nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

You might be thinking of the later paper, which copied significantly from this paper that was published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in a controversial editorial decision by Sternberg (A Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design)

Prove it. Name the phyla you think emerged during the Carboniferous. The one Lith mentioned, I showed, was present during the Cambrian era.Also, how many phyla and exactly which phyla do you claim emerged after the Cambrian era and when?Be specific. Back up your contentions as I have of mine, please, or retract them.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I could not let these gross insults go by, so am posting this.First of all Rand, I do not owe fuck all of an apology to you or the board. Not one of your links showed me to be 'factually incorrect'. Like your past issues, you should probably actually read the sources you cite (by read I mean read and understand). A U-shaped burrow that resembles Echiuran burrows suggests the possibility that the phylum is Cambrian, but in no way proves it. Many other infauna make similar burrows. Also, the Chenjiang and Burgess fauna are not part of the Cambrian explosion, the former (barely) lower and the latter mid Cambrian. Understand the difference?I am a professor of invertebrate zoology, I am well aware of the evidence for a very early origin of phyla. In fact, I actually believe that most phyla did originate before or near the beginning of the Cambrian. My complaint was the blanket statement as fact that "all but one" are proven to be Cambrian. This is an extremely out of date popular belief that severely lacks evidence. The majority of extant phyla have no fossil record. For these we require the rapidly growing science of molecular taxonomy. But if you want to use that as proof of age it is married inextricably to the theory of common descent.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

i'll do better. i'll name one that emerged during the cretaceous, only 125 some million years ago:magnoliophyta.the angiosperms, flowering plants, are an entire phylum (or "division" in botany) that has evolved quite recently, well after the cambrian animal explosion. i know people are more familiar with animals, but we're really limiting the discussion by ignoring the other kingdoms, which spread out at different rates and at different times.

---

Arach. These are virtual kisses.mwah mwah mwah!!!I hope your monitor isn't all wet.

O, horse hockey.Grow up, Rand.And answer Arach. What bout them nasty lil critters that popped up just 125 mya?

molbiogirl,For what its worth there isn't a single true plant phyla in the cambrian at all. Every bally one of them appeared during or after land colonisation.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

And one for you! MWAH.You boys are worth your weight in gold.No wonder Rand the man wanted to keep the focus on animals.His BS "reasoning" doesn't work with plants!

Rather than just declaring the information wrong, it might be more constructive to get into a discussion of the evidence backing the viewpoint. Your post, with its demands for apologies and bald declarations that it is everyone else in error with no discussion, is an example of why your participation here is often problematic. We're not here to have discussions of the form, "You're wrong," "No, you're wrong." If you don't learn to maintain civil dialogue with people you disagree with then you won't be permitted to remain here on any consistent basis.To everyone else:I know I keep issuing these pleas, but if participants in the Randman threads would like to keep Randman around as a debate partner then it is imperative that you interact with him in ways designed to avoid pushing him into behaviors where I would be forced to suspend him.In particular, Randman has a gift for pushing people over the edge into Forum Guidelines violations, such as this post I'm responding to that is pretty frustrating. I can't count the number of times I've suspended people who have gotten all riled up while debating Randman. Don't become a victim.It is constantly requested that I not suspend people like Randman, they are favorites to debate with because they tend to really get the blood boiling, but I've established a high standard for discussion here. If I have to adjust those standards for Randman because people want him here, then I have to compensate by holding those who want him here to a higher standard so we can still maintain excellence. Is this making sense to people? That's rhetorical, please don't answer.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

i'm not sure i would call plants "critters."

well, i think it's more that everyone is more familiar with animals. i think like 95% of the evolution discussion is over animals, and at least 70% of that over vertebrate animals. it's just what we relate to better, being vertebrate animals.but yeah, it just happens that animal phyla had its major explosion in the (pre)cambrian. nevermind that his logic doesn't make any sense, it's completely factually incorrect when we look at plants, fungi, protists, and monera.

---

I provided that. I specifically showed:1. Arguing that phyla appeared pre-Cambrian is a moot point per debating whether phyla appeared later.....I have had to make that same point several times with no acknowledgement.2. Arguing that only certain phyla appeared early Cambrian as Lith rudely asserts is my claim is likewise wrong because it's not what I stated. Even by his own erroneous list, Lith is just factually wrong.3. Moreover, I even did far more than my detractors have done and I specified multiple sources that state all animal phyla except one that appeared 470 million years ago existed in the Cambrian era.4. I also, despite others not citing any specifics whatsoever except their opinion and vague links to papers not available where Lith's opinions on his list are wrong. He says specific phyla appeared later with no linked papers to back him up, and I gave specific evidence that contradicts his claims.5. I also pointed out that molecular evidence of phyla divergence/appearance, ironically argued by molbiogirl
for phyla emerging pre-Cambrian, supports my arguement and is generally accepted to indicate the phyla that have not fossilized all appeared before 500 million years ago.I have given specific evidence, including links to details of where fossils have been found, and yet Lith and molbiogirl refuse to back up their contentions and ignore the evidence and insist on their false claim that all but 8 phyla appeared after the Cambrian era.I have asked them to be specific about which phyla they claim evolved later. Lith's specifics, as I showed, are factually incorrect. Molbiogirl has thus far refused to answer and list the specific phyla she believes emerged later. Neither have cited specific sources detailing which phyla emerged later. One cited an abstract that is unclear on what their argument is....It appears to me to be arguing sub-phyla should be considered phyla and so does not address my argument.I would like to see you or another admin force them to follow the guidelines and respond, specifically:List the phyla they are claiming emerged after the Cambrian era.Cite specific studies that show that in which we can read and analyze if they are correct.Is that so much to ask for?

My argument is factually correct because I referred to animal phyla specifically to illustrate this point. Once we all accept the facts, which you admit but not some, namely: We can consider whether this pattern holds up for plants. I think it does as we have not had a new plant phyla in what, 150 million years or something like that?

It does work with plants, but considering how difficult it is for some evos to accept and work with basic facts, such as that all but one animal phyla were established by the Cambrian era, and keep them focussed on dealing with the facts and the argument, I thought that would be a good start. It's been difficult, to say the least, just to get you to acknowledge and realize that phyla appearing prior to the Cambrian era isn't germane to the discussion.How long as it has been since any new plant phyla emerged? 150 million years or so? I can't recall off the top of my head, but it certainly has been an incredibly long time....the pattern holds regardless.

Please cite the specific animal phyla you claimed appeared after the Cambrian era, when they appeared, and some evidence to verify your claim. Part of the rules is to back up your statements.Please do so or retract them.