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?