A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
John Scopes George Gaylord Simpson
George Gaylord Simpson (1902 – 84) Alexander Agassiz Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology at Harvard Web Amazon GBS QMP
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) p. 107
A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervading in nature, in the general structure of animals and plants, in the mechanisms of their various organs, and in the give and take of their relationships with each other. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science. ''The problem of plan and purpose in Nature" Scientific Monthly June 1947 p. 481
The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems. The Meaning of Evolution (1949) p.14
Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material. The Meaning of Evolution (1949) p.344
In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.Major Features of Evolution (1953) p.360
THE BOOK before you is one of the most important ever written. No other modern work has done so much to change man’s concept of himself and of the universe in which he lives. Before Darwin the physical sciences were already well established. They had abandoned the magical and the supernatural in seeking to understand the operations of the physical universe. They had developed the basic principles of all truly scientific investigation: that natural causes should be sought for natural phenomena, and that scientific theories must be testable and tested, in terms of objective, repeatable observations. However, the most important of all phenomena, those of life, were not yet generally approached in that fully scientific wary. The usual attempts to explain the nature of life, the diversity of living things, their marvelous adaptations, and other fundamental aspects of the living world were still metaphysical, at best, and often frankly supernatural. The Origin of Species (1962) p.5
Virtually all biochemists agree that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter and that it would almost inevitably arise on sufficiently similar young planets elsewhere.The Nonprevelence of Humanioids February 21 1964 p.771
Given ample time and rather simple circumstances not likely to be unique in the universe, there does seem to be considerable probability , perhaps even inevitability, in the progress from dissociated atoms to macromolecules. The further organization of those molecules into cellular life would seem, on the face of it, to have a far different, very much lower order of probability. It is not impossible, because we know it did happen at least once. The Nonprevelence of Humanioids February 21 1964 p.772
Biology that is truly such, that is, a study of living things, inevitably and always has a historical factor, and the physical principles of repeatability, predictability, and parity of prediction and explanation do not apply to the historical aspects of biology.
Organisms, of course, have various characteristics in common, in degrees varying from such minimal resemblance as between, say, a man and a sequoia to the maximal resemblance of identical twins. Nevertheless, no two organisms, not even identical twins, are exactly alike. Each is the product of a history both individual and racial, and each history is different from any other, both unique and inherently unrepeatable. These aspects of biology deal not with the immanent, the inherent and changeless characteristics of the universe, but with contingency, its states, fleeting and in ceaseless change, each derived from everything that went before and conditioning everything that will follow. The possibilities of prediction are loose and limited, in principle because contingent states are unique and never exactly repeated, and even more so in practice because the historical antecedents are enormously complex and practically unknowable in complete detail. These facts also rule out the parity of prediction and explanation. Part of the explanation of what an organism is obliviously depends on what its ancestors were, what chances have occurred, and why and how. This is explanation after the fact, a posteriori, or by what ahs peen called postdiciton. It is quite different from prediction, and the possibilities of prediction in an evolutionary sequence are decidedly limited. Thus principles firmly advanced as applicable to the philosophy of science in general are not in fact applicable to some of the most important aspects o biology. In this crisis surely it is obvious that the solution is not to restrict the scope of biology, practically excluding its most characteristic and most important aspects, but to broaden the scope of scientific principle and philosophy. Biology and Man (1969) p.9-10
Philip SkellEvan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University Web Amazon GBS
Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? August 29, 2005
To conflate contemporary scientific studies of existing organisms with those of the paleontologists serves mainly to misguide the public and teachers of the young. An examination of the papers in the National Academy of Sciences’ premiere journal,
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as well as many other journals and the Nobel awards for biological discoveries, supports the crucial distinction I am making.
Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today's cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science. The Dangers of Overselling Evolution February 23 2009
The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.
Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.
Grafton Elliot Smith (1871 - 1937) Professor of Anatomy at the University of London Web GBS
Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn's announcement of the discovery, in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska, of a fossil tooth, which he and his distinguished colleagues in the American Museum of Natural History are unanimous in regarding as evidence of the former existence in America of a higher representative of the Order Primates, either a new genus of anthropoid apes of of an extremely primitive member of the human family, is an event of momentous importance to every student of the history of the human family.
For many years an experience geologist, Mr. Harold J. Cook, has been collecting the remains of the extinct fauna that lived in Western Nebraska in Pliocene times; and fourteen years ago he collaborated with Dr. W. D. Matthew, the distinguished paleontologist of the American Museum (upon whom three years ago our Royal Society conferred its fellowship), and compiled a remarkable inventory of the wonderful collection of mammalian remains found by them and others in a Pliocene deposit which they then distinguished as the Snake Creek beds. Since then Mr. Cook has continued the work of collecting, and has acquired a thorough knowledge of the stratigraphy and an insight into the circumstances under which fossils are discovered. Hence he is not likely to have been deceived as to the horizon in which a particular fragment was found. When, some months ago (Feb. 25, 1922) he wrote to Professor Osborn, President of the American Museum in New York, to say that he had obtained from the Upper, or Hipparion phase, of the Snake Creek beds "a molar tooth that very closely approaches the human type," the accuracy and reliability of Mr. Cook's identification of its geological age and provenance was not questioned. For he explained that "it was found associated with the other typical fossils o the Snake creek, and is mineralized in the same fashion as they are." His claim that "whatever it is, it is certainly a contemporary fossil of the Upper Snake Creek horizon, and agrees far more closely with the anthropoid-human molar than that of any other mammal known," has been fully confirmed by the investigations of Professor Osborn and Drs. Matthew and Gregory, who have an unrivalled experience of the scientific study of mammalian fossilized teeth.
Dr. Gregory arrived at the important conclusion that "on the whole we think its nearest resemblances are with Pithecanthropus, and with men rather than with apes." This conclusion was based upon the study of the features of the tooth; and the claim that it was human was further corroborated by the degree and kind of "wear," which was unlike that found in any ape, but of the same nature as occurs in the different genera of the human family, and especially Pithecanthropus.The Illustrated London News June 24 1922 p.944
The living races of mankind all belong to the species sapiens; and of them the aboriginal Australian represents the most primitive type -- the nearest approximation to the original Home sapiens after he first separated from the now extinct species Homo neanderthalensis. The Negro represents the race that is next in order of antiquity, but has become specialised in a manner that offers the greatest contrast to the more primitive Austalian. Yet they both retain the primitive black pigment that was probably common to all the earlier species and genera of the human family as well as their nearest relatives, the gorilla and the chimpanzee. The Illustrated London News June 24 1922 p.944
I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family.The Evolution of Man 1927 p.7
There are many other simian features in the skull; but enough has been said to establish the two issues that concern us in the argument of this book. First, the Piltdown brain-case reveals features of simian likeness that harmonize with the jaw with which it was found. Secondly, the facts that I have set forth should be sufficient to convince the reader that when in the subsequent chapters we have to consider the size and form of the brain we shall not be dealing with a hypothetical restoration but with one that is surely founded upon the internal evidence of the fossil fragments themselves.The Evolution of Man 1927 p.84
Arthur Smith Wooodward (1864 - 1944) Keeper of Geological Department for the British Museum Web GBS Amazon
Having learned so much about the surrounding and way of life of Piltdown Man, we may now proceed to consider the man himself. He certainly was a man, and no a creature half-way between man and ape. He was perhaps ungainly, and may have walked with a shuffling gait, but his brain and skull were essentially human, only with a few ape-like traits which are rarely or never seen in modern man.The Earliest Englishman (1948) p.55
We may therefore conclude that the fossil skull from Piltdown belonged to a race which had only just become human. Its brain was still a little unfinished, and the powers of speech and reasoning must have been comparatively limited. The face could not be well described as refined, and the neck would not accord with our usual ideas fo elegance. His jaws still bore man marks of the ancestral apes which have since disappeared in all human races. He was indeed a man of the dawn, and has been appropriately named Eoanthropus, from two Greek words which mane Dawn-man. His full scientific name is Eoanthropus Dawsoni, which recalls his discover, Mr. Dawson.The Earliest Englishman (1948) p.73-4
Andrew Snelling(b.1953?) PhD Geology Web Amazon
Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point , and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. The Revised Quote Book (1990)
All K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of volcanic rocks are questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them. "Excess Argon: The Achilles' Heel of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks" Impact January 1999
Lee Spetner PhD Physics Amazon
On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Charles Spurgeon(1834 - 92) Web
In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.Hideous Discovery July 25 1886
Joseph Stalin (1878 – 1953) Web Amazon
I began to speak of God, Joseph
heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
'What book is that?' I enquired.
'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me. G. Glurdjidze in The Life of Joseph Stalin (1940) p.8-9
Ben Stein (b.1944) Web
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed - i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism "...outdoor relief for the upper classes?")
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out.
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology? October 31, 2007
You know you're over the target when you start getting flak. Expelled
Frank Sulloway (b. 1947?) Web Amazon
Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made. "Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend" Journal of the History of Biology 15 (1982)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Home Evolution Stephen Jones