The Theory

Speaking at Hobart and Wilson Smith College in 1980, Stephen J. Gould, noted evolutionist writer and lecturer, remarked:
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. They get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that is stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change it is not evolution so don't talk about it."

Professor Niles Eldridge of the Museum of Natural History also questions Darwinian evolution. In theory, natural selection produces a series of incremental changes slowly transforming one type of life into another. The problem has always been the fossil record. Intermediate fossils are missing. In the past, evolutionists simply dismissed the record saying it's incomplete. That, points out Eldridge, is no longer the case. Geologists have now studied rock layers representing the last five hundred million years, and the fossils remain the same. Those long sought transitional creatures are as illusive as ever. If the fossil record is not at fault, then it must be the theory.

The obvious could no longer be denied; fossils did not support the theory. Gould and Eldridge's solution was to revamp the theory so that it would no longer conflict with the fossil record. They called their new proposal "punctuated equilibrium."

So what is punctuated equilibrium? Punctuated equilibrium is Gould and Eldridge's explanation of how large, stable populations might produce new species. The species as a whole doesn't change, but they believe small isolated segments could, given the right conditions. They call it "branching" into different species, as opposed to one whole species evolving into another.

Finches in the Galapagos Islands help illustrate their theory. At one time, one species of finch made its home in the Galapagos Islands. That species probably originated on the South American mainland, then migrated to the islands. More than likely, the water level rose until the birds could no longer fly the distance between the islands.

Originally, say the theorists, the finch population displayed a good deal of variation in their beaks. When the birds became isolated, they had to make do with whatever resources were available on their island. Those fortunate enough to find food they could eat with their particular variety of beak survived. Those who couldn't feed on the local fare died. Their type of beak perished with them.

As you can well imagine, after generations of this "beak-cleansing process," the only thing left would be a pure strain of beak well suited to each island's local food source. The distance between Galapagos Islands prevented crossbreeding between the finch populations. Differences accumulated, and separate species developed.

In short, the "punctuated phase" of punctuated equilibrium occurs when a relatively small segment becomes physically isolated from the rest of the population. Gould and Eldridge recognize the only place where any variation or mutation stands a chance of surviving is in a small, isolated, peripheral population. Any large population of organisms has a natural tendency towards stabilization. A solitary genetic contribution, even a beneficial one, is likely to be swallowed up in a massive gene pool.

So how long is the punctuated period of variations/mutations? "Five to fifty thousand years," says Eldridge. "Hundreds of thousands to millions of years," claims Gould.

What creates the punctuation in punctuated equilibrium? Same as in Darwinian evolution -- variation or mutations culled by natural selection. To quote Robyn Conder Broyles in the December 1997 article entitled Punctuated Equilibrium: "All evolution, of course, must be gradual, in that each generation must not be too unlike the previous generation, or mating would be impossible. Punctuated equilibrium is not saltationism, a defunct theory that states that speciations occur in single large steps."

Equilibrium, or stasis, is the vast majority of time in which little or no evolution occurs in a species.The result is when fossils are found, they are practically all from this stasis period. Consequently, the fossil record shows little evidence of change or evolution.

Evidence

Is there any evidence for punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record? Scientists claim they have found evidence of punctuated equilibrium in one of the 5,000 living species of coral-like sea organisms called Bryozoan. That species appeared about 140 million years ago and remained unchanged for its first 40 million years. Then there was an explosion of diversification, followed by another period of stability.

That one species of Bryozoan is the only bit of evidence punctualists can claim in support of their theory.

Problems with punctuated equilibrium

You can see how this theory agrees with the fossil record. Instead of slow, gradual changes connecting one species to another, evolution branches into different life forms with long intervening periods of little or no change. It's a clever proposal that fits the fossil facts. However, there are several flies in the ointment.

Variations and Mutations

Darwin's Galapagos finches demonstrate both the potential and limits of adaptation. An original population of finches with genes for various shapes of beaks goes through the natural selection ringer and comes out as several different species of finches with just one variation of beak each. What we wind up with is a variety of birds, each less adaptable than the original.

That's a far cry from a full-blown evolution scenario where something like a bacteria mutates and natural selects its way into a whale, an elephant, or a man. Of course, that is exactly what evolutionists believe happened. They call it macro evolution, but peppered moths, breeding programs, insecticides, bacteria and antibiotics, fruit flies, and finches do not prove their case.

Adaptation or micro evolution works on a limited scale. Yes, peppered moths might turn a darker shade of color; fruit flies might be mutilated into odd forms; and finches might develop different shaped beaks. But a darker colored moth is still a moth. A mutilated fly is still a fly. And a finch with a different beak is still a finch, even if they can't interbreed with other types and are classified as different species.

No new organs are to be found in the moth, the fly, or the finch, and no old organs have been lost or replaced. All three are basically the same animals they always were. Changed? Yes. But a limited change. Design seems to be the explanation down to about the classification level, genus. Below that, genetic variation allows for adaptation and survival. It looks like design and variation were both built into the original plan.

Mutations: Facts and Figures

Punctuated equilibrium is designed to deal with the evolution problem inherit in a large population. When any mutation -- positive, negative, or neutral occur in a large population, it will in all probability sink without a trace. But that is only one of many problems facing evolution whether punctuated or not.

Let's start off where naturalists usually begin - with something like a bacteria. Never mind how those three million nucleotides got together and organized into a living system. Let's just say the bacteria-like life form is a given.

How is the bacteria suppose to change? Answer: by mutation. Immediately we run into a problem. Mutations are very rare. Even more discouraging, the simpler the organism, the fewer the mutations. And nothing alive is more simple than a one-celled bacteria type of organism.

On the average, one mutation would show up in every 500,000 of these creatures. That's a slow start. But coming up with a mutation is only the first of many hurdles. The second hurdle is finding a beneficial mutation. (See: Those Elusive Beneficial Mutations.) Geneticists claim 0.1 per cent of them are beneficial. Okay, lets go with it.

Cranking out the numbers shows that on the average one out of every 500,000,000 (500,000 X 1,000) single-celled organisms may have a beneficial mutation. Which brings to question: How long did it take these life forms to build up to a population of 500,000,000?

Evolution by mutation is full of hazards and complications. Here is one: Most animals don't live long enough to reproduce. Something, usually another animal, comes along and kills them before they reach maturity.

Infant mortality varies greatly from species to species. We know that as far as sea creatures go, only a few, just a small percentage, survive to mate. In general, the smaller the creature, the less chance it has to make it to adulthood. How does that affect evolution? It simply adds another hurdle to the list.

All mutations are rare; much rarer are the positive mutations. Now we see that the majority, probably the vast majority of those already extremely rare mutations are dead on arrival. Predators, disease, fire, drought, famine, floods, and other natural disasters destroy them before they have an opportunity to pass on their innovative trait.

Let's think positively. Say we have a one in five hundred million positive mutant who avoids predators, disease, etc. Is he able to pass on his positive mutation? Not necessarily.

Many mature males are barred from finding a mate due to a local dominant male who keeps all available females for himself. That is true for seals, antelopes, baboons, and many other mammals. Obviously, if the positive mutation winds up in a male who can't mate, the beneficial trait will go no further.

Any other roadblocks? Yes, most animal populations are genetically stable. Why? Mates with medium characteristics or traits are favored, while those with unusual traits are shunned. So the majority of individuals in practically all species show intermediate height, weight, and appearance. The range and distribution of traits remain approximately the same from generation to generation. This stabilizing influence is very common.

Some insects, birds, mammals, and other organisms practice "reverse discrimination" and prefer mates who are rare. The beautiful bird plumage in the Paradise Islands is a striking example. But that is the exception.

All of this throws a wrench into evolution's gears. Mutations of any sort are rare; mutations which might help evolution are much rarer still; and the bearer of those good-for-evolution mutations are likely to be destroyed by "mother nature" before the innovation can be passed on.

Even if the animal survives to mate, the odds are against his offspring living long enough to permanently establish the new trait in the gene pool. If the bearer is a male, chances are the positive mutation will go no further unless he happens to be the dominate male in the area.

Rare Mutations in Small Populations

While Gould and Eldridge's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium answers the "massive gene pool" impediment to evolution, their solution inadvertently raises another obstacle. Massive populations provide the most opportunities for those ever so rare positive mutations. On the other hand, "small, isolated, peripheral populations" with fewer individuals would correspondingly offer fewer chances for any type of mutation.

It's a trade off. Large populations provide the greater chance for a beneficial mutation, but less chance it will survive the massive gene pool. Small, isolated populations provide less chance for a beneficial mutation, but a greater chance that it will survive in the smaller gene pool. Which set of circumstances would serve evolution the better? It will remain a matter of speculation for there is no scientific way to test it.

Unprovable Theory

Plants, animals, and finally mankind pop up in the fossil record complete and intact. We see appearances of fully developed creatures, long-term stability, and numerous extinctions. The one thing we don't see in the fossil record is the gradual, step-by-step evolution of one basic type to another. So did the fossils punctuate into existence from some unknown source and then "stasis" down to the present or until extinction overtook them? Or were they created by some outside source and then reproduce after their own kind down to the present or until extinction overtook them?

Either way, our bone and shell guide to the past would look very much the same. For we are not likely to find transitional fossils in the relatively short punctuated period. Punctuated Equilibrium is essentially an unprovable theory. It can be accepted on faith, just as Creationism can be accepted on faith.