THE DARWIN PAPERS
VOLUME 1 NUMBER V
WRITTEN IN STONE
From The Nebulous Hypothesis:
A Study of the Philosophical and
Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory
© 1996 by James M. Foard
Editor and Publisher James M. Foard.
Darwin Papers may be freely
copied and distributed for nonprofit use
provided acknowledgement is made
for material written by the author.
The Darwin Papers © 2000 James Foard
© 2004 James Foard
Read about Chris Schmidt's
evolutionary empire of ants below.
Chapter Ten of Darwin's Origin is titled On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.
Here at last we have hit on the cornerstone of Darwinian theory, the Fossil Record. Now, perhaps we shall find the story of Darwin's magnificent discoveries written in stone. The rocks speak, and should we not find in the book of nature's past vast convincing arguments to validate Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Let us examine the evidence.
Ever since (and before) Darwin's time, evolutionists have repeatedly insisted
that all species of life have descended from a common ancestor as a result of a
purely natural process of adaption to changing circumstances. Darwin wrote: "I
believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors,
and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step
farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from
some one prototype."(1)
Where did Darwin derive his evidence for this grand theory from? Not from any presently existing species:
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record."
(Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties.)
So in lieu of the existence of any present proof for evolution, Darwin said that the only evidence of it would come from examining the fossil record. We have also read in the previous chapter, by Darwin's own admission both to F.W. Hutton and in his Origin itself, that he had never seen any real evidence of evolution taking place at present, and we have read his rather brutal reason as to why he saw no evidence of evolution occurring at the present time.
Yes, the record in stone is held to be the one incontrovertible testimony of evolution. Nicholas Hotton lll, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Smithsonian Museum, has stated:
"In consequence, most living species do not in themselves show recognizable evolutionary change. . . All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record." (2)
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, said:
"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence
that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."(3)
Paleontologists, geologists, and evolutionists have what is known as the "geologic column," which is a supposed historical sequence of rock formations containing fossils that would tell of the early history and formation of life on the earth.
Thus if evolution did occur, one would expect to find a gradual series of fossils embedded in the rocks, from simple "almost life" chemicals, (of course there is no such thing as "almost life", an organism is either living or it is not) to one-celled creatures, then two-celled creatures, on and on with greater complexity until you have the sponges and algae, the chordates and the trilobites and all of the invertebrates, then the vertebrates appearing (animals with backbones), these last including fish, amphibians, reptiles, and man. That is only the Animal Kingdom; there is still the Plant Kingdom to be considered, with grapes and giant sequoia trees, carrots and flowers, potatoes and lawn grass, all of which supposedly evolved from the same common ancestor, according to evolutionists.
Now let us find out what kind of evidence Darwin was able to produce from the fossil record to show that evolution had occurred.
The lowest level of fossiliferous rock (rocks bearing fossils) was known as the Cambrian layer in Darwin's time and was supposedly laid down some six hundred million years ago.
Darwin wrote in his Origin,
"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."(4)
Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?
Darwin wrote immediately afterward:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great." (5)
Thus the fossil record of these necessary multitudes of living creatures that the earth should have swarmed with were nowhere to be found, and Darwin offered no explanation for this contradiction to his theory at all!
This shouldn't be so surprising after reading the title to this section of his Origin, which was self explanatory: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.
"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."
Further on from the very same section he wrote
". . . the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations;-the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata,-are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We see this in the fact that the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgewick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species [in other words, species do not evolve]." (6)
Darwin stated that many of the great scientists of his time held the fossil record up as evidence against evolution, not for it.
This is a very serious and important difficulty: we have two noted paleontologists of the twentieth century informing us that the best evidence for evolution are fossils; Darwin said that if his theory is true then there must have been innumerable transitional links before the Cambrian strata; and yet Darwin wrote that there was no fossil evidence for these supposed multitudes of diverse forms of life before the Cambrian era.
All of the major phyla of life on earth today already existed in the
Cambrian layer and they appear suddenly with no evidence of any pre-existing
intermediate forms leading up to them!
Over the past few years they have found strange fossils in Pre-Cambrian rock called the Vendian epoch, and these will be dealt with subsequently in this chapter.
Moving on from the Cambrian layer, did Darwin provide any evidence at all for intermediate links as evidence for evolution in any of the strata of the fossil record? Darwin wrote in his Origin:
"So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."
He wrote immediately after this in his Origin:
"Independent of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links”. (Origin, Chapter Ten: Imperfection of Geol. Rec.)
In the same section Darwin further confessed the lack of evidence for his theory:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.” (7)
By Darwin's own admission we discover that there is a complete absence of any fossil evidence for evolution not only in the pre-Cambrian layer, but throughout the entire geologic column.
Darwin clearly revealed in his Origin that geology, the fossil record, does not affirm any evidence of evolution occurring and Darwin could give no answer to this objection either except to cite the imperfection of the fossil record, hence the title of the chapter in his book.
In yet another revealing section in his Origin, titled On the Absence of Numerous Intermediate Varieties in any Single Formation, Darwin wrote:
"It should not be forgotten, that at the present day, with perfect specimens for examination, two forms can seldom be connected by intermediate varieties, and thus proved to be the same species, until many specimens are collected from many places; and with fossil species this can rarely be done . . . What geologic research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species . . . this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views." (8)
The only response that Darwin could muster was to embark upon a flight of fancy to support his views:
"It may be worthwhile to sum up the foregoing remarks on the causes of the imperfection of the geologic record under an imaginary illustration." (9)
Once again, Darwin plainly admitted that he had no evidence from the fossil record to lend credibility to his theory of evolution, that he had found no transitional forms showing gradual stages of the evolutionary development of life throughout long millennia!
What manner do fossils appear then in the geologic strata?
There is a section of his Origin titled On the Sudden Appearance of whole groups of allied Species, where Darwin wrote:
"The abrupt manner in which whole groups suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists-for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgewick (three of the greatest palaeontologists of the last century)-as a fatal objection to my theory. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to my theory."(10)
Darwin had to confess that all species appeared fully developed and distinct whenever they were found as fossils, and he had no evidence of any gradual evolution occurring for any life forms in the fossil record, a fact contrary to his theory .
Furthermore, the greatest geologists of Darwin's day, and the greatest paleontologists of his day were unanimous in stating that there was not one iota of evidence from the fossil record that would lend support for his theory that evolution had ever occurred.
What was Darwin's answer to this? He was completely dumbfounded. His only excuse for the absence of any intermediate links again was to cite the imperfection of the geologic record, and he stated his belief that in the future more fossils would be found to verify his theory.
"But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory."(11)
Despite Darwin's excuse that the paleontology record was "imperfect," we know that fossil hunting was going on at a tremendous pace throughout the nineteenth century, there was an unprecedented level of interest in geology and paleontology throughout the world, so this sounds not unlike some of Darwin's other pathetic attempts to explain away the lack of any real evidence to support his theory. Darwin even wrote in the Origin of "the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America."(12)
Darwin further wrote:
"I am convinced that nearly all our ancient formations, which are throughout the greater part of their thickness rich in fossils, have thus been formed in subsidence [formed under water]." (Origin, chapter Ten, pp.156, Benton Pub.)
Later on we will discuss the significance of Darwin's admission that most fossils were formed under water, but for now it is sufficient to see that there was no lack of fossil evidence even in Darwin's day. Still, paleontologists have lost no time in trying make up for this defect since then, bones of ancient animals have been unearthed with the greatest zeal and persistency ever since, so has the situation changed at all?
Have those numerous transitional links that Darwin said were essential if his theory were to be true ever been found?
W e have read where Darwin and two noted scholars have stated that fossils were our best source for evidence of evolution. In Darwin's day, by his own admission, there were no numerous transitional links for evidence of evolution found in the fossil record. Darwin’s’ excuse was the lack of research and he believed that with time those missing links would be found.
What has happened since then to bolster up the best hope for evolution?
Australian scientist and medical doctor Michael Denton wrote:
"Since Darwin's time the search for missing links in the fossil record has continued on an ever-increasing scale. So vast has been the expansion of paleontological activity over the past one hundred years that probably 99.9% of all paleontological work has been carried out since 1860."
Denton further wrote:
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record." (13)
Thus the sudden abrupt appearances of entire classes of organisms appearing in all levels of the fossil record since Darwin's time has remained the most serious objection to his theory, something Darwin said should be fatal to his ideas. Denton went on to say:
"An enormous effort has been made over the past century to find missing links in these rocks which might bridge the deep divisions in the animal kingdom. Yet no links have ever been found and the relationships of the major groups are as enigmatic today as one hundred years ago . . . As we have seen, newly discovered hitherto unknown groups, whether living or fossilized, invariably prove to be distinct and isolated and can in no way be construed as connecting links in the sense required by evolution theory."
Here are some more quotes from present day evolutionists, taken in context, in other words these references express the honest opinions of these men:
"One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong." Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence." N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. _ In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny" P.L. Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p 120-121
Indeed, what was the major dilemma in Darwin's day continues to be the major closet secret among evolutionists today: The sudden, abrupt appearance of every major phylum in the Cambrian period and the abrupt appearance of all other forms of life as well, lending evidence that life did not evolve, but was created:
"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists" Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229
"One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups" A. G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section
Steven Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard, wrote in Natural History, Vol LXXXVI (6), June-July, 1977, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."(14)
Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, Dr. Colin Patterson, wrote a personal letter to Luther Sunderland, the late aerospace engineer and author of the excellent book, Darwin's Enigma, dated April 10, 1979, in which he said, ". . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them." (15)
Phylogenic "trees" are used by evolutionists as props to lend support to
their theory that all life forms on earth descended from a common ancestor. The
of Life Project on the internet is a very popular representation of just
such a phylogenic tree. The illustration is meant to suggest that all of the
different species shown in the tree can be traced to a common ancestor, and the
branches are meant to illustrate the evolutionary history of our common descent.
What is not mentioned though is that all of the branches of the tree both in the
main illustration and in the linked secondary pages where the phylogeny of
organisms is supposedly represented don't exist in real life!
The branches of the tree are merely drawn in to represent the supposed evolutionary history of the various families of organisms according to evolutionist speculation, but there are no transitional forms between humans and other apes, or between mammals and reptiles, or between any of the major families of animals at all. There is no evidence of their existence today and there is no evidence that they ever existed in the past!
In the section on Morphological and Functional Diversity of Ant Mandibles we are presented with a series of pictures of ants with various types of mandibles. We are told that
"Ants use their mandibles for a diverse array of activities, and are thus constrained by the need to have mandibles which can fulfill a number of functions. Despite these constraints, ants have evolved a spectacular diversity of mandible shapes." (Chris A. Schmidt, firstname.lastname@example.org IDP Insect Science/Department of Entomology 410 Forbes Building, University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721)
Does it really make more sense to
state that ants "have evolved a spectacular diversity of mandible shapes"
instead of saying "ants were created with a spectacular
diversity of mandible shapes"?
Mr. Schmidt is simply handing us a piece of evolutionist dogma, and we are meant to blindly accept it. This is the result of the dumbing down process of feeding our schoolchildren evolutionist propaganda practically from the time they pick up their first textbook on science on into their college years. Our public education system is made up of a huge matrix of special interest groups designed to discourage individual thought and critical analysis on topics such as evolution, which still remains a vaguely defined pseudo-theory that all creatures mysteriously descended from some common bacterial great granddaddy of us all. By the time they reach college they have become so indoctrinated into the dogma through this process of group-think that they sit spellbound in a science class and automatically accept anything that the professor will say to them: "Please check your brains in at the door and pick them up on the way out. Now class, take my word for it, ants evolved."
Look at the pictures on Mr. Schmidt's website. Do the ants really look as though they simply arrived through a chance random accident, evolving up from primeval mud, or do they appear to be wonderfully and beautifully designed?
What actual evidence has Mr. Schmidt provided to show that ants arrived here by evolution?
A conversation between an evolutionist and a curious questioner might go something like this:
Evolutionist: "We have all of these different species of ants that evolved a spectacular diversity of mandible shapes"
Curious Onlooker: "But sir, how do you know that they evolved"?
Evolutionist: "Didn't you just hear me? I said they evolved."
Curious Onlooker: "But isn't it possible they were created as ants from the very beginning by God instead of by chance evolutionary processes from some unknown ancestor"?
Evolutionist: I only deal with science, not with blind faith. Keep your religion out of the classroom."
There is a lot of fascinating
material on Mr. Schmidt's site on ants. As anyone can see, ant mandibles are
incredibly complex structures; ants would not be able to survive without
mandibles; a half formed ant mandible would have no survival value in some
mythical evolutionary sequence.
So how do we know that these amazing creatures arrived here by the mysterious process of evolution? Why Mr. Schmidt has told us so. He said that is how it happened. And that is all the evidence that he has presented on his entire website. It's all based on his say so. And where did Mr. Schmidt gain his knowledge that evolution produced ants? Somebody told him once when he was in school. And he never questioned it. He never saw any evidence for evolution, he simply believed it, and then passed it on to you. That is how myths are propagated and perpetuated from generation to generation, whether they be myths about Greek gods or myths about the flat earth or myths that ants and apes and cucumbers and humans share a common phylogenic ancestor through evolution.
Mr. Schmidt has a link on his site to the classic story about the Galapagos finches - that they provided some great evidence of evolution. The Galapagos finches never changed into anything other than Galapagos finches. They could always interbreed with each other, which even by evolutionist standards constitutes the definition of one single species. The so-called different species of finches that evolutionists claim demonstrates evidence of evolution, in truth merely demonstrates variety within one single species, similar to the different breeds of dogs that we have, some with long snouts, others with short snouts, some with long hair, others with short hair, etc. Dogs have never been bred into anything other than dogs, and it is the same with the Galapagos finches. We have no idea where they came from, except from previous finches, and we have no evidence that they are "evolving" into anything else, except more finches, and there is a limit to the extent of their capacity to vary, thus they are not "evolving" anything unique other than the feathers, beaks, talons, etc. that they had in the first place.
"Ah", says the evolutionist, "But given enough time we will have something other than finches". We have no evidence for this notion, but based on this flight of fancy, as noted in a previous section on the so-called evolution of whales from hippos, or cows or some such other supposed ancestor of the cetaceans, we might just as well suppose that California surfers would eventually grow flippers, a thermodynamically conditioned outer skin for protection from the elements, and their noses between their eyes would evolve into a blowhole on the top of their heads after a few million years. These fantastic flights of fantasy that evolutionists entertain their unwitting audiences with are all lacking the least scintilla of any actual evidence. The mathematical possibilities for such transformations to happen are infinitesimally small; scientifically they could never occur. Evolution is not scientific, it is not backed up by science, and it is in fact antithetic to genuine scientific inquiry.
While there is a wealth of information about ants on Schmidt's website, search the entire site and he has given us no evidence, not a paragraph, not a sentence, not a word, not a hyphen to indicate where they came from, except from other ants. We have to believe by faith his claim that they evolved. He said so, that's it. This, my friends, is what is known as blind faith; it falls into the realm of dogma, not of experimentation and conclusion in any scientific method.
The evidence, of sharply separated kinds or "types" of organisms with no intermediate links living or fossilized actually supports creationism more than evolution. There is no evidence of any fossil predecessors of ants, none have ever been found.
The earliest ants were ants; there are no intermediate links between any of the ant species and some primitive ancestor that was not an ant. All ants live in colonies; all ant colonies have worker ants, male ants and female ants. The Sphecomyrma freyi, once claimed by evolutionists to be some primitive ancestor of ants, is clearly a complete ant, having the metapleural gland, which is used to produce antibiotics that protect the colony from hostile bacteria and fungi.
For the millions of years that ants are supposed to have been around, there is no evidence that they have evolved into anything other than ants, thus evolution fails the test of being some kind of "universal law" like gravity, since a universal law would not cease to exist after the passage of time. If you want to call evolution a "theory" go ahead, however it is a very bad theory, and belongs more with the theory of crop circles than with the Law of Gravity or the electrical theory, both of which can be demonstrated in scientific laboratory experiments and which have practical applications in everyday life.
Many of the so-called different species of ant are classified merely in the basis of size and behavior; however the basic body plan of all ants is astonishingly similar. Some of the different species might merely be variations within a Biblical "kind" originally created by God. The sudden appearance of ants in the fossil record supports this thesis more than the imaginary evolutionary story.
In reality what you are seeing in the Tree of Life Project are different organisms that just pop up in different spots on the tree with imaginary branches leading up to all of them.
The limbs of the tree are drawn in to hypothetically represent what is supposed to be thousands of transitional forms and millions of years of evolution, but they really give no explanation as to what the transitional forms were or for that matter any evidence that they were, and at every juncture where a new branch juts out from the tree there is some unknown, unrepresented common ancestor that is never identified!
It is like hanging ornaments on a Christmas tree and then telling a visitor that those ornaments actually grew out of the Christmas tree. And your host would say, "Well, I have a PhD in science, so you have to believe that what I am saying to you is correct." These people can tell us what to believe, they can define what truth is to the common populace such as you and I, since they belong to an academic priesthood and have been initiated into the deep mysteries of evolution. It's all a magnificent masquerade, a huge house of cards that uses, or misuses genuine science to lend credence to their fraud.
Once you have been trained to spot this subterfuge it becomes incredible to realize that such schemes have been presented in all of their audacity for years to the public with a wink and a nod by the evolutionists with no evidence for their claims at all.
In one sense, creationists and evolutionists are talking about the same thing. Both would believe that all ants descended from some sort of a common ant ancestor. Both would say that different geographic locales would favor different breeds of ants over some other breeds, or species as evolutionists call them, through natural selection. Where they differ is how this process works. The evolutionist would postulate that the earliest ant would have less genetic information, and that through chance and natural selection all of these other species of ants evolved with new genetic information to suite their various living situations.
The creationists, on the other hand, would postulate that the original ant ancestor (actually ancestors, male and female) had a greater amount of genetic information given to them by design, and that through natural selection various breeds of ants through migration branched out into the different varieties that we see today, with each different breed having a selection of the original genetic gene pool suited for their mode of life according to their particular geographic and climatic conditions.
The evolutionist believes that all the different families of organisms have descended from some one common ancestor of all of life millions of years ago through these fortuitous chance variations, while the creationist would postulate that there are distinct barriers between the different families of organisms that have never been crossed, that descent from an original ancestor has limits, probably at the Family level of organisms, and that even this descent is not evolution by the standard definition, since no new genetic material is produced.
Now, which of these two views lines up more with the actual evidence? Of the 200 different Families of living organisms, there are no intermediate links, living or fossilized. All of them appear suddenly in the geologic column, fully developed except for the different varieties that have come about through geographic distribution, known as natural selection, which Edward Blyth demonstrated works better within a creationist context, not an evolutionary one.
Let us use for our case the very evidence provided by Mr. Schmidt. Go back to the link to ant mandibles at the Tree of Life Project. Examine the site carefully. Look at all of the complexity involved in the structure and function of ant mandibles. They are remarkable, amazing tools that the ants depend on to survive. Ask yourself how these formidable organs could have evolved through chance evolution. Was there some kind of proto-ant somewhere back in time that did not have these mandibles? The fossil record does not show it, but let us give the evolutionist the benefit of a doubt.
So at first some ant-like creature evolved some kind of structure that didn't work, unless you want to believe that the mandibles were created full blown at the first try, on the very first genetic mutation. Thus there had to have been a lot of mistakes, creatures evolving other things rather than mandibles - you know, trial and error - perhaps an extra set of legs through mutation, or another thorax, or something else besides mandibles. These creatures all perished within one generation or so since they were burdened with this unnecessary baggage that did not work right and thus they lost the battle for survival. This must have gone on for quite awhile until finally one day one of these ant-like creatures eventually produced a workable mandible, however not just one, but two at the same time to function together as pincers, with all of the cutting ability, the lifting muscles, the defensive and offensive power to fend off enemies that most ant mandibles have today. And it must have been a male and a female together at the same time that grew identical mandibles so that their offspring would carry the gene and pass it on to its offspring lest it disappear as a quirky recessive trait that gets lost in the gene pool. And from there all of these other variations evolved with their marvelously configured variations in the different ant species.
How then did they evolve with no
pre-designed pattern? Well, they just showed up one day in ancient history, they
just stumbled onto the scene through evolution. Nature just spit them out,
purely by accident.
Evolution has no pre-set design, no purpose, no Designer. Remember, it was a long, slow process.
To get a better
idea of the absurdity of this
happening through blind evolution, imagine if you will a chicken with its head
chopped off running through a barnyard. Some chickens still run about in this
manner after they have been dispatched for plucking. Now, let us put a keyboard
in the barnyard connected to a very powerful computer. All the headless chicken
has to do is run over to the keyboard and with his feet key in a particular
letter code of, say 100,000 letters. It has to get it perfect for it to work.
This letter code would be sufficient for one single protein out of many hundreds
of thousands of different kinds of proteins that would go into the make-up of
ant mandibles. Of course, this protein all by itself would be useless unless
there were hundreds of other proteins keyed in along with it, at nearly the same
time, so that the ant mandible would be able to work well enough nearly on the
first try, otherwise the efficient process of natural selection would discard
the entire process.
That's all that Mr. Schmidt is asking us to believe on his site on ants and ant mandibles. It makes a nice story, but none of this is going on for us to observe today of course, it is all hypothesized to have happened in the far distant, unobservable past, and we have no fossil evidence for it either.
The sheer improbability of this happening through chance staggers any kind of logical approach to the subject. We have seen in Chapter Two that chance is an inadequate explanation for any of this marvelous design that we see in nature; even given the supposedly billions of years of time evolutionists need for their theory. The chance evolution of even one species, the Bombardier Beetle, is an impossible proposition. The numbers are against it.
Natural selection has occurred. Evolution has not occurred. The two are not synonymous; they are not even compatible. Natural selection is the very opposite of what evolution supposedly is. One is an observable fact of nature that merely winnows down the existing gene pool; it is a gleaning process, not an innovative one, while the other is a fantastic hypothesis devoid of any evidence to show that it ever happened.
Natural selection begins with an original type of organism for each Family level of life or "kind" as described in the Bible; each one rich in genetic information and potential which could only have come about through intelligent design, and then as different descendants of those originally created types migrated to different locales on the earth, through natural selection they diversified and became the varieties that we see today, all having a sampling of the original rich genetic pool in their particular breeding colony.
This process does not go all the way back to an original ancestor for all life.
The differing Phyla of life on earth, and even narrowing it down to the different Families within the Orders within the Classes of these different Phyla, have always remained distinct and do not descend from a common phylogenic ancestor. Phylogeny has its upper limits at the Family level of species, and within these different Families God has created different Kinds, some encompassing the entire Family level itself, and some Kinds being created separately in smaller sub-groups within Families of organisms. Organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record with no evidence for any kind of evolutionary development.
The rest of the chapter will be devoted to proving this thesis.
Evolutionist Nicholas Hotton wrote a few years back:
"Unfortunately the fossil record is never that complete, and in no case can we follow such a transition species by species. . . Nor do fossils provide us with much of a record of breeding populations . . . Living animals are separated by reproductive isolation [no present evidence of evolution], and fossil animals by the incompleteness of the fossil record [reiterating Darwin's excuse for no past evidence]. In fact, so sparse is the fossil record, despite the tens of thousands of fossils that are stored and studied in museums, that to get a complete picture of evolution is a little like trying to reconstruct Gone with the Wind from the scraps on the cutting-room floor. Although we may be able to deduce that the story takes place during the Civil War, that it is told from a southern point of view, and that it is centered in Atlanta, we might not be certain who the major characters are, let alone what the relationship was between Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler." (Hotton, pp. 42, ibid).
It is rather ironic that this came from his book, titled The Evidence of Evolution.
Thus there still is an embarrassing lack of fossil evidence for evolution.
Just as Darwin attempted to do over one hundred years ago, Hotton cited the imperfection of the geologic record as an excuse for the absence of any transitional forms found today as fossils,
But just how numerous are fossils? Norman D. Newell, former curator of
Historical Geology and Fossil Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural
History and Professor of Geology at Columbia University, said at the
Commemoration of the Centennial of the publication of The Origin of Species
in April, 1959:
"One of the earliest discoveries about the paleontological record is that fossils actually are more abundant in fossil-bearing rocks than might be assumed from cursory inspection. In many cases it may be suspected that even those forms represented in collections by a few specimens, or only one, are numerous or abundant within the rocks. . . Strata considered to be only sparsely fossiliferous as judged from superficial inspection actually may be abundantly so. The degree to which this is true is clearly shown by methods of mass collecting fossils, wherein a volume of fossiliferous clay or marl is dug by hand shovel, or power machinery, washed with water, and sieved for fossils. This method has long been used widely for microscopic fossils such as spores and Foraminifers, but it also is coming into use for larger invertebrates and bones and teeth of small vertebrates. The number of fossils thus obtained is usually greater per unit volume of rock than per unit surface and fossils collected in matrix have an advantage that they are damaged less frequently by weathering than those found at the surface. Small fossils are incredibly numerous in certain strata . . .Leidy once estimated a quarter of a million Foraminifera in an ounce of marine sediment . . . Teichert (1956) has undertaken an interesting estimate of the total number of fossil species of animals and plants. . Taking twelve million (evolutionary) years as the average longevity of a species, he concludes that the number of species of animals and plants preserved in the rocks may reach a total of ten million. According to an estimate made by Muller and Campbell (1954), about ninety-two thousand fossil species of animals are now described . . . and I think that the plants would bring the total to around one hundred thousand or only ten percent of Teichert's estimate of the ultimate richness of the fossil record."
Thus fossils turn up just about anywhere you want to dig, enormous beds of fossils exist all over the globe, and yet those transitional fossils necessary for documenting the evolution of species that would lend validation to Darwin’s theory are still missing!
The fact that fossils exist at all should say something about the way that they died, since Newell goes on to say, "Fossils may be destroyed quickly by weathering . . . The process of sedimentation in many cases complicates interpretation of the associations of fossils . . .The dead remains of various forms may be transported from diverse habitats and deposited together in association that do not reflect any single life environment. Under these conditions there is much winnowing and sorting of organic remains by size, shape, and effective specific gravity."
So fossils found at different levels in the geologic column may not necessarily mean that the ones laid down underneath those above represent older fossils, they could have all been transported and buried by some natural process at the same period of time. Massive tidal action from in-rushing water would have laid them out in sequence according to specific gravity and buoyancy (see Chapter Seven, Dinosaurs and the Flood of Noah). This would ruin the imagined separation of the different parts of the geologic column by millions of years, compressing it perhaps into only some few thousands of years.
The well known carbon 14 method for dating fossils does not yield reliable dates for anything older (by evolutionists standards) than one hundred thousand years, thus for anything thought to have lived more than a million years ago, such as the dinosaurs that were thought to have lived from 200 million years ago to 65 million years ago, the carbon 14 method is useless. Potassium argon dating is used to date igneous rocks, while fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, thus potassium argon is not used for dating fossils either. How then are fossils dated? This may sound incredible, but fossils are dated by the sedimentary rocks that they are found in, while the sedimentary rocks that they are found in are dated by the fossils that are found in them! This type of circular reasoning is very common in evolutionist literature, where the assumption of evolution is used as part of the criteria for the evidence of evolution itself!
99 % of all fossils are only found in one type of rock-sedimentary rock-which is formed primarily (the estimates run from 75%-85%), although not universally, by swift hydraulic action. Fossils in sedimentary rock could only be formed within a specific time period shortly after death, otherwise the organism would be totally reduced to unrecognizable particles (we don't find vast buffalo fossil graveyards, despite the enormous amount of them killed in the last century).
Thus there had to have been rapid sedimentation, and of an overwhelming proportion to create the tremendous number of preserved fossils often found buried together in mass tombs in sedimentary rock, in other words, a great flood. In fact, most of the early paleontologists of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries used the term diluvium to describe sedimentary strata; it was even used by Darwin in his Origin to describe the conditions under which fossils were formed.
The word diluvium means deposited by a deluge, a massive influx of water. This obvious fact has been ignored by present day evolutionists because it hints too much at verification of the Biblical account of a great flood. We will discuss the flood theory in more detail in a later chapter, but for now it would be appropriate to examine the supposed evolutionary tree of life, letting the experts speak for themselves.
Since Darwin's time mysterious animals have been found in pre-Cambrian rock strata, known as the Vendian epoch, or the Ediacaran layer, and these are called "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna", but they have no clear relationship to the phyla that appear suddenly in the Cambrian and they are sort of a mystery to scientists, who haven't found out precisely how to classify them:
"The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything living today. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything."(University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, 4/05/02)
One of these extinct creatures, the Arkarua, is supposedly related to the
Echinodermota, spiny-skinned animals like star fish, sea urchins and others in
Echinodermota are fascinating animals. Just as higher organisms, such as vertebrates and insects, have bilateral symmetry (a left and a right matching side) Echinodermota have a five-fold symmetry, such as we see with the star fish.
Have we found any evidence of evolutionary transitional forms leading up to this type of remarkable penta-lateral symmetry? Are there any evolutionary "links" between Echinodermota and some early prototype evolving into a five formed creature? The Tree of Life Web Project gives us the answer:
"The evolutionary origins of five-fold symmetry remain obscure"
(Tree of Life Web Project, 4/05/02)
So as far as the phylogeny (supposed evolutionary "tree") of the Echinodermota, there is no evidence for their evolution and the evidence that Arkarua is related to the Echinodermota is pure speculation.
There were extinct Echinodermota that were not penta-lateral, the carpoids and the helicoplacoids. Were there any transitional forms linking them and the penta-lateral Echinodermota?
GeoNews reports that the "carpoids are at the center of an ongoing controversy about their origin and evolution" (GeoNews, December 1999), thus the matter is by no means settled among evolutionists as to their status and phylogeny.
What of the helicoplacoids? Did they look anything at all like the other Echinodermota? The Geological Society of America reported:
"Shaped like a football, a helicoplacoid had "armor" that was essentially small mineralized plates formed into spirals. Even its food-gathering organ was a spiral that wound around its body." (Geological Society of America, 11/08/01)
This is a far cry from a starfish, and there are no intermediate forms found linking them together.
Furthermore we find once again from the Tree of Life Web Project:
"Phylogenetic relationships, and in some cases status as monophyletic
groups, remains unclear for the extinct classes . . ." of Echinodermota
such as the carpoids and the helicoplacoids.
(Tree of Life Web Project)
All of the major phyla show up fully distinct in the Cambrian era, and since then every Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species appear fully distinct in the fossil record, something that Darwin said should be "fatal" to his theory.
Let us now therefore go
through the evolutionist’s ladder from simple, single cell creatures on to more
complex life forms to find out whether we have found any evidence to support the
evolutionary hypothesis since Darwin. Since some of these quotes come from the
middle and latter period of the twentieth century, some evolutionists have
complained that the quotes aren't "current". My answer to that is, simply
because a fact or a quote is twenty five, fifty or one hundred years old, that
does not make it irrelevant, indeed the longer a fact has remained uncontested,
thus if it has "stood the test of time", the more verifiable it becomes. If it
were the case that old facts are no longer reliable, then we could certainly
throw out the Pythagorean Theorem, along with Euclid's Geometry, which are both
over two thousand years old, and we could get along without Pascal's work and
Newton's Principia and every other scientific work written over the past one
thousand years, were this argument to hold any salt. These facts have not
changed, and the facts listed here in this work have not been contested yet
And I have every confidence that The Darwin Papers will stand the test of time, and outlast many of its fiercest critics. Let the evolutionists show facts to the contrary, which they have failed to do, instead of using such worthless arguments as opining that some of the quotes here are older than MTV. While revisions have been in progress from time to time as new facts emerge, to constantly update a work with every new quote, unless it brings something new to light that changes what was previously said, would be an endless task, and one which I don't intend to waste my time with. The basic thesis for this work holds true and will hold true throughout the rest of mankind's history. The evidence stands firm. There has never been any evidence of any genuine missing link or series of missing links in the manner and the amount necessary for evolution to have been a fact of life on planet earth; they have not shown up, and they never will show up, thus demonstrating that Darwin's claim that this would be devastating to his theory remains as much a fact today as it was when he originally wrote it.
So, beginning with the so-called earliest life forms, we have seen that the Cambrian layer exploded with various creatures, with no fossil evidence for their having evolved from any pre-existing forms. These sudden explosions of different, distinct types of living creatures without any intermediate links to creatures before or after them are known in the literature as "explosive radiations," or simply "radiations."
An excellent site to go to and view the various groups of organisms would be Mikko's Phylogeny Archive, although the name Phylogeny Archive is a slight misnomer. The entire site is in fact (unintentionally) a good testimony to the creationist viewpoint on life. There are no phylogenic lineages between any of the major Phylums that exist: The Virus's (not a phylum, but presumed by many evolutionists to have led up to the Prokaryotae) and the Prokaryotae (bacteria) are well defined with no intermediates; The Prokaryotic bacteria and the Eukaryotae (life forms that have a well defined nuclear membrane in the cell), are quite distinct with a huge gap between them; Fungi and the Metazoa have no evolutionary intermediates; The Radiata and the Bilateralia are not "cousins" and show no ancestor/descendant relationship;
Not only are there no living or fossil intermediates to be found, but what is not told in Mikko's Phylogeny Archive is that the so-called progression from more primitive life to more complex life as shown by the chart is very misleading from a biochemical point of view: Although it can be said that the Monera (Eubacteria and Archaea) are in certain ways simpler than the Eukaryotae, the Eukaryotic organisms higher up on the chart are just as far removed genetically from the Eubacteria and the Archaea placed just above them as the Eukaryotae farther down on the chart are. The Eumetazoa, containing the Radiata and Bilateralia, with the Deuterostoma and the Chordatata down at the bottom, are just as close genetically to the Prokaryotae up at the top as the more "primitive" organisms in the middle are. And the other thing to remember is the earlier organisms, both among the Prokaryotae and the Eukaryotae, have very complex cellular structure; among the Eukaryotae there is nothing about a Fungi cell that would indicate that it is any "simpler" than a chordates cell, or that it is in anyway an "intermediate" cell between a more primitive cell and an animals' cell. There is also no indication that there is or ever has been any progression from Viruses, from a "non-cell" to a living bacterial cell.
The Protostoma and Deuterostoma do not "merge" into each other with some clear evolutionary pathway, all of the major family groups of living organisms are clearly separated with no transitional forms bridging the gaps, thus the entire Phylogenic Archive shows that all living organisms fit into neatly formed, discreet "packages" in a cladistic manner, as though some Master Designer has made them all for their particular purposes in life.
This will be demonstrated in the remainder of the chapter. Nearly all of the quotes that follow come from committed evolutionists, hence it cannot be inferred that any creationist bias has influenced the statements. While some evolutionists may make the claim that some of these quotes are taken out of context, it is one thing to say this, but it is quite another thing to prove it. I have read the source material carefully, and everything that follows was quoted quite succinctly and in context.
The "simplest" forms of life, as just stated, are classed in the Kingdom Monera. Within this Kingdom we find the blue green algae and certain forms of bacteria. They are known as Prokaryotes, while all other forms of life are known as Eukaryotes. Virus's are simpler than cells but are not considered life forms because they are essentially parasitic and cannot exist long outside of a cell nor can they reproduce without a host cells' metabolism. Classed alongside the Kingdom Monera is the Kingdom Protista, which are Eukaryotic single cell organisms, mainly consisting of the familiar protozoa as well as various other kinds of algae.
Claude A. Villee of Harvard University and Vincent G. Dethier of Princeton University wrote on these simple forms of life:
"Our concepts of the evolutionary relationships between the major phyla of plants and animals are rather vague, because the evolutionary events occurred such a long time ago, and the fossil record of these early forms is very nearly blank. Thus the evolutionary relationships of viruses and bacteria to other organisms are unknown, there is little evidence regarding the relationships between the major kinds of algae and fungi, and the relationships of the several types of protozoa to multicellular animals is unclear." (16)
Wallace, King and Sanders assert with confidence:
"There is no longer any doubt that the prokaryotes preceded all other modern forms of life,"
yet a few pages farther on in their book they wrote:
"The evolutionary transition from the prokaryotic cell to the much more complex and elaborate eukaryotic cell has perplexed biologists for some time. One hypothesis proposes that eukaryotic membrane-bounded organelles evolved when infoldings of the cell membrane pinched off and enclosed various cellular functions. Hypothesis such as this often seem reasonable enough, but they can't be tested readily enough."(17)
They have admitted that their prior assertion has no basis in observable fact!
Botanist Michael Neushul, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at Queen Mary College of the University of London, has written of the various forms of algae:
"A search among the Rhodophyta, Cryptophyta, Euglenophyta, and Pyrrhophyta points of relationship is not overly rewarding. Perhaps the most striking conclusion that can be drawn from such a survey is that these divisions contain no organism that clearly lies intermediate in structural organization between the Procaryota and the Eucaryota."(18)
So we have no evidence of any supposed evolutionary transition from the earliest Procaryotae life to the Eurcaryotae. They are always found fully separated and distinct, whether living or in fossilized form.
N ext is the Kingdom Fungi, which includes molds, yeasts, lichens, mildews, mushrooms and toadstools. Villee and Dethier wrote on this Kingdom:
"The evolutionary relationships of the slime molds and fungi to each other and to other living plants and animals are unclear, although ultimately they may have descended from some simple single-celled flagellated ancestor. The evolutionary relationships of the several classes of fungi have not been established. . . Finally, the evolutionary origin of the basidiomycetes [mushrooms and toadstools] is truly shrouded in mystery, for they show no relationships with any of the algae."(Villee &Dethier, pp.360)
Neushul wrote on the possible evolution of Fungi, for which he has no evidence, but makes plenty of assumptions:
"Although no clear link exists between prokaryotes and fungi, possible relationships occur between fungi, flagellates, and perhaps even red algae. It is widely thought that diverse ancestral flagellates have given rise to the lower fungi. These [as yet undiscovered organisms] are thought to have resembled the flagellated reproductive stages of existing Chytridiomycetes and Oomycetes . . .These ancestral types are also assumed to have been able to use inorganic sulfur and nitrogen and to synthesize a wide variety of compounds."(Op cit, pp.178)
Essentially, he is making up a story, much like Darwin's numerous hypothesis.
The next Kingdom to be considered is the Plant Kingdom. Concerning the origin of plants, Chester A. Arnold, Professor of botany and the Curator of Fossil Plants at the University of Michigan said,
"As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." (19)
For the supposed development of land plants from green algae, Neushul stated that there is a "missing link" problem, much like the problem paleontologist have when trying to reconstruct their stories of man's supposed simian ancestry:
"Students of the green algae do not agree on the identity or even existence of a "missing link" between the green algae and the multicellular land plants. This gap has been filled with theoretical [imaginary] plants. This kind of speculation, even in the absence of an adequate fossil record or living intermediates, serves to focus attention on the environmental problems faced by the multicellular land plants that are discussed . . ."(Neushul, pp.218)
For the evolution of liverworts, mosses, and hornworts, classified under the Phylum Bryophyta, Neushul wrote:
"There is rampant indecision as to the possible evolutionary starting point for the Bryophyta. Although most botanists would concede that bryophytes are distantly related to green algae, many feel that present-day bryophytes descended from a now-extinct (and never found) group of archegonia-producing plants.
There is little direct evidence, however to support such a theory. Ideas about evolutionary trends among bryophytes are also controversial. For example, gametophytes are thought by adherents of the antithetic theory to have started with flat, undifferentiated prostrate types, which subsequently evolved into complex thallose forms like Marchantiaor leafy forms like Lophocolea. More recent theories reverse these evolutionary schemes and postulate that thalloid gametophytes evolved from leafy ones, becoming reduced to types like Marchantia and Riccia."
"Evolutionary speculation about byrophyte sporophytes, as mentioned earlier, can start with a spherical sporophyte like that of Riccia and derive the rather more highly differentiated sporophytes like those of Marchantia. More independent and highly evolved sporophyte types are thought to have been like those of some mosses and Antithoceros. But an opposing theory reverses this series and sees the sporophytes of Marchantia and Riccia as progressively reduced structures." (Neushul, pp.238-239).
Of the evolution of the higher land plants, Neushul wrote:
"Since algae and fungi preceded these plants by such a long time, it seems logical to assume that the evolution of the land plant was a gradual process that extended to pre-Silurian periods. But the fossil record does not support this view! Instead, fossils of aerially dispersed spores and land-plants appear abruptly in the Silurian rocks." (Ibid, pp.286)
Of the link between Lyginopteris (extinct ferns) and Cordaitaleans (non flowering trees and plants that produce their seed in a cone, or strobilus) he wrote:
"No lower Carboniferous fossils show morphological and anatomical characteristics intermediate between those of "lyginopterids" and "cordaitaleans."(Neushul, pp.331)
Of the origin of flowering plants, Neushul wrote:
"The flowers, fruits, and seeds of living plants represent endpoints of past and present environmental influence. Unfortunately, speculation as to how these flowering-plant structures evolved is limited by the absence of a fossil record. Several attempts have been made to fill this gap, and various fossil organisms have been suggested as (possible) intermediate between gymnosperms and angiosperms. . . A clear and undisputable fossil record of early flowering- plant evolution has not been found." (Ibid, pp.359, 364).
As far as any living intermediate links among plants, Neushul wrote that trying to use an evolutionary system in classifying plants was no help at all, since all plants are quite distinct, and belong to well formed families, orders, etc. with no hint of any evolutionary relationship:
"There is no need to stress the practical importance to humanity of an organized body of knowledge about plants. One of the first steps in organizing botanical information is the development of a system of classification. In the specific case of the flowering plants, various systems of classification have been proposed. Nearly all are attempts to represent evolutionary relationships within the division. The names of classes and subclasses have been frequently modified and their relationship reassessed [i.e. evolutionary systems lead to chaos]. Plant families, on the other hand, are well defined and have remained relatively stable for many years." (Ibid, pp.365)
Thus from the records of the most primitive plants to the most complex varieties found, every single group is already fully distinct and separate from each other when they first appear as fossils.
That, in a nutshell, represents all the evidence that we have for plant evolution. Nothing.
The closest thing ever to be found that would be a transitional form from plants to animals (or the other way around) would be the fabled half-plant/half-animal Vegetable-Lamb of Tartary. Ah yes indeed. This mythical animal-tree produced cotton, which the Europeans in the Middle Ages were ignorant of, so they mistook it for wool, hence the legend that the cotton was the fleece of lambs that grew from the tree by their navels. This is of course absurd, but no more absurd than some of Darwin's incredible explanations for his theory.
Bolton Davidheiser, Ph.D. in Zoology from John Hopkin's University (and who, incidentally, does not adhere to Darwinism and the traditional evolutionary theory, but is a staunch Biblical creationist), has made an interesting observation. Darwin and those who follow slavishly in his folly are continually making statements such as this one found in World Book Encyclopedia: "Although the theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence . . ."etc. (20)
This is quite typical. Evolutionists are so insistent that evolution has occurred, they commonly make statements like "Evolution is a fact, of that we can be certain"; "The fact of evolution is now accepted by all serious scientists," etc., etc, but then reverse themselves when having to provide any real evidence. The situation is not unlike the phrase, "The lady protesteth too much!"concerning a woman of dubious morals loudly proclaiming her innocence.
There are certain statements known as redundant statements, because they are stating something that is so glaringly obvious that the statement does not need to be said. When a group of engineers and mechanics gather together to discuss a better method for manufacturing a car engine, you wouldn't hear them making such statements like: "Although the existence of pistons in car engines is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. . ."
Geologists don't often make statements like, "All geologists certainly agree
that the earth exists, of that we can be confident." It would be sheer idiocy to
go around insisting that the earth exists, and anybody doing that would be
considered an absolute loon.
Who would contest a quite obvious fact? Yet these types of statements are not uncommon in the writings of evolutionists concerning the "fact" of evolution.
It may be said that the reason that they make these statements is because creationists are continually calling into question the so-called evidence of evolution, but that is precisely the point. Anybody questioning the existence of the Earth would be absolutely ignored, because the existence of the earth is such an incontrovertible proposal.
Its existence doesn't even need to be defended with a remark like, "Now we finally have proof after all these years that the Earth really exists. Scientists have recently uncovered part of the earth itself in South Africa"
There would be no point in insisting upon the obvious, but the fact
that evolutionists have to continually defend their theory with these kinds of
specious statements on the "fact" of evolution shows the very weakness of their
position and the very strength of the creationist position.
Paleontologists often make extravagant claims for the supposed proof that Darwin gave for evolution, and then they later completely contradict themselves and reveal that Darwin actually offered no proof at all for the "fact" of evolution.
T o get back to the meat, or the bones of our study, we shall now look at the animal Kingdom. We have already seen that the earliest complex life forms appear suddenly and fully developed in the fossil record, with no sign of any intermediate, developing species to precede them. Wallace, King and Sanders wrote on animal origins: "It seems clear that all existing plants, animals, and fungi sprang from the ancient protists [we have seen that it is anything but clear that plants and fungi sprang from the protists]. It is generally believed that the animal kingdom evolved from two different protist lines." (Biosphere, Wallace, King and Sanders, pp.387)
These two different hypothetical lines supposedly produced the sponges (a unique colonial sort of life form) and the Metazoa. The authors report that the Metazoa "descended from a protozoan of some sort." Then they wrote "There is a great deal of argument about the nature of this ancient creature. What was it like?" (Ibid)
They report on the two leading ideas on what it was like, one being that it was a flagellate "unlike any of those existing today" and the other that it was similar to a marine flatworm. It is no wonder that there is a great deal of argument on the subject, for they further reported:
"Unfortunately, we have no relevant fossil evidence at all-in fact, the oldest eukaryotic fossils (some 680 million years old) are clearly metazoans, jellyfish similar to those found today. Therefore we can only guess how the first multicellular animal came to be."
(Wallace, King and Sanders, pp.387-388.)
These earliest forms of metazoic life (life with diverse cells separated into specialized tissues for specific functions) were known as invertebrates or creatures without an internal spinal column for a backbone. Most of the invertebrates are found in the Cambrian layer of rock. We have previously discussed the pre-Cambrian Vendian (Ediacaran) fossils which have no relationship at all with any of the later phyla found in the Cambrian layer and through no light on how they might have evolved.
The creatures that appear suddenly in the Cambrian layer consist of very
complex animals, octopi, mollusks, squid, urchin, jellyfish, trilobites
(extinct), shrimp, limpets, worms, and snails to name a few.
Michael Denton wrote:
"As we have seen, all the main invertebrate types appear already clearly differentiated very abruptly in early Cambrian rocks. An enormous effort has been made over the past century to find missing links in these rocks . . . Yet no links have ever been found and the relationships of the major groups are as enigmatic today as one hundred years ago . . . Over the past century a host of rationalizations have been attempted to explain the mystifying absence of primitive transitional forms in the pre-Cambrian rocks..." (21)
There is quite a bit of difference between a clam and an octopus, both invertebrates, probably about as much difference as there is between any other two types of animals in existence, and yet there is no<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->evidence of any "common ancestor" for either of these, in fact there is no evidence for any kind of ancestor at all for them. All the ancient fossil remains show quite distinct and fully developed species. When we do find an ancient oyster or clam or hydra, except for some extinct exotic varieties, they are identical to the oysters and clams of today, only differing in size in most cases.
Let us purview here a condensed enumeration of some of the major phyla of the invertebrates, with the evidence for their evolutionary phylogeny as presented in some well known textbooks. (22):
A) Coelenterates, which includes jellyfish, sea anemones, corals and fresh water hydras:
"The evolutionary origin of coelenterates is largely unknown."(Biology Today, pp. 764,CRM Books, Del Mar, California, 1972)
B) Platyhelminthes, Flatworms, simplest animals with bilateral [left and right sides to their bodies] symmetry: "The structure of the flatworm suggest that it probably evolved relatively early in the history of the animal kingdom and that the higher animal phyla may have evolved from primitive flatworms. Certain similarities between coelenterates and flatworms have led to various theories that one group evolved from the other, but the origin of these two phyla is still very much a matter of speculation." (Ibid, pp. 769)
C) Aschelminthes, Rounded worms with a true digestion tract: "Like flatworms, aschelminths have left no fossil record." (Ibid, pp. 771)
D) Tentaculata, Creatures with a crown of horseshoe shaped tentacles: "Although it is suggested that the tentaculates may have evolved from a common ancestor, little can be said with certainty about the origin of this group."(Ibid, pp. 773)
E) Annelida, Segmented worms with a true circulatory system, earthworms: "Because of the absence of hard parts, the fossil record of annelids is sparse, but the chitinous jaws of the polychaetes have been found in rocks formed more than 500 million years ago. There were no doubt other more primitive annelids, of which no recognizable fossil record exists."(Ibid, pp. 775)
F) Mollusca, More than 50,000 living species, including snails, clams, oysters, mussels, scallops, octopi, and related species. Encyclopedia Britannica reports: "There are six major classes of mollusks. The fossil record gives little clue as to how the six classes diverged from the molluscan base." (Enc. Brit., 24:309, 1986)
They further state:
"Existing Mollusca consist of a number of well defined classes that do not form an ascending series in terms of evolutionary development but rather have evolved radially from a common ancestral condition. . . The precise characteristics of this hypothetical animal have been questioned . . . No satisfactory system of classification of bivalves [clams and oysters] has so far been devised." (Ibid pp. 327)
Within the mollusks we have the Gastropods, snails and slugs. The Britannica reports:
"Unlike mammals, who have undergone great evolutionary change in the last 50,000,000 years, gastropods have shown little progressive evolution during that [much earlier] time."
(Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 24, pp. 319)
Thus even in their earliest history, mollusks are fully distinct- no transitional forms.
Now we will move on to the Phylum Arthropoda, the largest phylum in the animal kingdom, consisting of segmented animals, lobsters, crabs, and insects, these latter alone comprising 765,257 species. Listed here are some quotes from noted authorities, most of them evolutionists, on the evidence (or lack thereof) for the evolution of these various kinds of creatures. I am indebted to the Zoologist Davidheiser for his research in this area for some of the following references.
As far as the origin of the arthropods, R.E. Snodgrass, Collaborator of the Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture stated:
"The evolutionary origin of the arthropods is hidden in remote Pre-Cambrian times". . .". (23)
Within the Phylum Arthropoda we have seven classes:
A) Merostomata: The horseshoe "crabs" (Limulus polyphemus, Carcinoscorpius rotunda and Tachypleus gigas), mostly aquatic. There are three to five species, depending on which taxonomic system is being used. They are referred to by Helena Curtis in her book Invitation To Biology as "living fossils," in other words, there is no evidence of any evolutionary change for them in the fossil record from the time that they first appeared until the present. (Helena Curtis, Invitation to Biology, pp. 585) (24)
Not only have they shown no signs of any kind of evolution over these vast
we also have no idea where they "evolved" from either, except other horseshoe crabs.
Here are some more quotes on the horseshoe crab:
"Because its basic body design has remained almost unchanged for millions of years, the horseshoe crab is often called a "living fossil". The horseshoe crab gets its common name from the "U" or horseshoe shaped of its shell, which is called a carapace. The carapace is the color of sand or mud. This helps the animal blend in with the muddy and sandy bottoms on which it lives."(National Aquarium of Baltimore Report to Baltimore Department of Education, Schools, Puffin Report to Schools, 1991)
"Horseshoe crabs have been around in one guise or another for quite some time now, let's just say since the Lower Silurian for arguments sake. The earliest examples discovered date to about 435 million years old. Personally, I reckon they'll outlive that troublesome species Homo sapiens hands (or at least pincered feet) down. Why? Well, because they are good at what they do and they don't seem to have any intention of changing their mode of life or gross body morphology. This is why they are often referred to as 'Living fossils'." (http://lyall.tripod.com/xipho/)
"Xiphosurans (horseshoe crabs) have existed since the Silurian (440 to 410 million years ago) with relatively little morphological change." (University of California Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology, 04/05/02)
But now we find such astounding statements like this one from Patty Sturtevant, which only makes things worse for the evolutionists:
"While we sometimes see the horseshoe crab referred to as a "living fossil", it is more appropriate and factual to eschew such an oxymoron, since Limulus polyphemus has no fossil record whatever." (Patty Sturtevant, Ph.D., Mote Marine Laboratory, 04/04/02),
Ms. Sturtevant stated that the horseshoe crab is only 20 million years old and has no fossil record at all! (If it has no fossil record to be dated by then how does she know how old it is?) At least she is getting closer to the creationist position, but what about the other evolutionists quoted above, including the University of Berkeley, stating that the horseshoe crab has been around for hundreds of millions of years without any change?
And what are we to do with these quotes?
"The horseshoe crab, a close relative of the extant trilobite, is the oldest living fossil in Maryland, living here for approximately 360 million years." (Benny Williams, Maryland Horeshoe Crabs, 04/05/02 );
"Horseshoe crabs, common along the Delaware coast, have evolved little in the last 250 million years." http://www.beach-net.com/horseshoe/Bayhorsecrab.html 04/05/02):
"Horseshoe Crabs are considered to be living fossils because their appearance has not changed since their origin over 300 million years ago. There are 4 species which survive today: 3 range along the shores of Southeast Asia; the other species populate the Atlantic coast from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico." (Mystic Aquarium,)
"The horseshoe crab evolved 100 million years before the dinosaurs and is closely related to spiders and scorpions. This ancient creature is important to the medical community, commercial fishermen and the environment." (Ocean News, 6/21/99)
They all state the horseshoe crab has been around for hundreds of millions of
years, with no record of any change.
Is it possible that Ms. Sturtevant is doing a little taxonomical reshuffling in response to creationists who are (rightly) pointing out that in over three hundred million years the horseshoe crab has shown no sign of evolution? (And the above quotes of hundreds of millions of years with no change refer distinctly to Limulus polyphemus, the same species that Ms. Sturtevant refers to)
To move on:
B) Crustacea: lobsters, crabs, crayfish, and shrimp: "The phylogenic origin of Crustacea is lost in Precambrian antiquity." James H. Wilmoth, State University of New York, (Biology of Invertebrates, Prentice-Hall, 1967, pp. 31.)
Modern day crustaceans show up in rocks 300 million evolutionary years ago, exactly like their present day counterparts.
C) Arachnida: Spiders, mites and ticks:
I) " . . .we have no evidence to show that spiders have been derived from any other living or extinct group of arachnids." Willis J. Gretsch, Associate Curator, Department of Insects and Spiders, (The American Museum of Natural History, American Spiders, D. Van Nostrand co., 1949, pp. 99)
II) "The phylogeny [evolutionary ancestry] of the Acarina [mites and ticks] is obscure" Edward D. Baker, U.S. Dept., of Agriculture and Department of Zoology, Duke University, (An Introduction to Acarology, MacMillan, 1952, pp. 34)
D) Onychophora: Simple, wormlike, terrestrial arthropods, 73 species.
They show up 550 million evolutionary years ago just the same as we see them today. No change. The editors of Biology Today write: "
Onychophores may be descendants of the primitive arthropods, which probablyevolved from annelids." (25)
There exist no intermediates between onychophores and any other arthropods, now or in the fossil record.
E) Insecta: Most have two pairs of wings, with three distinct parts of the body. This class includes bees, ants, beetles, fleas, lice, bugs, flies, etc., 700,000-800,000 species. These are the most numerous species of animal life upon the earth, comprising five-sixths of all animal species. A.D. Imms, MA., D.Sc., F.R.S., Honorary Fellow of Downing College and Reader in Entomology, Cambridge University wrote:
"Even in that remote geologic period, perhaps 500 million years ago, when mighty forests flourished that are now coal we suddenly come upon remains of "a wild riot of teeming insect life."(Insect Natural History, A.D. Imms, pp. 6, Blakiston Co., 1951, Great Britain)
Encyclopedia Britannica reports:
"By the time (toward the end of the Carboniferous) fossil insects are found, wings are developed fully. . Winged insects must have made their appearance very early in the Carboniferous, more than 300,000 years ago; but there is no fossil evidence to show the way they evolved."(Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 21, 1986, pp. 596)
Here are just a few of the evolutionary phylogenies of various insects.
I) Mayflies: "Represented largely by wing impressions, the fossil record is so incomplete that most systems of classification and interpretations of relationships are based on characteristics of recent forms, chiefly through morphology." (Ibid) pp.602
II) Hetoptera: Bugs, water strider, stinkbug, bedbugs: "The fossil record is too poor to offer significant help in reconstructing the phylogeny of the Heteroptera . . ." (Ibid pp. 633.)
III) Beetles: "Although many beetle fossils are known, they consist mostly of isolated elytra, which reveal little about the history of the order. Complete fossil specimens are closely related to living forms." (Ibid pp. 656)
IV) Ants, bees and wasps: " . . .the paleontological record, going back to the Upper Jurassic, exhibits no evidence of kinship with other fossil insects." P.W. Whiting, University of Pennsylvania, (Journal of Heredity, 38:11, 1947.)
Alexander B. Klots, Associate Professor of Biology at City College of New York and Research Associate of the American Museum of Natural History, with his wife, Elsie B. Klots, Professor at Cornell University, wrote:
"Insects are the dominant animals in the land world today. Nearly everywhere they are abundant, invading a multitude of environments and exploiting almost all possible food supplies. Yet the details of their early evolution are lost in the mists of antiquity. This is due in part . . . to the almost total absence of rocks that contain fossils of the land animals from the period when insects were beginning to appear . . The trilobites lasted for some 140 million years and then became extinct, but the span of their existence largely covers the long blank record of early insect evolution."
"Although a number of specimens of doubtful identity are known, there are no fossils unquestionably recognized as insects from earlier than the Carboniferous period, some 175 million years after the Cambrian . . ."
"Suddenly in the rocks of the Carboniferous we find unmistakable insect fossils-and they are the remains of highly evolved, already winged insects of a number of well-differentiated orders. Such complex animals do not spring into being overnight or in the course of a mere few million years. They must have been evolving for scores of millions of years-as the vertebrates and spiders had been doing during the same time. But the detailed record of this has not yet been found."
" . . .the insects of the mid-Tertiary period, some 25 to 35 million years ago were very similar to those of today . . .Even butterflies have been found with the patterns of their wings showing plainly, although not in the original colors. One of these would fit into a modern genus, and perhaps, with a bit of stretching of the imagination, into a modern species . . . Enormous numbers of insects are known from Baltic and other amber of the Tertiary . . . At least one of the ants found in Baltic amber belongs to a species that, it is claimed, still exists in Asia; and three others are so similar to three species that live in the Baltic region today that William Morton Wheeler admitted his inability to tell them apart. Despite their age of 20 to 35 million years, the Florissant and Baltic amber insects bring the group right down to modern times." (Living Insects of the World, Alexander B. Klots, Doubleday and Co. Inc., pp. 11-12)
Hence, no evidence of any evolution among the insects, no transitional forms, only differences in size in most instances, and the ancient sizes were usually considerably larger than their modern counterparts, whereas evolution would supposedly develop smaller creatures into larger ones, not the other way around.
L.H. Newman wrote:
"Many species [of insects] were so successful that they have remained unchanged for millions of years." (Man and Insects, pp. 10, Natural History Press, Garden City, New York, 1966)
Thus the insects show no evidence for their evolution at all.
Let us continue now with the rest of the arthropods.
F) Chilopoda: Centipedes, 15-173 trunk segments, each has a single pair of appendages. I was unable to find any evidence for the evolution of these in any of the literature on the subject.
G) Diplopoda: Millipedes, 20-100 trunk segments, each with a double pair of appendages. As with the centipede, there is no information at all in the literature on where they evolved from.
Thus for the entire class of arthropods, comprising insects, insect like creatures, and crustaceans, there is no evidence for the evolution of any of them at all.
The next link in Darwin's Evolution Tales should be that between the invertebrates and the vertebrates, that is, between animals who have no internal skeleton or backbone and animals with an internal backbone. The earliest vertebrate fish suddenly appear in the Silurian level of the geologic column, about 435 million years ago (evolutionary years). In Mankind So Far, William Howells wrote: "It is obvious that we have come from a still lower form of life, some one-celled amoeba-like affair, but this is an assumption . . . The fact is that the evidence which might connect the vertebrates with a major group of the invertebrates is unknown."(26)
In the Larrousse Encyclopedia of Animal Life, the editors report: "Although it is customary to accept the Hemichordata, Tunicata and Cephalochordata as successfully bridging the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates, in fact they do no more than indicate some of the possible features of early vertebrate evolution, as there is still a gulf between them and even the most primitive of modern backboned animals which the fossil does little to bridge . . .Even the most lowly of the true vertebrates are far more advanced and more complicated in structure than anything found in the protochordates."(27)
Thus for the next major step in the supposed sequence of evolution, that between invertebrates and vertebrates, there is absolutely no evidence.
F or the next rung in this diminishing ladder of evolution, we would look for an intermediate candidate linking fish with amphibians. Amphibians show up about 360 million<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->evolutionary years ago, near the late Devonian and early Carboniferous periods. In Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Barbara Stahl wrote:"...None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapod." (28)
J.Z Young, M.A., F. R.S., Professor of Anatomy at University College, London, has written: "There are such close resemblances between the skulls of the earliest amphibians and those of the Devonian crossopterygian fishes that there can be no doubt of the relationship. At present there is, however, no detailed fossil evidence of the stages of transition from the one type to the other. . . .The term Stegocephalia is convenient to cover the whole group of palaeozoic amphibia, all probably of common descent. At least seven types can be recognized, but attempts to group these have not been altogether successful; the nomenclature remains confused . . .The earliest Stegocephalia were definitely tetrapods and already showed sharp changes from the fish type" (29)
Thus for the next hypothetical major step in evolution, that between fish and amphibians, there is no evidence. Young stated at the beginning of the above cited passage that "there can be no doubt of the relationship" between crossopterygian fish and Stegocephalia, but then concluded that there was no evidence to prove this hypothesis, it was based solely on similarity of skulls.
However we know that morphological resemblance in bone structure does not necessarily connote a common phylogenic line of descent. All placental mammals are thought to be more closely related to each other than any marsupial would be, yet a fossil skull of the extinct marsupial Tasmanian wolf, still existing as late as the early 1930's, would undoubtedly exhibit more similarities with the skull of a placental mammalian wolf than it would with any other marsupial skull. Likewise, the placental mammalian wolf skull would resemble the marsupial wolf skull more than, for instance, it would the skull of a placental bear, or a rat, or a man, all supposedly more closely related to the placental wolf in evolutionary terms than the marsupial wolf was.
One example that amply demonstrates the accuracy of evolutionary dating and sequencing of fossil fish, or any fossil for that matter, would be the story of the coelacanth. This is a genuine fish story. For many years evolutionists had assured us that the coelacanth, a member of the crossopterygian family and a supposed link to amphibians, had most definitely been extinct for at least sixty million years, at least according to their precise methods of dating and their exact analysis of the indisputable evidence of the fossil record. No doubt about it, the coelacanth died out millennia ago along with the dinosaurs, at least until a living coelacanth was dredged up off the coast of Africa in 1938.
Since then hundreds of live coelacanths have been found. In the June, 1988 National Geographic Magazine they featured numerous pictures of the coelacanth swimming around in the ocean depths, where they differ very little from the ones found entombed in the fossil layers, thus providing no evidence of any kind of evolution occurring for the coelacanth, despite the fact that the evolutionists say these fish have been swimming around for at least four hundred million years.
The ancient coelacanths, from the first time they appeared in the fossil record were virtually identical to the living ones we find at the present day, extending all the way back through the geologic record past the Paleocene age of the mammals (63 million years), before the Cretaceous and Jurassic age of the dinosaurs (100 million through 225 million years ago), before the Triassic age of early mammals (200 million through 250 million years ago), before the Permian age of early reptiles (250 million through 300 million years ago), before the Carboniferous age (300 million through 370 million years ago), all the way back to the Devonian era, 400 million years ago in the fossil record, according to the time scale of the evolutionists.
Initially it couldn't be admitted that a living coelacanth had appeared that was identical to a species that evolutionists had calmly assured us was extinct for so many millions of years.
Thus when a live example of this extinct fish had been found, J.L.B. Smith, a chemist and ichthyologist at Rhodes University in Grahams town University, South Africa, pronounced it an entirely new genus and species, different from any coelacanth previously recorded as fossils. Smith gave the living coelacanth a very scientific name, Latimeria chalumnae, after Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer who discovered the fish, and the mouth of the Chalumna River where it was captured.
Just how different is this fish from the ancient coelacanth? On pp.832 of the National Geographic article of 1988, there is a study of the comparative anatomy between the living and ancient coelacanth with this caption next to pictures of each one. They state: "LIKE CARBON COPIES, the tail of a live coelacanth and a 140-million year-old fossil virtually match."
They go on to report: "Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as the coelacanth. The cut-away drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany. It is that extraordinary lack of change that enabled Professor J.L.B. Smith in Grahamstown to identify the coelacanth caught in South Africa in 1938 from a rough sketch, although he had never seen a live specimen."(30)
Throughout the entire history of vertebrate animals the coelacanth appears, differing very little in structure, showing absolutely no signs of evolving from one species and/or changing into any other kind of species through the supposed millions of years of its existence. It would seem that giving the newly discovered living coelacanth the status of an entirely new species and genus was simply to hide their embarrassment while they were scrambling to come up with some kind of an explanation as to why they had been so sure that it had been extinct for sixty million years. I think there's something fishy here in what the evolutionists have been trying to tell us. This is true of virtually all fossils found, whether sharks or sand-dollars, they show no signs of evolutionary change to or from another distinct species.
Evolutionists had long speculated that the crossopterygians (the class of fish including the coelacanth), because they had bony elements in their fins, may have had the ability to walk while in the water on the floor of the sea, which somehow led to the development of legs to walk on the land.
This scenario was put to rest when the authors wrote in the National Geographic article: "Our films settled another question that has intrigued scientists: whether the coelacanth can walk on its lobed fins. Though we observed several individuals resting with their fins braced against the sea bottom, we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so."(31)
It should be noted that the coelacanth does not lay eggs like most fish, amphibians and reptiles do, but gives live birth. Thus as evolutionists had tried to connect the coelacanth with some unknown link between amphibians and fish, this would put it in a rather dubious position as an intermediary candidate. The red-tailed sun perch off the northwest coast of the United States also gives live birth after nine months, two thirds of all existing sharks give birth to live, wriggling, little, sharks, some lizards give live birth, so a supposed evolutionary sequence demonstrating how fish, amphibians and reptiles lay eggs while only mammals and marsupials give live birth would be in serious trouble.
T he missing links are still missing between amphibians and reptiles. R.A. Sirton, Professor of<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->Paleontology at the University of California stated that for the evolution of the reptiles, (32)"There is no direct proof from the fossil record, but we can readily hypothesize [guess at] the conditions under which it came about."
Any scientific study of the amniotic hard-shelled egg of the reptiles and the gelatin type eggs of the amphibians would demonstrate the colossal differences between their structures, both of these eggs are extremely complex in their makeup, and there is no evidence of anything even approaching a transitional type of egg between the two.
The editors of Biology Today describe the Tuatara lizard as "a 'living fossil.' The history of this organism dates back 200 million years to the age of the dinosaurs."(33) There are many living fossils around. All of the major plant and animal groups, when found in the fossil record, show a remarkable consistency in form, in many cases being no different at all than their modern counterparts. Whether they be pelicans or crocodiles, dragonflies or elephants, rhinos or seahorses, except for size and some extinct varieties, they have not changed dramatically from their earliest ancient counterparts.
When scientists find a "two hundred million year old cockroach" embedded in slime or tree sap, it is generally identical to the cockroaches of today, still a pretty unattractive creature (except to other cockroaches); it is not evolving from some "proto-cockroach" into a modern cockroach. Dr. Frank M. Carpenter, professor emeritus at Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology stated: "Cockroaches have survived dinosaurs, ice ages, and who knows what since they first appeared in Upper Carboniferous times. Astonishingly, there's almost no difference in form between ancient cockroaches and those in our homes." (34)
The Encyclopedia Britannica goes into great depth in their article on turtles (Vol. 26, 1986). For the evidence of turtle evolution they state: "The evolution of the turtle is one of the most remarkable in the history of vertebrates. Unfortunately, the origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. By the middle of the Triassic Period (about 200,000,000 years ago) turtles were numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics . . . Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking . "(35)
The same thing is true for alligators, amphibians, invertebrates, fish, etc, except for extinct varieties that are in no way intermediates. (36)
Scientist Eugenie Clark has studied sharks for 26 years. Of the 350 species
of sharks, she wrote that they "have inhabited the seas for much the same
form for 300 million years." (37)
Thus no evidence of evolution at all among the sharks. They have not changed in the supposed three hundred million years of their existence, but have remained quite like the sharks that we still have swimming around us today. (38)
When Darwin was confronted with this inconsistency between his theory and the geologic record, he came up with the idea that the identical animal had evolved and become extinct many times: "Hence when the same species occurs at the bottom, middle, and top of a formation, the probability is that it has not lived on the same spot during the whole period of deposition, but has disappeared and reappeared, perhaps many times, during the same geological period. (Origin, pp. 159, Benton Ed.)
Of course Darwin, in customary form, completely contradicted himself elsewhere in the Origin, stating his belief that after a species had once become extinct, it would not ever reappear again by evolutionary means: "We can clearly understand why a species when once lost should never reappear, even if the very same conditions of life, organic and inorganic, should recur."(Origin, pp. 168)<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->
T he evolution of the mammals is just as mysterious. Although it is often suggested by evolutionists that mammals only appeared after the demise of the dinosaurs, the creatures that evolutionists claim were transitional forms between reptiles and mammals, the therapsids, actually show up in the fossil record before many of the better known dinosaurs themselves existed, in the Triassic period, 240 million evolutionary years ago. Then, the most extraordinary thing happened: These strange creatures that supposedly became mammals went extinct, and mammals disappeared almost entirely from the fossil record for 100 million years!
Then mammals suddenly show up again after the dinosaurs went extinct, with no evidence for their evolutionary lineage. (I use the term "evolutionary years," in discussing these supposed great ages much as a scientist would use the term "light years" in discussing vast distances between stars, although with an astronomer "light years" would have some real meaning based on accurate scientific data. When I am using the term "evolutionary years" I am not necessarily speaking of real years, it is merely a device to deal with the evolutionists hypothetical schemes, nonetheless it is a useful term since we need to have some basis in nomenclature when discussing this subject)
The Class of creatures known as Mammalia are distinguished by having warm blood and double circulation, usually covered with hair, four limbs, young nourished with milk from the mothers mammary glands, jaw made up of a single pair of bones, diaphragm used in re<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->spiration, and seven vertebrate in the neck.
As far as the so-called "mammal like" reptiles, the therapsids and specifically the dicynodonts, that evolutionists claim are the ancestors of mammals, not much is really known about them, except that they became extinct 210 million evolutionary years ago, at the end of the Triassic, and show no close resemblance to any living or extinct mammal. Out of the entire group of dicynodonts, only the cynodonts were considered possible ancestors to mammals, yet the cynodonts died out millions of years before the dinosaurs became extinct and the mammals became the predominant life forms, according to the evolutionary schemes.
There never were any "mammal-like reptiles" that evolutionists are desperately clinging to as evidence for their theory, outside of an evolutionist's imagination. These were the therapsids, but they were not reptiles at all; they were as different from reptiles as any class of animals are from another. And the fact that they supposedly went extinct millions of years before true mammals showed up on the scene should cause some to at least doubt the veracity of evolutionist speculations.
No true transitional form linking mammals with any reptilian creature has ever been found, and for all the evolutionists know mammals could be as closely related to birds as to reptiles. In fact, an animal with a bird-like bill has been suggested over the years as some kind of evolutionary link between mammals and reptiles, however this animal, the platypus, is now securely classified as a mammal of the Order Monotremata, in the Subclass Prototheria, along with the echidnas. Since the platypus lays eggs, this further removes it from being in an intermediate category, as there are a few reptiles, among them the very common lacerta vivipara lizard of Europe that do not lay eggs themselves, but give live birth.
Thomas Huxley and Vladimer Kovalsky worked out the supposed horse evolution scheme independently in the nineteenth century, much as Darwin and Wallace worked out their identical theories independently, both merely reiterating prevalent evolutionary theories of their day.
The problem with this is that all of the supposed ancestors of the horse, the Paleotherium, the Anchitherium, and the Hipparion, became extinct at different times in totally unrelated geologic strata in the fossil sequence, sometimes on entirely different continents, without leaving any descendants. There was no direct line of descent from any of them to the present day horse. Many of the fossil horses dug up no doubt represent extinct types of horses, a fossil zebra would be confused with a horse, they are both essentially of the same species. So we are to believe that the horse supposedly evolved four times, died out three of those times leaving no descendants, until finally the modern horse evolved, without any evidence of its evolution in the fossil record.
Some of these supposed precursors of the modern horse are merely differing in size, yet today's living varieties of horses range in size from the tiny miniatures all the way up to the giant Clydesdales, though they are all of the same species. Some of the fossil horses are distinguished by having a differing number of toes on their hooves, but the African elephant has a different number of toes on its feet than the Indian elephant does, yet neither is classified as being ancestral to the other. Different types of sloths have varying numbers of toes on their feet, yet this does not in itself connote an evolutionary phylogeny. Some people are born with six fingers on each hand, but they are not classified as some other, less evolved species.
The rhino supposedly evolved from the hyracotherium as well as the horse, but the fossil series leading up to the rhino are not found in any kind of orderly sequence in the geologic strata either. The Brontotherium, the Hyrocianth, the Mynocerous, etc. died out at different times, while their scattered remains have been another example of an evolutionary fairy tale that has been cooked up by paleontologists to enthrall their gullible followers.
In fact, the modern hyrax, in overall body plan is nearly identical, except for some minor skull variations and dental anomalies, to the creature that supposedly became the rhino, the horse and a few other animals in the evolutionists' stories.
This is not to say that the hyracotherium was the exact same animal as the hyrax. The extinct marsupial thylacine is virtually identical skeletally to the wolf or dog, yet it was definitely a distinct species, in fact, an entirely different subclass of animal than any placental mammal. Thus to make comparisons based on fossils alone to suggest a phylogenic or taxonomic relationship is highly suspect.
The point is that the hyracotherium is definitely more similar skeletally to the hyrax than to the questionable "intermediates" that evolutionists claim led up to the horse. The hyracotherium was even named after the hyrax by it’s' discoverer, although lately Gould and other evolutionists have taken issue with this.
The so-called "mammal like" reptiles do not exhibit any characteristics that would indicate that they possessed notable mammalian traits. The evidence for all of this is as nebulous as the evidence that medieval alchemists changed lead into gold, but it satisfies the evolutionists in much the same way that ancient cultures believed that the earth sat on a turtles' back, and both slept well at night in their faith.
Darwin stated in his Descent of Man his belief that all classes of mammalia were descended from a common ancestor and that through environmental influences or pure luck the descendants of this unknown ancestor gradually adapted to different demands on their physiognomy, and thus became tigers and elephants and whales and horses, etc. etc. Surely for such a sweeping hypothesis he must have compiled literally volumes of evidence for such a claim. It couldn't all have been entirely speculation, could it? For the answer let us look at the startling proof that Darwin had to offer to back up his (not so) novel contention.
Darwin wrote:(39) " In attempting to trace the genealogy of the Mammalia, and therefore of man, lower down in the series, we become involved in greater and greater obscurity . . . no true bird or reptile intervenes in the direct line of descent . . . Every evolutionist will admit that the five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are descended from some one prototype . . . As the class of fishes is the most lowly organized, and appeared before the others, we may conclude that all the members of the vertebrate kingdom are derived from some fishlike animal . . . The belief that animals so distinct as a monkey, an elephant, a hummingbird, a snake, a frog, and a fish, &c. Could all have sprung from the same parents . . . implies the former existence of links binding closely together all these forms, now so utterly alike."
So Darwin could provide no actual proof for his contention of a common ancestor, he based his entire theory on the belief in the theory, not from observable evidence. Note the line of reasoning in Darwin's writing: "every evolutionist will admit that . . . The belief that animals so distinct . . . implies the former existence of links" etc. In other words, the evidence presented here for the existence of evolution was based on a presumption, not on actual fact, but this did not in any way deter Darwin's enthusiasm for his theory, as we have just read where he went on to claim, despite the lack of evidence, that all vertebrate animals had descended from a common ancestor.
This is the traditional and classic evolutionary story, built up step by step, link by link, entirely on the supposition of evolution with no evidence for it in the slightest! We have clearly documented in the previous sections that in Darwin's day and continuing on down to the present there has been no substantiated historic fossil species or living species of transitional forms of life for his theory of evolution from a common ancestor to be tenable.
Thus, as in everything he wrote, Darwin could provide no substantial evidence for his claims. Failing to find any fossil evidences in the imaginary phylogeny of the common ancestry of animals, he resorted to the now totally debunked theory of embryonic recapitulation, which is the belief that the human embryo goes through the various stages of evolution while developing inside the mother’s womb. He spent quite some time on this in his Descent, in fact he thought it was the best clue he could come up with to try and demonstrate his theory. He wrote: "Thus, if we may rely on embryology, ever the safest guide in classification, it seems that we have at last gained a clue (in other words he had no evidence at all for evolution before this) to the source whence the Vertebrate were derived."(40)
Darwin, of course, did not originate the theory of embryonic recapitulation on his own. Johann Meckel toyed with the idea in 1811, and Karl von Baer suggested that the stages in the development of the human embryo corresponded to the different adult stages of life of the lower animals. It was in 1866 that Haeckel proposed it as a fundamental biogenetic law.
The whole idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, i.e., that the human embryo goes through the various stages of fish and primate evolution before birth, has since been entirely discredited, but it is still presented in some textbooks as one of the "proofs" for evolution. Various organs were once considered to be "vestigial organs," evolutionary leftovers from our distant past when we needed them in order to survive but which are now no longer necessary.
The supposed section of a human embryo that evolutionists said recapitulated the tail never develops any actual skeletal structure of a tail, there was never any genetic code there for a tail to be produced in the first place, and it is now known that it serves a purpose necessary for human life in the fetal stage, as it produces the red blood cells needed for the developing child, since the bones that would normally produce the red blood cells necessary for life have not formed in the embryo as yet.
Michael Denton and Sir Gavin de Beer have shown conclusively that the embryos of different vertebrate animals are totally dissimilar to each other, that even in the various early stages of embryonic development similar organs such as forelegs, kidneys, and alimentary canals develop from entirely different places and that tissues in the embryos of frogs, reptiles, fish and mammals are not alike at all. (41)
Scientists now know that the supposed "gill slits" in a human embryo never develop into anything like gills in the fetus, they are folds in the pharyngeal region that develop into the thymus glands, parathyroid glands, and the Eustachian tubes, which are cartilaginous tubes that connect the ear with the nasopharynx and serve to equalize pressure. There is never any type of "fish stage" that the human fetus passes through. For one thing the basic genetic code from the very beginning of human life at the single cell stage of conception is one hundred percent entirely human, i.e., not fish, not reptile, not monkey or ape. Pregnant women do not have little fish swimming around inside their wombs.
Many organs once considered to be vestigial are known to be useful and even essential in human life. We now know that the tonsils and the appendix are specialized tissues making up part of the lymphoid system that pass on stem cells from the bone marrow to the blood stream in immunological response to disease in early childhood.
The popularizer of the theory of embryonic recapitulation, Ernst Haeckel, was
accused of forgery while at the University of Jena by L. Rutimeyer, professor of
zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel (L. Rutimeyer,
"Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868), which demonstrates the
lengths that evolutionists will go to in order to promote their
Wilhelm His, Sr. (Unsere Koperform und das Physiologische Problem Ihrer Entstehung) and Albert Fleischmann (Die Descenddztheoried, 1901, pp. 101-152). were two other prominent German scientists who exposed the fraudulent nature of his work.
His drawings that were supposed to demonstrate human features common to hypothetical ancestors were found to be falsified, yet for years afterward his name and his theory were presented unashamedly in biology texts as "Haeckel's Law of Recapitulation."
Haeckel was an associate of Darwin and enthusiastically supported his ideas, and Darwin even makes many references to Haeckel in his Descent of Man, which shows that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Haeckel was involved with another dubious "proof" of evolution, the "Pithecanthropus Man," which we will deal with in time.
We find where Darwin wrote in his Descent: "As some of my readers may never have seen a drawing of an embryo, I have given one of man and another of a dog, at about the same early stage of development, carefully copied from two works of undoubted accuracy. After the foregoing statements made by such high authorities (Haeckel, Huxley, et. al.), it would be superfluous on my part to give a number of borrowed details, shewing that the embryo of man closely resembles that of other animals . . .the embryos of wonderfully different forms should still retain, more or less perfectly, the structure of their common ancestor. No other explanation has ever been given of the marvelous fact that the embryos of a man, dog, seal, bat, reptile, &c., can at first hardly be distinguished from each other."(42)
Of course any glob of cells before they began to differentiate into their respective characteristics would look quite similar to another glob of cells to the inexperienced eye, yet even at the cellular level species are differentiated by quite distinct DNA, the fish DNA is just not available to produce fish organs in humans, we have no coding for "gill slits." Francis Hitching wrote: "But as a matter of biological fact, the embryos of men, apes, dogs, and rabbits are not at all the same and can easily be distinguished by any competent embryologist. They only looked the same, in Haeckel's books, because he had chopped off bits here and there, and added bits elsewhere, to make them seem identical." (43)
Many so-called primitive metazoa that are supposed to resemble the early embryo of man are not in the least bit "primitive", they have quite complex and diversified structures and functions, causing Professor John Tyler Bonner of Princeton University to remark, "We may have known for almost a hundred years that Haeckel's blastaea-gastraea theory of the origin of the metazoa is probably nonsense, but it is so clear-cut, so simple, so easy to hand full-blown to the student."(44)
There is almost no evidence of juvenile recapitulation in the plant world, from seedling to full grown organism. Zoologist Bolton Davidheiser mentions other difficulties with this theory that occur in the insect world, where certain flies are virtually identical in their adult stage, however in their larvae stage they are entirely different. He mentions the freshwater crayfish and the lobster, nearly indistinguishable except for size in their adult stages, but the crayfish hatch from eggs as fully developed miniature crayfish while the lobster pass through several complex larvae stages on their way to maturity. (45)
Let us now go through a few of the more familiar orders of mammals to find out what is presently known of their evolutionary history. Ivan T. Sanderson, an evolutionist with degrees in botany, geology, and zoology from Cambridge University and an honored member of numerous national and international scientific societies, has provided us with the following seven examples. Sanderson has been a world-wide lecturer, published numerous books and articles on evolution, and supervised zoological expeditions throughout the world.
A) Marsupialia: Pouched Mammals: "The strange thing is that already at that early period [100 million years ago] these little animals were of several distinct kinds . . .Among the opossums were animals astonishingly like some that are still living today . . ."(Living Mammals of the World, Ivan T. Sanderson, pp. 16, Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden City, New York, 1967.)
B) Seals: "Also, apart from one fossil form, which may have been a seal-like otter, or an otter like seal but is not a missing link and therefore does not indicate any true relationship between the two, no animal living or extinct gives us any real clue to their origin." (ibid pp. 155.)
C) Rodentia: Rodents, mice, rats, beavers, squirrels, gophers, hamsters, porcupines: "Despite their great variety of form and habit, the Rodents constitute the most clear cut and readily definable order of mammals, both as they exist today and as found in a fossilized condition. Since the dawn of the age of mammals they have been quite distinct, and there is nothing known, dead or alive, that in any was links them to any other mammals living or extinct." (ibid) pp. 114.)
D) Equus: Horses: "The origin of the horse was until recently thought to be better known than that of any other mammal . . .However, this pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structure, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion. So many side-branches have been brought to light and so many intermediate forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved." (ibid pp. 222)
E) Cetacea: Whales, dolphins and porpoises: " . . . not only is there a great mystery about the origin of whales, there is also a much wider puzzle which requires investigation. This-the time factor in evolution-cannot, however be discussed here . . . It is not absolutely sure that the two living groups of whales had a common origin . . . [Concerning the ancestors of toothed whales] Whatever these animals may have been, however, is not known and nothing like them has been found in the fossil state. Whatever the ancestors of the whales may have been, they must have lived and presumably become extinct more than sixty million years ago." (Ibid, pp. 210)
F) Hippopotamines:"The exact position in the scheme of life of these remarkable beasts was for long a puzzle to naturalists and zoologists . . . They must be of considerably venerable ancestry per se but, although sundry creatures are known from fossil remains that look like missing links between them and the original Suines, there is really no information on their earliest history." (Ibid, pp. 246)
G) Camelines: Camels: "At one time it was rather confidently believed that these animals evolved exclusively in the continent of North America and that the stages of this evolution were as fully extant as those pertaining to the Horses. Now, however, a host of other related creatures have come to light and the whole subject has become blurred." (Ibid, pp. 247)
H) For the origin of the elephants, P. E. P. Deraniyagala, Director of the National Museum of Ceylon wrote: "The two survivors of the great Order Proboscidia are Elephas maximusof Asia and Laxodonta africana of Africa. The origins of both are obscure . . ."(Government Press of Ceylon, 1955, pp. 11)
T here has been quite a bit of attention being given lately to the supposed novel discovery that dinosaurs and birds might be related, as though this is some significant new breakthrough in paleontological thought. It isn't. Darwin suggested the connection over a century ago in his Descent, and of course he didn't originate the idea either, it had been discussed already by Huxley and Cope. (46)Every now and then some old, discarded evolutionary concept is wheeled out and highlighted by the press and the scientific community as a brand new development in evolutionary theory, which helps to spur occasional flagging interest in the subject by an often confused and mystified public.
As far as the archaeopteryx, the supposed link between reptiles and birds that Darwin mentioned in his Descent, which has for all practical purposes been the only fossil that evolutionists have ever come up with to attempt to validate their theory, a true transitional bird would have scales turning into feathers, sort of like "fales" or "sceathers", but the archaeopteryx fossils had fully developed feathers and wings. The other so-called primitive features of the archaeopteryx, it's talons and shallow breastbone, are shared by living ostriches, it's solid bones are shared by the hoatzin, the African darter, and the Florida "swamp turkey," both alive and well, and some ancient birds had teeth.
A feather itself is a very marvelous and intricate instrument, having delicately woven barbules and hooks functioning together in beautiful fashion that does not point to any kind of a random, evolutionary process having the ability to produce it, wither from natural selection or genetic mutations.
Recently (October 1995) a true fossil bird has been found that has been dated as older than archaeopteryx, thus the archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor of birds in the evolutionists time framework. [Since writing this, a supposed fossil intermediate link between dinosaurs and birds has been found in China, however this fossil is estimated to be only 120 million years old, while the archaeopteryx is supposedly 150 million years old, and other fossil birds have been found that are older]
In addition, the avian lung is totally unlike any reptilian [or mammalian] lung. Instead of having sponge type lungs with bronchia, a birds lungs are circulatory, with the air passing through them in one direction, similar to the way blood flows through veins in the body. The avian lung would have to be perfectly developed in its present state for a bird to survive, a half-formed avian lung would spell instant death to any bird, and no intermediate lungs between reptiles and birds have ever been known.
Another seldom mentioned difficulty with the dinosaur-to-bird scenario is the fact that the types of dinosaurs that birds supposedly evolved from had the wrong kind of pelvis. There were two basic pelvic structures among the dinosaurs, both of them exhibiting major differences. The two legged Saurischiandinosaurs, among them the Ornitholestes, hypothetical ancestors of birds, had pelvic structures unlike any bird, fossil or modern, but had pelvises like lizards. The type of dinosaurs that had pelvic structures similar to birds were the four legged dinosaurs, from which birds are not thought to have evolved from at all.
We have seen that the fossil record, supposedly the best proof that we have for evolution, does not support the theory at all. Indeed, the fossil record is the best witness against the theory of evolution. Thus the characteristic feature of the missing links is that they really are missing, and this is from the writings of world renowned evolutionists! This situation has proven to be rather an embarrassment to the evolutionists when it is pointed out.
There is a Book written that fully accords with what we find in the fossil record, that tells us that all creatures were created suddenly, after their kind, and that they did not all evolve gradually from some common ancestor. That Book is, of course, the Bible.
Still, evolutionists since the time of Darwin have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the evidence before their very eyes, and they have continued to try and pawn their theories off to the public, and sadly enough to young children who are developing their ideas on the origin of human life and who are struggling to find meaning and purpose in the world as they grow up.
We will investigate more of the arguments that evolutionists use to try and validate their theory since Darwin's time in the next Chapter of The Darwin Papers.
(i)Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn, "Leftism Revisited," Pg. 456.
Regnery Gateway Publishers, 1990
(ii) Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable,
(Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1996), p. 113; Creation Digest, www.CreationDigest.com , 6/20/2002; as cited by Jonathan Sarfati, PhD, Refuting Evolution (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999), p. 64.
1. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Recapitulation and Conclusion, pp. 241-243, William Benton Pub., 1952, Edited under the auspices of Encyclopedia Britannica and the University of Chicago, Great Books of the Western World Series.
Darwin wrote: "Analogy would lead me . . ." in his argument, but then wrote
immediately thereafter, "But analogy [inference] may be a deceitful
guide."! He based his entire argument on analogy alone, not actual evidence.
Analogy may be used as an argument in proving a point, but not exclusive of any facts for scientific proof! You need true, genuine data to formulate a case to arrive at a scientific proof. No one would use analogy alone, apart from the facts, in a murder case, or in charging someone with grand theft! Note the line of his reasoning where he wrote further: "Therefore, on the principle of natural selection with divergence of character, it does not seem incredible that from such low and intermediate form, both animals and plants may have developed; and if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form. But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy, and it is immaterial whether or not it is accepted." Origin, pp.241, Recapitulation and Conclusion. Again, all supposition, no substance.
4. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164from Great Books of the Western World, Volume 49, Darwin, Published by William Benton under the auspices of the University of Chicago and Encyclopedia Britannica, Mortimer Adler associate Editor, Chicago, London, Toronto, 1952.
7. (ibid) Origin, Chapter Ten: On the Absence of intermediate varieties at the present day; On the nature of extinct intermediate varieties; On the lapse of time, as inferred from the rate of denudation and deposition.
15. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 89, Master Books, Santee California, 1988, From a quote of a letter written by Dr. Patterson to Luther Sunderland dated April 10, 1979.
Saunders Company, Philadelphia, London, Toronto, 1976.
22. Not wishing to plague the reader with redundancies, nevertheless what I mentioned in the previous chapter regarding the dated material in some of my quotes bears repeating, since this will surely become an item to be seized upon by evolutionists. First, an article of evidence does not become discredited simply by the passage of time, but only by being disproved by contrary evidence. In fact, the longer evidence has stood the test of time the more its credentials are verified. Secondly, the arguments that evolutionists promote have not changed dramatically since the time of these quotes, they have merely been reworked and parroted to an unwitting public as supposedly new data. Third, since Darwin and Darwinism are still regarded as almost synonymous with evolutionary theory, and Darwin lived nearly two centuries ago, the evidence is still relevant.
27. Larousse Encyclopedia of Animal Life, pp. 205, based on La Vie Des Animaux, by Leon Burtin, The Hamlin Publishing House, Feltham, Middlesex, England. Printed in Italy for the Hamlin Publishing Company Limited, London, New York, Sidney, 1967, 1971.
John Wiley and Sons, 1957, pp. 416.
36. Maurice Richardson, a worldwide traveler, journalist,
and authority on reptiles, has written of snakes: "The unique feature of snakes
is their limblessness., There is no doubt about their evolution from some
four-legged, lizard like ancestor, though precisely how this happened we do
not know." (The Fascination of Reptiles, Maurice Richardson, pp.
14, Hill and Wang, New York, 1972).
Thus it is all based on the presumption of evolution, known as circular reasoning, i.e. attempting to prove something by using the conclusion itself as proof. Evolutionists again and again commit this error, while criticizing Christians for believing blindly in dogma.
Evolution has become a "magic" word, explaining everything, while telling us
nothing, with statements such as "evolution has produced the remarkable ability
of the dragonfly to mate while in flight", yet never stating just how evolution
Even Richardson has stated on the origin of the chameleon: "How did this slow-moving, highly specialized arboreal form with its unique features evolve from the agamids which are, with this one exception, all fast-moving, thrusting, darting lizards? We do not know. All we can do is to speculate and make tautologous statements such as 'chameleons are specially adapted for living among vegetation on a diet of insects." (Ibid, pp. 62)
Richardson wrote "The origin of the Chelonians [turtles] is obscure . . .Of living reptiles, the chelonians and the crocodilians appear to have changed least [no evidence of evolution]. The evolution of the lizards and snakes is more problematical. . .the evolution of snakes from lizard-like ancestors has given rise to one speculation (you might call it the cataclysmic hypothesis) that all snakes are descended from small burrowing forms like living sand boas . . .But there is no certainty here." (Ibid, pp. 23)
38. Darwin had to admit the presence of living fossils, creatures that had not changed substantially over long periods of time, and admitted that the earliest forms of animal life were in no way intermediate to later forms: "Some of the most ancient animals, as the nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character."(Descent, PP. 164, Benton, 1952)
39. Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter 6: On The Affinities and Genealogy of Man, Subsection: Lower Stages in the Genealogy of Man, Darwin, G.B.O.W.W., Vol. 49, pp.337, William Benton Publisher, under the auspices of Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.
46. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp. 337-338. On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, Lower Stages in the Genealogy of Man, (Benton Edition, Great Books of The Western World). Here Darwin expressed the view that Dinosaurs might be the ancestors of birds, it is no new concept at all: "We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has discovered, and is confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the dinosaurians are in many important characteristics intermediate between certain reptiles and certain birds-the birds referred to being the ostrich-tribe and the Archeopteryx, that strange secondary bird with a long lizard-like tail." Darwin also wrote in his Origin: "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by the naturalist just quoted [Huxley] to be partially bridged over by the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx and on the other hand, by the Compsognathus, one of the dinosaurians-that group that includes the most gigantic of all terrestrial reptiles." (Darwin, Origin: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings: ON the Affinities of Extinct species to each other, and to Living Forms, pp. 173, Benton Publishing, 1952).
There have never been found any dinosaurs that had feathers, which are very complex in their arrangement.