'>motionless
Proarticulids could move.
If it wasn't for the white seas extinction event then they would've gone on to dominate the ecosystem.';

'That red one in the middle is looking zesty...';

'>>4764352
Kimberella was there too';

'https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gFCcZ-r-90E&pp=ygUORWRpYWNhcmFuIFBhcms%3D';

'>>4764348
I'm more of a Hadean Park kinda guy myself.';

'>>4764352
>white seas extinction event
The what';

'>>4764348
The layers aren't different eras though, there's no erosion or channeling or formation of rivers/lakes between layers they claim are millions of years apart, and when a form appears it doesn't change throughout the layers, and the layers are parallel in most places we see because it's sedimentary rock laid down in the flood. Just use some common sense.';

'>>4764369
>AAAAHHH I'M HAVING SO MUCH FUN LEARNING ABOUT THE HADEAN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH';

'>>4764521
It was a probable extinction event that happened to the white seas assemblage and gave way to the nama assemblage.
Proarticulids were a victim of this extinction event although the vendobiota in general survived. Bilaterians were more common after the extinction event as well. Seems to have been caused by a global anoxic event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkoOxnYiOuo';

'>>4764573
Crazy how many times life was close to being wiped out.';

'>>4765570
It was probably for the best for us. During the reign of the proarticulids the biggest us bilaterians got was 10cm. It was likely the vendozoans keeping our ancestors down. Likely without the white seas and end ediacaran extinctions we would've stayed tiny little ankle biters on the vendozoas.';

'>>4764348
Reddit meme but I'll allow it.';

'>>4765637
Imagine how different life would be in that case though. Altering something seemingly small very early on in the history of life could have severe implications.';

'>>4764569
You would love the feathered T rex exhibit';

'>>4765781
Thats a thought for the /se/ threads. I do wonder how far the proarticulids could've gotten if they had stayed dominant. Most likely the proarticulids were diploblasts which would make developing organs a real challenge. I had a thought however that maybe they could specialize isomers to specific functions rather than develop internal organs like bilaterians? Not sure if it'd actually work in reality but at least they wouldn't have to resort to clonal growth.';

'>>4765570
It wasn't, you can literally repopulate the planet with ONE single cell';

'>>4764569
God is an evolutionist';

'>>4765891
I would assume by life he meant multicellular life. This has actually happened once before in lifes history. The franceville biota where a group of multicellular organisms that lived 2.1 billion years ago. They seem to appear at the beginning of the great oxygenation event and disappear at the end too. I've never seen anyone suggest this before but my idea is that this kind of life was exterminated by the vredefort impact event, a meteor even bigger than the chicxulub impactor. The vredefort impact is suspiciously close to the end of the GOE and if anything could put an end to it, the biggest meteor since the hadean would do it.';

'>>4764348
Me in the middle. He's so literally ME';

'>>4765850
Not sure about proarticulates being diploblasts, all the articles I read that mentioned it cited them as likely triploblastes due their segmentation';

'>>4769049
You read very different to me, most articles I've read place them as branching off from other animals before ctenophores. A triploblastic affinity seems untenable to me as well due to the lack of stuff like a mouth, or any organs at all, especially gonads. All that points to them being very basal diploblasts, even ctenophores have a mouth and gonads.
The only modern paper I've seen arguing for a triploblastic affinity was one that argued that since proarticulids exhibit terminal addition therefore they are bilaterians. Completely unconvincing to me. Seemed like the author never conceived the possibility that it could've convergently evolved, which seems likely since bilaterians and proarticulids do terminal addition very differently. The paper was about as dumb as claiming that since birds and bats make wings out of bone they must therefore share a winged common ancestor. I checked the other papers by the author and they were all about how bilaterian terminal addition was an inherited trait from the urbilaterian. Seems like a guy with only a hammer looking for nails to me. I admire his autism though.';

'>>4769083
>branching off from other animals before ctenophores
Very doubtful given that ctenophores lack micro RNAs and true Hox genes strongly suggest that they are a sister branch to all other eumetazoa, diverging before cnidarians
The only vandiam that are argued to have diverged bifore cnidarians, and suggest to be possible related to ctenophores, are the Petalonamae, a diferent phylum from Proarticulata (you might be conflating the two given you choice of pic), that are considered to be either grades of stem billaterians or a sister clade to bilateria';

'>>4769162
>a diferent phylum from Proarticulata
This is completely untenable due to the many shared traits between petalonamids and proarticulaids, chiefly the glide symmetry which only this group of animals has to such a degree. Not to mention the lack of mouth and gonads. It seems pretty clear that proarticulids descend from a petalonamid-like ancestors, having adapted the hold fast into the cephalon and the fronds into the isomers.
The stem bilaterian hypothesis has a lot of problems, chiefly the fact that proarticulids aren't bilaterally symmetrical but exhibit glide symmetry as well as lack mouths and gonads. The latter two are particularly hard to explain for bilaterian affinity since both mouths and gonads are ancestral to everything living past placozoans. How do you explain the glide symmetry, lack of mouths and gonads?
>inb4 taphonomic distortion
That paper was such cope. To accept it's conclusions as true you'd have to believe all adult proarticulids were distorted in the same way and that vendiamorpha are unrelated to other proarticulids since denying they grow via glide symmetry would make you look silly.
TL;DR there are a lot of problems with the bilaterian hypothesis.
Also, just found the paper you got that chart from, it's from 2009. You shouldn't use something this old causes theres been a lot learned about the vendazoans within the last 10 years, hell we only confirmed they were animals in 2018. As well only figured out how trilobozoans fed in 2015. It's been pretty much a revolution in our understanding of them in the last decade.';

'>>4769162
>>4769180
Oh, and I suppose it's only fair I give my source for the stuff I've been posting, it's a paper from 2021 that's still pretty close to the state of the art for the field and gives a good overview of current thought on the petalonamids.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe0291';

'>>4764369
this';

'>>4765637
Vendoshits died out because predators evolved';

'>>4770251
Absolutely no evidence for this. The vendozoans died out before the evolution of any large predators in the cambrian. The timeline simply doesn't match up. That combined with C13 rates and the evidence of mass oceanic anoxia points to a general mass extinction, not a faunal turnover.';

'>>4764369
What would you even do there other than get horribly burned alive? Look at hypothetical abiogenesis? Or get a giant rock thrown at you? Just seems boring to me.';

'>>4770882
>imagine not wanting to witness the creation of the Moon
ngmi';

'>>4770882
>hypothetical abiogenesis
>hypothetical
Well at some point life had to have arrived out of the lifeless.';

'>>4771130
Jeez, that looks like it would be terrible for the economy.';

'>>4771150
>Jeez, that looks like it would be terrible for the economy.';

'>>4771150
It was a real stock market crash.';

'>>4771154
>>4771152
>>4771150
Bullshit. It literaly went TO THE MOON.';

'>>4771152
based and accurate';

'>>4771145
I meant the hypothetical processes by which it occurred dumbass. You know, the whole lightning creating amino acids from inorganic shit that we're currently going with.';

'>>4764352
imagine unironically stanning these weird little chode sponges';

'>>4771977
No need to imagine. Anyone with a functional brain for root them. Also they're definitely not sponges.';

'>>4765646
4chan isn't your secret club you dick-loving neet, please kys.';

'>>4772149
The only things of note from the Ediacaran was trilateral symmetry and that animal that grew mini versions of itself that branched off from its main body.';

'>>4772168
The proarticulids were the most notable thing from that era simply because they were by far the largest, dickinsonia rex got over 2 meters. Animals wouldn't reach that size again until aegirocassis in the ordovician. On top of being the first group of macroscopic motile animals, I'd say proarticulids were certainly notable from the period.
Although I agree trilobozoans are very cool too. Whats extra cool about the trilobozoans is that they might've been the only group of the vendozoans to survive the end ediacaran extinction and thrive. Vendoconularia is the first of the conularids ever found in the fossil record. Conularids were shelled organisms that looked kinda like ice cream cones. The thing that makes vendoconularids weird is that all later conularids has 4 sides whereas vendo here has 6. It's rare for an animal to change it's symmetry like that, based on later conularids most paleontogists thought they were related to jellyfish based solely on their symmetry. Vendo throws a big wrench into that though. Although there are other cnidarians that have 6 fold symmetry, the hexacorallia, conularids build their shells very differently to any member of that group. This got some people thinking, since the conularids lost 2 sides rather than one, what if they're not hexaradially symmetrical but triradial? Well the only other triradial animals we know of are the trilobozoans. This is a really cool idea cause conularids survived until the triassic-jurassic boundry. So the weirdest group of vendozoans were the only ones to make it.
I even have an idea on why trilobozoans lost their 3rd side. We know that trilobozoans had 3 mouths and where suspension feeders whereas later conularids where predators like anemones. The 3rd mouth isn't necessary for such a lifestyle so they lost that and turned the second mouth into an anus. What a strange path to take towards a through gut.';

'>>4772378
Thanks for the autismo explenation, that's actualy quite interesting anon';

'>>4764569
>there's no erosion or channeling or formation of rivers/lakes between layers they claim are millions of years apart
All of these happen in stratigraphic sequences more often than not.';

'undefined';

'>>4774242
Ironically, this is now one step closer to reality with JWE2 adding Dunkleosteus in one of the DLCs.';

'>>4773893
My pleasure.';

'>>4773893
If you're up for more cool conulariid facts, did you know conulariids made pearls? We even got fossils of them. Sadly they're kinda worse for wear after being stuck in rocks for several hundred million years.';