In arguing against the Cambrian 'explosion', I think Glenn's science
is being driven by anti-creationism rather than evidence. But the
evidence is meager in this area; so this is a topic for theorists.
The fauna of most interest--vertebrates and arthropods--seem so
biomechanically tied to their hard parts, it's impossible to
conceive their evolving as soft-bodied organisms, and then later
donning suits of armor or gaining rigid internal struts.
As an evolutionist who embraces the Cambrian explosion as an
obvious fact, and who seeks to explain it scientifically, it's
frustrating to be accused of being a creationist. And it's
depressing to see scientists run from the truth because it
happens to bear some similarity to an unscientific myth.
My hope is that the Cambrian explosion will be explained to the
satisfaction of scientists, and that creationists will take some
comfort in seeing that pure Dawkinsian gradualism is wrong, and
that the author of Genesis had a little more naturalistic insight
than he is given credit for.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com