The fossil record is often cited as proof that Evolution has drastically changed species over very long time intervals. For example, here is a quote from the Understanding Evolution website published by the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology:
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.[1]
However, describing the fossil record as being “smudged in places” and having “bits missing” is a massive understatement. Although at one time, paleontologists seemed willing to sweep massive gaps in the fossil record under the rug, this is no longer the case. For example, this quote from the Harvard University Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has been very widely distributed:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”[2]
This leads one to wonder what the truth of the fossil record is. If one believes the Understanding Evolution website, the fossil record is “smudged in places” with only a few places where bits are missing. If one believes Gould, then there is an “extreme lack of transitional species in the fossil record.” It is hard to understand how both these quotes can accurately describe the same fossil record.
Together with Niles Eldredge, Gould postulated a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium.[3] Punctuated Equilibrium attempts to explain why the fossil record does not contain the large number of intermediate forms suggested by Darwin. It is based on the concept that speciation happens in isolated population groups where evolutionary change happens in bursts rather than in the gradual and continuous manner suggested by Darwin.
This quote from Gould’s Panda’s Thumb describes why advocates of Punctuated Equilibrium believe the Fact of Evolution is consistent with a fossil record dominated by the sudden appearance of new species and long periods with very little change (stasis):
The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.[4]
Advocates for Evolution like to make clear that Gould and Eldredge are both fully committed Evolutionists. In other words, they don’t dispute that Evolution took place. They simply believe it happened in relatively fast bursts (sudden appearance) followed by long time intervals where nothing seems to change (stasis). For example, consider this quote from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences:
[Gould] was discussing whether the rate of change of species is slow and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs—an idea known as punctuated equilibrium.[5]
However, this NAS quote fails to describe that Punctuated Equilibrium destroys the claim that the fossil record provides wide spread support for Evolutionary transitions. Punctuated Equilibrium amounts to an admission that the fossil record reflects “sudden appearance” of “fully formed species” rather than “gradual change.” In other words, the fossil record lacks evidence for the numerous intermediate species predicted by Darwin
The concept of punctuated equilibrium is that evolutionary change failed to leave fossilized versions of transitional species because the new species evolved faster than the geological time intervals that are allegedly recorded in the fossil record. According to the NAS, this is Gould’s own description of Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.[6]
But the fossil record does not supply evidence for the “intermediate stages” described by Gould. Rather, Punctuated Equilibrium attempts to explain why the fossil record does not record these transitions. The hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium is that small population groups experienced major evolutionary changes over a relatively short period of geological time. Consequently, the transitions left no fossil evidence.
In the first science lab that I can remember, I learned that laboratory notebooks are for recording the evidence “that you see” and not for adjusting the evidence to “what you hope to see.” The honest presentation of all evidence is a cardinal rule of science. However, this quote from Niles Eldredge’s article in What Darwin Began certainly suggests that many paleontologists violated this cardinal rule:
Each new generation, it seems, produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have always looked for have, or course, been of the gradual, progressive sort. More often than not their efforts have gone unrewarded – their fossils rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged. … This extraordinary conservatism looked, to the paleontologist keen on finding evolutionary change, as if no evolution had occurred. Thus studies demonstrating conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered as failures, and, more often than not, were not even published. Most paleontologists were aware of this stability, the lack of change we call stasis. … But insofar as evolution itself is concerned, paleontologists usually saw stasis as ‘no results’ rather than as a contradiction of the prediction of gradual, progressive evolutionary change.” Gaps in the record continue (to this day) to be invoked as the prime reason why so few cases of gradual change are found.[7]
Eldredge’s testimony asserts that generations of paleontologists suppressed the sudden appearance and stasis that dominates the fossil record for many years. This suppression was done by a community of scientists who had an unrelenting belief in the Fact of Evolution – despite the lack of supporting fossil evidence for gradual evolutionary change. This distortion of evidence was not in the interest of good science.
Evolutionists often claim that skeptics distort the meaning of Punctuated Equilibrium by using only a limited context in their quotes. In an attempt to defuse the arguments of skeptics, The Quote Mine Project of the Talk Origins website provides this additional context for one of Gould’s oft-repeated quotes:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin
[Gould’s text includes a modified quote from Darwin’s The Origin of Species that describes why the validity of the Theory of Evolution rests on the extreme imperfection of the geological record (Darwin’s original quote is provided below – see endnote 12)].
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.[8]
The additional context added to Gould’s quote reveals that many of the relationships shown in evolutionary trees are based on “inference” and “not the evidence of fossils.” It also reveals that “the favored escape of most paleontologists” is to claim the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Finally, it points out that gradualism of Darwinian Evolution is “never seen in the rocks.”
An evolutionary skeptic would likely concede all those points. Adding this extra context doesn’t detract from what skeptic’s claim – i.e., that a distinguished Evolutionist (Gould) is flat out admitting that the evidence for the gradualism of Darwin’s theory is not present in the fossil record. An evolutionary skeptic might omit Gould’s added context for brevity. But this omitted context would not alter the skeptic’s claim.
Gould’s original Natural History article contains even more forceful wording about the lack of gradualism in the fossil record. For example, here is Gould’s description of the sudden appearance of species and their lack of change in the fossil record:
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'.[9]
The implication of the assorted Gould and Eldredge quotes is that the fossil record reflects more than “smudges” and “missing bits.” Gould and Eldredge argue that “most species” do not leave a record of their evolutionary transition. One can argue that Gould and Eldredge’s claims about lack of evidence for gradual fossil transitions are wrong. But it denies reality to argue that this is not what Gould and Eldredge have claimed.
Rather than admit that skeptics have raised good points, a Talk Origins article by Michael Hopkins severely criticizes their quoting practices.[10] For example, Hopkins argues that skeptics often omit context from quotes without adding ellipsis. This criticism may have some validity. Bad quoting practices are not good for anybody. But bad quoting practices alone do not invalidate an argument.
For example, Gould himself was guilty of bad quoting practices in the very article that Hopkins chastises an evolutionary skeptic for misquoting. Gould modified a quote from Darwin’s Origin of Species without acknowledging his source. Over 200 words of Darwin’s text was omitted without using an ellipsis, and Gould added a few words of his own without using any []’s. The modified quote of Gould’s is shown in italics:
I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation; … [omitting 133 of Darwin’s words from a very long sentence] … All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and [this fact] will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.[11]
But bad quoting practices do not invalidate Gould’s point – i.e., that there is an “extreme rarity of transitional species” in the fossil record. This is what skeptics want to emphasize when they quote Gould. But they take Gould’s reasoning a step further. They argue that Darwin
This is a valid scientific point to make. And it has nothing to do with any context that has been omitted from Gould’s quote. In fairness, Hopkins does point out that Gould claims missing transitional forms only exist at the species level. For example, Hopkins cites this quote from Gould’s article Evolution as Fact and Theory:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.[12]
If Gould’s claim were substantiated by detailed fossils, it would indeed silence many critics. However, numerous Evolutionists have testified that transitional forms are missing between many species groups. For example, consider this sample montage of quotes from distinguished Evolutionists (I have assembled them from various pages in Duane Gish’s Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!):
It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another.[13]
The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendents.[14]
When insect fossils first appear … they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitive wingless forms, but few convincing intermediates are known.[15]
… lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing.[16]
In a series of quotations from Romer (1966), Gish finds all the confessions he needs from evolutionists that each of these classes appear suddenly and with no trace of ancestors. The absence of transitional fossils in the gaps between each of these group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution. … This is one count in the creationist’s charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere.[17]
The discovery of Latimeria [a Coelacanth] raised hopes of gathering direct information on the transition of fish to amphibians, for there was a long held belief that coelacanth’s were close to the ancestry of tetrapods. Latimeria was thus heralded as a “missing link” ... But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation as a missing link seems unjustified.[18]
Gould has admitted that a long list of paleontologists inferred that gradualism was substantiated by fossils even though “it is never ‘seen’ in the rocks.”[19] Perhaps Gould makes a similar mistake by inferring the existence of transitional species for which there is no real fossil proof. In contrast, Gish infers that a Creationist-model offers the best explanation for the missing fossil evidence.[20]
But even if the concept of a Creationist-model is ignored, one thing is certain: There are many cases where the fossil record doesn’t present a clear picture of evolutionary transitions. An absence of transitional fossils doesn’t prove that Evolution is false. But it also doesn’t prove that it is true. There is no doubt that Evolutionists infer the existence of transitional species. The question is whether these conjectures represent facts.
One of the many examples of dispute transitional species is Archaeopteryx – a so-called feathered dinosaur that is often promoted as an ancestor to birds.[21] Alan Feduccia is a fully committed Evolutionist and a well-known expert on birds. [22] Here is a quote from Feduccia that was published in an article in the journal Science:
Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."[23]
Hopkins article cited the use of Feduccia’s quote by a skeptic as another example of bad quoting practices.[24] Hopkins offered the following criticism:
Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too.[25]
However, a current version of the skeptic’s article speaks directly to the criticism that was offered by Hopkins. This text immediately follows Feduccia’s quote in the current version of the skeptic’s article:
Even though Feduccia's conclusion may be in the minority among evolutionists, he is more of an authority on birds than most evolutionists, and his view shows that there is certainly not agreement among experts in the field that Archaeopteryx was a feathered dinosaur.[26]
This quote makes it clear that Feduccia’s opinion was cited because he is an authority on birds. It clearly indicates that Feduccia is offering a minority opinion (which is the exact opposite of what Hopkins suggests). Perhaps Hopkins simply missed this text in the skeptic’s article. Perhaps the skeptic altered his article to answer Hopkins’ criticism. Whatever the reason, the skeptic’s current version answers Hopkins’ criticism.
The skeptic’s point about lack of agreement among scientific experts is certainly valid, even if Feduccia presents a minority opinion. Many skeptics have referenced the Feduccia quote, including Jonathon Sarfati in Refuting Evolution (which predates Hopkins Hopkins
Because scientific journals have a process of impartial peer review, one would assume that quoting an acknowledged expert from a distinguished journal like Science is a valid thing to do.[29] Rather than ignoring evolutionists who disagree with Feduccia (as Hopkins
However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees with assertions like those of ‘Doug’ …[30]
Where did Sarfati get the hypothetical evolutionist Doug? Doug is an imaginary teacher described in Teaching About Evolution and Science, a publication of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
Karen: A student in one of my classes at university told me that there are big gaps in the fossil record. Do you know anything about that?
Doug: Well, there's Archaeopteryx. It's a fossil that has feathers like a bird but the skeleton of a small dinosaur. It's one of those missing links that's not missing any more.[31]
What Hopkins
That is why Sarfati (and Hopkins ’ skeptic) clearly describe the dissent to Feduccia’s opinion (in contrast to Hopkins Hopkins
‘It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.[32]
Hopkins suggests that citing Feduccia’s opinion is misleading because “One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs.”[33] However, Sarfati doesn’t use Feduccia’s quote to imply that there aren’t competing opinions. Rather, Sarfati uses Feduccia’s quote to demonstrate that both sides of competing Evolutionary explanations have well-reasoned scientific dissent:
In short, Feduccia and Martin [a University of Kansas Paleontologist
There are two competing theories for how flight originated through evolution. The first theory (cursorial) is that land animals learned to fly by jumping up from the ground. The second theory (arboreal) is that tree-climbing animals learned to fly by gliding down. About thirty years ago, the arboreal theory was the predominant one. This is described by Paleontologist John Ostrom in a 1979 article entitled Bird Flight: How Did It Begin:
The first is the widely favored and very logical “arboreal theory,” … The second is the often ridiculed and seemingly less probable “cursorial theory,” …[35]
Ostrom was an early advocate of the cursorial theory (then the minority). Ostrom considered the arboreal theory implausible because of anatomy.[36] In essence, modern birds are not structured to climb and if they can’t climb, they can never glide down. That left the cursorial theory as the only alternative. But Ostrom points out a major difficulty of the cursorial theory – the physics of thrust prevent land animals from lifting off:
One of the key criticisms that has been leveled at this hypothesis is that, once the animal is airborne, the main thrust source, (i.e. traction of the hind feet against the ground) would be lost and velocity would diminish.[37]
The cursorial theory of bird flight origins has received virtually no acceptance, apparently for several good reasons … including the seemingly impossible “bootstrap effort required for the animal to life itself by means of flapping proto-wings.[38]
Presumably, this is why Feduccia classifies the now-dominant “cursorial-theory” as a “biophysically impossible” alternative. Only thirty years ago, the majority of experts agreed with Feduccia. In the last 30 years, the laws of physics that govern thrust have not changed. So, Feduccia is making a valid scientific point. However, anatomical issues seem to support the cursorial theory. This creates the vicious dilemma cited by Sarfati.
The thrust of Sarfati’s argument is that there are good scientific reasons to reject both the cursorial-theory and the arboreal-theory. This leaves evolutionists without a plausible theory for how the ability to fly originated. Because Sarfati is unquestionably a Creationist, he suggests this impasse implies a third alternative – i.e. flight began with the Biblical Creation of flying creatures, rather than with the evolution of flight.
Even if one ignores Sarfati’s jump to a third alternative, the dilemma of the first two alternatives hasn’t gone away. The cursorial-theory and the arboreal-theory seem to be the only two alternatives for the evolutionary origin of flight. If Evolution is not assumed as a fact, then there are valid scientific reasons to be skeptical about both these theories. Despite this seeming paradox, Evolutionists place their faith on this implicit tautology:
- We can know that birds evolved the ability to fly because we know that evolution is a fact.
- We can know evolution is a fact because we know birds evolved the ability to fly.
However, if an appeal to this circular reasoning is dropped, the scientific reasons for skepticism remain strong. Although Hopkins
At the start of this article, Feduccia presents three solid reasons why the missing link promoted by the majority of evolutionists (Archaeopteryx) can’t possibly be a missing link to the origin of birds:
1. Feduccia’s first argument is that descendents can’t precede ancestors in time. He points out that Evolutionist’s date the dinosaurs that allegedly evolved into birds at between 25 and 80 million years after Archaeopteryx appeared. Because the bird-expert Feduccia believes Archaeopteryx is a true bird, he argues that birds must have had a different set of ancestors. After all, a parent cannot predate a child in the sequence of time.
2. Feduccia’s second argument is that dinosaurs were relatively large, earth-bound creatures incapable of climbing trees. Consequently, he argues that dinosaurs could never evolve flight by floating down from trees. This leaves the other alternative – evolving the ability to fly by jumping up from the ground. But the laws of physics show that this is biophysically impossible for creatures with the anatomy of dinosaurs.
3. Feduccia’s third argument is that other anatomical reasons prevent theropod dinosaurs from evolving into birds. He points out that the hand-shape of theropod dinosaurs (the choice missing link for cursorial theory advocates) is completely different from the hand-shape of birds. He argues that there is no simple path between the hand shape of a theropod dinosaur hand (similar to three of our fingers, starting with the thumb) and the hand shape of a bird (similar to our three middle fingers).
Thus, Feduccia believes flight had to evolve from a gliding ancestor (say the size of a small bird). Such a hypothetical descendent would need less thrust to maintain flight. However, in Refuting Evolution, Sarfati describes why the concept of a hypothetical gliding-descendent for flying birds has its own major issues:
But a gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.[40]
Because the majority opinion has now abandoned the arboreal theory, there is an ongoing effort to find fossils that will prove the cursorial theory. In recent years, China
The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a 'missing link' and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur. It reportedly came from Early Cretaceous beds of China
In the Discover Magazine article, Feduccia discusses the many fake fossils that are being manufactured.[42] He describes a rumor about a fake fossil factory in China that is near the location where the most recent feather dinosaur fossils were found. He points out that these alleged missing link fossils are never sufficiently authenticated, and that they are quickly returned to China
Money seems to be the driving motivation for producing such fossil forgeries. A National Geographic article describes how powerful this motivation is:
It's illegal to export fossils out of China
Huge quantities of fossils are illegally excavated and smuggled out each year. And no wonder; the Archaeoraptor fossil sold in the United States
Feduccia believes that the scientific prestige of many of his colleagues has been wagered on the cursorial theory of Bird Evolution. But this Feduccia quote from the Discover Magazine article indicates that he is not alone in his skepticism
Many museums have promoted the idea of birds being living dinosaurs, and they have spent huge amounts of money on exhibits about that link. Plus, some paleontologists have spent three decades saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs, so there are careers at stake. On the other hand, there is an army of people out there who do not buy into it. We are just not as vocal as the other side.[44]
It is clear that many Evolutionists believe that the fossil record supplies ample proof of the evolutionary transitions between widely different species. The alleged connection between earth bound dinosaurs and flying birds is just one example of this. However, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History used this quote in a letter written to Luther D. Sunderland (a creationist):
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. … I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.[45]
Lionel Theunissen, an author of a Talk Origins article, has complained that Patterson’s quote is distorted by the limited context.[46] However, as with the Gould and Feduccia quotes, adding context only reinforces the uncertainty of the Fact of Evolution. For example, Patterson’s letter is now available in an on-line version of Sunderland ’s book Darwin’s Enigma. Here is Sunderland ’s complete description of Patterson’s letter:
Before interviewing Dr. Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin American Museum
So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job.[47]
Theunissen tries to limit the damage of Patterson’s letter by using a quote from Patterson’s book Evolution: “In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types.”[48] But Patterson’s letter to Sunderland specifically states that there is no way to use the fossil record to directly prove evolutionary transitions, and that no argument from the fossil record is watertight.
In a letter to Theunissen about this issue, Patterson stated that it is a scientist’s duty to be skeptical.[49] Gould, Feduccia, and Patterson are all firm believers in the Fact of Evolution. However, their quotes suggest that skepticism about the fossil proof for Evolution is scientifically justified. For some additional reasons to be skeptical, see Sunderland’s chapter on the fossil record from reptiles to man.[50]
There is a wide gap between telling stories about evolutionary transitions and providing detailed proof for that claim. Feduccia believes that: “Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird.” [51] However, the concept of a biological designer does not preclude a designed creature with mixed bird and reptile features. One can accept that conclusion without believing that Archaeopteryx is the result of Evolution.
If one practices the scientific skepticism suggested by Patterson, the real issue revolves around whether evidence exists for the evolution of Archaeopteryx rather than its creation. As the quotes from Gould indicate, a sudden appearance of drastically different organisms, followed by little change between fossils and modern day organisms, represents the pattern of the fossil record, rather than an exception to it.
This position is further validated by Vertebrate Paleontologist Robert L. Carroll. These quotes from Carroll’s Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution suggest a fossil record that is far more than smudged (as the opening quote of this chapter claimed):
Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla, and there is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by which the individual phyla or classes are characterized.
Progressive increase in knowledge of the fossil record over the past hundred years emphasizes how wrong Darwin
What Carroll is saying is that the fossil record may demonstrate minor transitions between similar organisms (at the species level), but it lacks evidence for gradual evolutionary transitions to bridge the wide gaps between two of the highest levels of biological classification (phyla and class).[53] To paraphrase a Gould quote, biological life has a variety of different base designs that show only minor changes in the fossil record.[54]
Gould is one of many highly respected evolutionist sources who have described the sudden appearance of new life forms without any fossil intermediates to indicate an evolutionary transition. As Patterson has described, it is easy to make up stories about how one life form evolved into another drastically different life form. However, do these stories equate to facts?
For example, the finding of a living Coelacanth has cast doubt upon evolutionary stories about transitional species that have been widely asserted to be facts. For example, this quote from a BBC program (The Missing Link) describes how the Coelacanth was once thought to be a missing link between fish and Tetrapods (Tetrapods[55] include amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals):
The scientific community was transfixed. For decades the coelacanth had been touted as a possible transitional form between fish and tetrapods, but no one had really known enough about it. It existed only as a fossil.[56]
Evolutionary stories suggested that the Coelacanth was a missing link that bridged the vast gap between fish and land animals. However, a dissection of a living Coelacanth in 1952 revealed an oil-filled body that is drastically different from any known land animal. This is described on a PBS-Nova program entitled Ancient Creature of the Deep:
NARRATOR: This kind of oil-filled skeletal structure is unique. Most adult vertebrates have well-developed backbones, especially those that live on land, including human beings.
ROBIN STOBBS: The entire fish is filled with oil. There is not a single air sinus in the fish. So, like a diver's depth gauge, it's incompressible, which, in theory anyway, would allow it to swim at depths of 1000 meters or more.[57]
PBS-Nova’s Ancient Creature of the Deep also describes the great surprise that finding a living Coelacanth represented to the scientific community:
NARRATOR: For J.L.B. Smith, it was more than rare; it was an impossibility. If that drawing were correct, this fish should have died out with the dinosaurs. …
J.L.B. SMITH [who dissected the 1952 Coelacanth]: Coelacanths are close relatives of the fish that scientists consider was the ancestor of all land animals. The Coelacanths have lived for probably 350 million years and in that time they have changed but little.[58]
The Coelacanth is a prime example of what Gould described as the overwhelming stasis of the fossil record – very long periods of time in which virtually no sign of evolutionary change can be observed. The Coelacanth is certainly not the only fossil specimen that demonstrates stasis. For example, another PBS-Nova webpage provides this description:
Charles Darwin coined the phrase "living fossil" to describe the ginkgo tree, whose distinctive wedge-shaped leaves are nearly identical to those of fossilized ginkgos from the Triassic Period 240 million years ago. Today scientists have identified hundreds of other living things that have persisted in an almost unchanged form for millions of years, including giant sequoia trees, millipedes, armadillos, crocodilians, and even some bacteria.
Among living fossil fish, the coelacanth is the most famous, but there are many others. Perhaps even more than other kinds of living fossils, these ancient fish, whose kind have swum the seas for more than 450 million years, give scientists a window into what the Earth was like an incomprehensibly long time ago.[59]
How could evolution have produced very rapid changes (sudden appearance of fully formed species) followed by very long time periods with virtually no sign of evolutionary change (stasis)? For anybody wishing to practice scientific skepticism, that certainly seems like a good question to focus on. Young-earth advocates argue that sudden-appearance and stasis suggest a recent creation, rather than an ancient evolution.
If living fossils don’t have an evolutionary history of millions of years, then the puzzle of stasis disappears. Although evolutionists proclaim that radiometric dating reliably establishes that fossil are millions (or billions) of years in age, there are legitimate scientific reasons to be skeptical about this. For example, in Refuting Evolution, Jonathan Sarfati describes some of the well-known dating anomalies:
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old. Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand
Whether or not you believe in the possibility of a young earth, anybody interested in practicing scientific skepticism should carefully consider this question posed by Sarfati:
If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?[61]
Nevertheless, Evolutionists do place great trust in the accuracy of dating methods. For example, this quote from the NAS publication Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science suggests the absolute reliability radiometric dating methods:
Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the planet and in the history of life.[62]
Many evolutionists have convinced themselves that dating methods rule out the concept of a recent special creation just as they have convinced themselves that the fossil record is only a bit smudged. But in the words of Evolutionist Mark Ridley (a colleague of Dawkins at Oxford
In any case, no real Evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, as opposed to special creation.[63]
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was based on the assumption a long series of tiny changes connects all species to a common ancestor. Darwin assumed that as more fossils were uncovered, the multitude of transitional species that his theory predicted would be uncovered. The testimony of Gould and Eldredge clearly indicate that this was not the case. Furthermore, they don’t believe this evidence will ever be found.
Darwin was honest enough to admit that the existing fossil record did not contain the evidence needed to confirm his theory. Nevertheless, many scientists fell in love with the simplicity of the Theory of Evolution and accepted it without detailed proof. However, an old saying warns about judging a book by its cover.[64] Anybody looking beyond the cover of the Fact of Evolution will see how inadequate the fossil evidence clearly is.
Acknowledgements
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 40, 60, 61): From Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, 18th printing, May 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest, AR; copyright 1999. Used with permission from Creation Ministries International – http://creation.com/.
N(5, 6): Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html. Reprinted with permission from Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
N(31, 62): Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787. Reprinted with permission from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
N(41): Reprinted with permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Timothy Rowe et al., “Forensic palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor forgery,” Nature 410:539-540, 29 March 2001, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6828/full/410539b0.html, copyright © 2001.
N(47, 50): Luther Patterson, Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), pp. 88-90, Chapter 4, http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_04Reptile.htm. Used with the permission of Paul Abramson – www.creationism.org.
N(63): From What is Creation-Science by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, 19th printing, July 2004. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest, AR; copyright 1982, 1987.
Notes and References
[1]. Understanding Evolution, “Fossil evidence,” University of California Museum of Paleontology, accessed on 14 June 2010, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_02.
[2]. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977, as quoted from the website: Gary Bates, “That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils,” http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils.
[3]. Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972, “Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phylectic gradualism,” http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf.
[4]. Stephen J. Gould, “The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," in The Panda's Thumb (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980), pp. 182-184 as quoted from the website: “S.J.G Archive – Quotations,” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/quotations.html.
[5]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[6]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), pp. 28-29, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=29.
[7]. Niles Eldredge, “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in the book: What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinism and Neo-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution, ed. Laurie R. Godfrey (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1985), p. 118.
[8]. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977, as quoted from the webpage: “The Quote Mine Project,” Talk Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html. A similar quote is contained in a later version of Gould’s article which was published in the book: Stephen J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980), pp. 179-185. The Talk Origins article brackets the word directly when quoting the phrase “show so little of evolution [directly]” to indicate that the original version did not have the word directly.” I have simply omitted directly so that my quote should match the original version.
[9]. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86(5):12-16, May 1977, as quoted from the webpage: ARN Quote Library, http://www.arn.org/blogsq/index.php?title=gould_s_j_evolution_s_erratic_pace&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.
[10]. Michael Hopkins, “Quotations and Misquotations – Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution,” Posted 28 February 2002, Last Updated 18 March 2004, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/.
[11]. For the original Darwin quote in context, see either http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-10.html or http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-11.html. Although the Chapter numbers changed between the original and 6th edition of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” both of the above chapters have the same title: “On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings.” To find the quote, look in this section: “Summary of the preceding and present Chapters.” The wording is slightly different in the two chapters, but Gould’s quote can be reproduced from both versions by:
1) Adding an ellipsis to indicate that over 200 words have been omitted after “extremely imperfect”
2) Adding the bracketed words [and this fact] to either version of Darwin’s text.
3) Adding a second ellipsis in the 6th edition to indicate that a second group of words was omitted.
[12]. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), pp. 253-26, as quoted from the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html.
[13]. Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986), p. 325, as quoted in the book: Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p. 57.
[14]. Stefan Bengston, “The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle,” Nature 345:765-766 (1990), as quoted in the book: Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p. 60.
[15]. R. J. Wootton and C. P. Ellington, “Biomechanics and the Origin of Insect Flight,” in Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner and R. J. Wootton (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 99, as quoted in the book: Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p. 70.
[16]. Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes,” Proceeding of the Linnean Society of London 177(1):8, January 1966, p. 8, as quoted in the book: Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p. 78.
[17]. A. N. Strahler, Science and Earth History – The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987), p 408, as quoted in the book: Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p. 80.
[18]. Peter L. Forey, “Golden jubilee for the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae,” Nature 336:727–732, 29 December 1988, as quoted in the book: Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p. 84.
[19]. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977, as quoted from the webpage: “The Quote Mine Project,” Talk Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html.
[20]. Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), pp. 42-43.
[23]. Alan Feduccia, “Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx,” Science 259(5096):790–793, 5 February 1993, as quoted from the website: "Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link,'?” Creation Tips, http://creationtips.com/arch.html.
[24]. Michael Hopkins, “Quotations and Misquotations – Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution,” Posted 28 February 2002, Last Updated 18 March 2004, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/. Hopkins article gives this reference for the skeptics quote: "Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link,'?" http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/arch.html. He notes that it was accessed on January 31, 2002. I accessed a version of this webpage at http://creationtips.com/arch.html on February 11, 2009. This version still had links to the website cited by Hopkins.
[25]. Michael Hopkins, “Quotations and Misquotations – Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution,” Posted 28 February 2002, Last Updated 18 March 2004, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/.
[26]. “Is Archaeopteryx a ‘missing link’?” http://creationtips.com/arch.html, accessed on October 28, 2010.
[27]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p 58, http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution.
[28]. Alan Feduccia, “Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx,” Science 259(5096):790–793, 5 February 1993, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/259/5096/790.
[30]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p 58. Also see: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution.
[31]. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), p. 8, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=8, as quoted from the book: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), pp. 56-57, http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution.
[32]. Ann Gibbons, “New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer,” Science 274(5288):720–721, 1 November 1996, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/274/5288/720, as quoted in the book: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p. 61, http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution.
[33]. Michael Hopkins, “Quotations and Misquotations – Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution,” Posted 28 February 2002, Last Updated 18 March 2004, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/.
[34]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p 63. Also see: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution.
[35]. John H. Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?” American Scientist 67:45-56, January/February 1979, p. 46, as quoted in the book: Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler and Alder, 1986), p 204.
[36]. John H. Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?” American Scientist 67:45-56, January/February 1979, p. 46, as quoted in the book: Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler and Alder, 1986), p 205.
[37]. John H. Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?” American Scientist 67:45-56, January/February 1979, p. 46, as quoted in the book: Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler and Alder, 1986), p 206.
[38]. John H. Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?” American Scientist 67:45-56, January/February 1979, p. 46, as quoted in the book: Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler and Alder, 1986), p 206.
[39]. “Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia – Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds,” Discover Magazine, 1 February 2003, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue.
[40]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), pp. 62-63, http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-4-bird-evolution.
[41]. Timothy Rowe et al., “Forensic palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor forgery,” Nature 410:539-540, 29 March 2001, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6828/full/410539b0.html.
[42]. “Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia – Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds,” Discover Magazine, 1 February 2003, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue.
[43]. Hillary Mayell, “Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says,” National Geographic, 20 November 2002, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html.
[44]. “Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia – Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds,” Discover Magazine, 1 February 2003, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue.
[45]. Lionel Theunissen, “Patterson Misquoted,” Talk Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html.
[46]. Lionel Theunissen, “Patterson Misquoted,” Talk Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html.
[47]. Luther Patterson, Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), pp. 88-90, Chapter 4, http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_04Reptile.htm.
[48]. Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum (Natural History), 1978), pp. 131-133, as quoted from: Lionel Theunissen, “Patterson Misquoted,” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html.
[50]. Luther Patterson, Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), pp. 88-90, Chapter 4, http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_04Reptile.htm.
[51]. “Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia – Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds,” Discover Magazine, 1 February 2003, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue.
[52]. Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), as quoted from the website: Joe Renick, Part 3 of a Video Series, http://originseducation.org/images/stories/docs/Renick3_Evidence.pdf.
[53]. The levels of biological classification (from highest to lowest are): Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum for background information.
[54]. Stephen J. Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History 93(2), February 1984, pp. 14-23. Gould’s article has been reprinted in multiple places with different page numbers. The full article by Stephen Jay Gould is available from the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_ediacaran_experiment.html. The paraphrased quote is available at the page 5 link, which points to a page 297 located at this website: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0297.htm.
[56]. “The Missing Link,” BBC, 1 February 2001, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/missinglink_transcript.shtml.
[57]. “Ancient Creature of the Deep,” PBS-Nova, 21 January 2003, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3003_fish.html.
[58]. “Ancient Creature of the Deep,” PBS-Nova, 21 January 2003, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3003_fish.html.
[60]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), pp. 110-111, http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth.
[61]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p. 111, http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth.
[62]. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), p. 127, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=127.
[63]. Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831, as quoted in the book: Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation-Science, 19th Printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987), p. 228.
No comments:
Post a Comment