I know it ain't original :-) But what is the evidence against that view? I
know that the evidence for it is weak, but is there any that falsifies that
idea?
but a bit of
>a stretch to understand why all of these phyla should do so simultaneously,
>and with completely different, mature mechanisms, that still function the
>same way today (ie. not experimental). This is all assuming they even had
>the capacity to develop hard parts (which clearly they did, since they all
>developed them, didn't they???).
Not all developed the hard parts. Some soft-bodied forms are found only in
the Burgess and no where else. This implies that there were soft bodied
forms which we have no record of in more normal type deposits.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm