| The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium In an earlier chapter,
we examined how the fossil record clearly invalidates the hypotheses of the Darwinist
theory. We saw that the different living groups in the fossil record emerged suddenly,
and stayed fixed for millions of years without undergoing any changes. This great
discovery of paleontology shows that living species exist with no evolutionary
processes behind them. This fact was ignored for many years
by paleontologists, who kept hoping that imaginary "intermediate forms" would
one day be found. In the 1970s, some paleontologists accepted that this was an
unfounded hope and that the "gaps" in the fossil record had to be accepted as
a reality. However, because these paleontologists were unable to relinquish the
theory of evolution, they tried to explain this reality by modifying the theory.
And so was born the "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution,
which differs from neo-Darwinism in a number of respects. This
model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970s by the paleontologists
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum
of Natural History. They summarized the evidence presented by the fossil record
as revealing two basic characteristics: 1. Stasis 2.
Sudden appearance 172 In order to
explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed
that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin
had maintained, but by sudden, large ones. This
theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster"
theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s.
Schindewolf suggested that living things evolved not, as neo-Darwinism had proposed,
gradually over time through small mutations, but suddenly through giant ones.
When giving examples of his theory, Schindewolf claimed that the first bird in
history had emerged from a reptile egg by a huge mutation-in other words, through
a giant, coincidental change in genetic structure.173 According
to this theory, some land animals might have suddenly turned into giant whales
through a comprehensive change that they underwent. This fantastic theory of Schindewolf's
was taken up and defended by the Berkeley University geneticist Richard Goldschmidt.
But the theory was so inconsistent that it was quickly abandoned. The
factor that obliged Gould and Eldredge to embrace this theory again was, as we
have already established, that the fossil record is at odds with the Darwinistic
notion of step by step evolution through minor changes. The fact of stasis and
sudden emergence in the record was so empirically well supported that they had
to resort to a more refined version of the "hopeful monster" theory again to explain
the situation. Gould's famous article "Return of the Hopeful Monster" was a statement
of this obligatory step back.174 Gould and
Eldredge did not just repeat Schindewolf's fantastic theory, of course. In order
to give the theory a "scientific" appearance, they tried to develop some kind
of mechanism for these sudden evolutionary leaps. (The interesting term, "punctuated
equilibrium," they chose for this theory is a sign of this struggle to give it
a scientific veneer.) In the years that followed, Gould and Eldredge's theory
was taken up and expanded by some other paleontologists. However, the punctuated
equilibrium theory of evolution was based on even more contradictions and inconsistencies
than the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.
The Mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium
The punctuated equilibrium theory
of evolution, in its present state, holds that living populations show no changes
over long periods of time, but stay in a kind of equilibrium. According to this
viewpoint, evolutionary changes take place in short time frames and in very restricted
populations-that is, the equilibrium is divided into separate periods or, in other
words, "punctuated." Because the population is very small, large mutations are
chosen by natural selection and thus enable a new species to emerge. For
instance, according to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions
of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves
this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is
not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this
restricted group. The group evolves rapidly, and in a short time turns into another
species of reptile, or even a mammal. Because this process happens very quickly,
and in a small population, there are very few fossils of intermediate forms left
behind, or maybe none. On close examination, this theory was
actually proposed to develop an answer to the question, "How can one imagine
an evolutionary period so rapid as not to leave any fossils behind it?"
Two basic hypotheses are accepted while developing this answer: 1.
that macromutations-wide-ranging mutations leading to large changes in living
creatures' genetic make-up-bring advantages and produce new genetic information;
and 2. that small animal populations have greater potential
for genetic change. However, both of these hypotheses are clearly
at odds with scientific knowledge.
The Misconception About Macromutations
The first hypothesis-that macromutations
occur in large numbers, making the emergence of new species possible-conflicts
with known facts of genetics. One rule, put
forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best known geneticists, and
based on observations, clearly invalidates this hypothesis. Fisher states in his
book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection that the likelihood that a particular
mutation will become fixed in a population is inversely proportional to its effect
on the phenotype.175 Or, to put it another way, the bigger
the mutation, the less chance it has of becoming a permanent trait within the
group. It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations,
as we have seen in earlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes,
and never have a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary:
individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses and deformities. For
this reason, the more an individual is affected by mutation, the less chance it
has of surviving. Ernst Mayr, the doyen of Darwinism, makes
this comment on the subject: The
occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they
are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'.
They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of
escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation
affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that
such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying
a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a
suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive
isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable
difficulties.176 It is obvious
that mutations cannot bring about evolutionary development, and this fact places
both neo-Darwinism and the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible
difficulty. Since mutation is a destructive mechanism, the macromutations that
proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro" destructive
effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations in the regulatory genes
in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness which applies to other mutations, applies
to these, as well. The problem is that mutation is a random change: any kind of
random change in a structure as complex as genetic data will lead to harmful results.
Two famous proponents
of the punctuated evolution model: Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. |
In their book The Natural Limits to Biological Change,
the geneticist Lane Lester and the population biologist Raymond Bohlin describe
the blind alley represented by the notion of macromutation: The
overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate
source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with
the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations
to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters
have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties
produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let
alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations
are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes,
then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of
the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences… But one
thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great
or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article
of faith than fact.177 Observation
and experiment both show that mutations do not enhance genetic data, but rather
damage living things. Therefore, it is clearly irrational for proponents of the
punctuated equilibrium theory to expect greater success from "mutations" than
the mainstream neo-Darwinists have found.
The Misconception About Restricted Populations
The second concept stressed by
the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations."
By this, they mean that the emergence of new species comes about in communities
containing very small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, large
populations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintain their "stasis."
But small groups sometimes become separated from these communities, and these
"isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves. (It is hypothesized that this
usually stems from geographical conditions.) Macromutations are supposed to be
most effective within such small, inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation"
can take place. But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium
theory insist so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is
clear: Their aim is provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms
in the fossil record. However, scientific
experiments and observations carried out in recent years have revealed that being
in a restricted population is not an advantage from the genetic point
of view, but rather a disadvantage. Far from developing in such a way
as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic
defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must
continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous
individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which
are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and
sickness increase within the population.178 In
order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred population of
chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual chickens became progressively
weaker from the genetic point of view over time. Their egg production fell from
100 to 80 percent of individuals, and their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent.
But when chickens from other regions were added to the population, this trend
toward genetic weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new
genes from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health
of the population returned to normal.179 This
and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim by the proponents
of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populations are the source of evolution
has no scientific validity.
Conclusion
Richard Dawkins, busy indoctrinating
the young through Darwinist propaganda. | Scientific
discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuated equilibrium theory of
evolution. The claim that organisms in small populations can swiftly evolve with
macromutations is actually even less valid than the model of evolution proposed
by the mainstream neo-Darwinists. So, why has this theory become
so popular in recent years? This question can be answered by looking at the debates
within the Darwinist community. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium
theory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such famous paleontologists
as Steven Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M. Stanley, clearly see that the
fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory. However, they have conditioned themselves
to believe in evolution, no matter what. So for this reason they have resorted
to the punctuated equilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part
for the facts of the fossil record. On the other hand, geneticists,
zoologists, and anatomists see that there is no mechanism in nature which can
give rise to any "punctuations," and for this reason they insist on defending
the gradualistic Darwinist model of evolution. The Oxford University zoologist
Richard Dawkins fiercely criticizes the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium
model of evolution, and accuses them of "destroying the theory of evolution's
credibility."
The result of this
dialogue of the deaf is the scientific crisis the theory of evolution now faces.
We are dealing with an evolution myth which agrees with no experiments or observations,
and no paleontological discoveries. Every evolutionist theoretician tries to find
support for the theory from his own field of expertise, but then enters into conflict
with discoveries from other branches of science. Some people try to gloss over
this confusion with superficial comments such as "science progresses by means
of academic disputes of this kind." However, the problem is not that the mental
gymnastics in these debates are being carried out in order to discover a correct
scientific theory; rather, the problem is that speculations are being advanced
dogmatically and irrationally in order to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably
false. However, the theoreticians of punctuated
equilibrium have made one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science:
They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution.
Phillip Johnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution,
has described Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuated equilibrium
theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."180 Gorbachev
thought that there were defects in the Communist state system of the Soviet Union
and tried to "reform" that system. However, the problems which he thought were
defects were in fact fundamental to the nature of the system itself. That is why
Communism melted away in his hands. The same fate will soon
await Darwinism and the other models of evolution. | 
