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.

[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