Re: When peer review is really peer pressure

From: Huxter4441@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000 - 06:46:16 EDT

  • Next message: Susan Brassfield: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"

    In a message dated 4/20/00 4:11:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cliff@cab.com
    writes:

    << Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
     
    ><< It may not be working well in evolutionary theory, which seems at a
    > dead end in regard to the origin of metazoan complexity, the Cambrian
    > explosion, and of course the original abiogenesis. >>
    >
    >Considering that the CE lasted for what was it? At least 13 million years?
     
    >I'm not sure...
     
     In a thread a few months back there were some references to recent
     articles cutting the explosive part of the Cambrian down to half a million
     years.

    ***** The 'explosive' part? Well, all I could find was this fairly recent
    article:
    Development 1999 Feb;126(5):851-9
      Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
      Valentine JW, Jablonski D, Erwin DH
    Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of
    California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
                              The Cambrian explosion is named for the
    geologically sudden appearance of numerous metazoan body plans (many of
    living phyla) between about 530 and 520 million years ago, only 1.7% of the
    duration of the fossil record of animals. Earlier indications of metazoans
    are found in the Neoproterozic; minute trails suggesting bilaterian activity
    date from about 600 million years ago. Larger and more elaborate fossil
    burrows appear near 543 million years ago, the beginning of the Cambrian
    Period. Evidence of metazoan activity in both trace and body fossils then
    increased during the 13 million years leading to the explosion....

    Silly me - I was thinking of the pre-Cambrian period. Still, even if the
    'most explosive' period was only 500,000 years, that is a long time. Not
    long enough to 'satisfy' you, I see...

    But the major point is that whether the organisms at this new level
     of complexity appeared over 40 years or 40 million, there is no evidence
     explaining their evolution; when they are observed, they are fully formed.

    ***** Must have been Intelligent Intervention, clearly.

     These animals all share the same basic plumbing, wiring, and segmented
     skeletal structure; this is what appeared suddenly, this is what is not
     explained.

    ***** I'm curious about this plumbing, wiring, and skeletal structure. I
    didn't know that there were digestive and neural structures that had been
    fossilized, and I was unaware of the existence of skeletons so long ago
    (unless you mean exoskeletons?). Maybe you can tell me more about it?
     
    >And, of course, the original abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
    >anyway....
     
     Progressive creationists and ID advocates would agree. Evolutionists
     would not. >>

    If you say so....



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 06:47:00 EDT