It took me a week to catch up here, you go so fast!
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:35:00 -0600 you wrote:
>Let me point out that the data you seek may lie in paleontology. It is a
>fact that Man is not found in rocks earlier than the Pliocene. Primates are
>not found in rocks beneath the Eocene. Mammals are not found in rocks
>beneath the Triassic. Reptiles are not found beneath the Pennsylvanian (I
>recall). Amphibians are not found in rocks below the upper devonian. Fish
>are not found beneath the Cambrian, yet invertebrates are aa are
>multicellular forms of algae. As one goes back to rocks of the lower
>precambrian, you loose the multicelluar forms.
>
>That I am saying is that the data does support at least a single cell to
>man, if not a molecules to man scenario. Explain the pattern of the fossil
>succession if not by evolution or special creation mimicking evolution.
>
The observed fossil order would seem to support single cell to man
(assuming there were good transition forms) _if_ the geological record was
indeed deposited over millions of years. If, however, there is strong
evidence for rapid sedimentation of each layer, and additional evidence for
a rapid succession of formations, then the fossil sequence must be
explained by something other than generations of ancestors and descendants.
If it were special creation mimicking evolution, I would expect more
stratigraphically significant morphological series (transition forms) and
less abrupt appearances and long stratigraphic ranges (stasis of kinds).
The observed pattern, with stasis of kinds and paucity of transitions, is
more amenable, in my mind, to a creation/flood scenario with lifezones in
the preflood world being buried during successive stages of the Flood,
first the teeming seafloor creatures, with a few land plant fragments
(Lower Paleozoic - Cambrian to Silurian and on), then the water-logged
"coal-forest" plants (which may have been floating forests) and their
faunas, notably amphibians and insects (Upper Paleozoic -- Carboniferous
and Permian), then as the waters rose over the continents, the eroded land
plant communities and their faunas, notably dinosaurs (Mesozoic - Triassic,
Jurassic, Cretaceous) topped by the upland floras, notably angiosperms (mid
Cretaceous on), and then after several months as the waters declined, many
floating plants beached and buried, some able to resprout, water animals
beginning to reproduce again either in the seas or inland lakes left by the
lowering sea level, and insects multiplying ferociously and cleaning up
some of the dead (Lower Tertiary - Paleocene and Eocene), then a long
process of migrations, differential survival, speciation filling new
niches, and gradual development of our present biogeographical patterns.
That's what I see. I haven't always seen it this way.
>> Viewing this mostly paleobotanically (but remembering the
>>animals too), I see a tremendous burgeoning of speciation in the immediate
>>postflood decades, when populations were spreading into wide open niches.
>>The resulting forms are more specialized, with less adaptability.
>>>What you are proposing is that all this chromosomal rearrangement took place
>>>almost instantaneously after the flood. We know most of the foxes, jackals,
>>>dogs and wolves were intact during the Egyptian Dynasties. But strangely, it
>>>doesn't happen as rapidly anymore. What happened?
>>
>>Some of the genetic "get up and go" got up and went. The world is getting
>>old.
>
>This is a case that you can easily adapt your theory whatever comes along.
>A theory that has meat in it, should not be able to slither off the butcher
>block. It should be able to take the stabs from the knife and survive.
Thankfully, on the internet, we can take stabs at each other's views
without hurting anyone!
Karen