Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2
Chapter 17 Appendix Part B2
8 - NO TRANSITIONS — ONLY GAPS
Here is still another major flaw in the evolutionary theory. By its very nature, evolution absolutely requires transitional forms! If there are no transitions from one species to another, there is no evolution! Theories may abound, but without evidence the theories are myths. The facts of (1) Cambrian explosion of a variety of complex life forma, with no transitional species prior to the Cambrian, and (2) no transitional forms but only gaps between species during and after the Cambrian, and (3) the species always abruptly appear;—these three points utterly destroy any validity evolution might have in the fossil record. And the fossil record is our only record of this world's biologic prehistory.
Nowhere in the fossil record do we find transitional species. Although there are literally hundreds of reasons why evolutionary theory is wrong, this particular one is probably the most basic of them all: Throughout all past time, not once do we find any evidence that one species was evolving into another species! If actual evidence for species change cannot be shown from the past or present, then Darwin's entire theory falls to the ground. This is a bedrock point disproving evolutionary theory and is frequently probably mentioned as a significant problem by paleontologists and other scientists more often than most any other. How can there be evolution if there is no record that it has ever occurred?
Sometimes the experts speak of a species gap, sometimes general or phylum. But it is all only gaps, with no transitional forms leading up to any living creature: That is the evidence found in the rocks.
"Composed mainly of gaps."
"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 out-pacing integration . . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." —*T. N. George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress, Vol. XLVIII, January, 1960, p.1,3.
"Search for 'missing links' . . is . . fruitless . . because they probably never existed."
The smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is . . not borne out by the facts. The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless . . because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types. . But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rods strata of the proper age had been found, In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years rid no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." —*Dr. Niles Eldredge, Guardian, November 21, 1978.
"Inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links.' "
"Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection . . The inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory." —*A.J. Boucot, Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls (1975), P. 196.
"Not led up to by known, gradual. . transitional sequences."
"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." —*George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 360. [Harvard University.]
"Throughout the fossil record major groups remain . . unchanged . . no trace . . not the slightest evidence . . never have been any."
"Throughout the fossil record these major groups remain essentially unchanged.. No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla. . Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intermediate types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading [transitional] types." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930)„ pp. 100, 189, 196.
"Do not change into forms which are transitional towards [other ones]."
"If we look at the peculiar main groups of the fossil flora, it is quite striking that at definite intervals of geological time they are all at once and quite suddenly there, and, moreover, in full bloom in all their manifold fame. And it is quite as surprising that after a time which is to be measured not only in millions, but in tens of millions of years, they disappear equally suddenly. Furthermore, at the end of their existence they do not change into forms which are transitional towards the main types of the next period: such are entirely lacking." —*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1954), pp. 488-489 [Department of Botany, University of Lund, Sweden].
"A multitude of separate, discrete, distributions [and] . . intermediates . . [are] absent."
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form any kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. The living world is not a single array in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more a less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare." —*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1951), p.4 [Columbia University].
"Not . . possible . . to reconstitute the passage between . . intermediaries . . known forms remain separated."
"Each one of these intermediaries seems to have appeared 'suddenly,' and it has not yet been possible, because of the lack of fossils, to reconstitute the passage between these intermediaries... The known forms remain separated like the piers of a ruined bridge . . The continuity we surmise may never be established by facts." —*Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 95.
" 'Links' are missing just where we most fervently desire them."
"Unfortunately, there is in general little evidence on this point in the fossil record, for intermediate evolutionary forms representative of this phenomenon are extremely rare . . `Links' are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." —*D.D. Davis, "Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of the Vertebrates," in *G. Jepson, et al (eds.), Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution (1949), p. 114.
"The geologic record . . does not yield a . . chain of slow and progressive evolution."
"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true . . [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." —*David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, " Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, pp. 22, 23, 25.
"Discontinuity of appearance . . systematic."
"There remains, however, the point that for the still higher categories discontinuity of appearance in the record is not only frequent but also systematic. Some break in continuity always occurs in categories." —*G.G. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 388.
"Not and never has been."
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution]." —*Steven M. Stanley, New Evolutionary Timetable (1981), pp. 71, 77.
"The [evolutionary] pattern. . does not exist."
"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." —*Niles Eldredge, quoted in The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, p. E9.
"The fossil record [is] . . mainly gaps."
"The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." —* T. N. George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective, " in Science Progress, 48 (1960), p. 3.
"Gradual change continuously over long periods [is required by the theory]."
"It [evolutionary theory] predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time." —*Tom Kemp, book review, in New Scientist, February 4, 1982, p. 320.
"Number of intermediate varieties. . [must] be . . enormous... The most obvious and serious objection."
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] 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 the theory [of evolution]." —*Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Part Two, p. 323.
"Why do we not find them?"
"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?" —*Op. cit., p. 163.
"Evolution requires intermediate forms . . and paleontology does not provide them."
"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. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." —*David 8. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, " in Evolution , Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 487.
"Why. . do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.. in countless numbers?"
"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?
"But, as by this [evolution] theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
"Geological research . . does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required." —*Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics ad.), pp. 178-179, 503.
*Darwin blames the record instead of the theory:
"I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . imperfect to an extreme degree." —*Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Part Two (1902 ed.), pp. 94, 296.
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material."
"It is not even possible to make a caricature [sketchy outline] of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that. . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." —*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Synthetic Origin of Species) (1953), p. 121.
"We did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes . . complete absence of intermediate fossils."
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils." —D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4. (Biochemist)
"The fossil record does not convincingly document a SINGLE transition from one species to another."
"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time." —*Steven M. Stanley, New Evolutionary Timetable (1981), p. 95.
"To seek for stepping stones across the gaps . . is to seek in vain, forever."
"Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, forever." —*D'Arcy Thompson, On Growth and Form (1959), Vol. II, pp. 109& 1094.
"There is a consistency" in the gaps.
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places." —*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 19.
"Fails to document a single example."
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." —*Steven M. Stanley, Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process (1979), p. 39.
"Absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design . . has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." —*Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
"Do not know [the transitions leading up to] any group of plants and animals."
"We do not know the phylogenetic history of [transitions leading up to] any group of plants and animals." —*E Core, General Biology (1961), p. 299.
"Not the slightest evidence."
"The creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." —*Austin Clark, in Quarterly Review of Biology, December 28, p. 539.
"The basis of knowledge about the transition is inference."
"[All of] the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms." —*A.J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (1974), p. 142.
"Not one [transitional] change. . is on record."
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." —*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
"Remarkable absence of the many intermediate types required by the theory."
"What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory; the absence of the primitive types that should have existed in the strata regarded as the most ancient; and the sudden appearance of the principle taxonomic groups. . the position is not notably different today. The modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which however plausible are in the nature of things unverifiable." —*W.R. Thompson, "introduction," in *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1956 edition).
"We may pick out one and say with confidence, 'This is a [distinct, recognizable life form]."
"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, 'This is a crustacean' —or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100.
"Not led . . up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners."
"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 imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution." —*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.
If one of the evolutionary theories is correct, The fossil evidence will have to be thrown out.
[After discussing the absence of connecting links and the controversy among scientists concerning this problem] "Nonpaleontologists may choose either to believe the authority who agrees with their prejudices or to discard the evidence as worthless." —*George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution.
"Discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increasing collecting [of fossils]."
"Experience shows 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." —*Norman D. Newell, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 103, 1959, p. 267.
"Gaps . . are . . almost always large."
"Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large." —*G. Simpson, "The Sudden Appearance of Higher Categories," in Evolution of Life (1960), p. 149.
"Is almost a universal phenomenon."
"This regular absence of transitional forms is almost a universal phenomenon, as had long been noted by paleontologists. h is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is true also of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants . .
"Even apart from that, the recognition and interpretation of such discontinuities is interesting and is a necessary, frequently also a practical and useful, part of the paleontological profession. Moreover, it is a fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really high categories, and like any other systematic feature of the record, this requires explanation . .
"There remains, however, the point that for still higher categories discontinuity of appearance in the record is not only frequent but also systematic. Some break in continuity always occurs in categories from orders upwards, at least, although the break may not be large a appear significant to most students." —*G. Simpson, in Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 107; and G. Simpson, in The Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 360-361.
"All with gaps between them."
"There are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates." —*F. Ayala and *J. Valentine, in Evolving: The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (1979), P. 258.
"Transitional alliances are unknown . . the question is. . what factors have conspired to prevent [them]."
"If ever we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then. The question, then, is what factors have conspired to prevent the appearance of ancestral lineages." —*J. Valentine and *D. Erwin, "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record," in Development as an Evolutionary Process (1987), p. 84.
"Gaps,.. where the absences.. [are] most frustrating and disturbing."
"The record not only has gaps in many places, but that these are often just where the absences of reliable positive information is most frustrating and disturbing." —*R. Good, in Features of Evolution in the Flowering Plants (1974), p. 383.
"The absence of intermediates . . was well known during the 19th century."
"The absence of intermediates in the fossil record was well known during the 19th century." —*E. Olson, "The Problem of Missing Links: Today and Yesterday, " in Quarterly Review of Biology 56 (1981), p. 407.
"120 years shows that *Darwin's prediction was wrong.
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis—that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive—would be vindicated. 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 was wrong." —*N. Eldredge and *I. Tattersall, in Myths of Human Evolution (1982), p. 46.
"Must have existed, but why do we not find them . . in countless numbers?"
"At one point Darwin observed, 'Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?'; in another place he [Darwin] said. 'Why 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 greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.' " —*David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, " in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 23.
"Darwin . . holds out hope . . but gaps . . still there a century later."
"Darwin also holds out the hope that some of the gaps would be filled as the result of subsequent collecting. But most of the gaps were still there a century later and some paleontologists were no longer willing to explain them away geologically." —*D. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolution Theory, " in Journal of Paleontology (1974), p.467.
Wherever one is looking is where evolution is not recorded.
"There seems, over the years, to have arisen in paleontology a notion which, put cynically, claims that wherever in the fossil record one is looking happens to be where rapid phyletic evolution is not recorded." —*S. Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 88.
"Precious little . . characteristically abrupt."
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." —*Steven Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters, " in Natural History, June-July 1977, p. 24.
"Structural plans quite different . . between them . . no true connecting links."
"Each of the great phyla of animals is built upon a structural plan quite different from that of the others. Their origin is unknown; between them there exist no true connecting links, and there is no likelihood of the direct transformation of one into another." —*E. Russell, in Diversity of Animals (1962), p. 58.
"Whilst the theories are in one direction, . . the great body of facts is . . on the opposite side."
"So that, until this is forthcoming, we cannot but feel that, whilst the theories are in one direction (and made to dovetail into each other), the great body of facts is unquestionably on the opposite side. More especially will this apply to that gravest of all objections (as Mr. Darwin frankly admits), the thorough and complete absence (both in geological collections, imperfect though they may be, and those, extensive and endless as they are, of the Recent Period) of that countless host of transitional links which, on the 'natural selection' theory must certainly have existed at one period or another of the world's history. They may be forthcoming some day; we cannot tell (and so, truly, may many other things, after the same fashion of reasoning!): but at presets it is absolutely certain that we have not so much as a shadow of evidence either that they do exist, or have ever existed. On whichever side we turn we find order and symmetry to be the law of creation, instead of confusion and disorder." —*T: Wollaston, "Book Review of The Origin of Species," in Annals and Magazine of Natural History 5 (1860), p. 143.
"Fails to document a single example. . and . . offers no evidence."
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." —*S. Stanley, in Macroevolution (1979), p. 39.
"It is not sufficient to find one or two . . [transitional] organisms of doubtful affinity."
"To demonstrate that the great divisions of nature were really bridged by transitional forms in the past, it is not sufficient to find in the fossil record one or two types of organisms of doubtful affinity which might be placed on skeletal grounds in a relatively intermediate position between other groups." —*Michael Denton, in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 177. [For an examination of these "organisms of doubtful [transitional] affinity," see chapter 23, Evolutionary Showcase.]
"Appear suddenly and disappear suddenly. . the supposed intermediate forms between the species . . are imaginary."
"[1] Species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly in progressive strata. That is the fact proclaimed by Paleontology . .
[2] The geological record, even with all its imperfections, exaggerated to distortion, tells now what it has told from the beginning, that the supposed intermediate forms between the species of different geological periods are imaginary beings, called up merely in support of a financial theory." —Louis Agassiz, "On the Origin of Species, " in American Journal of Science 30, (1860), p. 144.
"IF it could be shown. ." [It has been shown!]
"If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution." —*Thomas Huxley, in Three Lectures on Evolution (1882), p. 619.
"The connections required by the theory did not happen."
"The fossil record is highly imperfect from a Darwinian point of view, because the slow evolutionary connections required by the theory did not happen." —*Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), dust jacket.
"The difficulties are so great that there is at present no general agreement . . about the ancestors."
"The records of rocks do not indicate a smooth progression by minute stages up the ladder of complexity. They do not support the idea of 'gradualism' so much favored by the Victorians, which also underlies the mathematics of population genetics. The difficulties are so great that there is at present no general agreement amongst zoologists about the ancestors of any of the major invertebrate Phyla." —*Edmund J. Ambrose, Nature and Origin of the Biological Works (1982), pp. 117-118.
"Not a fact known. . that any being. . has ever diverged or . . transmuted into another."
"Prince among paleontologists, Louis Agassiz of Harvard University,.. said in his book, Methods of Study in Natural History, " 'As a paleontologist I have from the beginning stood aloof from this new theory of transmutation [evolution] of species now so widely admitted by the scientific world. Its doctrines in fact contradict what the animal forms buried in the rock strata of the earth tell us of their own introduction and succession on the surface of the globe. The theory is a scientific mistake. .There is not a fact known in science tending to show that any being in the natural process of reproduction and multiplication has ever diverged from the course natural to its kind or that a single kind has ever been transmuted [evolved] into any other.' " —H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 53. [The Swiss zoologist, Jean Louis Agassiz, made some of his most important contributions to science in the 1840s and 1850s.]
"Great gaps remained."
"As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lower transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute their absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of Paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic continuity of descent, was wrong after all." —*George G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode of Evolution (1944), p. 115.
"Nowhere have the limits of species been transgressed . . no direct evidence. . not the slightest evidence. ."
"'Professor R. Goldschmidt of the University of California: 'The statement of the problem already indicates that I cannot agree with the view—point of the text books, that the problem of evolution has been solved as far as the genetic basis is concerned' . . 'Nowhere have the limits of the species been transgressed and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unabridged gap, which also includes sterility.'
"'Sir William Dawson, Professor of Geology: 'There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another.'
"Dr. A.H. Clark of the U.S. National Museum, Washington: 'Thus, so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationist seems to have the better argument. These is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other, each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.'
"Regarding the evolution of man, he says: 'Every bone in the body of a man is at once distinguishable from the corresponding bone in the body of any of the apes. Man is not an ape and in spite of similarity between them, there is not the slightest evidence that man is descended from an ape.'
"'Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of the American Museum of Natural History: ' In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was answered that the major groups would be filled in by further discoveries, and even falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it becomes more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance'
"'G.K. Hobbert, British entomologist 'The evidence of fossils very definitely favours creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and biochemical difficulties.'
"'Professor John M. Coulter of the University of Chicago: 'The variations which have occurred . . produce species of the same phylogenetic level or declining in rank. There is as yet no adequate explanation of progressive evolution, the advance from one great phylum to another.'
"Professor W.R. Thompson, F.R.D., Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, who wrote the introduction to the latest (1963) edition of the Origin of Species: 'The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme interpretative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodical criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. There are, however, indications that this criticism will not now be long delayed.'." —H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), P. 140-141.
An evolutionist explains that the reality of gaps in the fossil record indicates creation, not evolution.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.. If species were created out of nothing in their present form, they will bear within them no evidence of a former history; if they are the result of historical development, any evidence of history is evidence of evolution." —*D.J. Futuyma, Science On Trial The Case for Evolution (1983), p. 197.
"Can we invent organisms between ancestors and descendants?"
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record—if only one step in a thousand survives, as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument. . let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw a half a wing?." —*Steven J. Gould, Natural History (1977), Vol. 86, No. B.
"All too probable that many links will continue to be missing."
"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them and it is all too probable that many links will continue to be missing." —*A.S. Romer, quoted in Creation Alternative (1970), p. 37.
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors."
"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." —*S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, (May 1977), p. 14.
"Therefore.. the theory. . is lacking in the most essential feature."
"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transmutation of one species into another one . . Therefore it may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis. This must be admitted." —*Thomas Hunt Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation (1903), p. 43. (Columbia and Caltech professor who was one of the pioneers in 20th century genetics and mutations.)
A powerful statement:
"There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that funished by palaeontology. Siple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be 'merely transitional' types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, fame that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape: that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today." —*Oswald Spangler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (1966), p. 32 [italics his].
"Gradual . . transitions . . are missing."
"The gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." —*David E. Schindel, "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, May 1982, p. 282. (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History.)
"No fossil record."
"There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure of most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." —*Katherine G. Field, et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom, " Science, February 12, 1988, p. 748.
"The best place to start . . is in the imagination."
"As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination." —*Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (1953), p. 26.
"An almost universal phenomenon."
"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 orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori [More conclusively still] it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants." —*George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 107.
"Possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist."
"Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils. There is in this respect a tendency toward systematic deficiency in the record of the history of life. It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution." —*G.G. Simpson, Meaning of Evolution (1949), p. 231.
"New groups . . suddenly appear.. without any close ancestors . . these events tell a story not in accord with the theory."
"A third fundamental aspect of the record is somewhat different. Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors. Most major groups of organisms—phyla, subphyla, and even class—have appeared in this way . . The fossil record which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution. . Most zoologists and the majority of paleontologists feel that the breaks and the abrupt appearances of new groups can be explained by the incompleteness of the record. Some paleontologists disagree and believe that these events tell a story not in accord with the theory and not seen among living organisms." —*E.C. Olson, Evolution of Life (1965), p. 94.
"Origins . . shrouded in mystery."
"Unfortunately, the origins of mast higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms." —*D.M. Raup and *S.M. Stanley, Principles of Paleontology (1971), p. 30s.
"Born suddenly . . [no linking forms] . . completely differentiated . . "impossible to authentically connect."
"In brief, each group, order, or family seems to be ban 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." —*L du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 63.
"Descent beyond the boundaries nowhere demonstrable . . cannot speak about a descent of types."
"The fact of descent remains. However, descent beyond the topologically circumscribed boundaries is nowhere demonstrable. Therefore, we can indeed speak about a descent within types, but not about a descent of types." —*O. Kuhn, Acta Biotheoretica 8:55 (1942).
"No trace of intermediates."
"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 or phyla." —*Austin H. Clark, New Evolution; Zoogenesis (1930), p. 189.
"Have not the slightest evidence . . of . . any intergrading types."
"Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the frying 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. " —*A.H. Clark, New Evolution; Zoogenesis (1930), p. 196.
"No support for gradual change. . abrupt transitions . . of what use are imperfect stages?"
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change . .
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt . .
"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . .
"Indeed, if we do not invoke discontinuous change by small alteration in rates of development, I do not see how most major evolutionary transitions can be accomplished at all. Few systems are more resistant to basic change than the strongly differentiated, highly specified, complex adults of "higher" animal groups. How could we ever convert a rhinoceros or a mosquito into something fundamentally different. Yet transitions between major groups must have occurred in the history of life." —*Stephen Jay Gould, "Return of the Hopeful Monsters, " Natural History, 8s(s):22-30 (1s77). [Gould is a professor at Harvard University teaching geology, biology, and the history of science.]
"The missing links . . which are sought for . . have never existed."
"Schindewolf . . shows that the many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have ever existed." —*Richard B. Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution, p. 395. [Goldschmidt was a German geneticist who later served as professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley.]
Darwin's missing links are still missing.
"Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a wary to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so." —*E.R. Leach, Nature 293:19 (1981).
"A whole hierarchy of phantom creatures . . missing links are the rule . . the more scientists have searched, . . the more they have been frustrated."
"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated." —*"Is Man a Subtle Accident?" Newsweek November 3, 1980.
"Inability of the fossil record to produce. . missing links."
"Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection . . The inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory." —*A.J. Boucot, Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls (1975), p. 196.
—Really now, how many thousand synonym phrases must the scientists present us with, before we will believe it: The gaps are real, the transitional species have never existed. That's it; there is no such thing as evolution!
9 - ABRUPT APPEARANCE
As we explain in chapter 15, Species Evolution, there is no such animal as a phylum or class; there are only true species. Evolutionary theory requires long ages of transitional changes before the introduction of each new species. All of these transitional changes should be registered in the rocks. The fossils should show all these transitional species changes. But, in actuality, each species suddenly appears in the fossil record, with nothing half-way leading up to it or preceding !t. This is a powerful evidence against evolutionary theory.
"Appeared suddenly."
"New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region." —*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p.12.
"Appear suddenly."
"Practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions." —*O. Schindewolf, in Grundfragen tier Palaontologie (1950).
"Appear in the record suddenly."
"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all the new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual. completely continuous transitional sequences." —*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, (1953).
"Sudden origins."
"The fossil record seemed often to document sudden origins of higher taxa." —*N. Eldredge and *I. Tattersall, in Myths of Human Evolution (1982), p. 8.
"Their sudden appearance."
"Their sudden appearance alongside their unchanged ancestors reflects a common pattern in the geography of evolution." —*J. Hanken and 'B. Hall, "Evolution of the Skeleton, " in Natural History, April 1983, p. 30.
"Appear abruptly."
"Most taxa at these high levels appear abruptly in the fossil record. . Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them." —*F. Ayala and*'J. Valentine, Evolving: Theory and Process of Organic Evolution (1979), p. 266.
"Sudden appearance."
"On the sudden appearance of the whole groups of Allied Species.. 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." —*Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1964 ed:), p. 302.
"Simultaneously."
"All four major skeletal tissue types appear more or less simultaneously in the fossil record." —*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist 40 (1952), p. 97.
"Appeared suddenly."
"New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil rocks of the same region." —*S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 12.
"Appear suddenly."
"The facts are that many species and genera, indeed the majority, do appear suddenly in the record, differing sharply and in many ways from any earlier group, and that this appearance of discontinuity becomes more common the higher the level, until it is virtually universal as regards orders, and all higher steps in the taxonomic hierarchy . .
"This essentially paleontological problem is also of crucial interest for all other biologists, and, since there is such conflict of opinion, nonpaleontologists [scientists outside the field of fossil study] may choose either to believe the authority who agrees with their prejudices or to discard the evidence as worthless." —*George G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 99.
"Sudden emergence."
"The sudden emergence of major adaptive types, as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and orders, continued 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, i.e., that they are accidents of sampling; but most regard the observed discontinuities as real and have sought an explanation for them.
"The origin of new adaptive types, as opposed to their subsequent evolution, is the crux of the whole adaptive system, whether from the standpoint of paleontology or of neobiology." —*D. Davis, "Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates," in Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (1963), p. 74.
"Appear abruptly."
"Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly and commonly have acquired all the characters that distinguish them." —*F. Ayala and *J. Valentine, in Evolving: The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (1979), p. 266.
"Quick, explosive . . appear suddenly."
"When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of goological time) diversification so that practically all orders a families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions." —*R.B. Goldschmidt, quoted in The Creation Alternative (1970), pp. 37-38.
"Appear in the record suddenly."
"Appear in the record suddenly."
"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." —*George G. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 360.
"Appear abruptly."
"Appear abruptly."
"Unfortunately, the origins of mast higher categories are shrouded in mystery; commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without an evidence of transitional ancestral forms." —*David Raup and Steven Stanley, in Principles of Paleontology (1978), p. 372.
"Sudden explosion."
"The point that emerges is 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." —*D. Alter, "The Nature of the Fossil Record, " in 87th Proceedings of Geological Association (1976), p. 133.
"Abrupt transitions."
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for the idea of gradual change . . The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are inferences, not the evidence of fossils." —*Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History Since Darwin (1977).
"Appear suddenly."
"The geological facts flatly oppose it [evolution]. For all the great groups of creatures, and all the most highly specialized types, appear suddenly and in full efficiency from the first, there being no links between the phyla, classes or even orders. In other wads, links are entirely missing just where in the Darwinian theory, they should be most numerous." —*M. Davis, "The Science of Dr. Julian Huxley," in English Churchman, August 1951.
"Appear suddenly. . with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors."
"As far as we can tell, species possess no intrinsic drive to evolve, no impetus toward progress. If they are sufficiently adapted for an environment that persists through long stretches of time, their adaptations may also persist without change . .
"This principle bears on one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of the major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." —*Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1982), p. 82.
"Just suddenly appear."
"In other words, we have fossils that just suddenly appear around the world at one moment in geological history and 'whence, and whither flown again, who knows?' " —*Derek V. Alter, Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 15.
"Appear abruptly."
"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large." —*George Gaylord Simpson, quoted in Creation Alternative (1970), p. 37.
"No. . incipient species." ("Incipient" means "the early, initial stages of something new.")
"Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species." —*Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1960), p. 396.
10 - FROM FISH TO AMPHIBIAN
According to evolutionary theory, inorganic chemicals changed themselves into living cells. Then living cells got together after awhile and made themselves into microbes. Later on, these became fish. Then, one day a fish decided to go walking on land—and the rest is evolutionary history: amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and man resulted.
Just for a moment, we will listen in on a conversation with the world's loading fossil experts !n regard to this fish story:
An excellent book was published in 1988. Entitled, Darwin's Enigma, it is primarily composed of transcripts of taped interviews over a period of a year by Luther Sunderland with directors of five of the largest natural history museums in the world. These men were *Dr. Colin Patterson in London, *Dr. Niles Eldredge in New York City, *Dr. David M. Raup in Chicago, *Dr. David Pilbeam in Boston, and *Dr. Donald Fisher, of the New York State Natural History Museum. These five individuals oversee at least 60 percent of the fossil collections in the world.
You will want to obtain a copy of the book and read it all. (Additional information regarding this and other worthwhile books will be found at the back of the volume you are now reading.) We have added emphases to the following quotation from Darwin's Enigma.
"Most scenarios on macroevolution say that the lobe-finned fish converted its fins into legs and feet, turning into an amphibian. As Carl Sagan said in his Cosmos television series, during a drought in the Devonian period a fish fund it very convenient to have evolved feet and legs so it could walk overland when its swamp dried up." (Carl Sagan, "COSMOS, " Produced by Greg Andorfer, Broadcast on PBS, September-December 1980.)
"..The crossopterygian lobe-finned fish was supposed to have evolved into the ichthyostegid amphibian about 250 million years ago. Is there any evidence of this transformation in the fossil record?
"When asked by the author [Luther Sunderland] if he was comfortable about the story that the lobe-finned fish turned into an amphibian, Dr. Patterson (London Museum] evaded a direct ropy with, I'm working on it.' To the question about whether he thought the crossopterygian was the ancestor of the ichthyostegid amphibian, Dr. Patterson answered, I have questions about that. . It is futile to be looking for answers to questions which we have no way of answering.'
"Dr. Eldridge [New York Museum], when asked about the fish-to-amphibian transition said, `That I know nothing about.' Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said that he only knew what he read about that transition. At the time he was a paleontologist and chairman of the Geology Department at the Field Museum as well as curator of geology there so if there were any evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record he should have had firsthand knowledge of them. Initially, he said that he thought `there are fish today that can walk' But Dr. Raup just chuckled when it was pointed out that an evolutionist had claimed during a debate that fossilized fish footprints had been found, and he had been forced to admit his errs since fish had never been found with feet and legs.
"When Dr. Raup was asked if he knew of any transitional forms at all, he just sat in silence. After a long pause the questioning was continued, 'Transitions in the fossil record, that is? I don't mean slight variations in birds' beaks or coloration in moths. I think I could make a good case for connecting up some living species like dogs, wolves, jackals and coyotes since they are all interfertile and produce fertile offspring. But, in the fossil record, do you see any transitions?' To this Dr. Raup sat for ten seconds and gave no answer. Later, offer other questions he said, 'There is a problem here that bothers me. I certainly agree with Patterson that the large question of the origin of a dozen to twenty big groups—that it's very tough to determine the relationship of those.'
"When asked if he knew of any fish growing feet and legs, any transitional forms, Dr. Fisher (New York State Museum] replied, 'Any transitional forms? I'm not a paleoichthyologist so I wouldn't want to comment on that' He was told that no one else who had been interviewed would comment either so he should not feel bad. Dr. Patterson was the only one who was a paleoichthyologist and qualified to analyze fish fossils, but the other museum officials were certainly capable of reporting what their museums had on display and what other specialists had to offer as examples of intermediate forms. None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with fishes." —Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 63-64.
Portions of these interviews by Luther Sunderland with various world-class leaders in paleontology in the 1970s and early 1980s, will be found in Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma. In addition, the complete transcript of those interviews is available in typed verbatim transcripts, prepared for the New York State Education Department. These interviews may be obtained by going to any public library in the United States and asking for the ERIC Document Reproduction Service microfiche ED 228-056, Darwin's Enigma: The Fossil Record.
11-SEARCHING FOR TRANSITIONS
CLICK TO ENLARGE
This chapter speaks for itself, and so we will let it do just that. With hardly any comment we will let the experts explain the origins and transitions from one type of life form to another.
In the statements of these scientists you ought to find clear evolutionary evidences for the origin and evolution of the species. Yet instead you will only discover a total lack of it. Nowhere is there any indication of transitional evolution from one life form to another:
METAZOA
Metazoa are many-celled organisms. How did they evolve? What did they evolve from?
"What conclusion then can be drawn concerning the possible relationship between the Protozoa [one-celled animals] and the Metazoa [many-celled animals]? The only thing that is certain is that at present we do not know this relationship. Almost every possible (as well as impossible) relationship has been suggested, but the information available to us is insufficient to allow us to come to any scientific conclusion regarding the relationship. We can, if we like, believe that one or other of the various theories is the more correct, but we have no real evidence." —*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, p. 49.
"[The ancestry of the metazoa] is a baffling mystery." —*Andre Lwoff (ed.), Biochemistry and Physiology of Protozoa (1951), p. 35.
"The gap between Protista and the animal kingdom, which according to the present treatment is synonymous with the Metazoa, is so great that the origin of Metazoa is still obscure. Al though there is a good fossil record of the major groups that have well-mineralized skeletons, the origins and earliest evolution of the metazoan phyla cannot be documented from fossil evidence." —*T. Dobzhansky, *F. Ayala, *G. Stebbins, and *J. Valentine, Evolution (1977), pp. 373, 397. )See also D. Axelrod, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna, " in Science (1958), Vol. 128 p. 7.
The lack of ancestors for multi-celled plants and animals is also dealt with in the quotation section, "Cambrian and Precambrian Problems" in this same chapter.
You have just completed
APPENDIX 17-B2
NEXT Go to the next chapter in this series,
APPENDIX 17-C