Paul:

Charles Darwin over 150 years ago emancipated mankind from their trust in mental slavery of spontaneous creation of Life on Planet Earth within a span of a few days, and along with Freud and Marx provided revolutionary ideas in mid-19th century. It must be clearly understood that Charles Darwin had access to only a fraction of fossil record (Silurian and younger strata) mostly through contacts with Dr.Owen and Charles Lyell, whereas submicroscopic forms invisible to naked eye (spanning ca.3000Ma) were termed as "Darwin's dilemma" for lack of proper magnifying devices. Darwin's book (with 6 editions) entitled: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured Races in the struggle for Life." the word evolution is just mentioned once at the last paragraph of chapter XIV. Other phrases like Survival of the fittest and Struggle for Existence come from Herbert Spencer. Darwin's theory implies Gradualistic descent of Life on Planet Earth, any catastrophic models among others like asteroid impact or Volcanism causing Mass extinction is not permitted. With the advent of advances made and support coming in from Molecular Biology, Genetics, Genome and Biochemistry the Darwin's theory assumed new status known as "Neodarwinian Paradigm."

There must be missing links or records which is quite natural to expect, but otherwise we are not aware of any fossil record which does not support Darwinism. It must however, be admitted that initially there was an ambiguity in the concept of "Natural Selection" as to the exact mechanism which permitted the favourable mutations to be preserved and passed on to the offspring. However, Neodarwinism continues to be a great theory readily explaining innovation and extinction of Life including Mass Extinctions on Planet Earth (see Dynamics of Terminal Cretaceous global biotic turnover - Jafar 2014 at RG).

Best

Syed

There is no example of fossil which disagree with the principles of natural selection. On the other hand, probably the best examples of evolution´s evidence are the transitional fossils (an extinct life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group) like Archaeopteryx (between reptils and birds), Ambulocetus (terrestrial mammals and cetaceans), or Tiktaalik (fish and tetrapods).

I agree with David. To my knowledge, there are no fossils contradicting Natural Selection. Yet, it is important to remember that fossil record per se is fragmentary and incomplete, a fact already stressed by Darwin himself. Thus, we are surely having a small "window" of the full picture. Indeed, fossil record gave us some nice examples that -in my opinion- illustrate Natural Selection. Dinos and mammals -for example- arose more or less at the same time, at the end of the Triassic. Yet, dinos have to get extinct for the mammals fully spread and diversify. More recently (a few mya ago), placental mammals almost fully displaced the marsupials in South America. With all the best wishes,

Rodrigo

Rodrigo:

You are absolutely right that Dinos and mammals arose at the same time but Dinos had to go because they attained giant magnitude whereas mammals remained tiny and could survive the mass extinction and diversify. Ensuing 6th. Mass extinction would wipe out large mammals of both land and sea. The Relative Magnitude was recognized as an important element in evolution by Darwin himself predicting what would perish and what would survive WITHOUT involving any catastrophic events. Would you care to see Jafar 2014 at RG? Would appreciate your feedback.

Best

Syed

I guess it all depends on what You mean by "nature". I am not an expert in palaeontology but if the parallel to human cultures holds true it may seem that the fittest one species is to a specific environment, the less resilient it would be to environmental change.

I have to say I find the question confusing.  Is there perhaps a mixup here between two theories: evolution theory (the theory that contemporary species have come about via adapted phyletic descent) and natural selection theory (the theory that differential replication of alternative types within the species is the cause of adapted phyletic descent) ?  Most of your questions seem to relate to evolution theory, to which Darwin subscribed, and to which he made a HUGE contribution, but to which he laid no particular claim. 

For me, the interesting question lurking in this thread is the degree to which one could believe in evolution theory without believing in natural selection theory.  Or put it another way, could one discover anything about the history of adapted phyletic descent that is incompatible with a natural selection account of it?  I will have to think about that one. 

Nick

Nicholas:

Who invented Evolutionary and Natural Selection Theories and in what way they can be distinguished?

Best

Syed

Dear Syed,

I thought I adequately distinguished between "evolution" and "natural selection" in my previous post, so I will need some help from you knowing how my response was insufficient for you, in that regard.  Please give me a bit more to work with.

As to who held which theories, evolution as a theory existed long before Darwin. Lamarck had one.  Even Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, had an evolution theory.  Many people held "mutation" theories, in which there was an original creation, from which modifications might then occur.   Darwin's particular version of evolution theory was made possible by the "invention" of deep time, which I think was owed to Darwin's friend and mentor, Lyell.  So, the "discovery" of evolution, was very much a collaborative effort of many people, not unlike the "discovery" of the periodic table.  

What appears to be unique about Darwin/Wallace is their invention of the  mechanism of natural selection as an explanation of evolution.  But even that, arguably, had its predecessors.  One of the great pleasures of my summers is to read one biography of Darwin every summer.  There are many truly wonderful ones.

I am still hoping to hear from some of the very smart people on this list about the degree to which the two theories actually interact.  What facts could we discover about evolution that would make natural selection seem implausible?  What facts about natural selection could we discover that would make evolution seem implausible?  I know I ought to be able to think of some, but they aren't coming easily. 

Nick Thompson

Paleontology can't provide any evidence of natural selection. The fossil record does not collect information of selection processes or of the initial and final variability of a population. We can only propose no testable hypotheses. The test must be done with populations of living organisms under controlled experimental conditions.

Very different is about evolution itself: as has been said before by other colleagues, the fossil record, with millions of data and growing each day, is perfectly consistent with the evolution of species (macroevolution). The proofs supporting evolution not only come from Paleontology, also from Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology and Biogeography, among others.

There is NO paleontological evidence for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection, but there is substantial evidence for common descent with modification (numerous transitional fossils in nearly every group under study), even though a lot of this fossil evidence would also be compatible with progressive creationism (but not young earth creationism).

Dear Syed,

Regarding the mammal vs dinosaurs post, the divergence between mammals and dinosaurs must be other than relative magnitude. Additionally, this was not the possible factor that drove dinosaur evolution differently from mammals. Most likely was niche disposal, resource abundance, interspecific competition, among others. If you look at the earliest dinosaurs (from Carnian or even Landian, Early Triassic), you'll see that they were very tiny, and these animals remained small until de Early Jurassic. In addition, large sized theropods were already diminishing in size at Jurassic to Cretaceous. Indeed, if you look the temporal range and size of dinosaurs, you'll see that size is in fact, relative. Thus, the argument that size (i.e. magnitude) drove differential evolution of dinosaurs and mammals can not be applied, since both animals remained small at Mesozoic (excepting the non-avian dinosaurs).

Best wishes

I am grateful for the two answers just above, which seem to state the case much more clearly than I could .. Thank you.

Nick

Sorry Colleagues, owing to technical problem in my Computer, it was not possible for me to upload my answers earlier:

David:

Appreciate your viewpoints on "transitional fossils" and their bearing on Ancestor-Descendent" relationship. One should avoid using popular word "Evolution" which literary means "Progression" or "Development". Darwin hardly used this word, instead "Descent" is more appropriate. Natural Selection - Mutation - Migration are three essential ingredients of Darwin's theory of Descent and finds support from global fossil record.

Rodrigo:

You are right that Darwin had access to incomplete and fragmentary fossil record (barely 12% of the life span on Earth), but was absolutely brilliant in assuming that extremely long time must have elapsed before these wonderful form appeared on planet Earth. "Darwin's Dilemma" largely comprised of Precambrian and Cambrian-Ordovician strata. No one had access to a variety of Viruses, Bacteria and Protists etc. displaying extremely high rate of mutation and turnover due to non-availability of magnifying devices. Regarding dinos and Mammals diversification see discussion below.

Tiziano:

Absolutely right that "Environmental Change" is an important component of Natural Selection.

Nicholas:

Paul's question is straight forward without any ambiguity asking for the fossil record and how well it supports or otherwise Darwin's "Theory" by Natural Selection. You are absolutely right that there were several persons who had ideas about "Evolution" but theory of Descent in my opinion is purely contributed by Darwin. Beware of word "Evolution", and need not mix it with Natural Selection.

Javier:

You are probably right that Palaeontology cant produce direct evidence of Natural Selection, but you would admit that myriad forms of life dug out is a result of Natural Selection. When we talk of Darwinism again caution with the word "Evolution".

Guenter:

"Damit das Moegliche ensteht muss immer wieder das Unmoegliche versucht werden"  Just as Javier assumes that the vast majority of fossils do not provide evidence of Natural Selection - but the vast variety of Life forms is caused by Natural Selection. Let there be absolute clarity on this. By the way who coined the phrase "Progressive Creationism", makes sense.

Gustavo:

Gross misunderstanding. Mammal Dinosaur diversification has nothing to with Relative Magnitude, and is neither a driving force nor cause of descent. Actually, the original idea came from Galileo who claimed that "Nothing is Big or Small except by comparison". Instead of Size the word Magnitude was used for dynamic mathematical connotation. The word Relative was, therefore instrumental in identifying "Large or Giant" entities of Life among Viruses, Bacteria, and Protists etc., which are invisible to unaided human eye. If you apply this "Relative Magnitude" concept within the framework of Darwinian theory of Descent to "Darwin's Dilemma" and Phanerozoic fossil record, one would find an exciting PATTERN, which explains the innovation and extinction of Life including Mass Extinction without invoking any Catastrophic model (For details see Jafar 2014 Dynamics etc. at RG). 

Best

Syed

Syed, I completely agree with you: natural selection and evolution must not be mistaken and near all biodiversity, if not all, is produced by natural selection (in Gould words: "variation proposes and selection disposes"). I was answering the original question about natural selection (s.s.) and fossil record: I can't imagine any example in what fossil record can prove scientifically natural selecction.

Best, Javier

Read the above with great interest. My comment is that we enjoy the professional language of terms proposed since Darwin and can discuss the validity of Gould's punctuated equilibria etc. But the fact is that to survive environmental stress a lineage "uses" solutions like paedomorphosis and proteromorphosis, in other words "retrogradation" that permits survival as alternative to extinction...  

Francis:

I am glad you like the discussions. Let me quote from Einstein: "Everything should be made as SIMPLE as possible, but not simpler." Brilliant theory of gradualistic descent of Life on Planet Earth by Natural selection by Charles Darwin was challenged from the very beginning without shaking its foundation. A variety of mind wobbling sophisticated terminology was used, which beginners find absolutely repulsive and hard to grasp. For the last four decades or so, alarmism and sensationalism has been the pet theme of over 4000 publications including books on the theme of Evolution and Extinctions and yet empirical data of high precision failed to support such catastrophic hypotheses. Sensational paper of Eldredge and Gould (1972) actually laid the basic foundation of such catastrophic models in their hypothesis of "Puntuated Equilibria" alleging that degree of Gradualism contained in theory of Descent proposed by Darwin is practically missing from the fossil record and that STASIS commonly prevails in stratigraphic records of fossils. Although this hypothesis largely based on Homonid evolution was severely contested by several scientists including celebrated Simpson, the senior author Eldredge went on to write several books, claiming that catastrophic events like extraterrestrial bollide impact and episodes of Large Igneous Provinces were responsible for big five Extinctions in the Phanerozoic and immediate possibility of Sixth Mass Extinctionin near future.

The "Relative Magnitude" concept discovered by me within Neo-Darwinian theory of descent is testable in fossil records of both Animal and Plants, and would allow one to predict as to what would perish and what would survive during ensuing SIXTH Mass Extinction: Among Mammals including the Humans for example, the RELATIVELY Large -Giant ones both from Land and Sea would perish without giving rise to offspring, the medium magnitude forms would survive without much change (cheers - Humans belong to this group), relatively small and tiny mammals would not only succeed in braving the crisis but rapidly proliferate and innovate (Kindly see Jafar, 2014 at RG).

Francis, there is no alternative to extinction - Death of a species paves way for Birth of a new species.

Best

Syed