The Rocks Cry "Creation"!

The transitional forms required by the evolutionary theory cannot be found in the fossil record. Could it be they never existed?

Duane T. Gish is the associate director of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California. Before joining the institute, he spent eighteen years in biochemical research at Cornell University Medical College, the virus laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, and The Upjohn Company. He is the author or coauthor of many technical papers and the author of several books on the creation-evolution question, including his popular Evolution: the Fossils Say No!

The fossils of a great variety of complex plants and animals appear abruptly in the fossil record with no evidence for the existence of any evolutionary ancestors. Furthermore, there is a systematic absence of the many transitional forms demanded by the theory of evolution. Thus, the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on the concept of direct, special creation but contradicts predictions made on the basis of evolution theory.

For example, in the Cambrian geological strata there occurs a sudden, great outburst of billions of animal fossils on such a highly developed level of complexity that the evolutionists estimate they would have required 2 to 3 billion years to evolve. Trilobites, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish—in fact, every one of the major invertebrate forms of life—are found in the Cambrian strata.

Daniel Axelrod, a geologist and an evolutionist, has written: "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks and their absence in rocks of greater age. These Early Cambrian fossils including porifera, coelenterates, brachiopods, mollusca, echinoids, and arthropods. Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a long period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the pre-Cambrian rocks for the forerunners of these Early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. 1

George Gaylord Simpson, famous paleontologist and evolutionist, has termed the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils the "major mystery of the history of life." 2

If the evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record ought to produce thou sands of transitional forms. Instead we find a systematic absence of transitional forms between higher categories. The major invertebrate types found in the Cambrian strata are just as distinctly set apart when they first appear as they are today. The fossil record gives no indication that any of these major types have been derived from common ancestors.

The vertebrates supposedly evolved from an invertebrate over a period of 100 million years, an assumption that cannot be documented from the fossil record. The vast gulf in the fossil record be tween the invertebrates and vertebrates is not bridged by a single transitional form. The first vertebrates are supposed to have been fishes, but fishes appear in the fossil record fully formed, with no hint of their origin from previous forms. In his presidential address to the Linnaean Society of London, "A Little on Lungfishes," Errol White said, "But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing. "3

Likewise, many different kinds of dinosaurs appear abruptly in the fossil record with no intermediate forms. These include the horned dinosaurs, such as Triceratops; the plated dinosaurs, such as Stegosaurus; the duck billed dinosaurs, such as Trachodon; and monstrous dinosaurs, such as the 40-ton Brontosaurus and the 60-ton Brachiosaurus.

Birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptiles. Yet no one has ever found a single fossil showing a partial wing and partial forelimb, or a partial feather. Archaeopteryx, "the oldest known bird," had teeth, but so did other birds found in the fossil record that were unquestionably 100 percent birds. Archaeopteryx had clawlike appendages on the leading edges of its wings. These same append ages, however, are found in a living bird in South America, the hoatzin, and it is 100 percent bird. Archaeopteryx had vertebrae extending along the tail, but was no more a transitional form between reptile and bird than the bat is a link between bird and mammal. Archaeopteryx had fully developed wings and feathers. It was definitely a bird, as all paleontologists agree.

Two recent developments have greatly strengthened the evidence that Archaeopteryx was not transitional be tween reptiles and birds. Dr. James A. Jensen, Brigham Young University paleontologist, has reported the discovery of fossilized remains of a modern-type bird in Upper Jurassic rocks. 4 These are the rocks in which Archaeopteryx is found. Regardless, then, of the age of these rocks, this discovery establishes that Archaeopteryx and modern-type birds were contemporary. And evolutionists have long maintained that no animal could have evolved from another animal that is its contemporary.

The results of a study just published by Feduccia and Tordoff5 reveal that the wing feathers of Archaeopteryx were similar to those of flying birds and dis similar to those of flightless birds. Furthermore, these authors state, "The shape and general proportions of the wing and wing feathers in Archaeopteryx are essentially like those of modern birds." Thus, not only were the feathers of Archaeopteryx identical to those of modern birds, but the design of the wing feathers was the same as that of flying birds and the basic pattern and proportions of the modern avian wing were present in Archaeopteryx. This evidence seems to destroy the claim of evolutionists that Archaeopteryx was flightless.

Lecomte du Nouy, an evolutionist, has said, "In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds [a relationship that the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates], we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." 6 Swinton has stated, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." 7

As a matter of fact, the ability to fly supposedly evolved four times independently—in birds, in flying reptiles (pterosaurs) now extinct, in insects, and in mammals such as the bat. In none of these cases are there fossil transitional forms showing the evolution of flight. Dr. E. C. Olson, an evolutionary geologist, has said, "As far as flight is concerned, there are some very big gaps in the records." 8 Concerning insects, Olson says, "There is almost nothing to give any information about the history of the origin of flight in insects." Referring to pterosaurs, he states. "There is absolutely no sign of intermediate stages." After referring to Archaeopteryx as reptilelike, Olson says, "It shows itself to be a bird." Finally, with reference to mammals, he states, "The first evidence of flight in mammals is in fully developed bats of the Eocene epoch." Thus the evolutionist faces a most remarkable situation. Four times a marvelous trans formation has taken place in which terrestrial animals have evolved the power of flight. Each such transformation required millions of years and involved thousands of transitional forms. Yet none of these transitional forms can be found in the fossil record! Could it be that these transitional forms are not found simply because they never existed? The fossil evidence can be much more easily correlated within a creationist framework than within an evolutionary framework.

The examples given above are not exceptions. The fossil record displays a consistent, systematic absence of transitional types between higher categories. Even with reference to the famous horse "series," Du Nouy reports, "But each one of these intermediaries seems to have appeared 'suddenly,' and it has not yet been possible, because of the lack of fossils, to reconstitute the passage be tween these intermediaries. . . . The continuity we surmise may never be established by facts." 9

At times some evolutionists, while nevertheless clinging to belief in the "fact of evolution," candidly admit the actual status of the fossil record. For example, Simpson has admitted that "gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large." 10 Richard B. Goldschmidt, who was well known both as a geneticist and as an advocate of evolution, acknowledged that "practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions." 11 E. J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and an evolutionist, stated, "I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 12

Recently, the well-known evolutionary paleontologist David B. Kitts stated, "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 re quires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." 13

The situation among the primates, the order within which man is placed, is no different. There is no fossil evidence linking primates to their supposed ancestors, the insectivores. 14 Furthermore, both the Old World monkeys and New World monkeys appear abruptly in the fossil record without intermediate forms linking them to their supposed presimian ancestors. 15 The same is true of both apes and man, in spite of the highly imaginative transitional forms that have been created for man based on extremely fragmentary evidence.

For almost half a century, evolutionists have maintained that Australopith ecus (Louis Leakey's Zinjanthropus) was man's apelike ancestor. More than ten years ago, however, Lord Zuckerman, famous British anatomist, reported that the results of fifteen years of careful research by his team of scientists established that Australopithecus did not walk upright and was not intermediate be tween ape and man, but in fact was simply an ape. 16 Recently Charles Oxnard, University of Chicago anthropologist, has confirmed these findings. 17 Thus, the central figure in evolution-of-man schemes has been eliminated as a possible intermediate.

Lord Zuckerman, although not a creationist, states, "No scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some apelike creature in a very short space of time—speaking in geological terms—without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation." 18 Lord Zuckerman concludes, then, after many years of his own research on the problem as well as careful consideration of the work of others, that there is no evidence whatever in the fossil record to support the idea that man has evolved from some lower creature.

The explosive appearance of highly complex forms of life in Cambrian and other rocks with the absence of required ancestors, and the abrupt appearance of each major plant and animal kind without apparent transitional forms, are facts of the greatest general importance derived from a study of the fossil record. These facts are highly contradictory to predictions based on the evolution model, but are just as predicted on the basis of the creation model of origins.

The rocks thus cry out "Creation"!

Notes:

1 D. I. Axelrod, Science 128:7, 1958. Italics supplied.

2 G. G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), p. 18.

3 E. White, Proceedings of the Linnaean Society, 177:8, London, 1966.

4 Science News 112:198, 1977.

5 A. Feduccia and H. B. Tordoff, Science 203:1021, 1979.

6 L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (New York: The New American Library, 1947), p. 58.

7 W. E. Swinton, in A. J. Marshall, ed., Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds (New York: Academic Press, I960), vol. 1, p. 1.

8 E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life (New York: The New American Library, 1966), p. 180.

9 Du Nouy, op. cit., p. 74.

10 G. G. Simpson, in Sol Tax, ed., The Evolution of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 149.

11 R. B. Goldschmidt, American Scientist 40:97, 1952.

12 E. J. H. Corner, in A. M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley, eds., Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

13 D. B. Kitts. Evolution 28:467, 1974. Italics supplied.

14 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2d ed. (New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1974), p. 142.

15 Ibid., pp. 150, 151.

16 S. Zuckerman, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 11:87, 1966.

17 C. E. Oxnard, Nature 258:389, 1975.

18 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Tapling Pub. Co., 1970), p. 64. Italics supplied.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus
Duane T. Gish is the associate director of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California. Before joining the institute, he spent eighteen years in biochemical research at Cornell University Medical College, the virus laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, and The Upjohn Company. He is the author or coauthor of many technical papers and the author of several books on the creation-evolution question, including his popular Evolution: the Fossils Say No!

January 1980

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

The Christ Alone

A great need in Christianity today, says V. Norskov Olsen, is for the church to return to the Reformation's controlling principle that all theology and religious experience must revolve about Christ alone.

Twentieth-century circuit rider

Ralph Washington Sockman has been enthusiastically called the "preachers'preacher." To hear him preach was truly a spiritual event.

Is the Aramaic of Daniel early or late?

Aramaic documents from Qumran have dramatically altered views regarding the date of Daniel's composition.

Short-term Pastorates

Are they stepping stones to success or roadblocks to church growth?

Do you need less prayer than Jesus did?

The more occupied Jesus was with the good news He came to preach, the more He needed to pray.

A surprise or a secret

A closer look at the illustrations Jesus used to describe His return reveals that many will be surprised by its unexpectedness.

To Smoke or not to Smoke

The decision is yours——but these psychological principles will make success possible if you really want to quit.

Shepherdess: Of Parsonages and Palaces

It was fine for the hymn writer to be satisfied with "a tent or a cottage," but most pastors' wives long for a place of their own.

The Last Years of Samaria

Archeology chronicles the decline of an ancient people and sheds additional light on the historical records of Scripture.

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - RevivalandReformation 300x250

Recent issues

See All
Advertisement - SermonView - WideSkyscraper (160x600)