Quote #14
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price forDarwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only truestudents of life's history, yet to preserve our favoredaccount of evolution by natural selection we view our dataas so bad that we almost never see the very process weprofess to study. ...The history of most fossil speciesincludes tow [sic] features particularlyinconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most speciesexhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.They appear in the fossil record looking much the same aswhen they disappear; morphological change I [sic]usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. Inany local area, a species does not arise gradually by thesteady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all atonce and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J.ThePanda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Snipped in the ellipsis is:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. Themodern theory of evolution does not require gradual change.In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yieldexactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualismwe should reject, not Darwinism."
Following this passage is:
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first,phyletic transformation, an entire population changes fromone state to another. .... The second mode, speciation,replenishes the earth. New species branch off from apersisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed theprocess of speciation. But he cast his discussion ofevolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletictransformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasisand sudden appearance could hardly be attributed toanything but imperfection of the record; for if new speciesarise by transformation of entire ancestral populations,and if we almost never see the transformation (becausespecies are essentially static through their range), thenour record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsiblefor almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way inwhich it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearanceand stasis shall dominate the fossil record." top183.
- John Wilkins
A more complete citation would be: Gould, Stephen Jay1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton& Co., p. 181-182.
- J. (catshark) Pieret
Quote #15
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous)for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death.Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's historyresembles man's creation myths, it is this suddendiversification of marine life when multicellular organismstook over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution.Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event stilldazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on apar with the invention of self-replication and the originof the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of thePrecambrian mists with most of the attributes of theirmodern descendants." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to aJigsaw Puzzle,"Nature, vol. 345 (June 28,1990), pp. 765-766)
This is from an article that summarizes the finding of apeer-reviewed paper elsewhere in the issue, which reportson the discovery of complete specimens of halkieriids, anow extinct taxon from the Early Cambrian period:
Palaeontologists are traditionallyfamous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals fromthe debris of death. Mostly they cheat. Even extinctbeasts such as dinosaur have scores of living relatives(birds, mammals, reptiles) that make reconstructions'simply' a matter of competent comparative anatomy. But howdo you go about the job when there seem to be no closeliving relatives on which to base the model? This is aproblem particularly when dealing with organisms thatderive from the 'Cambrian explosion'.
If any event in life's historyresembles man's creation myths, it is this suddendiversification of marine life when multi-cellularorganisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology andevolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, thisevent still dazzles us and stands as a major biologicalrevolution on a par with the invention of self-replicationand the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phylaemerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of theattributes of their modern descendants. But nature iswasteful. Most species never give rise to anything, andpresent-day phyla derive from a lucky minority. Many of thenot-so-lucky fossil species may also be comfortablyclassified in these same living phyla, but it is a featureof many Cambrian assemblages that they contain a largeproportion of forms that cannot be so treated.
We can see from the context that "cheating" is just acase of making use of comparative anatomy. Since in mostcases soft tissue isn't preserved, it's not unreasonable tomake informed assumptions about the placement and sizemuscles and such. But how does one reconstruct a creaturethat has no living relatives?
It should also be emphasized that the writer states that"If any event in life's historyresembles man'screation myths" (emphasis added). And obviously it's notthat much of a resemblance. These new "organismstookover as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution"(emphasis added). This wasn't creation from nothing,otherwise there would be no organisms to take overfrom.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
The paragraphs preceding above quote:
"An extraordinary discovery by Conway Morris and Peel,described on page 802 of this issue, answers the prayers ofmany palaeontologists. The authors report completespecimens of halkieriids from 550-million-year-old EarlyCambrian rocks in northern Greenland.
Those unfamiliar with halkieriids may be excused. Thefirst fragment was unearthed in Bornholm in the Baltic areain the 1960s, and it took some time before palaeontologistsrealized that they were dealing with isolated dermal scales(sclerites) of a previously unknown type of animal. Thereare no halkieriids alive today; yet in their short timethey were highly successful and filled the Earth'sseas.
Palaeontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous)for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death.Mostly they cheat.
The part snipped out :
Even extinct beasts such as dinosaurs have scores ofliving relatives (birds, mammals, reptiles) that makereconstructions 'simply' a matter of competent comparativeanatomy. But how do you go about the job when there seem tobe no close living relatives on which to base the model ?This is a problem particularly when dealing with organismsthat derive from the 'Cambrian explosion'.
So the phrase 'mostly they cheat' refers to using livingrelatives of fossil taxa to reconstruct them.
Back to the article:
If any event in life's history resembles man's creationmyths, it is this sudden diversification of marine lifewhen multicellular organisms took over as the dominantactors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (andembarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us andstands as a major biological revolution on par with theinvention of self-replication and the origin of theeukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of thePre-Cambrian mists with most of the attributes of theirmodern descendants.
The next part snipped out :
But nature is wasteful. Most species never give rise toanything, and present-day phyla derive from a luckyminority. The not-so-lucky fossil species may also becomfortably classified in these living phyla, but it is afeature of many Cambrian assemblages that they contain alarge proportion of forms that cannot be so treated. In the1970s, the realization started to grow that there poorlyunderstood forms may indicate a great diversity ofhigh-level taxa.
- Professor Weird
Quote #16
"Modern multicellular animals make their firstuncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570million years ago - and with a bang, not a protractedcrescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (atleast into direct evidence) of virtually all major groupsof modern animals - and all within the minuscule span,geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould,Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and theNature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
A short while later, in the same paragraph, he says:
"Our fossil record is almost exclusively the story ofhard parts. But most animals have none, and those that doreveal very little about their anatomies in their outercoverings (what could you infer about a clam from its shellalone?). Hence, the rare soft-bodied faunas of the fossilrecord are precious windows into the true range anddiversity of ancient life."
- John Wilkins
Quote #17
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief thanjoy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrianexplosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complexorganic designs..." (Gould, Stephen J.,The Panda'sThumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
Same page and paragraph:
"His opponents interpreted this event as the moment ofcreation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life hadbeen discovered when Darwin wrote theOrigin ofSpecies. (We now have an extensive record ofmonerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)"
- John Wilkins
Quote #18
"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in therocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from theirancestors." (Futuyma, D.,Science on Trial: The Casefor Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
Ironically, Futuyma immediately follows this with theobservation of an early example, by Gish, of quote mining.A little later he says:
"The transitional forms that evolve so quickly, and insuch a small area, are very unlikely to be picked up in thefossil record. Only when the newly evolved species extendsits range will it suddenly appear in the fossil record.Eldredge and Gould have suggested, therefore, that thefossil record should show stasis, or equilibrium, ofestablished species, punctuated occasionally by theappearance of new forms. Hence, the fossil record would bemost inadequate exactly where we need it most -- at theorigin of major new groups of organisms." p. 83
- John Wilkins
Quote #19
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rathersuddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomicallyintermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarilyderived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."(Eldredge, Niles,Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics:Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22)
See response toquote #11above.
- John Wilkins
Quote #20
"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as everypaleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, andfamilies, and that nearly all new categories above thelevel of families, appear in the record suddenly and arenot led up to by known, gradual, completely continuoustransitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, TheMajor Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
The two paragraphs above the one containing the minedbit will help establish the context a bit better, I think.Sorry for the length.
"The chances that the remains of an organism will beburied, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, thenexposed on the surface of dry land and found by apaleontologist before they disintegrate are extremelysmall, practically infinitesimal. The discovery of a fossilof a particular species, out of the thousands of millionsthat have inhabited the earth, seems almost like a miracleeven to a paleontologist who has spent a good part of hislife performing the miracle. Certainly paleontologists havefound samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of theearth's extinct species, and even for groups that are mostreadily preserved and found as fossils they can neverexpect to find more than a fraction.
"In view of these facts, the record already acquired isamazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examplesof a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower andintermediate levels and with rather abundant data that canbe used either by controlled extrapolation or on astatistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomenaon all levels up to the highest. Among the examples aremany in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species orgenus has been gradually transformed into another. Suchgradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified forsubfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groupsare commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradualdivergence of species is also exemplified, although not asrichly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubtbecause splitting of species usually involves spatialseparation and paleontological samples are rarely adequatein spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergenceof genera is exemplified very well and in a large varietyof organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies andfamilies are also known, but are less common.
"In spite of these examples, itremains true, as every paleontologist knows, thatmost new species, genera, and families and thatnearly all new categories above the level of familiesappear in the record suddenly and are not led up to byknown, gradual, completely continuous transitionalsequences. When paleontological collecting was stillin its infancy and no clear examples of transitional originhad been found, most paleontologists wereanti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact thatpaleontology then seemed to provide evidence against ratherthan for evolution in general or the gradual origin oftaxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have manyexamples of transitional sequences. Almost allpaleontologists recognize that the discovery of a completetransition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find itlogical, if not scientifically required, to assume that thesudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidencefor special creation or for saltation, but simply meansthat a full transitional sequence more or less like thosethat are known did occur and simply has not been found inthis instance."
- Mike Dunford
Quote #21
"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absenceof any record of any important branching is quitephenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, forlong periods, species seldom and genera never showevolution into new species or genera but replacement or oneby another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Wesson,R.,Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
Who is Robert Wesson? According to information gleanedfrom two web pages,FromBradford Books:Beyond Natural SelectionandRobertG. Wesson, Political Science: Santa Barbara, he was apolitical scientist who died in 1991, the year this bookwas published. [Fuller quote follows:]
"The impression that many groups arise suddenly at aboutthe same time may be exaggerated by the system ofclassification. As one traces different orders, such ascarnivores or ungulates, back to their earliest appearance,one naturally finds that the ancestral forms differ lessthan do their modern descendants. Similarly, it waspossible for the principal animal types, the phyla, todiverge very rapidly, leaving no traces of intermediates,because they were much simpler and less deeply separatedthan their distant descendants. The differences, althoughbasic, were not yet deeply embedded.
"The gaps in the record are real,however. The absence of any record of any importantbranching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static,or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and generanever show evolution into new species or genera butreplacement of one by another, and change is more or lessabrupt.
"This contradicts the Darwinian approach. Naturalselection -- and Lamarckian evolution by use and disuse --would imply gradual, progressive change, with randomlydiverging lines of descent. This would make a greatirregular bush, not the branching ideal tree of life, muchless the record that we have, with big and little branchessuspended without junctions.
"Those who study the fossil record, dealing not withequations of population genetics but with hard facts of thepast, have been most inclined to be skeptical of Darwin'sinsistence on slow, more or less steady change. Suchpaleontologists as Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, andSteven M. Stanley have recently been in the vanguard of thecritics."
The original quote is accurate, forms a completeparagraph, and seems to be discussing PunctuatedEquilibria, but at the end a reference is also given, topage 307 of "The eukaryote genome in development andevolution" (John, B., & Miklos, G. L. G. 1988. London:Allen & Unwin).
In this latter book the section referred to discussesthe Cambrian explosion and the Burgess Shale!
Wesson seems to be confused about what he is talkingabout in the paragraph quoted, and I'm not sure why Ishould take the musings of a political scientist asrepresentative of current palaeontological thought.
- Jon (Augray) Barber and Mike Dunford
Quote #22
"All through the fossil record, groups - both large andsmall - abruptly appear and disappear. ...The earliestphase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must beinferred by comparison with its probable relatives."(Newell, N. D.,Creation and Evolution: Myth orReality, 1984, p. 10)
This isn't on page 10. And the book doesn't have anindex. I guess it's time to plow through the wholething.
. . . And after reading the entire book, I can't find itanywhere.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
Quote #23
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seemingcontradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyleticlines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradualchanges but no clear evidence for any change of a speciesinto a different genus or for the gradual origin of anevolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed toappear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, E.Our [sic] Long Argument: Charles Darwinand the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought,1991, p. 138)
"During the synthesis it became clear that since newevolutionary departures seem to take place almostinvariably in localized isolated populations, it is notsurprising that the fossil record does not reflect thesesequences."
- John Wilkins
The name of the book is reallyOne LongArgument.
- Mike Hopkins
Quote #24
"The record certainly did not reveal gradualtransformations of structure in the course of time. On thecontrary, it showed that species generally remainedconstant throughout their history and were replaced quitesuddenly by significantly different forms. New types orclasses seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of anevolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from anearlier type." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea,1984, p. 187)
I only have the second edition, and this is on page200f. But note what Bowler then says:
"Darwin devoted a chapter of theOrigin toexplaining the "imperfection of the fossil record," arguingthat the fossils we discover represent only a tiny fractionof the species that actually have lived. Many species, andmany whole episodes in evolution, will have left no fossilsat all, because they occurred in areas where conditionswere not suitable for fossilization. Apparently suddenleaps in the development of life are thus illusions createdby gaps in the evidence available to us. Future discoveriesmay help to fill in some of the gaps, but we can never hopeto build up a complete outline of the history of life."
- John Wilkins
Quote #25
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, whatgeologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the presentday actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; thatis, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, showlittle or no change during their existence in the record,then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not alwaysclear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants wereactually better adapted than their predecessors. In otherwords, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup,David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,"Bulletin,Field Museum of Natural History,vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
"Now let me step back from the problem and verygenerally discuss natural selection and what we know aboutit. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure thatnatural selection, as a process, does work. There is amountain of experimental and observational evidence, muchof it predating genetics, which shows that naturalselection as a biological process works."
- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin andPalaeontology,"Field Museum of Natural HistoryBulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.
See, also, Troy Britain's "Feedback" article atTalk.Origins Archive: June 2001 Feedback
- J. (catshark) Pieret
But on the previous page Raup writes:
We must distinguish between the fact of evolution --defined as change in organisms over time -- and theexplanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, throughhis theory of natural selection, was to suggest how theevolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in thegeologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwiniannatural selection as we would like it to be.
Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; hecalls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:
What appeared to be a nice progression when relativelyfew data were available now appears to be much more complexand much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has notbeen alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have arecord whichdoes show change but one which canhardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence ofnatural selection. [Emphasis in original]
And later on the same page:
So natural selection as a process is okay. We are alsopretty sure that it goes on in nature although goodexamples are surprisingly rare.
It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguingagainst is not evolution, butgradual evolution inall cases.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
Quote #26
"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution)has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanishedspecies preserved in the Earth's geological formations.This record has never revealed traces of Darwin'shypothetical intermediate variants instead species appearand disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled thecreationist argument that each species was created by God."(Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade",MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
Is [the quote-miner] Canadian? This quote is from aCanadian newsmagazine, and would be relatively obscureoutside of Canada. The quote has clipped off part of thelast sentence, and some of the punctuation has changed:
A major problem in proving thetheory has been the "fossilrecord,"the imprints of vanishedspecies preserved in the Earth's geological formations.This record has never revealed traces of Darwin'shypothetical intermediate variants -instead,speciesappear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueledthe creationist argument that each species was created byGod as described in the Bible.
Once again, this seems to be a glossing over of thecontroversy surrounding Punctuated Equilibrium. Given thatmany in the news media seem to have a superficialunderstanding of science, I'm not inclined to take thetechnical aspects of a news article about theevolution-creation controversy seriously, especially when Isee a gem like this:
Essentially, Darwin stated that a species evolved by therandom mutation of genes, which then produced variants ofthe original species.
The claim that Darwin knew about genes and mutation isnews to me, as I'm sure it is to a lot of people. ButCzarnecki does raise an interesting point. Discussing howsome people view the difference between fact and theory, hewrites:
Such a pedagogical approach, though initiated with thebest of intentions, strips the corpus of scientificknowledge down to certain facts that can be perceived bythe five senses with the aid of technology; everything elseis factually suspect because it cannot be directly"observed" - so much for paleontology (fossil study) andall of nuclear physics.
And a few sentences later:
What about history? Past events cannot be observed,records of them are just fallible memories, words - justlike the Bible, in fact.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
Quote #27
"Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take therecord at face value. On this view, there is littleevidence of modification within species, or of formsintermediate between species because neither generallyoccurred. A species forms and evolves almostinstantaneously (on the geological timescale) and thenremains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yieldingits habitat to a new species." (Smith, Peter J.,"Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review ofLife Pulse by Niles Eldredge,NewScientist, 1987, p. 59)
First of all, a complaint. "New Scientist" magazine is aweekly, so there are about50 issues to checkthrough, to find "page 59". I found this particular one inthe 19 November 1987 issue (volume 116, number 1587).
It is a review by Peter J. Smith of Niles Eldredge's"Life Pulse." It seems to be an accurate quotation. PerhapsI should also note this additional sentence from thereview:
"Using examples from throughout the fossil record, bothmarine and continental, Eldredge thus demonstratesconvincingly that extinction is the motor of speciesevolution, and that, without it, there could be nodevelopment."
- Tom (TomS) Scharle
[Commenting on the above.]
Again, though, this is a discussion of PunctuatedEquilibrium and Eldredge's contention that speciationoccurs "quickly" (in geologic terms) in small populationsand that, if that is true, we would expect examples of"modification within species, or of forms intermediatebetween species" to be rare. Both he and Gould have noted,however, that they are not completely lacking and thatexamples of transitionals between higher taxonomic groupsare even more common.
- J. (catshark) Pieret
Quote #28
"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theoryis only as good as its predictions, and conventionalneo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensiveexplanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predictthe widespread long-term morphological stasis nowrecognized as one of the most striking aspects of thefossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "MorphologicalStasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems forNeo-Darwinism,"Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November1981, p. 214)
Here Williamson reiterates and clarifies the points hewas making in the paper quote mined in#55 (Williamson, P.G., PalaeontologicalDocumentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs fromTurkana Basin), once again discussing PunctuatedEquilibrium.
And he writes:
But punctuated equilibrium is compatible with muchcurrent neo-Darwinian thought.
And later on:
The principal argument in my paper is that whenspeciation events occur in the Turkana Basin molluscsequence, they are invariably accompanied by majordevelopmental instability...
So we can see that Williamson isn't criticizingevolution, or all of neo-Darwinism, but one aspect of it,namely gradualism.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
Quote #29
"It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually allmembers of a biota remain basically stable, with minorfluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge,Niles,The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p.157)
From Chapter 6, section titled "Enter Evolution"
"There are clear connections between these varyingecological patterns of resiliency, from the smallest scaleof the individual organism, through ecological succession,to the even larger scale of habitat tracking. Individualorganisms and, in the later two cases, entire species tendto survive by moving around, sending out propagules torebuild ecosystems, whether locally degraded(Cercopia on El Yunque) or regionally revamped (aswhen glaciers slowly move south from the arctic). Butevolution is classically aboutchange. So far, localand regional patterns of ecological resiliency implystability of individual species lineages, not evolutionarychange. Where and how does real evolution come into thepicture?
"Consider the effect of Hurricane Hugo on El Yunque, andon the entire island of Puerto Rico, for that matter. Priorto Hugo's hit in 1989, the endemic Puerto Rican parrot hadbeen reduced to fewer than 100 known individuals living inthe Loquillo Mountains, of which El Yunque is one.Agriculture and urbanization had already transformed somuch of this bird species' habitat that it was on the vergeof extinction. Hugo took about 50 percent of the remainingbirds. Though the population has since recovered toapproximately pre-Hugo proportions, and is now beingaugmented by a captive breeding program, Hugo might verywell have done away with these beautiful animalsentirely.
"In other words, physically induced ecological calamity,if great enough in a real scope and intensity, can driveall the populations of a species extinct. Indeed, itcan drivemany different species extinct all at thesame time. And that's exactly what we paleontologists seein the fossil record as the dominant pattern, not only ofextinction, but of evolution as well.
"It is not just single species that are in stasis.Virtually all the component species of regional ecosystemsare evolutionarily stable, often for millions of years. Ofcourse, that's only half the pattern. Periodically, themajority of those species disappear, to be replaced, in duecourse, by others. One way of looking at this pattern is tosee it as the ecological generalization of stasis andchange that underlies the notion of punctuated equilibria.It is a simple ineluctable truth thatvirtually all members of a biota remain basically stable,with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations.(Remember, by "biota" we mean the commonly preserved plantsand animals of a particular geological interval, whichoccupy regions often as large as Roger Tory Patterson's"eastern" region of North American birds.) And when thesesystems change -- when the older species disappear, and newones take their place -- the change happens relativelyabruptly and in lockstep fashion. It affects most of thespecies in a region more or less at the same time.Evolution goes hand in hand with the degradation andrebuilding of ecosystems, and the origin of new speciesdepends in large measure on the extinction of olderspecies. [Eldredge, Niles 1999The Pattern ofEvolution W. H. Freeman and company, New York. Page157-158.] [Emphasis in original.]
The section is about the ways in which bioticcommunities are stable, co-adapted, integrated systems, andthat evolution is mainly a result of "turnover pulses" andcoordinated stasis.
- Floyd
Quote #30
"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most oftheir history and the record fails to contain a singleexample of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S.,Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
This is a review of Steven Stanley's bookMacroevolution.
"Darwin and most subsequent authors including G. G.Simpson have held that most evolutionary transitions occurwithin established lineages by phyletic gradualism guidedby natural selection.But fossilspecies remain unchanged thoughout most of their historyand the record fails to contain a single example of asignificant transition. Similarly, it is difficult toaccount for the greatly accelerated pace of evolutionduring periods of adaptive radiation. An alternative modelof evolution, that of punctuated equilibria, introduced byNiles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in the early 1970s,more fully accounts for these same observations."
- Mike Dunford
Sigh, yet another [punctuated equilibria] supportivequote taken out of context to fool people who don't knowthat there are varying "camps" as to evolution's actualmechanism. In case you haven't already guessed, that's whatthis quote is. The author is reminding thatgradualist hypotheses for the mechanism of evolutionhave a hard time explaining the fossil record, whilepunctuated equilibrium hypotheses on evolutionarymechanisms make much more sense in light of the same fossilrecord.
This article is actually not a scientific paper initself but rather a review by Woodroff of Steven Stanley's"Macroevolution. Pattern and Process" Freeman S.F. 1979xii, 332 pp illus. $20 (wasn't it cool when you could get abook like this for $20.00?)
The first sentences of this article reads thus (bracketsmine):
"Macroevolution [the book] is concernedwith the origin and extinction of species and thediversification of lineages, or, turning the problem aroundwith how key morphological and functional features of alineage evolve. One of the major debates in biologyconcerns the role of micro-evolutionary forces (naturalselection, genetic drift and mutation) at the trans-specieslevel. Are the major changes in the history of lifeattributable to speciation or to the gradual transformationof lineages within established species by microevolutionaryforces?"
I'd like to note that this book review is a contemporaryof some of Gould's articles on the same note: thatpaleontology was undergoing an exciting new time andscientific rigor was being re-injected into thediscipline.
Woodroff goes on to describe Stanley's contributions tobiology, and the wealth of analyses Stanley includes withinthe volume, including "well-illustrated data on rates ofspeciation, extinction, and the diversification of highertaxonomic categories." He goes through the average durationof the various species in various groups, and the variousspeeds at which diversification occurs. The problem of thevarying speed by which species diversification appears inthe fossil record is addressed as:
"This inconsistency has created a major problem forevolutionary biologists. Darwin and most subsequent authorsincluding G.G. Simpson have held that most evolutionarytransitions occur within established lineages by phyleticgradualism guided by natural selection.But fossil species remain unchangedthroughout most of their history and the record fails tocontain a single example of a significant transition.Similarly, it is difficult to account for the greatlyaccelerated pace of evolution during periods of adaptiveradiation. An alternative model of evolution, introduced byNiles Eldredge and Stephan Jay Gould in the early 1970's,more fully accounts for these same observations. Accordingto this major conceptual breakthrough, rapid evolution istypically associated with speciation events that occurcryptically in small isolated populations, often at theedge of a species's geographic range." (Woodroff, D.S.,Science (208) 1980 716-717).
Clearly the authors intended the reader to note theweakness in gradualism, not to doubt the fact that thefossil record supports evolutionary theory, as the littlequote nugget at the top of this record seems to imply.
- Deanne (Lilith) Taylor
Quote #31
"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance,but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossilrecord." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the FirstTier: An Agenda for Paleobiology,"Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
This is a truly disgusting misquote that goes so far toallow me to call it, against my usual cautionary nature, "acreationist lie". It is implying sloppy scientific methodswhen the true quote has only a superficial resemblance tothe word and none to the meaning.
It is acomplete fabrication of the originalsentence by the source which was:
"Just aswe have long known aboutstasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it offup on an imperfect fossil record, so too have we longrecognized the rapid, if not sudden, turnover of faunas inepisodes of mass extinction."
I truly enjoyed reading the article cited here, too, andit's worthy of a few discussions on its entire merit. Butas I am obliged to give the full context of the "quotenugget", knowing it's my scholarly duty, let's go toit...
We must first start with the abstract. Gould presentsthe basics of his argument within the article's abstract,which is very important to read in this context. Here isquoted the entire abstract on page 2:
"Nature's discontinuities occur both in the hierarchicalstructuring of genological individuals and in the distinctprocesses operating at different scales of time, herecalled tiers. Conventional evolutionary theory denies thisstructuring and attempts to render the larger scales atsimple extrapolation from (or reduction to) the familiarand immediate -- the struggle among organisms at ecologicalmoments (conventional individuals at the first tier). Ipropose that we consider distinct processes at threeseparable tiers of time: ecological moments, normalgenological time (trends during millions of years) andperiodic mass extinctions.
"I designate as "the paradox of the first tier" ourfailure to find progress in life's history, whenconventional theory (first tier processes acting onorganisms) expects it as a consequence of competition underDarwin's metaphor of the wedge. I suggest a resolution ofthe paradox: whatever accumulates at the first tier issufficiently reversed, undone, or overridden by processesof the higher tiers. In particular, punctuated equilibriumat the second tier produces trends for suites of reasonsunrelated to the adaptive benefits of organisms(conventional progress). Mass extinction at the third tier,a recurring process now recognized as a more frequent, morerapid, more intense and more different than we hadimagined, works by different rules and may undo whateverthe lower tiers had accumulated." (Gould, Stephen J., "TheParadox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology,"Paleobiology 11(1) 1985, pp 2-12)
Now, to set the context of the "quote nugget" cited atthe top of this section, it is in the light of thediscussion on the "third tier". Note how Gould iscriticizing other aspects of his field in its conclusionsand methods, a habit that is typical of mostcritically-thinking scientists and is a necessary andprevalent method of discourse in science. Context givenbelow.
"IV. Establishment of the Independence of the ThirdTier.
As ideas whose time may have come, mass extinctionshares an interesting property with punctuated equilibrium.Neither represents a new discovery; both involve thereluctant acceptance of an acknowledged literal patternthat deep biases of Western thought had led us to mitigateor deny. Just aswe have long knownabout stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chose to fobit off upon an imperfect fossil record, so too have welong recognized the rapid, if not sudden, turnover offaunas in episodes of mass extinction. We have based ourgeological alphabet, the time scale, upon these faunalreplacements. Yet we have chosen to blunt or mitigate therapidity and extent of extinctions with two habits ofargument rooted in uniformitarian commitments. First, wehave deemphasized some extinctions by drawing dubiousphyletic connections across the boundaries. Second, andmore important, we have tried to distribute these eventsmore evenly in time by seeking evidence for slow declinesbefore boundaries and reduced peaks of extinction at theterminations themselves. In short, we have tried to placemass extinctions into continuity with the rest of life'shistory by viewing them as only quantitatively different --more and quicker of the same -- rather than qualitativelydistinct in both rate and effect."
In other words, Gould is arguing for the need to treatmass extinctions as separate phenomena in themselves.
I would also like to add that in the previous sectionwithin this same paper, on the subject of the "SecondTier", Gould was making the case for the mechanism ofpunctuated equilibrium, where he showed that gradualismdoes not explain the stasis and abrupt appearance in thefossil record, which is in context with the work itself.Again, this section's particular misquote takes advantageof the discussion of the merits of [punctuated equilibrium]over gradualism. The misquoted phrase is reminding thereader that before the hypothesis of punctuated equilibriumwas proposed in the early 70's, evolution was thought tooperate as gradualism and the discontinuous fossil recordwas, as Gould said, excused as merely incomplete.
What makes this particular misquote even more egregiousis that they didn't just take Gould out of context, butthey engineered what he said in the first place. Thismisquote supports the creationist claims of scientificuber-conspiracies in favor of evolution, as if scientistsdeliberately ignore the fossil evidence and pass it offwithout debating it, which is hardly the case. Sciencedemands that evidence be examined, critiqued, and debated,and this is what Gould is doing in this very paper, withthe presentation of his case on the subject of hierarchicalarrangements of mass extinctions in relation to otherevolutionary changes!
What does Gould's good criticism and scholarship have todo with the implied-sloppy-scientific-method-mangled quotenugget above?
Absolutely nothing.
- Deanne (Lilith) Taylor
Quote #32
"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching(largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly gradedseries of fossils that would stand as examples of the sortof wholesale transformation of species that Darwinenvisioned as the natural product of the evolutionaryprocess. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is astartling fact that ...most species remain recognizablythemselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrencein geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles,"Progress in Evolution?"New Scientist, vol.110, 1986, p. 55)
At least this one gives a volume number. It is from theissue of 5 June 1986 (volume 110, number 1511), pages54-57.
To fill in the ellipsis:
" -- though it is a startling factthat, of the half dozen reviews of theOn theOrigins of Species written by paleontologists that Ihave seen, all take Darwin to task for failing to recognizethatmost species remain recognizablythemselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrencein geological sediments of various ages."
The sub-heading of this article (presumably written bythe editor?) summarizes the article as:
"Darwin was right to regard natural selection as theonly rational explanation for the design we see in nature.But he was wrong to abandon the notion of species as realentities."
- Tom (TomS) Scharle
[Commenting on the above.]
As is the case with most, if not all, of the quotestaken from Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, thispassage involves their idea of Punctuated Equilibrium,which postulates that speciation occurs "quickly" (ingeologic terms) in small isolated parts of the wholepopulation. If that is true, we would expect examples ofmodificationwithin species to be rare in the fossilrecord. Eldredge appears to be chiding paleontologists inthe past for having noted, on the one hand, that the finelygraded changes, that should have been evident if Darwin'swas right that speciation occurred through slow changethroughout theentire population, were missing, butfailing, on the other hand, to challenge Darwin's idea ofhow speciation occurs. It is, again, an attempt to use adebate between scientists on a technical issue to unfairlyportray the state of the evidence for evolution.
- J. (catshark) Pieret
Quote #33
"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processesdid not match the pattern of fossils that they weresupposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossilrecord in terms of a particular theory of evolution,inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms thetheory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now wellknown, most fossil species appear instantaneously in therecord, persist for some millions of years virtuallyunchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuatedequilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould." (Kemp, Tom S.,"A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,"NewScientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67)
In the paragraph this quote is taken from, Kemp iscriticizing the claim that the fossil record is incompletebecause it does not support gradualism. But the full quoteis more illuminating:
The fact that the fossil data did not, on the whole,seem to fit this prevailing model of the process ofevolution - for example, in the absence of intermediateforms and of gradually changing lineages over millions ofyears - was readily explained by the notoriousincompleteness of the fossil record.In other words, when the assumedevolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossilsthat they were supposed to have generated, the pattern wasjudged to be "wrong". A circular argument arises: interpretthe fossil record in terms of a particular theory ofevolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that itconfirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?
Spearheaded by this extraordinary journal, palaeontologyis now looking at what it actually finds, not what it istold that it is supposed to find.Asis now well known, most fossil species appearinstantaneously in the record, persist for some millions ofyears virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the"punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge andGould. Irrespective of one's view of the biologicalcauses of such a pattern (and there continues to be muchdebate about this), it leads in practice to description oflong-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of thedifferential survival, extinction and proliferation ofspecies. The species is the unit of evolution.
Note that Kemp states that the fossil record "leads inpractice to description of long-term evolution..."
- Jon (Augray) Barber
[Editor's note: In addition to being used to claim that "Sudden Appearanceand Stasis" in the fossil record is an artifact of special creation, this quotemine is also used to "support" claims that geology has to assume evolution inorder to derive dates from the fossil sequence, while the sequence is used asevidence of evolution, resulting in faulty circular reasoning.]
Representative miners in the "circular reasoning" sense:Evolution Cruncher: Chapter 12: Fossils and Strata,Watchman Magazine: Interpreting the Geologic Column,Creation Moments: The Genesis Flood, andNorthside Church of Christ: Geologic Column: Circular Argumentation
Notice that this particular quote mine is frequently grouped together withanother:
And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils,how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary changethrough time in the fossil record?" - Niles Eldredge inTime Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory ofPunctuated Equilibria, pp. 51, 52, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985)
By taking these out of context, it is made to superficially appear that theysupport the creationist claims of circuity of reasoning in that fossils daterocks which date fossils which date rock, etc. Henry Morris in"The VanishingCase for Evolution" (Impact 156) explicitly claims that thisquote is about such circular reasoning. Under the heading"No Order in the Fossils," Morris claims:
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils;there is not even anygeneral evidence of evolutionary progression in theactual fossil sequences (two quotes omitted). The superficial appearance ofan evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on itby the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated"by their fossils.
That is followed by the two above quotes. The quote from Eldredge is notabout dating and is flagrantly out of context(SeeQuote #3.6). Thequote by Kemp is also out of context and, what is worse, it is not even aboutdating of fossils or geologic strata. The issue of the age of either thefossils or the rocks which contain them is not in any way addressed in thisshort article from the "Forum" section of the magazine.
What is being discussed are issues of the tempo and mode of evolution: howevolution proceeds and at what pace, not when the fossilized organismslived. In other words this is really a punctuated equilibria quote. It is notunusual for those advocating new paradigms to think of themselves as the oneswho finally bothered to pay attention to the evidence. Dr. Kemp is asupporter of punctuated equilibria which in 1985 was still a relatively newparadigm for paleontology.
The journalPaleobiology is 10 years old, and hascelebrated the anniversary with a special number (vol. 11, no 1) devoted to acollection of invited reviews of the leading topics in paleobiological research.As the editors say, justifiably if a trifle immodestly, "the wealth and qualityof innovative and provocative scientific papers that have appeared inPaleobiology over the past 10 years have provided a de factodefinition for both its subject area and its mission.
And what exactly is that mission? Briefly, it seems to me, to propagate theview the fossils provide information about evolution that can be used togenerate and test theory. That statement may appear obvious: after all, it isroughly what all sciences are supposed to do, and palaeontology has always beenaccepted as a science. But it actually represents something of a conceptualrevolution in the subject.
Before the early 1970s, most paleontologists interpreted their fossil recordin the light of the prevailing view of how evolution works, the NeoDarwinian,or synthetic theory. Thus, they attributed differences in the fossils found atdifferent points in geologic time to natural selection acting on individualorganism, causing a gradual evolutionary change in a more or less continuousfashion. Species became extinct, they said, because of competition from other,better adopted species. Even whole taxonomic groups competed with one another,to the advantage of some and the demise of others. New species arose by gradualtransformation of a species, largely in response to environmental changes. Evenmass extinctions resulted from a simple loss of fitness following a change inthe environment.
And so on. He also explicitly discusses the "'punctuated equilibrium' patternof Eldredge and Gould." Dr. Kemp is concerned that those who dig fossils usethose fossils to discover what really happened and not impose on those fossilswhat theorists expect of those fossils. And he sees the journalPaleobiologyas a place for scientists to tell what the fossils say.
. . . But the observed pattern of the fossils, as evidence ofwhat really happened, must be as necessary a part of testing hypotheses aboutthe evolutionary process as any amount of genetic and ecological knowledge aboutliving organisms.
- Mike Hopkins
Quote #34
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of moreand more efficient forms leading up to the present is notborne out by the evidence. Most changes are random ratherthan systematic modifications, until species drop out.There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur inmany lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D.,"Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
Let it be noted that almost everybody says this is true.But Darwinism neverdid require "more and moreefficient forms", right from the get-go. That wasLamarck's theory.
- John Wilkins
Quote #35
"Well-represented species are usually stable throughouttheir temporal range, or alter so little and in suchsuperficial ways (usually in size alone), that anextrapolation of observed change into longer periods ofgeological time could not possibly yield the extensivemodifications that mark general pathways of evolution inlarger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best,nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J.,"Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness,"NaturalHistory, 1988, p. 14)
First, some context:
"Many people think that fossils, almost by definition,are rare and precious. (Some are, of course . . .) . . .But most ordinary fossils . . . are . . . abundant parts oftheir geological strata. . . The fossils are beautiful, andthey are tempting. But they are also plentiful. . . .
Then the quote with the unmarked deletion restored andthe following paragraph in its entirely:
"This extraordinary abundance of some fossilsillustrates something important about the history of life.Evolution is a theory about change through time -- "descentwith modification," in Darwin's words. Yet when fossils aremost abundant during substantial stretches of time,well-represented species are usuallystable throughout their temporal range or alter so littleand in such superficial ways (usually in size alone) thatan extrapolation of observed change into longer periods ofgeological time could not possibly yield the extensivemodifications that mark general pathways of evolution inlarger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best,nothing much happens to most species.
Niles Eldredge and I have tried to resolve this paradoxwith our theory of punctuated equilibrium. We hold thatmost evolution is concentrated in events of speciation, theseparation and splitting off of an isolated population froma persisting ancestral stock. These events of splitting areglacially slow when measured on the scale of a human life-- usually thousands of years. But slow in our terms can beinstantaneous in geological perspective. A thousand yearsis one-tenth of one percent of a million years, and amillion years is a good deal less than average for theduration of most fossil species. Thus, if species tend toarise in a few thousand years and then persist unchangedfor more than a million, we will rarely find evidence fortheir momentary origin, and our fossil record will tap onlythe long periods of prosperity and stability. Since fossildeposits of overwhelming abundance record such periods ofsuccess for widespread species living in stasis, we canresolve the apparent paradox that when fossils are mostcommon, evolution is most rarely observed."
(See Gould, Stephen Jay 1993. "Ten Thousand Acts ofKindness," inEight Little Piggies, Reflections inNatural History. New York: W.W.Norton & Company,pp. 275 - 278.)
Even if the quote-miner disagrees with Gould's andEldredge's explanation for the state of the fossil record,to edit what they wrote to make it appear that they have noexplanation is deeply dishonest.
- J. (catshark) Pieret
Quote #36
"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species duringtheir lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledgedby all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitlybecause prevailing theory treated stasis as uninterestingnonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelmingprevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of thefossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation ofnothing (that is, nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J.,"Cordelia's Dilemma,"Natural History, 1993,p. 15)
First of all, a more accessible source for this quoteis: Gould, Stephen J. 1995. "Cordelia's Dilemma",Dinosaur in a Haystack. New York: HarmonyBooks, p. 127-128.
Note that the above starts with the unmarked deletion of"Before Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory ofpunctuated equilibrium in 1972, the . . .".
The very next paragraph is, in its entirely:
"But Eldredge and I proposed that stasis should be anexpected and interesting norm (not an embarrassing failureto detect change), and that evolution should beconcentrated in brief episodes of branching speciation.Under our theory, stasis became interesting and worthy ofdocumentation -- as a norm disrupted by rare events ofchange. We took as the motto of punctuated equilibrium:"Stasis is data." (One might quibble about the grammar, butI think we won the conceptual battle.) Punctuatedequilibrium is still a subject of lively debate, and some(or most) of its claims may end up on the ash heap ofhistory, but I take pride in one success relevant toCordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out ofthe conceptual closet. Twenty-five years ago, stasis was anon-subject -- a "nothing" under prevailing theory. No onewould have published, or even proposed, an active study oflineages known not to change. Now such studies areroutinely pursued and published, and a burgeoningliterature has documented the character and extent ofstasis in quantitative terms.
This is yet another example of creationistsmisconstruing a debate among scientists (once again, aboutPunctuated Equilibria) as something more. Quite simply,Gould is chiding scientists for a misinterpretation of thefossil record bearing on the tempo and mode of evolution,not the fact that it occurred. If they really had anargument that the peculiarity of the fossil record thatGould is describing is evidence against the fact ofevolution, then they should make the argument openly, so itand its ramifications could be tested, instead of trying tohijack the words of real scientists. But blowing smoke isso much easier.
- J. (catshark) Pieret
Quote #37
"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expectedchanges in their fossils as they pursued them up throughthe rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remainrecognizably the same throughout the length of theiroccurrence in the fossil record had been known topaleontologists long before Darwin published hisOrigin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied thatfuture generations of paleontologists would fill in thesegaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years ofpaleontological research later, it has become abundantlyclear that the fossil record will not confirm this part ofDarwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poorrecord. The fossil record simply shows that this predictionis wrong. ...The observation that species are amazinglyconservative and static entities throughout long periods oftime has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes:everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant recordobstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern,simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall,I.,The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p.45-46)
In the passages quoted, Eldredge and Tattersall arediscussing the merits of gradualism, something the quoteminer has left out, as we can see:
The main impetus for expanding the view that species arediscrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entirehistory, comes from the fossil record.Paleontologists just were not seeing theexpected changes in their fossils as they pursued them upthrough the rock record. Instead, collections ofnearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority ofanimal and plant species were tremendously conservativethroughout their histories.
That individual kinds of fossilsremain recognizably the same throughout the length of theiroccurrence in the fossil record had been known topaleontologists long before Darwin published hisOrigin. Darwin himself, troubled by thestubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yieldabundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chaptersto the fossil record. To preserve his argument he wasforced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete,to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns ofchange. Heprophesied that futuregenerations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps bydiligent search and then his major thesis - thatevolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would bevindicated.One hundred and twentyyears of paleontological research later, it has becomeabundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirmthis part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem amiserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows thatthis prediction is wrong.
The observation that species areamazingly conservative and static entities throughout longperiods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's newclothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant recordobstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern,simply looked the other way. Rather than challengewell-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologiststacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that thefossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, ina general sort of way, the basic thesis that life hadevolved.
Note the claim that the fossil record supportsevolution.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
