Hi ASA
I think one of the most annoying things about Creationist rhetoric is the
way it confuses the appearance of a phyla, regardless of how "primitive" the
initial examples might be, with the modern article. Like Phyla have not
evolved over time - as palaeontologists have been aware since last century.
I think Simon Conway Morris' discussion of this issue [in "Crucible of
Creation"] is very informative, that the "sudden appearance" maybe more
related to the category "phyla" than any actual biological reality in the
fossils. Take all the supposed taxonomically "new" pseudo-phyla of the
Cambrian - supposedly never before seen using traditional Linnean
taxonomies, but when cladistics is applied a clear case of evolution
appears. As is so often misunderstood, higher-level evolution is a
feature-by-feature gaining of characters by organisms, NOT an all-at-once
"transition". "Transitional forms" as discussed by Creationists, are a myth
as far as I can tell. They confuse species-to-species intermediates [very
rarely documented sufficiently by the fossils] with higher-order transitions
in order to score rhetorical points with the naive.
Adam
>From: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
>To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Another apologetical mess up
>Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:39:38 -0000
>
>Reasons to Believe has come up with another factually inaccurate article
>about the Cambrian explosion. Fazale Rana writes:
>
> "Fossils previously found in Yunnan province (at sites discovered nearly
>100 years ago) and in the Burgess Shale deposits of the Canadian Rockies
>tell us that all animal phyla (more than 70) ever to exist in Earth's
>history appeared 'at once' about 540 million years ago. (Some 40 phyla have
>since disappeared and not a single now one has appeared.)" Fazale R. Rana,
>"Cambrian Flash," Connections First Quarter 2000, p. 3
>
>While it is true that the majority of the phyla do appear in the Cambrian
>(but not all at once) there is one animal phyla that has no fossil record
>and was only discovered in 1995. The report can be found at: Petar Funch
>and
>Reinhardt Mobjerg Kristensen, "Cycliophora is a new phylum with affinities
>to Entoprocta and Ectoprocta," Nature, 378, Dec. 14, 1995, p. 711.
>
>Now it is also not true that all phyla appeared in the Cambrian. Some
>appear
>in the Precambrian. Sponges, plylum Porifera, appear in the Precambrian:
>see
>Martin Brasier, Owen Green and Graham Shields, "Ediacarian Sponge Spicule
>Clusters from Southwestern Mongolia and the Origins of the Cambrian Fauna,"
>Geology 25(1997):4:303-306, p. 303
>The ediacaran is Precambrian.
>
>Mollusks also are found below the Cambrian: see Fedonkin, M. A., and B.M.
>Waggoner. 1997. The late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like
>bilaterian organism. Nature 388(Aug. 28):868 and Mikhail A. Fedonkin and
>Benjamin M. Waggoner, "The Late Precambrian Fossil Kimberella is a
>Mollusc-like Bilaterian Organism," Nature, 388(1997):868-871,
>
>Annelids are first found in the Precambrian, not the Cambrian: "About 25
>percent of the specimens collected at Ediacara are annelids. The most
>common genus, Dickinsonia, may have survived into Paleozoic time. A
>similar
>form, Spinther, is still living as an ectoparasite on sponges." ~ Preston
>Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, "The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa
>Inherit the Earth.", Science, 217, August 27, 1982, p. 788.
>
>And last but not least, phylum protozoa has been found in the Precambrian.
>
>Thus the claim that there are all animal phyla are first found in the
>Cambrian is simply false. Christians need to be sure that their facts are
>correct when they make claims which are supposed to support the Bible.
>
>
>
>
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 26 2000 - 04:08:08 EST