What the Fossil Record Reveals

Also of interest is Moore’s observation regarding plants and animals that have lived in the past, but that have since died. He says:

“There is absolutely no . . . evidence in the prime historical source, the fossil record, for any actual connection in sequence of these kinds. 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.”

That is the evidence after more than a century of digging. The record remains precisely the same as when, over a century ago, Darwin exclaimed: “As by this [evolution] theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

He passed off the difficulty by stating that the fossil record was at fault. But after more than a century of intensive digging, that excuse can no longer validly be used. The fossil record is complete enough to show the same thing that the living record does​—a living thing reproduces only “according to its kind.” It is not found to be changing from one kind into another.

Furthermore, Darwin said that if it could be shown that groups of living things “have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” What does the evidence show? Professor Moore reports:

“In the 1967 publication, The Fossil Record, . . . jointly sponsored by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England . . . 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. . . .

“A conclusive generalization drawn from these charts is as follows: 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. . . .

“And proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, who are familiar with the facts of paleontology, admit existence of gaps between all higher categories. They admit that this is an undeniable fact of the fossil record.”

This is indeed admitted by evolutionists. For instance, in Processes of Organic Evolution, G. L. Stebbins says of the fossil evidence regarding the origin and evolution of major groups of living things: “Evolutionists are impressed above all with the imperfection of the fossil record for this purpose.” He speaks of “profound gaps” and the “incompleteness and biased [prejudiced!] nature of the fossil record.”

Yet, he also says: “The record of past forms of life [in fossil form] is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness.” So there is a sufficient amount of fossils to draw conclusions. But nowhere are there to be found the transitional forms that should have existed if one group transformed into another by evolution.

This is acknowledged to be the case with smaller life forms as well, for Asimov admits: “Primitive though a unicellular [one-celled] creature seems in comparison to a man, or even to an oyster, it must itself be the end product of a long line of evolution, of which no trace has been left.” And he says of higher forms: “Perhaps both chordates and echinoderms branched off from a common ancestor of which we have no record.” [Italics ours]

Thus, we can understand why Stebbins laments: “The fossil record is exactly the wrong kind for evolutionists who wish to learn how the major groups of organisms originated.”

And admits evolutionist Edmund Samuel, Associate Professor of Biology, Antioch College, Ohio: “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life in space and time. . . . This is because the data must be used circumstantially and no fine analysis . . . of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”​—Order: In Life (1972), p. 120.

What About Those “Ape-Men”?

YET, what of the reports over the years that fossil remains of apelike men have been discovered? Are they not proof of transitions between apes and men?

If this were so, then why is the “inferior” ape family still in existence today, but not a single one of the “ape-men” types, who were supposedly superior? Should not at least one of those higher types have survived the lesser apes? But today we see chimpanzees, baboons, orangutans, gorillas and even monkeys in abundance, but no superior “ape-men.”

From the viewpoint of evolution, it is strange that every one of the “links” between the apes and modern man should have been wiped out, but not the lower apes. However, it is not at all strange if we look at the record from the Bible’s viewpoint. The Bible shows the simple reason why no links exist today: they have never existed.

Fossil “Ape-Men”

From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books, and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?

Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”

In spite of this scarcity of fossil evidence for evolution, evolutionists in recent years had generally agreed on a line of ascent from ape to man. A vital link in their chain was the creature called Australopithecus, fossils of which were found in Africa. It had a small brain case, heavy jawbone, and was pictured as stooped over and apish looking.

Evolutionist Ruth Moore stated of it: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” She said emphatically: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.” In 1971 the New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”

Evolutionist Stebbins also said: “The immediate ancestors of Homo [man] were the australopithecines.” Most scientists in the field of evolution agreed. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 1972: “Current evolutionary theory holds that Homo sapiens​—modern man—​evolved within the past million years from Australopithecus, a fossil with physical characteristics of both ape and man.”

But because there may be a similarity in bone structure between an apish creature and modern man, does that mean they are related? It is very much like a person today examining the bones of a chimpanzee and then of a human, both of whom had died recently, and then concluding that one came directly from the other. He could claim that, but it would simply not be true.

A Shaken Theory

But any theory that is based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, or shallow reasoning, sooner or later comes to nothing. This has already often proved to be the case with many past examples of supposed “ape-men.” So, too, it may now be with Australopithecus, only a few years after it has been dogmatically asserted that he was the most vital missing link of all.

Late in 1972, Richard Leakey and his team found in Africa a skull and leg bones of a creature that is said to have lived at the same time as Australopithecus. But it is claimed to have human characteristics!

Regarding the new find, the East African Standard of Nairobi, Kenya, reported:

“Not only the size and shape of the brain of this new find, but also the limb bones found in the archaeological sites now being searched by the experts at East Rudolf are remarkably like those of modern man.

“And it is these discoveries that have thrown new light on the theory of human evolution which will require a complete reappraisal end modification of the interpretation of previously known examples of early man.”

As a result of this find, Leakey told newsmen that Australopithecus “can be excluded from our line of ancestry.” And the New York Daily News reported: “[Leakey] said that the discovery would make it necessary to abandon the theory of man’s evolution that is now commonly accepted.” The conclusion was: “Homo sapiens [man] did not evolve from Australopithecus.”

How Brutish?

However, regardless of what very ancient fossils are placed in man’s ancestry, are they not apish, brutish and stupid looking? Does this not indicate an evolution from an apelike ancestor?

True, that is how they are pictured. But what is the basis for this? In The Biology of Race we are told: “The assumption of the brutishness and low morality of different people has been clearly shown in the attempts made by paleontologists to reconstruct fossil men.” Then it states: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.”

So the brutish appearance given early men is based not on facts, but on the assumption that they must have looked as if they came from the apes. The apish reconstruction admittedly results solely from the imagination, the fantasy of scientists who are determined to uphold the evolution theory even if it means deceiving the general public.

The truth is that it is impossible to determine by the skull or other bones what a person looked like. This is the case if the skeleton of a man is only four years old, or four thousand years old. The eyes, ears, nose, lips, skin, hair​—indeed all outward features—​are not preserved in old fossils.

That is why the above-quoted publication admits that regarding such outward features “we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” In view of this, how honest would you say such brutish reconstructions are?

However, because of recent evidence showing that many early humans had a relatively high type of culture, some changes in viewpoint are now taking place. As The Biology of Race states: “More recently the restorers have begun to show a tendency to upgrade the earlier forms of man.” And the New York Times reported:

“It now appears that the men who lived in limestone caves scattered across Europe, from 32,000 B.C. until some 10,000 years ago were innately much like ourselves. In fact, some anthropologists argue that they were taller than modern man and possessed larger brains.”

Thus, a truthful look at the record tells us this: the huge chasm between man and beast that is so obvious today has always existed in the past. Any attempt to put apish creatures in man’s line is a myth. As New Scientist said, there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”

The truth is what the facts show, that God created man separate and distinct from the animals, and that man reproduces only after his kind. He does so today, and has always done so in the past. Any apish creature that lived in the past belonged to the ape kind, not human kind. Fossils of true men were simply varieties of the human kind, just as today we have many varieties or races of people living side by side.