True Natural History - I
(From Intervebrates to Reptiles)
For some people,
the very concept of natural history implies the theory of evolution. The reason
for this is the heavy propaganda that has been carried out. Natural history museums
in most countries are under the control of materialist evolutionary biologists,
and it is they who describe the exhibits in them. They invariably describe creatures
that lived in prehistory and their fossil remains in terms of Darwinian concepts.
One result of this is that most people think that natural history is equivalent
to the concept of evolution.
However, the facts are very different. Natural
history reveals that different classes of life emerged on the earth not through
any evolutionary process, but all at once, and with all their complex structures
fully developed right from the start. Different living species appeared completely
independently of one another, and with no "transitional forms" between them.
this chapter, we shall examine real natural history, taking the fossil record
as our basis.
The Classification of Living Things
place living things into different classes. This classification, known as "taxonomy,"
or "systematics," goes back as far as the eighteenth-century Swedish scientist
Carl von Linné, known as Linnaeus. The system of classification established by
Linnaeus has continued and been developed right up to the present day.
are hierarchical categories in this classificatory system. Living things are first
divided into kingdoms, such as the plant and animal kingdoms. Then these kingdoms
are sub-divided into phyla, or categories. Phyla are further divided into subgroups.
From top to bottom, the classification is as follows:
the great majority of biologists accept that there are five (or six) separate
kingdoms. As well as plants and animals, they consider fungi, protista (single-celled
creatures with a cell nucleus, such as amoebae and some primitive algae), and
monera (single-celled creatures with no cell nucleus, such as bacteria), as separate
kingdoms. Sometimes the bacteria are subdivided into eubacteria and archaebacteria,
for six kingdoms, or, on some accounts, three "superkingdoms" (eubacteria, archaebacteria
and eukarya). The most important of all these kingdoms is without doubt the animal
kingdom. And the largest division within the animal kingdom, as we saw earlier,
are the different phyla. When designating these phyla, the fact that each one
possesses completely different physical structures should always be borne in mind.
Arthropoda (insects, spiders, and other creatures with jointed legs),
for instance, are a phylum by themselves, and all the animals in the phylum have
the same fundamental physical structure. The phylum called Chordata includes those
creatures with the notochord, or, most commonly, a spinal column. All the animals
with the spinal column such as fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals that we are
familiar with in daily life are in a subphylum of Chordata known as vertebrates.
are around 35 different phyla of animals, including the Mollusca, which
include soft-bodied creatures such as snails and octopuses, or the Nematoda,
which include diminutive worms. The most important feature of these categories
is, as we touched on earlier, that they possess totally different physical characteristics.
The categories below the phyla possess basically similar body plans, but the phyla
are very different from one another.
After this general information
about biological classification, let us now consider the question of how and when
these phyla emerged on earth.
Fossils Reject the "Tree of Life"
The "tree of life" drawn by the evolutionary
biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1866.
us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know, Darwinism proposes that
life developed from one single common ancestor, and took on all its varieties
by a series of tiny changes. In that case, life should first have emerged in very
similar and simple forms. And according to the same theory, the differentiation
between, and growing complexity in, living things must have happened in parallel
In short, according to Darwinism, life must be like
a tree, with a common root, subsequently splitting up into different branches.
And this hypothesis is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept
of the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept,
phyla-the fundamental units of classification between living things-came about
by stages, as in the diagram to the left. According to Darwinism, one phylum must
first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes
over very long periods of time. The Darwinist hypothesis is that the number of
animal phyla must have gradually increased in number. The diagram to the left
shows the gradual increase in the number of animal phyla according to the Darwinian
According to Darwinism, life must have developed in this
way. But is this really how it happened?
not. Quite the contrary: animals have been very different and complex since the
moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at
the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age.
The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million
years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the
abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian,
often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson,
and Paul Chien, in a 2001 article based on a detailed literature survey, dated
2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow
window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."56
FOSSIL RECORD DENIES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
The theory of evolution
maintains that different groups of living things (phyla) developed from a common
ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time. The diagram above states this
claim: According to Darwinism, living things grew apart from one another like
the branches on a tree.
But the fossil record
shows just the opposite. As can be seen from the diagram below, different groups
of living things emerged suddenly with their different structures. Some 100 phyla
suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. Subsequently, the number of these fell rather
than rose (because some phyla became extinct).
Before then, there
is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures
and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely
formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian
explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)
fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails,
trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures
in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills,
and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. These
structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different.
Monastersky, a staff writer at ScienceNews magazine states the following about
the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably
complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment,
right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years
ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the
world's first complex creatures.57
same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studied the early
Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates
that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian
and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today."58
This illustration portrays living things with complex
structures from the Cambrian Age. The emergence of such different creatures with
no preceding ancestors completely invalidates Darwinist theory.
How the earth came to overflow with such
a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types
of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains
unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins,
one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on
this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks…
are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate
groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution,
the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just
planted there, without any evolutionary history.59
Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one
of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between
this paleontological truth and Darwinism:
theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism,
or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher
levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone
turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.60
A fossil from the Cambrian Age.
As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its
being the case that phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into
being at once, and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The diagrams
on page 53 reveal the truth that the fossil record has revealed concerning the
origin of phyla.
As we can see, in the Precambrian Age there
were three different phyla consisting of single-cell creatures. But in the Cambrian
Age, some 60 to 100 different animal phyla emerged all of a sudden. In the age
that followed, some of these phyla became extinct, and only a few have come down
to our day.
The well-known paleontologist Roger Lewin discusses
this extraordinary fact, which totally demolishes all the Darwinist assumptions
about the history of life:
as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa,"
the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -
Baupläne or phyla - that would exist thereafter, including many that were "weeded
out" and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people
estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.61
INTERESTING SPINES: One of the creatures which suddenly
emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, seen at top left. And as with many
other Cambrian fossils, like the one at the right it has spines or a hard shell
to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer
is, "How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time
when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes
it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.
The Burgess Shale Fossils
continues to call this extraordinary phenomenon from the Cambrian Age an "evolutionary
event," because of the loyalty he feels to Darwinism, but it is clear that the
discoveries so far cannot be explained by any evolutionary approach.
is interesting is that the new fossil findings make the Cambrian Age problem all
the more complicated. In its February 1999 issue, Trends in Genetics (TIG), a
leading science journal, dealt with this issue. In an article about a fossil bed
in the Burgess Shale region of British Colombia, Canada, it confessed that fossil
findings in the area offer no support for the theory of evolution.
Burgess Shale fossil bed is accepted as one of the most important paleontological
discoveries of our time. The fossils of many different species uncovered in the
Burgess Shale appeared on earth all of a sudden, without having been developed
from any pre-existing species found in preceding layers. TIG expresses this important
problem as follows:
seem odd that fossils from one small locality, no matter how exciting, should
lie at the center of a fierce debate about such broad issues in evolutionary biology.
The reason is that animals burst into the fossil record in astonishing profusion
during the Cambrian, seemingly from nowhere. Increasingly precise radiometric
dating and new fossil discoveries have only sharpened the suddenness and scope
of this biological revolution. The magnitude of this change in Earth's biota demands
an explanation. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the general consensus
is that none is wholly convincing.62
Marrella: One of the interesting fossil
creatures found in the Burgess Shale fossil bed.
These "not wholly convincing" hypotheses belong to evolutionary
paleontologists. TIG mentions two important authorities in this context, Stephen
Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. Both have written books to explain the "sudden
appearance of living beings" from the evolutionist standpoint. However, as also
stressed by TIG, neither Wonderful Life by Gould nor The Crucible of Creation:
The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals by Simon Conway Morris has provided
an explanation for the Burgess Shale fossils, or for the fossil record of the
Cambrian Age in general.
into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory
of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal
divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in the
journal Science in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545
million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all
the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today."63
The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be
explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing
a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved
This differential evolution and
dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there
is no fossil record.64
The picture presented
by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution,
and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in
their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this
Organisms either appeared on the earth
fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from
pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a
fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.65
The fossil record clearly indicates that
living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged
all of a sudden in a fully formed state. This provides evidence for saying that
life did not come into existence through random natural processes, but through
an act of intelligent creation. In an article called "the Big Bang of Animal Evolution"
in the leading journal Scientific American, the evolutionary paleontologist Jeffrey
S. Levinton accepts this reality, albeit unwillingly, saying "Therefore, something
special and very mysterious - some highly creative "force" - existed then."66
Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse
that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about the Cambrian Explosion is comparisons
between different living taxa. The results of these comparisons reveal that animal
taxa considered to be "close relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently,
are in fact genetically very different, which makes the "intermediate form" hypothesis-which
only exists theoretically-even more dubious. An article published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 reports that recent DNA analyses
have rearranged taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past:
DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation
of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades
of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher
positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces
us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity.67
the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa which were considered
"intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores, can
no longer be considered as such because of these new genetic findings. These writers
say that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evolutionary family trees:
The new molecular based phylogeny has several
important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate"
taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of
bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the
stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary
reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through
a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy
of extant "primitive" lineages.68
Trilobites vs. Darwin
One of the most interesting of
the many different species that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the now-extinct
trilobites. Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicated
creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The fossil
record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies of trilobites'
eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, and each one of
these contains two lens layers. This eye structure is a real wonder of design.
David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities,
says, "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would
require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today."69
Another illustration showing living
things from the Cambrian Age.
extraordinarily complex structure even in trilobites is enough to invalidate Darwinism
on its own, because no complex creatures with similar structures lived in previous
geological periods, which goes to show that trilobites emerged with no evolutionary
process behind them. A 2001 Science article says:
analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans,
are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged
ancestral arthropods are lacking. ...Even if evidence for an earlier origin is
discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have
increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the
Trilobite eyes, with their doublet
structure and hundreds of tiny lensed units, were a wonder of design.
Very little was known about this extraordinary
situation in the Cambrian Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species.
Only since Darwin's time has the fossil record revealed that life suddenly emerged
in the Cambrian Age, and that trilobites and other invertebrates came into being
all at once. For this reason, Darwin was unable to treat the subject fully in
the book. But he did touch on the subject under the heading "On the sudden appearance
of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata," where he
wrote the following about the Silurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed
what we now call the Cambrian):
Darwin said that if his theory was
correct, the long periods before the trilobites should have been full of their
ancestors. But not one of these creatures predicted by Darwin has ever been found.
For instance, I cannot doubt
that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which
must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly
from any known animal… Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable
that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as
long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age
to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of
time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find
records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.71
said "If my theory be true, [the Cambrian] Age must have been full of living creatures."
As for the question of why there were no fossils of these creatures, he tried
to supply an answer throughout his book, using the excuse that "the fossil record
is very lacking." But nowadays the fossil record is quite complete, and it clearly
reveals that creatures from the Cambrian Age did not have ancestors. This means
that we have to reject that sentence of Darwin's which begins "If my theory be
true." Darwin's hypotheses were invalid, and for that reason, his theory is mistaken.
record from the Cambrian Age demolishes Darwinism, both with the complex bodies
of trilobites, and with the emergence of very different living bodies at the same
time. Darwin wrote "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory
of descent with slow modification through natural selection."72-that
is, the theory at the heart of in his book. But as we saw earlier, some 60 different
animal phyla started into life in the Cambrian Age, all together and at the same
time, let alone small categories such as species. This proves that the picture
which Darwin had described as "fatal to the theory" is in fact the case. This
is why the Swiss evolutionary paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses
the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following
comment: "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles
matter that needs to be dealt with regarding trilobites is that the 530-million-year-old
compound structure in these creatures' eyes has come down to the present day completely
unchanged. Some insects today, such as bees and dragonflies, possess exactly the
same eye structure.74 This discovery deals yet another "fatal
blow" to the theory of evolution's claim that living things develop from the primitive
to the complex.
The Origin of Vertebrates
we said at the beginning, one of the phyla that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian
Age is the Chordata, those creatures with a central nervous system contained within
a braincase and a notochord or spinal column. Vertebrates are a subgroup of chordates.
Vertebrates, divided into such fundamental classes as fish, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals, are probably the most dominant creatures in the animal kingdom.
FISH OF THE CAMBRIAN
1999, the question of whether any vertebrates were present in the Cambrian was
limited to the discussion about Pikaia. But that year a stunning discovery deepened
the evolutionary impasse regarding the Cambrian explosion: Chinese paleontologists
at Chengjiang fauna discovered the fossils of two fish species that were about
530 million years old, a period known as the Lower Cambrian. Thus, it became crystal
clear that along with all other phyla, the subphylum Vertebrata (Vertebrates)
was also present in the Cambrian, without any evolutionary ancestors.
The two distinct fish species of the Cambrian, Haikouichthys
ercaicunensis and Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa.
Because evolutionary paleontologists
try to view every phylum as the evolutionary continuation of another phylum, they
claim that the Chordata phylum evolved from another, invertebrate one. But the
fact that, as with all phyla, the members of the Chordata emerged in the Cambrian
Age invalidates this claim right from the very start. The oldest member of the
Chordata phylum identified from the Cambrian Age is a sea-creature called Pikaia,
which with its long body reminds one at first sight of a worm.75
Pikaia emerged at the same time as all the other species in the phylum which could
be proposed as its ancestor, and with no intermediate forms between them. Professor
Mustafa Kuru, a Turkish evolutionary biologist, says in his book Vertebrates:
There is no doubt that chordates
evolved from invertebrates. However, the lack of transitional forms between invertebrates
and chordates causes people to put forward many assumptions.76
there is no transitional form between chordates and invertebrates, then how can
one say "there is no doubt that chordates evolved from invertebrates?" Accepting
an assumption which lacks supporting evidence, without entertaining any doubts,
is surely not a scientific approach, but a dogmatic one. After this statement,
Professor Kuru discusses the evolutionist assumptions regarding the origins of
vertebrates, and once again confesses that the fossil record of chordates consists
only of gaps:
The views stated
above about the origins of chordates and evolution are always met with suspicion,
since they are not based on any fossil records.77
biologists sometimes claim that the reason why there exist no fossil records regarding
the origin of vertebrates is because invertebrates have soft tissues and consequently
leave no fossil traces. However this explanation is entirely unrealistic, since
there is an abundance of fossil remains of invertebrates in the fossil record.
Nearly all organisms in the Cambrian period were invertebrates, and tens of thousands
of fossil examples of these species have been collected. For example, there are
many fossils of soft-tissued creatures in Canada's Burgess Shale beds. (Scientists
think that invertebrates were fossilized, and their soft tissues kept intact in
regions such as Burgess Shale, by being suddenly covered in mud with a very low
The theory of evolution
assumes that the first Chordata, such as Pikaia, evolved into fish. However, just
as with the case of the supposed evolution of Chordata, the theory of the evolution
of fish also lacks fossil evidence to support it. On the contrary, all distinct
classes of fish emerged in the fossil record all of a sudden and fully-formed.
There are millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet there
is not even one fossil that is midway between them.
Carroll admits the evolutionist impasse on the origin of several taxa among the
have no evidence of the nature of the transition between cephalochordates and
craniates. The earliest adequately known vertebrates already exhibit all the definitive
features of craniates that we can expect to have preserved in fossils. No fossils
are known that document the origin of jawed vertebrates.79
evolutionary paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact in an article
titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes":
All three subdivisions of bony fishes
first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They
are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did
they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come
to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?80
ORIGIN OF FISH
record shows that fish, like other kinds of living things, also emerged suddenly
and already in possession of all their unique structures. In other words, fish
were created, not evolved.
|Fossil fish called Birkenia from Scotland.
This creature, estimated to be some 420 million years old, is about 4 cm. long.||Fossil
shark of the Stethacanthus genus, some 330 million years old.|
fossil fish from the Santana fossil bed in Brazil.||
Group of fossil fish from the Mesozoic Age.
fish approximately 360 million years old from the Devonian Age. Called Osteolepis
panderi, it is about 20 cm. long and closely resembles present-day fish.|
The Origin of Tetrapods
(or Tetrapoda) is the general name given to vertebrate animals dwelling on land.
Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are included in this class. The assumption
of the theory of evolution regarding quadrupeds holds that these living things
evolved from fish living in the sea. However, this claim poses contradictions,
in terms of both physiology and anatomy. Furthermore, it lacks any basis in the
A fish would have to undergo great modifications
to adapt to land. Basically, its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems would
all have to change. Gills would have to change into lungs, fins would have to
acquire the features of feet so that they could carry the weight of the body,
kidneys and the whole excretory system would have to be transformed to work in
a terrestrial environment, and the skin would need to acquire a new texture to
prevent water loss. Unless all these things happened, a fish could only survive
on land for a few minutes.
So, how does the
evolutionist view explain the origin of land-dwelling animals? Some shallow comments
in evolutionist literature are mainly based on a Lamarckian rationale. For instance,
regarding the transformation of fins into feet, they say, "Just when fish started
to creep on land, fins gradually became feet." Even Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost
authorities on evolution in Turkey, writes the following: "Maybe the fins of lunged
fish changed into amphibian feet as they crept through muddy water."81
mentioned earlier, these comments are based on a Lamarckian rationale, since the
comment is essentially based on the improvement of an organ through use and the
passing on of this trait to subsequent generations. It seems that the theory postulated
by Lamarck, which collapsed a century ago, still has a strong influence on the
subconscious minds of evolutionary biologists today.
set aside these Lamarckist, and therefore unscientific, scenarios, we have to
turn our attention to scenarios based on mutation and natural selection. However,
when these mechanisms are examined, it can be seen that the transition from water
to land is at a complete impasse.
Let us imagine how a fish
might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land: If the fish does not undergo
a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems,
it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to
provide the fish with a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly,
this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin
texture that will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations
has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.
The "transition from water to
land" scenario, often maintained in evolutionist publications in imaginary diagrams
like the one above, is often presented with a Lamarckian rationale, which is clearly
evolutionary biologist would ever advocate such a chain of mutations. The implausible
and nonsensical nature of the very idea is obvious. Despite this fact, evolutionists
put forward the concept of "preadaptation," which means that fish acquire the
traits they will need while they are still in the water. Put briefly, the theory
says that fish acquire the traits of land-dwelling animals before they even feel
the need for these traits, while they are still living in the sea.
such a scenario is illogical even when viewed from the standpoint of the theory
of evolution. Surely, acquiring the traits of a land-dwelling living animal would
not be advantageous for a marine animal. Consequently, the proposition that these
traits occurred by means of natural selection rests on no rational grounds. On
the contrary, natural selection should eliminate any creature which underwent
"preadaptation," since acquiring traits which would enable it to survive on land
would surely place it at a disadvantage in the sea.
the scenario of "transition from sea to land" is at a complete impasse. It is
accepted by evolutionists as a miracle of nature that cannot be re-examined. This
is why Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, considers this scenario as an unscientific
about evolution, about 'missing links', are not in themselves testable, because
there is only one possible course of events - the one implied by the story. If
your story is about how a group of fishes crawled onto land and evolved legs,
you are forced to see this as a once-only event, because that's the way the story
goes. You can either subscribe to the story or not - there are no alternatives.82
| || |
was no "evolutionary" process in the origin of frogs. The oldest known frogs were
completely different from fish, and emerged with all their own peculiar features.
Frogs in our time possess the same features. There is no difference between the
frog found preserved in amber in the Dominican Republic and specimens living today.
The impasse does not only
come from the alleged mechanisms of evolution, but also from the fossil record
or the study of living tetrapods. Robert Carroll has to admit that "neither the
fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete
picture of how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved…"83
classical candidates for transitional forms in alleged fish-tetrapod evolution
have been several fish and amphibian genera.
An Eusthenopteron foordi fossil from
the Later Devonian Age found in Canada.
natural historians traditionally refer to coelacanths (and the closely-related,
extinct Rhipidistians) as the most probably ancestors of quadrupeds. These fish
come under the Crossopterygian subclass. Evolutionists invest all their hopes
in them simply because their fins have a relatively "fleshy" structure. Yet these
fish are not transitional forms; there are huge anatomical and physiological differences
between this class and amphibians.
In fact, the alleged "transitional
forms" between fish and amphibians are not transitional in the sense that they
have very small differences, but in the sense that they can be the best candidates
for an evolutionary scenario. Huge anatomical differences exist between the fish
most likely to be taken as amphibian ancestors and the amphibians taken to be
their descendants. Two examples are Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega
(an extinct amphibian), the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary
evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins. Robert Carroll, in his Patterns
and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about these
allegedly related forms:
and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish
and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features that could be compared between these
two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land… This
is far more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions
involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.84
differences over 145 anatomical features… And evolutionists believe that all these
were redesigned through a process of random mutations in about 15 million years.85
To believe in such a scenario may be necessary for the sake of evolutionary theory,
but it is not scientifically and rationally sound. This is true for all other
versions of the fish-amphibian scenario, which differ according to the candidates
that are chosen to be the transitional forms. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature,
makes a similar comment on the scenario based on Ichthyostega, another extinct
amphibian with very similar characteristics to Acanthostega:
statement that Ichthyostega is a missing link between fishes and later tetrapods
reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature we are supposed
to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing a restricted view on reality
based on our own limited experience, when reality may be larger, stranger, and
more different than we can imagine.86
remarkable feature of amphibian origins is the abrupt appearance of the three
basic amphibian categories. Carroll notes that "The earliest fossils of frogs,
caecilians, and salamanders all appear in the Early to Middle Jurassic. All show
most of the important attributes of their living descendants."87
In other words, these animals appeared abruptly and did not undergo any "evolution"
Speculations About Coelacanths
that come under the coelacanth family were once accepted as strong evidence for
transitional forms. Basing their argument on coelacanth fossils, evolutionary
biologists proposed that this fish had a primitive (not completely functioning)
lung. Many scientific publications stated the fact, together with drawings showing
how coelacanths passed to land from water. All these rested on the assumption
that the coelacanth was an extinct species.
they only had fossils of coelacanths, evolutionary paleontologists put forward
a number of Darwinist assumptions regarding them; however, when living examples
were found, all these assumptions were shattered.
Below, examples of
living coelacanths. The picture on the right shows the latest specimen of coelacanth,
found in Indonesia in 1998.
on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean.
A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional
form that had become extinct 70 million years ago, was caught! The discovery of
a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe
shock. The evolutionary paleontologist J. L. B. Smith said, "If I'd meet a dinosaur
in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."88 In the
years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the
revealed how groundless the speculation regarding them was. Contrary to what had
been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The
organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out
to be nothing but a fat-filled swimbladder.89 Furthermore, the
coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate preparing to pass from
sea to land," was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and
never approached nearer than 180 meters from the surface.90
FISH OF THE CAMBRIAN
reason why evolutionists imagine coelacanths and similar fish to be "the ancestor
of land animals" is that they have bony fins. They imagine that these gradually
turned into feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between fish bones
and the feet of land animals such as Ichthyostega: As shown in Picture 1, the
bones of the coelacanth are not attached to the backbone; however, those of Ichthyostega
are, as shown in Picture 2. For this reason, the claim that these fins gradually
developed into feet is quite unfounded. Furthermore, the structure of the bones
in coelacanth fins is very different from that in the bones in Ichthyostega feet,
as seen in Pictures 3 and 4.
this, the coelacanth suddenly lost all its popularity in evolutionist publications.
Peter Forey, an evolutionary paleontologist, says in an article of his in Nature:
The discovery of Latimeria
raised hopes of gathering direct information on the transition of fish to amphibians,
for there was then a long-held belief that coelacanths were close to the ancestry
of tetrapods. ...But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found
this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation
as a missing link seems unjustified.91
meant that the only serious claim of a transitional form between fish and amphibians
had been demolished.
Physical Obstacles to Transition from Water to Land
The claim that fish are the ancestors of land-dwelling
creatures is invalidated by anatomical and physiological observations as much
as by the fossil record. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiological
differences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these
differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary process with gradual
changes based on chance. We can list the most evident of these differences as
1- Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures
have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures
of their bodies are not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwelling
creatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodies around.
Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have
had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to meet this energy need, and
this could not have come about by chance mutations.
reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and similar fish to be the ancestors
of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins contain bones. It is assumed that
over time these fins turned into load-bearing feet. However, there is a fundamental
difference between these fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet. It is
impossible for the former to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not
linked to the backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly
connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed
into feet is unfounded.
harmful substances from their bodies directly into the water, but land animals
need kidneys. For this reason, the scenario of transition from water to the land
requires kidneys to havbe developed by chance.
kidneys possess an exceedingly complex structure and, what is more, the kidney
needs to be 100 percent present and in complete working order in order to function.
A kidney developed 50, or 70, or even 90 percent will serve no function. Since
the theory of evolution depends on the assumption that "organs that are not used
disappear," a 50 percent-developed kidney will disappear from the body in the
first stage of evolution.
Heat retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates
over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can
withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature
changes slowly, and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system
regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire
a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land.
It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations
as soon as they stepped onto land.
Frogs are born in water, live there for a while, and finally emerge onto
land in a process known as "metamorphosis." Some people think that metamorphosis
is evidence of evolution, whereas the two actually have nothing to do with one
The sole innovative
mechanism proposed by evolution is mutation. However, metamorphosis does not come
about by coincidental effects like mutation does. On the contrary, this change
is written in frogs' genetic code. In other words, it is already evident when
a frog is first born that it will have a type of body that allows it to live on
land. Research carried out in recent years has shown that metamorphosis is a complex
process governed by different genes. For instance, just the loss of the tail during
this process is governed, according to Science News magazine, by more than a dozen
genes (Science News, July 17, 1999, page 43).
evolutionists' claim of transition from water to land says that fish, with a genetic
code completely designed to allow them to live in water, turned into land creatures
as a result of chance mutations. However, for this reason metamorphosis actually
tears evolution down, rather than shoring it up, because the slightest error in
the process of metamorphosis means the creature will die or be deformed. It is
essential that metamorphosis should happen perfectly. It is impossible for such
a complex process, which allows no room for error, to have come about by chance
mutations, as is claimed by evolution.
3- Water: Essential to metabolism,
water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For
instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while
also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience
thirst, something that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the
skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.
Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially
ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwater fish, most of the
nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts of ammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion
out of the gills. The kidney is mostly a device for maintaining water balance
in the animal, rather than an organ of excretion. Marine fish have two types.
Sharks, skates, and rays may carry very high levels of urea in their blood. Shark's
blood may contain 2.5% urea in contrast to the 0.01-0.03% in other vertebrates.
The other type, i. e., marine bony fish, are much different. They lose water continuously
but replace it by drinking seawater and then desalting it. They rely more on tubular
secretion for eliminating excess or waste solutes.
Each of these
different excretory systems is very different from those of terrestrial vertebrates.
Therefore, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living
things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
5- Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking
in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live
more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would
have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could
have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.
The Origin of Reptiles
Dinosaur, lizard, turtle, crocodile-all these
fall under the class of reptiles. Some, such as dinosaurs, are extinct, but the
majority of these species still live on the earth. Reptiles possess some distinctive
features. For example, their bodies are covered with scales, and they are cold-blooded,
meaning they are unable to regulate their body temperatures physiologically (which
is why they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up). Most of them
reproduce by laying eggs.
| || |
One of the inconsistencies
in the amphibian-reptile evolution scenario is the structure of the eggs. Amphibian
eggs, which develop in water, have a jelly-like structure and a porous membrane,
whereas reptile eggs, as shown in the reconstruction of a dinosaur egg on the
right, are hard and impermeable, in order to conform to conditions on land. In
order for an amphibian to become a reptile, its eggs would have to have coincidentally
turned into perfect reptile eggs, and yet the slightest error in such a process
would lead to the extinction of the species.
Regarding the origin of these creatures, evolution is again at
an impasse. Darwinism claims that reptiles evolved from amphibians. However, no
discovery to verify such a claim has ever been made. On the contrary, comparisons
between amphibians and reptiles reveal that there are huge physiological gaps
between the two, and a "half reptile-half amphibian" would have no chance of survival.
One example of the physiological gaps between these two groups
is the different structures of their eggs. Amphibians lay their eggs in water,
and their eggs are jelly-like, with a transparent and permeable membrane. Such
eggs possess an ideal structure for development in water. Reptiles, on the other
hand, lay their eggs on land, and consequently their eggs are designed to survive
there. The hard shell of the reptile egg, also known as an "amniotic egg," allows
air in, but is impermeable to water. In this way, the water needed by the developing
animal is kept inside the egg.
If amphibian eggs were laid
on land, they would immediately dry out, killing the embryo. This cannot be explained
in terms of evolution, which asserts that reptiles evolved gradually from amphibians.
That is because, for life to have begun on land, the amphibian egg must have changed
into an amniotic one within the lifespan of a single generation. How such a process
could have occurred by means of natural selection and mutation-the mechanisms
of evolution-is inexplicable. Biologist Michael Denton explains the details of
the evolutionist impasse on this matter:
textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains
how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came
about gradually as a result of a successive accumulation of small changes. The
amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that
of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which differ
more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the amphibian - reptile
transition is just another of the major vertebrate divisions for which clearly
worked out evolutionary schemes have never been provided. Trying to work out,
for example, how the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually
converted to the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous
Nor does the
fossil record provide any evidence to confirm the evolutionist hypothesis regarding
the origin of reptiles.
L. Carroll, an evolutionary paleontologist and authority on vertebrate paleontology,
is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate
Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early amniotes are sufficiently distinct
from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specific ancestry has not been established."93
In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published
in 1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the
transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the origins
of many other major groups.94
The same fact
is also acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould:
Evolutionists at one time claimed
that the Seymouria fossil on the left was a transitional form between amphibians
and reptiles. According to this scenario, Seymouria was "the primitive ancestor
of reptiles." However, subsequent fossil discoveries showed that reptiles were
living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. In the light of this,
evolutionists had to put an end to their comments regarding Seymouria.
No fossil amphibian
seems clearly ancestral to the lineage of fully terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles,
birds, and mammals).95
far, the most important animal put forward as the "ancestor of reptiles" has been
Seymouria, a species of amphibian. However, the fact that Seymouria cannot be
a transitional form was revealed by the discovery that reptiles existed on earth
some 30 million years before Seymouria first appeared on it. The oldest Seymouria
fossils are found in the Lower Permian layer, or 280 million years ago. Yet the
oldest known reptile species, Hylonomus and Paleothyris, were found in lower Pennsylvanian
layers, making them some 315-330 million years old.96 It is
surely implausible, to say the least, that the "ancestor of reptiles" lived much
later than the first reptiles.
In brief, contrary to the evolutionist
claim that living being evolved gradually, scientific facts reveal that they appeared
on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Snakes and Turtles
there are impassable boundaries between very different orders of reptiles such
as snakes, crocodiles, dinosaurs, and lizards. Each one of these different orders
appears all of a sudden in the fossil record, and with very different structures.
Looking at the structures in these very different groups, evolutionists go on
to imagine the evolutionary processes that might have happened. But these hypotheses
are not reflected in the fossil record. For instance, one widespread evolutionary
assumption is that snakes evolved from lizards which gradually lost their legs.
But evolutionists are unable to answer the question of what "advantage" could
accrue to a lizard which had gradually begun to lose its legs, and how this creature
could be "preferred" by natural selection.
An approximately 50 million-year-old
python fossil of the genus Palaeopython.
remains to say that the oldest known snakes in the fossil record have no "intermediate
form" characteristics, and are no different from snakes of our own time. The oldest
known snake fossil is Dinilysia, found in Upper Cretaceous rocks in South America.
Robert Carroll accepts that this creature "shows a fairly advanced stage of evolution
of these features [the specialized features of the skull of snakes],"97
in other words that it already possesses all the characteristics of modern snakes.
order of reptile is turtles, which emerge in the fossil record together with the
shells which are so characteristic of them. Evolutionist sources state that "Unfortunately,
the origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of early fossils,
although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.
By the middle of the Triassic Period (about 200,000,000 years ago) turtles were
numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics… Intermediates between
turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which turtles probably sprang,
are entirely lacking."98
Above, a freshwater turtle,
some 45 million years old, found in Germany. On the right the remains of the oldest
known marine turtle. This 110-million-year-old fossil, found in Brazil, is identical
to specimens living today.
Thus Robert Carroll is also forced to mention the origin of
turtles among the "important transitions and radiations still poorly known."99
these types of living things emerged suddenly and independently. This fact is
a scientific proof that they were created.
interesting group within the reptile class are flying reptiles. These first emerged
some 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic, but subsequently became extinct.
These creatures were all reptiles, because they possessed all the fundamental
characteristics of the reptile class. They were cold-blooded (i.e., they could
not regulate their own internal heat) and their bodies were covered in scales.
But they possessed powerful wings, and it is thought that these allowed them to
Flying reptiles are portrayed in some popular evolutionist
publications as paleontological discoveries that support Darwinism-at least, that
is the impression given. However, the origin of flying reptiles is actually a
real problem for the theory of evolution. The clearest indication of this is that
flying reptiles emerged suddenly and fully formed, with no intermediate form between
them and terrestrial reptiles. Flying reptiles possessed very well designed wings,
which no terrestrial reptile possesses. No half-winged creature has ever been
encountered in the fossil record.
A Eudimorphodon fossil, one of the
oldest species of flying reptiles. This specimen, found in northern Italy, is
some 220 million years old.
any case, no half-winged creature could have lived, because if these imaginary
creatures had existed, they would have been at a grave disadvantage compared to
other reptiles, having lost their front legs but being still unable to fly. In
that event, according to evolution's own rules, they would have been eliminated
and become extinct.
In fact, when flying reptiles' wings are
examined, they have such a flawless design that this could never be accounted
for by evolution. Just as other reptiles have five toes on their front feet, flying
reptiles have five digits on their wings. But the fourth finger is some 20 times
longer than the others, and the wing stretches out under that finger. If terrestrial
reptiles had evolved into flying reptiles, then this fourth finger must have grown
gradually step by step, as time passed. Not just the fourth finger, but the whole
structure of the wing, must have developed with chance mutations, and this whole
process would have had to bring some advantage to the creature. Duane T. Gish,
one of the foremost critics of the theory of evolution on the paleontological
level, makes this comment:
A fossil flying reptile of the species
Pterodactylus kochi. This specimen, found in Bavaria, is about 240 million years
very notion that a land reptile could have gradually been converted into a flying
reptile is absurd. The incipient, part-way evolved structures, rather than conferring
advantages to the intermediate stages, would have been a great disadvantage. For
example, evolutionists suppose that, strange as it may seem, mutations occurred
that affected only the fourth fingers a little bit at a time. Of course, other
random mutations occurring concurrently, incredible as it may seem, were responsible
for the gradual origin of the wing membrane, flight muscles, tendons, nerves,
blood vessels, and other structures necessary to form the wings. At some stage,
the developing flying reptile would have had about 25 percent wings. This strange
creature would never survive, however. What good are 25 percent wings? Obviously
the creature could not fly, and he could no longer run…100
short, it is impossible to account for the origin of flying reptiles with the
mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. And in fact the fossil record reveals that
no such evolutionary process took place. Fossil layers contain only land reptiles
like those we know today, and perfectly developed flying reptiles. There is no
intermediate form. Carroll, who is one of the most respected names in the world
in the field of vertebrate paleontology, makes the following admission as an evolutionist:
the Triassic pterosaurs were highly specialized for flight... They provide little
evidence of their specific ancestry and no evidence of earlier stages in the origin
The wings of flying reptiles extend along a "fourth finger"
some 20 times longer than the other fingers. The important point is that this
interesting wing structure emerges suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record.
There are no examples indicating that this "fourth finger" grew gradually-in other
words, that it evolved.
more recently, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, counts the
origin of pterosaurs among the important transitions about which not much is known.102
To put it briefly, there is no evidence for the evolution of flying reptiles.
Because the term "reptile" means only land-dwelling reptiles for most people,
popular evolutionist publications try to give the impression regarding flying
reptiles that reptiles grew wings and began to fly. However, the fact is that
both land-dwelling and flying reptiles emerged with no evolutionary relationship
interesting category in the classification of reptiles is marine reptiles. The
great majority of these creatures have become extinct, although turtles are an
example of one group that survives. As with flying reptiles, the origin of marine
reptiles is something that cannot be explained with an evolutionary approach.
The most important known marine reptile is the creature known as the ichthyosaur.
In their book Evolution of the Vertebrates, Edwin H. Colbert and Michael Morales
admit the fact that no evolutionary account of the origin of these creatures can
Fossil ichthyosaur of the genus Stenopterygius,
about 250 million years old.
The ichthyosaurs, in many respects the most
highly specialized of the marine reptiles, appeared in early Triassic times. Their
advent into the geologic history of the reptiles was sudden and dramatic; there
are no clues in pre-Triassic sediments as to the possible ancestors of
the ichthyosaurs… The basic problem of ichthyosaur relationships is that
no conclusive evidence can be found for linking these reptiles with any other
S. Romer, another expert on the natural history of vertebrates, writes:
earlier forms [of ichthyosaurs] are known. The peculiarities of ichthyosaur structure
would seemingly require a long time for their development and hence a very early
origin for the group, but there are no known Permian reptiles antecedent to them.104
Carroll again has to admit that the origin of ichthyosaurs
and nothosaurs (another family of aquatic reptiles) are among the many "poorly
known" cases for evolutionists.105
the different creatures that fall under the classification of reptiles came into
being on the earth with no evolutionary relationship between them. As we shall
see in due course, the same situation applies to mammals: there are flying mammals
(bats) and marine mammals (dolphins and whales). However, these different groups
are far from being evidence for evolution. Rather, they represent serious difficulties
that evolution cannot account for, since in all cases the different taxonomical
categories appeared on earth suddenly, with no intermediate forms between them,
and with all their different structures already intact.
is clear scientific proof that all these creatures were actually created.