Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Pierson5]

All joking aside, in light of recent discussion I decided this deserved it's own thread. I will re-iterate some of my main points that didn't seem to get a lot of attention.

Definitions

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Scientific Fact
"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

- Steven J. Gould

Appeal to Authority/Ad Populum?

According to a 2009 report by the Pew Research Center, 97% of US scientists accept that humans have evolved over time. Only 2% of scientists claimed to be creationist, and only 8% claimed to be Intelligent Design advocates(Pew 2009).

//people-press.org///people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

This isn't an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority logical fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is correct simply because a known authority said so. There is an important distinction to be made here. If you argue that evolution is a fact because most relevant scientists think so, that is a logical fallacy. However, if you argue that evolution is a fact and most relevant scientists agree with that conclusion based upon the evidence, this separation between scientific skepticism and appeal to authority is a little clearer.

We put our trust in experts and scientists because they represent the evidence. Experts are then vassals of knowledge, public manifestations of the evidence science uncovers. If this was truly a fallacy the whole movement was committing, we would never see any expert admonished for their position. If a beloved scientist came out tomorrow in full favor of crop circles, cryptozoology, etc... we would certainly change our views of his or her "authority" pretty quickly. It is not the authority of the figure that I trust, it is their interpretation of science, the scientific method, and evidence that I trust, and even this is open to revision.

Experts build a lifetime of knowledge, not in isolation but in concordance with other scientists. As was said before, trusting the opinion of someone who accurately represents the preponderance of evidence is not an appeal to authority, it is using an expert by proxy to state a position on the evidence. Surely not everyone has the time to research all of the topics themselves in science. It would be hard to learn all of the ins and outs of evolution if that was not your field or if you do not have the time, but knowing the basic facts and the weight of evidence behind evolution is enough to state my case. The same can be said about any discipline in science.

Evidence?

1.There are many independent lines of evidence that converge and support the theory of evolution:

ERV Data: See (Lebedev et al., 2000)
Hemoglobin Data: See Figure 1 in (Genji, 1985) .
Protein Sequence Data: See Table 3 in (Glazko, et al., 2005)
DNA Data: See the tree created in (Koop et al., 1989).
Cytochrome C Data: Data from //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Simply search the Protein database for "CYCS" and the scientific name of the organism. We then took the protein sequences from the database and plugged them into the ClustalW2 sequence alignment program to create a phylogram. This is such a simple process that anyone can independently verify these results. Note that orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans all have identical cytochrome C sequences and thus the cytochrome c data does not extend to that end of the chart.

2.Independent Phylogenies confirm the Tree of Life
Sanderson 2008 reported that 14,289 independent phylogenies, built from a grand total of 2.6 million different genetic sequences, confirmed a strong phylogenetic trend. In other words, all of the independent analyses converged on a highly similar tree of life. The probability of such a strong indication is extraordinarily low without taking into account common descent.

A phylogenetic tree of life, showing the relationship between species whose genomes had been sequenced as of 2006.
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

3. Independent protein sequences show similar relationships
A scientific study of 5 random protein sequences in a variety of mammals concluded that all phylogenetic trees created using each of the 5 sequences reached a very similar consensus tree. (Penny et al. 1982)

4.Diverse fossil data and molecular data reach the same evolutionary conclusion

Example: Scientists estimate that 80 million years ago fermentable fruits became prominent. This is supported by evidence from the yeast genome, which suggests that yeast obtained its ability to ferment glucose around that time. It is also supported by the fossil record, which shows that fruit also became widespread around that time. Molecular clocks also suggest that major changes occurred in the genomes of fruiting plants and fruit flies around that time. Quite simply, with all of this evidence converging, one must admit that 80 million years ago fermentable fruits did, in fact, become prominent. There is no other satisfactory explanation. (Benner et al. 2002)

5.Phylogeny from Hominid Morphology

Strait and Grine 2004 performed a cladistic analysis of various morphological features recovered from the hominid fossil record. This is essentially a complicated way of comparing the number of physical similarities between species, and concluding that more physically similar species are more likely to be closely related.

Although this kind of analysis would not be extraordinarily powerful evidence for evolution on a large scale, a strict consensus of four different analysis which all obtained highly similar results, shown below, mathematically demonstrates the evidence of gradual change over time which lies within the hominid fossil record.



6. Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates of metazoa phyla origins

Analyzing several genes in a variety of metazoa, Ayala et al. 1998 found that their molecular clock approximations of the origins of the animal phyla corresponds to physical data from the fossil record.

And many others....

Intelligent Design and Science
There are CORE ideas in science. They have been very well tested, they are major theories, major explanations. We use these concepts to explain the natural world in many ways. Heliocentrism is here to stay. Astronomers are not debating if the planets really revolve around the sun. This is a well accepted scientific concept. So is cell theory, atomic theory, inflationary theory and evolutionary theory (descent with modification/common ancestry) are all core ideas in science.

Around these core ideas are the FRONTIER ideas of science. This is what's going on in journals that are produced and work that is being done in laboratories and in the field. This is where we are testing new ideas and seeing what ideas fit with the core ideas. Some of these frontier ideas will become core ideas. Many aren't going to work out. A lot of the questions you guys are asking (mechanisms, drift, patterns) fall in this category. Some of these frontier ideas end up out in the FRINGE.

FRINGE ideas are the third concentric section. Scientists aren't really spending a lot of time on fringe ideas. These are ideas that in some way conflict with the core ideas of science. The probability that these ideas are actually going to lead to something useful with regards to our understanding of the natural world is very low. These are things like ESP, telekinesis and yes, intelligent design. Now, it is possible for fringe ideas to become frontier ideas to become core ideas. A classic example from geology is plate tectonics. The idea of continental drift was a fringe idea in science. Then, sea floor spreading was discovered, a mechanism for how the continents could slide around on the shelves was understood pretty well and the idea of continental drift and plate tectonics became a frontier idea of science and ultimately a core idea in science. If the evidence is presented, the scientific consensus will admit they were wrong and accept the new idea.

The Point
My point here is, if you think ID has any chance at becoming a core idea in science do the work. If you disagree with my points above and you want ID to become a legitimate science, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have something that helps us understand the natural world. Tell me a way in which ID can be subjected to a scientific test, NOT a test of evolution. A common theme I see here is false dualism (if it's not evolution, then it's ID, which is the false dichotomy logical fallacy).

Previous Responses

You can find the previous thread here: //discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=37254&start=120

I am surpirsed that you would start with this. Imagine? Well, you are certainly welcome to imagine all you want.
You have no mountain of evidence. If you do, simply provide the best single example in the fossil record of evolution along with what it specifically and previously evoloved from and later specifically involved into. This would be a hands down slam dunk.

To which I replied with:
//wshsscience.edublogs.org/files/2010/05/18_EVOW_CH03.jpg
Along with a lengthy description.

Jlay questioned the "leg bones" near the posterior end of the whale, in which case my response was:

I'm curious, what would you call these vestigial appendages? Flippers? Because it looks like they are a bunch of leg bones packed inside a whale to me. Let's hear your hypothesis. Are you claiming ignorance and saying you don't know (nothing wrong with that) or do you have evidence for a different hypothesis? I'm sure it is backed up with more evidence than what I have shown you.

This goes back to my main point, and I have yet to hear a better explanation.

The only one who has actually attempted to have a rational discussion and address my main point is Reactionary, and I appreciate the time he spends to read my objections and respond to them.

So, why do I think ID is legitimate?
1. The mind. I wrote about the evolutionary argument against naturalism, you said that you'd take a look at it and address it - I'll be waiting for your opinion.
2. The First Cause. We know that 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, 2) The Universe began to exist, so 3) The Universe has a cause. The only way to avoid infinite regress would be to hypothesize an eternal, immaterial and transcedent Cause, which we Christians call God.
3. The appearance of design. We all have a standard of estimating what looks randomly assembled, what appears designed, and what had to be designed.
3.1. Fine-tuning of the Universe. Cosmological constants are immensely precisely calibrated. Can we attribute them to random chance?
//godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
//godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html
//godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html
3.2. Fine-tuning of our galaxy, the Solar System and the life-sustaining conditions on Earth.
//godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html
3.3. Uniqueness of life. Life is (so far at least) only found on Earth. Furthermore, we can't create it out of non-living matter although we know how the material aspect of life works.

1. This was an argument against naturalism and says nothing about whether ID is true. False dichotomy.
2. An argument for a deistic worldview. This deity didn't have to necessarily create all living organisms. It could have thrown all the building blocks of life (amino acids) out into space and let nature take its course.
3. Please enlighten me on this "Gold Standard of Design." You better make sure things like snowflakes or places like Giant's Causeway don't fall into this standard.
3.1 See #2
3.2 See #2
3.3 Even if life was only found on Earth, which doesn't seem likely, that would not prove intelligent design correct. We can't create living matter out of non-living matter, again says nothing about intelligent design being correct. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life or abiogenesis. Even if we could, creationists would just as easily turn it around and point out we designed it, so it must have a designer (a comment said during our earlier discussions).

Quite obviously, if we had been created, we'd hardly witness any new creations in the present. On the other hand, if we had evolved, we should witness positive changes in the present. So, we should keep in mind that we'd have problems if we wanted to observe ID at work.

Why wouldn't we witness any new creations? Looking at the fossil record (elephants or horses for example), these things are "being created" all the time only to become extinct a short time later. If you are trying to say we wouldn't witness any new creations in the present, does this mean that ID is unfalsifiable? If so, it isn't science, does not belong in a science classroom and this discussion is over.



If you feel I didn't address any of the previous points brought up in our last discussion, feel free to bring them back here. BUT, please address my main point at the same time.

[Gman]

No one here denies that evolution plays a role in science.. The question is what it can do and can't do. As far as creating life, evolution doesn't even address that specifically.

Also, science isn't into asking ultimate questions.. People who mix their philosophy into their science ask that question, not science itself, AND all people are guilty of doing that.

Good luck.

[Ivellious]

For the record, the theory of evolution does not address biogenesis, nor does it rely on any particular answer to that question. The two issues, while related through biology, are not intimately linked. Not having an answer for biogenesis does nothing to harm evolution, nor would having an answer be evidence for evolution.

[Pierson5]

No one here denies that evolution plays a role in science.. The question is what it can do and can't do. As far as creating life, evolution doesn't even address that specifically.

Also, science isn't into asking ultimate questions.. People who mix their philosophy into their science ask that question, not science itself, AND all people are guilty of doing that.

Good luck.

There are a couple people here who deny evolution and believe it's some kind of fairy tale. What it can and can't do is an excellent question. Much of modern medicine is based upon the theory of evolution.

I agree, evolution doesn't address the origin of life. It does, however, conflict with certain creation stories which influence individual's reasons for denying it.

I would disagree that science isn't into asking ultimate questions. Why are we here, where did we come from, etc... The very site we are having these discussions is "using science" to justify the existence of a deity. Life origins research is going on all the time and is a fascinating field. Nothing wrong with mixing philosophy and science, so long as the philosophy doesn't get in the way of the evidence.

[Gman]

There are a couple people here who deny evolution and believe it's some kind of fairy tale. What it can and can't do is an excellent question. Much of modern medicine is based upon the theory of evolution.

I agree, evolution doesn't address the origin of life. It does, however, conflict with certain creation stories which influence individual's reasons for denying it.

I would disagree that science isn't into asking ultimate questions. Why are we here, where did we come from, etc... The very site we are having these discussions is "using science" to justify the existence of a deity. Life origins research is going on all the time and is a fascinating field. Nothing wrong with mixing philosophy and science, so long as the philosophy doesn't get in the way of the evidence.

No one can produce life from inorganic matter in a lab.. Oh course everyone has a "theory" or a philosophical belief how it happened, but no one really has all the answers..

Choose your faith wisely..

[dayage]

Pierson5,

6. Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates of metazoa phyla origins

Analyzing several genes in a variety of metazoa, Ayala et al. 1998 found that their molecular clock approximations of the origins of the animal phyla corresponds to physical data from the fossil record.

Their clocks are wrong. They have animal phyla showing up way too early.

Avalon (570 Mya) and Cambrian (543 Mya) explosions pose serious problems for evolutionists. There are no fossil ancestors for the creatures found within these two explosions. The Avalon phyla did not evolve into the Cambrian ones. In fact most were extinct by the Cambrian. There are good reasons why no ancestors existed. The oceans were too salty. There was not enough oxygen, molybdenum or phosphate in the oceans and earth had just come out of a deep freeze (snowball earth). Where did all the new phyla come from? The Cambrian explosion happened in about 3-5 million years.

They can talk about clocks all they want, but they ignore the physical environment which says, NO WAY!

Of course the Cambrian Explosion sounds a lot like the first part of creation age 5:
Genesis 1:20 "Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,"

[Cjgager]

I am alone. So is my cat. I will die. So will my cat.
I sometimes wonder - is there any real difference between my cat and me?
"Certainly," Curly might answer - but other than giving answers from a human-centrist perspective - no one knows any thing.
I was raised Roman Catholic w/ 16yrs. All I learned is how to do sins good.
Still, I'm amazed that people all over the world fight - kill - maim over religion.
To me - it is an utter waste. throughout history.
Yes - evolution occurred. It's really not looking into the available facts to say otherwise.
Creatism is a make believe "science".
In reality, creatism is no where near a "science" but merely a wish/make-believe sort of a thing for all those persons who believe they believe "in the word",
but are faced with real science but still need an answer to all their questions to still believe that "the word" is true.
The Bible was written by men who were trying to convert people. It's a great source of wisdom and morality; but still, just a book, written by dudes in defense
of their opinion.
God is here with me.
(PS. I'm an atheist) or - no, i'm not really. I'm a christian humanist. with this , it doesn't matter if you "believe" or not. i believe in the forever power
of human creativity - in trying to overcome the loneliness of the universe.
my cat cannot tell me about her existence - and i am sad for that. humans are limited by not having other perspectives to converse with here on earth. we
search the earth and sky and even ourselves for answers.
no, i don't believe in aliens either. but it's a shame there are none. then we could all see that god is just one of us.
take care.

[Pierson5]

Pierson5,

6. Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates of metazoa phyla origins

Analyzing several genes in a variety of metazoa, Ayala et al. 1998 found that their molecular clock approximations of the origins of the animal phyla corresponds to physical data from the fossil record.

Their clocks are wrong. They have animal phyla showing up way too early.

Avalon (570 Mya) and Cambrian (543 Mya) explosions pose serious problems for evolutionists. There are no fossil ancestors for the creatures found within these two explosions. The Avalon phyla did not evolve into the Cambrian ones. In fact most were extinct by the Cambrian. There are good reasons why no ancestors existed. The oceans were too salty. There was not enough oxygen, molybdenum or phosphate in the oceans and earth had just come out of a deep freeze (snowball earth). Where did all the new phyla come from? The Cambrian explosion happened in about 3-5 million years.

They can talk about clocks all they want, but they ignore the physical environment which says, NO WAY!

Of course the Cambrian Explosion sounds a lot like the first part of creation age 5:
Genesis 1:20 "Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,"

Roughly 570-600 million years ago, fossils are sparse, but they include the phosphatized embryos of the Doushantuo formation in China and a scattering of trace fossils. Trace fossils are the remains of trackways and burrows, not the animals themselves, and tell us that there were small soft-bodied and multicellular animals living on the substrate; we even have a few fossils of more elaborate, bilaterally-symmetric animals, comparable to flatworms.Roughly 570-600 million years ago, fossils are sparse, but they include the phosphatized embryos of the Doushantuo formation in China and a scattering of trace fossils. Trace fossils are the remains of trackways and burrows, not the animals themselves, and tell us that there were small soft-bodied and multicellular animals living on the substrate; we even have a few fossils of more elaborate, bilaterally-symmetric animals, comparable to flatworms.

Here is a compiled image of some of the trace fossils found:


Near the end of the Neoproterozoic, the larger and more complex and enigmatic Vendian and Ediacaran fossils turn up. There are also more and more complicated trace fossils.

//www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html
//www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/Ediacara.html

Animals are getting larger and making more substantial trackways; in addition, they're beginning to burrow down into the sediment. We begin to see signs of a phenomenon called bioturbation, where the substrate is stirred and turned over by animal activity, which was absent before.



Another important feature begins to make its appearance: the small shelly fossils. These organisms are only about 1 or 2mm across. It is still a step upward in size and durability from what had come before.



The Cambrian itself begins 543 million years ago, and is broken up into periods several millions of years in length with their own distribution of fossils. The oldest, the Manykaian, is marked by more trace fossils, and a greater diversity of the small shelly fossils; the diagnostic fossil whose appearance is used to mark the beginning of the period is a trace fossil, the relatively large burrows of Treptichnus pedum. In the Tommotian, 530 million years ago, the first recognizable brachiopods and molluscs are found, and there are trace fossils that indicate something with many legs scurried by—the first arthropods. The first actual fossils of arthropods and echinoderms are found millions of years later.

It's more than ten million years later that the spectacular and strange animals of the Burgess Shale make their appearance. You can see some of the fossils and other resources here:

//www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/

It's during the Middle Cambrian that we can say most of the modern phyla are present, although of course the representatives of those phyla don't look much at all like their modern members.

It's worth noting while this was a sudden event in a geological sense, it wasn't actually all that rapid in human terms. The evolution of the canonical Cambrian forms was drawn out over tens of millions of years. They didn't just come out of nowhere, either; while individual lineages are cryptic, we see a slow aggregate increase in the complexity of multicellular animals in the fossil record that culminated in the flowering of large-animal diversity in the Cambrian.

This whole "Cambrian" argument is just a big argument from ignorance. The data certainly does not fit a sudden creation by divine or alien fiat. It does fit with the idea of the appearance of these animals as a product of prior history, though…even though there are many mysteries about the details, the big picture does not require miracles or the supernatural.

I noticed you didn't address my main point. Feel free to post the evidence you have supporting your hypothesis for this event. As I said before, if you manage to prove evolution incorrect, it does not prove ID is correct. False dichotomy.

[Reactionary]

I was raised Roman Catholic w/ 16yrs. All I learned is how to do sins good.

I don't understand, what does it mean to "do sins good"?

Still, I'm amazed that people all over the world fight - kill - maim over religion.
To me - it is an utter waste. throughout history.

People kill each other over everything. I guess it's a part of the human nature.

Yes - evolution occurred. It's really not looking into the available facts to say otherwise.

So, it does involve interpreting facts to make the judgement?

Creatism is a make believe "science".
In reality, creatism is no where near a "science" but merely a wish/make-believe sort of a thing for all those persons who believe they believe "in the word", but are faced with real science but still need an answer to all their questions to still believe that "the word" is true.

"The Word" is true. Unless you can prove otherwise - it shouldn't be a problem since it makes claims about this life as well, not only the following one.
By the way, the correct spelling is "creationism", or simply "creation", to avoid the unnecessary -isms. Sorry, but how should I take your criticism of something seriously if you can't even spell the term properly?

The Bible was written by men who were trying to convert people. It's a great source of wisdom and morality; but still, just a book, written by dudes in defense of their opinion.

That's contradictory. You claim that it's their opinion, therefore, relative, but then you also claim that it's a great source of morality. What morality? Is it objective? Obviously not, since it's their opinion. But then, why should we attribute any meaning to it? I could prefer my own morality, if it was relative. None of it would matter in the end.

God is here with me.
(PS. I'm an atheist) or - no, i'm not really. I'm a christian humanist.

What in the world is that? From your description, you are an atheist. It's just that you can't deal with all the implications of that worldview, so you invoke "morality", "creativity" and other inventions of other worldviews.

with this , it doesn't matter if you "believe" or not. i believe in the forever power of human creativity - in trying to overcome the loneliness of the universe.

Still, we're going to lose it, right? So why try to deny that? According to your worldview, we're all going to die, sooner or later, and nobody can change that.

my cat cannot tell me about her existence - and i am sad for that. humans are limited by not having other perspectives to converse with here on earth. we search the earth and sky and even ourselves for answers.

I don't know about you, but I've found mine.

no, i don't believe in aliens either. but it's a shame there are none. then we could all see that god is just one of us.
take care.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

[Pierson5]

Creatism is a make believe "science".
In reality, creatism is no where near a "science" but merely a wish/make-believe sort of a thing for all those persons who believe they believe "in the word", but are faced with real science but still need an answer to all their questions to still believe that "the word" is true.

"The Word" is true. Unless you can prove otherwise - it shouldn't be a problem since it makes claims about this life as well, not only the following one.
By the way, the correct spelling is "creationism", or simply "creation", to avoid the unnecessary -isms. Sorry, but how should I take your criticism of something seriously if you can't even spell the term properly?

Aw come now Reactionary, be nice. We've been over spelling before

[dayage]

Pierson5,

The explosive nature of the Cambrian is with the appearence of almost every phyla that has ever existed. In China, the record shows that it happened in only 3-5 million years.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=639

Your pointing to the appearance of lower catagories of life.

The Avalon explosion is the same as the Ediacara.
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/25 ... -explosion

retink on some "precambrian animal" evidence
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130531.htm

I noticed you didn't address my main point. Feel free to post the evidence you have supporting your hypothesis for this event. As I said before, if you manage to prove evolution incorrect, it does not prove ID is correct. False dichotomy.

I was not presenting evidence for ID. A good book on that is Dr. Rana's book "The Cells Design."

This whole "Cambrian" argument is just a big argument from ignorance.

Just what an evolutionist would fall back on. But, it is not a lack of evidence and it is not just the Cambrian, as I pointed out. And we have lots of reasons why animal life could not exist earlier (as I gave you).

[adocus]

Pierson5:

I read through this thread, expecting to need to weigh in to correct the standard Creationist fallacies and miscomprehensions.

No need to do so - you've done a quite fine job of it!

I'm a vertebrate paleontologist, and I'll stand by: if you need me, just holler!

Adocus

[Gman]

Pierson5:

I read through this thread, expecting to need to weigh in to correct the standard Creationist fallacies and miscomprehensions.

No need to do so - you've done a quite fine job of it!

I'm a vertebrate paleontologist, and I'll stand by: if you need me, just holler!

Adocus

No one knows how life was created.. Not even your most ardent hard core evolutionist knows or would claim to know with 100 percent accuracy.

This is more of a philosophical debate than really science. Good luck debating philosophy.

[adocus]

The title of this thread is "Evolution and Intelligent Design", GMan. I don't see anything there about "The Origin of Life" - so I'm not sure what you are even trying to say. And as much as some people would like to think that science and religion are two completely separate things, they are not. There is an entire branch of philosophy, the philosophy of science, which does two things, really - it describes, in pragmatic terms, how science is done, and it attempts to investigate how we know what we think we know about the material universe. Both things are worth thinking about for any scientist worthy of the title.

[dayage]

adocus,

I'm a vertebrate paleontologist, and I'll stand by: if you need me, just holler!

Then you know that vertebrates are among the first chordates to show up in the Cambrian. They should have evolved later on.