Note that Mr. Macrae's statement is in direct contradiction to > the following observations by leading scientists in their fields: > > In the same book ('Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process', 1979, p.39), > Stanley points out > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of > phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and > hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." Still pedalling this one Arthur? At least you have ammended the quote by including the last 12 words, unlike last time. Well we may as well use the same rebuttal we used the last time you brought this up: Begin portion of 1994 post ------------------------ Ah yes, this quote again. This is a classic example of the standard literalist creationist ploy of 'quoting out of context'. Sounds pretty damning right? Well it is suppost to. The one thing you are not supposed to do is actually look up the reference (creationists say "well look, we provided the reference", but how many good ol' boys and girls would rush down to their local library to check?). If you do, however, you will see that the quote is not the damning statement it appears to be. Mr. Beile, whether willfully or through ignorance is misleading you. Let's take a look at this quote. Firstly you may think 'what is Stanley up to?' A palaeontologist, writing a book called "Macroevolution - Pattern and Process" and claiming that there is no support for evolution in the fossil record! However a glance at the actual book will show the basic misrepresentation that is literal creationism. The quote comes from the introduction to chapter 3 "Diverse Lines of Evidence" - hmm, strange title, perhaps it should have read "Diverse Lines of Non-evidence"? Well, not really. Lets put the quote back into context. The begining of the paragraph starts: "Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) . . . (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (p39) The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid. As Stanley says (and Mr. Beile must have somehow missed), "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon." And, "Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model)." --------------------------- End portion of 1994 post Stanley is talking about Gradualism, not evolution as a whole. > Dr. David Raup, Curator of Geology at the Field Museum in Chicago > pointed out in 1979 that: > [deleted] Again it's about Gradualism - so what? > "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious > little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major > groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, `Return of > the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22) Got the title and page number wrong Arthur. It is p. 24, and since Natural History does not sequentially number its pages throughout a volume (i.e. each issue is numbered from page 1) giving the page number is almost useless. A correct citation would have been: Gould, S.J. (1977) The return of hopeful monsters. Natural History, 86(6):22-30 But what does Gould have to say on transitions in the fossil record? From the original article: 'The fossil record with it's abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it - selection can operate rapidly." (p. 22). See Arthur "abrupt *transitions*" and also that evolution does not require gradualism. "I shall not defend everything Goldschmidt said; indeed I disagree fundamentally with his claim that abrupt macroevolution discredits Darwinism." (p. 24) See, "abrupt macroevolution" does *not* discredit Darwinism. > "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record > persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees > that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of > their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the > evidence of fossils." Stephen J. Gould, `Evolutions Erratic Pace' > Natural History. Another of Arthur's useless citation's, but lets not forget the famous: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983). > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of > phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." > Steven Stanley, `Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process' p. 39, > W.M. Freeman and Company, 1979. Oh dear Arthur, you really should pay more attention. It simply isn't good enough to cut and paste without regard for previous content. You've really done it now. Not only have you included this quote for a second time, but you have included the original disingeneous quote. By including the fuller version above, you have given people the opportunity to compare them. Ah well, I guess I will have to include more of my original 1994 post: ------------------------- "Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) . . . (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (p39) Now, compare (5) above with Mr. Beile's quote. Notice the full stop after "morphologic transition" and notice that there is no full stop in the actual quote. Here Mr. Beile is being dishonest, since there is no full stop in tha actual quote and there are 12 words missing. Whether Mr. Beile is being willfully dishonest or wether it is through ignorance (i.e. plaigerizing the quote from a secondary source) I do not know. However, the dishonesty goes beyond that, since it is now clear that the passage is not the stinging inditement of the fossil record that Mr. Beile would have you believe. The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid. As Stanley says (and Mr. Beile must have somehow missed), "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon." And, "Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model)." -------------------------- >"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously >in the fossil record" Tom Kemp, Curator of the University Museum at >Oxford University, `A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New >Scientist, Vol108, No: 1485, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 66) The full quote: "As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge and Gould. Irrespective of ones view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution." (p. 66) No problems there for current theories of evolution. > "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides us a means > of `seeing' Evolution, It has presented some nasty difficulties > for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of > `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms > between species and paleontology does not provide them." > Evolutionary paleontologist David Kitts, Ph.D. Zoology, Head > Curator of the Department of Geology of the Stoval Museum, > `Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory', Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. > 1974, p 467. Dear dear Arthur, you really should not rely on those secondary sources - they are making you look foolish. Dr. Kitts has never been "Head Curator of the Department of Geology" of anywhere. He is a philosopher studying the History of Science and he is NOT a "evolutionary paleontologist". Dr. Kitts is (was? the article was written in 1974) a philosopher, studying the philosophy of science. He is (was?) certainly not a palaeontologist. Kitts was pointing out the limits of purely descriptive palaeontological input into evolutionary theory. As far as Kitts was concerned, the limits of descriptive palaeontology had been reached and any new advances would come from theorists. He cites the (then) new idea of punktuated evolution by Eldredge & Gould as an example. Kitts was wrong. The fossil record continues to provide new evidence on the evolution of forms, a classic example is the lower Cambrian Chengjiang fauna, which is providing unprecidented information on the relationships and evolution of the early arthropods. For a criticism of Kitts' article see Schafersman (1983). > Evolutionist Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his book "The Great Evolution > Mystery" (1982) sarcastically quips "sure the fossil record is > imperfect, but you'd think they'd find at least 1 or 2 phylogenies." Taylor was attacking gradualism, not evolution. The proof (from the same source): "On one point we must be clear before we start. The fact that an evolutionary process occurred is not in doubt. It is only the mechanism which brought it about which is being questioned. Any rational man who examines even a part of the evidence must be convinced that life-forms started as very simple cells, which associated in more and more complex forms, which branched into many variants, over an extremely long period of time. I have to say this in view of the attacks of those known as Creationists some of whom deny this on Biblical grounds. Creationists of are several kinds, and not all of them insist on the Biblical accountof creation in six days; most however, claim that the various forms of life appeared thanks to a fiat of the Creator and not by gradual evolution of earlier forms." (p. 2) Once again Arthur, one of your 'authorities' flatly denies literal creationism [anti-darwinian Norman Macbeth's quote deleted] Chris Gould, S.J. (1983) "Evolution as Fact and Theory," reprinted in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, pp. 253-262. This was originally published in _Discover_ magazine, May 1981. Schafersman, S.D. (1983) Fossils, stratigraphy, and evolution: Consideration of a creationist argument. In: Godfrey, L.R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism. p. 219-144. Norton & Co., New York. ======= > I read a short article in a pap sci. mag. about a geographically isolated > village in the Dolimites where the majority of the inhabitants had > cholesterol levels around 400. The mechanism is thought to be > inbreeding. I was wondering if anyone might have a peer-reviewed > reference on this perhaps including HLDL levels and the gene that encodes > for this strange trait (if true). Also interested in your opinions on > this as a model for the mechanics of evolution. See: "AI_Milano Apoprotein Identification of the Complete Kindred and Evidence of a Dominant Genetic Transmission" in Am J Hum Genet 37:1083-1097, 1985 by Gualandri, Franceschini, Sirtori, and others.... and: "Familial Associations of Lipids and Lipoproteins in a Highly Consanguineous Population: The Lomone sul Garda Study", in Metabolism, 34:212-221, 1985 by mostly the same authors. Its a single point mutation in the gene for apoprotein. The geneology of the trait has been mapped out (ref 1) and the mutation has been traced to a couple living in the area in the late 18th century. As of 1985 there were 33 carriers in a population of about 1000, so the gene-carriers can't be said to constitute a majority. Those with the trait can eat high cholesterol diets and still maintain low HDL and high triglyceride levels in the blood and so avoid atherosclerosis. ======= >The probability calculations of theoriticians such as Hubert >Yockey, confirmed by the hard science lab results obtained by Harvard >Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and >Wendall A Lim, have shown that a protein the probabilty of mutations >hitting upon an acceptable combinations of 100 amino acid chain so as >to create a protein that has at least 5% function is 1 to 10^65 >(see my prior posts related to same). What Yockey really did was explain that the number of possible combinations of 20 amino acids in a 100 unit molecule is not 10^130 as the naive calculation creationists are fond of making implies. The actual number is about 10^65 (2^100 * 3.97) and is irrespective of function. This is because all amino acids are not equiprobable. See chapter 6 of his book _Information Theory and Molecular Biology_ for the details of how this is done. Sauer, etal demonstrated that a existing protein providing a specific function can be varied with an effect on its relative functionality. This is, of course, what "evolutionists" have been claiming all along. Without variation there can be no evolution. I've read all of your posts on the subject I can find and still don't see an explanation of how you arrives at the only one functional molecule in 10^65. >An evolutionist once proposed that if the ratio for substituting amino >acids in a particular protein chain was 1 functioning protein for every >10^15 non-functioning amino acid combinations and 1 random amino >acid chain formed per second, that the functioning protein would be >created every 32 years. However, the 1 to 10^65 ratio means that a >100 amino acid chain functioning protein can reasinably be expected >to form every 32x10^50 years. There is simply not enough time since >the Creation of the universe to even expect our initial species to >evolve one new protein (by random mutation), much less thousands of new >functional proteins. Your "1 in 10^65" is a spurious number based on a misinterpretation of what Yockey actually said. Small wonder it leads you to an incorrect conclusion. Garbage In Garbage Out. >Back to the second law. It takes energy to produce a protein. The >energy that one expects to be consumed in evolving a new functional >100 amino acid chain protein is equivalent to the energy needed to >form one protein x 10^65. Similarly, much longer functional proteins >will require the energy needed to produce one such longer protein >x 10^100. Such amounts of energy are simply not available. But the >reality is that the failure of Darwinian evolution is the expectation >by evolutionists that molecules will rearrange themselves from >states of very high probability (e.g. non-functioning amino acid >chains) to states of very low probability (e.g. a new functional >protein). Thus we end up violating the principle undergirding >the 2nd law of thermodynamics: that molecules tend to move >from low probability states to higher probability states.. You are confusing the the Maxwell-Boltzman-Gibbs concept of entropy used in Statistical Mechanics and the Shannon entropy used in Information Theory. Entropy has absolutely nothing to do with complexity (specified or otherwise :-) There is nothing in the 2nd LoT that forbids complex systems for arising. In fact, Yockey explains in chapter 12 of his book, that increased complexity in the genome must be accompanied by an _increase_ in entropy not the decrease you are trying to claim is required. In a reply to a critical review of his book Yockey writes: In fact, evolution requires an increase in Kolmogorov-Chaitin algorithmic entropy of the genome in order to generate the complexity necessary for higher organisms" [posted to bionet.info-theory; Book Reviews of Information Theory and Molecular Biology; 24 Jan 1995 10:49:13] Increasing information content of the genome will be (must be!) accompanied by an increase in the Shannon entropy. No violation of the 2nd LoT is required or even implied except, perhaps, in the fevered imagination of the creationist. In fact, the increase in entropy accompanying increased informational content of the genome means that evolution in the direction of "higher" organisms is the most probable course. ======== A beetle is an insect of the order Coleoptera, the largest order in the animal kingdom, with over 250,000 species, ====== What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapogos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain, and horror. ...He is not a loving God who cares about His productions. The God of the Galapogos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray." ======== The ammonoids, extinct octopuslike animals with shells, were long thought to have evolved from straight-shelled nautiloids, ancesters of the modern pearly nautilus. In fact, from the shape of the earliest portion of the earliest potrion of the primitive ammonoid shell and from the off-center position of a tube running through the shell, it was some time ago suggested that the ammonoids evolved from a particular group of nautiloids known as the bactritids. It was then gratifying that in 1966 H. K. Erben announced his discovery that a group of specimens from the Devonian of Germany could be assembled into a graded SERIES showing several stages in the evolution from bactritid nautiloids to ammonoids." (Stanley 1983 The New Evolutionary Timetable. Basic Books, New York p. 176) ======= Over a quarter billion fossils have been catalogued of over 250,000 species. ======= Peters, K.E. and Moldown, J.M., 1993. The Biomarker Guide. Interpreting Molecular Fossils in Petroleum and Ancient Sediments. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p.1-363. ======= As far as, "living organisms not having changed much over immense periods of time", I summit a short list: Coelacanth (crossopteryian fish) from the Cretaceous, Lingula from the Ordovician Rats & Bats from Paleocene Metsasequoia from Miocene Alligators from the Jurassic Sharks from the Devonian Snails from the Cambrian Bacteria, & Algae from the Precambrian END**************************************************************************