Re: ILLogical Evolution

Susan B (
Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:04:41 -0500 (CDT)

At 03:38 PM 8/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Susan B wrote:
>>We also seem to have different definitions of "sudden." 100
>>million years just doesn't seem all that sudden to me. And yes, the *phyla*
>>seem to have originated then, but our own phylum--cordata--was
>>represented only by a few small fish.

Cliff Lundberg:
>I'm just talking about what the evidence shows. When you throw in irrelevant
>terms it's plain that you're trying to push for an interpretation that goes
>beyond the evidence.

you are going to have to be more specific about which of the terms in the
paragraph above is irrelevant. You talked about phyla, I talked about phyla.

>It doesn't matter at all how few these first known vertebrates
>were (if they really were few, in number of species or of individuals). Nor
>does it matter in the least that they were small, or that they were fish.

oh, but it does. The most highly relevant word in my paragraph above is
"only." All the cordata present were ONLY fish.

>They were every bit as complex as modern fish. They represent an
>evolutionary leap, a big one that we don't understand.

In the history of life, complexity sort of peaked early. I don't really see
how this helps the creationist case. And we do understand the "leap"--at
least in part. I think they don't know what caused the sudden
diversification. Extraordinary radiation? The increasing presense of oxygen
in the atmosphere? Maybe we'll know one day.

>I had assumed you were citing yourself, since no name was given.

oops, sorry! no, it wasn't me.

>the burden of proof should rest on the one who claims that a vague
>resemblance indicates ancestry. I look at the Ediacaran evidence and
>I do not see proto-fish.

:-) of course not.

Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website: