Zoogenesis: a theory of desperation (Evo admitted creationists explain fossil gaps better)

Journal of Creation ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Zoogenesis—a theory of desperation

by Russell Grigg

Austin H. Clark (1880–1954) was an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages.¹ Not many people have heard of him today, because he had a major problem with Darwinism, and to get around this he proposed a new theory, which challenged the evolutionary orthodoxy of his contemporaries.

The problem

In an extraordinary book, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis,² Clark showed that there was no evidence that any major type of plant or animal had evolved from or into any other type. He wrote, ‘When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence “This is a crustacean”—or a starfish, or a brachiopod, or an annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be.’ This is because all these fossils look so much like their living counterparts today. He pointed out that none of today’s definitions of the phyla or major groups of animals needs to be altered to include the fossils, and he said, ‘[I]t naturally follows that throughout the fossil record these major groups have remained essentially unchanged … the interrelationships between them likewise have remained unchanged.’³

He even said, ‘Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.’⁴

His solution: a new theory...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[kittymyrib]

Shhh...there are some present on FR who fervently believe that their ancestors were monkeys. We must be sensitive to their religious beliefs.

[subterfuge]

I’m like you. I like to get in on the Evo threads before they go all twitchy.

Everybody stand back!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alberta's Child]

In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed a theory they called "punctuated equilibria," namely that major changes between types happened so fast (geologically speaking), and in such small isolated populations, they didn’t leave any evidence that they had occurred at all. This means that the evidence to support their theory was the fact that there was no evidence!

Gotta love this kind of rationale. LOL.

[SandWMan]

Go man, go! If this forum had “smilies”, I’d give you a “thumbsup”.

[SandWMan]

Let the name calling begin in 3...2....1....

[BereanBrain]

some also believe in global warming, Darwinism, and life came from other planets (never mind that explaining the genesis of life by saying it came from another planet equates to intellectual dishonesty)

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

There aren’t enough molecules in the universe to support this kind of probability. The “Tree of Life” was the only hope of the Evos. Even then it was far-fetched. Now, it’s impossible.

[ZULU]

“1 Not many people have heard of him today, because he had a major problem with Darwinism, “

Yeah. He is well respectd among fans of the Flat-Earth Theory and the Geocentric Universe.

[subterfuge]

NEANDERTHAL!! Well, I used to be, apparently.

[Liberty1970]

Evolution is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand you have the paleontologists who know that there is no evidence for evolution at the higher taxonomic orders. On the other hand you have straightforward mathematical calculations (such as Dr. Behe discusses in The Edge of Evolution) that prove that is evolution occurs, it *must* occur one mutation at a time on a gradualistic pathway. (Or 2 mutations together at a time, maximum, for bacterial populations)

This is because on average there is one mutation out of about 100,000,000 copying events. The population size of larger critters is thus too small to expect that any given combination of 2 mutations will occur in the same individual at the same time. For example, suppose there is a species of deer with a population size of 10,000,000. On average every 10 generations you would get a mutation of any given bit of DNA. But the odds of getting two specific mutations together would be astronomically low, even over millions of years.

So if animals evolved from common ancestors, there absolutely should be long, amply-documented fossil lineages showing gradual evolution over time. Even with the imperfection of the fossil record we should see plenty of bits and pieces of this evolutionary happening. Instead we just see the 'tips' of the evolutionary tree - never the trunk or main branches. True, evolutionists seize on a tiny handful of examples, but it is far too tiny to impress the skeptic much. Thus you get folks like this author, who obviously (with 600+ articles under his belt) was more familiar with the data than most evolutionary true believers.

[Liberty1970]

Yeah. He is well respectd among fans of the Flat-Earth Theory and the Geocentric Universe.

You apparently don't grasp that he was an evolutionist trying to salvage evolution. It is evolutionists who aren't dealing with the evidence, like Clark at least was, who are the real flat-earthers.

[DManA]

LOL, there is name calling in the title of thread.

[sickoflibs]

RE “He even said, ‘Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.’4 His solution: a new theory...”

I went to the link and found no alternative creationist argument or theory at all, contrary to the above misleading text. It's just more of the same. "evolution is bad, evolution is evil , bla-bla-bla "

[GodGunsGuts]

==Instead we just see the ‘tips’ of the evolutionary tree

That is why the Evos are FINALLY cutting down Darwin’s tree. Indeed, the way the evos are describing the evidence now sounds an awful lot like a creationist prediction of an orchard/forest of life!

[GodGunsGuts]

Reread the article. It was the Evo who proposed the new theory, not the creationists.

[raygunfan]

and itz also false as far as gould, dawkins, et al tried to foist upon the public..

YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE...

THE PERSON WHO CONTINUES TO BUMP THE HOUSE OF CARDS OF EVOLUTIONISM, PLEASE REPORT TO THE FRONT DESK FOR FRESH OSTRACIZATION...

[editor-surveyor]

"there is name calling in the title of thread."

And what would those names be?