> >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.
>
> Now your beliefs are driving your conclusions rather than the evidence.
> I cite again the apparent soft-bodied mollusc from the precambrian.
I have no problem with molluscs and other triploblasts going way back.
The explosive event was the formation, radiation, and diversification
of vertebrates and arthropods. And a few other lesser groups.
> I apologize if I mischaracterized your position. First off, your posts as I
> recall them have been all over the place. I have never really understood
> exactly what it is that you believe.
I'm just an evolutionist with a model that some think is creationistic,
because I recognize the Cambrian explosion as a fact that implies a
period
of very rapid evolution.
My interests are rather narrow, compared to the breadth of topics
discussed here. Evolutionary biology is quite a field. I avoid the topic
of religion, not wishing to offend anyone. But some philosophizing is
natural, given the nature of the subject.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com