I quotes numerous renowned scientific sources, even from evolutionary paleontologist and biologists.
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common
descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine
quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same
article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The
tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less
accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to
change.”
WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?
Many scientists point to the fossil
record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin.
They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion
that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though,
does the fossil evidence really show?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary
paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and
geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or
jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly,
show little or no change during their existence in the record, then
abruptly go out of the record.”
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of
creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show
them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear
suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar
and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more
primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem
to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many
new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record,
paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When
was the Cambrian period?
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that
case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line
that stretches the length of a soccer field. At that scale, you
would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field
before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period.
During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of
animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear?
As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop
up in the space of less than one step!
A time line the length of a soccer field shows the beginning of
earth’s history to the so-called Cambrian explosion The relatively
sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some
evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of
Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary
biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of
evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of
life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all
evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of
several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to
understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in
body type.”33
PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”
What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into
amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of
evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become
obvious.
First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the
reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks.
Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are
huge, while others are small.
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those
creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are
often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.
Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils,
zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the
fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their
possible connection through ancestry and descent.”
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S.
Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly
quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in
these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of
knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were
relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have
been to each other.”
