How did it start?

I guess one would have to sallyforth&trotout something like Agassiz's

quote:

---

SECTION VII. Simultaneous Existence in the Earliest Geological Periods, of All the Great Types of Animals.

​

It was formerly believed by geologists and palaeontologists that the lowest animals first made their appearence upon this globe and that they were followed by higher and higher types until man crowned the series. Every geological museum representing at all the present state of our knowledge, may now furnish evidence that this is not the case. On the contrary, representatives of numerous families beloning to all the four great branches of the animal kingdom are well known to have existed simultaneously in the oldest geological formations. Nevertheless I well remember when I used to hear the great geologists of the time assert, that the Corals were the first inhabitants of our globe, that Mollusks and Articulata followed in order, and that vertebrates did not appear until long after these.

---

Let the evo position be this formerly"" and whatever ever is next let be it a Biblical position but dont say so, just know so, so, like Aggasiz "used" to hear, you just have to figure out what we do HEAR today in the same place, do your worship on Sunday and post again monday etc.. I take it "first made their appearence" and 'origin' are not debateably different. Oh, and in case any one wants to listen more to my particular position in it all, there is another audio available from me
Brad'sEVC
but this time it is the doctor in this "former" spot. Dr. Silversteen would not be able to keep up with this thread for instance. So in the case this IS that/this case 30years in 1800s = less than a minute in 1900s.

The problem today is that Gould had thought that there were fewer species but more types of organisms in the sound of this time where Agassiz really brought home the point that it was not what was heard, that there was a series (from Corals on up say Kant's chain of being) but rather that all the types were present in early horizons. Now that Gould insists there were more types before this geological horizon rather than just saying there were divisions of morphospace we cant quite categorize he is actually betting against such an upset which I think most likely if life is found off earth. But yes, it is clear that things have not changed in terms of asserting such series but only the clades falling under the "coral" heading the professional caveat aside. There is an interesting discussion by Kant on the status of rock with a hole in it. Is it a tool or simply someplace erroded away?I dont understand what Crashfrog meant by evidence of former life but if it is simply Gould's claim (more types than Agassiz in past time so Agassiz's lower animal argument is rendered neutered)then that would reduce indeed to the sound of a coral discussion. I dont know what the reef atoll issue has to do with this but I dont think it neutral.