the same level of diversity in later rock strata that it means there was less diversity in general over all possible living environments, but this doesn't follow. In the roughly 540 million years since the Cambrian age , the Earth's geology has changed significantly along with the animal forms, they did this while radiating into new habitats that were different from those in which the Cambrian creatures thrived. The homogeneity of the limited living environment of these early forms bares a contribution to the apparent diversity of animal forms found in the strata. We know that the early seas were incredibly homogeneous and it makes sense that as animal forms proliferated that they would team across this single strata in all their forms. As animals expanded into other environments and were selected into new species in these new environments, the diversity that existed under the single formative strata environment would be distributed across the new environments. As time goes by the different environments have different abilities to retain fossils of the animals that inhabit them, as the Cambrian gave way to the more recent ages, Carboniferous, Permian , Cretaceous, Tertiary and the present age the different rates of fossil preservation of species in these different environment strata would appear as a reduction in diversity from the perspective of the original homogeneous nature of the Cambrian strata and from the different rates of fossil preservation that exists in the radiated environments to which animal forms spread. Thus to make the statement that diversity during the Cambrian stands as an anomaly is a fallacious one based ignoring the influence of new environments for the diversity to be spread over the last 540 million years.

The question is raised , how would we go about quantifying the amorphous concept of "diversity"? Is it an attribute of evolving species in selected environments that is conserved? I posit that it is conserved and though it is true that a great deal of animal forms came into existence in a relatively short space of 25 million years, these forms came into being at a time when the genetic information for all animals consisted of many more shorter segments of nucleotides. It seems intuitive that these many number of shorter segments would allow for the emergence of ready variations in species. As animals evolved and early forms competed, those which acquired the most beneficial traits for survival in the early environment of development (the seas) were more likely to survive and radiate. So the ability to radiate into new environments is directly facilitated by the species having the genetic complement necessary to survive in those new environments. So as time went on the descendant species combined survival traits of their ancestors or of parallel species that for one reason or another failed to survive, being so possessed of survival genes these species in essence harbored the diversity that formerly resided in distinct species in fewer descendant species. The diversity is conserved but in so being conserved, the diversity is difficult to extract from subsequent rock strata analysis of "apparent" complexity in living forms that developed in the hundreds of millions of years since the Cambrian "acceleration". Where I don't use the term in quotes to describe evolution increasing in rate but rather acceleration describes the increased ability for animal forms to survive in their nascent environments as through selective processes they evolve traits that are conducive to survival in the environment.

The engine of this acceleration may be for example locked in a radically different view of reproduction among early Cambrian species than we are aware of now. We know that many species exist in "ring" relationships, animals like fish, birds and frogs offer clear examples of divergent and convergent evolution of species along a geographic path. The existence of ring species with differential abilities to mate with members of populations that are geographically segregated, if run backward provides a perfect explanation for what might have existed among ALL species of early simple animal forms in the Cambrian era seas. What if these early forms were similar in their reproductive apparatus more than they were in their physical apparatus? Namely, what if what we "see" as obviously different creatures in the ancient rock strata , are creatures which actually could share genetic information through mating either through intention or by accident. We know that the evolution of internal methods of gestation comes almost 150 million years later, in a population of organisms with similar genetic mating apparatus it should not be surprising at all that a riot of physical forms could arise, as only with the emergence of dominant strategies for survival in these physical forms could less robust forms be weeded out, as it were through selection and continued genetic isolation.

As genetic complement increased in the diversifying species the likelihood of viable cross breeding between species with different physical appearance would go down until we have what exists today. Less apparent diversity but highly specialized and robust species thus representing the early diversity within existing species. I am going to give these ideas some more thought to determine some tests to the hypotheses.


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Live Coding Exercises: How NOT to hire potentially Brilliant Engineers.

I've intimated this view before but, I abhor "live coding" exercises for engineering interviews and will never have them as part of any interview process I conduct. They are simply unrealistic to real world engineering in every possible way, they only test familiarity (or luck) with a tiny subset of solution methods to a specif subset of problems...that you either "nail" or get spectacularly wrong depending on who is observing you.

They are mostly entirely unfair to the candidate on top of the pressure of having a gun under them while coding, only in the most extreme cases is coding under the gun and that's just competitions where the code is far from real world engineering why test for general coding ability with such tests?? Stupid.

I posit, it is significantly more effective to see examples of a candidates finished working code in the form of a project or projects they've created. How long it took some one to get some uber algorithm work…