On Sat, 6 Jan 1996 18:05:14 -0500 Glenn wrote:
GM>I was really surprised that there was so little discussion of the
>new phylum. The reason for my surprise was two fold. First, this is
>a very significant discovery for the creation/evolution area.
>Secondly, last July and August many people(of antievolutionary
>persuasion) on this reflector assured me that I could not assume that
>the mesonychid (the ancestor of the whale, existed anytime prior to
>the first fossilized example of it). I argued strongly against such
>a view. I cited lots of evidence against such a view of the fossil
>record.
Firstly, it is not yet certain that Cycliophora *is* a new phylum. As
you point out it does have "affinities ot Entoprocta and Ectoprocta".
Secondly, everyone accepted that the first fossilized example of a
species, is not necessarily the first actual example of it. But what
Ashby Camp pointed out on 26 Jun 95 was:
AC>I look forward to your response, but I am quite surprised at
>your initial comment. As one who prides himself on caring only
>about the data, it seems you want to go beyond it to assume that
>certain creatures lived before there is any evidence of their
>existence. If you can assume, for example, that the genus
>_Mesonyx_ lived long before there is any fossil evidence of it,
>what is to prevent me from assuming that its alleged descendant is
>even older? Two can play that game. If we are not limited by the
>data in our analysis, it's a free-for-all.
[...]
GM>Similarly, I was told that I could not assume that homo habilis or
>any other fossil man existed prior to the earliest evidence in the
>fossil record. Thus, I was assured that homo habilis could not have
>existed back when I think the flood occurred. I argued strongly
>against that point of view also.
No claimed you could not assume it, just that you had no evidence for
it. Your theory required a massive gap, ie. 3 MY, between H.
habilis' first appearance in the fossil record 2.4 MYA (Hominid FAQ),
and your date for the filling of the Mediterranean 5.5 MYA.
GM>Now we come to the new phylum. If we apply the logic which I have
>been assured is the correct way to handle objects in the fossil
record, then this new phylumn did not exist prior to 1995. So, did
it evolve, was it progressively created, or did it come from space?
There is no real comparison. The new alleged phylum Cycliophora is a
tiny, soft-bodied animal that lives in the mouths of lobsters. Up
till now, scientists had not discovered it, even though it was living.
The two examples Glenn is comparing it to, are large creatures (eg.
mesonychids and homininds) which have been located in the fossil
record. Now they know what to look for, palaeontologists may discover
it in the fossil record.
GM>Using that logic which was so widely used against my position, the
>PC's must assume that it was created by God this year.
This PC doesn't. If Cycliophora turns out to be a new phylum, then I
will assume it originated in the Cambrian explosion, along with the
other phyla, but left little trace in the fossil record.
GM>But that violates what someone like Hugh Ross believes.
[...]
It would if Ross believed it! :-)
GM>So, if I can't assume that objects exist prior to their first
>occurence, then neither should anyone else. Thus Hugh's view is
>wrong, because we just had God create new life-forms in 1995.
I think Glenn's problem here is that he seems to think that everything
is the same. He thinks a 30,000 year gap is the same as a 3 million
year gap. He thinks a Homo habilis is the same as a tiny soft-bodies
animal that lives in lobster mouths.
GM>For the YEC's who would not allow the assumption of the existence
>of a being on earth prior to the exact time of its first fossil, This
>means that God created this thing last year.--or a new life form has
>evolved.
Glenn has progressed from "people (of antievolutionary persuasion)" at
the beginning of this post, to " YEC's" at the end. Ashby Camp, for
example was not necessarily a YEC. He told me he was undecided between
YEC and PC.
Goodbye to Glenn. I hope that while he is away he will re-consider
his obvious antagonism to PC! :-).
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------