[Quotes] [Evolution, #1, #2, #4]
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.18).
[top]"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp154-155).
[top]"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L.* [Professor of Philosophy, Calvin College, USA], "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1996, pp187-188)
[top]"Homology has proved to be one of the more enigmatic of evolutionary concepts. It seems to have a clear-cut meaning, but it rapidly becomes confusing when you try to apply it to real evidence. De Beer's paper discusses the problem, as he works through one possible criterion after another and shows that none of them are adequate. Homology is undoubtedly a genuine and important concept; the problem is to spell out exactly what it means." (Ridley, Mark [Zoologist, Oxford University], "Reconstructing The Past," [1971], in Ridley M., ed., "Evolution," Oxford Readers, Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1997, p.208)
[top]"As soon as the evolution doctrine was accepted the term took on a new significance: homologous structures were now defined as those derived from the same single structure in a common ancestor) however much that structure may have been modified by subsequent variation in evolution. All the humerus bones of the terrestrial vertebrates) for instances are thought to be derived by modification over millions and millions of years from the bones of the primitive limb-like fins of the first fish-like amphibia that pioneered the conquest of the land from the water. In the same way, the hearts, the nerve cords, the eyes and so on are said to be homologous, derived by gradual modification from the original ancestral type. This seemed very simple at one time and is still spoken of by most zoologists as if it were; the fact is, however, that today the idea of homology is not quite so easy- to understand. It is a curious paradox that this concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth I believe we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory ..." (Hardy, Sir Alistair [former Professor of Zoology, Oxford University], "The Living Stream: Evolution and Man," [1965], Meridian: Cleveland OH, 1968, reprint, p.211)
[top]"Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes." (deBeer, Sir Gavin [late Professor of Embryology, University College, London and Director, British Museum of Natural History], "Homology: an unsolved problem," [1971], in Ridley M., ed., "Evolution," Oxford Readers, Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1997, pp.220-221. Emphasis in original)
[top]"Their report...is a case study in how evolution can dupe casual observers- building similarities into unrelated species and surprising differences into close cousins." (Holden, Constance [staff writer], "When Is a Mandrill Not a Baboon?" Science, Vol. 283, 12 February 1999, p931).
[top]"Critique of Current Theories of Evolution. We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models: 1. All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively. 2. Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes. 3. Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes. 4. Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence. This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic molecular evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby of its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory." (Schwabe, Christian [Department of Biochemistry, Medical Universoty of South Carolina, USA] & Warr, Gregory, "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.465-485, Spring 1984, p.467. Footnotes omitted.)
[top]"For example, the assertion that populations of organisms can change in their genetic composition from one generation to another (i.e., evolve) is undisputed, even by the creationists. To say without qualification that "all present life has evolved from more primitive forms" is unscientific because such a statement is an absolute. A scientifically acceptable restatement is that `scientists have found a great deal of evidence from many sources which they have interpreted to be consistent with the theory that all present life has evolved from more primitive forms.'" (Stansfield, William D. [Professor of Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University],"The Science of Evolution," [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p9).
[top]"We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." (Nelson, Gareth [Chairman and Curator of the Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York], interview, Bethell T., The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 1986, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p76).
[top]"If ontogeny repeated phylogeny exactly, then an ancestor of man would have lived on milk all his life and a more remote ancestor would have spent his days attached to his mother by the umbilical cord!" (Cohen, Jack & Massey, Brendan [embryologist, University of Birmingham], "Living Embryos," [1963], Pergamon Press: Oxford, Third Edition, 1982, p149)
[ top]"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89).
[top]* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 1999-2003, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only. If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated. Created: 23 November, 1999. Updated: 1 July, 2003.