"According to Their Kinds"

According to Neo-Darwinian evolution theory, gradual changes have occurred in living forms over millions of years. In theory, good genetic mutations conferred an advantage, making the recipients more suited to their environment, so that a population of improved forms replaced the old one. Any bad mutations would change these creatures in a deleterious way so that they would not survive. The fossil record is said to reflect this progression from single celled organisms right up to man, so the fossil record should contain large numbers of gradually changing intermediates.

In practice, no examples of good mutations are known, but mutations cause a number of terrible genetic diseases. And the proposed intermediates are all "missing links".

If Creation is true, cats will be cats and dogs will be dogs; there will be no dats or cogs. Genesis 1 says that God made them to reproduce after their kind. There is nothing in the Bible about evolution. The proposed evolutionary mechanism and time-scale are cruel and inefficient. If you want to believe in evolution theory, don´t blame God for it.

Variations within kinds are known. There are some 200 varieties of dogs. Dogs can inter-breed with wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes to give fertile offspring. There would have been one created kind of dog (Canis) with potential for genetic variability. There are several races of people. All can interbreed and mitochondrial genes show that we all came from one pair. Darwin saw many varieties of finch on the Galapagos Islands, with different beak shapes, and assumed that finches, humming birds, eagles, ducks and canaries all had a common ancestor, which in turn came from a reptile. There is no evidence for this.

In the fossil record, the basic kinds all appear fully formed. This has led some to propose alternative mechanisms for evolution such as Punctuated Equilibria of Gould and Eldredge and Hopeful Monsters of Goldschmidt. These proposed either very rapid spurts of change or macro-mutations. For example, it was proposed that a reptile laid an egg from which a bird emerged. What a shock for mamma reptile! And where would the new bird find a mate?

Scientists are questioning Darwinism. In 1985 a molecular biologist with two earned doctorates, Michael Denton, wrote a book entitled "Evolution - a theory in crisis." On the cover flap it says: "This sober, authoritative and responsible book by a practicing scientist presents an accurate account of the rapidly accumulating evidence which threatens to destroy almost every cherished tenet of Darwinian evolution." In 1987, a Swedish scientist, Soren Lovtrup, wrote in his book "Darwmism: the refutation of a myth": "I believe one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."

The Evidence from the "Cambrian" Strata
According to evolutionists the Cambrian rocks are the lowest sedimentary layers to contain anything much in the way of fossils. Below it the Precambrian sediments are often similar in structure with undisturbed strata, but virtually innocent of fossils. Yet in the Cambrian explosion, laid down over 500 my. (million years) ago according to evolutionists, we find a profusion of fully formed kinds.

The evolutionists claim these millions of years by saying that sediments are laid down about the thickness of a hair´s breadth per year. But under such slow deposition, nothing could be fossilized. Fossils are not formed today. Creatures decay or are eaten by scavengers. The billions of fossils found in Cambrian sediments are best accounted for by the Genesis Flood.

Cambrian fossils include sea urchins, sponges, jellyfish, swimming crustaceans, brachiopods, clams, snails, worms and a great variety of other complex invertebrates (no backbone) as well as single celled algae. Some trilobites have complex eyes which afford perfect vision. If evolutionists are not deceived, a slow progression from single cells to a diversity of complex invertebrates should have left billions of ancestors. Although the Precambrian rocks contain some microscopic bacteria and soft bodied algae, nowhere on the face of the Earth has anyone found a single Cambrian invertebrates.

The atheist Richard Dawkins writes on p. 229 of "The Blind Watchmaker": "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups, and we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution the very first time they appear. It is as though they were planted there without any evolutionary history." Well indeed, it certainly does look that way. These invertebrates belong to different phyla. (Creatures are classified in species within a genus, and genera within a family, and families within order, orders within a class, classes within a phylum and phyla within a kingdom.) These phyla have no evolutionary forebears. An American anti-creationist, Douglas Fatuyma, has written on p. 325 of his "Evolutionary Biology", 2nd Ed. 1986: "It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed without intermediates connecting one phylum to another."

That settles it. Evolution is dead in the water. None of these Cambrian fossils has any link to another, and none have ancestors. Evolution demands a continuum of ancestors. However, this discontinuity is precisely what you would expect from Creation.

Invertebrates to Fishes? What a tremendous transformation is required to evolve a worm or a jellyfish into a vertebrate fish. Evolutionists believe it took about 100 my, but something impossible isn´t going to happen however much time you give it. There are billions upon billions of invertebrate fossils, and billions upon billions of fossil fish. (In one four square mile area of California it is estimated that there are one billion fossil herring - just one sort of fish !) If evolution were true there ought to be millions of fossil intermediates between invertebrates and fish. They have never found one.

Dr. Eryl White, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, an expert on fish (an ichthyologist) published an article about lung fish in which he said: "But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know anything about, has had its origin firmly based in nothing." Nothing means absolutely nothing. That cannot be if evolution is true. There cannot be 100 million years of evolution from invertebrate to fish with no trace left in the fossil record. Evolution has not taken place, and the long time-scale is an assumption required by evolution theory.

That is what we find consistently throughout the fossil record. Each major kind appears fully formed with no transitional forms. We don´t have to look any further. We have already established from the fossil record that evolution has not taken place.

Fish to Amphibians? Evolutionists believe that amphibians came from fish - where else - possibly from red herrings? Apparently fish left the water and developed flippers. However, lung fish can breathe air but they never leave the water. Moreover, any mutation which would help a fish to change towards becoming an amphibian would not make it a better fish. It would therefore not be selected. A mutation which might be useful in millions of years time but will not lead to an improved fish in the present, will be selected against, according to neo-Darwinian principles.

Comparing some fish with some amphibians, one can find certain similarities in the skulls and backbones. Certain fish have bony fins which are supposed to have changed into feet and legs of amphibians such as frogs, toads and salamanders. However, the pelvic bone of a fish is very small and loosely embedded in muscle, with no connection to the vertebral column. Fins do not support the weight of the body. On the other hand, the pelvic bone of the amphibian is very large and firmly anchored to the vertebral column. That is necessary for it to walk on land.

One crossopterygian fish which evolutionists considered a candidate for transforming into an amphibian was Coelacanth latimeria, which had bony fins and became extinct in the fossil record about 70 my. ago according to evolutionists. This neat idea was ruined when a coelacanth was caught in 1938 off the coast of East Africa. Since then this "living fossil" has been studied using radio transmitter implants. It doesn´t even use its fins to walk on the bottom of the sea. It has not evolved in all those millions of years. Yet, apparently, its close cousin evolved all the way into people!

There is no fossil evidence that fish ever evolved into anything.

Reptiles and Mammals. According to the evolutionary story, land reptiles evolved into marine reptiles, so feet and legs changed back into flippers. There are no fossils of intermediates in this process either.

The story then goes that some hairy four-legged mammal, perhaps in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into the water, and over aeons of time, its descendants gradually evolved into whales and dolphins. The tails changed into flukes, the hind legs gradually disappeared and the front legs became flippers. An article in Scientific American said the ancestral mammal may have resembled a pig, cow or buffalo.

The whale is beautifully designed for life in water. It can hear directionally under water, and its low frequency cries carry over vast distances. It dives thousands of feet, and its special skull structure withstands the pressure. The mother whale nurses its baby under water. Muscles on the mammary glands force the milk into the baby´s mouth quickly. Before those muscles evolved the baby would have either starved to death or drowned - end of line. Why should a mammal go into the water in the first place, and how did the line survive while all the necessary changes took place?

The duck-billed platypus resembles a bird, a reptile and a mammal all at once. Like a bird or reptile it has a duck bill, lays eggs and has webbed feet. Like a reptile it has a reptilian shoulder girdle and poisonous spurs on its rear legs. Like a mammal it is warm blooded, has fur and suckles its young. When the first one was sent back to London, scientists thought it was a hoax and tried to rip its bill off. What was its evolutionary ancestor? What will it evolve into?

Origin of Flight. The ability to fly has apparently evolved independently four times, in insects, bats, flying reptiles and birds. In all the millions of years that flying creatures were developing from non-flying ones, not a single intermediate was fossilized. Fossil dragonfly supposedly 380 my. old are just like dragonflies today, except that in the past they were sometimes much bigger. Ants and cockroaches preserved in ancient amber show that no development has occurred since they were entombed. They are perfectly preserved and look like they died only yesterday. In fact, yesterday is closer to the truth than millions of years. But although there are preserved non-flying and preserved flying insects, they closely resemble their descendants today and there are no intermediates between flying and non-flying types.

Flying reptiles have elongated fourth fingers which support the wing membrane. The pteranodon´s fourth fingers supported a wing spread of up to 54 feet, a greater span than glad than F4 Phantom Jet. But how did it evolve? Well, first an ordinary reptile have had a mutation which made its fourth fingers a bit longer, and this somehow conferred an advantage on it. So its offspring with the longer fourth fingers became more numerous than the others and replaced that population. Then after more time, and after several disadvantageous mutations which came to nothing, another mutation caused yet further elongation of the fourth digits. All this time other mutations were creating the information for the wing membrane, flight muscles, all the nerve network for their operation, changing solid bones into hollow ones and a reptilian jawbone into a beak, and eventually producing this flying machine. But a 25% evolved flying reptile cannot fly, and neither can it run because it is dragging these long fingers. It cannot catch prey, nor can it escape predators. Such evolution would never work And we have never found a single trace of the ancestors of flying reptiles, which supposedly died over millions of years. This is powerful evidence for Creation.

The journal "Science" for 9th Dec., 1966 showed a cover picture of what it claimed to be the world´s oldest bat, at 50 my. old. It was 100% bat, identical to modern bats. Its skull indicated that it even had the sonar system of modem bats.

Archaeopteryx was thought to be the early bird, with reptilian features. But its basic pattern is avian, with wings, flight feathers identical to modem birds, perching feet, bird-like skull and a furcu1a (wish-bone.) However it did have claws on its wings, a long tail and teeth in its beak. Some birds today, such as the ostrich, the touraco and the young of the hoatzin have claws on their wings. And some other fossil birds had teeth while others had no teeth. (Some fish have teeth and some don´t; some amphibians have teeth while some haven´t; some reptiles have teeth while some haven´t; some mammals have teeth and some haven´t; some of us have teeth, some haven´t!) Within the last decade fossil birds have been found in Texas with no reptilian features, and they are claimed to be 75 my. older than archaeopteryx. So there is even less evidence today that birds evolved from reptiles.

The origin of flight is powerful, positive evidence for Creation.

Origin of Man. Australopithecus (southern ape) found in Africa, is claimed by some evolutionists as an ancestor of man. However, Lord Zuckerman, Professor of Anatomy at Birmingham University, studied australopithecine fossils With his team for 15 years, and concluded that they did not walk upright. Dr. Oxnard of the University of Southern California Medical School has pointed to the long curved fingers and toes of these creatures, designed for swinging through the trees rather than walking, and has concluded that they were not man´s forerunners. Ramapithecus, also at one time thought to be an early hominid, is now considered to have been more like an orangutan, and not an ancestor of humans.

Piltdown Man, which fooled the experts in evolution for forty years, was a deliberate hoax. Nebraska Man turned out to be the tooth of a pig. As Mark Twain commented: "Isn´t science a fascinating subject. You get such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact."

Neanderthal Man is now regarded as fully Homo Sapiens. Examples in northern Europe were deformed by rickets, brought on by a lack of vitamin D whereby bones do not take up calcium as they should. They probably lived during the Ice Age following the Flood.

Some 40 years ago scientists said that if you could take Neanderthal Man, give him a shave, shave, haircut and a bath, put in a business suit and place him on the New York subway, no one would give him a second look. That was 40 years ago. Today you wouldn´t have to give him a shave or haircut. In some circles you wouldn´t have to give a bath.

Zuckerman, in his "Beyond the Ivory Tower", 1970, p. 64, writes: "If we exclude the possibility of Creation, then it is obvious man must have evolved from an ape-like creature, but if he did there is absolutely no evidence for it in the fossil record."

The same can be said for the whole scheme of evolution from bacteria to man - there is absolutely no evidence for it in the fossil record. Rather, the evidence of the fossil record is that every creature was made to reproduce after its kind with its within itself, as stated in the first chapter of the Bible.

For more informations see:
Evolution: Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish.