Essay "Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection"
david ford
Keywords: natural selection, evolutionary novelties, imperfection in
fossil record, Gould and Eldredge, artificial vs. natural selection
Author: David Ford <dfo...@GL.umbc.edu>, a graduate of the
University of Maryland Baltimore County that majored
in history and philosophy.
Date: 8 August 1999 File: natsel.81 Words in file: 9500
Outline:
I. Introduction
II. Fossil Record Refutes a Key Prediction of Theory of Natural
Selection
III. Gould, Gilbert et al., Goodwin, Ho & Saunders, Rosen & Buth,
Tetry, Grasse, and Lovtrup rejected neo-Darwinism
IV. Faulty Reasoning in Darwin's Argument for Natural Selection
V. Conclusion VI. Works Cited VII. Notes
I. Introduction
Using the fossil record and Charles Darwin's argument for natural
selection, this essay critically examines the theory of natural
selection.
II. Fossil Record Refutes a Key Prediction of Theory of Natural
Selection
Currently curator of the Department of Invertebrates at the American
Museum of Natural History, paleontologist Niles Eldredge recounts the
story of how he set out to do his Ph.D. thesis with the aim of finding
in successive fossilized remains the gradual appearance of what I will
term an "evolutionary novelty." For purposes of this essay, and using
Ernst Mayr's words, "evolutionary novelty" is defined as follows:
What particular changes of the phenotype, then, would qualify [as
an 'evolutionary novelty']? Certainly any change that would permit
an organism to perform a new function. Tentatively, one might
restrict the designation "evolutionary novelty" to any newly
acquired structure or property which permits the assumption of a
new function.1
Examples of "evolutionary novelties" include the appearance of an eye
(eyes are alleged to have evolved independently 40 to 60+ times),2 a
limb, an internal organ, and a complex biochemical pathway (e.g.,
photosynthesis; also, the biochemistry in vision: light-sensitive spots,
which require a slew of enzymes working in concert in a complicated
biochemical pathway, supposedly evolved independently 65+ times),3 where
before there was no eye, no limb, no internal organ, and no biochemical
pathway.
Eldredge settled down to study trilobites, and horror of horrors, found
that during 8 million years of some particular trilobites' existence,
they had developed evolutionary novelties not a whit. Those changes
that had occurred in the trilobites required a microscope to find, and
the number of eyes changed slightly,4 an instance of "microevolution,"
which will be defined as quantitative change, i.e., changes whether in
A) numbers of certain organs, limbs, etc., or B) in size (e.g., becoming
larger, smaller, taller, etc.), or C) in allele frequencies (e.g., the
change in the ratio of white to gray moths in a moth population). Note
the difference between "microevolution" and the appearance of
"evolutionary novelties" (or, using Mayr's words, "newly acquired
structure[s] or propert[ies] which permi[t] the assumption of... new
function[s]").
In his 1859 book _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_,5
Charles Darwin argued for the existence of "natural selection."
"Natural selection" is a non-intelligence-directed-as-far-as-can-be-
determined mechanism Darwin claimed could account for the appearance of
evolutionary novelties. He argued that just as man could produce better
breeds of cattle and horses through selecting the best cattle and horses
for further breeding ("artificial selection"), nature was capable of
producing, with a vastly larger timespan, entire new organisms by
allowing only those organisms with the best adaptive characteristics to
survive for further matings ("natural selection").
Accumulation of the beneficial variations via the mechanism of natural
selection means that evolutionary novelties develop very slowly. On the
basis of his theory of natural selection, Darwin should have predicted
that, with further paleontological investigations, the gradual arising
of evolutionary novelties would be observed in the fossil record (as
Darwin noted, the record covers a much longer timespan than contemporary
observations allow). Darwin came close to boldly stepping out on limb
and offering for testing the novel prediction his theory of natural
selection made:
It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest
variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up
all that are good; silently and insensibly working, _whenever and
wherever opportunity offers_, at the improvement of each organic
being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
We see nothing of the slow changes in progress, until the hand of
time has marked the lapse of ages....6
But he did not. It would have been a novel prediction, because in 1859,
no such observations existed. For example, the complete sentence from
the above quotation reads,
We see nothing of the slow changes in progress, until the hand of
time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our
view into long-past geological ages, that we see only that the
forms of life are now different from what they formally were.
Paleontologists of Darwin's time knew that the fossil record, with its
depiction of organisms appearing abruptly, suddenly, sans prior warning,
lacked "transitional forms," which will be defined as "fossil plants and
animals exhibiting step-by-step acquisition of evolutionary novelties."
Comments Darwin, "the forms of life.... falsely appear to have been
abruptly introduced."7 He says "falsely" because according to his
mechanism of natural selection, which he believed correct, organisms
should not appear abruptly in the fossil record. Observes Darwin,
But just in proportion as this process of extermination [in which
'new species... supplant their parent-forms'] has acted on an
enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which
have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate
links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious
objection which can be urged against the theory.8
Instead of stating that his theory's prediction should be falsified or
confirmed by _further_ paleontological investigations, Darwin chose to
shield his theory from _immediate_ refutation by invoking the excuse
that the fossil record exhibited "imperfection": following "Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory,"9 he continues, "The explanation lies, as I
believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
.... I look at the geological record as a history of the world
imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this
history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or
three centuries. Of this volume, only here and there a short
chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a
few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less
different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of
life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which
falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the
difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even
disappear.10
In his commentary "Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14: 532-4 (1986),
Kenneth J. Hsu of the Geological Institute, Eidgenossische Technische
Hochschule in Zurich, Switzerland observes about Darwin's belief that
the fossil record's depiction of several mass extinctions resulted from
imperfection in the record, "He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."11
Darwin's invocation of "imperfection" has continued to present times to
be offered. States science writer Roger Lewin,
The absence of transitional forms between established species has
traditionally been explained as a fault of an imperfect record, an
argument first advanced by Charles Darwin.12
Eldredge and fellow paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould concur in
remarking,
we [i.e., paleontologists generally] usually explain the paucity of
cases [of 'phyletic gradualism'] by a nearly ritualized invocation
of the inadequacy of the fossil record.13
Hsu makes a good point in continuing with, "Well, the geologic record
was not perfect, is not perfect, and can never be perfect, but that is
not relevant. The key question is, Does the imperfection tell lies?
Darwin thought so."14 Astrophysicists Fred Hoyle and Chandra
Wickramasinghe correctly observe that
It is not hard to find writings in which the myth is stated that
the Darwinian theory of evolution is well proven by the fossil
record. But one finds that the higher the technical quality of the
writing the weaker the claims that are made.15
So as to determine whether the fossil record tells lies, we examine
high-quality, peer-reviewed literature on what the record says,
imperfect as that record is and always will be.
First up, a remark by Steven M. Stanley (Dept of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, The Johns Hopkins U.) in "A Theory of Evolution Above the
Species Level" _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA_ 72:
646-50 (1975).
Phylogenies have traditionally been characterized as having
tree-like patterns. In plots depicting morphologic change on a
horizontal scale and time on a vertical scale, continuous phyletic
change is typically represented by diagonal branches and twigs.
Being based on fragmentary fossil evidence, such plots are
interpretive. They represent the concept of evolution that has
been called _phyletic gradualism_ (2). In reality, gradual
phyletic change is recognized for only a few fossil lineages, and
in these it is of minor morphologic consequence.16
On 648 of the same article, Stanley observes,
_A Disclaimer_. It must be emphasized that the above tests do not
demonstrate that no gradual change occurs within established
species, but only that such change is generally slow and of minor
consequence relative to changes that frequently occur in speciation
events.
Between 1859 to 1977, the year Gould and Eldredge (G&E) presented their
peer-reviewed article "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of
evolution reconsidered" _Paleobiology_ 3: 115-51 (1977), individuals had
been assiduously searching for the theory of natural selection's
predicted intermediates for about 115 years. In the article, G&E
examine several claims of alleged gradualism in the fossil record. The
methods used to arrive at the evolutionary sequences discussed by them
often involved such things as the following:
1) neglecting the variation present in populations (see 2's example for
an example),
2) arranging items in terms of age when age was defined to be its stage
in an evolutionary sequence (e.g., if I were to take 1000 different
dogs from all over the world that had died yesterday, and arrange
their skeletons in order of increasing size, and say that the
chihuahua "evolved" into a Saint Bernard over time, with the
chihuahua being the oldest and the Bernard being the youngest),
3) totally ignoring examples of stasis (i.e., microevolution), and
4) looking at selected characteristics in a weak attempt at arriving at
the conclusion that consequential changes were occurring (e.g.,
looking at the size [!] of molar teeth [!!] changing over time,
when if other characteristics had been chosen, we would have found
increases over time, decreases over time, and/or zigzagging
increases and decreases over time).
Here are some of the studies G&E scrutinized in their 1977 essay:
* G&E mention "the _Micraster_ sequence" as containing, in three
species, traits going in one direction. However, other "equally
important" traits had "no trend at all"; e.g., the direction of one
particular trait was the same for the 1st and 3rd, but not the middle,
species: a zig-zag.-pg. 122.
* G&E cite a study by Makurath and Anderson where 3 brachiopods were
studied. A look at "beak length" and "spondylium width" showed no
gradualism. The average shape ratio showed unidirectional change-- just
what was wanted: evidence of evolutionary novelties appearing. No, not
even that. Evidence, if _anything_, only for microevolution. So,
Makurath and Anderson looked at a mere 3 features and picked out what
they wanted. In the process they failed to take into account geographic
variation.-pp. 122-3.
* G&E cite a study by Ziegler of a particular brachiopod. Four traits
were examined. Of those 4 traits, just a "height/width ratio of ribs"
showed a trend. There was a zig-zag for rib number, a zig-zag for rib
size, and a zig-zag for some rib angle. The one trait that increased
over time constituted evidence for who knows what.-pp.125.
* Kellogg looked at "thoracic width" in radiolarians. She chose 7 out
of 34 samples to show an increase over time. Choose another set, and
you get a decrease over time. Think only of the first set, and you have
evidence for _?_. No evidence here for the appearance of evolutionary
novelties.-pg. 127.
* In the only case that G&E found to be a good example of gradualism, 4
out of 9 traits showed gradualism. However, looking over the pictures
in Tomowo Ozawa, "Evolution of _Lepidolina multiseptata_ (Permian
Foraminifer) in East Asia" _Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu
University, Series D, Geology_, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 117-64 (25 Nov 1975)
reveals that there is only microevolution occurring; no evolutionary
novelties are seen appearing.
* Gingerich's evidence for gradualism in some mammals consisted of a
study of "the logarithm of length x width of the first lower molar."
That was it. Even then, jumps and zig-zags. Evidence for appearance of
evolutionary novelties only if you believe hard enough. Also, have a
memory lapse and forget that "all of Gingerich's lineages originated
abruptly."-pp. 129-34.
G&E approvingly quote from H.J. Mac Gillavry of the Geological Institute
of the University of Amsterdam, who brings his personal experience when
he writes in "Modes of Evolution Mainly Among Marine Invertebrates an
observational approach" _Bijdragen Tot De Dierkunde_ 38: 69-71 (1968).
Here is what G&E presented, plus some additional material.
What, to my knowledge, is completely lacking, is a quantitative
study of the entire fauna of such successions. A study of this
kind should pay attention to the percentage of forms which do not
show any evolutionary change. During my work as an oil
paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting
these rigid requirements.... As an ardent student of evolution,
moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of
evolutionary change. The first conclusion to emerge was that such
instances are hard to find, and that _many species do not show any
evolutionary change at all_.17
In the next column of his paper, Mac Gillavry states,
The impressions acquired from my studies of well-sections are: _a_.
The great majority of species do not show any appreciable
evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section
(first occurrence) without obvious ancestor [sic] in underlying
beds, are stable once established, and disappear higher up without
leaving any obvious descendants.
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of
the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, says in "Paleontology
and Evolutionary Theory" _Evolution_ 28: 458-72 (1974),
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of
'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for
evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps'
in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms
between species and paleontology does not provide them.18
Writing by himself in "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?" _Paleobiology_ 6: 119-30 (1980), Harvard's Gould speaks of
The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of
fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions
in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination,
to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a
persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution.19
Such remarks echo G&E's _Paleobiology_ 3: 147 (1977) report that
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble,
though it remains the "official" position of most Western
evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between _Bauplane_ [body
plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought
experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil
record (curious mosaics like _Archaeopteryx_ do not count). Even
so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum
evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions.
Even more damning is the following _Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977)
testimony by G&E.
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a
conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all these
years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
In sum, a look at the peer-reviewed literature reveals that the fossil
record does not contain confirmation of the theory of natural
selection's prediction, and in fact presents the opposite of what the
theory predicts. Numerous instances of weak grasping at straws by
looking selectively at data underscore this conclusion. Judging by the
fossil data heretofore discovered, sequences documenting the gradual
appearance of evolutionary novelties do not exist. Lifeforms' various
body structures appeared abruptly in the 1860s, and further
investigation has not made them appear less abruptly.
It is important to note that this claim of "no fossil sequences exist
depicting the gradual, step-by-step appearance of evolutionary
novelties" is not a claim about the presence of "gaps" in the fossil
record. I absolutely agree that further discoveries may fill in what
had been gaps between various organisms. To illustrate, suppose the
fossil record only contained, going from oldest to youngest strata,
appearances of moles, dogs, and whales. Finding rats and bears so we
now had moles, rats, dogs, bears, and then whales would, I grant, fill
in some gaps. As this example shows, gaps can get filled when more
fossils are found. (They may also be created: suppose we found a
_Tyrannosaurus rex_ or hummingbird in strata between the first
appearances of moles and rats.)
The focus is not on "gaps," but instead on the absence of fossil
sequences depicting the gradual, step-by-step appearance of evolutionary
novelties. A series of fossils showing the gradual, step-by-step
transformation of a fin into a leg has not been unearthed. A series of
fossils depicting the gradual, step-by-step transformation of a leg into
a wing has not been discovered. A series of fossils depicting the
gradual, step-by-step transformation of a scale into a feather has not
been found. A series of fossils depicting the gradual, step-by-step
transformation of some item of land animal anatomy into an item of whale
anatomy has not been uncovered.
If such sequences had been discovered, I would be told of them day in
and day out in the newsgroup talk.origins-- and yet I am not-- and the
peer-reviewed journal references devoted to describing in detail these
fossil sequences would be widely circulated-- and yet they are not.
This, after 140 years of active searching. What was just said, in
abbreviated but explicit modus tollens argument format:
P1: if discovered, then highly touted.
P2: not highly touted.
C: not discovered.
Does the fossil record tell lies? Darwin believed so. I for one do
not. Does the fact that the fossil record fails to preserve a specimen
from every extant and extinct species, and the fact that paleontologists
have not discovered specimens from every species in the fossil record,
do those facts mean that when the fossil record repeatedly fails to
present us, after over 100 years of searching, fails to present us with
material that could plausibly be interpreted as the appearance of
evolutionary novelties via the "preserving and adding up [of] all
['variations'] that are good," we can still accept as demonstrated the
efficacy of the natural selection mechanism in producing novel organs,
limbs, and biochemical pathways? I for one do not.
We now examine an attempt at preventing the fossil record's
falsification of the theory of natural selection. On 15 Sept 1998,
paleontologist Chris Nedin claimed that "the MECHANISM, natural
selection, and the RATE, slow and constant are independent." Chris N.
here intends to preserve natural selection's status as a (supposed)
blindwatchmaking force while removing natural selection's reliance upon
gradualism, where "gradual" will be defined as "moving, changing, or
developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees."20 With this
divorcing of mechanism from rate, the theory of natural selection would
be rendered immune from falsification at the hands of a fossil record
devoid of sequences depicting the step-by-step acquisition of
evolutionary novelties, or put another way, a fossil record having a
consistent pattern of sudden appearance of organisms.
Chris N.'s move does not work, for by divorcing natural selection from
gradualism, natural selection as a creative/ blindwatchmaking force
ceases to exist. To show that this is the case, we examine what
neo-Darwinism says, using as sources primarily Gould's "A task for
Paleobiology at the threshold of majority" _Paleobiology_ 21: 1-14
(1995) and his 1980 _Paleobiology_ article.
Incorporating the post-Darwin discovery of heredity's basis,
"neo-Darwinism," aka [21] "the modern synthesis," is an updated
formulation of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Though "the modern
synthesis" has come to be an umbrella for a large number of different
ideas, updated-Darwinism constitutes the synthesis's vivifying
component. Ernst Mayr, an architect of the synthesis, characterized it
in this manner:
The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution
is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by
natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but
an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place
within populations and species.22
Gould concurs with Mayr that neo-Darwinism depends to an important
degree on the use of extrapolation in writing that,
the adequacy of Darwinism crucially depends upon the validity of
extrapolating th[e] mechanism of small changes in few years to the
immensity of geological time and genealogical change at all
taxonomic levels.23
Elsewhere Gould similarly states,
The modern synthesis drew most of its direct conclusions from
studies of local populations and their immediate adaptations. It
then extrapolated the postulated mechanism of these
adaptations--gradual, allelic substitution--to encompass all
larger-scale events.24
And again:
Evolutionary change [according to neo-Darwinism] is a process of
gradual allelic substitution within a population. Events at
broader scale, from the origin of new species to long-ranging
evolutionary trends, represent the same process, extended in time
and effect--large numbers of allelic substitutions incorporated
sequentially over long periods of time. In short, gradualism,
continuity and evolutionary change by the transformation of
populations.25
Now, to expound on "gradual allelic substitution" and "long periods of
time." "Long periods of time" are part and parcel of, i.e., intimately
bound up with, neo-Darwinism's reliance upon extrapolation from
currently observed (really quite minor) changes. Consequently, "long
periods of time" are of necessity required for natural selection to
fashion its masterpieces, as Gould observed:
Selection... act[s] creatively by superintending the retention of
fortuitously useful variation in each generation, slowly and
steadily building adaptation step by generational step, shifting
the frequency distribution of populations towards favored
morphospace. The hegemony of adaptationism and gradualism within
Darwinian traditions arises from this nexus of argument.26
The neo-Darwinian vision contrasts with the Goldschmidtian/ saltationist
vision, where organisms have _large_ mutations and are either accepted
or (almost always) rejected by their environment, and consequently where
blindwatchmaking occurs _quickly_. Saltationism casts natural selection
not as a creative force, but instead as 27 a killer of hopeless
monstrosities and permitter of hopeful monsters. To illustrate, imagine
a situation in which a snake lays two eggs, out of which a male and a
female _Velociraptor_ appear. In this instance of extreme saltation,
the blindwatchmaking rate has been very fast, and
natural-selection-as-creator played no role in the rise of the
evolutionary novelty-filled raptors from snakes.
In sum, neo-Darwinism says that mutations + natural selection =
blindwatchmaking. The mutations are _numerous_, _small_ mutations in
part because nobody has seen beneficial large mutations; as Mayr puts
it,
The evidence, whether genetic, morphological, or functional, is so
uniformly opposed to a saltationist origin of new structures that
no choice is left but to search for explanations [of the rise of
evolutionary novelties] in terms of a gradual origin.28
From numerous, small mutations collected together by natural selection,
we get gradualism. Both numerous, small mutations-- and consequently,
gradualism-- and natural selection are required to have neo-Darwinism
(and a shot at having a viable blindwatchmaking mechanism); ditch
gradualism, and you are in the area of saltationism (with a
little-to-none shot at having a viable blindwatchmaking mechanism).
This would be a good place to mention a dilemma for the
blindwatchmakingist: accept neo-Darwinism, and you have a mechanism that
is widely (albeit erroneously) believed to be viable; however,
neo-Darwinism doesn't jive with the fossil record. Accept saltationism,
and you account nicely for the way the fossil record looks; however, you
don't have a viable mechanism.29
As part of his attempt to separate gradualism from
natural-selection-as-creator, on 24 Sept 1998, Chris N. presented a 1982
statement by Gould and focused on [Gould]"conflated with natural
selection." That 1982 statement and surrounding material serves to
demonstrate my point that if you take gradualism out of the mutation +
selection = blindwatchmaking equation, you are no longer speaking of
neo-Darwinism, but of something in the range of saltationism. Here is
what Gould says in "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory"
_Science_ 216: 380-7 (1982), on 382:
Critiques of gradualist thought proceed on different levels and
have different import, but none are fundamentally opposed to
natural selection. They are therefore not directed against the
heart of Darwinian theory, but against a fundamental subsidiary
aspect of Darwin's world view--one he consistently conflated with
natural selection, as in the following famous passage: "If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (_29_).
Endnote 29 reads,
C. Darwin (_13_, p. 189). On the day before publication of the
_Origin of Species_, T. H. Huxley wrote to Darwin (letter of 23
November 1859): "You load yourself with an unnecessary difficulty
in adopting _Natura non facit saltum_ so unreservedly."
By "natural selection," Gould here means natural-selection-as-creator,
i.e., a blindwatchmaking force, and as was discussed, his "conflated
with" claim is simply incorrect. He comes close to admitting as much
when stating on 381 that the "postulat[e]" of gradualism is "intimately
related to the claim for [natural selection's] creativity." Gould
explicitly contradicts his "conflated" allegation when he (correctly)
stated in October 1976,
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection
creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction.
It supplies the raw material only. Natural selection directs the
course of evolutionary change. It preserves favorable variants and
builds fitness gradually.30
Gould (and Chris N., for that matter) is welcome to develop and propose
his own not-gradualistic, and hence, not-neo-Darwinian, blindwatchmaking
mechanism. Judging by Gould's dismissal of [Darwin]"If it could be
demonstrated that...." and approval of [Huxley]"You load yourself
with....," Gould was envisioning in 1982 a saltationist mechanism.
III. Gould, Gilbert et al., Goodwin, Ho & Saunders, Rosen & Buth,
Tetry, Grasse, and Lovtrup rejected neo-Darwinism
Gould's 1982 flirtation with saltationism isn't surprising, considering
that he had already rejected neo-Darwinism as a general proposition in
1980. He rejected the crucial reliance upon extrapolation, opining that
"Darwinian extrapolation (the third linchpin of the [neo-Darwinian]
theory) fails...."31 And again, this time in 1980: judging by the
fossil record's pattern of "stasis and discontinuity,"32 "evolutionary
trends cannot represent a simple extrapolation of allelic substitution
within a population."33 In addition to the fossil record, Gould
advances "our inability, even in our imagination, to construct
functional intermediates in many cases"34 as a challenge to "Darwinian
insistence upon continuity of genetic change."35 These and additional
problems led Gould to confess,
I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. .... I have been reluctant to admit
it--since beguiling is often forever--but if Mayr's
characterization of the synthetic theory [see above] is accurate,
then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead,
despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.36
Gould isn't alone in his 1980 rejection of neo-Darwinism. In
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology" _Developmental
Biology_ 173: 357-72 (1996), Scott F. Gilbert (Swarthmore College's Dept
of Bio), John M. Opitz (Foundation for Developmental and Medical
Genetics, and Montana State U.'s Dept of History), and Rudolph A. Raff
(Dept of Bio, and Institute of Molecular and Cellular Bio, Jordan Hall,
Indiana U.) state that "microevolution" concerns "the origin of
varieties and races within species," while "macroevolution" concerns
"the origins of higher taxa."37 Like Gould, they correctly note that
One of the major tenets of the Modern Synthesis has been that of
extrapolation: the phenomena of macroevolution, the evolution of
species and higher taxa, are fully explained by the
microevolutionary processes that gives rise to varieties within
species. Macroevolution can be reduced to microevolution. That
is, the origins of higher taxa can be explained by population
genetics.38
Again like Gould, Gilbert et al. reject the modern synthesis/
neo-Darwinism, opining that
Population genetics is destined to change if it is not to become as
irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian mechanics is to contemporary
physics.39
and counting themselves as among the "many biologists" referred to in
their remark,
The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However,
starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its
adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for
explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene
frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or
to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at
adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the
arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) [sic] points out, "the
origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved."
Quoting now from the same book Gilbert et al. quoted, Brian Goodwin
(biology professor at England's Open U.) communicates that
the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including
the origin of species. There is "no clear evidence... for the
gradual emergence of any evolutionary novelty," says Ernst Mayr,
one of the most eminent of contemporary evolutionary biologists.
New types of organisms simply appear upon the evolutionary scene,
persist for various periods of time, and then become extinct. So
Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the
gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be
without significant support. Some other process is responsible for
the emergent properties of life, those distinctive features that
separate one group of organisms from another--fishes and
amphibians, worms and insects, horsetails and grasses. Clearly
something is missing from biology. It appears that Darwin's theory
works for the small-scale aspects of evolution: it can explain the
variations and the adaptations within species that produce
fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale
differences of form between types of organism that are the
foundation of biological classification systems seem to require
another principle than natural selection operating on small
variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different
forms of organism. This is the problem of emergent order in
evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms....40
The "Conclusions" section of W.M. Ho (England's Open U., Dept of
Biology) and P.T. Saunders (London's Queen Elizabeth College, U. of
London, Dept of Mathematics) "Beyond Neo-Darwinism--An Epigenetic
Approach to Evolution" _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 78: 573-91
(1979) opens with
It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian
synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been
carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of
the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of
evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths;
while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which
interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first
place. We have argued here that the role of natural selection is
itself limited. It cannot adequately explain the diversity of
populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new
species or for major evolutionary change.41
Along similar lines, in "Empirical Evolutionary Research Versus
Neo-Darwinian Speculation" _Systematic Zoology_ 29: 300-308 (1980), Donn
E. Rosen (New York City's American Museum of Natural History, Dept of
Ichthyology) and Donald G. Buth (Los Angeles's U. of California, Dept of
Biology) observe that "a half-century of neo-Darwinism" has "contributed
no evidence about how there came to be 'horses and tigers and things.'"
Andree Tetry was Joint Director of the "famous"42 Ecole des Hautes
Etudes [43] (School of Higher Studies), "one of France's most eminent
biologists,"44 and most importantly, "a world authority on problems of
evolution."45 In an article appearing in "one of the greatest histories
of science ever produced,"46 she wrote,
However, despite its many advantages, and despite the mathematical
analysis of Fisher (1930), Wright, (1931) and Haldane (1932), the
synthetic theory fails to account for all the observed phenomena.
Thus, it cannot really be said to explain the emergence of
coaptations (Cuenot), or of 'tools' (Cuenot and Tetry) based on the
mutual adjustment of two independent parts. And it is hard to
believe that such complex organs as the human brain really have
resulted from purely fortuitous mutations. Complex organs
introduce new elements, new co-ordinations, and a different
architecture and organization. In order to be effective, an
evolutionary mutation must adjust itself to the preceding mutation,
and occur at precisely the right place and time. Even large-scale
pleiotropic effects are unable to account for the characteristic
correlations and co-ordinations found in all living organisms. No
wonder, therefore, that J. Kalin has called the synthetic theory a
kind of 'synthetic euphoria', and that even such eminent members of
the American school as Waddington and Olson have mentioned
difficulties and raised objections.47
Tetry ends her article with the paragraph,
In point of fact, none of the theories we have been discussing
provides an entirely satisfactory account of all the facts of
evolution, particularly of the emergence of taxonomic groups and of
adaptations.48
That was a Frenchwoman. Let's hear now from a Frenchman, namely Pierre-
Paul Grasse. We will look at his credentials, thoughts on
neo-Darwinism, and thoughts on the neo-Darwinian conception of mutations
as material suitable for natural selection's fashioning of evolutionary
novelties.
A) Credentials.
Grasse served as Director of the Laboratoire d'Evolution des Etres
Organises (Laboratory of the Evolution of Living Beings) at the
Universite de Paris VI, where he was responsible for much investigation
of the mechanism responsible for blindwatchmaking.49 In the Preface to
his _Evolution of Living Organisms_ (1977), Grasse states,
Half a century of research in various disciplines of zoology and
general biology has given me some insight into the realities of the
living world.
While reviewing the French edition of the book, a key architect of the
neo-Darwinian synthesis and enthusiastic supporter of the theory of
natural selection, Theodosius Dobzhansky, comments,
Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him. He is the
most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28
volumes of "Traite de Zoologie", author of numerous original
investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His
knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is
replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by
knowing.50
B) Thoughts on neo-Darwinism.
Dobzhansky notes that Grasse's book "is a frontal attack on all kinds of
'Darwinism.'"51 At one point in the work, Grasse asks,
When is Darwinian doctrine going to be subjected to a thorough,
critical reevaluation?52
Grasse intends his book to contribute to the overdue critical
reevaluation, for he writes,
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as
a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about
the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that
theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The
deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people,
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse
to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.53
He notes that
many Anglo-Saxon and a few French biologists... write without the
slightest hesitation that the evolutionary mechanism is known in
detail with a high degree of certainty. We have gone from
Darwinism into neo-Darwinism, and, very recently, to
ultra-Darwinism, which... claims to be the sole custodian of truth
in regard to evolution....54
and opines that
Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses
incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires
fallacious interpretations. .... Through use and abuse of hidden
postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a
pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very
heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and
biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental
concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.55
C) Thoughts on the neo-Darwinian conception of mutations as material
suitable for natural selection's fashioning of evolutionary novelties.
Grasse notes that according to neo-Darwinism,
mutations + natural selection = blindwatchmaking.56
Mutations-as-blindwatchmaking-material is **_THE_** critical component
of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Demolish the mutations-as-
blindwatchmaking-material component of the equation, and you demolish
natural-selection-as-creator. With NS-as-creator demolished, all that
remains is NS-as-destroyer: NS-as-destroyer was always there, always
operating, but with NS-as-creator gone, only NS-as-destroyer remains.
To reiterate the key point to remember, If you demolish the
mutations-as-blindwatchmaking-material component of the Darwinian
equation, you demolish the possibility that natural selection as a
blindwatchmaking force can exist.
Grasse demolishes the mutations-as-blindwatchmaking-material component
of neo-Darwinism. For starters, Grasse observes that the "conditions
necessary for mutations to contribute to the genesis of complex organs"
are "opportune occurrence, harmony with preexisting conditions, and
coordination with other mutations."57 As for whether mutations occur in
"harmony with preexisting conditions," consider that
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do
so in disorder, no matter how.58
Regarding the necessity of a mutation to occur at the right time _and_
the right place _and_ in coordination with fellow mutations that
themselves occurred at the right times and right places, Grasse says
Darwinism relies upon the regular occurrence of "miracles":
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants
to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian
theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal
would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events.
Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal
probability could not fail to occur. Much as in _The Swiss Family
Robinson_..., rescue would always occur at the right moment, and
this would have had to have happened throughout the ages.59
At another point, Grasse taunts Darwinians with questions:
...."Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two
separate components of the body and producing structures that fit
one another precisely? Tell us, have you ever beheld three, four,
or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing
coordinated effects? And yet you have observed and described
thousands upon thousands of mutations. The huge populations of
animals and humans bear witness to their frequency. In any man the
number of mutated genes is extremely high. The mutations are
nondescript, monstrous, or pathological, and are invariably,
repeat, invariably incoherent. And yet it is by that that you
claim to explain the biological order, and make evolution
intelligible?"60
By way of illustrating his points, Grasse examines "the eye, the genesis
of which is a major challenge to evolutionists."61 He sketchily
describes the eye with
We need not belabor the diversity of the transparent parts, on the
relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the
venous system (Schlemm's canal), among others. The complexity of
the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us either; all
this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent
publication inspired by Darwinism even mentions it.62
There follows a rough outline of the connections between the eyes and
brain, after which he remarks,
In fact, the picture we have just sketched is even more complex; we
did not consider the molecular structure which shows as many
peculiarities of adaptation as the macrostructure (the subtleties
of which were sometimes mistaken for imperfections; see Ivanoff,
1953), and we have neglected entirely the chemistry of a complex
organ capable of multiple adjustments.63
Grasse compares the probability of dust producing a 16th-century
engraving [64] with the probability of mutations leading to the eye's
formation (which of the 40 to 60+ eyes that Dawkins believes appeared
independently via the operation of NS-as-creator, I don't know):
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's
"Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy
errors [i.e. mutations] in the DNA molecule leading to the
formation of the eye; besides, these errors had _no relationship
whatsoever_ with the function that the eye would have to perform or
was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but
science must not indulge in it.65
Observes Grasse,
Darwin (1859) devotes four and a half pages of the "Origin of the
Species" to the eye and its genesis, possibly thanks to innumerable
mutants, to natural selection, and to time. But we note that he
does not overcome any of the obstacles raised against his doctrine
by "reality."66
Soren Lovtrup (Dept of Zoophysiology, U. of Umea, Umea, Sweden) notes
that "Darwin's theory [of natural selection] does make some falsifiable
statements,"67 and lists as #3 the prediction that "evolution has
occurred in small steps (_Natura non facit saltum_)."68 With a
reference to this neo-Darwinian claim, and to Darwin's "He who rejects
this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly
reject the whole theory...." (see above), Lovtrup comments,
Considering the statement of Darwin quoted above, I should under
other conditions regard the above falsification [by the fossil
record] of the third Darwinian prediction as sufficient for
falsification of the Darwinian theory. But the inefficiency of
counter arguments in the past suggests that it is necessary to go
one step further in the analysis of the Darwinian stand.69
In other words, the fossil record soundly refutes neo-Darwinism, yet
"the faith of the ardent Darwinist"70 is such that this refutation
routinely gets ignored. We will follow Lovtrup's lead and "go one step
further in the analysis of the Darwinian stand" by elaborating on some
of the above anti-Darwinian remarks.
IV. Faulty Reasoning in Darwin's Argument for Natural Selection
Apart from its falsified prediction of transitional forms, natural
selection is the product of an argument containing fatal flaws. Darwin
described his _Origin_ as one long argument from beginning to end. He
began by discussing something his readers would have been familiar with,
namely variation within domesticated plants and animals, and developed
the concept of man's power of selection in producing stronger, improved
organisms.
After emphasizing variation's presence in nature, he discussed
Malthusian ideas. Darwin stated that Thomas Malthus's three checks on
the size of a population meant that large numbers of individuals did not
grow into adulthood. Of these checks, positive checks, or death through
calamities as famine, plague, and war, were the most important. Darwin
then asked the question of who survived all this destruction and went on
to produce more offspring. He answered this rhetorical question by
stating that those organisms with the best adaptive characteristics
survived. Darwin then drew an analogy between man's power of selection
and nature's, reasoning that since man can make (microevolutionary)
changes in a short period of time, with a long period of time, Dame
Nature can make huge changes of an evolutionary novelty sort:
As man can produce, and certainly has produced, a great result by
his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not
natural selection effect?.... How fleeting are the wishes and
efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor
will be his results, compared with those accumulated by Nature
during whole geological periods!71
Nature's selection meant that beneficial characteristics survived while
harmful ones suffered destruction. Gradually, through the accumulation
of these beneficial characteristics, new species, new organisms, and
their concomitant evolutionary novelties, formed.
One thing wrong with the analogy is that there exists a limit to the
amount of change people can bring about in their animals. Horses can be
bred to run only so fast, teacup poodles can be bred only so small,
sheep can be bred to produce only so much wool, bantams can be bred only
so fantastic in appearance. In other words, people cannot bring about
evolutionary novelty type changes in their animals.
For example, in all the generations of fruit flies bred in the lab, not
one has been turned into a moth. If a moth were to suddenly appear in a
flask where we are breeding fruit flies, we would not say, "Ah hah!
Macroevolution before our very eyes!" We would instead conclude that
somehow the flask's integrity was compromised. Why? Because
observations reveal that there is a limit to the amount of change
possible. We can breed fruit flies with red eyes, with white eyes, with
arms sticking out of their eyes, with anomalous numbers of eyes, with
all manner of wing shapes and sizes, but we _cannot_, through breeding,
make a fruit fly obtain a moth's antennae, or turn a fruit fly into a
moth.
Another difficulty for Darwin's analogy is that the situations being
compared are entirely different. In the one case, you have intelligence
at work: man selects which particular sheep will breed with what other
particular sheep to get that better coat, man selects what horse will
breed with what horse to get that faster horse, and so on. It takes
_intelligence_ to decide which animal will breed with what other animal
to get the desired end-product. However, in the case of natural
selection, you have no such intelligence at work. Nature is supposed to
not be conscious (thought Darwin sometimes spoke of natural selection as
if it were sentient-- see above). States Richard Dawkins, a biologist
and avid proponent of natural selection,
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs,
and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his
mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic
process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know [sic] is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye.
It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight,
no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker
in nature, it is the _blind_ watchmaker.72
In Darwin's analogy, the differences are too great between what he is
comparing (man's "artificial selection") and what he is trying to prove
(nature's "natural selection") to lend any credence to the claim
advanced in _Origin_ that evolutionary novelties can arise via the
non-intelligence-directed mechanism of natural selection.
Darwin said natural selection is perpetually at work, "preserving and
adding up all ['variations'] that are good." Additional large problems
with this claim are that precious few variations exist that are "good,"
and that even they do not appear to be useful in the development of
evolutionary novelties.
In an _American Scientist_ article, Dobzhansky declares "The process of
mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic
variability, and hence of evolution."73 He then speaks of mutated forms
of bacteria that can survive normally lethal antibiotics, mutated barley
that provides larger yields than usual, more vigorous fruit flies, and
sickle cell anemia before concluding, "Useful mutations, have, indeed,
arisen."74
I personally cannot see how such mutations can play any part in the
appearance of evolutionary novelties. For example, at the end of a
bacterial colony's mutating, though we may have some
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, they are still _bacteria_. Our colony
has not become say a centipede population over time, but have remained
_bacteria_.
Similarly, if we take a virus and subject it to various environmental
conditions, it is quite possible that it will mutate into a very
different type of virus, with new capabilities and new disease-causing
powers as a result of mutation and incorporation of various hosts' DNA
into itself, and high production rates using a cell's machinery to make
copies of itself. But the mutated virus is still a _virus_. It has not
developed additional complexity and become say a bacterium, for example.
A bacterium possesses very complicated internal machinery that a virus
lacks, and is hugely more complex than a virus, which is nothing more
than an encapsulated piece of DNA or RNA. This huge gap in complexity
cannot be met by mutations-- at the end of it all, our virus, even
though it has undergone much mutation, is still a _virus_. It has not
become a bacterium.
To take another example, sickle cell is caused by a defective allele.
If both of a human's copies of the allele are defective, death results,
while possessing one defective and one non-defective allele confers
resistance to malaria plus the pain of living with a moderate case of
sickled cells. Postulating that mutations that result in such things as
sickle cell anemia can assist in the appearance of a new limb or a new
organ or a new biochemical pathway is equivalent to saying that the moon
is made of green cheese and that Martians inhabit light bulbs.
In the absence of good variations, natural selection acts as a
conservative rather than a constructive force, killing off those things
that venture to make deviate from the norm. Natural selection works to
preserve the norm, _not_ to allow for or build up deviations from it.
Says Eldredge, "Natural selection is for the _status quo_.... Selection
is going on all the time. But it is selection predominantly for
constancy, for maintaining the status quo...."75
By way of illustration, man's (artificial) selection of wild cabbage,
_Brassica oleracea_, has resulted in the brussels sprouts, cauliflower,
broccoli, cabbage, and kale that you see in your grocery store.76 Left
in nature, this wild cabbage is probably not going to diversify and
become the cabbage, kale, broccoli, etc. seen in the store. Natural
selection will ensure that the wild cabbage stays wild cabbage, and that
if we plant kale, after a while, the thing will revert back to the wild
cabbage stock.
Another example. If humans make a tomato plant that produces huge,
delicious tomatoes, natural selection will not provide for the plant's
continuation in that condition. Left in nature, the plant that under
man's care produced delectable tomatoes will now produce little scrawny
things. If we bred our tomato plant too far, i.e., if we selected it so
that it was too exotic, when put back in nature, the thing might not
even survive an entire year. Considering the example of a snake, if a
snake suffers a mutation that makes it have two heads, the thing dies.
Nature has killed it. Natural selection preserves the norm and does not
tolerate for long deviations from it.
V. Conclusion
Charles Darwin's claim that what man's selection can do, nature's
natural selection can do better, has fatal problems. Natural
selection's prediction of fossil intermediates exhibiting the gradual
emergence of evolutionary novelties has been, judging by the fossil
record, falsified. In arguing for the efficacy of natural selection,
Darwin invalidly equated a non-intelligence-directed process, natural
selection, with an intelligence-directed process, artificial selection,
and additionally overlooked the limits to organisms' change that can be
accomplished by artificial selection.
VI. Works Cited
Behe, Michael J. _Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution_ (NY: The Free Press, 1996).
Darwin, Charles. _The Origin of Species_ (1872 edition, the last
edition published during Darwin's lifetime), abridged by Philip
Appleman (NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1975).
Dawkins, Richard. _The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution
Reveals a Universe Without Design_ (NY: W.W. Norton and Company,
1987).
Dawkins, Richard. _Climbing Mount Improbable_ (NY: W.W. Norton and Co.,
1996).
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and
Anthropology Part I. Biology" _American Scientist_ (Dec 1957),
381-92.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "Darwinian or 'Oriented' Evolution?"
_Evolution_ 29: 376-8 (1975), a book review of Grasse's
_L'Evolution du Vivant_ (1973).
Eldredge, Niles. _Fossils: The Evolution and Extinction of Species_
(NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1991).
Eldredge, Niles. _Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution
and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria_ (1985).
Eldredge, Niles, and Gould, Stephen Jay. "Punctuated Equilibria: An
Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism" in _Models in Paleobiology_,
T.J.M. Schopf, ed. (San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Co., 1972).
Reprinted as an appendix in Eldredge, _Time Frames_.
Gilbert, Scott F., John M. Opitz, and Rudolph A. Raff. "Resynthesizing
Evolutionary and Developmental Biology" _Developmental Biology_
173: 357-72 (1996).
Goodwin, Brian. _How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of
Complexity_ (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994), 252 pp.
Gould, Stephen Jay. "A task for Paleobiology at the threshold of
majority" _Paleobiology_ 21: 1-14 (1995).
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary
Theory" _Science_ 216: 380-7 (1982).
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Darwin's Untimely Burial--Again!" _Natural
History_ (Oct 1976), 24-30. Reprinted in _Scientists Confront
Creationism_, Laurie R. Godfrey, ed. (NY: W.W. Norton & Company,
1983), 139-46.
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?" _Paleobiology_ 6: 119-30 (1980).
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Eldredge, Niles. "Punctuated equilibria: the
tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered" _Paleobiology_ 3: 115-51
(1977).
Grasse, Pierre-P. _Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation_ (NY: Academic Press, 1977) 285+ pp.
Translated from _L'Evolution du Vivant_ (Paris: Editions Albin
Michel, 1973).
Hayward, Alan. _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence From
Science and the Bible_ (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,
1985), 232 pp.
Ho, M.W. and P.T. Saunders. "Beyond Neo-Darwinism--An Epigenetic
Approach to Evolution" _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 78: 573-91
(1979).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe. _Evolution from Space: A Theory
of Cosmic Creationism_ (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 176 pp.
Hsu, Kenneth J. Commentary "Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:
532-4 (1986).
Kitts, David B. "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" _Evolution_ 28:
458-72 (1974).
Lewin, Roger. Research news "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" _Science_
210: 883-7 (1980).
Litynski, Zygmunt. "'Should We Burn Darwin?'" _Science Digest_ (Jan
1961), 61-3.
Lovtrup, Soren. Letter _Systematic Zoology_ 24: 507-11 (1975).
Mac Gillavry, H.J. "Modes of Evolution Mainly Among Marine
Invertebrates An observational approach" _Bijdragen Tot De
Dierkunde_ 38: 69-71 (1968).
_Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_, 10th ed. (MA:
Merriam-Webster, Inc., 1995).
Mayr, Ernst. Essay "The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties" in _The
Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future_, ed. Sol Tax
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), 349-80.
Miller, Kenneth R. "Life's Grand Design" _Technology Review_, edited at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Feb/March 1994), 25-32.
Nedin, Chris. On 1998/09/15 in
<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=391588333>.
Nedin, Chris. On 1998/09/24 in
<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=394282193>.
Ozawa, Tomowo. "Evolution of _Lepidolina multiseptata_ (Permian
Foraminifer) in East Asia" _Memoirs of the Faculty of Science,
Kyushu University, Series D, Geology_, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 117-64
(25 Nov 1975).
Rosen, Donn E. and Donald G. Buth. "Empirical Evolutionary Research
Versus Neo-Darwinian Speculation" _Systematic Zoology_ 29: 300-308
(1980).
Stanley, Steven M. "A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level"
_Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA_ 72: 646-50
(1975).
Tetry, Andree. "Genetics and Evolution" in _Science in the Twentieth
Century_, the final and 4th volume of _The General History of the
Sciences_, Rene Taton, ed. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1966),
434-47. Translated by A.J. Pomerans from _La Science Contemporaine
II: le XXe Siecle_ (France: Presses Universitaires de France,
1964).
VII. Notes
Emphasis theirs.
1. Mayr, 351.
2. Dawkins, _Climbing_, 139-40: "It has been authoritatively estimated
that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more
than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal
kingdom.... Nine distinct principles have been recognized among the
forty to sixty independently evolved eyes."
3. Miller, 29: "In fact, in a 1992 review of the evolution of vision,
neuroscientists Michael F. Land from the University of Sussex,
England, and Russell D. Fernald from Stanford cite evidence that
primitive eye-spot light-sensing systems have evolved independently
at least 65 times. More complex image-forming mechanisms have also
evolved many times, employing roughly 10 distinct image forming
mechanisms." Behe, 38: "Remember that the 'light-sensitive spot'
that Dawkins takes as his starting point requires a cascade of
factors, including 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin, to function.
Dawkins doesn't mention them."
4. Eldredge, Fossils, chapter "Origin of Species."
5. Hsu, 532.
6. Darwin, 47. As elsewhere, emphasis in original.
7. Darwin, 99.
8. Darwin, 95.
9. Darwin, 95.
10. Darwin, 99.
11. Hsu, 532.
12. Lewin, 883.
13. Eldredge and Gould. Reprinted in Eldredge, _Time Frames_, 206.
14. Hsu, 532.
15. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, "Conclusion" chapter.
16. Stanley, 646.
17. Mac Gillavry, 70.
18. Kitts, 467.
19. Gould, "Is a," 126-7.
20. _Merriam-Webster's_.
21. Gould, "Is a," 121.
22. Mayr, _Animal Species and Evolution_ (1963), 586. Cited in Gould,
"Is a," 120.
23. Gould, "A task," 4.
24. Gould, "Is a," 121.
25. Gould, "Is a," 119.
26. Gould, "A task," 3.
27. Mayr, 357.
28. Mayr, 357.
29. Dilemma mentioned in Hayward, and in Eldredge, _Time Frames_, 75.
30. Gould, "Darwin's Untimely."
31. Gould, "A task," 8.
32. Gould, "Is a," 125.
33. Gould, "Is a," 125.
34. Gould, "Is a," 127.
35. Gould, "Is a," 127.
36. Gould, "Is a," 120.
37. Gilbert et al., 358.
38. Gilbert et al., 358.
39. Gilbert et al., 368.
40. Goodwin, preface. Mayr's remark may appear in Mayr's _Toward a New
Philosophy of Biology_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1988). The ellipsis in Mayr's statement is Goodwin's.
41. After "moths in the first place," readers are referred to _M.
Grene, The Knower and the Known_ (London: Faber & Faber, 1966).
42. Litynski, 61.
43. Book in which Tetry's article appears.
44. Hayward, 22.
45. Litynski, 61-2.
46. Hayward, 22.
47. Tetry, 447.
48. Tetry, 447.
49. Grasse; Hayward.
50. Dobzhansky (1975).
51. Dobzhansky (1975).
52. Grasse, 128.
53. Grasse, 8.
54. Grasse, 5.
55. Grasse, 6.
56. Hayward.
57. Grasse, 104.
58. Grasse, 97.
59. Grasse, 103.
60. Grasse, 163.
61. Grasse, 104.
62. Grasse, 105.
63. Grasse, 105.
64. Hayward.
65. Grasse, 104.
66. Grasse, 105.
67. Lovtrup, 507.
68. Lovtrup, 507.
69. Lovtrup, 509.
70. Lovtrup, 508.
71. Darwin, 46, 47.
72. Dawkins, _The Blind_, 5.
73. Dobzhansky (1957), 385.
74. Dobzhansky (1957), 386.
75. Eldredge, _Fossils_, 53, 58.
76. Eldredge, _Fossils_, 18.
ro...@my-deja.com
100...@jabba.gl.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Title: Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection
> Keywords: natural selection, evolutionary novelties, imperfection in
> fossil record, Gould and Eldredge, artificial vs. natural
selection
> Author: David Ford <dfo...@GL.umbc.edu>, a graduate of the
> University of Maryland Baltimore County that majored
> in history and philosophy.
> Date: 8 August 1999 File: natsel.81 Words in file: 9500
>
> Outline:
> I. Introduction
> II. Fossil Record Refutes a Key Prediction of Theory of Natural
> Selection
> III. Gould, Gilbert et al., Goodwin, Ho & Saunders, Rosen & Buth,
> Tetry, Grasse, and Lovtrup rejected neo-Darwinism
> IV. Faulty Reasoning in Darwin's Argument for Natural Selection
> V. Conclusion VI. Works Cited VII. Notes
>
> I. Introduction
>
> Using the fossil record and Charles Darwin's argument for natural
> selection, this essay critically examines the theory of natural
> selection.
<Large snip>
Come on Dave, can't you do any better than this?
This is all old nonsense. Lots of out of context quotes and mis-
understood science.
you creationist need to try actually doing research, instead of lying
about the works of scientist. Of course, then you would not be
creationist.
Rod #613
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark VandeWettering
This "essay" does little more than provide out-of-context or deliberately misconstrued
quotes in an attempt to establish an "argument from authority" that natural selection
is a controversial mechanism for evolution. It is not.
Perhaps the author (a history and philisophy major) feels he must quote these authority
figures in the world of biology to try to establish points that he cannot make credibly
himself. In science, we present EVIDENCE, not AUTHORITY to establish our points.
Mark
Geoff Sheffield
<Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.1000...@jabba.gl.umbc.edu>,
[snip]
> V. Conclusion
>
[snip]
> Natural
> selection's prediction of fossil intermediates exhibiting the gradual
> emergence of evolutionary novelties has been, judging by the fossil
> record, falsified.
Then you should be able to finally answer Wesley Elsberry's
Transitionals Challenge. I'm looking forward to your
response.
[BTW, since you have established a reputation for out-of-context
quotating, do you really expect anybody to read what you wrote?]
[snip]
--
Geoff Sheffield
Jesse976
saved it to disk and will comment after
crosschecking.
Jess...@aol.com
Send me your Best AntiEvolution sites,
essays, narratives.
Boikat
>
> Fascinating essay, indeed, Dford. I have
> crosschecking.
>
Cross checking to what? The original material, or
other anti-evolution tracts to see if they took
the same quotes out of context or misrepresented
what was quoted?
Question: You claim that you are not a
creationist, just an anti evolution nut. Why the
anti evolution stance (I certainly cannot be due
to a lack of evidence that supports evolution).
What is your problem with evolution?
Boikat
Loren A. King
Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote:
> Fascinating essay, indeed, Dford.
No it isn't. It's basically the same essay he posted a
long while back (offered up as a FAQ contribution, if I
remember correctly). It looks as though he's done some
minor revisions, and has added some new references.
However, the fundamental structure remains unchanged, and
what argument there is ends up being rather uninteresting.
Ford provides an adequate (but cursory) introduction to a
specific debate: the explanatory power of neo-Darwinian
gradualism in accounting for speciation. At best, he
demonstrates that speciation is still a controversial and
poorly understood phenomenon. But one gets the distinct
sense that Ford thinks he is doing much more than a
literature review. He seems to think he is offering a
damning indictment of natural selection, and of any
account of evolution that orients itself with Darwin's
original framework. If neo-Darwinian gradualism fails,
Fords hints, then the entire Darwinian approach collapses.
But Ford's essay does not support anything like this
ambitious case -- it's just wishful thinking on his part.
I'll start taking Ford seriously when he gets around to
tackling the substantive issues he hints at. For
instance, like many creationists, Ford concedes that
mutations (and maybe even other possible sources of
variation, for instance the speculations of Stuart
Kaufmann) can bring about phenotypic changes. Ford also
seems to accept that the conservative forces of genetic
drift and natural selection can work upon these changes.
But imagine that a particular population of a given
species is separated into two or more distinct groups by
some geological process, and that each sub-population then
faces very different and changing environmental pressures,
including encounters with populations of different
organisms (from parasites to predators). Under these
conditions, what is to stop gradual (and not so gradual)
changes in these subpopulations from leading to distinct
populations that can no longer interbreed? Ford has
consistently avoided any direct and specific answer to
this very straightforward question.
Now to be clear, evolutionary theorists are still debating
answers to this and related questions, and will likely be
doing so for some time. But just what does Ford think is
wrong with approaching this and other such questions from
within some sort of neo-Darwinian framework? Does he
think that natural selection does not work as Darwin and
subsequent theorists predict? Does he think that a
rejection or supplementing of gradualism critically
undermines other neo-Darwinian concepts and explanatory
models? Does he think that there is no source of
variation that could account for speciation, given natural
selection and genetic drift, even after long stretches
of time, environmental changes, and separated populations?
Again, when Ford starts tackling the tough questions, then
I'll start taking him seriously. Until then ...
L.
david ford
MV This "essay" does little more than provide out-of-context or
MV deliberately misconstrued quotes in an attempt to establish an
MV "argument from authority" that natural selection is a
MV controversial mechanism for evolution. It is not.
Please mention the first 3 words of each of the essay's quotes
you consider to be [MV]"out-of-context or deliberately
misconstrued quotes".
MV Perhaps the author (a history and philosophy major) feels he must
MV quote these authority figures in the world of biology to try to
MV establish points that he cannot make credibly himself.
I'm not a paleontologist; is it really such a bad thing to quote
knowledgeable paleontologists such as Gould, Eldredge, Raup,
Simpson, Stanley, and Schindewolf to make points that I can't
make by referring to personal paleontological experience?
I'm not a biologist; is it really such a bad thing to quote
knowledgeable biologists such as Grasse, Ho, Goodwin, and Tetry
to make points that I can't make by referring to personal
experience in biology?
MV In science, we present EVIDENCE, not AUTHORITY to establish
MV our points.
I don't see that you've provided any evidence for this statement.
Perhaps you'll do so now.
david ford
david ford:
df Title: Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection
df Outline:
df I. Introduction
df II. Fossil Record Refutes a Key Prediction of Theory of Natural
df Selection
df III. Gould, Gilbert et al., Goodwin, Ho & Saunders, Rosen & Buth,
df Tetry, Grasse, and Lovtrup rejected neo-Darwinism
df IV. Faulty Reasoning in Darwin's Argument for Natural Selection
df V. Conclusion VI. Works Cited VII. Notes
df
df I. Introduction
df
df Using the fossil record and Charles Darwin's argument for natural
df selection, this essay critically examines the theory of natural
df selection.
R <Large snip>
R Come on Dave, can't you do any better than this?
R This is all old nonsense. Lots of out of context quotes and mis-
R understood science.
R you creationist need to try actually doing research, instead of
R lying about the works of scientist. Of course, then you would
R not be creationist.
R Rod #613
[R]"Lots of out of context quotes" Please mention the first 3
words of each of the essay's quotes you consider to be out
of context.
[R]"Lots of... misunderstood science." Specifics, please.
david ford
david ford in <http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629441259>:
df Title: Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection
df Natural selection's prediction of fossil intermediates
df exhibiting the gradual emergence of evolutionary
df novelties has been, judging by the fossil record, falsified.
GS Then you should be able to finally answer Wesley Elsberry's
GS Transitionals Challenge. I'm looking forward to your
GS response.
See below.
GS [BTW, since you have established a reputation for out-of-context
GS quotating, do you really expect anybody to read what you wrote?]
[GS]"you have established a reputation for out-of-context
quotating" I'll grant that I've established a reputation for
quoting. I disagree about the "out-of-context" portion of your
allegation; please mention the first 3 words of each of my quotes
you consider to be out of context, with a maximum of say 5
quotes.
===============begin inserted text 1===============
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 00:50:28 -0400
From: david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
To: talk-o...@moderators.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Transitional Fossil Challenge (was Re: A Challenge
for Creationists)
Posted to talk.origins and emailed to talk-o...@moderators.uu.net;
emailed separately to joe.p...@worldnet.att.net, gyp...@seanet.com,
lcav...@flash.net, ysi...@panix.com, wels...@orca.tamu.edu.
Wesley R. Elsberry on 6 Jul 1997 11:49:18 -0400 in talk.origins in
"David Ford Whines On":
> Posted and emailed.
Right now it's 12:50am Eastern Standard Time, USA, Tues. the 8th of July,
and I have not received the e-mail. Perhaps the mail bounced for some
unknown reason. Or perhaps e-mail is being its usual slow self. Or
perhaps you never e-mailed it.
> David Ford sent me some email which he claimed was also posted
> to t.o.
I'm unsure as to why you say "he claimed was also posted." In reading
the header of the e-mail that you received, it should be apparent that
the post was indeed posted to talk.origins. As to whether it survived
the robo-moderation, that's another matter. The post didn't show up
after a recent search for dfo...@gl.umbc.edu at
http://www.dejavunews.com, despite the "talk-o...@moderators.uu.net"
after "To:" Maybe the other addresses got in the way.
-------begin inserted text of post's header-------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 01:47:42 -0400
From: david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
To: joe.p...@worldnet.att.net, gyp...@seanet.com, lcav...@flash.net,
ysi...@panix.com, wels...@orca.tamu.edu,
talk-o...@moderators.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Transitional Fossil Challenge (was Re: A Challenge for
Creationists)
--------end inserted text of post's header--------
> The gist? That he has met the Transitional Fossil
> Challenge.
>
> The basis of this appears to be a bit of quote-mining from
> Barnard which seems to indicate that "progressive evolution" in
> one species, _Pseudoglandulina vulgata_ (BORNEMANN) doesn't
> support an interpretation of multiple species in a complex.
It's curious, you're saying my claim to have met the challenge "appears
to be a bit of quote-mining," rather than replying to what I had
actually written and pointing out where I was purportedly "quote-mining"
and how I was doing nothing but "quote mining." What, BTW, is your
definition of "quote-mining"? Perhaps you could add it to your jargon
file. "Quote-mining: noun, verb. Quoting that I don't like to hear in
a creationist's argument against my Darwinian religion, and that is,
unfortunately, not taken out of context."
> However, David neatly forgets that Barnard's paper did not
> merely look into the situation of P. vulgata.
Quoting from what was presented (which you just happened to delete for
your reply-- why?): "In the case of the genera _Lingulina_ and
_Frondicularia_, just one feature was examined: 'Both genera....'"
"Summarizing the history of the species of _Rectoglandulina_...." "....
the variation of some specimens from the Upper Lias belonging to
_Pseudoglandulina vulgata_ (BORNEMANN)." Besides _Vulgata_, _Lingulina_
and _Frondicularia_ were mentioned in my 6 Jul 1997 post.
(_Rectoglandulina_ is the same thing as _Pseudoglandulina vulgata_; see
pg. 83.) Your comment "David neatly forgets that Barnard's paper did
not merely look into the situation of P. vulgata" is inaccurate, and I'm
wondering how it was that you missed the other things.
It now becomes obvious why you failed to include the text you are
replying to: if you had included the text, your strawman version of what
I had said would have never flown.
> He can brush up
> by consulting the quotes he provided in Message-ID:
> <Pine.SGI.3.95.960927...@umbc10.umbc.edu>.
> Then he can get on with the real work of telling us what's
> wrong with _Lingulina_ and _Frondicularia_, where Barnard
> assures us that "progressive evolution" is of "extreme value".
This post's final insertion is what I wrote, telling how the Barnard
article failed to provide support for the idea that new organs and new
structures, e.g., limbs, came into existence in the past through
naturalistic processes. It's again strange that you snip out what was
written, and then proceed to say "Then he can get on with the real work
of telling us what's wrong with...."
Wesley E., I say that you do not have (nor have even so much as read) a
copy of the Barnard article. You can prove my assertion that you don't
have a copy of the article wrong by quoting the first line on page 88.
No cheating by asking someone to tell you or get you the article,
please. We'll use the honor system.
> Other amusing Ford-isms included a quote talking about shell
> variability in *mollusks* as if that bore seminal information
> about foraminiferan tests.
-------begin inserted text, text that Wesley E. saw fit to not include
in his reply-------
"Present-day freshwater mollusc species show remarkable plasticity of
shell form when they grow in various water conditions. Differences in
water hardness, bottom substrates and other environmental influences can
trigger phenotypic variability within the populations of a single
species, such as Britain's common pond snail, _Lymnaea peregra_, with
the result that shell form can vary widely."[Philip Whitfield, _From So
Simple a Beginning: The Book of Evolution_ (1993), 181.]
"The author (BARNARD, 1950b, pp. 24-28) has described the variation of
some specimens from the Upper Lias belonging to _Pseudoglandulina
vulgata_ (BORNEMANN). It was pointed out that many of the forms which
had been assigned to a number of different species by earlier authors
fell within the normal range of variation of the species. It was stated
that slight variation in the growth rate, the biocharacter controlling
the size and shape of the chambers, would result in a wide range of
variants in the final shape of the test."[Tom Barnard, "Evolution in
Certain Biocharacters of Selected Jurassic Lagenidae," in _Evolutionary
Trends in Foraminifera_, von Koenigswald, ed. (1963), 81, 83.]
--------end inserted text, text that Wesley E. thought would get in the
way of his strawman reconstruction of what I had said, and that
was deleted to make his reply seemingly stronger--------
Pay particular attention to this part of what was stated: "slight
variation in the growth rate [of _Pseudoglandulina vulgata_, i.e., of
_Rectoglandulina_], the biocharacter controlling the size and shape of
the chambers,... result[s] in a wide range of variants in the final
shape of the test." Now compare that with what you stated: "Other
amusing Ford-isms included a quote talking about shell variability in
*mollusks* as if that bore seminal information about foraminiferan
tests." Just how carefully did you read what Barnard stated, and what I
in turn quoted him as stating? (Assuming you read the article at all.)
> Yo, David, have you ever heard of
> phylum-level differences? Ever stopped to consider that the
> processes underlying variability might be somewhat different
> for a single-celled organism and a macro-scale metazoan?
> Apparently not. Like the Transitional Fossil Challenge says,
> why is it that the SciCre-ists prone to bombastic
> pronouncements know so little of the relevant biology?
>
> Ending his message, David requested that I "concede" that my
> "Transitional Fossil Challenge" has been met. David is
> laboring under at least one misconception (and probably many
> more): The transitional fossil challenge isn't about finding
> reasons to doubt just one presentation of evidence. Once David
> succeeds in finding *legitimate* reasons to discount Barnard's
> evidence, the TFC will move on to Phase Two.
"Once David succeeds in finding *legitimate* reasons." The reasons were
presented, but for some strange reason, you saw fit to not include the
reasons in your reply. Do you usually do this-- reply to something
without including the text of what it is that you're replying to, or was
this just a rare exception?
> Given David's
> penchant for misrepresenting PE,
You still have not replied to the following insertion, part of a larger
post that was likewise never replied to. When will you reply to the
post of which this insertion is a portion? Never? If "never," please
say so.
-------begin inserted text-------
I'm going to give two Gould quotes, and I want you to tell me whether I
am misinterpreting either of them. Ready? Here we go.
"In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been
favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists
now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had
previously been simply embarrassing ('all those years of work and I
haven't found any evolution')."-_Paleobiology_ 3:134 (1977).
Interpretation: the thesis of punctuated equilibrium is tantamount to
admitting that confirming evidence of "this grand view of life" (the
theory of evolution), evidence that would stand up in a court of law,
does not exist in the fossil record.
And here's the second quote: "The history of most fossil species
includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1.
_Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species
does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"[Gould's _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 182.]
Interpretation: these are the facts. The interpretation of the fact of
sudden appearance of organisms in the fossil record can be taken as
evidence for a) Goldschmidtism/saltation, or b) God making these things
at various intervals over the course of the earth's 4.6 billion year
history. Option b) is, in my view, preferable. Others may prefer, for
whatever reason, the saltation route.
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show how I am
misinterpreting these statements by Gould and Eldredge, and by Gould,
respectively. Are you up to it? Too-too-dooooo, too-doo-tooooo....
--------end inserted text--------
> I think Phase Two would likely
> be Ozawa's 1975 study on forams, which even Gould and Eldredge
> have validated as showing phyletic gradualism.
I say you do not have a copy of Ozawa (1975). You can prove me wrong by
providing the last ten words of their article. Again, we'll use the
honor system. By "Phase Two," I take it you mean that you have another
article for me to look up and examine. In that case, I ask that you
concede that "Phase One" was passed in my showing how it was that the
Barnard article does not provide evidence for the belief that new organs
and new limbs came into existence through non-intelligence-directed
processes in the past.
> Of course, I
> doubt that David's familiarity with the evidence will come
> along so fast that Phase Two happens before the millennium,
> assuming that there might be reasons to doubt Barnard's
> evidence.
"Assuming there might be reasons." Did you even _read_ what I wrote?
Here it is again, in its entirety. And when you reply to my
presentation for "Phase One," may I suggest that you include my
statements when criticizing them? Sure, it will be harder to make a
strawman characterization of what was said, but please, include the
text. _All_ of it, so we can also see what you're _not_ replying to.
-------begin inserted text-------
Posted to talk.origins; e-mailed to some other recipients of this wimpy
challenge, namely, Joe P., RevM., Larry C., and Yehuda S.; also mailed
to Wesley E. and talk-o...@moderators.uu.net.
Wesley R. Elsberry on 1 Sep 1996 in "Re: Creation VS Evolution
Survey Now Complete" in talk.origins:
david ford:
>: The info
>: that will be required to formulate a well-founded decision that
>: we have transitional fossils on our hands:
>: a) how many samples
>
> Why is the number of samples important?
An adequate number of samples is required for purposes of taking into
account geographic variation. Also, the larger the number of samples,
the better the possibility that we'll be looking at complete skeletons,
etc., rather than some constructions that required a little human
wishful thinking. So perhaps I should rephrase "how many samples" to
"do we have complete samples (and enough samples to take into account
"b").
>: b) was geographic variation taken into account
>
> While this is needed to distinguish PE from PG, it is not
> necessary to establish a transitional lineage.
That's absolutely correct. A good imagination is all that's "necessary
to establish a transitional lineage." However, to establish a
transitional lineage in a persuasive manner the standard is a bit
higher.
>: c) how many features were looked at
>: d) what were the ages of the various samples looked at
>: e) were all features looked at
>: f) were all the available samples considered
>: g) what kind of changes occurred in the samples and when
>: h) these things are said to be intermediates between what and what
>
> Items C through H seem reasonable. Now, David can tell us on the
> basis of which of these items he rejected Barnard, or he can confess
> that he doesn't have the stuff to be making universal claims about the
> fossil record.
I'm glad to hear you state "Items C through H seem reasonable." "c) how
many features were looked at" In the case of the genera _Lingulina_ and
_Frondicularia_, just one feature was examined: "Both genera provide
examples of evolution of a single biocharacter, chiefly the biocharacter
controlling the ornament."[85] If one looks at the diagram on 86
illustrating these changes in ornament, one sees that they are merely
minor variations in test appearance, with no new body structures
gradually appearing.
"e) were all features looked at" This was not done: ".... the author
has selected a few [biocharacters of the Jurassic lagenid genera] to
illustrate the various problems of taxonomy and stratigraphy presented
by this so-called evolutionary change."[80] "Only a few of the
biocharacters affecting the evolution of selected Lagenidae from the
Jurassic have been discussed."[92]
"g) what kind of changes occurred in the samples and when" The changes
that occurred were minor in nature, and there were no depictions of new
body structures gradually coming into existence. "Summarizing the
history of the species of _Rectoglandulina_.... Most of the variation
occurs in the size and shape of the chambers."[85]
"h) these things are said to be intermediates between what and what"
That this wasn't discussed isn't surprising, since the organisms are
only changing in minor ways, and there are no new limbs or other body
structures appearing.
In short, we do not have on our hands a case of new body structures,
e.g., new limbs, appearing.
Concerning an explanation of how the minor variation in shell size and
shape that does occur occurs, we need not even appeal to the mixing and
matching of genes, such recombination resulting in the varieties of
dogs. Note, for example, the following:
"Present-day freshwater mollusc species show remarkable plasticity of
shell form when they grow in various water conditions. Differences in
water hardness, bottom substrates and other environmental influences can
trigger phenotypic variability within the populations of a single
species, such as Britain's common pond snail, _Lymnaea peregra_, with
the result that shell form can vary widely."[Philip Whitfield, _From So
Simple a Beginning: The Book of Evolution_ (1993), 181.]
"The author (BARNARD, 1950b, pp. 24-28) has described the variation of
some specimens from the Upper Lias belonging to _Pseudoglandulina
vulgata_ (BORNEMANN). It was pointed out that many of the forms which
had been assigned to a number of different species by earlier authors
fell within the normal range of variation of the species. It was stated
that slight variation in the growth rate, the biocharacter controlling
the size and shape of the chambers, would result in a wide range of
variants in the final shape of the test."[Tom Barnard, "Evolution in
Certain Biocharacters of Selected Jurassic Lagenidae," in _Evolutionary
Trends in Foraminifera_, von Koenigswald, ed. (1963), 81, 83.]
I hereby ask that you concede that your "Transitional Fossil Challenge"
has been met.
--------end inserted text--------
================end inserted text 1================
As seen above, in conjunction with his transitionals challenge,
Wesley E. alluded to the paper of Ozawa as if the paper had some
relevant data. It doesn't, as I discussed in the theory of NS
essay:
In the only case that G&E [1977] found to be a good example of
gradualism, 4 out of 9 traits showed gradualism. However,
looking over the pictures in Tomowo Ozawa, "Evolution of
_Lepidolina multiseptata_ (Permian Foraminifer) in East Asia"
_Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, Series D,
Geology_, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 117-64 (25 Nov 1975) reveals that
there is only microevolution occurring; no evolutionary novelties
are seen appearing.
I've pointed out to Wesley E. my examination of Ozawa:
===============begin inserted text 2===============
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:40:29 -0400
From: david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Punctuated Equlibria Challenge 19990511 (was Re: A
Matter Of Faith)
Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> on 1999/05/11:
[snips]
WRE Punctuated Equilibria Challenge
WRE
WRE Created 19990328. Last Updated 19990511.
WRE
WRE Background
WRE
WRE The Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (PE) concerns the origin
WRE and deployment of species in the fossil record. It was
WRE defined and advanced by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould
WRE in 1972.
WRE
WRE Some anti-evolutionists like to make various claims about PE
WRE (which they alternately call 'punc-eq', 'punk-eek', or the
WRE rhetorically pungent 'evolution by jerks'). The purpose of
WRE this challenge is to assess the knowledge of the person making
WRE claims about what PE is or what PE means, such that we can
WRE evaluate the level of credibility to invest in the claim.
Wesley R. Elsberry <wels...@orca.tamu.edu> in "David Ford Whines On" in
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=255025440 on 1997/07/06:
[snips]
WRE Given David's penchant for misrepresenting PE, I think Phase
WRE Two would likely be Ozawa's 1975 study on forams, which even Gould
WRE and Eldredge have validated as showing phyletic gradualism. Of
WRE course, I doubt that David's familiarity with the evidence will come
WRE along so fast that Phase Two happens before the millennium, assuming
WRE that there might be reasons to doubt Barnard's evidence.
[WRE]"Given David's penchant for misrepresenting PE."
When will I receive your Punctuated Equilibria Challenge?
Oh, and I actually looked up Ozawa.
"Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection"
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=373057131
================end inserted text 2================
david ford
(Pelican Books), 214pp. About Arthur:
Wallace Arthur was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1952.
He began to study medicine at Queen's University in 1969, but
became bored with anatomy and fascinated by evolution and ecology
and consequently switched to a course in biology at the
University of Ulster, graduating in 1973. He then took a Ph.D.
in the Department of Genetics at Nottingham University,
researching in the areas of population genetics and evolutionary
ecology. In 1977 he took up a temporary post as Lecturer in
Biology at the University of Sussex, followed by another
temporary post as a biometrician at Clatterbridge Hospital on
Merseyside. In 1979 he joined the staff of Sunderland
Polytechnic, where he is currently a Senior Lecturer in the
Department of Biology. His interests in evolution and ecology
have been supplemented by a growing interest in development. His
other publications include a book on evolution.
On 158-9, the opening 4 paragraphs of the section "Macro-evolution:
The Origin of Species":
Recent detailed studies of the fossil record, in which the
evolutionary fate of a particular species is concentrated upon,
have revealed that a common pattern of change is a 'rectangular'
one, as illustrated in Figure 26, which shows the origin of a new
species occurring about half-way through a 2MY fossil sequence.
Prior to such detailed palaeontological studies we had no clear
picture of what 'shape' evolutionary changes over these long
periods of time would take, but it was widely believed that a
more gradual change would be the norm.
'Rectangular' patterns of change are now known to be common,
though not all changes are of this kind. But it is not so clear
what interpretation should be made of these patterns-- that is,
what mechanism underlies them-- and whether, as some have
claimed, they are evidence of some sort of non-Darwinian
evolution. (Darwin's own diagram of evolutionary change in _The
Origin of Species_ was much more gradual and tree-like.)
Part of the problem in interpreting the rectangular or
'punctuational' patterns lies in the fact that the supporters of
the 'theory' (whatever it is) themselves make different
interpretations. Perhaps the best way to approach the problem,
then, is to think of all possible mechanisms that could underlie
the punctuational patterns, and to evaluate each of these for
ourselves.
The first possibility is that what we are observing is the
'creation' of a species rather than its evolutionary origin. Now
this may seem ridiculous to many readers, yet the creationist
lobby is quick to latch on to any apparent difficulty in
evolutionary theory, particularly one in which species arise
suddenly, and they have not failed to interpret punctuations in
the fossil record in this way. However, I shall dismiss this
viewpoint for the moment. Creationists are not scientists
(whatever they may say) and their ideas are not appropriately
discussed in a 'scientific' chapter such as this. Their turn
will come in Chapter 14 ["Attacks on Biological Theory:
Creationists and Others"].