9. What Fossils and Current Species Should Look Like
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards. Do a mental experiment and objectively imagine what the fossil record would look like if Darwinian evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up Darwinian evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs, preparing for a land invasion, over hundreds of thousands of years. There should be exoskeletel “skulls” with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye and ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, Darwinian evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretends that they do.
If Darwin’s theory is true science, why are there no samples of ongoing evolution today? There are currently about 30 million different species that inhabit the earth. Out of that 30 million, evolutionists cite as proof on ongoing evolution: (1) bacteria that can eat nylon and others that become resistant to antibiotics, (2) flies that don’t mate with other flies after two groups have been separated for a time, and (3) the peppered moth in England that changed colors from white to black, supposedly due to a change that occurred in it’s environment. If anything, this is overwhelming evidence that evolution is not taking place. Any true science would come to that conclusion. But evolution is is made up of mostly imagined fables as proof, and it is so completely lacking in hard evidence, anything that they can find is considered evidence. In any case, the bacteria, flies, and moths are not the kind of evolution that would bring about sight, hearing, or pumping blood; I don’t care how many billions of years are available. Of the trillions of fish in the ocean, aren’t there any that would like to move to land to avoid man’s hooks and those pesky sharks? Where are the fish with gradually growing legs today, or animals with hemi-ping-pong ball eyes? Why is it that evolution only happens when no one is looking? Why are all fossils that would prove evolution in the “not found yet” category? For evolution to be true, we should be living in a world prolific with examples. We should see an ongoing miraculous overwhelming biological phenomena, prevalent everywhere. It isn’t.
There is ample current fossil evidence that single-celled species were the first to appear over three billion yrars ago. For the the next two billion years, single-celled species made up the entire inventory of life on earth. If you were able to walk the earth at this time, you would be hard pressed to see any sign of life at all. Then came the Cambrian Explosion. In a geologic flash, multicelled species appeared as if out of nowhere, with no apparent precursors. According to Richard Dawkins, the Pope of evolution, “The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” So the question arises: Where are all of the species that were between the single celled species and the larger multicelled, a.k.a. multi-million celled varieties? Where are the sixteen celled pnerbias like the one shown above? Where are the ten celled species that lead to the twenty celled species that lead to the million celled species? Until evidence of those are found, evolution will remain nothing more than a fantasy.
I made a video of current examples of evolution. Use the lower left arrow to start it, otherwise you will be taken to YouTube.
There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one species into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursors with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about “appearing”? There is no current objective and scientific answer.
In the century and a half since Darwin, the intermediate forms that Darwin was sure would be in the fossil record by now have not shown themselves. They simply aren’t present after an immense number of costly searches. Evolution supporters either ignore this fact, or make excuses for its presence. Paleontologists Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge have proposed a different model of evolution, which they name “punctuated equilibrium,” in which they insist that the fossil record has refuted Darwinism’s “gradualism.” They proposed that changes occurred rapidly followed by long periods of stasis; no evolutionary changes. Their notion is nothing but an excuse for the complete lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. As time goes on, and the number of fossil digs grow, evolution gets buried in a deeper and deeper hole. The changes in organisms simply don’t show up.
Evolutionauts are constantly bragging about how evolution show such predictability. Except evolution lacks the greatest predictability imaginable, and the one it needs the most: change in fossil organisms showing the morphing of one species into the next. In a book written with Ian Tattersall, another ev-illusionist, Eldredge made this embarrassing and evolution shattering admission: “That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. . . 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 is wrong.” In a book written jointly in 1988 entitled Integrated Principles of Biology, three evolutionist biologists developed the same point: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different . . . form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.” Maybe it’s time for the biological sciences to reload when it comes to their origins.