I want to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding. The fossil is
good*. It is the cyclicity that the photo doesn't show very well. But I
would say that Art's expertise in such matters probably exceeds mine. We
may not agree on the interpretation of the fossil, but Art knows very well
what he is doing and I have a lot of respect for Art's considerable
abilities.
*Sometimes one must know what to look for before they can see it. Once on a
recruiting trip to VPI I was shown a super-secret trilobite site. I spent
all morning alone on the outcrop, collected 4 ticks, multitudinous cuts
from a thorn bush, tripped and banged my head on the rocks below, but never
saw a trilobite. I was looking for fossils that had a different color than
the tan matrix of the rock. What I should have been looking for was bas
relief bumps. Thus not knowing what to look for meant I didn't collect a
trilobite. The professor, bemusedly, gave me a couple of consolation
fossils from his collection. I still have these 'prizes' from my great
expedition to the Appalachians. :-)
>
>If you wish to convince a non-expert such as myself that you have evidence
that some theory is incorrect, you need to present evidence that is obvious
even to that expert. This rock does not qualify and in fact only
reinforces my feeling you have made a mistake.
There is a very good fossil on that rock, Art isn't wrong about that.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm