Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, July 14, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Disproving Conventional Wisdom On Diversity Of Marine Fossils And Extinction Rates

by Science Daily

Thanks to Anders for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080711090057.htm

Disproving Conventional Wisdom On Diversity Of Marine Fossils And Extinction Rates

ScienceDaily (July 14, 2008) — It took a decade of painstaking study, the cooperation of hundreds of researchers, and a database of more than 200,000 fossil records, but John Alroy thinks he's disproved much of the conventional wisdom about the diversity of marine fossils and extinction rates.

Alroy, a researcher with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at UC Santa Barbara, is the principal author of the new report published in Science. A team that included 34 other researchers, who began their work in 1998, coauthored the report.

Alroy's report shows a new curve in the diversity of ancient marine invertebrate species such as clams, sand dollars and lobsters, while also revealing that most of the early propagation of invertebrates took place before the Late Cretaceous period. In addition, the research contends that the increase of those invertebrates in the period since is relatively small when compared to the 100 million years that elapsed.

"There's been 36 years of people arguing about this," Alroy said. "And I feel we finally resolved this debate, which is certainly one of the most high profile debates in the study of diversity of the fossil record.

"This is a big community project," he added. "The only reason we're able to do any of this is we have a very, very, very detailed database (the Paleobiology Database) that is built by a community of people over the Web. We record exactly what hole in the ground each fossil comes from."

By counting fossil records from all over the world, Alroy and his fellow researchers were able to conclude that much of what experts have been saying for the last 40 years might not be accurate. Instead of counting just the first and last instances of fossils, as others had done before, Alroy and his team set out to count them all, examining 284,816 fossil occurrences.

"We only count it where we've actually got it," Alroy said. "Say you're doing biomedical research and you want to know about the prevalence of a disease, say some kind of cancer."

The difference between the old and the new research, he said, would be like "the difference between checking medical records willy-nilly, and computing percentages with a standardized sample."

While the research of other scientists showed eventual recoveries in the diversity of fossils after periods of extinction - especially the extinction 250 million years ago between the Permian and Triassic periods (also known as the "mother of all mass extinctions") - Alroy said this report shows that the number of species comes back up quickly - at least on a geological time scale - and then stays relatively flat.

The data are also interesting, Alroy said, because they document that there have been only three truly major mass extinctions in the fossil record.

"For many years, our community has been saying that there have been five major mass extinctions, and it's gotten into the public consciousness that there's been a 'Big Five,' " Alroy said. "This (the last major spike in fossil diversity records) is supposed to be the sixth major extinction. This is really conventional wisdom, but it's not supported by the new data at all."

Instead, the new results suggest it's only the fourth one over the last half-billion years.

Comments 1 - 11 of 11 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #210473 by themarkhasbeenmade on July 14, 2008 at 4:22 pm

That is the one thing about science that I've always enjoyed; when new info is discovered and presented, the scientific community looks at it and then changes the the old info to reflect the new data.

There is an 'overall good' in proving conventional wisdom wrong.

Other Comments by themarkhasbeenmade

2. Comment #210479 by DeepFritz on July 14, 2008 at 4:34 pm

 avatarI think Terry Pratchett had it correct:

SCIENCE: A way of finding things out and then making them work. Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does RELIGION, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong. There is a lot more Science than you think.

-- From A Scientific Encyclopedia for the Enquiring Young Nome by Angalo de Haberdasheri (Terry Pratchett, Wings)

Other Comments by DeepFritz

3. Comment #210573 by King of NH on July 14, 2008 at 8:21 pm

 avatarThis is real "Academic Freedom." When science finds they really do have weakness in one idea (proliferation of species diversity) and strengths in another idea (plateau of species diversity) it is taught, discussed, and corrected. So why do we need a bill telling scientists to do what they apparently do already, quite willingly?

Other Comments by King of NH

4. Comment #210581 by Isaksson on July 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm

 avatarKing of NH

"So why do we need a bill telling scientists to do what they apparently do already, quite willingly?"

So those people that are coming up with ideas, put the bill up for discussion and those who vote for them has something to do to show they really earn the money they get?

Just a thought.

Other Comments by Isaksson

5. Comment #210654 by clatz on July 15, 2008 at 12:17 am

 avatar
The difference between the old and the new research, he said, would be like "the difference between checking medical records willy-nilly, and computing percentages with a standardized sample."


Love it, this sentence has made my day.

Other Comments by clatz

6. Comment #210672 by Enlightenme.. on July 15, 2008 at 1:01 am

 avatar"Alroy said this report shows that the number of species comes back up quickly - at least on a geological time scale - and then stays relatively flat"

Is this a vindication of punctuated equilibrium?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

7. Comment #210889 by cerad on July 15, 2008 at 7:57 am

 avatarI'll bet those Texas school children could have figured this out during a lunch break.

Other Comments by cerad

8. Comment #211031 by Dr. Hameer on July 15, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Reading the article above seems to suggest that there is now confirming evidence that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (Periods of rapid evolution - on a geological time scale of course! - followed by prolonged periods of stasis and no change) might very well be correct.

Fascinating indeed. How delighted and ecstatic the late Professor Gould would have been to hear this news!

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

9. Comment #211436 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 2:45 am

 avatarInteresting. I'll have to remember to substitute five for three, when I talk about mass extinctions from now on.

Cause knowledge is power!

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

10. Comment #211439 by Steve Zara on July 16, 2008 at 2:53 am

 avatarComment #211031 by Dr. Hameer

To be honest, I am not sure there was much doubt that different species evolve at different rates and there have been periods where not much changed.

I have always thought that Punctuated Equilibrium was something more than this...the idea that natural selection of small variations didn't really do that much, and it took drastic changes and different mechanisms of evolution to shake things up. That is a far more controversial idea.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

11. Comment #211691 by Dr. Hameer on July 16, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #211439 by Steve Zara

I agree Steve. Point taken. I guess Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) taken to the "extreme" is a controversial idea.

Even though I am a physician and not an evolutionist, I think that the world is a very dynamic place with lots of processes of nature taking place concurrently. To think that Natural Selection alone is the prime mechanism, seems a little too over "reductionistic" and naive to me.

So while I do think Natural Selection is an important mechanism in the evolution of life on earth, I do not think it is the only mechanism. I am open to entertain the possibility of PE as an equally fascinating "add on" to Darwin's grand theory of Natural Selection.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: