Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!miller
From: miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #4
Message-ID: <32500017@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 23:29:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.32500017
Posted: Tue Dec 11 23:29:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:11:41 EST
References: <32500016@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Lines: 205
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:32500016:uiucdcsb:32500017:000:13856
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!miller    Dec 11 22:29:00 1984


                                    ORIGINS
                           No. 4: The Fossil Record

     The origin of life on earth is a  historical  event.   Whether  life  came
about  through  creation  or evolution cannot be repeated or directly tested by
the scientist.  Paleontology (the study of fossils) provides  the  only  direct
evidence available to the scientist to study the origin of life on earth.
     Evolutionists believe that all life forms descended from the same  source.
If this is true, then the fossil record should show the various kinds of plants
and animals converging to a common source.  Creationists, on  the  other  hand,
believe that all life forms have always been separate, with only limited poten-
tial for viable variations.  If this is true, then  the  fossil  record  should
show life appearing suddenly, with no evidence of gradual step-by-step develop-
ment through transitional forms.  Extinctions would have occurred in the  past,
as  they do in the present, but the boundaries between various organisms should
always be apparent.  Which model, creation or evolution, fits the  fossil  data
better?

GAPS: THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION
     One of the major problems for evolutionists is  the  sudden  explosion  of
complex  life  forms  in the Cambrian rocks, including trilobites, brachiopods,
worms, jellyfish, sponges, etc.  No transitional forms,  indicating  how  these
complex  creatures supposedly evolved, have ever been documented.  Pre-Cambrian
sedimentary rock can be found which is identical with  overlying  fossiliferous
Cambrian,  but the gaps are still present.  The evolutionist Neville George was
forced to admit that: ``Granted an evolutionary origin of the  main  groups  of
animals,  and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatso-
ever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian  rocks  remains
as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin'' [1].
     The next step up on the alleged evolutionary progression is the transition
from  invertebrates  to  vertebrates.  But Errol White, an expert on fishes, in
his presidential address to the Linnean Society of London said: ``But  whatever
ideas  authorities  may  have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other
major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in _n_o_t_h_i_n_g''
[2].
     This pattern continues throughout the entire evolutionary  tree.   Paleon-
tologists  from  each specialty admit that their particular area does not docu-
ment evolution, while at the same time maintaining a faith that all of the oth-
er  areas provide the missing evidence.  For example, the evolutionary botanist
Edred Corner wrote: ``Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the  theory  of
evolution  -  from  biology, bio-geography, and paleontology, but I still think
that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of  special
creation'' [3].
     Each time a particular kind of plant  or  animal  appears  in  the  fossil
record,  it  does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi-
cating how it evolved.  Gaps are large, systematic, and  continuous  throughout
the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model.  ``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 inter-
mediate  forms  between  species  and paleontology does not provide them'' [4].
Even the prominent Stephen Gould wrote: ``The extreme  rarity  of  transitional
forms  in  the  fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data  only  at  the  tips  and
nodes  of  their  branches;  the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils'' [5].  Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence''
is not the mark of an objective scientist.

PROPOSED TRANSITIONS
     When pressed hard for evidence of transitional forms, evolutionists always
point  to  Archaeopteryx  or  to the horse series.  Archaeopteryx, the proposed
link between reptiles and birds, is considered by many evolutionists to be  the
best example of evolution in action.
     However, close scrutiny indicates the characteristics of Archaeopteryx  do
not  give  much support for the evolutionary model.  Archaeopteryx did not have
half-scales and half-feathers, but rather fully developed feathers  capable  of
flight.   Also,  it turns out that Archaeopteryx's so-called reptilian features
are not unique to reptiles, but are possessed by several other types of  birds.
For  example,  the living ostrich, hoatzin, touraco, etc. are all considered to
be 100% birds, and yet possess common traits which are labeled reptilian in Ar-
chaeopteryx.   Furthermore,  even  the famous teeth cannot be used to label Ar-
chaeopteryx as partially reptile.  Some reptiles have teeth and  some  do  not.
Some  amphibians  have teeth and some do not.  Some mammals have teeth and some
do not.  Some fish have teeth and some do not.  In  fact,  this  pattern  holds
true throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum.  Even other birds
once had teeth, though they are now extinct.
     Finally, Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because the fossil
record  indicates  that  birds  were  already in existence during the period in
which Archaeopteryx was found [6].  These are just some  of  the  reasons  that
many  evolutionists  are  beginning  to abandon Archaeopteryx as a transitional
form.
     Current speculation centers upon an earlier reptile to  bird  link  called
``pro-avis''.   Pro-avis,  however,  is  based totally upon faith, and not upon
fact.  ``No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical
pre-bird, but one that must have existed'' [7].
     The famous horse series is often found in museums as one  of  the  classic
cases of evolution.  However, the observer is not usually told that: all of the
various forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, the presumed  reduction  in
the number of toes has many contradictions in order, Eohippus is almost identi-
cal to the living African hyrax, and that modern horses have been found in  the
same strata with their supposed ancestors.  In fact, as more fossil evidence is
collected, it becomes clear that all of these various animals did  not  evolve,
but  were merely contemporaries of each other.  The fossil record looks so bad,
that a curator of the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago  (which
houses  20%  of  all  fossil species known) wrote: ``Well, we are now about 120
years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly  ex-
panded.  We  now  have  a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation
hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly  jerky  and,
ironically,  we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had
in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic  cases  of  darwinian
change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North Ameri-
ca, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed  informa-
tion'' [8].

HUMAN EVOLUTION
     A wide variety of fossils has been proposed as the evolutionary  ancestors
of  humans.   However, each generation of evolutionists succeeds in little more
than debunking the preceding generation's hypotheses.  A few examples will suf-
fice.
     In 1912, Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered.  For  over  40
years, Piltdown Man was examined by the world's leading authorities, contribut-
ing in some part to over 500 doctoral dissertations.  But in the 1950's, it was
revealed  that  Piltdown Man was a complete hoax!  The ``fossil'' turned out to
be nothing more than fragments of an ape's jaw with a human  skull  treated  to
look  old.  Scientists of the time were so desperate to find support for evolu-
tion, that even a fraud was accepted as valid data.
     The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus  haroldcookii)  was  used  in  the  1925
Scopes  trial  to  ridicule  creationists.   Nebraska Man consisted of a single
tooth, although evolutionists had reconstructed Nebraska Man's  entire  appear-
ance from that tooth.  In 1927, the rest of the fossil was uncovered.  Nebraska
Man was neither an ape-like man nor a man-like ape, but an extinct pig!
     Java Man (Pithecanthropus  erectus, later known as Homo erectus) consisted
of  a  skullcap, femur, and a premolar discovered over a period of seven years.
The discoverer, Eugene DuBois, eventually changed his mind  and  declared  that
Java  Man  consisted  of nothing more than the unrelated parts of a human and a
giant gibbon.  By that time, however, evolutionists had already  accepted  Java
Man  as  an  ancestor  of  humans.  Furthermore, DuBois had found (but had kept
secret for thirty years) the discovery of human skulls (the Wadjak  skulls)  in
the  same strata as Java Man.  Since humans already existed, Java Man could not
have been their ancestor.
     Neanderthal Man was originally classified as  Homo  neanderthalensis,  but
today  is  known to be fully Homo sapiens.  The original La Chapelle-aux-Saints
fossil is believed to have suffered from spinal osteoarthritis, and many  later
finds do not have the stooped appearance.
     What about the alleged transitional forms of today?  What  does  the  data
indicate about those fossils?
     Currently, evolutionists are speculating about a group of fossils known as
Australopithecus,  of  which Lucy is one form.  However, the data suggests that
Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct ape.  After proposing transi-
tions  from hoaxes, extinct pigs, etc. it is not surprising the interest evolu-
tionists show in fossil apes.
     Not all evolutionists, however, are so quick to again repeat the  mistakes
of  the  past.  For example, Charles Oxnard's multivariate statistical analysis
indicates that Australopithecus probably did not walk upright and  was  not  on
the  main  human lineage [9].  Furthermore, posture is not critical to the dis-
cussion, as the living pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus spends  a  great  deal  of
time walking upright.
     In fact, the fossil record so strongly supports the creation model's pred-
ictions,  that  Solly  Zuckerman  conceded that if humans had evolved from some
ape-like creature, then they had done so ``without leaving any fossil traces of
the steps of the transformation'' [10].

     Paleontology, the only direct evidence the scientist can use to study  the
origins  issue,  shows systematic and consistent gaps in the fossil record.  It
is not a question of missing links, but of a missing chain for  the  evolution-
ist!   ``In  any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuation-
ist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as
opposed  to special creation'' [11].  Life appears suddenly, complete, and with
fixed boundaries between the various kinds of plants and animals.  The  conclu-
sion is that life did not evolve, but must have been created.

                                  REFERENCES

[1]  T. Neville George, ``Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,''  _S_c_i_e_n_c_e  _P_r_o_-
     _g_r_e_s_s, Jan. 1960, p. 5.
[2]  Errol White, ``Presidential Address: A Little on  Lung-fishes,''  _P_r_o_c_e_e_d_-
     _i_n_g_s _o_f _t_h_e _L_i_n_n_e_a_n _S_o_c_i_e_t_y _o_f _L_o_n_d_o_n, Vol. 177, Jan. 1966, p. 8.
[3]  E. J. H. Corner, article in _C_o_n_t_e_m_p_o_r_a_r_y _B_o_t_a_n_i_c_a_l _T_h_o_u_g_h_t, ed.  Anna  Ma-
     cLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago, Quadrangle, 1961), p. 97.
[4]  David Kitts, ``Paleontology and Evolutionary  Theory,''  _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n,  Sept.
     1974, p. 467.
[5]  Stephen Gould, ``Evolution's Erratic Pace,'' _N_a_t_u_r_a_l _H_i_s_t_o_r_y, May 1977, p.
     14.
[6]  ``Bone Bonanza: Early Bird and Mastodon,'' _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _N_e_w_s, Sept.  24,  1977,
     p. 198.
[7]  John Ostrom, ``Bird Flight:  How  Did  It  Begin?,''  _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n  _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_s_t,
     Jan.-Feb. 1979, p. 47.
[8]  David Raup, ``Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,'' _F_i_e_l_d _M_u_s_e_u_m _o_f
     _N_a_t_u_r_a_l _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _B_u_l_l_e_t_i_n, Jan. 1979, p. 25.
[9]  Charles Oxnard, ``Human Fossils: New Views of Old  Bones,''  _T_h_e  _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n
     _B_i_o_l_o_g_y _T_e_a_c_h_e_r, May 1979, pp. 264-276.
[10] Solly Zuckerman, _B_e_y_o_n_d _t_h_e _I_v_o_r_y  _T_o_w_e_r:  _T_h_e  _F_r_o_n_t_i_e_r_s  _o_f  _P_u_b_l_i_c  _a_n_d
     _P_r_i_v_a_t_e _S_c_i_e_n_c_e (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970), p. 64.
[11] Mark Ridley, ``Who Doubts Evolution?,'' _N_e_w _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_s_t, June 25,  1981,  p.
     831.

For more information on this topic:

Duane Gish, _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n? _T_h_e _F_o_s_s_i_l_s _S_a_y _N_O!  (San Diego, Master Book, 1979).

Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book, 1974).

Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n  _S_c_i_e_n_c_e?   (San  Diego,  Master
Book, 1982).

Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y  (Midland,  Michigan,  Inquiry
Press, 1976).

Edited by A. Ray Miller, fall 1984

                         Students for Origins Research
                                 P.O. Box 203
                             Goleta, CA 93116-0203