The shaky basics of evolution theory

Contradictions

Evolutionists have yet to give examples of morphological transformation from one species to another.

a) This phenomenon has not been observed.

b) All species have stable forms.

c) There is no evidence from the fossil record of transitional forms between one species and another.

In 1971 the botanist G. Ledyard Stebbins in his book "Processes of Organic Evolution" wrote No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms

Further, the Swedish botanist in his book Synthetische Artbildung wrote: "It is not possible to make even a caricature of evolution out of palaeobiological facts."

The evolutionists should be able to give a precise and detailed description of the mechanism of the evolutionary process.

a) No one knows the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

b) Neither the geneticist nor the molecular biologist know what produces or generates the biological forms of the species.

c) Neither do they know what could generate new biological forms.

Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology, at Harvard University published the following in Omni Magazine (February, 1983, p. 78):

"We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on the mechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely no idea what happens genetically during speciation. That's a damning statement, but it's the truth."

The evolutionists should be able to determine at which evolutionary stage each species has reached, which species are now in the process of formation, and describe how from one species another species evolved.

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard University states, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists 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." (Gould, Stephen J. The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p. 181.)

The fossil evidence

David Raupa in his article "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," wrote: "...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."

Even Darwin was aware that there might be one central dilemma that can completely destroy his theory. In his book 'The Origin of The Species' he writes. "The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great if this theory be true." In the same book he says further: "The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species"…

"the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be 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 the theory [of evolution]".

After more than 100 years, despite much exploration and research this same objection still stands. There is a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, supporting non-gradual evolution of species or that they already existed in the past.

The main taxonomic groups are divided by huge gaps. Some 10,000 fossil insects have been found, and some 30,000 fossil spiders, yet there are no intermediate forms. The origin of wings, on insects and on birds, remains a major difficulty for Darwinian evolution. Archaeopteryx has not solved the 'missing link' problem. Fred Hoyle and Wickramasinghe Chandra in their book 'Evolution from Space' explain that if we go back in time to the most ancient fossils, the fossilised remains do not show evidence of simple beginnings. Although the ancient fossil bacteria, and alga, seem to be simple, they are still biologically complex. They conclude that the majority of the complex biological compounds existed at the time of formation of the first rocks on this earth planet. The fossil record for each species show that each appeared suddenly and remained unchanged for millions of years.

In 1970 the Geological Society of London and British Paleontological Association held a symposium.

Dr John N. Moore, a founder of the Creation Research Society, gave the following report: "Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 papers for a report of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred. "Should Evolution Be Taught? by John N. Moore, 1970, pp. 9, 14, 24; New Scientist, "Letters," September 15, 1983, p. 798

Unbridgeable gaps

Previously we explained the main points of evolution as presented by the evolutionists. Now we would like to show through one example how great are the gaps in this theory using as the example the postulated transition between reptiles and the birds. Similar examination can be done for all other transitional forms. According to Lecomte du Nouy, the French philosopher, birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation". (Human Destiny, p. 72). Let us now look at these in more details.

Body Temperature Most existing reptiles have a body temperature that rises or falls according to the ambient temperature of the environment. Birds are warm-blooded and maintain it at the same level independent of environmental changes. The question of how warm-blooded birds originated from the reptiles that are cold blooded, is an unresolved problem for evolutionists, as Nouy says - it is presently the greatest mystery of evolution.

Reproduction Although, both birds and reptiles lay eggs there are many dissimilarities, which lead to questions about the relationship between the two groups. The eggs of the reptiles have soft shell rely the heat of the sun to hatch, whereas the eggs of birds are hard shelled and are hatched by the heat from the parents' bodies, who divide this task between them. For development of the process of incubation different types of behaviour had to evolve to ensure the hatching of eggs, the feeding of the young, nursing, training and protection.

Body. This is the most obvious difference between reptiles and birds. Many reptiles have armor or are scaly, their voices are not developed and they often do not have a colourful appearance, the birds are gracile, have coloured feathers, the ability to fly and melodious voices.

Feathers There is a low probability that feathers could develop from scales. Feathers are complex structures that provide a technologically prefect structure for flight and insulation for birds. Microscopic observation shows that from the two sides of branches of each flight feather, there are millions of tiny hooks, which lock the structure in place making it rigid.

Skeleton Reptiles have a massive, dense boned, hard skeleton unlike the birds with their thin, light, delicate and hollow boned structure.

Lungs The development of a lung system with tubes that are connected to airbags, and of an efficient cooling system preventing overheating, allows birds to fly up to 6000m, stay on the wing for days travelling thousands of miles. There is no trace of such a complex lung structure in reptiles.

Heart Birds have a four chambered heart, in reptiles it is only three chambered. No living entity can survive any change in the heart.

The eyes and navigation ability Eyesight had to change to allow it to function like telescope (eagle) or like a magnifier (warbler). Birds have the densest concentration of nerves in the retina. Migrating birds appear to be born with a map within their brain (arctic tern, stork, warbler, cuckoo, hummingbird etc). This migration of the birds remains a mystery to biologists, who consider it to be an instinctive activity rather than something that is learned or taught.

The beak How could the soft lips of the reptiles transform into hard beaks to break nuts and seeds to say nothing of the varieties of beaks.

Vocal organs The highly developed larynx means that birds have great versatility in their song. Some members of the crow family can imitate many different songs or noises such as car alarms.

Feet Birds feet have four toes, reptiles have five. When birds land on a branch, the muscle reflex causes the toes to grip.

There are more examples but these are some of the major differences.

Darwin used Archaeopteryx as a proof of reptiles transforming into birds. More recent, close examination reveals it has all the characteristics of birds. Other fossil birds in the same strata prove that the Archaeopteryx could not at all be the ancestor of the birds.

There are thus huge differences between the greater taxonomic units, than just skeletal, there are, instincts, reflex muscular action for example. Instinct was a problem for Darwin as he admitted: "Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. I must premise that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself". Even Darwin himself did not think that all these originated due to unplanned chain of accidents.

Summary

The fossil record provides evidence that the variety of different living beings appeared suddenly, without preceding forms. Although, within each group we can see there is great variety, these are not related by evidence to evolutionary ancestors, neither is there a proven evolutionary connection with groups that follow them. Our conclusion is the same as Edmund Samuel an evolutionist who wrote: "The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life. No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.