Evidence against Evolution part 1 (disparity before diversity) (page 2)

melmac

I don't see any point proven, either. That reasoning is similar to those in the Creation Book.

hooberus

hooberus:
"Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column."
How can the number of species be lower than the number of phyla or classes? Even if each species is assigned a separate phylum, there can never be more phyla than there are species. As any taxonomic grouping above species is somewhat arbitrary anyway, this argument falls apart very quickly. I'd be curious to know exactly what you, hooberus, think a phylum is.

Gibson's point is not that the number of species is "lower than the number of phyla or classes" (see for example the underlined portions of his his next sentence following your quote): "Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column. In general, each phylum or class of Cambrian fossils contains only a few species, while these same groups may have larger numbers of species in strata above the Cambrian."

hooberus

Hey hoob,
Nice thread. Here's the way I understand the issue you describe and its cause.
The issue:
The Cambrian era gives us fossils representing many phyla, but with relatively few species per phyla. Gradualism predicts a greater diversity of species within a phyla. Therefore, something is amiss.

I believe that you have misunderstood the issue. The issue is not primarily the number of species per phyla per se, but rather the pattern of disparity (in phyla) before the occurrence of much diversity (of species). The pattern does not start out with several species composed of similar body plans (ie: classifiable as one or two phyla) that then through a process of much species diversity eventually culminates in the formation new phyla, but instead the pattern begins with multiple disparate phya (50 !) followed by diversity within each phyla.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

tetrapod.sapien

:In general, each phylum or class of Cambrian fossils contains only a few species, while these same groups may have larger numbers of species in strata above the Cambrian."

yes, because like i pointed out in my post (and the gibson quote did not), the cambrian period was an explosion of life. a great part of it was soft bodied, non-exoskeletal. as a result, as species evolved harder and harder bodies, their fossiles began to appear in strata above the cambrian, but within the phyla that was established within the cambrian (thanks to burgess shale!). it is simply a non issue that scientists defined many phyla in this explosion of life, with a few species within each one!

hooberus

Below is my ammended post (the previous one would not edit anymore).

Hey hoob,
Nice thread. Here's the way I understand the issue you describe and its cause.
The issue:
The Cambrian era gives us fossils representing many phyla, but with relatively few species per phyla. Gradualism predicts a greater diversity of species within a phyla. Therefore, something is amiss.

I believe that you have misunderstood the issue. The issue primarily the pattern of disparity (in phyla) before the occurrence of much diversity (of species). The pattern does not start out with several species composed of a few similar body plans (ie: classifiable as one or two phyla) that then (as would probably be expected by evolution) would through a process of much species diversity eventually culminate in the formation new phyla, but instead the pattern begins with multiple disparate phya followed by diversity within each phyla.

To use an anology: The pattern does not start with a single "tree" (phyla) that through diversity eventually results in the formation of new phyla (figure 1 above in first post), but instead the fossil pattern starts with a forrest of multiple highly disparate (phyla level !) trees (figure 2 above), before diversity occurrs.

144001

Even if evolution could be disproven, it wouldn't validate the fairy tale known as christianity.

funkyderek

hooberus:

Gibson's point is not that the number of species is "lower than the number of phyla or classes" (see for example the underlined portions of his his next sentence following your quote): "Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column. In general, each phylum or class of Cambrian fossils contains only a few species, while these same groups may have larger numbers of species in strata above the Cambrian."

I concede that point. I think SNG's comment has it nailed though. Perhaps you'd like to refute that if you disagree. I'd also be very interested in exactly what you mean by the term "phylum".

stillajwexelder

hey hooberus thanks for posting this thread -it is nice to have balance and the pro=creation point of view

Evidence against Evolution part 1 (disparity before diversity)

Share this