Evidence of Stasis

Evidence of Stasis

Abstract: In this essay we will explain the mechanism of stasis, where necessary we go in to technical detail for which we apologise. We will not use the concept of stasis in relation to rapid evolutionary change as proposed by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in the early 1970's. They proposed that over geological time, long periods of stasis are followed by periods of rapid evolutionary change. This theory of punctuated equilibrium contrasts with the Darwinian gradualistic model of evolution.

In this essay by "stasis" we are referring to devolutionary change (after long periods of stasis) and not to Darwinian evolutionary change of one species into another. Why is this? New discoveries in genetics show that there is constant degeneration of the genome in all the species including humans. This excludes the possibility of "positive" Darwinian evolution. If the genome degenerates then there must be some consequent change in the species? The answer is yes, and the speed of change due to genome degeneration depends on the speed of genome degeneration in a particular species. For example, there are species that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years like the cyanobacteria, coelacanth, the lungfish, and some crocodiles. This implies that their genome degeneration is extremely slow. But whatever the speed, the symptoms of it do not become immediately apparent after one generation. More importantly, the change due to genome degeneration is not a Darwinian evolutionary change in the species. The different scriptures and historical books of all cultures all over the world, and scientists all acknowledge that in the past species were larger and stronger. This supports rather the concept of 'stasis - devolution cycle' not the idea of cyclical 'stasis - rapid evolution'.

Examples of Living Fossils

The first question to be answered is what proof is there for stasis? In brief there are two things: 1) lack of evidence for macroevolutionary transformation; 2) paleontological and molecular data.

The fossil record provides many examples in the favor of stasis, although recently G. R. Morton stated that this is not the case. He attacked the idea that there are 'living fossils' by morphological analysis of the Metasequoia, Coelecanth, Tuatara and Lepidocaris as all are found in the fossil record and at present. However, we can argue that his analysis of the ancient fossils and comparing them with their modern living counterparts, which are somewhat different, does not disprove stasis. Namely the idea of stasis is that a species remains relatively unchanged, as Stanley (1981: xv) wrote: "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving much".

The first example G. R. Morton examines is the morphological differences in histology and pollen between the fossil Metasequoia milleri and the living species, Metasequoia glyptostroboides. He concludes from his analysis that Metasequoia glyptostroboides cannot be a living fossil.

However, just as there are differences between the red blood cells of different human beings, for example, some have sickle shaped red blood cells, and others have round red cells -both still belong to the same human species. Thus the final conclusion is that there are more similarities than differences, and this conclusion applies to the slightly different forms of Metasequoia plants as well. Briefly, microevlutionary change does not disprove stasis.

Another example given by G.R. Morton is the Rhabdoderma, the small coelacanth, which in the fossils of Triassic period (190-230 million years ago) were of the size of a large minnow, less then 8-10 inches. He argues that because the modern coelacanth, Latimeria, is 4 to 5 feet long, because of this size difference it cannot be considered a living fossil.

We can argue that the size difference is unimportant. We see that as there are many sizes and shapes of different sorts of domestic dogs and cats, and even humans, in the same way there are different types of coelacanths having different sizes and shapes e.g. different fin arrangements. Moreover, a few fossils of the small coelacanth does not eliminate the possibility of the existence of large coelacanths in the past. In any case, stasis is not disproved.

The tuatara (Hatteria) a large iguana-like reptile living on the small islands around New Zealand, it is somewhat different to its Paleozoic ancestors. They are real relics and their modification can be compared to the differences between the wolf and domestic dogs.

The next example used by Morton is Lepidocaris which is not identical with its Devonian ancestor. But as already mentioned exact likeness is not a criteria to determine whether two living entities of similar kind, from different historical period, belong to one species. Although Lepidocaris underwent only minor changes over 400 million years, it is still Lepidocaris and not some other species therefore, it can be called a living fossil. Even if somebody does not want to call Lepdocaris a living fossil stasis is not disproved.

To consider that the gingkoes are not a living fossil only because of a small difference in leaves is according to our opinion also wrong. The general similarity is sufficient to support the claim that plants and animals living nowadays are very like their ancestors from the very distant past. John W. Klotz wrote: "The ginkgo, the sequoias, the living cycads, and the Gnetales have changed but little over geologic time."

Athough the leaves may be of different shape, the general structure of the tree has been the same for hundreds of millions of years so the gingko is considered to be a living fossil. Obviously, stasis is again a fact.

Morton also mentions that the horseshoe crab cannot be considered as a living fossil. He points out the morphological differences in three types of horseshoe crab Xiposura polyphemus from the limulida group; Xiposura walchi Desm from the Jurassic; and a fossil Palaeolimulus which according to Moore, Lalicker and Fischer is "A Paleozoic member of the Limulida closely similar to modern Xiphosura."

Here we can again say that minor changes within the species can occur but they do not go beyond certain limit. The fossil horseshoe crabs and the living ones have very similar features.

Morton tries to reject the Port Jackson shark as a living fossil because it has a structural difference in the jaw compared to a fossil ancestor from the Jurassic.

"The ancient Port Jackson shark, Cestracion, has persisted since the Jurassic and members of its family are found in lower Carboniferous rocks". R. S. Lull, ORGANIC EVOLUTION, (New York: MacMillan Co., 1925), p. 219.

Just as different breeds of dog have different jaw structures they remain the same species, as it is with the Port Jackson shark.

Comparing the brachiopod, Lingula, found as fossils in Silurian age rocks, and the present day Lingula, there are slight morphological differences, which only show microevolution. Moreover, Moore, Lalicker and Fischer state that there is no evolution of lingula.

"Among brachiopods, the condition known as homeomorphy is common. This consists of such striking external resemblance between shells belonging to different genera…Not only do we find shells belonging to different groups which have similar shapes, but their patterns of ornamentation may be nearly identical."(Moore, Lalicker and Fisher, INVERTEBRATE FOSSILS, p. 217.)

All these morphological changes can be explained by microevolution. Again using the previous example, just as there are hundreds of different dogs of differing sizes still they are all dogs and nothing more then that. Similarly there are different sizes and varieties of Lingula.

Although Morton mentions only some living fossils there are around 200 to 300 that still exist on earth. Their number is decreasing and some specimens are kept in museums as living fossils, such as the horseshoe crab, the sea lily, nautilus and Coelacanth. For the curious we recommend 'The Forbidden Archeology' or its shorter version 'The Hidden History of the Human Race' by Richard Thompson and Michael Cremo. They set out further amazing fossil evidence that contradicts the teaching of Darwin.

All this evidence proves the theory of stasis. Stasis means that there is a mechanism, which prevents an organism of a particular type from changing to the extent that it becomes a new species.

"The emerging picture of evolutionary change, therefore, is one of periods during which individual species remain virtually unchanged, punctuated by abrupt events at which a descendant species arises from the original stock....species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications [microevolution] in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited, and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis." "For millions of years species remain unchanged in the fossil record, and they then abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related." (Science magazine, Research News, Nov.21,1980 p. 884)

It is an observable fact that species remain unchanged for millions of generations. The Vedic literature, like the Puranas, states that the body size, life span and strength of the living entities changes after long periods of stasis. To read about this please read the essay "Cyclical creation & devolution".

The technical evidence, which explains the mechanism of stasis, is discussed below.

Molecular Data

The molecular evidence is convincing.

In various organisms there are important molecules that display extraordinary homogeneity. These molecules cannot tolerate significant change and if it occurs, reproduction is prevented.

As Fristrom and Clegg explain: "The great majority of mutations in genes whose products play a central role in metabolism may disrupt function and lead to deleterious conditions. Such mutations are rapidly eliminated by selection and do not become part of the evolutionary record of nucleotide substitutions".

This means that selection on molecular level works to maintain stasis rather than enhancing changes. We may ask, 'what if the way selection works changed after which evolution could easily occur? The answer is that the evidence is that selection pressures have not changed for millions of years.

We now discuss using different examples how the major role of selection at the molecular level is a conserving, not a transforming force.

The functionally important molecules of different kinds of organisms are very similar.

An example is the histon protein H4 found in plants and animals with a very little variability. This H4 protein has an important function in DNA packaging, and although, as the theorists say, plants and animals supposedly diverged 1.2 billion years ago, still the approximately 100 amino acids of histon H4 of the pea plant and the histon H4 of the calf thymus differ only in the position of two amino acids (Isenburg, 1979).

There are other amino acid sequences that have a crucial role in the function of certain proteins. These sequences are well preserved and protected in different species compared to amino acids that do not have such an important role.

In 1971, when Jukes examined the amino acid sequences of vertebrate haemoglobin, he found that the two histidines (which bind to the haeme molecule) were virtually identical, despite 500 million years of evolution.

Therefore, once more the conclusion is that important molecules cannot tolerate significant change and that selection on molecular level maintains stasis rather than enhancing changes. Of course, some may still argue that the diversity of species is because of macroevolutionary events that included fundamental changes in many important molecules as well. This is, improbable because even if very important molecules would be opposed to change and would 'accidentally' alter the result so it would be unsuccessful. This is what the molecular evidence shows.

Gene Duplication

It is obvious that changes to important molecular structures are impossible. If any change occurred it would mean a loss of an important gene. For the organism this means reduced viability or death. To overcome this problem scientists (Markert et al., 1975) came up with the hypothesis of gene duplication. According to this theory, the original gene is not lost and the extra duplicate gene by gradual mutation slowly transforms into a different e.g. functioning protein.

Although this is an interesting idea there are flaws. Most importantly, the essential question remains unanswered. Where is the genetic information coming from that is required to produce all the transformations? Analysing this using the oxygen transport molecules myoglobin and hemoglobin as examples we get the following. The origin of Myoglobin remains unexplained. It is considered to be the source of [alpha] hemoglobin which developed by myoglobin gene duplication over 650 million years ago. Beta, gamma and delta hemoglobin genes developed with similar gene duplications.

Lester and Bohlin (1984: 91) commented on this hypothesis: "After 650 million years of duplication and subsequent mutation, the various genes have not escaped their basic function of oxygen transport; Once an oxygen transporting gene, always an oxygen transporting gene." We can also ask which living entity in the history could survive without, or with an altered or a partially developed oxygen transporting gene.

The answer "none" favors the stasis theory and creation and that means that there is some mechanism that prevents the molecules from changing into something completely different. There are two known mechanisms which prevent effective gene duplication -protein degradation and gene conversion.