By R.M Morrell
About Author
R.M. Morrell, a well-known scientist, who is an authority on fossils, writes the article.
Entitled Evolutionary Contradictions and Geological fact, it first appeared in the November 1974 issue of Australian News Gazette. This article was also published in The Criterion, Vol. 10, Nos. 5 & 6, Journal of the Islamic Academy, Pakistan, 10/c/163, Featured (B), Karachi-38, pp 29-35.
Editor
M.Ahmed
Introduction
Addressing a conference of American biology teachers, Professor John Moore of the Department of Natural Science of Michigan State University stated: ‘There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to support the theory of evolution.’ This claim contrasts with the assertion made by the British zoologist, Sir Julian Huxley in the Encyclopedia Britannica, that there is ‘not the least doubt as to the fact of evolution…’ Huxley may well like to think that evolution is an established fact. However, there is a growing volume of support in scientific circles for Professor Moore’s standpoint rather than for Sir Julian’s self-confident claim. A distinguished British scientist, Professor G.A. Kerkut of Southampton University’s Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, has publicly stated that the evidence for evolution is of such a character that the theory can only be viewed as ‘a working hypothesis’ (Implications of Evolution, 1972, p. 157).
The primary importance of paleontology in respect of the theory of evolution was recognized by Darwin in his Origin of Species. He knew that the fossil record did not support his speculations, but he was confident that subsequent research would fill the gaps. Since Darwin first expressed his hopes in 1859 geologists have laboured to fulfill his expectation. Their efforts, however, have been a case of labour in vain, for the hoped-for evidence has not turned up. In his contribution to Darwin’s Biological Work, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1959 to celebrate the anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, a distinguished geologist, John Challinor, late of the University College of Wales, admits that the fossil record only ‘partly supports evolution’, but it also supports ‘separate and independent creation’. He asks the question: ‘Is there any positive proof, from any part of the evidence, that evolution has, or has not, occurred?’, and answers it negatively (‘Paleontology and Evolution’ from Darwin’s Biological Work, 1959; republished 1970, p.53). Here, then, we have a professional geologist clearly stating that the fossil record does not demonstrate evolution and in actual fact can be used to demonstrate creation. Dr. Challinor, though, is an evolutionist, despite what his research has revealed, but, aware of the significance of his admissions, goes on to speak of ‘near proof’ being obtained ‘in some cases’. This suggests that we are justified in assuming that most probably it is universal and we must try to explain the general paucity of evidence as best we may’. He then adds, ‘someone seriously combating the whole idea of evolution might well ask, in some exasperation, what evidence against evolution the evolutionary paleontologist could not explain away to his own satisfaction’. In short, Dr. Challinor tells us rather bluntly that evolutionary paleontologists argue around difficult rather than answer them.
It is a basic evolutionary postulate that continuity exists at all taxonomic levels, and in a review of the paleontological evidence advanced for evolution, the British paleontologist, Professor F. H. T. Rhodes, now of the University of Michigan, confidently asserts that it does and can be demonstrated. However, almost immediately after making the claim, he qualifies it by adding the words ‘only in a limited number of cases’. [‘The Course of Evolution’, Proc. Geol. Ass. 77:1 (q966)’ p.16]. presumably, Professor Rhodes hoped that nobody would note the fact that he had contradicted himself; for either continuity did exist and was demonstrable, or it did not. As a paleontologist he is well aware that the chain of continuity, for which he argues, is broken almost at the start with a gap between Precambrian and the Cambrian.
An examination of the standard manual on fossil identification, (British Museum, Natural History, British Paleozoic Fossils), will show it does not describe or illustrate any Precambrian species, despite the fact that the era has strata ideal for the preservation of the remains of past life. This lack of fossils from the Precambrian has produced a crop of theories in explanation, and while they make for interesting, or entertaining, reading, they shed little if any light upon the problem. Rhodes admits that the Cambrian abounds in fossils, stating it to have over 900 species representative of nine phyla. Many of these species are both complex and highly specialized and demand an evolutionary history if the theory is to get off the ground. However neither Rhodes nor anyone else has provided them with one based upon hard facts.
The question of the boundary between the Cambrian and the Precambrian is itself of some interests, and has a direct bearing upon the claims made for some recent discoveries in Australia which have been placed in the late Precambrian. On in international basis, the boundary between the Precambrian and Cambrian is distinguished in terms of a discontinuity. Where found, it is argued that the strata above is Cambrian and that below Precambrian. This discontinuity is not present in Britain, and even where it is present in other countries (and it is not always easy to see, or see at all) the actual rocks can tell us nothing about the supposed age difference between the two systems. Thus it can be argued that if a discontinuity can be observed, it simply represents a violent upheaval of short duration, certainly not one of a duration long enough to account for evolutionary change. There is in fact considerable difficulty in determining what is and what is not Precambrian and Cambrian, for comparison of rock samples can demonstrate nothing positive other than their composition. Challinor, in the work already cited, brings this out when he states that ‘when strata with a Lower Cambrian fauna are conformably underlain by a great thickness of unfossiliferous strata, particularly the lowest of them, should be classed as Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian’ (p.70).
Rhodes himself notes that the method of deciding what belongs to what, is quite arbitrary. ‘The base of the Cambrian’ he writes, ‘is not always a precise stratigraphic horizon. Stratigraphic correlation is almost always a matter of faith (my emphasis), done entirely on an intercontinental scale by matching similar faunas. In the case of the lowest Cambrian there is a distinct possibility that our correlation may be tenuous.’ This means, in short, that fossil material claimed as Precambrian could just as well be ascribed to the Cambrian, and thus the break in continuity becomes not simply a gap but a yawning chasm.
This brings us to the Australian fossils already mentioned. They were discovered at Ediacara in South Australia, and have been hailed as being one of the most important discoveries of Precambrian material yet made. Personal examination of some of these fossils gave me the impression that an inorganic explanation can be advanced for several. However, it is clear that a great deal of the material is undoubtedly the remains of long dead creatures. Without exception all are complex, thus posing considerable problems for evolutionists. In appearance they are related to creatures found in formations dated by geologists much younger than the Cambrian, and so it is not without significance when we learn that initially they were ascribed to the Cambrian and not the Precambrian. They were dropped into the late Precambrian out of stratigraphic considerations, which, as we have seen, both Challinor and Rhodes have pointed out, is a process that abounds in uncertainty and doubt. Thus we have fossils claimed as being Precambrian, but which, as everyone well knows, could well be early, middle, or even late Cambrian.
Transitional links are essential to the theory of evolution, for making the continuity Rhodes claims. In his paper he asserts that transitional form exist to link amphibians with reptiles, and reptiles with mammals. The link claimed between amphibians and reptiles to be found, according to Rhodes, among the Seymouriamorphs, Seymouria itself displaying both amphibian and reptilian characteristic. But is Rhodes correct in his contention? In a work published only a few weeks before the Rhodes paper, W.E. Swinton, the international authority on fossil reptiles, flatly contradicts Rhodes, and denies that Seymouria can be a transitional form. He states that the degree of specialization displayed by it precludes Seymouria from the immediate line of reptilian ancestry [Fossil Amphibians and Reptiles (1965), pp. 25-27]. Swinton also points out that Seymouria’s systematic position is open to question.
The transitional form between reptiles and the mammals is to be found, according to Rhodes, among the therapsids. Swinton does not agree, maintaining that all they do is to indicate the lines along which evolution took place. Rhodes omits any discussion of the difficulties involved in his claim; for example, how the reptilian jaw, which differs from that of a mammal in the number of bones present and the articulation with the skull, could have evolved without the transitional forms dying out through their inability to eat; or how the highly complex organ in the ears of mammals, termed the corti, which is completely lacking in reptiles, could have evolved, and from what. Any creatures undergoing the changes involved in the evolutionary formation of such structures as the corti, or major anatomical variation in their jaw structure, would become extinct, because they could not have survived over the period demanded by evolutionists for such changes to have take place. The late Sir Gavin de Beer recognized difficulties involved in postulating mammalian evolution and hinted strongly that the essential transitional forms demanded by the theory of evolution will never be forthcoming, when he wrote that ‘fossils which might be regarded as ancestral to the existing mammals have not yet been found’. [Advancement of Science, 11:42 (1954), p. 167]. The American authority on dinosaurs, Professor E. H. Collbert, refers to the fact that ‘we can obtain no direct evidence on theses changes (the establishment of constant body temperature, insulating coat of hair, reproductive organs, etc.)…’ (Scientific American Reprint, ‘The Ancestors of Mammals’, March, 1949, p. 4). One assumes that Rhodes is aware of such difficulties, and so must know that, without the required evidence, his claims amount to wishful thinking as distinct from hard scientific fact.
The great bulk of the fossil evidence advanced for evolution consists of examples of structural difference. Thus fossil sea urchins are said to display evidence for evolution on the basis of changes seen in specimens collected in sequence. Changes in structure (body size, shape and size of beaks) is advanced as evidence of evolution among finches on the Galagapos Island, and in a recent paper entitled ‘Divergence and Evolution in Darwin’s Finches’ [Bio J. Linn. Soc., vol. 5(1973), pp. 289-2995], Messrs. Ford, Parkin and Ewing present material on the differences displayed by various finches, and the advantages given to some by the shape of their beaks. Yet such differences are no, as the authors assume, evidence for evolution any more than are the reasons why they came about. Thus when they write of such differentiation as illustrating ‘the importance of these finches in the development of our knowledge on evolution’ (p. 295), they simply display on their own part a confusion between evolution and development within the species. For, after all, the finches remain finches in the same manner that differentiation in the sea urchins still leaves them as echinoderms.
I commenced with the observations of Dr. John Challinor expressed in a volume eulogistic of Darwin. His conclusion as to what evidence the various fossil groups display for the theory of evolution, contrast markedly with the assertions of Professor Rhodes, and are certainly deserving of careful consideration. He states:
Foraminifera: As the evidence stands, the morphological series shown do not always seem to have very strong claims to being evolutionary series’ (p. 79).
Anthozoa: ‘Any suggestion is welcome in the attempt to find some evolutionary scheme into which the corals may be fitted’ (p. 80).
Echioidea: ‘Their number (the unanswered questions) is a measure of our ignorance’ (Challinor is quoting another writer) (p. 81).
Brachiopoda: ‘Such is the imperfection of the geological record of evolution’ (p. 82).
Mollusca: ‘No very coherent picture emerges when we trace the lamellibranches and gastropods through the stratigraphical systems’ (p. 82).
Trilobita: ‘The Cambrian record … reveals very little of the evolutionary paths they followed’ (p. 86).
Graptolithina: ‘The links in the supposed evolutionary chains are not so secure as was thought’ (p. 87).
Vertebrates: ‘The origin of the vertebrates is no more clearly revealed than the origin of any other phylum …’ ‘The frailty of the palaeontological evidence’ (pp. 88 & 89).
Plants: ‘…meager evidence…’ (p. 89).
In the light of such conclusions, the self-confident claims by Huxley and others of ‘the fact of evolution’, take on a rather hollow ring. Yet, when we are regaled in the press or over TV and radio concerning evolution, the weakness of the case for it, as revealed by the quotations given above (which are just a few), is never mentioned. Yet the facts are there for all to see, and indicate that due consideration should be given to alternative ideas; and scientists, such as Professor Rhodes, who object to this, appear to be more concerned with upholding a particular dogma than seeking for the truth.
