Chapter 1  -

Do fossils prove evolution?

 

 

 

 

As comes to the evidence of evolution, fossils are often mentioned first. Some believe that fossils prove species have changed over time and that life evolved from simple life forms to more complex ones. In many textbooks, fossils are mentioned as the most important evidence of evolution. For instance, the next excerpt from a textbook is an example of this (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 154 / a high school biology textbook):

 

15 Fossils as evidence of evolution

 

According to the theory of evolution, living organisms have evolved from earlier, simpler forms. Many things show the evolution of living organisms. The most important ones are the fossils of ancient plants and animals.

 

Fossils are, by far, the best starting point for discussion about whether Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species is a fact. If we want to know whether species have changed over time, we need only consider fossilized materials. Fossils become the most important witnesses in our court of justice, and they represent the best evidence. They are the only concrete, visible history of life at hand. If we reject them, we have no other material.

  Do fossils prove the evolution of species? Do we find buried in the ground plenty of developing forms, such as half-developed wings, hands, feet, senses, or some other intermediate forms?

   No, we do not find such evidence. Instead, we find that various organisms have always differed from each other. The gaps between fossils are great and real, and intermediate forms have not been found.

  Darwin, in his time, had to admit this, although he put his hope in the inadequacy of the findings so far. In The Origin of Species, he wrote about this issue and that modern nature is composed of clearly determined species. Let’s study his comments and then take a look at more recent comments made by modern scientists on the same topic. They indicate that gaps still exist, even though the quantity and quality of fossil materials gathered is perfectly suitable for study (there are millions of fossils in museums):

 

According to this theory, there must have been innumerable intermediate forms between species. Why is it then that we cannot find them buried inside the crust of the Earth? Why is it that all of nature is not at a state of confusion instead of being composed, as we can see, of clearly determined species? Geological research has not exposed the countless slight differences between past and modern species that this theory requires. And this is the most apparent of the many arguments presented against it. However, the answer lies in the large inconsistency of geological findings. (1)

 

It is not possible to even compile a distorted picture of an organism's evolution based on paleobiological facts. The fossil materials gathered are so perfect now that the lack of intermediate forms cannot have been caused by insufficient data. The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (A statement of Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson approximately 50 years ago. [2])

 

The greatest mystery of the fossil materials is that we have not found any clear factor that takes evolution forward in the history of life. (…) We have set the findings in order based on our wishes, but this order cannot actually be found in the real world. (Stephen J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment. Natural History, vol. 93, Feb. 1984, p.23)

 

It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)

 

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution [3])

 

In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum [4])

 

No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)

 

What do fossils indicate? When examining nature, it is impossible to see species changing into other species. If evolution were true, we would certainly see intermediate forms and newly evolving senses; we would see hands, feet, or other body parts springing up or dropping off, but such activity is not evident. Even Darwin stated (see above) that modern nature is composed of clearly determined species.

  When we think back to fossils, which should be the best and only evidence about the evolution of life over time, they offer similar evidence. Through them, we can see at least two issues regarding the history of life. Neither of them supports the idea that evolution over millions of years is a fact:

 

Same life forms as now and the differences between species. First of all, fossils belong to the same main groups as the plants and animals today. They are equally developed, complicated, and similar to present forms; and they differed as much from each other in the past to the same extent that they differ today. This suggests permanence of species and demonstrates that they are not intermediate forms of each other. On the basis of this kind of evidence, it is impossible to prove that evolution has occurred.

 

Appearing suddenly. The second important observation is that the same complicated organisms and main types appear in geological layers suddenly and without any progenitors. It has been impossible to find a long continuous chain of evolution after a simple beginning or various basic forms for the modern animal world, such as we could expect based on the theory of evolution. These findings are still missing.

   The “explosion” of life in the Cambrian period has been deemed the best evidence of the sudden appearance of life. Organisms in the Cambrian period did not appear in layers first as simple life forms or even half-developed forms – as we should expect – but they appeared quite suddenly, plentifully, fully prepared and developed. For example, the trilobite with its complex eyes appeared suddenly without any progenitors. Also, all found organisms are as complicated and similar to the modern species.

  The next citations show the "explosion" of the Cambrian period. It is an issue that does not support the usual view of evolution:

 

If evolution, the progression from simple to complicated, is true, we should find progenitors of these completely developed organisms that lived during the Cambrian period; but they have not been discovered and scientists admit that the possibilities for finding them are very small. Based on facts alone, i.e., based on what really has been discovered from the ground, the theory according to which the main groups of living organisms formed in a sudden creation, is the most probable alternative. (Harold g. Coffin, Evolution or Creation? Liberty, October 1975, p. 12)

 

Biologists sometimes reject or ignore the sudden appearing of animal life and its notable composition concerning the Cambrian period. The recent paleontological research has, however, led to this sudden increase of organisms being more and more difficult to ignore. (Scientific American, August 1964, p. 34–36)

 

The fact, as every paleontologist knows, is that most of the species, genera and families and almost all new groups more extensive than the level of a family, appear in fossils suddenly and the well-known, gradational, transitional stages following each other perfectly without gaps don’t pave their way (George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)