CHAPTER 17. CONFESSIONS THAT COMPLEX ORGANS CANNOT APPEAR BY WAY
CHAPTER 17.
CONFESSIONS THAT COMPLEX ORGANS
CANNOT APPEAR BY WAY OF EVOLUTION
How could highly complex organs such as the eye, lung and wings have emerged gradually during the evolutionary process? That is one of the greatest dilemmas facing evolutionists, who leave it unanswered. These interconnected structures, one of which serves no purpose in the absence of another, cannot emerge in stages, as evolutionists claim. Organs possessing such a characteristic, known as irreducible complexity in the scientific literature, will become functionless if any one of their components is missing.
 The eye is made up around 40 essential components in the absence of any one of which the eye will fail to see at all. In order, therefore, for an eye to be able to see, it needs to form simultaneously with all these 40 organelles that make vision possible. This can come about only through creation. |
The eye, for example, consists of some 40 different organelles and will be unable to see if any one of those 40—the retina, for instance—is absent. That being so, in order for an eye to function, all these 40 organelles must all come into being, together with the other systems that make sight possible—and that can only happen by way of creation.
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, it is impossible for the eye to have formed as the result of these organelles all emerging, one by one, over millions of years. Because in the absence of just one organelle, an eye that’s unable to see will, to use an evolutionist term, become vestigial and disappear before it even fully forms. This also applies to all other complex structures. Confronted by this scientific reality, evolutionists try to prevent the issue from being raised or else, as you shall see below, feel forced into making confessions on the subject.
Darwin himself was one of the first to realize this predicament, and admitted that even thinking about the eye and other complex organs gave him a “cold shudder”:
The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. 293
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick. 294
The recur to the eye. I really think it would have been dishonest, not to have faced the difficulty. 295
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 296
Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ could not have been produced by successive, small, transitional gradations, yet undoubtedly serious cases of difficulty occur. One of the most serious is that of neuter insects, which are often differently constructed from either the males or fertile females; but this case will be treated of in the next chapter. The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; for it is impossible to conceive by, what steps these wondrous organs have been produced. 297
Finally then, although in many cases it is most difficult even to conjecture by what transitions organs have arrived at their present state; yet, considering how small the proportion of living and known forms is to the extinct and unknown, I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named, towards which no transitional grade is known to lead. It certainly is true, that new organs appearing as if created for some special purpose, rarely or never appear in any being;—as indeed is shown by that old,but somewhat exaggerated, canon in natural history of “Natura non facit saltum.” [Nature does not make leaps]. 298
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated. 299
 It is Almighty Allah Who creates the plumage of the peacock that so perplexed Darwin. |
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. . . . Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility. 300
The common feature of eyes and wings is that they can perform their functions only when they are fully developed. To put it another way, sight is impossible with a deficient eye, and flight is impossible with half a wing. How these organs appeared is still one of those secrets of nature that have not yet been fully illuminated. 301
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
The question of how the division of a fertilized egg leads to the birth of countless cells differentiated from each other in every possible respect heads the list of those that leave scientists scratching their heads. Although conceptual frameworks capable of giving a rough analysis of what is going on have been established, the phenomenon as a whole still represents a collection of unanswerable questions. 302
Richard Dawkins is a British zoologist and one of the leading contemporary evolutionists:
Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation. 303
Prof. Russell Doolittle is Professor of Biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego:
How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble? 304
From a letter that Sir Charles Lyell, a renowned geologist of the mid-nineteenth century, wrote to Darwin:
Pages would be required thus to state an objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to persuade, to say nothing. 305
A letter to Darwin from Asa Gray, American botanist of the 19th century, and one of his best friends:
Well, that seems to me the weakest point on the book is the attempt to account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, &c., by natural selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian. 306
Hoimar Von Ditfurth:
When nature found an eye socket, it was confronted by the same dilemma. This eye, which emerged as a quite unexpected step with the successive accumulation of light- sensitive cells in the front part of the body due to very different causes, must have faced the threat of instant elimination because of the way it was a functionless mechanism. Because two totally opposing demands, illumination or clarity, could not have been met in its state at that time. We know that the eye overcame this dilemma by using a lens. Because no matter how large the aperture, no matter how much light enters the chamber, the lens still provides images with no lack of clarity by performing “net focusing.” But is the universe a physicist? Because only physicists know how the lens will overcome this difficulty, and we who read their words. 307
 Frank Salisbury |
Frank B. Salisbury is Professor and Head of the Department of Plant Science at Utah State University:
Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim. 308
Professor Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
It is rather hard to reply to a third objection. How was it possible for a complicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will all be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities. 309
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
In order to see, there is a need for a large number of mechanisms to cooperate: we may speak of links between the eye and its internal mechanisms and between the eye and the special center in the brain. How did this complex structure come about?
According to biologists, during the process of evolution the first step in the formation of the eye was taken with the formation of a small, light-sensitive region in the skins of certain primitive creatures. However, what evolutionary advantage could such a small occurrence bestow on an organism all by itself? Together with that region, a nerve network connecting it to a visual center in the brain would also need to be constructed.
Unless these rather complex mechanisms are linked together, we cannot expect the phenomenon we know as “sight” to emerge. Darwin believed that variations emerged at random. If that were so, would it not be a mysterious puzzle how the great number of variations necessary for sight all came together and cooperated at the same time in various different parts of the organism's body? . . . The fact is that a string of complementary changes—all of which must work together—are necessary for sight. . . . .
Some mollusks' eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens just like ours. How can we account for this construction in two species on such very different evolutionary levels solely in terms of natural selection? . . . It is a matter for debate whether Darwinists can supply a satisfactory answer to that question. . . .310
Ernst Mayr is one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists:
It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. 311
293 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 67.
294 Ibid., p. 90.
295 Ibid., p. 84.
296 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter VI. “Difficulties of the Theory.”
297 Ibid.
298 Ibid.
299 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, New York: New York University Press, p. 151.
300 Ibid., p. 198.
301 Engin Korur, “Gozlerin ve Kanatlarin Sirri” [“The Secret of Eyes and Wings”], Bilim ve Teknik, No. 203, October 1984, p. 25.
302 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2 [“The Silent Nights of the Dinosaurs 2”], p. 126.
303 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, New York: Basic Books, 1995, p. 83.
304 Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press; 2nd Rev. Ed edition (March 7, 2006), p. 91.
305 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 3.
306 Ibid., p. 66.
307 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 3, [“The Silent Nights of the Dinosaurs 3”], p. 165.
308 Frank Salisbury, “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338.
309 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 475.
310 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”], pp. 58-59.
311 Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, New York: Dove Press, 1964, p. 296.
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