This post presents an introduction to the main points of the Modern Theory of Evolution (also known as the Modern Synthesis or the Evolutionary Synthesis) together with a critique of these points.

Prof. Futuyama is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, and the author of the premier text book in the field of evolutionary biology. His summary is excerpted from the text book Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., and is presented in blue text, with our review and critique in black.

Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis

The principal claims of the Evolutionary Synthesis are the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. They are known collectively as the Synthetic Theory, and serve as a synopsis of much of contemporary evolutionary theory. Many of these points have been extended, exemplified, clarified, or modified since the 1940s. Although some authors have challenged or even rejected some of these principles, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and use them as a foundation for evolutionary research. Subsequent chapters of this book will present evidence bearing on these points.

1. The phenotype (observed physical characteristics) is different from the genotype (the set of genes carried by an individual), and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due partly to genetic differences and partly to direct effects of the environment.

2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring. That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited. However, the environment may affect the expression of an organism's genes.

3. Hereditary variations are based on particles - genes - that retain their identity as they pass through the generations; genes do not blend with other genes. This is true not only of those genes that have discrete effects on the phenotype (e.g., brown vs. blue eyes), but also of those that contribute to continuously varying traits (e.g., body size, intensity of pigmentation). Variation in continuously varying traits is largely based on several or many discrete genes, each of which affects the trait slightly (polygenic inheritance).

4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles). The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.

Such a system that controls such recombination (movement of subroutines) appears to be more the kind of thing that would be designed than something that could come about by random chance (plus natural selection)…

5. Environmental factors (e.g., chemicals, radiation) may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.

Points 1-5 were important early contributions to the Synthetic Theory from laboratory genetics.

6. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions) of individual organisms with different genotypes (and hence, often, with different phenotypes) within a population (see Figure 2.2). Over the course of generations, the proportion of one genotype may gradually increase, and it may eventually entirely replace the other type. This process may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species (see point 11).

7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random genetic drift)

…because this is contrary to neo-Darwinism (where mutation, coupled with natural selection, is the essential engine of change). And acceptance of random genetic drift – essentially says that the creative-engine of species change is random changes (rather than, and independent of, pressure from natural selection) or other accidents of chance.

or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.

Such creative powers have been claimed by ToE (Theory of Evolution), but have not been experimentally demonstrated on any scale needed for the origin of higher taxa, or for the formation of new complex organs or new complex biochemical systems.

8. Even a slight intensity of natural selection can (under certain circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time.

So, we see that the statement above is not derived (or a necessary conclusion) from the evidence. But rather the statement is assumed to be true, and the experimental evidence is made to fit the assumption (i.e., you assume the statement is true, without independently showing that it is true, and then calculate certain coefficients assuming the statement is true).

Very slight differences between organisms can confer slight differences in survival or reproduction;

How slight is slight? Below a certain minimum slightness, the difference would be invisible to natural selection, and so make no impact on survival or reproduction. This is a threshold that needs to be crossed before this difference can be used by natural selection.

hence natural selection can account for slight differences among species, and for the earliest stages of evolution of new traits.

An aside: to further this specific discussion we would have to speak about traits within a species versus traits across species.

Points 6-8 were among the major contributions of the mathematical theory of population genetics.

9. Selection can alter populations beyond the original range of variation by increasing the proportion of alleles that, by recombination with other genes that affect the same trait, give rise to new phenotypes. (This point is a contribution from genetic studies of agriculturally based plant and animal breeding.)

Just as an example… let us say there are 2 genes that affect a given trait, and 2 alleles per gene, and 2 recombinable sub-units per gene. So, there are a total of 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 recombinable sub-units that affect a given trait. The range of variation in this population is 8 units.

Changing the proportion of alleles is not going to change the range of variation that is already inherent within the population.

So any apparent new phenotype is a form that is ALREADY present within the range of genotypic variation within the population.

No inherently NEW phenotype has been created. All that has happened is that a phenotype has appeared that is within the range of variation of the genotype (even if that phenotype had not been earlier instantiated from the genotype).

10. Natural populations are genetically variable: the individuals within populations differ genetically and include natural genetic variants of the kind that arise by mutation in laboratory stocks.

11. Populations of a species in different geographic regions differ in characteristics that have a genetic basis. The genetic differences among populations are often of the same kind that distinguish individuals within populations.

Futuyama's statement would be more scientifically meaningful if he were to define species-islands in genospace/ phenospace/ morphospace, and then experimentally demonstrate the existence of gradualistic pathways that are survivable for the intermediate creatures such that these pathways lead continuously from one species-island to the next. And he (or evolutionary biologists at large) would have to demonstrate this for all (or at least a preponderance of) species across higher taxonomic islands (genera-islands/ order-islands/ class-islands/ kingdom-islands).

In the absence of such experimental demonstration, Futuyama would appear to be indulging in a large-scale hand-waving exercise (no offense meant).

A genotype that is rare in one population may be predominant in another.

12. Experimental crosses between different species, and between different populations of the same species, show that most of the differences between them have a genetic basis. The difference in each trait is often based on differences in several or many genes (i.e., it is polygenic), each of which has a small phenotypic effect.

This finding provides evidence that the differences between species evolve by small steps rather than by single mutations with large phenotypic effects.

Some closely similar species (but not all) have been investigated. Among some of these species, the trait differences appear to be small-step polygenic. This does not show that small-step polygenicity is always the case (with no large-steps) between similar species, and much more than this, this does not show that small-step polygenicity is always the case (with no large steps) across different genera, families, orders, class, phyla, kingdoms.

13. Natural selection occurs in natural populations at the present time, often with considerable intensity.

Points 9-13 were contributions from those geneticists, most of whom had a background in natural history, who studied natural populations.

14. Differences among geographic populations of a species are often adaptive (hence, are the consequence of natural selection), because they are frequently correlated with relevant environmental factors.

15. Organisms are not necessarily different species just because they differ in one or more phenotypic characteristics; phenotypically different genotypes often are members of a single interbreeding population.

Rather, different species represent distinct gene pools, which are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups. This reproductive isolation of species is based on certain genetically determined differences between them. (This is one version of the biological species concept.) Hence, even a mutation that causes substantial change in some phenotypic feature does not necessarily represent the origin of a new species.

This is one definition of species.

However this is not a sufficient definition for species for many kinds of plants, and for fossils (you cant tell if a fossil animal could interbreed or not with any certainty).

16. Nevertheless, there is a continuum in degree of differentiation of populations, with respect to both phenotypic difference and degree of reproductive isolation, from barely differentiated populations to fully distinct species. This observation provides evidence that an ancestral species differentiates into two or more different species by the gradual accumulation of small differences rather than by a single mutational step.

17. Speciation - the origin of two or more species from a single common ancestor-usually occurs through the genetic differentiation of geographically segregated populations. Geographic segregation is required so that interbreeding does not prevent incipient genetic differences from developing.

It is not clear however if there are continuous pathways between species islands (islands in phenospace, morphospace, genospace). Furthermore, even if there are such pathways, are the pathways survivable. And furthermore, and are there survivable inter-island pathways for ALL species (which is needed for large-scale mega-evolution to be true).

Note: we are locally using the term mega-evolution to keep from muddying the terms micro* and macro*evolution. Mega-evolution = common descent from a single ancestor by unguided ToE processes, that are essentially gradualistic in nature; micro*evolution = adaptation and change within a species and between closely related species; macro*evolution = origin of new body-plans and new complex organs, organ systems, and biochemical systems by unguided ToE processes.

18. Among living organisms, there are many gradations in phenotypic characteristics among species assigned to the same genus, to different genera, and to different families or other higher taxa. This observation is interpreted as evidence that higher taxa arise through the prolonged, sequential accumulation of small differences, rather than through the sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types."

So, if gradations are evidence of small-step changes, then gaps can validly be viewed as evidence of large-step changes…

Based on this, yes, there is evidence for small-step changes between closely similar species, but there is evidence for large-step gaps between higher-order taxa. So it is an invalid inference (which is based on a selective understanding of the evidence) to infer that "higher taxa arise through the prolonged, sequential accumulation of small differences, rather than through the sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types."

Points 14-18 were contributed chiefly by systematists and naturalists who studied particular taxonomic groups.

19. The fossil record includes many gaps among quite different kinds of organisms, as well as gaps between possible ancestors and descendants.

Such gaps can be explained by the incompleteness of the fossil record.

In other words, incompleteness of the fossil record is an article of faith among gradualist evolutionists. And this article of faith is incapable of being falsified (and hence is unscientific).

What if there TRULY are gaps in the history of life; i.e., if there truly were large jumps in the morphospace, phenospace, genospace that describes the history of life on earth.

According to the gradualist article of faith, such jumps would NEVER be recognized. They would be papered over by the article of faith (of the "incomplete fossil record") as if they were never there.

Look around you at the world today. We do not see a continuous gradation in the phenospace, genospace, morphospace occupied by creatures. In this instantaneous snapshot (life as seen today) we see very large gaps between the various taxa.

Given that that is the case today, and in three dimensions, why can it not be the case that there are such large gaps in the fourth dimension (time) as well.

Also, statistical studies show that there are sufficient fossils collected for many species/ taxa for the fossil-gaps to have been statistically eliminated if the speciation were indeed gradual. Contrary to this however, we still see the fossil-gaps, even for situations where millions of fossils have been collected. In other words, in possibly the majority of cases, the gaps are REAL (they are not an artifact of the fossil record, despite the protestations to the contrary by the gradualist article of faith).

But the fossil record also includes examples of gradations from apparently ancestral organisms to quite different descendants.

Problem #1 (reason to be skeptical):

First, there is no way to tell with confidence that one fossil organism is ancestral to another. (this is why Futuyama has to use the phrase "apparently ancestral").

What he is referring to is that one fossil organism has a certain number of similarities with another fossil organism. And this similarity is believed (as an article of faith) to indicate ancestry.

E.g., consider fossil A which has 100 characteristics, and consider fossil B which has 100 characteristics. If fossil A has 80 characteristics in common with fossil B, then A is viewed as an ancestor of fossil B.

But what if fossil C (from the same time-frame as A) has 80 characteristics in common with fossil B?

In that case half the paleontologists (guys who study fossils) would claim that A is the ancestor of B… and the other half of the paleontologists would claim that C is the ancestor of B.

It is quite common to see paleontologists fight each other (seemingly to the death) with contradicting claims of which organism is the ancestor of which organism, and with each side providing a list of impressive reasons why the other side is wrong.

Why all this confusion?

Because the truth of the matter is that neither side can tell if A is indeed the ancestor of fossil B. All they have to go on is certain similarities in the fossils. And from these similarities, it is an article of FAITH, that the similarities in certain characteristics indicate ancestry. BUT there is a lot of uncertainty regarding exactly what characteristics indicate ancestry and which do not indicate ancestry…

And hence, the confusion because neither side can say with high certainty who was the ancestor of whom … all that they can meaningfully say (without invoking gradualist articles of faith) is that one fossil is similar to another in a certain number of characteristics, and is dissimilar in another set of characteristics.

------------------------------------------------

Problem #2 (reason #2 to be skeptical):

Examples of "gradualism" are very much the exception rather than the rule in the fossil record.

In legitimate science, you don’t make a rule from the exceptions. In other words, you do not create a "law" based on the exceptions (or outlier points) in your experimental observations. You make a law (or rule) based on the majority of your observations.

Estimates of the ratio of "large-leaps in the fossil record" to "gradualistic species change in the fossil record" indicate that 90% or more of the fossil cases show large-leaps (between species, between orders, between higher taxa etc), and 10% or less show gradualistic change among closely related species.

In fact, I am not aware of any cases where a gradualistic fossil series links two genera, or two families, or two classes, or two phyla, or two kingdoms.

The claimed gradualistic series are always (as far as I have seen) among closely similar species.

Furthermore, the fact that adaptation occurs is not in question (even among pre-Darwinian biologists who were Creationists). And the fact that adaptation can create closely similar species that do not cross-breed (the definition of species used here by Futuyama) is not in question among the majority of current-day creationists either.

Together with point 18, this leads to the conclusion that the evolution of large differences proceeds by many small steps (such as those that lead to the differentiation of geographic populations and closely related species).

So where does this "conclusion" come from? Rather than being a conclusion that is arrived at from the bulk of the evidence (which is how legitimate science is performed), this is actually a faith-based interpretive paradigm.

Given that the evidence does not force (or strongly lead) us to this conclusion, why do most evolutionary biologists insist on this paradigm?

The real reason for this paradigm is that evolutionists are unable to explain the origins of large gaps with a credible evolutionary naturalistic explanation.

A simpler way of handling this "problem" of the gaps is to pretend that the gaps do not exist.

And Futuyama does exactly that in his leap from the weak claims of points 17 & 18 to this alleged "conclusion" of point 19.

Hence we can extrapolate from the genesis of small differences to the evolution of large differences among higher taxa, and can explain the latter by the same principles that explain the evolution of populations and species.

What this means in practice is that such extrapolation is a faith-based paradigm (rather than a conclusion based on experimental evidence).

It is worthwhile to emphasize again that this extrapolation has NOT been established as valid. It has been assumed (by faith) and papered over with weak rationalizations (in points 17, 18, 19 above).

20. Consequently, all observations of the fossil record are consistent with the foregoing principles of evolutionary change

It is claimed (by faith) by Futuyama, but has not been established by the evidence.

(although they do not prove that these mechanisms provide a necessary and sufficient explanation).

There is no need to invoke, and in some instances there is evidence against, non-Darwinian hypotheses such as Lamarckian mechanisms, orthogenetic evolution, vitalism ("inner drives"), or abrupt origins by major mutations.

Points 19 and 20 were among the contributions of paleontologists.

In the aftermath of the Evolutionary Synthesis, these twenty points were widely accepted and became the orthodox modern theory of evolution. Some points have been challenged, then and since (Burian 1988). In ensuing chapters, we shall examine evidence pertaining to these principles. At this time, it is important to learn them, not because they are all necessarily correct in every instance,

A perusal of the literature shows that many investigators have been led to infer that the propositions above are not correct in many instances.

but because they constitute the framework of modern evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary Biology since the Synthesis

In the immediate aftermath of the Synthesis, a great deal of research was devoted to elaborating the basic theory (e.g., the mathematical theory of population genetics), to testing

They are assumed to be true (irrespective of any testing).

and obtaining further evidence (e.g., studying the nature of species; describing the kinds and amounts of genetic variation in nature; studying the operation of natural selection), and to documenting the relative prevalence of different theoretically plausible

A problem that arises, when "plausibility" is used as a criterion for science rather than "experimental rigor", is that you then open the door to every kind of just-so story, hypothetical scenario, flight of fancy, excess of the imagination…

… and this is exactly what has happened in the field of evolutionary biology, as is evident by the statements (recognizing this fact) of many evolutionary biologists themselves…

Evolutionary biology then degenerates from an experimentally-verifiable (testable, falsifiable) science to a myth-creating edifice, where any myth is welcome as long as it fits within the faith-based paradigms (interpretive paradigms) listed above by Futuyama.

processes (e.g., the relative importance of random genetic drift versus natural selection, or speciation with versus without geographic segregation of populations).

Important areas of research were opened or stimulated by advances in genetics, especially at the molecular level, beginning in the 1950s and continuing with increasing emphasis up to the present time. Many of the above principles are stated in what may seem to be antiquated language, because the Synthesis occurred before the structure of DNA had been determined (by J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick in 1953); in fact, the Synthesis had mostly occurred before there was any evidence that DNA is the genetic material. (Such evidence was first provided by 0. T. Avery, C. M. MacLeod, and M. McCarthy in 1944.) Our steadily increasing knowledge of the structure and function of the genetic material has enabled an equally steady increase in our knowledge of topics such as mutation, genetic variation and its causes, species differences, development, and the phylogenetic history of life.

This would appear to be a reasonable indication of the extent to which most phylogenetic trees are guesswork (arising out of a faith-based interpretive paradigm) rather than rigorous science.

Another development, especially since the mid-1960s, has been the expansion of evolutionary theory into areas such as ecology, animal behavior, and reproductive biology. The Synthesis painted an evolutionary theory in broad brushstrokes, a theory that applied to organisms and their characteristics in general. More specific, detailed theories, intended to explain the evolution of particular kinds of characteristics (e.g., life span, ecological distribution, social behavior) have become an important focus of study.

A major focus of evolutionary research for about two decades after the Synthesis was the further elucidation of mechanisms (especially genetic mechanisms) at the level of populations and species. Relatively little attention was devoted to questions about "macroevolution,"

On more than one occasion, I have had internet evolutionists assert to me that the terms (and concepts of) microevolution and macroevolution are figments of the imagination created by creationists -- and that apart from creationists, no evolutionary biologist would even recognize that there is such a thing as micro-evolution as distinct from macro-evolution.

Contrary to the claims of such internet evolutionists, I have seen many discussions in the Evolutionary Bio Literature (journal articles etc) of distinctions between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

… such as the origin of novel characteristics or the history and causes of evolutionary patterns at higher taxonomic levels over geological time spans.

Since the 1970s, there has been renewed attention to such topics, resulting in, among other things, new methods for inferring phylogenetic relationships,

This would appear to be a reasonable indication of the extent to which most phylogenetic trees are guesswork (arising out of a faith-based interpretive paradigm) rather than rigorous science.

provocative interpretations (e.g., punctuated equilibrium) of the fossil record,

In ~90% or more of the cases, the jumps are not artifactual gaps, i.e., they are not an artifact of the fossil record (contrary to what Darwin and the neo-Darwinists had claimed).

Also, punk-eeq (as punctuated equilibrium is sometimes affectionately called) does NOT have a mechanism of its own to explain the enormous jumps in the fossil record.

It turns out that the most parsimonious interpretation of the fossil evidence is that there are indeed large jumps in the fossil-record, and that ToE does not have an adequate explanation for these jumps (within the constraining limits of the faith-based interpretive paradigms listed above, by Futuyama).

and an interest in using developmental biology to explain the evolution of morphology.

Contemporary Evolutionary Studies

Evolutionary biology is more vigorous now than at any time since the 1940s, both because of its expansion and because new concepts and techniques offer promise of resolving many of the questions that the Modern Synthesis answered only tentatively or not at all.

What Futuyama is not being forthright about is the foundational nature of the questions that have not been answered, and the inadequacy of ToE in explaining these.

He is also not being forthright in laying out the fact that the interpretive paradigms listed above are faith-based, rather than necessitated by the evidence. And these paradigms are not experimentally proven, nor are they rigorously experimentally validated.

The resurgence of debate about some fundamental issues does not reveal a weakness in the field, but rather, is a sign of its intellectual vigor and excitement. In every scientific field, controversies exist, new theories are proposed, old ideas are modified or rejected. Therein lies much of the joy and excitement of science.

Evolutionary biologists today do not concern themselves with trying to demonstrate the reality of evolution.

That is simply no longer an issue, and hasn't been for more than a century. Rather, because every step toward understanding leads to new, more detailed questions, and because new techniques and theories enable us to probe new areas, biologists today seek a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and history of evolution.

As mentioned above (by Futuyama), no attempt is made today to demonstrate the reality (or truth) of these paradigms.

The evolutionary paradigms are assumed to be true (by faith), and so there is no perceived need to experimentally demonstrate or validate these.

In practice, all data (that fits the interpretive paradigm) is interpreted using the interpretive paradigm. Any data that does NOT fit the interpretive paradigm is ignored, or explained away as being an artifact of some sort, or an anomaly of some sort.

E.g., 90% or more of the fossil record supports the hypothesis that there are enormous jumps in the progression of creatures on earth (rather than the gradualistic progressions predicted by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians). However, rather than accept this evidence, the mainstream of evolutionary biologists have tended to ignore this fossil evidence, or try to explain it away as an artifact (using non-scientific, untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses such as the "incomplete fossil record" to explain away the inconvenient evidence of the enormous jumps in the fossil record).

Here are a few of the questions on which research today is centered:

Regarding the evolution of adaptations: How can we explain differences among species in such features as longevity, reproductive rate, body size, migratory habits, sex ratio, sexual vs. asexual reproduction?

Note 2: Also note that in practice, only explanations that lie within the interpretive paradigms of ToE (listed above by Futuyama) are permitted by the evolutionary establishment.

And, in practice, as long as a given explanation lies within the purview of the evolutionary paradigms (listed by Futuyama), any just-so story, any flight of the evolutionists imagination is acceptable… this extreme credulity on the part of evolutionists to such just-so stories has been criticized by members of the evolutionary community as well.

Why are some species hermaphroditic while others have distinct sexes? Why do some animals change sex during their lives? How has social behavior evolved, including, in its most extreme form, the sterile worker castes of social insects? Why are the sexes in some species almost identical, while in other species they are strikingly different? Why in some species is it the female, and in others the male, that is courted and cares for the young? Why are some species, such as insects that feed on only a single kind of plant, extra-ordinarily specialized and others not?

On the other hand, these features are the kinds of features that we see and associate with creative inventions that arise out of creative design by intelligence (e.g., the features of transportation vehicles which include various styles, colors, features, of cars, bikes, unicycles, tricycles, motorcycles, boats, ships, trucks etc).

However given the faith-based paradigms listed by Futuyama, such possibilities may not be considered for rational discussion.

Why does a species have ecological and geographic limits to its range, instead of adapting to the terrain beyond? What limits the extent of further adaptation?

These observations are valid evidence that adaptation is limited in its extent (the only reason to not consider this as a valid inference from the evidence mentioned above is that such an inference would violate the faith-based interpretive paradigm that macro-evolution = micro-evolution as listed by Futuyama above).

In other words, these observations are field evidence (or experimental evidence) that contradict the faith-based assumption that macro-evolution = micro-evolution writ large.

Regarding mechanisms of evolution: How do the mechanisms of mutation and recombination limit the range of variations that are available to natural selection? Why is there as much genetic variability within species as there is? Do levels of variability set limits on the rate or direction of a species' evolution? How intense and consistent is natural selection?

How does natural selection produce complex adaptations that involve the interplay of numerous features?

It has not been experimentally and rigorously demonstrated that natural selection produces "complex adaptations that involve the interplay of numerous features?"

Rather it is assumed by faith that natural selection produces such complex adaptations.

And the question that is asked is "How does Natural Selection produce these?"

Does it not cross anyone's mind to ask the question "Can Natural Selection produce such complex features?"

Does it not cross anyone's mind to ask the question – "is there experimentally and rigorously demonstrated proof that natural selection produces such complex adaptations up and down the lower through higher taxa?"

It appears that we are just asked to believe just-so stories created by the creative imaginations of evolutionary myth-makers (myth as in just-so story that is not substantiated by rigorous experimental proof)…

Does gene exchange among populations limit the rate of evolution? How much of evolution is nonadaptive, occurring by chance rather than by natural selection?

And in fact, random drift may be a much bigger factor in the extent of changes in DNA of organisms than Natural Selection.

This however would appear to be a problem for the ToE (theory of evolution), because how can random drift create any new structures of any complexity? This is like asking us to believe that complex structures and organs arise by random chance – which most of us, including most evolutionary biologists, are not credulous enough to believe…

So, if natural selection is not as big a force in evolution as was thought (by Darwin, and neo-Darwinians), and random drift is incapable of creating new complex structures and organs – then where are all the new complex structures and organs coming from (that are seen up and down the lower through higher taxa?)

It would appear that ToE does not have an adequate answer to this foundational/ fundamental question…

What ecological factors and genetic changes cause populations to become new species? How fast do new species form? Are they formed by rapid genetic changes in small populations, or by the slow divergence of large ones? Is geographic segregation always required for speciation?

Are all evolutionary changes gradual?

Darwin believed that all evolutionary changes were gradual. Neo-Darwinians insisted that all evolutionary changes of any significance were gradual. Richard Dawkins (the world's leading evolutionary propagandist) insists that all evolutionary changes of any significance were gradual. Note: such individuals are called gradualists and the belief in gradual evolutionary change is called gradualism.

Unfortunately (for the gradualists), the evidence of the fossil record does not match such beliefs in gradualism.

In fact when Prof. Goldschmidt (a leading evolutionary biologist) found that he could not reconcile the fossil evidence (which showed series of large jumps rather than gradualism) with gradualism, and he came up with a "sudden jump" theory (a form of saltationism depending on the birth of "hopeful monster's"), he was ridiculed and hounded by gradualists almost to the destruction of his career.

However, now mainstream biologists (largely through the efforts of the late Stephen J. Gould) have grown to admit the fact that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In fact, more than ~90 % of the evidence supports sudden large jumps in the fossil record, rather than gradual change – and the jumps can not be validly be explained away as artifacts of the fossil record.

The statement/ question (in the blue text) above, by Futuyama, is a recognition of this fact.

However ToE does not have an adequate explanation for this fundamental experimental observation/ fact.

In practice, if ToE cant explain it, evolutionary biologists tend to ignore it, or paper it over with evolutionary just-so stories…

--

Also, all of the blue statements above assume that all of the variations in life came about by evolutionary mechanisms. This assumption is a faith-based assumption.

A growing number of scientists are coming to the viewpoint that neo-Darwinian mechanisms can explain micro-evolution (including low-level speciation) but not explain macro-evolution (formation of higher order taxa, and new complex organs).

Regarding molecular Insights into evolution: Why does the eucaryotic genome carry so much useless" DNA?

Furthermore, prokaryotes (which are less complex than eucaryotes) have entirely eliminated (or mostly eliminated) the excess DNA.

If it is true that the excess DNA is useless, why would a simpler organism have developed the ability to get rid of the excess DNA, but a more complex organism have failed to develop the ability to get rid of the excess DNA?

Does it affect organisms? How much evolution at the DNA level is caused by natural selection, and how much is nonadaptive?

There is no question that micro-evolution (adaptation including low-level speciation) occurs. What is in question is whether macro-evolution occurs (material-descent with formation of higher level taxa, and formation of completely new organs and body systems).

What constitutes an advantageous mutation at the DNA level? Are transposable elements important in evolution? What is the evolutionary importance of changes in gene regulation? What kinds of genes evolve slowly vs. rapidly?

There is no question that micro-evolution (adaptation including low-level speciation) occurs. What is in question is whether macro-evolution occurs (material-descent with formation of higher level taxa, and formation of completely new organs and body systems).

What does variation at the DNA level tell us about the history of populations and species?

In evolutionary-biological practice, variation at the DNA level is assumed to arise from evolutionary history, and is interpreted accordingly. There is no rigorous, experimental proof attempted to see if variations in DNA actually arise from evolutionary history of populations and species.

A growing number of scientists are coming to the viewpoint that neo-Darwinian mechanisms can explain micro-evolution (including low-level speciation) but can not explain macro-evolution (formation of higher order taxa, and new complex organs).

Regarding patterns in evolutionary history: Why are there as many species as there are (probably between 3 and 10 million), rather than far fewer or many more? Can we explain the changes in numbers of species that have occurred over the history of life? Why do species become extinct rather than adapting to environmental changes?

Why have some phyletic lineages produced more species than others, and why do more new species occur at some times than at others?

This is an observation that is more consistent with Progressive Creation, than Darwinian Evolution.

Have differences among groups in "success" versus "failure" (extinction) been due to chance? Why is evolution, as viewed in the fossil record, usually so slow?

Darwin's belief was that natural selection was "daily scrutinizing" each organism for tiny changes, and basically directing organisms towards increased fitness (and this occurs at all times)… so prolonged stasis of species is a SURPRISE for Darwinism. I.e., this is a violation of the gradualist predictions of Darwinism.

This field observation is evidence that species are not infinitely plastic.

This observation would appear to be evidence that argues against one of the foundational assumptions (articles of faith) of ToE (that species are almost infinitely plastic, and can change almost without any limits – in order to provide the entire gamut of species that we observe, past or present, all allegedly arising from a single species which changed and differentiated into millions and millions of species).

Do adaptive changes depend on speciation? How important have predation, competition, and other interactions among species been in guiding the course of evolution?

How can we best deduce the phylogenetic relationships among living species?

If ToE (with a universal single tree of evolution) were indeed true, different evolutionary biological methods of deriving phylogenetic trees should provide us the same phylogenetic trees. But this is not what we find in practice.

Phylogenetic trees derived using different methods contradict one another. Phylogenetic trees derived by different scientists and different research groups contradict one another.

The fact that these trees do not match up (and in fact often contradict one another) can very validly be considered to be evidence that there is NOT a single true phylogenetic tree that demonstrates material common-descent.

The evidence points to the possibility that the hypothesis of material common-descent is wrong. I.e., that all living creatures are NOT descended by common material-descent from a single parent organism.

Can we document trends in the history of life?.

Some of these questions had hardly been thought of 20 years ago but have already been answered to a fair approximation; others are old questions, still refractory and still strongly debated; still others have arisen in only the past few years, as molecular biology has revealed new phenomena. For every fact of biology, we can pose questions of an evolutionary nature

There is no rigorous, experimental proof that Evolution is indeed true (apart from assuming it to be true).

- which makes evolutionary biology a source of inexhaustible challenge and delight.

In general, the "Modern Theory of Macroevolution" (ToE) does not appear to be a conclusion that is arrived at by logical and rational consideration of the evidence.

Rather, it is assumed to be true (presumably for ideological reasons), and all of the evidence is re-interpreted in light of that assumption.

The end result is that the basic assumption of macro-evolutionary ToE is never tested.

If there are true proofs for the claims of ToE, I would be happy to consider such proofs .

However, every single "proof" that I have been offered through the years, has turned out to be evidence for Micro-evolution, followed by a leap-of-faith by the evolutionist from micro to macro evolution (mixed together with a variety of just-so mythical stories, red herrings, and gerrymandered definitions of what should and should not be science).

I wish you peace, and joy today.