I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#6
The Fossil Record Creation or Evolution?


“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago andmore." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.


If Evolution were true there would be no disputing it in the fossil record. There should be chains of gradual evolution to major changes over time. There should be an abundance of transitional forms for all major phylum of animals in the rock record. Instead what we find is a half dozen fossils that are disputed by evolutionist and variation within the various kinds of animal groups [creation prediction]. You could take all the skeletons of dog varieties and place them in a order better than any line evolutionist have. They should be able to do this with many animals just given the variety within the kind [see horse] its amazing they have so few. No missing link seems to last very long, the ones used in Darwin's time have been refuted, scopes trial, 30 years ago because contrary evidence disproves them.

Below you will find evolutionist themselves admitting the fossil record does not support evolution. These are leading pathologist who have spent their life studying the fossil record, all admitting what is clear, the fossil record does not support evolution. You will also notice them supporting the creationist predictions of the fossil record, distinct major categories of animals that appear abrupt, distinct, fully formed, followed be lesser categories with variations within the kinds [usually family levels].


"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed." 
—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
-Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
-Davis Raup education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
-*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."
—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.” -Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” -Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and 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."—
Dr. David Raup,

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. 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. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—* -Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.

‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

“ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?
-Ernst Mayr 2001

“but it it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs.Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do.That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”.
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010 reviewed by Walter J. ReMine

“the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” -Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated: Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November

“If the transitional forms had been found, they would be paraded for all to see. Creation evolution discussions would be welcomed in the since classrooms, rather than current censorship of any criticism directed against evolution”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.”
- Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—* George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.


"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
-Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.


"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
— *G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."
—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100


"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“An evolutionary overprint laid on the fossils holds power only if the alternative is concealed.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2-17

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil records at approximately at the same time...... why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms”.
-Gerald T Todd.American Zoologist, Vol 24 (4) 1980 Page 757.

“There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”.
-Gordon Rattray Taylor.The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.

“Although this transition doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages”.
-Dr. Kriag Adler.Encyclopaedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, George, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986, Page 4.

“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptillian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles”.
-Robert L. Carroll.Problems of the Origin of Reptiles, Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, July 1969, Page 393.

“The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux”.
-Angus d'A. Bellairs.Reference. 8 Page 60.

“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to to bird was achieved”.
-W. E. Swinton.Biology & Comparative Anatomy of Birds, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, Page 1.

“Feathers are unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers”.
-A. Feduccia.The beginning of Birds, The Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, 1985, Page 76.

“The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most two lineages, is still an enigma”.
-Roger Lewin. Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out, 'Science' Vol 212, 1981,Page 1492.

“Nor is there any fossil evidence of any consequence about their (the supposedly "primitive" monotremes) ancestors. So we have virtually nothing to link these creatures to any group of fossil reptiles”.
-David Attenborough. Life on Earth, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, 1979, Page 207.

“All fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats, and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestors”.
-John E. Hill and James D. Smith. Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, 1984, Page 33.

“Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats”.
-Richard Leakey. Footnote in the Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R. Leakey, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1979, Page 128.

“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson. The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on
the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones. A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
-Dr. Michael Denton. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, Page 172.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” -Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
-Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
fossils

“Reptile life on earth has been complicated by....large gaps in the fossil record.”
Hickman, Roberts, and Larson 1997 quoted in the fossil record by John Morris and Frank Sherwin

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."
—---Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979

“There is no gradualism in the fossil record. “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.


I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory"- heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted”.
Sean Pitman, M.D.,HYPERLINK "http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-thoughtsonEvo-96"Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals
-Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:


"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."
—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980

"The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/459/

“The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants. "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution." —-Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

“The origin of animals with a backbone remains a mystery”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one of another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous fishes...the origin of all these fishes is obscure.”
-B Stahl 1985 Vertebrate History Problems in Evolution Dover Publications NY

“All these subdivisons of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximate the same time.....how did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?...and why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?
-G.T Todd 1980 Evolution of the Lung and the origin of Bony Fishes Americsan Zoology 26 [4] 757

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"
—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.


"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.


“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978


"At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism [walking on two legs], and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism."
-Richmond, B. G. and D. S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature. 404 (6776): 382-385. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Walking the Walk. Acts & Facts. 35 (11).


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution”
-Stanley Macroevoultion san fransico ca 1977


"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198.

“Darwins worst fears have been realized.”
-John Morris The Fossil Record 2017

“But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,”
-Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind. Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39

“Theorigin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of” or “in to” Africa?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375


“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson.The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones.A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B., Did early Homo migrate “out of ” or “in to” Africa?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2011; published ahead of print 15 June 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107724108

“The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.”
S.M Stanley 1981 the new evolutionary timetable NY Baker Books
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
[-] The following 1 user Likes 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont - 07-22-2018, 02:20 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)