OK I know that's 'loss of a trait' if you look at it one way, but isn't it the gain of a trait if it happened the other?
1. It's a "loss" of a trait if something disappears. 2. It's "no new information" if something repeats.. as repeating something is just the same thing again. 3. It's "directed mutation" if it changes slightly. The information was already in the genome, or if it wasn't, the genome was created just so that such a mutation could occur when needed.
So creationists have all the bases covered. Even each step of evolution occur right before their eyes, they can insist that nothing at all is happening.
So what say you Tranquility, are these listed species the "Original Kinds"?
They are the only things we find in the cambrian layers, and even up into the Sil/Ord Devonian and Carboniferous layers.
They must be the original "kinds" as we don't find any others in all the strata. In other words, the original primitive gastropods, trilobites, etc. were the original creatures created on creation week. The "Tree of Life" was actually probably some sort of a simple valved polyp, as fronded ferns and other primitive treelke plants don't appear until the devonian, and angiosperms until the Jurassic.
My guess would be that God created some of the kinds (like jellyfish, pikia, bryzoa, crinoids) during creation week, then waited for the flood to create the rest.
Then as the flood was raging, he created the rest of the kinds in mid air, and dropped them in the water on the first, second, third, day etc. so they would drown and settle to the bottom in just the proper order.
He also made sure that each of the new species he created during the flood were just different enough from those the day before that they could be put together in some sort of treelike relationship later on to fool the scientists (godless heathens that they are).
Anyhow.. that's my own personal theory of kinds and how they managed somehow to get in the layers they are in now in the order they are in. It almost makes sense.
I also have another theory. This theory I'll call my FUD theory. My other theory goes something like this:
We just don't know enough about water and how it moves, and about fossils, or things like bones and fossilization to say for sure.
For instance, there could be things like currents and waves of some sort that make things look like they are in a particular order, but were really created.
For instance, sometimes things sink and other things don't. If we only knew enough about how that worked maybe we could understand more about the flood.
So until we understand how different things can wash around in a flood the likes of which we have never seen, it is too soon to say what could or coudn't have happened.
I'm sure in the future as we learn more about how the dynamics of water in global floods we will eventually learn precisely how all the fossils were laid down in what seems like a perfect evoutionary sequence, but actually isn't.
[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-01-2002]