A big problem for Evolution?

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

No I understood, thanks.

Apparently not (more later).

You're trying to suggest that gaps in the fossil record show that evolution was not continuous.

It’s not gaps per se, but the type of gaps we observe.

I'm saying that this is clearly not the case. The fossil record contains discontinuities not because there were discontinuities in the evolutionary process, but because there were discontinuities in fossilization itself.

True, but the problem is that it would not lead to the pattern of the gaps we see. As Michael Denton said earlier...

"The fundamental problem in explaining the gaps in terms of an insufficient search or in terms of the imperfection of the record [i.e. the rarity of the fossilization procedure] is their systematic character - the fact that there are fewer transitional species between the major divisions than between the minor. Between Eohippus and the modern horse (a minor division) we have dozens of transitional species, while between a primitive land mammal and a whale (a major division) we have none"

To whatever extent Denton is correct here, these would certainly not be the type of gaps one would expect from a straightforward Darwinian model. If we have one basic type arrive on the scene--with some evolution and variations--then we have a big gap between this and the next basic type, this fits more within the limited evolution model. Why is it that the fossilization process would only fossilize lots and lots of A's in addition to lots and lots of M's but no transitional forms in between--almost as if they never existed? It is this systematic pattern of gaps that cannot be satisfactorily accounted for merely by denoting the imperfection of the fossil record. The most straightforward expectation from a Darwinian viewpoint would be gaps that are spread around more evenly, but this is not quite what we see.

The presence of these missing links is not nearly enough to derail evolution

True, but let's take a look at the different point of view regarding missing links. As one creationist put it, What do we find? Nothing, so what do we call them? Missing. Is it that we're missing the evidence, or we're asking the wrong question and the transitional forms were never there to begin with? Add to that we cannot see the types of changes necessary for the evolution of new basic types to occur, we can perhaps understand why (a minority) of scientists are intellectually skeptical of organ-evolving evolution. (Not saying that they're necessarily right, only that one understand why they believe orthodox evolution rests on shaky evidence).

as the overall trend of increasing complexity is still present, and because there do exist cases where we can see clearly the evolution of a new species in the fossil record.

Two things I should note here. (1) I agree that increasing complexity is more or less present and that creationists (and some ID adherents) have not satisfactorily accounted for the order in the fossil record. (2) However, creationists in general have rejected the fixity of species, accepting that at times evolution of new species and genera can occur. Rather, they believe the limits of evolution are somewhat broader (supposedly the limits lie within a "basic type" or "basic kind"; the more technical term is "baramin"--somewhat similar to the clade concept). Thus, the evolution of a new species in itself isn't enough to discredit creationism.