biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

In the beginning of this segment on “Evolution and the Origin of Species,” we stated that there were 2 crucial parts of our definitional statement that would need to be established as acknowledged by evolutionary scientists and secular sources. We also said that one of these crucial parts pertained to evidence and the other pertained to the explanatory mechanisms of evolutionary theory itself. In the preceding portion, we examined evolution’s mechanism for the origin of species, the process of beneficial mutation. And, given the criteria and probabilities asserted in quotes from secular and evolutionary sources, we concluded that beneficial mutation simply is not a tenable mechanism for the origin of species.

During this portion, we will turn to the remaining point, which focuses on the observable evidence in the fossil record to see what support might be found in it for evolution’s general theory of speciation, even if evolution’s mechanism isn’t at all sufficient. However, this portion of our expanded commentary will not leave the examination of evolution’s mechanisms entirely behind. As we will see below, the evidence of the fossil record raises a critical question about evolution’s mechanisms on another level. And so, this segment will also continue to address the fundamental question of whether or not evolution actually has a working theory for how the origin of species occurs. And as we will see, in addition to the inadequacies of beneficial mutation, evolution’s explanations remain unresolved on other aspects as well, leaving evolution effectively without a coherent theory on the subject of speciation (and the origin of new kinds of organisms). Once again, it will be demonstrated that these points are admitted by secular and evolutionary sources.

This segment will be broken down to address 3 fundamental issues: 1) What present observation and the fossil record cannot show, 2) What present observation and the fossil record do not show, and 3) What present observation and the fossil record do show. And, as we will demonstrate, all 3 of these issues directly relate to whether or not the evolutionary origin of species is falsifiable, and therefore, whether or not it is scientific.

First, we will discuss what the fossil record cannot show. The first stop on this issue is to recall a fundamental requirement of the scientific method, which we covered at length earlier on in this study. Specifically, we saw that in order to be considered “truly scientific” a theory has to be at least falsifiable in principle by empirical evidence. As we also noted, empiricism is the “philosophical outlook of most scientists” and is the idea that “beliefs are to be accepted only if they have been confirmed by actual experience.”

“Empiricism – a philosophical approach that views experience as the most important source of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: W. W. Bartley, III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University.

“Empiricism – in philosophy, the attitude that beliefs are to be accepted and acted upon only if they first have been confirmed by actual experience.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Science – A theory developed by a scientist cannot be accepted as part of scientific knowledge until it has been verified by the studies of other researchers. In fact, for any knowledge to be truly scientific, it must be repeatedly tested experimentally and found to be true. This characteristic of science sets it apart from other branches of knowledge. For example, the humanities, which include religion, philosophy, and the arts, deal with ideas about human nature and the meaning of life. Such ideas cannot be scientifically proved. There is no test that tells whether a philosophical system is "right." No one can determine scientifically what feeling an artist tried to express in a painting. Nor can anyone perform an experiment to check for an error in a poem or a symphony.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Joseph W. Dauben, Ph.D., Professor of History and the History of Science, City University of New York.

“Empiricism, Criticism and evaluation, Criticism and evaluation – One important philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has rejected the inductivism that views the growth of empirical knowledge as the result of a mechanical routine of generalization. To him it is falsifiability by experience that makes a statement empirical.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Science, philosophy of, Historical development, The 20th-century debate: Positivists versus historians – Meanwhile, the qualified Realism of Planck and Hertz was carried further by such men as Norman Campbell, an English physicist known for his sharpening of the distinction between laws and theories, and Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher recognized for his theory of falsifiability, both of whose views reflect the explicit methodology of many working scientists today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Positivism, Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning and its offshoots – It was in coming to this juncture in his critique of Positivism that Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher of science, in his Logik der Forschung (1935; The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), insisted that the meaning criterion should be abandoned and replaced by a criterion of demarcation between empirical (scientific) and transempirical (nonscientific, metaphysical) questions and answers—a criterion that, according to Popper, is to be testability, or, in his own version, falsifiability; i.e., refutability. Popper was impressed by how easy it is to supposedly verify all sorts of assertions—those of psychoanalytic theories seemed to him to be abhorrent examples. But the decisive feature, as Popper saw it, should be whether it is in principle conceivable that evidence could be cited that would refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis, or theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

One of the focuses of this segment will be a demonstration of how this scientific criterion applies to the evolutionary theory for the origin of species. Evolutionary theory centers on the idea that each type of plant or animal today came from previous distinct and different types of organisms.

“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In evolutionary theory, this process takes thousands of generations and thousands of years, as indicated in this familiar quote from the previous segment.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations – Mutation rates have been measured in a great variety of organisms, mostly for mutants that exhibit conspicuous effects. Mutation rates are generally lower in bacteria and other microorganisms than in more complex species. In humans and other multicellular organisms, the rate typically ranges from about one per 100,000 to one per 1,000,000 gametes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As we can see from the next quote, within broader evolutionary theory, the shortest potential time scale for the transformation of one species into another or from one form or type into a new form or type is thousands of years, as asserted by the punctuated equilibrium version of evolutionary theory.

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE - For this reason, in part, a number of evolutionists-most notably Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History-have proposed a variant concept of "punctuated equilibria" for species evolution. According to this concept, species do in fact tend to remain stable for long periods of time and then to change relatively abruptly-or rather, to be replaced suddenly by newer and more successful forms. These sudden changes are the "punctuations" in the state of equilibrium that give this concept its name. Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over periods of thousands of years, most evolutionists tend to consider the punctuated-equilibrium concept only another possible mode of evolutionary change that could take place along with the processes described by the modern synthesis, rather than as a supplanting model for evolution theory.” – Worldbook, "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

In contrast, gradualist evolutionary view, the alternative to punctuated equilibrium, asserts that transformations take even longer than thousands of years.

“Gould, Stephen Jay – Unlike the gradualist theory, which would have species evolve gradually over long periods of time, the punctuated equilibrium theory holds that the evolution of a species consists of rapid changes in small, relatively isolated populations, followed by long periods of stability.” – "Gould, Stephen Jay," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As a side note, both punctuated equilibrium and the alternative “gradualist” view will be defined more thoroughly just a little while later in this segment. The point here is simple. These timeframes are much longer than any human being could observe or has even been observing. In fact, as we’ve seen earlier, evolutionists actually assert that the process of evolution is so subtle that it really cannot be detected. In a debate with creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, Wayne State University evolutionary biologist Dr. William Moore stated this explicitly.

“This is why evolutionary biologists have a difficult time defining species. There are these intermediate situations…It is by a process of descent with modification through insensibly distinct intermediate forms. It’s a continuum. And as I mentioned earlier that’s the problem with defining species...” – Evolutionary Biologist Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video

Consequently, not only does the evolution of species take too long for anyone to observe but, according to Dr. Moore, it is so slow, subtle, and “insensibly distinct” that it cannot actually be observed even in principle. Britannica Encyclopedia also acknowledges that the inability to detect when speciation has occurred is a fact of evolutionary theory.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that…individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons…The other reason for ambiguity is rooted in the nature of evolution as a gradual process…Since the process is gradual, there is not a particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

So as we can see, according to both Dr. Moore and Britannica Encyclopedia, the evolution of new species is so gradual as to make it impossible to detect. This inability to presently observe or detect the process of speciation occurring leaves all of us in the following situation. We cannot observe the actual transition of one type of plant or animal into a new, distinct type. We can only observe the presence of different existing types of plants and animals that already cannot interbreed. It must be pointed out here that in terms of what we can actually observe, all that we can actually observe is static lineages of organisms that already cannot interbreed. This is fundamentally confirming of the creationist theory concerning kinds, a theory which predicts that there will be no evidence ever observed of one kind of organisms evolving into another but instead that each kind only reproduces its same kind. It would appear that this prediction is irrefutably true: it is simply not even possible to observe the arrival of a new species or kind.

Consequently, since we cannot observe speciation today, the only potential way to observe transformations of one species into another is the fossil record. While evolution takes too long for any human to observe its occurrence, in evolutionary theory the fossil record spans the history of the earth. And so, at least in principle, there is a “recording” that has been going on long enough to “record” evolution and allow us to see what happened over periods of time that are longer than human beings actually live.

However, the observational problems discussed above are not limited only to what we currently can observe. These problems infect the fossil record as well. There are only 2 ways to identify distinct species: distinct form (also known as morphology) and the inability to interbreed. Neither of these methods works for the fossil record.

On a definitional point, it should be noted that the term “morphology” simply refers to “the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.”

“Morphology – 1a: a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants b: the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.” – Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

According to Britannica Encyclopedia, although “different species” are “recognized by their different morphologies” (forms and structures), species that can no longer interbreed “are often morphologically indistinguishable” from one another in the fossil record. Furthermore, even if there were some minor morphological differences between them, by its very nature the fossil record simply cannot reveal whether or not 2 fossilized organisms were capable of interbreeding. As indicated in the quote below, the fossil record simply does not provide any information regarding the ability to interbreed. And according to Britannica, this problem of demonstrating speciation from the fossil record is considered “insuperable,” which means that this problem simply cannot be solved.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from any other such groups. Speciation involves, therefore, the development of reproductive isolation between populations previously able to interbreed… Paleontologists recognize species by their different morphologies as preserved in the fossil record, but fossils cannot provide evidence of the development of reproductive isolation because new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestors are often morphologically indistinguishable from them…This situation creates an insuperable difficulty for resolving the question whether morphological evolution is always associated with speciation events. If speciation is defined as the evolution of reproductive isolation, the fossil record provides no evidence of a necessary association between speciation and morphological change.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Additionally, the fossil record only shows gross morphological structure, which means obvious, external morphological structure. It cannot reveal any potential changes that might have been taking place in the “genetic makeup” of the overall organism.

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Fossils primarily show gross morphological changes, whereas changes taking place in genetic makeup could be extensive even though overall body structures do not reveal these shifts in populations of species.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

These limitations simply make it impossible to use the fossil record to determine whether or not organisms that look alike in terms of form or structure were different species or even in the process of becoming different species. And this is why Microsoft Encarta’s article on evolution concludes that “the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development” are not “of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species.”

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – In addition, the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development according to the modern synthesis are themselves not necessarily of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species, however complete it might be over a given stretch of time.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Simply put, not only can we not detect or observe the process of speciation actually occurring today, but the fossil record cannot reveal the genetic buildup of beneficial mutations necessary for speciation, whether or not organisms that have the same basic structure could interbreed, or even whether or not organisms of slightly different size and shape might be able to interbreed. And since the buildup of new genetic material and the inability to reproduce are evolution’s defining marks of speciation (specifically the origin of new kind of organisms), the fossil record is inherently incapable of supporting either of these 2 essential aspects of the evolutionary origin of species, even in principle. Once again, the changes are either so small or so undetectable that they escape the fossil record just as much as they inherently evade observation today.

Consequently, this demonstrates our first point, what present observation and the fossil record cannot show.

What happens to falsifiability if the evolution of species cannot be observed today or in the fossil record? How can it be confirmed? How could it be disconfirmed, disproved, or falsified even in principle if it is of such a nature that there will be no way to observe it even in a fossil record of billions of years? What possible evidence could there conceivably ever be that could falsify a theory that by its very nature escapes detection and recording in the observable evidence? These facts make evolutionary speciation beyond detection and beyond either confirmation or disconfirmation by the available evidence, which relegates this theory to the realm of the unscientific.

This leads us to our second issue, what present observation and the fossil record does not show us. The fossil record does not contain transitional forms showing one species or kind of organism in transition to becoming another. If the fossil record is taken to be a record of biological history on earth, then the fossil record actually records that there were no transitional forms where the actual evolution from one species or kind to another is taking place.

So much is this acknowledged within the evolutionary community, that it has become a subject of debate centering on the 2 alternative views of punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. As we examine these 2 versions of how the origin of species occurs, we will see further demonstration of how the evolutionary theory of speciation is constructed in such a way as to evade any potential falsification by observable. The two alternate views on speciation within the evolutionary community center on exactly how evolutionary speciation occurs in the real world, does it happen slowly and gradually or more all-at-once in quick, shorter bursts.

“Fossil, IV LEARNING FROM FOSSILS, A Evolution – The fossil record suggests that evolution may have progressed at different rates-sometimes gradually, and at other times in short bursts…This is difficult to prove, however, because sedimentation is rarely continuous over long periods of time.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

These 2 views are known as punctuated equilibrium, which asserts the position of quick, large-scale changes, and gradualism, which asserts the position of slow, gradual changes. To understand these 2 evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record and the reasoning behind each of them, we first need to understand a few simple facts about the fossil record itself.

The first fact is that there are gaps in the fossil record. The fossil record is divided up into strata. And where one stratum meets the strata above or below it, there is estimated to be tens of thousands of years of history that is unrecorded between any 2 strata.

“Evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – The fossil record indicates that morphological evolution is by and large a gradual process. Major evolutionary changes are usually due to a building up over the ages of relatively small changes. But the fossil record is discontinuous. Fossil strata are separated by sharp boundaries; accumulation of fossils within a geologic deposit (stratum) is fairly constant over time, but the transition from one stratum to another may involve gaps of tens of thousands of years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The strata themselves, which is where the fossils are present, contain no transitional forms, the “missing links” where one species or kind of organism is literally turning into another and actually appears somewhere between the two. The fact that the transitional forms are not in the fossil record was understood by Darwin from the onset of the theory of evolution.

“Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduate organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323 (Cited on “A Question of Origins,” Roger Oakland, Eternal Productions, Copyright 1998, www.creationscience.com, 43 minutes)

And it continues to be a recognized fact among evolutionists today.

“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown…” – Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section (Cited on “A Question of Origins,” Roger Oakland, Eternal Productions, Copyright 1998, www.creationscience.com, 51 minutes, 50 seconds)

(For an illustration of how the fossil record works in evolutionary theory as described in the numerous quotes below, please see Gaps in the Fossil Record Figure 1.)

In other words, it continues to be a known fact among evolutionists that transitional forms, intermediates, or “missing links” are not found in the fossil record. On this note, the following quote states that the absence of transitional forms and gradual changes in the fossil record is “a notable fact observed in the fossil record” and, as such, the meaning of this fact is “one of the issues that is currently being debated” among evolutionary theorists. This quote is important because it demonstrates the fundamental reality that evolutionary theorists still do not have an agreed-upon, working theory for this central issue of evolution, how species (and kinds of organisms) originate.

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Because understanding of the actual evolutionary events that took place over earth's long history depends largely on interpretations of an incomplete fossil record, much latitude remains for differences in such interpretations. One of the issues that is currently being debated among theorists derives from a notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species lasts. The fossils do not seem to exhibit the slow and gradual changes that might be expected according to the modern synthesis.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The quotes below describe the difference between the punctuated equilibrium view and the gradualist view in more detail. But perhaps more importantly, the first quote below actually admits that there are “discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution” and that punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to “reconcile” the theory with the observed facts of the fossil record.

“Eldredge, Niles – American paleontologist who, with fellow paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolutionary changes occur in relatively short, abrupt bursts after long periods in which few changes take place…After several analyses of the trilobite fossil record, Eldredge concluded that trilobites evolved in short, concentrated bursts, rather than the gradual and continuous change predicted by Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution. In 1972 Eldredge collaborated with Gould to publish the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to reconcile the discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution. In his theory of punctuated equilibrium, Eldredge postulates that species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, only to be abruptly replaced by newer and more successful forms-sporadic changes that appear as "punctuation" in the fossil record.” – "Eldredge, Niles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Gould, Stephen Jay – He taught at Harvard University from 1967. Gould (with Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History) originated the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, a theory based on the fact that very few transitional forms are found in the fossil record. Unlike the gradualist theory, which would have species evolve gradually over long periods of time, the punctuated equilibrium theory holds that the evolution of a species consists of rapid changes in small, relatively isolated populations, followed by long periods of stability.” – "Gould, Stephen Jay," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As we can see, the issue sparking the debate is the acknowledged fact that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. This poses problems for the gradualist evolutionary view which predicts that changes are constant, slow, and gradual. If this were the case, constant, gradual intermediate forms should have made it into the fossil record. But they are not and instead, organisms remain unchanging, rather than evolving, in the fossil record. On account of this discrepancy, or “discontinuity” as Encarta describes it, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was formulated to explain why the fossil record is a record of organisms that don’t transition from one to the next. According to punctuated equilibrium, the reason that evolution has escaped recording in the fossil record is because it does not happen slowly, constantly, and gradually as was traditionally theorized, but instead happens abruptly, with major changes occurring in brief time periods that are too short to be recorded in the fossil record.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Some paleontologists have proposed that the discontinuities of the fossil record are not artifacts created by gaps in the record, but rather reflect the true nature of morphological evolution, which happens in sudden bursts associated with the formation of new species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – That is, when a new species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species lasts. The fossils do not seem to exhibit the slow and gradual changes that might be expected according to the modern synthesis. For this reason, in part, a number of evolutionists-most notably Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History-have proposed a variant concept of ‘punctuated equilibria’ for species evolution. According to this concept, species do in fact tend to remain stable for long periods of time and then to change relatively abruptly-or rather, to be replaced suddenly by newer and more successful forms. These sudden changes are the ‘punctuations’ in the state of equilibrium that give this concept its name.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Furthermore, punctuated equilibrium asserts not only that “morphological evolution” is “jerky” but also that evolution occurs on 2 levels. First, the continuous aspect of evolution is only on the genetic level, where it cannot be detected, particularly in the fossil record. And second, the actual visible, morphological change in structure occurs quickly, in events that are too rapid to be recorded in the fossil record.

“Evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – The proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model propose not only that morphological evolution is jerky but also that it is associated with speciation events. They argue that phyletic evolution—that is, evolution along lineages of descent—proceeds at two levels. First, there is continuous change through time within a population. This consists largely of gene substitutions prompted by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and other genetic processes that operate at the level of the individual organism. The punctualists maintain that this continuous evolution within established lineages rarely, if ever, yields substantial morphological changes in species. Second, they say, there is the process of origination and extinction of species, in which most morphological change occurs. According to the punctualist model, evolutionary trends result from the patterns of origination and extinction of species rather than from evolution within established lineages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, punctuated equilibrium is really a fantastic way of explaining why no evidence for evolution can be found in the fossil record even in principle and why all of the actual transitioning and transitional forms necessary for evolution to occur are not present in the recorded biological history that we call the fossil record. Thus, punctuated equilibrium itself places evolutionary theory outside the realm of falsifiabity, and subsequently outside the realm of science. So, while gradualism, which is the traditional established evolutionary view is falsified by “discontinuities” (i.e. discrepancies) it has with the fossil record, which have not been “reconciled,” punctuated equilibrium solves the problem by becoming un-falsifiable and unscientific.

However, it should also be noted that in the mainstream of evolutionary scientists, neither side, neither gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, escapes the criticisms of falsification and un-falsifiability. The reason for this is simply that most evolutionary scientists have accepted a version of evolutionary theory that merges gradualism and punctuated equilibrium together, asserting that both occur depending on the circumstances.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution –Intensive study of a favourable and abundant set of fossils may be expected to substantiate punctuated or gradual evolution in particular cases. But the argument is not about whether only one or the other pattern ever occurs; it is about their relative frequency. Some paleontologists argue that morphological evolution is in most cases gradual and only rarely jerky, whereas others think the opposite is true.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over periods of thousands of years, most evolutionists tend to consider the punctuated-equilibrium concept only another possible mode of evolutionary change that could take place along with the processes described by the modern synthesis, rather than as a supplanting model for evolution theory.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that evolutionary scientists admit that there is no way to resolve this debate and decide which of the 2 evolutionary theories is correct.

“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – The very incompleteness of the fossil record does not permit any such clear choice to be made, because the record of almost any species is highly selective over geological time. In addition, the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development according to the modern synthesis are themselves not necessarily of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species, however complete it might be over a given stretch of time. Fossils primarily show gross morphological changes, whereas changes taking place in genetic makeup could be extensive even though overall body structures do not reveal these shifts in populations of species. Arguments from the known nature of small-scale evolutionary change do not, in fact, necessarily establish long-term evolutionary events, as following either the model proposed by the modern synthesis or the one proposed by punctuated equilibrium. Evolution may just as well have proceeded along both routes.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Whether morphological evolution in the fossil record is predominantly punctuational or gradual is a much debated question. The imperfection of the record makes it unlikely that the issue will be settled in the foreseeable future.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, the fact that evolutionary theory will never be able to determine from the evidence which of these 2 views is correct inherently leaves evolution without a working theory for the origin of species. This demonstrates our second point, what present observation and the fossil record do not show. They do not show or reveal any detectable transitional forms where one species or kind of animal is turning into another.

This leads us to our third issue, what present observation and the fossil record do show. While present observation and the fossil record cannot show the evolution of species occurring and do not show any transitional forms in which one species or kind of animal is transitioning into another, present observation and the fossil record do show that new species and forms appear suddenly without the gradual, transitioning precursors predicted and necessitated by evolutionary theory AND species are static and “stable,” “remaining unchanged” for the entire time they appear in the fossil record.

“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – As was explained earlier, at specific stratigraphic boundaries certain types of fossils either appear or disappear or both in some cases. Such biostratigraphic boundaries separate larger or smaller units of time that are defined as eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Geologic Time, I INTRODUCTION – Most boundaries in recent geologic time coincide with periodic extinctions and appearances of new species…II DIVISION OF TIME – An explosion of invertebrate life marks the end of the Proterozoic and the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The Phanerozoic Eon started 570 million years before present and continues into the present…The Phanerozoic Eon is divided into the Paleozoic (570 million to 245 million years before present), Mesozoic (245 million to 65 million years before present), and Cenozoic (65 million years before present to present) Eras. The Paleozoic Era is divided into six periods. From oldest to youngest they are the Cambrian (570 million to 500 million years before present), Ordovician (500 million to 435 million years before present), Silurian (435 million to 410 million years before present), Devonian (410 million to 380 million years before present), Carboniferous (380 million to 290 million years before present), and Permian (290 million to 240 million years before present). The Paleozoic began with the appearance of many different life-forms, which are preserved as abundant fossils in rock sequences all over the world. It ended with the extinction of over 90 percent of all living organisms at the end of the Permian Period. The cause of this event is currently unknown…The Mesozoic began with the appearance of many new kinds of animals, including the dinosaurs and the ammonites, or extinct relatives of modern squid. The Mesozoic ended with another major extinction in which about 80 percent of all living organisms died. This extinction may have been the result of a large asteroid that crashed into the earth on the present-day northern Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – New species, characterized by small but discontinuous morphological changes, typically appear at the boundaries between strata, whereas the fossils within a stratum exhibit little morphological variation. That is not to say that the transition from one stratum to another always involves sudden changes in morphology; on the contrary, fossil forms often persist virtually unchanged through several geologic strata, each representing millions of years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Eldredge, Niles – In 1972 Eldredge collaborated with Gould to publish the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to reconcile the discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution. In his theory of punctuated equilibrium, Eldredge postulates that species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, only to be abruptly replaced by newer and more successful forms-sporadic changes that appear as "punctuation" in the fossil record.” – "Eldredge, Niles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So, in the same way that what we observe around us is that each species and kind only reproduces its own kind, with no detectable new species or kind emerging, the fossil record also only records the existence of static lines of organisms that appear without transitioning precursors and that remain unchanged for the millions of years and all the strata in which they appear in the fossil record. That is what present observation and the fossil record do show, static, un-evolving species and kinds of animals that do not transition into one another but remain within the same unchanging kind and species for the entire observable lineage.

(These facts are summarized and illustrated in Gaps in the Fossil Record Figure 1.)

Now, at this point we can bring this segment back around to focus on the scientific requirement of falsifiablility.

Does evolutionary theory predict that there will be large numbers of intermediate forms transitioning between one species and another and one kind and another? Yes. Do we find that prediction met by the evidence? No. Does evolution predict that species and kinds are not static but transition from one into another from the most basic to the most complex organisms on earth? Yes. Does the evidence fit that prediction? No, the evidence only shows static, non-transitioning, unchanging lineages of animals. Consequently, when the evidence records only static, non-transitioning, unchanging lineages that evolution denies while showing no transitioning forms that evolutionary theory requires, does evolutionary theory then subsequently redefine the process of speciation in such a way that it can exist even though its predictions are disconfirmed by the evidence? Yes. And does that make the evolution of species un-falsifiable by its very nature? Yes.

Therefore, as we have seen admitted openly in the quotes above, evolution is in a state in which its traditional theory is falsified by the fossil record and in which the new solution that is being proposed to avert the problems in the evidence actually relegates evolution to the realm of un-falsifiability and the realm of non-science. Furthermore, as we have also seen from the quotes above, the nature of the fossil record is such that it is admitted this dilemma for evolution is by its nature permanently unsolvable. Thus, having established this from secular and evolutionary sources, it is accurate to define evolutionary theory as lacking any actual working theory on the core issue of the origin of species.

5) Although the production of a new or different organism from an existing organism occurs in steps that are too subtle and slow to be observed directly and although the fossil record likewise contains no intermediate or transitional forms, it is advanced that all the varieties of organisms on earth today are not reproductively static, but came into being as generations of offspring from one original organism changed over time into new and different types of organisms. Beneficial gene mutations are acknowledged to be the only potential automatic, routine source for the arrival of these new types of organisms. The frequency of beneficial mutations is acknowledged to be extremely rare. And although there are probability obstacles concerning any theoretical beneficial mutation being passed on through reproduction and accumulating in an order and association necessary for new functions to result, the arrival of every variety of organism, every trait, structure, and organ, and every gene on the planet today are attributed to the automatic, routine process of beneficial mutation.

For the record, we can consider what happens if we ask the same questions above concerning creation theory and the evidence. Does creationist theory predict that there will no intermediate forms transitioning between one kind and another? Yes. Do we find that prediction met by the evidence? Yes, the fossil record and present observation reveal no detectable transitioning organisms. Does creationism predict that kinds are static and do not transition from one into another from the most basic to the most complex? Yes. Does the evidence fit that prediction? Yes, the evidence only shows static, non-transitioning, unchanging lineages of animals. Are the predictions and defining points of creation theory falsifiable in principle? Yes, the discovery of the missing, identifiable transitioning forms would disprove the creationist predictions that such forms do not exist because the lineages of kinds are static. Is creationism both scientific because it is falsifiable in principle and at the same time supported by the observable evidence? Yes.

As we conclude our expanded commentary on the theory of evolution, we see that evolution really lacks any working theory for the 2 core issues at the very center of evolution itself, the origin of life and the origin of species. The evolutionary theory on the central issue of the origin of species faces prohibitive factors on the underlying genetic level, on the practical level of how speciation actually takes place in real time and space, and on the level of the observable evidence itself. Furthermore, our 2 definitional points for evolutionary theory on the origin of species and the origin of life have been shown to be accurate representations of secular and evolutionary descriptions of evolutionary theory. This was summed up in points 4 and 5 of our definition of evolutionary theory. While points 1, 2, and 3 have not been addressed in this expanded commentary on evolutionary theory, as promised they will be covered in the remaining 2 sections of this series, the first of which entails an up-close look at 2 particular avenues of evidence that deal with the issue of time.