On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 20:53:37 -0400 you wrote:
>Jim Bell wrote:
>
>>"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
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------