One Traditional Roman Catholic Layman's Research

In the beginning

GOD

created heaven and earth

Genesis 1:1

Catholic Apostolate for Creation

P. O. Box 997

Jordan, NY 13080

E-mail: bccac@basicisp.net

Telephone: (315) 689-6735

Web address:

www.oocities.org/catholiccreation

Permission: www.kolbecenter.org

TRILOBITE EVOLUTION: EXTINCTION OF A MYTH

by Bill Crofut

DEDICATION

Ron Calais wrote me, as memory serves, in the summer of 1991. He proposed a collaborative effort on a paper in support of Creation. My preference, from the listing of potential topics he provided, resulted in this essay. Ron provided at least half the research data. It was my task to write the paper. The hand-draft was mailed to Ron for his review. Alas! he suffered a severe heart attack and was unable to continue. Ron's condition so devastated me that all thought of continuing evaporated in sadness. The package was filed away and forgotten. While searching my files for unrelated material, the essay was rediscovered. Here, then, is that essay dedicated to Ron Calais, who dedicated himself to the promotion of Biblical Creation for much of his adult life. We Biblical creationists owe a debt of gratitude to Ron Calais that cannot be adequately expressed in words.

FOREWORD

The only source for information on trilobites, in my research experience, is the fossil record. Their preserved remains are found in rocks that have an assigned evolutionary span of 250-400 million years (depending on the source consulted). Yet, for all the evolutionary claims made regarding these fascinating biological organisms, they are identified as trilobites for that entire span of alleged evolutionary time. Documented differences in trilobites, from an evolutionary perspective, would seem to be superficial at best. A far better explanation for those differences, from the creationist perspective, is variation. Trilobites do not "appear" in the fossil record. They are entombed in sediment which, by definition, has been transported and deposited by water. Worldwide distribution of sea-dwelling trilobites, even in mountainous terrain, would seem to indicate an aqueous cataclysm of global proportions. Evolution does

not seem to be a reasonable explanation for the existence of trilobites. Unless a quote used herein is identified specifically otherwise, the reader may be assured that an evolutionist has been quoted. It is not my intention to imply that any evolutionist quoted in this essay supports Biblical creation or is in the process of becoming a creationist of any stripe. A few exceptions notwithstanding, quoting those who agree with me would not serve my purpose. The reader will also notice an unavoidable overlap of topical information.

PART I

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE: EVOLUTIONSPEAK?

During the early years of my industrial career (beginning in the mid

1960s) computer programming was known as data processing. The seedier side of the field was the alleged use of a form of slang known as "buzz words." Data processing personnel were often accused of purposely using buzz words to give the impression they were smarter than they actually were by confusing the uninitiated. Whether or not such an accusation was justified, it would seem only reasonable that any field of endeavor will, of necessity, include some unique terminology.

One focus of this essay will be on some ordinary terms used in the field of evolutionary paleontology that seem to me to qualify as buzz words. Even if my perception is false, the final result is unchanged as it is my intention to demonstrate.

An example of an evolutionary buzz word is the term, "appear." There's no question the word can be used in a manner of no particular import. The "appearance" of someone at a social function poses no problem for me. It's clearly understood that the individual has not violated any of the laws of physics by such appearance. However, use of the term as it has been applied (in my research experience) to the fossil remains of biological organisms, poses a serious problem for me. If my understanding is correct, (i.e., the manner in which the term is used by evolutionary paleontologists) fossils do not "appear" in the geological record. Rather, they have been preserved in the rocks rapidly enough to prevent decomposition or consumption. My first encounter with paleontological "appearance"

brought immediately to mind Merlin the magician waving his magic wand at a rock pile.

Geologist T. Peter Crimes described as enigmatic: "The sudden appearance of an animal as complex as a trilobite at the beginning of Cambrian times..." [1] Over two decades prior, entomologist Robert E. Snodgrass reported the appearance of trilobites in the earliest Paleozoic rocks, noting: "Such highly organized and diversified animals, therefore, must have had a long evolutionary history in Pre-Cambrian times, though the rocks of this period have so far furnished no evidence of their existence." [2]

That commentary provided another evolutionary buzz word (buzz phrase): "must have." It's been encountered often in my research. It's a phrase that seems to me to smack of dogma. The mindset behind its use would seem to be that of an observer forcing a predetermined viewpoint on the available evidence. If reality does not support prevailing wisdom it should; therefore it "must have" been so. The phrase further seems to indicate a technique of pushing wishful thinking into the non-observable past, thus precluding verification.

Paleontologist Raymond C. Moore and his colleagues offered a proposal to solve an enigmatic puzzle: "...[T]he sudden appearance of these fossils (trilobites) in Cambrian deposits seems best explained by assuming that this appearance essentially coincides with the acquisition of fossilizable hard parts by the organisms." [3] It would be interesting to be able to peruse the biological "repository" and inspect a sample of the "requisition form" used by the trilobites to "acquire" the necessary parts.

It would seem the authors have assumed that which they had the obligation to verify. It's obvious the paleontological data did not provide the evidence required for evolution. That observation is not based on my authority, but that of Prof. Stephen Jay Gould: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." [4]

Prof. James H. Wilmoth proposed what may not be a paleontological "trade secret" but, rather, a paleontological trademark: "All three...subphyla

(Trilobita, Crustacea and Arachnomorpha) probably emerged from a common ancestor in the Precambrian." [5] "Probably" would not seem to carry any more scientific weight than "assume." It also seems to be based more of wishful thinking than reality. A butterfly will emerge from a cocoon, but that fact is observable. It seems highly unlikely anyone has observed one biological organism emerging from another. Yet, geneticist Theodosius G. Dobzhansky was highly critical of any creationist who would challenge evolutionism on that basis:

...[I]t is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fish-like ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by antievolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory. This is about as reasonable a demand as it would be to ask an astronomer to recreate the planetary system, or to ask an historian to reenact the history of the world from Caesar to Eisenhower. [6]

Even if Dobzhansky's criticism were justified it wouldn't change the fact that evolution is not observable. In fact, evolutionary biologists, L. C. Birch and Paul Ehrlich, would seem to have made that point as well as any creationist even if they did so inadvertently:

Our theory of evolution has become, as (philosopher of science, Karl R.) Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets. [7]

It's unclear to me when "dogma" and "tenets" became scientific terms;

perhaps only in the field of evolutionary biology. One can but wonder how many "tenets" comprise the "theory" and how many Birch and Ehrlich would wish to see corrected. Skepticism would seem to be justified.

Profs. Euan N. K. Clarkson and Riccardo Levi-Setti wrote of, "Trilobites, which occur in rocks ranging from Lower Cambrian (600 Myr old) to Upper Permian (250 Myr old)..." [8] One of the definitions for occur is: "To be found or met with; appear." [9] Occurrence, then, in an evolutionary context, would seem to be no better than appearance. It also seems to be a term that bypasses the mechanism; it seems to have a "magical" component. Admittedly, that may be a misperception based on my anti-evolutionary bias.

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge presented a variation on a theme, but not

one that would seem to differ significantly from the other variations: "...[L]ife

showed up in the rocks with a bang." [10] A comprehensive response to that

statement could easily require a separate essay. For the sake of brevity, the

sudden "appearance" of all or most of the biological body plans in the Cambrian rocks has been labeled, "the Cambrian explosion." [11] Eldredge and Gould, however, did offer a proposal, "punctuated equilibria," [12] also identified as "punk eke." [13] PE would, however, seem to be based on observation of the real world as Gould explained:

In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium...We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—-geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—-reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record....We proposed the theory of punctuated

equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. [14]

One can only wonder how such reflection of evolutionary prediction squares with the "trade secret" noted above. Such claim would seem to constitute a heads-I-win/tails-you-lose paradigm. Regardless of how or why the proposal was developed, Jesuit Fr. Howard Morrison was unimpressed: "If the question of Stephen Jay Gould's 'Punctuated Equilibrium' comes up, you can point out that that idea is even more unscientific than Darwinism because Gould and colleagues offer no explanation or mechanism for the fairly sudden emergence of new species." [15] While Eldredge and Gould were honest enough to acknowledge the lack of evolution reflected in the fossil record, their proposal seems to be nothing more than attempting to force evolution on the record that displays little, if any, evidence.

Paleontologist William H. Easton [16] described opisthoparian [17]

trilobites as having "...burst upon the scene at about mid-Early Ordovician." [18] Cambrian fossils were described by Paleontologist Richard S. Boardman and his colleagues as indicating: "...rapid adaptive radiation." [19] That would seem to fit the model of punctuated equilibria proposed by Eldredge and Gould. Mathematician I. L. Cohen, who would seem to have been a skeptic of Darwinism, had a somewhat more graphic description of the fossil record of trilobites as the, "...sudden explosions of fully formed complex life forms..." [20] His observation does not seem to differ substantially from that of the other evolutionists quoted. The phraseology used in describing the presence of trilobites in the fossil record, seems to be more Merlinesqe than scientific.

NOTES

[1] T. P. Crimes. 1975. THE STRATIGRAPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TRACE FOSSILS. In: R. Frey, Editor. The Study of Trace Fossils. New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 115.

[2] R. E. Snodgrass. 1952. A Textbook of Arthropod Anatomy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 6.

[3] R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., p. 516.

[4] S. J. Gould. 1977. Evolution's Erratic Pace. NATURAL HISTORY, May, p. 14.

[5] J. H. Wilmoth. 1967. Biology of Invertebrata. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 239.

[6] T. G. Dobzhansky. 1957. ON METHODS OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY. Part I. Biology. AMERICAN SCIENTIST, December, p. 388.

[7] L. C. Birch and P. Ehrlich. 1967. Evolutionary History and Population Biology. NATURE, vol. 214, p. 352.

[8] E. N. K. Clarkson and R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobite eyes and the optics of Des Cartes and Huygens. NATURE, vol. 254, p. 663.

[9] Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Volume 2. 1981. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Inc., p. 453.

[10] N. Eldredge. 1987. Life Pulse: Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record. New York: Facts on File Publications, p. 23.

[11] The Cambrian Explosion: "BIOLOGY'S BIG BANG,"

http://www.cascadia.ctc.edu/facultyweb/instructors/jvanleer/camb%20expl/the_cambrian_explosion.htm

[12] N. Eldredge and S. J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In: T. J. M. Schoff, Editor. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper and Company.

[13] Rachel Flick. 1985. Evolution's Missing Evidence. POLICY REVIEW, Winter 1985. Cited in: ORIGINS RESEARCH, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring/Summer 1985.

[14] S. J. Gould. 1981. Evolution as Fact and Theory. DISCOVER, May, pp. 36-37.

[15] H. Morrison, S.J. 1982. Personal correspondence, 16th September.

[16] W. H. Easton. 1960. Invetebrate Paleontology. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, p. 511.

[17] opisthoparian trilobites: "...characterized mainly by a facial suture which

crosses the dorsal side of the cephalon to some point on its rear margin...

(opistho; behind...paria; cheek)." R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., pp. 491, 479.

An excellent visual presentation has been provided by Dr. S. M. Gon III. 2000. Facial suture types, http://www.trilobites.info/sutures.htm

[18] Ordovician Period has an assigned age of 495-433 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

[19] R. S. Boardman, Senior Editor, A. H. Cheetham and A. J. Rowell, Editors. 1987. Fossil Invertebrates. Palo Alto: Blackwell Scientific Publications, p. 237.

[20] I. L. Cohen. 1984. Darwin was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 103.

PART II

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

THE ROCKY ROAD TO FOSSILIZATION

Prof. Frederick R. Schram described fossilization as: "...quick burial

under anoxic (oxygen free [1]) conditions..." [2] It seems only reasonable, from personal experience (i.e., the observation of road kill) that any biological organism not buried rapidly and anoxically will decompose and/or be consumed by predators. Exposure to the atmosphere will not facilitate preservation.

Prof. James H. Stitt agreed: "What caused the death of these trilobites,

and why are they preserved as whole enrolled specimens?...I suggest that these trilobites were moving around on the sea floor, engaged in their normal

activities, when they were suddenly buried by an influx of terrigenous clay." [3] His earlier commentary, from the ABSTRACT, was even more specific: "This catastrophic event preserved them as whole enrolled specimens rather than as disarticulated [4] parts, which is the normal preservation of Late Cambrian trilobites." [5] His recognition of catastrophe, at least in this case, is refreshing in view of the uniformitarian [6] mindset which seems to prevail in the science community.

Eldredge noted: "...[W]e weren't climbing the Wellsvilles for the view."

[7] In fact, he and his colleagues were searching for a specific rock formation: "...the Spence Shale, with its variegated fauna of trilobites..." [8] Yet Stitt described trilobites as bottom-dwelling sea creatures (paragraph above). Dr. Eldredge, who identified himself as a "trilobite paleontologist," [9] obviously knew that. Why, then, would he and his colleagues conduct a search for the remains of bottom-dwelling sea creatures in the mountains? Eldredge provided the answer: "The Wellsvilles are a good place to get acquainted with the Cambrian world." [10]

The Cambrian period has an assigned age of 545-495 million years ago. [11] Dr. Samuel M. ‘Ohukani‘ohi‘a Gon, III explained why that's important: "...[T]rilobites are found on every continent bearing Paleozoic-age rocks..." [12] The Cambrian Period is the "oldest" portion of the Paleozoic Era which has an assigned age of 545-248 million years ago. [13]

Still, this is a rock formation containing bottom-dwelling sea creatures

that is located at an elevation of approximately 4600 feet (nearly a mile). [14]

How did that happen? Eldredge offered the following explanation:

"[T]rue mountain ranges, such as the Rockies and Himalayas, represent a crumpling—thus a narrowing—of the Earth's crust...[resulting]...in a series of accordion-like pleats...In mountain building, as the rocks are pushed laterally together, sometimes those huge crustal pleats crack open. One side will then ride over the other, to be discovered millions of years later as an anomaly in the usual sequence of rocks and fossils regularly encountered in the undisturbed sequences that blanket the stable interior regions of continents....On mount Everest, for example, rocks of Upper Permian age [15] (the end of the Paleozoic) sit on top of younger, Cretaceous [16] sediments. [17]

The description of "older" sediments on top of "younger" allegedly caused by one rock formation riding over the top of another is reminiscent of the geological term, "overthrust," long criticized by creationists. [18] Overthrust, as a topic, is of adequate significance, in my view, to place it beyond the scope of this essay.

NOTES

[1] THE FREE DICTIONARY BY FARLEX, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anoxic

[2] F. R. Schram. 1982. The Fossil Record and Evolution of Crustacea. In: Lawrence G. Abele, Editor. The Biology of Crustacea, Volume 1. Systematics, the Fossil Record, and Biogeography. New York: Academic Press, p. 95.

[3] J. H. Stitt. 1983. ENROLLED LATE CAMBRIAN TRILOBITES FROM THE DAVIS FORMATION, SOUTHEAST MISSOURI. JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, vol. 57, January, p.95

[4] disarticulate v. v.tr. To separate at the joints; disjoint.

THE FREE DICTIONARY BY FARLEX, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disarticulated

[5] NOTE 3, p. 93.

[6] uniformitarianism - Principle that geologic processes operating at present are the same processes that operated in the past. The principle is stated more

succinctly as "The present is the key to the past." (also see actualism)

actualism - The principle that the same processes and natural laws that

operated in the past are those we can actually observe or infer from observations as operating at present. Under present usage, uniformitarianism has the same meaning as actualism for most geologists. Plummer - McGeary - Carlson. Physical Geology, Updated 8th Edition, Glossary, U/A

http://www.mhhe.com/earthsci/geology/plummer/student/olc/glossc.mhtml

[7] N. Eldredge. 1987. Life Pulse: Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record. New York: Facts on File Publications, p. 45. (The Wellsville Mountains in northern Utah are the northerly extension of the Wasatch range, the most westward range of the Rocky Mountains in the continental United States.)

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., p. 46.

[10] Ibid., p. 44.

[11] Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

[12] S. M. Gon III. 2008. Some Notable Trilobite Localities, last revised 05 JAN, http://www.trilobites.info/localities.htm

[13] Note [11].

http://www.topozone.com/states/Utah.asp?county=Box+Elder&feature=Valley

[15] Permian Period has an assigned age of 290-248 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

[16] Cretaceous Period has an assigned age of 142-65 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

[17] Note 7.

[18] John C. whitcomb, Jr., Th.D. and Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, pp. 189-211.

PART III

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

REMOVING THE STINK FROM EXTINCTION

Only one definition for extinction was obtained after consulting three textbooks and conducting a brief online search: "The disappearance of a species or a population." [1] It seems to me, disappearance is no more scientific than appearance when used in describing the reality of the fossil record.

Evolutionists, in my research experience, are opposed, and rightly so, to the wholesale destruction of animals by humans. It's especially sad when one realizes human motivation seems often (if not always) based on selfishness (i.e., done for sport in violation of our mandate as the stewards, not owners, of God's creation). Yet, Prof. George Gaylord Simpson would seem to have expressed a viewpoint that borders on contradiction: "Organisms diversity into literally millions of species, then the vast majority of those species perish and other millions take their places for an eon until they, too, are replaced. If that is a foreordained plan, it is an oddly ineffective one." [2] Aside from his obvious anti-theistic (perhaps, atheistic) bias, he would seem to have implied that extinction is an integral part of the "process" of evolution.

Why should Simpson be accused of contradiction? His commentary seems to indicate he's using the same fossil evidence to account for the "appearance" and "disappearance" of the biological organisms observed/preserved in the rocks. Yet, the terms are opposite in definition. Creationist Randy L. Wysong, DVM, stated the reality of the fossil record as well as anyone in my research experience: "...[T]he creationist insists that the geological column...used to support the thesis that life has evolved, is actually a record of the demise of animals through the agency of a worldwide aqueous cataclysm; i.e., a record of life's departure, not its coming." [3] Creationist geologist Andrew Snelling confirmed Wysong's position noting the discovery of a toothed whale and marsupial opossum buried together at Fossil Bluff, Wynward, Tasmania, Australia. He rhetorically questioned why the two creatures that did not live together would be buried together. [4]

More specifically, Prof. John L. Cisne proposed the extinction of

trilobites which he termed "...primitive intermediate forms..." [5] as a major

contributing factor to the reduction of diversity in arthropods. [6] Yet, the same biological organisms referred to by Cisne as primitive were described by Crimes as complex (ref. to EVOLUTIONSPEAK? NOTE 1 above). Complex and primitive, then, would seem to be relative terms for some in the field of evolutionary paleontology, rather than opposites as the respective definitions would indicate. [7] Clarkson's observations led him to conclude: "In no way were trilobites low-grade organisms...they show [a] high degree of biological organization and adaptational complexity..." [8]

Paleontologist Claude Babin [9] noted an extended history for trilobites that, however, were slated to, "...finally become extinct in the Permian." [10] Mathematician I. L. Cohen's trilobites "...became extinct..." at the end of the Paleozoic era [11] "...(about 230 million years ago)..." [12] Paleontologists Derek E. G. Briggs and Richard A. Fortey also wrote of trilobites "...becoming extinct at the end of the Paleozoic..." [13]

Eldredge may have coined the phrase, "extinction/proliferation cycle," as he noted: "...[I]t is also evolutionary in a most fundamental sense: for we are dealing with ecological controls over evolutionary events..." [14] He would seem to have contended that extinction is a necessary requirement for evolution to "proceed." If my assessment is correct, his contention does not seem to differ substantially from that of Simpson (see above). Since Eldredge was more explicit, there seems to be no question he used the fossil record as "evidence" for contradictory "events."

Biologist James H. Wilmoth [15] apparently interpreted the proliferation of extinction as adaptational: "It is surmised that Trilobita became extinct because they lost out in the competition for food to swifter and more adaptive cephalopods [16] and crustacea." [17] That statement, of

necessity, must be speculative. Niles and Michelle Eldredge explained one reason why: "Because trilobites became extinct some 200 million years ago, we can only guess about their mode of life and study their modern relatives such as crabs and lobsters." [18] The Eldredge team also proposed an explanation for the extinction of a particular species of trilobite that seems unreasonable but, may simply be a case of unfortunate wording: "With the disappearance of their habitat, the primitive eighteen-row variant of P. rana simply vanished." [19]

The issue of 18 rows [20] will be addressed in a subsequent section of the essay. In the meantime, the Eldredge quote brings to mind several questions. Where was 18-row Phacops rana [21] fossilized? It seems reasonable it had to be preserved in some habitat. [22] How could a researcher, who was not present at the time of fossilization, make the claim that an unobserved habitat had disappeared? Where would a habitat go to disappear? Since "18-row" was observed in some habitat, how did it differ from the habitat of any other observed species of trilobite? The quote seems to display unjustified confidence based of information that cannot be verified.

Prof. Harry B. Whittington admitted what many of his colleagues would seem to have implied: "This decline – and the ultimate total extinction of trilobites – cannot readily be explained...[T]here is no acceptable theory that explains the reasons for extinction of the trilobites." [23] Extinction, then, as used by evolutionary paleontologists would seem to be an assumptive interpretation of the evidence provided by the fossil record. Cohen described the situation regarding trilobites as well as anyone in my research experience: "Scientists are nearly as perplexed for their sudden disappearance, as they are for their sudden appearance on this planet." [24] Entomologist Robert E. Snodgrass was more candid than Cohen: "It would seem, in fact, that a trilobite should be quite fit to live under modern conditions, and paleontologists have no positive evidence to account for their early extinction." [25]

NOTES

[2] G. G. Simpson. 1960. The World into Which Darwin Led Us. SCIENCE, vol. 131, p. 973.

[3] R. L. Wysong. 1976. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, MI: Inquiry Press, p. 365.

[4] David Aikman, Narrator. 1998. Raging Waters, VCR. Answers in Genesis

Australia. Cleveland: American Portrait Films.

[5] J. L. Cisne. 1974. Trilobites and the Origin of Arthropods. SCIENCE, Vol. 186, p. 18.

[6] arthropods "Modern arthropods include insects, spiders, centipedes, shrimp, and crayfish." Understanding Evolution website,

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/arthropods_02

[7] complex - 1: a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complex

complicated - 1: consisting of parts intricately combineed 2: difficult to

analyze, understand, or explain,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicated

primitive - crude, rudimentary,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primitive

rudimentary - 3: very imperfectly developed or representted only by a

vestige, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rudimentary

[8] E. N. K. Clarkson. 1975. Foreword. In: R. Levi-Setti. Trilobites: A

Photographic Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. vii.

[9] C. Babin. 1980. Trilobites. In: Douglas Palmer, Editor. Elements of

Palaeontology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 256.

[10] Permian Period (SEE APPENDIX I)

[11] Paleozoic (Old Life) era, consisting of the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous and Permian Periods, has an assigned age of 545-248 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

[12] I. L. Cohen. 1984. Darwin was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 103.

[13] D. E. G. Briggs and R. A. Fortey. 1989. The early radiation and relationships of the major arthropod groups. SCIENCE vol. 246, p. 241.

[14] N. Eldredge. 1987. Life Pulse: Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record. New York: Facts on File Publications, p. 62.

[15] J. H. Wilmoth. 1967. Biology of Invertebrata. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 242.

[16] Cephalopods "...are strictly marine and are found in all of the world's

oceans....Cephalopoda means "head foot" and this group has the most complex brain of any invertebrate. Cephalopods are characterized by a completely merged head and foot, with a ring of arms and/or tentacles surrounding the head. ©1995-2008, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors. All rights reserved,

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Cephalopoda.html

[17] Crustacea: Most are aquatic; of these, the majority are marine but some are found in fresh water. Members of the Subphylum include lobsters, crabs, crayfish, shrimp, copepods, barnacles, and several other groups of organisms. ©1995-2008, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors. All rights reserved,

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Crustacea.html

[18] N. and M. Eldredge. 1972. A Trilobite Odyssey. NATURAL HISTORY, December, p. 54.

[19] Ibid., p. 59.

[20] Ibid., p. 56. 18 rows refers to the number of lenses in the trilobite eye.

[21] Phacops rana has an inflated glabella and large, froglike eyes, hence the

specific name of rana, Latin for frog. Douglas L. Shrake. Revised May 2005.

GEOFACTS No. 5. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/GeoFacts/geof05.pdf

glabella middle (axial) portion of cephalon, typically convex and lobed.

http://www.trilobites.info/glossary.htm

cephalon frontmost trilobite part; head. Ibid.

[22] Habitat is a combination of environmental factors that provides food, water, cover and space that a living thing needs to survive and reproduce. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Last updated: September 13, 2007, http://www.fws.gov/habitat/

[23] H. B. Whittington. 1961. A Natural History of Trilobites. NATURAL HISTORY, August-September, p. 16.

[24] NOTE 12.

[25] R. E. Snodgrass. 1952. A Textbook of Arthropod Anatomy. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates, p. 8.

PART IV

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE: PHYLOGENY

Phylogeny has been described as: "The study of ancestral relations among species, often illustrated with a "tree of life" branching diagram, which is also known as a phylogenetic tree." [1] Prof. Donald R. Prothero would seem to prefer a smaller scale version of the tree: "Life does not progress up a hierarchical ladder from "low" to "high" but is a branching bush with numerous lineages splitting apart and coexisting simultaneously." [2] The tree/bush perspective would seem to be only the tip of an evolutionary iceberg. The issue of species is apparently far more significant: "The nature of species is controversial in biology and philosophy. Biologists disagree on the definition of the term 'species.' Philosophers disagree over the ontological [3] status of species. A proper understanding of species is important for a number of reasons. Species are the fundamental taxonomic units of biological classification. Environmental laws are framed in terms of species. Even our conception of human nature is affected by our understanding of species." [4]

Geologist Clifford A. Cuffey took creationists to task for another term:

"“Scientific creationists” classify organisms not by standard Linnean taxonomic procedures, but rather group them into basic “kinds” (the terms “type” and “kind” are apparently synonymous...)" [5] Criticism of kinds would seem to be an example of an evolutionist charge that looks back. Gould grudgingly admitted, "Creationists have tightened their act." [6] It seems to me the time is long overdue for evolutionists to follow that example; it should be incumbent on evolutionists to define species before leveling any further criticism regarding use of the term kinds.

Snodgrass would seem to have acknowledged a "provisional" status for trilobite phylogeny: "Such highly organized and diversified animals must have had a long evolutionary history in Pre-Cambrian times, though the rocks of this period have so far furnished no evidence of their existence." [7] "Assume" gets my vote as the most annoying evolutionist buzz word. Yet it seems to me, "must have" is nothing but a variation of assume. Whether an evolutionist assumes the conditions he should be required to demonstrate/verify, or simply declares what he requires must be true, does not occur to me as fundamentally different. Either way he "wins" by philosophical fiat. Whittington would seem to have added another

wrinkle to the paleontological fabric: "...[R]elationships...and lines of

descent...in trilobite evolution...have to be surmised from morphology, [8]

bearing in mind the known stratigraphical [9] succession of forms." [10]

Surmising would seem to be simply another variation of assuming. If my perception is correct, Whittington's body plans preserved in the rocks is his way of admitting another creationist contention [11] challenged by Prof. Steven D. Schafersman:

The claim that the methods of biostratigraphy are circular is one of the most frequently used creationist arguments....All of these creationists (Morris, Gish, Wysong, Wilder-Smith and Parker) hold that only "by prior commitment to evolutionary theory" or by "the assumption of evolution" is it possible to arrange fossil-bearing rocks "in a supposed time sequence known as the geologic column." [12]

Geologist J. E. O'Rourke had already dealt with Schafersman's challenge: "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." [13]

It seems highly unlikely a creationist would be published in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. O'Rourke, then, can reasonably be identified as an evolutionist (albeit, one who would seem to have considered honesty, if not a virtue, at least an art form worthy of practice in this case). Schafersman's retort, in my research experience, could just as well have been leveled against a creationist:

O'Rourke's description of the principles of biostratigraphy is simply inaccurate. Biostratigraphy does not start from a chronology of index fossils and impose them on the rocks. Rather, the relative sequence of index fossils is determined from the superposition of horizontal strata; that is, from the relative sequence of horizontally layered fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks. [14]

It's tempting for me to dismiss that statement as evolutionist

doublespeak. However, knowing that no evolutionist would ever employ such tactics, this must be a gross lack of perception on my part. Yet, fellow geologists Richard J. Aldridge and Derek E. G. Briggs did not seem to support Schaferman's position any more than O'Rourke: "Although enigmatic, conodont [15] microfossils nonetheless proved of great practical use to geologists...in determining the relative ages of sedimentary rock sequences of Cambrian to Triassic [16] age all over the world." [17]

Eldredge, while promoting "punctuated equilibria," would seem to have proposed nothing more than evolutionary window dressing: "...[C]hange in, or development of species-specific characters are envisioned as occurring relatively rapidly in peripheral isolates." [18] Envisioning an historical event does not seem to me any more empirical [19] than assuming.

Cisne presented a morphological argument based on another very popular evolutionist assumption: "Trilobites link together the

Trilobita-Crustacea-Chelicerata (TCC) [20] as a natural group with a common ancestry at a very primitive, trilobite-level grade of organization." [21] Common ancestry, in my research experience, is inferential. How could it be otherwise? No observer was able to witness the alleged relational development. In fact, Gould would seem to have substantiated my claim: "As a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, my trade is the reconstruction of history....Scientists who study history, particularly an ancient and unobservable history not recorded in human or geological chronicles, must use the inferential rather than experimental methods. [22] The label "primitive" seems to me an arbitrary and relative term. Cisne was dealing with fully formed, fossilized biological organisms. Today, there can be no excuse for using the term. The unimaginable complexity of a single cell has been

documented by Profs. Teresa and Gerald Audesirk and Bruce E. Byers (among many others in the field). [23]

Crimes would seem to have applied a variation of evolutionist bias to the observable evidence: "The persistent occurrence, at widespread localities of trilobite traces stratigraphically below the earliest recorded trilobites is

unlikely to be purely a matter of chance....The observed distribution of trilobite traces and body fossils may therefore be explained by postulating a rapid evolution in late Precambrian-Early Cambrian times, with development of soft- then hard-bodied forms." [24] Postulating unobserved evolution does not seem to be any more scientific than assuming. One can only wonder how rapid evolution had to be to go from traces of trilobites to those fully formed and recognizable as trilobites for an alleged 250-400 million years (depending on the source consulted).

Levi-Setti admitted the lack of paleontological evidence for evolution

while "buzzing" his way through the admission: "The true story of trilobites must have begun in a very nebulous and ancient period of the history of the earth, vaguely defined as the precambrian period, perhaps as far back in time as one billion years. We have no record of this beginning; however, we infer that a tremendous evolutionary process must have occurred prior to the first recorded occurrence of trilobites in sedimentary rocks." [25] One can infer until the sedimentary rocks crumble to dust. However, inference will not change the lack of evidence for evolution.

Babin echoed Levi-Setti's admission: "Since the lower Cambrian (Georgian), trilobites were numerous, varied and well differentiated from other arthropods known in the Cambrian. These facts have led to assertions that their origin must go back fairly far into the Pre-Cambrian....Their origin remains, however, obscure; trilobites certainly show affinities with other antennae bearers but this implies all the more a common ancestor and not a descent of the second from the first." [26] Assertion and assumption would seem to be two peas in the same obscure evolutionary pod. It doesn't seem to me that alleged common ancestry is any more observable in the fossil record than is descent; each must be inferred. In fact, Babin gave me the impression that a decision between the two options could be determined by a simple coin toss. Perhaps that's another misperception on my part.

Biologist Frederick R. Schram would seem to have rebuked his peers: "The fossil record tells us little about the origin of Crustacea, which is not

surprising, since it tells little about the origin of any phylum. However, scant

information has not deterred anyone from engaging in phyletic speculation; lack of data only seems to encourage speculation." [27] A statement such as that from a creationist would not have the impact it has from an evolutionist. Schram was not the only biologist who took his peers to task. Prof. William R. Thompson chided the master of speculation himself: "Darwin considered that the doctrine of the origin of living forms by descent with modification. even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work, were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was for him, of absolutely major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments." [28]

Several evolutionists, though giving no indication of rejecting evolution, were honest enough to admit the lack of evidence for it. Prof. David B. Kitts provided one of the most interesting perspectives on the field of paleontology in my research experience:

...[T]he paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution. We can leave the fossil record free of a theory of evolution. An evolutionist, however, cannot leave the fossil record free of the evolutionary hypothesis.

But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis. [29]

What could any creationist possibly add to that? Let me try: Give an

evolutionary paleontologist enough rocks and there's a good chance he will forge a head. That pun is unlikely to win a literary prize but, based on my research, it seems to be a truism. Kitts would seem to have indicated the only way to "see" evolution in the fossil record is to approach the data with one's mind already made up that evolution has happened. In fact, that position is not my original formulation. Gould beat me to the punch by over three decades:

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism [30] (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. [31]

Gould was not alone in admitting a problem with "natural selection." Prof. Sir James Gray had already admitted it more than two decades earlier:

...[N]atural selection...is the only theory we have; but when judged as a working hypothesis it is disappointing to find so little advance in a hundred years....No amount of argument, or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodox theory; but most biologists feel it is better to think

in terms of improbable events than not to think at all. [32]

Thompson did not limit his criticism to the evolutionary "mechanism."

Rather, he would seem to have called into question the evolutionary premise:

"Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution is unsatisfactory unless its mechanism can be explained. I agree, but since no one has explained to my satisfaction how evolution could happen I do not feel impelled to say that it has happened. I prefer to say that on this matter our information is inadequate." [33]

There is no creationist fossil record standing in opposition to the

evolutionist fossil record. The opposing forces in the Creation/evolutionism

debate share the only existing fossil record. That fossil record will provide

evidence for Special Creation if the observer approaches the data with his mind already made up that Special Creation has happened. More specifically, he will have his mind already made up that the worldwide Genesis Flood is the reason for its existence. Therefore, the creationist and the evolutionist each approaches the available data from the position of an opposing philosophical worldview. That position is also not original with me. Anthropologist Sheila Womak wrote: "We are forgetting that the war between creationists and evolutionists is a clash of world views..." [34]

It's my firm conviction that the fossil record, taken just as it exists,

does not support the evolutionist world view. That position seems to me to be soundly supported by the evolutionists quoted above. They would certainly disagree with me. Let the reader decide.

Prof. Douglas J. Futuyma would seem to have limited the options: "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things." [35] A problem with using that quote is the distinct possibility it may be self-contradictory: "In actuality, almost all creationist literature simply consists of attacks on evolution, rather than positive evidence for creation. To the creationists, any evidence against evolutionary theory apparently constitutes evidence in favor of creation." [36] Yet, by his own admission, there exists only two options. He also would seem to have implied evidence exists which contradicts evolution "theory."

Futuyma's apparent self-contradiction is general. Another apparent

contradiction is more specific. Snodgrass admitted: "...[I]f the arthropods have been developed from a segmented, wormlike progenitor provided with jointed legs, there is a vast gap between the trilobites and their vermiform [37] ancestors." [38] Prof. Roy P. Mackal was apparently able to bridge the gap: "To date the mystery of their (trilobites) origin has not been revealed in the fossil record. However, by studying their morphology, we can establish that their ancestors must have been the segmented worms." [39] Zoologist Ronald H. Pine apparently considered such apparently conflicting views as a sign of evolutionist vigor: "The lack of agreement and the changing hypotheses and theories in actual science are often treated by pseudoscientists (creationists?) as if they constituted a weakness. They are its strength." [40] Thompson, however, had a somewhat different view:

As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science. [41]

Another set of apparent contradictions begins with Eldredge who would seem to have exhibited cautious confidence: "...[L]et us assume, as seems safe, that trilobites are indeed monophyletic." [42] Compare that viewpoint with one expressed by Bergstrom who displayed what has all the earmarks of skeptical assurance: "The trilobitomorphs have been considered to include more or less all early arthropods, which cannot be placed with certainty in any extant group. Restudy of old material shows that various

so-called trilobitomorphs can be placed without doubt among the crustaceans or myriapods. [43] This being the case, the "classical" Trilobitomorpha are polyphyletic.” [44] Yet, even the definitions of the biological terms would seem to contain an element of contradiction:

The Monophyletic taxon, also called a clade, is the building block of the cladistic system of taxonomy. It refers to any group of organisms that includes the most recent common ancestor of all those organisms and all the descendants of that common ancestor...monophyletic group (= monophylum): In a hierarchical system of descent, an ancestor (stem-species) and all of his descendants (descendant species) together form a closed community of descent that is called a monophyletic group. [45]

The Polyphyletic taxon is a group composed of a number of organisms which might bear some similarities, but does not include the most recent common ancestor of all the member organisms (usually because that ancestor lacks some or all of the characteristics of the group). The taxon shares derived characters which originated several times by convergence....Polyphyletic taxa are considered invalid or unnatural groupings, and are not accepted in either the Linnean/Evolutionary or the Cladistics taxonomies. Examples: Pachyderma, Haemothermia, Algae, Vermes (worms). [46]

It does not seem reasonable to me that contradiction, especially

self-contradiction, constitutes anything resembling strength unless the definition of the term is revised. Diametrically opposed positions, based on the same observed evidence, would seem to constitute interpretation stemming from personal bias. Science writer Roger Lewin provided one of the better examples of this in my research experience as he reported on the 1980 Chicago Conference on Macroevolution:

Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment. No book of proceedings will mark the event, but its passage will surely be reflected in the pages of future literature on evolutionary biology as new ideas and approaches generated at the meeting are tested and reported. [47]

While such dissent may indeed spark renewed research, Prof. Thompson apparently did not view all research as worthy of praise:

I do not contest the fact that the advent of the evolutionary idea, due mainly to the Origin, very greatly stimulated biological research. But it appears to me that owing, precisely to the nature of the stimulus, a great deal of this work was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of

will-o'-the-wisps....The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." [48]

Thompson's critique of Darwinism is devastating. It amazes me that the publisher of that edition of Origin would have allowed his "Introduction" to be included in the book. A web search for a copy of that edition for purchase produced nothing. One can speculate as to the reason; my opinion is, pressure exerted from within the evolutionist community.

NOTES

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1910.html

[2] D. R. Prothero. 2008. Evolution: What missing link? New Scientist magazine online, 27 February,

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html

[3] "...[T]he claim that species are individuals...is usually presented as a view

about particular species, such as the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, and makes aclaim about their ontological status: the species Canis familiaris is an

individual rather than (as past orthodoxy held) a natural kind." Joseph LaPorte. 2004. New York: Cambridge University Press. In: Philosophy in Review 24 (December 2004), pp.423-426,

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rCSZIZG38HIJ:www.arts.ualberta.ca/~raw/laporterev.pdf+ontological+status+of+species&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us

[4] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002. (last substantive content change: JUL 4), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/

[5] C. A. Cuffey. 2001. The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation." GULF COAST SECTION SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology), Site last modified May 18, http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_09.htm

[6] Evolution as Fact and Theory,

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.

The essay was originally published in DISCOVER, May 1981.

[7] R. E. Snodgrass. 1952. A Textbook of Arthropod Anatomy. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates, p. 697.

[8] morphology 1. the branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants, Your Dictionary.com, © 1996-2008 LoveToKnow, Corp. All Rights Reserved, http://www.yourdictionary.com/morphology

[10] H. B. Whittington. 1966. Phylogeny and distribution of Ordovician trilobites. JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, vol. 40, p. 697.

[11] Henry Morris, Ph.D. Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology,

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=94

[12] S. D. Schafersman. 1983. Fossils, Stratigraphy and Evolution: Consideration of a Creationist Argument. In: L. R. Godfrey, Editor. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, p. 221.

[13] J. E. O'Rourke. 1976. Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, Vol. 276, January, p. 51.

[14] NOTE 12, pp. 222,223.

[15] conodont - A jawless fish that had tiny, tooth-like phosphate pieces that are abundant in the fossil record, these were the earliest known vertebrates. © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

[16] Triassic Period has an assigned age of 206—248 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

[17] R. J. Aldridge and D. E. G. Briggs. 1989. A Soft Body of Evidence. NATURAL HISTORY, May, p. 6.

[18] N. Eldredge. 1971. The allopatric model and phylogeny in Paleozoic

invertebrates. EVOLUTION, Vol. 25, p. 166.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

[20] Trilobita, Chelicerata (SEE APPENDIX I)

[21] J. L. Cisne. 1974. Trilobites and the origin of arthropods. SCIENCE, vol. 186, pp. 16.

[22] S. J. Gould. 1978. Senseless Signs of History. NATURAL HISTORY, October, p. 22.

[23] T. Audesirk, G. Audesirk and B. E. Byers. 2002. Biology: Life on Earth, Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 185-205.

[24] T. P. Crimes. 1975. The Stratigraphical Significance of Trace Fossils. In: R. Frey, Ed. The Study of Trace Fossils. New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 16.

[25] R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas. University of Chicago Press, p. 1.

[26] C. Babin. 1980. Trilobites. In: D. Palmer, Editor. Elements of Paleontology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 255.

[27] F. R. Schram. 1982. The Fossil Record and Evolution of Crustacea. In: L. G. Abele, Editor. The Biology of Crustacea. New York: Academic Press, p. 96.

[28] W. R. Thompson. 1956. Introduction. In: Charles Darwin. Origin of Species. Everyman Library No. 811. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. Reprinted with permission. Evolution Protest Movement. 1967. NEW CHALLENGING ‘INTRODUCTION' TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Selsey, Sussex: Selsey Press Ltd., p. 8.

[29] D. B. Kitts. 1974. PALEONTOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. EVOLUTION, September, p.466.

[30] Gradualism - The view that evolution occurred gradually over time, with

transitional forms grading finely in a line of descent. ISCID (The International

Society for Complexity, Information, and Design) Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy - BETA, http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Gradualism

[31] S. J. Gould. 1977. Evolution's Erratic Pace. NATURAL HISTORY, May, p. 14.

[32] J. Gray. 1954. The Case for Natural Selection. NATURE, Vol. 173, p. 227.

[33] NOTE 29, p. 12.

[34] S. Womack. 1982. Creationism vs. evolutionism: The problem for cultural relativity. In: Stephen Pastner and William Haviland, Editors. Confronting the Creationists. NORTHEASTERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OCCASIONAL PROCEEDINGS, No. 1, p. 26.

[35] D. J. Futuyma. 1983. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books, p. 197.

[36] Ibid., p. 176.

[37] vermiform, adj. Resembling or having the long, thin, cylindrical shape of a worm. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vermiform

[38] NOTE 8, p. 6.

[39] R. P. Mackal. 1980. Living Trilobites? In: Searching for Hidden Animals. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., p. 130.

[40] R. H. Pine. 1984. But some of them are scientists, aren't they?

CREATION/EVOLUTION, vol. 14, p. 14.

[41] NOTE 29, pp. 17-18.

[42] N. Eldredge. 1977. Trilobites and Evolutionary Patterns. In: Anthomy Hallam, Ed. Patterns of Evolution. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, p. 328.

[43] Myriapoda: Nearly 13,000 species of arthropod are classified in the

Myriapoda, the "many-legged ones." Ruppert, E.E. and Barnes, R.D. 1994.

Invertebrate Zoology. Sixth Edition. Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth. Introduction to the Myriapoda,

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/uniramia/myriapoda.html

[44] J. Bergstrom. 1979. Morphology of Fossil Arthropods as a Guide to

Phylogenetic Relationships. In: A. P. Gupta, Ed. Arthropod Phylogeny. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

[45] M. Alan Kazlev. 2002. page uploaded 20 May,

http://www.palaeos.com/Systematics/Cladistics/monophyletic.htm

[46] © M. Alan Kazlev 1998-2002, page uploaded 20 May,

http://www.palaeos.com/Systematics/Cladistics/polyphyletic.htm

[47] R. Lewin. 1980. Evolutionary Theory Under Fire. SCIENCE, vol. 210, p. 883.

[48] NOTE 28, pp. 16, 17.

PART V

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

MORPHOLOGY, AN EVOLUTIONARY "CHARACTER STUDY"

One definition of morphology is: "Biol. The study of the form and structure of plants and animals considered apart from function." [1] The decision to limit the scope of this topic within that constraint was twofold. Paleontologist Niles Eldredge would seem to have considered any other course to be futile: "...[T]here is no lack of structural diversity of the dorsal [2] exoskeleton [3] among trilobites, but the functional significance underlying the different morphologies we see remains largely unexplained." [4] Geologist David B. Kitts would seem to have substantiated Eldredge' position but, more generally and forcefully:

There is thus a fundamental ambiguity involved in the attempt to ascribe a function to a part of a fossil organism....Of any object whose activity has not been observed it can only be said that it could have fulfilled some function. It can never be said that it did in fact fulfill that function. [5]

That quote would seem to stand in stark opposition to an assertion of biologist Stephen Jay Gould: "...[P]aleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). [6] That claim would seem to have been tailor-made for Kitts' observation.

The Gould quote would seem to be emotional taken in the context of the remainder of the article in which it was published. It would also seem to be in polar opposition to another pair of Gould quotes which, to me, have all the earmarks of self-contradiction: "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between larger groups." [7] "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. [8] It amazes me how much the fossil record changed in just four years. Perhaps it could be accounted for by invoking a philosophical variation of punctuated equilibria.

One of the more misleading aspects of evolutionary biology was robustly criticized by Prof. W. R. Thompson:

The whole approach to the origin of man in the leading museums of the world is based on reconstructions, the validity of which is open to serious criticism....Entire reconstructions of early man based on the smallest unverified discovery is often rashly presented in the literature directed to the lay public; when subsequently the reconstruction is shown to be false, no adequate redress of the point is offered to clear up any misunderstanding. [9]

His rebuke should, but probably will not, cause those who apologize for such actions to be less militant. [10] [11] His description has all the earmarks of "scientific" fraud intended to mislead the lay community.

A parallel in trilobite paleontology was provided by two researchers two decades apart. Entomologist Robert E. Snodgrass noted: "Since few perfectly preserved specimens of trilobites are known, it is not possible to give a full description of the trilobite structure in any one species." [12] Physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti agreed: "Several details of the anatomy and physiology of trilobites are inferred by analogy with what is known about the character of arthropods in general...[N]o individual specimen will show all the features exhibited in the reconstructions..." [13] In fairness, these examples would seem to reflect reality better by magnitudes than those whom Thompson rebuffed.

Eldredge highlighted another problem encountered in morphological studies: "...[A]ll harpids [14] look pretty much alike, and none of them resemble any non-harpid trilobite to any great extent at all except in 'general' features which stamp them as trilobites in the first place!" [15] What does a statement such as that mean in the context of an evolutionary origin of harpid trilobites? It would seem to me to call into question the validity of the claim. Biologist Sidnie M. Manton expanded on Eldredge' observation:

The extinct Trilobita showed no major change in their basic organization throughout their entire reign of some 250 million years...[T]he fossil record shows no intermediate types of animals, even in the Cambrian. The record shows instead many diverse types of arthropods with no clear connection or relationship with one another [16]

The reader must keep in mind, these admissions have been made by evolutionists. Yet, much of the commentary reads as if it had been written by creationists.

Geologist John L. Cisne would seem to have employed conflicting terms in his description: "As revealed in the skeletomusculature of Triarthrus, [17] the distinct structure of the trilobite head is largely a reflection of scant specialization of head segments over the pattern of trunk segments—an extremely primitive feature." [18] It would seem to me, a morphological character is either specialized or it isn't. One can only guess as to the meaning of "scant specialization."

Prof. Richard S. Fox did not seem to agree with a "primitive" assessment: "The extinct trilobites are among the earliest known arthropods, appearing first as Cambrian fossils and departing forever in the Permian. Far from being primitive, however, they are already highly derived, specialized arthropods when they make their first appearance and undergo relatively little change over their 300 million year history. [19] Levi-Setti would also seem to have engaged in speculation: "The head shield or cephalon resulted from the fusion of a number of somites [20] (five or seven) and often carries telltale memory of the original segmentation. It is the most significant and characteristic part of trilobite morphology. [21]

Snodgrass would seem to have made an assumption to reinforce an assumption. "If the antennae were ever evolved from leglike appendages, they must have completed their transformation long before the time of the oldest-known trilobites." [22] Granting body parts the ability to transform would seem to constitute anthropomorphism. Paleontologist William H. Easton pointed out one of the dangers inherent in forcing empirical evidence into conformity with any preconceived notion:

Loss of glabellar [23] furrows is interpreted as evolutionary advance, being in accord with supposed improvements in cephalization of anterior somites of arthropods. Considerable confusion exists as to exactly which furrow or lobe of one trilobite is homologous [24] with a corresponding feature of another trilobite." [25]

Gould made an impassioned plea for homology: "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? [26] Thompson would seem to have been unimpressed:

What we call the natural system of classification is a proof of evolution since it can only be explained as a result of evolution....The argument specifically implies that nothing is exempt from this evolutionary process. Therefore, the last thing we should expect on Darwinian principles is the persistence of a few common fundamental structural plans. Yet this is what we find. [27]

Thompson's use of the term "plans" would not seem to fit the evolutionary paradigm. It would certainly be interesting if Gould, or any evolutionist, were able to provide us just one verifiable example of a common ancestor. If, indeed, one has been described, it has escaped notice in my research experience.

Perplexity would seem to me the rule rather than the exception for those who study the anatomical features of the trilobite. Paleontologist Jan Bergstrom described one such enigmatic observation: "It is difficult to understand why a nephridial (tracheal) opening would be connected morphologically with a limiting device and be absent in all those trilobites in which the panderian protuberance (the most well-known limiting device) is absent." [28] Easton, on the other hand, wrote of a proposal that seems to me incredible: "Of particular interest is the lack of any mouth parts on a trilobite. Cephalic appendages of some higher arthropods seem to have been modified into mandibles [29] and maxillae; [30] hence, the discovery of true locomotor limbs around the mouths of very primitive arthropods (trilobites) supports the hypothesis that mouth parts of arthropods evolved from legs." [31] Perhaps that was the origin of the dreaded podia-mandibular trilobite disorder known more popularly as "hoof-in-mouth disease." Is it any wonder, then, that trilobites "went" extinct?

Eldredge [32] admitted what would seem to be incredulity based on his own research: "I am totally at a loss to explain strange structures like the pair of enormous, hornlike spines on either side of the head of Deltacephalaspis." [33] Easton's research included study of the trilobite thorax [34] even though he considered it insignificant: "A final phenomenon affecting the thorax is change in the number of segments....Although the number increases in some evolutionary strains, decrease in the number of throacic segments is the dominant trend." [35] Was he describing bidirectional evolution? At the very least he would seem to be in a win/win situation. Evolution has "happened" regardless of the evidence available for study. Could this be the paleontological version of the man who was his own grandfather by verbal "slight of hand?" Paleontologist Raymond C. Moore and his colleagues [36] provided technical descriptions of the sutures [37] that conveyed a significant difference. Yet, review of the accompanying photographs displayed what seemed only superficial variation.

Paleontologist Harry B. Whittington described several anatomical differences used in the determination of trilobite classification by others in the field: "Trilobites of Olenellus [38] type...differ from the majority of Cambrian trilobites, which have many thoracic segments and a small pygidium, in that dorsal facial sutures do not cross the gena [39] to the large eye lobe. This lack has been regarded as separating olenelloids from other trilobites so markedly that the taxonomic rank accorded to them has risen from family to as high as order." [40] He disagreed: "I...give it little weight, and hence consider that the case falls for separating olenelloids from other trilobites by a gap of ordinal or subordinal rank, merely because they lack dorsal facial sutures. [41]

Snodgrass expressed a measure of doubt concerning trilobite appendages: "With regard to the trilobite leg...it might be questioned if the apparent tibia and tarsus are not two tarsal subsegments and the supposed patella the true tibia. There must, in other words, be some uncertainty as to the identity of limb segments where the musculature cannot be known. Yet the trilobite leg appears to be an eight-segmented appendage, not counting the subcoxal ring, and, if so, it is truly a generalized arthropod limb in that it contains all the segments present in the legs of any modern arthropod, but it particularly resembles the arachnid [42] leg in the possession of a patella." [43] It would seem the trilobite leg is another paleontological enigma. Understandably, the fossil evidence proved of no particular value in this case. Cisne was more candid: "It is becoming apparent that the "trilobitan limb," the supposed unifying characteristic of the Trilobitomorpha...is a faulty construct....While finer details of limb structure remain as features to be accounted for in constructing phylogenies, [44] they do not in themselves provide clear indications of relationships between class-level groups" [45]

While some researchers give the impression of lamenting the lack of data that would allow definitive answers to certain questions of trilobite anatomy, Eldredge has pointed out why: "The concept of gradualism, (uniformitarianism) an important aspect of geological thinking...has permeated paleontologic thought to the extent that all phylogenetic change is generally conceived to occur by small increments over vast periods of time."

[46] As a solution to the gradualist notion he proposed the, "Allopatric model where morphological change occurs relatively rapidly in peripheral isolates." [47]

The next year, Eldredge and Gould "refined" allopatric speciation under the label, "punctuated equilibria." [48] Eldredge provided a reason: "...[T]he usual case, at least in Paleozoic epeiric sediments, is for the observer to document no change throughout the stratigraphic range of species..." [49] Gould was able to explain (explain away?) the lack of fossil evidence:

If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small, peripheral isolates, [50] then what should the fossil record look like? We are not likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. Only after its successful origin will we first meet the new species as a fossil—when it has reinvaded the ancestral range and become a large central population in its own right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should expect no major change. We know it only as a successful central population. It will participate in the process of organic change only when some of its peripheral isolates speciate to become new branches on the evolutionary bush. But it, itself, will appear "suddenly" in the fossil record and become extinct later with equal speed and little perceptible change in form. [51]

The admission that the fossil evidence does not document change for the observable existence of trilobites, would seem to me to indicate that trilobites did not evolve. The fabrication of peripheral isolates that leave no fossil record would seem to me to constitute an evolutionist heads-I-win-tails-you-lose construct. It would seem, then, that evolution is based as much on lack of evidence as it is on observable evidence. Yet, Gould had the temerity to criticize creationists: "Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science." [52] That would seem to be a charge that looks back.

Levi-Setti noted from his research: "Molting is clearly an integral part of the growth process in trilobites. The most abundant fossil remains of trilobites are the disarticulated exuviae..." [53] Moore and his colleagues expanded on Levi-Setti's observations: "Study of the growth stages of trilobites throws light on the morphologic significance of various adult characters, and is important for an attack on the problems of classification. Also, it bears on the interpretation of evolutionary trends." [54] Whittington's contribution was more generalized and speculative: "...[C]ompilation of all available knowledge of the trilobite body, combined with interpretations of the tracks and trails, affords a picture of how some trilobites may have lived." [55] Interpretations based on speculation do not seem to me to constitute convincing evidence for evolution.

Easton pointed up one obvious conflict based on apparent observational bias:

Two different interpretations have been made of the evolutionary position of the agnostids. [56] According to one view these creatures are very primitive trilobites which gave rise to higher forms by increased segmentation and by development of facial sutures. According to the other view, agnostids represent extremely specialized arthropods at the end of an evolutionary sequence of trilobites in which segmentation and eyes, and possibly sutures also, have been lost. [57]

If each interpretation is allowed to stand, it would seem to constitute another example of the evolutionary "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" construct. Evolution is "verified" first by the increase of some anatomical characters and, later, by the loss of some of those characters as well. That would seem to provide the evolutionist with an operational comfort zone of maximum flexibility.

It's well known that there is no creationist fossil record that stands in opposition to an evolutionist record. By the same token, it seems unlikely there exists a series of sub-evolutionist fossil records. Why, then, should there be diametrically opposed interpretations of the same fossil evidence by evolutionists? In the context of the Creation/evolutionism debate anthropologist Eugenie Scott would seem to have agreed there is contention in the ranks: "Scientists are very much united on what happened. Evolution happened – to modify a bumper sticker. But how it happened is something that we argue about a lot in science..." [58] While Scott confirmed the reality, Thompson provided, what seems to me, the only logical reason: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion." [59]

Geologist T. P. Crimes pointed up a serious evolutionary problem with trilobite anatomy in what seems to be an understatement: "One objection to the development of a trilobite from a soft-bodied form rests in their complex and powerful musclature. Possibly this musculature would have no satisfactory points of attachment without a hard skeleton." [60] Yet, Cisne was apparently unimpressed: "...[T]rilobites are among the most primitive arthropods known." [61] Mathematician I. L. Cohen provided information that would seem to have sounded the death knell for any notion of trilobites as primitive:

Their nervous system was highly developed, with ganglia and nerve cords leading to a developed brain. They possessed a heart, arteries, and veins, along with gills. Naturally digestive and reproductive systems were present to complete the picture....These are entire systems that are completely integrated with each other and complement each other. Each one of these organs requires millions of nucleotides to define them and order their growth; each would presumably require experimental antecedents leading to the stage of perfection. And yet, virtually all we find before the trilobites, are single cell primitive

life-forms. [62]

Why is any creationist commentary necessary?

NOTES

[1] Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Volume 1. 1980. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Inc., p. 423.

[2] dorsal - toward the upper surface of an animal while in its life position. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New York: Comstock Books, p. 172.

[3] exoskeleton - The external support structure for arthropods. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New York: Comstock Books, p. 172.

[4] N. Eldredge. 1977. Trilobites and Evolutionary Patterns. In: Anthony Hallam, Ed. Patterns of Evolution. New York: Elsnier Scientific Publishing Company, p. 316.

[5] D. B. Kitts. 1974. Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory. EVOLUTION, vol. 28, p. 462.

[6] S. J. Gould. 1981. Evolution as Fact and Theory. DISCOVER, May, p. 36.

[7] Ibid., p. 37.

[8] S. J. Gould. 1977. The Return of Hopeful Monsters. NATURAL HISTORY, June/July, p. 24.

[9] W. R. Thompson. 1956. Introduction. In: Charles Darwin. Origin of Species. Everyman Library No. 811. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. Reprinted with permission. Evolution Protest Movement. 1967. NEW CHALLENGING ‘INTRODUCTION' TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Selsey, Sussex: Selsey Press Ltd., p. 18.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

[12] R. E. Snodgrass. 1952. A Textbook of Arthropod Anatomy. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates, p. 8.

[13] R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas. University of Chicago Press pp. 5, 16.

[14] Harpid trilobites - have a large horseshoe-shaped head that wraps around the side of the rest of the tiny body... http://services.nsdl.org:8080/nsdloai/OAI?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=oai:nsdl.org:pri:00331

[15] NOTE 4, p. 320.

[16] S. M. Manton. 1979. Functional Morphology and the Evolution of the Hexapod Classes. In: A. P. Gupta, Ed. Arthropod Phylogeny. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 391.

[17] Triarthrus (eatoni Hall), Yale University webpage: http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/locations/beechers/219.html

[18] J. L. Cisne. 1982. Origin of the Crustacea. In: L. G. Abele, Ed. The Biology of Crustacea. New York: Academic Press, pp. 65-92.

[19] R. S. Fox. 2001. Triarthrus eatoni © Lander University: Invertebrate Anatomy OnLine, http://webs.lander.edu/rsfox/invertebrates/triarthrus.html

[20] somites "...form at the posterior end of the pygidium..." Robert R. Hessler. 1962. Secondary segmentation in the thorax of trilobites. JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, November, http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/6/1305

pygidium - The posterior or tail of a trilobite. Thommas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 175.

[21] NOTE 13, p. 5.

[22] NOTE 12, p. 16.

[23] glabella (SEE APPENDIX I)

[24] homologous "...(hav[ing] a common evolutionary origin)..." John R. Meyer. The First Arthropods. Evolution and Diversity, page 2. © Copyright 2006, All rights reserved, http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/text02/arthropods.html

[25] W. H. Easton. 1960. Invertebrate Paleontology. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher, p. 490.

[26] S. J. Gould. 1981. Evolution as Fact and Theory. DISCOVER, May, p. 36.

[27] NOTE 11, p. 13.

[28] Bergstrom, J. 1973. Organization, life, and systematics of trilobites. FOSSILS AND STRATA, No. 2, p. 34.

[29] Mandibles "...are feeding appendages functioning as "jaws" in the arthropod groups in which they occur." A Popadíc, G Panganiban, D Rusch, W A Shear, T C Kaufman. 1998. Molecular evidence for the gnathobasic derivation of arthropod mandibles and for the appendicular origin of the labrum and other structures. DEV GENES EVOL, May, http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:9601987

[30] maxillae "...complex jaw apparatus..." R. Sardá, G. San Martín, E. López, D. Martin and D. George (eds.). 2006. SCIENTIA MARINA, December, http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:xNim6DxkrRgJ:www.icm.csic.es/scimar/pdf/70/sm70s3331.pdf+arthropod+maxillae&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=us

[31] NOTE 25, p. 500.

[32] N. Eldredge. 1980. An extravagance of species. NATURAL HISTORY, July, p. 49.

[33] Deltacephalaspis - (genus), Phacopida (order), Trilobita (class), Arthropoda (phylum), The Paleobiology Database,

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=21530&is_real_user=0

[34] thorax - The central body of the trilobite between the cephalon (head) and the pygidium (tail). Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 176.

[35] W. H. Easton. 1960. Trilobites and Chelicerates. In: Invertebrate Paleontology. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher, p. 492.

[36] R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., p. 479.

[37] suture - A line in the cephalon where the parts separate during the molting process. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New York: Comstock Books, p. 175.

[38] Olenellus "...[M]embers of Olenellina rank among the earliest trilobites in Cambrian stratigraphy, dating to about 560 million years ago. Morphologically primitive, its evolutionary origin from Precambrian, segmented worms (if you subscribe to this hypothesis) is evident." Fossil Museum, http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/TrilobitesCanada/Olenellus/

Olenellus.htm

[39] gena (singular of genae) - The cheeks of a trilobite; the areas lateral from the central area of the glabella. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New York: Comstock Books, p. 173.

[40] H. B. Whittington. 1989. Olenelloid Trilobites: Type Species Functional Morphology and Higher Classification. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, B324, pp. 112-146.

[41] Ibid., p. 141.

[42] Arachnida - Spiders, mites, scorpions, whipscorpions, pseudoscorpions,

[43] NOTE 12, P. 19.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/whatisphylogeny.html

[45] J. L. Cisne. 1974. Trilobites and the origin of arthropods. SCIENCE, vol. 186, p. 14.

[46] N. Eldredge. 1971. The allopatric model and phylogeny in Paleozoic invertebrates. EVOLUTION, vol. 25, p. 156.

[47] Ibid., p. 159.

[48] N. Eldredge and S. J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In: T. J. M. Schoff, Ed. Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper and Company.

[49] Ibid., p. 160.

[50] peripheral isolate speciation - A form of allopatric speciation in which the new species is formed from a small population isolated at the edge of the ancestral population's geographic range. Also called peripatric speciation. © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

allopatric speciation - Speciation that occurs when two or more populations of a species are geographically isolated from one another sufficiently that they do not interbreed. (Ibid.).

[51] S. J. Gould. 1976. Ladders, Bushes, and Human Evolution. NATURAL HISTORY, April, p. 31.

[52] S. J. Gould. 1981. Evolution as fact and theory. DISCOVER, May, p. 35.

[53] R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas. University of Chicago Press, p. 8.

[54] NOTE 36, p. 484.

[55] H. B. Whittington. 1961. A Natural History of Trilobites. NATURAL HISTORY, July, p. 13.

[56] "The agnostids were mostly blind and exhibit a strong symmetry of cephalon and pygidium size, making it hard to distinguish front from rear." Agnostid Trilobites. Virtual Fossil Museum, http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/Trilobites-Agnostida.htm

[57] NOTE 25, p. 508.

[58] E. Scott. 1997. The Firing Line 1997 Creation-Evolution Debate. "Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation." December 4, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm

[59] NOTE 11, p. 17.

[60] T. P. Crimes. 1975. The Stratigraphical Significance of Trace Fossils. In: R. Frey, Ed. The Study of Trace Fossils. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 115-116.

[61] NOTE 45, p. 13.

[62] I. L. Cohen. 1984. Trilobites. In: Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 104.

PART VI

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

SUPERFICIAL CHANGE?

The trilobite has an alleged fossil history of many millions of years. How many? That would seem to depend on who is providing the information. Biologist Sidnie M. Manton described a: "...reign of some 250 million years." [1] Mathematician I. L. Cohen forced us to do some arithmetic but noted: "Trilobite...remains are...in rocks going back nearly 600,000 years...until the end of the Palaeozoic era, (about 230 million years ago)... That amounts to 270 million years. [2] Biologist James H. Wilmoth extended the range to: "...over 300 million years." [3] Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was apparently able to "see" further than his colleagues as he wrote of the: "...400-million-year history of trilobites." [4]

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould provided an evolutionary perspective of time that would seem to be allegorical: "In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond." [5] Marine ecologist Julia K. Baum would seem to have been on the same wave length: "Sharks evolved 400 million years ago and yet we could now lose some species in the next few decades, so that would be just a blink of an eye in evolutionary time." [6] Yet, those quoted in the preceding paragraph have established a time spread of 150 million years. It would seem to me safe to conclude that Gould's "geological microsecond" and Baum's "blink" was each intended as a metaphor. It would also seem to me safe to conclude that 150 million years is a significant amount of time even by geological standards. Time, then, would seem to be in the eye of the evolutionary beholder (to modify an adage).

According to Prof. Kevin Padian time would seem to be an evolutionary prerequisite: "Deep Time was absolutely necessary to his (Darwin's) theory, in a way that it had not been for any biological theory before." [7] Prof. George Wald would seem to have granted supernatural power to time:

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. [8]

It doesn't seem to me "almost certainly" and "may be" are phrases that elicit confidence. Also, it's unclear to me when miracles became part of the language of science. At any rate, in evolutionary parlance, it seems time is to be "worshipped." These concerns were expressed in an e-mail to a Wald supporter (see APPENDIX II).

Even the most "conservative" allotment of time for the alleged existence of trilobites (250 million years) does not seem to me insignificant. Researchers have recognized them as trilobites over their entire stratigraphic range. That would seem to me to preclude evolution. What, then, is the basis for the claim that trilobites have evolved? Paleontologist William H. Easton cited the cephalon as: "...the most important part of a trilobite for study...because it shows the most modifications of structures." [9] He refined his observation: "Evolution of cephalons can be traced primarily in changes of the shape of glabellae and in the number of glabellar furrows" [10] Paleontologist Raymond C. Moore and his colleagues had been more specific: "...[T]he glabella exhibits noteworthy evolutionary modification...in (1) segmentation; (2) shape, including distinctness of definition; and (3) relative length." [11]

The level of significance attributed to trilobite evolution on the basis of cephalon and glabella seems to me, exaggerated. Samuel M. Gon, III, Ph.D., [12] has a website page [13] on which he displays the trilobite cephalon (head) and glabella (central, axial part of the head). [14] My own estimate, based on the web page images, is that approximately 33% of the dorsal area of the trilobite is comprised of the cephalon and 25% of the cephalon is comprised of the glabella. That means observed "modification" in less than 10% of the dorsal features is the basis for the above-quoted claims of evolution for the trilobite. Even if one were to give that away, it would seem to be only the tip of this evolutionary iceberg. Intelligent Design advocate Paul Nelson explained the situation as well as anyone in my research experience: "We have the finch beak, and then you've got the finch itself; a minor change in the structure of the beak versus the origin of the organism itself." [15] Again, trilobites have been recognizable over their entire stratigraphic range. Glabellar modifications, then, would seem to constitute nothing more than variation. Such attention to detail may very well qualify for what Prof. William R. Thompson labeled, "will-o'-the-wisps" [16] in evolutionary research.

Paleontologists Richard A. Fortey and Richard P. S. Jefferies would also seem to have been able to "see" evolution where variation would appear to be a better explanation: "...[W]ithin the family Mileidae several species-to-species transitions are known...There is a lineage leading from Symphysurus arcticus to Peraspis erugata which has been documented by a continuous series of samples [in which] genal spines are progressively regenerated." [17] Genal spines, [18] again based on my visual estimate, would seem to comprise less than 5% of the dorsal features. That's a weaker case for evolution than glabellar modification. Regenerate has been defined as: "4. Biology. To replace (a lost or damaged organ or part) by formation of new tissue." [19] Yet, Prof. Ken Muneoka and his associates have described the process by which the salamander regenerates an amputated limb. [20] What, then, does regeneration, in a biological context, have to do with evolution? It would seem to me, nothing.

Eldredge, arguably one of the ranking authorities on the trilobite, shared research experience that apparently motivated him and Gould in the formulation of "punctuated equilibria":

The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence. [21]

Yet, nearly a decade earlier, Eldredge had presented his own version of trilobite "evolution": "Reduction of dorso-ventral file number from 18 to 15 was the major evolutionary change in the...Phacops rana...stock throughout its history. [22]

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources places this trilobite species in: "...Devonian-age rocks (rocks between 405 and 365 million years old)." [23] Allegedly, then, for at least 40 million years, the substantial evolution of Phacops rana consisted of a reduced number of lens rows in the eyes. That would seem to constitute a far smaller percentage of dorsal features than those of the glabellar modifications noted above.

"Gondwana," and the associated "plate tectonics" mindset is another topic beyond the scope of this essay. Could "Gondwanaland" be a modernist geological "Land of Oz?" Perhaps. Eldredge' reference to Gondwana may very well have been that described by M. Alan Kazlev: "Gondwanaland is named after the Upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic formations of the Gondwana district of central India, which display a number of shared geologic features (the "Gondwana beds")." However, Kazlev also described an alleged geological structure: "One of the most enduring features of our planet, Gondwana (or Gondwanaland) was a composite continent, made up of South America, Africa, Madagascar, Antarctica, India, other parts of South Asia, and Australia. At one time it even included Florida and most of Southern Europe." [24] At any rate, Rev. George Barry O'Toole quoted from the December 29, 1915 presidential address to the Geological Society of America in which Arthur B. Coleman expressed critical doubt regarding the "composite" version:

...[T]here are geologists, especially paleontologists, who display great recklessness in rearranging land and sea....A Gondwana Land [25] arises in place of an Indian Ocean and sweeps across to South America, so that a spore-bearing plant can follow-up an ice age... [26]

It's interesting to me that no geologist or paleontologist in my research experience has made any reference to Coleman's address. In all fairness, a supercontinent concept may not be completely devoid of reality. Revelation has it: "God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas." [27] That Scripture might indicate, at the time of the Creation, all the dry land was one land mass. If true, it would seem to constitute a land mass greater than the proposed "Gondwanaland" espoused by those who employ the term in the expanded geological sense. However that's no surprise. God is greater than man or, even man's imagination! On the other side, "Seas" may very well indicate the separation of continents.

On a smaller scale, Eldredge recognized the special pleading for marine currents to explain trilobite dispersal as: "[an] invention [that] stretches the principles of oceanography beyond endurance." [28] However, he would seem to have had no hesitation in accepting the notion of stretching the principles of geophysics: "Dispersal need not be invoked if we let the continents do the moving." [29] It seems to me the reality of ocean currents is a far better option than that of "continental drift." If we're to accept the notion of continental gymnastics required by current "wisdom," perhaps we should consider taking another Scripture literally: "The mountains skipped like rams, and the hills like the lambs of the flock." [30] That might not be as impressive as "continental drift," but, for me, it would be far more entertaining.

Eldredge and Gould have not escaped criticism for their promotion of "punctuated equilibria." Paleontologist Philip D. Gingrich (whose research has been concentrated on the alleged transition from land mammal to whale) noted: "Their idea of "punctuated equilibria" ran counter to my field experience..." [31] Gould and Eldredge had already leveled a challenge: "We do not see the same unambiguous evidence for gradualism that Gingerich affirms. " [32] Yet, as Gould explained, it was field experience (i.e., Eldredge' research on trilobites) that prompted "p-e": "We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record." [33]

Reason dictates that trilobite research would also have been the object of dispute. Geologist Peter R. Sheldon was able to see "evidence" for gradualism: "...based on a study of ~15,000 trilobites from central Wales. Over a period of about three million years, as many as eight lineages underwent a net increase in the number of pygidial ribs..." [34] Eldredge and Gould contested his findings: "A net increase of two or three pleural pygidial ribs over 3 Myr (million years) in these trilobite lineages...cannot have any real bearing on the origin of morphological differences that characterize taxa above the species level." [35] Biologist John Maynard Smith took them to task: "Eldredge and Gould suggest that the changes described by Sheldon are too small to shed much light on the origin of taxa above the species level. This may, or may not, be true, but it is an odd claim for Eldredge, at least, to make. In his book explaining the theory of punctuated equilibria, the only example discussed at any length is his own study of changes in the number of lenses in the eyes of trilobites. Why a change from 18 to 17 columns of lenses in the eye is relevant, whereas a change from 11 to 13 phyidial ribs is not, defeats me." [36]

It defeats me how zoologist Ronald H. Pine was able to proclaim such infighting is a strength of science. [37] Perhaps he would make an exception in this case. Perhaps there exists another definition of strength which would allow him to rationalize his claim.

Paleontologist Harry B. Whittington [38] would seem to have rejected another morphological mountain fabricated from an evolutionary mole hill: "I...consider that the case falls for separating olenelloids from other trilobites by a gap of ordainal or subordinal rank, merely because they lack dorsal facial sutures." [39] Samuel M. Gon, III, Ph.D. would seem to have agreed, even if reluctantly: "Facial sutures once played a primary role in defining family-level relationships, and several common patterns...were named according to the families that bore the suture pattern. While many of the patterns are more or less valid and useful, more recently it has been observed that suture form and pattern can vary significantly even among species of a given genus, and the primacy of facial sutures in classification has declined." [40] Abandonment of the practice would seem to be far more appropriate.

As noted above, Smith was critical of Eldredge' ability to "see" evolution in the trilobite eye. Eldredge continued rebuttal of the proposition that evolution is evident in other anatomical features: "Significantly, the only serial differentiation among the biramous limbs [41] appears to be size: there is as yet no evidence whatever that any structural differentiation of limbs was ever developed among trilobites." [42] Cohen was apparently unable to see trilobite eyes in the same light as Eldredge: "The sudden introduction of a sophisticated optical system and its unchanged application for half a billion years implies an event and mechanism quite different from what we understood to be good evolutionary theory." [43] Paleontologist Jan Bergstrom had a more generalized criticism but would seem to have admitted evidence for evolution of the trilobite is non-existent: "Much of the trilobite systematics [44] is...based primarily on "technical" characteristics without much phylogenetic significance." [45] Biologist James H. Wilmoth would seem to have agreed with Bergstrom while attempting to hedge his bet: "Despite the long existence of the Trilobites in the Paleozoic their structure showed little diversity. [46]

Many (maybe all) evolutionists in my research experience has each had a moment (or moments) of truth in the literature, even if inadvertently. My definition of "moment of truth" is a documented statement by an evolutionist that, from a creationist perspective, could just as well have been written by a creationist. The examples documented above should suffice to make my point.

NOTES

[1] S. M. Manton. 1979. Functional Morphology and the Evolution of the Hexapod Classes. In: A. P. Gupta, Ed. Arthropod Phylogeny. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

[2] I. L. Cohen. 1984. Trilobites. In: Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 103.

[3] J. H. Wilmoth. 1967. Biology of Invertebrata. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 239.

[4] N. Eldredge. 1980. An extravagance of species. NATURAL HISTORY, July, p. 49.

[5] S. J. Gould. Evolution as Fact and Theory,

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

[6] J. K. Baum. 2008. Sharks extinction threat. On: Robyn Williams, Host. The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 15 March,

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2190111.htm

[7] K. Padian. 2008. Darwin's enduring legacy. NATURE, Vol. 451, p. 633.

[8] G. Wald. 1954. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, August, p. 48.

[9] W. H. Easton. 1960. Trilobites and Chelicerates. In: Invertebrate Paleontology. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher, p. 489.

[10] Ibid., p. 509.

[11] R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., p. 507.

[12] http://www.trilobites.info/

[13] http://www.trilobites.info/trilomajor.htm

[14] glabella, cephalon (SEE APPENDIX I)

[15] P. Nelson. 2002. UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY OF LIFE: THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. DVD. LaHabra, CA: Illustra Media.

[16] W. R. Thompson. 1956. Introduction. In: Charles Darwin. Origin of Species. Everyman Library No. 811. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. Reprinted with permission. Evolution Protest Movement. 1967. NEW CHALLENGING ‘INTRODUCTION' TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Selsey, Sussex: Selsey Press Ltd., p. 16.

[17] R. A. Fortey. and R. P. S. Jefferies. 1982. Fossils and Phylogeny: A Compromise Approach. In: K. A. Joysey and A. E. Fridlay, Eds. Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. New York: Academic Press, p. 231.

[18] Rather than record the definitions provided by Dr. Gon, it seemed appropos to use his website image: S. M. Gon, III. 2004. Trilobite Dorsal Morphology, http://www.trilobites.info/trilomorph.htm. The definitions are available at: http://www.trilobites.info/glossary.htm

[19] THE FREE DICTIONARY BY FARLEX, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regenerated

[20] K. Muneoka, Manjong Han and David M. Gardiner. 2008. Regrowing Human Limbs. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, April, pp. 56-63.

[21] NOTE 4, p. 50.

[22] dorsoventral files "...(vertical columns) on the visual surface of the eye..." N. Eldredge. 1972. SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION OF PHACOPS RANA (GREEN, 1832) AND PHACOPS IOWENSIS DELO, 1935 (TRILOBITA) FROM THE MIDDLE DEVONIAN OF NORTH AMERICA. BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, VOLUME 147: ARTICLE 2, p. 56, http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/1095/1/B147a02.pdf

[23] http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/collecting/state_fossil.aspx

[24] http://www.palaeos.com/Earth/Geography/Gondwana.htm

[25] "One of the most enduring features of our planet, Gondwana (or Gondwanaland) was a composite continent, made up of South America, Africa, Madagascar, Antarctica, India, other parts of South Asia, and Australia. At one time it even included Florida and most of Southern Europe." M. Alan Kazlev. 2000. The Supercontinent of Gondwana, http://www.palaeos.com/Earth/Geography/Gondwana.htm

[26] G. B. O'Toole. 1925. The Case Against Evolution. New York: The MacMillan Company, p. 114.

[28] NOTE 21, pp. 48-49.

[29] Ibid., p. 49.

[31] P. D. Gingerich. 1983. Evidence for Evolution from the Vertebrate Fossil Record. JOURNAL OF GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION, vol. 31, p. 141.

[32] S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge. 1977. Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered. PALEOBIOLOGY, Vol. 3, p. 131.

[33] S. J. Gould. 1981. Evolution as Fact and Theory. DISCOVER, May, pp. 36-37.

[34] P. R. Sheldon. 1987. Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. NATURE, vol. 330, p. 561.

[35] N. Eldredge and S. J. Gould. 1988. Punctuated equilibrium prevails. NATURE, vol. 332, p. 211.

[36] J. M. Smith. 1988. Punctuation in perspective. NATURE, vol. 332, p. 311.

[37] R. H. Pine. 1984. But some of them are scientists, aren't they? CREATION/EVOLUTION, vol. 14, p. 14.

[38] H. B. Whittington. 1989. Olenelloid Trilobites: Type Species Functional Morphology and Higher Classification. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, B324, p. 141.

[39] sutures, dorsal facial (SEE APPENDIX I)

[40] S. M. Gon, III. 2007. Trilobite Facial Sutures; last revised 28 January.

http://www.trilobites.info/sutures.htm

[41] biramous "...(literally, "two-branched") limb." Stephen Jay Gould. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, p. 104.

[42] N. Eldredge. 1977. Trilobites and Evolutionary Patterns. In: A. Hallam, Editor. Patterns of Evolution. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, p. 327.

[43] NOTE 2, p. 104.

[44] Systematics - "classifications" Class Trilobita Walch 1771. 2002. Palæos, http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Trilobita/Trilobita.htm

[45] J. Bergstrom. 1979. Morphology of Fossil Arthropods as a Guide to Phylogenetic Relationships. In: A. P. Gupta, Editor. Arthropod Phylogeny. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 32.

[46] J. H. Wilmoth. 1967. Biology of Invertebrata. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 242.

PART VII

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

TURNING A BLIND EYE

Mathematician I. L. Cohen was apparently a visionary evolutionist able to clearly see the obvious evolutionary problem of the trilobite eye: "The sudden introduction of a sophisticated optical system and its unchanged application for half a billion years implies an event and mechanism quite different from what we understood to be good evolutionary theory" [1] Profs. Teresa and Gerald Audesirk and Bruce E. Byers briefly described the complex composition of the eye and equally complex process of sight. [2] The description and admission of complexity, then, makes the claim of biologist Kenneth R. Miller, for example, seem incredible: "The chambered nautilus has eyes that are relatively simple, yet they still can sharply focus light." [3] One can only guess at the meaning of "relatively simple." It would seem to reflect a relativistic mindset. Furthermore, Miller would seem to have contradicted himself in another commentary: "...[I]t turns out, the eye isn't exactly perfect after all. In fact, the eye contains profound optical imperfections. And those imperfections are proof, in a sense, of the evolutionary ancestry of the eye....So, even the eye, with all of its optical perfection, has clues to the fact that it's origin is of the blind process of natural selection." [4] It seems ironic that the blindness of "natural selection" has produced sight. Perhaps Miller was able to see perfect imperfection or imperfect perfection in the "evolution" of the eye. Perhaps my

anti-evolutionary bias has blinded me to what he really meant.

The eye would seem to have been a major concern for Charles Darwin: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [5] That makes the rejoinder by Prof. Richard Dawkins all the more curious: "There is nothing original in the objections deployed by...a spate of more or less silly [creationist] books...just the old favourites ("The eye is too complicated to have evolved by blind 'chance'", and the rest) that Darwin himself raised - and demolished. [6] If demolition were in fact what Darwin accomplished, he would seem to have had a strange way of describing his "victory."

A creationist must be careful in using the darwinian eye quote. Several anti-creationists have criticized the use of those lines contending that "the rest of the quote" refutes the creationist position. The website, "No Answers in Genesis!" displayed the following claim: "Even Answers in Genesis, the most influential YEC web site, has advised their followers not to use the Darwin eye quote..." [7] Yet, my cursory review of AiG website produced the verboten quote with no obvious warning against using it. Perhaps Mr. Stear did not prepare the Google entry and is unaware of its existence. Perhaps my cursory review was inadequate. At any rate, the charge would seem to be, anyone using the portion of the quote used in this essay, is guilty of deceit. One of my meager contributions to the Creation/evolutionism debate has been to attempt a refutation of that anti-creationist charge (see APPENDIX II).

The WGBH/PBS group has pointed out a fact that, from all indications, is intended to support the notion that the eye has evolved: "Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history..." [8] "Emerged" is one of those evolutionary buzz words that fails to impress me. However, the fact presented did not escape the notice of Prof. Frank B. Salisbury: "Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim." [9] That admission does not seem to me to do anything to strengthen the case for evolution of the eye. His use of "appeared" is also unimpressive.

Though Salisbury made no mention of the human eye, the WGBH/PBS group couldn't resist: "...[T]he human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision." [10] Coupling that with Miller's earlier quote, it seems to me passing strange that any of us is capable of sight given the faulty design with which we must contend. It seems almost miraculous! Perhaps the human brain is also not even the best one; wadda ya tink?

Paleontologist Raymond C. Moore and his colleagues identified two types of trilobite eyes: "The holochroal...or compound...eyes are characterized by the presence of many small lenses packed closely together in direct contact with one another....The schizochroal...or aggregate...eye consists of biconvex lenses, larger and less numerous than those of the holochroal type, each lens having its own corneal covering." [11] Samuel M. Gon, III, Ph.D., described a third: "The abathochroal eye...is seen in only a few Cambrian trilobites and is somewhat similar to the schizochroal eye, but differs in some important respects: the sclera [12] is not thick, and the corneal membrane does not extend downward, but ends at the edge of the lens." [13]

One of the more interesting facts concerning the trilobite eye for me is its composition. Geologist Euan N. K. Clarkson and physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti explained: "Calcite is the basic structural component of the trilobite exoskeleton, but its orientation in the lenses is optimised to the function being performed...The use of a doubly refracting mineral such as calcite to construct a lens may seem disadvantageous." [14] Remembering that the exoskeleton is the external support structure of the trilobite, [15] disadvantageous would seem to be an understatement. It reminds me of a comment by former evolutionist Jobe Martin, DDS: "So, in the fall of 1971 I went to Baylor (Dental College) in Dallas, and gave my first lecture. It was on the evolution of the tooth. And, I talked about how these fish scales gradually migrated into the mouth and became teeth." [16] Another interesting characteristic of the exoskeleton was provided by graduate student Sarah Vinnell: "The exoskeleton of the trilobites is hard and unyielding and must be shed in order for them to grow and increase in size." [17] That fact would seem to emphasize the disadvantageous aspect of exoskeletal material for sight.

Scales-to-teeth is, for me, magnitudes more plausible as an evolutionary "explanation" than exoskeleton-to-eyes, though neither seems reasonable. In fairness, no researcher in my experience has made the suggestion that any portion of the trilobite exoskeleton migrated into an eye socket. Yet, use of the term, "construct" in relation to the trilobite eye, would seem to indicate Clarkson and Levi-Setti were giving the trilobite credit for the "construction." In fact, Levi-Setti [18] did precisely that by arming himself: "...with the conviction that trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat's principle, [19] Abbe's sine law, [20] Snell's laws of refraction, [21] and the optics of birefringent crystals..." [22] He continued his praise: "The schizochroal eye...which probably evolved from the holochroal eye, is a visual system that is quite different (to my knowledge) from any other eye ever evolved in the Animal Kingdom. In the structure of the schizochroal eye, we see trilobites at the peak of their functional creativity, taking advantage of the fundamental laws of geometrical optics in a direct and most efficient way." [23] Amazing animals! were they not? Almighty God cannot be invoked in science, but creatures can create!

Another fascinating aspect of trilobite eyes is the technical reality explained by paleontologist David M. Raup:

The eyes were generally large and quite similar to the eyes of modern insects, crabs, and other arthropods. But if we look at the individual elements of the trilobite eye, we find that the lens systems were very different from what we now have....Each lens is a doublet (that is, made up of two lenses)....The shape of the boundary between the two lenses is unlike any now in use – either by humans or animals. But the shape is nearly identical to designs published independently by Descartes and Huygens in the seventeenth century.

The Descartes and Huygens designs had the purpose of avoiding spherical aberration and were what is known as aplanatic lenses. The only significant difference between them and the trilobite lens is that the Descartes and Huygens lenses were not doublets – that is, they did not have the lower lens. But as Levi-Setti has shown, for these designs to work underwater where the trilobites lived, the lower lens was necessary. Thus, the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today... [24]

It's my understanding, design is anathema to an evolutionist. If such were not the case, it seems to me he'd be a creationist. Perhaps Raup had in mind a design disclaimer such as that expressed by Gon:

I use the term "design" as a lead-in to the parallels between the optic designs of humans and the remarkably evolved morphology of trilobites. Trilobites provide some superb examples of evolution in action...Trilobites make it quite clear that evolution of eyes occurs, and that one does not need to evoke "intelligent design" by a creator to explain them. To do so detracts from the idea of an omniscient being. It would have God tinkering with many flawed and suboptimal "designs" and never developing a perfect one. Who would want to worship a god like that?" [25]

Excuse me! Is it not the evolutionists who have detailed the exquisite design of the trilobite eye? Hopefully one can be excused for questioning how design, presumably in its most literal sense, can be attributed to lenses produced by human ingenuity but trilobites "evolved" them. That's only the tip of this evolutionary iceberg. Raup made reference to the lens designs of René Descartes (1596–1650) and Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695). However, the trilobite allegedly had a visual system 600 million years ago. [26] The claim, then, that trilobites, whose existence is known only from the fossil record, provides evidence for evolution, would seem to be nothing more than forced interpretation of the fossil evidence "viewed" through the opaqueness of evolutionary-colored lenses.

Primordial, primitive, and simple is a trio of annoying buzz words that seem to have been used in a subjective manner. Clarkson and Levi-Setti [27] described the holochroal eye as primordial because it's been observed in the allegedly "earliest genera," but admitted its prevalence in the majority of trilobites. The reason given for considering it primordial would seem to be subjective: "...[T]here is some evidence that...schizochroal eyes...were derived from the eyes of holochroal ancestors by paedomorphosis." [28] How much evidence is there? Fully developed holochroal eyes and fully developed schizochroal eyes have been observed in the fossil record. No indication was given of the existence of any "intermediate" form. The "evidence," then, would seem to have been conjured up in the imagination.

Biologist Hannes F. Paulus admitted the holochroal eye is the more prevalent form, labeled it "primitive," insisted the schizochroal eye "must have" evolved from the holochroal, but gave credit to Clarkson and Levi Setti who "think" the evolution was accomplished as a result of paedomorphosis. [29] Biologist Kenneth M. Towe was able to see a grouping of "simple" eyes into an aggregation which resulted in the schizochroal eye. [30] Yet, his description of the individual lenses of the schizochroal eye (each presumably "simple"), gave every indication of complexity: "...[I]f an evaluation is made solely on the basis of crystallography, some of the extinct trilobites appear to have evolved a significantly better optical system than that of the few living arthropods known to have calcified corneal lenses. [31] His conclusion would seem to belie his assertion.

Geologists William L. Stockton and Richard Cowen "interpreted" the evolution of the schizochroal eye as "rapid...especially within the neural network behind the eye..." [32] They saw the schizochroal eye as not advantageous enough to prevent extinction but apparently relatively successful enough to permit survival in excess of 150 million years. Yet, they also expressed a measure of wonder that would seem to dovetail the conclusion reached by Towe: "It is interesting that nothing like the schizochroal eye has ever evolved in any of the hundreds of thousands of species of later arthropods." [33] One can only wonder what eye design would have prevented trilobite "extinction." One can also only wonder, How rapid is rapid? if the entire eye "evolved" rapidly, but neural "evolution" more so. Perhaps this is what Prof. Richard Dawkins inferred in his version of eye evolution: "Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 per cent, and the difference is significant." [34] That would seem to me to be a lightweight answer. Hopefully one can be excused for asking, Which half? On the other side, that question may have been answered by geologist John L. Cisne: "...[S]implistic attempts at understanding arthropod evolution in terms of direct transition from one adult form to another can and have led to confusing and erroneous conclusions. It is the entire developmental pattern that evolves, and it evolves in concert." [35] Perhaps classical music also evolved in concert.

One of the more interesting features of trilobite anatomy for me, is eyes on stalks. Yet, the scarcity of information in the literature would seem to indicate the feature was not as interesting to field researchers. One of the few exceptions, paleontologist William H. Easton, would seem to have registered surprise: "A rather startling modification produces eyes at the tips of long stalks above their normal sites...Presumably the stalk-eyed trilobites were half-buried grovelers in the surficial sediment." [36] Levi-Setti agreed: "One can also speculate that the turret like eyes of many trilobites, protruding as they did from the cephalic surface, could have been very profitably used as watchtowers above the sea floor level and still enable complete concealment of the hunter below a layer of sand." [37]

Yet those claims would seem to be doubtful. Just as interesting as the fact of eyes on stalks is the variety. Fossil collector Frank Galef [38] has a web page displaying those that appear as mere nubs (the species ASAPHUS latus) to those that span 25% of body length (the species ASAPHUS kovalevski). [39] The stalks of A. kovalevski are, by visual estimate, 20 times longer than those of A. latus. That would seem to place a severe restriction on the depth A. latus could grovel without adversely affecting its visual ability. It would seem to indicate that those trilobites possessing eyes on stalks were buried at varying depths in the sediment by mere centimeters of difference. The selective advantage for eyes on stalks if, indeed, it facilitated or necessitated burial in sediment, is not obvious to me. Is there any example(s) of extant organisms with eyes on stalks that survive without burrowing? It might be an interesting research project.

An adage (in paraphrase) has it: "There is none so blind as one who will not see." However, Cohen has given us an example of "one" who cannot see for the most valid of reasons: "All life-forms which preceded the trilobites were blind – so to say; then, suddenly, complex eyesight!" [40] Then what happened? Easton provided this insight: "Various evolutionary trends have been detected in the (trilobite) eyes, such as shifting from ventral to dorsal in position or increasing or diminishing in size." [41] Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was able to see "...the major evolutionary change..." in the trilobite species Phacops rana as the reduction of the number of dorso-ventral lens files (vertical columns). [42] Moore, et. al, provided another "evolutionary" path: "Opposite directions of evolution of the eyes in different stocks are indicated by...reduction of size and ultimate disappearance..." [43]

Trilobites, then, allegedly took evolution from blindness to sight, back to blindness. One must wonder if the "transitions" took place with blinding speed. Is there any possible observation that cannot be "explained" as evolutionary? Rachel Flick provided an observation that confirms my own research experience:

Evolutionary theory, including both gradualism and punk eke, is some variation on the concept of natural selection. The trouble with natural selection, though – with any version of it – is that it doesn't tell you very much...every imaginable circumstance confirms it, including circumstances that contradict each other. Natural selection is utterly insusceptible of disproof – making it, by logical extension, never really provable either. [44]

Lack of proof did not seem to be particularly important for Prof. Peter D. Ward: "...[A] theory must be – in many senses you have to disprove things, it’s very difficult to prove anything, but the scientific method can look at evolution and can use various methodologies and various tests." [45] One can hopefully be excused for questioning what possible test would demonstrate (not prove) the claims that reptiles evolved into birds or the circular "transition" from amphibian to vertebrate to whale. Perhaps what is required here is a redefinition of the term "evo-devo." [46] Perhaps a better definition would be evolution-devolution. It doesn't seem to matter to the typical evolutionist in my research experience.

Another interesting feature of the trilobite eye is focal characteristics.

Levi-Setti described one of those in the doublet structure of the schizochroal eye: "...[B]ecause of their size and focal length, such lenses give the eye a remarkable depth of field with no need for accommodation." Towe provided more specific information on the depth of the visual field:

Experimentation...to test the "vision" of the trilobite lenses...revealed that all objects are inverted and appear to remain in focus from a distance of just a few millimeters up to infinity with no change in the position of the microscope objective required. [48]

Unquestionably the trilobite eye is a striking example of design in a morphological character. My fascination is clearly shared by the paleontologists who have investigated and reported the discoveries. However, that only causes me to be more skeptical of the evolutionary claims made by those investigators. It also more firmly substantiates, for me, the philosophical basis of biological evolutionism.

NOTES

[1] I. L. Cohen. 1984. Trilobites. In: Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 104.

[2] T. Audesirk, G. Audesirk and B. E. Byers. 2002. Biology: Life on Earth, Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 686-689.

[4] K. R. Miller. 2001. Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Boston: WGBH video.

[5] C. Darwin. 1902. Origin of Species (reprinted from the Sixth Edition, with all additions and corrections). New York: D. Appleton, p. 170.

[6] R. Dawkins. 1985. What was all the fuss about? NATURE Vol. 316, p. 683.

[7] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=darwin+on+the+eye

[9] F. B. Salisbury. 1971. Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution. THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, September, p. 338.

[10] NOTE 8.

[11] R. C. Moore, Editor. 1959. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O. The University of Kansas and The Geological Society of America, pp. O88-O90.

[12] sclera "...gives the eye most of its white colour. It consists of fibrin connective tissue and both protects the inner components of the eye and maintains its shape." http://www.territoriopc.com/eng/eye.php

[13] S. M. Gon, III, Ph.D. 2007. The Trilobite Eye. last revised 01 October, http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm

[14] E. N. K. Clarkson and R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobite eyes and the optics of Des Cartes and Huygens. NATURE, vol 254, pp. 665, 666.

[15] See APPENDIX I.

[16] J. Martin. 2000. INCREDIBLE CREATURES THAT DEFY EVOLUTION I. : Reel Productions, LLC.

[17] S. Vinnell. 2005. Order Phacopida: Characters and Anatomy. Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol for academic year 2005-6. Last updated: 21/11, http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/TrilPhac/character.html

[18] R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas. University of Chicago Press, p. 33.

[19] Fermat's principle - "...states (in it's simplest form) that light waves of a given frequency traverse the path between two points which takes the least time." David Raymond. 2006. http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node36.html

[20] Abbe's sine law - "...now called the Abbe sine condition, applies to a lens to form a sharp, distortion-free image." TODAY IN SCIENCE HISTORY. © 1999 - 2007. JANUARY 14 - BIRTHS, http://www.todayinsci.com/1/1_14.htm

[21] Snell's laws of refraction - "...[T]he ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and of refraction is a constant that depends on the media. In optics, the law is used in ray tracing to compute the angles of incidence or refraction, and in experimental optics to find the refractive index of a material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law

[22] optics of birefringent crystals - "A birefringent crystal has two indices of refraction....When an arbitrarily polarized beam enters a birefringent crystal, it splits into two component beams, one polarized perpendicularly to the optical axis, called the ordinary ray (or o-ray), and one with its polarization in a plane which includes the optical axis, called the extraordinary ray (or e-ray). They travel independently in separate directions at different velocities." http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bAGrAm7PwzsJ:www.olemiss.edu/courses/phys319/Birefringence.pdf+optics+of+birefringent+crystals&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

"birefringence a measure of the difference in refractive index." Graphics & Web Programming Team in collaboration with Optical Microscopy at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. Last modification: Friday, Aug 01, 2003. http://www.molecularexpressions.com/optics/lightandcolor/birefringence.html

[23] R. Levi-Setti. 1976. ANCIENT AND WONDERFUL EYES. FOSSILS, vol. 1, p. 29.

[24] D. M. Raup. 1979. Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology. FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BULLETIN, January, p. 24.

[25] NOTE 13.

[26] E. N. K. Clarkson and R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobite eyes and the optics of Des Cartes and Huygens. NATURE, vol. 254, p. 663.

[27] Ibid.

[28] paedomorphosis – Phylogenetic change in which juvenile characteristics are retained in the adult form of an organism. THE FREE DICTIONARY BY FARLEX.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/paedomorphosis

[29] H. F. Paulus. 1979. Eye Structure and the Monophyly of the Arthropods. In: A. P. Gupta, Ed. Arthropod Phylogeny. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 303.

[30] K. M. Towe. 1973. Trilobite eyes: Calcified lenses in vivo. SCIENCE, vol. 179, p. 1008.

[31] Ibid., p. 1009.

[32] W. L. Stockton and R. Cowen. 1976. Stereoscopic vision in one eye: paleophysiology of the schizochroal eye of trilobites. PALEOBIOLOGY, vol. 2, p. 311.

[33] Ibid., pp. 313, 314.

[34] R. Dawkins. 2008. Where'd You Get Those Peepers? Wikiquote 13 April, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

[35] J. L. Cisne. 1982. Origin of the Crustacea. In: L. G. Abele, Ed. The Biology of Crustacea. New York: Academic Press, p. 68.

[36] W. H. Easton. 1960. Trilobites and Chelicerates. In: Invertebrate Paleontology. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher, p. 495.

[37] R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas. University of Chicago Press, p. 53.

[38] AMONG MY TRILOBITES. ESTABLISHED 570,000,000 B.C. UPDATED MAY 2007.

http://tyra-rex.com/trilobite/t.html

[39] AMONG MY TRILOBITES. Ordovician Period Part 1: Asaphida.

http://tyra-rex.com/trilobite/OrdA/to1.html (see APPENDIX IV).

[40] NOTE 1, pp. 103-104.

[41] NOTE 36.

[42] N. Eldredge. 1971. The allopatric model and phylogeny in Paleozoic invertebrates. EVOLUTION, vol. 25, pp. 163, 162.

[43] R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., p. 511.

[44] R. Flick. 1985. Evolution's Missing Evidence. POLICY REVIEW, Winter 1985, pp. 58-61. Cited in: ORIGINS RESEARCH, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring/Summer 1985, p. 5.

[45] The Dori Monson Show, KIRO Radio 710. 2005. Stephen C. Meyer vs. Peter D. Ward, Transcript. Seattle: Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3421

[46] evo-devo—evolutionary developmental biology. Brian K. Hall. 2006. Skeletal Biology in an Evo-Devo-Palaeo Lab. Hall Lab Newsletter 59, The Palaeontological Association, http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=90

[47] NOTE 23, p. 34.

[48] NOTE 30, p. 1009.

PART VIII

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

ECOLOGICAL NICHES, THE ROCKY ROAD TO ADAPTATION

Adaptation to ecological niches would not seem to be a proposal that is predictive. Wherever researchers look, organisms are already in place. The literature doesn't seem to indicate any awareness of "preadaptation." There seems to be no evidence of an evolutionary path being "pursued" by an organism to compensate for some future alteration of the current niche. Biologist Richard C. Lewontin would seem to have agreed: "If ecological niches can be specified only by the organisms that occupy them, evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted." [1] Philosopher Ronald H. Brady reinforced the criticism: "How do we know that an animal is optimally designed for an environment? It survives in that environment. Thus, no matter how we describe good design after the fact, the criterion used for the detection of good design is always survival." [2] That admission would seem to indicate a level of circularity in the assertion of adaptation. Prof. Stephen Jay Gould would seem to have discounted preadaptation as anything more than evolutionary wishful thinking: "...[T]he issue is not, can preadaptation save gradualism in some cases, but rather, does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no....These tales, in the "Just-So Stories" tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases, long ago wore down my faith in gradualism." [3] Faith is an interesting term of expression for an evolutionary biologist.

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge would seem to have accepted the prevailing wisdom regarding niches based on the research of others: "...[T]he more specialized a species is the less able to cope with change a species will be once the inevitable happens and old habitats change beyond the point of recognition." [4] What does that mean in a practical sense? What is a demonstrative example of an organism that can be observed adapting in an evolutionary sense to an ecological niche that is in flux? Eldredge also recognized a serious problem: "...[W]e have such meagre knowledge of their (trilobites) feeding and locomotory systems the two major anatomical/functional aspects of animals on which biologists interested in adaptation have historically concentrated." [5]

The descriptions of ecological niches encountered in my research would seem to be postdictive as indicated above. It would seem to be no less true for fossil "niches" as noted by paleontologist Harry B. Whittington: "...[T]here is evidence that certain trilobites were adapted to life in particular ecological niches in the ancient seas, but little evidence that most were adapted to a restricted environment." [6] Paleontologist Richard A. Fortey would seem to have substantiated Whittington's observation: "During their 270 million-year reign in the Earth’s seas, the trilobites inhabited a broad range of niches as predators, scavengers, particle feeders and filter feeders. Some scuttled on the seafloor or swam for short bursts, whereas others cruised at various depths in the water column." [7] Eldredge expressed what has all the earmarks of perplexity concerning the ecological necessity of what he would seem to have considered a strange morphological character: "...I am totally at a loss to explain strange structures like the pair of enormous, hornlike spines on either side of the head of Deltacephalaspis." [8]

There seems to be no indication the niches described were in a process of modification that would have caused the demise of trilobites after such an alleged long period of time. That obviously also occurred to entomologist Robert E. Snodgrass: "It would seem...that a trilobite should be quite fit to live under modern conditions, and paleontologists have no positive evidence to account for their early extinction." [9] Proposed reasons for trilobite "extinction" include "...inconsistent molting style..." [10] and "...global perturbations..." [11] "...in an event called the Permian Mass Extinction." [12]

"Extinction," another buzz word, and another topic beyond the scope of this essay, would seem to be no more than another evolutionary heads-I-win-tails-you-lose construct. Why? The same fossil evidence is used by evolutionists to account for the origin and "extinction" of life as admitted by Prof. George Gaylord Simpson: "Organisms diversify into literally millions of species, then the vast majority of those species perish and other millions take their places for an eon until they, too, are replaced." [13]

What, then, is a reasonable explanation for the "extinction" of trilobites? Geologist Danita Brandt Velbel provided an interesting observation: "The presence of both whole enrolled and non-enrolled trilobites in the same shale horizon suggests that the trilobites were killed instantaneously—so quickly that some did not have time to enroll for protection. Complete preservation of the multisegmented trilobites is also a strong argument for rapid burial of the trilobites...[A]rthropod carcasses are attacked immediately upon death of the animal, resulting in disarticulation of the exoskeleton. Immediate burial of the animal minimizes destruction by scavengers." [14]

Rapid burial seems to be of no particular concern to evolutionists currently. In fact, geologist Kevin R. Henke, has accused French sedimentologist Guy Berthault (one of my heroes) of what would seem to be a variation of antiquarianism: "...[H]is knowledge of the sedimentology literature and stratigraphic field methods are decades or even centuries out of date....In the 1960s and 1970s, long before Berthault's research, geologists knew that laminae (layers of sediment or sedimentary rock each of which is less than one centimeter thick...) can form under a variety of conditions, which may include rapid deposition..." [15] Yet, my research experience would seem to indicate the admission of some level of castrophism is a relatively recent evolutionist concession made only because the castrophic evidence presented by creationists is patently obvious. Creationists John C. Whitcomb, Th.D. and Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. presented an abundance of evidence for catastrophism in the early 1960s. [16] Creationist George McCready Price had preceded them by decades. [17] Whitcomb and Morris, at least, are still being taken to task for it. [18]

Paleontologist William H. Easton [19] related one of the pieces of "prevailing wisdom" in biology asserting the "evolution" of spines was adaptive through a series, "...from crawling to swimming and then to planktonic existence." [20] Paleontologist Raymond C. Moore and colleagues noted a significant problem: "...[I]t is rather implausible as applied to a blind trilobite..." [21] Whittington also seemed less than impressed with the adaptive explanation of spines: "...[W]e know nothing of the appendages of these trilobites...[T]he possession of a spiny exoskeleton does not preclude the possibility of bottom-dwelling." [22] Easton was less reserved in his criticism: "Spinosity cannot be utilized as an index to depth of water, for not only are near-surface planktonic creatures spinose, but some markedly spinose isopods [23] come from bathyal [24] waters. Moreover, one very spinose trilobite...seems to have been adapted to life on a hard substratum." [25] Eldredge' incredulity would seem to be justified. [26]

As the reader might expect, spines is not the only morphological character of the trilobite that has been a cause of bewilderment. Physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti expressed uncertainty concerning the feature that has been the focus of his research:

Why did the phacopid trilobites develop such a sophisticated optical system? The only probable explanation is that new visual structures were evolved in response to new environmental pressures, as a means of survival. Or to put it another way: they developed a new kind of eye because they needed a new kind of eye." [27]

One can hopefully be excused for asking, How did the trilobites "know" they needed a new kind of eye? Or, How did "natural selection" "know" the trilobites needed a new kind of eye? What "modification" of the environment caused the need for a new kind of eye? The questions, though derisive, also have a serious element. Moore, et. al. noted the occurrence of "...evolution to blindness." What would cause trilobites with vision to "make the decision" to "seek out an environment" in which "evolved" eyes were not needed? Or, what "modification" of an environment would present such "need" for trilobites with vision? The entire scenario would seem to me to be another example of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose unverifiable assumption; forced interpretation of the observable evidence. How much time was required for "evolution" of the eye in those trilobites that "evolved" blindness? How long was it a staple of morphology? How much time was required for "reversion?" More importantly, WHY?

Enrollment is another feature that has been the object of a significant amount of research. Paleontologist Lancaster D. Burling proposed one evolutionary perspective apparently based on the prevailing wisdom: "...[T]he late development of the ability to roll up into a ball has been appealed to as indicating that the trilobite was the supreme arbiter of the early Cambrian seas and needed no such protection." [28] Moore, et. al. pointed out an exception to the rule: "Some lower Cambrian opisthoparians had acquired the roll-up habit." [29] Paleontologist Jan Bergstrom provided another example of what seems to be the evolutionist talent for saving the theory from the inconvenience of observation: "Ultimately it should be noted that evolution could go backwards and produce forms which secondarily had lost their enrolling ability..." [30] Of course! Let us invoke my redefinition of evo-devo (evolution-devolution). It seems to make no difference to an evolutionary paleontologist. He seems to be able to have his fossilized cake and also eat it.

Levi-Setti provided what is arguably one of the more interesting assessments of enrollment from a creationist perspective: "Although enrollment most likely represented a defense mechanism, in the long run it may have precipitated the disappearance of the trilobites. It is conceivable that with the advent of fishes an enrolled trilobite could have been swallowed more easily than an outstretched one." [31] That statement qualifies as the most imaginative "explanation" of "extinction" encountered in my 30 years of research. Biologist Paul Tasch would seem to have put the final nail in the trilobite coffin: "Completely enrolled, a given trilobite was effectively invulnerable to most predators. However, during Devonian-Mississippian time, trilobites became likely prey to sharks whose pavement teeth were quite capable of crushing them whether enrolled or not." [32] It seems to be nothing short of a miracle that any trilobite survived long enough to "become extinct." [33]

Paleontologist Claude Babin proposed a "process" he identified as "coaptation," (which he described as functional adjustment) [34] to explain enrollment. He reiterated the commonly accepted inference regarding enrollment and added one of his own: "Enrolment [35] is generally interpreted as a defence reaction against predators; it can also favour the conservation of water for inhabitants of the tidal zone." [36] It's unclear to me why Babin considered that statement significant enough to include in his paper. Geologist James H. Stitt accepted the party line but also would seem to have agreed with Velbel: [37] "In order for enrollment to be an effective defense against predators, trilobites had to be able to enroll rapidly at the first hint of danger....If the trilobites were startled by a sudden influx of terrigenous mud into the predominantly carbonate area where they were living, they might have reacted by instinctively enrolling to protect themselves..." [38] That seems to me a reasonable description of one of the features of the Genesis Flood.

Biologist Nadine V. Wilmot, though accepting enrollment as protection, also saw a more basic function: "Although it can be seen that the trilobite exoskeleton was well developed for enrolment, the general shape was also mechanically strong for 'normal' life situations..." [39] The question that comes to mind for me is, If enrollment was necessary for survival of the trilobite in a particular habitat, why was it not necessary for the other biological organisms that shared that habitat? [40]

NOTES

[1] R. C. Lewontin. 1978. Adaptation. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March, p. 215.

[2] R. H. Brady. 1979. Natural Selection and the Criteria by Which a Theory Is Judged. SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY, vol. 28, p. 606.

[3] S. J. Gould. 1977. The Return of Hopeful Monsters. NATURAL HISTORY, vol. 86, June/July, p. 28.

[4] N. Eldredge. 1987. The Trilobites: Cambrian Excursions and Later Diversions. In: Life Pulse: Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record. New York: Facts on File Publications, p. 75.

[5] N. Eldredge. 1977. Trilobites and Evolutionary Patterns. In: Anthony Hallam, Editor. Patterns of Evolution. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, p. 316.

[6] H. B. Whittington. 1961. A Natural History of Trilobites. NATURAL HISTORY, July, p. 15.

[7] R. A. Fortey. 2004. The Lifestyles of the Trilobites. American Scientist,

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mHiEIpphyu4J:cornellcollege.edu/geology/courses/Greenstein/paleo/trilobites.pdf+trilobite+adaptation+to+ecological+niches&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us

[8] N. Eldredge. 1980. An Extravagance of Species. NATURAL HISTORY, July, pp. 49. [See APPENDIX 5]

[9] R. E. Snodgrass. 1952. A Textbook of Arthropod Anatomy. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates, p. 8.

[10] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021125072153.htm

[11] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_199903/ai_n8827885

[12] http://pcql.com/2006/11/22/trilobites-fossil-arthropods-of-distinction/

[13] G. G. Simpson. SCIENCE and Philosophy web page

http://sciphilos.info/doc%20PAGES%20/docSimpsonDarwin.html

[14] D. B. Velbel. 1985. ICHNOLOGIC, TAPHONOMIC, AND SEDIMETOLOGIC CLUES TO THE DEPOSITION OF CINCINNATIAN SHALES (UPPER ORDOVICIAN), OHIO, U.S.A. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publications No. 35, p. 304.

[15] K. R. Henke. Undated. Critique of Guy Berthault's "Stratigraphy." Theotokos web page, http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/henke.html

[16] J. C. Whitcomb and H. M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

[17] G. M. Price. 1923. The New Geology. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assoc.

[Last Update: February 7, 2002], http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/

[19] W. H. Easton. 1960. Trilobites and Chelicerates. In: Invertebrate Paleontology. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publisher, p. 516.

[20] Planktonic "...suspended or growing in a fluid environment as opposed to [being] attached to a surface" Leeds Dental Institute, Curriculum 2004,

http://www.lts.leeds.ac.uk/glossaries/term.php?ID=89&SUBJECT=2&PHPSESSID=b190e0fc2dbcd071f1786e42c1faf986

[21] R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., p. 515.

[22] NOTE 6.

[23] Isopoda. Approximately 4,500 marine species are known from all regions of the world's ocean, living most abundantly on the sea bottom. Brusca, Richard. 1997. Isopoda. Version 06 August 1997. http://tolweb.org/Isopoda/6320/1997.08.06

in The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/

[24] bathyal - 1. adj. [Geology] ID: 54. Pertaining to the environment of deposition and the organisms of the ocean between depths of 200 m [656 ft],

the edge of the continental shelf, and 2000 m [6560 ft].

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=bathyal

[25] NOTE 19, p. 518.

[26] NOTE 8.

[27] R. Levi-Setti. 1976. ANCIENT AND WONDERFUL EYES. FOSSILS, vol. 1, p. 34.

[28] L. D. Burling. 1917. Was the lower Cambrian trilobite supreme? THE OTTAWA NATURALIST, vol. 31, p. 77.

[29] NOTE 21, p. 512.

[30] Bergstrom, J. 1973. Organization, life, and systematics of trilobites. FOSSILS AND STRATA, No. 2, p. 36.

[31] NOTE 27, p. 46.

[32] P. Tasch. 1980. The Skeleton Shedders (Arthropods II). In: Paleobiology of the Invertebrates. New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 518.

[33] See the textual commentary associated with NOTE 13.

[34] C. Babin. 1980. Trilobites. In: D. Palmer, Editor. Elements of Paleontology. New York: John wiley & Sons, p. 260.

[35] Though encountered only occasionally in my research, this variation in spelling has been accepted in the literature.

[36] Ibid., p. 262.

[37] NOTE 14.

[38] J. H. Stitt. 1983. Enrolled late Cambrian trilobites from the Davis Formation, southeast Missouri. JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, vol. 57, p. 95.

[39] N. V. Wilmot. 1990. Biomechanics of trilobite exoskeletons. PALAEONTOLOGY, vol. 33, p. 758.

[40] See APPENDIX VI.

PART IX

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE: CONCLUSION

Biologist Sidnie M. Manton offered a brief general overview of the alleged condition of ecological adjustment: "...[A]daptation of species to specific environmental conditions...is an important matter. But there are instances in which it is very difficult to believe that adaptation to habitat conditions has in fact played an important part in evolution. The vertebrate fossil record...equally applicable to invertebrates...shows examples where, over some 20 million generations, steady changes have taken place that have increased the efficiency of the animals, without restricting them to one particular habitat..." [1] Prof. George Gaylord Simpson would seem to have asserted what he should have had the obligation to demonstrate: "The primitive ameba has remained adapted, hence has survived, while the lordly dinosaurs lost adaptation and therefore life." [2] Philosopher of science Philip Kitcher provided what is arguably the most blatant example of the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose evolutionist mindset in my research experience: "...[T]he idea of predicting the past may sound peculiar. After all, surely a prediction must concern the future? Names do not matter here. What is important is that evolutionary theory does something analogous to prediction – it is sometimes called "postdiction" or "retrodiction" – by telling us about the past." [3]

What creationist could possibly write anything that would make his case any better than Kitcher has done? The title of his book, "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism," would seem to be a classic example of a charge that looks back. It's my insistence that "names" do matter here. Absurdity comes immediately to mind. Evolutionary "theory" is an abstraction; it can do nothing in and of itself. Evolutionists however, can use it and manipulate it for the purpose of abusing science. Is there any evolutionist to whom the charge of abuse would be applicable? Let the reader decide!

NOTES

[1] S. M. Manton. 1979. Functional Morphology and the Evolution of the Hexapod Classes. In: A. P. Gupta, Ed. Arthropod Phylogeny. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 387.

[2] G. G. Simpson. 1960. The world in to which Darwin led us. SCIENCE, vol. 131, p. 972.

[3] P. Kitcher. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p. 80.

Saturday 14th June 2008

http://www.cin.org/saints/basilgre.html

St. Basil the Great (329-379)

Bishop and Doctor of the Church

Courtesy of Catholic Information Network (CIN)

APPENDIX 1

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Abbe's sine law - "...now called the Abbe sine condition, applies to a lens to form a sharp, distortion-free image." TODAY IN SCIENCE HISTORY. © 1999 - 2007. JANUARY 14 - BIRTHS, http://www.todayinsci.com/1/1_14.htm

actualism - The principle that the same processes and natural laws that operated in the past are those we can actually observe or infer from observations as operating at present. Under present usage, uniformitarianism has the same meaning as actualism for most geologists.

Plummer - McGeary - Carlson. Physical Geology, Updated 8th Edition, Glossary, U/A

http://www.mhhe.com/earthsci/geology/plummer/student/olc/glossc.mhtml

Arachnida: Spiders, mites, scorpions, whipscorpions, pseudoscorpions,

arthropods. "Modern arthropods include insects, spiders, centipedes, shrimp, and crayfish." Understanding Evolution website, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/arthropods_02

bathyal - 1. adj. [Geology] ID: 54. Pertaining to the environment of deposition and the organisms of the ocean between depths of 200 m [656 ft],

the edge of the continental shelf, and 2000 m [6560 ft].

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=bathyal

"...biramous (literally, "two-branched") limb." Stephen Jay Gould. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, p. 104.

"birefringence a measure of the difference in refractive index." Graphics & Web Programming Team in collaboration with Optical Microscopy at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. Last modification: Friday, Aug 01, 2003. http://www.molecularexpressions.com/optics/lightandcolor/birefringence.html

Cephalopods "...are strictly marine and are found in all of the world's oceans....

Cephalopoda means "head foot" and this group has the most complex brain of any invertebrate. Cephalopods are characterized by a completely merged head and foot, with a ring of arms and/or tentacles surrounding the head."

Chelicerata (phylum Arthropoda) A subphylum of arthropods..., From: A Dictionary of Zoology, Date: 1999, Author: MICHAEL ALLABY, Research, Inc. © Copyright 2008. All rights reserved, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-Chelicerata.html

complex - 1: a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complex

complicated - 1: consisting of parts intricately combined 2: difficult to analyze, understand, or explain, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicated

conodont: A jawless fish that had tiny, tooth-like phosphate pieces that are abundant in the fossil record, these were the earliest known vertebrates. © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

Cretaceous Period has an assigned age of 142-65 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

Deltacephalaspis (genus), Phacopida (order), Trilobita (class), Arthropoda (phylum), The Paleobiology Database,

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=21530&is_real

_user=0

Devonian period...fourth period of the Paleozoic era of geologic time between 408 and 360 million years ago...it was named (1838) by the geologists Sir Roderick Impey Murchison and Adam Sedgwick for Devonshire, England, where they first investigated rocks formed during the period. © 2000–2008 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0815352.html

disarticulate v. v.tr. To separate at the joints; disjoint.

THE FREE DICTIONARY BY FARLEX, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disarticulated

dorsal. toward the upper surface of an animal while in its life position. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 172.

"...dorsoventral files (vertical columns) on the visual surface of the eye..."

N. Eldredge. 1972. SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION OF PHACOPS RANA (GREEN, 1832) AND PHACOPS IOWENSIS DELO, 1935 (TRILOBITA) FROM THE MIDDLE DEVONIAN OF NORTH AMERICA. BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, VOLUME 147: ARTICLE 2, p. 56, http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/1095/1/B147a02.pdf

doublure - "shell continuation under the trilobite" S. M. Gon III, last revised 01 January 2008, http://www.trilobites.info/glossary.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

Enrollment...the ability to enroll into a ball (similar to the modern-day pill bug. Virtual Fossil Museum. The Evolutionary Arms Race - Examples Among Trilobites.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/TrilobiteArmsRace.htm

evo-devo--evolutionary developmental biology. Brian K. Hall. 2006. Skeletal Biology in an Evo-Devo-Palaeo Lab. Hall Lab Newsletter 59, The Palaeontological Association,

http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=90

exoskeleton. The external support structure for arthropods. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 172.

Fermat's principle "...states (in it's simplest form) that light waves of a given frequency traverse the path between two points which takes the least time." David Raymond. 2006. http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node36.html

gena (singular of genae). The cheeks of a trilobite; the areas lateral from the central area of the glabella. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New York: Comstock Books, p. 173.

Gondwana - "One of the most enduring features of our planet, Gondwana (or Gondwanaland) was a composite continent, made up of South America, Africa, Madagascar, Antarctica, India, other parts of South Asia, and Australia. At one time it even included Florida and most of Southern Europe." M. Alan Kazlev. 2000. The Supercontinent of Gondwana, http://www.palaeos.com/Earth/Geography/Gondwana.htm

Gradualism-The view that evolution occurred gradually over time, with transitional forms grading finely in a line of descent. ISCID (The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design) Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy - BETA, http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Gradualism

Habitat is a combination of environmental factors that provides food, water, cover and space that a living thing needs to survive and reproduce. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Last updated: September 13, 2007, http://www.fws.gov/habitat/

Harpid trilobites have a large horseshoe-shaped head that wraps around the side of the rest of the tiny body... http://services.nsdl.org:8080/nsdloai/OAI?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=oai:nsdl.org:pri:00331

Harpidae - "better known as the Harp shells,"

http://www.worldwideconchology.com/fam/Harpidae.shtml

"The shells of this family have a polished highly patterned appearance. All have strong axial ribs. A flaring lip on the final whorl dominates the flattened spire. The family has less than a dozen species."

Family: Harpidae (Harps), http://shells.tricity.wsu.edu/archerdshellcollection/Gastropoda/Harpidae.html

Isopoda. Approximately 4,500 marine species are known from all regions of the world's ocean, living most abundantly on the sea bottom. Brusca, Richard. 1997. Isopoda. Version 06 August 1997. http://tolweb.org/Isopoda/6320/1997.08.06

in The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/

"...homologous (hav[ing] a common evolutionary origin)..." John R. Meyer. The First Arthropods. Evolution and Diversity, page 2. © Copyright 2006, All rights reserved, http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/text02/arthropods.html

"Mandibles are feeding appendages functioning as "jaws" in the arthropod groups in which they occur." A Popadíc, G Panganiban, D Rusch, W A Shear, T C Kaufman. 1998. Molecular evidence for the gnathobasic derivation of arthropod mandibles and for the appendicular origin of the labrum and other structures. DEV GENES EVOL, May,

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:9601987

"...maxillae...complex jaw apparatus..." R. Sardá, G. San Martín, E. López, D. Martin and D. George (eds.). 2006. SCIENTIA MARINA, December, http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:xNim6DxkrRgJ:www.icm.csic.es/scimar/pdf/70/sm70s3331.pdf+arthropod+maxillae&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=us

morphology 1. the branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants, Your Dictionary.com, © 1996-2008 LoveToKnow, Corp. All Rights Reserved, http://www.yourdictionary.com/morphology

Myriapoda: Nearly 13,000 species of arthropod are classified in the Myriapoda, the "many-legged ones." Ruppert, E.E. and Barnes, R.D. 1994. i-Invertebrate Zoology-i. Sixth Edition. Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth. Introduction to the Myriapoda, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/uniramia/myriapoda.html

Nephranops - "The most characteristic features of the genus Nephranops are the particular mode of reduction of the eye and the configuration of the cephalic doublure... [] [T]he so-called "Nephranops pattern" or "independent eye-reduction [was] restricted to a reduction in the number of lenses, even to zero, while the shape of the other parts of the eye remains mostly unchanged."

Catherine Crônier. 2007. LARVAL MORPHOLOGY AND ONTOGENY OF AN UPPER DEVONIAN PHACOPID: NEPHRANOPS FROM THURINGIA, GERMANY. Journal of Paleontology, Jul, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200707/ai_n19434225/pg_3

Olenellus: "...[M]embers of Olenellina rank among the earliest trilobites in Cambrian statigraphy, dating to about 560 million years ago. Morphologically primitive, its evolutionary origin from Precambrian, segmented worms (if you subscribe to this hypothesis) is evident." Fossil Museum, http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/TrilobitesCanada/Olenellus/

Olenellus.htm

opisthoparian trilobites: "...characterized mainly by a facial suture which crosses the dorsal side of the cephalon to some point on its rear margin... (opistho; behind...paria; cheek)." R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker and A. G. Fischer. 1952. Invertebrate Fossils. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., pp. 491, 479.

An excellent visual presentation has been provided by Dr. S. M. Gon III. 2000. Facial suture types, http://www.trilobites.info/sutures.htm

optics of birefringent crystals - "A birefringent crystal has two indicces of refraction....When an arbitrarily polarized beam enters a birefringent crystal, it splits intotwo component beams, one polarized perpendicularly to the optical axis, calledthe ordinary ray (or o-ray), and one with its polarization in a plane whichincludes the optical axis, called the extraordinary ray (or e-ray). They travelindependently in separate directions at different velocities." http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bAGrAm7PwzsJ:www.olemiss.edu/courses/phys319/Birefringence.pdf+optics+of+birefringent+crystals&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

Ordovician Period has an assigned age of 495-433 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

paedomorphosis - Phylogenetic change in which juvenile characteristics are retained in the adult form of an organism. THE FREE DICTIONARY BY FARLEX. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/paedomorphosis

Paleozoic (Old Life) era, consisting of the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous and Permian Periods, has an assigned age of 545-248 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

Peccaries...are New World relatives of the Old World true pigs...

Illinois State Museum, http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/peccary.html

Permian Period has an assigned age of 290-248 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/whatisphylogeny.html

primitive - crude, rudimentary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primitive

pygidium. The posterior or tail of a trilobite. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 175.

rudimentary - 3: very imperfectly developed or represented only by a vestige, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rudimentary

sclera "...gives the eye most of its white colour. It consists of fibrin connective tissue and both protects the inner components of the eye and maintains its shape." http://www.territoriopc.com/eng/eye.php

Snell's laws of refraction - "...[T]he ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and of refraction is a constant that depends on the media. In optics, the law is used in ray tracing to compute the angles of incidence or refraction, and in experimental optics to find the refractive index of a material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law

"...[S]omites form at the posterior end of the pygidium..." Robert R. Hessler. 1962. Secondary segmentation in the thorax of trilobites. JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, November, http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/6/1305

Speciation, Allopatric: Speciation that occurs when two or more populations of a species are geographically isolated from one another sufficiently that they do not interbreed. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

speciation, peripheral isolate: A form of allopatric speciation in which the new species is formed from a small population isolated at the edge of the ancestral population's geographic range. Also called peripatric speciation. © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html

species - "...[T]he claim that species are individuals...is usually presented as a view about particular species, such as the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, and makes aclaim about their ontological status: the species Canis familiaris is an individual rather than (as past orthodoxy held) a natural kind." Joseph LaPorte. 2004. New York: Cambridge University Press. In: Philosophy in Review 24 (December 2004), pp.423-426, http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rCSZIZG38HIJ:www.arts.ualberta.ca/~raw/laporterev.pdf+ontological+status+of+species&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us

suture. A line in the cephalon where the parts separate during the molting process. Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 175.

"Systematics--classifications" Class Trilobita Walch 1771. 2002. Palæos, http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Trilobita/Trilobita.htm

thorax. The central body of the trilobite between the cephalon (head) and the pygidium (tail). Thomas E. Whiteley, Gerald J. Kloc and Carlton E. Brett. 2002. Trilobites of New York: An Illustrated Guide (Glossary). New YorK: Comstock Books, p. 176.

Triarthrus (eatoni Hall), Yale University webpage: http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/locations/beechers/219.html

Triassic Period has an assigned age of 206—248 million years ago. Geology: Rocks of Northern Ireland-Geological Column,

http://www.geographyinaction.co.uk/Geology%20files/Geol_Col.html

Trilobita (trilobites; phylum Arthropoda) The most primitive arthropod class...From: A Dictionary of Zoology, Date: 1999, Author: MICHAEL ALLABY, HighBeam™ Research, Inc. © Copyright 2008. All rights reserved, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-Trilobita.html

uniformitarianism - Principle that geologic processes operating at present are the same processes that operated in the past. The principle is stated more succinctly as "The present is the key to the past." (also see actualism)

vermiform, adj. Resembling or having the long, thin, cylindrical shape of a worm. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vermiform.

APPENDIX 2

THE MIRACLE OF TIME

Following is my attempt to engage a Wald supporter in debate.

From: Bill Crofut <bccac@basicisp.net>

To: creation-email@don-lindsay-archive.org

Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:50:27 -0400

Subject: Inquiry

Dear Dr. Lindsay,

Your website, http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_wald.html, was discovered in a recent search on the topic, "George Wald."

Your criticism of the use of the Wald quote was of interest because my past use of the same quote was not to emphasize the "impossible" aspect. My motivation was to point up his use of the phrase, "...I believe..." My point was (and remains) that evolutionism is a false religious belief system.

Prof. Richard Dawkins has publicly defended his use of the term, believe:

"One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you."

[1997. Is Science a Religion? HUMANIST, January/February,

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html]

Yet, Prof. Kenneth Miller would seem to have considered his own use of the phrase a professional slip of the lip:

"We believe that organisms – Well, I shouldn't say we believe. The good genetic evidence is that there are about 100,000 genes in a human being."

[A FIRING LINE DEBATE. 1997. RESOLVED: THE EVOLUTIONISTS SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE CREATION. Broadcast December 19. Columbia, SC: Producers Incorporated for Television, transcript, p. 47 (modified transcript available online: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm)]

It seems to me, if the good genetic evidence were all that good, Miller would be as justified as Dawkins to "believe." As far as the "evidence" to which Dawkins makes note, Prof. W. R. Thompson was not convinced:

"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion."

[1956. Introduction. In: Charles Darwin. Origin of Species. Everyman Library No. 811. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. Reprinted with permission. Evolution Protest Movement. 1967. NEW CHALLENGING ‘INTRODUCTION' TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Selsey, Sussex: Selsey Press Ltd., pp. 17-18]

What has transpired in the intervening 50+ years to refute Prof. Thompson's

commentary? Will you accuse me of misquoting or quoting Thompson out of context?

Your admission that Wald used "...more than a page..." to explain why the

scientific meaning of impossible is not impossible does not seem to be of any particular help to you in your argument. The following scientific website contains a definition of impossible that seems to be no different from the "colloquial" definition: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?impossible.

Just as interesting for me as Wald's belief quote is the following:

"The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the

category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

It doesn't seem to me "...almost certainly..." and "...may be..." are phrases that elicit confidence. Further, when did "miracles" become part of the language of science? Wald used no quotation marks around the term. Perhaps you're aware of another page of Waldensian "explanation" of why the scientific meaning of miracles is not the same as the colloquial meaning.

Prof. Wald would seem to have been referring to the Urey/Miller experiment at the University of Chicago. That would also seem to be the case in a later paper:

"...[T]he only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation....When we as scientists say then that life originated

inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessarily mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life."

[1958. Innovation in Biology. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September,

pp. 100, 101]

Is there any difference between the scientific and colloquial meanings of any

words or phrases in that quote? Has Wald been misquoted or, quoted out of context?

The following quote also does not seem to square with Wald's position:

"THOSE who work on the origin of life must necessarily make bricks without very much straw, which goes a long way to explain why this field of study is so often regarded with deep suspicion. Speculation is bound to be rife, and it has also frequently been wild. Some attempts to account for the origin of life on the Earth, however ingenious, have shared much with imaginative literature and little with theoretical inference of the kind which can be confronted with observational evidence of some kind or another."

[NEWS AND VIEWS. 1967. What Future for Biogenesis? NATURE, VOL 216, November 18, p. 635]

Even the editors at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN seem to have admitted (after the passage of a quarter-century) that Wald's contention was less than convincing:

"Although stimulating, this article (a reprint of Wald's 1954 article) probably

represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds?"

[C. Folsome. 1979. Life: Origin and Evolution. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS. Quoted in: Edwart T. Peltzer, Ph.D. 2006. ABIOGENESIS: The Faith & the Facts (DVD). Colorado Springs: Access Research Network]

That quote has another interesting facet. Rather than accept Dr. Peltzer's word for the correctness of the quote, it was my intention to go to the source. The response to my inquiry for the cost of obtaining a copy of the 1979 Special Edition of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN was met with a notice that it was no longer available. However, an invitation was extended to provide a photocopy of the material of interest. The request for that editorial has been ignored. What would be your guess as to the reason?

Wald's apparent support of the Miller experiment as a demonstration of spontaneous generation may have received the approval of graduate student Stanley L. Miller and post-doctoral fellow Stanley L. Miller but, Prof. Stanley L. Miller would seem to have been more reserved:

"The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people envisioned."

[1991. In the Beginning... An interview by staff writer John Horgan. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January, p. 117]

How difficult is difficult? A recent attempted demonstration would seem to have answered the question:

"An experiment at a Russian volcano has thrown cold water on the theory that life on Earth began with organic materials in a puddle of hot water.

The notion that the first biochemical steps toward life occurred 4 billion years ago at high temperatures is supported by lab experiments, as well as some genetic evidence that life started with microbes like those found in hot springs and around hydrothermal vents.

Biophysicist David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his colleagues decided to see if they could create a semblance of life in a pool of water heated by volcanic activity on Russia's Kamchatka Penninsula. They added a "primordial soup" of proteins, DNA, and cell membranes. "Darwin proposed that life started in 'a warm little pond.' ... We are testing his theory in 'a hot little puddle,'" Deamer related at a meeting of the royal Society in London last week.

The soup ingredients largely disappeared in a few hours. The molecules had stuck to the clay that lined the pool and couldn't assemble. "It is an interesting experiment," says chemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, but he suggests that the puddle was too hot and acidic. Deamer plans to repeat the study at a puddle by a Hawaiian volcano where clay may be less of a problem."

[CONSTANCE HOLDEN, EDITOR. 2006. RANDOM SAMPLES: ORIGINATING LIFE. SCIENCE, VOL 311, 24 February, p. 108. See also:

http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/news/2006/03/27/deamer_origins/index.shtml]

Yours in Christ our Creator,

Bill Crofut

As of this date, no reply has been received.

XXXXXXXX

AN AYE FOR AN EYE

A Google web search of the topic, "darwin on the eye," produced a number of websites on which creationists were taken to task for "short-quoting" Charles Darwin regarding the complexity of the eye. [1] My response is limited to the claims of John Stear who contended: "Young Earth creationists (YECs) and at least one OEC invariably use only the first few lines and omit the part beginning "Yet reason tells me,". Obviously, using the full quote destroys the creationists' argument." [2] Only the "first few lines" of the quote were used in this essay. However, it's my position that using the remainder of the quote does nothing to exonerate Darwin or any of his modern-day advocates as it is my intention to demonstrate. Is the creationist argument destroyed by including the remaining lines considered acceptable to Darwinites? Let the reader decide.

The lines of quote considered inadequate by Stear, et. al. are:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. [3]

The lines of quote that, if added, allegedly destroy the creationist argument are:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. [4]

IF I ONLY HAD AN EYE

"IF" has been called the biggest word in the English language. Since the statement is obviously untrue in terms of the number of letters, "biggest" would seem to have been used in a sense other than an indication of literal size. It's my understanding biggest, in this context, can be used as a cover for lack of evidence. It seems to me Darwin was guilty of that.

Ifs do not provide the evidence that Darwin should have had the obligation to produce. He would seem to have admitted that he was unable to imagine what he was able to "if." Rather, he had to rely on belief. It's unclear to me when "believing" became part of the language of science. It's clear to me, on the other side, that belief is just as much, or more, a part of the false, atheistic religious faith system that is evolutionism as it is of Christian Faith. In fact, my Faith pales in comparison with evolutionary faith.

"Reasoning" from two ifs to certainty does not seem to me to constitute proper scientific method. What level of reason is required for such a "process?" It would seem to me, reason has no bearing on the issue. Rather, the action would seem to reflect a predetermined mindset based on philosophy: "Don't confuse me with facts; I've made up my mind."

Prof. W. R. Thompson saw Darwin's "accomplishment" in a somewhat dimmer light:

Darwin considered that the doctrine of the origin of living forms by descent with modification, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work, were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was for him, of absolutely major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. [5]

Prof. Sir James Gray was just as blunt:

There's an adage that states (in paraphrase): "Every lie contains an element of truth." While Darwin may have been guilty of self-delusion rather than lying, the final result is unchanged. He managed to convince a goodly number of people that his arguments had substance. A classic example, in my research experience, is from The Friends of Charles Darwin: "Evolution deniers...invariably neglect to quote the remainder of the section, where Darwin goes on to say that, absurd though it might seem, he had no problem believing it....Now there's a man with confidence in his theory." [7] While Darwin's confidence level may have been high, it would seem his evidence quotient was not. Yet, his disciples continue to delude themselves.

Darwin's affirmation that the "development" of light sensitivity is of no greater import than the origin of life would seem to be a truism. How could a nerve develop light sensitivity if there did not exist a creature possessing the nerve? Are we to believe that the nerve "anticipated" the need? Are we to believe that the "warm little pond" anticipated the need for the creature to possess the nerve so the nerve could "anticipate," etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum?

The suspicion that light sensitivity may be developed by any sensitive nerve would seem to be stretching the facts. A brief internet search of the topic, "light sensitivity" produced only indications of optic nerves having such characteristics. Any speculation about what might have happened in the remote past is but another exercise of the imagination. In the real world of the here-and-now, there does not seem to be any indication of light sensitive nerves other than optic nerves. What a tremendous amount of freedom from intellectual constraint can be achieved by just a little wishful thinking. In the context of the origin-of-life debate, Prof. Richard E. Dickerson would seem to have out darwined the master: "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts." [8] It's unclear to me when facts became inconvenient in science. It's clear to me why facts would be inconvenient for a practicing evolutionist.

NOTES

[1] Don Lindsay – http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_darwin.html

Mark Isaak – http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

Darwin and the Eye – http://www.kent-hovind.com/lies/eye.htm

The Friends of Charles Darwin -- http://darwin.gruts.com/misc/faq/eye-complexity/

[2] John Stear, 7 March 2004 [Updated 16 May 2005].

The incomprehensible creationist - the Darwin "eye" quote revisited

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/darwin_eye_quote_revisited.htm

[3] According to Stear, "The quote is often used by YECs in an effort to convince their credulous followers that Darwin had doubts about some aspects of evolution."

[4] According to Stear, 'The quote, in its entirety, is taken from The Origin of Species, Chapter 6, "Organs of extreme perfection and complication".'

[5] W. R. Thompson. 1956. Introduction. In: Charles Darwin. Origin of Species. Everyman Library No. 811. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. Reprinted with permission. Evolution Protest Movement. 1967. NEW CHALLENGING ‘INTRODUCTION' TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Selsey, Sussex: Selsey Press Ltd., p. 8.

[6] 1954. The Case for Natural Selection. NATURE, 6 February, p. 227.

[7] http://darwin.gruts.com/misc/faq/eye-complexity/

[8] R. E. Dickerson. 1978. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September, p. 85.

As of this date, no response has been received.

APPENDIX 3

ALLEGED EVOLUTION OF THE TRILOBITE:

MORPHOLOGY, AN EVOLUTIONARY "CHARACTER STUDY"

NOTE 2

http://www.trilobites.info/trilomorph.htm

Gallery of Harpetida

Scotoharpes sp.

NOTE 14

http://www.trilobites.info/galharpetida.htm

Order: Harpetida

Family: Harpetidae

Species: Scotoharpes sp.

Source: Peripatus pages

last revised 30 June 2007 by S. M. Gon III

Triarthrus eatoni Hall

NOTE 17

http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/locations/beechers/219.html

T.E. Whiteley, photo

YPM 219

Late Ordovician, Frankfort Shale. 10 mm-thick bed of black shale, about 30 in above stream bed, on N bank of Sixmile Creek in Cleveland's Glen, near Rome, Oneida Co., New York, USA. Collector: Beecher, C.E. & Nason, F.L. 7/1893.

Peabody Museum of Natural History

Yale University

170 Whitney Avenue

New Haven, CT 06520

Comments to: peabody.webmaster@yale.edu

URL: http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/

APPENDIX 4

Frank Galef

AMONG MY TRILOBITES

THE ORDOVICIAN PART 1

http://tyra-rex.com/trilobite/OrdA/to1.html

EYES ON STALKS

The Ordovician period lasted from 504 to 441 million years ago. It was named for an ancient Welsh tribe, the Ordovices. Trilobites from what would later become Russia developed unusual shapes, some with eyes on long stalks, others with jagged spines. The Ordovician ended with the biggest Ice Age in Earth's history, wiping out many families of trilobites.

6.5cm Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

6cm (+ eye: 1.5cm) Volchow River; St. Petersburg, Russia

8.2cm Volchow River; St. Petersburg, Russia

7.5cm Volchow River; St. Petersburg, Russia

7cm Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

(krnkoi?) 9cm Volchow River; St. Petersburg, Russia

5.1cm Cobourg Formation; Bowmanville, Ontario

(this was previously called P. canadensis; it was

renamed latimarginatus in 1979)

3.4cm Cobourg formation; Cobourg, Ontario

7cm Arnheim formation; Mt. Orab, Ohio

4.3cm Poolesville member, Bromide group: Carter County, OK

2cm Millard County, Utah

5.5cm North Wales, UK

5cm Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

5cm Lower Asery Level, Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

6cm Lower Asery Level, Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

8cm Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

8.7cm Volchow River, St. Petersburg, Russia

APPENDIX 5

http://www.nileseldredge.com/

Niles Eldredge. 1980. An Extravagance of Species. NATURAL HISTORY, July, p. 46.

Frank Galef

AMONG MY TRILOBITES

THE ORDOVICIAN PART 1

http://tyra-rex.com/trilobite/OrdA/to1.html

SPINES

1.2cm Martinsburg Shale: Swatara Gap, Pennsylvania

1.7cm Martinsburg Formation; Swatara Gap, Pennsylvania

1.2cm length 1.5cm across spines Builth Wells, Powys, Wales

3.7cm including genal spines Elkaiderammi, Risani, Morocco

4cm (including spine) Llanvirn Series; Shropshire, UK

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000073.html

Trilobite! by Richard Fortey

http://www.tolweb.org/Trilobites/2540

APPENDIX 6

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

Burgess Shale Fossil Specimens

photographs and artist's reconstructions.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/burgess/burgessSpecimens.html

A-Species assigned to commonly recognized groups:

Sea Pen - Thaumaptilon

Velvet Worm - Aysheaia

Arthropod - Sidneyia

Chordate - Pikaia

Annelid - Canadia

Sponge - Choia

Priapulid worm - Ottoia

Arthropod - Canadapsis

Arthropod - Perspicaris

Arthropod - Waptia

Arthropod - Leanchoillia

Hallucigenia

B - Other "recognized" species with no currently living examples:

Hyolith - Haplophrentis

Arthropod - Marrella

Trilobite - Olenoides

Trilobite - Naraoia

C - Unassigned forms with no clear signs of ancestral linkage to any surviving group:

Opabinia

Amiskwia

Anomalocaris

Wiwaxia

Trilobite Systematic Relationships

http://www.trilobites.info/triloclass.htm#trilobites

Given that trilobites are Arthropods, what is their place among the known arthropod groups?

Primitive or Advanced?

Trilobites were for a long time considered the most primitive of Arthropods, since they were among the first Cambrian arthropods discovered, but this turns out to have been mistaken; an artifact of preservation. The first recorded Cambrian outcrops only preserved species with hard, shelly parts, such as trilobites, brachiopods, mollusks, and echinoderms. When the Burgess Shales and other similar Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten (remarkably preserved fossil deposits) were discovered, large numbers of more delicate Cambrian arthropod species (that typically do not preserve well) were revealed (see diorama below) as contemporaries of trilobites, rather than their descendants. Trilobites are now considered relatively advanced among the Paleozoic arthropods, and the search for the first arthropods and the ancestors of trilobites is pushed back into the Precambrian..

In the image above, trilobites (1) live among many species that are not normally preserved. A typical Cambrian outcrop might produce only trilobites, brachiopods (2), mollusks (3), and crinoids (4). That is a tiny fraction of the full Cambrian biota, better represented by the roster of the Burgess Shale Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstatten. That community includes sponges Vauxia (5), Hazelia (6), and Eifellia (7); brachipods Nisusia (2); priapulid worms Ottoia (8); trilobites Olenoides (1); other arthropods such as Sidneyia (9), Leanchoilia (10), Marella (11), Canadaspis (12), Helmetia (13), Burgessia (14), Tegopelte (15), Naraoia (16), Waptia (17), Sanctacaris (18), and Odaraia (19); lobopods Hallucigenia (20) and Aysheaia (21); mollusks Scenella (3); echinoderms Echmatocrinus (4); and chordates Pikaia (22); among other oddities, including Haplophrentis (23), Opabinia (24), Dinomischus (25), Wiwaxia (26), Amiskwia (27), and Anomalocaris (28). ©2002 by S.M. Gon III (composition & linework) & John Whorrall (color rendering)

last revised 06 February 2005 by S. M. Gon III.