nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

Sorry, but you saying it doesn't make it so. Also, you erroneously claim if there is no fossil record, they must appear later. I suspect you realize this is not the dominant opinion of science.Note this paper titled "Why No New Phyla after the Cambrian?" states: JSTOR: Access CheckI also suggest you reread your list and be more straighforward instead of relying on verbal sleight of hand. No one stated anything about the "lower Cambrian" but rather the Cambrian era.First off, I think it needs to be stated your information is by no means factually accurate. For example, you state Nematoda appeared in the Cretaceous period when in reality it appeared in the Cambrian era. http://fossilmuseum.net/fossils/Nematoda-fossils.htm
Kingdon Animalia MetazoaMoreover, even if one were inclined to accept your erroneous facts, in reality, you only list 7 phyla by my count you claim evolved after the Cambrian era. One I have already shown did in fact appear during the Cambrian era (note some pics of fossils on the link)...let's look at some others.Ctenophora has been found in the lower Cambrian era contrary to your assertion.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...mary/117866931/SUMMARYEchiura is likely to be and is considered to appear in the Cambrian era, contrary to your assertions, as shown by the comment above on metazoan phyla and this link....sure someone could find more. Page not found – ZipcodeZooyou are wrong on this one..... Nemertea: Phylum Of The Ribbon Worm And Its Amazing ProboscisYou are wrong on Phoronid and Ctenophora as shown here. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:IL9hJRiHBY0J:< !--UB http://www.discovery.org/...ambrian+appearance&hl=en&ct=clnk -->http://www.discovery.org/...ida+Cambrian+appearance&hl=en&ct =clnk">http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:IL9hJRiHBY0J:< !--UB http://www.discovery.org/...nida+Cambrian+appearance&hl=en&c -->http://www.discovery.org/...nida+Cambrian+appearance&hl=en&c" >http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:IL9hJRiHBY0J:http://www.discovery.org/...nida+Cambrian+appearance&hl=en&c -->http://www.discovery.org/...nida+Cambrian+appearance&hl=en&c">http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:IL9hJRiHBY0J:http://www.discovery.org/...nida+Cambrian+appearance&hl=en&c< !--UE--> t=clnk< !--UE-->& cd=8&gl=usI am running out of time to go over every phyla individually.....I think anyone reading knows by now you are factually wrong.I think you owe me and the Board an apology.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Lemme see if I can clear up something for randman.If I am following his argument correctly, randman is wondering why no "new phyla" have emerged since the originals that appeared during the Cambrian.What I would like to point out is that each representative of the phyla under discussion was at one time an individual species. Of course, we weren't around to call them anything back then and because of their place in evolutionary history, they are representatives of phyla today. This is because they were the first (more or less). But, again, they were individual types of organisms which ultimately diverged into classes, orders, families, etc. They diverged and their descendents diverged and so on. They weren't some magic super-organisms. They were just the first in a long line that has been divided up by us for ease of classification.If an organism appeared today that had the template (so to speak) for a new bauplan we would still classify it according to its history (and we wouldn't know about the new bauplan bit until possibly millions of years in the future, at which point it might be considered a new phyla...who knows how our classification system will evolve!).This is basically what the others have been trying to point out, but presented in a slightly different wayI hope that clears things up a little (probably not, tho )

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

And it is hogwash.I prefer to rely on the scientific literature, not self-published trash.And the only place it's "published" is on the DI website. With a history professor listed as first author. (And none of the other 3 authors listed have published in the scientific literature in 10 years.)The science is on my side.

Science on your side, eh?You mean like erroneously claiming all but 8 phyla appeared after the Cambrian era?I think it's time you admit you were wrong on that point. See my posts below detailing specifics of that a little more.

And Lith and you are obscenely wrong, as I prove in my response to him. His facts are just plain wrong. It's time you and he apologized for not only being wrong but for the smug manner in which you falsely accussed me of error.

You will notice that your first link is 13 years old.A lot of work has been done in the last 13 years. Especially in genetics and molecular biology.You will note that my references are current and 2 out of 3 of Lith's are current as well.You will note that your second link says ... You will note that your third link says ... 650 mya ≠ Cambrian explosion.Your fourth link does not work.You will note your fifth link says ... The site has no references, so until you provide evidence that these burrows show that Echiura originated in the Cambrian, I think I'll stick with the fossil evidence.

One thing that seems to have evaded you is that if a phyla appeared in the PreCambrian, it did not appear post-Cambrian. I think you are not paying enough attention to what's being debated here and fail to realize that it not matters not a whit per this particular thread if a phyla appeared pre-cambrian, early Cambrian, late Cambrian, etc,....It is generally accepted opinion that all animal phyla other than possibly one, which dates back to at least 470 million years ago, existed in the Cambrian era. I have shown that and keep in mind, fossils whether found 13 years ago, 50 years ago or yesterday are hard data.

Yes. Your site has it wrong. Thank you for pointing that out.Because when I went looking, I found this:Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi.
Proc Biol Sci. January 22; 266(1415): 163-171. So, not so much "It is generally accepted opinion that all animal phyla other than possibly one, which dates back to at least 470 million years ago, existed in the Cambrian era.", hm?As for the origin of the phylum Nematoda ...A transcriptomic analysis of the phylum Nematoda
Nature Genetics 36, 1259 - 1267 (2004). A Molecular Evolutionary Framework for the Phylum Nematoda
Nature, Vol. 392 March 1998 Looks like Nematoda is doing that continual evolving that you're looking for.

Pay attention closely, please. Think about my argument and what I have stated. My argument on this thread has never been that some animal phyla could not appear prior to the Cambrian era.Did you get that?My argument is not dependant on that either.Got that?Think about this very carefully because I am going to repeat this to help you grasp this. Nowhere have I stated that all the phyla appeared first in the Cambrian era. I may have provided some quotes that suggest that, but all along in my words and argument repeated near ad nauseum but you still haven't grasped it seems, I have repeatedly made the argument that we are discussing why no new phyla appeared after the Cambrian era (with one possible exception around 470 million years and even then, it could be later).So see if you can grasp the thread topic this time? Why have no new animal phyla emerged in over 500 million years roughly is one of the points in the thread topic, not that all phyla appeared during the Cambrian era? That's the topic. The topic is not whether phyla emerged possibly before that, though that would be an interesting but different thread.You think you have that point clear now?I hope so. Let's add just one more small point, easily digestible and very slow now, just so you "get it". If you are going to cite molecular data, please realize that it places the emergence of all the phyla during or prior to the Cambrian era. It does not help your argument, but rather helps mine because my argument on this thread deals with why the phyla quit appearing.I sincerely hope you got it this time because it is tiresome to hear you make some statement about phyla appearing prior to the Cambrian period as if that contradicts me in any way at all here.So you think you got it this time?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

randman, if you will kindly re-read the post you responded to, i provided a link to a phylum of worm that does not have a definite cambrian relative. but that's honestly probably due to poor fossil record.and there's essentially nothing that's keeping the common ancestor of all those phyla from shooting off another phyla, except for the fact that it no longer exists. lots of new worms evolve today, they're just descendents of those initial branches of the tree. this is, afterall, what the theory of common ancestry is about -- you end up with nested heirarchies.no new phyla evolve today because the characteristics we arbitrarily define phyla on happened at this stage of evolution, in the precambrian. that's when the common "animal" ancestor speciated into different branches. really, the division between phyla at this level is the same as the division between daughter species of a recently speciated genus. that's the bit that creationists always seem to have trouble with: it's the same as that 1+1+1.... problem. it's only by stacking generations that we end up with a cladistic tree that demands different rankings like "phyla" or "species." the basic divisions are exactly the same. just like the last 1+1 in the series of countless 1's equals 2, so does the first.and in any case, i think you'll find the phyla in the other six kingdoms of life evolved at different times. just as a hypothetical, can you design a worm 30 different ways?

---

on the superficial level, yes. linnean classification is based on heredity, partially as described through homologous features, but simply similar traits. notice how insects, bats, and birds have all evolved similar traits -- wings -- but they are not grouped together? for that to happen, the common ancestor of all animal phyla would have to have offspring. unfortunately, we are only left with its offspring in the form of the existing phyla.

---

whoa whoa hey now. that's assuming hullucigenia is an onychophora. i thought the word was still out on that. made a post earlier on that.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

rand, can you fix the links in this post? they're messing up the whole page.

I have forgotton how to do that on this forum to be honest.In the meantime....until I can fix them or someone else, the same info is easily available by googling.

Not all living phyla and species have fossil records, but there is also genetic analysis to try to place their divergence.....mind you I am not agreeing with evo methodologies, just pointing them out. As the common ancestor never seems to....but let's assume it did exist at one time for sake of argument....what was it?Is there anything closely resembling it?Moving the discussion a bit forward, what I am trying to do here is to get people to take a good look at the picture from the data we have. If you accept common descent and that's a big IF, what appears to be the case is you see at various stages, something as if there is pulse of for lack of a better term "evo-energy" infusing the process forward and then that stage doesn't repeat itself. A grouping evolves and then that stage is not repeated. It's not due to a lack of something else similar being able to do so, if the pulse was there so to speak. It's just something that doesn't occur.Down the path so to speak, we see a new pulse within prescribed parameters, and so forth, until we aren't seeing much of anything today.Keep in mind. This is the picture if you accept common descent, and this is the same thing Grasse stated. It doesn't fit Darwinian evo models.Edited by randman, : No reason given.