Precambrian reptile found with preserved skin

Posted 31 March 2011 by Nick Matzke

It's hard to believe, but a reptile has been found in Precambrian strata (specifically Ediacaran) -- with preserved skin. This sometimes happens in more recent deposits, but there has never been a case this old. Plus, this fossil is the first one I've ever seen that could meet Haldane's criteria for falsifying evolution: a Precambrian rabbit. I mean, I guess now that push comes to shove I have to say that I wouldn't give up evolution because of one out of place fossil, but I've always prided myself on sticking to the evidence, so I figured I should post it as soon as I heard about it. I wouldn't normally trust a find like this before it's been published, but it was discovered by long-time, reliable talk.origins veteran Chris Nedin. It was only the creationists who said "Nedin cannot be trusted", us evolutionists knew he was as good as gold.

68 Comments

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2011

I want the Cambrian rabbit.

If we're getting Geico leather from the Precambrian, surely we can get Cambrian rabbit fur.

Glen Davidson

Robin · 31 March 2011

(Takes out knife, begins Seppuku ritual...)

Robin · 31 March 2011

(...puts knife down for a moment...)

Um...Nick...

How much skin?

Taylor · 31 March 2011

Is this an early April Fools joke?

E.G · 31 March 2011

"I wouldn’t give up evolution because of one out of place fossil."
Interesting comment. How many "out of place fossil" would you consider as acceptable before someone start to question evolution?

peter · 31 March 2011

"Is this an early April Fools joke?"

not in australia. It is april 1 there

Matt G · 31 March 2011

Hmm, I also call April Fool's. This sound a great deal like the 50 MYO reptile skin with intact organic material which was reported last week.

DS · 31 March 2011

E.G said: "I wouldn’t give up evolution because of one out of place fossil." Interesting comment. How many "out of place fossil" would you consider as acceptable before someone start to question evolution?

One unexplained observation is all it takes to persuade someone to question a well established theory. However, in order to falsify the theory it would take a lot more evidence. That's why there are so many creationists paleontologists out searching the world for new fossils ... what? Oh. Never Mind. Of course to replace a well established theory you need more than just some unexplained observations. You need an alternative theory with more explanatory and predictive power. You need to explain all of the evidence, not just one anomaly. I think that would require more than just one fossil discovered on April fools day.

harold · 31 March 2011

E.G.

“I wouldn’t give up evolution because of one out of place fossil.” Interesting comment. How many “out of place fossil” would you consider as acceptable before someone start to question evolution?

What evidence would you accept as sufficient to support the theory of evolution. (Here's my answer to your question. The posting about a "reptile" is an April Fool's day gag, btw, but anyway - I have a biomedical background, but not particularly in paleontology. The fossil record supports evolution and is highly consistent with the rest of the evidence. But the evidence from molecular biology, biochemistry, cell biology, comparative anatomy, population genetics, etc, is so strong that overturning it on the basis of paleontology alone would be difficult. Furthermore, it depends on what you mean by "out of place". Fossils merely tell us the latest possible time by which a lineage was present, and that latest time for which we have definitive evidence of a lineage. So some new finds may merely provide evidence of a lineage at an earlier date than was seen before, or surviving longer than was seen before, purely for sampling reasons.)

Dale Husband · 31 March 2011

And there is no link to the original report, so there is no reason to think it is real. April fool!

John (Chris) Pieret · 31 March 2011

A talk.origins stalwart like Chris couldn't possibly be involved in a joke announcement of such a find and there is little chance that some creationist will soon be announcing that this remarkable discovery disproves the Darwinist "billions of years" claims.

DS · 31 March 2011

E.G said: "I wouldn’t give up evolution because of one out of place fossil." Interesting comment. How many "out of place fossil" would you consider as acceptable before someone start to question evolution?

How much evidence would you consider sufficient to falsify the biblical creation account? The entire fossil record? Comparative anatomy? Molecular phylogenetics? Evolutionary development? All of these fields individually and collectively falsify the biblical account. Is that enough?

John Kwok · 31 March 2011

Glen Davidson said: I want the Cambrian rabbit. If we're getting Geico leather from the Precambrian, surely we can get Cambrian rabbit fur. Glen Davidson

Absolutely! I strongly second. I want that Cambrian rabbit fur too.

Mike Elzinga · 31 March 2011

Maybe it was selling Geico extinction insurance.

Nick Matzke · 31 March 2011

“Is this an early April Fools joke?” not in australia. It is april 1 there

:-)

Nick Matzke · 31 March 2011

Here's Nedin's report for all you unbelievers:
http://ediacaran.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-find-challenges-evolution.html

mrg · 31 March 2011

not in australia. It is april 1 there

I suggest that for 1 April UD, EN&V, and AIG perform "April Unfools" pranks, providing legitimate and carefully reasoned arguments and giving thoughtful answers to concerns raised over them. The other 364 days of the year they can go back to normal.

DS · 31 March 2011

Nick Matzke said:
“Is this an early April Fools joke?” not in australia. It is april 1 there
:-)

Well I'm convinced. After all, they did find Noah's Ark FOUR times!

mary h · 31 March 2011

Back in the early 80's there was a science magazine called Science 81 that ran an article in the April issue about extracting a nucleus from a frozen mammoth, putting it in an elephant egg and placing the egg in a female elephant. It was well written and plausible even if the technology was a bit primitive for doing that back then. I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker and even talked about it with my biology classes. The next month they revealed it was an April Fool's joke. I felt pretty stupid until I found out more than 90% of the readers also fell for it. (I later revealed this to my classes)

I'll believe this reptile in the Precambrian thing after it has been fully discussed and described. Otherwise maybe a lizard fell into a crevasse and then fossilized. Sort of like those hammers that become embedded in stone in old mines. Until then I will withhold my judgement.

The Founding Mothers · 31 March 2011

DS said: Of course to replace a well established theory you need more than just some unexplained observations. You need an alternative theory with more explanatory and predictive power. You need to explain all of the evidence, not just one anomaly. I think that would require more than just one fossil discovered on April fools day.

True, to replace a well established theory. However, there's no need for an alternative theory to prove an existing theory wrong. But as yet, no credible evidence has turned up to prove the TOEbNS wrong. And there's been a lot of time for it to show up. {drums fingers} Come on creobots, we're still waiting. And even making jokes about it ourselves...

Mike Elzinga · 31 March 2011

Nick Matzke said: Here's Nedin's report for all you unbelievers: http://ediacaran.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-find-challenges-evolution.html

Nedin has a fine set of hands. I like the way he has extracted that fossil from the matrix and has removed any clutter that matrix would provide in clearly identifying this fossil.

Jimpithecus · 31 March 2011

I thought April 1 was tomorrow.

Orko · 31 March 2011

Maybe it's the snake from the Garden of Enid... err Edam... err Eden.

Nick (Matzke) · 31 March 2011

Tomorrow is today in Australia. slash Ediacara.

Karen S. · 31 March 2011

Well I’m convinced. After all, they did find Noah’s Ark FOUR times!

Indeed. And Martin Luther always wondered why 18 of the 12 apostles were buried in Spain.

Peter Henderson · 31 March 2011

Psssssst................don't tell answers in Genesis Nik. I feel another "dino blood and a young Earth" coming on !

Alan Barnard · 31 March 2011

You do realize that this entry will be quoted by creationists for the next twenty years.

Matt G · 31 March 2011

How did your fossil get into my stratum? How did YOUR chocolate get into MY peanut butter?

mplavcan · 31 March 2011

Alan Barnard said: You do realize that this entry will be quoted by creationists for the next twenty years.

That's because the validity of evidence is weighed only by its consistency with the Bible, or at least their interpretation of the Bible.

mrg · 31 March 2011

Alan Barnard said: You do realize that this entry will be quoted by creationists for the next twenty years.

Eh? Twenty years? You think they'll catch on so soon? THE ONION ran an article on the "Moon landing hoax", supposedly citing Neil Armstrong as saying that he had always thought he really had walked on the Moon, but after reading conspiracy theorist websites he realized he had been mistaken, that it was all done on a movie set. Two newspapers in Pakistan picked up the story and ran it as news. Readers informed them of their error.

The Curmudgeon · 31 March 2011

I, for one, welcome this discovery of our Precambrian ancestor.

Almandda · 31 March 2011

This event does not weaken the evidence for evolution; rather it strengthens the evidence for time-travel.

Chris Caprette · 31 March 2011

Got me. SOB.

fnxtr · 31 March 2011

Buddy at MS posted this fb status:

"Reminder: the internet is broken tomorrow. Will be broken all day. Won't work again until the 2nd."

Steve Schaffner · 31 March 2011

Key question: did the reptile have a beautiful large-mouth bass in its stomach?

Matt G · 31 March 2011

Almandda said: This event does not weaken the evidence for evolution; rather it strengthens the evidence for time-travel.

With opposable thumbs, endothermy and time-travel, reptiles could rule the planet.

mrg · 31 March 2011

Matt G said: With opposable thumbs, endothermy and time-travel, reptiles could rule the planet.

Not as long as you have a sonic screwdriver.

mplavcan · 31 March 2011

You know, looking at the picture, are you sure that it is not a Precambrian funnel cake with powdered sugar?

BDeller · 31 March 2011

Wait... that looks like the escaped Brox Zoo cobra. No wonder he was so difficult to find. He went and hid in the Precambrian strata.

Very clever snake indeed.

Scott F · 1 April 2011

Hmm... Okay. What if we did have a reliable, well documented pre-Cambrian rabbit? Not a recent fossilization in a crevice of a more ancient bed, but the real thing. All it takes is one counter example to disprove a negative. So, maybe it doesn't disprove the ToE, not exactly, but it would really throw a monkey wrench into... what, exactly?

It would certainly mess with the current paleontology time line. It would be an outlier that the ToE couldn't explain, and I don't see any way to reconcile it. It would be kind of like the Dark Energy thing. Okay, we don't know what it is, but we're going to give our lack of knowledge a name so we can talk about it.

It would certainly be exciting! :-)

Roger · 1 April 2011

This would explain why there are so few fossils prior to the cambrian explosion if this thing was going round eating everything before they could fossilise.

IanW · 1 April 2011

Nick -

I understand that Australia is very dry in the interior. Would you be interested in buying some swampland from Florida to moisten it up a bit? I can arrange export and I can also supply a Brooklyn Bridge to enable you to survey your new swampland without getting your feet all muddy....

harold · 1 April 2011

With opposable thumbs, endothermy and time-travel, reptiles could rule the planet.

I guess the time travel would give them the edge. Because we've got the other two, and insects and bacteria rule the planet.

Wait… that looks like the escaped Brox Zoo cobra. No wonder he was so difficult to find. He went and hid in the Precambrian strata.

It's a "she", and she's been recovered. Very clever snake indeed.

harold · 1 April 2011

E.G -

Too bad your little drive by gotcha game didn't work out the way you wanted.

Thanks for ignoring the thoughtful replies you got, dodging all the intelligent questions, and running away. Don't think nobody noticed.

John Kwok · 1 April 2011

Almandda said: This event does not weaken the evidence for evolution; rather it strengthens the evidence for time-travel.

I think we can thank the good Doctor for this. Unless it was a dastardly plot courtesy of the Master or Cybermen or Daleks.

william e emba · 1 April 2011

mrg said: THE ONION ran an article [...] Two newspapers in Pakistan picked up the story and ran it as news. Readers informed them of their error.

Closer to home, the Weekly World News recently ran a story about how LA is going to spend a billion dollars to equip their police and fire departments with jetpacks. Fox News fell for it.

Science Avenger · 1 April 2011

Great Nick, the guys fighting to expose our Reptilian overlords are going to have a field day with this. Expect a call from Dubya.

eric · 1 April 2011

Scott F said: All it takes is one counter example to disprove a negative.

Yeah, that gets said a lot. Hypothetically, its true. But on the practical side, an observations "solidity" is linked intimately with repeat observation and/or the existence of supporting independent evidence. So its sort of a catch-22. 'Isolated and devastating evidence' is somewhat of a nonsequitur. When a finding is isolated, its rarely devastating, and when you have devastating, its rarely isolated - in fact, a finding is often devastating precisely because it keeps showing up. Just consider the double-slit experiment. Its about as exemplary as you can get in terms of a single experiment overturinng an entire theoretical framework. Yet even for this case, ask yourself the question: was it devastating to classical mechanics upon the very first run, and then everyone believed it? Or because after it was published, lots of physicists repeated it, with variation, and the same infuriatingly counter-intuitive result kept cropping up?

Daniel · 1 April 2011

April fools?

Daniel · 1 April 2011

Daniel said: April fools?

Oh and I love the little snake, nice touch.

Frank J · 1 April 2011

DS said:
E.G said: "I wouldn’t give up evolution because of one out of place fossil." Interesting comment. How many "out of place fossil" would you consider as acceptable before someone start to question evolution?
How much evidence would you consider sufficient to falsify the biblical creation account? The entire fossil record? Comparative anatomy? Molecular phylogenetics? Evolutionary development? All of these fields individually and collectively falsify the biblical account. Is that enough?

They don't just falsify "the" biblical account, they falsify all of the popular mutually contradictory ones, YEC, day-age, gap, etc. Even most advocates of those accounts must be aware of that, because they rarely say which one they prefer, let alone support it on its own merits. Maybe E.G. will be one of those rare exceptions.

Frank J · 1 April 2011

I should say "rare exceptions who do the former, and the first ever to do the latter."

duvenoy · 1 April 2011

Why am I suddenly reminded of this?

http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

Scott F · 1 April 2011

eric said:
Scott F said: All it takes is one counter example to disprove a negative.
Yeah, that gets said a lot. Hypothetically, its true. But on the practical side, an observations "solidity" is linked intimately with repeat observation and/or the existence of supporting independent evidence. So its sort of a catch-22. 'Isolated and devastating evidence' is somewhat of a nonsequitur. When a finding is isolated, its rarely devastating, and when you have devastating, its rarely isolated - in fact, a finding is often devastating precisely because it keeps showing up.

Yeah, that's where I was going. Notice I said, "disprove a negative". For example, if your hypothesis is, "There is no such thing as X", just one confirmed example of "X" will disprove that hypothesis. But Evolution isn't such a statement. Instead it's a positive statement about a lot of things. I agree that a single example of a Precambian rabbit wouldn't overturn ToE. There's just too much evidence for it. But the ToE still wouldn't be able to explain that one data point. It would sure leave everyone scratching their heads! :-) If it didn't evolve here, where could it have come from? There was a recent SciFi book, "Boundary", by Eric Flint. It's just an okay story (Flint does much better with military SciFi, IMO), but it has the intriguing premise of finding a truly alien fossil among a field of dinosaur remains. While it didn't really do justice to the idea, it's still an entertaining notion.

Christine Janis · 2 April 2011

OK, so we have our PreCambrian snake. But the main thing ---- CAN IT TALK?

John Kwok · 2 April 2011

Christine Janis said: OK, so we have our PreCambrian snake. But the main thing ---- CAN IT TALK?

Wasn't that the one hiding in the Bronx Zoo? Hahahaha!!!!

Stanton · 2 April 2011

John Kwok said:
Christine Janis said: OK, so we have our PreCambrian snake. But the main thing ---- CAN IT TALK?
Wasn't that the one hiding in the Bronx Zoo? Hahahaha!!!!

You're confusing the Bronx Cobra with Steve Martin. The Bronx Cobra can't talk; she communicates through a Twitter account, instead.

MosesZD · 2 April 2011

E.G said: "I wouldn’t give up evolution because of one out of place fossil." Interesting comment. How many "out of place fossil" would you consider as acceptable before someone start to question evolution?

Considering the vast amount of knowledge, from multiple independent fields, that destroys the pillars of your religious beliefs? So, before you go worrying about evolution, worry about your silly fairy stories that are ludicrous, unbelievable and false.

Henry J · 2 April 2011

OK, so we have our PreCambrian snake. But the main thing —- CAN IT TALK?

Only with forked tongue.

The Bronx Cobra can’t talk; she communicates through a Twitter account, instead.

Cobras can only talk to Harry Potter. Twittering, on the other hand, is for the birds.

John Vanko · 2 April 2011

Christine Janis said: OK, so we have our PreCambrian snake. But the main thing ---- CAN IT TALK?

And does it have LEGS? And is it selling APPLES? Needs to go into the Creation (anti-)Museum.

Henry J · 2 April 2011

Apples? More likely to have been figs. ;)

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 2 April 2011

Henry J said: Apples? More likely to have been figs. ;)

Somewhere I read that it was really pomegranates. For suitable definitions of "really".

Chris Booth · 3 April 2011

No-one has mentioned that the image itself forms a winking smiley-face (a winking emoticon), with the reptile as the mouth.

Pretty good April 1 gag!

djarm67 · 6 April 2011

lol. It's a shingleback. You picked up some roadkill!

Santo Farquer · 21 April 2011

Gerard Arpey is the CEO of AMR the parent corporation American Airlines and has presided over some of the most blatant acts of dishonesty to the most important employees of the company.

rosetta stone french cheap · 21 April 2011

Explore every aspect of our proven discount rosetta stone solution using our entirely online subscription service. rosetta stone french With this complete set of levels, you’ll start at the basics and build towards conversational mastery, rosetta stone spanish without the need for CD-Rom discs, downloads, or installations. Simply connect to the internet and start learning.

Online Garden Centre · 17 May 2011

Out of all the sites ive visited today, this is by far the most worth while. Thank you for taking the time to write such great material

funny t-shirts · 26 May 2011

Great job. Do you have any more articles on this topic and where can I find them ? Thanks!. Please write to me at Nobrega686@yahoo.com - TFSH