Excerpt from a very interesting book.Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution,
By Steven E. Dill, D.V.M.
Copyright 1995, 1998 by Steven E. Dill)
It has been said that fossils provide the only historical evidence for evolution. This explains the evolutionists' fascination with fossils.
However, the fossil record contradicts evolution!
Every time you turn around, it seems like some evolutionist somewhere is digging up new fossils and making wild claims about proving evolution. Unfortunately for the evolutionist, this dependence on fossils puts them in a very difficult position. You see, if the fossil record fails to substantiate evolution, then it means that evolution was not a historical event. This, in turn would mean that the evolutionists are wrong, and the fossil record has clearly ruined evolution.
Just the same, the fossil record has not failed science. Rather, the fossil record has confirmed science. Biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, mathematics, etc., all say that evolution can't happen. The fossil record confirms this by proving that evolution didn't happen. It is the Theory of Evolution that fossils fail to prove, not science. (Which means, of course, that the Theory of Evolution is NOT science.)
There is no fossil evidence to support the theory that life emerged from nonliving chemicals, or that life gradually underwent a series of changes until new and different species were formed.
Now, I would guess, you would want me to support my statement?
The following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum Leap Into the New Age. (1*) This video contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous. This answer was based on their definition of "transitional." To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved from, and what it evolved into later. After these claims were made, they were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly showing themselves to be between species. This is the creationists' definition of "transitional." When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none. Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support from the geologic record.
Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum:
1. "There are myriad transitional forms. There's really no problem finding transitional forms."
versus his statement of:
2. "One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts. It doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."
Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology, UCSB:
1. "In fact there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other."
versus his statement of:
2. "The problem of transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete. It's incomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away."
Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:
(commenting on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)
1. "We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought not all that many years ago. And creationism was overthrown in the scientific community by evolutionary thinking."
versus his statement of:
2. "Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."
The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there aren't transitional fossils. Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional fossils. Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution. Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms. Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.
"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:
'I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it. I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.'"
In case you happened to skim over that and missed it, I'm going to repeat this direct quote from Dr. Patterson.
"THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL FOR WHICH ONE MIGHT MAKE A WATERTIGHT ARGUMENT."
This admission has caused Dr. Patterson some grief from some of his fellow evolutionists. Some even said he shouldn't say things that creationists might use. Truthfully, Dr. Colin Patterson's name has come up several times in my readings. I am impressed with his honesty and openness. I understand he believes in evolution, and I respect him for his sincerity. I think he is deceived by evolution, but unlike some evolutionists, as well as some creationists, Dr. Patterson does not impress me as the kind who would stoop to lies, half-truths, and tricks. Such honesty deserves mention. There's no reason he, or any scientist, should have to feel uncomfortable in expressing the truth. To that end, I will show that Dr. Patterson and these others aren't alone in their admission that the fossil record lacks transitional (interspecies) forms. Before evolutionists criticize Dr. Patterson, they should hear what other knowledgeable scientists say.
Before we do that, however, let's look at what we should see in the fossil record if Darwinian evolution is true. Classic evolution theory says that species gradually developed from previous species. In fact, the process was so slow, it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly when a new species emerged. Each generation would possess infinitesimal differences from the previous generation. Only after several thousands, or even millions of generations, would one be able to recognize species differences. This is much like looking at a motion picture. Each frame captures a split second of time. If you look at each frame one at a time, it would be hard to recognize movement. There isn't much change between frames. Only if you look at the frames in rapid succession do you see motion. This is what classical evolution says we should see in the fossil record. Fossils represent individual frames in the movie-of-life. As we discover more and more fossils, the frames in evolution's progress, we should be able to piece them together into a film that shows how life evolved. Like the images on the individual frames in a film, the difference from one frame to the next ought to be too small to distinguish. Fossils should show such gradual changes that eventually we ought to have a fossil record with no exact boundaries between species.
Is this what the fossil record has shown... over the last one hundred and fifty years? The answer is no! The fossil record shows no transitional forms. It didn't when Darwin proposed his theory, and it has gotten worse for the evolutionist ever since.
In his book, Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland reveals much about the truth of the fossil record.(2*)
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." (3*)
"Back in 1940, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt had faced the horns of this dilemma-of-the-gaps with his hopeful monster theory, the idea that every once in awhile an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different from its parents." (4*)
"Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum, was collaborating with Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard and calling their new theory, aimed at explaining the gaps, 'punctuated equilibria." (5*)
"Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,published an article in the January 1979 issue (vol. 50, no. 1) of the museum's journal entitled 'Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology' in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animal recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." (6*)
In fact, Dr. Raup actually stated in the article:
"Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time."
How is this possible, you ask? It is because many of the missing-links used as proof for evolution at Darwin's time have since been discarded by evolutionists because science has proven they weren't links at all. I can't think of any other field of science that presently bases its beliefs on fewer facts than were available one-hundred and fifty years ago.
Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist at The New York State Natural History Museum, was asked about transitional forms.
"Did Dr. Fisher know of any transitional forms between the higher taxa? He replied, 'Intermediates within families and even within orders, but not between phyla.' Why? His only answer was the standard onethe imperfection of the fossil record."7
E. C. Olson, author of The Evolution of Life said this.
"Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors." (8*)
Steven Stanley, paleobiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University spoke out against the gradualistic theory of Charles Darwin. His observations revealed that the fossil record lacks evidence for gradually changes species. Defending the punctuated equilibria view of origins, he said this.
"Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrated a biological stability for species of animals and plants that I think would have shocked Darwin." (9*)
Luther Sunderland quotes Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, from the June-July 1977, Natural History magazine, showing how Gould agrees with this view of gradualism.
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,..." (10*)
Sunderland further mentions two comments Dr. Gould made during a lecture at Hobart and William Smith College in 1980.
"The fossil record is full of gaps and discontinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation." (11*)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier." (12*)
In fact, Mr. Sunderland asked many well known evolutionists for fossil evidence for the gradual rise of insects, the change of fish to amphibians, the transition from amphibians to reptiles, the change from reptiles to birds, the gradual emergence of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of the horse, and the evolution of man. Over and over again they admitted that the fossil record reveals no evidence of gradual changes. Even though millions and millions of fossils have been studied in the last one hundred fifty years, the fossil record is full of gaps between species. If evolution is true, then we should see an abundance of in-between species. Although asked several times by Mr. Sunderland, not one of the evolutionists interviewed could site a single transitional fossil showing a direct connection between any two major groups of animals.
J. Kerby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin, in their book Fossils in Focus, (13*) reveal the same fossil evidence against the Theory of Evolution. They quote three notable scientists, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, and Norman Newell. George Gaylord Simpson said this:
"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution." (14*)
Dr. David Kitts said:
"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." (15*)
Norman Newell of the American Museum of Natural History adds:
"Experience shows us that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting." (16*)
According to Dr. Page Krynine:
"Conventional uniformitarianism, or 'gradualism,' i.e. the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all-post Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record." (17*)
Others confirm that geology hasn't been kind to those who think they know all the answers about our origin.
"Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale and later professor of anthropology at Harvard, wrote an article in 1978 entitled 'Rearranging Our Family Tree' in which he stated that we had been wrong in the past and that he was convinced we would not hit upon the true or correct story of human evolution." (18*)
"Richard Leakey summed up the situation on the final Walter Cronkite Universe program. He said that if he were going to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a huge question mark. He said that the fossil evidence was too scanty for us to possibly know man's evolutionary origin, and he did not think we were ever going to know it." (19*)
Literature is filled with statements from evolutionists who know the fossil record lacks truly transitional forms.
Dr. George Gaylor Simpson, the world's foremost evolutionary paleontologist:
"The earliest and most primitive known members of every order 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." (20*)
"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 all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate." (21*)
"Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils. It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transitions, but by sudden leaps in evolution." (22*)
Dr. E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University:
"Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolutionfrom biology, biogeography,and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (23*)
Dr. E. C. Olson:
"The fossil record which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution..." (24*)
Drs. David Raup and Steven Stanley:
"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms."(25*)
Dr. L. du Nouy:
"In brief, each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain. When we discover them they are already completely differentiated. Not only do we find practically no transitional forms, but in general it is impossible to authentically connect a new group with an ancient one." (26*)
Dr. A. H. Clark:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla."(27*)
"Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types." (28*)
Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt:
"The facts of greatest importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions."(29*)
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Biology, Geology, and the History of Science, at Harvard University:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (30*)
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."(31*)
Dr. N. Macbeth:
"The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed."32
Dr. Francisco Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Davis:
"The evolutionary origins of taxa in the higher categories are poorly known. Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them." (33*)
Finally we'll let Dr. Colin Patterson refute his critics:
"We have access to the tips of the tree; the tree itself is theory, and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on ithow the branches came off and the twigs came offare, I think, telling stories." (34*)
It's difficult to read through these confessions of evolutionists without getting the idea that something is very wrong with the Theory of Evolution. It leaves one with the impression that the Theory of Evolution is like the "Emperor's New Clothes." Many scientists think other scientists have absolute proof for evolution. Rather than admit they see no proof for evolution themselves, they go along with the crowd, admiring what isn't there. Not wishing to look foolish to their associates, they applaud evolution even louder and defend it all the more. Yet, deep inside, they feel strangely inadequate as scientists because they can't seem to find truth for themselves.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF SCIENCE. . . EMPEROR EVOLUTION IS NAKED!
So you see, Dr. Colin Patterson is not alone when it comes to evolutionists who recognize that geology fails to provide unquestionable proof for evolution. Some just aren't as straight forward about it as he is. Geology fails to prove evolution because fossils, the only historical evidence, fail to prove it. Classical evolutionists firmly stated, and staked their reputations, that someday enough fossils would be found to prove their argument. They were wrong! Over a hundred and forty years of intensive searching has resulted in more and wider gaps between the species. Rather than being a friend to the evolutionists, the fossil record has now become their biggest foe. The historical evidence of the fossils clearly shows that life did not evolve; it was created.
1*. The Evolution Conspiracy, A Quantum Leap Into the New Age Jeremiah Films, Inc., 1987
2*. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma Copyright: Marilyn Sunderland, 1988 El Cajon, California: Master Books Publishers
3*. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Reprint of the 6th Edition)
4*. Sunderland, page 10
5*. Sunderland, page 10
6*. Sunderland, page 10
7*. Sunderland, page 91
8*. E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life New York: The New American Library, 1965, page 94
9*. Steven M. Stanley, "The New Evolution" Johns Hopkins Magazine, June 1982, pages 6-11
10*. Sunderland, page 66
11*. Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, February 14, 1980 Quoted by Sunderland, page 106
12*. Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, February 14, 1980 Quoted by Sunderland, page 107
13*. J. Kerby Anderson and Harold G. Ciffin, Fossils in Focus Copyright: Probe Ministries International, 1977 Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, page 16
14*. George Gaylord Simpson, Evolution After Darwin Vol. 1 of The Evolution of Life Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960, page 149
15*. David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" Evolution Vol. 28, (1974), page 466
16*. Norman D. Newell, "The Nature of the Fossil Record" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 103 No. 2 (1959) pages 264-285
17*. Page Krynine, "Uniformitarianism Is A Dangerous Doctrine" Paleontology, Vol. 30 (1956), page 1004
18*. Sunderland, page 10
19*. Sunderland, page 87
20*. George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution Columbia University Press, New York, 1944, page 105.
21*. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, page 107
22*. George Gaylord Simpson, The Evolution of Life University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, page 149
23*. E. J. H. Corner, Contemporary Botanical Thought Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, page 97.
24*. E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life The New American Library, New York, 1965, page 94.
25*. D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1971, page 306.
26*. L. du Nouy, Human Destiny The New American Library, New York, 1947, page 63.
27*. A. H. Clark, The New Evolution; Zoogenesis Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1930, page 189.
28*. Clark, page 196.
29*. R. B. Goldschmidt, American Scientist Vol. 40, No. 97, 1952
30*. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 6, 1977
31*. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1977
32*. N. Macbeth, American Biology Teacher, November 1976, p. 495. F. J. Ayala and J. W. Valentine
33*. Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo Park, California, 1979, pages 266-267.34*. Brian Leith,
34* The Listener, Vol. 106, No. 390, 1981.
Questions click >>HERE<< Questions click >>HERE<<
You may contact Dr. Dill at Stevendill@aol.com
>>Science HOME page<<