Science in Christian Persapective
Letter to the editor
Evidence for Evolution from the Fossil Record
Roger J. Cuffey
Department of Geosciences
Pennsylvania State
University
University
Park, Pennsylvania 16802
From: JASA 23 (December
1971): 158-159. Reply by Moore and Lowell
Cuffey's reply to Lowell
(For background on this exchange of comments by Cuffey and Moore, see Journal
ASA 22, 82 (1970) and 23, 38 (1971). Watch for the Moore-Cuffey
Dialogue an "Scientific
Evidence For and Against Evolution" to be published next year in
the Journal ASA.)
The general acceptance of the idea of organic evolution by the
scientific comunity
today rests upon evidence derived principally from the fossil record.
The evidence
which has been of primary importance in this regard consists of
sequences of transitional
fossils, found in the rocks of the earth's crust, between earlier simpler forms
of life and later more complex forms of life. These transitional fossils have
been found between different organic groups, some at relatively low taxonomic
levels (such as species) and others at relatively high taxonomic levels (such
as classes)
Many examples of evolution at lower taxonomic levels can he cited. For example,
as one examines successively younger populations of tabuhipnrid
bryoznans in the
late Palcozoic rocks of the North American Midcontinent, he finds
that the animals
change gradually and continuously from forms which are clearly the
species Tabuliporo
rarnosa, through intermediates, to forms which are clearly the
species Tabulipora carbonaria. (University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions,
Brjvnzoa, Article
1, 1967.) Other examples in
clude brachiopod lineages (described by Boucot and Johnson), graptolite lineages (described by Berry). lineages among
the eribrimorph
bryozoans (described by Lang), hoes among the echinoid Micraster species (noted
in several elementary textbooks), lineages among the plectogyrd foraminifers
(described by Zeller), and lineages among Eocene gastropods of the Texas coast
(also described in elementary textbooks).
Because there are far fewer higher-level taxa than lower-level ones, the number
of transitions which we can study is much more limited;
however-particularly among
the vertebratesseveral good examples exist. First, note the large
number of synapsid
reptile forms which bridge the gap between typical reptiles and typical mammals
over a long period from the Permian into the Triassic (described by
Bomer in his
vertebrate paleontology textbook). Also, note that the fossil
Archaeopteryx sits squarely on the dividing line between the class Reptilia and the class Ayes (birds), as is shown by
its morphology
being a complete mixture of traits which are still typically reptilian, others
intermediate, and still others being already typically avian, as again Romer's
text points out.
The evidence from the fossil record is to be found in several sources. A number
of elementary textbooks are available-such as those by Weller, Eastnn, Jones,
and Beerbower. Advanced texts and references are also readily available in most
university libraries; books such as those by Romer, Moore Lalicker and Ficher,
Shrock and Twenhnfel, and the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology
are examples..
In addition, the ongoing research projects of actively working paleontologists
are reported in several journals, of which the most widely circulated are the
journal of Paleontology, Palaeontology, and Micropaleontology. These journals
are also found in most major university libraries, I would urge and encourage
anyone interested in questions concerning evolution and the scientific evidence
for it to examine the articles in these journals particularly; lie
will be impressed,
I believe, with the great weight of evidence favoring the conclusion
that evolution
has indeed been God's means of creation.
Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Reply by Moore to Cuffey
John N. Moore
Department of Natural Science
Michigan State University
East Lansing,
Michigan 48823
From: JASA 23 (December 1971):
May I comment on each paragraph of the preceding letter by Professor Roger Cuffey?
In paragraph 1, Cuffey does not point out that the "evidence derived from
the fossil record" (and as well the points about comparative morphology,
geographical distribution, rudimentaryvestigial-organs, developmental anatomy,
and blond or protein analyses), are purely circumstantial, as far as
primary importance
to acceptance of the idea of organic evolution is concerned. Not one of these
groups of data afford any scientist one iota of empirical evidences
of the change
of one animal type into another animal type (which is the necessary degree of
change required or involved in the amoeba-or molecules-to man thesis that truly
subsums the theory of organic evolution). Not one of these groups of data can
be used to establish any genetic connections (these alone are subject
to empirical
test) between or across phyla lines or basic types (i.e., bats, snails, roses,
or birds per Ernst Mayr, 1963, Animal Species and Evolution, p.
In paragraph 2, when Cuffey refers to "many examples of evolution at lower taxonomic levels," he commits a
basic confusion
of terminology because the changes in Tahnlipora mentioned are
nothing more than
speeiation or variational changes within limits of the type organism
called Tahulipora,
and not evolution in the degree of major changes in phylogeny. This is true of
all the other types of organisms (brachiopod, graptohite, crihimorph bryozoan,
eehinoid Micraster, etc.) mentioned. These organisms can properly be
said to have
varied within limits of type, but not to have evolved, or changed into another
type of organism which is necessarily the degree of change involved
in the "idea
of organic evolution".
With regard to higher taxonomic levels mentioned in paragraph 3,
interpretations
of the synapsid forms depend completely upon imagined transitions of skeletal
remains. It is very difficult to tell a reptile from a mammal from the skeleton alone, but all ideas of transitional forms are
imagined. Some writers mention
the "gray area" of transition. Yet, no researcher has ever
demonstrated
a genetic connection, and thus all imagined transitions are the results of post
ergo pro pter hoc reasoning. Concerning Archaeopteryx (paragraph 3), in not a
single case of the four supposed independent evolutions of the ability to fly
(insects, birds, bats, pterasaurs or flying reptiles) are any
intermediate forms
found in the fossil record-no transitional forms going back to non-flying forms
are available. (See E. C. Olson, 1965, The Evolution of Life, Mentor
Book MT 648,
pp. 180-182.)
Summation: The point that needs to be emphasized is that minor changes can and
do occur in living organisms, but the changes are always within
bounds of a certain
type, form, or kind. This is in exact agreement with the pattern we read about
in Genesis 1: "after their kind", "after his kind". All of
the known evidences can be fitted into the Genesis account in great consistency
with all the best scholarship. The theory of natural selection
relates to supposed
"means" whereby the presumed "ends" of evolutionary change
of one form or kind into another kind supposedly occurred. (Note that leaders
of evolutionary thought offer natural selection as the supposed means
in contrast
to the last sentence of paragraph 4.) It is intellectually desirable to avoid
mixture of means and ends. On the basis of the most rigorous
scholarship the conclusion
is inescapable that no transitional forms of true genetic
relationship or connection
can be established in the fossil record; hence, evidences from the
fossil record
can better he fitted into the Genesis account.
Science in Christian Perspective
Disagrees with Cuffey
J. Lowell
Butler Route 3, Box 995
Greshoso, Oregon 97030
From: JASA 23 (December 1971): 159-160
In the Journal ASA September 1970, are several valuable articles that
were written
by honest scholars with differing and conflicting conclusions. Some
of these different
views can be the result of chosen preferred evidences that leave out
the unwanted;
while other views may he more inclusive and more valuable. It is
helpful to compare
them. I am glad this issue of the Journal ASA contains a good
assortment of these
differing and opposing views. Otherwise my opinion of the basic purpose of the
American Scientific
Affiliation at the present time would be restricted to the label "Clever
Propaganda by Theistic Evolutionists."
The article on "The Dying of the Giants", written by
William A Springstead,
and the accompanying "Critique" by Roger J. Cuffey show the need for
more information by both writers; especially by the geologist who said "I
think it needs to be pointed out there is no physical or
geomorphologic evidence
for a world-wide deluge," (page 96). Dr. Cuffey would not make a statement
like that if he had read my concluding article of a new series of four, whose
titles are: "Our Moon Was a Hot and Brilliant Midget Sun," "The
Earth Enjoyed an Ideal Climate," "Our Moon's Extinction and the Great
Dinosaur Disaster," "The Earth Is Another Asteroid Battered
Planet."
(Mr. Butler was kind enough to include a copy of his last-mentioned
article. Dr.
Coffey's reply follows.)
Science in Christian Perspective
Reply by Cuffey to Butler
Roger J, Cuffey
Department of Geosciences
The Pennsylvania State
University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
From: JASA 23 (December 1971): 160
Remarking upon my critique, Butler suggests that I chose favorable and ignored
unfavorable evidences; however, he proceeds throughout his paper to
do just that,
continually and grossly. For example, he completely ignores the
tremendous quantities
(literally mountains) of geological material which clearly indicate
that the building
of mountain systems like the Appalachians and Rockies occupied very
long periods
of time, and thus could not have been the result of one or two pulses
of up-heaving
as a side effect of asteroid impact. Also, Butler (like so many others with his
ideas) does not realize that the early geologists too thought that
mountain-building
was a rapid violent process, but that the continued accumulation of
evidence (evidence
which was undeniable and could be observed by anyone regardless of
their religious
orientations) forced abandonment of such ideas-for scientific, not
philosophical,
reasons-by about 1840.
Butler states that there "is now good evidence" for
believing that all
the various kinds of fossil organisms were living simultaneously on the earth
right up until a recent catastrophic deluge. Nothing could be farther from the
truth; unpleasant though it may be for some to contemplate, my
impression is that
it is as certain as any scientific conclusion can ever be that the
overall picture
of different forms of life at different times in the past history of the earth
is essentially correct as the modem historical geologists have
portrayed it. Again,
historically, it has been verifiable observations of phenomena in
nature, rather
than potentially debatable religiophilosophical considerations, which
have undergirded
our certainty concerning this conclusion.
Like so many, Butler too fails to realize that, had a world-wide
deluge actually
occurred, it would have left unmistakable signs. For example, in
desert regions,
soils develop which are extremely sensitive to alterations in the
moisture content
of their environment over time. Such soils record minor events like
small variations in the annual rainfall of some regions through time, but nothing like a
major submergence in recent times. Similarily, many terrestrial regions exhibit
various deposits (such as bess) which would be extremely susceptible
to disturbance
by even a tranquil submergence, let alone a violent flood. It is highly note-worthy that features of
such deposits do not suggest such disturbances. The biogeographic distribution
of fossil spores and pollen, as well as of other types of organisms, also shows
none of the effects which would be expected from a universal deluge. (Advocates
of "Flood Geology" sometimes attribute to a single flood formation of
the entire stratigraphic sequence, rather than merely the last formed
or uppermost
layers; but, doing so is not legitimate, for the reasons already noted above in
discussing mountainbuilding. Moreover, historically, scientific evidence forced
the early geologists to abandon this idea too as more was learned
about the earth.)
Still another point betraying the pseudo-scientific character of Butler's paper
is a complete lack of understanding of the vast amount of evidence which shows
that ice sheets waxed and waned several times during the last million years of
earth history. In undisturbed deposits in which the order of deposition can be
clearly determined without any possibility of doubt, we find that as
time passed,
as the ice sheet grew and approached the locality of study more
closely, warmerweather
plants and animals gradually disappeared and are replaced first by
cooltemperate,
then sub-polar, and finally polar-climate species. The same sequence
is repeated
in reverse above the glacial till deposit, reflecting the receding off into the
distance of the ice front.
Butler tries to set up an artificial conflict between geologists on
the one hand
and astronomers no the other, suggesting perhaps that as someone dealing with
astronomical events, he can explain geological phenomena better than
can all geologists.
Having myself received training as an astronomer as well as a geologist, I know
that much professional interchange goes on between these two
disciplines. Moreover,
it seems to me that Butler's use of astronomical data is as suspect as is his
geological reasoning.