No?

[Glenn]

"no new phyla have developed since the Cambrian explosion"

https://books.google.com/books/about/Darwin_and_Velikovsky_Cataclysmic_Metamo.html?id=7sWPDgAAQBAJ

[RonO]

On 5/3/2022 2:47 PM, Glenn wrote:
> "no new phyla have developed since the Cambrian explosion"
>
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Darwin_and_Velikovsky_Cataclysmic_Metamo.html?id=7sWPDgAAQBAJ
>

Would descendants of Penquins, and whales be considered different Phyla
half a billion years from now if the continue to evolve in an aquatic
environment? Cordates and vertebrates have been evolving sepaarately
for over half a billion years. Would they have been considered
different phyla just 80 million years after their lineages split or just
differnt lineages of cordates?

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

I'd be surprised if Glenn either knows or cares about either of those questions. No serious book
about taxonomy or phylogeny has any business even mentioning Velikovsky, especially in the same
sentence (or title).

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 4 May 2022 07:58:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 4:56:07 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 5/3/2022 2:47 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> > "no new phyla have developed since the Cambrian explosion"
>> >
>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Darwin_and_Velikovsky_Cataclysmic_Metamo.html?id=7sWPDgAAQBAJ
>> >
>> Would descendants of Penquins, and whales be considered different Phyla
>> half a billion years from now if the continue to evolve in an aquatic
>> environment? Cordates and vertebrates have been evolving sepaarately
>> for over half a billion years. Would they have been considered
>> different phyla just 80 million years after their lineages split or just
>> differnt lineages of cordates?
>>

>I'd be surprised if Glenn either knows or cares about either of those questions. No serious book
>about taxonomy or phylogeny has any business even mentioning Velikovsky, especially in the same
>sentence (or title).
>

That struck me, too; Really? Velikovsky?!?

Although I would argue that Velikovsky *could* be mentioned
in a serious book about taxonomy or phylogeny, or even
astronomy, in the same sense as phlogiston can be mentioned
in a serious chemistry book. (Well, not quite; phlogiston
was, after all, an accepted scientific hypothesis.)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ernest Major]

Only a Lamarckian ("ladder of evolution") would expect new animal (plant
phyla are younger; I don't have dates for fungal phyla to hand, but I
wouldn't be surprised if some were younger) phyla to have evolved since
the Cambrian. If it's younger than the Cambrian then it's not a phylum -
hence the sinking of the formerly recognised phyla Pogonophora and
Vestimentifera into a single annelid family.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Well, of course we have no firm dating for the origins of around half
the phyla, those with no or very sparse fossil records. And the first
known bryozoans are post-Cambrian. Your point is perhaps that by the
nature of cladistic classification, phyla must precede their included
classes, which must precede their included orders, and so on. And thus
phyla should, in general, be the oldest major taxa.

[Pro Plyd]

Glenn wrote:
> "no new phyla have developed since the Cambrian explosion"
>
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Darwin_and_Velikovsky_Cataclysmic_Metamo.html?id=7sWPDgAAQBAJ
>

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/two-new-fungi-phyla-considered-discovery-of-a-lifetime/
December 12, 2016



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22736-6
23 April 2021
Brockarchaeota, a novel archaeal phylum with unique and versatile carbon
cycling pathways

"thus we propose their classification as a new phylum, ‘Brockarchaeota’"


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083622.htm
New Phylum Sheds Light On Ancestor Of Animals, Humans