Ramskold, L., 1992, The second leg row of Hallucigenia discovered. Lethaia, v.25, p.221224

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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 _Hallucigenia_. 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, p.12-20.]. 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