Here is the Bibliography "G" page for authors' surnames beginning with "G"
[Right: "Evolution of Living Organisms" (1977), by Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985) ... Grassé was an opponent of Darwinian evolution, because he believed it to be in conflict with numerous experimental findings. He disagreed with Darwin's central tenet of evolution regarding the combined effect of mutation and natural selection." (Wikipedia). See also PS.]
which I may refer to in my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."
© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)
BIBLIOGRAPHY "G"
Gale, B.G., 1982, "Evolution Without Evidence: Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species," University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque NM.
Gallant, R.A., 1975, "How Life Began: Creation Versus Evolution," Four Winds: New York NY.
Galton, D.J., 2001, "Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century," Abacus : London, Reprinted, 2002.
Gamlin, L., 1989, "Origins of Life," Gloucester Press: London.
Gamlin, L., 1993, "Evolution," Collins Eyewitness Science, HarperCollins: Pymble, Australia.
Gamlin, L. & Vines, G., eds, 1986, "The Evolution of Life," Oxford University Press: New York NY, Reprinted, 1991.
Gamow, G., 1947, "One Two Three...Infinity: Facts and Speculations on Science," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1972, Tenth printing.
Gardner, E.J., Simmons, M.J. & Snustad, D.P., 1991, "Principles of Genetics," [1984], Wiley: New York NY, Eighth edition.
Gardner, M., 1982, "The Ambidextrous Universe: Mirror Asymmetry and Time-Reversed Worlds," [1964], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Second edition.
Gardner, M., 2003, "Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries? : Discourses on Godel, Magic Hexagrams, Little Red Riding Hood, and Other Mathematical and Pseudoscientific Topics," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY.
Gardner, M., 1992, "On the Wild Side," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY.
Gascoigne, R.M., 1993, "The History of the Creation: A Christian View of Inorganic and Organic Evolution," Fast Books: Sydney NSW, Australia.
Gaskin, J., ed., 1995, "The Epicurean Philosophers," Everyman, J.M. Dent: London.
Gazzaniga, M.S., 1988, "Mind Matters: How Mind and Brain Interact to Create Our Conscious Lives," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
Gee, H., 1999, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life," The Free Press: New York NY.
Geisler, N.L., 1982, "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI.
Geisler, N.L., 1989, "Knowing the Truth about Creation: How It Happened and What It Means for Us," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI.
Geisler, N.L. & Anderson, J.K., 1987, "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy," Baker: Grand Rapids MI.
Geisler, N.L. & Brooks, R.M., 1990, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Fourth printing.
Geisler, N.L. & Turek; F., 2004, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL.
Geivett, R.D. & Habermas, G.R., eds, 1997, "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester.
Gell-Mann, M., 1994, "The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex," Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1995.
George, T.N., 1951, "Evolution in Outline," Thrift Books: London.
Ghiselin, M.T., 1972, "The Triumph of the Darwinian Method," [1969], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Reprinted.
Giancoli, D.C., 1991, "Physics: Principles with Applications," [1980], Prentice Hall: New Jersey NJ, Third edition.
Gibbons, T.H., 1973, "Rooms in the Darwin Hotel: Studies in English Literary Criticism and Ideas, 1880-1920," University of Western Australia Press: Nedlands WA, Australia.
Gibor, A., ed., 1976, "Conditions for Life: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA.
Gilbert, S.F., 1994, "Developmental Biology," [1985], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Fourth edition.
Gilkey, L., 1985, "Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock," Winston Press: Minneapolis MN.
Gilkey, L., 1959, "Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge," Anchor Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1965.
Gillespie, N.C., 1979, "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL.
Gillispie, C.C., 1951, "Genesis and Geology: A Study in the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, Reprinted, 1996.
Gillott, J. & Kumar, M., 1995, "Science and the Retreat from Reason," Merlin Press: London.
Gish, D.T., 1972, "Evidence Against Evolution," Tyndale: Wheaton IL.
Gish, D.T., 1979, "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!," [1972], Creation-Life: San Diego CA, Third edition, Third printing, 1981.
Gish, D.T., 1985, "Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record," Creation-Life: El Cajon CA, Second printing, 1986.
Gish, D.T., 1993, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA.
Gish, D.T., 1995, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!" [1985], Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, Revised.
Gitt, W., 1993, "Did God Use Evolution?," [1988], CLV: Bielefeld, Germany, English edition.
Gitt, W., 1996, "Stars and Their Purpose: Signposts in Space, CLV: Bielefeld, Germany.
Gitt, W., 1997, "In the Beginning was Information," [1994], CLV: Bielefeld, Germany, English edition.
Gitt, W. & Vanheiden, K-H., 1994, "If Animals Could Talk," Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung: Bielefeld, Germany.
Glass, B., Temkin, O. & Straus, W.L., Jr., ed., 1959, "Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859," Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore MD.
Gleick, J., 1987, "Chaos: Making a New Science," Cardinal: London, Reprinted, 1988.
Glick, T.F., ed., 1974, "The Comparative Reception of Darwinism," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Reprinted, 1988.
Glynn, I.M., 1999, "An Anatomy of Thought: The Origin and Machinery of the Mind," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Glynn, P., 1997, "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA.
Godfrey, L.R., ed., 1983, "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY.
Golding, W., 1955, "The Inheritors," Faber & Faber: London, Reprinted, 1964.
Goldberg, S., 1992, "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe Is False," Prometheus Books: New York NY.
Goldschmidt, R.B., 1940, "The Material Basis of Evolution," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1982.
Goldschmidt, T., 1996, "Darwin's Dreampond: Drama in Lake Victoria," [Marx-Macdonald, S., transl., MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Second printing, 1997.
Goldsmith, D.A., 1997, "The Hunt for Life on Mars," Penguin: New York NY.
Goldsmith, T.H. & Zimmerman, W.F., 2000, "Biology, Evolution, and Human Nature," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.
Gonzalez, G. & Richards, J.W., 2004, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC.
Gooch, S., 1977, "The Neanderthal Question," Wildwood House: London.
Good, R., 1974., "Features of Evolution in the Flowering Plants," Dover: New York NY.
Good, R., 1981, "The Philosophy Of Evolution," Dovecote Press: Stanbridge, Dorset UK.
Goodwin, B.C., 1994, "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 1995.
Gorst, M., 2001, "Aeons: The Search for the Beginning of Time," Fourth Estate: London.
Goudie, A., 1993, "The Nature of the Environment," [1984], Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, Third edition.
Gould, J.L. & Gould, C.G., 1989, "Sexual Selection: Mate Choice and Courtship in Nature," Scientific American Library: New York NY, Reprinted, 1996.
Gould, S.J., 1977, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA.
Gould, S.J., 1978, "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Gould, S.J., 1980a, "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January, pp.119- 130.
Gould, S.J., 1980b, "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1990.
Gould, S.J., 1980c, "The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January, pp.96-118.
Gould, S.J., 1981, "The Mismeasure of Man," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, Reprinted, 1993.
Gould, S.J., 1983, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1986.
Gould, S.J., 1985, "The Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Gould, S.J., 1987a, "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January, pp.64-70.
Gould, S.J., 1987b, "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.
Gould, S.J., 1987c, "An Urchin in the Storm: Essays about Books and Ideas," [1987], Penguin: London, 1990.
Gould, S.J., 1989, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Gould, S.J., 1991, "Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1992.
Gould, S.J., 1993, "Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History," Jonathan Cape: London.
Gould, S.J., 1995, "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," Crown: New York NY, Reprinted, 1997.
Gould, S.J., 1996, "Life's Grandeur: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin," The Softback Preview: London, Reprinted, 1997.
Gould, S.J., 1998, "Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 1999.
Gould, S.J., 1999, "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life," The Library of Contemporary Thought, Ballantine: New York NY.
Gould, S.J., 2000, "The Lying Stones of Marrakech: Penultimate Reflections in Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2001.
Gould, S.J., 2002a, "I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2003.
Gould, S.J., 2002b, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory," Belknap: Cambridge MA, Fifth printing.
Gould, S.J., ed., 1993, "The Book of Life: An Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth," Random House: Sydney NSW, Australia.
Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., 1977, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered," Paleobiology, Vol. 3, April, pp.115-147.
Grant, J., 1981, "A Directory Of Discarded Ideas," Ashgrove Press: Sevenoaks, Kent UK.
Grassé, P.-P., 1977, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY.
Gray, A., 1963, "Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism," Dupree, A.H., ed., Belknap Press: Cambridge MA.
Gregory, R.L., 1972, "Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing," [1966], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Second edition.
Gregory, R.L., ed., "The Oxford Companion to the Mind," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1987.
Greene, B.R., 1999, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Greene, J.C., 1961, "Darwin and the Modern World View," Mentor: New York NY, Reprinted, 1963.
Greene, J.C., 1959, "The Death of Adam: Evolution and its Impact on Western Thought," Mentor: New York NY, Reprinted, 1961.
Greenfield, S., 1997, "The Human Brain: A Guided Tour," Weidenfeld Nicolson: London.
Greenstein, G., 1988, "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," William Morrow & Co: New York NY.
Grene, M., ed., 1983, "Dimensions of Darwinism Themes and Counterthemes in Twentieth-Century Evolutionary Theory," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Gribbin, J.R., 1999, "The Birth of Time: How We Measured the Age of the Universe," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Gribbin, J.R., ed., 1998, "A Brief History of Science," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Gribbin, J.R., "Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe," Delta/Eleanor Friede: New York NY.
Gribbin, J.R., 1986, "In Search of the Big Bang: Quantum Physics and Cosmology," Heinemann: London.
Gribbin, J.R., 1985, "In Search of the Double Helix: Darwin, DNA and Beyond," Wildwood House: Aldershot UK.
Gribbin, J.R., 1993, "In The Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe," [Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994.
Gribbin, J.R., ed., 1986, "The Breathing Planet," A New Scientist Guide, Basil Blackwell & New Scientist: Oxford UK.
Gribbin, J.R. & Cherfas, J., 1982, "The Monkey Puzzle: A Family Tree," The Bodley Head: London.
Gribbin, J.R. & Cherfas, J., 2001, "The Mating Game: In Search of the Meaning of Sex," [1984], Penguin: London, Revised edition.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1988, "The One Per Cent Advantage: The Sociobiology of Being Human," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1990, "Children of the Ice: Climate and Human Origins," Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1996, "Fire On Earth : In Search of the Doomsday Asteroid," Simon & Schuster: London
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1998, "Almost Everyone's Guide to Science: The Universe, Life and Everything," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 2000, "Stardust: The Cosmic Recycling of Stars, Planets and People," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 2001.
Gribbin, J.R. & Plagemann, S., 1983, "Beyond The Jupiter Effect," Macdonald & Co: London.
Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., 1989, "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY.
Gribbin, M. & Gribbin, J.R., 1993, "Being Human: Putting People in an Evolutionary Perspective," J.M. Dent: London.
Griffiths, A.J.F., et al., 1999, "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis," [1976], W.H. Freeman and Co: New York NY, Seventh Edition , First printing, 2000.
Grinspoon, D.H., 2003, "Lonely Planets: The Natural Philosophy of Alien Life," ECCO: New York NY, Reprinted, 2004.
Grzimek, H.C.B., ed., 1974, "Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia: Lower Animals," [1970], Van Nostrand Reinhold Co: New York NY, Vol. 1
Grzimek, H.C.B., ed., 1976, "Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution," [1972], Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York NY.
Gruber, H.E., 1974, "Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity," together with Barrett, P.H., "Darwin's Early and Unpublished Notebooks," Wildwood House: London.
Grundy, A.H., 1991, "Amazing Unbelievable Freak Earth: New Discoveries," The Book Guild: Lewes, Sussex UK.
PS: The `tagline' quotes below are all from either from Grassé's book or about it. The latter are before the former. Emphases in italics are original and emphases in bold are mine).
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!
"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism'. Its purpose is `to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by knowing." (Dobzhansky, T.G., 1975, "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant" ["Evolution of Life"], Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in Evolution, Vol. 29, June, pp.376-378, p.376).
"Professor Pierre Grassé (who, for thirty years, held the chair for evolution at the Sorbonne without losing his Gallic wit) commented: `Where is the gambler, however obsessed with his passion, who would be crazy enough to bet on the roulette of random evolution? The creation, by grains of dust carried by the wind, of Durer's Melancholia has a probability less infinitesimal than the construction of an eye through the mishaps which might befall the DNA molecule - mishaps which have no connection whatsoever with the future functions of the eye. Daydreaming is permissible, but science should not succumb to it.' [Grassé's italics] [Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," (1973), Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.104. Emphasis original)" (Koestler, A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, p.177).
"More recently, another book critical of Darwin's theory was published in France, by Dr. Pierre P. Grassé. The book, Evolution of Living Organisms, greatly intensified the debate at hand because of the eminence of the source. Dr. Grassé is one of the world's greatest living biologists. In his review of the book, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a member of the old guard and a staunch defender of Darwinist theory, had to admit that Grassé's observations were impossible to ignore simply because of his vast research experience. Grassé is the editor of the twenty-eight volumes of Traite' de Zoologie and ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences. According to Dobzhansky, `His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.' [Dobzhansky, T.G., "Darwinian or 'Oriented' Evolution?," Evolution, Vol. 29, 1975, p.376]. After decades of careful scholarship, Grassé concluded simply: `Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved.' [Grassé, 1977, p.202]." (Rifkin, J., 1983, "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, pp.116-117).
"Much to the consternation of his colleagues, Grassé ends up by issuing the single most devastating indictment that can ever be leveled against a field that professes to be scientific. `Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.' [Grassé, 1977, p.6] "(Rifkin, 1983, p.117).
"Dr. Grassé poses the question this way: `How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years-have mutated as much as the others do?' Grassé concludes: `Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process.' Grassé says that the evidence forces us `to deny any evolutionary value whatever to the mutations we observe in the existing fauna and flora.' [Grassé, 1977, p.202]" (Rifkin, 1983, p.132).
"According to Grassé, mutations are `merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect ... they modify what pre-exists.' [Grassé, 1977, p.87] Whereas Darwin thought that variations led to new species, the evidence proves the contrary: namely, that variation improves the ability of the species to maintain itself `against' radical change." (Rifkin, 1983, p.133).
"The problem, says Grassé, is that `some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution.' This conclusion, says Grassé, `does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.' [Grassé, 1977, p.88]" (Rifkin, 1983, pp.134-135).
"To hammer his point home, Grassé feels compelled to use the computer as an appropriate reference point. `The computer is limited in its operations by the program controlling it and the units of information fed into it. To enlarge its possibilities, its contents have to be enriched. What is new comes from outside.' [Grassé, 1977, p.225] Grassé concludes that the living organism, like the computer, has "to be programmed and fed with external information in order for novelties to emerge." [Ibid, p.226]" (Rifkin, 1983, p.210).
"The systematically similar structures of fossilized organisms and their modern day counterparts (if not extinct) are described by Grassé: `Biologists find it hard to admit that, in their basic structure, present living beings differ [hardly] at all from those of the past. To begin with, such a supposition seems contrary to the scientific spirit. But facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving.' [Grassé, 1977, p.84]" (Bird, W.R., 1991, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, Vol. I, pp.65-66).
"The `most famous, strongly documented case' of natural selection is that of `the replacement of light-colored by dark-colored moths in industrial areas of England after trees were coated with soot,' so that birds picked off the more visible light-colored moths and caused the dark-colored moths to become more prevalent. Grassé and others note that this is not macroevolution but only `insignificant' microevolution: `At best, present evolutionary phenomena are simply slight change:, genotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele by a new one. For example, the mutant carbonaria of the birch moth, Biston betularia, replaces the regular butterfly in polluted industrial areas (Haldane, 1956; Ford, 1971) ... Some biologists maintain that they cannot only observe it but also describe it in action; the facts that they describe, however, either have nothing to do with evolution or are insignificant.' [Grassé, 1977, p.84]" (Bird, 1991, Vol. I, pp.162-163).
"Synthetically reproduced protolife and artificial evolution in computers have already unearthed a growing body of nontrivial surprises. Yet artificial life suffers from the same malaise that afflicts its cousin, artificial intelligence. No artificial intelligence that I am aware of-be it autonomous robot, learning machine, or massive cognition program-has run more than 24 hours in succession. After a day, artificial intelligence stalls. Likewise, artificial life. Most runs of computational life fizzle out of novelty quickly. While the programs sometimes keep running, churning out minor variation, they ascend to no new levels of complexity or surprise after the first spurt ... computational life based on unadorned natural selection has not seen the miracle of open-ended evolution that its creators, and I, would love to see. As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, `Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough ... Mutations provide change, but not progress.' [Grassé, 1977, pp.6, 218] So while natural selection may be responsible for microchange-a trend in variations-no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange-the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity." (Kelly, K., 1994, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," Fourth Estate: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.476).
"What artificial selection actually shows is that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that even the most highly skilled breeders can achieve. Breeding of domestic animals has produced no new species, in the commonly accepted sense of new breeding communities that are infertile when crossed with the parent group. ... The eminent French zoologist Pierre Grassé concluded that the results of artificial selection provide powerful testimony against Darwin's theory: `In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study of sera hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.' [Grassé, 1977, pp.124-25] In other words, the reason that dogs don't become as big a elephants, much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven't been breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is reached." (Johnson, P.E., 1993, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, p.18).
"The time available unquestionably has to be taken into account in evaluating the results of breeding experiments, but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature may be more than counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the famous fruitfly experiments, for example, Grassé noted that `the fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster) the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.' [Grassé, 1977, p.130] Nature has had plenty of time, but it just hasn't been doing what the experimenters have been doing. " (Johnson, 1993, p.19).
"None of the `proofs' provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. The sickle-cell anemia case, for example, merely shows that in special circumstances an apparently disadvantageous trait may not be eliminated from the population. That larger birds have an advantage over smaller birds in high winds or droughts has no tendency whatever to prove that similar factors caused birds to come into existence in the first place. Very likely smaller birds have the advantage in other circumstances, which explains why birds are not continually becoming larger. Pierre Grassé was as unimpressed by this kind of evidence as I am, and he summarized his conclusions at the end of his chapter on evolution and natural selection: `The `evolution in action' of J. Huxley end other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years]....' [Grassé, 1977, p130]." (Johnson, 1993, p.27).
"Grassé denied emphatically that mutation and selection have the power to create new complex organs or body plans, explaining that the intra-species variation that results from DNA copying errors is mere fluctuation, which never leads to any important innovation. Dobzhansky's famous work with fruitflies was a case in point. According to Grassé, `The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.' [Grassé, 1977, p.130]." (Johnson, P.E., 1994, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Buell, J. & Hearn, V., eds., 1994, "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, p.6).
"Grassé insisted that the defining quality of life is the intelligence encoded in its biochemical systems, an intelligence that cannot be understood solely in terms of its material embodiment. The minerals that form a great cathedral do not differ essentially from the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the difference is human intelligence, which adapted them for a given purpose. Similarly, `Any living being possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this `intelligence' is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This `intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? ...This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present science seems incapable of solving it.... If to determine the origin of information in a computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information contained in cellular nuclei be one?' [Grassé, 1977, p.2]." (Johnson, 1994, in Buell & Hearn, 1994, pp.6-7).
"Grassé was an evolutionist, but his dissent from Darwinism could hardly have been more radical if he had been a creationist. It is not merely that he built a detailed empirical case against the neo-Darwinian picture of evolution. At the philosophical level, he challenged the crucial doctrine of uniformitarianism, which holds that processes detectable by our present-day science were also responsible for the great transformations that occurred in the remote past. According to Grassé, evolving species acquire a new store of genetic information through `a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not there or because we are unable to see it).' [Grassé, 1977, p.208]. ... See also p. 71: `We are certain that it [evolution] does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed.... The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off.' [Grassé, 1977, p.208]. " (Johnson, 1994, pp.8,19).
"Grassé acknowledged that such speculation `arouses the suspicions of many biologists... [because] it conjures up visions of the ghost of vitalism or of some mystical power which guides the destiny of living things...' He defended himself from these charges by arguing that the evidence of genetics, zoology, and paleontology refutes the Darwinian theory that random mutation and natural selection were important sources of evolutionary innovation. Given the state of the empirical evidence, to acknowledge the existence of some as yet undiscovered orienting force that guided evolution was merely to face the facts. Grassé even turned the charges of mysticism against his opponents, commenting sarcastically that nothing could be more mystical than the Darwinian view that `nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning of some of them." [Grassé, 1977, p.168] "(Johnson, 1994, p.8).
"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypotheses. This is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution. From it we learn how to interpret present occurrences cautiously; it reveals that certain hypotheses considered certainties by their authors are in fact questionable or even illegitimate." (Grassé, P.-P., 1977, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY 1977, p.4).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations. The following is one of the numerous examples found in books today: `In microorganisms, the generation time is rather short and the size of the population can be enormous. Therefore, mutation acts as a very powerful evolutionary process during a shorter lapse of time than in populations of higher organisms' (Levine, 1969, p. 196, the italics are mine). This text suggests that modern bacteria are evolving very quickly, thanks to their innumerable mutations. Now, this is not true. For millions or even billions of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have always fluctuated and still do. It is a fact that microbiologists can see in their cultures species of bacteria oscillating around an intermediate form, but this does not mean that two phenomena, which are quite distinct, should be confused; the variation of the genetic code because of a DNA copy error, and evolution. To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized ... Bacteria, which are both the first and the most simple living beings to have appeared, are excellent subject material for genetic and biochemical study, but they are of little evolutionary value." (Grassé, 1977, p.6).
"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction ... This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems. ... Darwinians have seldom taken fossils into consideration, or, and this is more serious, they have applied the laws of genetics to them without making a critical analysis .... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusions. The error in method is obvious." (Grassé, 1977, p.7).
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grassé, 1977, p.8).
"The code of conduct that the naturalist wishing to understand the problem of evolution must adopt is to adhere to facts and sweep away all a priori ideas and dogmas. Facts must come first and theories must follow. The only verdict that matters is the one pronounced by the court as proved facts. Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering whether they agree or disagree with their theories." (Grassé, 1977, p.8).
"Thus, during the whole history of the therapsids, the ancestors of mammals, the development of the bony parts of the mandible (i.e., lower jaw) and of the motor elements the muscles has been closely coordinated. Such was also the case for innervation. The transformation of the reptilian mandible into the mammalian mandible could only occur thanks to a triple coordination simultaneously involving bones, muscles, and nerves. This is what we call evolution. It is not a mosaic of random variations affecting just anything at any time." (Grassé, 1977, pp.43-44).
"In his theoretical discussion, Simpson [Simpson, G.G., "Horses," Oxford University Press: New York, 1951] does not linger over the structure of the hoof; yet it is the result of a very innovative and precise evolution. Such a hoof, which is fitted to the limb like a die protecting the third phalanx, can without rubber or springs buffer impacts which sometimes exceed one ton. It could not have formed by mere chance: a close examination of the structure of the hoof reveals that it is a storehouse of coaptations and of organic novelties. The horny wall, by its vertical keratophyl laminae, is fused with the podophyl laminae of the keratogenous layer. The respective lengths of the bones, their mode of articulation, the curves and shapes of the articular surfaces, the structure of bones (orientation, arrangement of the bony layers), the presence of ligaments, tendons sliding with sheaths, buffer cushions, navicular bone, synovial membranes with their serous lubricating liquid, all imply a continuity in the construction which random events, necessarily chaotic and incomplete, could not have produced and maintained. This description does not go into the detail of the ultrastructure where the adaptations are even more remarkable; they provide solutions to the problems of mechanics involved in rapid locomotion on monodactyl limbs." (Grassé, 1977, p.51-52).
"Mutations do not explain how coordinated variations play upon several organs at a time; some lethal or sublethal mutations of a gene produce multiple effects. ... A mutation substituting one or more amino acids for one or more others in the globin of human hemoglobin may, depending on its location, have serious effects on the structure (at various levels) and properties of this pigment; such as the case of abnormal hemoglobin S in the anemia of cresentic red blood cells (drepanocytosis or sickle cell anemia). ... But these pathological cases have no relationship whatsoever with the slow and coherent attainment of a new form, of a new function. We do not question the existence of the multiple effects (i. e., pleiotropy) a single gene can produce but we do not think any geneticist would maintain that the transformations of the jaw, of its muscles and nerves of the ossicles of the middle ear, etc., could be induced by a single gene." (Grassé, 1977, pp.55-56).
"Mayr refers to natural selection and maintains that selection pressure was strong in the various forms of theriodonts. How does he know? His conclusion does not rely on any demographic data (we have no knowledge of population densities, ecological factors, etc.), nor on ecological or climatic data. We know little about the environments in which theriodonts lived. How could natural selection give rise to the single mammalian structure while it acted upon populations living in very different environments (Asia, South Africa, South America)? Environmental conditions change from one continent to the other, and the climates were already characterized both in the Triassic and in the Jurassic. How could natural selection, in the midst of such diversity, manage to favor the same forms everywhere, without being inconsistent with the neo-Darwinian principle that `each environment has its own privileged genotype which, by chance, is better preadapted to it'? We wonder." (Grassé, 1977, pp.56-57).
"Four events have had an immense effect on the evolutionary path: these are the synthesis of chlorophyll, the change from schizophyte to cell, from a single cell to a multicellular organism, and from diploblastic metazoans to triploblastic metazoans. Sexual reproduction, by combining in a single being the characteristics of two, plus the characteristics of the entire population through the interplay of the consecutive generations has played a fundamental role in the history of the two kingdoms." (Grassé, 1977, p.60).
"The genesis of the fundamental structural plans which characterize the subphyla and classes-themselves the main branches of the genealogical tree of the animal kingdom-has been the greatest achievement of evolution. There have been few creations: fewer than twenty phyla and eighty classes for the animal kingdom (less than half that many for the plant kingdom) They are all very ancient. The last major group to date, the vertebrates, made its appearance with the Agnatha (ostracoderms, Cyclostomata) during the Ordovician [~488-444 mya], and with jawed fishes during the Devonian [~416-359 mya], some 450 millions years ago. Since the Jurassic [~200-145 mya](Rhaetic, 200 million years ago), when the first mammals and the precursors of birds (Portlandian, 135 million years ago), no new classes have appeared. The interruption of the genesis of the fundamental plans and the fact that they are so few in number are two facts that have been underestimated in the attempt to understand evolution. ... The creative powers of evolution have gradually decreased with the aging of the flora and fauna, and since the Eocene (60 to 33 million years ago), the formation of orders has been interrupted, eutherian mammals and birds being the last to appear." (Grassé, 1977, pp.60-61).
"From the facts already discussed, one notices that the `maneuvering space' of evolution has never stopped decreasing. The genesis of the phyla stopped in the Ordovician; of the classes, in the Jurassic; of the orders, in the Paleocene-Eocene [~65-34 mya]. After the Eocene, the evolutionary `sap' still flowed through a few orders, since mammals and birds continued to specialize in various directions and invaded all the terrestrial and marine biotopes previously occupied by reptiles. The extent of evolutionary novelties gradually changed. They no longer affected the structural plan but only involved details. The only form which evolution took was speciation: in insects since the Oligocene [~34-23 mya], in mollusks since the Miocene [~23-5 mya] , in birds and simians since the Pliocene [~5-2 mya] , and in some glirines and hominids since the Holocene [~2-0 mya] ; Homo sapiens, the last in line, is probably 100,000 years old. Evolution has not only slowed down, but with the aging of the biosphere, it has also decreased in scope and in extent. We are certain that it does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed. It is of the utmost importance to determine what has changed; this should shed light upon the internal mechanisms of the phenomena. The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off." (Grassé, 1977, pp.70-71).
"It has often been noted that, despite the presence of all the presumably efficient causes, evolution still stops. Vandel (1972) has recently elaborated a very good example of this. The two species of woodlouse of the genus Australoniscus, A. alticolus in Nepal and A. springetti in western Australia, have been separated, because of the splitting of the Gondwana continent and because of continental drift, since the beginning of the Cretaceous (i.e., approximately 140 to 135 million years ago). They differ by a minor characteristic; `the endopodite end of the first male pleopod is different.. . it is straight in springetti, bent into a hook in alticolus. ` Thus, in 140 million years, neither segregation nor mutations (there certainly have been some), nor selection operating in different environments, has provoked any change in these crustaceans." (Grassé, 1977, pp.71-72).
"The evolution of all zoological groups was initially highly productive, then slowed down and is now restricted to the creation of new species. It seems to us that evolution is not more productive in plants than in animals. Creative stages ended long ago, except in birds and mammals which became individualized at the beginning of the Tertiary [~65-2 mya] and specialized during that era. Now their evolution is also confined to speciation. ... Biologists find it hard to admit that, in their basic structure, present living beings differ at all from those of the past. To begin with, such a supposition seems contrary to the scientific spirit. But facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving." (Grassé, 1977, pp.82,84).
"Man is one of the most cosmopolitan terrestrial animals; he lives in all kinds of climates. He underwent several thousand types of mutations, judging from the number of alleles reported in the various human populations presently comprising three billion individuals, all showing different genotypes .... The potential supply of mutants for selection is thus very abundant. What has happened, then? Nothing important or even noticeable. ... Mutations do differentiate individuals, but the human species, despite the magnitude of its population and the diversity of its habitats, both of which are conditions favorable for the evolution of the human species, exhibits anatomical and physiological stability. In wealthy western societies natural selection is thwarted by medical care, good hygiene, and abundant food, but it was not always so. Today in underdeveloped countries, where birth and death rates are equally high (tropical Africa, Amazonia, Pakistan, India, Patagonia, some Polynesian islands), natural selection can exert its pressure freely; yet the human type hardly changes. ... Within each population, men differ by their genotype, and yet the species Homo sapiens has not modified its plan or structure of functions. To the common base are added a variety of diversifying and personifying ornaments, totally lacking evolutionary value." (Grassé, 1977, pp.85-86).
"Natural selection ... plays a conservative rather than an innovating role. The mutations which diverge from the wild type or from the privileged genotype are swept away when the environment changes; hence the stability of the species. Panchronic species [living fossils], which like other species are subject to the assaults of mutations remain unchanged. Their variants are eliminated except possibly for neutral mutants. In any event, their stability is an observed fact and not a theoretical concept." (Grassé, 1977, p.87).
"Panchronic species [living fossils], which like other species are subject to the assaults of mutations remain unchanged. Their variants are eliminated except possibly for neutral mutants. In any event, their stability is an observed fact and not a theoretical concept. Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. ... bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. ... Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect. It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations). How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years have mutated as much as the others do?" (Grassé, 1977, pp.87-88).
"Our logic, with its many hypotheses, attributes the interruption of biogenesis to changes in the physicochemical conditions prevailing on earth, around the earth, under the earth's surface, and in the seas, which prevent the synthesis of prebiotic materials. Once the proteins floating in the ocean waters had been consumed by the first living beings, the recurrence of any new biogenesis became impossible. This situation required that their immediate successors possess the ability to reproduce on their own, as well as a capacity for chemosynthesis. Their perenniality could not have been maintained without these two conditions." (Grassé, 1977, pp.89-90).
"The number of mutations computed by geneticists is extremely high; however, the types of mutants are very much fewer in number. The source from which arises the evolutionary flow is less important than suggested by Darwinians. The `infinite creative potential' of DNA is surely not so great as has been claimed. Mutations have a very limited `constructive capacity'; this is why the formation of hair by mutation of reptilian scales seems to be a phenomenon of infinitesimal probability; the formation of mammae by mutation of reptilian integumentary glands is hardly more likely (integuments of reptiles show very few integumentary glands; Gabe and Saint-Girons, 1967), etc." (Grassé, 1977, p.97).
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. Much as in The Swiss Family Robinson, which I used to read in my childhood, rescue would always occur at the right moment, and this would have had to have happened throughout the ages. One could admit that one bacterium out of billions and billions can be the `lucky preadapted' one, but the number of reptiles evolving into mammals or of primates evolving into men, did not exceed a few tens of thousands and often fewer; the chances of the appearance of `useful' mutations therefore decrease in the same ratio and become almost nonexistent." (Grassé, 1977, p.103).
"Moreover, from what we know of the mechanism of mutations, invention in biology has never been the product of a genetic variation; it can occur only through the combination of several changes. Thanks to the coordination of parts, the whole is fully functional. It materializes a structural plan, the origin of which is totally unknown; natural selection could not have conceived it, and even less constructed it since adequate materials were lacking. Simpson's opposition to oriented evolution leads ultimately to the denial of evolution: in the living world, everything would be subject to randomness or change and would occur in just any fashion, and at any time. Simpson offers chaos whereas in fact the living world has evolved and perpetuates itself in an orderly manner." (Grassé, 1977, p.103).
"Our study will concentrate on the eye, the genesis of which is a major challenge to evolutionists. ... Charles Darwin ... recognized the weaknesses of his theory, which are increasingly apparent today. We are not surprised, then, to read in a letter to his friend the botanist Asa Gray: `To this day the eye makes me shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer my fear' [Darwin, C.R, letter to Asa Gray, February 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," John Murray: London, 1888, Vol. 2, p.273] We fully understand Darwin's fears and wonder what they would have been, had he been confronted with the anatomical and cytological complexity that is revealed by modern biology; he would have been even more worried had he known that selection cannot create anything on its own. ... Darwin (1859) devotes four and a half pages of the `Origin of the Species' to the eye and its genesis, possibly thanks to innumerable mutants, to natural selection, and to time. But we note that he does not overcome any of the obstacles raised against his doctrine by `reality.'" (Grassé, 1977, pp.104-105).
"We know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the eye of the vertebrate, and embryology is of little help. The problem is to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its complexity, a considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been enormous for adequate ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. We need not belabor the diversity of the transparent parts, on the relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the venous system (Schlemm's canal), among others. The complexity of the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us either; all this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent publication inspired by Darwinism even mentions it." (Grassé, 1977, pp.104-105).
"We took the eye as an example, but the ear would have been just as instructive. Is not the human brain, the organ capable of abstraction, an even better example? Even the architecture of the cortex with its 14 billion neurons is not known with any degree of precision. In mammals, all sense organs evolved almost simultaneously." (Grassé, 1977, p.105).
"If one considers the great number of simultaneous, timely mutations satisfying existing needs involved in their genesis, one can not fail to be confounded by so much harmony, so many lucky coincidences, due entirely to omnipotent chance." (Grassé, 1977, p.105).
"Selection must complete its work on successive generations and must find in them the materials it needs. Moreover, successive generations reproduce preceding ones, otherwise they have no evolutionary value. We have already listed the lucky chances required for the slightest evolution to result from mutations (p. 94). Anyone who endorses the random theory of evolution admits that the eye and the ear, to become what they are, have required thousands and thousands of lucky chances, synchronized with the needs of their construction. What probability is there of such wonderfully fortuitous success?" (Grassé, 1977, p.106).
"Natural selection, if one admits that it is the builder of the living world, can only operate if it possesses the correct building materials needed for the construction of the organ at the right moment. What is the use of appropriate mutations if they appear too early or too late in the course of phylogenesis? If the formation of the crystalline lens and of the retina had not been closely coordinated (the retina is the inducing agent of the anterior parts of the eye), the eye could not have formed. The necessary mutations could not have occurred independently. The influence of the organ extends to structures in its immediate vicinity; can one imagine an eye without eyelids or without lachrymal glands? Moreover, these accessories necessarily formed early in the course of evolution; the eye is indeed too fragile to be able to do without them. The chronology of phenomena in any ontogenesis is inflexible. The formation and the subsistence of the living being requires that successive transformations arise in an orderly manner and that its architecture be equally ordered. Randomness and chance have no place here." (Grassé, 1977, p.106).
"Moreover, during phylogenetic organogenesis, natural selection must be capable of foresight. Isn't `choosing' its prime function? But the choice cannot take place without predicting the future role of the incipient organ. Without such prescience, the coordination of successive states is incomprehensible. Did Darwin take this into consideration? Without its predictive powers, selection would not be able to favor an incipient organ which, at the time, had little or no usefulness. What sort of advantage could result from the starting of an eye, when the materials forming it were not yet transparent? Of what use was the development of the dentary and the accompanying regression of the proximal jaw bones in theriodont reptiles, the ancestors of mammals? An answer can always be invented, but all this merely adds another supposition to the mass of previous suppositions." (Grassé , 1977, pp.106-107).
"We repeatedly hear that chance is all-powerful. Statements are insufficient. Evidence must be produced. I do not consider the spontaneous appearance of resistance to an antibiotic in a nonresistant population of bacteria as evidence. Neither structures nor fundamental functions are involved here. This is so true that variations of this kind, although repeated millions of times, have left bacteria practically unchanged." (Grassé, 1977, p.107).
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. ... To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." (Grassé, 1977, p.107).
"What interests us for the time being is to what extent the losses suffered by any animal or plant population participate in the evolutionary process. ... The wholesale destruction of eggs, spermatozoa, seeds, and larvae is not selective. Death does not choose its victims, but strikes blindly. ... During development of the embryo and in infancy, the elimination of the unfit, and of the pathological, is fully operative; it safeguards the genotype, but has no guiding influence in evolution. The massive losses caused by natural cataclysms that destroy huge areas are unselective, whether for animals or for plants. They devastate blindly and are random as to place and circumstance: tidal waves, floods, forest fires, bush fires respect no one and nothing. ... At any rate it does not call any novel species into being." (Grassé, 1977, pp.109-111).
"Let us not confuse creative evolution with variations in the composition of a population through circumstances. They are two distinct things, and any attempt to connect them is purely specious." (Grassé, 1977, p.111).
"Since evaluation of what is or is not advantageous is impossible in the case of fossil animal populations, whatever may be said about the selective value of a given characteristic is pure imagination. It is not because individuals with long spines become more numerous in a population of cidarid sea urchins that the characteristic `long spine' accounts for their predominance; this might be a very natural effect of growth continuing with age. Quite another characteristic (resistance to parasites, lower embryonic losses, etc.) may be a possible cause. Where the imagination is given free rein we must learn to control it." (Grassé, 1977, p.114).
"Many cases of selection are age-old but never modify the species. Darwin's example of the wolf and the deer is a case in point; the differences in speed among the individuals making up the population are never eliminated. Among migrating salmon there is a group too weak to negotiate the rapids or to hurdle the barriers across the rivers up which they have to swim in order to spawn. In both examples the individuals eliminated are born of progenitors who overcame these same obstacles, since only by so doing were they able to breed. The deficient individuals possibly owe their inferiority to the unfavorable conditions in which they developed. In fact, what is eliminated are acquired, not inherited, characteristics. This illustrates the complexity of phenomena concerning the equilibrium of populations and the limited power of selection." (Grassé, 1977, p.116).
"The lynx feeds on hares and is a fierce predator; both high and low figures apply to both populations, the hunter and the hunted. The struggle is unremitting, as the statistics prove. The evolutionary effect is nonexistent. Morphologically and physiologically, both hare and lynx remain unchanged." (Grassé, 1977, pp.118-119).
"Selection tends to eliminate the causes of a population's heterogeneity and thus to produce a uniform genotype. It acts more to conserve the inheritance of the species than to transform it. Thus, these are largely theoretical speculations, for natural populations are highly heterogeneous, being mainly or entirely composed of heterozygotic individuals. It may be added that uniform external appearances often mask a deep-rooted heterogeneity. The presence, in the same population, of numerous heterozygotic genotypes is attributable either to the weakness of selection, or the neutral or indifferent state of the characteristics determined by the various alleles. Both possible causes often act together and they insure the persistence of the diverse genotypes. There is no need to resort to calculations. The reason why natural populations prove on examination to be so highly heterozygotic is that selection works efficiently only against extremely harmful, pathogenic genes." (Grassé, 1977, pp.119-120).
"Natural selection acts as regulator of the genotype, performing a function of genetic hygiene. As to its role as effective agent of evolution, this is not certain. In fact, if it had the full power attributed to it, it would soon stop evolution. Every noncarrier of the environmentally adjusted genotype would be eliminated. In the event of a change of environment there would be no preadapted genotype to cope with the altered conditions. Thus, natural selection is possible for a population only if it is not too severe." (Grassé, 1977, p.121).
"Artificial selection creates nothing by itself. The same is true for natural selection. It sorts out or gathers together broodstock (in the case of multiple genes or alleles scattered through a population). In this manner it has increased the butterfat content of cow's milk, the saccharose content of the sugar beet, the length of the cotton fiber, the length and softness of sheep's fleece, and so on. Several major mutations in the dog, the pigeon, the ox, the sheep, the rabbit, the silkworm, the bee, wheat, barley, maize, fruit trees, roses, snapdragons, tobacco plants, etc., have been exploited on a grand scale. ... It is hard to visualize how lapdogs, Yorkshire terriers, or Pekinese could survive in the wild. Certainly they would not last long in the woodlands or pastures of our temperate zone. " (Grassé, 1977, pp.121-122).
"This is a very grave philosophical and truly anthropomorphic error, making selection as an active and transcendental entity. ... Selection in nature acts upon species to eliminate the `not-so-good,' the flawed, the disabled. That is its chief role." (Grassé, 1977, pp.128-129).
"Although a population threatened with destruction by a cataclysm may on occasion be saved by its randomly occurring preadapted mutants, there would seem no reason why such exceptional variants would generate a continuous guided evolution as observed in plant or animal lines. Who would dare argue that the marvelous adaptation to aquatic life and the plumbing of the ocean depths that we see in the whale represent a random collection of properties themselves aleatory, in harmony, always by chance, with an environment and mode of living not yet adopted by the animal? Yet another random event was the preadapted mammal's stumble into the water, where he liked it so much he decided to stay! ... Such fairy tales, like those told by my grandmother for my amusement, are not to be taken seriously. ... The chance preadaptations noted so far are confined to a single property (elaboration of an enzyme by a mutated gene) and have nothing to do with a set of coordinated features; their evolutionary importance, if any, is thereby seriously reduced." (Grassé, 1977, pp.160-161).
"The humblest creature often poses evolutionary problems in stark terms that cannot be escaped by mere rhetoric. None is more `antichance' than the ant lion larva, for it offers the naturalist an exceedingly rich collection of coaptations and in all its organs pushes specialization, both morphological and physiological, to an extreme. ... So we now have to turn to the Darwinians and ask: `Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? Tell us, have you ever beheld three, four, or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinated effects? ... How many chance occurrences would it have taken to build this extraordinary creature that braves the burning sands of the Sahara, endures prolonged fasting, economizes water, detects the slightest vibration in the ground, lies in wait for days on end at the bottom of a funnel, or goes forth, freely, to hunt down its prey? It is not enough for a property to appear, it has to come at the right time. These accidents, always fortunate of course, produced their effects by occurring in a certain order, for, out of order and untimely, they would have remained imperative. What scientist would venture to estimate the chances of such a cascade, such an avalanche, of coordinated and mutually adjusted chance occurrences? The odds are infinitesimal. Please remember, too, that the case of the ant lion is not at all an exceptional one, chosen to support a thesis; such an accumulation of adaptations and coaptations is the rule." (Grassé, 1977, pp.161-163).
"Natural selection working for the continuance and welfare of animals, plants, and man himself, is seen to be the grand law which organizes the living universe. So the Darwinians, who fancied they had exorcized finalism and transcendency but forgot to analyze critically the idea of natural selection, failed to see its implications or metaphysical consequences. They thought they were absolved from giving any finalization or deistic interpretation by decreeing that on earth all is but deceptive appearances; finality is a sham, guided evolution illusory. How is it possible to understand such an attitude? We cannot pretend that nature (with a capital or a small "n") copies man, the latest of its creations. So we are forced to admit, according to the Darwinian view, that nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning of some of them." (Grassé, 1977, p.168).
"The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not one single sure datum. Paleontology .. does not support it; direct observation here and now of the genesis of a hereditary adaptation is nonexistent, except, as we have stated, in the case of bacteria and insects preadapted to resist viruses or drugs. ... The role of natural selection in the present world of living things is concerned with the balance of populations; it is primarily of demographic interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a picture of evolution in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not a single proved fact ... Circumstances occasionally award a given mutation a selectivity bonus, but for a variable time, as witness the heterogeneity of populations due to the abundance of alleles of a single gene and their composition over time. Studies on natural populations in their own proper environment show that the composition of genes is changeable and that dominant species vary over time. ... The gene composition of populations changes continually by the occurrence of mutants. For tens of millions of years, populations of Drosophila have undergone millions of mutations. What is left of them? The insignificant modifications discovered by laborious analysis ... These tiny, disorderly fluctuations of genes start no new line; they are apparently unconnected with the great process that has given birth to types and subtypes of organization. ... No experiment justifies the assimilation of demographic changes of population to a slice of evolution as an innovative, creative process." (Grassé, 1977, pp.170-171).
"Let us go a step further. What need do reptiles have for a secondary palate, a mandible reduced to a dentary only, suitable for mammals? Lizards, snakes, and tortoises have gone on living with no partition in their buccal cavity, no complexly structured mandible. .... There was no necessity for theriodonts to acquire a secondary palate, which really served a purpose only in the case of mammals by creating in the splanchnic skull two superimposed and separate stories, one for respiration and another for food. ... In the case of the theriodont we might speak, as Cuenot did with respect to other animals, about prophetic organs ...." (Grassé, 1977, pp.173-174).
"Evolution as revealed by fossil remains of plants and animals does not bear the characteristics attributed to it by theory. From one parental stock we get variants that are perpetuated in their offspring in one or more lines, but in numerous offshoots, classes, or orders the original stock or types also persist. This raises the following question: What necessity is there for the stock to vary since it flourishes and has persisted in its unvaried form from the most ancient times? Relict species insistently pose the same question. They cannot have been so badly adapted as is imagined, since they have endured. Sometimes the ancestor cohabits with its own progeny" (Grassé, 1977, p.176).
"The changeover from aquatic to terrestrial life was probably preceded, in the case of rhipidistian Crossopterygii, by a long evolution preparatory to adaptation to the new environment and involving internal factors. It had to affect not an isolated characteristic, but the organism as a whole, since the variations had to be coordinated if they were to be meaningful and effective, and consequently could not depend on chance." (Grassé, 1977, pp.180-181).
"We are that much less inclined to accept the story of the little `Magellan of evolution' fish since the mudskippers Periophthalmus and Boleophthalmus very specifically reproduce its `experiment'; they hop about on the mud, climb onto the roots of the mangroves, and stand upright on their pectoral fins, as if on short legs. For millions of years they have lived like this and although they are hopping around all the time, however clumsily, their fins are still fins and do not turn into legs. How terribly unaccommodating of these animals!" (Grassé, 1977, p.181).
"What need did the diploblastic animals have to acquire a third layer? We can try to find out, since we can put down on paper whatever we like, but arriving at the truth is quite another matter. And these diploblastics, although engendering triploblastics, still continue with no sign of abatement." (Grassé, 1977, p.181).
"Evolution went on; the necessity inherent in the achievement of the living creature was fully satisfied. But who shall tell us what necessity there was for life to appear on earth at all? This question is not addressed to the biologists, for it concerns the transcendental: let the philosopher or theologian answer it, if he can." (Grassé, 1977, pp.180-181).
"After impartial investigation, which I have carried on for years, I am in a position to conclude that: 1. The Lamarckian and Darwinian theories, in whatever form, do not resolve the major evolutionary problem-that of the genesis of the main systematic units, the fundamental organizational schemes. 2. They fail to account for a great many fundamental aspects and phenomena of evolution. 3. We have not yet obtained from the fossil record all the information it is capable of yielding." (Grassé, 1977, p.203).
"Freeing our minds of theoretical notions, wherever they may have come from, let us take an honest look at the phenomenon of evolution and, in all objectivity, set aside the accepted doctrines, notably every form of Darwinism. I have proved that evolution is not ... the product of natural selection." (Grassé, 1977, p.203. Typo corrected]
"Moreover, it may be taken as proved that since adaptation is seldom perfect, the living creature makes do with a compromise in respect to its environment (in the broadest sense); it survives, despite its comparative inadaptation, provided its physiological balance sheet is sound .. interspecific competition is very far from being universal ... death is more often blind and unselective than it is discriminating." (Grassé, 1977, p.203).
"... I have shown with a great many facts how far mutations fall short of the evolutionary variations that gave rise to phyla, classes, orders, etc. ... In order to create, evolution demands new materials, such as genes formed de novo, or untried patterns of overprinted codons. It is not at all the same gene that, from one class of vertebrates to another, induces the tegumentary ectoblast and its mesenchymatous lining to form ganoid, placoid, or cycloid scales in fishes, epidermal osseous scales in reptiles, feathers in birds, hair in mammals. Every novelty demands its own genes, which are themselves also novelties." (Grassé, 1977, pp.203-204).
"The true course of evolution is and can only be revealed by paleontology.." (Grassé, 1977, p.204).
"Each evolution that we know about in some detail (genesis of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, history of the various orders of mammals, and so on) forces us to admit that a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not there, or because we are unable to see it) occurs in the course of it. For this phenomenon the cell is both the instrument and the effector; it paves the way for the evolution of living things. It does so in accordance with the influence exerted on the organism by external factors and by certain internal ones connected with the chemistry of living things." (Grassé, 1977, p.208).
"As a non-Darwinian, I am not directly concerned in this debate but simply note that biologists do, while remaining faithful to the principles laid down by the founder, recognize that these do not entirely account for evolution, and, in particular, that natural selection acting on populations is incapable of guiding evolution." (Grassé, 1977, p.210).
"At the risk of repeating myself, mutations do not explain either the nature or the temporal ordering of evolutionary facts; they do not account for innovations; the precise arrangements of the component parts of organs and the mutual adjustments of organs are beyond their capacity.." (Grassé, 1977, p.211).
"This is what an American geneticist has to say on the subject: `Yet, being an effective policeman, natural selection is extremely conservative by nature. Had evolution been entirely dependent upon natural selection, from a bacterium only numerous forms of bacteria would have emerged. The creation of metazoans, vertebrates and finally mammals from unicellular organisms would have been quite impossible for such big leaps in evolution required the creation of new gene loci with previously nonexistent functions' (Ohno, 1970). All this is rather obvious, but if people wilfully close their eyes to it, they will not see." (Grassé, 1977, pp.217-218).
"Biochemists take as a pretext the heterogeneous structure of DNA and the transcription of its information by RNA to proclaim the dogma of DNA being not only the depository and sole distributor of the specific information available to the living creature, but of its presiding over the very genesis of that information. ... DNA does not manifest its properties, let us say its powers, unless the cytoplasm (conceived in its totality).allows it to do so. ... Through the life cycle from the ovum to the adult animal, via the genesis of the gametes and fertilization, DNA retains its structure: this is undeniable, but its activation depends on the circumambient cytoplasm. ... The organism is a whole. DNA alone can do nothing." (Grassé, 1977, pp.218,220).
"Information forms and animates the living organism. Evolution is, in the end, the process by which the creature modifies its information and acquires other information." (Grassé, 1977, p.223).
"Mutation is an accident or disease having only a remote bearing on the evolutionary process; this is proved by the independence of mutagenesis with respect to evolution.." (Grassé, 1977, p.223).
"Now, we know, and must bear in mind, that as the world of living beings has grown older, evolution has never ceased to dwindle. Why are evolutionary reactions becoming rarer? In our present state of knowledge, it is futile to ask. When molecular biology has increased in accuracy and refinement we may be able to find the answer.." (Grassé, 1977, p.223).
"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its sole creator. I do not believe this to be true. Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it. A library does not fabricate information, it receives it from without, classifies and stores it. The medieval copyists made mistakes that altered, vitiated the texts they were supposed to reproduce. Who dares assert that their errors are the work itself?" (Grassé, 1977, p.224).
"The whole range of mutations, or mutational spectrum, of a species has nothing to do with evolution. The `jordanons' (mutants) of whitlow grass (Erophila verna), the wild pansy (Viola tricolor), plantains (Plantago), candytuft (Iberis), which constitute well-catalogued and rich collections, are irrefutable proof of this: they are not derived from one another, and are indefinitely stable. They display the species with all its collection of invariant variants, translating, so to speak, oscillations in the polymorphy of a specific unit about the equilibrium state of a genome in its environment. Thus, despite their innumerable mutations, Erophila verna, Viola tricolor, and the rest do not evolve. This is a fact." (Grassé, 1977, p.225).
"The catalogue of breeds of dogs, as of any other domestic animal, is simply the mutational spectrum of the species, sifted by artificial selection. The same can be said of the list of varieties of any cultivated plant. Nothing of all this constitutes evolution." (Grassé, 1977, p.225).
"Genetics textbooks are extremely discreet about the formation of new genes. They ignore this problem, of primordial importance in any explanation of evolution. ... No formation of new genes has been observed by any biologist, yet without it evolution becomes inexplicable ... a gene ... formed can function only with the aid of a specific enzyme that opens out the DNA molecule at its level and enables synthesis of the message-bearing RNA. Such a requirement diminishes the chances of a random successful synthesis since formation of the enzyme is just as unlikely as that of the gene. In order to create, evolution has to win not just on one count, but on two or even three. In theory this is possible, but a low probability is not far from zero. Besides, is it not presumptuous to try to explain a phenomenon that has held to a precisely plotted course for thousands of years, by a mechanism based on the most slender expectation of success?" (Grassé, 1977, pp.227-229).
"The dependence of DNA on genic activators, nucleotide producers, and probably also RNA producers, originally implies a dual creation of a gene plus its activator. The gene and its activator(s) contained in the nuclear sap or the cytoplasm must have been first simultaneously or consecutively obtained. Here again we see the difference between mutation and innovation. In the former the gene changes, and the corresponding activator is always present in the cytoplasm; the gene's expressivity is constant. In the latter it is likely possible, or at any rate, that the birth of the new gene is not synchronous with the genesis of its activators. Lacking an activator for the gene, innovation cannot occur." (Grassé, 1977, p.237).
"In summary, the creative evolutionary process, conceived according to the data of molecular biology, involves three events: 1. Formation of a new meaningful sequence of codons 2. Formation of a specific enzyme to activate the new gene 3. Adequate identification of the enzyme depending upon cellular differentiation. ... But nothing of all this accounts for the orientation of evolution or the finality of the information." (Grassé, 1977, p.244).
"Let us end our survey by drawing up a balance sheet. While still unsatisfactory, it has some favorable aspects, and dispels of one or two interpretations often presented as certainties. 1. Evolution, a guided phenomenon, is not sustained merely by random hereditary variations, sorted out by a selection operating for the good of a population. 2. Evolution demands the acquisition over time, as organisms grow more complex, of novelties whose information is inserted into the DNA strands in the form of new genes. 3. The supply of information and the subsequent creation of genes are profoundly separate mechanisms from the mutagenesis that produces alleles. 4. Paleontology reveals that lines of descent from a common stock (parent form) all show, although to unequal extents, the same propensity to achieve a given form, type, or idiomorphon. 5. Evolution in its essentials depends upon work effected at the level of infrastructures and triggered by internal and external factors, and having the effect of producing certain enzymes, probably resembling polymerases, which synthesize a new DNA and new genes by means of free nucleotides in the nuclear sap or the cytoplasm. We emphasize that the inclusion of information in the genetic code is a separate operation from its acquisition; it follows the acquisition and does not take place simultaneously with it, as does mutation. The elaboration of the information may be slow and take a great many generations; paleontology teaches us that in reality this is indeed so. Thus, DNA records and stabilizes evolution, but does not create it. 6. Mutagenesis corresponding to copying errors in the DNA is used by the organism secondarily to attain the genotype best adapted to environmental conditions. It is the main cause of differences between individuals, races, and species. If evolution takes place without the acquisition of new genes, we must assume that the first living creature contained in itself enough genes to engender, by mutation of them, all past, present, and future faunas and floras. This is absurd. " (Grassé, 1977, pp.245-246).
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory. This is indeed what the reformist Darwinians and Lamarckian biologists realize, hence their recourse to internal factors. The united efforts of paleontology and molecular biology, the latter stripped of its dogmas, should lead to the discovery of the exact mechanism of evolution, possibly without revealing to us the causes of the orientations of lineages, of the finalities of structures, of living functions, and of cycles. Perhaps in this area biology can go no farther: the rest is metaphysics." (Grassé, 1977, p.246).
Posts
2 comments:
Pierre P. Grasse notes "that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known." It would seem to be the case that in terms of a hypothetical creator God, then Grasse is telling us that God cannot be separated from God's creation; otherwise we could understand evolution as its proposed mechanism once God set up the ground rules. Apparently the ground rules, if there are any, are far more active in our evolution; i.e., God is active. Grasse's views give support to a rejection of dualistic thinking, even if he is not saying much about God in particular. His views are found consistent with panpsychism, in my view!
Stephen
>His views are found consistent with panpsychism, in my view!
From time to time I get comments that I regard as merely an attempt by those with a pet topic to use my blog(s) as a vehicle to air their views. That is one reason why under "Policies" I added "Comments … Those I consider off-topic ... will not appear."
Following your previous comment about Panpsychism, your attempt here to link Grasse with Panpsychism, when: I did not mention anything about Panpsychism in my post (i.e. in Grasse's quotes); nor is there any logical connection between *Dobzhansky's* (not Grasse's) claim that Grasse regards "evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known" and your claim that "God cannot be separated from God's creation"; I regard as off-topic and I am only publishing it to let you know that future such attempts by you to use my blog(s)' comments to push your Panpsychist barrow, will not appear.
In fact Grasse (in the following quote which I did not include because my post was already too long) Grasse seems to be a Theist (albeit a type of Theistic or Deistic Evolutionist), who regards God as "The Almighty," and separate from His creation ("His own handiwork"), in that He created it by a "single absolute act of creation" and could in principle "intervene" in it supernaturally, but (according to Grasse) "He no longer has to":
"Giard (1905), himself a shrewd scholar but blinded by a foolish anticlericalism, went so far as to abjure Lamarckism and write, "To account for the wondrous adaptations such as those we observe between orchids and the insects that fertilize them, we have hardly any choice but the bare alternative hypotheses: the intervention of a sovereignly intelligent being, and selection." ... Giard's concept, which is that held by many atheists and freethinkers, gives a singular and belittling idea of God. The Almighty, obliged to remodel and retouch His own handiwork all the time, is baffled by obstacles His omniscience failed to detect. He is not even a demigod, but a mere pawn, a vague deity designed for crooked-thinking scientists. Nature has its laws. The determinism of the things that flow from first causes suffices to explain the phenomena occurring in the material universe, whether it be made of inert matter or of living things. Let us not invoke God in realities in which He *no longer has to intervene*. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.165-166. Emphasis original).
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment