On 25 Jun 95 18:45:24 EDT you wrote:
>GM>If evolution is wrong, that is perfectly fine with me, but I have
>not been able to explain why these particular fossils appear at just
>these stratigraphical intervals with a mixture of traits between the
>two groups
JB>Hmm, let's see. We have, what, two or three of these particular
>fossils in a record that should be absolutely replete with them? I
>think the bigger question for anyone looking at the data objectively
>would be WHY ARE THERE ONLY TWO OR THREE? WHERE THE HECK ARE THE
>HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FIND IF EVOLUTION IS
>TRUE?
Indeed. Where are they? Not only should we find the transitions
(both structures and forms) but we should also find the branches off
from them. If the process from mesochynid to whale took 15MY there
must have been millions of these transitional forms and structures.
The fossil record should be almost all transitional forms and
structures.
Gould's attempt to explain this is:
"If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small,
peripheral isolates-rather than by slow change in large, central
populations-then what should the fossil record look like? We are not
likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast,
in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. We
will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the
ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own
right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should
expect no major change; for we know it only as a successful, central
population. It will participate in the process of organic change only
when some of its peripheral isolates speciate to become new branches
on the evolutionary bush. But it, itself, will appear "suddenly" in
the fossil record and become extinct later with equal speed and little
perceptible change in form." surviving branch of a once luxuriant
bush."
(Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", 1977, Penguin, pp61-62)
Gould's argument is especially crafted to explain the lack of
evidence. But does it hold water? Let's look at it step by step:
Step 1. The Speciation Event - small peripheral isolate population
"We are not likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It
happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the
ancestral range."
a) This overstates allopatric speciation. It does not claim such
extreme geographical separation is the norm. Rapid speciation occurs
in the same lake. Some have claimed a wheel rut is enough to divide
a snail population!
b) I can understand that speciation might occur in "small
peripheral isolates" and not leave much of a trace in the fossil
record. But this is for *one* particular speciation event for *one*
particular species change. There were allegedly billions if not
trillions of these speciation events in *all* species combined. Is
Gould claiming that *all but one or two* of them are missing across
*the whole range* of *all* species?
c) How big was this hypothetic "small peripheral isolate population"?
I have read it could be 10,000 individuals. After the speciation
event, how many generations occur before it spreads through the whole
population? Let's say each generation is 10 years, it takes 1,000
years and the population grows to 100,000. I'm not a mathematician
but I would expect that the total number of changed forms over time
would be in the millions in that "small peripheral isolate pouplation"
alone.
Step 2. Re-invades the ancestral range - large central population
"We will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the
ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own
right."
a) Again note how extreme this case is. It might conceivably apply to
a large land mammal. But what about fish in the same lake? What
about snails divided by a wheel rut?
b) Also again, why would we only "first meet the new species as a
fossil" when it "becomes a large central population in its own right"?
How large is large? Some animals never have very large "central
populations", eg. very large mammals like elephants. A "small
peripheral isolate" population of a smaller-bodied, more numerous
species could easily be 1,000 times the size of "central population"
of a larger-bodied less numerous species. Palaeontologists presumably
find thousands of fossils of quite small "central populations" yet can
find only one or two of similar sized "small peripheral isolate"
population.
Behind this claim is a remarkable type of symmetry. No matter how
large the "small peripheral isolate" population or how small the
"large central population", and no matter how long living or durable
the remains of either forms, we always find the same result: almost
no transitional fossils or structures of the "small peripheral
isolate" populations is found, and yet an "unmanageably rich...
fossil record" (T.N. George, 1960) is found of the "large central
population"!
No hard statistical support is given this theory, even though it is
the crux and backbone of Gould's Punctuated Equilibria model, and
arguably of Darwinian macro-evolution as a whole.
Also behind Gould's claim is a type of sleight of hand. One can well
imagine the above allopatric speciation model working for
comparatively trivial micro-evolutionary change, but Gould applies it
to major macro-evolutionary changes as well. Denton says:
"While Eldredge and Gould's model is a perfectly reasonable
explanation of the gaps between species (and, in my view, correct) it
is doubtful if it can be extended to explain the larger systematic
gaps. The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse etc are
utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive
terrestrial mammal and a whale or a primitive terrestrial reptile and
an Ichthyosaur; and even these relatively major discontinuities are
trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as molluscs and
arthropods. Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we
are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short
periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying
restricted geographical areas. Surely, such transitions must have
involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or
probably thousands of transitional species. To suggest that the
hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species
which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar
types were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and
having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible!
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books,
pp193-194).
Gould's argument seems like a desperate last-ditch stand to save his
naturalistic theory. The crucial scientific evidence is placed
permanently out of sight, in much the same way as Panspermia does for
the origin of life.
JB>Next, I'd ask what is wrong with the explanation that God created
>these forms? Why is this explanation rejected out of hand?
Indeed. As a Christians who believe that God is Creator and that he
will raise up the human dead of all ages (Rev 20:12-3), I cannot
understand the difficulty in believing that God could have directly
and supernaturally intervened at strategic points in biological
history (as he has in human history), to introduce changes according
to his overall plan for the whole world (Isa 14:26). I keep
remembering Paul's challenge to the Jewish religious leaders: "Why
should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"
(Acts 26:8)". To paraphrase Paul: Why should any of you consider it
incredible that God directly fashions new biological structures out of
existing materials?
God bless.
Stephen
"He who was seated on the throne said, `I am making everything
new!'Then he said, `Write this down, for these words are trustworthy
and true.' (Rev 21:5)