[Box/​Pictures on page 68, 69]

What the Fossil Evidence Says . . . about the Origin of Living Things

On the Origin of Life:

“For at least three-quarters of the book of ages engraved in the earth’s crust the pages are blank.”​—The World We Live In⁠^c

“The initial steps . . . are not known; . . . no trace of them remains.”​—Red Giants and White Dwarfs⁠^d

On Many-Celled Life:

“How many-celled animals originated and whether this step occurred one or more times and in one or more ways remain difficult and ever-debated questions that are . . . ‘in the last analysis, quite unanswerable.’”​—Science⁠^e

“The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms.”​—Red Giants and White Dwarfs⁠^f

On Plant Life:

“Most botanists look to the fossil record as the source of enlightenment. But . . . no such help has been discovered. . . . There is no evidence of the ancestry.”​—The Natural History of Palms⁠^g

On Insects:

“The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica⁠^h

“There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like.”​—The Insects⁠ⁱ

On Animals With Backbones:

“Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica⁠^j

On Fish:

“To our knowledge, no ‘link’ connected this new beast to any previous form of life. The fish just appeared.”​—Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal World⁠^k

On Fish Becoming Amphibians:

“Just how or why they did this we will probably never know.”​—The Fishes⁠^l

On Amphibians Becoming Reptiles:

“One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.”​—The Reptiles⁠^m

On Reptiles Becoming Mammals:

“There is no missing link [that connects] mammals and reptiles.”​—The Reptiles⁠ⁿ

“Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we consider the first true mammals.”​—The Mammals⁠^o

On Reptiles Becoming Birds:

“The transition from reptiles to birds is more poorly documented.”​—Processes of Organic Evolution⁠^p

“No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found.”​—The World Book Encyclopedia⁠^q

On Apes:

“Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete.”​—The Primates⁠^r

“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record.”​—Science Digest⁠^s

From Ape to Man:

“No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape.”​—Science Digest⁠^t

“The human family does not consist of a solitary line of descent leading from an apelike form to our species.”​—The New Evolutionary Timetable⁠^u

21. What arguments have not held up, and why not?

²¹ Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”⁠²³

22. In view of these facts, what comments did a biochemist make?

²² These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”⁠²⁴

23. What did a zoologist conclude?

²³ Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”⁠²⁵

Continued Sudden Appearances, Little Change

24. Is the testimony of the fossil record the same in layers above the Cambrian period?

²⁴ In the layers above that Cambrian outburst of life, the testimony of the fossil record is repeatedly the same: New kinds of animals and new kinds of plants appear suddenly, with no connection to anything that went before them. And once on the scene, they continue with little change. The New Evolutionary Timetable states: “The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.”⁠²⁶

25. Insects have shown what remarkable stability?

²⁵ For example, insects appeared in the fossil record suddenly and plentifully, without any evolutionary ancestors. Nor have they changed much even down to this day. Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said: “The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.”⁠²⁷ And a report in The Globe and Mail of Toronto commented: “In 40 million years of struggling up the evolutionary ladder, they have made almost no discernible progress.”⁠²⁸

26. How do plants and animals show the same stability?

²⁶ A similar picture exists for plants. Found in the rocks are fossil leaves of many trees and shrubs that show very little difference from the leaves of such plants today: oak, walnut, hickory, grape, magnolia, palm and many others. Animal kinds follow the same pattern. The ancestors of those alive today appear in the fossil record suddenly and were much like their living counterparts. There are many variations, but all are easily identified as the same “kind.” Discover magazine notes one such example: “The horseshoe crab . . . has existed on earth virtually unchanged for 200 million years.”⁠²⁹ Those that became extinct also followed the same pattern. Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct.

27. What does one scientific publication say about evolutionary “improvement”?

²⁷ On this point the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History states: “Species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.”⁠³⁰

No Transitional Features

28. Have transitional forms of bones and organs ever been found?

²⁸ Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures​—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

29. What do evolutionists now acknowledge about supposed transitional forms?

²⁹ New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠³¹ And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠³² “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠³³​—Italics added.

30. What does an extensive study confirm?

³⁰ This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”⁠³⁴

31. Does the fossil record say something different now from what it said in Darwin’s day?

³¹ Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠³⁵

What About the Horse?

32. What is often presented as a classic example of evolution?

³² However, it has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia states: “Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.”⁠³⁶ Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really support this?

33. Does the fossil evidence really support evolution of the horse?

³³ The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line.”⁠³⁷ In other words, nowhere does the fossil evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large horse. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: “Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all​—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush.”⁠³⁸

34, 35. (a) Why do some now question the place of Eohippus? (b) Have any evolutionary ancestors been found for the varieties of fossil horses?

³⁴ Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable says: “It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal.” But do the facts support this assumption? “The fossil species of [Eohippus] show little evidence of evolutionary modification,” answers the book. It thus concedes, regarding the fossil record: “It fails to document the full history of the horse family.”⁠³⁹

³⁵ So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one. And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family.