Riddle me this: Genesis 2:24
- Thread starter Dennis S.
- Start date
- Status
Dennis S.
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 1
dkf747 said:
What?! I never stated anywhere that I hate vegetarians. I'm saying that Christians are falsely placing her belief in all meat-eating animals were originally solely vegetarians from the GET GO, and magically deciding to adjust their diets to include hunting and stalking prey and eating meat.
Reba said:
Hey, Reba, here's the recorded wiki list of transitional fossils. It's definitely not zero. Many scientists have examined these fossils and many of them believe in Christ and yet also believe this is evidence of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
The most widely used example of a transitional fossil is the Archeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx). Tests have shown that the Archeopteryx is a prime example of a link between dinosaurs and birds, and preserved feathered dinosaurs have been located in China recently.
Yes, they do. The very notion of any theory is to show proof that all the evidence fits. Instead of stopping at "God did it. Don't ask any more questions." evolution scientists MUST prove that their theory fits reality.
That will continue to remain in doubt until someone can show that there ever was anything like you say had to have been around. You assert things that can never be verified, and feel good about yourself because somewhere in the bible it says, "Blessed is you who believed without seeing." and "God never lies."
This page has a picture of a transitional fossil between whales and their older ancestors. Just click on the button to see it. 
The page also has a diagram of the well known squence of fossils of horse ancestors with the number of toes going down to one hoof from the several toes of Hyracotherium. This page has a similar diagram that also shows teeth. Here's a page about ancestors of whales. Some more pictures and text are here
Sure, evolutionists show evidence. The fossils, comparsions of anatomy, proteins and DNA, and other things are all evidence. This page has stuff about that. I think the stuff about transposons is interesting.
The page also has a diagram of the well known squence of fossils of horse ancestors with the number of toes going down to one hoof from the several toes of Hyracotherium. This page has a similar diagram that also shows teeth. Here's a page about ancestors of whales. Some more pictures and text are hereSure, evolutionists show evidence. The fossils, comparsions of anatomy, proteins and DNA, and other things are all evidence. This page has stuff about that. I think the stuff about transposons is interesting.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
What About The Horse Series?
by John Morris, Ph.D.
A sketch showing the supposed evolution of the horse has appeared in nearly every textbook dealing with evolution. Typically, it illustrates a transition from Eohippus (size of a small dog, four toes on the front foot and three on the rear, possessing browsing teeth and found in Eocene strata) to Mesohippus (a slightly larger browser, three toes on the front, found primarily in Oligocene strata) to Merychippus (larger still, three toed but with grazing teeth, found in Miocene strata) to Pliohippus (pony sized, still with three toes and grazing teeth, found throughout the Pliocene) to modern Equus, or horse (with one toe, front and back, and with grazing teeth). Unfortunately, this presentation does not contain the whole truth.
In modem decades, the tree of horse evolution has been refuted and abandoned, in professional circles at least. Consider this admission by Steven Stanley: "The horse ... the classic story of one genus fuming into another, … Now it's becoming apparent that there's an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one" (Bioscience, Dec. 1986). Mr. Walt Barnhart, in his master's thesis (1987) at ICR, catalogued this overlap in 21 different genera with data from the evolutionary literature. Dotted lines represent uncertainties in dating. Most individual categories are known only from their teeth. It is hard to see any evolutionary sequence here.
A significant problem surfaced when Lou Sunderland observed (in Darwin's Enigma) that mounted specimens in the American Museum of Natural History showed an irregularity of rib pairs. Eohippus had 18 pairs, Orohippus had 15 pairs, Pliohippus jumped to 19 pairs, and the modern horse had 18. Some series!
Furthermore, the Eohippus, more properly named Hyracotherium, is remarkably similar to the modern hyrax, a rock badger. The San Diego Zoo keeps a colony, where a sign identifies them as similar to the animal, which evolved into the horse and elephant. Others propose a hyrax-like ancestor for the sea cow also. Quite a family tree.
Dr. Duane Gish has observed that during the time when four toes were supposedly evolving into one in North America, in South America a one-toed ungulate (a horse-like browser) was evolving into a three-toed descendant. Evolution theory, being as plastic as it is, can accommodate almost any series of fossils, and tell a good evolutionary "just so" story about how it all happened.
by John Morris, Ph.D.
A sketch showing the supposed evolution of the horse has appeared in nearly every textbook dealing with evolution. Typically, it illustrates a transition from Eohippus (size of a small dog, four toes on the front foot and three on the rear, possessing browsing teeth and found in Eocene strata) to Mesohippus (a slightly larger browser, three toes on the front, found primarily in Oligocene strata) to Merychippus (larger still, three toed but with grazing teeth, found in Miocene strata) to Pliohippus (pony sized, still with three toes and grazing teeth, found throughout the Pliocene) to modern Equus, or horse (with one toe, front and back, and with grazing teeth). Unfortunately, this presentation does not contain the whole truth.
In modem decades, the tree of horse evolution has been refuted and abandoned, in professional circles at least. Consider this admission by Steven Stanley: "The horse ... the classic story of one genus fuming into another, … Now it's becoming apparent that there's an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one" (Bioscience, Dec. 1986). Mr. Walt Barnhart, in his master's thesis (1987) at ICR, catalogued this overlap in 21 different genera with data from the evolutionary literature. Dotted lines represent uncertainties in dating. Most individual categories are known only from their teeth. It is hard to see any evolutionary sequence here.
A significant problem surfaced when Lou Sunderland observed (in Darwin's Enigma) that mounted specimens in the American Museum of Natural History showed an irregularity of rib pairs. Eohippus had 18 pairs, Orohippus had 15 pairs, Pliohippus jumped to 19 pairs, and the modern horse had 18. Some series!
Furthermore, the Eohippus, more properly named Hyracotherium, is remarkably similar to the modern hyrax, a rock badger. The San Diego Zoo keeps a colony, where a sign identifies them as similar to the animal, which evolved into the horse and elephant. Others propose a hyrax-like ancestor for the sea cow also. Quite a family tree.
Dr. Duane Gish has observed that during the time when four toes were supposedly evolving into one in North America, in South America a one-toed ungulate (a horse-like browser) was evolving into a three-toed descendant. Evolution theory, being as plastic as it is, can accommodate almost any series of fossils, and tell a good evolutionary "just so" story about how it all happened.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
...Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.
News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."
But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science. The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.
The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.
The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West, and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.
Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked. We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
...Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.
News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."
But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science. The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.
The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.
The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West, and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.
Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked. We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.
The*Empress
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,908
- Reaction score
- 3
In the Living Bible....
It cleared up this....
After Adam called her 'woman',
In 2:24 - This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife in such a way that the two become one person.
Men did what Adam did, they married.
Of course Adam does not have father and mother.... "A man" is you Dennis and other men, not Adam.
So remember Theresa Schiavo? Her husband makes decision on her, not her parents.
When you married, you are no longer a dependent on your parents.
Get it?
Well bones and flesh... Is the same term as blood relatives.
It cleared up this....
After Adam called her 'woman',
In 2:24 - This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife in such a way that the two become one person.
Men did what Adam did, they married.
Of course Adam does not have father and mother.... "A man" is you Dennis and other men, not Adam.
So remember Theresa Schiavo? Her husband makes decision on her, not her parents.
When you married, you are no longer a dependent on your parents.
Get it?
Well bones and flesh... Is the same term as blood relatives.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
...Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale. Ninety years ago, with reference to Archaeopteryx and to two other ancient birds, Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, Beddard declared, "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." During the years since publication of Beddard's book, no better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds has appeared, and so, in the eyes of its beholders, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!
What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!
Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds, had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer. No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!
It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like. Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem." In this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds, rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs. John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed downward—an intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom's interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position. Further, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.
A.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the otic region of modern birds. J.R. Hinchliffe, utilizing modern isotopic techniques on chick embryos, claims to have established that the "hand" of birds consists of digits II, III and IV, while the digits of the "hand" of theropod dinosaurs consist of digits I, II, and III.
Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules. Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin. Furthermore, the development of a feather is extremely complex, and fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs, but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair,, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected by a horny sheath, and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath and dermal core, it is complex in structure. Development of the cells that will become the mature feather involves complex processes. Cells migrate and split apart in highly specific patterns to form the complex arrangement of barbs and barbules.
Philip Regal attempts to imagine how feathers may have developed from scales. Regal presents a series of hypothetical events whereby the elongation of body scales on reptiles, as an adaptive response to excessive solar heat, eventually produced feathers. What we are left to believe is that a series of genetic mistakes, or mutations, just happened somehow to result in a sequence of incredible events that not only converted a simple horny plate into the tremendously complex and marvelously engineered structure of a feather, but completely reorganized the simple method of development of a scale into the highly complex process necessary to produce a feather. What an incredible faith in the blind forces of evolution! Regal's paper simply adds another "Just-so" story to evolutionary scenarios, completely devoid of empirical support.
Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. If the claims of Sankar Chatterjee prove to be valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and dinosaurs could not be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-workers at Texas Tech University claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years old—thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! In contrast to Archaeopteryx, this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones. In most other respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx. If evolutionary assumptions are correct, this bird should have been much more reptile-like than Archaeopteryx. In fact, he shouldn't even exist!
Another threat to the notion that Archaeopteryx was intermediate between reptiles and birds are the claims of Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer, fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Israeli scientist Lee Spetner, based on detailed photographic evidence, that Archaeopteryx is a fraud. They maintain that an artificial matrix was placed on a reptilian fossil and that modern feathers were used to impress the matrix, to leave a likeness of fossil feathers. Scientists of the British Museum of Natural History have defended the authenticity of the fossil. If the allegations of Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Spetner turn out to be correct, it would be a devastating blow to evolutionists. If the fossil is a forgery, however, it would have to be a devilishly clever one, because the forger would not only have to fake the feathers, but also somehow emplace the many bird-like features described in this article.
The conclusion which appears to be most reasonable is that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, remarkably isolated from any alleged reptilian progenitor and other birds.
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
...Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale. Ninety years ago, with reference to Archaeopteryx and to two other ancient birds, Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, Beddard declared, "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." During the years since publication of Beddard's book, no better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds has appeared, and so, in the eyes of its beholders, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!
What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!
Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds, had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer. No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!
It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like. Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem." In this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds, rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs. John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed downward—an intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom's interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position. Further, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.
A.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the otic region of modern birds. J.R. Hinchliffe, utilizing modern isotopic techniques on chick embryos, claims to have established that the "hand" of birds consists of digits II, III and IV, while the digits of the "hand" of theropod dinosaurs consist of digits I, II, and III.
Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules. Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin. Furthermore, the development of a feather is extremely complex, and fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs, but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair,, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected by a horny sheath, and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath and dermal core, it is complex in structure. Development of the cells that will become the mature feather involves complex processes. Cells migrate and split apart in highly specific patterns to form the complex arrangement of barbs and barbules.
Philip Regal attempts to imagine how feathers may have developed from scales. Regal presents a series of hypothetical events whereby the elongation of body scales on reptiles, as an adaptive response to excessive solar heat, eventually produced feathers. What we are left to believe is that a series of genetic mistakes, or mutations, just happened somehow to result in a sequence of incredible events that not only converted a simple horny plate into the tremendously complex and marvelously engineered structure of a feather, but completely reorganized the simple method of development of a scale into the highly complex process necessary to produce a feather. What an incredible faith in the blind forces of evolution! Regal's paper simply adds another "Just-so" story to evolutionary scenarios, completely devoid of empirical support.
Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. If the claims of Sankar Chatterjee prove to be valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and dinosaurs could not be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-workers at Texas Tech University claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years old—thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! In contrast to Archaeopteryx, this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones. In most other respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx. If evolutionary assumptions are correct, this bird should have been much more reptile-like than Archaeopteryx. In fact, he shouldn't even exist!
Another threat to the notion that Archaeopteryx was intermediate between reptiles and birds are the claims of Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer, fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Israeli scientist Lee Spetner, based on detailed photographic evidence, that Archaeopteryx is a fraud. They maintain that an artificial matrix was placed on a reptilian fossil and that modern feathers were used to impress the matrix, to leave a likeness of fossil feathers. Scientists of the British Museum of Natural History have defended the authenticity of the fossil. If the allegations of Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Spetner turn out to be correct, it would be a devastating blow to evolutionists. If the fossil is a forgery, however, it would have to be a devilishly clever one, because the forger would not only have to fake the feathers, but also somehow emplace the many bird-like features described in this article.
The conclusion which appears to be most reasonable is that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, remarkably isolated from any alleged reptilian progenitor and other birds.
The*Empress
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,908
- Reaction score
- 3
Sigh.... Many animals extinct.... Dinosaurs extinct....
I can't believe we have to stop believeing in God over some fossil and dumb bones.
I can't believe we have to stop believeing in God over some fossil and dumb bones.
Endymion
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 0
Reba said:
Or if you prefer another source:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
There are listings in major encyclopedias for the Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils mentioned in the Wikipedia link.
By the way, the people who do actual evolution research (who are of the same academic caliber as people who do actual biblical research) publish papers on transitional fossils they research all the time. Some publications are:
Dennis S.
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 1
Reba said:
While "wiki" is not to be regarded as an official source of an editorialized and fact-checked research paper, it nonetheless suits the purpose of showing that the number of transitional fossils is NOT ZERO, contradicting your claim of "There are no fossils of transitional creatures." There were no "factual errors, defaming statements and other material that runs afoul of Wikipedia policy" on the posted page.
Drs. Morris and Gish are rather silly individuals. Leaders of the "Institute for Creation Research?" This is nice to see:
Gish wrote about the transitional fossil above: "Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers."
Archaeopteryx don't have perching feet. Neither do many modern birds.
Gish also said: "Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like . . . When the cranium of the London specimen was removed and studied, it was shown to be birdlike, not reptilelike.""
That can't be possible, because two of the five discovered Archaeopteryx fossils were originally thought to be another species of reptile, until closer inspection revealed the imprints of feathers.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm
However, not all is lost for creationists. There seems to be a fossil out there that hasn't been independently examined by scientists that is claimed to be older than Archaeopteryx and is fully bird-like. However, the scientist refuses to have anyone examine it and verify. If you can convince him to give it up, you could possibly defeat this evolutionist victory!
Reba said:
Yeah, I know about that issue with Wikipedia. That's why I added links to other sites. The issue raised in that case with Wikipedia was about one person and what he was claimed to be involved with. No other independent sources have those claims. The articles about evolution can be compared with the other sites I gave.
That's an interesting thing about the horse series. That reminds me that variations of that sort could be found within species. People have different numbers of wisdom teeth. I have only one and my sister has none. People can have extra ribs. Here's a page about cervical ribs. Here it happens to be a problem due to things like nerve compression. If there can be such variation within a species, I won't be surprised if there are different numbers of ribs in related species. It seems to be something that could be tweaked by slightly changing how the animals develop. An example is how a change in one of the Hox genes can lead to one eyed animals like this kitten.
A way to figure out what animals are related is to look at their genes. Remember the transpons I mentioned? They're are like bare viruses that insert themselves at some point in the genes. Since the transpon gene could be put anywhere when it's intially placed, finding that gene or fragments of that gene in the same place in the genomes of different animals is evidence that they're very likely to have an common ancestor, because it's very unlikely for different groups of animals to have the same transpon inserted in the same places in their genes independently for each group. That's a way to relate groups of animals. Just a superficial look at external apperences is not enough, like with sea cows and elephants.
Evolution can't be used to explain just any sequence of fossils. For example, it can't say that insects were the ancestors of birds just because they both can have wings. The evolutionists aren't trying to strench things to make Just So stories that they like. They are restricted by physical evidence like the transpons that I explained above that show how some relationships are very likely to be the case. There are insect fossils older than horse fossils. That doesn't mean evolution can be strenched to say horses descended from insects. They also don't say that alligators are descended from the ancient giant horseradish plants. You don't see evolutionists making that claim because the physical evidence doesn't support that. There are many claims like that that are not made because the evidence doesn't support it. The claims you do see are made because the ones who are making the claims think that they have the evidence. Maybe upon review by others, it could be decided that the evidence isn't enough, or it could be enough.
The one toed animals in South America evolved into three toed ones because the environmental conditions and what genes they had permited it to happen. Evolution doesn't work toward a final goal, it works with what genes are available and what the current environment is like.
The news could be using the words "missing link" because it's what the general public understand. The scientists know that those words are what the general population understand, so some use that word to tell the public. It's similar to how the word planet was used in the news for 2003 UB313, the newly found body that is bigger than Pluto, even if it's currently not officialy one. They also used the word "whale" so people would understand that it was an animal that lived in a water environment. They know what the word means, so it's used to suggest the image of such an animal. This may be an example of making such claims based upon too little evidence, with only pieces of the skull. It could be debunked upon review by others, like by Professor Ager. It's how science works, by reviewing the evidence to see if the claims are supported. Some are, and some are not. By the way, here's a page on whale ancestors.
With Archaeopteryx, it's isn't the earliest animal to have feathers. Others have been found that show that feathers haven't suddenly been developed from scales. The earliest currently known is Sinosauropteryx prima. Here are pages on it. http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/sinos256.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
It is a feathered dinosaur that doesn't look directly related to birds, suggesting that multiple groups of dinosaurs had feathers. The feathers are protofeathers, which are not fully developed in feathers like today's bird feathers. So, feathers didn't suddenly appear fully formed. Here are some others:
Dilong paradoxus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilong_paradoxus
The Wikipedia page links to a page of Nature, one of the top science journals.
Protarchaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protarchaeopteryx
The page says "Since modern birds that have symmetrical feathers are flightless, and the skeletal structure of Protarchaeopteryx would not support flapping flight, it is assumed that the Protoarchaeopteryx was flightless as well."
There's a reference on the bottom of the page, so it's not just made up stuff.
Caudipteryx genus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudipteryx
There are two links on that page, so it's not just made up stuff.
Microraptor genus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
Again there are references on the bottom. One has a link to Nature. At first the name Microraptor was used for a fraud put together by someone from several fossils, then was later applied to one of the fossils in the collection. Peer review can help to find fraud in science as well as mistakes. Sometimes, it takes a while, but that's how science research works. It doesn't happen in an instant.
Just because an older fossil is more bird-like than a newer one is not bad. Maybe the newer fossil is of a species that is really older than the other one, but currently without a known fossil discovered from before the more bird-like one. Just because a more bird-like species came up doesn't mean that the older one had to die off right away. There are such things as living fossils like horseshoe crabs and the Coelacanth fish. Those are species that have stayed pretty unchanged for very long times. Just because there are others that came after them doesn't mean they have to die out right away. We still have things like fish, frogs and lizards even if there are birds and mammals. There are still niches in the environments that they can live in, so they haven't died out.
Maybe the less bird-like one lived for a while after the other species came up. This could happen if some members of one species somehow got seperated from others for long enough to for genetic isolation to allow a new species to appear. As another possilbity, they could be of different groups on different branches. Remember that the finds suggested that there were multiple groups of animals with feathers. Maybe that what happened here. To see which one of those things happened, we could look at more fossils as we find them. For now, we live with uncertainty. That's how research works. Not everything is found in an instant and you must be able to live with uncertainty, at least until somebody finds more.
They did computer simulations with some of those creatures and found that some could not fly without the leg feathers. Some could only glide. Gliding makes sense as being in between being on the ground and in the air.
They've figure that there's no evidence of those Archaeopteryxs are frauds. From this this page:
The Science journal it's from is another one of the top journals. I say that Science and Nature are top scientific journals because they have rigorous peer review procedures.
A way to figure out what animals are related is to look at their genes. Remember the transpons I mentioned? They're are like bare viruses that insert themselves at some point in the genes. Since the transpon gene could be put anywhere when it's intially placed, finding that gene or fragments of that gene in the same place in the genomes of different animals is evidence that they're very likely to have an common ancestor, because it's very unlikely for different groups of animals to have the same transpon inserted in the same places in their genes independently for each group. That's a way to relate groups of animals. Just a superficial look at external apperences is not enough, like with sea cows and elephants.
Evolution can't be used to explain just any sequence of fossils. For example, it can't say that insects were the ancestors of birds just because they both can have wings. The evolutionists aren't trying to strench things to make Just So stories that they like. They are restricted by physical evidence like the transpons that I explained above that show how some relationships are very likely to be the case. There are insect fossils older than horse fossils. That doesn't mean evolution can be strenched to say horses descended from insects. They also don't say that alligators are descended from the ancient giant horseradish plants. You don't see evolutionists making that claim because the physical evidence doesn't support that. There are many claims like that that are not made because the evidence doesn't support it. The claims you do see are made because the ones who are making the claims think that they have the evidence. Maybe upon review by others, it could be decided that the evidence isn't enough, or it could be enough.
The one toed animals in South America evolved into three toed ones because the environmental conditions and what genes they had permited it to happen. Evolution doesn't work toward a final goal, it works with what genes are available and what the current environment is like.
The news could be using the words "missing link" because it's what the general public understand. The scientists know that those words are what the general population understand, so some use that word to tell the public. It's similar to how the word planet was used in the news for 2003 UB313, the newly found body that is bigger than Pluto, even if it's currently not officialy one. They also used the word "whale" so people would understand that it was an animal that lived in a water environment. They know what the word means, so it's used to suggest the image of such an animal. This may be an example of making such claims based upon too little evidence, with only pieces of the skull. It could be debunked upon review by others, like by Professor Ager. It's how science works, by reviewing the evidence to see if the claims are supported. Some are, and some are not. By the way, here's a page on whale ancestors.
With Archaeopteryx, it's isn't the earliest animal to have feathers. Others have been found that show that feathers haven't suddenly been developed from scales. The earliest currently known is Sinosauropteryx prima. Here are pages on it. http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/sinos256.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
It is a feathered dinosaur that doesn't look directly related to birds, suggesting that multiple groups of dinosaurs had feathers. The feathers are protofeathers, which are not fully developed in feathers like today's bird feathers. So, feathers didn't suddenly appear fully formed. Here are some others:
Dilong paradoxus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilong_paradoxus
The Wikipedia page links to a page of Nature, one of the top science journals.
Protarchaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protarchaeopteryx
The page says "Since modern birds that have symmetrical feathers are flightless, and the skeletal structure of Protarchaeopteryx would not support flapping flight, it is assumed that the Protoarchaeopteryx was flightless as well."
There's a reference on the bottom of the page, so it's not just made up stuff.
Caudipteryx genus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudipteryx
There are two links on that page, so it's not just made up stuff.
Microraptor genus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
Again there are references on the bottom. One has a link to Nature. At first the name Microraptor was used for a fraud put together by someone from several fossils, then was later applied to one of the fossils in the collection. Peer review can help to find fraud in science as well as mistakes. Sometimes, it takes a while, but that's how science research works. It doesn't happen in an instant.
Just because an older fossil is more bird-like than a newer one is not bad. Maybe the newer fossil is of a species that is really older than the other one, but currently without a known fossil discovered from before the more bird-like one. Just because a more bird-like species came up doesn't mean that the older one had to die off right away. There are such things as living fossils like horseshoe crabs and the Coelacanth fish. Those are species that have stayed pretty unchanged for very long times. Just because there are others that came after them doesn't mean they have to die out right away. We still have things like fish, frogs and lizards even if there are birds and mammals. There are still niches in the environments that they can live in, so they haven't died out.
Maybe the less bird-like one lived for a while after the other species came up. This could happen if some members of one species somehow got seperated from others for long enough to for genetic isolation to allow a new species to appear. As another possilbity, they could be of different groups on different branches. Remember that the finds suggested that there were multiple groups of animals with feathers. Maybe that what happened here. To see which one of those things happened, we could look at more fossils as we find them. For now, we live with uncertainty. That's how research works. Not everything is found in an instant and you must be able to live with uncertainty, at least until somebody finds more.
They did computer simulations with some of those creatures and found that some could not fly without the leg feathers. Some could only glide. Gliding makes sense as being in between being on the ground and in the air.
They've figure that there's no evidence of those Archaeopteryxs are frauds. From this this page:
The Science journal it's from is another one of the top journals. I say that Science and Nature are top scientific journals because they have rigorous peer review procedures.
VamPyroX
bloody phreak from hell
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 34,374
- Reaction score
- 19
Oh, sorry... I used the wrong name.Reba said:
God was probably lying. Since God supposedly told Moses what happened and Moses put it down in word, then God probably lied to make it look like God did everything. Let's look at it this way, maybe Earth is millions of years old... but God wanted Moses to think it wasn't. So, he tells Moses that it's only hundreds of years old by making up this story about how he created Earth by himself.
The*Empress
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,908
- Reaction score
- 3
Etymology....
Solution - gotta solve things
Revolution - solve problem by rebelling
Evolution - forever trying to solve.
Solution - gotta solve things
Revolution - solve problem by rebelling
Evolution - forever trying to solve.
The*Empress
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,908
- Reaction score
- 3
Vamp, you know it could really happen....
if a man's sperm and a woman's egg can make a baby...
If a doctor can revive a dying man....
That is miracle.
If we can make a plane fly up in the sky....
That is a miracle.
If an artist can form a statue out of clay.....
Maybe God found a rock, place water in it, and set it next to the sun, and watched what happen and saw many things forming on Earth.
Without the sun, we will all doomed.
if a man's sperm and a woman's egg can make a baby...
If a doctor can revive a dying man....
That is miracle.
If we can make a plane fly up in the sky....
That is a miracle.
If an artist can form a statue out of clay.....
Maybe God found a rock, place water in it, and set it next to the sun, and watched what happen and saw many things forming on Earth.
Without the sun, we will all doomed.
Rose Immortal
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reaction score
- 0
VamPyroX said:Oh, sorry... I used the wrong name.
God was probably lying. Since God supposedly told Moses what happened and Moses put it down in word, then God probably lied to make it look like God did everything. Let's look at it this way, maybe Earth is millions of years old... but God wanted Moses to think it wasn't. So, he tells Moses that it's only hundreds of years old by making up this story about how he created Earth by himself.
VamPyroX...this may sound stupid, but would the concept of "millions of years" have been understood by the Israelites back then? We take these concepts for granted, but I'm not sure many people had them that far back in time. There are still peoples in parts of the world who don't have vocabulary for numbers like these.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
The Origin of Mammals
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
According to the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution, all living forms have arisen from a single form of life by slow gradual changes. Thus, the time between the origin of life and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of the many complex invertebrate forms of life is now estimated to have been nearly three billion years. 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 neo-Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micromutations 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 history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution theory is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution.
Such is not the case at all, however. The fossil record was actually an embarrassment to Darwin, and some paleontologists are willing to admit that it looks even worse from an evolutionary point of view today than it did in Darwin's time.1 Some even appear to admit that there is, in fact, little, if any, evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record. Kitts, for example, states, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." More and more paleontologists seem to be coming to the point where they are now willing to admit that this is indeed the case, and are seeking to devise a mechanism for evolution that will tolerate, even predict, systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Other evolutionists remain steadfastly wedded to neo-Darwinism. They argue that there are examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, and that even if examples of gradual change are few, these few examples eliminate the necessity of seeking mechanisms for evolution other than neo-Darwinism. The examples most often cited are the reptile-to-bird transition (Archaeopteryx is the sole suggested intermediate), the so-called horse series, and the reptile-mammal transition.
Of the latter, Olson has said "The reptilian-mammalian transition has by far the finest record of showing the origin of a new class."2 Others claim that there are forms that stand perfectly on the reptilian-mammalian boundary.
The creatures included within the class Mammalia are a diverse group. All are warm-blooded and the females possess mammary glands for suckling the young. The mammals comprise 32 orders, most of which are placental mammals but which also include the Monotremata, which embrace the egg-laying spiny ant-eater and the egg-laying duckbilled platypus, and the Marsupialia, which include the opossums and the pouched marsupials, such as the kangaroo and wallabies.
It is interesting to note that while claiming that intermediate forms for the reptile-to-mammal transition have been found, some evolutionists admit that no immediate ancestors for any of the 32 mammalian orders have been discovered. Thus, George Gaylord Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium ("Eohippus"), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say "This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals…The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."3
The marine mammals thus abruptly appear in the fossil record as whales, dolphins, sea-cows, etc. For example, in one of Romer's concluding statements in his discussion of the subungulates (conies, elephants, sea-cows), he says "… conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record."4 Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned.5 His remark included the seals, dolphins and whales. There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors.
Romer suggests that whales may have descended from a primitive carnivore,6 although concerning the Sirenia (sea cows) and Cetacea (whales, dolphins) he admits that "We are ignorant of their terrestrial forebears and cannot be sure of their place of origin."7 It is interesting to note that many of the so-called "primitive" carnivorous mammals had about 40 teeth differentiated into incisors, canines, premolars and molars. The porpoises, dolphins, and whales, however, may possess teeth far in excess of that number (one porpoise has 300), and the teeth of these marine mammals are usually simple pegs or wedges and are not differentiated into incisors, canines, premolars and molars.
Würsig has suggested recently, on the other hand, that dolphins may have evolved from land mammals resembling the even-toed ungulates of today such as cattle, pigs and buffaloes.8 It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an "udder-failure!"
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
According to the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution, all living forms have arisen from a single form of life by slow gradual changes. Thus, the time between the origin of life and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of the many complex invertebrate forms of life is now estimated to have been nearly three billion years. 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 neo-Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micromutations 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 history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution theory is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution.
Such is not the case at all, however. The fossil record was actually an embarrassment to Darwin, and some paleontologists are willing to admit that it looks even worse from an evolutionary point of view today than it did in Darwin's time.1 Some even appear to admit that there is, in fact, little, if any, evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record. Kitts, for example, states, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." More and more paleontologists seem to be coming to the point where they are now willing to admit that this is indeed the case, and are seeking to devise a mechanism for evolution that will tolerate, even predict, systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Other evolutionists remain steadfastly wedded to neo-Darwinism. They argue that there are examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, and that even if examples of gradual change are few, these few examples eliminate the necessity of seeking mechanisms for evolution other than neo-Darwinism. The examples most often cited are the reptile-to-bird transition (Archaeopteryx is the sole suggested intermediate), the so-called horse series, and the reptile-mammal transition.
Of the latter, Olson has said "The reptilian-mammalian transition has by far the finest record of showing the origin of a new class."2 Others claim that there are forms that stand perfectly on the reptilian-mammalian boundary.
The creatures included within the class Mammalia are a diverse group. All are warm-blooded and the females possess mammary glands for suckling the young. The mammals comprise 32 orders, most of which are placental mammals but which also include the Monotremata, which embrace the egg-laying spiny ant-eater and the egg-laying duckbilled platypus, and the Marsupialia, which include the opossums and the pouched marsupials, such as the kangaroo and wallabies.
It is interesting to note that while claiming that intermediate forms for the reptile-to-mammal transition have been found, some evolutionists admit that no immediate ancestors for any of the 32 mammalian orders have been discovered. Thus, George Gaylord Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium ("Eohippus"), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say "This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals…The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."3
The marine mammals thus abruptly appear in the fossil record as whales, dolphins, sea-cows, etc. For example, in one of Romer's concluding statements in his discussion of the subungulates (conies, elephants, sea-cows), he says "… conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record."4 Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned.5 His remark included the seals, dolphins and whales. There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors.
Romer suggests that whales may have descended from a primitive carnivore,6 although concerning the Sirenia (sea cows) and Cetacea (whales, dolphins) he admits that "We are ignorant of their terrestrial forebears and cannot be sure of their place of origin."7 It is interesting to note that many of the so-called "primitive" carnivorous mammals had about 40 teeth differentiated into incisors, canines, premolars and molars. The porpoises, dolphins, and whales, however, may possess teeth far in excess of that number (one porpoise has 300), and the teeth of these marine mammals are usually simple pegs or wedges and are not differentiated into incisors, canines, premolars and molars.
Würsig has suggested recently, on the other hand, that dolphins may have evolved from land mammals resembling the even-toed ungulates of today such as cattle, pigs and buffaloes.8 It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an "udder-failure!"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Bats (of the order Chiroptera), the only flying mammal, are especially interesting. Evolutionists assume, of course, that bats must have evolved from a non-flying mammal. There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record, however, to support such speculations, for, as Romer says, "Bats appear full fledged in both hemispheres in the Middle Eocene …"9
On the cover page of Science of December 9, 1966 (Vol. 154) appears a picture of what the author (Glenn L. Jepsen) of the accompanying article (pp. 1333-1339) describes as the oldest known bat. He reports that it was found in Early Eocene deposits, which are dated by evolutionists at about 50 million years. While stating that this bat possessed a few "primitive" characteristics, Jepsen states that it was fully developed, an "anatomically precocious" contemporary of Eohippus. Thus, bats appear fully-formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms, as a contemporary of Eohippus, supposedly the ancestor of horses. According to Jepsen this leaves many questions unanswered, including when, from what, where, and how did bats originate?
Horses comprise one of the most interesting mammalian groups as far as the question of origins is concerned. Almost all students are familiar with the story of horse "evolution," beginning with Hyracotherium (Eohippus), a dog-sized "horse" with four toes on the front feet, passing via straight-line evolution through three-toed varieties, and ending with the modern one-toed Equus. But while subscribing to the evolution of the horse in general, Birdsell proclaims that "Much of this story is incorrect …"10 Others hold the same view. George Gaylord Simpson, for example, has declared that several generations of students have been misinformed about the real meaning of the evolution of the horse.11 These authors believe that the evolution of the horse is much more complicated than usually portrayed, and is more like a series of bushes, perhaps, than like a tree.
To us the family tree of the horse appears to be merely a scenario put together from non-equivalent parts. Nowhere, for example, are there intermediate forms documenting transition from a non-horse ancestor (supposedly a condylarth) with five toes on each foot, to Hyracotherium with four toes on the front foot and three on the rear. Neither are there transitional forms between the four-toed Hyracotherium and the three-toed Miohippus, or between the latter, equipped with browsing teeth, and the three-toed Merychippus, equipped with high-crowned grazing teeth. Finally, the one-toed grazers, such as Equus, appear abruptly with no intermediates showing gradual evolution from the three-toed grazers.
Thus, Birdsell tells this story in the following way (note that when an evolutionist uses such terms as "sudden," "abrupt," or "rapid" with reference to transitions he is usually inferring that no transitional forms have been found): "The evolution of the foot mechanisms proceeded by rapid and abrupt changes rather than gradual ones. The transition from the form of foot shown by miniature Eohippus to larger consistently three-toed Miohippus was so abrupt that it even left no record in the fossil deposits… their foot structure [those of Miohippus] changed very rapidly to a three-toed sprung foot in which the pad disappeared and the two side toes became essentially functionless. Finally, in the Pliocene the line leading to the modern one-toed grazer went through a rapid loss of the two side toes on each foot."12 He then goes on to say that this evolution was not gradual but that it had proceeded by rapid jumps. Thus, the continuity required by theory cannot be documented from the fossil record.
A rather astounding and revealing fact is discovered when we compare North American ungulates to South American ungulates. ...Again we see a three-toed hoofed ungulate (Macrauchenia); a three-toed hoofed ungulate with reduced laterals (Diadiaphorus); and, in this case, a one-toed hoofed ungulate (Thoatherium) which, Romer says, seems even more horselike than any true horse, for it was single-toed with splints more reduced than those of modem equids.13
Do they not thus provide another nice, logical evolutionary series? No, not at all, for they do not occur in this sequence at all! Diadiaphorus, the three-toed ungulate with reduced lateral toes, and Thoatherium, the one-toed ungulate, were contemporaries in the Miocene epoch. Macrauchenia, with pes containing three full-sized toes, is not found until the Pliocene epoch, which followed the Miocene according to the geological column. In fact, it is said that the one-toed Thoatherium became extinct in the Miocene before the three-toed Macrauchenia made his appearance in the Pliocene.
Thus, if evolutionists would permit the fossil evidence and their usual assumptions concerning geological time to be their guide, they should suppose that in South America a one-toed ungulate gave rise to a three-toed ungulate with reduced lateral toes, which then gave rise to an ungulate with three full-sized toes. This is precisely the opposite of the supposed sequence of events that occurred with North American horses. I don't know any evolutionist who suggests such an evolutionary sequence of events, but why not? Perhaps it is because the three-toed to one-toed sequence for North American horses became so popularized in evolutionary circles that no one dare suggest the reverse transition. Of course there is no more real evidence for transitional forms in South America than there is in North America.
On the cover page of Science of December 9, 1966 (Vol. 154) appears a picture of what the author (Glenn L. Jepsen) of the accompanying article (pp. 1333-1339) describes as the oldest known bat. He reports that it was found in Early Eocene deposits, which are dated by evolutionists at about 50 million years. While stating that this bat possessed a few "primitive" characteristics, Jepsen states that it was fully developed, an "anatomically precocious" contemporary of Eohippus. Thus, bats appear fully-formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms, as a contemporary of Eohippus, supposedly the ancestor of horses. According to Jepsen this leaves many questions unanswered, including when, from what, where, and how did bats originate?
Horses comprise one of the most interesting mammalian groups as far as the question of origins is concerned. Almost all students are familiar with the story of horse "evolution," beginning with Hyracotherium (Eohippus), a dog-sized "horse" with four toes on the front feet, passing via straight-line evolution through three-toed varieties, and ending with the modern one-toed Equus. But while subscribing to the evolution of the horse in general, Birdsell proclaims that "Much of this story is incorrect …"10 Others hold the same view. George Gaylord Simpson, for example, has declared that several generations of students have been misinformed about the real meaning of the evolution of the horse.11 These authors believe that the evolution of the horse is much more complicated than usually portrayed, and is more like a series of bushes, perhaps, than like a tree.
To us the family tree of the horse appears to be merely a scenario put together from non-equivalent parts. Nowhere, for example, are there intermediate forms documenting transition from a non-horse ancestor (supposedly a condylarth) with five toes on each foot, to Hyracotherium with four toes on the front foot and three on the rear. Neither are there transitional forms between the four-toed Hyracotherium and the three-toed Miohippus, or between the latter, equipped with browsing teeth, and the three-toed Merychippus, equipped with high-crowned grazing teeth. Finally, the one-toed grazers, such as Equus, appear abruptly with no intermediates showing gradual evolution from the three-toed grazers.
Thus, Birdsell tells this story in the following way (note that when an evolutionist uses such terms as "sudden," "abrupt," or "rapid" with reference to transitions he is usually inferring that no transitional forms have been found): "The evolution of the foot mechanisms proceeded by rapid and abrupt changes rather than gradual ones. The transition from the form of foot shown by miniature Eohippus to larger consistently three-toed Miohippus was so abrupt that it even left no record in the fossil deposits… their foot structure [those of Miohippus] changed very rapidly to a three-toed sprung foot in which the pad disappeared and the two side toes became essentially functionless. Finally, in the Pliocene the line leading to the modern one-toed grazer went through a rapid loss of the two side toes on each foot."12 He then goes on to say that this evolution was not gradual but that it had proceeded by rapid jumps. Thus, the continuity required by theory cannot be documented from the fossil record.
A rather astounding and revealing fact is discovered when we compare North American ungulates to South American ungulates. ...Again we see a three-toed hoofed ungulate (Macrauchenia); a three-toed hoofed ungulate with reduced laterals (Diadiaphorus); and, in this case, a one-toed hoofed ungulate (Thoatherium) which, Romer says, seems even more horselike than any true horse, for it was single-toed with splints more reduced than those of modem equids.13
Do they not thus provide another nice, logical evolutionary series? No, not at all, for they do not occur in this sequence at all! Diadiaphorus, the three-toed ungulate with reduced lateral toes, and Thoatherium, the one-toed ungulate, were contemporaries in the Miocene epoch. Macrauchenia, with pes containing three full-sized toes, is not found until the Pliocene epoch, which followed the Miocene according to the geological column. In fact, it is said that the one-toed Thoatherium became extinct in the Miocene before the three-toed Macrauchenia made his appearance in the Pliocene.
Thus, if evolutionists would permit the fossil evidence and their usual assumptions concerning geological time to be their guide, they should suppose that in South America a one-toed ungulate gave rise to a three-toed ungulate with reduced lateral toes, which then gave rise to an ungulate with three full-sized toes. This is precisely the opposite of the supposed sequence of events that occurred with North American horses. I don't know any evolutionist who suggests such an evolutionary sequence of events, but why not? Perhaps it is because the three-toed to one-toed sequence for North American horses became so popularized in evolutionary circles that no one dare suggest the reverse transition. Of course there is no more real evidence for transitional forms in South America than there is in North America.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
It should also be noted that in the Rattlesnake Formation of the John Day Country of northeastern Oregon, the three-toed horse Neohipparion is found with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.14 No transitional forms between the two are found. In other cases "primitive" species of a genus, such as those of Merychippus, are found in geological formations supposedly younger than those containing "advanced" species.15
Was Hyracotherium (Eohippus) really a horse? Hyracotherium was discovered in Europe before "Eohippus" was uncovered in North America, and was given the genus designation of Hyracotherium by the famous British anatomist and paleontologist, Richard Owen, who was also its discoverer. Later, other specimens were discovered in North America and given the genus name Eohippus. It was subsequently concluded that the North American specimens were actually of the same genus as Hyracotherium. The latter thus has priority, so Eohippus is not a valid name for these creatures. It is most commonly used, however, undoubtedly because the name Eohippus means "dawn horse" while Hyracotherium was chosen by Owen because of the resemblance of this creature to creatures of the genus Hyrax (cony, daman).
Although Hyracotherium, or Eohippus, was unlike modern horses, both morphologically and in habitat, this creature was chosen to stand at the base of the horses by the American paleontologist Marsh, and others, and this scheme became solidly entrenched both in popular circles and in scientific status after a lecture in New York City by Thomas H. Huxley and the publication of Marsh's studies.16
Nilsson has pointed out that while Hyracotherium has little or no resemblances to horses, it apparently was morphologically and in habitat similar to living creatures of the genus Hyrax.17 Hyrax, like Hyracotherium, is about the size of a rabbit or fox. Hyrax, also like Hyracotherium, has four toes on the front feet and three on the rear. The cheek teeth of these two creatures share many similarities and are more like those of rhinoceri than those of horses. The habitat and way of life of Hyrax are also similar to those postulated for Hyracotherium. Thus, Nilsson maintains, although Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were, apparently, remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax.
Others also doubt whether Hyracotherium was related to the horse. For example, Kerkut states, "In the first place it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states, ‘Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not much more definitely equid than tap i rid, rhinocerotid, etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.’"18 In other words, Hyracotherium is not any more like a horse than it is similar to a tapir or a rhinoceros, and thus just as justifiably it could have been chosen as the ancestral rhinoceros or tapir. It seems, then, that the objectivity of those involved in the construction of the phylogenetic tree of the horse was questionable from the very start, and that the "horse" on which the entire family tree of the horse rests was not a horse at all.
No definitive work on horses has been published since the publication of Kerkut's book that would materially affect his conclusion that "In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn (1937, 1943) for the evolution of the Proboscidea, 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' (Romer 1949)."18 If indeed "horse evolution" is that chaotic and patchy, this classic case for evolution is without real merit. The actual evidence, on the other hand, neatly fits the Creation Model.
The order Rodentia should provide evolutionists with a group of mammals ideal for documenting evolutionary transitions. In number of species and genera, the rodents exceed all other mammalian orders combined. They flourish under almost all conditions. Surely, if any group of animals could supply transitional forms, this group could.
As to their origin, Romer has said "The origin of the rodents is obscure. When they first appear, in the late Paleocene, in the genus Paramys, we are already dealing with a typical, if rather primitive, true rodent, with the definitive ordinal characters well developed. Presumably, of course, they had arisen from some basal, insectivorous, placental stock; but no transitional forms are known."19
Furthermore, transitional forms between the basic rodent types are not found in the fossil record. For example, Romer says "… the beavers are presumably derived from some primitive sciuromorph stock, but there are no annectant types between such forms and the oldest Oligocene castoroids to prove direct relationship."19
Speaking of the Hystricidae, the Old World porcupines, Romer says "There are a few fossil forms, back to the Miocene and possibly late Oligocene, but these give no indication of relationship of hystricids to other rodent types."
Commenting on the "rock rat," Petromus, Romer says "Almost nothing is known of the ancestry or possible descendants." Of the lagomorphs (hares and rabbits), once placed in a suborder of the rodents, but now placed in a separate order, Lagomorpha, Romer must admit that, "The lagomorphs show no close approach to other placental groups, and the ordinal characters are well developed in even the oldest known forms."
Thus we see that the order Rodentia, which should supply an excellent case for evolution, if evolution really did occur, offers powerful evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis.
The order Primates is of special interest since that is the order within which our own species, Homo sapiens, is placed. We do not consider the order Primates to be a natural group at all, since prosimians, monkeys, apes, and men each were separately created and did not share a common ancestor. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that all of these creatures have shared a common ancestor, and that they shared this common ancestry more recently than they shared their common ancestry with any other animal.
The primates are supposed to have evolved from an insectivorous ancestor, more particularly a creature resembling the tree shrew. There is no evidence whatever in the fossil record, however, to support such an idea, for no transitional forms can be found. Elwyn Simons, a leading evolutionary paleoanthropologist, admits that "In spite of recent finds, the time and place of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in mystery."20 Romer states that the early lemurs (lemur-like creatures were supposed to be among the first primates) appear "apparently as immigrants from some unknown area."21 He suggests this since paleontologists have no indication in the fossil record how lemurs (and thus the primates) arose. Kelso states "… the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms."22
It is thus evident that when evolutionists seek for the origin of the primate order in the fossil record they encounter a blank wall. Furthermore, recent studies appear to invalidate earlier conclusions that tree shrews (tupaiids) are closely related to living primates. Campbell, who has reviewed this recent work, states "I have attempted to indicate the large number of recent studies where results indicate that a close relationship between tupaiids and primates is unlikely."23 He then goes on to say that the innate attractiveness of including the tree shrew in the sequence tree shrew-lemur-tarsier-ape-man may have been in large measure responsible for its acceptance.
We see, then, that there is no evidence to link the primates to the tree shrews (or to any other supposed ancestor), either in the fossil record or among living creatures. The primates stand distinctly apart from all other groups.
This review, certainly brief and incomplete, should nevertheless be sufficient to document the fact that mammals cannot be linked to reptiles or to any other group. Since it can be shown that each of the 32 orders of mammals are separate and distinct groups set apart from one another and from all other creatures by unbridged gaps, it seems evident that collectively as mammals they are set apart as well.
Was Hyracotherium (Eohippus) really a horse? Hyracotherium was discovered in Europe before "Eohippus" was uncovered in North America, and was given the genus designation of Hyracotherium by the famous British anatomist and paleontologist, Richard Owen, who was also its discoverer. Later, other specimens were discovered in North America and given the genus name Eohippus. It was subsequently concluded that the North American specimens were actually of the same genus as Hyracotherium. The latter thus has priority, so Eohippus is not a valid name for these creatures. It is most commonly used, however, undoubtedly because the name Eohippus means "dawn horse" while Hyracotherium was chosen by Owen because of the resemblance of this creature to creatures of the genus Hyrax (cony, daman).
Although Hyracotherium, or Eohippus, was unlike modern horses, both morphologically and in habitat, this creature was chosen to stand at the base of the horses by the American paleontologist Marsh, and others, and this scheme became solidly entrenched both in popular circles and in scientific status after a lecture in New York City by Thomas H. Huxley and the publication of Marsh's studies.16
Nilsson has pointed out that while Hyracotherium has little or no resemblances to horses, it apparently was morphologically and in habitat similar to living creatures of the genus Hyrax.17 Hyrax, like Hyracotherium, is about the size of a rabbit or fox. Hyrax, also like Hyracotherium, has four toes on the front feet and three on the rear. The cheek teeth of these two creatures share many similarities and are more like those of rhinoceri than those of horses. The habitat and way of life of Hyrax are also similar to those postulated for Hyracotherium. Thus, Nilsson maintains, although Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were, apparently, remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax.
Others also doubt whether Hyracotherium was related to the horse. For example, Kerkut states, "In the first place it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states, ‘Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not much more definitely equid than tap i rid, rhinocerotid, etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.’"18 In other words, Hyracotherium is not any more like a horse than it is similar to a tapir or a rhinoceros, and thus just as justifiably it could have been chosen as the ancestral rhinoceros or tapir. It seems, then, that the objectivity of those involved in the construction of the phylogenetic tree of the horse was questionable from the very start, and that the "horse" on which the entire family tree of the horse rests was not a horse at all.
No definitive work on horses has been published since the publication of Kerkut's book that would materially affect his conclusion that "In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn (1937, 1943) for the evolution of the Proboscidea, 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' (Romer 1949)."18 If indeed "horse evolution" is that chaotic and patchy, this classic case for evolution is without real merit. The actual evidence, on the other hand, neatly fits the Creation Model.
The order Rodentia should provide evolutionists with a group of mammals ideal for documenting evolutionary transitions. In number of species and genera, the rodents exceed all other mammalian orders combined. They flourish under almost all conditions. Surely, if any group of animals could supply transitional forms, this group could.
As to their origin, Romer has said "The origin of the rodents is obscure. When they first appear, in the late Paleocene, in the genus Paramys, we are already dealing with a typical, if rather primitive, true rodent, with the definitive ordinal characters well developed. Presumably, of course, they had arisen from some basal, insectivorous, placental stock; but no transitional forms are known."19
Furthermore, transitional forms between the basic rodent types are not found in the fossil record. For example, Romer says "… the beavers are presumably derived from some primitive sciuromorph stock, but there are no annectant types between such forms and the oldest Oligocene castoroids to prove direct relationship."19
Speaking of the Hystricidae, the Old World porcupines, Romer says "There are a few fossil forms, back to the Miocene and possibly late Oligocene, but these give no indication of relationship of hystricids to other rodent types."
Commenting on the "rock rat," Petromus, Romer says "Almost nothing is known of the ancestry or possible descendants." Of the lagomorphs (hares and rabbits), once placed in a suborder of the rodents, but now placed in a separate order, Lagomorpha, Romer must admit that, "The lagomorphs show no close approach to other placental groups, and the ordinal characters are well developed in even the oldest known forms."
Thus we see that the order Rodentia, which should supply an excellent case for evolution, if evolution really did occur, offers powerful evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis.
The order Primates is of special interest since that is the order within which our own species, Homo sapiens, is placed. We do not consider the order Primates to be a natural group at all, since prosimians, monkeys, apes, and men each were separately created and did not share a common ancestor. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that all of these creatures have shared a common ancestor, and that they shared this common ancestry more recently than they shared their common ancestry with any other animal.
The primates are supposed to have evolved from an insectivorous ancestor, more particularly a creature resembling the tree shrew. There is no evidence whatever in the fossil record, however, to support such an idea, for no transitional forms can be found. Elwyn Simons, a leading evolutionary paleoanthropologist, admits that "In spite of recent finds, the time and place of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in mystery."20 Romer states that the early lemurs (lemur-like creatures were supposed to be among the first primates) appear "apparently as immigrants from some unknown area."21 He suggests this since paleontologists have no indication in the fossil record how lemurs (and thus the primates) arose. Kelso states "… the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms."22
It is thus evident that when evolutionists seek for the origin of the primate order in the fossil record they encounter a blank wall. Furthermore, recent studies appear to invalidate earlier conclusions that tree shrews (tupaiids) are closely related to living primates. Campbell, who has reviewed this recent work, states "I have attempted to indicate the large number of recent studies where results indicate that a close relationship between tupaiids and primates is unlikely."23 He then goes on to say that the innate attractiveness of including the tree shrew in the sequence tree shrew-lemur-tarsier-ape-man may have been in large measure responsible for its acceptance.
We see, then, that there is no evidence to link the primates to the tree shrews (or to any other supposed ancestor), either in the fossil record or among living creatures. The primates stand distinctly apart from all other groups.
This review, certainly brief and incomplete, should nevertheless be sufficient to document the fact that mammals cannot be linked to reptiles or to any other group. Since it can be shown that each of the 32 orders of mammals are separate and distinct groups set apart from one another and from all other creatures by unbridged gaps, it seems evident that collectively as mammals they are set apart as well.
- Status