Evolution is not science

[gungasnake]

Most of the differences between humans and chimps are not beneficial mutations... they are neutral. Therefore your restriction to 2 mutations per generation is false. Not to mention we have seen speciation in nature and the lab.....

The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal so that trying to substitute any more than one mutation into a group of animals at one time would drive he group to extinction.

<edit> The experiments with fruit flies proved beyond any doubt that macroevolution is not possible and that in real world terms, the term "beneficial mutation" is an oxymoron.

 

[Split Rock]

According to Richard Dawkins:

"Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period"

For the world’s leading evolutionist this is actually a stunning statement! What is Dawkins saying? Well, there’s no observable evidence for evolution (which means it’s not empirical science, which means evolution is a hypothesis at best!). This is pretty earth shaking stuff for the average evolutionist that thinks they are standing on solid intellectual ground.

Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
- PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.

G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.

Since evolution is therefore non-observable, evolution rests entirely on faith since it can't be observed.

Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
- Evolution, p. 45

Owwww... the "Pyramid Scientist" has a Quote Mine... I have one too!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4
__________________
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

 

[Heissonear]

Nope, there are many ways that evolution could be blown out of the water.

When a theory survives all attacks, as evolution has it is not evidence that the theory is unfalsifiable, it is evidence that the theory is correct. There has been no valid argument submitted yet that disproves evolution.

It appears you do not know when truth ends and faith begins. You have been walking by faith for some time and cannot backup the evidence we ask for. You keep coming up with excuses. Your all out effort to belittle those exposing your error is clear.

I know it isn't easy waking up from deception. At some point it may hit you that in fullscale you have believed a major lie that plagues modern man, big time.


.

 

[Split Rock]

The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal so that trying to substitute any more than one mutation into a group of animals at one time would drive he group to extinction.

Wrong.

"Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100&#8211;200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

This number &#8212; the first direct measurement of the human mutation rate &#8212; is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons and rare disease screens."
Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News

<edit> The experiments with fruit flies proved beyond any doubt that macroevolution is not possible and that in real world terms, the term "beneficial mutation" is an oxymoron.

Wrong again. I gave an example of a beneficial mutation in goosegrass providing resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (roundup), now in the thread archive. Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

 

[gungasnake]

Wrong.

"Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

The rarity of "beneficial" mutations is such (even assuming that they exist)
that, in order to undergo two or more beneficial mutations at a time, there would have to be very, very large numbers of the harmful kind as well.

The individual and the species would die.

 

[Meshakhad]

The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal so that trying to substitute any more than one mutation into a group of animals at one time would drive he group to extinction.

In fact the general rule is that when anybody asks an evoloser to produce a beneficial mutation, they start talking about cycle-cell anemia or some mutation in bacteria which produces some local advantage by losing information. The experiments with fruit flies proved beyond any doubt that macroevolution is not possible and that in real world terms, the term "beneficial mutation" is an oxymoron.

Wrong. The vast number of major mutations are harmful. Everyone has several minor, largely inconsequential mutations. But over time, those can build up. That is what drives evolution - not a single sudden shift, but a slow, gradual change.

 

[gungasnake]

Craigslist has warnings about cons and scams. They plainly need to include such warnings in science books in the heading to the chapter on evolution....

 

[Heissonear]

Owwww... the "Pyramid Scientist" has a Quote Mine... I have one too!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4
__________________
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

All in vain. You have not taken our eyes off of YOUR foundation of evolution.

It is your walk, talk and view in life that is being exposed.

Push, shove, kick, or scream it doesn't matter. In matters of natural processes and earth events we are asking for your scientific evidence for evolution. And by education and experience we are presenting the errors in Evolution of Life on Earth.

I've heard it hundreds of times here on Christian Forums - "where's the evidence"?

You can dart off to other subjects, but you will still need to provide evidence, plain and clear about in the earth's history show us field evidence, real world evidence.

.

 

[bhsmte]

Craigslist has warnings about cons and scams. They plainly need to include such warnings in science books in the heading to the chapter on evolution....

One major difference between science and religion:

In science, anyone trying to claim anything without the appropriate evidence or trying to alter the evidence, will be exposed and their career would be ruined (bye bye science career). Science is self correcting, even when someone makes a mistake, there are scientists eager to point out they are wrong and will do so willingly.

In religion, no such self correcting activity exists and people for the most part, can interpret what they wish and it is usually whatever meets their individual needs.

 

[Michael]

One major difference between science and religion:

In science, anyone trying to claim anything without the appropriate evidence or trying to alter the evidence, will be exposed and their career would be ruined (bye bye science career). Science is self correcting, even when someone makes a mistake, there are scientists eager to point out they are wrong and will do so willingly.

Well, yes and no. In terms of altering evidence, probably yes. In terms of exposing claims that lack corresponding evidence, not so much in my experience.

In religion, no such self correcting activity exists and people for the most part, can interpret what they wish and it is usually whatever meets their individual needs.

I'd say that the "self correcting activity" is the 'group think', and peer pressure processes in both cases. There are "popular' and less popular religions, just as there are popular and less popular scientific theories. The fact that standard particle physics theory is the 'most popular' particle physics theory doesn't stop particle physicists from exploring alternative options.

I "naively" believed that the 'group think' process wasn't as "high pressure" or as politically motivated in science as it is in religion, but alas that was about 8 years ago now, and I've learned a lot since then.

In terms of claims being accepted without appropriate empirical justification, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other IMO.

As it applies to this particular topic however, I tend to agree with you.

 

[Michael]

By the way...

It's not altogether clear what the actual percentages might be, but I believe that most Christians (certainly the Catholics) do embrace evolutionary theory. You could argue that the Pope, and the hierarchy of the Catholic church operates a bit like the peer review process as it relates to scientific topics, at least for that particular "religion". That hierarchical element is missing in the Protestant faiths, which is why we see *less* acceptance within that community.

 

[bhsmte]

By the way...

It's not altogether clear what the actual percentages might be, but I believe that most Christians (certainly the Catholics) do embrace evolutionary theory. You could argue that the Pope, and the hierarchy of the Catholic church operates a bit like the peer review process as it relates to scientific topics, at least for that particular "religion". That hierarchical element is missing in the Protestant faiths, which is why we see *less* acceptance within that community.

Michael,

Why do you think Catholics and other religious believers made the giant leap of accepting evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

By the way...

It's not altogether clear what the actual percentages might be, but I believe that most Christians (certainly the Catholics) do embrace evolutionary theory. You could argue that the Pope, and the hierarchy of the Catholic church operates a bit like the peer review process as it relates to scientific topics, at least for that particular "religion". That hierarchical element is missing in the Protestant faiths, which is why we see *less* acceptance within that community.

Also, a poll conducted a couple of years ago revealed, about 40% of Americans believe in creation and reject evolution. This number is so much higher than any other advanced nation, it is laughable and to me, quite scary in some ways.

Now, my theory that many Americans are not honest in how they respond to these polls based on habit, social pressures etc. may play a factor, but it is interesting how different the polls are with other advanced nations.

 

[Michael]

Also, a poll conducted a couple of years ago revealed, about 40% of Americans believe in creation and reject evolution. This number is so much higher than any other advanced nation, it is laughable and to me, quite scary in some ways.

It's an unusually high, and disconcerting number from my perspective as well. I'd have to guess that it's directly related to the proportion of Americans that believe in a *literal* translation of the Bible, something that is absent in the Catholic tradition.

Now, my theory that many Americans are not honest in how they respond to these polls based on habit, social pressures etc. may play a factor, but it is interesting how different the polls are with other advanced nations.

Actually I think they're basically being honest IMO. There are just a lot more Protestants in the US than anywhere else. It's really only the Protestants that have to put so much 'faith' in a personal interpretation of the Bible. That's not really the case in the Catholic tradition where a "Pope" can act as the 'official interpreter' and act as an arbitrator when necessary.

 

[Michael]

Michael,

Why do you think Catholics and other religious believers made the giant leap of accepting evolution?

Papal decree.

 

[bhsmte]

Papal decree.

Why the Papal decree though, in regards to a subject that goes against Genesis?

What motivated the top of the Catholic hierarchy to do this?

 

[Michael]

Why the Papal decree though, in regards to a subject that goes against Genesis?

Does it actually go against Genesis? (could be, I haven't check it out).

What motivated the top of the Catholic hierarchy to do this?

Probably the same thing that motives any scientist to change they're opinions. I think the evidence spoke for itself, but there was controversy, so the hierarchy made a decree about the "best" interpretation of the Bible with respect to specific scientific topics.

 

[Michael]

Forget the Genesis question. I was thinking about BB theory not EV theory when I asked that question. My bad.

 

[Meshakhad]

Forget the Genesis question. I was thinking about BB theory not EV theory when I asked that question. My bad.

The RCC also endorses theistic evolution.

 

[Heissonear]

Pyramidologist;64465167]20 Points Against Evolution

1. Evolution has never been observed

Evolution has never been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution cannot be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer. The lack of a case for evolution is therefore most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’

G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.’’

2. Evolution relies upon non-observable time periods

The theory of evolution relies upon vast periods of time, billions or millions of years. However these time periods are non-observable and non-repeatable, therefore falling outside of the scientific method.

Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history.’’

3. Evolutionists do not know how to define a species

Evolutionists admit they don’t know how to define a species (this is the ‘‘Species Problem’’).

Charles Darwin: ‘‘... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.’’

Henry Nicholson: ‘‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘‘species’’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.’’

4. Speciation has never been observed

Speciation has never actually been observed, but some evolutionists claim it has (despite the fact they can’t even define or identify what a species is) however many leading biologists and palaeontologists over the years have admitted speciation has never been witnessed.

T. H Morgan: ‘‘Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.’’

Dr. Colin Patterson: ‘‘No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it...’’

5. Evolutionists do not know what started evolution

Evolutionists admit they don’t know what started evolution. The mechanism or driving force for evolution has even puzzled the staunchest of evolutionists.

G. G Simpson: ‘‘Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned.’’

6. No fossil evidence for evolution exists

No fossils have yet shown a transitional structure.

Charles Darwin: ‘‘Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.’’

Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontologists.’’

Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record’’

David B. Kitts: ‘‘Despite the promise that palaeontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists...’’

Steven M Stanley: ‘‘The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition…’’

Carroll Robert: ‘‘What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin…’’

7. Evolution fails to meet the requirements for the scientific method

Evolution is non-observable and non-repeatable, so it cannot be put to the scientific method.

Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’

Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science’’

8. Evolutionists don’t know the origin of species

Evolutionists don’t know the origin of species. Despite Darwin’s title to his 1859 book Origin of Species he did not know of one instance of a species changing into another or where species originated.

Gordon R. Taylor: ‘‘You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists.’’

Ernst Mayr: ‘‘…Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his work.’’

9. The theory of evolution does not even qualify as science

Science is defined as: ‘‘The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms’’

Or more simply:

‘‘Knowledge attained through study or practice’’

Evolution however is not observable and cannot be experimented or replicated.

Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’
Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’

Paul Ehrlich: ‘‘No one can think of ways in which to test it.’’

Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Evolution has not been and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution…much less test it experimentally.’’

10. Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and inferences not facts

Since there is no actual concrete evidence for evolution, evolutionists have to start with assuming, guessing, speculating and inferring.

George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference.’’

Austin Clark: [commentating on the evolutionist view of common ancestry] ‘‘It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived…There is not the slightest basis for this assumption’’

L. Harrison Matthews: [writing on Whales] ‘‘...we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference.’’

11. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility

The theory of evolution is based on mutation over very long periods of time. Maths however in terms of probability speaks strongly against evolution. For example, Julian Huxley a leading evolutionist of the mid-twentieth century calculated that to create a single horse by evolution it would require 103000 mutations. However not only are mutations incredibly rare, in no way do they actually lend support for evolution (see 12 below).

12. Mutations do not cause evolution

Mutations in nearly all instances cause a loss of information, not a net gain - as the theory of evolution requires. So in no way do mutations cause evolution.

Pierre Paul Grasse: ‘‘No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.’’

Richard Goldschmidt: ‘‘It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].’’

13. No Evidence for common descent from similarities

The existence of similarities in different organisms is not evidence for common descent.

Sir Gavin de Beer: ‘‘It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.’’

14. Vestigial Organs do not prove evolution

In no way do vestigial organs give credit to the theory of evolution, this is mainly due to the fact in recent years many have been found to actually have functions.
S. R. Scadding: ‘‘An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures… leads to the conclusion that vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.’’

Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Practically all vestigial organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.’’

15. Evolutionists can only interpret fossils

Fossils evolutionists attempt to use to support their theory can only be interpreted. Most evolutionists overlook this simple fact and believe fossils are direct evidence for evolution but mere interpretation is not evidence. Over the years some top zoologists have come to recognise this fact.

Professor Mark Ridley: ‘‘In any case, no real evolutionist... uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...’’

Ronald R. West: “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.’’

R. W Merrit: ‘‘Interpretations of the fossil record must be made with great caution…With so few insect fossils available and fossils absent from critical geologic periods, it is difficult to base evolutionary trends in any of the insect orders solely on the fossil record.’’

16. Evolutionists create frauds because they have no evidence

The theory of evolution is filled with fraud, for example Piltdown man and Haeckel’s faked embryological drawings. Frauds are only made when no evidence for a theory is presentable.

Russell Grigg: [On Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings] ‘‘A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist.’’

Harold G. Coffin: [Writing about Piltdown Man] ‘‘Careful examination of the bone pieces revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition.’’

17. Many missing links

Many missing links exist within the evolution theory, especially in relation to the fossil record. Since Darwin’s day, evolutionists have still not been able to find them.

Richard E. Leakey: ‘‘Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats.’’

Martin R. D: ‘‘There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk.’’

A. S Romer: ‘‘The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are known.’’

Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.’’

Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.’’

Alfred Sherwood Romer: ‘‘The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown.’’

18. Gaps in the fossil record

There are numerous gaps in the fossil record which pose numerous problems for the theory of evolution, even Darwin stumbled across them.

Charles Darwin: ‘‘If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? ...Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?’’

Ernst Mayr: ‘‘Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the palaeontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.’’

Professor Eldredge: ‘‘… the fossil record is so deficient, so full of gaps, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not emerge…’’

Jeffrey H. Schwartz: ‘‘…most palaeontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species.’’

George T. Neville: ‘‘The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.’’

19. Evolutionist reconstructions are dishonest

Since evolutionists have no real evidence for evolution, they have to resort to creating hypothetical reconstructions to infer common ancestry.

Barbara J. Stahl: ‘‘Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, palaeontologists have been forced to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis of tooth morphology.’’

Earnst A. Hooton: ‘‘To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts…These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.’’

W. Howells: ‘‘A great legend has grown up to plague both palaeontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Tertiary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.’’

20. Evolution is pure faith

Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this.

Karl Popper: ‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’

Michael Denton [On the theory of evolution] ‘‘…as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe.’’

Dr. Fleishmann: ‘‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’’

L. Harrison Matthews: ‘‘The theory of evolution forms… a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’’