Why do people deny evolution?

The Fossils In General

"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

"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 Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line,
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be
claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil
record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and
generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental
structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history
and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with
gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?" (p. 206)

"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 gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

The Abundance of Fossils

"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."

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

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological
exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely
more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been
discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are
filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The
availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit
objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What
is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major
groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They
can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection
of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"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

...The list of some 27 species which best documents the transition from mammal-like reptiles to mammals starts with pelycosaurs (early synapsid reptiles; Dimetrodon is a popular, advanced, example) and continues with therapsids and cynodonts up to the first unarguable "mammal". This covered some 160 million years, from the early Pennsylvanian (315 ma) to the late Jurassic (155 ma), with a 30 million year gap in the late Triassic. Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion. What is most striking (here, as well as in most other transitional fossils) is a mosaic mixture (existing in each species along the way) of some earlier (more primitive) traits along with newer, more derived traits, with a gradual decrease in the primitive traits, an increase in the derived traits, and gradual changes in size of various features through time. Some differences observed:

No.

Early Reptiles
Mammals
1

No fenestrae (*) in skull Massive fenestra (*) exposes all of braincase
2

Braincase attached loosely Braincase attached firmly to skull
3

No secondary palate Complete bony secondary palate
4

Undifferentiated dentition Incisors, canines, premolars, molars
5

Cheek teeth uncrowned points Cheek teeth (PM & M) crowned & cusped
6

Teeth replaced continuously Teeth replaced once at most
7

Teeth with single root Molars double-rooted
8

Jaw joint quadrate-articular Jaw joint dentary-squamosal (**)
9

Lower jaw of several bones Lower jaw of dentary bone only
10

Single ear bone (stapes) Three ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus
11

Joined external nares Separate external nares
12

Single occipital condyle Double occipital condyle
13

Long cervical ribs Cervical ribs tiny, fused to vertebrae
14

Lumbar region with ribs Lumbar region rib-free
15

No diaphragm Diaphragm
16

Limbs sprawled out from body Limbs under body
17

Scapula simple Scapula with big spine for muscles
18

Pelvic bones unfused Pelvis fused
19

Two sacral (hip) vertebrae Three or more sacral vertebrae
20

Toe bone #'s 2-3-4-5-4 Toe bones 2-3-3-3-3
21

Body temperature variable Body temperature constant

(*) Fenestrae are holes in the sides of the skull
(**) The presence of a dentary-squamosal jaw joint has been arbitrarily selected as the defining trait of a mammal.

5. Two Examples of Species-to-Species Fossil Sequences in Primates:
Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.

Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character state." The T. homunculus - P. ambiguus transition shows a dramatic change in dentition (loss of P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of roots, shrinkage of C and I2, much enlarged I1) that occurs gradually and smoothly during the 4 million years. The authors conclude "...our data suggest that phyletic gradualism is not only more common than some would admit but also capable of producing significant adaptive modifications."
...

Like I say, there are no clear transitional fossils. They're still working on the first one

It's as if they were trying to prove a historical theory which demanded that semiautomatic rifles were invented in the late 1500s, and all the archaeologists could turn up with the normal match-locks.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms,
and the Fossil Record


Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506

The recognition and interpretation of patterns in the fossil record require an awareness of the limitations of that record. Only a very small fraction of the species that have lived during past geologic history is preserved in the rock record. Most marine species are soft-bodied, or have thin organic cuticles, and are essentially unpreservable except under the most extraordinary conditions. ...

Introduction

The fossil record provides persuasive evidence for macroevolutionary change and common descent. ...

Nature of the Fossil Record

There are two opposite errors which need to be countered about the fossil record: (1) that it is so incomplete as to be of no value in interpreting patterns and trends in the history of life, and (2) that it is so good that we should expect a relatively complete record of the details of evolutionary transitions within most lineages.

What then is the nature of the fossil record? It can be confidently stated that only a very small fraction of the species that once lived on Earth has been preserved in the rock record and subsequently discovered and described by science...

Limits of the Fossil Record

Soft-bodied or thin-shelled organisms have little or no chance of preservation, and the majority of species in living marine communities are soft-bodied. ...

Potential of Fossil Record for Understanding Evolutionary Change

Given the limitations and biases discussed above, what should be expected from the fossil record? The situation is not as bleak as it may appear from my previous comments. Exceptional deposits, such as the Burgess Shale, Solnhofen Limestone, and Green River Shale, do provide surprisingly detailed glimpses of once living communities. These rare cases of exceptional preservation (fossil lagerstätten) are essentially snapshots in the history of life and are invaluable in gaining a more comprehensive picture of ancient communities. They also provide some of the most detailed anatomical data.

...

Taxonomy and Transitional Forms

Taxonomy, the process of classifying living and fossil organisms, produces its own patterns which order the diversity of life. It is thus important to recognize that names do much more than describe nature: they also interpret it. There is considerable ferment now within the field of taxonomy because of conflicting philosophies of classification, and different perceptions of which patterns in the history of life should be reflected in the taxonomic hierarchy (Eldredge & Cracraft, 1980; Schoch, 1986). Higher taxa can be either artificial groupings of species with similar morphologies (evolutionary grades), or "natural" groups sharing derived characteristics inherited from a common ancestor (monophyletic taxa or clades).

The Linnean classification system is hierarchical, with species grouped into genera, genera into families, families into orders, etc. This system reflects the discontinuity and hierarchy observed among living organisms. However, "this system leads to the impression that species in different categories differ from one another in proportion to differences in taxonomic rank" (Carroll, 1988, p. 578). This impression is false. ...

Based on the above discussion, a transitional form is simply a fossil species that possesses a morphology intermediate between that of two others belonging to different higher taxa. Such transitional forms commonly possess a mixture of traits considered characteristic of these different higher taxa. ...

Conclusions

From this brief survey of fossil vertebrates, it is clear that transitional forms between higher taxa are common features of the fossil record. The morphology of species within a higher taxonomic group becomes less divergent toward the point of origin of that group. Morphological diversity and disparity increase with time. In addition, transitional species possess mixtures of morphologic characters from different higher taxa often to the extent that their taxonomic assignment is uncertain. This pattern is obscured by taxonomy which gives a false impression of discontinuity.

...

Bibliography

Ahlberg, P.E. and Milner, A.R., 1994, The origin and early diversification of tetrapods: Nature, vol. 368, p. 507-14.

Aldridge, R.J. and Purnell, M.A., 1996, The conodont controversies: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11, p. 463-8.

Bakker, R.T., 1975, Dinosaur renaissance: Scientific American, vol. 232, p. 58­78.

Benton, M.J., 1991, Amniote phylogeny: IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb, (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p. 317-30.

Berta, A., 1994, What is a whale?: Science, vol. 263, p. 180-1.

Briggs, D.E.G., Clarkson, E.N.K., and Aldridge, R.J., 1983, The conodont animal: Lethaia, vol. 16, p. 1-14.

Carroll, R.L., 1970, The earliest known reptiles: Yale Scientific Magazine, October issue, p. 16-23.

Carroll, R.L., 1988, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution: W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, 698 p.

Carroll, R.L., 1991, The origin of reptiles. IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p. 331-53.

Chiappe, L.M., 1995, The first 85 million years of avian evolution: Nature, vol. 378, p. 349-55.

Crompton, A.W. and Parker, P., 1978, Evolution of the mammalian masticatory apparatus: American Scientist, vol. 66, p. 192-201.

Denton, M, 1985, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 368 p.

deRicqlés, A.J., 1974, Evolution of endothermy: histological evidence: Evolutionary Theory, vol. 1, p. 51-80.

Desui, M., 1991, On the origins of mammals. IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p. 570-97.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J., 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Columbia University Press, New York, 349 p.

Erwin, D.H., 1993, The Great Paleozoic Crisis: Life and Death in the Permian: Columbia University Press, New York, 327 p.

Evander, R.L., 1989, Phylogeny of the family Equidae. IN, D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schoch (eds.), The Evolution of the Perissodactyls: Oxford University Press, New York, p. 109-27.

Gingerich, P.D., 1976, Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals: American Journal of Science, vol. 276, p. 1-28.

Gingerich, P.D., Raza, S.M., Arif, M., Anwar, M., and Zhou, X., 1993, Partial skeletons of Indocetus ramani (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the lower middle Eocene Domanda Shale in the Sulaiman Range of Punjab (Pakistan): Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, vol. 28, p. 393-416.

Gingerich, P.D., Raza, S.M., Arif, M., Anwar, M., and Zhou, X., 1994, New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming: Nature, vol. 368, p. 844-7.

Hecht, M.K., Ostrom, J.H., Viohl, G., and Wellnhofer, P. (eds.), 1985, The Beginnings of Birds: Proceeding of the International Archaeopteryx Conference, Eichstatt, 1984: Bronner & Daentler, Eichstatt.

Hopson, J.A., 1991, Systematics of the nonmammalian Synapsida and implications for patterns of evolution in synapsids. IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p. 635-93.

Hopson, J.A., 1994, Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. IN, D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schoch (eds.), Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution, Short Courses in Paleontology, No. 7: Paleontological Society, Knoxville, p.190-219.

Hotton, N, III, 1991, The nature and diversity of synapsids: Prologue to the origin of mammals. IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p.598-634.

Mader, B.J., 1989, The Brontotheriidae: A systematic revision and preliminary phylogeny of North American genera. IN, D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schoch (eds.), The Evolution of the Perissodactyls: Oxford University Press, New York, p. 109-27.

McFadden, B.J., 1988, Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: Evolutionary Biology, vol. 22, p. 131-58.

McFadden, B.J., 1992, Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 369 p.

McNab, B.K., 1978, The evolution of endothermy in the phylogeny of mammals: American Naturalist, vol. 112, p. 1-21.

Mikulic, D.G., Briggs, D.E.G., and Kluessendorf, J., 1985, A Silurian soft-bodied fauna: Science, vol. 228, p. 715-7.

Morell, V., 1997, The origin of birds: the dinosaur debate: Audubon, vol. 99, no. 2, p. 36-45.

Norman, D., 1985, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs: Crescent Books, New York, 208 p.

Norman, D., 1994, Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates: Macmillan, New York, 246 p.

Novas, F.E. and Puerta, P.F., 1997, New evidence concerning avian origins from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia: Nature, vol. 387, p. 390-2.

Ostrum, J.H., 1979, Bird flight: How did it begin?: American Scientist, vol. 67, p. 46-56.

Ostrum, J.H., 1994, On the origin of birds and of avian flight. IN, D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schoch (eds.), Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution, Short Courses in Paleontology, No. 7: Paleontological Society, Knoxville, p.160-77.

Prothero, D.R., Guerin, C., and Manning E., 1989, The history of the Rhinocerotoidea. IN, D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schoch (eds.), The Evolution of the Perissodactyls: Oxford University Press, New York, p.321-40.

Prothero, D.R. and Schoch, R.M., 1989, Origin and evolution of the Perissodactyla: Summary and synthesis: IN, D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schoch (eds.), The Evolution of the Perissodactyls: Oxford University Press, New York, p.504-29.

Radinsky, L.B., 1979, The early evolution of the Perissodactyla: Evolution, vol. 23, p. 308-28.

Romer, A.S., 1966, Vertebrate Paleontology: University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
468 p.

Schoch, R.M., 1986, Phylogeny Reconstruction in Paleontology: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 351p.

Schultze, H.-P., 1991, A comparison of controversial hypotheses on the origin of tetrapods. IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p. 29-67.

Stanley, S.M., 1974, Relative growth of the titanothere horn: a new approach to an old problem: Evolution, vol. 28, p. 447-57.

Stanley, S.M., 1979, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process: WH. Freeman & Company, San Francisco, 332 p.

Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T., and Arif, M., 1994, Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales: Science, vol. 263, p. 210-2.

Valentine, J.W., 1992, The macroevolution of phyla. IN, J.H. Lipps and P.W. Signor (eds.), Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa: Plenum Press, New York, p. 525-53.

Vorobyeva, E. and Schultze, H.-P., 1991, Description and systematics of panderichthyid fishes with comments on their relationship to tetrapods. IN, H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, p. 68-109.

Whynot hava banana and rub your feces into your fur Quahog. At least youd be entertaining.

Are you this dull when not in print?

good stuff, except that theres a lot more recent stuff from birds, fish and reptiles and whales and flying insects that were developed in the last 20 years

good stuff, except that theres a lot more recent stuff from birds, fish and reptiles and whales and flying insects that were developed in the last 20 years

Yeah, I was going to point out that so much of gunga's BS was obsolete, but got side-tracked. There's no dearth of transitional fossils, after all. This is child's play, really.

When oh when will this girly has a valid argument instead of using only Ad Hominems? When? never is my guess

You're repetitive responses are pretty tedious and lack a scintilla of evidence nor do you provide any objective information. Can you understand that you can convince no one of anything and your continual repetition is just more ennui and noise.

Do you have a life? Can you get one?