>It's worse than that. The implication is that arranging extant groups in
>order of complexity illustrates how evolution occurred, that each evolved
>in turn from the one 'below'. A very old and unsupported idea, but one that
>is apparently irresistible. There's no denying that evolution must have
>begun with something simple, but there's no evidence for stretching the
>concept this far.
I didn't see the above information in the data presented. I saw organisms
listed by complexity and age. As the age is more recent, the complexity
increases. The idea that one species comes from another is as irresistible
as the idea that you came from your grandfather via your father--as opposed
to the idea that all three of you poofed into existence independent of each
other.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb