On Mon, 26 Jun 1995 22:31:59 -0400 you wrote:
>I have just been informed that I made a grevious error. The ediacaran forms
>have been known since the 1950's. Thanks Andrew for pointing it out to me.
>
>see,
> Glaessner, M.F., 1959. Precambrian Coelenterata from Australia,
>Africa, and England. Nature, v.183, p.1472-1473.
>
> Glaessner, M.F., 1966. Precambrian paleontology. Earth Science
>Reviews, v.1, p.29-50.
>
>Denton does mention the ediacaran forms on page 161-162 but then on page 163 states, "Again, just as in the case of the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils,
>no forms have ever been found in the pre-Cretaceous rocks linking the
>angiosperms with any other group of plants." p. 163. The first phrase of
>this statement is erroneous.
Glenn for one who prides himself on honesty, you can be as selective
as "the apologetical books" you criticise so much. You omit to add the
words which immediately follow (indeed on the same line):
"Again, just as in the case of the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils, no
forms have ever been found in pre-Cretaceous rocks linking the
angiosperms with any other group of plants. According to Daniel
Axelrodt
`The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been
identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to
such an ancestral alliance. In addition, the record has shed almost
no light on relations between taxa at ordinal and family level.'15
15. Axelrodt D., (1960) "The Evolution of Flowering Plants", in "The
Evolution
of Life", ed. Sol Tax, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p227-306
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books,
p163).
How can you fairly criticise Denton, a molecular biologist, for
reporting what
a presumably eminent Botanist has written?
No doubt you will say, ah! but Axelrodt wrote that in 1960 and
Denton's book was written in 1985. I am not completely up to date on
Botany, but my 1984 Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
"The angiosperms had an explosive development in the middle of the
Creataceous and from then on completely dominated the land flora.
Angiosperms are not known with complete certainty from the Lower
Cretaceous or older strata. The Late Cretaceous angiosperms are extant
groups such as magnolias, plantans, and palms. In spite of the
considerable fossil material present, the fossil record has not been
able to provide an answer to the problem of the origin of the
angiosperms."
("Encyclopaedia Britannica", 15th edition, 1984, Benton, Chicago,
7:576)
Now perhaps you know something that neither Denton or the EB knows?
But even if you do, does that mean Denton is being less than honest?
Why can't he just be plain wrong?
If you have up-to-date info on the origin of the angiosperms that
contradicts
what Axelrodt, Denton and the EB say, please post it, so we can update
our "apologetical books"! <g>
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------