And then cites:
>"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of
>intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long-term gradual transformations
of
>single lineages are reare and generally involve simple size increase or
>trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive
>ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and
>unconnected by intermeidiates." (Maynard-Smith, J., ed. "Evolution Now: A
>Century after Darwin", 1982, p. 163)
>
>"Many biologists, while ready to accept that neo-Darwinism explains minor
>changes in structure, changes of color and so forth, are skeptical of its
>ability to explain those sweeping changes of plan such as the rise of
>terrestrial creatures from fishes, or of fishes from the spineless jellyfish
>and starfish which preceded them." (G.R. Taylor, "The Great Evolution
>Mystery," 1982, p. 10).
>
>Taylor, rejecting gradualism due to lack of evidence, went so far as to
admit
>that the record looks like it was "directed" by some force yet unknown to
>science and (grudgingly) admitted it could be interpreted by some as
"divine."
>(Id. at pp. 6 & 245).
>
>Honesty is the best policy, in cards and biology.
What strikes me here is the inconsistency. If honesty is the best policy in
cards and biology, then consistency should be more than the hobgoblin of
small minds. :-)
In your post yesterday, you were saying that there was no gradual change,
implying therefore, that evolution was wrong. I provided examples of gradual
change. Now you say that it doesn't matter because small change can't
account for the large change. By my examples, I was showing you that your
statement about the lack of small change is wrong. Among the planktonic
forms, gradual change is seen quite often.
A.E. Wilder-Smith wrote:
" Paleontology gives no 'exerimental' evidence for a phylogentic evolution of
one species to another, higher one that is, of transformism. Where are the
missing links between, e.g. the whale species and land mammals? Where are
the intermediate stages linking the invertebrates with vertebrates?
Geological research should have discovered such intermediate stages long ago
if they existed in the geological formations."~A. E. Wilder-Smith, The
Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, (San Diego: Master Books, 1981),
p. 5,6
This is not true especially in light of recent discoveries. The major change
from a quadruped to a whale is almost becoming a series of gradual steps
since we now have in the fossil record, four-footed cetaceans (Ambulocetus
natans Science Vol 263, p 210-212 Jan. 14, 1994), half-footed cetaceans
(Basilosaurus Isis Nature Oct. 4, 1990, p. 428) and no-footed cetaceans (any
modern whale). Some modern whales have small pelvic girdles and
occasionally cartilaginous remnants of the hind limb both of which are
un-attached to the spine and thus useless.. But for some reason this fails
to satisfy the critics and the same song is constantly sung, "There are no
transitions." If you could, please explain to me why this does not count as
an example of major morphological change via gradual transition. One hopeful
sign though is that Kurt Wise admits that some of the whale fossils are
transitional-he calls them stratomorphic intermediates.. (see K.P. Wise, "The
Origin of LIfe's Major Groups," in J. P. Moreland, editor _The Creation
Hypothesis_, p. 227)
Now, as to the large change, I would like to ask you what would
satisfy you as evidence that the large scale change occurred. Is there
anything?
If you say that you must ALWAYS see a series of small-scale, gradual
transformations from one form into another, then your reasoning is flawed.
You are ruling out what is currently being learned about the behaviors of
genetic algorithms. I have pointed out endlessly, that the behavior of these
types of mathematical systems is such that sudden, large-scale morphological
change can take place with only a single mutation in the genome. These
systems form an entire branch of engineering/mathematics. Unless you have
studied these mathematical systems, I would strongly suggest that you do so.
Ignoring what they say about the behavior of genomic systems of all sorts,
is not a good idea.
I have provided the members of the reflector with the opportujnity to
see how these systems behave. My guess is that you have not run my program
evolve.exe. The system is an excellent mathematical model of a genome which
is subject to random mutation which then produces a screen morphology. You
can get it by anonymous ftp from /pub directory at ftp.oryx.com. You don't
have to do any programming; I did that for you. Get the above file,
8514ai.bgi and egavga.bgi. Put them in the same directory on an IBM clone and
type 'evolve' Each screen picture is only a 1 BIT mutation away from the
previous picture. You will see large morphological change from a small
mutation. Sadly, I fear that too many people are reluctant to take a look at
a piece of mathematics which might challenge their viewpoint.
glenn