[net.origins] Living Fossils

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/20/84)

The term "living fossil" has been used a couple of times by Larry
Bickford in this newsgroup.  Exception has been taken to this
phrase by at least two people.  Ethan Vishniac called it a "silly
term" and Michael Ward said:

> Living fossils?  I have heard some wild claims, but this is the best
> yet!  Please, cite the reference.  Where can I go so see living stone?

This being so, I thought that some additional information might be
of interest.

---

As noted by Steven Stanley [1], Darwin himself seems to have been the
first person to use the term, in the first edition of The Origin.
Since, fortuitously, I happen to be currently reading this very
edition, I looked it up; here is Darwin's comment, with enough
context to give the sense:

"And it is in fresh water that we find seven genera of Ganoid
fishes, remnants of a once preponderant order:  and in fresh
water we find some of the most anomalous forms now known in
the world, as the Ornithorhyncus and Lepidosiren, which, like
fossils, connect to a certain extant orders now widely separated
in the natural scale.  These anomalous forms may almost be
called living fossils; they have endured to the present day,
from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been
exposed to less severe competition." [2]

Note that Darwin, in the cautious manner so characteristic of
The Origin, says "may almost be called..."  Hesitant or not,
the phrase stuck and is with us to this day:  it means, generally,
those organisms found in the fossil record from long ago, which
have persisted unchanged (either completely, or nearly) into
recent times.

Examples that have been given in this group include the coelacanth,
(a putative fish - amphibian link) which was thought to have been
extinct for 70 million years, but was first found alive in 1938 and
several times since [3].  It has remain unchanged for about 350
million years, except that living representatives are larger than
those found in the fossil record.  Ladd [4] notes that the
coelacanth has "been able to retain its ancient form and structure."
(makes it sound as though it was "trying"!)

Another example that has been mentioned is the tuatara [5].  The
most recent fossil is 135 million years old, and it remains
unchanged today.

Ladd includes a section on living fossils in his article, although
he seems to use a somewhat different definition than that given
above, since he includes a couple of organisms which are unknown
in the fossil record:

In 1938, primitive crustacea of species Derocheilocaris typicus
were found in interstitial waters of beach sands in New England.
At that time it was the most primitive living crustacean known.
In 1953, a still more primitive type was dredged from mud in Long
Island Sound (Hutchinsoniella macrocantha).  This was small
enough to go through the eye of a needle, and so primitive it was
placed in a new subclass.  Its closest relative (Lepidocaris)
lived in the Middle Devonian 300 million years ago.

In Acapulco Trench off Central (?) America, the Danish ship Galathea
dredged up a living monoplacophoran mollusk - thought to have become
extinct during the Devonian period.  So it hasn't changed since then.

---

For further discussion, look in Stanley's book.  He also mentions
that Delamare-Deboutteville and Botosaneanu have devoted a volume
to this topic, called "Formes Primitive Vivartes".  However,
judging from the title, it's in french.

---

Note that while this article is directed to evolutionists, and
points out that some of them are deriding terms apparently invented
and widely used by evolutionists, I am not trying to concoct a scenario
of division within the evolutionary camp.  Rather, it seemed to me
that the dissatisfaction with "living fossil" was directed at Larry,
as if it were a creationist term that he made up.  I have tried to
show that this is not so.

---

[1]	Steven M Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable."  Basic
	Books, New York, 1981.  Page 85.

[2]	Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species" (A Facsimile of the
	First Edition).  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass,
	1964.  Page 107.

[3]	Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth."  Scientific American,
	December 1955, 34-39.

[4]	Harry S Ladd, "Ecology, Paleontology, and Stratigraphy."
	Science, 129(3341),69-78, 9 January 1959.

[5]	Charles M Bogert, "The Tuatara: Why is it a Lone Survivor?"
	Scientific Monthly, 76(3), 163, March 1953.
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

"Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein
do I delight."
				Psalm 119:35

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/22/84)

[]
Paul Dubois has spent a lot of time and effort telling us about
"Living Fossils".  In response, I ask two questions:
1) So what?
2) Where is the explanation of creationism that you have promised
    us?

Larry Bickford has excused your lack of response on this issue
as being caused by a shaortage of time.  Yet you seem to have
time to write over a hundred lines, well documented, in response
to a trival point.  Larry had already taken care of that issue
in just a few lines.  Neither of you have explained how it is
a crippling blow to science.

Come on, Paul, you said you were going to produce an explanation
of what it is you are trying to defend in this newsgroup.  So
produce, and forget the trivia.

-- 
"The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct."

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/22/84)

[]
>The term "living fossil" has been used a couple of times by Larry
>Bickford in this newsgroup.  Exception has been taken to this
>phrase by at least two people.  Ethan Vishniac called it a "silly
>term" and Michael Ward said ....

>Note that while this article is directed to evolutionists, and
>points out that some of them are deriding terms apparently invented
>and widely used by evolutionists, I am not trying to concoct a scenario
>of division within the evolutionary camp.  Rather, it seemed to me
>that the dissatisfaction with "living fossil" was directed at Larry,
>as if it were a creationist term that he made up.  I have tried to
>show that this is not so.

     I never thought Larry invented the term, nor did I mean to
be taken as flaming at him over it.  I still think it's a silly
term.  My evident disagreement with professional biologists over this
is a purely semantic one.  It's amusing, but insignificant.

     I was interested in seeing its origin ferreted out by Paul
Dubois.  Thank you.

"I can't help it if my     Ethan Vishniac
    knee jerks"         {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                           Department of Astronomy
                           University of Texas
                           Austin, Texas 78712

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/22/84)

> [Michael Ward]
> Paul Dubois has spent a lot of time and effort telling us about
> "Living Fossils".  In response, I ask two questions:
> 1) So what?

The "so what" is that it seemed to me that there was some
dissatisfaction with Larry's use of the term, and that the
dissatisfaction seemed to be along the lines of thinking
that Larry was making up some wierd creationist phrase.
I attempted to show that the term did not originate with
Larry, and that it is in fact quite widely used in evolutionary
circles.  This was explained in my article.  Your own response
to Larry ("where can I go to see living stone?") is evidence
of your ignorance of this fact.  That's not a criticism; no
one knows everything.  I hoped that the article might prove
helpful in providing background for those who, like you,
did not know to what the term refers.  I know that I am
interested in background for areas where I do not know much.

> 2) Where is the explanation of creationism that you have promised
>     us?

I did not attempt an answer to this question in my article.
It is unnecessary to criticize an article for failing to answer
questions which were not within its domain of discourse.

> Larry Bickford has excused your lack of response on this issue
> as being caused by a shaortage of time.  Yet you seem to have
> time to write over a hundred lines, well documented, in response
> to a trival point.  Larry had already taken care of that issue
> in just a few lines.  Neither of you have explained how it is
> a crippling blow to science.

(i) Achievement of my long response was, in part, made possible
by the reading which I am doing.  If you feel the article
discussed a trivial point, ok.  Don't read it.  But surely if
it's so trivial, it's not worth responding to, knowing that I
might generate another hundred lines or so?

(ii) It does not seem to me reasonable to criticize an article
for being well-documented.

(ii) I was not trying to deal a crippling blow to science.  Again,
this was explained in my article.  But I might note that your
phrasing is loaded when you talk about dealing a blow "to science",
as though I'm trying to toss science out the window.

> Come on, Paul, you said you were going to produce an explanation
> of what it is you are trying to defend in this newsgroup.  So
> produce, and forget the trivia.

I already apologized for the delay once.  I'm sorry to keep you
waiting, but I'm sure you wouldn't want me to run off half-cocked.

> "The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct."

Attributed by Michael Ward to Steven Hartley, this observation
may also be found, for instance, in "You take Jesus, I'll Take God"
by Samuel Levine, a book for Jewish people on refuting Christian
missionaries.  I think that it had also been observed several months
back, by Rich Rosen in net.religion.
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church,
and gave himself for it."	Ephesians 5:25

Would you die for your wife?