Explanations
Moving from non-explanations to explanations, there seem to be two main categories, albeit somewhat contradictory. On the one hand we are told that there are ‘literally thousands of transitional forms, and more are discovered every year’.12 On the other hand it is said that new ideas about the nature of the evolutionary process mean that very few intermediates were ever turned into fossils, and we are lucky to find the ones we have - 'we must accept that the chances of finding the transition from one species to another preserved for us in the rocks, in a statistically significant way, are extremely remote’.13
It takes a while to realize that the 'thousands' of intermediates being referred to have no obvious relevance to the origin of lions and jellyfish and things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature, artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, and then rearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the arrangement.
References
1. David M. Raup, 'Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology', Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, 50, Jan. 1979.
2. ibid.
3. See Gish, 1978, and Anderson/Coffin, 1977.
4. Nilsson, 1954.
5. Attenborough, 1979, p. 112.
6. Berril, 1955, p. 10.
7. Ommaney, 1964, p. 60.
8. Romer, 1966, p. 36.
9. Norman D. Newell, ‘The nature of the fossil record', Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103, 2 (1959), pp. 264-85.
10. Daniel I. Axelrod, 'Early Cambrian marine fauna'. Science, 128 (1958), pp. 7-9.
11. T. N. George, Science Progress, 48 (1960), p. 1.
12. G. L. Stebbins, 'Evolution as the central theme of biology', Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter, 49 (Nov.1972), p. 4.
13. D. V. Ager, personal communication.
14. New Scientist, 5 April 1979, p. 25.
15. e.g. in Simpson, 1949.
16. Butler, 1911.
17. David B. Kitts, Evolution 28 (1974), p. 467.
18. F. H. T. Rhodes, The course of evolution', Proc. Geol. Ass., 77, 1, 1966.
