Replies

The fossil dates, as you have noted, deny the cladogram.

Right. Bad cladogram! No biscuit! Not every single graph you pick up on the net is valid. This one is wrong. We get it. Stop bringing it up.

We are not restricted by randomness.

Okay, so instead of 10 million years it would only take us five.

Here's a clip from your man James Shapiro's site.

Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock’s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly (56). The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself.

and a reference:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=genome.html

I would need to ask a real biologist to be sure, but I think what he's actually studying is the processes by which cells respond to enviornmental changes. You would call this microevolution. I THINK he's saying that this is more likely to be the mechanism for genetic variation instead of random mutation. Natural selection is still a vital part of this. He sees this as a revolution in thinking about evolution. I'm not yet convinced, but it probably has some merit. He really isn't overturning the established system, just proposing a new mechanism for change that may well be valid.

I liked the interview. He kept things on his terms and didn't answer questions completely outside his area of expertise. Of course, I do answer such questions all the time on these threads, but I don't have to worry about my professional reputation, just that of my online alias!

We get it. Stop bringing it up.

Ahh, but you see, I did not bring it up. It was used in the argument that the sequence is Sino-Caudi-Archie. Fossil evidence does not show that as far as dating is concerned. The Darwininian world is agog whenever a new "feathered" chinese fossil is "discovered". There is a problem with that. No fossil will ever be found in that strata that will be older than Archie.(even if that fossil were to have a certifed birth certificate in its claws and stating it was the parent of Archie)

Table 3-1. Alternative Views of metazoan phylogeny

Source	Animalia?	Early Offshoots?	Bilateria>	Protostomes/Deuterosomes?	Arthropoda?	Other Classes?
Nursall	N	N/A	N	N	Y	M
Barnes et al (88)	N	Y	Y	D	N	L
Margulis & Schwartz	Y	Y	Y	D	Y	MA
Wilmer (90)	N	Y	N	D	N	L
Barnes (87)	Y	Y	Y	P+D	Y	M
Schram (91)	Y	Y	Y	D	Y	MA
Backeljau et al (93)	Y	Y	Y	D	Y	MA
Conway Morris (93)	Y	Y	Y	P+D	Y	A
Raff et al (94)	Y	Y	Y	P+D	Y	LM
Nielsen (95)	Y	Y*	Y	P+D	Y	MA

Notes:
Y* - yes for Cnidaria, Pacozoa, but no for Ctenrophora
D, P - Deutrostome monophyly, protostome monophyly
L, M, A - Lophophorates; a Mollusc/Annelid/Arthropod group; Aschelminthes.

From: Wallace Arthur, 'Animal Body Plans, 1997, page 58.

As the above abundantly shows, the classification of species, the 'evolutionary tree' which evolutionists constantly claim is a strong proof of evolution, cannot be agreed on amongst evolutionists themselves (the author of the book, an evolutionist himself - has his own cladistic analysis). This is just regarding the Cambrian phyla, not the whole tree!

Of course, we should not be too harsh on the evolutionists since they are trying to make so much from so little evidence. The evidence for the Cambrian phyla is not even from bones, but almost all of it is from impressions on rocks. In addition some of the phyla have clearly dissappeared so they cannot 'cheat' in classifying them by claiming that they are the substantially the same as current organisms.