ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY -PART 11

                                              ONE HEARTBEAT     AWAY 

    PART 11

    (Mark Cahill's Book)                                   


Charles Darwin, who championed the theory of evolution in On the Origin of  Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws. He stated;

As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?  Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?  

Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued  against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record.

Darwin knew exactly what was required to prove his theory true, and he was honest enough to say so. He also recognized that there were numerous valid objections against the theory, one of which was the lack of transitional forms. There should be millions 
upon millions of fossils in intermediate stages if evolution were true. The problem, Darwin proposed, was that we just haven't seen enough of the fossil record yet. Well, that has now been remedied with modern geology.

Almost 150 years after Darwin, what do we find in the fossil record? We find fossils of fully formed woolly mammoths, whole fish, whole reptiles, and so on.  Everything in the fossil record appears fully formed  and true
 to its own kind. There are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins, or beaks. Among the millions of fossils found , we don't see one single example of the transitional forms Darwin said must exist if his theory of evolution were true.

What does that tell us? 
 That there must be something very wrong
 with his theory. The fossil record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true. 

Take a look at what the experts say.
George Gaylord Simpson admitted;

The regular absence of transitional forms  is not
 confined to mammals, but is an almost universal
 phenomenon as has long been noted by
 paleontologists.

A.J. Marshall stated:

The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.

H. W. Smith of NYU , speaking of the lack of fossils that should exist for the vertebrates, wrote;

The gap remains unbridged  and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.

After spending forty years searching for evidence of evolution, and failing to find any, Nils Heribert-Nilsson wrote;

The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real: they will never be filled.

 It is conclusive: There is no evidence in the fossil record for macroevolution - that is for one species changing to another. Evolutionists try to defend the lack of transitional forms by claiming that species evolved so rapidly that they left no fossil record. But they also tell us that no one can see evolution taking place  today because it occurs too slowly. 

So, in reality, - whether it is supposedly too fast or too slow  to notice - there is no evidence of macroevolution. So no one can actually see any evidence of evolution anywhere!

Can we call it the "fact"  of evolution with no evidence to back it up?  That doesn't even make for a good theory!


next post  1st August