13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Ah, yes…the fossil record, a body of alleged evidence with more holes in it than all the Swiss cheese in the world! Actually, here we see a category of data that is systematically cherry picked (or as I call it, unnatural selection) for the data that would appear to support evolution…if you frame it right and withhold the abundant contradictory evidence! When evaluated without preconceived ideas, the data actually support the creation model (more on that later) rather than the evolutionary one.
Knowledge of the gaps in the fossil record, the only truly direct objective body of evidence on which to build such a theory as evolution, goes all the way back to Darwin himself (Emphasis added):
“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 is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1
But surely, with all the work and searching done since Darwin’s late 1800’s, those gaps have been filled, right? Well, what do evolutionists say about the actual data when they are being intellectually honest? (Emphases added.)
Stephen J. Gould, creator of punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution (a version that tries to address the gaps by even more magical handwaving, postulating the miraculous without a miracle worker):
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”2
A. Brouwer (paleontologist writing a textbook on paleontology):
"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."3
Niles Eldredge, ardent evolutionist:
"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."4
And then there’s our favorite, Richard Dawkins:
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."5
Reread that last quote carefully, for it fully reveals the evolutionists’ true agenda, and the presence of an emotional bias that clouds his judgment in anything to do with this controversy. The bottomline: it doesn’t matter what the data says, for them, it can only be evolution that it supports. Objective analysis?
OK, so what about the “many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups” that Mr. Rennie attempts to cite? First, let us note that there are not “many” (unless you use an unusual definition of “many”) and that the few examples cited are always the same. Archaeopteryx is the quintessential example of an alleged transitional form between birds and reptiles, being supposedly a feathered reptile that flew. The basis of this hypothesis is that the skeletal structure has many supposedly reptilian characteristics along with the obvious feathered body that has been preserved in the fossils. But is this an “intermediate in form” organism, or a mosaic or chimera like the platypus. The judgment of Dr. Alan Feduccia, an evolutionist and an authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”6
(Hmm…paleobabble…I like that, and I didn’t even come up with it, an evolutionist did!) In addition to the feathers, other avian characteristics which drive Dr. Feduccia to this conclusion include classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings,7 a large cerebellum and visual cortex typical of birds, and pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This later feature indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e., a significant part of the unique avian lung design already present it what is claimed to be the earliest bird.8 It would appear that either the avian characteristics outweigh the reptilian ones, or that that categorization in avian and reptilian is inaccurate.
Now, let me ask you this question. How many of you dear readers have ever heard of the hoatzin? How about the touraco? No? I didn’t think so. You see, these are currently alive inhabitants of South America and Africa, respectively, whose skeletal structure includes many of the same ones alleged to be reptilian in Archaeopteryx and therefore proof of “Archie’s” intermediate status. Except these two species of bird are alive…today…and are distinctly classified as BIRDS, not missing links! Oh, golly, I wonder why? (See here and here and here for a more detailed discussion of the alleged evolution of dinosaurs into birds.)
Mr. Rennie cites without examples “a flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less.” Where is the evidence? If there is so much, surely he could have provided something other than Archaeopteryx. Actually, the Answers in Genesis website has documented that two famous alleged feathered dinosaurs are dated younger than their supposed descendant Archaeopteryx and more likely to be flightless birds (Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx), and that one famous example, Archaeoraptor, was a fake.
Next he parades out the alleged horse evolutionary development so lovingly portrayed in text books for the young and unwary. What they don’t tell you is that the fossils are not found in a geographic sequence consistent with an evolutionary model, or that they are not dated in the evolutionarily “correct” sequence, or that the variations in skeletal structure show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. In short, it is a carefully fabricated lie that violates the alleged principles it supposedly supports.
Then he tries to throw whales into the waters of the conflict (figuratively speaking, of course!). Alas, again you are not told that the various characteristics of the alleged transitions do not change in a consistent direction of a nested hierarchy required by the evolutionary model. Instead, we see non-whales with a few minor cetacean “modules” forming various chimeras consistent with a common designer.9
Next up, he tries to cite fossil seashells as providing a solid trace of evolution through millions of years. Since he provides no further explanation (consistent with his emotional contempt for his foe), one can only conclude that he is referring to the old Ostrea/Gryphaea story, that is, that a flat oyster evolved into more and more coiled forms till it coiled itself shut. Once considered a key proof of an evolutionary linkage in the fossil record, the anti-creationist geologist Derek Ager concludes:
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked.’ Similarly, my own experinece [sic] of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.”10
Ladies and gentlemen, I didn’t say it. The Evolutionist did!
The next straw Mr. Rennie tries to grasp is the alleged evolution of man, but here again it unknowingly (to him) slips through his fingers. The absurdity of his position is revealed in how he states his case:
Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
OK, Mr. Rennie, if they are “not all our ancestors,” how can they fill the gap? By definition, they are out of the path and into a side alley, by your own admission!
Oh, and about Lucy, there is still considerable controversy over whether or not the fragments (only 40% of the skeleton was found) represent man, ape, or “something in between.” Specific problems include (note, much of the below is deduction from skeletal structure and is based on the evolutionists’ reconstruction):
o No similarity in appearance to humans (despite artist’s renditions!)
o Long arms are identical to chimpanzees
o Jaws are similar to chimpanzees
o Upper leg bone is similar to chimpanzees
o Lucy’s legs were very ape-like
o Brain size (400-500 cc) overlaps chimpanzees
o Large back muscles for tree dwelling
o Hands similar to pygmy chimpanzee
o Feet were long and curved (original fossils did not include the feet)
Yah know, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe, just maybe, it’s a freakin’ duck?!! (Er…chimpanzee?)
Mr. Rennie then takes a momentary break from his listing of alleged evidences to berate creationists for their demand for evidence and their method of doing so. Yet even here, his emotional contempt for his opponent is revealed in his inability to state the creationist position accurately. He alleges that creationists “want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.”
No, that is what the data actually gives us, consistent with a creationist model: chimeras that evolutionists parade as transitional forms. What the creationists have requested is a clear sequence of creatures with certain characteristics consistently morphing in a specific direction as would be the case for an evolutionary model.
Our protagonist closes this tapestry of distortion by pointing to molecular biology and the supposed ability to read evolutionary relationships from the structures of genes and their protein products, an alleged “molecular clock.” Alas for the evolutionist, there are many anomalies in the alleged sequencing, and careful unbiased consideration of the data reveal more support for a common designer of a creationist model than a continuous sequence of an evolutionary model. At this point, one might want to pick up the book non-creationist microbiologist Dr. Michael Denton entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. There one finds, in the summary of Dr. Sarfati (in a posting that has subsequently been taken down because Scientific American supposedly had copyright issues with the reproduction of Mr. Rennie’s text; I’m sure it had nothing to do with Dr. Sarfati’s total shredding of Mr. Rennie’s arguments and alleged evidence):
For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon and horse, all these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64-69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the “higher” organism such as a horse has diverged more than the “lower” organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27-30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a “primitive” cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo and human, they are all about equidistant (73-81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit and horse yield a constant difference of 13-14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome -> fish -> amphibian -> reptile -> mammal or bird.
Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.
Let’s close this by looking at a typical “Dinosaur Family Tree” that will illustrate the state of the evidence.
Note the statement, usually honest, at the bottom right: “Tinted areas indicate solid fossil evidence.” In other words, the white bars represent conjecture and hypothesis, not “solid fossil evidence.” If we remove these connections, what doth to our wandering eye appear?
We have what a creationist model would predict: separate “trees” or reproductive “kinds” (in the biblical terminology) appearing fully formed.
Ultimately, the question of which model, creation or evolution, is not going to be resolved by the fossil record due to a more mundane principle of the scientific method, for you see, there is a fundamental flaw in the data relative to these models. All the fossil record can really do is indicate what was alive at any given point in time and both of the primary competing models can predict for the most part what is seen in the fossil record (although as argued above, the creation model does a better job with less gymnastics). The essential difference between the models is the presence (evolution) or absence (creation) of a dynamic connectivity between species that cannot be discerned by examination of static rocks. Evolution assumes the presence of this connection because it rejects on an emotional and philosophical basis the possibility of a theological cause. Creation asserts the absence of this connection based on confidence in the inspired revelation in the Bible (for more on this basis of this confidence, you may want to wade through my apologetics series starting here and still awaiting a few more installments).
So as a conservative conclusion, the fossil record provides no such evidence, vast or otherwise, that the evolutionist presumes it does. However, Mr. Rennie’s statement, albeit one of his larger efforts (three whole paragraphs!), is not one of the better presentations of a defense of transitional forms. The next installment will take a quick look at a better effort before returning to Mr. Rennie’s final points (14 and 15). This will allow us to address some more interesting points of the controversy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Darwin, C., Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872, reprinted 1902, John Murray, London, p. 413.
2. Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86 (5):14, 1977.
3. Brouwer, A., General Paleontology, [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163
4. Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65
5. Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230
6. Cited in Morell, V., Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259 (5096): 764-65, 5 February 1993
7. Feduccia, A., Evidence from claw geometry indicating arboreal habits of Archaeopteryx, Science 259 (5096): 790-93, 5 February 1993
8. Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267: 2501-2505, 2000
9. Woodmorappe, J. Walking whales, nested hierarchies and chimeras: Do they exist? TJ 16 (1): 111-119, 2002
10. Ager, D. The nature of the fossil record, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 87 (2): 131-160, 1976
First installment
Previous installment
Next installment