Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists ignoring stasis [no evolution change for eons] is “denialism”, physicist charges

arroba Email

David Tyler reports that “The earliest pterobranch reveals stasis”:

A modern-day pterobranch genus is Rhabdopleura. An informative description is provided here. Comparing the new fossil and Rhabdopleura leads to the exclamation: “You don’t look a day over 500 million years. You and Rhabdopleura could be sisters”. The detail has led to comments such as this from co-author Professor David Siveter: “Amazingly, it has exceptionally preserved soft tissues — including arms and tentacles used for feeding — giving unrivalled insight into the ancient biology of the group.” The significant finding is that the earliest fossil hemichordate zooid looks remarkably similar to Rhabdopleura.”Galeaplumosus abilus demonstrates stasis in pterobranch morphology, mode of coenecium construction, and probable feeding mechanism over 525 million years.”

The phenomenon of stasis is something Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have struggled with. Their theory predicts gradualism, but gradualism is not what the fossil record delivers. Darwinists have sought to evade the evidence by appealing to an impoverished fossil record, but we have reached the stage where this retort must be interpreted as a form of denialism.


[Note: correction from earlier today in 2nd paragraph.]

SCheesman: Thanks for spotting this. Collin: It will be a big step forward when the issue of 'limits to variation' is taken seriously. Darwinism has taught generations of biologists that observed variations can be extrapolated to account for all species, novel structures, body plans and the like. One day, we shall see this as dogma posing as science. Extrapolation needs to be tested and shown to be justified. David Tyler
Type update: The original is:
Their theory predicts gradualism, but gradualism is not what the fossil record delivers.
I think we need to be careful about on the one hand quoting Henry Gee's comments on deep time while on the other hand crowing about lack of changes within a fossil species. How do we even know they are related? There is certainly some sort of fallacy here: B looks like A, therefore B is an instance of A, therefore A remained unchanged for x million years. Mung
I like his comments about Mendel and the stasis being within the "genus" level. I think that Hugh Ross would say that these species have had variation but that that variation stays with in the "created kinds." Collin
Typo alert: Their theory predicts gradualism, but stasis is not what the fossil record delivers. Remove the "not"? SCheesman

Leave a Reply