In fact, no verifiable transitional fossils have ever been found above the "family" level, although there is good evidence that some new species have appeared. Speciation is an uncontested, known fact of science, widely used by breeders and horticulturists on many types of plants and animals. Speciation is not however, Evolution nor is it proof of Darwinism. A later section of this outline will address some of the proposed transitional creatures, otherwise known as "missing links", that have been put forth by evolutionists as proof of their theory.
Almost all fossils can be identified and classified in the same way as those creatures living today. Most knowledgeable evolutionists now admit that this disproves the original Darwinism – evolution by natural selection working on normal hereditary variations, thus producing all of the wide varieties of life we see today, and that these are descendants from one, or a very few, original forms.
The following illustration shows what we would expect to find in the
fossil record for both the Creation and Evolution models:
|1. SEPARATE KINDS with||1. BLENDED/LINKED KINDS with|
|2. COMPLETE PARTS||2. INCOMPLETE PARTS|
|3. COMPLEX at the start and classified with the||3. SIMPLE AT THE START and classified with|
|4. SAME CRITERIA we use today||4. DIFFERENT CRITERIA from today|
|5. BURIED RAPIDLY||5. BURIED SLOWLY|
Figure 1 Predictions about fossils
The problem of gaps in the fossil record was recognized by Charles Darwin himself; he wrote: "But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"1
Darwin explained that he thought these gaps existed because of the "imperfection of the geologic record," (not enough fossils had been collected). Early Darwinians expected that these gaps would be filled as the exploration for fossils continued. But the majority of paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.
David M. Raup is dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; this museum has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Thus, its dean should be eminently qualified to summarize the situation regarding gaps in the fossil record. He said: "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, and ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when irrelatively few data were available now appears to be much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record, which does show change, but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection".2
Stephen J. Gould is one of today’s most outspoken advocates of evolution, yet he admits, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."3
After nearly 200 years of exploring the fossil record what have scientists
But if the fossil record doesn’t show those "innumerable transitional forms" that Darwin expected, why do so many of today’s textbooks seem to say that the fossils show evidence of evolution? Is there actual falsification of facts? Well, not exactly misrepresentation – wishful thinking might be a better term. David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum is one of the world’s most respected paleontologists, and a believer in evolution. Yet he wrote the following in a letter to Science magazine: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved in the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism had died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.4
The fossils of dinosaurs are all classified within class reptilia, and are either in order saurischia (lizard-hipped) or order ornithischia (bird-hipped). They’re further divided into several dozen families and a few hundred species. The interesting thing about this assortment of strange creatures is that they all fall into distinct groups – never any that were "half-and-half." Evolutionists assert that certain types lived early in the Triassic period, then died out and were replaced by other types, on and on for some 150,000,000 years to the end of the Cretaceous period, when suddenly all dinosaurs became extinct. If this were true, surely there would be some evidence of this; but there is absolutely none. Every one of the crested hadrosaurs has a full-size crest; never is there a trace of one that’s just forming. In the ceratops sub-order, there are several different kinds of neck frills and differing numbers of horns, but no sign of one type developing into another. All appeared to be fully formed. This all points to a Creator, not to random evolution.
There’s much speculation about what caused the "sudden" extinction of dinosaurs. Scientists can’t agree. Many speak of an asteroid striking the earth, causing worldwide atmospheric problems, however others disagree and point to the many creatures that did not become extinct at that time. There are two points we should realize: first, the suddenness of their demise is due to circular reasoning (see section on the geologic column), and second, most of the dinosaur fossils are found in huge "dinosaur graveyard" regions all over the world. These give strong evidence of having been buried in some huge watery catastrophe, such as a Great Flood. The post-flood environment was probably so different from what those on the ark had been suited for that extinction became inevitable.
No credible ape-to-man transition has been found.
THE MISSING LINKS ARE STILL MISSING!
- based on -
– based on -
Never observed (extrapolation of monsters)
Observed every day ("laws" of science)
That have never been found (missing links)
Found by the 1000’s of tons all over the world
|"SPECULATION ONLY" (unfounded faith)||ALSO FACTS (faith supported by evidence)|
Figure 2 Scientific test
Geologist Charles Lyell, in his 1830 book Principles of Geology
wrote that our present world was shaped by the same "Laws of Nature" that
we see today, and that this took an extremely long time. The key phrase
is "the present is the key to the past." This is the essence of UNIFORMITARIANISM
and has become a widely believed idea that excludes all supernatural intervention,
whether creation or modification. It has led to the common belief that
any suggestion of a divine creation or the biblical great flood of Noah
is automatically "outside the realm of science," and therefore can’t even
be considered. This dual idea of uniformitarianism and an extremely long
age of the earth are vital foundationstones for belief in evolutionism.
|Closely linked to the concept of uniformitarianism is the arrangement of the earth’s strata into a "paper series," separated according to the kinds of fossils each stratum contains. This sequence is called the GEOLOGIC COLUMN, and divides earth history into eras, periods and epochs. The eras are named according to the assumed age of the life forms found therein. We can see that the assumption of evolution is implicit within these definitions. The various eras, periods and epochs are supposed to represent the history of the entire world, but in only a few spots in the world do these all appear; whereas many spots have out-of-sequence strata.|
Figure 3 The geologic column according to evolutionists
When a geologist or paleontologist wants to identify a particular stratum, he doesn’t usually check for rock type or chemical composition (granite, limestone, etc); instead he looks for INDEX FOSSILS. These are remains of creatures which are thought to have lived during certain eras and then to have become extinct. Most index fossils are invertebrates such as various species of trilobites and mollusks.
Obviously, this method of using index fossils for dating applies only to sedimentary rocks (those laid down as grains of sediment deposited by wind or water action, then later lithified – solidified into hard, solid rock). Igneous rocks (those that have cooled from melted magma) couldn’t contain fossils.
Evolutionists speak of certain varieties living in certain periods, and others living in other periods. This sounds meaningful, until we remember that their method of dating strata is to see what sorts of index fossils are found in each one. These are arranged according to the assumed stage of evolution. This is circular reasoning at its worst. The director of the Field Museum vastly understated the case when he wrote: "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."14
Others have attempted to explain this problem in the logic of dating, with little success. Mostly it’s ignored, as if it might go away after enough repetition. For example, one writer said: "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hardheaded pragmatism…The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.15
In addition to the geologic column, evolutionists also employ radiometric-dating
techniques in an attempt to date fossils and other archeological discoveries.
Radiometric dating methods fall roughly into two major categories:
14N7 + 1n0 è14C6 + 1p1
Prior to the advent of atomic bombs, this was the sole source of all the C14 on Earth.
Oxidation (combination with oxygen) takes place fairly quickly, producing
carbon dioxide (C14O2), and this is a vital part
of the earth’s atmosphere. Animals take in CO2 by respiration;
plants take it in through photosynthesis, and thus the carbon becomes part
of the food chain, and part of all organisms.
In this way, all living organisms contain carbon, and most of this comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of it is the normal C12, which is a stable isotope. However, a small fraction is 14C, a radioactive isotope that emits a beta particle (nuclear electron) with a half-life of 5,730 years. 14C6 è14N7 + 0e-1
As long as the plant or animal is alive, its bodily carbon has the same 14C/12C ratio as does the atmosphere around it. However when it dies it no longer takes in a fresh supply and, after a long time, much of its internal 14C is depleted through radioactive decay. If we know the initial 14C/12C fraction of an ancient sample, and measure the current fraction, we can calculate how long it has been since that sample was part of a living organism. This is the principal of Carbon-14 dating.16
William F. Libby invented this system, and wrote the definitive book on the subject. He discussed the important factors, especially SPR and SDR. He showed that the Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C14 is 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. But he showed the Specific Decay Rate (SDR) to be only 16.1 + 0.5 disentegrations per gram per minute. These two numbers should be the same, if the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The difference shows that buildup in the biosphere hasn’t had time to catch up with production in the stratosphere. This troubled Libby, since he believed the world was many millions of years old, and C14 half-life is 5,568 years (this has since been revised to 5,730 years). He wrote: "If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been turned off until a short while ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon necessary to the equilibrium state would not have been manufactured and the specific radioactivity (SDR) of living matter would be much less than the rate of production (SPR) calculated from the neutron intensity."17 Of course, most creationists believe that this manufacture has only been going on for several thousand years, and that Libby was unknowingly agreeing with the Bible’s account of a recent creation. But he chose to ignore this discrepancy and attribute it to experimental error. He recalculated his original numbers and settled on an SDR of 15.3 dis/gm-min, and said that it must have remained at that value for at least 20 or 30 thousand years. But several other scientists have rechecked this work, and all have verified the non-equilibrium. This seems to be a strong indication that the age of the atmosphere should really be measured in thousands, not millions of years.
Professor Robert L. Whitelaw (Virginia Polytechnic Institute), who teaches Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, realized that by using these SDR and SPR numbers, and accepting their difference as real, he could calculate the actual time at which this system must have started. He used the values obtained for SDR and SPR by several other scientists also, and calculated the starting point as being between 7,000 and 16,000 years ago. Also, by using these actual SDR and SPR numbers, he found correction factors for any published radiocarbon ages. These are shown on the chart below.18
Figure 4 Corrected radiocarbon dates
Other evidences coming from this large set of radiocarbon dates are:
|1. Even before correction for non-equilibrium, almost all ages connected with human artifacts are no more than about 12,000 years.|
|2. These seem to be mostly from the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin.|
|3. Almost all sea-creatures whose dated remains were found on continental areas had died just over 5,000 years ago.|
|4. There were many samples of coal and oil that gave ages less than 50,000 years, even though most scientists believe these were formed very much longer ago than that. The 14C dating method is not considered usable for objects thought to be more than 50,000 years old, since almost all of the 14C would have decayed during that time (its half-life is 5,730 years).|
Here are some documented cases of erroneous results from radiocarbon dating:
The earth’s magnetic field is weakening exponentially according to Dr. Thomas Barnes. Measurements in the past 130 years indicate a 14% decrease. Thus it was once incredibly stronger! If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, like couldn’t have formed due to the incredible magnetic field. The upper limit is approximately 10,000 years (when it would have been equivalent to that of a magnetic star)
Figure 5 Population figures taken from 1987 World Almanac
Except for the one involving the world population in A.D. 1, which is just a conjecture, growth rates range from 0.26 to 3.0 percent per year.
The Bible describes one growing population. Let’s see if it’s numerically reasonable. When Jacob’s family moved to Egypt, it had 70 members; when the Israelites left Egypt 430 years later, in about 1446 B.C., they had grown to between one and two million people, which greatly worried the Egyptians. If we calculate that growth rate, we find it to be between 2.25 percent and 2.41 percent per year, which is within the range of the modern figures quoted above, and therefore is completely reasonable.
The Bible also describes Noah’s family as consisting of eight people who survived the Great Flood (which many believe to have been in about 2350 B.C.). These were the only people left to repopulate the earth. Some 4,340 years later, we new have a world population of 0.47 percent per year, about the same as is known to have been true for a few hundred years ago.
On the other hand, if we consider any sort of evolutionary growth over a period of a few million years, we arrive at ridiculously low growth rates. For example, if an original pair of "pre-humans" started a million years ago, and increased to five billion humans today, the rate of that growth would have been only an average of 0.00217 percent per year.
At that rate, the time required for the group to double in size would be 32,000 years. At such low growth rates, these "people" would quickly have become extinct, considering that a lifespan was probably less than a hundred years, at most. In the early millennia, an accidental death of a single adult of childbearing age would have been devastating.25
If we assume reasonable population growth rates over a period of a million years we’d have 150,000 people per square inch.
We can see that population considerations seem to make the evolutionist position to be almost impossible for a reasonable person to consider, whereas the growth rates according to the creationist time scale are well within the limits of actual numbers that we see today.
For those who are mathematically inclined, population
growth rates can be calculated by one of the following equations:
|Pn/P0 = (1 + R)n||P0 = orig. population,|
|N = Log (Pn/P0)
Log(1 + R)
|Pn = final population,|
|R = (Pn/P0)1/N - 1||N = number of years.|
Most of the objects observed in the study of big bang cosmology are said to be millions or billions of light-years away; our sun is only 8.3 light-minutes away, and our most distant planet, Pluto, is some 5.5 light-hours away from the earth. But, at the same time, there are major problems in understanding these relatively nearby objects. Even the origin of our closest neighbor, the moon, is still a mystery. Four different theories compete for acceptance, and there are major problems with each one. If known facts about the nearby solar system don’t fit the theories, how can we expect to know much about these extremely distant objects?
One basic problem involves the sun’s energy and how it’s produced. Most scientists believe that the interior of the sun is a thermonuclear furnace, burning hydrogen and producing helium. However, this reaction should produce a great many neutrinos, and our measurements don’t show nearly enough. We know the problem is not in the detection apparatus because when the distant 1987A supernova occurred in the Great Magellanic Cloud galaxy, neutrinos were detected. But the missing solar neutrinos mean that the theories about the sun’s reactions don’t explain what’s really happing. Many other stars are thought to be burning helium and producing carbon and oxygen. Larger stars are said to evolve into different burning processes as they age. An alternative explanation as a source of the suns energy would be the heat caused by gravitational collapse. That would be more than sufficient to cause the surface temperature and solar flux. This is rejected only because it wouldn’t last long enough to conform to the "assumed" age of the universe.
Also interesting is a monograph published by creationists Norman and Sutterfield in 1987. They have accumulated all the known measurements of c for the last 300 years, and claim that when tabulated, these show that c was not constant in this period, but still declining, seemingly tapering off to a constant level in about 1960. They cite a number of statistical tests, which they claim deny the constancy of c in that time.
Catastrophism is the concept that many of the evidences we see in the earth today were not caused by slow actions of ordinary forces, but by sudden and violent events. Creationists coined this word, thinking of such things as the great flood of Noah; that was probably the event that accounts for the majority of fossils and sediments in the crust of the earth. Some other typologists such as Cuvier believed that several catastrophes have occurred.
No other explanation can adequately account for the fossil distribution and massive sedimentation that exists. Many of the earth’s features, such as the Grand Canyon, dinosaur graveyards, and so-called out-of-sequence strata are impossible to adequately explain in any way other than by recognizing a massive worldwide flood.
Incidentally, notice that a large amount of hydrogen is released in the calcium + water reaction. This would quickly combine with the oxygen of the atmosphere to form water. Thus a considerable amount of oxygen must have been lost. This means that the pre-flood atmosphere must have had more oxygen than we have now. This is in sharp contrast to the "ancient reducing atmosphere" assumed by evolutionists (for which there’s no evidence anyway). And an atmosphere with more oxygen would be more healthful, helping to account for the giant size of many ancient fossils and for the long life spans mentioned in Genesis 5.
Why don’t most geologists accept this kind of explanation? Because it is based on the biblical account of the Great Flood, and that flood was a singular event, not seen in recent history. Such a flood would be a violation of the principle of uniformitarianism, dear to most geologists’ hearts. For that reason, it’s not usually accepted as a viable explanation. But there’s no reason why it can’t be really a true account, and there are many evidences to show that it did actually happen. As in other cases, evidences are often interpreted so as to agree with one’s preconceived philosophical beliefs.
This page created with Netscape Composer