Re: Ediacaran correction
AChadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Wed, 28 Jun 1995 09:32:27 -6000 SJ says:
> Glenn for one who prides himself on honesty, you can be as selective
> as "the apologetical books" you criticise so much. You omit to add the
> words which immediately follow (indeed on the same line):
>
> "Again, just as in the case of the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils, no
>
> forms have ever been found in pre-Cretaceous rocks linking the
> angiosperms with any other group of plants.
Perhaps you missed the post. I have excerpted it below:
>Art wrote [speaking of the angiosperm/ediacaran paragraph]:
> Well, since he associates the two cases with the "just..."clause, and
> since no forms have been found in the Ediacaran that link with any of
> the Cambrian forms, maybe we should let him by with it???
> Art
>I woke up this morning thinking about this. And you are correct. Denton
>probably did handle the ediacaran fauna OK. Art and Denton are correct, I was
>wrong on this point. But he didn't handle the amphibians very well.
>glenn
Art