Biblical Creation vs Evolution- The Fossil Record

The Fossil Record


“Evolutionist see what they want to see, they see a past they believe has happened, and that desire drives their vision.”
-Randy Guliazza P.E M.D the imaginary Piltdown man

Artistic License

“Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
-Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific AmericanHYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"'HYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"s Nonsense

“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to advertisements for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape—stocky, jutting jaw, hunched in the knuckle-walking position. On the right, a man—graceful, high forehead, striding purposefully into the future. Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans, as the shoulders start to pull back, the torso slims down, the arms retract, the legs extend, the cranium expands and the chin recedes. Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
-Wood, B., Who are we? New Scientist 176(2366):44–47, 26 October 2002

Why is it evolutionist think that dead organisms can do something “long ago” and “far away” that the same organisms cannot do today? Which is reproduce something other than its kind. In part because most of what is presented as missing links is just artistic license. Artists are told to draw the creature from the perspective of evolution and how old the fossils are said to be, thus how far along in the evolutionary process they are. Most fossils are really only fragments of the original animal a piece of jaw or tooth and can be interpreted various ways and disagreements over even what species they are occur. Than they draw pictures of what they believe it may have looked like in this evolutionary process to try to convince you of evolution, Allot of imagination and interpretation go into these finds and drawings. Here is the missing link “European man”



“Imaginative action stories, art, and computer animations must be employed to “sell” evolution to the public.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

Lucy is a well known claimed missing link [more on lucy later]. She is also a very complete fossil 40%compared to most usally 10% or less. Yet even with Lucy there are many forms and ways she has been presented by evolutionist.





The above shows the actual fossils found . With enough interpretation you can make fossils appear as you wish them to. In the book The greatest hoax on earth by Jonathan Safarti he talked of any interview with a fossil artists. Who says they draw a picture of what they are told to make the fossil look like, than the drawings are sent back to make more ape like, more human, or whatever is desired, until the picture matches what the evolutionist wanted. So when ever you see a picture in a textbook as proof of a missing link, ignore it and first see the actual fossils to see if the evidence matches the story told about them, what they want you to believe the fossils say.

“fossils are fickle, bones will sing any song you want to hear”
-Shreeve j arguments over a woman discover 11[8] 58 1990

“In science, “seeing is believing” but in evolution, “believing is seeing.” It takes a lot of believing to see an evolutionary thread through the scattered, shattered fossil fragments that serve as a basis for so many different “just so” stories and illustrative paintings.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record 2017

In fact they dont even need fossils

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
-Charles Darwin


Nebraska man



Nebraska man was used to support evolution as a missing link It was presented in the museums and textbooks, shown in pictures in newspapers, as a missing link. They had enough fossil evidence that they could tell what environment Nebraska man lived in, what his wife and kids looked like, and what they ate. It was examined by leading authorities from 26 institutions across Europe and the US and classified as a missing link. The fossils remains were estimated to be around 10 million years old. Later it was found out the only actual evidence found was 1 tooth.



As Creationist Duane Gish said, science is truly an amazing thing when they get that much information from one tooth. Not only that, it was a tooth of a pig. Here is the real Nebraska man



This shows how much imagination goes along with these finds and that they see what they want to see. How many believed in evolution because of this “missing link” over the decades.


Piltdown man




“Darwin's theory is proved true”
-NY Times sep 22 1912

“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.
-Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.

Piltdown man was in the textbooks and museums as proof of evolution for over 40 years it was seen as the fossil evidence for evolution. Hundreds of peer reviewed research papers were written on the fossil and information was factually given about how they died, their language and parenting. Tax money was used to build a monument and national sanctuary at the site of the find for this “most important evidence for evolution.” Claimed to be between 100,000 and 500,000 years old as newspapers around the world sold it to the public as proof of evolution.

“Researchers shaped reality to their hearts desire.”
-Blinderman The Piltdown Inquest

“Many scientist were so elated by the discovery that they uncritically accepted the sloppy forgery”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries

Later it was found to be a human skull with an apes jaw chiseled down to fit and stained to look old actually only a few hundred years old. Many scientist were involved with the forgeries including sir Arthur Smith Woodward director of the natural history museum in London who was given many awards and honors for the find. The job was even done horribly, scratch marks were left teeth artificially ground down in one case the pulp cavity was worn down and had to be filled with sand. The teeth were angular instead or rounded, flattened at different angels and standard store bought paint was used on the canine tooth.

“How easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for.”
-biology philosopher Jane Maienschein Maienschein, J. 1997. The One and the Many: Epistemological Reflections on the Modern Human Origins Debates. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. Clark, G. A. and C. M. Willermet, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 413.

“Self deception....scientist may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to their lies with only the most tenuous basis in fact...because it fell with preconceived wishes.”
-Eiseley L Fossil and Human evolution 1966


Pithecanthropus Erectus Java Man

portrayal vs actual fossils


Java man was the primary evidence used in the scopes trial as proof of evolution. It was used as an example for decades as proof of evolution and a missing link..Less than 1% of the complete human skeleton was found.

“Tantalizingly incomplete, and for most scientist it was inadequate as confirmation of Darwin's view of human evolution.”
-Boule M and Vallois H.V Fossil men a textbook of human paleontology

The founder of the fossil Eugene Dubois went looking for missing links packing up his family to travel in search to prove evolution. Dubois thought that finding missing link “would be the greatest scientific discovery ever.”

“Dubois had a powerful motivation to find this missing link- to disprove theism because he know believed “There is no truth in religion” and he was drawn to prove evolution with an almost religious fervor”
-Milner the encyclopedia of Evolution and Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries

The fossils were not found together as one unit but were scattered about. The fossils were not found by Dubois but by an untrained convict labors.

“The finds were made under circumstances that would later haunt the entire endeavor and threatened to ruin Dubois reputation.”
-Regal Human Evolution

After his original claims of finding a missing link [he had no training as a paleontologist] when he returned he hid the bones for 25 years after criticism from the scientific community arose, he was

“Willingly blind to opposing evidence”
-Steven J Gould Men of the thirty-third division

Dubois later changed his mind and said his fossil was of a Gibbon [see E Dubois on the fossil human skulls recently discovered in java]. One of the molars was actually found 25 miles away and likely not part of java man. The Femur and Molar [other] are that of a humans.

“Weather or not these bones belong to the same individuals, if they do not, we have remains of two or three individuals.”
-J Mccabe the story of evolution

The Skull cap has been argued and debated but appears to be that of a human variant like neanderthals. Harvard paleontologist Dan lieberman studied a more complete skull of a java man and said

“It is the first H Erectus find with a reasonable complete cranial base and it looks modern.”
-Java skull offers new view of homo erectus Science 299 [5611] 1293 2003

The fossils were originally dated by Dubois at 7-10 million years to fit the missing link time line. Today they are said to be 250,000-500,000 years old. And they are

“Considered an early human species, not a missing link between ape and man...Dubois spent most of his life trying to press a wrong conclusion.”
-Milner the encyclopedia of evolution

“The homo erectus type appears to be one of the many variants of humans that have existed in history and still exists today.”
-Tattersall I Devson E and Couvering encyclopedia on human evolution and pre history

 

Pithecanthropus Alaus


Ernst Haekel the “great German apostle of Darwinism” believed in a mythical land known as Lemaria where apes evolved into man as there were no fossils transitions on our continents, thus there must have been a land where they did evolve on. This land of course was know sunken [like Atlantis] into the sea. A 1962 biology textbook described the half man half monkey fossils as “Short, squat creatures.”

“Who could doubt the exsistance of that contented looking burger family?
-Richards R.J Ernst haeckel the tragic sense of Life

This all of course shows the power of photos on a uneducated public that allows evolutionist to indoctrinate as the creatures never existed.

“Pictures are easily grasped and, to the uninformed, can be very convincing evidence of evolution”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries


Archaeoraptor



National geographic the biggest promoter of evolution worldwide promoted Archaeoraptor as a missing link to prove the dinosaur to bird connection they push. However it was a fraudulent fossil that combined the body of a birdlike creature with a tail from a different dinosaur. After much pressure the magazine gave a small retraction in a later edition.

“Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The “feathered dinosaur” specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird, they say. “It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever been involved with in my career,”
-Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta Monastersky, R. 2000. All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs. Science News. 157 (3): 38.

Another fraud in the bird to dinosaur link is the fossil Confuciusornis. In fact frauds are common.

“Archeroptor is just the tip of the iceberg, there are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field.”
-Discover magazine A Feducia


Frauds are common in museums and specifically China where it has been estimated that 80% of marine reptile fossils are fake.


Neanderthals What They Don't Tell you


Early depiction vs newer depiction based m on fossils and genetics


“we have, for far too long, considered the Neanderthals to have been so different from us” [and that the idea that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans] “must surely now be removed from text books”
-Clive Finlayson Neanderthal expert

“The existence of Neandertals has been used as a club to beat creationists since the first Neandertal skeleton was discovered in the 1800s. Generations have been raised to believe in the half-ape, half-man, primitive cave man called Neandertal. This is no longer believed by the evolutionary establishment”
-Dr Rob Carter PHD geneticists

Evolutionist are finally saying what creationist have been saying for decades, Neanderthals are human. Liberal evolutionist Scientific Americaan July 2010 in an article titled “our inner neanderthal” shows humans and neanderthals interbreed showing them human they have even been found buried together. Neanderthals used makeup and jewelry, they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead. They played music [the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).] They used tools, cooked and recycled. performed surgery. The average brain size was larger than a modern humans. DNA of Neanderthals was tested and showed they were within the human range and closer to the norm than Australian Aborigines.

“European “In the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.”
-Nature, 77:587 (190—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found”
-Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008. Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.

“We have been using these techniques to look at how Neanderthals were making and using the tools they left at La Cotte....Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434

“Because the jawbone appears to contain a mixture of features (called a "morphological mosaic" by the authors), it looks as though Neandertals intermarried with anatomically modern people.”
-Liu, W. et al. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print October 25, 2010.

But "a new study shows they cooked and ate veggies." An examination of fossilized Neandertal remains from Belgium and Iraq revealed that their teeth contained starch granules from grain. Amanda Henry, lead author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told CNN, "Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors."7
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/ne … tml?hpt=C2

So, evidence shows that ancient humans performed surgery
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s … 000810.ece

“[W]e must reclassify Homo neanderthalensis as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … l-brethren

“The full sequencing of Neanderthal DNA showed it was at least 99.7% like that of living humans.”
-RANDY J. GULIUZZA, P.E., M.D. Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced. National Institutes of Health News. Posted on genome.gov May 5, 2010, accessed October 27, 2016.

"Our findings show that their sinuses were no larger, relative to the skull size, than in Homo sapiens who lived in temperate climates.The view that Neanderthals were knuckle-dragging cave men who scraped a living by hunting large mammals on the frozen wastes of the tundra has been around since they were first discovered because they were known to live at a time when Europe was in the grip of the last Glacial Age.As a result a lot of their physical traits have been attributed as adaptations that helped them live in the cold, even when it doesn't make any sense.”
-Dr Todd Rae, an evolutionary anthropologist at Roehampton University in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie … finds.html

2 chimps of same species today vary in DNA similarity more so than, neanderthals do to humans
answers mag p 58 April-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -different

“next time you call someone a Neanderthal, better look in a mirror.”
-How much Neanderthal DNA do you have? Lots. Associated Press. Posted on foxnews.com January 29, 2014, accessed October 28, 2016.

“yet another indication that they weren't dimwitted brutes as often portrayed,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 152917.htm

“Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/ne … tml?hpt=C2

some fossils were fraudulent as they moved the law out of socket to look more primitive
http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Alive-S.../dp/0890512388

neanderthals used makeup jewelery
answers mag vol 5 no3 2010

they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...eanderthal.asp

armored neanderthal
in the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.
Nature, 77:587 (190—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

They played music
Neanderthal flute?the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).

European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found.1
-Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008.
Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.

“Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434

"The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.Man's ancestors mated with Neanderthals and other related hominids during human evolution, according to a new study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...n-species.html

The new report, published in the journal PLoS ONE, further confirms the fact that Neandertals could and did interbreed with people deemed to be modern humans
http://www.icr.org/article/7107/
Sanchez-Quinto, F. et al. 2012. North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e47765.

2 chimps of same species today vary in dna similarity more so than, neanderthals do to humans
anwsers mag p 58 april-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...emen-different

"had a sophisticated knowledge of their natural surroundings which included the ability to select and use certain plants “By using these methods in conjunction with the extraction and analysis of plant microfossils, we have found chemical evidence consistent with wood-fire smoke, a range of cooked starchy foods, two plants known today for their medicinal qualities, and bitumen or oil shale entrapped within the dental calculus. Yet within the same calculus, chemical evidence for lipids/proteins from meat was low to absent.
Hardy, K. et al. 2012. Neanderthal medics? Evidence for food, cooking, and medicinal plants entrapped in dental calculus.Naturwissenschaften. 99 ( :617–626.

Neanderthal Genome Shows Early Human Interbreeding, Inbreeding
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1218133658.htm

“Recent genome reports show that the Neandertals are essentially fully human, causing scientists to reclassify them as "archaic humans."
- Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University


Neanderthal cave paintings
http://creation.com/neandertal-paintings-bombshell

neanderthals could speak like modern humans
Neanderthals could speak like modern humans, study suggests BBC.com 20 dec 2013
DNA Proof That Neandertals Are Just Humans
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/8006/

German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who found skull fragments in Hamburg called “one of archaeology's most sensational finds” by the British guardian and a “vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals” career has “know ended in disgrace after the reevaluation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” “an entire traache of the history of man's development will have to be reworked.” Over his 30 year career some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum.

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce.sciencenews

 

Lucy


Actual Fossil of Lucy- Lucy's human foot in a museum depiction though no fossils were found to support the presentation


“The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences “
-Häusler, M. and P. Schmid. 1995. Comparison of the Pelves of Sts 14 and AL288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines. Journal of Human Evolution. 29 (4): 363-383.

“Lucy, a fossil that was once widely promoted as a hypothetical human ancestor, had shoulder sockets that faced upward, a common feature of modern apes. The Selam fossil has the same type of sockets. This unique feature enables apes to dexterously climb and swing from tree branches. In contrast, humans have downward facing shoulder sockets at birth that gradually develop to face forward as they become adults. This position is also integral to the uniquely human walking gait. Also in contrast to humans, ape shoulder morphology does not change during development. The authors wrote in Science, "Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny [development from an embryo], but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike."
-Green, D. J. and Z. Alemseged. 2012. Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and the Role of Climbing in Human Evolution. Science. 338 (6106): 514-517

Lucy was possibly named after the drug LSD, Lucy In the sky with diamonds from the famous Beatles song. What is known as Lucy is a chimp, not a missing link. Korea has recently took Lucy out of the textbooks for being outdated and false. In a October 11 1994 episode of Nova you can actually see on camera evolutionist reshape Lucy' pelvis to make it allow for her to walk upright as the evolutionist “believe” the fossils should be. Lucy was a chimp, she was 3'6 with a weight of typical chimps. She had a V shaped jaw. The nearby laetoli tracks were identical to modern humans. Lucy's toe bone was separated by several hundred feet 10 miles away and a hundred thousands years [according to evolutionist see The Greatest Hoax on earth p156-157] Her skull,nose, knee joint, hand bones, all clearly show she was a chimp made for swinging in trees and walking on all fours. She may have been able to at times walk partially upright, such as a modern pygmy chimp that would not make her more human than any a pygmy chimp.

“More importantly, the evidence from CATscans of the fossil skulls (which show the orientation of the organ of balance) indicates that they did not walk habitually upright in the human manner”
-Spoor, F., Wood, B. and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369(6482):645–648, 1994

“Their limb bones were highly suited to life in the trees, not the open savannah, as textbooks depict. Curved hand and foot bones, long arms and more indicate this”
-Stern, J., and Susman, R., American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60(3):279–317, 1983

“Lucy’s kin have also been shown to have had a locking wrist mechanism typical of knuckle-walkers”
-Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404:382, 2000

“… the Australopithecines still seemed to have climbing adaptations—so, the hand bones are still quite strongly curved and their arms suggest they’re still spending time in the trees.”
-Chris Stringer from the London Natural History Museum

“Charles Oxnard He has been Professor of Human Anatomy at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and is still Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Australia. The approach uses a computerized technique known as multivariate analysis that tries to remove the subjective element from anatomical comparisons. The total anatomical coordinates of the three groups—modern apes, modern people, and australopithecines—were plotted in a 3-D morphometric space, as it’s called. Evolutionary expectations for the results were clear. People would be expected to cluster in a blob around one position in this space, apes around another, and australopiths somewhere in-between. That’s not what Oxnard’s team found at all. They concluded that this was a unique group of extinct primates with an anatomy that, overall, was further from apes and people than those two groups were from each other
-Oxnard, C.E., The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt? Nature 258:389–395, 1975.


“The discovery of Lucy-like remains dated as more recent than those of the supposed first humans ruled out Lucy as a "prehuman" candidate”
-Walker, J., R. A. Cliff, and A. G. Latham. 2006. U-Pb Isotopic Age of the StW 573 Hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Science. 314 (5805): 1592-1594.

“A.Anamemsis and A africanesis the latter represented by the famous skelton known as Lucy- had wrists capable of locking the hands in place during kunckle walking”
-Science news April 8 2000 Lucy on the ground with knuckles Richmond and starit Nature march 23

“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978

“The knee has engendered major questions related to its inclusion with the rest of Lucy. It had been found the previous years at a different location from the rest Lucy's bones.”
-John Morris and frank Sherwin the fossil Record

The recent discovery that human tool marks were found on bones dated to the Lucy era means that human and Lucy-like remains might be expected to be found together if they shared a common habitat
http://www.icr.org/article/human-too...from-lucy-era/

Stone tolls were being used at same time as lucy,3.5 mya
-the first butchers p21 oct 2010 scientific American

“Lucy, a fossil that was once widely promoted as a hypothetical human ancestor, had shoulder sockets that faced upward, a common feature of modern apes. The Selam fossil has the same type of sockets. This unique feature enables apes to dexterously climb and swing from tree branches. In contrast, humans have downward facing shoulder sockets at birth that gradually develop to face forward as they become adults. This position is also integral to the uniquely human walking gait. Also in contrast to humans, ape shoulder morphology does not change during development. The authors wrote in Science, "Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny [development from an embryo], but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike."
-Green, D. J. and Z. Alemseged. 2012. Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and the Role of Climbing in Human Evolution. Science. 338 (6106): 514-517


“Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp.”
-Zihlman, A. 1984. Pygmy chimps, people, and the pundits. New Scientist. 104 (1430): 39-40.

“When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes”
-Leakey, R. and R. Lewin. 1992. Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human. New York: Anchor Books, 193-94


“The australopithecines…are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism [walking on two legs], possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications.”
-Oxnard, C. E. 1983. The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 332.




Evolution of the Horse




“from a small three-toed animal “the size of a fox” through larger animals with progressively larger hooves, developed from the middle toe. Darwin thought Marsh’s sequence from little Eohippus (“Dawn horse”) to modern Equus was the best evolutionary demonstration anyone had produced in the 15 years since the Origin of Species (1859) was published
(Milner, 1990, p. 220). - Milner, Richard. 1990. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search for Its Origins. Facts on File, New York, NY.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."
-World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."
-Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

Once seen as perhaps the best fossil evidence for evolution the horse series has since been refuted by evolutionist. The series being made up by Othinal c marsh in 1874 he made the order from fossils all around the world and not in the right order of strata, but in the order he thought they transformed. In south america the horses are found in opposite order . They are also found together

“Fossil horses of all the varieties so called evolutionary “stages” are found I the strata intervals. In life, they were contemporaries....they could not have been an ancestor/descendant relationship...fossils of the three toed grazer Neohipparian have know been found with Pliopippus in the great basin area, Pliohippus has been found with three toed Hipparion.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil record 2017

The Tulsa zoo in 2000 removed there horse exhibit because a petition went around to get rid of it for being false, it went on local news announcing the zoo is teaching a lie, the next day it was removed. It is true that some of these fossils show variation within the horse kind [family] but that is not upward evolutionary change. There is great diversity within the horse kind and that is represented in the fossil record.

 

Horse continued


1- Different animals in each series. In that exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses").
2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

3- Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs, the next creature has 19, there is a jump to 15, and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modem horse.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern Hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts which cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."
-H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194195.

"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 but a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."
*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

7 - No two bone exhibits alike. There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

8 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.
9 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

10 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensis and Equus accidentalis.
11- Gaps below as well as above.Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
12 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.
13 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.
14 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size, and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20076910...ramenumber/16/
15 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together

“Any fossils can be placed in a line and a evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into another and a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order”
-Dr John Morris Geologist


Evolutionist Admit the Truth About the Horse Series

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of reserach it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series"
-Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552)-


‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’ – Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

“many examples commonly cited such as the evolution of the horse family or the sabertooth tigers can be readily shown to have been falsified”
-G.G Simpson scientific monthly oct 1950 p264

“enshrined in every biology textbook and in a famous exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. It showed a sequence of mounted skeletons, each one larger and with a more well-developed hoof than the last.The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment.” -Milner, Richard. 1990. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search for Its Origins. Facts on File, New York, NY.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses.. As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely dear, an exhibit of horses as an example. . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."
*Garrett Hardin, Nature anal Man's Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)


“The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be.”
-Prof. T. S. Wescott, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science

“at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."
*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.


"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where 'in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.' "
*G.A. KerlaA, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

“Science gained a victory when South Korea's Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced last month that textbook publishers will correct editions that contain misinformation regarding evolution. The push for the corrections is being led by the Society for Textbook Revise. Nature reported that the revisions will remove "examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx."
Park, S. B. 2012. South Korea surrenders to creationist demands. Nature. 486 (7401).

 

ARCHAEOPTERYX


fossil remains and Alan Feduccia world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist reconstruction


“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
-Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–6 5 February 1993

“Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.3 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.[ Science 259(5096):790–793, 5 February 1993 ]”
-Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist


Archaeopteryx is often presented as proof of evolution and a perfect missing link. However as time has passed confidence has waned and contradictory evidence has emerged, and most would agree with creationist who have said all along, Archaeopteryx is a bird.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."
- Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

“By any current definition it is a modern bird, with a complete wing and fully modern feathers. It also has a perching foot and robust wishbone, just right for a flying bird...bony sternum where the ribs meet in front, which is needed as an anchor for the powerful muscles required for flight, however, few reptiles ha ribs that even could cover the front.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record

Some of its skeletal features are in common with reptiles, but so does every bird and mammal today. In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is dated as older than its supposed ancestor. And fully modern flying birds have been found much older than Archaeopteryx. S.Korea recently finally took Archaeopteryxout of school textbooks for being fraud/out of date claim.

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." *
-J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas [Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677]. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils." -Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (198, p. 46.

“the avian feathers of the skull demon strait that archaeopteryx is a bird rather than a feathered non-avian archeosaur”
-march 1996 the journal of paleontology

“An Archaeopteryx bird fossil from Solnhofen, Germany, was recently analyzed using new techniques that detect element ratios without destroying the material. The results indirectly, but certainly, identified original feather and bone proteins. It had the same biochemistry that comprises today’s feathers.”
-Bergmann, U. et al. 2010. Archaeopteryx feathers and bone chemistry fully revealed via synchrotron
imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (20): 9060-9065.


From Science vs Evolution By Vance Ferrell
http://evolutionfacts.com/sci-ev-PDF/sci_vs_ev_PDF.htm

-claws on wings- 12 modern birds today have wings
-teeth- some birds have teeth some don't, some fish do, some don',t some mammals do some don't
-how could scales turn into feathers?
-had bones like a bird-thin hollow bones wing and leg bones
-Archaeopteryx does not predate birds its found in same layer and later than birds found in china older than -Archaeopteryx fully formed modern birds
- it has modern bird feathers

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020

-no intermediate feathers ever found transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediates steps but none have been found
- well devolved wings
- wings designed for flight the feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical the way feathers of flying birds are designed

"The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; nonflying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."
- *E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p.

- Digits on its wings:Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. This includes the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternumsuch as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.
-The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says it is shaped more like a bird.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the 'London' specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that 'Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird.' "
-Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-3.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: 'A vertebrate with feathers.' Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death-knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."
-Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate, " in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: how could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." * -F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (189, p.. 160.

-Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds which also had them.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."
-P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), p. 196-197.

- Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck; has fur but lays eggs; in spite of is egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk; chews its food with plates instead of with teeth; the male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole, but like a duck it has webs between its toes; it uses sonar underwater.There is no doubt but that the platypus is far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, yet, like the Archaeopteryx, there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.
Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist said this:

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of is presumed theoodont ancestry nor of its relation to later 'proper' birds than before." * A.S Romer, Notes end Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the sues through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved -W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), P. 1.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Araliaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stapes have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
*L du Nay, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

 

Evolution of the Whale



Pakicetus Original presentation based on scant fossils and imagination/ later actual fossils found/ modern evolutionist depiction


The evolution of the whale is said by some to be the best fossil evidence for evolution. However Pakicetus [shown above] needed for the whole chain was imagined from a few pieces of jaw bone and skull. It said nothing of its supposed aquatic tail. The original Nature paper said Pakicetus was “no more amphibious than a tapir.” it was found buried with other land mammals. It was only imagined by the evolutionist belief system to be an ancestor of whales. When future fossils in 2001 were found it was shown to be clearly a land based animal. “newly discovered fossils show that the first whales [Pakicetus] were fully terrestrial and were even efficient runners.” [de Muizon, C. 2001. Walking with whales. Nature. 413 (6853): 259.]

“called “the first cetacean” in an effort to salvage the evolution story...Pakicetus was not a whale, and students should not be deceive or intimidated into considering it so.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record


Basilosaurus


Basilosaurus was clearly a fully aquatic animal and not missing link. It was actually 10 times as long as Ambulocetus at 70 feet though depicted as the same size as to make the missing link case more plausible to the readers. The claimed “leg” [was not has to do with reproduction] was not attached to the fossil but was found nearby and might not belong to the animal.

“The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales...shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof ”
-Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist,

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip


Ambulocetus


A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.
(B) The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest. With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!

Ambulocetus as for a claimed ancestor to modern whales is based on imagination and beliefs, not evidence. In the following short clip interviews with discoverer Dr Hans Thewissen he admits The ‘whaleness’ of Ambulocetus is largely based on the claim that the ear-bone called the tympanic is like a whale’s. Dr Hans Thewissen admits that this is questionable. Dr Hans Thewissen admits that the fossils of Ambulocetus do not include the part of the skull with a blowhole, although museums show Ambulocetus with a blowhole. That is, it is imaginary.





A creationist critique of Ambulocetus is given here.

A whale of a tale?
https://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale


Rodhocetus



The paleontologist who discovered Rodhocetus, Dr Gingerich, that there was no fossil skeletal evidence for a tail or flippers, Dr Gingerich admitted that this was so. He also admitted that he now thought that the creature had neither of these critical whale features.





Tiktaalik




Tiktaalik has mixed features [think platypus] not in between features see greatest hoax on earth. It has no legs, no fingers or toes, the libms are not connected to the vertebral column. It is a fish with gills, scales, fins and lived in water.

“Tiktaalik's pelvic fin is present as nothing but a fin.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

In fact many evolutionist no longer consider it a missing link but an evolutionary dead end.

Tetrapods from Poland trample the Tiktaalik school of evolution
https://creation.com/polish-tetrapod...mple-tiktaalik

Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?
https://answersingenesis.org/missing...-missing-link/

 

The Fossil Record Creation or Evolution?


“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago andmore."
— *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.


If Evolution were true there would be no disputing it in the fossil record. There should be chains of gradual evolution to major changes over time. There should be an abundance of transitional forms for all major phylum of animals in the rock record. Instead what we find is a half dozen fossils that are disputed by evolutionist and variation within the various kinds of animal groups [creation prediction]. You could take all the skeletons of dog varieties and place them in a order better than any line evolutionist have. They should be able to do this with many animals just given the variety within the kind [see horse] its amazing they have so few. No missing link seems to last very long, the ones used in Darwin's time have been refuted, scopes trial, 30 years ago because contrary evidence disproves them.

Below you will find evolutionist themselves admitting the fossil record does not support evolution. These are leading pathologist who have spent their life studying the fossil record, all admitting what is clear, the fossil record does not support evolution. You will also notice them supporting the creationist predictions of the fossil record, distinct major categories of animals that appear abrupt, distinct, fully formed, followed be lesser categories with variations within the kinds [usually family levels].

 

"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."
—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
-Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
-Davis Raup education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
-*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."
—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.” -Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

“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” -Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. 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 America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—
Dr. David Raup,

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—* -Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.

‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

“ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?
-Ernst Mayr 2001

“but it it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs.Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do.That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”.
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010 reviewed by Walter J. ReMine

“the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” -Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated: Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November

“If the transitional forms had been found, they would be paraded for all to see. Creation evolution discussions would be welcomed in the since classrooms, rather than current censorship of any criticism directed against evolution”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.”
- Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—* George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.


"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
-Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.


"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
— *G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."
—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100


"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“An evolutionary overprint laid on the fossils holds power only if the alternative is concealed.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2-17

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil records at approximately at the same time...... why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms”.
-Gerald T Todd.American Zoologist, Vol 24 (4) 1980 Page 757.

“There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”.
-Gordon Rattray Taylor.The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.

“Although this transition doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages”.
-Dr. Kriag Adler.Encyclopaedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, George, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986, Page 4.

 

“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptillian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles”.
-Robert L. Carroll.Problems of the Origin of Reptiles, Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, July 1969, Page 393.

“The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux”.
-Angus d'A. Bellairs.Reference. 8 Page 60.

“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to to bird was achieved”.
-W. E. Swinton.Biology & Comparative Anatomy of Birds, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, Page 1.

“Feathers are unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers”.
-A. Feduccia.The beginning of Birds, The Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, 1985, Page 76.

“The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most two lineages, is still an enigma”.
-Roger Lewin. Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out, 'Science' Vol 212, 1981,Page 1492.

“Nor is there any fossil evidence of any consequence about their (the supposedly "primitive" monotremes) ancestors. So we have virtually nothing to link these creatures to any group of fossil reptiles”.
-David Attenborough. Life on Earth, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, 1979, Page 207.

“All fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats, and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestors”.
-John E. Hill and James D. Smith. Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, 1984, Page 33.

“Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats”.
-Richard Leakey. Footnote in the Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R. Leakey, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1979, Page 128.

“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson. The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on
the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones. A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
-Dr. Michael Denton. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, Page 172.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” -Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
-Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
fossils

“Reptile life on earth has been complicated by....large gaps in the fossil record.”
Hickman, Roberts, and Larson 1997 quoted in the fossil record by John Morris and Frank Sherwin

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."
—---Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979

“There is no gradualism in the fossil record. “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.


I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory"- heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted”.
Sean Pitman, M.D.,HYPERLINK "http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-thoughtsonEvo-96"Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals
-Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:


"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."
—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980

"The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/459/

“The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants. "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution." —-Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

“The origin of animals with a backbone remains a mystery”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one of another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous fishes...the origin of all these fishes is obscure.”
-B Stahl 1985 Vertebrate History Problems in Evolution Dover Publications NY

“All these subdivisons of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximate the same time.....how did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?...and why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?
-G.T Todd 1980 Evolution of the Lung and the origin of Bony Fishes Americsan Zoology 26 [4] 757

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"
—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.


"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.


“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978


"At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism [walking on two legs], and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism."
-Richmond, B. G. and D. S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature. 404 (6776): 382-385. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Walking the Walk. Acts & Facts. 35 (11).


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution”
-Stanley Macroevoultion san fransico ca 1977


"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198.

“Darwins worst fears have been realized.”
-John Morris The Fossil Record 2017

“But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,”
-Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind. Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39

“Theorigin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of” or “in to” Africa?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375


“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson.The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones.A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B., Did early Homo migrate “out of ” or “in to” Africa?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2011; published ahead of print 15 June 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107724108

“The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.”
S.M Stanley 1981 the new evolutionary timetable NY Baker Books

 

CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION


“ It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million years...And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

“all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
-Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009

‘Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox’. That was how a Scientific American article described an evolutionary problem concerning the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’
-J. Levinton, ‘The Big Bang of Animal Evolution’, Scientific American, November 1992, pp.52–59

"all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors".
-Dr Carl weiland

In what is called the Cambrian explosion were many vastly different and complex phylum appear abrupt with no evolutionary traces. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion “I can give no satisfactory answer.” If all life on earth were a clock than in just the last 2 min of the hour all major body plans arise just as they are today. The “exposition” lasted only 20 million years

“Cambrian period of only 20mya”
-Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth

The youngest layer, according to evolutionist, has all the major groups of phylum in it [estimated 100 only 30 alive today], With no evidence of them evolving from anything else.

“to be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
-Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]

"The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."
—*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56


"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."
—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.



“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.”
- Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.


“Witch gave rise to corals? The sponges? The arthropods” each invertebrate type stands apart from the others, each is complex, each is fully fit for its environment...what has happened in nature to force so many innovations at the same time, and from what did they descend?, truly, Darwin's tree of life does not match reality.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record 2017

 

what was it you were wanting to discuss? This isn't your personal blog, or journal to throw out the random thoughts in your head. You need to state a position and an argument.

 

My position is that of a biblical creationist. I believe the bible is gods word and the fossil record supports God creating animals to reproduce after their own kind as genesis states. I believe the fossil record does not support evolution.

 

Ok. Can you tell us why you don't think the fossil record supports evolution?

And can you also tell us what you think the age of the earth is?

 

I take it that you have never studied geology or been to the Museum of Natural History.

 

I take it that you have never studied geology or been to the Museum of Natural History.

 

Sorry i thought it clear from my posts. For the age of the earth this thread is much better.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-vs-evolution-the-age-of-the-earth.538070/

The fossil record does not support evolution in that is does not provide the examples of transition between the major groups of animals.

 

Your posts are way too long for a discussion forum like this.

so is this. Just tell me what age you think the earth is.

Well, the entire scientific community disagrees. Evolution is the foundation of biology, and numerous other disciplines.

https://www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340

I'm afraid you've got quite a task ahead of you, if you want to challenge the current scientific consensus. I wish you good luck.

 

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain



sadly you think so only because of the level of indoctrination you have swallowed, as did I. You would be amazed at what is known in science journals that never makes it to the government education system or to the media. But this is just the thread to prove me wrong. Show the fossil record supports evolution rather than creation. I thought i might give you a few quotes from someone who knows a thing or two about the fossils at the museum of natural history.



‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

“the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,”
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated: Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November

 

When did god stop creating a finished species? For none are being created, at least in recorded history. Did he also give life the ability to adapt to environment? Which is micro evolution.

I accept evolution, some of it, but have questions about the whole ball of wax. I have to accept what can be observed, right?

 

Ok fair enough. However I will tell you the age of the earth on the proper thread. The Fossil record provides more than enough to talk about.


This is why I wanted to make threads, the indoctrination is that bad it needs it. You believe both that all scientist believe in evolution [thousands believe in creation ] and they all think the fossil record supports evolution [even more false] my posts are full of leading evolutionist authorities admitting the fossil record goes against evolution and is for creation. As for showing thousands of scientist believe in creation that is a future thread.


So your thread says the fossil record supports 3 main claims. Of course I have provided dozens of leading evolutionist who would object to it. But point 1

a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks,

I agree this is generally true. However not what many think at all see my cambrian explosion section. Further it assumes the "geological column" see my age of the earth for that. Further it does not show the transitions from in complex to complex proving evolution, thus we should look for another explanation to the patterns observed. There is another, better explanation, that is an upcoming thread.

Point 2

that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and

Agreed. Once more a great explanation is in a future thread. Further how is this suppose to show one organism evolved into another?

point 3

• that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.

Right just what my op said. This is the creation prediction. So your own source confirms the fossil record and leaves out the only thing that could prove evolution [because its not found in reality] the thousands and really millions of transitional forms between the major phyla.



I'm afraid you've got quite a task ahead of you, if you want to claim the current scientific consensus agrees with you.. I wish you good luck

 

Absoluteley and great post. We must accept what is observed and thus we must reject evolution. You ask great questions that will be addressed in future threads I would love to answer them for you now in a pm, pm me if you are interested.

 

If you go by the Bible, the earth is 5778 years old this coming October.

 

which shows the Bible is but an ancient comic book, not a book of science to be respected in scientific circles.

 

I believe that was also evidence in "The Monkey Trial".

 

There is NO evidence to support Creationism.

There is a great deal of evidence to support Evolution.

If bones didn't decompose, we'd have all the evidence right now.