The True Origin of Species
When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it
was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the
extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were
different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering
through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different
breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced
new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic
that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which
means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended
from a common ancestor.
However, this assumption of Darwin's
about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at
all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases
in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species.
What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."
The Meaning of Variations
Variation, a term used in genetics, refers
to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or
species to possess different characteristics from one another. For example, all
the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have
slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of
stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic
Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution
because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of already existing
genetic information, and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic
information. The important thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the
question of how brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.
always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of
genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool." All of the characteristics present
in the gene pool of a species may come to light in various ways due to variation.
For example, as a result of variation, varieties that have relatively longer tails
or shorter legs may appear in a certain species of reptile, since information
for both long-legged and short-legged forms may exist in the gene pool of that
species. However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings
or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an
increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not
possible through variations.
Darwin was not aware of this fact when
he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations.
In an article he wrote in 1844 he stated:"That a limit to variation does
exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover
a single fact on which this belief is grounded."28 In
The Origin of Species he cited different examples of variations
as the most important evidence for his theory.
For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated
different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that
produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different
species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the
following sentence from The Origin of Species:
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears
being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure
and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous
as a whale.29
Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science
in his day. Since then, in the 20th century, science has posited the
principle of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), based on the results of
experiments conducted on living things. This principle holds that, since all mating
attempts carried out to transform a species into another have been inconclusive,
there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant
that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a
different species by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had postulated.
Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin
The heart of the problem is whether living
things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have
all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only
to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous
efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue
rose or a black tulip.30
Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder
of all time, expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the
development possible, and these limits follow a law."31
In his article titled "Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection
Theory," Jerry Bergman comments by quoting from biologist Edward Deevey
who explains that variations always take place within strict genetic boundaries:
"Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat,
and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens
can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase
in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care
(and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates)
males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase
is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.32
short, variations only bring about changes which remain within the boundaries
of the genetic information of species; they can never add new genetic data to
them. For this reason, no variation can be considered an example of evolution.
No matter how often you mate different breeds of dogs or horses, the end result
will still be dogs or horses, with no new species emerging. The Danish scientist
W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:
variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively
pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret
of 'indefinite departure'.33
Confessions About "Microevolution"
As we have seen, genetic science has
discovered that variations, which Darwin thought could account for "the origin
of species," actually do no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists
were forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation
of new ones, and to propose two different concepts for these different phenomena.
Diversity within a species-that is, variation-they called "microevolution," and
the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed "macroevolution."
two concepts have appeared in biology books for quite some time. But there is
actually a deception going on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary
biologists have called "microevolution" actually have nothing to do with the theory
of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop
and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information,
and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of
"microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary
The impression that evolutionary biologists have
given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations
can form brand new classes of living things. And many people who are not already
well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads,
microevolution can turn into macroevolution." One can often see examples of that
kind of thinking. Some "amateur" evolutionists put forward such examples of logic
as the following: since human beings' average height has risen by two centimeters
in just a century, this means that over millions of years any kind of evolution
is possible. However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes
in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have
nothing to do with evolution.
In fact, nowadays even evolutionist
experts accept that the variations they call "microevolution" cannot lead to new
classes of living things-in other words, to "macroevolution." In a 1996 article
in the leading journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F.
Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:
Finch beaks, which Darwin saw in the Galapagos Islands and
thought were evidence for his theory, are actually an example of genetic variation,
and not evidence for macroevolution.
The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable
achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning
its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not
seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into
an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the
survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995)
points out, "the origin of species- Darwin's problem-remains unsolved.34
The fact that "microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution,"
in other words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species,
has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The noted
author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day
symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History,
in which 150 evolutionists participated:
central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.
…The answer can be given as a clear, No.35
can sum up the situation like this: Variations, which Darwinism has seen as "evidence
of evolution" for some hundred years, actually have nothing to do with "the origin
of species." Cows can be mated together for millions of years, and different breeds
of cows may well emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species-giraffes
or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different finches that Darwin
saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence
for "evolution." Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo
an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different
types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually
mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to
the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have
been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of
"variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution.
For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties
in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were
forced to conclude that "the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating
back and forth," a fact which implied that no "evolution" that leads to the emergence
of new traits ever takes place there.36
for these reasons, evolutionists are still unable to resolve Darwin's problem
of the "origin of species."
The Origin of Species in the Fossil Record
The evolutionist assertion is that each species on earth
came from a single common ancestor through minor changes. In other words,
the theory considers life as a continuous phenomenon, without any preordained
or fixed categories. However, the observation of nature clearly does not
reveal such a continuous picture. What emerges from the living world is
that life forms are strictly separated in very distinct categories. Robert
Carroll, an evolutionist authority, admits this fact in his Patterns
and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution:
Although an almost incomprehensible number
of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely
distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as
belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups, with
very few illustrating intermediate structures or ways of life.37
evolutionists assume that "intermediate" life forms that constitute links between
living organisms have lived in the past. This is why it is considered that the
fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science
of the study of fossils. Evolution is alleged to be a process that took place
in the past, and the only scientific source that can provide us with information
on the history of life is fossil discoveries. The well-known French paleontologist
Pierre-Paul Grassé has this to say on the subject:
must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms...
only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its
course or mechanisms.38
The most important branch of science for shedding light on
the origin of life on earth is paleontology, the study of fossils. Fossil beds,
studied with great intensity for the last two hundred years, reveal a picture
totally at odds with Darwin's theory. Species did not emerge through small cumulative
changes, they appeared quite suddenly, and fully-formed.
In order for the fossil record to shed any light on
the subject, we shall have to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution
with fossil discoveries.
According to the theory of evolution,
every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously
turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in
this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over
millions of years.
If this were the case, then innumerable
intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when
these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have
lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some
reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should
have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits
in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer
to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as
If such animals had really existed, there would have been
millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these
creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these
transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present
animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world.
In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all
of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently
evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional
forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism,
he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block
for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the
The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":
if species have descended from other species by 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?… But,
as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we
not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in
the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not
now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time
quite confounded me.40
only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument
that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when
the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.
The Question of Transitional Forms and Stasis
in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionary paleontologists have been digging up fossils
and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the nineteenth
century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered.
All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs
of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes
to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
Despite more than a hundred years of intense
collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does
not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41
evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms
appear very abruptly in the fossil record:
a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to
come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively
ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise
Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the
Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:
If we find fossils,
and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain;
finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group
of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive
generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this
is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained;
"innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them
embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that
the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging
up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost
all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43
There is no gradual development in
the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all
at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.
The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly,
and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the
longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist
and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:
The history of most fossil species include
two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change
is usually limited and directionless; 2) 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'.44
research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen
Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological
history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly
in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll
is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify
over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods
without major morphological or trophic change."46
this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional
form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living
things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed
organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living
structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as
actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features
which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus,
a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In
addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures
as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate
forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and
The Adequacy of the Fossil Record
Some 140 years ago Darwin put forward the
following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research
will uncover them." Is this argument still valid today? In other words, considering
the conclusions from the entire fossil record, should we accept that transitional
forms never existed, or should we wait for the results of new research?
wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer this question. When we
look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils.
Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world.48
Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have been identified, and these
bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identified species currently living
on earth.49 (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 million are insects.)
Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been
uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result
of new excavations.
A professor of paleontology from Glasgow
University, T. Neville George, admitted this fact years ago:
is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some
ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…
The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.50
Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum
of Natural History, expresses as follows the invalidity of Darwin's claim that
the insufficiency of the fossil record is the reason why no transitional forms
have been found:
jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we
see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor
Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991
book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record
are real and meaningful." He elaborates this claim in this way:
IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
If evolution had really
happened, then living things should have emerged by gradual changes, and have
continued to change over time, whereas the fossil record shows the exact opposite.
Different groups of living things suddenly emerged with no similar ancestors behind
them, and remained static for millions of years, undergoing no changes at all.
crab" fossil from the Ordovician Age. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different
from specimens living today.
million-year-old starfish fossil
Oyster fossils from the Ordovician Age, no different from
emerged some 350 million years ago, and became extinct 65 million years ago. The
structure seen in the fossil above never changed during the intervening 300 million
fossil bacteria from Western Ontario in the United States. They have the same
structures as bacteria living today.
oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species,
known as Pulmonoscorpius kirktoniensis, is 320 million years old, and no different
from today's scorpions.
An insect fossil in amber, some 170 million years old, found
on the Baltic Sea coast. It is no different from its modern counterparts.
dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria in Germany. It is identical to living dragonflies.
flies. They have the same bodily structure as flies today.
170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic Age.
It is no different from living shrimps.
gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important
branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long
periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera
but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.52
situation invalidates the above argument, which has been stated by Darwinism for
140 years. The fossil record is rich enough for us to understand the origins of
life, and explicitly reveals that distinct species came into existence on earth
all of a sudden, with all their distinct forms.
The Truth Revealed by the Fossil Record
But where does the "evolution-paleontology" relationship,
which has taken subconscious root in society over many decades, actually
stem from? Why do most people have the impression that there is a positive
connection between Darwin's theory and the fossil record whenever the
latter is mentioned? The answer to these questions is supplied in an article
in the leading journal Science:
number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology
have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian
than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary
sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is
probably some wishful thinking involved. 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 into textbooks.
25-million-year-old termite fossils
in amber. They are identical to termites living today.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall also make an important
That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the
same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had
been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin.
Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists
would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty
years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly
clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions.
Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows
that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly
conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all
the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but
preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant
record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply
looked the other way.54
the American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley describes how the Darwinist dogma,
which dominates the world of science, has ignored this reality demonstrated by
the fossil record:
fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable
is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition
has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply
contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to
species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.55
us now examine the facts of the fossil record, which have been silenced for so
long, in a bit more detail. In order to do this, we shall have to consider natural
history from the most remote ages to the present, stage by stage.