Visit https://testbankfan.

com to download the full version and

explore more testbank or solution manual

Hands-On Networking Fundamentals 2nd Edition

Michael Palmer Test Bank

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://testbankfan.com/product/hands-on-networking-
fundamentals-2nd-edition-michael-palmer-test-bank/

Explore and download more testbank at testbankfan.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

Hands-On Networking Fundamentals 2nd Edition Michael

Palmer Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/hands-on-networking-fundamentals-2nd-
edition-michael-palmer-solutions-manual/

Hands on Virtual Computing 2nd Edition Simpson Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/hands-on-virtual-computing-2nd-
edition-simpson-test-bank/

Hands-On Database 2nd Edition Steve Conger Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/hands-on-database-2nd-edition-steve-
conger-test-bank/

Operations Management Sustainability and Supply Chain

Management 12th Edition Heizer Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/operations-management-sustainability-
and-supply-chain-management-12th-edition-heizer-test-bank/
Managing Human Resources 7th Edition Gomez-Mejia Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/managing-human-resources-7th-edition-
gomez-mejia-test-bank/

Operations Management 11th Edition Stevenson Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/operations-management-11th-edition-
stevenson-solutions-manual/

International Logistics Management of International Trade

Operations 3rd Edition David Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/international-logistics-management-of-
international-trade-operations-3rd-edition-david-test-bank/

Introduction to Management Science Quantitative Approaches

to Decision Making 14th Edition Anderson Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-management-science-
quantitative-approaches-to-decision-making-14th-edition-anderson-test-
bank/

Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers 6th Edition

Bassarear Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/mathematics-for-elementary-school-
teachers-6th-edition-bassarear-solutions-manual/
Sociology and Your Life With POWER Learning 1st Edition
Schaefer Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/sociology-and-your-life-with-power-
learning-1st-edition-schaefer-solutions-manual/
Chapter 6: Connecting Through A Wireless Network

TRUE/FALSE

1. Line-of-sight radio transmissions have an advantage of being able to go through tall land masses.

ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 237

2. The transmission speeds in the 802.11 group of wireless standards correspond to the Physical layer of
the OSI model.

ANS: T PTS: 1 REF: 248

3. Devices for the 802.11a standard are the most widespread of the 802.11 wireless standards.

ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 249

4. Wireless networks are impervious to man-in-the-middle attacks.

ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 255

5. WPA2 is backward compatible with WPA but cannot be used along with WEP.

ANS: T PTS: 1 REF: 256

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Which of the following technologies is used for short distance wireless communications such as within
an office, and is harder to tap into without someone noticing?
a. infrared c. ultraviolet
b. microwave d. gamma ray
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 232

2. One ____ represents a radiated alternating current or emission of one cycle per second.
a. Angstrom c. nanometer
b. Hertz d. rpm
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 233

3. Which of the following uses datagrams and wireless packet switching to send data through radio
waves?
a. CB radio c. amateur radio
b. digital radio d. packet radio
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 233

4. Which of the following is a device that sends out and picks up radio waves and is used by access
points and wireless NICs?
a. antenna c. receiver
b. transmitter d. wireless modem
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 240
 5. At which layer of the OSI model do both priority-based access and Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) function?
a. Transport c. Network
b. Physical d. Data Link
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 247

6. Which of the following standards supports three transmission technologies on the 2.4 GHz band?
a. 802.11a c. 802.11c
b. 802.11b d. 802.11g
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 249

7. In which of the following system authentication methods can any two stations authenticate with each
other?
a. open c. selective
b. closed d. binary
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 255

8. Which of the following is a value that defines a logical network for all devices that belong to it?
a. WEP encryption key c. preshared key
b. service set identifier d. shared key
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 258

9. The 802.11i standard uses ____ for creating random encryption keys from one master key.
a. AES c. TKIP
b. PSK d. RSN
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 260

10. What type of notice is sent when a station wants to disconnect from another station?
a. denial c. deactivation
b. deauthentication d. termination
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 261

11. Which of the following is a wireless topology that employs two or more access points to form a
multiple-cell wireless LAN?
a. IBSS c. IAPP
b. star d. ESS
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 263

12. Bluetooth uses ____,which means that packets are sent in alternating directions using time slots.
a. code division multiplexing c. time division multiplexing
b. time division duplexing d. code division duplexing
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 264

13. Infrared can be broadcast in a single direction or in all directions, using a(n) ____ to transmit and a
photodiode to receive.
a. antenna c. laser
b. LED d. satellite dish
 ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 266

14. WiMAX is another name for the IEEE 802.16 standard for wireless ____.
a. WANs c. MANs
b. LANs d. DANs
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 267

15. Which of the following orbit at a distance of between 435 and 1000 miles above the Earth’s surface
and are used for both broadband computer and satellite phone communications?
a. LEO satellites c. terrestrial satellites
b. geosynchronous satellites d. WiMax satellites
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 273

16. An area with public wireless access is called a ____,which is simply a location that provides a public
access point to users.
a. hotspot c. nexus
b. cell d. hub
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 268

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

1. Which of the following is a standard for 802.11 networks? (Choose all that apply.)
a. 802.11a c. 802.11c
b. 802.11b d. 802.11d
ANS: A, B PTS: 1 REF: 248

2. Which wireless networking standards can operate in the 5 GHz frequency band?
a. 802.11a c. 802.11g
b. 802.11b d. 802.11n
ANS: A, D PTS: 1 REF: 248, 252

3. Which of the following are improvements of the 802.11n standard versus the 802.11a and 802.11g
standards? (Choose all that apply.)
a. operates at up to 54 Mbps c. utilizes WEP for security
b. uses MIMO d. uses aggregation of frames and ACK
responses
ANS: B, D PTS: 1 REF: 251

4. Which of the following are steps you can take to increase 802.11 performance? (Choose all that
apply.)
a. place the access point against a wall c. avoid placing access points in metal
cabinets
b. use WNICs with internal antennas d. use the 5 GHz band for 802.11n access
points
ANS: C, D PTS: 1 REF: 254

COMPLETION
 1. A(n) ____________________ transmission goes from point to point, following the surface of the
Earth, rather than bouncing off the atmosphere to skip across the country or continents.

ANS: line-of-sight

PTS: 1 REF: 237

2. ___________________ communications occur in discrete units with a start bit at the front and a stop
bit at the back.

ANS: Asynchronous

PTS: 1 REF: 238

3. In ____________________ access, the access point device also functions as a point coordinator.

ANS: priority-based

PTS: 1 REF: 247

4. The ________________________________________ topology consists of ad hoc peer-to-peer

communication between WNICs on individual computers.

ANS:
independent basic service set
IBSS
independent basic service set (IBSS)
IBSS (independent basic service set)

PTS: 1 REF: 261

5. A(n) ____________________ satellite maintains an orbital position that is stationary with respect to
the earth.

ANS: geosynchronous

PTS: 1 REF: 272

MATCHING

Match each term with the correct statement below.

a. Wi-Fi Alliance f. terminal node controller (TNC)
b. controlled port g. automatic repeat request (ARQ)
c. access point h. pulse position modulation (PPM)
d. satellite microwave i. spread spectrum technology
e. frequency hopping
1. converted a computer’s digital signal to an analog signal that was amplified by a transceiver and
broadcast through an antenna.
2. promotes wireless networking for LANs
3. spreads a transmission over one or more adjoining frequencies, using greater bandwidth to transmit the
signal.
 4. device that can optionally attach to a cabled network and that services wireless communications
between WNICs and the cabled network.
5. characteristic in 802.11 standard that helps wireless devices take interference into account.
6. defined by 802.1x to allow only authenticated communications.
7. means that transmissions hop among 79 frequencies for each packet that is sent.
8. communication method used by the IEEE 802.11R standard.
9. transmits the signal between three antennas, one of which is on a satellite in space.

1. ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 233

2. ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 236
3. ANS: I PTS: 1 REF: 237
4. ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 240
5. ANS: G PTS: 1 REF: 248
6. ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 260
7. ANS: E PTS: 1 REF: 264
8. ANS: H PTS: 1 REF: 267
9. ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 271

SHORT ANSWER

1. What are five needs that wireless networks are designed and installed to accommodate?

ANS:
Wireless networks are designed and installed to accommodate all types of needs, which include the
following:
Enabling communications in areas where a wired network would be difficult to install
Reducing installation costs
Providing “anywhere” access to users who cannot be tied down to a cable
Enabling easier small office and home office networking
Enabling data access to fit the application.

PTS: 1 REF: 234

2. Describe spread spectrum technology.

ANS:
Spread spectrum technology spreads the transmission over one or more adjoining frequencies,using
greater bandwidth to transmit the signal. Spread spectrum frequency ranges are very high, in the
902–928 MHz range and much higher. Spread spectrum transmissions typically send data at a rate of
1–600 Mbps.

PTS: 1 REF: 237

3. What is an omnidirectional antenna and how is it used?

ANS:
An omnidirectional antenna radiates the radio waves in all directions. Because the signal is diffused
more than the signal of a directional antenna, it is likely to have less gain than a directional antenna. In
wireless networking, an omnidirectional antenna is often used on an indoor network, in which users
are mobile and need to broadcast and receive in all directions. In addition, the signal gain in an indoor
network often does not have to be as high as for an outdoor network, because the indoor distances
between wireless devices are shorter.
 PTS: 1 REF: 241

4. How does CSMA/CA work in a wireless network?

ANS:
In CSMA/CA, a station waiting to transmit listens to determine if the communication frequency is idle.
It determines if the frequency is idle by checking the Receiver Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) level.
The point at which the transmission frequency is idle is when there is the most risk of collisions by two
or more stations that want to initiate a transmission at the same time. As soon as the frequency is idle,
each station listens for DIFS seconds to make sure the frequency remains idle.
If the frequency remains idle for DIFS seconds, stations avoid a collision because each station
needing to transmit calculates a different amount of time to wait or a “backoff time” until
checking the frequency again to see if it is idle. If the frequency remains idle, the station with the
shortest backoff time (delay time) transmits. If the frequency does not remain idle, stations that need to
transmit wait until the frequency is idle and then wait again according to the backoff time they have
already calculated.

PTS: 1 REF: 247-248

5. How does Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) work?

ANS:
DSSS first spreads the data across any of up to 14 channels, each 22 MHz in width. The data signal is
sequenced over the channels and is amplified to have a high gain to combat interference. For speeds of
5.5 Mbps and above, 802.11b also uses Barker Code and Complementary Code Keying (CCK), which
enables DSSS to send more information per transmission.

PTS: 1 REF: 249

6. What is a service set identifier?

ANS:
A service set identifier (SSID) is an identification value that typically can be up to 32 characters in
length. SSID is not a password, but rather a value that defines a logical network for all devices that
belong to it. For example, the SSID might be a series of random characters, or it might be a string that
actually describes the name or purpose of the network, such as “Atmospheric Research.”

PTS: 1 REF: 258

7. How does the Inter-Access Point Protocol (IAPP) enable roaming communications?

ANS:
IAPP enables a mobile station to move from one cell to another without losing connection. IAPP
encapsulates both the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and IP for roaming communications. IAPP
enables existing access points to be notified when a new access point is attached to a network, and it
enables adjacent access points to share configuration information with one another. IAPP also enables
an access point that has been communicating with a mobile station to automatically transfer
information about the original connection (and any data waiting to be sent) to another access point
when the mobile station moves from the cell of the first access point to the cell of the second access
point.

PTS: 1 REF: 263

 8. Describe the two operational modes of the current version of high-performance radio local area
network (HiperLAN2).

ANS:
HiperLAN2 operates in two modes. One is the direct mode, which is a peer-to-peer network mode
(similar to the 802.11 IBSS topology) that consists of only communicating stations. The other mode is
called the centralized mode, because it involves larger networks using access points that centralize and
control the network traffic. Both modes use time division duplexing (TDD), the same method used by
Bluetooth, as the communications method.

PTS: 1 REF: 266

9. Describe the WiMAX technology.

ANS:
WiMAX is sometimes called a connection for the “last mile,” because it can be used to provide
wireless connectivity between an office or home and a wired network provider, such as one providing
access to the Internet. WiMAX operates in the 2 to 66 GHz range. WiMAX provides connectivity up
to 75 Mbps and has a reach of up to 48 kilometers (about 30 miles). In many installations, though, the
actual distance is less than this, 8 to 16 kilometers (5 to 10 miles), depending on the devices in use.

PTS: 1 REF: 268-269

10. Identify three uses for satellite networks.

ANS:
Broadband (high-speed) Internet communications
Satellite phone communications
Worldwide video conferencing
Classroom and educational communications
Other communications involving voice, video, and data

PTS: 1 REF: 273

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
but scant opportunity of escaping it. This classic genealogy has
already entailed far too great an expenditure of time, money and
erudition to permit of any reconsideration; and should it chance, in
the ironic perversity of things, that the Horse has been so
inconsiderate as to leave indubitable traces of himself in any
formation earlier than the Pliocene, it goes without saying that the
formation in question will at once be dated ahead, in order to secure
for the “ancestors” that priority which is their due. An elastic criterion
like the index fossil is admirably adapted for readjustments of this
sort, and the evolutionist who uses it need never fear defeat. The
game he plays can never be a losing one, because he gives no other
terms than: Heads I win, tails you lose.
In setting forth the foregoing difficulties, we have purposely
refrained from challenging the cardinal dogma of orthodox
palæontology concerning the unimpeachable time-value of index
fossils as age-markers. The force of these considerations, therefore,
must be acknowledged even by the most fanatical adherents of the
aforesaid dogma. Our forbearance in this instance, however, must
not be construed as a confession that the dogma in question is really
unassailable. On the contrary, not only is it not invulnerable, but
there are many and weighty reasons for rejecting it lock, stock, and
barrel.
The palæontological dogma, to which we refer, is reducible to the
following tenets: (1) The earth is swathed with fossiliferous strata, in
much the same fashion that an onion is covered with a succession of
coats, and these strata are universal over the whole globe, occurring
always in the same invariable order and characterized not by any
peculiar uniformity of external appearance, physical texture, or
mineral composition, but solely by peculiar groups of fossil types,
which enable us to distinguish between strata of different ages and
to correlate the strata of one continent with their counterparts in
another continent—“Even the minuter divisions,” says Scott, “the
substages and zones of the European Jura, are applicable to the
classification of the South American beds.” (“Introduction to
Geology,” p. 681.) (2) In determining the relative age of a given
geological formation, its characteristic fossils form the exclusive
basis of decision, and all other considerations, whether lithological or
stratigraphic, are subordinated to this—“The character of the rocks,”
says H. S. Williams, “their composition or their mineral contents have
nothing to do with settling the question as to the particular system to
which the new rocks belong. The fossils alone are the means of
correlation.” (“Geological Biology,” pp. 37, 38.)
To those habituated to the common notion that stratigraphical
sequence is the foremost consideration in deciding the comparative
age of rocks, the following statement of Sir Archibald Geikie will
come as a distinct shock: “We may even demonstrate,” he avers,
“that in some mountainous ground the strata have been turned
completely upside down, if we can show that the fossils in what are
now the uppermost layers ought properly to lie underneath those in
the beds below them.” (“Textbook,” ed. of 1903, p. 837.) In fact, the
palæontologist, H. A. Nicholson, lays it down as a general principle
that, wherever the physical evidence (founded on stratigraphy and
lithology) is at variance with the biological evidence (founded on the
presence of typical fossil organisms), the latter must prevail and the
former must be ignored: “It may even be said,” he tells us, “that in
any case where there should appear to be a clear and decisive
discordance between the physical and the palæontological evidence
as to the age of a given series of beds, it is the former that is to be
distrusted rather than the latter.” (“Ancient Life History of the Earth,”
p. 40.)
George McCready Price, Professor of Geology at a
denominational college in Kansas, devotes more than fifty pages of
his recent work, “The New Geology” (1923), to an intensely
destructive criticism of this dogma of the supremacy of fossil
evidence as a means of determining the relative age of strata. To cite
Price as an “authority” would, of course, be futile. All orthodox
geologists have long since anathematized him, and outlawed him
from respectable geological society. Charles Schuchert of Yale refers
to him as “a fundamentalist harboring a geological nightmare.”
(Science, May 30, 1924, p. 487.) Arthur M. Miller of Kentucky
University speaks of him as “the man who, while a member of no
scientific body and absolutely unknown in scientific circles, has ...
had the effrontery to style himself a ‘geologist.’” (Science, June 30,
1922, pp. 702, 703.) Miller, however, is just enough to admit that he
is well-informed on his subject, and that he possesses the gift of
persuasive presentation. “He shows,” says Miller, “a wide familiarity
with geological literature, quoting largely from the most eminent
authorities in this country and in Europe. Any one reading these
writings of Price, which possess a certain charm of literary style, and
indicate on the part of the author a gift of popular presentation which
makes one regret that it had not been devoted to a more laudable
purpose, must constantly marvel at the character of mind of the man
who can so go into the literature of the subject and still continue to
hold such preposterous opinions.” (Loc. cit., p. 702.)
In the present instance, however, our interest centers, not on the
unimportant question of his official status in geological circles, but
exclusively on the objective validity of his argument against the
chronometric value of the index fossil. All citations, therefore, from
his work will be supported, in the sequel, by collateral testimony from
other authors of recognized standing. It is possible, of course, to
inject irrelevant issues. Price, for example, follows Sir Henry Howorth
in his endeavor to substitute an aqueous catastrophe for the
glaciation of the Quaternary Ice Age, and he adduces many
interesting facts to justify his preference for a deluge. But this is
neither here nor there; for we are not concerned with the merits of
his “new catastrophism.” It is his opportune revival in modern form of
the forgotten, but extremely effective, objection raised by Huxley and
Spencer against the alleged universality of synchronously deposited
fossiliferous sediments, that constitutes our sole preoccupation here.
It is Price’s merit to have shown that, in the light of recently
discovered facts, such as “deceptive conformities” and “overthrusts,”
this objection is far graver than it was when first formulated by the
authors in question.
Mere snobbery and abuse is not a sufficient answer to a difficulty
of this nature, and we regret that men, like Schuchert, have replied
with more anger than logic. The orthodox geologist seems
unnecessarily petulant, whenever he is called upon to verify or
substantiate the foundational principles of lithic chronology. One
frequently hears him make the excuse that “geology has its own
peculiar method of proof.” To claim exemption, however, from the
universal criterions of criticism and logic is a subterfuge wholly
unworthy of a genuine science, and, if Price insists on discussing a
subject, which the orthodox geologist prefers to suppress, it is the
latter, and not the former, who is really reactionary.
Price begins by stating the issue in the form of a twofold question:
(1) How can we be sure, with respect to a given fauna (or flora), say
the Cambrian, that at one time it monopolized our globe to the
complete exclusion of all other typical faunas (or floras), say the
Devonian, or the Tertiary, of which it is assumed that they could not,
by any stretch of imagination, have been contemporaneous, on
either land or sea, with the aforesaid “older” fauna (or flora)? (2) Do
the formations (rocks containing fossils) universally occur in such a
rigidly invariable order of sequence with respect to one another, as to
warrant our being sure of the starting-point in the time-scale, or to
justify us in projecting any given local order of succession into distant
localities, for purposes of chronological correlation?
His response to the first of these questions constitutes what may
be called an aprioristic refutation of the orthodox view, by placing the
evolutionary palæontologist in the trilemma: (a) of making the
awkward confession that, except within limited local areas, he has no
means whatever of distinguishing between a geographical
distribution of coëval fossil forms among various habitats and a
chronological distribution of fossils among sediments deposited at
different times; (b) or of denying the possibility of geographical
distribution in the past, by claiming dogmatically that the world during
Cambrian times, for example, was totally unlike the modern world, of
which alone we have experimental knowledge, inasmuch as it was
then destitute of zoölogical provinces, districts, zones, and other
habitats peculiar to various types of fauna, so that the whole world
formed but one grand habitat, extending over land and sea, for a
limited group of organisms made up exclusively of the lower types of
life; (c) or of reviving the discredited onion-coat theory of Abraham
Werner under a revised biological form, which asserts that the whole
globe is enveloped with fossiliferous rather than mineral strata,
whose order of succession being everywhere the same enables us
to discriminate with precision and certainty between cases of
distribution in time and cases of distribution in space.
In his response to the second question, Professor Price adduces
numerous factual arguments, which show that the invariable order of
sequence postulated by the theory of the time-value of index fossils,
not only finds no confirmation in the actual or concrete sequences of
fossiliferous rocks, but is often directly contradicted thereby. “Older”
rocks may occur above “younger” rocks, the “youngest” may occur in
immediate succession to the “oldest,” Tertiary rocks may be
crystalline, consolidated, and “old in appearance,” while Cambrian
and even pre-Cambrian rocks sometimes occur in a soft, incoherent
condition, that gives them the physical appearance of being as
young as Pleistocene formations. These exceptions and objections
to the “invariable order” of the fossiliferous strata accumulate from
day to day, and it is only by means of Procrustean tactics of the most
drastic sort that the facts can be brought into any semblance of
harmony with the current dogmas, which base geology upon
evolution rather than evolution upon geology.
Price, then, proposes for serious consideration the possibility that
Cretaceous dinosaurs and even Tertiary mammals may have been
living on the land at the same time that the Cambrian graptolites and
trilobites were living in the seas. “Who,” he exclaims, “will have the
hardihood, the real dogmatism to affirm in a serious way that
Cambrian animals and seaweeds were for a long time the only forms
of life existing anywhere on earth?” Should we, nevertheless, make
bold enough to aver that for countless centuries a mere few of the
lower forms of life monopolized our globe, as one universal habitat
unpartitioned into particular biological provinces or zones, we are
thereupon confronted with two equally unwelcome alternatives. We
must either fly in the face of experience and legitimate induction by
denying the existence in the past of anything analogous to our
present-day geographical distribution of plants and animals into
various biological provinces, or be prepared to show by what
infallible criterion we are enabled to distinguish between
synchronously deposited formations indicative of a geographical
distribution according to regional diversity, and consecutively
deposited formations indicative of comparative antiquity.
The former alternative does not merit any consideration whatever.
The latter, as we shall presently see, involves us in an assumption,
for which no defense either aprioristic or factual is available. We can,
indeed, distinguish between spatial, and temporal, distribution within
the narrow limits of a single locality by using the criterion of
superposition; for in regions of outcrop, where one sedimentary rock
overlies another, the obvious presumption is that the upper rock was
deposited at a later date than the lower rock. But the criterion of
superposition is not available for the correlation of strata in localities
so distant from each other that no physical evidence of stratigraphic
continuity is discernible. Moreover the induction, which projects any
local order of stratigraphical sequence into far distant localities on
the sole basis of fossil taxonomy, is logically unsound and leads to
conclusions at variance with the actual facts. Hence the alleged
time-value of index fossils becomes essentially problematic, and
affords no basis whatever for scientific certainty.
As previously stated, the sequence of strata is visible only in
regions of outcrop, and nowhere are we able to see more than mere
parts of two or, at most, three systems associated together in a
single locality. Moreover, each set of beds is of limited areal extent,
and the limits are frequently visible to the eye of the observer. In any
case, their visible extent is necessarily limited. It is impossible,
therefore, to correlate the strata of one continent with those of
another continent by tracing stratigraphic continuity. Hence, in
comparing particular horizons of various ages and in distinguishing
them from other horizons over large areas, we are obliged to
substitute induction for direct observation. Scientific induction,
however, is only valid when it rests upon some universal uniformity
or invariable sequence of nature. Hence, to be specific, the
assumption that the time-scale based on the European classification
of fossiliferous strata is applicable to the entire globe as a whole, is
based on the further assumption that we are sure of the universality
of fossiliferous stratification over the face of the earth, and that, as a
matter of fact, fossils are always and everywhere found in the same
order of invariable sequence.
But this is tantamount to reviving, under what Spencer calls “a
transcendental form,” the exploded “onion-coat” hypothesis of
Werner (1749-1817). Werner conceived the terrestrial globe as
encircled with successive mineral envelopes, basing his scheme of
universal stratification upon that order of sequence among rocks,
which he had observed within the narrow confines of his native
district in Germany. His hypothesis, after leading many scientists
astray, was ultimately discredited and laughed out of existence. For it
finally became evident to all observers that Werner’s scheme did not
fit the facts, and men were able to witness with their own eyes the
simultaneous deposition, in separate localities, of sediments which
differed radically in their mineral contents and texture. Thus it came
to pass that this classification of strata according to their mineral
nature and physical appearance lost all value as an absolute time-
scale, while the theory itself was relegated to the status of a curious
and amusing episode in the history of scientific fiascos.
Thanks, however, to Wm. Smith and to Cuvier, the discarded
onion-coat hypothesis did not perish utterly, but was rehabilitated
and bequeathed to us in a new and more subtle form. Werner’s
fundamental idea of the universality of a given kind of deposit was
retained, but his mineral strata were replaced by fossiliferous strata,
the lithological onion-coats of Werner being superseded by the
biological onion-coats of our modern theory. The geologist of today
discounts physical appearance, and classifies strata according to
their fossil, rather than their mineral, contents, but he stands
committed to the same old postulate of universal deposits. He has
no hesitation in synchronizing such widely-scattered formations as
the Devonian deposits of New York State, England, Germany, and
South America. He pieces them all together as parts of a single
system of rocks. He has no misgiving as to the universal applicability
of the European scheme of stratigraphic classification, but assures
us, in the words of the geologist, Wm. B. Scott, that: “Even the
minuter divisions, the subdivisions and zones of the European Jura,
are applicable to the classification of the South American beds.”
(“Introduction to Geology,” p. 681f.) The limestone and sandstone
strata of Werner are now things of the past, but, in their stead, we
have, to quote the criticism of Herbert Spencer, “groups of
formations which everywhere succeed each other in a given order,
and are severally everywhere of the same age. Though it may not be
asserted that these successive systems are universal, yet it seems
to be tacitly assumed that they are so.... Though probably no
competent geologist would contend that the European classification
of strata is applicable to the globe as a whole, yet most, if not all
geologists, write as though it were so.... Must we not say that though
the onion-coat hypothesis is dead, its spirit is traceable, under a
transcendental form, even in the conclusions of its antagonists.”
(“Illustrations of Universal Progress,” pp. 329-380, ed. of 1890.)
But overlooking, for the moment, the mechanical absurdity
involved in the notion of a regular succession of universal layers of
sediment, and conceding, for the sake of argument, that the
substitution of fossiliferous, for lithological, strata may conceivably
have remedied the defects of Werner’s geological time-scale, let us
confine ourselves to the one question, which, after all, is of prime
importance, whether, namely, without the aid of Procrustean tactics,
the actual facts of geology can be brought into alignment with the
doctrine of an invariable order of succession among fossil types, and
its sequel, the intrinsic time-value of index fossils. The question, in
other words, is whether or not a reliable time-scale can be based on
the facts of fossiliferous stratification as they are observed to exist in
the concrete. Price’s answer is negative, and he formulates several
empirical laws to express the concrete facts, on which he bases his
contention. The laws and facts to which he appeals may be
summarized as follows:
1. The concrete facts of geology do not warrant our singling out
any fossiliferous deposit as unquestionably the oldest, and hence we
have no reliable starting-point for our time-scale, because:
(a) We may lay it down as an empirical law that “any kind of
fossiliferous rock (even the ‘youngest’), that is, strata belonging to
any of the systems or other subdivisions, may rest directly upon the
Archæan or primitive crystalline rocks, without any other so-called
‘younger’ strata intervening; also these rocks, Permian, Cretaceous,
Tertiary, or whatever thus reposing directly on the Archæan may be
themselves crystalline or wholly metamorphic in texture. And this
applies not alone to small points of contact, but to large areas.”
(b) Conversely: any kind of fossiliferous strata (even the “oldest”)
may not only constitute the surface rocks over wide areas,[8] but may
consist of loose, unconsolidated materials, thus in both position and
texture resembling the “late” Tertiaries or the Pleistocene—“In some
regions, notably in the Baltic province and in parts of the United
States,” says John Allen Howe, alluding to the Cambrian rocks
around the Baltic Sea and in Wisconsin, “the rocks still retain their
original horizontality of deposition, the muds are scarcely indurated,
and the sands are incoherent.” (Encycl. Brit., vol. V, p. 86.)
A large number of striking instances are cited by Price to
substantiate the foregoing rule and its converse. The impression left
is that not only is the starting-point of the time-scale in doubt, but
that, if we were to judge the age of the rocks by their physical
appearance and position, we could not accept the conventional
verdicts of modern geology, which makes fossil evidence prevail
over every other consideration.
2. When two contiguous strata are parallel to each other, and there
is no indication of disturbance in the lower bed, nor any evidence of
erosion along the plane of contact, the two beds are said to exhibit
conformity, and this is ordinarily interpreted by geologists as a sign
that the upper bed has been laid down in immediate sequence to the
lower, and that there has been a substantial continuity of deposition,
with no long interval during which the lower bed was exposed as
surface to the agents of erosion. When such a conformity exists, as it
frequently does, between a “recent” stratum, above, and what is said
(according to the testimony of the fossils) to be a very “ancient”
stratum, below, and though the two are so alike lithologically as to be
mistaken for one and the same formation, nevertheless, such a
conformity is termed a “non-evident disconformity,” or “deceptive
conformity,” implying that, inasmuch as the “lost interval,”
representing, perhaps, a lapse of “several million years,” is entirely
unrecorded by any intervening deposition, or any erosion, or any
disturbance of the lower bed, we should not have suspected that so
great a hiatus had intervened, were it not for the testimony of the
fossils. Price cites innumerable examples, and sums them up in the
general terms of the following empirical law: “Any sort of fossiliferous
formation may occur on top of any other ‘older’ fossiliferous
formation, with all the physical evidences of perfect conformity, just
as if these alleged incongruous or mismated formations had in reality
followed one another in quick succession.”
A quotation from Schuchert’s “Textbook of Geology,” (1920), may
be given by way of illustration: “The imperfection,” we read, “of the
geologic column is greatest in the interior of North America and more
so in the north than in the south. This imperfection is in many places
very marked, since an entire period or several periods may be
absent. With such great breaks in the local sections the natural
assumption is that these gaps are easily seen in the sequence of the
strata, but in many places the beds lie in such perfect conformity
upon one another that the breaks are not noticeable by the eye and
can be proved to exist only by the entombed fossils on each side of
a given bedding plane.... Stratigraphers are, as a rule, now fully
aware of the imperfections in the geologic record, but the rocks of
two unrelated formations may rest upon each other with such
absolute conformability as to be completely deceptive. For instance,
in the Bear Grass quarries at Louisville, Ky., a face of limestone is
exposed in which the absolute conformability of the beds can be
traced for nearly a mile, and yet within 5 feet of vertical thickness is
found a Middle Silurian coral bed overlain by another coral zone of
Middle Devonian. The parting between these two zones is like that
between any two limestone beds, but this insignificant line
represents a stratigraphic hiatus the equivalent of the last third of
Silurian and the first of Devonian time. But such disconformities are
by no means rare, in fact are very common throughout the wide
central basin area of North America.” (Op. cit., II, pp. 586-588.)
In such cases, the stratigraphical relations give no hint of any
enormous gap at the line of contact. On the contrary, there is every
evidence of unbroken sequence, and the physical appearances are
as if these supposed “geological epochs” had never occurred in the
localities, of which there is question. Everything points to the
conclusion that the alleged long intervals of time between such
perfectly conformable, and, often, lithologically identical, formations
are a pure fiction elaborated for the purpose of bolstering up the
dogma of the universal applicability of the European classification of
fossiliferous rocks. Why not take the facts as we find them? Why
resort to tortuous explanations for the mere purpose of saving an
arbitrary time-scale? Why insist on a definite time-value for fossils,
when it drives us to the extremity of discrediting the objective
evidence of physical facts in deference to the preconceptions of
orthodox geology? Were it not for theoretical considerations, these
stratigraphic facts would be taken at their face value, and the need of
saving the reputation of the fossil as an infallible time index is not
sufficiently imperative to warrant so drastic a revision of the physical
evidence.
3. The third class of facts militating against the time-value of index
fossils, are what Price describes as “deceptive conformities turned
upside down,” and what orthodox geology tries to explain away as
“thrusts,” “thrust faults,” “overthrusts,” “low-angle faulting,” etc.[9] In
instances of this kind we find the accepted order of the fossiliferous
strata reversed in such a way that the “younger” strata are
conformably overlain by “older” strata, and the “older” strata are
sometimes interbedded between “younger” strata. “In many places
all over the world,” says Price, “fossils have been found in a relative
order which was formerly thought to be utterly impossible. That is,
the fossils have been found in the ‘wrong’ order, and on such a scale
that there can be no mistake about it. For when an area 500 miles
long and from 20 to 50 miles wide is found with Palæozoic rocks on
top, or composing the mountains, and with Cretaceous beds
underneath, or composing the valleys, and running under these
mountains all around, as in the case of the Glacier National Park and
the southern part of Alberta, the old notion about the exact and
invariable order of the fossils has to be given up entirely.”
 Price formulates his third law as follows: “Any fossiliferous
formation, ‘old’ or ‘young,’ may occur conformably on any other
fossiliferous formation, ‘younger’ or ‘older.’” The corollary of this
empirical law is that we are no longer justified in regarding any
fossils as intrinsically older than other fossils, and that our present
classification of fossiliferous strata has a taxonomic, rather than a
historical, value.
Low-angle faulting is the phenomenon devised by geologists to
meet the difficulty of “inverted sequence,” when all other
explanations fail. Immense mountain masses are said to have been
detached from their roots and pushed horizontally over the surface
(without disturbing it in the least), until they came finally to rest in
perfect conformity upon “younger” strata, so that the plane of
slippage ended by being indistinguishable from an ordinary
horizontal bedding plane. These gigantic “overthrusts” or “thrust
faults” are a rather unique phenomenon. Normal faulting is always at
a high angle closely approaching the vertical, but “thrust faults” are
at a low angle closely approximating the horizontal, and there is
enormous displacement along the plane of slippage. The huge
mountain masses are said to have been first lifted up and then thrust
horizontally for vast distances, sometimes for hundreds of miles,
over the face of the land, being thus pushed over on top of “younger”
rocks, so as to repose upon the latter in a relation of perfectly
conformable superposition. R. G. McConnell, of the Canadian
Survey, comments on the remarkable similarity between these
alleged “thrust planes” and ordinary stratification planes, and he is at
a loss to know why the surface soil was not disturbed by the huge
rock masses which slid over it for such great distances. Speaking of
the Bow River Gap, he says: “The fault plane here is nearly
horizontal, and the two formations, viewed from the valley appear to
succeed one another conformably,” and then having noted that the
underlying Cretaceous shales are “very soft,” he adds that they
“have suffered little by the sliding of the limestones over them.” (An.
Rpt. 1886, part D., pp. 33, 34, 84.) Credat Iudaeus Apella, non ego!
Schuchert describes the Alpine overthrust as follows: “The
movement was both vertical and thrusting from the south and
southeast, from the southern portion of Tethys, elevating and folding
the Tertiary and older strata of the northern areas of this
mediterranean into overturned, recumbent, and nearly horizontal
folds, and pushing the southern or Lepontine Alps about 60 miles to
the northward into the Helvetic region. Erosion has since carved up
these overthrust sheets, leaving remnants lying on foundations
which belong to a more northern portion of the ancient sea. Most
noted of these residuals of overthrust masses is the Matterhorn, a
mighty mountain without roots, a stranger in a foreign geologic
environment,” (Pirsson & Schuchert’s “Textbook of Geology,” 1920,
II, p. 924.)
With such a convenient device as the “overthrust” at his disposal,
it is hard to see how any possible concrete sequence of fossiliferous
strata could contradict the preconceptions of an evolutionary
geologist. The hypotheses and assumptions involved, however, are
so tortuous and incredible, that nothing short of fanatical devotion to
the theory of transformism can render them acceptable. “Examples,”
says Price, “of strata in the ‘wrong’ order were first reported from the
Alps nearly half a century ago. Since that time, whole armfuls of
learned treatises in German, in French, and in English have been
written to explain the wonderful conditions there found. The
diagrams that have been drawn to account for the strange order of
the strata are worthy to rank with the similar ones by the Ptolemaic
astronomers picturing the cycles and epicycles required to explain
the peculiar behavior of the heavenly bodies in accordance with the
geocentric theory of the universe then prevailing.... In Scandinavia, a
district some 1,120 miles long by 80 miles wide is alleged to have
been pushed horizontally eastward ‘at least 86 miles.’ (Schuchert.) In
Northern China, one of these upside down areas is reported by the
Carnegie Research Expedition to be 500 miles long.” (“The New
Geology,” 1923, pp. 633, 634.)
Nor are the epicyclic subterfuges of the evolutionary geologist
confined to “deceptive conformities” and “overthrusts.” His inventive
genius has hit upon other methods of explaining away inconvenient
facts. When, for example, “younger” fossils are found interbedded
with “older” fossils, and the discrepancy in time is not too great, he
rids himself of the difficulty of their premature appearance by calling
them a “pioneer colony.” Similarly, when a group of “characteristic”
fossils occur in one age, skip another “age,” and recur in a third, he
recognizes the possibility of “recurrent faunas,” some of these
faunas having as many as five successive “recurrences.” Clearly, the
assumption of gradual approximation and the dogma that the lower
preceded the higher forms of life are things to be saved at all costs,
and it is a foregone conclusion that no facts will be suffered to
conflict with these irrevisable articles of evolutionary faith. “What is
the use,” exclaims Price, “of pretending that we are investigating a
problem of natural science, if we already know beforehand that the
lower and more generalized forms of animals and plants came into
existence first, and the higher and the more specialized came only
long afterwards, and that specimens of all these successive types
have been pigeonholed in the rocks in order to help us illustrate this
wonderful truth?” (Op. cit., pp. 667, 668.)
The predominance of extinct species in certain formations is said
to be an independent argument of their great age. Most of the
species of organisms found as fossils in Cambrian, Ordovician, and
Silurian rocks are extinct, whereas modern types abound in
Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. Hence it is claimed that the former
must be vastly older than the latter. But this argument gratuitously
assumes the substantial perfection of the stone record of ancient life
and unwarrantedly excludes the possibility of a sudden
impoverishment of the world’s flora and fauna as the result of a
sweeping catastrophe, of which our present species are the
fortunate survivors. Now the fact that certain floras and faunas skip
entire systems of rocks to reappear only in later formations is proof
positive that the record of ancient life is far from being complete, and
we have in the abundant fossil remains of tropical plants and
animals, found in what are now the frozen arctic regions,
unmistakable evidence of a sudden catastrophic change by which a
once genial climate “was abruptly terminated. For carcasses of the
Siberian elephants were frozen so suddenly and so completely that
the flesh has remained untainted.” (Dana.) Again, the mere fact of
extinction tells us nothing about the time of the extinction. For this we
are obliged to fall back on the index fossil whose inherent time-value
is based on the theory of evolution and not on stratigraphy. Hence
the argument from extinct species is not an independent argument.
To sum up, therefore, the aprioristic evolutional series of fossils is
not a genuine time-scale. The only safe criterion of comparative age
is that of stratigraphic superposition, and this is inapplicable outside
of limited local areas.[10] The index fossil is a reliable basis for the
chronological correlation of beds only in case one is already
convinced on other grounds of the actuality of evolution, but for the
unbiased inquirer it is destitute of any inherent time-value. In other
words, we can no longer be sure that a given formation is old merely
because it happens to contain Cambrian fossils, nor that a rock is
young merely because it chances to contain Tertiary fossils. Our
present classification of rocks according to their fossil contents is
purely arbitrary and artificial, being tantamount to nothing more than
a mere taxonomical classification of the forms of ancient life on our
globe, irrespective of their comparative antiquity. This scheme of
classification is, indeed, universally applicable, and places can
usually be found in it for new fossiliferous strata, whenever and
wherever discovered. Its universal applicability, however, is due not
to any prevalent order of invariable sequence among fossiliferous
strata, but solely to the fact that the laws of biological taxonomy and
ecology are universal laws which transcend spatial and temporal
limitation. If a scheme of taxonomy is truly scientific, all forms of life,
whether extant or extinct, will fit into it quite readily.
The anomalies of spatial distribution constitute a sixth difficulty for
transformistic palæontology. In constructing a phylogeny the most
diverse and widely-separated regions are put under tribute to furnish
the requisite fossils, no heed being paid to what are now at any rate
impassable geographical barriers, not to speak of the climatic and
environmental limitations which restrict the migrations of non-
cosmopolitan species within the boundaries of narrow habitats.
Hypothetical lineages of a modern form of life are frequently
constructed from fossil remains found in two or more continents
separated from one another by immense distances and vast oceanic
expanses. When taxed with failure to plausibleize this procedure, the
evolutionist meets the difficulty by hypothecating wholesale and
devious migrations to and fro, and by raising up alleged land bridges
to accommodate plants and animals in their suppositional migrations
from one continent to another, etc.
The European horse, with his so-called ancestry interred, partly in
the Tertiary deposits of Europe, but mostly in those of North America,
is a typical instance of these anomalies in geographical distribution.
It would, of course, be preposterous to suppose that two
independent lines of descent could have fortuitously terminated in
the production of one and the same type, namely, the genus Equus.
Moreover, to admit for a moment that the extinct American Equus
and the extant European Equus had converged by similar stages
from distinct origins would be equivalent, as we have seen, to a
surrender of the basic postulate that structural similarity rests on the
principle of inheritance. Nothing remains, therefore, but to
hypothecate a Tertiary land bridge between Europe and North
America.
Modern geologists, however, are beginning to resent these
arbitrary interferences with their science in the interest of biological
theories. Land bridges, they rightly insist, should be demonstrated by
means of positive geological evidence and not by the mere
exigencies of a hypothetical genealogy. Whosoever postulates a
land bridge between continents should be able to adduce solid
reasons, and to assign a mechanism capable of accomplishing the
five-mile uplift necessary to bring a deep-sea bottom to the surface
of the hydrosphere. Such an idea is extravagant and not to be easily
entertained in our day, when geologists are beginning to understand
the principle of isostasy. To-day, the crust of the earth, that is, the
entire surface of the lithosphere, is conceived as being constituted of
earth columns, all of which rest with equal weight upon the level of
complete compensation, which exists at a depth of some 76 miles
below land surfaces. At this depth viscous flows and undertows of
the earth take place, compensating all differences of gravitational
stress. Hence the materials constituting a mountain column are
thought to be less dense than those constituting the surrounding
lowland columns, and for this reason the mountains are buoyed up
above the surrounding landscape. The columns under ocean
bottoms, on the contrary, are thought to consist of heavy materials
like basalt, which tend to depress the column. To raise a sea floor,
therefore, some means of producing a dilatation of these materials
would have to be available. Arthur B. Coleman called attention to this
difficulty in his Presidential Address to the Geological Society of
America (December 29, 1915), and we cannot do better than quote
his own statement of the matter here:
“Admitting,” he says, “that in the beginning the lithosphere bulged
up in places, so as to form continents, and sagged in other places,
so as to form ocean beds, there are interesting problems presented
as to the permanence of land and seas. All will admit marginal
changes affecting large areas, but these encroachments of the sea
on the continents and the later retreats may be of quite a
subordinate kind, not implying an interchange of deep-sea bottoms
and land surfaces. The essential permanence of continents and
oceans has been firmly held by many geologists, notably Dana
among the older ones, and seems reasonable; but there are
geologists, especially palæontologists, who display great
recklessness in rearranging land and sea. The trend of a mountain
range, or the convenience of a running bird, or a marsupial afraid to
wet his feet seems sufficient warrant for hoisting up any sea bottom
to connect continent with continent. A Gondwana Land arises in
place of an Indian Ocean and sweeps across to South America, so
that a spore-bearing plant can follow up an ice age; or an Atlantis
ties New England to Old England to help out the migrations of a
shallow-water fauna; or a ‘Lost Land of Agulhas’ joins South Africa
and India.
“It is curious to find these revolutionary suggestions made at a
time when geodesists are demonstrating that the earth’s crust over
large areas, and perhaps everywhere, approaches a state of
isostatic equilibrium, and that isostatic compensation is probably
complete at a depth of only 76 miles” ... and (having noted the
difference of density that must exist between the continental, and
submarine, earth columns) Coleman would have us bear in mind
“that to transform great areas of sea bottom into land it would be
necessary either to expand the rock beneath by several per cent or
to replace heavy rock, such as basalt, by lighter materials, such as
granite. There is no obvious way in which the rock beneath a sea
bottom can be expanded enough to lift it 20,000 feet, as would be
necessary in parts of the Indian Ocean, to form a Gondwana land; so
one must assume that light rocks replace heavy ones beneath a
million square miles of ocean floor. Even with unlimited time, it is
hard to imagine a mechanism that could do the work, and no
convincing geological evidence can be brought forward to show that
such a thing ever took place.... The distribution of plants and animals
should be arranged for by other means than by the wholesale
elevation of ocean beds to make dry land bridges for them.”
(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1916, pp. 269-271.)
A seventh anomaly of palæontological phylogeny is what may be
described as contrariety of direction. We are asked to believe, for
example, that in mammals racial development resulted in
dimensional increase. The primitive ancestor of mammoths,
mastodons, and elephants is alleged to have been the Moeritherium,
“a small tapirlike form, from the Middle Eocene Qasr-el-Sagha beds
of the Fayûm in Egypt.... Moeritherium measured about 3½ feet in
height.” (Lull: Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1908, pp. 655, 656.) The
ancestor of the modern horse, we are told, was “a little animal less
than a foot in height, known as Eohippus, from the rocks of the
Eocene age.” (Woodruff: “Foundations of Biology,” p. 361.) In the
case of insects, on the other hand, we are asked to believe the exact
reverse, namely, that racial development brought about dimensional
reduction. “In the middle of the Upper Carboniferous periods,” says
Anton Handlirsch, “the forest swamps were populated with
cockroaches about as long as a finger, dragonfly-like creatures with
a wing spread of about 2½ feet, while insects that resemble our May
flies were as big as a hand.” (“Die fossilen Insekten, und die
Phylogenie der recenten Formen,” 1908, L. c., p. 1150.) Contrasting
one of these giant palæozoic dragonflies, Meganeura monyi
Brongn., with the largest of modern dragonflies, Aeschna grandis L.,
Chetverikov exclaims with reference to the latter: “What a pitiful
pigmy it is and its specific name (grandis) sounds like such a
mockery.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1918, p. 446.) Chetverikov, it is
true, proposes a teleological reason for this progressive diminution,
but the fact remains that for dysteleological evolutionism, which
dispenses with the postulate of a Providential coördination and
regulation of natural agencies, this diminuendo of the “evolving”
insects stands in irreconcilable opposition to the crescendo of the
“evolving” mammals, and constitutes a difficulty which a purely
mechanistic philosophy can never surmount.
Not to prolong excessively this already protracted enumeration of
discrepancies between fossil fact and evolutionary assumption, we
shall mention, as an eighth and final difficulty, the indubitable
persistence of unchanged organic types from the earliest geological
epochs down to the present time. This phenomenon is all the more
wonderful in view of the fact that the decision as to which are to be
the “older” and which the “younger” strata rests with the evolutionary
geologist, who is naturally disinclined to admit the antiquity of strata
containing modern types, and whose position as arbiter enables him
to date formations aprioristically, according to the exigencies of the
transformistic theory. Using, as he does, the absence of modern
types as an express criterion of age, and having, as it were, his pick
among the various fossiliferous deposits, one would expect him to be
eminently successful in eliminating from the stratigraphic groups
selected for senior honors all strata containing fossil types identical
with modern forms. Since, however, even the most ingenious sort of
geological gerrymandering fails to make this elimination complete,
we must conclude that the evidence for persistence of type is
inescapable and valid under any assumption.
When we speak of persistent types, we mean generic and specific,
rather than phyletic, types, although it is assuredly true that the
persistence of the great phyla, from their abrupt and
contemporaneous appearance in Cambrian and pre-Cambrian rocks
down to the present day, constitutes a grave difficulty for progressive
evolution in general and monophyletic evolution in particular. All the
great invertebrate types, such as the protozoa, the annelida, the
brachiopoda, and large crustaceans called eurypterids, are found in
rocks of the Proterozoic group, despite the damaged condition of the
Archæan record, while in the Cambrian they are represented by a
great profusion of forms. “The Lower Cambrian species,” says Dana,
“have not the simplicity of structure that would naturally be looked for
in the earliest Palæozoic life. They are perfect of their kind and
highly specialized structures. No steps from simple kinds leading up
to them have been discovered; no line from the protozoans up to
corals, echinoderms, or worms, or from either of these groups up to
brachiopods, mollusks, trilobites, or other crustaceans. This
appearance of abruptness in the introduction of Cambrian life is one
of the striking facts made known by geology.” (“Manual,” p. 487.)
Thus, as we go backward in time, we find the great organic phyla
retaining their identity and showing no tendency to converge towards
a common origin in one or a few ancestral types. For this reason, as
we shall see presently, geologists are beginning to relegate the
evolutionary process to unknown depths below the explored portion
of the “geological column.” What may lurk in these unfathomed
profundities, it is, of course, impossible to say, but, if we are to judge
by that part of the column which is actually exposed to view, there is
no indication whatever of a steady progression from lower, to higher,
degrees of organization, and it takes all the imperturbable idealism of
a scientific doctrinaire to discern in such random, abrupt, and
unrelated “origins” any evidence of what Blackwelder styles “a slow
but steady increase in complexity of structure and in function.”
(Science, Jan. 27, 1922, p. 90.)
But, while the permanence of phyletic types excludes progress,
that of generic and specific types excludes change, and hence it is in
the latter phenomenon, especially, that the theory of transformism
encounters a formidable difficulty. Palæobotany furnishes numerous
examples of the persistence of unchanged plant forms. Ferns
identical with the modern genus Marattia occur in rocks of the
Palæozoic group. Cycads indistinguishable from the extant genera
Zamia and Cycas are found in strata belonging to the Triassic
system, etc., etc.
The same is true of animal types. In all the phyla some genera and
even species have persisted unchanged from the oldest strata down
to the present day. Among the Protozoa, for example, we have the
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

testbankfan.com