Re: Cambrian Explosion

mortongr@flash.net
Tue, 06 Jul 1999 21:40:53 +0000

At 09:32 PM 7/6/99 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>I think most paleontologists recognize the absence of certain obscure phyla
>from the fossil record is a product of the record, not, as you suggest, due
>to the evolution of a new bodytype. You will have to admit that if it
>really is so obscure that it has just now been found, (and I would suggest
>that nobody would assert that it has just now arisen (from what?)), the
>chances of finding it as a fossil are pretty small. Personally I don't
>care. It would just be a bit strange if after "550 milion years", suddenly
>yesterday, a new phyla emerges.

I fully agree with you about what most paleontologists think and actually,
for something like cycliophora which is small, it probably has been around
for a long time. But my point is that one can not assume evidence where
none exists. My belief or your belief is not evidence. Why would it be
strange for a new phyla to arise? Is there some a priori law that says that
new phyla can't arise? All we really have is the fossil record not a law.
With plants, a number of phyla have arisen over the past 550 million years.

glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution