At 02:33 PM 11/16/97 -0800, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>There are few differences between most extant genera of plants and their
>predecessors from the Upper Mesozoic. I mentioned earlier a report by
>Tidwell of Acer (maple) from the Dakota Sandstone (reported by him at the
>time to be Upper Jurassic at the locality in question) which included
>flowers, fruit and leaves and pollen, which could easily be placed in the
>genus by anyone who saw them. This example could be repeated for many
>genera of flowering plants, which from their first appearance as fossils
>are handily assignable to extant genera. Of course there are also form
>genera that do not belong in any modern genus, some of which can be
>assigned to modern families and some of which cannot. Unlike Ginkgo,
>however, these do not go back to the Paleozoic.
I object to the use of higher classificatory levels to claim that evolution
hasn't occurred. To place them in the same genus is not the same as saying
that the life-form has remained totally unchanged.
Consider this use of the genus Acer: Acer can be found in the Jurassic,
therefore it is a living fossil and evolution is disproven.
Compare this to a family: Bovidae are found in the Miocene and therefore a
cow is a living fossil and evolution is disproven.
Compare this to a class: Carnivores are found in the Eocene and therefore a
lion is a living fossil and evolution is disproven.
Or how about order: Mammalia are found in the Triassic therefore a dog is a
living fossil and evolution is disproven.
If one could say "Felis domesticus lived in the Precambrian therefore it is
a living fossil and evoltuion is disproven," I would have to say that you
have a point. Anti-evolutionists use higher order classification positions
to claim living fossil status, but this isn't a fair use of the
Foundation, Fall and Flood