dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/21/85)
This is part 1 of my response to Bill Jefferys' reply to SOR #4. >> [Ray Miller] >>GAPS: THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION >> One of the major problems for evolutionists is the sudden explosion of >>complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks, including trilobites, brachiopods, >>worms, jellyfish, sponges, etc. No transitional forms, indicating how these >>complex creatures supposedly evolved, have ever been documented. Pre-Cambrian >>sedimentary rock can be found which is identical with overlying fossiliferous >>Cambrian, but the gaps are still present. > [Bill Jefferys] > There evidence for 2.5 billion years of life prior to the so-called > "Cambrian Explosion". And fossils typical of Cambrian types *are* found in > Pre-Cambrian rocks, although not in abundance. Stephen Jay Gould is of the > opinion that the Cambrian fossil record is consistent with the typical "sigmoid" > population growth curve that is commonly seen in biological systems: An initial > exponential phase during which the available resources are much more abundant > than the growing population, followed by a levelling off as the population > is limited by the finite resources. See "Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid > Fraud" (love those titles :-) in his *Ever Since Darwin*. It takes more than a title. Evolution means new things must be produced, not more of the same old things. It also takes more than an idea such as that proposed by Gould, which is in fact at best a description and not an explanation. So the argument is flawed; population increase is not evolutionary change. Without some further elaboration, this argument is unconvincing. /* now I'm one species */ for (i = 0; i < a million; i++) { fork (); } /* now we're a different species? */ Gould dealt largely with the way in which the fork() in the loop leads to the characteristic sigmoid curve; less so with the fact that we need something more like exec() than fork(). In his example with the bacteria colony, he says "for cell division, read speciation", but as for details, "we have little concrete to say". A better and more interesting treatment (though more difficult to digest) may be found in Sepkoski (1978). >> Each time a particular kind of plant or animal appears in the fossil >>record, it does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi- >>cating how it evolved. Gaps are large, systematic, and continuous throughout >>the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model. ``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 inter- >>mediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them'' [4]. >>Even the prominent Stephen Gould wrote: ``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'' [5]. Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence'' >>is not the mark of an objective scientist. > But Stephen Jay Gould also says, in response to Creationist misquotations > of his writings like this one, "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again > by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- > as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transition- > al forms are generally lacking at the species level but *are abundant between > larger groups* [emphasis added]. The evolution from reptiles to mammals > is well documented" (Creation/Evolution VI, p. 38). Bill does a better job than Greg here of attempting to document that the quote is taken out of context. I think Gould tries to have it both ways. I have noticed that when he writes in opposition to gradualism that there are very few transitions: "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 are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record" [1977, p. 147]. But when he writes in opposition to creationists, suddenly they become manifest and multiply rapidly: "[T]ransitional forms exist in abundance - especially forms linking reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds" [Gallant, 1984, p. 296]). We may say that if we attempt a clarification based upon the level at which the transitions occur that the contradiction is eliminated, and perhaps it is. But that leaves two problems. First, Gould himself he often does not specify what level he's talking about (in Greg's terms, he seems to "fog the issue"). Second, the level at which he asserts the transitions to occur is hardly a point of general agreement among evolutionists. For example, Simpson [1967, pp. 232-233]: "Transitional types are not invariably lacking in the record. A multitude of them are known between species, many between genera, a few between classes, but none, it is true, between phyla." and Grasse' [1977, p. 31]: "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of phyla, it follows that any expanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct." Cuffey [1984] also basically agrees with Simpson's characterization. It seems to me that this point of where the transitions are ought to be rather basic, and that instead we have nothing but complete inconsistency. We conclude from Gould, Simpson and Grasse' that there are hardly any transitions between species, but actually there are a lot of them. There are also hardly any transitions between higher-order groups, but actually there are a lot of them. Who do you believe? > Kenneth Miller comments in his article quoted above: "In order to defeat the > notion of descent, Dr. Gish claimed that 'the missing links are still missing,' > that there are gaps in the fossil record so severe that the record simply does > not show evolution. This is a shocking set of untruths. A "shocking set of untruths". That's dramatic. K. Miller got a little confused here; he's really writing autobiography with that last sentence [see next article]. > "The fossil record not only documents evolution but the very existence of the > fossil record was the force that drove unwilling scientists to admit nearly two > centuries ago that living forms had changed (evolved). This record shows > intermediate form after intermediate form. It's awfully odd that Darwin, of all people, didn't catch on that the (then) one-century-old record showed those forms, and spent several chapters in The Origin defending his theory against the fossil record [1964, ch. 4,5]. > There is a long series of interme- > diates linking reptiles with mammals. There are evolutionary sequences showing > the evolution of the horse, the elephant, sea urchins, snails, major groups of > plants, and many other animals now extinct. Furthermore, these fossils show > an orderly succession which fully documents the evolutionary tree of life." > For more specific examples, Roger J. Cuffey, in "Paleontologic Evidence > and Organic Evolution", which is reprinted in *Science and Creationism*, > gives references to over 100 papers in the literature which document > transitional forms at many different levels (species, genus, etc.). You have, I take it, read all of them and concluded that they each conform to the very highest standards of scientific inquiry, and that none of them contain any questionable methods of investigation or dubious conclusions. Let us suppose they do - what, then, shall we make of Gould's claim that the species transitions are so "generally lacking", if they are so well documented? It is difficult to feel a great deal of confidence in what Gould has to say. --- References [1] Roger J Cuffey, "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution". In, Science and Creationism, ed. Ashley Montagu, Oxford University Press, 1984, 255. [2] Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1964. [3] Roy A Gallant, "To Hell with Evolution". Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, Oxford University Press, 1984, 282 (quoting Gould). [4] Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered". Paleobiology, 3(2), 115-151, 1977. [5] Pierre Grasse', "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation". Academic Press, New York, 1977. [6] J J Sepkoski, Jr. Paleobiology, 4, 223-251, 1978. [7] G G Simpson, "The Meaning of Evolution". Yale University Press, New Haven, 1967. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/25/85)
> >> Each time a particular kind of plant or animal appears in the fossil > >>record, it does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi- > >>cating how it evolved. Gaps are large, systematic, and continuous throughout > >>the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model. Which creation model is this? The scientific creationism theory we eventually got someone to post to the net talked about *all* species appearing at one time during a period of 'special creation'. While the fossil record shows species appearing suddenly, it also shows that they appeared at widely varying times over the course of hundreds of millions of years, which *none* of the creationist theories which have been presented here can deal with at all, let alone predict. Could we get some more responses from creationists on the net as to what version of creationism they believe in? There seems to be such a spectrum of them that it's very difficult to argue against creationism, especially since we don't know which model our opponents think is correct. There does seem to be a definite spectrum of creationist beliefs, ranging from literal interpretation of genesis to the belief that the creator used evolution as a tool with which to accomplish the creation of species. Most of the creationists on the net seem to fall well inside this spectrum, since I've heard few of them propound either of the endpoint positions. Much of the spectrum of creationist beliefs seems to fall into the set of beliefs which can't explain the fact that species appeared at widely seperated times over a course of hundreds of Myrs. It seems then, as though creationists must choose to either: 1.) Choose one of the types of creationism which *can* explain the age of the fossil record, and the fact that species arrived at widely seperate times. 2.) Debate about the actual age of the fossil record, perhaps adhering to the recently proposed concept of time-varying radioisotope decay rates to explain the *apparent* age of the record. 3.) Do neither of the above and ignore the parts of reality which don't match up with your pet theories. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Have SEX with a beautiful, LIVE girl!" - from a pamphlet from the church of the subgenius.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/27/85)
> [Jeff Sonntag] > It seems then, as though creationists must choose to either: > 1.) Choose one of the types of creationism which *can* explain the age > of the fossil record, and the fact that species arrived at > widely seperate times. > 2.) Debate about the actual age of the fossil record, perhaps adhering > to the recently proposed concept of time-varying radioisotope decay > rates to explain the *apparent* age of the record. > 3.) Do neither of the above and ignore the parts of reality which don't > match up with your pet theories. Or suspend judgment in the face of ambivalence towards all theories. I do not accept that one has to choose if one does not feel that any particular view is strong enough to command one's loyalty. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2