MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) identification.

Q Does that exhibit contain a chart illustrating punctuated equilibrium?

A Yes. I have two charts here. The first, your Honor, illustrates the principle of gradual-

Q What page would that be?

A That is on page 642. —illustrating the slow and steady transformation of a single population. The next page, page 643, illustrates punctuated equilibrium in which we see that in geological perspectives, though remember, we're talking about tens of thousands of years, that in geological perspective, species are originating in periods of time that are not geologically resolvable and are represented by single bedding planes and, therefore, appear in the record abruptly.

I might say at this point, if I may, that there are two rather different senses that would turn gap into record. The first one refers to an existence of all interceptable intermediate degrees. And to that extent, those are gaps, and I believe they are gaps because indeed, evolution doesn't work that way, usually. They are gaps because that is not how evolution occur. There is another sense of gaps in the record claiming, in other words, there are not transitional forms
 

551.

A (Continuing) whatsoever in the fossil record. It's, in fact, patently false.

Indeed, on page 643, if you consult the chart, we do display an evolutionary trend here on the right, and evolutionary trends are very common in the fossil record. Punctuate equilibrium does not propose to deny it. By evolutionary trends, we mean the existence of intermediate forms, structurally intermediate forms between ancestors in the sense that we don't have every single set, and we find transitional forms like that very abundant in the fossil record.

But the theory of punctuated equilibrium says that you shouldn't expect to find all interceptable intermediate degrees. It's not like rolling a ball up an inclined plane, it's rather, a trend is more like climbing a staircase, where each step would be geologically abrupt. In that sense that are many transitional forms in the fossil record.

I might also state that when the geological evidence is unusually good, that we can even see what's happening within one of these punctuations.

Q Within one of these bedding planes, as you refer to it?

A What is usually bedding planes, but in very rare geological circumstances, we have finer geological
 

552.

A (Continuing) resolution. Those ten thousand years may be represented by a sequence of deposits, and we can see what is actually happening within that interval of tens of thousands of years.

MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I'd like to move that Plaintiffs' Exhibit 101 for identification be received in evidence.

THE COURT: It will be received.

Q Professor Gould, you have testified that in some rare instances you can find actual evidence of punctuation; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Can you give us an example of such?

A There is one very good example that is published in Nature magazine by Peter Williamson. It concerns the evolution of several species of fresh water clams and snails in African lakes during the past two million years. At two different times water levels went down and the lakes became isolated.

Now, in lakes you often get much finer grained preservation of strata than usual, so you can actually see what's happening within one of these punctuations. So the lakes become isolated, and we can see in the sequence of strata the transformation of ancestors and descendants within a period of time that is on the order
 

553.

A (Continuing) of tens of thousand of years. I have submitted three photographs-

Q Would it assist you in your testimony to refer to these photographs?

A Yes, it would.

Q Let me state for the record, Professor Gould, that these photographs have been previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 123 for identification.

A In the first photograph, marked number one, you see, your Honor, on your left is the ancestral form. It's a snail that has a very smooth outline, and on your right is a descendant form that comes from higher strata. You notice that the outline is stepped, more like the Empire State Building, in a way.

The second photograph shows the actual sequence of intermediate forms. Again, on your left is the ancestor, on your right is the descendant. The three or four snails in the middle are average representatives from a sequence of strata representing tens of thousands of years. And the third, which is the most remarkable that we actually have evidence for the mechanism whereby this transition occurred, we have three rows there. The top row represents a sequence of representative series of snails from the lowermost strata, in the ancestral form. And you'll note that there's not a great deal of
 

554.

A (Continuing) variability. They all look pretty much alike.

On the bottom row are the descendant forms, the ones in the uppermost strata in this sequence, and they all, again, look pretty much alike, but they are different forms. These are the ones that have the stepped like outline.

In the middle row, notice that there is an enormous expansion of the variability. Presumably, under conditions of stress and rapid evolution, there are enormous expansions of variability. There you have a much wider range of variation. There are some snails that look smooth in outline, there are some that look pretty much stepped, and there are all intermediate degrees. Here is what happened, you get a big expansion of variability, and the natural selection or some other process eliminated those of the ancestral form. And from that expanded spectrum and variability, only the ones that had the stepped-like outline were preserved.

And in the sequence, we, therefore, actually see the process of speciation occurring. So it's not true to say that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair, because you don't see transitional forms. When the geological record is unusually good, you do, indeed, see them.
 

555.

Q Professor Gould, how does creation science deal with the theory of punctuated equilibrium?

A From the literature I've read, it's been very badly distorted in two ways. First, it's been claimed that punctuated equilibrium is a theory of truly sudden saltation, that is, jump to a new form of life in a single generation. That is a kind of fantasy.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn't say that. It merely says that the correct geological representation of speciation in tens of thousands of years will be geologically instantaneous origin.

The second distortion is to claim that under punctuated equilibrium we argue that entire evolutionary sequences can be produced in single steps. In the transition from reptile to mammal or from amphibian to reptile might be accomplished under punctuated equilibrium in a single step. That's manifestly false.

The punctuations in punctuated equilibrium are in much smaller scale record the origin of new species. And we certainly believe that in the origin of mammals from reptiles that many, many steps of speciation were necessary.

Again, as I said, it's like climbing a staircase. But believers and those who advocate the theory of punctuated equilibrium would never claim mammals arose from reptiles
 

556.

A (Continuing) in a single step. And yet that is how it's often depicted in the creation science literature. Can I give an example?

Q Certainly. Let me offer you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 57 pre-marked for identification.

A The Fossils: Key to the Present, by Bliss, Parker and Gish.

On page 60 we have a representation of punctuated equilibrium which distorts it exactly in that way. The diagram implies that the transition from fish to amphibian and from amphibian to reptile and from reptile to mammal and from mammal to man occur, each one, in a single step. And that, therefore, there are no transitional forms. The theory of punctuated equilibrium does not say there are no transitional forms. When we're talking about large scale evolutionary trends, there are many transitional forms.

MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, at this point, before we go on, I'd like to offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 123, the photographs, in evidence.

THE COURT: They will be received.

Q So the charts from creation science literature on which you are relying suggests that punctuated equilibrium would require great leaps from-

A Yes. Single step transitions, in what we, in fact,
 

557.

A (Continuing) believe are evolutionary trends in which ancestor and descendent are connected by many intermediate steps. But again, they are not smooth, gradual transitions, because evolution doesn't work that way. It's more like climbing steps.

Q And that's not what the theory suggests at all?

A No.

Q Does the fossil record provide evidence for the existence of transitional forms?

A Yes, it does.

Q Are there many such examples?

A Yes, there are.

Q Could you give us one example?

A One very prominent one is the remarkable intermediate between reptiles and birds called Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is regarded as an intermediate form because it occurs, first of all, so early in the history of birds. But secondly, and more importantly, is a remarkable mixture of features of reptiles and birds.

Now, I should say that we don't expect evolution to occur by the slow and steady transformation of all parts of an organism at the same rate; therefore, we find an organism that has some features that are very birdlike and some that are very reptile-like. That's exactly what we
 

558.

A (Continuing) would expect in an intermediate form, and that's what we find in Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx has feathers, and those feathers are very much like the feathers of modern birds. Archaeopteryx also has a so-called furcula or wishbone, as in modern birds.

However, in virtually all other features of its anatomy point by point, it has the skeletal structure of a reptile; in fact, very much like that of small running dinosaurs that presumably were their ancestors.

For example, it seems to lack the expanded sternum or breastbone to which the flight muscles of birds are attached. It has a reptilian tail. And detail after detail of the anatomy proves its reptilian form. Most outstandingly, it possesses teeth, and no modern birds possessed teeth. Archaeopteryx and other early birds possess teeth, and the teeth are of reptilian form. I can also say, though this is not the opinion of all paleontologists, but many paleontologists believe that if you study the arrangement of the feathers and the inferred flight musculature of Archaeopteryx, that it, in fact, if it flew at all, and it may not have, was a very poor flier indeed, and would have been intermediate in that sense, as well.

Q How do creation scientists deal with this evidence
 

559.

Q (Continuing) of a transitional form?

A Again, mostly by ignoring it. And using the specious argument based on definition rather than morphology -

Q What do you mean by morphology?

A Morphology is the form of an organism, the form of the bones as we find them in the fossil record.

In that sense, Archaeopteryx had feathers, and since feathers are used to define birds, that, therefore, Archaeopteryx is all bird, thereby neglecting its reptilian features. The question of definition is rather different from a question of the assessment of morphology. For example, Duane Gish, in Evolution: The Fossils Say No—

MR. NOVIK: That's Plaintiffs' 78 for identification, your Honor.

A —says on page 90, "The so-called intermediate is no real intermediate at all because, as paleontologists acknowledge, Archaeopteryx was a true bird — it had wings, it was completely feathered, it flew. It was not a half-way bird, it was a bird."

And then for the most part just ignoring and not talking about all the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx, or by using another specious argument to get around the most difficult problem, namely, the teeth of Archaeopteryx.
 

560.

A (Continuing) Gish writes on page 92, "While modern birds do not possess teeth, some ancient birds possessed teeth, while some other did not. Does the possession of teeth denote a reptilian ancestry for birds, or does it simply prove that some ancient bird had teeth while others did not? Some reptiles have teeth while some do not. Some amphibians have teeth, out some do not. In fact, this is true throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum — fishes, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves," — that is birds — "and Mammalia, inclusive."

That, to me, is a specious argument. It's just a vaguely important question. Yes, it's true, some reptiles have teeth and some don't. But the important thing about the fossil record of birds is that the only birds that have teeth occur early in the history of birds, and those teeth are reptilian in form. Thus, you have to deal with not just the issue of some do and some don't, and that is not discussed.

Q Professor Gould, you have just talked about a transitional form, Archaeopteryx. Could you give an example of an entire transitional sequence in the fossil record?

A Yes. A very good example is that provided by our own group, the mammals.
 

561.

Q Would it assist you in your testimony to refer to an exhibit?

A Yes. I have a series of skulls illustrating the most important aspect of this transition.

Now, in terms of features that would be—

Q Let me state for the record, Professor Gould, I have just handed you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 125 for identification.

Please continue.

A Yes. In terms of the evidence preserved in the morphology of bones which we find in the fossil record, the outstanding aspect of the transition from reptiles to mammals occurs in the evolution of the jaw.

The reptilian jaw, lower jaw, is composed of several bones, and the mammalian lower jaw is composed of a single bone called the dentary.

We can trace the evolution of those lineages which gave rise to mammals a progressive reduction in these posterior or back bones of the jaw, until finally the two bones that form the articulation or the contact between the upper and lower jaw of reptiles becomes smaller and smaller and eventually becomes two or the three middle ear bones, the malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil, of mammals. And you can see a progressive reduction in the charts I've supplied. The first animal, Dimetrodon, is a member
 

562.

A (Continuing) of a group called the pelycosaur, which are the ancestors of the so-called therapsids or the first mammal like reptiles.

And then within the therapsids you can trace the sequence of the progressive reduction of these post dentary bones until — and this is a remarkable thing — in advanced members of the group that eventually gave rise to mammals, a group called the cynodonts. In advanced members of the cynodonts, we actually have a double articulation, that is, a double jaw joint. It is one formed by the old quadrate and articulate bones, which are the reptilian articulation bones, the ones that become the malleus and incus, the hammer and the anvil, later. And then the secondary articulation formed by the squamosal bone, which is the upper jaw bone of mammals that makes contact with the lower. And at least in these advanced cynodonts, it seems by a bone called the surangular, which is one of the posterior post-dentary bones, and then in a form called Probainognathus, which is perhaps the most advanced of the cynodonts, you get, in the squamosal bone, the actual formation of what is called the glenoid fossa, or the actual hole that receives the articulation from the lower jaw.

And in Probainognathus, it's not clear. Some paleontologists think that the dentary was actually
 

563.

A (Continuing) already established, the contact. In any event the surangular seems to be in contact. And then in the first mammal, which is called Morganucodon, the dentary extends back, excludes the surangular and you have the complete mammalian articulation formed between the dentary of the lower jaw and the squamosal of the upper jaw.

Now, Morganucodon, it appears the old quadrate articulate contact is still present, the bones that go into the middle ear, although some paleontologists think that, in fact, that contact may have already been broken, and you may have this truly intermediate stage in which the quadrate and articular are no longer forming an articulation, but are not yet detached and become ear bones.

I might also state that if you look at the ontogeny of the growth of individual mammals and their embryology, that you see that sequence, that the malleus and incus, the hammer and anvil, begin as bones of the jaws. And in fact, in marsupials, when marsupials are first born, it is a very, very undeveloped state that the jaw articulation is formed still as in reptiles, and later these bones actually enter the middle ear.

Q Now, Professor Gould, you've used a lot of technical terms here. If I understand you correctly, the
 

564.

Q (Continuing) point of this is that this transitional sequence for which we have good evidence shows the transformation of the jaw bones in reptiles to become the ear bones in mammals; is that correct?

A Yes. We have a very nice sequence of intermediate forms. Now again, it's not in perceptible transition through all intermediary degrees, because that's not the way evolution works.

What we do have is a good temporally ordered structural sequence within the intermediate forms.

Q How does creation science deal with this evidence?

A For the most part simply by not citing it, as they usually do, or by making miscitations when they do discuss it. For example, again, Duane Gish, in Evolution: The Fossils Say No-

MR. NOVIK: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 78 for identification.

A —gets around the issue by discussing only a single form, a form called Thrinaxodon. Now, Thrinaxodon is a cynodont; that is, it is a member of the group that gave rise to mammals within the therapsids, but it is, in fact, a primitive cynodont. It is not close within the cynodonts of the ancestry of mammals, and, therefore, it does not have many of these advanced features.

Mr. Gish discusses only Thrinaxodon in his discussion
 

565.

A (Continuing) and writes, "Even the so-called advanced mammal-like reptile Thrinaxodon," that's an interesting point. Thrinaxodon is an advanced mammal-like reptile because all the cynodonts represent an advanced group.

But within the cynodonts, it is a primitive member of that group, and therefore, would not be expected to show the more advanced features.

"Even the so-called advanced mammal-like reptile Thrinaxodon, then, had a conventional reptilian ear." We are quite simply not talking about the more advanced cynodonts who have the double articulation.

Q He does not discuss the example you have just testified about at all?

A Not in this book published in 1979. It was published long after this information became available.

Q And the example he does use is, in your opinion, irrelevant on this point?

A Yes. He discusses only the genus Thrinaxodon, which as I have stated, is a primitive member of the cynodonts.

Q Professor Gould, is there evidence of transitional sequences in human evolution?

A Yes. It's rather remarkable that the evidence is as complete as it is, considering how difficult it is for human bones to fossilize.

Q Why is it so difficult for human bones to fossilize?
 

566.

A Primarily for two reasons. First, there weren't very many of us until rather recently. And secondly, creatures that lived in fairly dry terrestrial environments where rocks are more often being eroded than deposited, are not often preserved as fossils.

Q What does the fossil record indicate with respect to human evolution?

A A rather well formed sequence of intermediate stages. The oldest fossil human, called Australopithecus afarensis, or often known as "Lucy", is one of the most famous specimens and a remarkable specimen is forty percent complete, so it's not just based on fragments. Lucy is an animal that is very much like Archaeopteryx and contains a mixture of some rather advanced human features with the preservation of some fairly apelike features.

For example, based on the pelvis and leg bones of Australopithecus afarensis, we know that this creature walked as erect as you or I and had a fairly so-called bipedal gait. Indeed, we've even found fossil foot prints that indicate this bipedal gait.

On the other hand, the cranium of Australopithecus afarensis' skull, in many features, is a remarkably apelike cranium and perhaps it is scarcely if at all larger than the ape, with a comparable body size in the
 

567.

A (Continuing) dentician. It is a rather nice mixture.

Q What do you mean by `dentician'?

A Teeth. Sorry. Or a mixture of apelike and humanlike features. Humans have a general shape of the dentician of a parabola, where apes tend to have a more, look at the molars and the incisors, rather more blocky or what we call quadrate outline. The outline of the palate and the upper jaw of Australopithecus afarensis is quite blocky, as in apes, and yet in many respects the teeth are more human in form, particularly in the reduction of the canine.

So Australopithecus afarensis is a remarkable intermediate form which mixes together apelike and humanlike features, just as we would expect. And then when you go to younger rocks in Africa, you find transitional forms again.

The first representative of our own genus, for example, a form called Homo habilis, is found in rocks less than two million years old and is intermediate in cranial capacity between Lucy and modern humans. It has a cranial capacity of seven hundred to eight hundred cubic centimeters, compared to thirteen or fourteen hundred for modern humans, with approximately on the order of four hundred or a little less for Lucy.
 

568.

A (Continuing)

And then in younger rocks, you get the next species, Homo erectus, or more popularly the Java or Peking Man, which is the first form that migrated out of Africa and came to inhabit other continents as well.

And it is again an intermediate between Homo habilis in brain size and modern humans, with cranial capacities on the order of a thousand cubic centimeters. And then finally in a much more recent strata we get the first remains of our own species, Homo sapiens.

Q How does creation science deal with this evidence of transitional forms?

A Again, in the literature I've read, in the most part by ignoring it and by citing examples from Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism, again. Henry Morris does two things simply to dismiss that evidence. He argues that Australopithecus is not an intermediate form, out entirely an all-ape, again by citing a single citation from a news report, not from primary literature.

He writes on page 173, this is now a citation from that news report. "Australopithecus limb bone have been rare finds, but Leakey now has a large sample. They portray Australopithecus as long-armed and short-legged. He was probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker, as many
 

569.

A (Continuing) archaeologist presently believe." Now, gorillas and chimps are knuckle-walkers, and the implication is that the Australopithecus was just an ape. But I don't know where that news report came from. We certainly are quite confident from the pelvis and leg bones that Australopithecus walked erect. There are volumes devoted to that demonstration. That is certainly not decided by a certain news report that seems to indicate otherwise.

Morris then goes on to say, "In other words, Australopithecus not only had a brain like an ape, but he also looked like an ape and walked like a ape."

And the second thing that Henry Morris does is to argue that contrary to the claim I just made, that there is a temporally ordered sequence to the intermediate forms. Morris argued that modern humans are found in the oldest rocks that preserve any human remains. And he again cites a news report, but misunderstands it or miscites it. The news report says, "Last year Leakey and his co-workers found three jaw bones, leg bones and more than 400 man-made stone tools. The specimens were attributed to the genus Homo."

Now, the claim is, yes, they were attributed to the genus Homo, but it is not our species. Leakey then goes on to say, "It is not our species. In fact, these belong
 

570.

A (Continuing) to the species Homo habilis. The intermediate form of the cranial capacity was seven hundred to eight hundred cubic centimeters, and does not show, as Morris maintains, "that a fully modern human existed in the ancient strata."

Q Professor Gould, are you familiar with the creation science argument that there are explained gaps between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian life?

A Yes, indeed. The pre-Cambrian fossil record was pretty much nonexistent until twenty or thirty years ago. Creationists used to like to make a big point of that. They argued, `Look, for most of earth's history until you get rocks that you say are six hundred million years old, there were no fossils at all.'

Starting about 30 years ago, we began to develop a very extensive and impressive fossil record of pre-Cambrian creatures. They are, indeed, only single-celled creatures. And the reason we haven't found them before is because we were looking for larger fossils in different kinds of rocks.

So creation scientists had to acknowledge that, and they then shifted the argument and said that, "All right, these are only single-celled creatures and they are not ancestors to the more complicated forms that arise in the Cambrian, but there are no fossils of multi-cellular
 

571.

A (Continuing) animals before the Cambrian strata." But we've known now for about twenty years that that, too, is false. There is one rather well known fauna called the Ediacaran fauna, after a place in Australia where it was first found, but now, in fact, found on almost every continent of the earth.

These fossils are pre-Cambrian. They are not very ancient pre-Cambrian fossils. They occur in rocks pretty much just before the Cambrian. They are caught all over the world invariably in strata below the first appearance of still invertebrate fossils.

And the creation scientists, as far as I can see, for the most part, just simply ignore the existence of the Ediacaran fauna. For example, Duane Gish, again, in Evolution: The Fossils Say No cites, although this book is published in 1979, cites the following quotation by a paleontologist named T. Neville George on page 70, "Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin."

That was a fair statement that T. Neville George made, but he made it in 1960, so Mr. Gish must surely know of the discovery of the Ediacaran fauna since then. I think
 

572.

A (Continuing) he's misleading to the extreme in that he continues to cite this earlier source when, in fact, later discoveries had shown the existence of this pre-Cambrian fauna.

Q Professor Gould, are there any natural law explanations for the rapid diversification of multicellular life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era?

A Yes, indeed. Without in any way trying to maintain the problem has been solved - it has not - we have some promise and possibilities based on natural law that may very well tell a large part of the story.

Q What explanations are those?

A For example, I have said there was an extensive record of pre-Cambrian single-celled creatures. But all of these single-celled creatures reproduced asexually, at least until late in the pre-Cambrian, as far as we can tell. And animals that reproduced asexually, according to Darwin's theory, have very little opportunity for extensive evolutionary change.

Under Darwin's theory, natural selection requires a large pool of variability, genetic variability, upon which natural selection operates. And you can't generate that pool of variability in asexual creatures. In asexual creatures, the offspring will be exactly like their
 

573.

A (Continuing) parents unless a new mutation occurs, but mutations are rare. And you may have a lot of favorable mutations, but there is no way you can mix them together. One line has one mutation and another clone another mutation.

But it is in sexual reproduction that you can bring together the favorable mutations in several lines. But each sexually produced creature represents a mixture of the different genetic material of two different parents. And that way you can bring together all the favorable mutations and produce that normal pool of variability without which natural selection can't operate.

So it may be that the so-called Cambrian explosion is a consequence of the evolution of sexuality, which allowed for the first time enough variability for Darwinian process to operate.

Q Are there any other possible natural law explanations?

A Yes, there are. One explanation that I find intriguing which is complimentary and not contradictory to the argument about sexuality, involves the characteristic mode in which growth proceeds in all systems that have characteristic properties. If I may have—

Q Would it help you to refer to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 101?
 

574.

A Yes, please. I have an illustration here-

Q I believe the Court has a copy of that exhibit already. What page are you referring to?

A It's on page 653. And here we are making an analogy of bacterial growth, but it is talking about characteristic growth in systems with the following properties, where into a system with superabundant resources you introduce for the first time a creature capable of self multiplication. So that if, for example, you introduce a single bacterial cell onto a plate of nutrients upon which it can grow, initially you're not going to see, although the rate of cell division doesn't change, nothing much is going to happen if one bacterial cell, then two, then four, then eight, then sixteen, thirty-two. You still can't see it, so the increase appears to be initially quite slow. We call it a lag phase.

But eventually it starts to increase much more rapidly; you get a million, then two million, then four million, then eight million. Even though the rate of cell division hasn't changed, the appearance of the increase has accelerated enormously. We call that the lag phase. Then eventually it reaches the point where there is as many bacteria as the medium can support and then it tapers off and you have a so-called plateau. And that gives rise
 

575.

A (Continuing) to the so called S shape, or the Sigmoid curve, after the initial slow lag phase to the rapid log phase and the later plateau.

Now, when you plot the increase of organic diversity through pre-Cambrian and Cambrian transition, you seem to have a very good fit to that S-shaped curve, which is what you'd expect in any system in which into a regime of superabundant resources you introduce a creature capable of self multiplication for the first time.

So the lag phase is presumably indicated by the slow increase in numbers of organisms at the end of the pre-Cambrian, culminating in the Ediacaran fauna. The log phase represents the rapid acceleration, not acceleration, but rapid increase in numbers of forms that we would expect in such a system gives analogous to the million, two million, four million bacteria and the later plateau. And, therefore, I think ordinary Sigmoidal growth may well represent the Cambrian explosion. In other words, the argument is the Cambrian explosion is, the log phase if one is using Sigmoidal processes.

Q Does creation science take care of these two alternative natural law explanations?

A I have not seen them depicted in the creation science literature that I've read.

Q Professor Gould, does evolutionary theory presuppose
 

576.

Q (Continuing) the absence of a creator?

A Certainly not. Indeed, many of my colleagues are devoutly religious people. Evolution as a science does not talk about the existence of a creator. It is quite consistent with one or without one, so long as the creator works by natural laws.

Q Professor Gould, do you have a professional opinion concerning creation science in the areas of paleontology and geology?

A Yes, indeed. I think they proceed by misquotation, by selective quotation, and by invoking supernatural intervention to produce the basic kinds of life, all of which are not only unscientific, but represent skill and rhetoric rather than science.

MR. NOVIK: I have no further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: The court will be in recess until 1:30.

(Thereupon, Court was in recess

from 12:30 p.m.

until 1:40 p.m.)

MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I will just state for the record, I appreciate the opportunity to finish reading Doctor Morowitz' deposition which was taken last night, and the opportunity to collect my thoughts for this cross examination.
 

577.

Thereupon,

having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

BY MR CHILDS:

Q Doctor Morowitz, has Mr. Novik advised you that Judge Overton wants all witnesses to respond to the questions that are actually asked in this courtroom?

A Pardon?

Q Has Mr. Novik told you that Judge Overton wants you to respond directly to the questions that are actually asked of you?

A Yes, sir.

Q When were you first contacted about being a witness in this lawsuit?

A Sometime within the last few weeks. I believe it was in late October, although— The reason I'm equivocating a bit is I was called as a consultant first, to discuss some aspects of the case as an expert consultant, and then my role as a witness emerged from that. And the exact date of that transition, I'm not clear on.

Q When were you first contacted to be expert to
 

578.

Q (Continuing) advise plaintiffs in this case.

A Sometime in October.

Q Okay. I believe last night you told us that you were first contacted one to two months ago?

A That would be sometime in October, yes.

Q When were you first advised that you would actually testify in this lawsuit?

A I believe that was about two weeks ago.

Q Were you advised that your testimony would be because that Doctor Carl Sagan was unable to testify?

A I did not discuss that with anyone, no.

Q Were you told why you would be a witness here?

A No, I was not told; I was asked to be a witness.

Q When was the subject matter of your testimony first discussed?

A At that time.

Q That was some two weeks ago?

A Yes. Whenever it was that I agreed to be a witness.

MR. CHILDS: Your Honor., the proposed testimony of Doctor Carl Sagan was the nature of science, why creation science is not science, and the relevancy of astronomy to creation science.

It's my understanding, based on discussing with Mr. Dave Williams of our office, is that Doctor Morowitz would be a substitute for Doctor Sagan. I would move at this time
 

579.

MR. CHILDS: (Continuing) that all of Doctor Morowitz' testimony which was outside the scope of what we were originally advised by the plaintiffs be struck from the record.

THE COURT: it seems to me like if you took Doctor Morowitz' deposition last night, that a timely motion in that connection would have been before he testified today.

MR. CHILDS: Well, your Honor, I think the Court can consider at this point as only a tender in his testimony for purposes of review.

THE COURT: I will deny that motion.

MR. CHILDS: (Continuing) Doctor Morowitz, would you please tell Judge Overton and the people here in the courtroom what thermodynamics in an equilibrium state means?

A Thermodynamics is a field of study. It is the study of energy transformations in equilibrium systems. That is the field called classical thermodynamics, which the term `thermodynamics' is usually used, is the study of transformations of state in equilibrium systems.

Q Last night you told me that you have made some calculations regarding the possibilities or probabilities of life originating from non-life in an equilibrium state, did you not?

A That is correct.
 

580.

Q Would you tell Judge Overton what the odds of life emerging from non-life in an equilibrium state are, according to your calculations?

A All right. Ten to the minus ten to the tenth.

Q Could you relate that so that us non-scientists can understand that?

A All right. That is one over one followed by ten million zeros.

Q Ten million?

A Ten billion zeros.

Q Ten billion?

A Right.

Q Now then, as I understand your testimony, the calculations based on an equilibrium state cannot be applied to the surface of the earth?

A That is correct.

Q Can you tell me the first time that science-

THE COURT: Excuse me. What was that question? I didn't catch the question. The last question you asked, what was that?

MR. CHILDS: I don't have any idea. We can have the court reporter read it back.

THE COURT: No, no. Maybe it wasn't that important.

MR. CHILDS: Let me see if we can start over again.

MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

Q Historically, have biologists considered the
 

581.

Q (Continuing) equilibrium theory of thermodynamics applicable to the evolution of life?

A By and large, biologists have not dealt with that subject. Thermodynamics has been the subject of physicists and physical chemists.

Most biologists are not terribly well informed on thermodynamics.

Q Okay. Let me repeat my question. Historically, where the area of thermodynamics has been applied to the evolution of life, has it not been the calculations that would be derived from the equilibrium state?

A I don't know of any such specific calculations, so I'm unable to answer your question. I don't recall any such calculations.

Q Last night in your deposition you mentioned the name Ilya - and I'll have to spell it — P-r-i-g-o-g-i-n-e.

A Right.

Q Would you pronounce that for me, please?

A Prigogine.

Q Are you familiar with an article that appeared in

Physics Today in November of 1972 entitled Thermodynamics of Evolution, subheading being, "The functional order maintained within living systems seems to defy the second law. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics describes how such
 

582.

Q (Continuing) systems come to terms with entropy."

A I have read that article, yes.

Q Do you presently recall in this article the quote, "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macro, m-a-c-r-o, scopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small"?

A Now, what's your question?

Q My question was, do you recall, do you remember that statement in the article?

A No, I do not.

Q Would not that appear to be the application of the calculations from equilibrium state thermodynamics to the evolution of life on the surface of the earth?

A Well, much of Prigogine's work has dealt with non-equilibrium dynamics. I think if you read on following that quotation, he gets into a little more detail about how the problem is solved. If you go just following that quotation, the next sentence or two.

MR. NOVIK: Perhaps it would help if the witness had a copy of the offer.

THE COURT: It doesn't sound like he needs one to me.
 

583.

Q Professor Morowitz, if you need to refer to the article, I only have one copy, I'll be glad it share it with you. Is that okay?

A Yes.

Q My question is, in the historical perspective of application in the field of thermodynamics to the creation of life from non-life, were not your calculations, your type of calculations based on an equilibrium state applied to the model?

A The calculations based on an equilibrium state were to show that life could not arise in an equilibrium state. That was the scientific thrust of the argument. And to my knowledge, that is the only case I'm aware of where that kind of calculations has been used. It is to show the necessity of open system thermodynamics to study this kind of phenomenon.

Q I'll read you another quote. "A number of investigators have believed that the origin required so many chance events of such low probability that we have no way of studying it within the framework of science, even though it involves perfectly normal laws of nature." Do you recall that statement?

A Yes. I wrote it.

Q Okay. And I believe that was with — Who was that with?
 

584.

A I believe that occurs in an article with Kimbel Smith.

Q And then another quote in here, "The view that life's origin cannot be predicted from physics because of the dominance of chance factors was elaborated by Jack Monod," M-o-n-o-d, "in his book Chance and Necessity." Do you recall that?

A Yes. The article then goes on to criticize what's wrong with those points of view and why they were incorrect.

Q Bear with me, if you will.

My understanding of what happened in the history of the application of thermodynamics to the evolution of life itself, was that the first model that was applied was the one that they were familiar with, which was the equilibrium state.

A No. Monod did not deal with thermodynamics at all in his work. Monod dealt with mutation rates, not with thermodynamics.

Q Okay. Are you telling me that I'm wrong in my understanding, that the first model that was applied was the equilibrium state of thermodynamics?

A Other than the calculation of mine which you cited which was designed to show that life could not arise in an equilibrium system and must take place in an open system,
 

585.

A (Continuing) I don't know of other calculations, thermodynamic calculations related to the origin of life.

Q You're not aware of anybody in the field that applied equilibrium theory to the evolution of life?

A To the origin of life.

Q To the origin of life?

A I don't recall any such calculations.

Q When did you do your calculations applying equilibrium theory?

A 1966.

Q And when did you come up with your theory that it's not equilibrium theory that should be applied, but rather it should be non-equilibrium theory?

A I can't give you a date. Ever since I've been involved in this field, probably since 1951, I believe that required non-equilibrium theory, but I can't give you an exact date.

Q When did you first postulate your theory in writing that the non-equilibrium state is the correct one to apply to the evolution of life itself?

A My book was published in 1968.

Q I believe that's the book that you provided to me last night called Energy Flow in Biology?

A That is correct.

Q Are you familiar with the work of a fellow named Miller?
 

586.

A Stanley Miller?

Q I believe so, yes, sir.

A There are a lot of people named Miller.

Q Are there any Millers other than Stanley Miller that would be working in your particular area of endeavor?

A Not that I'm aware of.

Q Did Mr. Miller, or let's say Doctor Miller, did Doctor Miller come up with anything unusual in the 1950's in his research?

A Yes.

Q What did he come up with?

A In Miller's experiments, he took a system of methane, ammonia and water, and in a closed system he provided energy through an electrical, high frequency electrical spark discharge, and he demonstrated the synthesis of amino acids, carbocyclic acids, and other prebiotic intermediates.

Q Who was the previous historian, excuse me, the previous scientist in history who dealt with that same subject matter on a significant basis?

A The origin of life?

Q Yes.

A Prior to the Miller experiment, I would say that the leading name in that field was A.I. O'Parin.

Q And prior to that?
 

587.

A Prior to that, in a sense, the field didn't really exist.

Q Why was that?

A Because people believed through the 1800's that life arose spontaneously all the time; that maggots arose and became meat, and mice old piles of rags and so forth and so on. And as long as people believed that, there was no need to have a theory of the origin of life.

Q Who put that theory to rest?

A Louis Pasteur.

Q And what were Doctor Pasteur's experiments?

A Basically his final experiments that were most persuasive in this field consisted of flasks of sterile medium to which no organisms were admitted, and these flasks remained sterile for long periods of time.

Q So?

A Meaning no growth of living organisms occurred in them.

Q What work has been done since Stanley Miller's work in the area of generating life in the laboratory?

A Well, there have been some several thousand experiments on the, of the type done by Miller, follow-up experiments, where various energy sources have been flowed; there has been the flow of various kinds of energy through systems of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and
 

588.

A (Continuing) oxygen, and there has been a study of the kinds of molecules that are produced in such energy flow systems. These experiments universally show that the flow of energy through a system orders it in a molecular sense.

Q Has anybody created life by the flow of energy?

A Have any of those experiments resulted in the synthesis of a living cell? Is that the question?

Q Yes, sir.

A No. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

Q Would you say that this area has received intensive scientific scrutiny in the scientific community?

A Yes.

Q Do you have any explanation of why you have not been able to synthesize life in the laboratory?

A It's an extremely difficult problem.

Q What is the difficult —

A I would point out to you that we have put far more money into trying to cure cancer, and that is still an unsolved problem, also. We have put far more time, money, effort and human endeavor into that problem, and that is also an unsolved problem because it is a very difficult problem.

Q What is the information you need to accomplish that?

A To accomplish the synthesis of a living cell?
 

589.

Q Yes, sir.

A Two kinds of information. One is the detailed understanding of the chemical structure of the small molecules, micro molecules, organelles and other structures that make up a living cell. And secondly, one has to know the kinetic processes by which those structures came about in prebiotic systems.

Q In perusing some of the literature that you've written last night, I came up with an article which would seem to indicate that sincerely believe that given enough time and research, that you or scientists like you can ultimately go back to the ultimate combinations of atoms which led to the formation of molecules.

A That is not a question.

Q Do you recall an article to that effect?

A Well, you said "we can go back to that" and then there should be an `and' clause, `and do some things'.

Q Do you believe that you can go back and ultimately understand how atoms combined to form molecules?

A That is a branch of chemistry. That is rather well understood.

Q Well, I'm talking about the first molecules on the surface of the earth. Do you understand my question?

A No, I don't.
 

590.

MR. CHILDS: May I approach the witness, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q The article that I have is Biology as a Cosmological Science, reprinted from Main Currents and Modern Thought, volume 28, number 5, May through June, 1972.

Page 50 to, well, the page number I have on this is 615186. The first column is in brackets. I'd like you to read that paragraph, please.

A "If we are able to obtain the kind of theory of self-order, this kind of theory of self-ordering should challenge us to apply the most profound insights we can muster to link biology to non-equilibrium physical chemistry."

"The job seems very formidable indeed, but the rewards could be very great; the ability to seek out our origins in terms of a law that would promulgate our action. This is truly a new frontier, and one that challenges the maximum intellectual effort of which we are all capable."

Q Do I understand this paragraph to mean that you believe that you and scientists from the scientific community can explain the origins of man in terms of the laws of atomic interaction?

A I believe that the origin of life can be explained in terms of the laws of atomic interactions.
 

591.

Q Historically, has there seen a conflict between biology and physics as it relates to the three laws of thermodynamics?

A Yes, there has.

Q When did that conflict appear?

A The conflict appeared at the time of the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species.

Q Why did that conflict between biology and physics appear?

A Because at the time of the first formulation — That followed very shortly the formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, and people at that time thought there was a conflict between the disordering influences mandated by the laws of physics and the ordering influences mandated by the laws of evolution.

Q And in your article you say that this apparent conflict, quote, still rages today among some who have failed to grasp the real nature of the problem." Now, I wonder if you could tell me who those people are?

A Well, I should point out that it also states in there that the problem was essentially solved in 1886 by Bolzmann, B-o-l-z-m-a-n-n. And it has been a subtle problem, and a number of people have simply not understood the solution and therefore there has been some residual argument.
 

592.

A (Continuing)

I would say by 1981 that has been almost entirely cleared up, and I know of no one other than the creation scientists who have any qualms about there being any conflict between life and the laws of thermodynamics.

Q Do you know of a fellow named Sir Fred Hoyle, or know of Sir Fred Hoyle?

A I have heard of Fred Hoyle, yes.

Q What is his particular area of expertise?

A Professor Hoyle is an astrophysicist.

Q Does the field of astrophysics include a familiarity with thermodynamics?

A It might. I mean, there are a number of fields within astrophysics. Some of them would certainly require thermodynamics. All of them would not.

Q Are you aware that Sir Hoyle has come up with some probabilities which would indicate that the origination of life itself on the planet earth is impossible?

A I have not read that work by Hoyle.

Q Are you aware that those are basically conclusions?

A I have not heard — I have not read that work directly.

Have you heard that? I'm not asking if you've read the books. Have you heard, do you understand that within
 

593.

Q (Continuing) the scientific community?

A No. I had not heard that before my deposition.

Q Is Jack Monod a molecular biologist?

A He was a molecular biologist?

Q Is he deceased?

A He's now deceased.

Q Did he write a book called Chance and Necessity in 1971?

A Yes.

Q And you've spent a great deal of time putting his thesis about the origin of life to rest, have you not?

A I have certainly disagreed with his views about the origin of life.

Q When was your first contact with a Doctor Robert E. Kofahl?

A I don't remember the date. I had some brief correspondence with him, probably be on the order of ten years ago.

Q And what was your interest in communicating with Doctor Kofahl?

A I had, shortly before that, heard of the work of the Creation Research Institute. And since I do some writing in these problems of the origin of life, I wanted to find out what their views were.

Q For what purpose?
 

594.

A Information.

Q You provided last night two letters, one dated August 10, 1976, to Doctor Kofahl, and a letter asking for his writings which would constitute a contemporary statement of fundamentalism, and a letter of September 2, 1976, thanking him for his letter.

Do you have his letter of August 24, 1976?

A No. I went through my files in gathering any material for the deposition, and those were the only two letters from that correspondence that I found.

Q Do you consider the creation explanation or a source of life being creation rather than chemical evolution a threat to your position in the scientific community?

A No. Because the idea is totally outside the scientific community.

Q And how do you define the scientific community?

A Well, I think you're asking for a sociological definition since you are asking if it affected my position in the community. If you want a sociological definition, that should be posed to those persons making a living in the field.

Q I asked you about your definition of science last night, didn't I?

A We discussed it briefly.
 

595.

Q Do you recall what your definition of science was last night?

A Well, if you have it, it would be helpful. I don't remember the exact words that I used.

Q It's on page 56, if you would.

On the bottom of page 56, line 24, I asked you the question, "Should the public schools' science teachers teach what is accepted in the scientific community?" What is your answer on line 1 and line 2 of page 57?

A That defines what science is. "Science is a social activity."

Q Science is what is accepted in the scientific community.

A That is correct.

Q Which when you reduce it down to its simplest terms means that if the people like you or in the scientific community don't believe in it, then it's not science?

A Of course, the community has rules by which it operates. This is not a random acceptance or rejection by the community. The community has rules dealing with natural law, testability, explanatory power, and a number of other rules like that which relates to what is accepted and what is not accepted in the scientific community. There was some implication the way you asked that question that this was a capricious sort of choice on the
 

596.

A (Continuing) part of a community of scholars. it is not a capricious choice. It's a community of scholars who are very dedicated to a discipline by which information is evaluated.

Q Isn't that your viewpoint as somebody being on the inside looking out?

A I don't really know how to answer that question.

Q Well, it sort of sounds to me like somebody might be a member of a country club looking at all the people who are not a member of the club. They make their own rules and they decide who will be admitted.

A Again, you're making the assumption that the rules are capricious. The rules are not capricious, because nature is a hard taskmaster.

Q Who makes the rules?

A The rules are ultimately, come from natural law. The understanding of those rules is the task of a group of people who are trying to understand that natural law, trying to study that natural law.

Q Are you trying to say that this is some kind of interpretation of the data that people perceive of what they see around them?

A Science deals with observations. You go from observation to constructs, which would be what you would call hypothesis, theories, and then you go back through
 

597.

A (Continuing) the loop of verification, and back to the observables again. And this is the general procedure by which science operates.

Q Can you tell me the name of one Ivy League university that has a creation science scientist on that staff?

A No, I cannot.

Q Can you tell me one graduate school that you would consider reputable in the United States that has a creation scientist on the staff?

A No, I cannot.

Q Can you give me the names of a single journal that you would consider reputable that has a creation-scientist who reviews articles submitted for publication?

A No, I cannot. On the other hand, I cannot give you the name of a single Ivy League school or major university or major journal in which the flat earth theory was published or reviewed.

Q What about the theory of phlogiston?

A I cannot give you the name of a single such institution or journal which would consider it.

Q What is there about the concept of flat earth which requires that it not be taught?

A It's wrong.

Q Would you say that everybody in the scientific
 

598.

Q (Continuing) community that you know of agrees that it's wrong, the people that you know and respect?

A Two hundred years ago this was not true, or four hundred years ago this was not true.

Q Let me restate my question.

A It is universally accepted — I will answer your question. It is universally accepted that the flat earth theory is wrong.

Q Is it your conclusion as to what has been referred to in this trial as creation science is also wrong?

A It is not science.

Q No. My question is, is it not also your conclusion that it is wrong in the same sense that the flat earth theory is wrong?

A Aspects of it which are lumped into that section 4(a) 1 through 6 of the law are certainly wrong.

Q And the people you know and respect in the scientific community also think that creation science is wrong?

A That those aspects of it are wrong, yes.

Q So where is the democratic process that you refer to in the scientific community for creation science views?

A Well-

Q For creation science views?

A Anyone's ideas are open-
 

599.

Q Please try to answer my question.

A I am.

Q Where is the democratic process in the scientific community that will allow creation science views to be presented?

A Well, you just gave an example — When I wrote to Doctor Kofahl and asked him for a copy of his papers.

Q Didn't you get Doctor Kofahl's papers so that you could tear them apart?

A I got them so I could evaluate them.

Q To show that they were wrong?

A That was not the conclusion prior to evaluating them. I wouldn't have needed to have gotten them if I had made the conclusion before evaluating them.

Q Do you know a Doctor John W. Patterson?

A I don't know him. I have corresponded with him.

Q He sent you a draft, a proposed draft, of an article to be submitted to the Creation Research Society. Do you know why he sent it to you?

A I believe he had covered some thermodynamics in the article, and he asked me for my opinion on them.

Q He says in the second paragraph, "I am alerting you to this because I know you have either been directly involved with the creationists in the past or, at least, I have a reason to believe you have a direct interest in