Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

Michael T. Griffith
1997
@All Rights Reserved
Revised and Expanded on 3/21/98

No scientist, nor anyone else in recorded history for that matter, has ever observed the supposed process of evolution occurring. British biologist and evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews, in fact, has called the theory of evolution "an unproved theory" (Introduction to The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, reprinted by J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. xi, reference from Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, San Diego, CA: Creation- Life Publishers, 1978, p. 28). Evolution is not an established fact.

According to classical evolutionary theory, life slowly evolved in stages, e.g., the ape (or "ape-like creatures") gradually evolved into man, some reptiles evolved into birds, some dogs evolved into horses, etc., etc. If this were the case, we would expect to find numerous "transitional forms" in the fossil record, i.e., fossils of animals that were half dog and half horse, or that were half ape and half man, or that were half reptile and half bird. However, not a single genuine transitional form has been found. Says Dr. Duane Gish,

. . . it can be said that the fossil record reveals an explosive appearance of highly complex forms of life without evidence of evolutionary ancestors. This fact is a great mystery to evolutionists; but creationists ask, what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give than this sudden outburst of highly complex life? Furthermore, the fossil record fails to produce transitional forms between the major invertebrate types, between invertebrates and vertebrates, and between the major fish classes. (Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 71).

Most modern evolutionists, reacting to the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, now hold that evolution occurred in giant, very rapid leaps (rapid, that is, in comparison to the incredibly slow pace posited by Darwinian evolution). This new theory of origins is, in reality, a marked repudiation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolutionists used to argue that there were no transitional forms because evolution occurred too slowly to be observed in the fossil record. This latter argument is surely untenable, for certainly, even assuming evolution happened extremely slowly, there would be at least a few fossils of some types of transitional forms. Roger Oakland, a former evolutionist, and Caryl Matrisciana make the following comment about the fossil record in relation to the modern theory of evolution:

In an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record many evolutionists claim that evolution takes places over millions of years and is too slow to be observable. Another, more recent, explanation says that it is happening too fast for us to see.

This newest modification is called punctuated equilibria, and it is yet another theory resulting from lack of evidence to support the original theory! Such circular reasoning is certainly a challenge to logic.

Punctuated equilibria supposes that a group of species breaks away from the parent group of species and rapidly develops into a new species. With this model of biology paleontologists are now able to explain away the lack of fossil evidence.

Still, the fact remains that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support either gradual or rapid evolution. Under normal reasoning one would deduce such a lack of evidence to be a positive conclusion that no species have ever changed into another, as the evolution hypothesis maintains. Rather, the opposite has occurred. The evidence that hasn't been found in nearly a hundred and fifty years of diligent searching is called "the missing link," and hundreds of scientists continue in their attempts to find evidence that missing links are indeed missing. Sound scientific reasoning!

The concept of evolution is a hypothetical assumption. It should not be confused with science, which Webster's Dictionary defines as "knowledge derived from observation, facts and principles."

When animals die they are not normally fossilized. Their carcasses usually decompose and rot, or perhaps scavengers eat their remains. If left unprotected, the elements may destroy much of the personal information regarding the creature.

Even so, many scientists have convinced the public that the fossil record is replete with examples of missing links. Most often these missing links are confirmed not by factual evidence but rather by the use of hypothetical artistic representations. Science textbooks are full of proposals and illustrations supposedly proving the existence of transitional forms. Museums often display models of fishlike creatures crawling out on the land, then growing legs instead of fins, and so on. But what are these models based on?

Many evolutionists attempt to determine characteristics like hair color, skin tones, and features that are not possible to deduce from fossil finds. Bent on fitting the evidence into their evolutionary worldview, they conjecture how many millions of years old the evidence is, what animal it was before it came to be found in its present state, what it ate while in another state, or how it walked before it became what the fossil evidence states it to be at the time of the finding. The same is true of fossilized bones. Bones, if not smashed beyond recognition, may certainly be identified without too much trouble as belonging to a dog or a cow. But the color of the skin or hair of that dog or cow may not be deduced from the bone! These attempts, at best, are wild imaginary guesses, and at worst, the propagation of a theory based around the bias of the person who found the fossil or bone. The conclusion cannot be supported to be a sound scientific evaluation, but a furthering of a philosophy of life. (The Evolution Conspiracy, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1991, pp. 99-101).

(Note: Some evolutionists insist they do not claim man evolved "from apes," but rather from "ape-like creatures." However, when pressed to provide any meaningful difference between these alleged ancient "ape-like" creatures and apes, they really cannot do so. In addition, some popular books on evolution do not insist on this fine-line distinction between "ape-like creatures" and "apes." Herein, I will phrase my arguments on this issue in terms of man allegedly evolving from "apes.")

We are all familiar with the drawings and illustrations of ape-men and ape-women that regularly appear in popular magazines and in science textbooks. In recent years we've heard a lot about "Lucy." Before "Lucy" there was "Nebraska Man," "Java Man," "Piltdown Man," "Neanderthal Man," "Peking Man," etc., etc. When I saw these drawings, I automatically assumed that scientists had found the remains of the pictured creatures, that skeletons of these beings had been discovered. I was surprised to learn that in fact these drawings were based, not on hard physical evidence, but almost entirely on supposition. I was equally surprised to learn that in some cases these "apemen" had been exposed as hoaxes. "Nebraska Man" was based on a single tooth. "Java Man" was based on a few teeth and on two bones that were found 50 feet from each other. "Java Man's" femur bone was later determined to be entirely human, and not half-ape at all. What's more, the man who discovered "Java Man" later changed his mind and concluded "Java Man" was nothing more than a large gibbon. "Lucy" was based on a skeleton that was no more than 40 percent complete. "Lucy" was designated a missing link on the basis of her knee joint, which supposedly showed she had been bipedal (or able to walk upright). However, it is still not certain that Lucy walked upright. Indeed, British scientist Dr. Alan Hayward observes that evidence indicates Lucy probably did not walk upright like a human:

Much was made of Lucy by her finder, Don Johanson, and others. He assigned her a date of around three million years ago, and claimed that she represented the earliest known ancestors of the human race. Books and magazines began to publish imaginative drawings of Lucy and her family, looking almost as human as the nudists on Brighton beach.

Then in 1983 two American anthropologists, Stern and Susman, rather spoiled the artists' fun. They published the results of a reexamination of Lucy's skeleton, which had led them to very different conclusions. Many of her bones were more like chimpanzee bones than those of a human. She probably did not walk upright like a woman, but in a slouched position like an ape. And she probably spent much of her time climbing trees, since her skelton was better suited to that than walking.

So what really was Lucy? A forerunner of the human race, or just an extinct species of ape? The short answer is that there is no way of knowing. (Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, Bethany House Publishers Edition, 1995, pp. 52-53)

Dr. David B. Nitts, Department of Geology, University of Oklahoma:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate [or transitional] forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. . . . (Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

N. Macbeth:

Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed. (American Biology Teacher, November 1976, p. 495, reference from Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 176)

Dr. Stephen Gould, Harvard University:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. ("The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, vol. 86, 1977, reference from Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 176)

Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, who was a professor at the University of California:

It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. . . .

Neither has anyone witnessed the production of a new specimen of a higher taxonomic category by selection of micromutants. (American Scientist, vol. 40, 1952, pp. 94, 97, reference from Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 28)

Oakland and Matrisciana make the following point about the evolutionist assumption that living cells somehow evolved from nonliving material and about the failure of science to duplicate evolution even in sophisticated, highly controlled laboratory experiments:

Evolutionary theory accepts without question that nonlife can become life (simple and gradually more complex) by a process taking place over millions of years of time guided by nothing more than random chance events.

What do observable evidence and logic tell us? The observation made when we examine living things is that all life originates from life which already exists--life comes from preexisting life. This is commonly known in the field of biology as the "law of biogenesis."

The cell is described by biologists as the basic unit of life. No scientist has ever observed a cell originating from nonliving raw materials by spontaneous processes. Even controlled experimentation by the advanced technology of our day has never been able to produce a living cell. Cells can only come from cells that are already in existence.

Multicellular organisms never arise spontaneously from nonliving material. The perpetuation of life can only take place as living things beget a new generation of living things. Plants produce seed which produce new plants of the same kind; cats produce kittens which develop into mature cats. Life can only originate from life which already exists. This is powerful evidence that clearly supports the law of biogenesis and clearly contradicts the evolutionary view. (The Evolution Conspiracy, pp. 85- 86)

********************************************************

About the Author: Michael T. Griffith is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. He has attended Brigham Young University, Ricks College, Mount Wachusett Community College, Austin Peay State University, and Haifa University in Israel, where his studies centered around history and foreign languages. He is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient texts, including A Ready Reply: Answering Challenging Questions About the Gospel (Horizon Publishers, 1994) and his most recent book One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Horizon Publishers, 1996).

Back to Michael T. Griffith