Kyk ook:
*****************
Hierdie diagram kom oorspronklik uit die Chicago Field Museum, Illinois en is gekopieer uit dr Carl Werner se boek Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol 1, bl 127, 128, 229. Die syfers op die diagram is voorsien deur wetenskaplikes wat evolusie ondersteun.
Darwin
The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online
Uit darwin-online.org.uk:
p264-265:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Hoekom dan is elke geologiese formasie en elke stratum nie vol sulke intermediêre skakels nie? Geologie openbaar verseker nie so ’n organiese ketting nie; en dit is moontlik die mees voor die hand liggende en ernstigste beswaar wat teen die teorie aangeteken kan word. Die verduideliking lê, soos ek glo, in die uiterste onvolledigheid van die geologiese rekord.
p407-408:
On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though this appearance is often false, to have come in suddenly on the successive geological stages? Although we now know that organic beings appeared on this globe, at a period incalculably remote, long before the lowest bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? For on the theory, such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs of the world’s history.
I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe.
*****************
Die geologiese rekord is egter glad nie onvolledig nie. Kyk wat sê Michael Denton hieronder:
Michael Denton (nie ’n evolusionis nie)
Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.
Michael Denton het daarop gewys dat 97.7% van lewende ordes van gewerwelde landdiere verteenwoordig word as fossiele en 79.1% van die lewende families van gewerwelde landdiere – 87.8% as voëls uitgesluit word, aangesien hulle minder geneig is om te fossileer.
[Refuting Evolution, Sarfati, ] [M. Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 190.]
*****************
Professor Stephen Jay Gould
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists 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. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”
Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never “seen” in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
Die uiterste seldsaamheid van oorgangsvorme in die fossielrekord bly die handelsgeheim van die paleontologie. Die evolusionêre bome wat ons handboeke versier, het slegs data op die punte en nodes van hul takke, die res is ’n inferensie; hoe redelik ookal, nie die getuienis van fossiele nie. Darwin was egter so verbonde aan gradualisme dat hy sy hele teorie gewed het op ’n ontkenning van hierdie letterlike rekord:
“Die geologiese rekord is uiters onvolmaak en hierdie feit sal tot ’n groot mate verduidelik waarom ons nie eindelose rasse kry wat al die uitgestorwe en bestaande vorme van die lewe verbind deur die beste gegradeerde stappe. Hy wat hierdie sienings oor die aard van die geologiese rekord verwerp, sal tereg my hele teorie verwerp.” (Darwin)
Darwin se argument bly steeds die gunsteling ontsnapping van die meeste paleontoloë van die verleentheid van ’n rekord wat so min van evolusie wys. In die blootstelling van sy kulturele en metodologiese wortels, ek wil in geen manier oor die potensiële geldigheid van gradualisme spekuleer nie (omdat alle algemene sieninge soortgelyke wortels het). Ek wil net daarop wys dat dit nooit in die rotse “gesien” is nie.
Paleontoloë het ’n buitensporige prys vir Darwin se argument betaal. Ons sien onsself as die enigste ware studente van die lewe se geskiedenis, tog, om ons gunsteling weergawe van evolusie deur natuurlike seleksie in stand te hou, sien ons ons data as so sleg dat ons nooit die proses sien wat ons bely om te studeer nie.
[Uit Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’]
en
“Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations.”
[Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, “Species Selection: Its Range and Power,” 1988, p. 19]
“The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. … I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.”
Die oë van die vroeë trilobiete, byvoorbeeld, is nog nooit deur latere geleedpotiges oorskry in terme van kompleksiteit of skerpheid nie. … Ek beskou die faling om ’n duidelike “vektor van vooruitgang” in die geskiedenis van die lewe te vind as die mees verwarrende feit van die fossielrekord.
[Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment”, Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
Omdat Gould besef het dat oorgangsfossiele nie bestaan nie, het hy ’n nuwe teorie geformuleer, nl. gepunktueerde evolusie (“punctuated equilibrium” (PE)). Gould en Eldredge se gepunktueerde evolusie kom daarop neer dat spesies vir miljoene jare baie min veranderings getoon het, en toe elkeen in ʼn baie kort tyd (enkele duisende jare volgens hulle tydskale) in ’n nuwe spesie verander het. Die proses het homself duisende kere herhaal om al die spesies te verskaf wat vandag bestaan. Hierdie tye van verandering was so kort dat baie min oorgangsfossiele daarom sigbaar is in die geologiese kolom. Hierdie gepunktueerde evolusie was dus so vinnig dat dit feitlik geen spoor nagelaat het nie. (“Skepping vs Evolusie – Onversoenbaar!”, bl. 299: )
*****************
Sir Steward Duke-Elder
The curious thing, however, about the evolution of the vertebrate eye is the apparent suddenness of its appearance and the elaboration of its structures in its earliest known stages. There is no long evolutionary story as we have seen among invertebrate eyes, whereby an intracellular organelle passes into a unicellular and then a multicellular eye, attaining by trial and error, along different routes an ever-increasing degree of complexity. Within the vertebrate phylum the eye shows no progress of increasing differentiation and perfection as is seen in the brain, the ear, the heart and most other organs. In its essentials the eye of a fish is as complex and fully developed as that of a bird or man.
[Uit Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?]
*****************
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
Ek is dit heeltemal eens met jou kommentaar oor die gebrek aan direkte illustrasie van evolusionêre oorgange in my boek. As ek geweet het van enige, fossiel of lewe, sou ek dit beslis ingesluit het. Jy stel voor dat ’n kunstenaar moet gebruik word om sulke transformasies te visualiseer, maar waar sou hy die inligting vandaan kry? Ek kon dit nie met eerlikheid verskaf nie, en as ek dit op ’n kunstenaar verlaat het, sou dit nie die leser mislei nie? Ek het die teks van my boek vier jaar gelede geskryf. As ek dit nou moes skryf, dink ek die boek sou anders gewees het. Gradualisme is ’n konsep waarin ek glo, nie net as gevolg van Darwin se gesag nie, maar omdat my verstaan van genetika blyk om dit te eis. Tog is Gould en die Amerikaanse Museum mense moeilik om te weerspreek wanneer hulle sê dat daar geen oorgang fossiele is nie. As ’n paleontoloog myself, is ek baie besig met die filosofiese probleme van die identifisering van voorvaderlike vorms in die fossielrekord. Jy sê dat ek ten minste “‘n foto moet toon van die fossiel waarvan elke tipe organisme afgelei is.” Ek sal dit erken – daar is nie een so fossiel, waarvoor mens ’n waterdigte argument kan maak nie.
[Persoonlike brief deur dr. Colin Patterson, 10 April 1979, Senior Paleontoloog by die British Museum of Natural History, Londen, aan Luther D. Sunderland; in Darwin’s Enigma, deur Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, VSA, bl. 89, 1984 That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils]
*****************
David B. Kitts
“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides 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 …”
[David B. Kitts, PhD ((Zoology)) Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467]
*****************
Dr. Tim White
“A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib… The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”
[Dr. Tim White, Evolutionary anthropologist, University of California at Berkeley New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199]
“‘n Stukkie been van vyf miljoen jaar wat gedink is ’n sleutelbeen van ’n menslike kreatuur is was eintlik ’n deel van ’n dolfyn rib… Die probleem met baie antropoloë is dat hulle so graag ’n hominied wil vind dat enige stukkie been ’n hominied-been word.”
*****************
Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. … The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”
[Prof N. Heribert Nilsson, Lund University, Sweden Famous botanist and evolutionist As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51]
“Vir meer as 40 jaar het my pogings om evolusie te demonstreer deur ’n eksperiment uit te voer heeltemal misluk…. Die fossielmateriaal is nou so volledig dat dit moontlik is om nuwe klasse op te rig, en die gebrek van die oorgangreeks kan nie verklaar word te danke aan die skaarsheid van materiaal nie. Die tekorte is werklik, hulle sal nooit gevul word nie.”
*****************
David M. Raup
“Darwin… was embarrassed by the fossil record… we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, … some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
“Darwin … was verleë oor die fossielrekord … ons is nou sowat 120 jaar na Darwin en die kennis van die fossielrekord het aansienlik uitgebrei. Ons het nou ’n kwartmiljoen fossielspesies maar die situasie het nie baie verander nie. Die rekord van evolusie is nog verbasend rukkerig en, ironies genoeg, … ’n paar van die klassieke gevalle van Darwinistiese verandering in die fossielrekord, soos die evolusie van die perd in Noord-Amerika, moes verwerp of verander word as gevolg van meer detail inligting.”
[David M. Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology”, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25]
*****************
Lord Solly Zuckerman
“… if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record.”
[Lord Solly Zuckerman, MA, MD Prof. of anatomy, University of Birmingham Chief scientific advisor, United Kingdom Beyond the Ivory Tower Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p 64]
*****************
Francis Hitching
“The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.”
[Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe or here Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19]
*****************
Stanley
Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
[Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95]
*****************
Fortey, P. L.
“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. …In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny.”
[Fortey, P. L., “Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores,” 1982, p. 120-121]
*****************
Bernard Wood
“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place … On the left of the picture there’s an ape … On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
“The origins of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
“…we hope that these relatively simple explanations of the background of some of the main controversies will enable readers to apply a healty dose of skepticism to pronouncements about the taxonomy and systematics of the hominin clade.”
Bernard Wood (prof. of human origins, George Washington Univ.), “Who are we?” New Scientist, 2366 (26 Oct. 2002), p. 44.
[Uit Bernard Wood: Human evolution icon illusion en Icon Illusion]
*****************
JB Waterhouse
But how good is the geological record? I have already mentioned that the ordinary viewpoint of evolution held by most paleontologists favours gradual incremental change. The fossil record, they say, is too incomplete to take seriously. And, they say, you cannot prove a gap.
(Click image to enlarge) But of course you can prove a gap, especially if clines occurred. If there is a break in the record it must be possible to detect the break. The main point about breaks is that, if they were really random, as proposed by Darwin, they must have been plugged by one hundred and fifty years of work. But the gaps have not been plugged. They still persist; yet authorities still plead the cause of failure of preservation. Such authorities forget that if there is a million to one chance of one specimen of a population, and then if that species lived 5–15 m.y., we therefore get 5–15 times the population fossilized. The trouble may perhaps have lain more truthfully in our failure to find or describe the material. It is special pleading to rely upon gaps, and it is special pleading to propose inadequate preservation. We would do better to look at what the record really says.
Maar hoe goed is die geologiese rekord? Ek het reeds genoem dat die gewone siening van evolusie wat die meeste paleontoloë aanhang is geleidelike inkrementele verandering. Die fossiel rekord, sê hulle, is te onvolledig om ernstig op te neem. En, sê hulle, jy kan nie ’n gaping bewys nie.
(Klik op die foto om te vergroot) Maar natuurlik kan jy ’n gaping te bewys, veral as geleidelike verandering plaasgevind het. As daar ’n onderbreking in die rekord is moet dit moontlik wees om die breuk op te spoor. Die belangrikste punt oor breuke, is dat, as hulle regtig ewekansig is, soos Darwin voorgestel het, moet hulle ingeprop gewees het in honderd en vyftig jaar se werk. Maar die gapings is nie ingeprop. Hulle duur steeds voort; tog pleit owerhede steeds dat onvoldoende bewaring die rede daarvoor is. Sulke owerhede vergeet dat as daar ’n miljoen tot een kans van ’n monster van ’n bevolking is, en as die spesie 5-15 miljoen jaar geleef het, kry ons dus dat die bevolking 5-15 keer gefossileer het. Die probleem kon dalk meer eerlik erken gewees het in ons onvermoë om die materiaal te vind of te beskryf. Dit is spesiale pleitdooi om op gapings te vertrou, en dit is spesiale pleitdooi om onvoldoende bewaring van die fossiele voor te stel. Ons sal beter doen om slegs te kyk wat die rekord werklik sê.
[Uit How good is the geological record?]
*****************
Alan Feduccia
(Evolusionis)
“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.”
[Uit Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma.]
*****************
Paul Sereno
For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers.
[Uit Pterosaurs and bats have always been pterosaurs and bats!. The evolution of dinosaurs, Science284(5423):2137–2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999]
*****************