Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Tue Dec 01 2009 - 16:54:43 EST

In addition, Michael, there are two critical points about the coelacanth;

First, the issue is when the specimen first occurs - NOT the length of it's continuity. The problem would be finding a present day species in the precambrian strata, not finding a precambrian species extent in the present. In that respect, the important point is that the coelacanth is never evidenced PRIOR to it's expected date.

Second, the coelacanth which are extant are not identical to those in the fossil record in any case. So even objections that the contemporary coelacanth species (Latimeria chalumnae and L. menadoensis) disprove evolution really require some nuance to bear scrutiny. As species, these coelacanths do not occur in the fossil record and so are not, strictly speaking, "living fossils" at all. They are, rather, representatives of a very ancient family (the Sarcopterygii).

Blessings,
Murray

> Also note that all the "out-of-place" fossils trumpeted by creationists
> to disprove do nothing of the sort and are only trivial differences to
> older views eg coelacanth.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 1 17:16:21 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 17:16:21 EST