Two items.

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Fri Jul 06 2001 - 01:34:48 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Watershed"

    First, I have updated my page on foraminifera and the flood, hopefully
    making the argument much tighter. It can be found at
    http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm. I will make a couple of
    other changes in the next few days but they will be minor.

    Secondly, I wanted to respond to something written in the latest PSCF. I had
    criticized Ray Bohlin for stating that all phyla appeared in the Cambrian.
    He wrote:

    "Also Morton says there are at least thirteen phyla that make their
    appearance after the cAmbrian. While Morton does not list them in the
    review, he does in his article (PSCF 53 no.1 [March 2001]:44)., Morton knows
    these are nearly all plant phyla because I corrected him on this too. Some
    are not even phyla, but sub-phyla and classes. " Ray Bohlin, PSCF
    53[2001]2:138

    One does not have to list everything in an article, if they did, the article
    would contain too much trivia. Anyway, to answer the last sentence first,
    I would caution Ray that sub-phyla and classes are in part due to the
    taxonomist. Other taxonomists place the ones I listed in phyla. Flip a
    coin.

    That being said, my main point is the chart
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html

    These are all phyla according to some taxonomists. AND THEY ARE ALL ANIMAL
    PHYLA. The first red-herring to be corrected is the false idea that
    virtually all phyla appear in the Cambrian. This simply isn't true. When
    one analyses the first appearance data of that chart, they find the
    following:

    Period # animal phyla which appear in period
    Recent 13
    Eocene 2
    Jurassic 1
    Carboniferous 3
    Ordovician 1
    Cambrian 12
    Vendian 1

    If one considers the Vendian/Cambrian animals as constituting the Cambrian
    Explosion, then we have 13 phyla appearing in the Cambrian Explosion and 20
    AFTER the Cambrian Explosion. While one can assume that the 13 phyla which
    have no fossil record arose in the Cambrian, assumptions are NOT data. The
    plain fact is that the Cambrian Explosion doesn't even represent the
    majority of the fossils. Will these other fossils be found in the Cambrian?
    Maybe. But one can't rationally assume what the future holds in order to
    hold to his viewpoint.

    And if one adds the plant phyla which appear after the Cambrian (why plant
    phyla should be excluded as Ray seems to imply is beyond me. They ARE phyla
    after all) one gets the following chart.

    Period # total phyla which appear in period
    Recent 13
    Eocene 2
    Cretaceous 2
    Jurassic 1
    Triassic 3
    Carboniferous 5
    Devonian 4
    Silurian 1
    Ordovician 1
    Cambrian 12
    Vendian 1

    This yields Cambrian Explosion 13, Post-Cambrian 32! Sounds like a
    football score! And given that 13 phyla first appear within the past 10,000
    years (having no fossil record) one could,if one wanted claim that we are in
    another explosion. I wouldn't make that claim but it would fit within the
    data. To claim that all or even the majority of animal phyla appear in the
    Cambrian is demonstrably FALSE yet the claim is blindly made being repeated
    endlessly by apologist to apologist with no one even questioning the
    validity of the statement.

    Given the data above, why do apologists still treat the Cambrian as an
    explosion? In general it is my belief that apologists have not really
    studied the Precambrian in any detail or have merely re-stated what others
    have erroneously written. Data has changed over the past 50 years but what
    anti-evolutionists say hasn't. Lazarus J. Salop (1983, p. v) wrote:
    “Progress in Precambrian geology has been exceptionally great, indeed, quite
    striking for geologists of the older generation; only some 30-40 years ago
    the Precambrian appeared as an uncertain and even mystic prelude to geologic
    evolution. Even the very name-Precambrian-means some indivisible unit in the
    early history of the Earth, the beginning of which is poorly known.”

    By Monday I will have amended my Cambrian evolution page to reflect this new
    data. it is at http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm

    It is very sad when Christian apologists fail to get their data correct but
    it seems to be a rampant disease.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 05 2001 - 17:32:45 EDT