Trilobites are the first found metazoan forms in most places around the
world. The exceptions are exceptions and are clearly not lobopods.
>> Thus you are assuming "descendants" and "transitional", and then
>>using this assumption to justify your assumption that the evolutionary
>>history of the trilobites (or "arthropods") involves the lobopods, which
>>appear after the first arthropods. Does this strike you as a bit
>>tautological?
>
>A bit, but not entirely. Intermediate forms clearly do exist.
>Intermediate forms may reflect transition, convergence, or creation of
>intermediate forms. Many intermediate forms fit exactly how they would be
>expected to if they are transitional forms. Thus, it is not unreasonable
>to suppose that intermediate forms for which additional data are lacking
>may also be transitional.
Not if they first appear as fossils after their supposed progeny. I would
look for another theory. But then that's me.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu