In the News... January 16, 1997

Century-Old Evolutionary Rule Disproved

A long-held rule in evolution called "Cope's Rule" has apparently bitten the dust. Cope's Rule, developed a century ago by dinosaur bone hunter Edwin Cope, stated simply that plants and animals evolve into larger and larger sizes. According to the Chicago Tribune (1/16/97), Cope's Rule has been taught as true in high schools and universities for the past century.

However, David Jablonski, a paleontologist from the University of Chicago, had the audacity to actually collect data to see if Cope's rule was true. He spent 10 years measuring fossils from 1,086 species of snails, oysters, and clams. In all, he made over 6,000 measurements with his trusty calipers. His conclusion: Cope's Rule is not true.

How could such a rule, widely believed and taught by a century's worth of eminent scientists, not be true? How were the experts in biology, paleontology, and evolution hoodwinked for a century? Surely such learned men and women would have easily recognized Cope's Rule as bogus. Explanations given by two of the current crop of eminent scientists for the acceptance of this century-long evolutionary boo-boo were telling.

Steven Jay Gould, the noted Harvard paleontologist, wrote the following in a commentary in the same January 16, 1997, issue of Nature magazine where Jablonski's research was published:

"One would think that issues so fundamental, and so eminently testable, had been conclusively resolved long ago -- except for a pervasive trait of the human psyche," Gould wrote. "We tend to pick most ?notable' cases out of general pools, often for idiosyncratic reasons that can only distort a proper scientific investigation."

Translation: Evolutionists tend not to look at all the data as a whole, but are happy to selectively search for data that supports their theory.

Douglas Erwin, Smithsonian paleontologist:

"I think it's going to be a classic demonstration of the fact that a lot of what we think of as trends aren't trends at all," Erwin said. "There is, instead, some sort of perceptual bias that wants to find trends."

Translation: Evolutionists see trends and processes where none actually exist. Could it be -- dare we say -- that perhaps the whole general theory of evolution is a "classic demonstration of the fact that a lot of what we think of as trends aren't trends at all?"

Although we laud science when it corrects its mistakes, and evolutionists are not the only ones who tend to see what they want to in data, why do so many scientists arrogantly claim evolution is a fact? Perhaps this latest egg on the face of evolutionists will instill a bit of humility in the "evolution is a fact" breed of scientists. (I can dream, can't I?) If they were wrong for a hundred years about such an easily testable thing such as Cope's Rule, teaching it as a "fact", could they be wrong about the virtually untestable general theory of evolution?

The author of the Tribune article said, "The findings are not only certain to give the field of evolution a good shake, but also serve as a reminder that not all the dusty relics lying around museums and universities are bones and stones. Some are ideas." Yeah, like the idea of a blind and random evolutionary process creating order, design and complexity out of nothing.

One thing is for sure, someone should take away Jablonski's calipers before he starts collecting more data. Who knows what more damage can be done to the theory of evolution when its adherents actually look at all the data?

mlv, 1/18/97

Return to Crystal Lake Church of Christ home page

Page updated 07/16/03