Date: Tue May 07 1996 20:59:06
On page 4, paragraph 2, Morris says,
"No Order in the Fossils. Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; [...]"
Roger Cuffey identified over 100 known transitional sequences that were so fine-grained that he referred to the group of them as "transitional individuals", which implied not that these are single finds, but rather that one can trace the change through the sequence through a nearly continuous series of individual specimens. Until Morris deals with each of these, his claim remains without appreciable contact with reality.
Cuffey, Roger. 1972. Paleontologic evidence and organic evolution. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 24(4).
Date: Thu May 09 1996 12:20:24
On page 4, paragraph 2, Morris says,
"No Order in the Fossils. Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences."
This is an irrelevancy. All that is asked of the fossil record is that it provide examples of evolutionary change, which it does. "Evolutionary progression" brings up teleology, of which evolutionary mechanism theories do not partake.
Date: Fri May 10 1996 09:51:56
On page 4, paragraphs 2 and 3, Morris says,
"No Order in the Fossils. Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences."
"The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic" (David Raup, 1977).
There is nothing in Raup's quote which addresses "order", so the quote appears to be completely irrelevant.
Date: Sat May 11 1996 23:52:04
On page 4, paragraphs 2 & 4, Morris says,
"No Order in the Fossils. Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences."
[...]
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.... we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it" (Stephen J. Gould, 1984).
First off, this quote does not address "order in the fossils", and is thus a non sequitur to Morris' heading.
I found the part up to the ellipsis under "Death and transfiguration", collected in "The Flamingo's Smile", page 241:
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times."
Morris' ellipsis covers two long paragraphs, neatly covering the immediate amelioration of the initial statement of Gould's. Further, my copy differs in the final line following the ellipsis:
"Heretofore, we have thrown up our hands in frustration at the lack of expected pattern in life's history -- or we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really acquiesce. If we can develop a general theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations -- and we may even extract an unexpected kind of pattern from apparent chaos. The fast track of an extraordinary meeting in Indianopolis may be pointing the way."
Gould's "but" involves the interaction of punctuated equilibria and mass extinctions, where strategies of easy speciation and specialization may be favored by PE, but rarer speciation, generality, and wider distribution are favored by mass extinctions. Mass extinction, writes Gould, can reset many of the adaptive gains made in various lineages by elimination of those lineages.
Gould illustrates by mentioning the trilobite eye as being unsurpassed in arthropods for "complexity or acuity". By saying that there is no clear "vector of progress", Gould is talking about the fact that extant arthropods haven't adapted more complex or acute eyes -- not that there was no progress involved in getting to the state seen in trilobite eyes.
Finally, let's consider Gould actually discussing "order in the fossils":
[Quote]
"But life regulated by history still has order -- firm, ineluctable, definite, testable pattern. Its order is the topology of its proper metaphor -- the tree of life. Its order is genealogy, connection by branching and descent. [...]"
[End quote -- S.J. Gould, "The rule of five", In: TF'sS, p. 210]
Date: Mon May 13 1996 07:33:22
On page 4, paragraphs 2, 5, 6, & 7 Morris says,
"No Order in the Fossils. Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences."
[...]
"The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils."
"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldredge, 1985b).
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" (Tom Kemp, 1985b).
The Eldredge quote comes from p. 52 of Time Frames, according to the references. One wonders what answer Eldredge gave to his question, and why it does not appear here.
There is no indication in the Kemp quote that it even addresses circularity of dating. For all we know without the context, it could be discussing the PE vs PG issue.
Now, does Morris have a point concerning dating? As it turns out, no. The geological column is *ordered* by its fossils, not dated by them. And the key thing to know about that ordering, lest you think that Morris still has a point, has to do with who did the work.
You see, there is a point to studying scientific history. The concept of the geologic column was conceived and implemented by creationist geologists. They used the presence of index fossils to help them in ordering the geologic column. What's an index fossil? A good index fossil is one that is a) abundant in strata, b) widespread, prefereably cosmopolitan, c) readily identifiable by a set of standard morphological criteria, and d) limited in stratigraphic extent. These factors combined meant that those fossils used for indexing the rocks were precisely those that don't appear to be evolving. The use of index fossils does not involve any evolutionary theory at all. The creationists of the early nineteenth century put the geological column into its still accepted order by use of non-evolutionary analysis of fossils.
Now that the creationist ordering clearly lends support to evolutionary theory, Morris tries to rewrite history and claim that the ordering is due to that evolutionary theory. Sorry, but I don't buy either Holocaust revisionism or geological revisionism. I don't think you should, either.
Date: Mon May 13 1996 07:58:48
On pages 4 & 5, paragraphs 8 & 1, Morris says,
"No Evidence that Evolution is Possible. The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder."
Morris seems not to comprehend the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, nor the fact that no biologist proposes what he describes above. In other words, Morris is feeding us a strawman misrepresentation of what biology actually says.
Additionally, there is no difficulty between evolutionary process and the second law of thermodynamics. There are no processes necessary to evolution that are not already seen in action in biological reproduction. The second law argument, to be effective against evolution, would have to demonstrate that biological reproduction could not work.
I think that there might be some difficulty there for Morris, don't you?
Date: Tue May 14 1996 23:33:52
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 4 & 5, paragraphs 8, 1, and 5, Morris says,
No Evidence that Evolution is Possible. The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.[...]
Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information are applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from the outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!
Since evolutionary processes do not require a reduction in entropy, the claim that such reductions are necessary is untrue.
On a more general note, though, the broad claim by Morris in the above is also untrue. Organization can increase in an open system without the intervention of intelligence or even intelligently applied energy. The simple addition of heat to the bottom of shallow containers of water can induce the formation of convection cells. Raw solar energy is entirely sufficient to effect this change in state.
RealCom. Web page providers extraodinaire... check 'em out.
Search pages: WebCrawler | Excite! | Infoseek | Lycos | Yahoo!