As long as the topic of biological organs has been mentioned, allow me to use it as an introduction to a brief discussion of what else we can expect from what is in reality not the science of evolution, but the philosophy / religion of evolution. The topic of vestigial organs points out the evolutionist's tendency to grab at every shred of supposed evidence which comes along that seems to support their theory, and then assure us: "That is the way it was!" A vestigial organ is an organ which evolutionists claim served some useful function somewhere down the evolutionary line, but no longer is useful to the creature in which it is found. Biologists discovered early on in their research about 180 organs in the human being for which they could find no purpose. Evolutionists were quick to claim that these "vestigial" organs supported their theory. # 1 They pointed out that since some of these same organs were found to be more highly developed in some lower life forms, additional proof of evolution has been established.
The Encyclopedia Britannica carries this line of reasoning when it reports that evolutionists believe that "animals that have the same organ in a fully developed and functional condition are believed to be close to the ancestry of the animal having the vestigial organ." # 2 Now while that may sound scientific, here is where we begin to see part of the fallacy of the evolutionist's reasoning. Using their logic it is possible to deduce that a man is more closely related to the Koala Bear, which is a marsupial, and the rabbit, than he is to the great apes. You see, apes generally do not have appendixes; whereas, both Koala Bears and rabbits have fully developed ones. Since man's appendix is supposedly left over from his evolutionary development it is therefore obvious that we are more closely related to Bugs Bunny then to the primates.
Once again though true science has come to rescue us from such a ridiculous set of circumstances. And once again, the evolutionists have been proven wrong. True scientists have discovered that of the 180 organs whose functions were previously unexplainable, many have been found to produce necessary hormones. Several function only during the embryonic stage of human development, and some only in emergencies - coming on line as it were only when the primary system fails. Many biologists now feel that the few remaining unexplained functions will reveal themselves as research continues. In the mean time, what were supposedly vestigial organs have not proved evolution, but have reaffirmed in greater detail the complexity of God's final creation - mankind.
One further example of the evolutionist's use of a biological process as an absurd 'proof' of evolution deals with the infamous concept known as the "recapitulation theory." According to this notion, the human embryo, from the moment the egg is fertilized until its development is completed, passes through stages which reflect every stage of man's evolutionary process from single cell life form, to fish, to amphibian, to mammal, and finally, to primate. They referred to this by saying that "ontogeny recapitulates (repeats) phylogeny." Darwin continually refers to this notion in both his Origin of the Species and Descent of Man and it has been used by numerous evolutionists ever since.
Their use of this idea is foolish at best and spurious at worst because, as was noted by Dr. Keith Thompson, professor of Biology at Yale University, "...as a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." # 3 (emphasis added) Tragically however, this false proof for evolution didn't disappear from biology textbooks until the late forties. # 4 For almost 30 years, the evolutionists were teaching as 'fact' something which had already been dismissed as intellectually meaningless.
Even today though it is not beyond an evolutionist to try and resurrect this long dead theory in a futile attempt to prove his theory, as did Dr. Anthony Wheeler during a debate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, March 30, 1988. # 5 The popular press is just as guilty of perpetrating this fraud. The August 1990 issue of Life magazine stated that a 6 week human embryo displays characteristics which demonstrate "... a strong link to an animal past " (emphasis added) # 6 Remember now, this statement has been made in spite of the fact that there has not been even a hint of scientific justification to substantiate it for more than half a century!!!
A more interesting example of the evolutionist's willingness to accept anything that comes along are the fossil remains given the very impressive scientific name Eoanthropus dawsoni. These fossils, found in 1913, for more than 40 years were given the status within the evolutionary community as the second most important fossil find which established the evolutionary heritage of mankind. # 7 Yet the 'Piltdown Man', as he was commonly called, was eventually discovered to be a deliberated hoax. And after more than four decades of misleading the public, evolutionists flippantly dismiss this hoax as merely "evidence of skullduggery in the ranks of academi," but do not mention the total failure of the 'evolutionary scientists' to notice the hoax. # 8 As late as February 1953, writers such as Ruth Moore who had swallowed the evolutionist's line, were still assuring the general public that the Piltdown Man was "... the first modern man." # 9 It's a shame that Ms.Moore did not wait 9 more months before publishing her book, because on November 21, 1953 the British scientific community finally exposed the Piltdown skull for what it really was; namely, one more piece of phoney evolutionistic evidence. # 10
Even this did not deter them. Evolutionists have been so anxious to prove their theory that they even hailed the discovery of a single tooth and gave it the even more impressive name Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. Using their preconceived notions of what he must have looked like, and this single tooth, the undaunted 'scientists' who gave credence to the Piltdown Man now gave us the "Nebraska Man." Unfortunately for them, the tooth upon which this 'man' was built, turned out to be that of a pig! The highly scientific explanation for this mistake given by one evolutionist on behalf of his colleagues was, "...pig and human molars are rather similar." # 11 Keep in mind that this excuse is given in an attempt to explain why so called thoughtful, unbiased, through, and detail-minded evolutionistic scientists could not distinguish the molar of an extinct pig from that of a higher primate.
This excuse rings even more hollow when we consider the fact that the discoverer of this tooth, Harold J. Cook, had earlier co-authored an article with W. D. Matthew wherein they warned other evolutionists to be careful when dealing with the teeth of these now extinct pigs. # 12 The point is, Cook and Matthew were clearly put on notice to proceed with caution, as were their colleagues, Henry Field Osborn and William King Gregory, to whom they had sent the tooth. However, in what can only be described as an effort to gain glory, and at the same time attack the credibility of William Jennings Bryan, the noted creationist attorney who was from the state of Nebraska, Osborn threw all caution to the wind. He proceeded with his irresponsible declaration that man's supposed ancestor had been discovered in Bryan's home state. # 13
One further example of the evolutionist's rush to judgment is provided by the fossil remains of what became known as Neanderthal Man . The first fossil remains of this man were described as belonging to a creature who "walked with his knees permanently bent, his arms reaching forward, and his head thrust out on a short slanting neck." # 14 In fact every picture or statute of Neanderthal Man which appeared before 1955 in any evolutionary textbook, or was found in any museum, depicted a hunched over primate that appeared to be some form of transition between man and ape.
In order to assure the ape-like appearance of its Neanderthal wax model, one American museum even spent thousands of dollars having human hair implanted all over its body. Remember now, this was done even though we have absolutely no way of telling anything about the color of Neanderthal's skin, his hair, or eye color, or the type and abundance of his hair. # 15 Not only that, but most evolutionists now admit that if you put Neanderthal Man in a suit, he would go about completely unnoticed in the subway or supermarket. # 16
Needless to say, there is a vast difference between the image which comes to mind when we think of a hunched over hairy primate, and that of the gentleman in the gray flannel suit he so easily could have been. This misconception concerning his appearance started when the first fossils of Neanderthal Man were found in 1856. They were reinforced by additional discoveries by the French anatomist/paleontologist, Marcellin Boule in 1911. It was not until about 1955, almost 100 years later, that a careful examination of those fossils showed that the man to whom they belonged suffered from a crippling case of ricketts and also possible arthritis. After all the pictures were changed and all the old statutes were replaced with ones which depicted a fully upright Neanderthal Man, the previous oversight was quickly forgotten. No mention is made by evolutionists of the fact that for almost 100 years our parents, grandparents, and in some cases our great grandparents, were assured that it was a 'scientific fact' that Neanderthal Man was hunched over and ape-like in appearance when this simply was not true.
In each of the above mentioned cases, further research, study, and investigation has eventually exposed the evolutionist's rush to judgment, but not before many young minds had been exposed to the travesty represented by evolutionistic 'science'. As we shall now see though, the fossilized remains of humans present overwhelming problems for the evolutionist's theory even when they aren't tampered with.
Niles Eldredge maintains that "creationists fare poorly in the face of the tremendous amount of well publicized information about the human fossil record." # 17 However, when you consider that the evolutionist's track record includes Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal man, and a few other blunders which I haven't even discussed, I don't see how anyone could say that they have succeeded in their quest to prove man's evolutionary heritage. A fair question to ask at this point would be, "Exactly how extensive is the fossil record which supposedly proves man's evolutionary heritage?"
According to the noted anthropologist Dr. Lyall Watson, "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin." # 18 Aside from the fact that this is a most fitting place in which to store the supposed evidence of man's evolutionary past, Watson makes it clear that, as we have so often seen before, the evolutionist's case rests more on wishful thinking than on hard evidence. As noted by a science correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, even as late as Feb. 1989 the evolutionist's depiction of human development had been "... rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful full of speculation (and was) (b)ased as much on wishful thinking or intellectual as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors." (emphasis and parenthesis added). # 19 Photo journalist John Reader carries this thought one step further. Having first observed that "(t)he entire hominid (fossil) collection known today would barely cover a billiard table", Reader pointed out the fact that the "specimens themselves (are) often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present." # 20 Furthermore, Andrea Dorfman, writing for Time in August 1994 while acknowledging that convincing evidence is hard to come by, pointed out that "…after a century of digging the fossil record remains maddenly sparse." Theories of human evolution are based upon ideas which "…are data poor (and) imagination rich." (parenthesis and emphasis added) # 21
When evolutionists like Dr. Tim White, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, honestly survey their field, they acknowledge that "(t)he problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." # 22 (It should be noted here that White's statement was taken from an article in New Scientist which had been written to explain why some evolutionists mistook a dolphin rib for an ancient hominid collarbone!)
Furthermore, if the comparatively minute amount of human fossil 'evidence' is not sufficient, the most recent discoveries of Donald C. Johanson and Richard Leakey have themselves done as much to disprove the theory of evolution in this area as anything we have seen lately. While I most certainly do not accept the ages which evolutionists claim for their discoveries, I am going to refer to them because they have again painted themselves into a corner with their own words.
According to Johanson, both modern men and modern apes developed along parallel lines. Each line sprang from a common ancestor about 3.8 million years ago. # 23 The scientific classification assigned to this ancestor is Australopithecus afarensis. More commonly known as "Lucy", this creature was about 3 1/2 feet tall and had long arms and long curved fingers and toes. # 24 (It should be noted here that long arms and long curved fingers & toes are anatomical features used for swinging from branches. On July 21, 1986 Johanson uncovered some additional fossils which he classified as homo habilis (handy-man). In spite of the fact that these fossils reveal a ‚creature who was 3' tall (6" shorter than Lucy) with long arms, and long curved fingers & toes, and a skeletal structure which was just as primitive as Lucy's, these fossils were placed immediately below true man in the evolutionary chain. Perhaps these fossils were placed there by Johanson because he believes that they were only 1.8 million years old. # 25 Their reported age, and assigned position in the evolutionist's time chart means that 2 million years transpired without any noticeable change taking place between Lucy and her direct descendants. This however is not the main problem facing evolutionists today in regards to these fossils.
In 1984 Richard Leakey found the full skeleton of a 12 year old boy who was already 5'4" tall when he died. Had he lived to manhood, it is conservatively estimated that he would have reached 6'. # 26 In addition to this, his postcranial skeleton (that portion below the skull) was found to be so similar to that of modern man's, that Alan Walker, co-leader of Leakey's team, said that an average pathologist could not tell them apart! Furthermore, when a jaw was placed on its skull, it looked remarkably like the Neanderthal Man whose fossils have been classified as true man.
In spite of all this though, the boy's fossils have been classified a step below Neanderthal. Leakey placed these fossils within the class known as Homo erectus‚ (above Lucy, but below modern man). I believe that as was the case with Johanson, the supposed age of these fossils affected Leakey's decision. # 27 After all, evolutionists maintain that Neanderthal didn't evolve until anywhere from 300,000 to 100,000 years ago. # 28 Since this boy is supposedly much older than that, Leakey probably felt forced to classify him in a more primitive category, even if he had to ignore the physical evidence in order to do so.
According to Leakey, this boy's fossils are 1.6 million years old, yet they are so similar to modern men that even a pathologist would have difficulty distinguishing the two. Remember also that this boy was well on his way to being 6' tall and looked at least as good as Neanderthal, who in turn looked like the gentleman in the gray flannel suit whom you may have seen in the mall last week. We can now begin to see the problem which these recent discoveries present to the evolutionists. Using Leakey's dates they are forced to admit that only 200 thousand years separated Johnson's 3-foot-tall, which supposedly live 1.8 million years ago, and Leakey's unquestionably human boy, who supposedly lived 1.6 million years ago.
The evolutionists are now faced with the task of convincing both themselves and us, that in only 200,000 years (which is really no more than a drop in the evolutionist's time bucket) all these changes took place:
1) We increased in size from 3' to 6'.
2) Our long arms shortened.
3) Our curved fingers both shortened and straightened out.
4) Our curved toes also became shorter and straighter.
5) Our brain size doubled.
6) Our primitive skeletons took on totally modern features.
They try to tell us that these changes occurred in less than 200,000 years in spite of the fact that Johanson's primates retained their long arms, long curved fingers & toes, and small brains for 2 million years (the time span between Astralopithecus afarenis and homo habilis).
Even though Johanson's primates supposedly remained under 3 1/2 feet tall for 2 million years, we are now supposed to believe that we evolved to 6 feet in just 200,000 years. Even though Johanson's primate's brains remained unchanged for 2 million years, we are supposed to now believe that in 200,000 years they evolved to double its previous size. What's even more astounding though is that they are also trying to tell us that in the last 1.6 million years there have been comparatively few changes in the human line. Remember, one of their own admitted that the skeleton of Leakey's new find is virtually indistinguishable from that of men today.
The evolutionists' own words and calculations have now forced them to take the position that there were 2 million years of no change between Johanson's two finds. This period was in turn followed by a span of 200,000 years in which massive changes occurred (the supposed time span between Johanson's latest find and that of Leakey's). These two periods were themselves followed by 1.6 million years of virtually no change within the human lineage (the period from Leakey's discovery till now). It seems clear then that Johanson's and Leakey's discoveries do not support the theory of evolution - punctuated or otherwise.
There are however other problems which must be overcome by the evolutionists who want to claim Lucy as one of their distant ancestors. And as we have so often seen before, these problems have not been openly discussed. the anatomical features which supposedly set Lucy apart from modern chimpanzees are her knee and hip joints. what most people don't realize is that this knee joint was found in a rock strata 200 feet lower and one and a half miles away from where the rest of Lucy's fossil fragments. Another significant point which Johanson failed to mention is the fact that orangutans and spider monkeys have valgus knee joints virtually identical to Lucy's. But then these are not the most damaging facts. You see, Lucy was discovered in 1974, but in 1965 nine teeth fragments, one end of an arm bone, and 2 shinbone ends were discovered in a lower strata in Kanapoi, Africa. When found, these fragments were described as 'humanlike and indistinguishable from homo sapiens." # 29 Now here's the evolutionists dilema, 'How could more modern human bones be found in a strata which evolutionists say is more than 700,000 years older than Lucy?'
What all these facts do show us is that when man appeared on the earth, he was fully formed and was virtually indistinguishable from 'modern man.' What they further reveal is that while man and the primates share certain anatomical features, they were, are now, and always will be separate distinct creatures. Once again, the evolutionists have made exaggerated claims which later discoveries have totally invalidated. Some prominent evolutionists however are now willing to admit that in reality, the "tremendous amount of well publicized information about the human fossil record" may in fact be well publicized, but that it proves absolutely nothing. Sir Zolly Zuckerman, himself a confirmed evolutionist, acknowledges that as to "... the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful (evolutionist) anything is possible... the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time... (if man) evolved from some ape-like creature ... (it was) without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation (emphasis and parenthesis added) # 30
Seemingly undaunted by all this though, the evolutionists charge ahead. They have been quick to claim that the extinct archaeoperyx (arc' ee op trix) was an intermediate between the reptiles and the birds. Archaepotryx fossils have been found in the Upper Jurassic limestone formations of Bavaria. According to the evolutionist's dating methods, this makes them 150 million years old. While the Archaeopteryx had fully developed feathers (and is therefore classified as a bird) it didn't have hollow bones or a keeled sternum. According to Eldredge, the "keeled sternum necessary for truly vigorous flight had not developed in the avian lineage." # 31 In fact he is so sure that it is an intermediary which cannot be explained away by the creationists that he states, "Bluster as they might, creationists cannot wriggle out of Archaeopteryx." # 32
Allow me the opportunity to "bluster" for a moment. If the fossil remains of a more "advanced" bird were found which appeared to be "older" than Archaeopteryx, it would be the evolutionist, and not the creationist who would be on the horns of a dilemma. What if the fossils of a bird were found with more "modern" birdlike features such as hollow bones and a keeled sternum? What if these fossils were found in the Dockum formation which evolutionists maintain is 75 million years older than the Upper Jurassic? The evolutionists would then have to explain how the Archaeopteryx "evolved" having more "primitive" features than its supposed ancestor. How could Archaeopteryx be a transition between reptile and bird when one of its supposed ancestors had more birdlike features than it did? Finally, how could the newly discovered fossils be considered a transition when the number of supposedly reptilian features it has were less than those of Archaeopteryx which is already classified as a true bird?
Apparently it is the evolutionist who must now "bluster" because such fossils have been found. Several of them in fact. # 33 The evolutionists who refused to accept Archaeopteryx for what it apparently was; namely, a totally distinct separate species of true bird, have now been forced to abandon the 'fact' that it was a transition between reptile and bird.
However, like before, the damage has already been done because at least one more generation of impressionable school children has again been assured that evolution is as real as gravity. # 34 Whereas, the evidence upon which that assertion was based has, like so many times before, been proven false. As the knowledge of these new discoveries slowly filters down through the educational system, all the talk of Archaeopteryx as a 'transition' will go the way of the Neanderthal hunchback pictures. It will be quietly forgotten by the same 'evolutionistic scientists' who previously assured us it was a fact. The only fact that remains is that if the Archaeopteryx fossils are indeed genuine, they represent a separate distinct species of true bird and there are still no transition fossils between species.
The fossil record also fails to support the theory of evolution in regards to the fish, the amphibians, the mammals, and the plants. And, as we shall now see, there are at least some evolutionists who are willing to admit this is indeed the case. Concerning the plants, Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Biology and Curator of Fossil Plants at the University of Michigan has stated that "(a)s of yet, we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." (emphasis added) # 35 As for the fishes, J. R. Norman of the Department of Zoology at the British Museum of Natural History observed that "(t)he geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes. " (emphasis added) # 36 Moving from fishes to amphibians, we find this disclosure by J. Stahl of St. Anselm's College, "... the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, (so), paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved…"(emphasis added) # 37 The supposed transition from reptile to mammal fares no better in the fossil record either.
Noted evolutionary writer Roger Lewin has acknowledged the reptile/mammal connection to be nothing more than "an enigma". # 38 At the same time, A.J. Kelso, Professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Colorado, accurately points out the fact that " the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils." (emphasis added) # 39
It is hard enough to believe self proclaimed scientists who are so easily taken in because of their intense desire to obtain proof for their theory, but the problem is compounded by what can only be described as a tendency on their part to mislead the general public when it comes to the supposed evidence of Darwinian evolution. Whether this tendency is intentional, or simply the result of carelessness, I will not presume to judge. I leave that to the reader.
A prime example of this tendency can be seen in the fossil remains of what has become known as "Java Man." Those fossil remains, which have been termed an intermediate between modern man and his ape-like ancestors, consisted of a skull cap and a thighbone. They were discovered by Eugene Dubois who noted that the skull cap was ape-like in appearance, but the thighbone was, without a doubt, that of a modern man. It was not made known until 30 years Dubois reported his disocvery that some normal modern man skull caps were also present in the same area. Regardless of what fossils have or have not been found in other locations, the unanswered question is, "Why did Dubois actively conceal the presence of modern man skull bones within the same general formation when such information would have been paramount to any impartial evaluation of his find?"
More importantly though this further question must be answered, "Why has the evolutionistic community continued to acknowledge Dubois' fossils as an example of a transitional man when, near the end of his life, Dubois admitted that the skull he used for his "man" was in fact that of a giant gibbon?" # 40 The same mind set which caused early evolutionists to continue accepting spontaneous generation as a viable explanation for the 'origin' of life 200 years after it had been disproved by William Harvey, has caused the current crop of evolutionists to continue misrepresenting the fossil record to us. # 41
Before continuing with my discussion of the evolutionist's misrepresentation of the fossil record, allow me to point out the fact that their tendency to create entire beings from as little evidence as one fossilized bone extends to the dinosaurs as well as to man's supposed ancestors. According to A Field Guide to Dinosaurs, the Arctosaurus was developed from a single vertebra which had previously been thought to be that of a turtle. The Diplotomodon the Paronychodon, and the Macrodontophion were all developed from single teeth. Furthermore, the single jaw used to develop the Colonosaurus could just as easily have belonged to a bird or sea lizard, while the four teeth used to construct the Chienkosaurus could just as likely have come from an ancient crocodile. # 42
While on this topic, it should probably be noted that the evolutionist's tendency to play fast and loose with fossil remains likewise also extends to the dinosaurs, just as it did to our own supposed ancestors. Many of us remember the pictures of the Brontosaurus dinosaur as featured in the "B.C." and "Flintstone" cartoon strips. This denizen of the past with its huge body and small slender head was also featured in numerous advertising campaigns. In fact, we have seen so many pictures of this creature that for many of us it is his image which comes to mind whenever we hear the word 'dinosaur.' But there is a problem with that image. The brontosaurus as pictured never existed! You see, the men who found the brontosaurus fossils forgot to tell us that the skeleton they found was complete except for its head. This did not deter them though. What they did was to take a skull which had been found about 3 miles away and put it on their skeleton, thereby creating the brontosaurus. It has since been acknowledged that the brontosaurus was actually composed of the skeleton of a diplodocus and the skull of an apatosaur .# 43 If errors of this type have been made when whole skeletons have been found, how can we now blindly accept the notion that there were as many different species of dinosaurs as these men now assure us there were? This is especially so when we remember that many of their creations are based upon only one or two fossils.
But there is even a more compelling reason to be skeptical of any evolutionist's interpretation of the fossil record. Allow me to point out the fact that between 1940 and 1980, the entire evolutionary community has been hiding the fact that the fossil record simply does not support the theory of gradual transitions between major groups. While one evolutionists has said it is a "vicious lie" for creationists to accuse his colleagues of such unprofessional actions. Yet, as we saw earlier, his colleague made the very same accusation.# 44. This same colleague even went so far as to state that the active conspiracy to hide the lack of transitional evidence from the general public has been the ‚"trade secret" of the paleontologist. # 45 I am therefore forced to ask this question, "Why should we believe any supposed 'science' which keeps as a 'trade secret' the very facts which Darwin himself said would destroy his theory?"
In some instances evolutionists have even made conflicting statements themselves. Niles Eldredge said in his book Monkey Business (page 98) that creationists were not accurate in accusing his colleagues of ignoring the very fossil evidence which disproves Darwin's theory of gradual evolution. However, in his other book Time Frames (pages 187-189), he makes the very same accusation himself. Therein he states that "the old paleontological reaction... was to throw out genetics or invent a seemingly more suitable...theory. ...(N)early every paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of the Species pointed to his (Darwin's) evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record." (Parenthesis & emphasis added) It should be noted that the salient feature of the fossil record which Darwin evaded was the fact that there is no evidence within it to support his notion of gradual transitions.
Don't think for one minute that Darwin was not acutely aware of what he was doing. According to Eldredge, in order for Darwin to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution "...Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older ... doctrine of species fixity." (emphasis added) # 46 This was not going to be easy because the fossil record simply did not support Darwin's theory. What the fossil record does show us though is that all the different species (using Eldredge's own words) "... tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for millions of years." # 47 While I strongly disagree with Eldredge's assessment concerning the time frame involved, I do most certainly agree that species do remain remarkably stable.
It was this very fact of species stability which remained (again using Eldredge's own words), an "ugly inconvenience" for Darwin. Therefore, Darwin simply ignored it. # 48 Not only did Darwin intentionally side step this issue, but Eldredge points out that "stasis (Eldredge's own word for species stability) had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability ... must be confronted." (parenthesis added) # 49 But even they did not confront the issue of species stability until 1972. This means that evolutionists had, for 115 years, been ignoring the very facts which Darwin himself knew disproved his entire theory of gradual evolution. What's just as interesting though is that even when Eldredge and Gould attempted to confront this issue, all they could offer us was 'punctuated equilibria.' And as we have already seen, Eldredge admits that as late as 1985, 12 years after it was initially proposed, this notion was still not yet totally thought through or completely testable!!!
The evolutionist therefore, is still faced with the same problem we first saw in Chapter 2. The facts clearly do not support the theory of evolution - punctuated or otherwise. But rather then acknowledge the only logical alternative (special creation), the evolutionist now must hold on to the totally unscientific notion called punctuated equilibrium. Again though you do not need to rely solely upon my word for this. Robert E. Ricklefs, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Pennsylvania has been quoted as saying that "The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis, but because it appears to resolve a dilemma." The dilemma of course is that the fossil record simply does not support Darwin's theory. Ricklefs continued his observation by noting that the punctuated equilibria "...model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground (emphasis added) # 50
As you may recall, Eldredge, in his book Monkey Business, (page 130) explained the lack of Precambrian intermediate fossils by stating that since thee supposed intermediates were "soft bodied," it was "extremely unlikely that they would have become fossilized. Yet, in the very same book, (page 44) he acknowledges the existence of numerous fossilized "soft bodied creatures (including those)... of the... jelly fish phylum ... up to seven feet long ... (from places) as far flung as Australia, Newfoundland, England, Siberia, and South Africa." (parenthesis added) Needless to say, conflicting statements of this type only lead to more confusion.
Why should we now believe any group of so called 'scientists' who insist that "Students ought to know that the evidence for evolution has been scrupulously scrutinized daily by thousands of biologists for well over a hundred years..." # 51 the scrupulous scrutinizers we are expected to wholeheartedly believe have either purposely withheld the 'trade secret' that graduated transitional evidence does not exist, or were not observant enough to notice the obvious? If indeed 1,000 such biologists spent only 2 hours per working day for 100 years we would have 26 million man hours of research which was either devoted to a cover up, or was so incompetent that it could not even see that what it was looking for obviously did not exist.
In either case, it really doesn't matter. You could have 1 billion hours of the type of scrutinization which failed to notice the hoax of Piltdown Man, the mistake of Nebraska Man, the oversight of Neanderthal's ricketts, or the rush to judgment represented by the belief that Archeoptryx was a transition, and it would still not make the evidence for evolution any more valid or scientific. This type of scrutinization merely compounds the wishful thinking of those early evolutionists which led to the eloquently fabricated assertions as to why the known facts did not conform to what the evolutionists knew was true.
Eldredge states that, while there is dissent within the ranks of evolutionists today, "...as recently as a decade ago there was something approaching unanimity" amongst his colleagues. I submit to you that that unanimity was the direct result of the decision by the vast majority of his colleagues to make up what he himself referred to as "eloquent" stories explaining why the fossil record did not support something which their preconceived notions told them it had to support. I further submit that the dissension which appears within the ranks of the evolutionists today is not the result of "willing admissions by paleontologist (who are evolutionists) concerned with accuracy," as some would have us believe, but that it is the direct result of true scientists who are unwilling any longer to put up with the travesty to impartial research which such "trade secrets" represent. (parenthesis added) # 52
Concerning the willingness of evolutionary paleontologists to admit their errors, it should be noted that Henry Fairfield Osborn, who was the driving force behind the 'Nebraska Man' fiasco, never publicly acknowledged his gross error in assigning a pig molar to a high primate. In spite of the fact that it was even his own expedition which inadvertently turned up the evidence which sounded the death knoll for Nebraska Man, Osborn himself refused to openly recognize the facts. Instead, all he did was to conveniently fail to ever again mention the Nebraska Man in any of his subsequent writings on man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry. # 53 But then he is not alone. Stephen Jay Gould admits that if you have read any evolutionary material produced in the last fifty years, "...you will probably not have encountered Hesperopithecus..." # 54
Another example of the confusing statements which are made by evolutionists concerns the issue of brain size in man's supposed ancestors. According to M. F. Ashley Montague in An Introduction to Physical Anthropology # 55 and Carleton S. Coon in, The Story of Man # 56 - the very textbook I used in an undergraduate anthropology course, the brain size of the average Neanderthal Man was 100 cc larger than the average person today. The 1965 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, reports the finding that the average brain capacity of CroMagnon Man was at least 200 cc larger than that of modern man. # 57
Why then would any evolutionists state that. "Our own lineage shows progressive increase in both absolute body size and relative brain size ... brain size has increased within our lineage." # 58 Since modern men have smaller brains but are physically larger than our supposed ancestors, there is a definite discrepancy between his statement and the supposedly measurable facts. Or are we supposed to believe that man's brain evolved by first getting bigger and then smaller? On the other hand, if Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man, both of whom had larger brains than modern men, are not part of our heritage, why are they always included in the evolutionist's charts? # 59
If the measurements are wrong then the evolutionists are extremely careless, and should therefore not be taken seriously when they toss around figures such as 4 billion years. If the measurements are correct then why would the statement have been made? Perhaps it is an attempt to tell us that by 'relative brain size' he means that while modern man's brain is physically smaller than that of his ancestor's, we can somehow tell that portions of it were obviously larger or more useful. But that is nothing more than pure "speculation", nothing more than a "hazard guess" # 60 That would not be the statement of a scientist who makes statements which are based solely upon observation. After all, there are no fossilized brains available for examination.
‚ Even other evolutionists have recognized that to say you can determine the function of a brain by measuring its size is "extremely dangerous." To say that you can determine the function of a brain by measuring the skull is "extremely difficult, if not impossible." Why? Because, about the "all important internal circuitry (of early man's brain) we know nothing." ‚(parenthesis added) # 61 As to which is in error - the statement or the measurements, I do not know. Either one casts a shadow of doubt over the 'scientific' nature of the theory of evolution.
However, fluctuating size is not the only problem facing evolutionists when the topic of the human brain is raised. Even though atheistic evolutionists such as Isaac Asimov have acknowledged that the human brain "...is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe," they still insist that we accept their notion that this most miraculous organ evolved by mere chance. # 62
"Exactly how complex is the brain?" I'm glad you asked. The average human brain contains about 10 billion neurons. Each neuron is in contact with as many as 10,000 other neurons by means of connections called dendrites. The total number of neuron interconnections is approximately 1000 trillion. "Just how many connections is that?" Again, I'm glad you asked. According to the evolutionist Michael Denton, a fair analogy would be as follows:
Needless to say, not only have the waters of the theory of evolution been troubled by 'trade secrets', hoaxes, horrendous oversights, poor judgment, and flawed research, but now they have been hopelessly poisoned by the continued acceptance of disproven and discounted propositions such as natural selection and mutation.
1) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) p. 20
2) Encyclopedia Britannica 1972 Ed, Vol. 1, p. 983
3) Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated", American Scientist Vol. 76, (May/June 1988), p. 273
4) ibid p. 273
5) Acts and Facts Vol 17, No.7, (El Cajun, CA: Institute For Creation Research, 1988), p. 3
6) "The First Days of Creation", Life, No 12 (August 1990), p. 40
7) F. Clark Howell - Early Man, Life nature Library, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 13; also Heinze, op cit. p. 51
8) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 128
9) Ruth Moore - Man and Fossils, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 345
10) Carleton S. Coon - The Story of Man, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1965) p. 40
11) Eldredge op cit. p. 128
12) Stephan Jay Gould, "An Essay on a Pig Roast", Natural History Vol. 98 No. 1 (January, 1989) p. 20-22 11)ibid pp. 20 & 25
13) Ibid. pp. 20-25
14) Coon, op cit, p. 39
15) ibid p. 36
16) Howell, op cit. p. 88; also Donald Johanson, "Lucy", University of Chicago Magazine, Vol 73 ( Spring 1981), p. 4
17) Eldredge - op cit. p. 126
18) Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, Vol 90, (May 1982), p. 44
19) William Allman, , "The First Humans", U.S. News & World Report Vol. 106 No. 8 (February 27, 1989) p. 56-59
20) John Reader, "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus", New Scientist, Vol 26, (March 1981), p. 802
21) Andrea Dorfman, Time, Vol 143, No. 11 (March 14, 1994), pp 80-97
22) Tim White, as quoted by Ian Anderson, "Hominoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin's Rib", New Scientist, Vol 28, (April 1983), p. 199
23) Pat Railer, "Redefining Man's Past", The Albuquerque Journal, Tuesday, April 20, 1982; also Donald C. Johanson, "Ethopia Yields First Family of Early Man" National Geographic, Vol 150, No. 6, (December 1976), pp. 802 - 811
24) Paul Raeburn, "Skeletons in the Closet: Did Lucy Really Walk?", Albuquerque Journal, (Sunday, June 12, 1983), p. C 10
25) D. C. Johanson, "New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tansania", Nature Vol 327, (May 1987), p. 205
26) Associated Press, "Ancient Kenyan Lake Bed Now a Paleontologists Paradise", Albuqurque Journal, (Wednesday, November 7, 1984) , p. C12
27) Duane Gish, "Startling Discoveries Support Creationism", Impact (September, 1987) , p. II
28) World Book Encyclopedia, Vol 14, p. 85 (1985 ed.); also John J. Putman, "The Search for Modern Humans", National Geographic Vol. 174, No. 4, (October 1988), p. 456
29) Acts and Facts, (El Cajon, CA: Creation Research Institute, 1995) p. 'o', see also "Johanson & Sagan" University of Chicago Magazine, Vol. 73 No. 4 (Spring 1981) p. 3
30) Solly Zuckerman - Beyond the Ivory Tower (Londen: Zuckerman, 1970), pp. 19 & 64
31) Eldredge - op cit. p. 123
32) ibid p. 122
33) "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypothesis", Nature Vol 322, (August 1986), p. 677
34) Eldredge - op cit. p. 23
35) Chester A Arnold, An Introduction to Paleontology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947) p. 7
36) J. R. Norman, in P. H. Greenwood editor, "Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils", A History of Fishes, 3rd ed. (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1975), p. 343,
37) Barbara J. Stahl Problems In Evolution, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1974), p. 195
38) Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out", Science, Vol 212, ( June 1981), p. 1492
39) A. J. Kelso, in "Origin and Evolution of the Primates" Physical Anthropology (New York: Lippincott, 1974), p. 142, also Dr. Andrew Snelling, editor - The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990), p.13
40) Sylvia Baker- Evolution: Bone of Contention (England: Evangelical Press, 1980) p. 14
41) ibid p. 4
42) Back To Genesis, Vol 18 No, ( ElCajon, CA:Institute for Creation Research, 1Jan 1989), p. 6
43) Paul S. Taylor, "Dinosaur Mania and Our Children", Impact Vol. 16 No.5 (May 1989) p. III
44) Eldredge - op cit. p. 189
45) Dr. D. James Kennedy - The Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981), p. 6
46) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equillibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p. 189
47) ibid p. 188
48) ibid p. 189
49) ibid p. 189
50) Robert E. Ricklefs, "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution", Science, Vol.199, (January 1978), p. 59
51) Eldredge - Monkey Business, op cit. p. 23
52) ibid pp. 52 & 131
53) Gould, op cit p. 20
54) ibid p. 16
55) M.F. Ashley Montag, An Introduction To Physical Anthropology (Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1960), pp. 104-203
56) Carleton S. Coon, op.cit. p. 40
57) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 ed. Vol 6, p. 792
58) Eldredge - Monkey Business op cit. p. 75 (see also p. 126)
59) Howell, op cit. pp. 30-33; also Ruth Moore - Evolution, Life Young Readers Library, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) pp. 108-109
60) Howell, ibid p. 82-83
61) ibid
62) Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institute Journal, Vol 1 No. 5 (June 1970), p. 10
63) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 330
64) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), p. 5, à
65) Carl Sagen, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence, (New York: Random House,1977) p. 120
66) Jeffery S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion" Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol 77, (April 1979), pp. 351-352
67) Steven M. Stanley, "A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Llevel", Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA Vol 72(2), (February 1975), p. 646
68) J Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995), 74
69) "Science Education: What Students Should Know", Popular Science (March, 1996), p.31