No, that is not Valentine’s point. His point is that the Cambrian was a time with better-than-average conditions for preservation (rising sea level and thereby increased sedimentation) and that we should therefore expect the Cambrian sections we find to be more complete than average. Not better than all sections, just better than average.
1 Like
I wouldn’t put it that way. Rising sea level would result in reduced sedimentation (less erosional contribution to sediments due to reduced gradient) but it would result in less erosion of deposited sediments and thus more net deposition as well as fewer gaps in deposition.
One wonders. Is the thickness of average Cambrian exposures greater than that of most other exposures of equal duration? That could be tested. Still, it appears that the Cambrian is a fine time to be a fossil.
If you are actively publishing, either formally or informally, you might be able to persuade a university Department with which you have any kind of past connection the grant you an honorary research position, which would give access to their library. I feel enormously indebted to Glasgow University for these reasons
1 Like
.* cough * sci-hub * cough *
Welcome @paulbraterman to PS. I recall seeing your comments at @Joel_Duff 's site Natural Historian, I believe. Would you please tell us a bit more about yourself?
I am surprised we are not talking enough about the new Cambrian fossils. Doesn’t this destroy Stephen Meyer’s Cambrian ID arguments? Here is the latest from Jerry Coyne on the spectacular new Cambrian fossils:
How? How, any more than the Chengjiang did? As I’ve mentioned before, his argument (such as it is) was destroyed by the small, shelly fauna. Neither this new discovery nor the Chengjiang has anything to do with it.
2 Likes