The Fish-Land Fossil Fraud

THE FISH- LAND FOSSIL FRAUD

(Excerpted from a talk given April, 2006, in Statesboro, GA)

INTRODUCTION

There was a time when some scientists thought that the coelacanth (pictured at the right) was our evolutionary ancestor. Fossils showed it had lobed fins, which could be used to move on land or in tidal flats. All this speculation came to nought when the fish was found alive! Underwater observation has revealed that coelacanths live in the open ocean and do not use their lobed fins to walk on the bottom or anywhere else. These fish are not examples of descent from a common ancestor, which is the heart of evolutionary theories. As a matter of fact, the scientific evidence is all against the idea of descent from a common ancestor.THE FISH-LAND FOSSIL

Recently scientists have found a new fossil,⁽¹⁾ which is normally good news. However, the wild claim that the "fossil shows how fish made the leap to land"⁽²⁾ is fraudulent. It really shows that the speculation of descent from a common ancestor is unsupported. The few fossil parts found above the Arctic Circle⁽³⁾ do not establish a link between fish and land animals. There are at least four reasons why this fossil find does not fill the evolutionary gap between fish and land animals in spite of claims to the contrary:⁽⁴⁾

REASON #1

1. If there were a link between fish and land animals as some speculate about the "fish-land fossil," and if descent from a common ancestor were happening now, then there would be very many of these "fish-land animals" swimming around today in the waters of the world. Where are they? Also, there would be a multitude of other intermediate forms as well. Some of these would be 90% fish and 10% land animal. Others would be 80% fish and 20% land animal. Still others would be 70%/30%, 60/40, 50/50, and so on. Yet, we have found none of these transitional forms alive today. We find 100% fish and 0% land animal - in spite of huge numbers of fish being harvested every year. This indicates that the idea of descent from a common ancestor is false, but this is not the only evidence that it is false.

If the idea of descent from a common ancestor were true, then we would expect observations and experiments, the real keys to the scientific method, to show unlimited variation in living beings. On the other hand, if scientists find limits to variation, then we can say that descent from a common ancestor could never occur, as is shown by not finding the intermediate forms today..

Scientists have made extensive evolutionary studies on Fruit Flies in the laboratory, and some are still studying Darwin's Finches in the wild. Some variation has been observed, but Fruit Flies have remained flies, and Finches have remained birds. The Finch's beaks did change under drought conditions, but then changed back when the drought ended. These changes seemed to be around a norm. Also, microbes have changed to resist antibiotics. But if one removes the antibiotic, the resistant strain cannot compete with the original parent. What has not been observed are flies changing into birds, fishes into fowl, plants into people, or microbes into men. Yet evolutionary theory predicts that these changes should be seen. They are not. These results show that there are limits to change.These experiments fit with genetic discoveries. The information contained in the Finch and Fruit Fly DNA has been shuffled around, so that there are variations of the original. But there cannot be something entirely new. In other words, a two-headed snake can occur - this is a shuffle of existing genetic information. However, we should expect not to see a snake with wings - there is no genetic information for wings available.

Limits to change or variation means that descent from a common ancestor is not occurring. Further, another conclusion is that it did not happen in the past either. Despite the evidence, advocates claim that evolution only happened in the past. Note that this assertion is made on negative evidence. There are no observations or experimental results suggesting that evolution happened in the past. It just is that there are people who want to believe in evolution and that they are committed to naturalism, and so they have to have a story about how we got here. Evolution is that story.

REASON #2

2. A claim that descent from a common ancestor happened in the past is based on negative evidence. Nevertheless, if descent from a common ancestor had happened in the past, then there would be millions of transitional fossils, not a few like the so-called "fish-land fossils."

In his Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that there would be "innumerable transitional forms" in the changes from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, and reptiles to mammals.⁽⁵⁾ However, the fossil record does not show the predicted innumerable transitional forms. For example, we have found millions, if not billions of fossil fish. Fossil Lake in Fossil Butte National Monument, Wyoming has an approximately 14-inch layer that contains millions of fish. Therefore, we should find billions of intermediate forms between fish and amphibians. Among these billions of transitional forms should be millions of fish with legs and feet. But we have found none! Similarly, there are no large numbers of fossils giving evidence of amphibians evolving to reptiles, or of reptiles becoming mammals.

Darwin said this was a big problem for his theory, and he was right! He asks: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of intermediate links?" He answers that the geological record is incomplete.⁽⁶⁾ But that was nearly 150 years ago. We have found billions of fossils all over the world since then, but no intermediates. The prediction of innumerable transitional forms falls flat on its face, and, from a philosophy of science standpoint, the idea of descent from a common ancestor is falsified.

REASON #3

3. The head of the "fish-land fossil" is described as crocodile-like. However, descent from a common ancestor predicts that fish evolve into amphibians, which in turn evolve into reptiles. The theory does not predict a direct jump from fish to reptiles. If the fossil is indeed reptile-like, then it does not fit the predictions of evolutionary theory.

REASON #4

Finally, in a 6 April 2006 NewsHour interview, Jeffrey Brown asks a telling question of one of the two Tiktaalik discoverers, paleontologist Ted Daeschler: "I saw this described as a transitional creature. Help us understand, would it have been both a land and a sea animal?" Daeschler replies honestly, but tellingly: "This is still a fish." Think for a moment about his reply. Is it a transitional creature? No, it is a fish! The fish-land fossil is a fish fossil! (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june06/fossils_4-6.html)

For the above reasons, the claims being made about the "fish-land fossil" are fraudulent. Probably what researchers found was an extinct animal. They should have been happy with naming the new find (Tiktaalik) without resorting to making untrue speculations about it. Why did they do so? As alluded to earlier, a likely reason is atheistic influences. For example, The Humanist Manifesto states that "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process."⁽⁷⁾ This belief is not going to change as a result of scientific discoveries. Instead, believers in evolution will twist the interpretation of any discovery to fit their worldview.

References

1. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Fossil Shows an Early Fish (Almost) out of Water," Science, Vol 312, 7 April 2006, p33.

2. "Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land," The Associated Press and MSNBC.com, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/print/1/displaymode/1098, 4/24/2006.

3. Guy Gugliotta, "Link between fish and land animals found," washingtonpost.com, http://www.wahingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/05/AR2000640502369_p, 4/24/2006.

4. Catherine Gianaro, "Fossil find fills the evolutionary gap between fish, land animals," The University of Chicago Chronicle, http://chronicle.uchicago.edi/o6o413/fossils.shtml. 4/24/2006.

5. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition, Ernst Mayr, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, p172.

6. Ibid, p280.

7. The Humanist Manifestos I and II, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973, p4.