Re: Early Cambrian explosion

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swau.edu)
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:16:12 -0800

At 10:05 AM 2/5/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
>At 08:44 AM 2/5/99 -0800, Art Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> Is there no shame? This report pushes back the origin of invertebrates a
>> billion years into the Precambrian, with no fossil record, and all they can
>> say is, they [the ancestors] might have been very small! However, there
>> was no Cambrian explosion, as these authors make clear. It is an artifact
>> of the failure of preservation of the ancestors of Cambrian forms for a
>> billion years of sedimentary history. Please.
>> [CUT ARTICLE]
>
> It's an idea Art, a hypothesis based upon a specific technique that is
still
>being developed and is controversial. No one accepts this as a definitive
>statement of truth, but rather as an idea that can be critiqued and tested
>(by looking for those pesky fossils). Isn't this how science is supposed
to work?

Science is also supposed to look for alternative hypotheses that make
sense. However, many scientists seem unwilling to let go of their
cherished theory for an evolutionary origin for life, in spite of a billion
years of fossil record that says NO. With no evidence from the fossil
record, this assertion should serve as a wake-up call, and maybe it will,
eventually.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu