And those newspapers never misquoted me twice. :-)
>They were speaking only of animal phyla. The fact that cycliophora were
>only recognized by biologists in the past 5 years may give you a clue as to
>why they have not been recognized in the fossil record. It doesn't really
>speak to the point of their origin.
An interesting hypothesis. One for which there is no evidence. To
postulate that the Cycliophora were ancient is to try to save the
hypothesis that all animal phyla were formed in the Cambrian. While I
obviously must agree that they might have, the fact is that the oldest
example is about 5 years old based upon current evidence. For all we know,
this phyla evolved 5-10 years ago.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution