Published with
permission, view the entire EVOLUTION CRUNCHER book with illustrations
online here
paperback is
also available inexpensively at www.evolution-facts.org
Scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory
The Evolution Cruncher
Chapter 23 Part 1 of 2
Scientists Speak
Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and
worthless
This
chapter is based on pp. 959-998 (Scientists Speak) of Other Evidence (Volume
Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series), and includes nearly 150
quotations. Not included are a large number of other statements from that
chapter. You will find them on our website: evolution-facts.org.
1 -
Evolutionists Explain their Objective 856
2 -
The Best Evidences of Evolution 859
3 -
Scientists Speak against Evolution 860
4 -
Scientists Declare Evolution to be Unworkable and Useless 875
5 -
Scientists Maintain that Evolution Hinders Science 877
6 -
Scientists Speak about
7 -
Only Two Alternatives 884
8 -
Evolution is a Religious Faith 886
1 - EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN THEIR OBJECTIVE
There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on
to a theory that has no evidence to support it, one which has been repeatedly
disproved. These are important reasons. This section explains why these men
cling so fanatically to a falsehood.
Objective: Men do not want to be responsible to
anyone for their actions. Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their
actions.
"[Man]
stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious,
impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities.
These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself
that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and
undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and
make his own destiny."—*George G. Simpson, "The World into which
Objective: Separation from God and identification
with the brute.
"The
real issue is whether man must think God’s thought after him in order to
understand the world correctly or whether man’s mind is the ultimate assigner
of meaning to brute and orderless facts . . Evolutionary thought is popular because it is a world
view which facilitates man’s attempt to rid himself of all knowledge of the
transcendent Creator and promises to secure man’s autonomy."—G.L. Bahnsen, "On Worshipping
the Creature Rather Than the Creator," in Journal of Christian
Reconstruction, 1 (1974), p. 89.
Objective: Sexual freedom.
"I
had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it
had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for
this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no
meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure
metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he
personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the
philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The
liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political
and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed
Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19.
[Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian
Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most
influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
Objective: A way to hide from God.
"Darwinism
removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of
rational discussion.
Objective: We can choose to live like animals and
not mind it.
"In
the world of
Objective: Men would rather have the forbidden
tree than the presence of God.
"With
this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity
annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in."—*Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the
Universe (1899), p. 337.
Objective: It will help destroy religion.
"Beyond
its impact on traditional science, Darwinism was devastating to conventional
theology."—*D. Nelkin, Science Textbook
Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977), p. 11.
2 - THE BEST EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION
Throughout
this set of books we have found that there are no genuine evidences that any
aspect of evolutionary theory is scientifically correct. Yet the
evolutionists themselves have, at last, produced five reasons why they believe
evolution to be true. Here they are:
1
- We know that evolution is true because living things have parents.
"No
one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent.
This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."—*Tom Bathell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper’s,
February 1985, p. 81.
2
- We know that evolution is true because living things have children.
"The
theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the population in
respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else . . Everybody has it in the back of his mind that the
animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best
adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation or something of this sort, but this
is not explicit in the theory . . There you do come to
what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things
leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more
offspring [that are being naturally selected], and there is nothing more to it
than that. The whole real guts of evolution—which is
how do you come to have horses and tigers and things—is outside the
mathematical theory."—*C.H. Waddington,
quoted by Tom Bethell, in "
3
- We know that evolution is true because there are perfections.
"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on
in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes
from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been
optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solution to
the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping a predator or generally
functioning in its environment . . The presence of
these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through
natural selection, but it does provide strong circumstantial argument."—*David
M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and
Paleontology," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, January
1979, pp. 25-28.
4
- We know that evolution is true because there are imperfections.
"If
there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by
natural selection over creation."—*Jeremy Cherfas,
"The Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (
"The
proof of evolution lies in imperfection."—*Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1980).
5
- We know that evolution is true because species become extinct.
"The
best clincher is extinction. For every species now in existence, roughly
ninety-nine have become extinct. The question of why they have become extinct
is of enormous importance to evolutionists. It has been studied by many men,
but a convincing answer has not been found. It remains unclear why any given
species has disappeared."—*David Raup,
"Conflicts between
"[Charles]
3 - SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION
Earnest, conscientious scientists have something far different to
say about evolutionary theory. These are men, highly competent in their respective
fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the
street. Here is what they would like to tell you.
After
more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could
have occurred.
"The
evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to
judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of
nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard
to the details of the means of evolution."—*Richard Goldschmidt,
"Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol.
409, January 1952, p. 84.
A
leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution
is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming,
president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of
Evolutionary Thought.
Evolutionary
theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned
scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to
progress. *
"Today
our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple,
understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations
that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people,
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to
acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
A
growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend
this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and
conclusions in our modern world.
"It
is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it
to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it
offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently
obvious impossibility of
Not
one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory. in support of evolutionary theory.
" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great
con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In
explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian
called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno
Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian,
physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The
reader . . may be dumbfounded
that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science,
The
truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the
evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students—and even Ph.D. graduates.
An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:
"I
personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the
majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious
problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we
bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is
proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to
smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to
re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate
biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.
*Singer
admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is
unwilling to consider any other possibility.
"Evolution
is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its
acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed
interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."—*Charles Singer, A
Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.
Thinking
scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.
"Evolution
. . is not only under attack
by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable
scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record,
there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James
Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
*Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the
evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.
"Scientists
have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert
Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom:
Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
*Bonner
makes a broad admission.
"One
is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it
for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to
ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where
the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.
"The
particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the
evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose
from what other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa
occurred once, or twice, or many times . . We have all
been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face
value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to
discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."—*John T.
Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A. Kerkut,
in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. [*John Bonner is
with the California Institute of Technology.]
*Simpson,
a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to
give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.
"Search
for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution
has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
"It
might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as
a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
Simpson
tried harder than most evolutionists to defend evolution. Commenting on one of *Simpson’s earlier
efforts to present evolutionary causes, Entomology Studies recognized it
as but another in the confusing use of empty words to supply the place of solid
evidence.
"When
Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by
ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the
circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds
that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological
evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation
which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology,
has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and
Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica,
Vol. 5, October 1982, p. 567.
*Thompson,
a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of
*
"Modern
Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like
Although
they fear to say too much openly, *
"Throughout
the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate
biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity
of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree
of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
*
"The
overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the
theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all
subsequent biological research—paleontological,
zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
"The
fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin
himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect
of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it
applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general
theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual
successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in
Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual
support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive
advocates’ would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
Kenyon,
a West Coast scientist, summarizes some of the evidence against evolutionary
theory.
"Laboratory
data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one
to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other
lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available
evidence is carefully assessed in toto [in the
whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less
probable than the creationist view."—Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of
Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33 [
*Macbeth says that when men cling to an outworn theory
with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are
entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions.
"When
the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the
marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange
situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that
evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological
quirk."—*Norman Macbeth,
*Bonner
declares there is no evidence that any species descended from any other species.
"The
particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the
evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified,
professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any
other."—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist
49:1961, p. 240.
There
are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any species ever changed
into any other.
"The
German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to
provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that
macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or
any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as
cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their
ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.
All
that the evolutionists can point to is change within species; they have no
evidence of change across species.
"The
very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary
[sub-species] level . . only
serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary
[across species] level."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 344.
There
is no evidence on the origin of species.
"The
facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not
to mention the higher categories."—*Richard Goldschmidt,
The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165.
Instead
of intergraded changes from one species to another, we only find distinct species
types.
"Increase
of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of
type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to
another—the essential basis of Darwinism."—*McNair Wilson, "The
Witness of Science," in the
Evolutionary
theory cannot square with scientific facts.
"The
theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more
apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific
knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.
Evolutionary
theory faces a granite wall.
"Where
are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a
granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We
know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: the Secret
of Life," New York Times.
*Toulmin senses that a supernatural power must be
at work. The intricate galactic systems, the environment
on Earth, the myriads of carefully designed plants and animals; it all points
to a super-powerful, massively intelligent Creator.
"It
seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are
beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally
supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law."—*S.
Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p. 389.
The
two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing
cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.
"Nobody
can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch
nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something
else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
Not
a single fact in nature confirms it.
" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it
in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely
the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann,
quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not
Evolution, p. 10 [
Evolution,
which is supposed to be caused by accidents, is itself headed for a collision.
"For
all its acceptance in the scientific works as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter,
is in a surprising amount of trouble."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of
the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
The
problems are too severe and unsolvable.
"Nearly
all [evolutionary biologists] take an ultimately conservative stand, believing
that [the problems] can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to
the Darwinian framework. In this book . . I have tried
to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to
offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian
framework."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p.
16.
The
theory is totally inadequate.
"The
theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and
manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S.,
quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91 [Discoverer of the thermionic valve].
One
of the outstanding scientists of the 19th century said this:
" ‘Science positively demands creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in
H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94.
Biological
specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.
"The
theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived,
constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in
his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the
explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from
this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution,"
Encyclopedie Francaise Vol.
5 (1937), p. 8.
It
is all one big scientific mistake.
"The
theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation (1986),
p. 139 [
It
is a tottering mass of speculation.
"To
my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson,
"A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
How
to make a pseudo-science:
"Present-day
ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed
biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through
use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations,
a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root
in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists,
who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been
demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse,
The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
A
mass of opinions heavily burdened with hypothesis.
"From
the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the
phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative
evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with
hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The
lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the
genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to
which these opinions are correct."—*P.P. Grasse,
Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
There
are so many ways to disprove it.
"I
can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary
theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and
Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
Forty
years work and completely failed.
"My
attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40
years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having
started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H.
Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Not
the slightest basis for the assumption."
"It
is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell
represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are
commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance.
There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
The
head of the paleontology department of a major
"It’s
true that for the last eighteen months or so I’ve been kicking around
non-evolutionary or even antievolutionary ideas . .
"So
that is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing
remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme
is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey
anti-knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the
In
the study of natural history, we only find degeneration, extinction, and
sub-species changes.
"The
majority of evolutive movements are degenerative.
Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no
meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow
changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for
survival."—*John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91
[English geneticist].
More
like medieval astrology than 20th-century science.
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how
random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of
diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the
literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm
is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval
astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a
reality for evolutionary biologists . . We face great,
if not insurmountable conceptual, problems in envisaging how the gaps could
have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the
fossil record, in the case of the avian [bird] lung, and in the case of the
wing of the bat. We saw it again in the case of the origin of life and we see
it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry [molecular biochemistry] . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery, the
biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than
apologetic tautologies [circular reasonings]."—*Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 308.
Sub-species
changes are worlds apart from providing an explanation for cross-species
changes.
"The
facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an
understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to
another]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Material
Basis of Evolution (1940).
Just
as much of a puzzle now as ever before .
. Only explainable on sociological grounds. . . Only explainable on sociological grounds.
"All
in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as it was before
" ‘I
for one . . am still at a loss to know why it is of
selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to
travel perilously to the
Relying entirely upon the imagination to find a solution. to find a
solution.
"How
can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the
origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one
relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so
great that we can not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the
phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca
and Vertebrata .
. From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of
the phyla, it follows that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative
evolution of the fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This
should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution."—*Pierre P. Grasse. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.
*Milner
is very much in favor of evolutionary theory, but he does have a few questions
that need answering:
"1. Origin of life. How did living matter originate out of
non-living matter? . .
"2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in
nature? How did maleness and femaleness arise? . .
"3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see
no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are
evolved and complex.
"4. Origin of Phyla. What is the evolutionary relationship
between existing phyla and those of the past? . .
Transitional forms between phyla are almost unknown.
"5. Cause of Mass Extinction. Asteroids are quite in vogue, but far
from proven as a cause of worldwide extinctions . .
"6. Relationship between DNA and Phenotype. Can small steady changes (micromutations) account for evolution, or must there be
periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a
complete blueprint for the individual? . .
"7.
How Much Can Natural Selection Explain?
Yes,
the search continues. The theory was developed 150 years ago, and men are still
searching for evidence in support of it and mechanisms by which it could
operate.
CONTINUE: Chapter 23 Scientists Speak Part 2
.
 | ||||
