Maybe First Creatures Were on Land, Not in Sea
Paper in 'Nature' refutes long-held theory
By John Johnson, Newser Staff
Posted Dec 13, 2012 6:17 PM CST
File image of an ancient petrified snail.   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – Play whatever scene you have in your head of the first creature to emerge from the sea and move onto land. Now hit pause and play it in reverse. A new paper in Nature refutes the long-held theory that life began in the water and evolved onto land, reports NPR. In fact, just the opposite happened, argues Greg Retallack of the University of Oregon. His theory rests on ancient organisms known as Ediacarans thought to predate a huge boom in ocean life about 530 million years ago.

After studying their fossils, Retallack thinks they were akin to fungi or lichen, which is in itself a change from the accepted wisdom that they were animals of some kind (early jellyfish, say). But more startling is his contention that they lived on land, based on his analysis of Australian rock where some fossils were found. A Virginia Tech skeptic says the evidence presented "is not a slam-dunk," and NPR's Richard Harris writes it will take some time before we see "whether the story ends with acceptance of Retallack's provocative proposal." Read it, or listen to it, in full here.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Maybe First Creatures Were on Land, Not in Sea? is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 34 comments
Dec 18, 2012 10:33 PM CST
LOL at 530 million years ago. Adam and Even were created 6 thousand years ago and they weren't "creatures".
Dec 18, 2012 10:23 PM CST
SNAIL? Those idiots! That's an ammonite!... a sea creature!!! Anyway, life didn't 'begin' in the ocean or on land... It began is SPACE! The bio-energy of the stars spread the "stuff-of-life" throughout the galaxies!
Dec 18, 2012 6:19 AM CST
Step back a little John. No one is claiming life began on land. There were microbes in the seas 3 billion–4 billion years ago