Evolution Cruncher
Chapter 17
Evolutionary Showcase
The best examples of evolution
have proven worthless
This chapter is based on pp.
775-793 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution
Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 25
statements by scientists in the chapter appendix of the set. You will find
them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.
Throughout this set of books we
have been surprised at the paucity of evidence that evolutionary theory has to
offer.
We begin to wonder just how evolutionists are able
to maintain such a lock grip on the modern world.
In a later chapter (Evolution
and Education, on our website, but not in this paperback) we will learn
that their secret of success is actually their control of hiring and firing in
the scientific world, the colleges and universities, research centers, and
scientific organizations. Also they have close connections with the media and
the major book publishing houses. No large book company would dare print the
book you are now reading under its own name. It is the fear of reprisal that
keeps evolutionary theory at the top.
EOHIPPUS AND THE HORSE SERIES—Here is "Eohippus,"
the "first horse" (actually a rodent), and the horse series which is
exhibited.
Eohippus and the Horse Series
CLICK TO
ENLARGE
But, to the general public, evolution presents
its showcase, assured that they will be
ignorant enough of natural history and scientific discoveries to gullibly
absorb enough of it to keep them puzzled and tractable.
Let us begin by considering two
of the best evolutionary pieces in this showcase.
These are "proofs" of evolution that we have not discussed in detail elsewhere
in this paperback. (All the other "best evidences" will also be mentioned in
this chapter. The peppered moth has been discussed in detail in the chapter on
Natural Selection.)
In all the other "evidences of
evolution" which we have examined in this book, we have not found one
indication of any transition across species.
But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record,
there are TWO times when one
species evolved into another. These are considered very
important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now
in some detail:
1 - THE HORSE SERIES
30 DIFFERENT HORSES—In
the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of
horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these
fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale
University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many
museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks
convincing.
"Horses are among the
best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—*World Book
Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.
"The development of
the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The
changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are
frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the
evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or
Design? (1969), p. 193.
FIFTEEN FLAWS IN THE
SERIES—When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come
upon 14 distinct
problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine
series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely
selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to
large, and then called it all "a horse series."
1 - Different animals in each
series. In the horse-series exhibit
we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our
single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum
(according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray
"early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits
in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of
smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and,
presto! another horse series!
2 - Imaginary, not real.
The sequence from small many-toed forms
to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some
smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.
3 - Number of rib bones.
The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence.
The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has
19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern
horse.
4 - No transitional teeth.
The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types.
There are no transitional types of
teeth between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata.
The "horse" creatures do not
come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes
the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse.
The first of the horses has
been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently
prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern
hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely
because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in
Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit
that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least
bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction
cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have
suction cups on their feet!)
"The first animal in
the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern
horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big
question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a
slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine
teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back
teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or
Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.
7 - Horse series exists only
in museums. A complete series of
horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found
anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North
America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then
back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent
(as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are
found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to
evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the
change to another.
8 - Each one distinct from
others. There are no
transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the
other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.
9 - Bottom found at the top.
Fossils of Eohippus have been
found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses:
Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.
10 - Gaps below as well as
above. Eohippus, the earliest
of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its
presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
11 - Recent ones below earlier
ones. In South America, the
one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient")
creature.
12 - Never found in
consecutive strata. Nowhere in
the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.
13 - Heavily keyed to size.
The series shown in museum displays
generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of
living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous
shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record.
However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.
14 - Bones an inadequate
basis. In reality, one cannot
go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously
different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all
together.
A STUDY IN
CONFUSION—In view of all the
evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures
(changing ribs, continental, and strata locations), Britannica provides
us with an understatement:
"The evolution of the
horse was never in a straight line."— *Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976
ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.
Scientists protest such
foolishness:
"The ancestral
family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof.
T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for
the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical
evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus
and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science
News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.
"There was a time when
the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined
evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals
with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern
horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the
usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not
been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was
completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at
the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and
much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and
Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in
those textbooks.)
FEAR TO
SPEAK—Even though scientists may
personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly
they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried
positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the
horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence."
We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating
fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake.
"Dr. Eldredge [curator
of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History
in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series
‘lamentable.’
"When scientists speak
in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid
statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public
consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the
statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a
lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth,
he then contradicted himself.
". . [On February 14,
1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked
him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of
transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to
the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the
best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland,
Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.
EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING
FOSSIL"—*Hitching has little to
say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:
"Once portrayed as
simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version
rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice.
Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long
extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well
and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts
about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe
(1982), p. 31.
NOT A HORSE AT ALL—(*#2/11
The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has
nothing to do with horses.
"In the first place,
it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."—*G.A. Kerkut,
Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.
"The supposed pedigree
of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as
to the paleontological origins of the horse."—*Charles Deperet,
Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].
OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—*David
Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a
foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:
"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 even 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 relatively few data were available now appears
to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem
[with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.
"It was widely assumed
that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine
animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence
of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the
full history of the horse family."—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp.
4, 96.
NEVER HAPPENED IN
NATURE—A leading 20th-century
evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial
of the horse series:
"The uniform
continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts
of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G.
Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Earlier, *Simpson said
this:
"Horse phylogeny is
thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic,
sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—*George
G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of
Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.
SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL
OTHERS—The same gap problem would apply to all the other species.
After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that
would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and
its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the
startling admission:
"This is true of all
the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known
members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no
case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another
known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the
origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson,
Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.
OTHER SERIES—(*#4/2
Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there
are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated
evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or publicized.
These are the
Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series,
the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera
Series, and the Bivalve Series.
When one views the
charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various
animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they
all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body,
long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several
creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short
imaginary mane to each-gives the impression that they are all "horse-like."
All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.
Then we turn to the
Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with
corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and
possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil
imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated evolutionist on
the non-existent "Elephant Series."
"In some ways it looks
as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that
proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the
elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a
descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed
to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate
stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late
Cretaceous.’ "—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.
The Ceratopsian
Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the
head while two of them have horns in different locations.
The last two, the
Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are
simply variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general
appearance.
On one hand, it appears
that some of these series are simply different animals with similar
appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic
variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get
the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and
variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we
know that the dogs are all simply dogs. Scientists recognize them as
belonging to a single species.
2 - ARCHAEOPTERYX
ARCHAEOPTERYX—(*#3/7
Archaeopteryx*) This is a big name for a little bird, and is
pronounced "Archee-opter-iks." It means "early wing." If you have a
hard time with it, just call the little fellow "Archee." He won’t mind.
There are high-quality
limestone deposits in Solnhofen, Germany (near Eichstatt), which have been
mined for over a century. From time to time, fossils have been found in them,
and the sale of these has provided extra income for the owners of the Dorr
quarry.
In 1861, a feather was
found and it sold for a surprisingly good price. This was due to the fact
that it had purportedly come from late Jurassic strata. Soon after, in the
same quarry, a fossil bird was found with the head and neck missing. The name
Archaeopteryx had been given to the feather and so the same name was
given to the bird. The Jurassic specimen was sold for a high price to the
British Museum. Finding unusual specimens was becoming an excellent way
to bring in good profit. In 1877, a second specimen was said to have
been discovered close to the first,—but this one had a neck and head. In that
head were 13 teeth in each jaw; the head itself had the elongated rounded
shape of a lizard head. This latest find made an absolute sensation, and
was sure to sell for a great amount of money. And it surely did—going this
time to the Humboldt Museum, in Berlin, as the highest bidder.
Including that feather, there are
six specimens of Archaeopteryx in the world. All six came from that same
German limestone area.
In addition to the feather and the first two, three others are quite faint and
difficult to use. It is almost impossible to tell what they are. Aside from
the feather, the others are located at London, Berlin, Maxburg, Teyler, and
Eichstatt—all in Germany. They all came from the same general area.
Only the
first fossilized skeleton (the "London specimen") and the second one
(the "Berlin specimen") are well-enough defined to be usable.
Evolutionists declare them to be prime examples of a transitional species. If
so, we would have here the ONLY definite cross-species transitions ever found
anywhere in the world
"Evolutionists can
produce only a single creature—one single fossil creature—or which it is
possible to produce even a semblance of an argument. That creature is, of
course, Archaeopteryx, of which about five fossil specimens have been found
in Upper Jurassic rocks (assumed by evolutionary geologists to be about 150
million years in age). All have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of
Franconia (West Germany)."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the
Fossil Record (1985), p. 110.
The evolutionists consider
Archaeopteryx to be a transition between reptile and bird. But there are two
other possibilities.
.
The experts say that, if (if) it
is genuine, it is a bird, not a transitional half-reptile, half-bird creature.
But there is strong evidence that Archaeopteryx is a hoax—and not genuine.
Some favor the first, others (including
the present writer) believe the evidence favors the second. Here are both;
take your pick.
[1] -
ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A BIRD
If the Archaeopteryx
specimens really are genuine, there are several reasons why
Archaeopteryx can be considered to be a bird and not a reptile:
1 - Scientists say it is
only a bird and not a transitional species.
It is significant that a special scientific meeting was held in 1982, a year
before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that Archaeopteryx was a
hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International Archaeopteryx
Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone
deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting,
it was decided by the evolutionists that Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not
a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx
was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.
Therefore, the
scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a
transitional species, but only a bird!
2 - How could scales turn
into feathers? Although zealous
evolutionists have always claimed that this creature is a descendant of the
reptiles and the ancestor of the birds, yet they do not explain how the
scales on a reptile can change into feathers.
3 - Bones like a bird.
Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a
bird has.
4 - Not earlier than birds.
Archaeopteryx does not predate birds, because fossils of other
birds have been found in rocks of the same period (the Jurassic) in which
Archaeopteryx was found.
5 - It has modern bird
feathers. The feathers on
Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers.
"But in Archaeopteryx,
it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly
developed feathers known to us."—*A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in
Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.
6 - No intermediate feathers
ever found. Transition from
scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none have ever
been found.
7 - Well-developed wings.
The wings of Archaeopteryx were well-developed, and the bird
probably could fly well.
8 - Wings designed for flight.
The feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the
shaft does not have the same amount of feathers on both sides. This is the way
feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on ostriches,
rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as chickens) have
fairly symmetrical feathers.
"The significance of
asymmetrical feathers is that they indicate the capability of flying;
non-flying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered]
wings."—*E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral
Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p. 248.
9 - No prior transitions.
There ought to be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this
is not the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and
bird, for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it
to the reptile. It has fully developed bird wing-bones and flight
feathers.
10 - Bird-like in most
respects. Archaeopteryx gives
evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it differs in
certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits on its wings,
and (3) a reptile-like head, but there are explanations for all three points.
Here they are:
[a] - Lack of a sternum.
Archaeopteryx had no sternum, but although the wings of some birds today
attach to the sternum, others attach to the furcula (wishbone).
Archaeopteryx had a large furcula, so this would be no problem.
"It is obvious that
Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull,
perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal
except birds possess feathers and a furcula."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the
Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.
[b] - Digits on its wings.
Archaeopteryx had three digits on its
"wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds.
Modern birds with wing claws include the hoatzin (Oplsthocomus
hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile
stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternum—such
as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird,
has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on
each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.
[c] - The shape of its skull.
It has been said that the skull of
Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by
Benton says the head is shaped more like a bird.
"It has been claimed
that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like.
Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen has been removed
from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is
much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton
to state that ‘Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of
the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird."—*Duane
Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-113.
"Most authorities have
admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of
feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: ‘A
vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at
Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains
of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in
form. This would seem to give the death knell to any possible use of
Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow,
"Report on the Racine Debate," in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.
11 - Ornithologist agrees.
*F.E. Beddard, in his important
scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird; and, as
such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: How could it have
evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather
gap) between the two.
"So emphatically were
all these creature birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at
in the structure of these remarkable remains."—*F.E. Beddard, The
Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p. 160.
12 - Other birds had teeth.
It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx
to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds that also
had teeth.
"However, other
extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates
contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles,
extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."—*P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution
(1970), pp. 196-197.
13 - Could be a unique bird.
Archaeopteryx could well be a
unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The
Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but
with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world
which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.
The platypus is an
animal with a bill like a duck and has fur, but lays eggs; in spite of its
egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk and chews its food
with plates instead of with teeth. The male has a hollow claw on its hind foot
that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole; but,
like a duck, it has webs between its toes. It uses sonar underwater.
The platypus is definitely far
stranger than the Archaeopteryx, and
there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other
species.
14 - Totally unique.
Regarding the Archaeopteryx, *Romer, the
well-known paleontologist, said this::
"This Jurassic bird
[Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presume
thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than
before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology
(19M), p. 144.
From his own study,
*Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:
"The origin of birds
is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages
through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E.
Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.
Other scientists agree.
Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:
"It is obvious that we
must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much
older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom, Science News
112 (1977), p. 198.
"Unfortunately, the
greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected
[from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact
that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a
relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens
demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case
of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of
transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller
groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups
cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not
been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L.
du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.
ARCHAEOPTERYX—That name surely sounds
scientific. But it covers, what many scientists consider to be, yet another
contrived hoax. Notice how carefully each "feather" is separated from the one
next to it. None overlay others, as would occur if the bird was pressed flat
by natural conditions. Instead, the artist carefully scratched out separated
"feathers."
CLICK TO
ENLARGE
15 - Modern birds in same strata.
Bones of modern birds have been found in Colorado in the same geologic
rock strata—the Jurassic—in which archaeopteryx was found (Science
199, January 20, 1978). According to evolutionary theory, this cannot be;
for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx to change into a
regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as modern birds, how can it
be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also been found in the Jurassic
limestone beds of by researchers in Utah.
16 - Modern birds below it!
Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but
we also find birds below it!
"Perhaps the final
argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock
quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones
encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx
fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46
[also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science 253, July 5, 1991].
No bird bones of any type have
been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the Jurassic, they have
been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized
birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of
the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary
theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. More information on this
Texas discovery can be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.
[2] - ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A
FAKE
Now we come to a totally opposite
position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned
hoax—and there is clear evidence to prove it!
At the same time that mounting
evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully contrived fake,
confirmed evolutionists had been moving toward the position that Archaeopteryx
was only an ancient bird, and not a half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a
"bird," they avoided the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major
museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.
THREE INITIAL
PROBLEMS—Before considering the
*Hoyle/*Watkins exposé, let us first look at some other facets of this overall
problem.
You will observe, in the
following discussion, that there are some observational differences between
this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some
experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who
consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a reptile.
Somebody took a reptile fossil and carefully added wings to it!
Here is an important analysis.
You will want to read it carefully:
"Like the later
Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There
are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx
that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits
found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in
essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate
state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan;
Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium
was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers,
differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a
falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful
flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx
could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case
for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.
1 - A profitable business.
There are those who believe that
Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would have been relatively
easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone would make it easy to
carefully engrave something on it. Since the first Archaeopteryx sold
for such an exorbitant price to the highest bidder (the British Museum), the
second, produced 16 years later, had a reptile-like head—and sold for a
tremendous amount to the museum in Berlin. The owner of that quarry made
a small fortune on the sale of each of those two specimens.
2 - Feathers added to a
fossil? In these specimens we find
powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks radiating out
from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of
Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur,
Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds.
If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur.
If you carefully examine a photograph of the "London specimen," you will note
that the flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines—nothing
else!
It would be relatively easy for
someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and carefully
scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable limestone.
All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a bird as a pattern to
copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its wing pattern onto the reptile
specimen. That is all that would be required, and the result would be
a fabulous amount of profit. And both specimens did produce just that!
3 - All specimens came from
the same place. Keep in mind that all
six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia,
Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere else—anywhere in the
world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever been discovered!
Living in Germany, at the same
time that these six specimens were found, was *Ernst Haeckel
(1834-1919). He would have been in the
prime of life at the time both specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was the
most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent; and it is well-known that
he was very active at the time the finds were made. He was continually
seeking for new "proofs" of evolution, so he could use them in his lecture
circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual illustrations; and it is now
known that he spent time, on the side, enthusiastically inventing them!
It is also known that
Haeckel had unusual artistic ability that he put to work, producing
pro-evolution frauds. He was fraudulently touching up and redrawing charts
of ape skeletons and embryos so that they would appear to prove evolutionary
theory. He had both the ability and the mind set for the task. He could
also use the money he would make. You will find more information on
his fraudulent artistry in chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation.
There is no doubt that Haeckel had the daring, the skill, the time, and the
energy to forge those Archaeopteryx specimens. In those years, he always
seemed to have the money to set aside time for anything he wanted to do in the
way of lecturing or drawing charts. He even supported a mistress for a number
of years. Perhaps some of that money came from engraving bird feathers onto
reptile fossils and, then, splitting the profits of Archaeopteryx sales with
the quarry owners.
The most delicate tracery can
easily be etched onto limestone blocks.
About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several
weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper engraving and
stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able
to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and
high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and
Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos"
and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our present lithographic process,
which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method
(which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings
would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The
other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio
method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface. There is no doubt but
that any good engraver could easily superimpose the marks of outward radiating
flight feathers over an actual small dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery
which could be drawn onto limestone blocks, made it possible to print
banknotes and bond certificates with them.
"The feathers of
Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider, at
the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is a
mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to base
evolutionary theories on!"—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation
(1983), p. 81.
THE
*HOYLE/*WATSON EXPOSÉ—It was not until the 1980s that the most formidable
opposition to these Solnhofen limestone specimens developed, Here is the
story of what took place:
1 - Background of the
investigations. In 1983, M. Trop
wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the specimen ("Is
Archaeopteryx a Fake?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp.
121-122). Two years later, a series of four articles appeared in the
British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues), declaring
Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax.
Those articles were authored by
some of the leading scientists in England:
*Fred Hoyle, *R.S. Watkins, * N.C. Wickramasinghe, *J. Watkins, * R.
Rabilizirov, and *L.M. Spetner. This brought the controversy to the attention
of the scientific world. They declared in print that Archaeopteryx was a
definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been a hoax.
Keep in mind as we discuss these
specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin specimens are usable;
the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So all the evidence, pro and
con, must come from one or the other of those two specimens.
In 1983, these six leading British scientists went to the
London Museum and carefully studied and photographed the specimen. The
specimen is contained in a slab and a counterslab—thus
giving a front and back view of it. Here is what
these well-known scientists discovered:
2 - Slab mismatch.
The two slabs do not appear to match. If the
specimen was genuine, the front and back slabs should be mirror images
of one another, but they are not. This one fact, alone, is not to
prove the specimen a fake.
A comparison of the present
specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration had been later
made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left wing was totally
mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration brought the match closer
together.
3 - Artificial feathers.
*Hoyle, *Watkins, and the others decided
that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but the feather markings
(those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) had been
carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.
4 - Cement blobs.
They also found additional evidence of the
forgery: Cement blobs had been used during the etching process.
"They suggested the
following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers
removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2) they
then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the
Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed feathers
on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as
‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were
obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight
remained in the cleaning process: one ‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of
others were left behind."—*Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over
Archaeopteryx.
5 - Museum withdraws specimen.
After their initial examination of the London specimen, they requested
permission for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob areas,
utilizing electron microscope, carbon 14 dating, and spectrophotometry. Three
months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen was being
withdrawn from further examination.
6 - History of forgeries.
*Hoyle, *Watkins, and the others then
checked into historical sources, and declared that they had discovered
that, dating back to the early 18th century, the Solnhofen limestone area was
notorious for its fossil forgeries. Genuine fossils, taken from the
limestone quarries, had been altered and then sold to museums. These
non-Archaeopteryx fossils brought good money because they appeared to be
strange new species.
7 - Discoveries follow
prediction. *Thomas H. Huxley,
Darwin’s British champion, whom he called his "bulldog," had predicted that
fossils of strange new species would be found. *Hoyle, et. al,
believe that, thus encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.
8 - The Meyer connection.
Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious
feather impressions. These three specimens were sent to *Hermann von Meyer, in
Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. *Hoyle
and company suggest that they came in to *Meyer as reptiles and left with
wings! It just so happens that *Meyer worked closely with the *Haberlein
family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile fossils—and
then sold them to the museums. It was the *Haberlein family that
made the profit—not the quarry owners. It would be relatively easy
for them to split some of it with *Meyer.
You can find all of the above
material in four issues of the *British Journal of Photography (March-June
1985). Also see *W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil Is
Challenged" in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1, C14; *T. Nield, "Feathers
Fly Over Fossil ‘Fraud,’ " in New Scientist 1467:49-50; and *G. Vines,
"Strange Case of Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud’ " in New Scientist 1447:3.
9 - Aftermath.
As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from
the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of
evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to
their position.
This brought still further
uproar. It had been the same British Museum that had been duped into the
Piltdown Man hoax, which had been exposed only 32 years earlier
("found" from 1908 to 1912 only a few miles from Darwin’s old home, publicly
announced that same year and shown to be a hoax in 1953).
For a time, the British Museum
refused to relent, but the pressure was too great, so the museum arranged for
a special committee, composed of a select variety of scientists, to review the
matter. They examined the slabs; and in 1986 reported that, in their opinion,
Archaeopteryx had no blobs. With this, the British Museum announced that
the case was closed and the slabs would be unavailable for further
examination. But the slab mismatch was not denied, and it was far greater
evidence than the blobs.
Is Archaeopteryx
a flying reptile, just another bird, or a fraud—a reptile with wings added?
Take your pick; either way it is
definitely not a transitional species, and has no transitions leading to or
from it.
3 - OTHER PROOFS
This chapter contains the
"showcase of evolution"—the best evidences it has to offer that evolution has
actually occurred and the theory is true.
In addition to the horse series
and Archaeopteryx, there are several other special "evidences" in favor of
evolution, which we have discussed in some detail elsewhere. These include:
1 - The peppered moth
("industrial melanism’) is
discussed in chapter 9, Natural Selection (*#1/7 Peppered Moth*).
2 - Darwin’s Finches
are discussed in chapter 9,
Natural Selection.
3
- Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
- Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
4 - Mutated bacteria
and sickle-cell anemia are
discussed in chapter 10, Mutations.
5 - Radiodating and
radiocarbon dating are
discussed in chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.
6 - The dates
attributed to the rock strata
are discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and
Strata.
7 - The existence of
dinosaurs in the past is
discussed in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
8 - The existence of
cavemen and the discovery of "hominid bones"
is discussed in chapter 13, Ancient Man.
9 - Subspecies
changes ("microevolution")
is discussed in chapter 9, Natural Selection.
10 - Changes in genes
by mutations is discussed in
chapter 12, Fossils and Strata. is discussed in chapter 12, Fossils
and Strata.
11 - Similarities of
body parts and chemistry are
discussed in chapter 15, Similarities and Divergence.
12 - "Useless organs"
is discussed in chapter 16,
Vestiges and Recapitulation.
13 - Embryonic
similarities are discussed
in chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation.
14 - The concept that
evolutionary theory is not under natural laws
that would invalidate it is discussed in chapter 18,
Laws of Nature.
15 - Seafloor
spreading, continental drift, plate tectonics, and magnetic core changes
are discussed in chapter 20,
Paleomagnetism. [Due to a lack of space, we had to omit this chapter; it
will be found on our website.]
16 - Geographic
distribution of plants and animals is
discussed in Geographic Distribution [only available on our
website].
17 - The
"overwhelming support" given by scientists to evolutionary theory
is discussed throughout this book, but
especially in chapters 1, History of Evolutionary Theory and 23,
Scientists Speak [For a fuller account, go to History of Evolutionary
Theory, on our website. Many, many quotations by scientists refuting
evolution, not included in this paperback, will be found scattered throughout
our website; especially note chapter 23, Scientists Speak.]
18 - The belief that
only evolution should be taught in schools
is discussed on our website in chapter 34, Evolution and Education
[only available on our website].
19 - The concept that
evolution is nonrefutable and
outside the realm of falsification and rejection is discussed on our
website in chapter 37, Philosophy of Evolution [only available on our
website].
20 - The idea that
evolution is any kind of help to humanity or society
is discussed in chapter 19, Evolution, Morality and Violence.
In addition, other "evidences"
and "proofs" of evolution are discussed elsewhere in this set of books. The
evolutionary evidences we have not discussed are of secondary, or even
minuscule, importance. Some of them are so complex that they are difficult for
most people to grasp.
There are definite scientific
facts that totally refute the evolution of matter, stars, planetoids, plants,
or animals. These powerful refutations stand as a strong rock in the midst of
angry waves beating upon them. Learn the most powerful of these proofs and
share them with others!
Remember the story of the
attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten
reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The
judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So
emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are
more likely to win your hearers.
THREE SPECIAL
EVIDENCES AGAINST STELLAR ORIGINS—
Four of the powerful
evidences against the chance origin of matter, stars, planets, or moons would
be these:
(1) The impossibility of nothing making
itself into something (chapter 2). (2) The impossibility of gaseous
matter (hydrogen gas clouds) sticking together and forming itself by gravity
or otherwise into stars or planetoids (chapter 2). (3) The
impossibility of random actions of any kind in producing the intricate,
interrelated, and complicated orbits of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and
galactic clusters (chapter 2). (4) The impossibility of linear,
outward-flowing gas from a supposed Big Bang changing to orbital or rotational
movements (chapter 2).
TWO SPECIAL
EVIDENCES AGAINST THE CHANCE ORIGIN OF LIFE—Two of the powerful evidences
against the chance origin of life would be these:
(1) The impossibility of random formation of the DNA molecule, amino acids,
proteins, or the cell (chapter 8). (2) The impossibility of non-living
matter producing living organisms
(chapter 7).
SEVEN SPECIAL
EVIDENCES AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE—Seven of the powerful evidences
against the chance origin or evolution of life would be these:
(1) The total lack of past evidence
of trans-species changes, as shown in the fossil evidence (chapter 12).
(2) The total lack of present evidence of change from one species to another
(chapters 9-10). (3) The impossibility of random, accidental gene
reshuffling ("natural selection") to produce new species (chapter 9).
(4) The impossibility of mutations, either singly or in clusters, to produce
new species (chapter 10). (5) The fact that there is no other
mechanism, other than natural selection or mutations, which could possibly
produce trans-species changes (chapters 9-10). (6) The fact that
changes within species, are not evolution (chapter 11). (7) The beauty
shown in the things of nature. An example of this would be the beauty of the
flowers. Random changes would not produce such attractive forms and colors.
(8) The marvelous purposive designs of the things of nature. (We have a
special section on our website on the wonders of design in nature.)
TWO SPECIAL
EVIDENCES AGAINST ALL TYPES OF EVOLUTION—Two of the most powerful evidences
negating both inorganic and organic
evolution, either in origin or development, would be the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics
(chapter 25).
We have elsewhere discussed in
detail all of the above proofs of Creationism.
4 - TEXTBOOK PROOFS
The textbooks generally have
a trite one-two-three set of evolutionary "evidences," which generally consist
of the fact that there once were dinosaurs and cavemen along with
theories about "apeman" bones, fossils and strata dates, mutations,
similarities, vestiges, and recapitulation.
ALL THE PROOFS OF
EVOLUTION
The book, Evolution, by *F.H.T.
Rhodes (1974), lists all the evidences and "proofs" of evolution.
It is a fascinating book. Looking through these "evidences," we find that
three-fourths of them consist of neutral biological, geological, or
chemical facts—which provide no actual evidence in favor of evolution. The
others consist of a variety of suggestive possibilities. As a rule, the
strongest "evidences" for the theory center around variations within
species.
Here is a brief overview of the
well-presented material in *Rhodes exhaustive book, covering the evidences of
evolution. You will notice that none of
them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine
proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!.
Many different species exist.
*Aristotle taught evolution. Spontaneous generation could not be a cause of
the origin of life. Ray and Linnaeus developed plant and animal classification
systems. *Lamarck’s theory of inheritable changes was an error. History of
evolutionary thought for past 200 years. *Darwin’s finding of various
creatures on the Galapagos islands. *Wallace and *Malthus’ search for a
mechanism whereby evolution could occur. *Darwin’s idea of "natural
selection." *Darwin’s influential book.
*Darwin’s theory revised by later
discovery of mutations. Mendel’s law of genetics. *DeVries discovers
mutations. *Morgan and *Sutton study fruit flies. Surely, mutations must be
the cause of all evolutionary change. General information on chromosomes.
Variations in fruit flies.
Species always appear to
reproduce their own kind. Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a
strong proof of evolution. All living things have cells, protoplasm,
metabolism, reproduction, and growth; therefore they must all have come from a
common source. All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution.
Different birds have
similarities, therefore they must have a common ancestor. Embryos are alike,
so they must have evolved from a common source. Organic degeneration and
"useless organs" (vestiges) are strong evidences of evolution. Biochemical
similarities indicate common ancestry. Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so
they must have evolved this ability. Men can selectively breed new types of
dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species.
Evolution must be implied in the
fact that although some birds breed in northern climates others breed in
warmer areas (population evolution). Drugs given to bacteria must have caused
mutations that damaged them. Peppered moths come in two types, dark and light;
and birds like to eat them. There are different species of extinct fossils.
There may be a "fossil series" among Ceratopsian dinosaurs. The horse series.
Archaeopteryx. The platypus. The "earliest" organisms in the sedimentary rock
strata were smaller and slower, and the later ones were faster and larger. A
larger number of species are found in the later strata than in the earlier
strata.
Facts about genes, chromosomes,
cell division, Mendelian inheritance patterns, and laws of inheritance.
Probabilities of accomplishing changes within species (via Mendelian
genetics). Coin tossing. XX and XY mechanisms in reproduction. Genes control
reproduction. DNA is the key to inheritance. Protein manufacture. Population
genetics: variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.). Gene
reshuffling through recombination and crossing-over to produce changes within
species.
Mutations produce new
characteristics. Genetic drift and geographic isolation also produces changes
within a species. Migration of populations into new areas may cause evolution.
Evolution can occur through natural selection (mating preferences, predatory
killing, etc.). Owls eat the white mice first. Ocean currents brought
creatures from South America rather than Central and North America to
Galapagos Islands. Birds eating peppered moths is natural selection in action.
Growth differences in fossil bears must be due to the fact that they
hibernated in different caves. Teeth become smaller with age. Different
sub-species of the same bird have different length bills. Flowers, insects,
etc., copycat one another’s shape, color, etc. (mimicry). Sexual preferences
of animals might make changes within species. Sickle-cell anemia proves that
natural selection occurs within mankind.
A Devonian fish probably climbed
out of the water and become an amphibian; but, unfortunately, we do not have
the missing link when this happened. Transitional fossil forms prove
evolution, and we have one: the reptile-bird, Archaeopteryx.
Given enough time, evolution can
occur. Rock strata time charts prove long ages. Evolution is occurring now in
the Solomon Islands, as the Golden Whistler [bird] makes new subspecies
[picture of them indicates they all look just about alike]. Minks change color
in winter, and this surely must have been caused by mutations at some time in
the past.
Hydrogen must have clumped
together to form stars. Perhaps it only happened in the past, but perhaps it
is happening now. A cloud came together and formed the earth. All the planets
have six of the elements, so this is an important proof of something.
*Miller and *Urey took
complicated lab equipment and produced some dead amino acids.
There are many fossil outlines,
impressions, casts, tracks, etc. Stone artifacts [arrowheads, etc.] are the
most common remains of prehistoric man. The oldest fossils are about 2.7
billion years old. Most fossil animals suddenly appeared about 600 million
years ago. Fossilized marine invertebrates. The oldest vertebrates [bony
fish], insects, land animals, and plants. The reptiles and dinosaurs. The
mammals.
Apes and monkeys. Reconstructed
"ape-men." Suggested evolution of man from monkey. Stone tools. Cave
paintings. "Evolution" of human societies. Evolutionary theory, although
intrinsically separate from morality, is still not bad for society. The
"future evolution" of man in regard to pollution control, dwindling resources,
overpopulation.
—That summarizes the evidence
for evolution in an entire, recent, excellent book dedicated to the subject.
Throughout it all, did you find even one clear-cut evidence for evolution?
LISTING THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION
In concluding this chapter, let
us briefly overview the strongest evidences of evolution, as presented in a
number of evolution textbooks:
1 - Aristotle
taught evolution.
2 - Linnaeus classified
plants and animals.
3 - Darwin wrote an
influential book.
4 - Morgan studied fruit
flies.
5 - Every living thing
has chromosomes.
6 - People age as they
become older.
7 - All living things
have cells.
8 - All birds have
feathers.
9 - Woodpeckers punch
holes in trees.
10 - Birds breed in
different climates.
11 - There are both
light and dark moths.
12 - Some species have
become extinct.
13 - Mendel discovered
inheritance patterns.
14 - Coin tossing
exemplifies evolution.
15 - DNA is the key to
inheritance.
16 - Variants exist
among people.
17 - Changes have taken
place within species.
18 - Mutations produce
new characteristics.
19 - Migration may cause
evolution.
20 - Mating preferences
can cause evolution.
21 - Predatory killing
can cause evolution.
22 - Owls eat white mice
first.
23 - Birds eat peppered
moths.
24 - Different bears are
different sizes.
25 - Teeth become
smaller with age.
26 - Mutations produced
sickle-cell anemia.
27 - A fish must have
climbed out of water.
28 - Time can produce
evolution.
29 - Evolutionary charts
prove long ages.
30 - Minks change color
in winter.
31 - Stone tools have
been found.
32 - Dinosaurs became
extinct.
33 - Some earlier
peoples lived in caves.
34 - Cave paintings have been found.
CHAPTER 17 - STUDY AND
REVIEW QUESTIONS
EVOLUTIONARY SHOWCASE
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A
GRADUATED SCALE
1 - List ten of the most foolish
of the textbook proofs of evolution.
2 - There are 15 reasons why the
so-called "horse series" could not be correct. List eight which you consider
to be the most significant.
3 - Archaeopteryx is either a
type of bird or a carefully contrived fake. After reading all the evidence
given in this chapter, write a paper on the alternative you prefer (bird or
fake). State your reasons and be prepared to defend them.
4 - In each of the following four
categories, which is the most powerful evidence against that type of evolution
(if you consider all equally strong, say so)? (1) the three special evidences
against stellar evolution; (2) the two special proofs against a chance origin
of life; (3) the seven special evidences against the evolution of life; (4)
the two special evidences against all types of evolution.
EVOLUTION COULD
NOT DO THIS
The rufous woodpecker of India and
southeast Asia likes to eat ants. Those stinging tree ants, in turn,
vigorously attack every intruder that comes near their nest. But when it is
time for this woodpecker to make its nest, it flies to the football-size nest
of stinging tree ants, tunnels in, lays its eggs there, and then settles down
to incubate them—with stinging ants all about it. Yet they do not bother it.
When the baby birds hatch, the mother feeds them till they fly away. During
that time, it has not eaten one ant, and they have not attacked it while
always driving off all other birds and predators. Then the woodpecker flies
off, and once again begins eating ants in their ant nests.
You have just
completed
Chapter 17 Evolutionary
Showcase
NEXT—
Go to the next file in this
series,
Chapter 18 The Laws of Nature
EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.
- BOX 300 - ALTAMONT, TN. 37301
ORDER THIS BOOK!
COMMENTS
