>We also seem to have different definitions of "sudden." 100
>million years just doesn't seem all that sudden to me. And yes, the *phyla*
>seem to have originated then, but our own phylum--cordata--was represented
>only by a few small fish.
I'm just talking about what the evidence shows. When you throw in irrelevant
terms it's plain that you're trying to push for an interpretation that goes
beyond
the evidence. It doesn't matter at all how few these first known vertebrates
were
(if they really were few, in number of species or of individuals). Nor does it
matter
in the least that they were small, or that they were fish. They were every bit
as
complex as modern fish. They represent an evolutionary leap, a big one that we
don't understand.
>you seem to think there's no evidence to support the remarks made by the
>original writer. Evidence is the name of the game, obviously. Some of the
>Ediacaran fauna bear a resemblance to some of the Cambrian fauna--which is
>what the original writer was trying to say. You'll need to come up with a
>good reason why that resemblance isn't important.
I had assumed you were citing yourself, since no name was given. Anyway,
the burden of proof should rest on the one who claims that a vague
resemblance indicates ancestry. I look at the Ediacaran evidence and
I do not see proto-fish.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com