It is commonly assumed by most people that the fossil record provides the support for evolution and of course that really should be the case if evolution is true. What greater evidence for evolution could we have than the fossil record. After all the fossil record is the record of life that is inscribed in rock, and if evolution is true then of course that fossil record should provide the very best evidence for evolution.
What evidence should we expect from the fossil record if evolution is true? Evolutionists believe that life began about three billion years ago plus or minus a few hundred million years and that life began as some little microscopic organism. Something like a bacterium or amoeba. and during the vast stretch of time, hundreds of millions of years this little microscopic organism has diversified and evolved into everything living today and that has ever lived.
Now if that's true then I think you could see that this process would have produced literally billions times billions times billions of transitional forms or intermediate types
as that little microscopic organism evolved into a multicellular organism and then this multicellular organism diversified into the vast array of complex invertebrates that now exist and have existed. And then that invertebrate whether it be a clam or a snail or a jellyfish or a worm or something like that gradually evolved into a fish or the vertebrates and then this fish evolved into amphibians. Of course that would require that the fins would gradually change into feet and legs and of course many other changes would have to take place for a fish to change into an amphibian.
Then we are told the amphibian evolved into reptiles and then reptiles evolved into birds. That means of course the scale of the reptile had to gradually change into feathers and the front limbs of the reptile had to change gradually into wings. That would have produced an enormous number of intermediate stages and of course it has suggested the reptile evolved into mammals and mammals evolved into the higher mammals or primates and primates evolved into people. Supposedly this process took place over these hundreds and hundreds of millions of years and of course according to evolution theory it is a successful organism that evolved. What is the successful organism? The one that reproduces in larger numbers so there be very large populations of these intermediates. You cannot claim that the intermediate would be inefficient. They would not be very highly suited to survive if they were in few numbers. According to evolution it is successful organisms that evolve and the successful organism is the one that reproduces in larger numbers. So all the time during this evolutionary process there would be very large population of these evolving creatures or the intermediate forms or the transitional types. For there to be evolution there would have to be production of an enormous number of intermediates or transitional forms. Billions times billions times billions of those things would have lived and died. If evolution is true our museums should contain millions and millions and millions of fossils of these intermediates today in our museums. Our museums have about a quarter of a million different fossil species represented by tens of millions of catalogued fossils. Now if evolution is true quite obviously then tens of thousands of those fossils should be of intermediate types.
Why? There should be no doubt about the fact of evolution should be the most well
established fact known in science. All we would have to do is look at the fossil right there in front of us on the museum shelves in the museum displays and we would have abundant evidence of the fact of evolution. On the other hand if creation is true we would expect something very different. We would see each one of the basic types of plant and animals what one might call basic morphological designs, what creationists would call the created kinds. They would appear abruptly fully formed right at the start. You would see immediately a clam would be a clam, snail would be a snail. jellyfish would be a jellyfish, an onion would be an onion, a lily would be a lily, a tiger would be a tiger, monkeys would be monkeys and people would be people. We would expect to find the fossils you see of each basic type appearing fully formed with no evidence that these basic types have arisen from a common ancestor. And that is exactly what one finds the in museums.
Now there would be variation within the limits of each kind. Of course we know today we have many races of people we have many varieties of dogs. As Darwin noted when he visited the Galapagos Islands there are many varieties of finches. But what the creationist points out is those finches in the Galapagos Islands are only still birds They are still finches and we may have many varieties of dogs but they are all dogs. You can't cross the dog with a cat and get a dat. You cannot get that sort of mixed breed. As creationists we would not expect to find any of that evidence in the fossil record.
The predictions based upon creation and evolution are vastly different. The evolutionist says we begin with simple forms which gradually change in more and more complex forms produce an enormous number of transitional forms, showing that one organism really did change into another. We need evidence for the actual existence of these intermediate forms. The transitional form that would have been produced as some invertebrate became a vertebrate or a fish. On the other hand the creationist prediction would be very different in that sudden appearance of each kind with no ancestors and no intermediate form.
What does the fossil record produce? Does it produce these intermediate forms demanded by the theory of evolution or do we find that the gaps in the fossil record are systematic - that is we do not find at any level any intermediate forms. We should expect the phyla, the classes, the orders, families including the genera at least. But each appear fully formed with no transitional form.
We want to look first at creatures that are found in Cambrian rocks. Evolutionists believe that Cambrian rocks begin to form about 600 million years ago. Assuming the sediment that formed those rocks settled out of the water just a fraction of an inch per year it would take something like 80 million years for these Cambrian rocks to form. We classify or identify rock as Cambrian rock by the type of fossil found in those rocks. The index fossils for Cambrian rocks are generally some type of a trilobite or a brachiopod. In these Cambrian rocks are billions times billions of these fossils of very complex invertebrates. First of all there is no explanation how you would get fossils under conditions suggested by evolution if you have sediments setting out of the water just a fraction of an inch per year. It would take a long time for a rock to accumulate and to entomb the fossil. When an animal dies and just lies around on the ground or floats around in the water and you do not get a fossil because scavengers will consume it or oxidation or other deteriorating processes would destroy the creature ‘bones and all’. Nothing remains for a fossil to form. The creature must be buried and be buried very quickly in order to preserve it. In these rocks we have this enormous number of fossils and we believe that these were not produced by slow gradual deposition over hundreds of millions of years of time but were produced catastrophically. Their existence demands an explanation.
In the Cambrian rocks we find these very complicated creatures – fossils of jellyfish, sponges, brachiopod trilobites, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, clams snails, worms, and a great variety of other very complex invertebrates, many now extinct. Evolutionists believe that these things evolved beginning with microscopic organism. If that is true then in the rocks which generally underlie the Cambrian rocks called Precambrian rocks, certainly should have the evidence. Precambrian rocks must contain the evolutionary ancestors of these very complicated invertebrates, billions times billions of fossils of those transitional forms of ancestors should be there. What is found are found are fossils of little microscopic single-celled soft-bodied bacteria and algae. If we can find fossils of little soft-bodied microscopic bacteria in those Precambrian rocks we certainly should be able to find all of the transitional forms between those microscopic organisms and these complicated invertebrates in the Cambrian layer. Since Darwin the oceans have been searched but nowhere on the face of this earth have we been able to find a fossil of an ancestor for a single one of those complicated invertebrates. Not even one trilobite. These first appear in the fossil record as complete as they are today, and they are very complicated creatures with eyes that have astounded the scientists. The eyes have and had perfect vision and we find clams and snails and all of these other very complicated invertebrates. A vast array of complicated invertebrates are found in those Cambrian rocks and we have not found ancestors for a single one - not even one.
They all appear fully formed right at the start. Evolution cannot be true if over hundreds of millions of years of evolution without leaving a trace.
Furthermore evolutionists suggest that one of these invertebrates evolved into a fish. Fishes are supposed to be the first vertebrates (vertebrate: any animal with a spine and bony or cartilaginous skeleton and a well developed brain). Evolutionists believe the first vertebrate, a fish, evolved from an invertebrate (no skeleton) over 100 million years. This is an article of faith that fishes evolved from invertebrates while during that 100 million years billions times billions of the transitional forms would have been produced. Fishes are vertebrates like you and me they have an internal skeleton, a backbone - the invertebrates found in those Cambrian rocks are either soft bodied like the jellyfish or worms or they may have a shell or an exoskeleton such as a trilobite. And so if it is claimed we have the invertebrate evolving into the vertebrate 100 million years billions times billions times billions of the intermediate should have been produced. Our museums should have millions and millions and millions of fossils of the transitional forms showing what invertebrate evolved into a fish. They do not even have one, not even one fossil of a transitional form between the invertebrate and the fish. Every major kind of fish that we know anything about appears fully formed right at the start without a trace of an ancestor.
Evolutionists believe in the course of time that some fish evolved into an amphibian that made the transition from water to land. Of course it took millions of years of time for that to happen as the fish gradually evolved and became an amphibian, such as a salamander or a frog or toad. A creature that spends much time on the land much time in the water must lay its eggs in the water because those eggs do not have shells. Now of course if that is true then the fins of the fish had to gradually change into feet and legs of the amphibian. There is a characteristic you see that would have changed something quite obvious that we could look for we could we could imagine what the intermediate forms may have resembled. We know what to look for. What kind of evidence do we have for such a change? Why do evolutionists believe that that fish evolved into the amphibian? First of all that there are some bones in the fins that evolutionists believe could have evolved into the feet and legs of the amphibian. You note of course that there are several other fins and bones but apparently it found some way to get rid of them allowing the others to evolve into feet and legs.
The evolutionists also suggested similarity in the vertebra in the pattern of bones in
the skull. These are characteristics which are supposed to indicate that fish was the ancestor of the amphibian. First of all the fish was a 100% fish. It had a lovely set of fins designed for balancing, steering and locomotion in the water. The amphibian had the basic amphibian limb feet and legs. Tere is not a trace of an intermediate form. Furthermore note the pelvic bone of the fish is very small loosely embedded in muscle and there is no connection between the pelvic bone of the fish and the vertebral column. None is needed as the fins do not support the weight of the body. But look at the pelvic bone of the amphibian. It is very large and firmly anchored to the vertebral column. That is the type of anatomy you need for full land locomotion. And not one single intermediate has ever been found showing something partway between the fin and the feet and legs.
Texas Tech University just in recent years found fossils of a bird which they claim to be about 225 million years old. Archaeopteryx supposedly lived on this earth 150 million years ago, and this new bird supposedly lived on the earth 225 million years ago in the early dinosaur age - 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. So it should be almost reptilian, very much more reptilian in Archaeopteryx. But as a matter of fact it turned out to be even more bird-like. The evidence is that birds have always been birds. The flying reptiles have always been flying reptiles. Bats have been bats and flying insects have always been insects. Here where we should have the best evidence for evolution but you see it is not there. We have what the creationist would expect. We find this to be true throughout the fossil record each major type appears fully formed right at the start - tremendous powerful positive evidence for creation but contradictory to evolution.
These are not the exception but the general rule. Dr EJH Corner, a botanist at Cambridge University, an evolutionist. said much evidence can be induced in favour of the theory of evolution from biology, biogeography and palaeontology. But that he still thinks that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Corner said if you are unprejudiced and have an open mind in his field as a botanist that the fossil record supports creation not evolution.
Dr. Colin Patterson is the famous evolutionist or well-known palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. Dr. Patterson is certainly not a creationist. One creation scientist purchased a book written by Patterson and responded to invitations for readers comments – in which he asked Patterson if he should not have presented some examples in his book of the transitional forms, or at least artist illustrations.
Dr. Patterson wrote in reply: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct
illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of a fossil or living I would certainly have included them. You suggest an artist should be asked to visualize this
transformation but where would he get the information from. I could not honestly provide it and if I were to leave it to artistic license would that not mislead the reader”
What this famous palaeontologist says, while sitting among one of the greatest collection of fossils in the world, You are right, I don't have any examples of transitional forms in my book, but if I had known of any I certainly would have included them.