>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.
The evidence plainly shows that the major phyla did indeed poof into
existence, geologically speaking. No major phyla have come into
existence since that strange episode. Don't tell me this is because
all the niches got taken up! Niches are ecological, not spatial.
Lining up known forms and calling it evolution is an old game, one that
we have to outgrow sometime. We don't know the vertical evolutionary
series, but that is no excuse for substituting the horizontal classificatory
series. If you arrange organisms in order by number of cell types, you
can hardly claim that cell-type number is proof of the phylogenetic
validity of the sequence.
Increasing numbers of cell types? The more I think about this, the less
I think of it. What are these cell types? This classification must be quite
arbitrary. Does it correlate with a classification of organ types? If so,
why not just talk about organs? Do we avoid talking about organs
because organ-wise, the lack of progress since the Cambrian is so
obvious?
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com