Re: Land Plants Origins Pushed Back

[JAMES ARONIS <Apollo@MLink.net>]

If indeed this molecular 'evidence' is paralleled with the discovery of new 
fossil
records, will that necessitate changes made to the geologic timeline in order to
reflect these new discoveries?

Ken Kinman wrote:

> Eric,
>      Some molecular "clocks" are better than others, and the possiblility of
> skewing should be considered.
>       However, even if the dates are too early, it clearly points out the
> probability that there were primitive bryophytes (liverworts and possibly
> even mosses), fungi, and lichens on land during the Precambrian.  The
> question is if there is any trace of them in the fossil record, and if we
> look hard enough, I bet someone will find such traces eventually.  The
> fossil record is notoriously incomplete, especially when it comes to
> soft-bodied organisms.
>             -------Ken
> P.S.  I should make it clear that I do not buy Retallack's hypothesis that
> vendobionts were lichens.  However, there are some controversial Cambrian
> fossils of "fungi" that should perhaps be carefully reexamined in light of
> these new findings.
> ******************************************
> >From: ELurio@aol.com
> >Reply-To: ELurio@aol.com
> >To: rtravsky@uwyo.edu, dinosaur@usc.edu
> >Subject: Re: Land Plants Origins Pushed Back
> >Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:11:55 EDT
> >
> >Here we go AGAIN!!!! There's ample evidence that rapid evolution can
> >squewer
> >the molecular clock bigtime. When the fossil record and the molecular
> >"record" disagree on chronology, always go with the fossil record.
> >
> >eric l.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp