Chapter XI - On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings
In this chapter, Darwin made generalized statements on thirteen topics without topical subdivisions:
1) Darwin believed that the fossil record every year revealed more missing links to support his theory.
2) Species appeared in various depths of the formations fully formed for the first time "but as Bronn has remarked, neither the appearance nor disappearance of the many species embedded in each formation has been simultaneous" (Page 320).
3) Darwin stated that various species from different genera change at different rates. For example, the fossil of an existing crocodile was found with the fossils of many extinct mammals and reptiles. Darwin's assumption was that the crocodile did not change but that certain extinct mammals and reptiles changed into present life forms that now coexist with the extant crocodile. Thus, other species changed but the crocodile did not. Also, numbers of mollusks from the fossil record remained unchanged and coexist today with new forms that evolved from extinct mollusks.
4) Life forms on land seem to have changed at a more rapid rate than those in the sea.
5) Higher/more complex life forms changed more rapidly than did lower life forms. "We can perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial and in more highly organized productions compared with marine and lower productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their organic and inorganic conditions of life..." (Page 321).
6) "The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked is not the same in each successive so-called formation" (Page 321).
7) The reappearance of fauna in a rock formation is due to the immigration of the species into that area.
8) The reasons some species change faster than others is because some variations are more competitive, there is comparative freedom intercrossing, some varieties are better adapted to environmental changes, and/or they compete well with species new to the area.
9) Different rock formations developed over varying amounts of time; therefore, the fossil record showed that species changed at different rates in the different strata. Because we know the rock formations represent different spans of time, we know that... "Each formation, on this view, does not mark a new and complete act of creation, but only an occasional scene, taken almost at hazard, in an ever slowly changing drama" (Page 322).
10) Extinct species do not reappear when the same conditions to which they were adapted recur because new life forms are better adapted than are the extinct species to the recurring environmental conditions.
11) "Groups of species, that is, genera and families, follow the same general rules in their appearance and disappearance as do single species, changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree" (page 322). Although "I am aware that there are some apparent exceptions to this rule..." (Page 322).
12) "We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have been abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views" (Page 323).
13) Generally, the number of species in a group (genus?) that appears in the fossil record tends to increase and then diminish in number toward extinction. The gradual increase in the numbers of species in a group as found in the fossil record fit well with Darwin's model for the evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor.
Critique
Darwin stated his belief that in his time new fossil evidence provided missing links that supported his general theory of macroevolution. The fact was and remains that the species and higher classes of "organic beings" appeared abruptly in the fossil record fully formed and distinct. Today, the innumerable intermediate gradations required to support Darwin's general theory are not in the fossil record. Where are they? And, if they do not exist; then species and genera came into being abruptly.
The speculations Darwin derived to support his theory were based on circumstantial "evidence" and often anecdotal and/or irrelevant observations from colleagues. For example, Bronn tried to offer Darwin some comfort in face of the fact that species appear abruptly in and disappear abruptly from the fossil record. Bronn noted that though species are abrupt in their appearances and disappearances, most of them appear and disappear at different times. What is comforting about that?
Darwin readily classified organisms as "simple" and "primitive" and others as "higher," more complex life forms. We should question whether Darwin's "simple" organisms were in fact less complex than the "complex" ones. Single-celled organisms at the molecular level, in terms of the information required for their complex functions, are highly complex. Who is in a position to say that the life cycle of the liver fluke is less complex than the metamorphosis of an amphibian? In Darwin's time, of course, investigators were not aware of the complexity of "simple" organisms.
Secondly, Darwin stated that complex organisms evolved more quickly than simple organisms. That was because he noted that a number of species in the fossil record were the same as extant species. Contrary to Darwin's observations, populations of "simple" organisms such as microbes quickly adjust to new environmental pressures through random mutations and microevolutionary changes because they have high rates of reproduction and large populations. The relatively "simple" HIV virus makes a living thwarting the immune systems of its hosts through regular and rapid evolutionary changes. Thus, contrary to Darwin, "simple" organisms are more likely to experience evolutionary changes than are "complex" organisms. Notably, the production of a hundred billion billion (1020) copies of HIV and an equal number of mutations over the last several decades have changed the basic genetics of HIV very little (Behe 2014:137).
Darwin said that the amount of "organic change" varied in the different rock formations and that some strata required different amounts of time to form. From these observations, he concluded that (in passive voice) the strata were not individually created (by a creator). In active voice: God did not create the rock formations because within the formations, "organic change" varied and the formations took varying amounts of time to form. But without the appearance of intermediate forms in the rock formations, how did Darwin conclude the strata varied in "organic change"; that is, that the individual species changed? And, are we to assume that God did not create the rock strata because those formations differ in thickness and/or resistance to weathering? In like manner, is it reasonable to assume that Frank Lloyd Wright could not have planned and built the home in Pennsylvania called "Falling Water" in 1935 and Gammage Auditorium in Tempe, Arizona in 1959 because completion of these structures required different amounts of time? Darwinian nonsense.
Aside from the obviously absurd notion that God can only accomplish his work abruptly or spontaneously, God could have used an expansive inundation event, volcanism, asteroid impacts, glaciation, earth quakes, tsunamis, and plate tectonics to bend and shuffle, transport, erode, and rearrange rock strata. Some modes of change were rapid; others slow but just as sure. C. S. Lewis noted that a slow miracle was just as sure and miraculous as a fast one.
Darwin was repetitive in his observation that species seemed to appear and disappear abruptly from the rock layers because in the past organisms emigrated out of and immigrated into the same area. Odd it is that, unfortunately, the intermediate forms failed to abide anywhere long enough to leave indelible impressions of themselves.
Today no credible paleontologist/evolutionary biologist would question the fact that the fossil record supports the abrupt appearance of species on the earth and their abrupt disappearance. That is the established pattern, which in Darwin's own words, was fatal to his model of gradualism (see Item 12 above).
Item 11 above was of some interest:
... genera and families, follow the same general rules in their appearance and disappearance as do single species, changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree (Page 322).
Here Darwin was weaseling in an attempt to cover all bases ju
st in case future fossil evidence continued to show that species appear and disappear from the earth abruptly. He conceded that they did possibly in fact; maybe, did appear/change/evolve "more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree". I can see him saying this and holding his hands close to his chest and wrangling them as though he were struggling to shape some recalcitrant clay ball...Darwinian gradualism in a hurry...Darwinian weasel-speak. The process is ever so slow except when it often is rapid. The latter process he earlier noted as "fatal to my views" (Page 322).
That the number of sister species in a genus increase over time does not suggest that all organisms derive from a common 1-celled ancestor. Rather, this production of sister species represents microevolution within the programmed limits of the gene pool and the obvious limits of random mutation. In Christian thought, God abhors a vacuum and has programmed the genera/family after their kind (genetic limits) to fill the various environmental niches. See "epigenetic niche-match" in Definitions/Notes at the end of this essay.
On Extinction
Darwin believed that species and genera most often became extinct because natural selection acting on variation gradually replaced populations of parent species with new, more competitive offspring. Because natural selection acted slowly, the process of extinction through competition was also gradual. He said that on occasion the extinction could be rapid if, for example, land subsided and allowed the union of two previously isolated bodies of water. The inhabitants of those two bodies of water would mingle and intensified competition could eliminate numerous inferior species. However, Darwin said that catastrophic events did not cause massive extinctions:
The old notion of all the inhabitants of the earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up... (Page 323).
Darwin returned to his theme of extinction through natural selection and the replacement of parent species by new, improved life forms:
The competition will generally be most severe, as formerly explained and illustrated by examples, between the forms which are most like each other in all respects. Hence the improved and modified descendants of a species will generally cause the extermination of the parent species...(Page 326).
On occasion some parent species might escape extirpation by their improved offspring because they were isolated from the main population and others by the development of some specialization: "from being fitted to some peculiar line of life..." (Page 326).
Darwin continued to explain his thinking on the problem of the apparent sudden disappearance of species in the various rock strata. He repeated that the apparently rapid disappearance of life forms in the strata was due to their gradual disappearance during the immense expanses of time represented by the lines separating the various rock formations:
...we must remember what has been already said on the probable wide intervals of time between our consecutive formations; and in these intervals there may have been much slow extermination (Page 327).
The apparent sudden disappearance of species from the fossil record was also due to abandonment of areas by those species because of environmental changes. These same groups of species were extant in other locations not sampled by paleontologists.
Darwin again conceded (as previously repeated) that some species groups experienced "unusually rapid development" (Page 327) and thereby rapidly displaced other species. He concluded:
Thus, as it seems to me, the manner in which single species and whole groups of species become extinct accords well with the theory of natural selection (Page 327).
Critique
Darwin is often difficult to follow because of a lack of organization of his thoughts. He flits in and out of topics and returns, abandons them abruptly, and generally rambles about his general themes of gradual evolution through natural selection acting on random variation. Notwithstanding the shot-gun pattern and rambling, I will continue to critique his scattered topics, iterations, and speculations. In large part, I can do this by analysis of his direct statements.
At present, contrary to Darwin's views, catastrophic events are blamed for the sudden extinctions of species. World-wide climatic changes related to impacts by asteroids and comets are prime suspects in these mass extinctions. The Yucatan asteroid impact and associated volcanism are blamed for the disappearance of the dinosaurs some 65.5 million years ago. Geomagnetic reversals that have periodically reduced the strength of Earth's magnetic field by 95%, including the Lashcamp event 41,000 year ago and the Brunhes - Matoyma reversal some 780,000 years ago, may also have contributed to species extinctions. The later reversal subjected Earth's life forms to increased cosmic and solar radiation for extended periods of time, hundreds or thousands of years. Paleontologists continue to wrangle over various abducted theories as to the causes for the periodic and rapid disappearance of 50 - 90% of all species from Earth.
Darwin believed that species populations gradually went extinct because their improved offspring, within the same population, ever so slowly out-competed them and replaced them. I think it odd that Darwin largely ignored the role of predation in the extinction of species. For example, consider the rapid extinction of numerous marsupial species on the continent of Australia by the introduction of the rat, the red fox, and the domestic cat. Another example: the Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria, Africa, in the early 1950s. In 1970, small cichlid fish comprised 80% of the biomass of the fish in the lake. By 1980, the predacious Nile perch comprised 80% of fish biomass and 200 of the 400 species of cichlid fishes had vanished from the lake in ten years. What role did the competition component of the gradualist model play in those rapid extinctions?
I recall my astonishment when viewing Prothero and Heaton's (1996) graphic depiction of the longevity and extinctions of thirty-eight extinct species of artiodactyl ungulates (even-toed, hoofed animals) from the Black Hills of South Dakota. The duration for most species was 1.5 - 2 million years, encompassed by some 6 million years during the Chadronian, Orellan, and Whitneyan ages. These two investigators showed that species, which experienced no notable change in morphology/bone structure, appeared and disappeared in the rock strata abruptly. During the first third of the Orellan age, the study location experienced a decline in temperature by about 13 degrees C, which dramatically changed plant communities. Oddly enough only one species of hoofed animal in the study appeared abruptly and no species disappeared in conjunction with radical climate change. The beginnings and endings of the other species studied showed no linkage to the change in climate and resultant alterations in vegetation.
I wondered why all those species of even-toed hoofed animals failed to respond to climate change. Why did Darwin's theory of natural selection acting on variation fail to change species faced with radical changes in climate and vegetation? The point here is that, presented with empirical information, Darwin's speculations appear incorrect. The scientist can collect the information but when the historical scientist leaps beyond the information in some effort to fit a preconceived model of evolution, he/she has left the role of scientist and adopted the role of speculator/philosopher. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was largely a body of quasi-scientific speculations and hypotheses most often out of sync with empirical data.
As historical scientist, my abduction/speculation is that most species disappear from the fossil record abruptly because of predation. Their immune systems struggle through time with the increasing virility of the ultimate predators, microbes. After a few million years, the microorganisms ultimately overwhelm the immune systems of their hosts and thereby exterminate the prey/host species. Thus the race for survival is not a matter of competition between parent and improved offspring, as Darwin speculated, but between predatory microbes and the genetic limits of the immune systems of their prey species. That is my abduction/hypothesis and it explains the fossil evidence better than Darwin's speculation that superior offspring replace their parent species ever so gradually.
Back to Darwin and hi
s back-peddling. He once again was caught in the middle. The fossil record indicated that species appeared and disappeared abruptly. The abrupt appearance of complex organisms smacked of vitalism/creation/intelligent design and the abrupt disappearance of species left little time for the gradual replacement of parent species by improved offspring. Aside from that, Darwin had to face the real possibility that future investigations might repeatedly confirm that species appeared and disappeared abruptly.
He decided to compromise. Definitely, most species changed through innumerable gradations except when they did not. In fact, some species groups experienced "unusually rapid development" (Page 327) and thereby rapidly displaced other species. This concession he conceded "accords well with the theory of natural selection" (Page 327). Thus, he changed his mind and decided that natural selection could act in a hurry when necessary to accommodate evidence supporting the rapid appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record. Of course, rapid speciation did not accord with the innumerable gradations required of his original theory of gradualism. Thus, as previously repeated, gradual macroevolution occurred ever so slowly except when it was ever so rapid, and subsequently was, as Darwin conceded: "fatal to my views" (Page 322). That is, Darwin's weaseling to account for the absence of intermediates in the fossil record was fatal to his gradualist, evolutionary model. But, when it comes to Darwinism, one oppositional opinion is about as good as another...even if the same individual produced both.
On the Forms of Life Changing Almost Simultaneously throughout the World
In Darwin's time, paleontologists agreed that fossilized groups of related species appeared in the same rock strata widely distributed around the world. Darwin stated that natural selection explained this phenomenon:
This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world, is explicable on the theory of natural selection (Page 329).
Darwin said that the dominant, most competitive species were most variable and that they therefore spread widely. Secondly, the "old forms" were inferior and therefore disappeared ever so gradually "as new and improved groups spread throughout the world" (Page 330).
Critique
One could easily argue that closely related forms appeared abruptly and then dispersed and filled the numerous ecological niches (different living situations) as programmed/planned. Microevolutionary processes and random mutation operating within the limits of the genetic potential of each "kind" of organism filled the ecological niches with the related specialists and generalist species. For example, the appearance of 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria from a handful of founders in less than 12,400 carbon-14 years was non-Darwinian. This event, to be discussed later, occurred without physical isolation of populations, which left no room for Eldridge and Gould's (1976) "allopatric speciation." Such rapid speciation suggests vitalism and programming of processes by an intelligent agent.
Furthermore, DNA analyses supported discontinuances among the various classes of organisms and thereby failed to support evolution of species from common ancestry. Comparison of protein sequences, that of cytochrome C, for example, provided measurable relatedness and discontinuances among groups of organisms (Denton, 1986: 274 - 306). The horse (mammal), the chicken (bird), the turtle (reptile) and the bullfrog (amphibian) are equally distant from the carp (fish) at the genetic, molecular level. In like manner, humans, tuna fish, sesame, and fruit flies are molecularly equidistant from bacteria. Actually, a human is closer to a bacteria than are baker's yeast or the sunflower. Monkeys, pigs, horses and rabbits are molecularly equidistant from bacteria. Thus, the primitive members of classes tested were as distant from their single-celled "ancestors" as were more "advanced" members of classes. The fossil evidence that showed the abrupt appearance and disappearances of species groups and the data comparing protein sequences that illustrated discontinuances among classes counter Darwin's general theory of the gradual evolution of species from a common ancestor.
This is not to say that species do not give rise to sister species through gene mutation. But rather, reptiles do not turn into birds through random gene mutation.
On the Affinities of Extinct Species to Each Other, and to Living Forms
The principle of descent with modification explained several observations:
1) "The more ancient any form is, the more, as a general rule, it differs from living forms" (Page 331),
2) some extinct species have characters in common with existing, but distinct species, and
3) the species fossils in a given strata are more closely related to those in adjacent strata than to those species located in rock layers more distant in time, 4) primitive fish and reptiles had more characters in common than do existing fish and reptiles. The theory of descent with modification was the only way to explain these observations.
Darwin stated that, with the analysis of early fossil forms, the hoofed quadrupeds were:
...now divided into the even-toed or odd-toed divisions...and the Hipparion is intermediate between the existing horse and certain older ungulate forms (Page 332).
Furthermore, fossil evidence showed connections between birds and reptiles with the bird-like dinosaur Compsognathus and the feathered Archaeopteryx. Insofar as whales were concerned, the fossil remains of Zeuglodon in the Tertiary and Squalodon...
are considered by Professor Huxley to be undoubtedly cetacean, and to constitute connecting links with the aquatic carnivora (page 332).
However, Darwin acknowledged that extinct forms were not "directly intermediate" steps to existing species. They showed that existing species derived naturally from unknown intermediates related to the extinct forms found in the fossil record. The fossil evidence supported only the existence of distinct though related species but the innumerable intermediates required to support his general theory remained in absentia:
He who is acquainted with the distribution of existing species over the globe, will not attempt to account for the close resemblance of distinct species in closely consecutive formations... (Page 336).
The fact that numerous extinct forms differed little, if any, from existing species presented a problem for theories of evolutionary change. Darwin suggested that such species changed little over the vast expanses of time because their living conditions changed so little. He believed that ancient progenitors could have survived after some of their offspring varieties disappeared. The wild/feral rock pigeon, for example, outlived some of its offspring varieties under domestication.
Critique
The discovery of distinct species in the fossil record that are obviously related to both extinct and existing species provided, in my opinion, apparent support for Darwin's theory that species derived from other species. Therefore, I will discuss this particular question of relatedness among species at some length.
There is a vast difference between the observation that varieties of domestic pigeons derived from the wild/feral rock pigeon and the supposition that all organisms evolved from the same 1-celled ancestor by random mutation. In the case of horse evolution, for example, Denton (1986:184) questioned whether the evolutionary line from Eohippus to the modern horse might "be an extension of microevolution." He noted that modern horses occasionally give birth to "polydactyl" (several-toed) horses. Conceivably, horse breeders could today reproduce extinct species of horses from the gene pool of extant horses? Darwin would have, no doubt, woven such relatedness into his general evolutionary theory. But does relatedness support or discredit Darwin's general theory? For though species are related in some fundamental ways, classes above the family level remain disconnected by apparently unbridgeable gaps?
We see, for example, that at the cellular level, bacteria and human beings are much alike:
Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, RNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic
code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth (Denton 1986:250).
We also see connectedness in the diversity of species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria, Africa. Carbon-14 dating indicated that Lake Victoria was dry 12,400 carbon-14 years ago. Since the lake filled, some 300+ new species of cichlids, 90% developed from the single genus Haplochromis, appeared to fill 300+ new aquatic niches. Coordinated changes in body structure, in body organs, and in the DNA coded information required for each species to fill its relative niche were, simply stated, complex and were also accomplished in a non-Darwinian rush. The rapid and complex changes in the recoding of abstract information required for the organisms to function suggests programming intelligence, nonrandom mutation, and natural selection operating at a miraculous pace. In other words, seeing that the mutation rate for the various loci, regardless of species, is between 10-9 to 10-10 with duplication at each reproductive event (Denton, 1986:267), how did all those behavioral, structural, organ, and information refinements occur to produce 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in 12,400 years or less? Of interest, those 300+ species arose abruptly, geologically speaking, without the aid of physical isolation as required for the Elderidge and Gould (1976) model "allopatric speciation."
Other points of apparent connectedness between extinct and living forms appeared in the Yixian formation of China. Fine-grained soil materials laid down in the early Cretaceous covered numerous species preserving tissue impressions often in detail, including the feathers of birds and the skins of amphibians and reptiles. In the 1990s paleontologists discovered specimens of reptiles surrounded by striated auras of what many classified as "proto-feathers." Most paleontologists agreed that the striated auras were feathers though others said that in the process of decomposition, the beta-keratin that adds rigidity to the reptilian skin produced the auras and the illusion of "proto-feathers." Feduccia et al (2005) stated that they had found integument structures, very similar to "proto-feathers," preserved within the rib area of a Psittacosaurus specimen from Nanjing, China, an ornithopod dinosaur unconnected with the ancestry of birds.
The "proto-feathers" comprised single filaments, multiple filaments joined at the skin, paired barbs shooting off a central shaft (Stone, 1010), and fuzzy auras around fossilized bone.
The proto-feather paleontologists found that small fibers on one specimen, Shuvuvia deserti, tested positive for beta-keratin. The proto-feather theorists believed the keratin in this specimen derived from feathers because adult bird feathers contain "almost exclusively" beta-keratin while reptilian skin and bird beaks and claws contain both alpha and beta keratin (Schweitzer, 2010). Logically speaking, this beta keratin could have derived from reptilian skin.
Photos of Jurassic bird fossils (Confusiusornis) from the Yixian formation were of interest. Fossilized specimens of this bird revealed details of the vain structure of the primary feathers of the wings. However the contour feathers that covered the bodies of the specimens were not decipherable. The remains were discolored and blotchy, indicating that processes of decomposition had obliterated feather remains. There was no way to discriminate feathers from other soft tissue parts. Paleontologists assumed that similar auras and discoloration of specimens found on dinosaur fossils included feathers. They may be correct, however, I suggest one refer only to photos, and not to artist renditions, to compare the feathers and auras on bird fossils with "proto-feathers" and auras associated with the "feathered dinosaurs".
Some photos of the Yixian fossils are available on the Internet. Artistic renditions, which are popular with neo-Darwinian groups, are promotional and not to be trusted. The introduction of the new fossil Bambiraptor makes a case for caution against misrepresentations.
Wells (2000:125-129) reported on the introduction of Bambiraptor at a Symposium on Dinosaur Bird evolution held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in April 2000. A family found the Bambiraptor fossil in Montana in 1993 and submitted it to paleontologists in 1995. Cladists examined the fossil and determined it to be the "remarkable missing link between birds and dinosaurs" because its skeletal features looked like those of the predicted ancestor of Archaeopteryx. Unfortunately, the fossil was from strata some 75 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. Undaunted, the cladists had a likeness of Bambiraptor reconstructed and covered with feathers for display at the symposium though the fossil did not provide a shred of evidence for the existence of "proto-feathers".
The proto-feather scientists failed to mention in presentations I have read that the "proto-feather" theropod fossils were located in "...deposits that are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx" (Feduccia et.al, 2005). Furthermore, Stone (2010) reported that "feathered dinosaurs" were extant from 155 to 80 million years ago while Dyke (2010) set the proliferation of numerous species of Ornithurines (modern birds) back to a minimum 100 million years ago. Early birds such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis appeared in Jurassic sediments, which means they predated the "proto-feather" theropods. Indeed, it was tricky of these early birds to arrive ahead of their theropod ancestors.
In their critique of the "feathered dinosaurs," Feduccia et.al. (2005) observed that the tridactyl hand of the theropod dinosaurs comprised digits 1, 2, 3 and that of bird wing digit identity was 2, 3, 4. This difference, if correct, indicated a wide gap between coexisting proto-feathered theropods and birds.
Nevertheless, Chris Organ of Harvard compared protein sequences from the soft tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex (the largest theropod) with those of "a multitude of other organisms" and found sequences from T. rex grouped most closely with extant birds, followed by crocodiles (Schweitzer, 2010:69). The assumption here is that T. rex was more closely related to modern birds than to extant crocodiles. Soft tissues from T. rex?
DNA analysis of soft tissue from the 65-million year old bones of Triceratops by William Garstka and a team of molecular biologists showed the sample to be 100 percent identical to turkey DNA (Wells, 2000:131). Apparently, someone in the vicinity of the analysis had eaten a turkey sandwich. Otherwise, the triceratops and the turkey with the same DNA would have been the same organism. Contamination can be a problem but may go unnoticed when the outcome of the data analysis is important to investigators.
Finally, against the case of birds being feathered dinosaurs, there exists the physiological gap between birds and reptiles. I defer to Michael Denton's (1986:210-212) comments on the unique respiratory system of birds:
In all other vertebrates the air is drawn into the lungs through a system of branching tubes which finally terminate in tiny air sacs, or alveoli, so that during respiration the air is moved in and out through the same passage. In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi breakdown into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air blows in one direction through the lungs. This unidirectional flow of air is maintained during both inspiration and expiration by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body which expand and contract in such a way so as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi. The existence of this air sac system in turn has necessitated a highly specialized and unique division of the body cavity of the bird into several compressible compartments. Although air sacs occur in certain reptilian groups, the structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.
Just how such an utterly different re
spiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.
Thus, if the theropod dinosaurs did acquire feathers, they still had to make a lot of soft tissue changes to become birds, which actually predated them by 25 million years. Likely, a clade or line of early birds, distinct from the theropod dinosaurs, appeared to give rise to modern birds, which are now known to have predated and then coexisted with the "feathered dinosaurs" 100 to 80 million years ago (Dyke, 2010). It is going to be interesting to see how these and additional discoveries play out in the future.
Speaking of relatedness and recurring gaps in the fossil record, our own species history questions the power of Darwinian evolution. Supposedly, Homo sapiens evolved from H. erectus, supposedly via H. heidelbergensis, rather suddenly some 200,000 years ago. Bear in mind that H. erectus as a species coexisted, unchanged, with its ancestor genus Australopithecus in the early days and with all of its offspring species, including H. sapiens, during the latter days of its species existence. Consider these details:
1) Homo erectus obviously did not evolve into any other species in the Darwinian gradual sense; otherwise it could not have coexisted with its offspring species. Of interest, remains of H. erectus found near Dmanisi, Georgia and on the island of Java, Indonesia are as old as or older than those from Africa, where the species supposedly evolved.
2) H. erectus as a species survived for about 2 million years with minor structural changes, which questions the power of natural selection to change species.
3) The innumerable intermediates between the genus Australopithecus and H. sapiens are absent.
4) H. sapiens appeared some 200,000 years ago in Africa culturally sophisticated and with obviously advanced cognitive abilities (Marean, 2010); dare we say, abruptly. Although, the Associated Press (2010) reported the discovery in Israel of a tooth, likely from modern man that dated back 400,000 years. For the sake of scientific advancement, let's just ignore that observation as an anomaly.
5) The neo-Darwinian mechanism of random mutation is unable to account for the cumulative changes required to make a human being from a pre-chimpanzee ancestor (Meyer 2013:248):
Behe showed that the problem of coordinated mutations was particularly acute for longer-lived organisms with small population sizes - organisms such as mammals or, more specifically, human beings and their presumed prehumen ancestors. Behe estimated, based upon relevant mutation rates, known human populations sizes, and generation times, the time required for two coordinated mutations to occur in the hominid line. He calculated that producing even such a modest evolutionary change would require many hundreds of millions of years. Yet, humans and chimps are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor only 6 million years ago. Behe's calculation implied that the neo-Darwinian mechanism does not have the capacity to generate even two coordinated mutations in the time available for human evolution - and thus does not explain how humans arose.
Darwin's simplistic evolutionary model, in which offspring species replace the inferior parental species obviously does not fit the coexistence of Homo erectus with its predecessor genus Australopithecus and with all of its offspring species, including us. How did H. erectus evolve into new distinct species through obviously inadequate random mutation gradually and then coexist with all of its offspring species without changing over a period of 2 million years? And finally, does the lack of change within H. erectus for the life of that species support Darwin's claims for the powers of natural selection acting on random variation?
Tattersall (2014:56) stated that the rate of speciation in the human line was dramatically rapid because the longevity of a mammal species is 3 to 4 million years and the time dividing modern man from our common ancestor with modern chimpanzees is only 7 million years. Thus, there was time for only two or three leaps from tree ape to modern humans. Did not that trail to novel and obviously radical, coordinated alterations in the human line in a relatively short span of time demand non-random processes? Reasonably speaking - yes.
On the State of Development of Ancient Compared with Living Forms
Darwin's evolutionary theory necessitated that superior offspring replaced inferior individuals within the parent population and that the march of evolution was continually toward a "degree of perfection or highness" (Page 337). That is, macroevolution always moved toward increased perfection of more specialized and improved organization... except when it did not. It did not, for example, proceed if an organism remained in a state of simple living conditions. Under simple environmental conditions, the species may even degrade to a more simple state of organization. Numerous species of bivalve mollusks for example remained unchanged since their appearance in the "Cambrian explosion" some 500+ million years ago. Protozoans were another example of lowly forms that natural selection failed to improve because they exist under "simple conditions of life" (page 338). Thus, though exceptions exist all around us, the general answer that natural selection continued to move organisms toward perfection "must be admitted as true, though difficult of proof" (Page 337).
At this point, Darwin discussed ranking the higher and lower groups of organisms relative to their evolutionary development by several criteria. He suggested one could put crustaceans (lobsters) and cephalopods (octopi and squids) together to see which would win in "the law of battle" (page 339). He also noted that those groups with the higher numbers of members would illustrate evolutionary advancement because higher numbers of different kinds "implies a great displacement of lower forms..." (Page 339). Furthermore, the introduction of various plants and animals from Great Britain into New Zealand had caused the extinction of numerous endemic species in the latter country. From this observation Darwin concluded that "...the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand" (Page 339).
To conclude this topic, Darwin briefly talked about the recapitulation of past evolutionary processes during embryonic development. This was an iteration of his belief that the embryonic stage of an organism represented a lag in evolution, a pictorial history of the evolution of previous lower forms. By contrast, organization and specialization were more perfected in the organism's adult stage.
Critique
Darwin said that his theory of the general march of evolution toward perfection "must be admitted as true, though difficult of proof" (Page 337). Darwin's general theory of macroevolution was "difficult of proof" in his day and it remains today without that proof. As pointed out in my last critique, at the cellular level, any eukaryotic 1-celled organism is as complex as any vertebrate animal:
In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth (Denton, 1986: 250).
Thus, those organisms that Darwin deemed simple proved to be at the biochemical level more advanced than any machine produced by the cumulative intelligence of mankind.
Darwin's criteria for designating the "degree of perfection or highness" (Page 337) now appear simplistically incorrect. For example, if you place two organisms into a confined area, the one that survives a scrape between them is higher and more advanced on the scale of evolutionary development? There are more species of ants than there are of primates; therefore ants are higher on the evolutionary scale than monkeys or man? Generalist species such as foxes, house cats, and rats released into New Zealand caused the extinction of numerous endemic species and therefore cats and rats represented improved forms of specialization and "perfection and highness". I suggest that most of the New Zealand fauna disappeared, not because of competition with superior beings, but simply because the foxes, cats, and rats ate them. From the ecological poi
nt of view, Darwin's generalized speculations that left out the role of predation provided little if any information.
Insofar as Darwin's assertion that developing embryos of the different classes of animals display ancestral patterns of evolution, he was incorrect. This erroneous concept was still popular during my college days. We were told: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". However, we now know that in the early stages of development, the embryos of fishes, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds are dissimilar. In more advanced stages those same embryos attain superficially similar characters that have different origins and derive from non-homologous parts (Strobel, 2004: 47-52). Because the early stages of the embryos of the various classes differ, current information contradicts Darwin's erroneous opinion that the early stages of embryonic development duplicate the evolutionary changes of ancestors.
Wells (2000:106-107) reported:
So recapitulation continues to rear its ugly head. Although biologists have known for over a century that it doesn't fit the evidence, and although it was supposedly discarded in the 1920s, recapitulation continues to distort our perceptions of embryos. Furthermore, although biologists have also known for over a century that Haeckel's drawings are fakes, and that the earliest stages in vertebrate development are not the most similar, textbooks continue to use those drawings (or almost equally misleading photos) to convince unsuspecting students that Darwin's theory rests on embryological evidence.
On the Succession of the Same Types within the Same Areas, during the later Tertiary Periods
Darwin noted that numerous extinct species from the fossil records of North and South America and Australia were closely related to existing species on each continent, respectively. He attributed these connections by location to the theory of descent with modification. He also pointed out that species groups appeared and disappeared to change the faunal constituents:
...we know that Europe in ancient times was peopled by numerous marsupials... and ...in America the law of distribution of terrestrial mammals was formerly different from what it now is (Page 341).
The reason for the shifts in continental faunas was "great geographical changes permitting much intermigration" (Page 341). Darwin also mentioned that the mega faunas (large animals) once present in North and South America and Australia had become extinct without leaving descendants -
But in the caves of Brazil, there are many extinct species which are closely allied in size and in all other characters to the species still living in South America; some of these fossils may have been the actual progenitors of the living species (Page 342).
Critique
Perhaps Darwin was correct to think that species microevolve daughter species. But if they do, the process is rapid, nonrandom, and proceeds without innumerable intermediates. What the fossil record shows is that species appear and disappear abruptly and that they remain essentially unchanged in their morphology for as long as they endure.
According to the Darwinian model, improved offspring through infinitesimal gradations within a species population gradually replace their parent species. Contrary to this model, species frequently disappear rapidly because of the introduction of a new predator. The Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria, Africa in the early 1950s. In the ten-year period from 1970 to 1980, the Nile Perch eliminated half of 300+ species of Cichlid fishes in the lake. Other examples: the mega faunas of North America, South America, and Australia were extinct within about 10,000 years following the arrival of modern man. And, numerous species of Australian marsupials disappeared in 100 years or less with the introduction of foxes, domestic cats, and rats. Of interest, competition in conjunction with available variation and natural selection had nothing to do with these rapid extinctions.
The tautological nature of Darwin's theory was inclusive enough for us to believe that placental introductions ate the marsupials because the latter were unable to survive, and were therefore less fit. Such generalized tautological nonsense provides no real predictive information on causes or processes. "Survival of the fittest" often means "survival of the survivors".