Paul Nelson
Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007
|
Hi Alb,
I've stated my interest (above): I'm looking for evidence of specific errors in Explore Evolution. But this thread has a tendency to wind along in tendentious directions, subject to the vagaries of those posting here. For instance:
You originally raised a concern about the description of Paul Chien, which I answered: in the second edition of EE, he will be described as a "biologist." You then said that the real issue, actually, was relying on Chien as an authority about fossilization potential, whatever his description, and that independent support for his point about pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils was lacking.
However, many paleontologists reject the view (which you apparently support) that the lack of fossil evidence for the common ancestors of the "Cambrian Explosion" phyla is due to poor or incomplete sampling. Chien argues that if fossil embryos could be preserved, in phosphorite beds lying directly below the Cambrian Explosion strata at Chengjiang -- I've seen these formations first-hand, along with Chien -- then body fossils should also be found, if they indeed existed. This is in support of EE's general point that the missing fossils are not missing for lack of sampling. (I'm going to contact Cartwright and Collins about this, too.)
Many leading paleontologists, with no ID position to speak of, agree:
| Quote | | Rates of evolution have varied significantly among and within branches throughout life's history, and many of the branches, large as well as small, are cryptogenetic (cannot be traced into ancestors). Some of these gaps are surely caused by the incompleteness of the fossil record (chap. 5), but that cannot be the sole explanation for the cryptogenetic nature of some families, many invertebrate orders, all invertebrate classes, and all metazoan phyla. |
James Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 35.
Does Valentine think the animal phyla share common ancestry? Yes. Does he think that their common ancestry is documented by fossils? No.
Which is what Chien is saying.
I've already agreed to strengthen the literature support for this point in the second edition of EE.
One person, fusilier, took me up on my offer of a free review copy of EE. Anyone else?
Now, if you want to argue about what you perceive as the real motivations for writing EE (Alb), or about unspecified ID fiction-writing (Doc Bill), or other such "when did you stop beating your wife" topics, sorry -- not interested.
Anyone who points out specific factual errors in EE, however, will have my full attention.
|
