Ramskold, L., 1992, The second leg row of Hallucigenia discovered. Lethaia, v.25, p.221224
Ramskold, L., 1992, The second leg row of _Hallucigenia_ discovered.
Lethaia, v.25, p.221-224.
Ramskold examined and reprepared the holotype of
_Hallucigenia_, and discovered the second row of legs. This confirms
the prediction made earlier on the basis of the specimens from China
[Ramskold, L. and Hou Xianguang, 1991. New Early Cambrian animal and
onychophoran affinities of enigmatic metazoans. Nature, v.351,
p.225-228.]. _Hallucigenia_ is also an armored, onychophoran-like
organism. Still unusual, but not without relatives.
This is a perfect example of what consitutes science: based
on a certain amount of evidence, a prediction (hypothesis) is made,
tested, and (in this case) it turned out to be true. What would
creation "science" predict in this case - and (if anything) would it
have been right? The power of evolutionary theory is that it makes
predictions about what _new_ evidence will be found in the fossil
record, and many times it is correct. I would be surprised if
creation "scientists" could say anything about the nature of
This example also dispells a common claim of creation
"scientists" - that conventional scientists are unwilling to accept
radical new ideas. For example, Steven J. Gould accepts the new
interpretation of _Hallucigenia_, despite the fact his ideas on
evolution in the Cambrian depend in part on the original, "weird"
interpretation; and he has plenty of publications that describe the
original interpretation (_Wonderful_Life_, for example) [Gould, S.J.,
1992. The reversal of _Hallucigenia_. Natural History, v.1/92,
The point is: scientists quickly and willingly accept new
ideas WHEN SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED. The problems
with most creation "science" is that it either: 1) attacks
conventional theory (usually by misrepresenting it) without providing
evidence to support its theory, 2) provides weak evidence that has
alternate explanations, 3) the theory makes predictions that can be
proven wrong with available evidence, or 4) is loath to make changes
or discard the theory when it is disproven.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank