>> But how much real hard evidence is there for naturalistic
>> micro-evolution above this interspecific variation level? In
>> re-reading Johnson's DOT today I found this quote by P.P. Grasse:
>> "The eminent French zoologist Pierre Grasse 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.' " (Grasse
>> P.P., "Evolution of Living Organisms" 1977, pp124-25)
Duelling quotes, eh? Alors, en garde:
The term "biological evolution" refers to the succession
and variation in time of plant and animal forms. It implies
that to parental continuity be added an internal tendency to
modify certain structures and to create new ones. Zoologists
and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as
a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and
base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e.,
the history of the living world.
Pierre-Paul Grasse [1895-?]
Evolution of Living Organisms; Evidence For a New Theory of
Transformation.
Academic Press, 1977. ISBN 0-12-295550-1
pages 3-4.