At 11:02 AM 9/4/97 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>I have been offline for the summer and have missed interacting with you all
>for too long!
>
> I am no expert on mammals, but do know a bit about plant fossils, and in
>the case of the angiosperms and in fact most plants, the fossil record is
>much different from that of mammals. In fact, angiosperms are from their
>first appearance generally attributable to extant genera, and this is true
>for many other plant forms as well. (Maybe that is because plants don't
>have dentition!). This is a very different picture from that presented by
>animals in general, although there are a few animal genera that are long
>ranging such as Lingula. As far as species go, there are ~600 endemic
>species of Drosophila in the Hawaiian Islands. No matter what one believes
>to be the origin of the Fossil Record, species arenot the issue.
Unfortunately, the fossil record of plants and those of mammals have two
different histories in the standard global flood scenarios. Plants survived
outside the ark. Nowhere does it say that Noah saved the plants. But
mammals had to have gotten on the ark or they would have drowned. This
difference makes and the recency most global flood advocates attribute to
the flood makes the discontinuity and turnover in genera and species quite
incompatible with the global flood hypothesis.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm