Text 1
Paleontologist Dr. Sarah Chen argues that the sudden disappearance of the Ediacaran biota—soft-bodied organisms that thrived prior to the Cambrian explosion—was primarily driven by "biotic replacement." Chen posits that the emergence of complex Cambrian animals with novel behaviors, such as active burrowing and predation, disrupted the stable Ediacaran mat-dominated ecosystems, rendering their survival impossible. According to Chen, the extinction was a direct consequence of ecological exclusion by more competitive, evolutionarily advanced species.
Text 2
Geochemist Dr. Marcus Vance maintains that the Ediacaran extinction is best explained by global environmental disruptions rather than biological competition. Vance points to a sharp negative carbon isotope excursion recorded in the geological strata of the late Ediacaran period, which indicates widespread marine anoxia (a severe depletion of oxygen in the oceans). Vance contends that these hostile ocean conditions decimated the Ediacaran organisms, which lacked the respiratory adaptations to survive in low-oxygen environments, thereby clearing the ecological stage for the Cambrian organisms that arose later.
Based on the texts, how would Vance (Text 2) most likely characterize Chen's claim (Text 1) regarding the role of Cambrian animals in the disappearance of the Ediacaran biota?
- AAs supported by geological records, though he disputes Chen's timeline regarding the transition between the two evolutionary eras.
- BAs inaccurate, because Cambrian predators actually coexisted peacefully with Ediacaran biota in oxygen-rich zones.
- As incorrect, because geological evidence suggests that the extinction of the Ediacaran organisms occurred due to environmental changes prior to the rise of Cambrian competitors.Cevap
- DAs plausible, but incomplete because it fails to account for the respiratory adaptations that allowed Ediacaran organisms to survive in shallow waters.