My colleague and I are presenting a talk at GSA on paleobiogeography. We think that trilobites can give us strong control on the paleogeography during the Cambrian. Such a strong correlation between paleogeography and the occurrence of trilobites would not be an expected conclusion of the flood.
PS: My colleague will also be awarded the Schuchert Award from the Paleontological Society. The award goes to the world’s best and most promising paleontologist under age 40.
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-12-2002]
Assuming you have a significan "correlation" is there someone who is doubting that correlations are true? You know this was never the issue as I read it in 30s literature when one was showing or trying to show that horns of tiatotheres correlated with geological strata.
The correlation was used as a stepping stone to agrue for AN D from the existence of "genes for horns". The correlation in that time and day did not mean that genes exist but the science was contributing to a genetics that could continue without a actual line between physiological and transmission genetics that was MORE on Wright's mind (than any other?). Dunn supported a science of such genetics but what came to the student this way in the 80s was very misleading that if one did not know this history one could even have accepted as written in undergraduate papers that the correlation is some kind of prof of evolution by working from one strata to the next. SO by simply attempting show PRice who challened the layers of rocks one got ride of the time the student had to challenge the historian of the subject but in my case I had a grandfather who had been in on this subject at the ground floor and managed to communicate the truth of the topic to me nonetheless.
So- doe some one still have a problem assuming your in possesion of a correlation?
For me this is an issue of standards in programming electronic map making where NO consensus exists today with most companies following lead of US gove etc.