On Fri, 19 Apr 96 00:16:06 GMT you wrote:
[continued]
AM>Trace fossils and soft-bodied fossils of uncertain interpretation
>may not seem like much in terms of evidence, but we know "soft-bodied"
>trilobites existed later, and *something* was making those trilobite-like
>trace fossils earlier.
It may have been trilobites, or it may have been something else
unknown making the traces. At present it seems it cannot be claimed
that the trace fossils definitely were made by trilobites. I don't
claim the first appearance of trilobites as a knock-out of evolution,
and therefore I will not be knocked out if trilobites are found
further back in the Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian.
SJ>when all the facts are in, trilobites will no doubt fit the
>basically Creation pattern of fully formed sudden appearance followed
>by stasis, as do "most" fossil species:
AM>[Quote from Gould regarding the " punctuated equilibrium" pattern
>in the fossil record.]
AM>This is a different issue. Why do you bring it up?
It is *not* different. It is a *prediction* based on a broad creation
model. Gould's "staircase" analogy fits with my PC model:
"According to the punctuated eqpuilibrium model of speciation, trends
within lineages occur by accumulated episodes of geologically
instantaneous speciation, rather than by gradual change within
continuous populations (like climbing a staircase rather than rolling
a ball up an inclined plane)." (Gould S.J., "The Evolution of Life on
the Earth", Scientific American, October 1994, p67).
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London,
1955, p191)
AM>When preservation is adequate, examples of tiny incremental change
>still occur even while matching the pattern of "stasis" and
>"punctuation" originally described by Eldredge and Gould. Geography
>conspires against paleontologists finding the time and location where
>species originated, not to mention the "punctuated" nature
>depositional processes themselves. Appropriate conditions are
>sometimes found, though.
This is just a version of the artefact theory that Gould has
pronounced dead:
"Two different kinds of explanations for the absence of Precambrian
ancestors have been debated for more than a century: the artifact
theory (they did exist, but the fossil record hasn't preserved them),
and the fast-transition theory (they really didn't exist, at least as
complex invertebrates" (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess
Shale and the Nature of History", Penguin: London, 1991, pp270-271)
"We can now understand why Walcott was virtually compelled to propose
the Burgess shoehorn. He interpreted his new fauna in the light of
thirty previous years spent (largely in frustration) trying to prove
the artifact theory, as an ultimate tribute to Darwin from a Cambrian
geologist. He could not grant Burgess organisms the uniqueness that
seems so evident to us today because a raft of new phyla would have
threatened his most cherished belief. If evolution could produce ten
new Cambrian phyla and then wipe them out just as quickly, then what
about the surviving Cambrian groups? Why should they have had a long
and honorable Precambrian pedigree? Why should they not have
originated just before the Cambrian, as the fossil record, read
literally, seems to indicate, and as the fast-transition theory
proposes? This argument, of course, is a death knell for the artifact
theory." (Gould, 1991, p273)
And Johnson points out that even when fossilisation is continuous, it
does not document continuous transformation:
"According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a
continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million
years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this
record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain
populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate
continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought
to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their
alleged descendants, and "the fossil record does not convincingly
document a single transition from one species to another." In
addition, species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of
more than one million years before disappearing from the
record." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993,
Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p51)
No doubt all these alleged "examples of tiny incremental change",
"Geography and "the `punctuated' nature of depositional processes" are
taken into account by "Eldredge and Gould", and yet they still claim
that the history of life is fundamentally "jerky", not continuous:
"I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or
episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my
colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated
equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil
record-geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to
change thereafter (stasis)-reflect the predictions of evolutionary
theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. " (Gould S.J.,
"Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", Penguin: London, 1984, p259)
AM>I am not sure how these examples could be distinguished
>from the creation model. I suppose any degree of incremental change
>could still be the result of the actions of a creator. I can not
>eliminate that possibility, and I can not eliminate that
possibility, and I can not forsee a way to test it.
I am pleased that you, a professional palaeontologist, "can not
eliminate" the "possibility" that "incremental change" observed in the
fossil record "could still be the result of the actions of a creator."
This point needs to be emphasised because Darwinist propaganda has
given the man in the street the impression that evolution has
disproved creation.
As for "not forsee a way to test it", the real problem is
philosophical. If "the actions of a creator" are ruled out in advance
before one starts to "test it" one's mind is already made up.
But one way to "test" it is to eliminate natural causes. If natural
causes cannot produce an effect, even in thought experiments:
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though
it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists.
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to
construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence
for them in the fossil record..." (Gould S.J. & Eldredge N.,
"Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution
reconsidered", Paleobiology, 1977, vol. 3, p147)
it is open to conclude a supernatural cause, unless one rules it out
a priori.
[....]
>AM>This is probably a reference to the problems which result from
>using a mineral like calcite for optics. It is highly anisotropic.
>Refraction effects are severe in calcite unless the crystals are suitably
>oriented and compensated for. This may be why so many other animals use
>less anisotropic or more versitile organic materials for lenses. It is a
>relatively simple material for many organisms to produce, but can be
>pretty problematic to use.
SJ>Before we skip over this point, one of the major artefact theories
>for lack of hard-shells before the Cambrian era, was the alleged lack
>of calcium.
AM>Again, this is not really relevant to my original point.
It is relevant to mine, though! :-)
AM>Lack of calcium? Who proposed that? The chemistry of the oceans
>may have been inappropriate for the deposition of structurally-continuous
>calcite skeletons, but it would not be due to "lack of calcium". Calcium
>would be available in the oceans from erosion, unless some sort of very
>effective non-biological process were removing it.
Hitching lists it as one of the explanations for the lack of
Pre-Cambrian fossils?
"Although a few fairly complex fossils have been discovered in the
upper levels of the Pre-Cambrian, their significant absence in general
is a well- established phenomenon, accepted by geologists. Most of
the explanations ring changes on the idea that the environment in
Pre-Cambrian times was unsuitable for the formation and preservation
of fossils...2. There was little or no calcium in Pre-Cambrian
seawater; therefore the creatures were soft-shelled, and their fossils
were not preserved." (Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where
Darwin Went Wrong", Ticknor & Fields: New York, 1982, pp18-19)
AM>Lack of skeletons before the Cambrian (which is approximately
>defined on the first appearance of skeletons) could be as simple as
>organisms not having an advantage if they possessed them (e.g., if
>predation was lower), or that developing the capability of a mineralized
>skeleton took a long time, or both.
Or a Creator decreed that they appear (without necessarily ruling out
some secondary causes)?
AM>In many modern organisms, there is a continuum of skeleton
>development, from organisms possessing partially-mineralized body walls
>(e.g., containing calcite spicules) to those with mineralized and organic
>skeletons, to continuous mineralized skeletons with little organic
>material. Unless structurally-competent mineralized skeletons occur, the
>chances of preservation are quite low. Organisms with only a limited
>number of mineralized spicules in their otherwise soft body wall stand a
>poor chance of preservation complete, although the spicules might
>individually preserve in the right conditions. It would be a difficult to
>determine what they were from, though.
I doubt if this washes. If they can find trace fossils and
micro-fossils, they should be able to find at least *some*
soft-bodied precursors to the Cambrian Explosion. Gish (for all his
alleged faults), does IMHO make a good point:
"Even more incredible is Eldredge's suggestion that all of the
intermediates leading up to the creatures that abruptly appear
fully-formed in Cambrian rocks were soft-bodied. As Eldredge
describes above, the Cambrian animals include a gorgeous array of
shelly invertebrates-creatures with hard parts. If, as Eldredge says,
all of the intermediates were softbodied, that means that a great
variety of creatures with hard parts suddenly arose directly from
soft-bodied creatures. That is simply impossible. The anatomy, the
physiology, the very way of life of an invertebrate with hard parts is
intimately intertwined with and dependent on those hard parts. Thus
the anatomies of soft-bodied animals are very different from the soft
anatomies of animals with hard parts. If invertebrates with hard
parts evolved from soft-bodied creatures, that change had to be
gradual, and there would have been many intermediate stages,
permitting a gradual acquisition of hard parts and changes in the way
of life of these creatures. This gradual acquisition of hard parts by
these many creatures should be abundantly documented in the fossil
record. Fossils of thousands of these intermediate stages should
grace museum displays. None have been found." (Gish D.T., "Creation
Scientists Answer Their Critics", Institute for Creation Research: El
Cajon Ca, 1993, p119).
[continued]
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------