There are at least seven significant approaches to macroevolution
(see Impact article 173, November 1987). Two of these types
of approach are discussed in this article.
Transformed Cladistics
The "transformed cladist" approach is a major part
of one of the three major schools of classifying organisms,
[1]*** and is "neutral or opposed
to evolutionary theorizing of any kind in systematics,"
operating instead "in a non-evolutionary domain, according
to Ball. [2] It is "at odds with
evolutionary thinking" rather than "evolutionarily
neutral," Beatty observes, [3]
and concededly "calls into question much of conventional
evolutionary history." [4] Transformed
cladistics "is fundamentally a non-evolutionary classification,"
Oldroyd notes, [5] and "is not
only anti-Darwinian" but "against evolution itself,"
Grene says. [6] The word "transformed"
refers to a "Transformation away from dependence on evolutionary
theory." [7] For example, Patterson
has serious doubts about macroevolution:
It's true that for the last eighteen months or so I've been
kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary
ideas. . . .
So this is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem
to be sharing remarkable parallels that are increasingly
hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not
only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.
[8]
Cracraft, another leading cladist, says that "neo-Darwinism
is coming apart at the seams" and has "yielded a healthy
amount of mindless pap." [9] Nelson
and Platnick, other leaders, conclude that "Darwinism .
. . is, in short, a theory that has been put to the test and
found false," and that the "Darwinian theory of systematics
. . . has been falsified." [10]
ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES
An anti-evolutionist approach is taken by many non-creationist
scientists. Olson reports that there are "some among the
biologists who feel that much of the [macroevolutionary] theory
accepted by the majority today is actually false."[11]
Kerkut, a leading biochemist who has edited a significant series
of books on physiology and teaches at the University of Southampton,
systematically assesses the evidence for macroevolution and
finds it weak:
What conclusions, then, can one come to concerning the validity
of the various implications of the theory of evolution? If
we go back to our initial assumptions it will be seen that
the evidence is still lacking for most of them. [12]
Lipson, a British physicist, rejects macroevolution based on
his scientific analysis of it:
I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution
because of its ability to account for any property of living
beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have
therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over
the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I
do not think that they do.
To my mind, the theory does not stand up at
all. [13]
Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, discards Darwinism
and macroevolution based on his assessment of the evidence:
In this book I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting
a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model,
ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried
to show why I believe that the problems are too severe
and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in
terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently
the conservative view is no longer tenable.
The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the
idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon,
runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.
. . . [14]
Sermonti, the senior editor of Rivista di Biologia (Biology
Forum), professor of genetics at University of Perugia,
and former director of the Genetics Institute of the University
of Palermo (Italy), and Fondi, an Italian paleontologist, reject
macroevolution because of its scientific weakness. [15]
If we wish to keep to the substance of the matter, the new
scientific Weltanschauung not only brings to mind the ideas
of many distinguished men such as Goethe, Cuvier, Linnaeus,
Vico, Leibniz, Paracelsus, Cusano and Aristotle, but . . .
the traditional view of a cosmos or systema naturae
perceived as a static whole. . . .
The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only
be the following: biology will receive no advantage
from following the teachings of Lamarck, Darwin and
the modern hyper-Darwinists; indeed, it must as quickly as
possible leave the narrow straits and blind alleys
of the evolutionistic myth and resume its certain journey
along the open and illuminated paths of tradition.
Vernet, in France, reaches a similar conclusion. [16]
Historically, most of the leading scientists at the time of
Darwin rejected and continued to reject macroevolution. Hull
acknowledges that their reasons were mostly honest scientific
considerations rather than religious bigotry. [17]
In the early 1900s, Fleischmann was a "competent zoologist"
who "called the [macroevolutionary] theory a beautiful
myth not substantiated by any factual foundation," according
to Mayr. [18]
Some recent popular writers have launched attacks on Darwinism
and all explanations of macroevolution, such as Hitching [19]
, " etc. Taylor ("inadequate, implausible, or definitely
wrong"), [20] Rifkin, [21]
Himmelfarb, [22] and Koestler. [23]
All the authors cited in this subsection, while rejecting the
theory of abrupt appearance, also reject Darwinian explanations
of both major schools (the neo-Darwinian synthesis and punctuated
equilibria).
SUMMARY
Of the various scientific approaches to macroevolution besides
the theory of abrupt appearance, classical Darwinism is "wrong"
on key issues, neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibria cancel
each other by denying the sufficiency of the other's mechanism,
and three approaches are anti-Darwinian with one opposing and
a second being agnostic toward macroevolution. Classical Darwinism
"was wrong" that fossils "would fill in these
gaps" (Eldredge and Tattersall), [24]
that gradualism could explain the "extreme rarity of transitional
forms" (Gould), [25] and that
acquired traits could be inherited by a "pangenesis theory"
(Rosen). [26] Neo-Darwinism is also
"effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook
orthodoxy" (Gould), [27] has
had its "obituary" written (Platnick), [28]
is "very flimsy" in its "explanation of macroevolution"
(Saunders), [29] and is "incoherent"
(Cracraft), [30] according to punctuated
equilibria proponents and others. Punctuated equilibria, in
turn, is not "an important explanation for the evolution
of complex adaptations" or macroevolution (Dawkins), [31]
neo-Darwinians reply.
Anti-Darwinians consist of "a significant minority of
first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves
to accept the validity of Darwinian claims" (Denton), [32]
such as evolutionary saltationists, neutral selectionists, structuralists,
non-equilibrium thermodynamics advocates, and others. Examples
are Lovtrup's recent Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth
(1987), Ho's and Saunder's Beyond Neo-Darwinism (1984),
Ambrose's The Nature and Origin of the Biological World
(1982), and Grasse's The Evolution of Living Organisms
(trans. 1977). Transformed cladists operate "in a non-evolutionary
domain" and are "neutral or opposed to evolutionary
theorizing" (Ball), [33] such
as Patterson, who has "been kicking around non-evolutionary
or even anti-evolutionary ideas" while concluding that
macroevolution "seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge"
(Patterson). [34]
Anti-evolutionists include Denton's Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis (1985) with its "anti-evolutionary thesis"
(Denton), [35] Sermonti's and Fondi's
Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980), and others
who find that "the evidence is still lacking" for
most macroevolutionary postulates (Kerkut). [36]
In such a climate of scientific dispute, it is clear to all
but the blinded zealots that Darwinism and macroevolution are
not compellingly established or immune to criticism.
REFERENCES
[1] Cladistics is a "philosophy
of classification that arranges organisms only by their order
of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological
similarity." S. Lura, S. Gould and S. Singer, A View
of Life 763 (1981). See also Platnich, Philosophy and
the Transformation of Cladists, 28 Systematic Zoology
537, 538 (1979).
[2] Ball, On Groups, Existence
and the Ordering of Nature, 32 Systematic Zoology 446,
446 (1983).
[3] Beatty, Classes and Cladists,
31 Systematic Zoology 25, 31 (1982).
[4] Patterson, Cladistics and Classification,
94 New Scientist 303, 306 (1982).
[5] Oldroyd, Charles Darwin's Theory
of Evolution: A Review of Present Understanding. 1 Biology
and Philosophy 133, 154 (1983) (italics added).
[6] Grene, Introduction to
Dimensions of Darwinism 1 (M. Grene ed. 1983).
[7] Patterson, Cladistics,
27 Biologist 234 (1980) ("But as the theory of cladistics
had developed, it has been realized that more and more of
the evolutionary framework is inessential, and may be dropped.
. . . Platnick refers to the new theory as `transformed cladistics'
and the transformation is away from dependence on evolutionary
theory. Indeed, Gareth Nelson, who is chiefly responsible
for the transformation, put it like this in a letter to me
this summer: `In a way, I think we are merely rediscovering
preevolutionary systematics; or if not rediscovering it, fleshing
it out.'"); Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Paleontological
Stories, in Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction 119,
119, 124 (K. Joysey and A. Friday eds. 1982).
[8] Address of Dr. Colin Patterson
at American Museum of Natural History, tr. at 1, 4(Nov. 5,
1981) (italics added).
[9] Cracraft, Book Reviews,
1 Cladistics 300, 300 (1985).
[10] Nelson and Platnich, Systematics
and Evolution, in Beyond Neo-Darwinism 143, 143-146 (M.
Ho and P. Saunders eds. 1984).
[11] Olson, Morphology, Paleontology,
and Evolution. 1 Evolution after Darwin 523, 523 (S.
Tax ed. 1960).
[12] G. Kerkut, Morphology,
Paleontology, and Evolution 150 (1960).
[13] Lipson, A Physicist Looks
at Evolution, 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138 (1980).
[14] M. Denton, Evolution:A
Theory in Crisis 16, 353 (1985) (italics added).
[15] G. Sermonti and R. Fondi, Dopo
Darwin:Critica all Evoluzionismo (1980), translated
by Montalenti, Darwinism Today, 77 Scientia 21, 29
(1983) (italics in original). See also Sermonti and Sermonti,
The null hypothesis in vertebrate evolution, 80 Rivista
di Biologia (Biology Forum) 55 (1987).
[16] M. Vernet, Revolution en
Biologie (1969); M. Vernet, La Grande Illusion de Teilhard
de Chardin (1964); M. Vernet, L'Evolution du Monde Vivant
(1950).
[17] D. Hull, Darwin and His Critics
450-51 (1973) (U. of Chicago Press).
[18] E. Mayr, The Growth of Biological
Thought 218 (1982) (Harvard U. Press).
[19] F. Hitching, The Neck of
the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982).
[20] G. Taylor, The Great Evolution
Mystery 137-38 (1983) ("the theory of evolution by
natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or
definitely wrong").
[21] J. Rifkin, Algeny 135
(1983) ("Darwin and his twentieth-century apologists
have been in error.")
[22] G. Himmelfarb, Darwin and
the Darwinian Revolution (1959).
[23] A. Koestler, Janus: A Summing
Up 185 (1978).
[24] N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall,
The Myths of Human Evolution 45-46 (1982).
[25] Gould, Evolution's Erratic
Pace, Natural History, May 1977, at 13, 14.
[26] Rosen, Book Review, 27
Systematic Zoology 370 370 (1978).
[27] Gould, Is a new and general
theory of evolution emerging? 6 Paleobiology 120-21 (1980).
[28] Macbeth, How To Defuse a
Feud, Kronos, Summer 1982, at 1, 3-4.
[29] Saunders, Book Review,
New Scientist, Feb. 21, 1985, at 44, 44.
[30] Cracraft, Book Review of
Beyond Neo-Darwinism, 1 Cladistics 300, 303 (1985).
[31] R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
226 (1986).
[32] M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis 327 (1985).
[33] Ball, On Groups, Existence
and the Ordering of Nature, 32 Systematic Zoology 446,
446 (1983).
[34] Address of Dr. Colin Patterson
at American Museum of Natural History, tr. at 1, 4 (Nov. 5,
1981).
[35] M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis 16, 353 (1985)
[36] G. Kerkut, Implications of
Evolution 150 (1960).
* This impact article is an extension of Impact Article
173 (Acts & Facts, November 1987). Both are excerpted
from a new book entitled The Origin of Species Revisited:
The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance (New
York, NY, 10025: Philosophical Library, P.O. Box 785, Cathedral
Station, 215 West 104th Street, at $19.95 per volume, special
price before February 28, 1988 (regular $26.95 thereafter).
** Wendell R. Bird, who argued the U.S. Supreme Court
case on creation and evolution, is an Atlanta attorney, Yale
Law School graduate, and bar member in Georgia, California,
Alabama, and Florida.
*** All authors quoted are non-creationists, and
their statements are not intended as endorsements of creation.