Evolution Cruncher Chapter 23
Scientists Speak Part 1
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.
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 Darwin and His Book 878
7 - Only Two
8 - Evolution
is a Religious Faith 886
EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN THEIR OBJECTIVE
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.
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
Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1980), p. 968.
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.
"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
way to hide from God.
the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of
rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer
was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of
life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its
evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television
Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.
can choose to live like animals and not mind it.
"In the world of
Darwin man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct
species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not
apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every
living thing, be it an ameba, a tapeworm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak
tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are
different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the
tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the
monkeys."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The World into Which
Darwin Led Us," Science 131 (1960), p. 970.
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.
will help destroy religion.
2 - THE
BEST EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION
"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.
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,
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
"Darwin’s Mistake," Harper’s Magazine, February 1978, p.
3 - We know that
evolution is true because there are perfections.
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 (May 17, 1984),
p. 29. [*Cherfas was reporting on special lectures by *S.J. Gould at
Cambridge University. Notice what this expert said: Apart from
imperfections, there is no evidence.]
"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.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION
"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 Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History
Bulletin, January 1979, p. 29.
wrote to him [Thomas Huxley about his remarks about a certain extinct
bird], ‘Your old birds have offered the best support to the theory of
evolution.’ "—*G.R Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
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
"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:
baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming, president,
British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of
Evolutionary theory is
nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it
needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *Grasse is
a leading French scientist:
"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 Darwin’s pronouncements and
predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to
Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us
back."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in
Not one smallest
particle of scientific evidence has been found
in support of evolutionary theory. in
support of evolutionary theory.
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,
January 22, 1965, p. 389.
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:
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.
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.
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
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
"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
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
*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.
"It might be
argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as
a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp.
Simpson tried harder
than most evolutionists to defend evolution.
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.
[*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
*Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction
proved to be a stunning attack on evolutionary theory.
paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like
Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which,
however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and
the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support
the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific
men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define
scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor,
attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression
of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and
undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson,
"Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in
Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.
Although they fear to
say too much openly, *Denton reveals that there are a surprising
number of biologists who cannot accept the foolishness of Darwinian
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.
*Denton says that the
evolutionary myth has always been a problem to scientists. The
"evolutionary crisis" is nothing new.
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.
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 [San Francisco State University].
*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, Darwin Retried
(1971), p. 77.
*Bonner declares there
is no evidence that any species descended from any other species.
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
zoologist, Bernhard Rensch , 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
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 Oxford Medical
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.
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
"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.
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 [Erlangen
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.
[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
"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
One of the outstanding
scientists of the 19th century said this:
positively demands creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H.
Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94.
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
"The theory [of
evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in
H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139 [Agassiz was a Harvard
It is a tottering mass
"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
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
"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.
The head of the
paleontology department of a major U.S. museum speaks:
"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
American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
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
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 Darwin
advanced his thesis. Natural selection explains a small part of what
occurs: the bulk remains unexplained. Darwinism is not so much a
theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated . .
" ‘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 Sargasso sea . .’
complains Bertalanffy. ‘I think the fact that a theory so vague, so
insufficiently verifiable . . has become a dogma can only be explained
on sociological [not scientific] grounds,’ von Bertalanffy
concludes."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
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
"5. Cause of
Mass Extinction. Asteroids are quite in vogue, but far from proven
as a cause of worldwide extinctions . .
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? Darwin never claimed natural
selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered
it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the
search continues."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
(1990), pp. 159-180.
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
You have just completed
23 Scientists Speak Part 1
Go to the next file in
Chapter 23 Scientists Speak