logo
In 2018, Dickinsonia Was Classified As The Oldest Known Animal — A Biologist Explains

In 2018, Dickinsonia Was Classified As The Oldest Known Animal — A Biologist Explains

Forbes14-04-2025

Here's why Dickinsonia challenges our previously held beliefs and changes how we view evolutionary ... More history.
For the longest time, it was believed all complex animal life could be traced to the Cambrian explosion that occurred over 500 million years ago. However, the discovery of Dickinsonia, a now-iconic member of the Ediacaran biota and possibly the oldest macroscopic animal fossil recorded to date, challenges these notions and our understanding of evolution on Earth.
Living approximately 558 million years ago — well before the rapid diversification of animal body plans in the Cambrian — Dickinsonia raised fundamental questions about growth, movement and the evolution of early developmental strategies. Its fossilized imprints challenged conventional narratives on the origin of complex life and provided direct clues about early animal physiology and ecology.
Furthermore, the 2018 discovery of distinctive molecular signatures in fossils, particularly cholesterol derivatives, has transformed our view of these soft-bodied organisms and provided strong evidence for their classification as some of the earliest animals in evolutionary history.
Dickinsonia was first discovered in the late 1940s in South Australia's Flinders Ranges. Paleontologist Reg Sprigg initially identified its distinctive quilted pattern and named it in honor of Ben Dickinson, a government official with the South Australian Mines Department.
The Flinders Ranges are renowned for preserving some of the world's oldest known complex life forms.
Over the ensuing decades, fossils of Dickinsonia were reported from several continents, including sites in Russia and Ukraine, suggesting a cosmopolitan distribution during the Ediacaran period. These organisms were preserved only as impressions or casts in quartz sandstones — typical of soft-bodied organisms that left little by way of hard skeletal parts.
The unique traits of Dickinsonia include its bilaterally symmetric, oval shape with a pronounced anterior–posterior axis. Repeating modules or isomeres run along its length, arranged in an alternating fashion that some researchers interpret as a form of glide reflection symmetry rather than strict bilateral segmentation.
Studies on Dickinsonia have thus steadily shifted its classification due to how difficult it has been for scientists to peg it to a particular species. Once hypothesized as a jellyfish, fungus or even a giant protist, science now favors an animal interpretation.
For decades, Dickinsonia's placement in the Tree of Life was hotly debated. Early interpretations ranged from it being a member of the Cnidaria, a group including jellyfish and sea anemones, to suggestions that it was a fungus or even a giant single-celled protist.
Morphological features alone proved insufficient to resolve its systematic position since Dickinsonia exhibits few structures similar to modern animals. However, with the emergence of innovative geochemical techniques, researchers began to look at the molecules trapped within the fossil tissues, moving beyond mere morphology.
The discovery of animal-specific cholesterol derivatives in Dickinsonia fundamentally altered its classification and strongly argued against non-metazoan alternatives. This is because cholesterol and its degradation product cholestane are found exclusively in animal cell membranes, thus providing molecular evidence of an animal affinity.
Researchers suspect it likely lived on shallow marine substrates where it 'crawled' slowly, feeding on microbial mats by external digestion — a behavior somewhat analogous to modern placozoans, the phylum of free-living, non-parasitic marine invertebrates.
The current consensus, therefore, leans toward classifying Dickinsonia as an animal. More specifically, it may have been an early relative of simple animals like placozoans or part of a completely new branch of early animals that later gave rise to creatures with bilateral symmetry.
Studies of its growth patterns have shown consistent evidence for a regulated developmental program, a signature trait of animal life. These findings have not only provided the positive evidence needed to affirm Dickinsonia's animal status but have also reshaped our understanding of the Precambrian evolutionary landscape.
The discovery and classification of Dickinsonia have had profound implications for our understanding of the Cambrian explosion. This rapid burst of evolutionary innovation, beginning around 500 million years ago, gave rise to nearly all the modern animal phyla.
Dickinsonia and other Ediacaran organisms were once viewed as evolutionary dead ends — enigmatic forms with no descendants. However, the mounting evidence that Dickinsonia was an animal forces us to reframe these early organisms not as isolated experiments but as integral steps in the progression toward more complex body plans.
Recent research has demonstrated that Dickinsonia's biological features — their regulated modular growth, evidence of animal-specific biomolecules and locomotive trace fossils — establish them as a credible evolutionary bridge between simple, soft-bodied organisms and the complex hard-bodied animals that dominate the Cambrian fossil record.
In this light, the Ediacaran biota, far from representing failed experiments, appears to have set the stage for the diversification of animal life as we know it today.
Does reading about how all life on Earth possibly traces back half a billion years fill you with appreciation for nature's guiding hand? Take the Connectedness To Nature Scale and find out how deep your connection is with the natural world.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Have Sensitive Teeth? Scientists Say They May Have Evolved to Feel—Not Chew
Have Sensitive Teeth? Scientists Say They May Have Evolved to Feel—Not Chew

Yahoo

time28-05-2025

  • Yahoo

Have Sensitive Teeth? Scientists Say They May Have Evolved to Feel—Not Chew

"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: A new study from the University of Chicago suggests our sensitive teeth may be an evolutionary leftover that once helped our fishy ancestors sense their surroundings. Researchers studied modern fish with dermal teeth and determined they are innervated, meaning they deliver sensory signals through nerves like our own teeth would. The study supports the 'outside-in' theory which suggests sensitive 'teeth' developed on exoskeletons before they appeared in mouths. Some would say there's nothing better than taking a big ol' bite out of an ice cream cone—but that's not necessarily a popular opinion. If the thought of sinking your pearly whites into a frozen dessert makes you cringe, then you probably have something in common with our earliest fishy ancestors. According to a new study published in Nature, teeth may have originated as sensory organs that helped ancient fish navigate murky waters. 'When you think about an early animal like this, swimming around with armor on it, it needs to sense the world,' senior author of the new study Neil Shubin said in a press release. 'This was a pretty intense predatory environment and being able to sense the properties of the water around them would have been very important. So, here we see that invertebrates with armor like horseshoe crabs need to sense the world too, and it just so happens they hit on the same solution.' Lead researcher on the study Yara Haridy wasn't always looking for ancient smiles—she made the discovery while trying to find the oldest vertebrate in the fossil record. Haridy identified armor bumps called odontodes on samples of the Cambrian fossil Anatolepis. It seemed like there were dentine tubules just beneath the odontodes—a hallmark sign of a vertebrate. Upon further inspection, Haridy realized the tubules were more akin to the sensory organs on crabs' shells called sensilla, although the pockets did contain dentin (A.K.A. the hard tissue that makes up the teeth in your mouth). The discovery sparked a new hypothesis for Haridy and the rest of the team: teeth may be sensory even when they're not in the mouth. 'We've been wondering 'why would we chew with these painful things? Why are they so sensitive in the first place?' Haridy said in a video. 'And it turns out, maybe this is a leftover from one of our most ancient ancestors.' Surprisingly, external teeth aren't uncommon in the animal kingdom today. Sharks, skates, and catfish all have tiny tooth-like structures called denticles lining their skin, making them feel like sandpaper. To better understand whether these external teeth were innervated (connected to nerves), Haridy studied some modern fish with denticles. She determined that the denticles were, in fact, connected to nerves like human teeth would be. Haridy said in the press release that the resemblance between armored fish's denticles and the sensilla of arthropods (like the ones seen in the Anatolepis samples) was striking. 'We think that the earliest vertebrates, these big, armored fish, had very similar structures, at least morphologically.' she said. 'They look the same in ancient and modern arthropods, because they're all making this mineralized layer that caps their soft tissue and helps them sense the environment,' According to Shubin, these early sea creatures would have existed in a 'pretty intense predatory environment,' so the ability to sense the world swimming around them would have been extremely important. The team's findings support what is known as the 'outside-in' hypothesis, or the theory that sensitive structures developed on exoskeletons first and then sensitive teeth followed. This contradicts the 'inside-out' hypothesis that assumes teeth arose first and were later adapted for exoskeletons. 'The more we look at the fossil record, the more we put those fossils in an evolutionary sequence, the more that we see the 'outside-in' hypothesis is likely correct,' Shubin said in the video. 'Our teeth originally evolved as the armor on the outside of the body of the earliest fish.' Moral of the story is: next time an annual cleaning leaves you with a toothache, don't blame the dental hygienist—blame your gilled ancestors! You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?

Bizarre Three-Eyed Predator Hunted The Ocean Half a Billion Years Ago
Bizarre Three-Eyed Predator Hunted The Ocean Half a Billion Years Ago

Yahoo

time24-05-2025

  • Yahoo

Bizarre Three-Eyed Predator Hunted The Ocean Half a Billion Years Ago

A predator that swam Earth's oceans more than half a billion years ago is unlike any creature that lives on our planet today. Mosura fentoni possessed three eyes, grasped its prey with spiny claws, ate with a circular, tooth-lined maw, swam with the aid of flippers that lined either side of its body, and had 26 body segments – more than any other radiodont, the extinct group of animals to which it belonged. Luckily, it would only have been about as long as your finger – most things back then were pretty small. But its segmented tail end has fascinated paleontologists Joe Moysiuk of the Manitoba Museum and Jean-Bernard Caron of the Royal Ontario Museum, who characterized the strange beastie from its fossilized remains in the famous Burgess Shale. They named Mosura for its resemblance to a moth, even though the relationship is distant and tenuous. "Mosura has 16 tightly packed segments lined with gills at the rear end of its body," Moysiuk explains. "This is a neat example of evolutionary convergence with modern groups, like horseshoe crabs, woodlice, and insects, which share a batch of segments bearing respiratory organs at the rear of the body." The oceans of Earth's Cambrian period, between around 539 and 487 million years ago, were a different place than our planet today. That was when life really took off, and the ocean started to thrive. We don't have many records of that time, but the Burgess Shale is, really, if we're being completely frank, a marvel of fossil preservation. It formed around 508 million years ago, when silty mud flowed across the seafloor, trapping and preserving a large number of organisms as it went. That mud became a fossil bed known as a Lagerstätte, so exceptional that fine details, soft tissue, and even internal structures were captured in the sediment. It revealed a rich ecosystem filled with mysterious creatures so bizarre that we've often been left baffled and wrong about their anatomy. In this environment lived the radiodonts, a group of animals that shared a common ancestor with arthropods, but has since gone extinct. This group includes the famous Anomalocaris, a fearsome beast that could have grown up to a meter long. That might not seem very large to us, but back then, when most things were small, it was a giant. Mosura was not a giant, but it was one-of-a-kind, at least as far as we know. Moysiuk and Caron studied 61 fossilized individuals of the species, and characterized it in detail. "Very few fossil sites in the world offer this level of insight into soft internal anatomy," Caron says. "We can see traces representing bundles of nerves in the eyes that would have been involved in image processing, just like in living arthropods. The details are astounding." Of particular interest was the animal's circulatory system. It did not involve veins, as the circulatory systems of vertebrates do, but was instead open, like the circulation of modern arthropods. In crabs, spiders, insects, and other arthropods, the heart simply pumps blood (or hemolymph) into cavities in their bodies, where it swirls around their organs to perform its function. In Mosura, these cavities are called lacunae. They filled the creature's body, and extended into the swimming flaps that extended from each segment, visible as reflective patches in the fossils. "The well-preserved lacunae of the circulatory system in Mosura help us to interpret similar, but less clear features that we've seen before in other fossils. Their identity has been controversial," Moysiuk says. "It turns out that preservation of these structures is widespread, confirming the ancient origin of this type of circulatory system." As for its strange, powerful respiratory system at the rear end of its body, its specialized structure suggests Mosura may have had unique needs. Perhaps its habitat was different from that of other radiodonts, or maybe its hunting methods required enhanced respiratory functions. This is one of those questions that is impossible to answer without more information. However, Mosura is a beautiful example of the strategies life adopts to thrive according to circumstance. "Radiodonts were the first group of arthropods to branch out in the evolutionary tree, so they provide key insight into ancestral traits for the entire group," Caron says. "The new species emphasizes that these early arthropods were already surprisingly diverse and were adapting in a comparable way to their distant modern relatives." The research has been published in Royal Society Open Science. Earth's Rotation Is Slowing Down, And It Might Explain Why We Have Oxygen New Jersey Hawk Develops Clever Hunting Strategy Using Traffic Signals Your Sensitive Teeth May Exist So Ancient Fish Could Avoid Danger

Colossal's de-extinction campaign is built on a semantic house of cards with shoddy foundations — and the consequences are dire
Colossal's de-extinction campaign is built on a semantic house of cards with shoddy foundations — and the consequences are dire

Yahoo

time24-05-2025

  • Yahoo

Colossal's de-extinction campaign is built on a semantic house of cards with shoddy foundations — and the consequences are dire

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The idea of resurrecting extinct organisms is alluring; I would love to see one of the strange Cambrian animals like Hallucigenia and Opabinia, feathered dinosaurs, the giant hornless rhino "Walter" and giant sloths. The "de-extinction" company Colossal Biosciences promises to fulfill that dream, at least for extinct animals like woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), dodos (Raphus cucullatus), and Tasmanian tigers (Thylacinus cynocephalus). It has recently been making waves in its quest to de-extinct charismatic fauna. First, it claimed to have developed elephant induced-pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), from which they could "de-extinct" woolly mammoths, then for creating Colossal Woolly Mouse, or the Mammouse, a proof of concept that mammoth-like traits can be engineered into other animals. Most recently, in a choreographed, but botched, reveal, Colossal made an astonishing claim: they had brought back the dire wolf from extinction. "De-extinction is now a reality," it posted to X. On LinkedIn, representatives wrote the wolves were "the first animals in history to be brought back from extinction." News headlines boldly claimed that "The dire wolf is back," and the "Return of the Dire Wolf." But the photogenic, clickbaitable animals in their public relations campaign are not dire wolves; they are genetically engineered grey wolves that might resemble dire wolves. To me, this feels like an assault on objective truth in pursuit of profit. Colossal's years-long de-extinction campaign is built on a semantic house of cards and the "illusory truth effect" — where if you repeat something enough times, people will believe it. The common-sense definition of de-extinction is reversing extinction — bringing a species that no longer exists back to life. But that's not Colossal's definition. The company has rebranded it as "deëxtinction" or "functional de-extinction" — describing it as "the process of generating an organism that both resembles and is genetically similar to an extinct species [emphasis added]." It ignores that "similar" is relative given all organisms descend from a common ancestor that lived 4.2 billion years ago; humans are more genetically similar to sponges than bacteria, but swapping genes between humans and sponges doesn't transmutate one into the other. A hairy elephant is not a woolly mammoth and a grey wolf with a few genetic alterations isn't a dire wolf. Saying they are with a tweaked definition of de-extinction doesn't make it true. In a subsequent interview with New Scientist, chief scientist at Colossal Beth Shapiro acknowledged that dire wolves haven't been de-extincted, while seemingly claiming Colossal never said they were. "It's not possible to bring something back that is identical to a species that used to be alive," she told the publication. "Our animals are grey wolves with 20 edits that are cloned. And we've said that from the very beginning. Colloquially, they're calling them dire wolves and that makes people angry." They further mislead by simplifying and exploiting a nuanced scientific debate over species concepts; because there is no universally agreed-upon species definition, it gives them license to use an alternative, more convenient one. While evolutionary biologists debate whether species are real biological entities or conceptual abstractions, no definition is based on overall similarity. Colossal calls them dire wolves because if they look like this animal, then they are the animal. Much like the meaning of de-extinction, Colossal redefines what it means to be a species. In a remarkable bit of lawfare, Colossal has filed patents that, if accepted as written by the Patent and Trademark Office, would legitimize their definition of de-extinction as a single gene from an extinct species introduced into an extant one. They have also filed for a type of trademark that secures their rights to use the names of the de-extinct "dire wolves," Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, in board games, toys, video games, trading cards, etc., to protect their "brand identity." Thus, if transgenic grey wolf clones are transmutated into dire wolves because Colossal says they are, and if the government agrees with Colossal's definition, then one mutation could turn living species into monetizable and lucrative extinct ones. Related: 'Closer than people think': Woolly mammoth 'de-extinction' is nearing reality — and we have no idea what happens next The foundations of their house of cards are shoddy and built on disinformation, or, as the philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt might say, bulls**t. Who benefits from this colossal bulls**t campaign? Colossal's investors, who I can't imagine care about quiet academic debates over species concepts. Colossal aims to monetize the development and commercialization of cutting-edge biotech, including methods to edit the genome at multiple locations simultaneously, differentiate cells into sperm and eggs, and invent artificial wombs, among others. These techniques are legitimately promising. Developing these methods will have profound implications for human health and disease when successful. When, and I do believe it is when, not if, they succeed, infertility and genetic disease will be a thing of the past. But instead of applying these methods to real problems, the company is focused on selling de-extinction to the public. Colossal's deception is already having real-world consequences. The Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum wrote on on X that the arrival of the dire wolf is a "time to fundamentally change how we think about species conservation," that "the marvel of de-extinction technology can help forge a future where populations are never at risk," and that "The Endangered Species List has become like the Hotel California: once a species enters, they never leave. In fact, 97 percent of species that are added to the endangered list remain there." Burgum declines to note in his post that those 97% of species remain on the list because we have failed to protect their habitats from human encroachment; their populations have not rebounded, therefore, they stay on the list. The Trump administration has announced it will remove protections from many endangered species, citing Colossal's de-extinction of the dire wolf. Who needs to protect endangered species like the red wolves from extinction when we can just introduce one of their extinct genes into a coyote and deëxtinct them? Related stories —Colossal's de-extincted 'dire wolf' isn't a dire wolf and it has not been de-extincted, experts say —How related are dire wolves and gray wolves? The answer might surprise you. —Most complete Tasmanian tiger genome yet pieced together from 110-year-old pickled head In an era where "alternative facts" reign, Colossal's claim to de-extinction is more than just semantics and nonsensical differences in definitions. It is about market capitalization, at the expense of the foundations of scientific integrity and public trust in science and scientists. Their scripted narrative has polluted the information ecosystem, and like a forever chemical, now that it has been introduced, it will linger on. Almost no one who read the fawning and remarkably gullible headlines or saw the TV coverage will read the critical commentary that followed, the news cycle has passed. It's hard to dismantle a multi-year disinformation campaign wielded by a $10 billion biotech Goliath and work toward the de-extinction of truth. But we can speak truth to power and help the public discern science from science fiction, information from misinformation, and breakthroughs from flashy marketing ploys. What Colossal Biosciences offers us is bulls**t in exchange for objective truth. Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store