Here I will expose one of the greatest illusions of the Evolutionary smoke-and-mirrors show. It is actually very simple when you stop to think about it. The problem is that we have mantras rammed into our heads for so long that we lose the ability to critically examine them.
First, to establish the Evolutionists' claim.
Niles Eldridge, American Museum of Natural History: "We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: To falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms." (Monkey Business, p. 46,1982)
Steven M. Stanley, John Hopkins University: "There is an infinite variety of ways in which, since 1859, the general concept of evolution might have been demolished. Consider the fossil record - a little known resource in Darwin's day. The unequivocal discovery of a fossil population of horses in Precambrian rocks would disprove evolution. More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory, yet not a single one has come to light. As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction." (The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.171)
I'm assuming most evolutionists would agree with the above claims concerning the potential falsifiability of Evolution. We hear similar claims from evolutionists constantly... "We have the fossils. We win." They present the same story to the public, that Evolution is supposedly so well-confirmed because of its potential falsifiability... that "a single out of place fossil" would destroy the theory.
However this claim is really based on intellectual sleight-of-hand.
Let me explain. With Evolution, we're really talking about two different things.
1. A general Evolutionary belief
2. The modern theory of Evolution
As for #1, a cursory examination of history will reveal that a general Evolutionary worldview existed long before the modern "theory of Evolution" arising with Charles Darwin. Ancient Greek mystics believed in Evolution or universal common descent. Before Charles was even born, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (among others) wrote extensively on the belief that all of life had evolved from a common ancestor. Thus it is clear to see that a general belief in the metaphysics of Evolution and universal common descent existed prior to the advent of the "theory of Evolution".
It is important to separate the two within a historical context in order to expose the ad-hoc nature in which a "theory of Evolution" was formulated in response to the Evolutionary belief.
Now since we are talking about fossils, it is very important to note that a general fossil pattern was emerging *before* the advent of the modern theory of evolution. Early paleontologists were already recording a general pattern of small marine creatures/shelly fauna in the bottom most layers, followed by what was described as an "Age of Reptiles" in middle layers, and lastly the "higher" mammalian groups found in the upper layers. Again, this fossil pattern was established *before* the establishment of the "theory" of Evolution.
Now for a simple question. Why are evolutionists claiming that the fossil record is a "test" of their theory, when the theory itself was built around the already known fossil record?
This leads us to another question. What exactly does Evolution actually predict about the order in which animals will arise on Earth? When we see such and such animal with such and such anatomy, we are told that it arose through random variation and natural selection... in other words, the animals "evolved" that way mostly because of certain environmental conditions. Again, with that in mind, what does Evolution really predict concerning a potential sequence of fossils left in its wake?
FOR EXAMPLE:
Evolutionists make a big deal about 'higher' mammal fossils not appearing until Paleogene rock layers following the Cretaceous... Evolutionists assert that this is because the appropriate environmental or ecological niches selecting for mammalian anatomy did not appear until this time period.
OK. So what if the early paleontologists had discovered a pattern of mammal fossils appearing much "earlier" such as within Permian/Triassic layers, prior to or contemporaneous with the early appearances of reptiles and dinosaurs? We already know the answer. Evolutionists would have hypothesized that this is because ecological niches selected for mammalian anatomy at this time. Such an evolutionary order sounds bizarre to us today, but rest assured, a century of Evolutionary orthodoxy would have made a "Triassic Mammalian Radiation" sound as normal today as something like the "Cambrian Explosion".... Undoubtedly, an in-depth evolutionary narrative would have been written around such a pattern, limited only by the creative imagineering of what natural selection could do.
It's easy to imagine countless other examples similar to the above. Basically, as soon as you have a terrestrial vertebrate "common ancestor" all bets are off as to which orders will evolve in what sequence. Perhaps the "ecological niches" for dinosaurs would not manifest until long after the advanced mammals (even primates and humans) are walking the Earth. This would completely thrown the orthodox evolutionary narrative on its head, but interestingly Evolution has no established constraints to state such an order could not have potentially occurred.
Again, it's all a matter of which traits happen to be selected for at what times. A primitive diapsid (reptile) lineage could potentially remain in stasis for hundreds of millions of years, while therapsid/mammalian lineages rapidly diversify and evolve. The possibilities are endless. Hopefully you're starting to get the point. Evolution actually predicts very little in regards to a fossil order. Many different Common Ancestry stories could have been written to accommodate many different fossil orders.
Now what of the claim that such fossils would have to be constrained to a "nested hierarchy of anatomical traits" ? Here we run into a similar scenario of Evolution being able to accommodate too much contradictory data sets. For example, what if a pattern had emerged of bird fossils appearing before theropod dinosaurs? This one is fairly obvious. The evolutionary narrative would have adapted to say that birds evolved within some other possibly diapsid order, and Theropod dinosaurs subsequently evolved from birds. Perhaps then other dinosaurs may have evolved from Theropoda. In a similar reversing process, reptiles could be said to have evolved out of mammalian traits if reptiles did not appear until after mammals. (if the data forced such a conclusion) Mammals could potentially be viewed as quite a primitive terrestrial order. Remember, fossils DO NOT have to be in rock layer sequence for Evolutionists to claim them as a transitional sequence. They simply have to exhibit "transitional anatomy". This fact alone opens the door wide for ad-hoc evolutionary narratives.
(side note: You will find the same sense of malleability permeating throughout any other direction evolutionists would like to take their theory to make it appear more constrained to specific data. The idea of molecular clocks, for example, are highly prone to ad-hoc adjustments...)
So this is how the sleight-of-hand works. Evolution theory adapted itself to a known fossil record, and then its proponents later began to claim that the fossil record is actually some kind of rigorous test for the theory.
Now I'm not claiming that discovering certain fossil orders (like Cambrian mammals) wouldn't have posed more of an explanatory problem for Evolution. But in general, as I've demonstrated, an Evolutionary narrative could have potentially accommodated countless and substantially different fossil orders as they would emerge in earlier centuries. If you understand the underlying logical structure of Evolution theory, then this becomes readily apparent. Evolution is like a fog that settles over the landscape of data.
At best evolutionists can say that the fossil order that was known before Evolution theory, continued to hold to its original pattern. Yet clearly Evolution theory could have potentially run with any number of different patterns.
Basically, Evolution was destined to become the world's orthodox creation story as soon as enough academics and other social forces began subscribing to it philosophically. Like a jello mold, the emerging theory would naturally arrange itself into whatever data constraints came its way, strung along by the tautology of natural selection - or "That which survives, survives."
So even though the logic of such claims is highly illusory, we will continue to hear for generations to come that the fossil record is some amazing "test of Evolution". The Evolutionists' mantra is a lot easier to say than the time it takes to deconstruct and expose it.
...And at the end of the day, most people do not give a hoot about "science" anyways. They need Evolution to be true in order to continue the cultural story of man's "Enlightenment", and to continue to live in their sins and ignore the true God of the Bible and the salvation by Jesus Christ. Thus the world will continue to defend the illusion of Evolution and condemn any who question it.
My hope is that at least some readers on the fence, (especially professing Christians), may start to wonder if the supposedly scientifically ironclad nature of Evolution theory is not what it appears to be. Underneath all of the jargon and bull-horning, there is a lot of this type of thing going on.
Universal common descent did not happen. God was very clear about this in His Word.
