There are beautiful properties for sale in Cambrian and great homes for sale in Almaden Valley. These are great communities to settle down. Nearby you will find some great real estate in Willowglen and some gorgeous houses for sale in Blossom Valley. Morgan Hill, Milpitas and Santa Clara are all great neighborhoods around the silicon Valley to settle down in and raise a family. If you live or work around San jose and are looking to either buy a home to live in or as an investment, contact Dale Warfel of Keller Williams Realty and find a great property.

He has lived in the Silicon Valley all his life and can give you the best deals. Please feel free to browse through his site to explore the Santa Clara County communities of San Jose, Willow Glen, Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, Cambrian, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Alviso, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto

Billboards and notices also attract a lot of attention. Apart from these, advertising online is another great way to spread awareness. A good real estate agency would be able to guide you. Prepare your house, to make it look attractive to the buyers. Spend a few dollars to get a new coat of paint for your house. Scrub the floors clean and make the entire house look clean, neat and spacious. Also take care to fix minor problems such as squeaking staircases or loose door knobs. The more attractive your house is, the higher is its demand in the market. Consult a good real estate agent like Dale Warfel of Keller Williams Realty to fix the correct rate for your property.

Fixing a price much higher than what its value is can leave your house unsold for ages and fixing a price much lesser than what it deserves to get would result in a loss for you. As a Silicon Valley native, having lived, worked, shown, listed, and sold homes in practically every corner of Santa Clara County, Realtor Dale Warfel’s combination of area knowledge, technical background, and negotiation skills is an asset when looking for your dream home. Please feel free to browse through his site to explore the Santa Clara County communities of San Jose, Willow Glen, Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, Cambrian, Cupertino, and Palo Alto. So call him at 408 624 6202 to make an appointment.

In aceasta saptamana am placerea de a va prezenta un exponat deosebit - un trilobit. Trilobitii sunt artropode marine extincte caracteristice Cambrianului Mediu. Exemplarul din imagine este o specie care apare in Cambrianul Mijlociu din Utah in sisturile Wheeler. Are dimensiunea de 12mm si valoreaza $10. :)

Incadrarea sistematica:

Order: Ptychopariida
Suborder: Ptychopariina
Suuperamily: Ptychoparioidea
Family: Ptychopariidae
Species: Elrathia kingii

Elrathia kingii only occurs in the Middle Cambrian House Range of Utah and most predominantly in the Wheeler Shale, where they are very abundantly, and found in dark grey to black, and highly organic shales.

© Copyright LiftingShadows 2008 (for the images)

Since the Precambrian is the first period, I shall start by speaking of it.

The Precambrian represents more than 85 percent of geological time during which the earth changed from a molten ball to a planet with continents, oceans, and an atmosphere. In the latter part of the precambian the first tectonic plates developed, life evolved, and oxygen built up in the atmosphere. It begins 4600 millions of years ago, upon the formation of the Earth.

The formation of the earth is an interesting chapter of our knowledge... It binds physics, chemistry, geocentrism, maths, biology, well... Everything!

It began when large group of rock and gases joined, and made the sun. It had a large dust ring...Most probably bigger than the diameter of the solar system. This dust, joined again in smaller scales than the first one. This originated planets... Such as Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter etc...

It was a slow process. After rocks joined to make planet earth, the planet was still boiling rock and receiving constant meteorite strokes. There is a lot of debate about if water existed by this time.

Gaia, another (ancient) planet of the solar system, collided with earth, and this made our moon. This also increased global temperatures.

Life first appeared in the Precambrian , the very first beings were prokaryotes, mycroscopic single-celled bacteria-like. They probably appeared in hot waters around deep-sea volcanic-vents. Their fossils appear to be around 3500 million years old. The firstmulticellular organisms arose in the late Precambrian, we call them eukaryotes. Jellyfishes and Worms appeared in this era, as well as unsuccessful bizarre species unrelated to later animals. The Vendian race was born at this time(such as Dickinsonia and Ediacara).

The famous Cambrian Explosion- a rapid diversification of animal groups about 550 million years ago- assumes a rather diminished significance when mapped to the full Tree of Life.

update: yes, I made the diagram myself, by modifying this.

No doubt you have noticed that this blog is pro-evolutionary, but I have not spent much time in the past being anti-creationist. I do not expect to devote much time to the topic of creationism in future. This isn't because of disinterest, because as an ex-creationist I probably pay more attention to the topic than most scientists. It is more that I think there is so much to be said for evolutionary science and consider it more profitable to devote time to real science here.

You'll note that creationists do not take the same tack. If creationism had any scientific merit whatsoever you would find creation scientists hiking around in the Karoo digging up basal synapsids, explaining what their ecosystem was like, and explaining how this Permian ecosystem could remain so segregated from the many supposedly contemporary Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary ecosystems such that these plants and animals never invaded each other's areas, and how in the world they managed to sort themselves so neatly during the Flood. In fact there is a glaring lack of such activities, and creation "science" largely proceeds by trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Thus they seize upon the Cambrian explosion. "The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of the phyla, so evolution must be wrong!" they say. This is perplexing in its own way, since creationists spend most of their time denying the validity of the fossil record, and attempting to criticize evolution on the basis of the Cambrian explosion requires acceptance of its validity. But when you are arguing against one model rather than in favor of an alternate model, consistency inevitably suffers.

So what do we actual see in the Cambrian explosion? Did all modern phyla appear there? Is this a killing blow for the allegedly perpetually tottering, yet somehow never toppling giant of evolutionary theory?

Once again, you're probably not all on tenterhooks.

One thing that I've been thinking about more lately is placing extinct species in context in their ecosystems. I've tried to do that in recent posts examining what saber-toothed cats ate and why Simocyon retains tree-climbing ability. This is difficult because it requires a knowledge of that species' contemporaries, both animals and plants (I admit to be hopelessly biased in favor of animals). It turns out that the Cambrian ecosystem was much different than any ecosystem today, and would be unable to persist in the presence of competition by modern organisms if we could recreate a Cambrian ecosystem in modern times.

During the Cambrian multicellular life only existed in the sea. This is hard to imagine. The continents were bleak--sand and rock, with the only living organisms being bacterial crusts.¹ In the oceans plant life was represented only by algae, mostly single-celled and filamentous, but with some small branching forms. But the key feature of the Cambrian were thick bacterial mats that covered shallow seabeds. Such mats only grow in unwelcoming habitats now. At that time the mats prevented vertical tunneling into the substrate. This type of tunneling is ubiquitous in most modern environments, and this bioturbation produces characteristic patterns in layers of strata. Bioturbation did not become common until late in the Cambrian, when organisms had developed adaptations allowing tunneling into this dense and oxygen-poor substrate.² Many Cambrian organisms crawled about grazing upon this microbial mat.

The organisms of the Cambrian were also unusual. Some elude classification, others have at times been placed dogmatically in one group and then later placed just as dogmatically in a different group. This is due to a flaw of Linnean taxonomy. It is an either-or system that works well for distinguishing modern organisms, but is not designed to communicate evolutionary relationships, and can even help in obscuring them. This is not to say that it is not useful, we just need to remember that there are certain things that Linnean taxonomy does not tell us.

We know that the bilateria are monophyletic, so all phyla must come from a common ancestor. Let us examine a cladogram showing annelids at one tip and molluscs at the other. Modern examples of these organisms are easily distinguished. But if we trace down the branches to the root of the tree, the two phyla share a common ancestor. If we were to examine this ancestor, would it be an annelid or a mollusc? It would not really be either. We would expect it to have traits of both, but perhaps also to lack key traits, or include additional traits. If a person discovered a fossil of that common ancestor and was asked what phylum it fit into, that person would probably place it in either Annelida or Mollusca, depending on which traits were given priority. Likewise, an organism slightly up the branch towards modern molluscs might retain enough of the traits of its common ancestor that it might also be placed in Annelida, or vice versa. If these transitional species were not long extinct, we probably would not have two phyla at all, but one phylum consuming Annelida, Mollusca, and all of the ancestors of both down to their common ancestor.

Referring back to my post on the article "Understanding Evolutionary Trees", two common mistakes in analyzing evolutionary trees are assuming no change along a branch and assuming change only at nodes. Both of these mistakes contribute to misunderstandings about the Cambrian explosion. Budd and Jensen point out the problem of assigning long-extinct groups to existing phyla.³

Extant monophyletic groupings are always morphologically distinct from their extant sister-group, and that distinctness is brought about by subsequent extinction of the lineages (plus its offshoots) that led to each of them, away from their last common ancestor. As random extinctions through time slowly remove lineages, the most basal taxon of a clade will sometimes be the victim, thus widening the path-length between the surviving most basal members of extant sister clades (Fig. 3). The bases of clades are therefore eroded by extinction, and, as only living members of the clade can rediversify, this is a permanent loss. These extinct basal taxa will not possess all of the apomorphies that define the basal node of the surviving clade. It should be noted that this process will occur whether or not basal members of clades are particularly prone to extinction or not; there does not have to be anything ‘‘special’’ about basal taxa. One further aspect about these now extinct basal taxa is that they would have accumulated their own autapomorphies not possessed by the extant taxa. As a result, these basal fossil taxa are bound to differ from the extant clades: they will not be diagnosable as members of those clades; and they will show a confusing mixture of some but not all features of those clades, together with a set of features absent from them. It should be noted that this characteristic mix has been repeatedly noted in Cambrian fossils. For example, Hughes (1975) said of the Cambrian arthropod Burgessia: ‘‘what is apparent from this restudy is that Burgessia did possess a mixture of characters . . . many of which are to be found in modern arthropods of various groups’’ (Hughes, 1975, p. 434).

This diagram³ shows how this erosion takes place.

The way to help solve this problem is to recognize there is a distinction between crown groups and stem groups. Crown groups contain extant organisms, while stem groups are made up of extinct groups that may lack some crown group features, but also may retain features that were present in the common ancestor and later lost. As you can see from this diagram, if we extrapolate from our knowledge of extant species to determine what traits are diagnostic for their clade, we may unintentionally slip into the assumption that no significant change occurred since their divergence, and pick a trait to be diagnostic of the clade that in reality was not characteristic of the basal members of that clade.⁴ This can lead to exclusion of a group from its proper phylum, inclusion of a stem group more closely related to a different phylum in the wrong phylum, or the generation of a redundant new phylum to contain a problematic group.

Upon further examination, most Cambrian organisms either have a mix of traits or have some traits diagnostic of a crown group, but lack other crown group traits. These organisms are more accurately placed as stem groups of the modern crown group phyla. Budd and Jensen point out that for most phyla crown group members do not begin to appear until 20-25 million years after the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, well after the "explosion" was supposedly finished. The crown groups evolved through the gradual acquisition of some traits and loss of others over tens of millions of years. This is quite a different picture from the creationist representation of the Cambrian explosion as an extremely rapid emergence of distinct modern phyla, with nary a transitional to be seen.

Indeed, most of the organisms we consider most notable did not appear in the Cambrian. Plants are the most obvious example to me--the Cambrian landscape was barren, if we overlook microscopic bacteria. Land plants are now key producers and have a major impact on local ecology. Most plant divisions (the equivalent of phyla) evolved after the Cambrian. Plants first began to colonize the land during the Ordovician following the Cambrian, but the vascular plants did not evolve until the Silurian, 425 million years ago. Through the Carboniferous (360-300 million years ago) tons of coal were laid down from giant fern forests, although the first gymnosperms also began to appear. These plants dominated through the Permian and Triassic, but in the Jurassic (200-145 million years ago) began to be replaced by angiosperms. The angiosperms, flowering plants, are the major group of plants that we observe, including almost all deciduous trees (with exceptions such as the larch, a deciduous gymnosperm), bushes, and herbs. The grasses are angiosperms and appeared during the Cretaceous (145-65 million years ago), but did not become ubiquitous until the middle of the Tertiary, only 10-20 million years ago. And much more could be said for the evolution of vertebrates, including the extremely diverse fish and the myriad land-dwelling tetrapods. Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and all of their extinct tetrapod ancestors appeared long after the Cambrian. Even some organisms we consider "primitive", such as insects and spiders, appeared about a hundred million years after the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian may have been the time period that saw key metazoan phyla diverge, but it was by no means the beginning of modern life!

Not only did all modern crown groups not appear in the Cambrian explosion, but the Cambrian explosion was also not the appearance of metazoan life. The Cambrian was preceded by the Ediacaran (formerly the Vendian), and we have fossils of organisms from the Ediacaran that are even stranger than those appearing in the Cambrian. We have trouble placing Cambrian organisms in modern phyla, but we sometimes have trouble placing Ediacaran fossils in the right kingdom. Considering what we know about the divergence of the phyla in the Cambrian, this is expected. The Ediacaran is closer to the convergence of the kingdoms, and contains organisms long extinct that possess characteristics not possessed by organisms that evolved later. Some scientists have proposed that most of the Ediacaran fauna be placed in their own phylum since it is so hard to diagnose their affinity to modern organisms.

While the Ediacaran biota shared a common ancestor with all of life, we may never be able to determine their exact place on the tree of life. The fossil record for the Ediacaran and Cambrian is spotty, with only a few places preserving detail of soft-bodied organisms. It is possible with the discovery of new fossil-bearing formations that we will be able to determine the evolutionary relationship of the Ediacaran biota to the Cambrian biota, and thus to all metazoan life. Even if we are not able to interpret the Ediacaran as clearly as we would like, we will make progress with the Cambrian biota. The recent discovery of several formations with excellent morphological preservation of Cambrian organisms will contribute to the study of the evolution of the phyla, as we place stem group members and perhaps eventually converge on the common ancestors of modern phyla.

1. Labandeira, C. C. "Invasion of the continents: cyanobacterial crusts to tree-inhabiting arthropods." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2005, 20, 253-262. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2005.03.002
2. Dornbos, S. Q. "Evolutionary palaeoecology of early epifaunal echinoderms: Response to increasing bioturbation levels during the Cambrian radiation." Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 2006, 237, 225-239. DOI:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.11.021
3. Budd, G. E. "The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla." Integrated and Comparative Biology 2003, 43, 157-165. DOI:10.1093/icb/43.1.157
4. Budd, G. E.; Jensen, S. "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla." Biological Reviews 2000, 75, 253-295. DOI:10.1017/S000632310000548X

The Opabinia (there is only known species, Opabinia regalis) belongs to that kind of fauna that is unclassifiable because the evidence is very scarce (the Burgess Shale is one of the very few locations where well preserved Cambrian fossils of invertebrata have been found) and because almost none of them has living relatives. Scientists believed that the Opabinia only resembled an arthropod without being one (there are no jointed legs) but recent findings from Greenland suggest that opabinids may have had legs after all. This would mean that the Opabinia actually lived in the benthic region and crawled on the sea floor. There is still much to be discovered, so these replicas actually age faster than others: the Kaiyodo Opabinia has no legs, it's based on early renditions, it's positioned as if it were swimming, but does this make it necessarily a bad replica? Of course not.

The 15 lobulated body segments, the serrated proboscis (which is NOT in a transveral position, a more plausible supposition for Dinocarida like the Opabinia or the Anomalocaris), the 5 mushroom-like eyes and the curious tail with 3 blades are de rigueur, they're present (amazingly detailed by the way; there is no mouth though), but that's not entirely what makes it so wonderful. The resin is transparent (which is a plus for me) on top of it, the paint job is inextricably complicated (mainly a nacre-like silvery tone on underside and proboscis, a coat of orange on the lobes, some green spots, incluiding the eyes) The 'exo-skeleton' is smooth, while the proboscis has an irregular feel.

Most of the Kaiyodo figures seem to have surpassed other companies' products, even more so if we consider that they're all miniatures (this piece measures 9 cm, so the scale is almost 100:100) The only downside is that the resin seems fragile.

Unfortunately the Opabinia only surfaces once in a while and it can be moderately expensive.

Discuss this and thousands of figures at the forum.

HALLUCIGENIA: This and the Kaiyodo version are the only Hallucigenia replicas out there. Although Kaiyodo's version is probably more beautiful due to the artistic liberties, I love the efficient simplicity of the traditional.looking PP rendering. It has no eyes, no orifices, the undefinable blob represents the head, while the tail is a little bit more worm-like. The number of spines and tentacle-like tubes is correct (14 pairs in all), although the 'feet' end in two claws, whereas it's been established that there was one claw only. The tiny appendages where the... tail?... begins are present, too. The colouring is rather dull (blue sprayed on white) but then again, who knows? Maybe this is accurate after all. I'm glad they didn't envisioned it as an onychophoran (velvet worm-like) which is currently the most accepted theory for some reason.

AYSHEAIA: I really liked this fella, it's chubby and resembles strikingly an evil mutant catterpillar. The Aysheaia is supposedly related to the modern onychophora (such as the modern Peripatus, a worm-like creature that has arthropod qualities). It must have fed on primitive sponges. The colour pattern is quite simple, but the texture is interesting (kind of rough). I find two major flaws in it. One, there's a pair of legs missing and two, I don't know where they got the idea from, but the legs themselves should have the same kind of spines found on the two big posterior appendages.

PIKAIA: Interesting animal, it is supposed to be one of the first vertebrates ever. PP did a good job reconstructing the body (very much like an eel) but they put big eyes on it, which is rather doubtful, since it's not an advanced chordate, if at all (it was thought at first that it was a polychaete worm). It must have been easy prey for the big Cambrian hunters like the Anomalocaris. On top of its head there are two protuberances (nobody know why, maybe they were antennae) Underneath the first segment one can see several minuscule appendages (their function remains unknown as well, they probably were vestigial).

OTTOIA: This is a Cambrian priapulid worm, so it's the first replica of its kind. It was supposed to feed onlarge things (scientists think that they've found traces of other Ottoia worms inside the digestive tract of one of the Burgess Shale specimens, so that would make it a cannibal) but it's possible that they just filtered things through the feeding tube. This worm would bury its body in the sand and from there catch its prey. The PP Ottoia is a nice life-like reproduction, they even positioned it as if it were buried. The feeding tube and the... head?... have some tiny markings, I guess those are the spines that are characteristic of this kind of worms; the rest of the body has a ringed pattern. The colouring ranges from dark red to clear orange.

OPABINIA: I suppose this monster and the Hallucigenia are the most impressive toys of the set; in this case, the colour is more uniform (a rusty orange tone). The detail is superior, too (particularly on the lobes that conform the body) There are very few scientific certainties about this creature, but they are mostly there (five mushroom-like eyes, proboscis with a serrated tip, the 3 lobular portions with which the tail ends) There are however several questionable features. The body had 15 body segments, whereas the PP replica has only 10. The proboscis did not function as a mouth, the latter was located at the lower part of the head, but unfortunately there is none on this toy. The designers added an extra set of paired eyes (not of the mushroom type, mind you, but little ones embedded in sockets located on the top of the head). Recent dossil findings suggest that the Opabinia may have had jointed legs (which would make it an arthropod after all) and we don't see legs on this toy. Some experts believe that the serrated opening located at the tip of the proboscis should be transversally positioned (opposed to the medial representation, a common assumption found on the PP toy, too).

TRILOBITES: Too modest to be identified, this is an obvious case of Olenoides Serratus, another interesting creature of the Burgess Shale playground. Trilobites proliferated for a very long time, and their physiology is very complex, so it's no wonder that they couldn't pull it off. The top view of the body seems to be perfectly accurate, the broad lobes are clearly defined, the antennae are well proportioned, but the ventral side is completely wrong, the legs were supposed to spring from the center of the body: On the PP there's an enigmatic plate covering the legs and a mouth that should not be there at all (it should be on the Opabinia instead) The colours are not exactly exotic, but I have no problems at all with the conservativeness of the black & grey pattern.

All in all, if you like unconventional prehistoric creatures, or if you would like to give your children an educational set of toys, this is perfect for you.

Discuss this and thousands of other figures at the Dinosaur Toy Forum 

When deciding what fish are still reasonably OK to eat, please check out this Seafood Mini Guide that rates based not only on sustainability but on your health as well. Many fish have rather a lot of mercury, PCBs, and other toxins. Top level predators tend to be both bad for your health due to the accumulation of toxins up the food chain and bad environmentally due to slower reproduction and longer time to reach maturity.

Lastly, please remember that when we trash the oceans, we are trashing 70% of the Earth's surface.

Jake Duvall and recieve a FREE Homemaker Plus Eight set with a

block! This is over $900 value yours FREE! Click the link below to see

your free high end CUTCO set.

http://www.Jakeduvall.com

Get used to seeing that logo, because it's going to be everywhere soon.

Reading through the Fresh Fodder blog today, I found a fantastic collaboration website for entrepreneurs.  It’s called Cambrian House, and it promises to be the next big thing…like Amazon/eBay/Monster/MySpace big.  Forgive my poor comparisons, because I'm not a business person in the least, but the name will nonetheless be ubiquitous -- how's that? ;)

So many people are sick of being on the corporate treadmill, tired of working to make someone else rich, and spending days in offices and commuting.   A lot of us are searching for ways out – many to start our own own businesses to break free of a boss or cruddy hours, some to get the chance to create a business model and test marketing and advertising skills, and still others to sell a product that they actually believe in. 

Enter social networking.  This changes everything.  And whatever your reasons, you need to visit this site.

The creators of Cambrian House have made it really easy to navigate and learn about the concept of “Crowdsourcing” – kind of like walking into a conference room…well, virtually.  It’s brainstorming/outsourcing/collaboration/funding and whatever else creating a business entails.  There's also support for the businesses formed there to buy and sell in The Bazaar.  There's also Cambrian House University (CHU) to provide some advice and information.  To me, Cambrian House sounds like a one-stop entrepreneurial shop.  Once there, you can determine where you fit in.  And chances are that, given that you’re on a computer as it is, you will fit in somewhere. 

I believe that people are waking up.  We’re learning that it’s not all about money.  Sure, getting rich would be nice, but we want to love what we do for half of our lives.  It’s nice to read through and see people attempting self-sufficiency and showcasing creativity.

The first step appears to be to open a business if that’s what you want.  You can also browse the ideas to see if there’s anything in areas that interest you – green, IT, cycling, radio, birthday cards, etcetera.  The list is extensive.  There appears to be something for everyone.  

So take a look.  I think I’ve found a great site for wasting a lot more time online.  I just might be a pro at something that I’m not earning money doing yet.  LOL  Cambrian House is just the site to help me believe that I have something to offer, too.  Gosh, I'm just itching to think of a business idea now! 

Take a virtual walk through the site and see what you think.  I'd be interested to know.

I grew up in Willow Glen, went to college at Santa Clara University, and I am proud to say that I still live here in Willow Glen.   I am very friendly, caring and easy to work with.  I love to work with first time home buyers and I get very excited about working with people from out of the area that want to move to my town.  I am very knowledgeable about San Jose and the surrounding areas and I’m very good at finding homes for my clients that fit their personality and requirements.

So … now that I’ve tooted my own horn a few times, I would like you to know what you can get out of my site.  I will blog a considerable amount about Santa Clara County:  What to do, Where to go, Where to eat, community statistics, housing market, kid friendly spots, pet friendly spots, reviews of stores, restaurants and services, just to name a few.  I hope that you will find my information useful and continue to visit often to get great information about the Bay Area.  Sit back, relax, read and feel free to add your comments.

Oh ... and one more thing ... if you need a Realtor that you can trust and is great to work with, I would be delighted to work with you.