> Cliff, I am citing the fossil data, not comparative anatomy.
The distinction is not clear to me. What are we looking at
fossils for, if not to study anatomy? I understood your citing
of fossil data as having a purpose, to back up the claim that
vertebrates evolved gradually from simple chordates. I argued
that the fossil evidence does not prove this, and that there
is reason to believe otherwise.
> >No, but I'll stick to my point that people love to battle over small
> >particulars but are less comfortable addressing the biggest topic of
> >all, the appearance of vertebrates.
>
> Then you actually have no evidence to support your case. I would suggest
> that you consult any good vertebrate paleo book to see them discussing
> exactly what you say they don't discuss. Carroll that I cited is an
> excellent source.
My "case" is not that comprehensive textbooks are not comprehensive.
I've been talking about the run-of-the-mill skeptics who will forever be
piping up about lungs or feathers or limbs but who don't care to address
more fundamental topics.
> You sure jump to conclusions. I didn't say and haven't mentioned amphioxus
> at all. And I cited paleontological data, not comparative anatomy.
> Amphioxus is a modern animal and not the ancestor of the earliest chordates.
Sorry to attribute this statement to you. I was using "amphioxus-to-
vertebrate" carelessly, to refer to the general idea that vertebrates
arose
from simple chordates through gradual simple-to-complex evolution, which
you
do not seem to disagree with.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com