In 1859, 150 years ago, Darwin said the following in his book the Origin of Species:
WHY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly 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?
Innumerable transItIonal forms must have exIsted, why do we not fInd them embedded In countless numbers In the crust of the earth?
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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)
Darwin’s words he uttered 150 years ago have now come true!
Now, as Darwin said in the 19th century, there is actually NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM.
More than 100 million fossils have been unearthed in the Earth’s crust. Yet NOT ONE OF THEM IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM.
These 100 million fossils unearthed reveal that NATURE IS NOT IN A STATE OF CONFUSION, as Darwin anticipated, BUT IS RATHER FULL OF COMPLETE, PERFECT, FLAWLESS LIVING THINGS WITH ALL THEIR PARTS INTACT. IN NO GEOLOGICAL FORMATION or STRATUM IS THERE ONE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL that shows the alleged connection between living things.
Above all, new sciences have shown that CELLS, CHROMOSOMES and PROTEINS ARE EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX. It has been discovered that DNA possesses ENOUGH INFORMATION TO FILL ONE MILLION ENCYCLOPEDIA PAGES and it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a marvelous structure TO HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE BY CHANCE. It has been realized that atoms – the most basic building blocks of everything –HAVE A PERFECT ORDER AND COMPLEXITY. This glorious order and unique, flawless artistry on Earth has been revealed as, again just as Darwin said, THE GRAVEST OBJECTION THAT WOULD BE RAISED AGAINST HIS THEORY.
Contemporary Darwinists have confirmed the truth of this legacy:
Niles Eldredge (Paleontologist at Harvard University):
Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period (the oldest division of the Paleozoic Era) does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge.[1]
Derek W. Ager (Paleontologist at University College, Swansea):
The point emerges 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.[2]
Mark Czarnecki (Evolutionist paleontologist):
A major problem in proving the theory [of evolution] has been the fossil record, the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants — instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.[3]
Carlton E. Brett (Professor of Geology at the University of Cincinnati):
Did life on Earth change steadily and gradually through time? The fossil record emphatically says “no.”[4]
Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of London’s Natural History Museum):
You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[5]
David B. Kitts (Professor of the History of Science at Oklahoma University):
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them.[6]
Mark Ridley (Zoologist at Oxford University):
In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . .[7]
Steven M. Stanley (Professor of Paleontology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa):
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [the evolution of a species’ entire population into a new species] accomplishing a major morphologic [structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model [of evolution] can be valid.[8]
Hoimar Von Ditfurth (A German Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry and Evolutionist Science Writer):
When we look back, we see there is no need to have been surprised at our failure to find those transitional formssearched for almost painfully. Because the great likelihood is that such transitional stages never existed.[9]
Tom Kemp (Curator of The Zoological Collections at Oxford University:
In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.[10]
Dr. Colin Patterson (Evolutionist Paleontologist and Curator of London’s Natural History Museum):
[Stephen Jay] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.[11]
We therefore congratulate Darwin!
From the scientific proofs of 21st century, it now appears that Darwin was very foresighted indeed! 150 years ago, he said, “There is even not one single transitional fossil.” And now, millions of fossil specimens confirm that there is NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL WHATSOEVER! Darwin’s legacy has been proven right! On the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we congratulate Darwin on his prudence and on this important prediction.
[1] Niles Eldredge The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, New York, 1982, p.44
[2] Derek A. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, p. 133
[3] Mark Czarnecki, “The Revival of the Creationist Crusade,” MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56
[4] Carlton E. Brett, “Stasis: Life in the Balance.” Geotimes, Vol. 40, Mar. 1995, p. 18
[5] From a letter dated 10 April, 1979, quoted in L. D. Sunderland’s Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988
[6] David B]. Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution , Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 487
[7] Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?,” New Scientist, Vol. 90; June 25, 1981, p. 831
[8] Stanley, Stephen M., Macroevolution--Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1979, p. 39
[9] Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”] p. 22.
[10] Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals, New York: Academic Press, 1982, p. 319
[11] Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderland dated April 10, 1979, quoted in L.D. Sunderland Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89
Books
Web Sites
No comments:
Post a Comment