CHAPTER 16. CONFESSIONS THAT THE HUMAN SOUL CANNOT BE EXPLAINED
CHAPTER 16.
CONFESSIONS THAT THE HUMAN SOUL CANNOT BE EXPLAINED
IN TERMS OF EVOLUTION
Another subject that evolutionists cannot explain is how, during the process of evolution, humans acquired characteristics that separate them from all other life forms. Human beings are conscious entities possessed of free will, able to think, speak, reason, take decisions and make judgments. All these characteristics are processes belonging to the human soul, which is the main feature creating the enormous gulf between humans and other animals.
Man is the only living thing in nature with a soul, and no supposed mechanism of evolution can account for the features of the soul and its formation.
All evolutionists, Darwin included, are well aware of this. Here are a few examples of evolutionist admissions on this subject:
Charles Darwin:
We have seen in the last two chapters that man bears in his bodily structure clear traces of his descent from some lower form; but it may be urged that, as man differs so greatly in his mental power from all other animals, there must be some error in this conclusion. 287
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
The question today that cannot easily be answered is this: Do we know the natural factors directing the course of human evolution? To put it another way, under the effect of what natural conditions did nature turn towards the conscious entity, with cultural activity, we refer to as “man”? 288
  Man is an entity with a soul bestowed on him by Allah, and who is able to think, rejoice, feel excitement, produce ideas, and understand the concepts of honor, respect, love, friendship, loyalty, honesty and sincerity. According to materialists, however, all these sentiments are products of the neurons, or nerve cells, inside the brain and chemical reactions between them. Yet this claim is neither scientific nor logical. In order not to have to accept the existence of a supra-material being, materialists prefer an idea that’s totally incompatible with reason and logic. The fact is that all these properties, which distinguish human beings from other living things, are actually functions of the soul. |
Darwin restricts natural selection, which he proposed as a propulsive force, to the formation of new species and forms on the biological level. He regards various factors affecting the emergence of the various activities we refer to as culture and civilization during the process of developing the emotional, mental and moral attributes we see in their clearest form in humans. Man is not only the biological product of natural selection, but also of progress in the psychological, moral and cultural spheres.
However, it is far from clear how the aimless, mechanical process of natural selection, can have led to such extraordinary advances. We cannot even say that Darwin provided a satisfactory resolution of this difficulty. 289
Moral (ethical) behaviour is not a natural form of behaviour, but a cultural one unique to man alone. We know that Darwin failed to see that distinction sufficiently clearly. If he had seen it, he would not have gone down the road of locating certain activities rooted in the human mind and moral awareness within a biological evolutionary framework. In his view, “thought” was something to be seen as totally related to the brain. “In the same way that gravity is a feature of matter, so thought is a characteristic of our brains,” says Darwin. But is this equation, which confuses physiology and psychology, strictly accurate? . . . At this point, it is clear that Darwin is in error. 290
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German professor of neurology and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
We are unable to provide any answer to how consciousness, the soul, reason and emotion came into being along the path of natural history and genetic development. Because the psychic-awareness dimension, at least in this world, is currently the highest level attainable by evolution. Therefore, although we can look at steps and stages beyond evolution, again with the help of our consciousness, and look down on them from the outside, we are devoid of the means of adopting such an approach towards the soul itself. Because there is no superior attribute to the soul we possess. In the words of evolutionary theoreticians, we have no equation by which we can perceive and understand the soul as a whole. 291
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
In the physical realm, any theory of human evolution must explain how it was that an ape-like ancestor, equipped with powerful jaws and long, dagger-like canine teeth and able to run at speed on four limbs, became transformed into a slow, bipedal animal whose natural means of defense were at best puny. Add to this the powers of intellect, speech and morality, upon which we “stand raised as upon a mountain top” as Huxley put it; and one has the complete challenge to evolutionary theory. 292
287 Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Men, Chapter III – “Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals.”
288 Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık [“Evolution Theory and Bigotry”], p. 93.
289 Ibid., p. 100.
290 Ibid., pp.106-107.
291Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 3 [“The Silent Nights of the Dinosaurs 3”], p .13.
292 John Peet, The True History of Mankind, http://saturniancosmology.org/files/humans/mankind.txt
CHAPTER 15. CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE FOREBEARS OF MAN
CHAPTER 15.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE FOREBEARS OF MAN
The theory of evolution maintains that human beings and modern-day apes share a common ancestor. These primitive creatures gradually evolved, with one branch coming to form present-day apes, and the other group modern human beings.
Evolutionists point to Australopithecus, whose Latin name means “South African ape,” as the first supposed common ancestor between humans and apes. The various types of Australopithecus were in fact nothing more than an extinct species of ape. Some of these were very large and others much smaller, while other had more delicate features.
Evolutionists attach the prefix Homo, meaning “man,” to the next stage, or genus, of human evolution. They claim that creatures in the Homo sequence were more advanced than Australopithecus and not all that different from modern-day humans. The final stage of this supposed evolutionary process is Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man.
The facts, however, are that Australopithecus is an extinct apes, while those in the Homo series are races of human beings who once lived but have since become extinct. Evolutionists have set out various ape and human fossils in order of size to produce a chronology of human evolution. Yet scientific facts prove that these fossils do not prove any evolutionary process: Some of these entities depicted as the forerunners of modern humans were genuine apes, while others were genuine humans. (For more details, see The Evolution Deceit, by Harun Yahya.)
However, since evolutionists had made such a daring claim, they needed to prove it, at least in their own minds, and so attempt to present so-called evidence by resorting to various frauds.
In their search for evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution, they most frequently resort to the fossil record. But when examined carefully and objectively, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution at all, but totally undermines it. Yet because evolutionists generally offer biased evaluations of fossils and pass them on to the public, many people imagine that the fossil record actually corroborates the theory of evolution.
That some fossil discoveries are open to all kinds of interpretation is of the very greatest use to evolutionists. Fossils are usually insufficient for any certain conclusions. They tend to consist of partial and scattered bone fragments. It is therefore a simple matter to distort the data in whatever direction one chooses. Indeed, evolutionists construct their imaginary reconstructions (models or drawings) on the basis of fossil remains in such a way as to corroborate the claims of evolution. Since people are most easily influenced by visual materials, their aim is to use imagination to convince people that such creatures actually once existed.
Evolutionist researchers generally produce their reconstructions of imaginary, human-like beings on the basis of a single tooth, fragment of jawbone, or a tiny arm bone and then sensationally declare these to be links in the story of human evolution. Such drawings have played a considerable role in forming the public’s image of primitive man.
Yet even so, evolutionists still make frequent confessions that such interpretations are often most open to fraud and bias.
Charles Darwin:
You ask whether I shall discuss “man”;—I think I shall avoid whole subject. . . My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for 20 years, will not fix or settle anything. . . . 240
. . . but I was dreadfully disappointed about [the evolution of] Man. 241
Richard Leakey, a well-known evolutionist:
“David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, ‘If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got, he’d surely say, ‘Forget it: there isn’t enough to go on.’ ”242
Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. 243
Donald C. Johanson is an American paleoanthropologist and Professor at Arizona State University, in addition he is the director of the Institute of Human Origins:
There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain. 244
F. Clark Howell, Professor and Chairman of the Anthropology Department at University of Chicago, discusses Piltdown Man, one of the most notorious forgeries in history:
Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape’s or the skull to be a human’s. Instead, they declared each part as [from] an in-between [species] of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or “Dawson’s Dawn Man”), and wrote some 500 books on it. The “discovery” fooled paleontologists for forty-five years.245
Wray Herbert is psychology editor for Science News, editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, and science and medicine editor at US News & World Report:
According to John Hopkins University anthropologist Alan Walker, there is a long tradition of misinterpreting various bones as human clavicles; in the past, he says, skilled anthropologists have erroneously described an alligator femur and the toe of a three-toed horse as clavicles. 246
Boyce Rensberger is author of popular science books and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
In 1984, a 12-year old boy of the Homo erectus species, dated at 1.6 million years old, was dug up in Kenya. His body skeleton was virtually indistinguishable from our own. 247
Jerald M. Loewenstein and Adrienne L. Zihlman in New Scientist, dated December 1988:
. . . anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages.Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this. . . . The subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many palaeontologists advocate with almost religious fervour, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree. On the contrary, almost every conceivable combination and permutation of living and extinct hominoids has been proposed by one cladist or another. 248
Robert D. Martin is Curator of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University:
It should be noted at the outset that substantial fossil remains are known for all of the species listed below (a quite unusual situation with respect to the primate fossil record generally), but that there is virtually no fossil evidence relating to human evolution, other than a few fragments of dubious affinities, before about 3.8 Ma [million years] ago.249
 David Pilbeam |
David Pilbeam is Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum:
My reservations concern not so much this book [Richard Leakey’s Origins], but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. . . . Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; …. our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. 250
Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data. . . . We are unaware of many of our assumptions. 251
In the physical realm, any theory of human evolution must explain how it was that an ape-like ancestor, equipped with powerful jaws and long, dagger-like canine teeth and able to run at speed on four limbs, became transformed into a slow, bipedal animal whose natural means of defense were at best puny. Add to this the powers of intellect, speech and morality, upon which we “stand raised as upon a mountain top,” as Huxley put it; and one has the complete challenge to evolutionary theory. 252
Robert B. Eckhardt is Professor of Anthropology at Penn State University:
Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man’s hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no. 253
 Evolutionist scientists generally make deductions on the basis of a few fragments of bone in their possession. (Richard Leakey, second from left, and Donald C. Johanson on the far right.) |
John Reader holds an Honorary Research Fellowship in the Department of Anthropology at University College London:
The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal—ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. 254
Lyall Watson has degrees in botany and zoology doctor of philosophy degree in ethology under Desmond Morris at London Zoo:
Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings—is, to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. 255
William R. Fix is the author of the book, The Bone Peddlers:
The fossil record of man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. . . Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is “no doubt” how man originated. If only they had the evidence. . . .256
 Tim White on the far right |
Dr. Tim White is an evolution anthropologist at the University of California in Berkeley:
A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley . . . The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. 257
In 1994, the American anthropologist Holly Smith conducted detailed analyses indicating that Homo habilis was not Homo—in other words, not human at all—but rather unequivocally an ape. Speaking of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis, Smith stated;
Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans. 258
Stephen J. Gould:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on Earth. 259
Evolutionist paleontologists Claude A. Villee is Professor of Biological Chemistry at Harvard Medical School, Eldra P. Solomon is licensed psychologist at Center for Mental Health Education, Tampa, Florida, and Percival William Davis is a professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College:
We [humans] appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . 260
Niles Eldredge is a paleontologist at Harvard University and Ian Tattersall is curator at American Museum of Natural History:
It is a myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery. If this were true, one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found, the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything, the opposite has occurred. 261
Henry Gee is an author who has been published in Nature magazine:
. . . the chain of ancestry and descent . . . [is] a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. 262
John Durant is a historian at Oxford University; from a meeting at British Association for the Advancement of Science:
Could it be that, like “primitive” myths, theories of human evolution reinforce the value-systems of their creators by reflecting historically their image of themselves and of the society which they live? 263
. . . Time and again, ideas about human origins turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our remote ancestors. . . . [W]e are in urgent need of the de- mythologisation of science. 264
 The bones of “Lucy” |
Confessions Regarding “Lucy”
During the course of research in Ethiopia’s Hadar Desert in 1974, a 25% intact hominid skeleton estimated to be 3 million years old was discovered and was given the name “Lucy.” This skeleton, which evolutionists claimed was of a forerunner of modern man, was 1.20 meters high and had a skull volume of 410 cubic centimeters, which is very small, even by the standard of modern apes.
Although evolutionists were perfectly well aware that Lucy was nothing more than an extinct form of ape, they ignored all her ape-like characteristics for the sake of the role as the ancestor of man that they had ascribed to her.
Richard Leakey:
Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of Paris,” thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to. 265
Albert W. Mehlert is an evolutionist and paleoanthropology researcher:
The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The “evidence” for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing. 266
Confessions Regarding the Neanderthals
 A Neanderthal skull |
The Neanderthals appeared suddenly in Europe around 100,000 years ago, disappearing again—or else assimilating with other human races—just as rapidly and silently 35,000 years ago. The only difference between these and modern-day humans is that their skeletons were rather more powerful and their skulls, on average, slightly larger.
Neanderthals were a human race, and this is generally agreed upon by all. Evolutionists for long attempted to portray these people as a primitive species, but all the findings showed that the Neanderthals were no different to any well-built individual walking down the street today.
For that reason, many contemporary researchers refer to Neanderthal Man as Homo sapiens Neandertalensis and as a subspecies of modern man. Findings show that the Neanderthals buried their dead, used a variety of musical instruments and shared an advanced culture with Homo sapiens sapiens, living at the same time. In short, the Neanderthals were simply a large-bodied race of humans that gradually disappeared.
Charles Darwin:
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as
the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious. 267
C. Loring Brace, an evolutionist anthropologist:
Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features, Brace reported at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Phoenix . . . . Indeed, the present-day European skulls resemble Neanderthal skulls more closely than they resemble the skulls of American Indians or Australian aborigines. 268
Erik Trinkaus is Professor of Physical Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis:
Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. 269
From Prevention magazine, an evolutionist periodical:
Dr. Francis Ivanhoe has claimed that the teeth of Neanderthal Man show specific evidence of rickets (caused by a Vitamin D deficiency) and that X-rays of the bones of Neanderthal Man show the characteristic rickets ring pattern. 270
Bonnie Blackwell is an evolutionist geologist at the City University of New York's Queens College:
Neanderthals were apparently quite similar to Homo sapiens in their behavior and cognitive capacities. In both groups, musical traditions probably extend back very far into prehistory. The Slovenian bone closely resembles several hole-bearing bones that were likely to have been used as musical instruments by humans at later European sites, according to archaeologist Randall K. White of New York University. 271
Sarah Bunney is an executive editor and science writer:
Paleontologists in Israel have discovered a fossil bone which shows that Neanderthals may have been just as capable of speech as modern humans. The bone, known as the hyoid, is from a Neanderthal who lived between 50 000 and 60 000 years ago. The hyoid, a small U-shaped bone, is a key part of the vocal apparatus in modern human beings. According to B. Arensberg and Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University and their colleagues, the fossil hyoid, in size and shape, is just like a modern human’s . . . The researchers believe that, despite their heavy jawbones, Neanderthals spoke a language. 272
The Neanderthals were a human race, with large, powerful muscles, who managed to survive in a harsh environment. Their tools remained the same for thousands upon thousands of years. There is no indication of evolution in their technology or behaviour. 273
Milford Wolpoff is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan:
Others helped a Neanderthal survive. Did they love him, did he make a valuable contribution to his community, were these his children and did they protect only their own relatives? Yes, we can invent all kinds of stories as to why this happened. The important thing is that these all belong to human beings. There are no animal fables and this behaviour of theirs points to a social depth. They knew everything, and the Neanderthals lacked nothing of modern man’s behavioural capacity.. 274
Chris Stringer is a British anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain:
I think the evolution debate is being highly personalized, and we are occupied with fields with great numbers of uncertainties. . . .275
Confessions Regarding Cro-Magnon Fossils
 A Cro-magnon skull |
Cro-magnon Man fossils were first discovered in March 1868 in a cave in Les Eyzies in France. There is no major anatomical difference between these individuals and modern humans, yet evolutionists try to use biased interpretations to portray Cro-magnon Man as different from modern human beings. In fact, Cro-magnon Man is a human race now estimated to have lived around 30,000 years ago.
The skull structure of people living in Europe today does not resemble that of Cro-magnons. Their skull structure and volume do, however, resemble that of some races currently living in Africa and tropical climes. On the basis of that resemblance, we can say that Cro-magnon Man is an ancient race originating from Africa.
Cro-magon Man disappeared very quickly. There is only one reason for that; paleoanthropological discoveries have shown that the Cro-magnon and Neanderthal races combined with one another to form the basis of today’s races.
Randall White is Professor of Anthropology at New York University:
Cro-magnon artifacts have a right to stand alongside those of the entire history of mankind. From a 20th century perspective the extraordinary thing about the existence of Cro-magnons is that they underwent no direct, gradual evolution from the crude and unformed to selectivity and perfection. The history of art begins 35,000 years ago. 276
James Shreeve is a science journalist in magazines like Science, National Geographic and Smithsonian:
A Cro-magnon skull
 The December 1997 edition of Discover, one of the most popular magazines with evolutionists, took an 800,000-year human face as its cover story, under the following caption, itself an expression of evolutionist amazement: “Is this the face of our past?” |
New dating methods have revealed that fossils thought to be 40,000 years old are actually 100,000 years old. Now, if Cro-magnons are older than the Neanderthals who lived 60,000 years ago, how can they be descended from them?
Britain; Dorothy Great discovered both Neanderthal and Cro-magnon remains in the Stark Hills behind Tel Aviv. Assumed that they were compatible with the previously estimated chronology, the Neanderthals were concluded to be around 60,000 years old, and the Cro-magnons around 40,000. Some researchers were unconvinced. They believed that the stratification in the caves had been damaged by water currents and determined a new date using another dating method.
Eventually it was concluded that modern humans appeared in the land of Israel before the Neanderthals. The new dating provoked considerable surprise, because it stated that modern-looking fossils were actually 100,000 years old. The Neanderthals, on the other hand, were 60,000 years old. On the basis of this evidence, Cro-magnons cannot have evolved from the Neanderthals.
There are many scenarios concerning the extinction of species. . . . These are full of assumptions. There is no evidence of any wars or violent conflict in these valleys. All there is, is a strange disappearance, and isolated fossils. 277
Confessions About an 800,000-Year Human Fossil
One of the human fossils that have attracted the most attention was one uncovered in 1995 in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet the child had died 800,000 years ago. This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who led the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:
We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know, something primitive. . . . Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face. . .To me, this is most spectacular—these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it’s okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it’s the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it. 278
Confessions About 3.6-Million-Year-Old Human Footprints
 Morpholological research into the footprints left behind by people who lived in the past has shown that these should be considered as modern-day prints. This truth is so obvious that even evolutionists have had to admit as much. |
In 1977, Mary Leakey discovered footprints in the Laetoli region of Tanzania. These were in a stratum calculated to be 3.6 million years old and, even more importantly, were identical to those any modern human being would leave. These footprints were later examined by eminent paleoanthropologists, Tim White among them:
Make no mistake about it, . . . They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to ell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. 279
Louise Robbins is the anthropologist who worked closely with Mary Leakey on the Laetoli project:
The arch is raised—the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do—and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe . . . . The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms. 280
Russell H. Tuttle is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago:
 Solely because of these prints’ age, evolutionists ascribe them to A. afarensis. Research, however, shows that the people who left these footprints behind were not A. afarensis with prehensile hands and feet, but human beings identical to those living today. |
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them. . . . In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans. 281
In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo. . . . In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis. 282
Elaine Morgan is an evolutionist writer and researcher for documentary television in Britain:
Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) Why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) “We do not yet know”; 2) “We do not yet know”; 3) “We do not yet know”; 4) “We do not yet know.” The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers. 283
Lord Solly Zuckerman is Professor of Anatomy at Birmingham University and chief scientific adviser to the British government:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful, anything is possible—and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. 284
Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature, without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. 285
Robert Eckhardt is Professor of Anthropology at Penn State University:
Neither is there compelling evidence for the existence of any distinct hominid species during this interval, unless the designation “hominid” means simply an individual ape that happens to have small teeth and a correspondingly small face. 286
Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 467.
240 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 467.
241 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 298.
242 Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Michael Joseph Limited, , 1981, p. 43.
243 Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1977, p. 111;David Johanson , and Edy Maitland, , Lucy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. p. 157.
244 Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 257,258.
245 F. Clark Howell, Early Man, New York: Time Life Books, 1973, pp. 24-25.
246 Herbert, Wray, “Hominids Bear Up, Become Porpoiseful,” Science News, Vol. 123 (April 16,
1983), p. 246.
247 Boyce Rensberger, “Human Fossil is Unearthed,” Washington Post, October, 19, 1984, p. 11.
248 Lowenstein, J. & Zihlman, A., “The Invisible Ape,” New Scientist, Vol. 120, 3 December 1988, pp. 56, 58, 59.
249 Robert D. Martin, Primate Origins and Evolution, Princeton University Press, 1990, p. 82.
250 David Pilbeam, American Scientist, Vol. 66, May-June, 1978, p. 379.
251 David Pilbeam, “Rearranging Our Family Tree,” Nature, June 1978, p. 40.
252 Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins, 1987, New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 312-313.
253 Robert B. Eckhardt, “Population genetics and human origins,” Scientific American, Vol. 226(1), January 1972, p. 94.
254 John Reader, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?,” New Scientist, Vol. 89, No, 12446, 26 March, 1981.
255 Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
256 William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, pp. 150-153.
257 Dr. Tim White, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199.
258 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325.
259 S. J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 85, 1976, p. 30.
260 Villee, Solomon and Davis, Biology, Saunders College Publishing, 1985, p. 1053.
261 Niles Eldredge, Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, pp. 126-127.
262 Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, New York: The Free Press, 1999, pp. 32, 116-117.
263 Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 312.
264 John R. Durant, “The Myth of Human Evolution,” New Universities Quarterly 35 (1981), pp. 425-438.
265 Richard Leakey, The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, p. 3.
266 Albert W. Mehlert, “Lucy—Evolution’s Solitary Claim for Ape/Man,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, (Dec 1985), p. 145.
267 Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter II, “On The Manner Of Development Of Man From Some Lower Form”
268 C. Loring Brace, “Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told,” The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), p. B-5,
269 Erik Trinkaus, “Hard Times Among the Neanderthals,” Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10.
270 F. Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?,” Nature, Vol. 227, August 8, 1970,pp. 577-579.
271 “Neanderthal Noisemaker,” Science News, vol. 15, (23 November 1996), p. 328.
272 Sarah Bunney, “Neanderthals Weren't So Dumb After All,” New Scientist, Vol. 123, 1 July 1989, p. 43.
273 July 25, 1998, Neanderthalles Discovery Channel
274 Ibid.
275 Ibid.
276 Ibid.
277 Ibid.
278 “Is This The Face of Our Past?” Discover, December 1997, pp. 97-100.
279 D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.
280 Science News, Vol. 115, 1979, pp. 196-197.
281 Ian Anderson, New Scientist, Vol. 98, 1983, p. 373.
282 Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64.
283 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 5.
284 Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p. 19.
285 Ibid., p. 64.
286 Robert Eckhardt, “Population Genetics and Human Origins,” Scientific American, Vol. 226, 1972, p. 101.
CHAPTER 14. CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF THE HORSE SE
CHAPTER 14.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE
INVALIDITY OF THE HORSE SERIES
The equine evolution scenario was proposed on the basis of evolutionists’ imaginations with invented sequences of fossils, set out in order of size, belonging to different life forms that lived at different times in India, North America, South America and Europe. Various researchers have proposed more than 20 different equine evolution sequences. There is absolutely no consensus regarding these completely different alleged lines of descent. The only thing these sequences have in common is the belief that the first ancestor of the horse was a dog-like animal known as Eohippus (Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eocene period some 55 million years ago. In fact, however, Eohippus, which supposedly became extinct millions of years ago, is in fact identical to the animal known as the hyrax, which is still to be found in Africa today, which has nothing to do with the horse and bears no resemblance to it.
The inconsistency of the idea of equine evolution is becoming more and more apparent with every new fossil discovery. It has been established that fossils of horse breeds living today (Equus nevadensis and E. occidentalis) have been found in the same strata as Eohippus. This shows that the modern horse was living at the same time as its supposed ancestor and is therefore obvious proof that no such process as the evolution of the horse ever took place.
Boyce Rensberger, an evolutionist, addressed a conference held at the Chicago Museum of Natural History in November 1980, with the participation of 150 evolutionists at which the problems of the theory of evolution were discussed. He described how the scenario of equine evolution was unsupported by the fossil record and that no gradual equine evolution ever occurred:
The popularly-told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 233
Some other evolutionists have also made confessions about this fact:
Gordon R. Taylor is an evolutionist author and Chief Science Advisor at BBC:
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change. . . . The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time. 234
Dr. Colin Patterson is a famous evolutionist professor at the British Museum of Natural History):
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff. 235
Prof. N. Heribert-Nilsson, a famous evolutionist botanist at the University of Lund in Sweden:
 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy |
 Stephen Jay Gould |
The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. . . . The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series. 236
Stephen Jay Gould:
Prothero and Shubin conclude: “This is contrary to the widely-held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinctions between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species. 237
G.G. Simpson is Professor of Zoology at Columbia University:
Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually, there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists. 238
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy:
Nowhere have any intermediate forms demonstrating a transition from a five-toed ancestor to Hyracotherium (Eohippus) with four toes on its front feet and three on the back.239
234 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, p. 230.
235 Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p. 60.
236 Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552.
237 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age,” Nature, Vol. 336 (18 November 1993), p. 226.
238 Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 167.
239 Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim [Inheritance and Evolution], p. 37.
CHAPTER 13. CONFESSIONS THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CANNOT ACCO
CHAPTER 13.
CONFESSIONS THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF MAMMALS
According to the evolutionist scenario, reptiles are the ancestors of birds, just as they are of mammals. Yet there are huge structural difference between reptiles—whose bodies are covered in scales, whose blood is cold, and who reproduce by laying eggs—and mammals, whose bodies are covered in fur, which are warm blooded and reproduce by giving birth.
 One of the greatest differences between reptiles and mammals is the scales that cover the reptilian body and bird feathers. These two structures are totally different from each other in every respect. Unlike feathers, scales do not extend beneath the skin, merely forming a hard later on the surface of the creature’s body. They have nothing in common, genetically, biochemically or anatomically, with feathers. This enormous difference between scales and feathers totally undermines the reptile-bird evolution scenario. |
In the same way that no biological or physiological explanation of how reptiles supposedly turned into mammals has ever been given, so evolutionists cannot cite even a single intermediate form fossil to indicate that such a transition ever took place.
Moreover, it is impossible even to imagine such a transition, as first admitted by Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory:
I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal. 226
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
The transition to the first mammal . . . is still an enigma. 227
George Gaylord Simpson is one of the main evolution authorities of 20th Century and one of the founders of Neo-Darwinist theory:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on Earth is the change from theMesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts. 228
This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals . . . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases, the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed . . . . This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. 229
Eric Lombard is Professor of Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed. 230
Tom S. Kemp is a Curator of the Zoological Collections at the University of Oxford:
Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, without leaving a directly descended species. 231
While the great majority of evolutionists are unable to suggest any explanation for the emergence of mammals, some others have behaved more outrageously and produced various ridiculous and irrational tales. One such tale regarding the evolution of reptiles into mammals is described in one evolutionist publication:
Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally, the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life. 232
The above account is a completely unscientific stretch of the imagination. There is no evidence that anything in this account actually happened. Neither is it possible for them to have happened. To suggest that a living thing caused such a substance as milk—so finely calculated and of such enormous nutritional value—by licking sweat from its mother’s body is the kind of nonsense one might have heard in the ignorant scientific environment of the Middle Ages. This and other such tales which frequently appear in evolutionist publications show how far removed the theory of evolution is from genuine science.
226 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 128.
227 Roger Lewin, “Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Out,” Science, Vol. 212, June 26, 1981, p. 1492.
228 George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man, New York: Time-Life Books, 1972, p. 42.
229 George G., Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, 1944, pp. 105, 107.
230 R. Eric Lombard, “Review of Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear, Gerald Fleischer,” Evolution, Vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230.
231 Tom Kemp, “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist 92 [sic, it’s actually 93]: 583, 4 March 1982.
232 George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr. Tompkins Inside Himself, New York: The Viking Press, 1967, p. 149.
CHAPTER 12. CONFESSIONS OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REPTILES EVOLVIN
CHAPTER 12.
CONFESSIONS OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF
REPTILES EVOLVING INTO BIRDS
The impossible scenarios of evolution also require the life forms that emerged onto dry land, evolved into first amphibians, then reptiles and finally turned into flying creatures. Since evolutionists are convinced that birds evolved in some way, they maintain that they evolved from reptiles.
But none of the physical mechanisms in birds—which have a totally different anatomy from that of terrestrial life forms—can be explained in terms of the gradual evolutionary model. First of all, , birds’ wings represent an enormous dilemma for the theory of evolution. Evolutionists themselves state the impossibility of a reptile ever being able to fly, admitting that the idea conflicts with the fossil record:
William Elgin Swinton is an Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of Toronto and dinosaur expert of the Natural History Museum in London:
The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. 202
 Alan Feduccia |
Alan Feduccia is Professor of Avian Evolution, Paleobiology and Systematics at University of North Carolina:
How do you derive birds from a heavy, earthbound, bipedal reptile that has a deep body, a heavy balancing tail, and fore-shortened forelimbs? Biophysically, it’s impossible. 203
Evolutionist John E. Hill and James D. Smith are the authors of Bats - A Natural History:
The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene. . . . [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor. 204
Robert L. Carroll is a vertebrate paleontologist:
. . . all the Triassic pterosaurs were highly specialized for flight. . . . They provide little evidence of their specific ancestry and no evidence of earlier stages in the origin of flight. 205
Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called “feathered dinosaur,” which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year’s vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. . . . Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin—and so have nothing to do with birds. 206
Confessions of the Impossibility of Reptilian Scales turning into Bird Feathers
Evolutionists maintain that reptile scales gradually turned into bird feathers by way of mutations and natural selection. However, as evolutionists themselves admit, this is an anatomical and physiological impossibility, because reptile scales and bird feathers have totally different structures.
A. H. Brush is Professor of Physiology and Neurobiology at the University of Connecticut:
Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales] . . . Moreover, protein structure of birds feathers are unique among vertebrates. 207
Alan Feduccia is a famous ornithologist at University of North Carolina:
Every feature of them has aerodynamic functions. They are extremely light, have the ability to lift up which increases in lower speeds, and may return to their previous position very easily. 208
Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama . . . as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. 209
Barbara J. Stahl is an evolutionist paleontology professor and senior faculty member at Saint Anselm College, Manchester:
No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation. . . . So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. 210
How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis. . . .
It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. 211
Confessions About the Supposed Intermediate Form Archaeopteryx
Asked why there are no semi-winged or half-winged fossils, evolutionists refer to one life form in particular: the fossil known as Archaeopteryx, the best known of the small number of supposed intermediate forms so fiercely espoused by evolutionists.
 Archaeopteryx Fosili |
According to their thesis, Archaeopteryx, the forerunner of modern birds, lived around 150 million years ago and was a semi-bird possessing various reptilian characteristics. This unlikely tale is repeated in just about every evolutionist publication. The fact is, however, that the latest researches into Archaeopteryx fossils have shown that the creature was very definitely not any intermediate form, merely an extinct species of bird with some features slightly different from those of modern birds.
The evidence that Archaeopteryx was a true bird and not a semi-dinosaur, semi-bird transitional form can be summarized as follows:
1. The fact that it had no sternum, or breastbone, with the same structure as that in modern flying birds was depicted as the most important evidence that Archaeopteryx could not fly. But the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil to be discovered in 1992 provoked enormous astonishment among evolutionist circles, because it did indeed possess a sternum of the kind evolutionists had for long failed to believe in. Nature magazine said, “This attests to its strong flight muscles.” 212
This discovery totally invalidated the most fundamental basis for the claim that Archaeopteryx was a proto-bird lacking the full ability to fly.
2. On the other hand, one of the main proofs that Archaeopteryx was genuinely capable of flight is the animal’s asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that in present-day birds, showing that it was able to fly perfectly.
3. Features that evolutionists rely on when portraying Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form are the claws on its wings and the teeth in its mouth. However, these features do not demonstrate that it was connected to reptiles in any way. Two living species of birds, the Taouraco and Hoatzin, also have claws that allow them to cling to branches. Yet they are fully fledged birds, with no reptilian characteristics whatsoever. Therefore, the idea that Archaeopteryx was an intermediate form because of its clawed wings is totally invalid.
The Archaeopteryx Fossil
Nor do the teeth in Archaeopteryx’s mouth make it a transitional form. In stating that its teeth are a reptilian characteristic, evolutionists are engaging in deliberate deception. Teeth are not a universal feature among reptiles. Some modern reptiles lack teeth. The fossil record shows that there was another group that may be described as toothed birds that lived in the same period as Archaeopteryx, and even before and after it—indeed, until quite recent times.
Even more importantly, the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and that of other toothed birds is very different from that of dinosaurs, birds’ supposed evolutionary ancestors.
Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils
In 1995, two paleontologists by the names of Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, researching at the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute in China, discovered a new bird fossil they named Confuciusornis. This bird, the same age as Archaeopteryx, had no teeth, but its beak and feathers exhibited the same features as modern-day birds. The wings of this creature, whose skeleton was also the same as that of modern birds, had claws.
Hoatzin
Another fossil, discovered in China in November 1996, provoked yet more controversy. The existence of this 130-million-year-old bird, called Liaoningornis, was announced by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper published in Science magazine. This creature was identical to modern birds in all respects, and yet was a contemporary of Archaeopteryx. The only difference was the absence of teeth in its mouth. This went to show that, in contrast to evolutionist claims, toothed birds were in no way “primitive.”
Another fossil that totally discredited evolutionist claim regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. This animal was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx—in other words, around 120 million years old—and its wing structure can still be seen in slow-flying birds today. This proved that living things, no different in many ways to modern birds, were flying in the skies 120 million years ago.
These data proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Archaeopteryx and other birds resembling it were not intermediate forms. These fossils did not demonstrate that different species of bird evolved from one another. On the contrary, they proved that various independent bird species not unlike Archaeopteryx and those alive today lived alongside one another.
In fact, the majority of evolutionists are well aware that Archaeopteryx cannot be an intermediate form, and that is simply an extinct species of bird.
Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as mosaic creatures. That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. 213
The evolutionist magazine Nature described how, with every new Archaeopteryx fossil discovery, it was realized that the animal cannot have been half-bird and half-reptile, still unable to fly, but that on the contrary it was a fully flying bird:
The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archæopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles. 214
Alan Feduccia:
In conclusion, the robust furcula of Archæopteryx would have provided a suitable point of origin for a well developed pectoralis muscle . . . thus the main evidence for Archæopteryx having been a terrestrial, cursorial predator is invalidated. There is nothing in the structure of the pectoral girdle of Archæopteryx that would preclude its having been a powered flier. 215
But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the mostperfectly developed feathers known to us.216
Well, I’ve studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it . . . . The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century. 217
John H. Ostrom is Professor of Geology Chair at Yale University:
No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed. 218
 Hoatzin |
From Science magazine:
True birds have existed at least as long as archaeopteryx so that the latter could hardly
have been their ancestor.. 219
Carl O. Dunbar is Professor of Paleontology and Stratigraphy at Yale University:
Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird. 220
Larry Martin is an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas:
To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it. 221
Nicholas Hotton is an American paleontologist at the University of Chicago:
Protoavis has a well-developed furcula bone and chest bone, assisting flight, hollow bones and extended wing bones. . . . Their ears indicate that they communicate with sound, while dinosaurs’ are silent. 222
Richard L. Deem is an American biologist at the University of Southern California:
 John Ostrom |
The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV. . . There are other problems with the “birds are dinosaurs” theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small “proto-wing” of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx.223
Evolutionists also Admit They Cannot Account for the Origin of Flies
In maintaining that dinosaurs turned into birds, evolutionists suggest that some dinosaurs beat their forearms together in order to catch flies, eventually grew wings and took to the air. This theory is devoid of any scientific foundation and is merely a product of the imagination. But it also contains a logical vicious circle. Because the insect that evolutionists cite in order to explain the origin of flight was already able to fly to perfection!
An Example of Evolutionist Scenarios: Dinosaurs that Suddenly Developed Wings as They Chased after Flies
 One example of imaginary evolutionary scenarios: dinosaurs that allegedly suddenly grew wings as they chased after flies |
Humans are unable to rise and lower their arms even 10 times a second, yet some flies are capable of beating their wings 1,000 times a second. They also beat both their wings simultaneously. Even the slightest time lag in one wing would impair the fly’s balance, but such an event never occurs.
Evolutionists should account for how the perfect flying ability in flies emerged, rather than coming up with scenarios about how flies induced a much clumsier life form—the reptile—to be able to fly.
Robin Wootton, an evolutionist British biologist, admits the sublime design in the fly and sets out the dilemmas inherent in the question:
The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear. . . . Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels—yet. 224
Pierre Paul Grassé is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms:
We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects. 225
202 W.E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A.J. Marshall, New York: Academic Press, 1960, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1,
203 Alan Feduccia, “Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories,” Geotimes, January 1996, p. 7.
204 John E. Hill-James D. Smith, Bats: A Natural History, London: British Museum of Natural History, 1984, p. 33.
205 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 336.
206 Ann Gibbons, “Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur,: Science, Vvol. 278, No. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229-30.
207 A.H. Brush, “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 131-133.
208 Douglas Palmer, “Learning to Fly,” Review of The Origin of and Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia (Yale University Press, 1996) in New Scientist, Vol. 153, March 1, 1997, p. 44.
209 Alan Feduccia, “On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers,” The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
210 Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
211 Ibid
212 Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
213 S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol. 3, 1977, p. 147.
214 Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
215 Storrs L. Olson, Alan Feduccia, “Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archæopteryx, Nature, No. 278, 15 March 1979, p. 248.
216 A. Feduccia and H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020.
217 Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?,” New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
218 John Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?,” American Scientist, January-February 1979, Vol. 67, p. 47.
219 J. Marx, “The Oldest Fossil Bird: A Rival for Archaeopteryx?” Science, 199 (1978), p. 284.
220 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.
221 Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?,” New Scientist, p. 28.
222 “Paleontology: Fossil Revisionism,” Science, October 1986, p. 85; Scientific American, September 1986, p. 70.
223 Richard L. Deem, “Demise of the ‘Birds are Dinosaurs’ Theory,” http://www.direct.ca/trinity/dinobird.html
224 J. Robin Wootton, “The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings,” Scientific American, Vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120.
225 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 30.
CHAPTER 11 CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A TRANSITI
CHAPTER 11
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE IMPOSSIBILITY
OF A
TRANSITION FROM WATER TO DRY LAND
The evolutionist scenario maintains that after a time, fish—which had evolved from invertebrates—developed limbs and turned into amphibians capable of living on dry land. But, as you might imagine, there is no evidence for such a scenario. Not a single fossil of a half-fish, half-amphibian creature has ever been found.
The process of a transition from water to dry land espoused by evolutionists never happened.
 No transition from water to land, of the kind claimed by evolutionists, ever happened. |
In addition to the complete absence of the fossils needed to indicate such a transition, a great many important changes would have had to take place for any living thing to move from water to land. But such a transition is impossible, and many factors make it so. For example, fishes’ gills would have to turn into lungs for them to be able to live on land, and their fins would have to strengthen and lengthen into legs. Radical changes would also have to take place in a wide range of internal areas, such as energy consumption and the circulatory and excretory systems. Moreover, all these radical changes would have to take place at once for a creature moving from water to dry land to survive.
But it is of course impossible for such physiological changes to take place by chance and simultaneously. And evolutionists are in fact well aware of these impossibilities.
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
As we have seen, life on land is a difficult and wearisome one, constantly raising problems needing to be resolved. In that case one cannot refrain from asking yet again: why, yes why, did we leave the water? The more one ponders this, the less logical this evolutionary step appears, and what happened seems to be an irresoluble puzzle. 195
Robert L. Carroll is the author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution:
We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians. 196
Unfortunately, not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered. 197
Edwin H. Colbert is an authority on paleontology and curator at the American Museum of Natural History and M. Morales is the author of Evolution of the Vertebrates:
There is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest known frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very similar to their living descendants. 198
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of early fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. . . . Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs . . . reptiles from which turtles supposedly] sprang, are entirely lacking. 199
Lewis L. Carroll is an evolutionist paleontologist and author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution:
Unfortunately, not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered.200
Robert L. Carroll is a vertebrate paleontologist and Professor of Biology at McGill University:
We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.201
195 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”] p. 149.
196 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 4.
197 Robert L. Carroll, “Problems of the Origin of Reptiles,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 44, No. 3, July 1969, p. 393.
198 Edwin H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution of the Vertebrates, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1991, p. 99.
199 Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Turtle”
200 Lewis L. Carroll, “Problems of the Origin of Reptiles,” p. 393.
201 Carroll, Robert L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 138.
CHAPTER 10. CONFESSIONS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A TRANSITIO
CHAPTER 10.
CONFESSIONS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
OF A TRANSITION FROM INVERTEBRATES TO VERTEBRATES
 A Pikaia fossil, one of the oldest known vertebrates, and its estimated anatomy |
Evolutionists claim that the invertebrate marine organisms that appeared in the Cambrian Period turned into fish over the course of tens of millions of years. But in the same way that none of the Cambrian invertebrates have any forerunners, there are also no intermediate forms to indicate any evolution between these invertebrates and fish. The fact is that the evolution of invertebrates—which have no skeletons and whose hard parts are on the outside of their bodies—into bony fish, whose hard parts are on the inside of their bodies, would be a transition on a giant scale, and countless traces of this should have been left behind in the fossil record.
Evolutionists have been digging up the fossil strata for the last 140 years in their search for these imaginary life forms. Millions of invertebrate fossils have been turned up, and millions of fish fossils. But nobody has yet come across a single intermediate form.
Gerald T. Todd is an evolutionist paleontologist:
All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. . . . How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?. . . And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms? 191
J. R. Norman is in the Department of Zoology at the British Museum of Natural History:
The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes. 192
Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and Chief Science Advisor at BBC:
. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world. 193
Dr. F. D. Ommaney is an English scientist of the 1930s:
How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fish-like creatures, we do not know. Between the Cambrian, when it probably originated, and the Ordovician, when the first fossils of animals with really fish-like characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years, which we will probably never be able to fill. 194
191 Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship,” American Zoologist, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.
192 J.R. Norman, “Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils,” in A History of Fishes, British Museum of Natural History, 1975, p. 343.
193 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York, L Harper and Row, 1983, p. 60.
194 F. D. Ommaney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library, New York: Time-Life, Inc., 1964, p. 60.
CHAPTER 9. CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE LACK OF INTERMEDIATE-FORM F
CHAPTER 9.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE LACK
OF INTERMEDIATE-FORM FOSSILS
According to the theory of evolution, life forms are descended from one another. One species supposedly gradually developed into another, and each new species emerged in that same way. According to the theory, this transition took place over a very long period of time, hundreds of millions of years, and proceeded stage by stage. That implies that countless intermediate life forms must have emerged and lived during the course of such a lengthy transition.
For example, semi-fish, semi-amphibian creatures that, despite having fish-like features, had also acquired some amphibious ones must once have existed. And since these were in a process of transition, their limbs must have been rudimentary flawed and awkward, if not handicapped. Evolutionists refer to these fictitious entities, which they believe existed at one time, as “intermediate forms.” If such life forms had really existed, then there must have been untold billions of them. Traces of them should still be visible in the fossil record. Yet not one single fossil belonging to an intermediate form has ever been discovered!
In other words, no traces of half-fish, half-amphibian, or half-reptile, half-bird—much less any half-ape, half-human creature—have ever been encountered in any of the Earth’s strata. All the fossils discovered have been identical to their present-day counterparts, or else belong to species that subsequently became extinct.
|
What follows is a selection of evolutionist admissions on this, one of the most serious dilemmas confronting the theory of evolution:
Charles Darwin:
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth? 149
But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. 150
First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? 151
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why, then, is not every geological formation and every stratum 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. 152
From these several considerations, it cannot be doubted that the geological record. . . becomes much more difficult to understand why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close. 153
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 the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory. 154
 A fictitious Tree of Life |
On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between theextinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? 155
Derek W. Ager is a famous English paleontologist and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find–over and over again–not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. 156
W. R. Thompson is an entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control:
Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses. . . . 157
Mark Czarnecki is an evolutionist paleontologist:
A major problem in proving the theory [of evolution] has been the fossil record, the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants—instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. 158
Carlton E. Brett is Professor of Geology at the University of Cincinnati:
Did life on Earth change steadily and gradually through time? The fossil record emphatically says “no.”159
Dr. David Raup is a paleontologist at University of Chicago:
. . . most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. 160
Edmund J. Ambrose is Professor Emeritus at the University of London and head department of Cell Biology at the Chester Beatty Research Institute University of London:
We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists.161
Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History:
It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil “group” can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise. . . . The history of comparative biology teaches us that the search for ancestors is doomed to ultimate failure, thus, with respect to its principal objective, this search is an exercise in futility. Increased knowledge of suggested “ancestors” usually shows them to be too specialized to have been direct ancestors of anything else. 162
Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London’s Natural History Museum:
In a letter of reply to Luther D. Sutherland, who asked why he never referred to intermediate forms in his book Evolution, he says:
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. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 163
David B. Kitts is Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University:
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them. 164
John Adler and John Carey are journalists:
The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. 165
The Separate Reconstructions Produced on the Basis of the Same Skull 1 N. Parker's reconstruction, National Geographic, September 1960 |
Mark Ridley is a zoologist at the University of Oxford:
In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . . 166
Steven M. Stanley is Professor of Paleontology at The University of Hawaii at Manoa:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [the evolution of a species’ entire population into a new species] accomplishing a major morphologic[structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. 167
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
When we look back, we see there is no need to have been surprised at our failure to find those transitional forms searched for almost painfully. Because the great likelihood is that such transitional stages never existed. 168
The most ancient fossils discovered to date are objects fossilized inside minerals, such as non-nucleic algae. No matter how primitive these may be, they still represent relatively complex and expertly organized forms of life. The story of the development between these first fossil organisms and molecules emerging by way of chemical combinations, biopolymers in other words is a gap that we have been as yet unable to fill. . . . On the other hand, this “temporary” gap that has been unable to be filled is quite attractive to some people, for understandable reasons. Someone who sees that it is impossible for life to begin in the absence of any supernatural effect can see the signs of a miracle in such a gap, intervention by a supernatural force. 169
George Gaylord Simpson is Professor of Zoology at Columbia University:
It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. 170
In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained… The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all. 171
Tom Kemp is a Curator of the Zoological Collections at the University of Oxford:
As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . .172
In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. 173
Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University:
Over ten thousand fossil species of insects have been identified, over thirty thousand species of spiders, and similar numbers for many sea-living creatures. Yet so far the evidence for step-by-step changes leading to major evolutionary transitions looks extremely thin. 174
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered” published in Paleobiology:
From such scrappy data it is hard to see how anyone could derive with confidence the gradualistic interpretation … unless one were predisposed to gradualism from the start.. 175
Stephen Jay Gould is Professor of Geology and Paleoanthropology at Harvard University:
The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. . . .176
I regard the failure to find a clear “vector of progress” in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it. 177
. . . one feature stands out as most puzzling—the lack of clear order and progress through time among marine invertebrate faunas. We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments, we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. 178
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. 179
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on Earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they `disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. 180
Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London’s Natural History Museum:
[Stephen Jay] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. 181
Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, a (paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History):
That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. . . . 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.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. 182
Lewis L. Carroll is an evolutionist paleontologist and author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution:
Unfortunately, not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered. 183
Edwin H. Colbert is an authority on paleontology and curator at the American Museum of Natural History and M. Morales is the author of Evolution of the Vertebrates:
The ichthyosaurs, in many respects the most highly specialized of the marine reptiles, appeared in early Triassic times. Their advent into the geologic history of the reptiles was sudden and dramatic; there are no clues in pre-Triassic sediments as to the possible ancestors of the ichthyosaurs. . . . The basic problem of ichthyosaur relationships is that no conclusive evidence can be found for linking these reptiles with any other reptilian order. 184
Confessions That Evolutionists Interpret Fossils in a Biased Manner
Dr. Tim White is an evolution anthropologist at the University of California in Berkeley:
A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib. The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. 185
Earnst A. Hooten of Harvard University:
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public. . . . So put not your trust in reconstructions. 186
Confessions That the Fossil Record Is Abundant Enough
As always, some evolutionists resort to demagoguery and sleight of hand in order to explain away their failure to find any intermediate-form fossils. They say that the fossil record is “not sufficiently rich” and that the long-sought intermediate forms will eventually be discovered. However, a very large part of the fossil record has actually been unearthed. And as will be apparent from the statements below, there is general agreement that it is seems ever more unlikely that fossilized remains of intermediate forms will ever appear:
David M. Raup is a paleontologist at University of Chicago:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky. 187
Prof. Nils Heribert-Nilsson is a Swedish geneticist and Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 188
D. Dwight Davis of the Chicago Natural History Museum:
The sudden emergence of major adaptive types as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and orders, continues to give trouble. The phenomenon lay in the genetical no-man’s land beyond the limits of experimentation. A few paleontologists even today cling to the idea that these gaps will be closed by further collecting . . . but most regard the observed discontinuities as real and have sought an explanation. 189
Prof. T. Neville George is a paleontologist at Glasgow University:
There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration . . . . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps. 190
149 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, p. 179
150 Ibid.
151 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, New York: The Modern Library, pp. 124-25.
152 Ibid.
153
Darwin, C.R., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, [1872], Everyman's Library, London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp. 303-04.
154 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man (New York: The Modern Library, Random House) p. 249
155 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter XV, “Recapitulation and Conclusion.”
156 Derek A. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, p. 133.
157 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, “Introduction,” Everyman's Library, 1965.
158 Mark Czarnecki, “The Revival of the Creationist Crusade,” MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56.
159 Carlton E. Brett, “Stasis: Life in the Balance.” Geotimes, Vol. 40, Mar. 1995, p. 18.
160 Dr. David Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural
History, Chicago,
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evolutio.html
161 Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose, http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evolutio.html
162 Gareth V. Nelson, “Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, pp. 22-23.
163 From a letter dated 10 April, 1979, quoted in L. D. Sunderland’s Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988.
164 David B]. Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution , Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 487.
165 Jerry Adler and John Carey, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, November 3, 1980, p. 95.
166 Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?,” New Scientist, Vol. 90; June 25, 1981, p. 831.
167 Stanley, Stephen M., Macroevolution--Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1979, p. 39.
168 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”] p. 22.
169 Ibid., p. 199.
170 George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution ,New York: Columbia University Press, 1953, p. 360.
171 G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, 1949, Third Printing p. 115.
172 Thomas S. Kemp, “A Fresh Look At The Fossil Record,” New Scientist, Vol. 108 (5 December 1985), p. 66
173 Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals, New York: Academic Press, 1982, p. 319.
174 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution, p. 43.
175 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,” Paleobiology, Vol.3 (Spring 1977), p. 125.
176 Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution's Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977, p. 13.
177 Stephen Jay Gould, “"The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93; February 1984, p. 23.
178 Ibid., p. 22.
179 S. J. Gould, Natural History , May, 1977, p. 14.
180 Gould, Stephen J. “Evolution's Erratic Pace,” Natural History, , May 1977, p. 14.
181 Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderland dated April 10, 1979, quoted in L.D. Sunderland Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.
182 N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 45-46.
183 Carroll, Lewis L., “Problems of the Origin of Reptiles,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 44 (1969), p. 393.
184 E. H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution of the Vertebrates, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1991, p. 193.
185 Dr. Tim White, New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199.
186 Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: McMillan, 1931, p. 332.
187 David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 50, No. 1, Jan, 1979, p. 25.
188 Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Publications, p. 51.
189 D. Dwight Davis, “Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates” in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution, ed. by Jepsen, Mayr and Simpson, Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press, 1949, p. 74.
190 T. Neville George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.
CHAPTER 8. CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE SUDDEN EMERGENCE OF LIFE
CHAPTER 8.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING
THE SUDDEN EMERGENCE OF LIFE
Investigation of the geological strata and the fossil record shows that life on Earth emerged all of a sudden. The deepest stratum in which fossils of living things are encountered is that known as the Cambrian, dating back 520 to 530 million years.
The fossils in Cambrian rocks belong to radically different life forms. What comes as a terrible disappointment to evolutionists is that all of these species emerged suddenly and with no primitive forerunners preceding them.
Most of the life forms in Cambrian strata possess complex systems, such as eyes, gills and blood circulatory systems, and often, advanced physiological features no different from those of creatures living today. This is a sign that all of life was created in a single act, with no common ancestors or evolutionary process being involved.
Darwin warned that if such a possibility were ever proven—that life began suddenly—it would represent a lethal blow to this theory. As can be seen from the evolutionist statements below, the theory of evolution suffers the first of many such blows from the Cambrian fossils, among the earliest forms of life.
Charles Darwin:
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. 139
For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. . . . Consequently, if my theorybe true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer. 140
Niles Eldredge is a paleontologist at Harvard University:
 The trilobite pictured to the left is a life form that emerged some 530 million years ago, in the Cambrian Period, and has since become extinct. Trilobites had extraordinarily complex eyes. These, consisting of hundreds of comb-like components and a double-lens structure, are a miracle of creation that leaves evolutionists speechless. The sudden appearance of such a structure in the fossil record is one of the manifest proofs that refute the theory of evolution. |
Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago, and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years, the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted ‘event’ shows up graphically in the rock record: all over the world, at roughly the same time, thick sequences of rocks, barren of any easily detected fossils, are overlain by sediments containing a gorgeous array of shelly invertebrates: trilobites (extinct relatives of crabs and insects), brachiopods, mollusks. Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none. Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period (the oldest division of the Paleozoic Era) does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge. 141
Daniel Axelrod is Professor of Geology and Botany at the University of California:
One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-called marine invertebrates in the lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age. 142
Barbara Jaffe Stahl is an evolutionist paleontology professor and senior faculty member at Saint Anselm College, Manchester:
Finding vertebrate bone in Cambrian rocks, for instance, has proved that the backboned animals are as old as most of the known invertebrates. 143
Richard Monastersky is senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education in Washington:
A half-billion years ago, . . . the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creatures. The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today. 144
  Snails, sponges, worms, sea anemones, starfish, swimming crustaceans and sea urchins, some of the life forms that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Period, possess exactly the same perfect structures as their counterparts living today. |
 The evolutionist Richard Dawkins indoctrinating young students with evolutionary propaganda. |
Richard Dawkins is a British zoologist and one of the leading contemporary evolutionists:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks. . . are the oldest ones 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. 145
Stephen Jay Gould is Professor of Geology and Paleoanthropology at Harvard University:
Where, then, are all the Precambrian ancestors—or, if they didn’t exist in recognizable form, how did modern complexity get off to such a fast start? 146
The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life. 147
Marshall Kay is a geologist and Professor at Columbia University and Edwin H. Colbert is an authority on paleontology and curator at the American Museum of Natural History:
The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising. . . The introduction of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were simple.Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? . . . If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling. 148
139 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.
140 Ibid., pp. 313-14.
141
N. Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982), p. 44.
142
D. Axelrod, Science, 128.7, 1958
143
Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, New York: Dover Publications, 1985, p. vii
144
Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40
145
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, London, 1986, p. 229.
146
Stephen Jay Gould, "A Short Way to Big Ends", Natural History, vol. 95 (Jan 1986), p. 18
147 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), p. 89
148
Kay, Marshall, and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History, 1965, 736 pp. 102-103
CHAPTER 7. CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE DEAD-END OF MOLECULAR EVOLU
CHAPTER 7.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE DEAD-END
OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
To the question of how life on Earth originally emerged, the theory of evolution has no answers to give, even right from the very beginning of the debate. Evolutionists claim that life began with when one single cell that came into being by chance. According to this scenario, under the effects of lightning and earthquakes, various inanimate substances entered into a reaction in the primordial atmosphere of some 4 billion years ago; thus giving rise to the first cell.
This scenario cannot be true, because life is far too complex to have emerged in any chance manner. Even the very smallest organism has literally millions of biochemical components that interact with it, each one of them vital for the organism to survive at all.
W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist admits as much: “The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.” 88 There is absolutely no chance of the components of this exceedingly complex system to form all at once, in the right place, at the right time, in total compatibility with one another.
It is also impossible for such a complex system to have come into being gradually, as Darwin maintained, because it can function only when all its parts are ready and operative. More primitive stages would serve no purpose at all. Indeed, the thesis that inanimate substances can combine together in such a way as to give rise to life is an unscientific one that has never been verified by any experiment or observation. On the contrary, all the scientific findings show that life can only originate from life.
Every living cell is the result of the division of another, earlier cell. No one on Earth, not even in the most advanced laboratories, has ever managed to combine inanimate substances and produce a living cell.
The theory of evolution, however, maintains that the living cell—which cannot be replicated as the result of human intelligence, science and technology—assembled itself under the conditions on the primeval Earth.
 The Intelligent Universe, the book in which Fred Hoyle admitted that life could not emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter. |
But the meaninglessness of this claim is made obvious by evolutionists’ own admissions. Various evolutionists have explained, with the use of different analogies, the impossibility of life appearing spontaneously from inanimate matter:
Prof. Fred Hoyle:
A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe. 89
At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik’s cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1,050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik’s cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon. 90
If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath.
I will give the answer, and so save [you] the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon. . . . 91
Prof. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, who is a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University:
. . . troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true of living material . . . One to a number with 1040.000 noughts after it. . . is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. 92
Prof. Malcolm Dixon, a British biochemist, at the University of Cambridge:
Enzyme systems are doing every minute what battalions of full-time chemists cannot. . Can anyone seriously imagine that naturally occurring enzymes realized themselves, along with hundreds of specific friends, by chance? Enzymes and enzyme systems, like the genetic mechanisms whence they originate, are masterpieces of sophistication. Further research reveals ever finer details of design. 93
Prof. Michael Pitman is the Chief Scientist of Australia:
There are perhaps, 1080 atoms in the universe, and 1017 seconds have elapsed since the alleged ‘Big Bang.’ More than 2,000 independent enzymes are necessary for life. The overall probability of building any one of these polypeptides can hardly be greater than one in 1020. The chance of getting them all by a random trial is one in 1040000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. 94
 The number of possible Rubik’s cube configurations is 4 x 1019'. (10 billion, billion!) |
Prof. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis. 95
Harold F. Blum is Professor of Biology at Princeton University:
The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.96
Andrew Scott is an evolutionist biochemist and science writer:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The ‘fundamental’ forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. . . . But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. 97
Dr. Christian Schwabe is Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Medical University of South Carolina:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead, it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message. 98
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım is a Turkish evolutionist, and Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
One suggestion made in order to prove that life cannot appear by chance is the unbelievably low probability of a functional enzyme emerging. A typical enzyme consists of 100 amino acids. Since there are 20 kinds of amino acid, we are looking at 20,100 possible combinations The possibility of a specific enzyme forming by chance in a single step from among so many possible combinations is 1 in 10130. The point that is ignored is that molecular kinetics are not random, and that functional enzymes appear all the time. 99
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
An enzyme consists of an average of 100 amino acids. The number of possible combinations of an enzyme consisting of 100 amino acids of 20 different types is 20100. Bearing in mind that the total number of atoms in the universe is 1080, and that the number of seconds that have gone by since the formation of the universe is 1016, one can better appreciate how low the odds of an enzyme with a specific sequence forming really are. So how did enzymes emerge? 100
Scientific American is a well-known American scientific magazine with strongly pro-evolution views:
Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules, these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular, a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides [the subunits of DNA and RNA] presents great difficulties. 101
Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe is Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University and Director of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. . . . It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. 102
Carly P. Haskins is an evolutionist biologist. The following is excerpted from an article published in American Scientist magazine:
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve. . . . Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin), this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation. 103
Alexander I. Oparin is a Russian evolutionist biochemist at Moscow University and director of Moscow's A. N. Bakh Institute:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms. 104
Loren Eiseley, anthropologist:
To grasp in detail the physio-chemical organization of the simplest cell is far beyond our capacity. 105
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University:
In essence, no satisfactory explanation for the development of groups of cells with very different structures and functions has yet been provided. 106
Prof. Dr. Klaus Dose is president of the Johannes Gutenberg University Biochemistry Institute in Germany:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. 107
In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthroughs during the past 30 years to help to explain the origin of chilarity in living cells. 108
David A. Kaufman has PhD from University of Florida):
Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells, without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life. 109
Jeffrey Bada is Professor of Marine Chemistry at the San Diego State University:
Today, as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth? 110
Hoimar Von Ditfurth studied medicine, psychology and philosophy at the universities of Berlin and Hamburg, where he attained his Ph.D. in medicine:
Our present knowledge shows that the general principle of the universe does not apply here; there is no question of a primitive cell gradually turning into one with a nucleus and organelles. 111
The cell has to have exactly the right amount of enzymes from the moment it is born— in other words, before it comes into direct contact with the oxygen in the atmosphere. Is it really possible for such a compatibility to have emerged solely by chance? Thinkers who answer that question are divided into two groups. To say Yes, it is possible, is like a confirmation of belief in modern science. Adopting a more pessimistic viewpoint, we may say that non-supporter of modern science has any alternative but to reply Yes. Because such a person will have the intention of coming up with an explanation by way of comprehensible natural phenomena and to produce these on the basis of natural laws without the assistance of any supernatural interventions.
But at this point, accounting for what has happened in terms of natural laws, and therefore coincidences, shows that the person in question has been backed into a corner. Because what are they left with under such circumstances other than to believe in coincidence. How is it possible to account for the existence of a single breathing cell without violating scientific understanding when it comes to evolution continuing development?
If we wish to account in a scientific manner for a single cell, capable of behaving compatibly with oxygen, forming in a moment in exactly the required form, and to account not just for that significant event but also the way that such a complex chemical reaction is essential for the survival of life on Earth, then what alternative have we other to shelter behind the idea of coincidence? . . .
But the accumulation of coincidences that serve a specific purpose brings our credibility into question. 112
. . . In the absence of a plan setting out where and when construction is to commence and in what order the various projects will be brought together, even the best blueprint will serve no purpose. We know that if we are dealing with a building, we need to start with the foundations and move onto the roof once the walls have been finished. We cannot move on to the plastering before the wiring and plumbing are completed. Every building site has a time frame to which construction work adheres, in addition to the construction blueprint.
This also applies to what nature builds, and of course to cells. However, we know next to nothing about this before-and-after relationship in the ordering of the cell. Biologists have still been unable to find who told the cell what part of the blueprint to build, and when. How it is that some genes are cut off at just the right moment, how the embargos on some genes are lifted, and who instructs the suppressor genes and those that lift such suppression are all questions shrouded in darkness and waiting to be answered. . . . 113
When we look back, we see that there is no call for surprise at the total failure to find those transitional forms, so long almost painfully sought. Because in all probability, such a stage never took place. Our current knowledge shows that the general principle of evolution does not apply here, and that there is no question of the primitive cell gradually turning into one with a nucleus and organelles. 114
G.A. Kerkut, is an evolutionist and zoologist in the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry at University of Southampton:The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption…. There is, however, little evidence in favor of biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed….
David E. Green is an American biochemist at University of Wisconsin, Madison and Robert F. Goldberger is Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and molecular biophysics and former Provost of Columbia University:
The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts. 115
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University:
Complex cells never developed from primitive cells by a process of evolution. 116
Dr. Alfred G. Fisher, who is an evolutionist, mentions in the fossil section of Grolier multimedia encyclopedia:
Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown. 117
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy:
In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA- RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.118
One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these primitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these two forms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms. 119
The heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature, because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual, requires extreme probabilities that are incomprehensible. . . . The enzymes providing respiration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different form make up the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme sequence completely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being contrary to biological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation or speculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respiration enzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell first came in contact with oxygen. 120
However, there is a major problem here. Mitochondria use a fixed number of enzymes during the process of breaking (with oxygen). The absence of only one of these enzymes stops the functioning of the whole system. Besides, energy gain with oxygen does not seem to be a system which can proceed step by step. Only the complete system performs its function. That is why, instead of the step-by-step development to which we have adhered so far as a principle, we feel the urge to embrace the suggestion that, all the enzymes (Krebs enzyme) needed to perform the reactions of the mitochondria entered a cell all at once by coincidence or, were formed in that cell all at once. That is merely because those systems failing to use oxygen fully, in other words, those systems remaining in the intermediate level would disappear as soon as they react with oxygen. 121
Harold F. Blum is Professor of Biology at Princeton University:
The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. 122
Britannica Encyclopedia of Science, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth. 123
Wendell R. Bird is the author of The Origin of Species Revisited:
This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which we cannot be discussed in terms of probability. 124
Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson is Professor of Zoology at Columbia University:
Above the level of the virus, the simplest fully living unit is almost incredibly complex. It has become commonplace to speak of evolution from amoeba to man, as if the amoeba were the simple beginning of the process. On the contrary, if, as must almost necessarily be true, life arose as a simple molecular system, the progression from this state to that of the amoeba is at least as great as from amoeba to man. 125
Prof. Michael Pitman is Chief Scientist of Australia and Foreign Secretary of the Australian Academy of Science:
Time is no help. Bio-molecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sense’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter. 126
Evolutionists’ Confessions That DNA Cannot Form by Chance
Mathematics has now proven that chance plays no role in the formation of the data encoded in DNA. The word “impossible” fails to do justice to the probability of just one of the 200,000 genes making up DNA forming by chance, let alone a DNA molecule consisting of billions of components.
Some evolutionists admit that such is the case:
Carly P. Haskins is an evolutionist biologist. The following is excerpted from an article published in American Scientist magazine:
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on Earth remain for the future to resolve . . . . Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation. 127
Leslie E. Orgel is a senior fellow and researcher Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego:
We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code . . . [It] is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress. 128
Paul Auger is an evolutionist and French scientist:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. 129
Douglas R. Hofstadter Pulitzer Prize winner and Professor of Cognitive Science and Computer Science at Indiana University:
How a single egg cell divides to form so numerous differentiated cells, and the perfect natural communication and the cooperation between these cells top the events that amaze scientists. 130
 Francis Crick |
Francis Crick is the Nobel Prize-winning evolutionist geneticist who, together with James Watson, discovered DNA:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. 131
John Maddox is the former editor of Nature magazine:
It is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself. 132
Pierre Grassé is the renowned French evolutionist and zoologist:
Any living being possesses an enormous amount of “intelligence,” very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this “intelligence” is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This “intelligence” is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? . . . This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it. 133
Confessions Regarding the Impossibility of the “RNA World” Thesis
In the 1970s, scientists realized that the gasses actually contained in the primeval Earth’s atmosphere made protein synthesis impossible. This came as a grave blow to the theory of evolution, when the primeval atmosphere experiments conducted by evolutionists such as Miller, Fox and Ponnamperuma were proved to be totally invalid.
In the 1980s, therefore, evolutionists began looking elsewhere. As a result, the thesis of the RNA world was put forward by the chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986. He suggested that proteins did not form first, but rather the RNA molecule that carries protein data.
Billions of years ago, according to this scenario, an RNA molecule somehow capable of replicating itself came into being in a chance manner. Under the effect of environmental conditions, this RNA molecule subsequently began suddenly producing proteins. The need then arose to store these data in another molecule, and in some way, the DNA molecule was formed.
This scenario is difficult even to imagine, and every stage of it consists of a separate impossibility. Instead of explaining the origin of life, it actually expanded the problem and gave rise to a number of unanswerable questions. Since it’s impossible to account for even one of the nucleotides making up RNA having formed by chance, how could nucleotides have come to make up RNA by combining in just the correct imaginary sequence?
Even if we assume that by coincidence, it somehow did, then with what awareness could this RNA, consisting of just one nucleotide chain, have decided to copy itself? And with what mechanism did it succeed in doing so? Where did it find the nucleotides it would need during the replication process?
Even if we assume that, no matter how impossible, all these things actually happened, they are still not enough to form a single protein molecule. Because RNA is merely data regarding protein structure; amino acids are the raw materials. Yet there is no mechanism here for producing proteins. To say that the existence of RNA is enough for the production of protein is no less ridiculous than saying that throwing the blueprint for a car onto the thousands of its components is enough for that car to eventually assemble itself— spontaneously.
There are no factories or workers around to let production take place. Even Jacques Monod, the Nobel Prize-winning French zoologist and fanatical adherent of evolution, states that it is impossible to reduce protein manufacture solely to the information contained in nucleic acid:
The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [Latin for “All that lives arises from an egg”] . When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine. 134
 Dr. Leslie Orgel |
Gerald Joyce is a researcher at The Scripps Research Institute, and Dr. Leslie Orgel is an evolutionist microbiologists at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego:
This discussion. . . has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA’s catalytic potential. 135
Dr. Leslie Orgel:
This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis. 136
Manfred Eigen is a German biophysicist and former Director of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen:
One can safely assume that primordial routes of synthesis and differentiation provided minute concentrations of short sequences of nucleotides that would be recognized as ‘correct’ by the standards of today’s biochemistry. 137
John Horgan is a writer for Scientific American magazine:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. 138
88 W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 298-99.
89 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Dorling Kindersley Limited, 1983, p. 19.
90 Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, Vol. 92 (19 November 1981), pp. 526-527.
91 Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983, pp. 20-21.
92 Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 148.
93 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1988), p. 144.
94 Ibid., p.148.
95 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 61.
96 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, p. 304.
97 Andrew Scott, “Update on Genesis,” New Scientist, Vol. 106, May 2, 1985, p. 30.
98 Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280.
99 http://yolgezer.fisek.com.tr/ renkler/evrim.html - Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık, Ankara 1998
100 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaşamın Temel Kuralları [“Basic Rules of Life”], Genel Biyoloji/Genel Zooloji, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, 5th edition, p. 569.
101 Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., “The First Organisms,” Scientific American, 252: 90, June 1985.
102 Sir Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 148.
103 Caryl P. Haskins, “Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970,” American Scientist, Vol. 59, May-June, 1971, p. 305.
104 Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, New York: Dover Publications, 1936, 1953 (reprint), p. 196.
105 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 206 (Quoting German biologist Von Bertalanffy.
106 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim, [Inheritance and Evolution], p. 158.
107 Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348.
108 Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, p. 352.
109 http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evolutio.html
110 Jeffrey Bada, “Life's Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 40.
111 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”), p. 22.
112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid.
115 Green, David E., and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process, New York: Academic Press, 1967, p. 403.
116 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], Ankara: Meteksan Publications, p. 79.
117 http://www.icr.org/headlines/ darwinvindicated.html; “Was Darwin
Really ‘Vindicated’?”, Frank Sherwin, Institute for Creation Research,
April 30, 2001.
118 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 39.
119 Ibid, p. 79.
120 Ibid., p. 94.
121 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, The Basic Laws of Life: General Zoology, Volume 1, Section 1, Ankara, 1998, p. 578.
122 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, p. 304.
123 Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi [“Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia”], Vol. 2, no. 22, p. 519.
124 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, p. 303.
125 Michael Anthony Corey, Back to Darwin, Rowman and Littlefield, 1994, p. 32.
126 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 233.
127 Caryl P. Haskins, “Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970,” American Scientist, Vol. 59, May-June, 1971, p. 305.
128 Leslie E. Orgel, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), p. 151.
129 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
130 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548.
131 Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88.
132 “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 1994.
133 Pierre P. Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168.
134 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York, 1971, p. 143.
135 G.F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, “Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World,” In the RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Laboratory Press, 1993, p. 13.
136 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994, vol. 271, p. 78
137 Manfred Eigen, William Gardiner, Peter Schuster and Ruthild Winkler-Oswatitsch, “The Origin of Genetic Information,” Scientific American, Vol. 244, (April 1981), p. 91.
138 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.