.
...continues
from...
They are not, as a rule,
led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly
changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution.
A great many sequences
of two or a few temporally intergrading.species
are known, but even at this level most species appear without known 'immediate'
ancestors,
and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly
rare. Sequences of genera,
immediately successive or nearly so at that level (not necessarily represented
by the exact populations involved in the transition
from one genus to the next), are more common and may be longer than known
sequences of species. But the appearance of a new genus in the record is
usually more abrupt than the appearance of a new species: the gaps involved
are generally larger, that is, when a new genus appears in the record it
is usually well separated morphologically
from the most nearly similar other known genera. This phenomenon
becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy
of categories
is ascended.
Gaps among known species are sporadic
and often small. Gaps among known orders, clans, and phyla
are systematic
and almost always large."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Prof. J. B. Waterhouse (Department
of Geology, University of Queensland, Brisbane), Inaugural Lecture, 1980.."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. 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 being preserved, and then if that species lived 5-15 m.y.,
we therefore will 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 offer reasons for or against something)
to rely on gaps, and it is special pleading to propose inadequate preservation.
We would do better to look at what the
record really says."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Ronald R. West, Ph.D. (paleoecology
and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology
at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism",.Compass,
vol. 45, May, 1968."Contrary
to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian
theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which
we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular
reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Weird Wonders: Was the
Cambrian Explosion a
Big Bang Or
a Whimper?.T.
Beardsley,.Scientific
American, June, 1992, pages 30,31."The
rate of appearance of new life forms demand a mechanism other than natural
selection for its explanation."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Physicist Freeman Dyson."I
do not feel like an alien in this Universe. The more I examine the Universe
and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that
the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Prof. E. J. H. Corner (Professor
of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution" in "Contemporary
Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver
and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961, p.97..I
still think that, to the unprejudiced,
the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however,
another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification,
it would be the knell
of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed,
and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for
this assumption?
The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most
would break down before an inquisition (investigative questioning)."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
J. R. Norman (Assistant
Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, London),
"Classification and pedigrees: fossils" in "A History of Fishes", Dr. P.
H. Greenwood (editor), third edition, British Museum of Natural History,
London, 1975, p. 343.."The
geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the
fishes, and shortly after the time when fish like fossils first made their
appearance in the rocks the Cyclostomes (or Agnatha), Elasmobranchiomorphs,
and Bony Fishes are not only already differentiated from each other and
firmly established, but are represented by a number of diverse and often
specialised types, a fact suggesting that each group had already enjoyed
a respectable antiquity (ancient times)."
Ask
Suby_List
of Topics_Search
A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ
Questions
Lists_Free
Stuff_Contact_Entrance
.
Terms
of Use Privacy
Policy
.
|